Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why hasn't Geroge Bush or Tony Blair been executed for crimes against humanity? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tw68)
    Please enlighten me on how Saddam could have accomplished this?
    If he had switched the currency he sold oil from Dollars into Euros like he had planned and gotten away with it then one by one each Gulf State would have followed. This would have seriously challenged America's global supremacy. Don't you ever wonder why people are constantly going 'War for oil :'(', I know most of the idiots think it was a war directly for oil as a commodity, but at least some of them know it was more about trading oil on a global scale than the commodity itself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by milkytea)
    Wasn't there a substantial amount of US bombing, as well, though?

    I don't really think the West has got its humanitarian intervention act together - almost to the point that it makes intervention immoral.

    I'm glad Saddam's regime was ended and dislike the way many brainless hippies protest against the war without reading the facts. But the way the intervention was handled left a lot to be desired.
    The West has not done very well on the humanitarian front at all. But then again the only way to assess the situation is to compare it to all the other wars in history, of which there are many. When compared against all the other wars in history no where near as much money and time has ever been expended as has been in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you compare the West's record this time, to any other non-Western invasion the West wins hands down. So yes, although it left a lot to be desired, it still went streets ahead of anyone else in history, and technically it didn't have to do a thing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJkG.1)
    My sentiments exactly. Those for interventionism are nothing but cultural supremacists and, by and large, they admit to it (on some religious or non-religious basis).
    Does that extend to regimes that are commiting genocide or violating human rights international law?

    Would you have disagreed with intervention in Rwanda, for example? Is that cultural supremacy, or is it simple moral sense?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tw68)
    I never said you were. I was talking about the Government's reasoning behind the invasion.

    And how exactly does the chance come along?

    Yet another display of excellent logic on your behalf. I have never said that I supported Saddam's rule and his treatment of the Iraqi and Kurdish people. I don't see how me pointing out the hypocrisy in any way shows that I don't care about the Iraqi people.
    It came along because Saddam decided to start developing a nuclear weapon, after having invaded Iran and Kuwait; brutally oppressing the Iraqi people, creating prisons similar to gulags; and committing genocide. When adding these factors together and taking into account the fact that he did not comply with resolutions set by the UN - the highest authority in the world, war is the only answer and you either support it and its subsequent liberation of Iraq; or you take a different stance, one which leaves the tyrant in power and as a result, you are no different than his supporters.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    The West has not done very well on the humanitarian front at all. But then again the only way to assess the situation is to compare it to all the other wars in history, of which there are many. When compared against all the other wars in history no where near as much money and time has ever been expended as has been in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you compare the West's record this time, to any other non-Western invasion the West wins hands down. So yes, although it left a lot to be desired, it still went streets ahead of anyone else in history, and technically it didn't have to do a thing.
    Hmm, interesting... thanks for your input, definitely some food for thought there.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by milkytea)
    Wasn't there a substantial amount of US bombing, as well, though?

    I don't really think the West has got its humanitarian intervention act together - almost to the point that it makes intervention immoral.

    I'm glad Saddam's regime was ended and dislike the way many brainless hippies protest against the war without reading the facts. But the way the intervention was handled left a lot to be desired.
    There was, yes; however, that's what happens in wars. The difference is that we did not start the war, we merely, responded to his brutality and noncompliance by giving him an ultimatium, which he laughed at.

    I agree, the liberation could've been handled a lot differently and I have pointed out that certain U.S. officials did not have a clue what they were doing. For example, dissolving the Iraqi police was complete and utter madness.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    There was, yes; however, that's what happens in wars. The difference is that we did not start the war, we merely, responded to his brutality and noncompliance by giving him an ultimatium, which he laughed at.

    I agree, the liberation could've been handled a lot differently and I have pointed out that certain U.S. officials did not have a clue what they were doing. For example, dissolving the Iraqi police was complete and utter madness.
    @Bold: Yes, but this wasn't a usual war. Surely to minimise civilian casualties, the removal of Saddam could have been achieved without bombing of civilian-populated areas, but with land forces and air cover alone? I'm no military expert... so please point out if I'm missing something.

    Agreed with the rest.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    If he had switched the currency he sold oil from Dollars into Euros like he had planned and gotten away with it then one by one each Gulf State would have followed. This would have seriously challenged America's global supremacy. Don't you ever wonder why people are constantly going 'War for oil :'(', I know most of the idiots think it was a war directly for oil as a commodity, but at least some of them know it was more about trading oil on a global scale than the commodity itself.
    Yes I am fully aware of the threat of the currency switch. However, I fail to see how you can possibly conclude that all the Gulf states would have followed suit? Especially given that most of them are allies of the US, who would have substantial leverage over them.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by milkytea)
    @Bold: Yes, but this wasn't a usual war. Surely to minimise civilian casualties, the removal of Saddam could have been achieved without bombing of civilian-populated areas, but with land forces and air cover alone? I'm no military expert... so please point out if I'm missing something.

    Agreed with the rest.
    It is very rare for leaders - be it Head's of State or Generals - to put a civilian's life before one of his/her soldiers'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    It is very rare for leaders - be it Head's of State or Generals - to put a civilian's life before one of his/her soldiers'.
    Understandable. Was there really enough of a threat from Saddam's army to pose a considerable threat even without carpet bombing the cities first, though?

    That is perhaps an impossible question to answer accurately, so the discussion starts to be purely speculative I suppose.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    It came along because Saddam decided to start developing a nuclear weapon, after having invaded Iran and Kuwait; brutally oppressing the Iraqi people, creating prisons similar to gulags; and committing genocide. When adding these factors together and taking into account the fact that he did not comply with resolutions set by the UN - the highest authority in the world, war is the only answer and you either support it and its subsequent liberation of Iraq; or you take a different stance, one which leaves the tyrant in power and as a result, you are no different than his supporters.
    The US' own weapons inspector Scott Ritter said that they had absolutely zero nuclear capabilities. North Korea on the other hand probably does, yet we have not been so quick to invade them.

    If you go by the factors you have just laid out then we should be invading plenty more countries and overthrowing their dictators.

    It seems quite arbitrary to invade Iraq in 2003 unless you have motives other than that of humanitarian intervention.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tw68)
    Yes I am fully aware of the threat of the currency switch. However, I fail to see how you can possibly conclude that all the Gulf states would have followed suit? Especially given that most of them are allies of the US, who would have substantial leverage over them.
    At the end of the day places like Saudi are friends with everyone, and would have gone wherever the money was. Giving them the ability to play America off against the Euro zone would have cost America billions if not trillions I'm not saying they definitely would have but it would have been a dangerous precedent to allow. Some people think it's wrong to go to war over money, but war is there to protect a countries interests, and Americas interests couldn't have been more threatened.

    I am rather unsure as to why everyone holds America simultaneously in both high and low regard. They expect so much from them, but they have proven time and time again they don't deserve such expectations placed on their shoulders. Their only cause is the survival of America and the prosperity of their citizens, pretty much like any other country in history. It's a bit like when people groan on and on about Israel protecting its interests against Palestinians. When both sides are right and wrong at the same time the only way to settle it is power. If the Palestinians would just back down like they forced the Jews to previously everything would settle down. I don't doubt that in another 200 years the Palestinians will have control of Israel again.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by milkytea)
    Understandable. Was there really enough of a threat from Saddam's army to pose a considerable threat even without carpet bombing the cities first, though?

    That is perhaps an impossible question to answer accurately, so the discussion starts to be purely speculative I suppose.
    Overwhelming force and speed are standard Clausewitzian strategy. Shock and awe I believe the Americans call it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by milkytea)
    Understandable. Was there really enough of a threat from Saddam's army to pose a considerable threat even without carpet bombing the cities first, though?

    That is perhaps an impossible question to answer accurately, so the discussion starts to be purely speculative I suppose.
    I'm not a military expert and do not claim to be, so unfortunately I cannot answer your question. All I know is that we decisively defeated the tyrant's military in a mere three weeks. The aftermath, however, was something the coalition was simply not prepared for, as they stupidly assumed that every Iraqi would embrace them and view them as liberators; which, as history has shown, is simply not the case.

    Read Allies by William Shawcross if you'd like to explore the build up to the Iraq war in more detail.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Overwhelming force and speed are standard Clausewitzian strategy. Shock and awe I believe the Americans call it.
    Still, there's a delicate balance between military precision and the needless butchering of civilians.

    (Original post by Stalin)
    I'm not a military expert and do not claim to be, so unfortunately I cannot answer your question. All I know is that we decisively defeated the tyrant's military in a mere three weeks. The aftermath, however, was something the coalition was simply not prepared for, as they stupidly assumed that every Iraqi would embrace them and view them as liberators; which, as history has shown, is simply not the case.

    Read Allies by William Shawcross if you'd like to explore the build up to the Iraq war in more detail.
    Fair enough. Thanks for the recommendation, I'll try and get hold of a copy.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tw68)
    The US' own weapons inspector Scott Ritter said that they had absolutely zero nuclear capabilities. North Korea on the other hand probably does, yet we have not been so quick to invade them.

    If you go by the factors you have just laid out then we should be invading plenty more countries and overthrowing their dictators.

    It seems quite arbitrary to invade Iraq in 2003 unless you have motives other than that of humanitarian intervention.
    Scott Ritter also claimed that he wasn't a paedophile, despite being busted twice. Furthermore, Hans Blix and Rolf Ekeus, who are both well-known nuclear inspectors, claim that Saddam lied about his biological and chemical weapons.

    Again, I am not the British government, you ignorant little oaf. And how do you plan on invading a country, such as North Korea, which already has a nuclear weapon; or at least, claims to have one? You realise that there would be disastrous consequences, right? Namely the fact that Seoul and it's entire population would be wiped off the face of the earth; China would retaliate against the West by crippling our economies; and World War Three would almost certainly take place.

    Not the brightest of chaps, are you?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The word mong springs to mind
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tw68)
    The US' own weapons inspector Scott Ritter said that they had absolutely zero nuclear capabilities. North Korea on the other hand probably does, yet we have not been so quick to invade them.

    If you go by the factors you have just laid out then we should be invading plenty more countries and overthrowing their dictators.

    It seems quite arbitrary to invade Iraq in 2003 unless you have motives other than that of humanitarian intervention.
    There's no probably about it, they have nukes. Nukes that have the capability to wipe out a high fraction of the South Korean population. Invasion is simply impossible.

    So what other examples of a country worth considering intervening in do you have?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    At the end of the day places like Saudi are friends with everyone, and would have gone wherever the money was. Giving them the ability to play America off against the Euro zone would have cost America billions if not trillions I'm not saying they definitely would have but it would have been a dangerous precedent to allow. Some people think it's wrong to go to war over money, but war is there to protect a countries interests, and Americas interests couldn't have been more threatened.

    I am rather unsure as to why everyone holds America simultaneously in both high and low regard. They expect so much from them, but they have proven time and time again they don't deserve such expectations placed on their shoulders. Their only cause is the survival of America and the prosperity of their citizens, pretty much like any other country in history. It's a bit like when people groan on and on about Israel protecting its interests against Palestinians. When both sides are right and wrong at the same time the only way to settle it is power. If the Palestinians would just back down like they forced the Jews to previously everything would settle down. I don't doubt that in another 200 years the Palestinians will have control of Israel again.
    I don't doubt that countries go to war over economic interests. However, in this case I am not convinced that war was necessary. The US didn't really need Iraq's oil and even if it had changed the currency it wouldn't have effected them that much. They could have stopped the other Gulf States from going the same way through enough pressure. You say that it would cost them billions, even trillions yet the war itself has cost billions and potentially trillions in the future. Moreover, they have not only suffered this economic cost but also the human cost that comes with the death of thousands of their soldiers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by milkytea)
    Still, there's a delicate balance between military precision and the needless butchering of civilians.



    Fair enough. Thanks for the recommendation, I'll try and get hold of a copy.
    During the entire war the Allied forces have killed around 10,000 civilians. Given this has been an extremely long drawn out war, with a massive amount of bombs dropped, that is a remarkably low number. Again, if you compare it to all other wars in history it represents a huge decline in civilian casualties caused by us.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 21, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.