StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Bean wrote: Quote:
Strange to see the normal analytical posts by bean deteriorate so fast.
Ad-Homean attack you did not disagree with what I said you mearly implied that it was idiotic

True, it's an ad-homean if you wish =)
But it was not my intention to imply idiocy. It usually takes a lot longer until you use the F word. You must have had a previous discussion with Ted. Hence my reflection.

You must have had a previous discussion with Ted. Hence my reflection.

Yes we have, he seems not to respond after I enter so I'm start to get a bit annoyed so I switched tatics and started swearing to see if I could grap his attention

Mr Bean wrote:

Spoonist wrote: Yes. Hostile troops next to an ally of the US did concern USA. But more importantly, the ally wanted a US attack on Iraq and where willing to finance it.
Do you see how easy it is? There was not a single reason why the UN gave the mandate for sanctions followed by assault. Each reason in itself was not enough.

The Hostile Invasion of a Friendly(Though not Allied) Nation was not reason enough? If Brazil where to invade Peru though niether is our ally would that not be sufficent reason to step in and take action?

Again you are using the strawman. There never was an invasion of an ally. Therefore there never was a response to the nonexisting action. It's a simple cause and effect.
The threat of an attack was enough to place troops in the ally's country. After those troops where placed in Saudi-Arabia there was no possibility of an attack.
If there had been an invasion of SaudiArabia as well, there wouldn't be an Iraqi nation today. US is not known for it's fogriveness. But that still doesn't explain why the Desert Shield operation turned into Desert Storm.

Mr Bean wrote:And what had Saddamn done before this?
Your using Faulty logic, Up to now the only thing Saddam had ever done to us was praticly nothing, He had accepted demands the US had placed on him in exhange for help with a War with Iran(Another country we did not like)


Up until the German attack on Russia those countries had friendly ties with each other, Leading Elements of the Panzers even passed trains bound for Germany with supplies sent by the Russians

Up to that point in 91 Saddam had done nothing to any American Intrests, infact he had even attacked an enemy of ours and we where all to happy to supply him with weapons and material in the fight

Please can you elaborate on this. You are repeating my sentiment that before the invasion USA was pro-iraq. But you seem to be arguing against my post?

Also your analogy with Russia doesn't make sense since Iraq didn't attack the US directly, something which Nazi germany did on Soviet russia.

Mr Bean wrote:

You must have had a previous discussion with Ted. Hence my reflection.

Yes we have, he seems not to respond after I enter so I'm start to get a bit annoyed so I switched tatics and started swearing to see if I could grap his attention

I actually do not have much time to go to this board, and I rarely visit the SL&M forum. I didn't even realise that you had replied to my posts there until you started yelling at me about it.

You realise that my argument was:
It wasn't only the oil nor the threat to SA, but a combination of factors.
Are you really arguing against that or are you just nitpicking for fun?

Mr Bean wrote:Up untill Saddam invaded Kuwait what had he truely done to any American Allies or Intrests?

Causes of the war or not there acutal happens to BE a Single cause for the 91, a Singel Justifcation though there might have been a thousand good ones

This Country has had a long standing Policy of Mutal Defense of Allies, if we are attack they will send aid and help, and if they are, we shall do the same in turn, there is not if's ands or buts associate with this. Legaly and moraly its quite simple

Attack an Ally of the US and we will respond

If your sitting in a middle of a desert it does not matter, if that desert happens to have large amounts of oil under it fine thats nice, but that does not change the bases reason.

By the way one last thing I left out, How many Iraq'y Generals did we capture?

If one is planning a suprise attack on another country typcialy those sorts of things don't filter down to the man on the ground until a week before....

We KNOW very much way Saddamn invaded Kuwait and stoped simple because what he did while he was there. He was considating his hold on the Country before moving on SA and his evntual target according to the Defecters after the fact was Isreal but, intellgently he did not want to have the Countries behind him rebel after the Tanks left the streets and he be shut in, Thefore he needed a definate supply line and bases to operate from, Somthing the Iraq's could not do at a moments notice.

Did you actually read my posts? Your arguments are against someone like Ted, not against me.
If you really look at my posts you'd see that I said that the threat against SA was real until US put in ground troops there. I'm not arguing against the threat, I'm arguing that after the US put troops in SA Iraq wouldn't dream of attacking, hence no more threat. That is why more conditional reasons would have to apply for the coalition of nations to attack. Many of the countries in the coalition which attacked had no formal defence agreement with SA or Kuwait.

Mr Bean wrote:Yes because I have a sixty word typing rate when I realy get going(Normaly its alot slower, 40-50)

Quality or quantity...

Now I'm going off-line for the weekend.
So don't be p-d because I don't repost.

Once again, is it really that nefarious? Oil makes our, your, and most peoples countries run. One of our allies that happen to sell us our oil was threatened. Yes as soon as US troops and the squadron of F15's that flew across the Alantic loaded for war landed in SA the threat was majorly downgraded, but if we had left without taking care of buisness we do not know what would have happened.

Ted seems to thing that a secret cartel of "oil barrons" run the world. What energy source runs your computor Ted? Is their evil maniacal plot encompassing you up north as well?

No one really through Iraq would invade, at the time they where simply demanding a small chunk of it and an island with zero development.

Hell Kuwait actually sent about 80% of its army on leave not long before the invasion. They expected to a worst lose a few oil wells and it was not worth fighting for them. The full-scale invasion caught them and the world off guard, Iraq could have gotten away with those small strips of land. Course the remaining Kuwaiti forced proved why a swarm of Mi-8's and modern air defenses don't mix.


As for Teds ravings about oil and Afghanistan plus Georgia.. An examination of map reveals several things. [1] Georgia has no oil. [2] Running a pipeline from that country to Afghanistan and then the Arabian sea makes zero sense, you traverse eight times the distance and travel through twice as many countries as what does make sense.

What does make sense is to run a pipeline from oil rich Azerbaijan through Georgia and then through Turkey to the Mediterranean. Interestingly this is exactly what is being done, groundbreaking was last month and the whole project has been in the works since 1995.

Sea Skimmer wrote:What does make sense is to run a pipeline from oil rich Azerbaijan through Georgia and then through Turkey to the Mediterranean. Interestingly this is exactly what is being done, groundbreaking was last month and the whole project has been in the works since 1995.

That was originally gonna go through Afgan instead of Turkey, that plan had been around for a lot longer.

In doing some reading about the Middle East situation, I came across a document supposedly written by a British MI-6 agent - somewhat equivalent to the human intelligence portion of the CIA.

The document alleged that during the Iran-Iraq war, Kuwait came to Iraq and promised to shoulder some of the expenses of fighting Iran. Since Arabs (Iraq, Kuwait etc) and Persians (Iran) hate each other, Kuwait may have assumed that should Iran win, Kuwait was the next target. Iran had recently undergone a revolution and the area was uncertain of what to expect.

The document goes on to say that after the Iran - Iraq war, Iraq apporached Kuwait about reimbursing some expenses. Kuwait said no. Iraq then appealed to teh US to encourage Kuwait to pay Iraq.

(The US is known to have given huge amounts of weapons to Iraq to fight Iran. Hence why Iraq would involve us). We again refused. Saddam, angered at Kuwait's refusal to pay, invaded. The result was Desert Storm.

Is it true? Don't know. Certainly plausible though. Why else would Hussein invade Kuwait? he already has plenty of oil, more than he could possibly use.

Was there a threat he'd invade SA? Unlikely. The Saudi king is not a super-Islam-fundie. The king makes overtures to the fundies, (in the form of cash payments generally) but enjoys his super-wealth and teh lifestyle it buys. As for Saddam, he is no funide either, so one imagines relatively few tensions with SA for Iraq.

Just something to think about.

I find it ironic that someone who complained so much about Ted not responding doesn't deign to reply himself...