Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

deepk · Apr 30, 2007, 09:56 am

Quote:

Quote by: Sonart

.
You really think there could be significantly more chaos than there already is?

To the contrary, Desert Storm was totally conclusive. Hussein's forces were removed from Kuwait, his military all but destroyed in the process, and Kuwait was peacefully handed back to its rightful government. End of operation, mission accomplished.

"Junior" went back to do what his father clearly knew -- and clearly stated -- was a really, really BAD idea... the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

.

Yea I agree with you that Operation Desert Storm was perfectly conclusive at the end of the Iraq war! It has finished off the dreaded regime of Saddam Hussian and along with it the once prosperous country of Iraq.

Today Iraq is in shambles with its economic backbone broken to the maximum possible extent and all this at the cost of Bush's Billions.

rmnunez · May 1, 2007, 12:13 am

I differ with those of yu who view Desert Storm as conclusive or sufficient, I found that intervention was half finished and rather inconclusive.

Scribbler1 · May 1, 2007, 12:25 am

Desert storm was a setup, plain and simple. We were never on record as telling Hussein NOT to invade Kuwait. We were also fed a bill of goods when Bush the elder declared the Iraqi army caught us by surprise when they loaded up at the border.
We were also lied to about the Iraqi soldiers tossing babies out of incubators. And, to the best of my knowledge it was never proven that Kuwait WASN'T slant-drilling and stealing Iraqi oil.

As for half finished, a demolished army and our military presence IN Iraq between Desert Storm all the way up to our invasion shows it was finished enough to completely eliminate Iraq as a threat to the US, LONG before we were sold on the idea that Iraqis were going to come over here and kill us in our beds.

Sugar · May 1, 2007, 01:32 am

I think it concluded with the end of Saddam Hussein fully and finally with the new Iraq government in place.

nmspl · May 1, 2007, 01:18 pm

The attempt is to neutralise the opposing forces and I think Bush has succeded in doing so by the end of Saddam

Sonart · May 1, 2007, 01:59 pm

.

Quote:

Quote by: Scribbler

As for half finished, a demolished army and our military presence IN Iraq between Desert Storm all the way up to our invasion shows it was finished enough to completely eliminate Iraq as a threat to the US, LONG before we were sold on the idea that Iraqis were going to come over here and kill us in our beds.

Bingo!

Quote:

Quote by: rmnunez

I differ with those of you who view Desert Storm as conclusive or sufficient, I found that intervention was half finished and rather inconclusive.

Then perhaps you should take a lesson. Pragmatic moderation can be the best solution. The end of Desert Storm was the best possible solution out of many, although none were perfect solution. Sometimes perfect solutions simply don't exist because we can't control everything.

And just as Bush the Elder and many of us here predicted, the kneejerk hardline conservative need to "finish the job" has been a catastrophic disaster for everyone involved.

What was formerly the lessons of Vietnam, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and Somalia, is now the lessons of Vietnam, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq -- and maybe our efforts in Afghanistan as well. We can't have everything we want just because we think we're big enough and bad enough to simply take it.

Quote:

Quote by: nmspl

The attempt is to neutralise the opposing forces and I think Bush has succeded in doing so by the end of Saddam

Are you talking about Boy George and his current war??? Exactly what forces -- besides our own -- have been neutralized? Saddam was irrelevent by the time he was captured, and the various insurgent factions in Iraq, including al-Qaeda, are becoming further from 'neutralized' every day.

.

Apeman81 · May 1, 2007, 02:52 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Scribbler1

Desert storm was a setup, plain and simple. We were never on record as telling Hussein NOT to invade Kuwait.

Wow! I guess we overlooked that one.

The Special Envoy to the State Department's Office of "Don't you Invade that Country!" should be brought up on the carpet for that mistake! :)

Scribbler1 · May 1, 2007, 06:24 pm

You would think it should have been a no-brainer, wouldn't you? Too bad our ambassador told Hussein we didn't care about his border problems. It might have saved us a lot of trouble, I figure.

And what genius thought it was a good idea to send a woman ambassador to a male dominated Arab country anyway?

Apeman81 · May 1, 2007, 06:33 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Scribbler1

You would think it should have been a no-brainer, wouldn't you? Too bad our ambassador told Hussein we didn't care about his border problems. It might have saved us a lot of trouble, I figure.

And what genius thought it was a good idea to send a woman ambassador to a male dominated Arab country anyway?

Yeah! What made Albright think Iraq would ever pay attention to her?

Scribbler1 · May 1, 2007, 06:36 pm

It was Glaspie, Ape. And I think you knew that.

The Decider · May 1, 2007, 06:36 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Apeman81

Yeah! What made Albright think Iraq would ever pay attention to her?

April Glaspie was Bush I's ambassador to Iraq.

Then again, what Middle East nation takes seriously anything Condi Rice says these days?

Apeman81 · May 1, 2007, 07:36 pm

Quote:

Quote by: The Decider

April Glaspie was Bush I's ambassador to Iraq.

Then again, what Middle East nation takes seriously anything Condi Rice says these days?

Seems we're either not getting the message or are thumbing our noses at them.

tmay563 · May 2, 2007, 02:13 pm

We need to not fight this war with our soldiers. We have the technology to wipe out the insurgents without putting our boys lives at risk. What is the point of having these smart bombs, etc. and not using them? Also, the Iraqi's need to step up and start policing there own cities and we need to completely flatten Fallujah and wipe out all the terror camps. If do that then we might have a shot of stabilizing the country and winning the war.

Sonart · May 2, 2007, 02:20 pm

.

Quote:

Quote by: tmay563

We need to not fight this war with our soldiers. We have the technology to wipe out the insurgents without putting our boys lives at risk.

We do????

Good lord, what technology is that?

.

tmay563 · May 2, 2007, 02:24 pm

We have smart bombs and a full arsenal of similar weapons at our disposal.

Osborn F Enready · May 2, 2007, 02:27 pm

Quote:

Sonart said:
Good lord, what technology is that?

ill tempered Sea Bass with laserbeams and reactive armor, with overland mobile aqauriums and aireators that are solar powered, controlled and overflown constanty by robot, satellite relay linked, gps equipped super "War Commander 3.1" model sentient robots using the latest War AI.

Come on silly, we all know that.

Don't you watch "Future Weapons"?

RickSp · May 2, 2007, 02:35 pm

Quote:

Quote by: tmay563

We have smart bombs and a full arsenal of similar weapons at our disposal. What is the point of having these smart bombs, etc. and not using them? Also, the Iraqi's need to step up and start policing there own cities and we need to completely flatten Fallujah and wipe out all the terror camps. If do that then we might have a shot of stabilizing the country and winning the war.

That's right. "Shock and awe". That worked real well. You basically are proposing leveling all the cities and villages to win the war? Burn the country to save it? The cities and villages are the training camps. Fallujah was a city of 300,000 people before we leveled it. That didn't win the war either.

tmay563 · May 2, 2007, 02:47 pm

Actually Shock and Awe worked pretty well if you ask me. We conquered the whole country in a month. But anyway, that is besides the point. I am not saying that we have to burn the country to the ground, but cesspools for terrorist activity like Fallujah have got to go. The country is never going to be stable with radical militants being allowed to breath. We are never going to win if we keep fighting this ridiculous politically correct war when we basically tell our troops to fight with one arm tied behind their back and court marshall them every time they shoot their gun. I think the war is winnable but in order to win, things will have to get messy and most people dont have the stomach for it.

Osborn F Enready · May 2, 2007, 02:49 pm

Quote:

tmay563 said:
I think the war is winnable but in order to win, things will have to get messy and most people dont have the stomach for it.

Why don't they have the stomach?

Because they were lied into the war in IRAQ?
Because none of the claimed intelligence was correct?
Because none of the claims of success have proven true OTHER THAN the removal of Saddam?
Because there is little evidence to support why we are in Iraq?
Because there were no ties between Saddam and 9-11 as claimed?

There is good reason people don't have the stomach.

tmay563 · May 2, 2007, 02:57 pm

Why we are in Iraq is whole different issue. I think everyone, myself included, knows that in hindsight Iraq was a huge mistake and should have been handled completely differently and we totally jumped the gun with the invasion. But, now that we are there we have to fight to win. And when I say the we don't have the stomach for it, I don't mean the American people; I mean Bush and those in power. Clearly it does not matter what the American people think.

May 1, 2007, 12:13 am	#102 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	I differ with those of yu who view Desert Storm as conclusive or sufficient, I found that intervention was half finished and rather inconclusive. Et semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbum. Raúl M. Núñez Sheriff

May 1, 2007, 12:25 am	#103 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	Desert storm was a setup, plain and simple. We were never on record as telling Hussein NOT to invade Kuwait. We were also fed a bill of goods when Bush the elder declared the Iraqi army caught us by surprise when they loaded up at the border. We were also lied to about the Iraqi soldiers tossing babies out of incubators. And, to the best of my knowledge it was never proven that Kuwait WASN'T slant-drilling and stealing Iraqi oil. As for half finished, a demolished army and our military presence IN Iraq between Desert Storm all the way up to our invasion shows it was finished enough to completely eliminate Iraq as a threat to the US, LONG before we were sold on the idea that Iraqis were going to come over here and kill us in our beds. Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

May 1, 2007, 06:24 pm	#108 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	You would think it should have been a no-brainer, wouldn't you? Too bad our ambassador told Hussein we didn't care about his border problems. It might have saved us a lot of trouble, I figure. And what genius thought it was a good idea to send a woman ambassador to a male dominated Arab country anyway? Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

May 1, 2007, 06:36 pm	#110 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	It was Glaspie, Ape. And I think you knew that. Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

May 1, 2007, 01:32 am	#104 (permalink) (top)
Sugar Molten Ash Posts: 84	I think it concluded with the end of Saddam Hussein fully and finally with the new Iraq government in place.

May 1, 2007, 01:18 pm	#105 (permalink) (top)
nmspl Molten Ash Posts: 40	The attempt is to neutralise the opposing forces and I think Bush has succeded in doing so by the end of Saddam

May 2, 2007, 02:13 pm	#113 (permalink) (top)
tmay563 Molten Ash Posts: 64	We need to not fight this war with our soldiers. We have the technology to wipe out the insurgents without putting our boys lives at risk. What is the point of having these smart bombs, etc. and not using them? Also, the Iraqi's need to step up and start policing there own cities and we need to completely flatten Fallujah and wipe out all the terror camps. If do that then we might have a shot of stabilizing the country and winning the war.

May 2, 2007, 02:24 pm	#115 (permalink) (top)
tmay563 Molten Ash Posts: 64	We have smart bombs and a full arsenal of similar weapons at our disposal.

May 2, 2007, 02:47 pm	#118 (permalink) (top)
tmay563 Molten Ash Posts: 64	Actually Shock and Awe worked pretty well if you ask me. We conquered the whole country in a month. But anyway, that is besides the point. I am not saying that we have to burn the country to the ground, but cesspools for terrorist activity like Fallujah have got to go. The country is never going to be stable with radical militants being allowed to breath. We are never going to win if we keep fighting this ridiculous politically correct war when we basically tell our troops to fight with one arm tied behind their back and court marshall them every time they shoot their gun. I think the war is winnable but in order to win, things will have to get messy and most people dont have the stomach for it.

May 2, 2007, 02:57 pm	#120 (permalink) (top)
tmay563 Molten Ash Posts: 64	Why we are in Iraq is whole different issue. I think everyone, myself included, knows that in hindsight Iraq was a huge mistake and should have been handled completely differently and we totally jumped the gun with the invasion. But, now that we are there we have to fight to win. And when I say the we don't have the stomach for it, I don't mean the American people; I mean Bush and those in power. Clearly it does not matter what the American people think.