Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[The Invasion and Occupation of Iraq] : 10 Years in Retrospect

13»

Posts

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    I wish I could find an online clip/Youtube video of the news clip with, I believe, a high-ranking general (I doubt it was Rumsfeld himself, but it might have been). In it, he was describing how many 'Humvee' armored cars would be needed to occupy the entire country of Iraq effectively.

    I suspect as many of those things were lost in a year. How on Earth did so many people think the occupation would be so easy?

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Synthesis wrote: »
    I wish I could find an online clip/Youtube video of the news clip with, I believe, a high-ranking general (I doubt it was Rumsfeld himself, but it might have been). In it, he was describing how many 'Humvee' armored cars would be needed to occupy the entire country of Iraq effectively.

    I suspect as many of those things were lost in a year. How on Earth did so many people think the occupation would be so easy?

    Because it's what they had to believe to pursue their political goals in the ME.

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Synthesis wrote: »
    I wish I could find an online clip/Youtube video of the news clip with, I believe, a high-ranking general (I doubt it was Rumsfeld himself, but it might have been). In it, he was describing how many 'Humvee' armored cars would be needed to occupy the entire country of Iraq effectively.

    I suspect as many of those things were lost in a year. How on Earth did so many people think the occupation would be so easy?

    Come on, they were going to greet us as liberators.

    The only reason we would need those Humvees in the first place would be to show up at all the parades the Iraqi people were going to throw for us.

    Something I read that's a bit off topic, and I thought was interesting. So, we flattened the Iraqi Army on the 'Highway of Death'. Utterly destroyed anything with wheels / treads, and killed a lot of regular Iraqi Army troops. The thing is that all the Iraqis we killed there were pretty demoralized and disenfranchised already with Saddam and the current Iraqi high command.

    By taking out those regular troops / conscripts and their equipment, the only significant forces in Iraq that had any combat capability were the relatively untouched and fanatically loyal Republican Guards. Had we allowed the Iraqi military to retreat with their equipment, there is a good chance that most of those units would have rebelled against Saddam in the uprising, and the Republican Guards wouldn't have had such a monopoly on force.

    That doesn't mean the revolt would have succeeded or would have been pretty, but there is a reasonable chance that we were the worst enemy of our own goals during / after Desert Storm. Not exactly shocking, but I thought it was an interesting premise.

  • Andy JoeAndy Joe The AdirondacksRegistered User regular
    People who think the Iraq invasion was about oil are cynical about the wrong things.

    XBL: Stealth Crane PSN: ajpet12 3DS: 1160-9999-5810 NNID: StealthCrane
    Pokemon Moon Name: Moon
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    I think the Gulf War was caused by multiple bad things.

    Desire for oil and control over oil was one of them, I'm quite sure.

    But that's why I try not to use 'about' - it tries to collapse complex issues into one fundamental concept or motivation, and there's no need to approach this issue so simplistically.

    I figure I could take a bear.
    [Tycho?]zagdrobFeral
  • [Tycho?][Tycho?] Registered User regular
    poshniallo wrote: »
    I think the Gulf War was caused by multiple bad things.

    Desire for oil and control over oil was one of them, I'm quite sure.

    But that's why I try not to use 'about' - it tries to collapse complex issues into one fundamental concept or motivation, and there's no need to approach this issue so simplistically.

    Yeah. Bush and co didn't go after Iraq because they wanted its oil- but that doesn't mean oil wasn't part of the reason.

    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    I think the Gulf War was caused by multiple bad things.

    Desire for oil and control over oil was one of them, I'm quite sure.

    But that's why I try not to use 'about' - it tries to collapse complex issues into one fundamental concept or motivation, and there's no need to approach this issue so simplistically.

    Yeah. Bush and co didn't go after Iraq because they wanted its oil- but that doesn't mean oil wasn't part of the reason.

    I imagine the desire personal vengeance among a few particular elites had a role in it.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Synthesis wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    I think the Gulf War was caused by multiple bad things.

    Desire for oil and control over oil was one of them, I'm quite sure.

    But that's why I try not to use 'about' - it tries to collapse complex issues into one fundamental concept or motivation, and there's no need to approach this issue so simplistically.

    Yeah. Bush and co didn't go after Iraq because they wanted its oil- but that doesn't mean oil wasn't part of the reason.

    I imagine the desire personal vengeance among a few particular elites had a role in it.

    No-bid cost plus contracts probably played a pretty big part too. Both contracting to the US military, and reconstruction contracts.

    Make money selling the planes and bombs, then make money building the infrastructure the planes and bombs destroyed.

    Really though, there doesn't need to be any singular motivation. There were lots of reasons, some legitimate, some fabricated, and some selfish bullshit. I truly think that Bush truly believed that Saddam was evil / trying to destroy America / get WMD, and even if the evidence they presented wasn't real that once they deposed Saddam they would find the proof they were looking for.

    [Tycho?]
  • HamurabiHamurabi AmsterdamRegistered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Reality said that a guy like Saddam would never have been stayed in power without some real support from a significant section of the people.

    Saddam Hussein's rule was predicated on substantial and extremely bloody repression of dissent. The Sunnis benefited somewhat under him, but even they were pretty much kept in line through violence.

    I've said it before, but Saddam Hussein was a cold-blooded motherfucker; he was no Nasser.

  • CabezoneCabezone Registered User regular
    edited September 2013
    Synthesis wrote: »
    I wish I could find an online clip/Youtube video of the news clip with, I believe, a high-ranking general (I doubt it was Rumsfeld himself, but it might have been). In it, he was describing how many 'Humvee' armored cars would be needed to occupy the entire country of Iraq effectively.

    I suspect as many of those things were lost in a year. How on Earth did so many people think the occupation would be so easy?

    You're probably looking for clips of General Eric Shinseki, Army Chief of Staff, who was giving the straight dope on how much force we needed to occupy, several hundred thousand. He was constantly clashing with Rumsfield. After he retired, Bush stuck in a yes man and they went to war with 80k troops.

    Cabezone on
  • KrieghundKrieghund Registered User regular
    The best piece on Iraq that I've ever seen was Frontlines Bush's War. Amazingly depressing, actually. Course the wingers deny it to the hilt.

  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Total Goober Registered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Dumbest foreign policy statement Bush ever made was the Axis of Evil line. By lumping three separate states together and explicitly comparing them to the big bads of WWII, he made it almost impossible to deal with them individually and diplomatically. In conjunction with the Iraq war, the message they got was "if you don't have WMD, get them now!"

    Because it didn't matter that Iraq lacked WMD, they got invaded anyways and if you got WMD the US might back off.

    I always loved how we focus our attention on Iran and Iraq, and then North Korea goes and actually gets a nuke.

    And how little commotion it caused.

  • KingofMadCowsKingofMadCows Registered User regular
    A lot of the rhetoric surrounding the Iraq War, and the "War on Terror," sounded like they were inspired by comic books. The Bush Administration talked about Saddam Hussein like he was Cobra Commander and that he had all these devices and weapons that you would find in a 007 movie. It amazes me how well that strategy has been working. Like when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was supposed to be tried in New York, they made it sound like he was going escape prosecution like the Joker and run rampant on US soil.

  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Dumbest foreign policy statement Bush ever made was the Axis of Evil line. By lumping three separate states together and explicitly comparing them to the big bads of WWII, he made it almost impossible to deal with them individually and diplomatically. In conjunction with the Iraq war, the message they got was "if you don't have WMD, get them now!"

    Because it didn't matter that Iraq lacked WMD, they got invaded anyways and if you got WMD the US might back off.

    I always loved how we focus our attention on Iran and Iraq, and then North Korea goes and actually gets a nuke.

    And how little commotion it caused.

    China was probably a big factor in that. Not much the US would be willing to do if China wasn't on board. I do agree, it's rather funny that the reaction wasn't anywhere near what we saw with Iraq and see with Iran and no nuclear bombs have been made by either. I'm sure there are other factors, some of which are on economic lines (I'm trying to remember if NK has anything of note that could be marketed quickly, I don't think they do but I could be wrong).

  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Total Goober Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Dumbest foreign policy statement Bush ever made was the Axis of Evil line. By lumping three separate states together and explicitly comparing them to the big bads of WWII, he made it almost impossible to deal with them individually and diplomatically. In conjunction with the Iraq war, the message they got was "if you don't have WMD, get them now!"

    Because it didn't matter that Iraq lacked WMD, they got invaded anyways and if you got WMD the US might back off.

    I always loved how we focus our attention on Iran and Iraq, and then North Korea goes and actually gets a nuke.

    And how little commotion it caused.

    China was probably a big factor in that. Not much the US would be willing to do if China wasn't on board. I do agree, it's rather funny that the reaction wasn't anywhere near what we saw with Iraq and see with Iran and no nuclear bombs have been made by either. I'm sure there are other factors, some of which are on economic lines (I'm trying to remember if NK has anything of note that could be marketed quickly, I don't think they do but I could be wrong).

    Also the fact that the KPA in 2003 is probably much strong than the Iraqi army was in either 1990 or 2003.

    Hell, the first Gulf War was fought by outflanking the Iraqis via the desert. Causalities would of been much higher if the Collation would of had to change right into the Iraqis (even after the aerial bombardment).

    A war with North Korea, even before they had nukes, would of resulted in a lot of US and Korean dead.

    Combined with China opposition to an invasion, its really a no go.

    Still, ironic that we go looking for WMDs in the Middle East, and they turn up in Korea.

  • wiltingwilting Registered User regular
    Best Korea is rightly or wrongly regarded as much more predictable, even when being provocative, in that the regime's top priority is self preservation. Whereas Iran is rightly or wrongly viewed as irrationally religious, particularly with regard to Israel.

    Also, oil.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Dumbest foreign policy statement Bush ever made was the Axis of Evil line. By lumping three separate states together and explicitly comparing them to the big bads of WWII, he made it almost impossible to deal with them individually and diplomatically. In conjunction with the Iraq war, the message they got was "if you don't have WMD, get them now!"

    Because it didn't matter that Iraq lacked WMD, they got invaded anyways and if you got WMD the US might back off.

    I always loved how we focus our attention on Iran and Iraq, and then North Korea goes and actually gets a nuke.

    And how little commotion it caused.

    NK caused alot of commotion. It's just, cause they actually had a nuke (and cause China and cause no one wants to pop the NK bubble), they got negotiated with instead of threatened.

  • [Tycho?][Tycho?] Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Dumbest foreign policy statement Bush ever made was the Axis of Evil line. By lumping three separate states together and explicitly comparing them to the big bads of WWII, he made it almost impossible to deal with them individually and diplomatically. In conjunction with the Iraq war, the message they got was "if you don't have WMD, get them now!"

    Because it didn't matter that Iraq lacked WMD, they got invaded anyways and if you got WMD the US might back off.

    I always loved how we focus our attention on Iran and Iraq, and then North Korea goes and actually gets a nuke.

    And how little commotion it caused.

    NK caused alot of commotion. It's just, cause they actually had a nuke (and cause China and cause no one wants to pop the NK bubble), they got negotiated with instead of threatened.

    Which completely dissuades Iran and other countries from getting nukes, right!??!!?

    I sometimes feel like I go on excessive rants about US foreign policy, but god damn. And now with Syria being the target, again for "WMDs". How could I possibly support something like that, knowing what I do about what has gone down so recently?

    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Total Goober Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Dumbest foreign policy statement Bush ever made was the Axis of Evil line. By lumping three separate states together and explicitly comparing them to the big bads of WWII, he made it almost impossible to deal with them individually and diplomatically. In conjunction with the Iraq war, the message they got was "if you don't have WMD, get them now!"

    Because it didn't matter that Iraq lacked WMD, they got invaded anyways and if you got WMD the US might back off.

    I always loved how we focus our attention on Iran and Iraq, and then North Korea goes and actually gets a nuke.

    And how little commotion it caused.

    NK caused alot of commotion. It's just, cause they actually had a nuke (and cause China and cause no one wants to pop the NK bubble), they got negotiated with instead of threatened.

    I don't remeber the actual NK nukes getting as much press time as the imagined Iraqi ones.

    But that's just purely anecdotal.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Dumbest foreign policy statement Bush ever made was the Axis of Evil line. By lumping three separate states together and explicitly comparing them to the big bads of WWII, he made it almost impossible to deal with them individually and diplomatically. In conjunction with the Iraq war, the message they got was "if you don't have WMD, get them now!"

    Because it didn't matter that Iraq lacked WMD, they got invaded anyways and if you got WMD the US might back off.

    I always loved how we focus our attention on Iran and Iraq, and then North Korea goes and actually gets a nuke.

    And how little commotion it caused.

    NK caused alot of commotion. It's just, cause they actually had a nuke (and cause China and cause no one wants to pop the NK bubble), they got negotiated with instead of threatened.

    Which completely dissuades Iran and other countries from getting nukes, right!??!!?

    I sometimes feel like I go on excessive rants about US foreign policy, but god damn. And now with Syria being the target, again for "WMDs". How could I possibly support something like that, knowing what I do about what has gone down so recently?

    Because the two incidents have nothing in common.

    Nocren
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    wilting wrote: »
    Best Korea is rightly or wrongly regarded as much more predictable, even when being provocative, in that the regime's top priority is self preservation. Whereas Iran is rightly or wrongly viewed as irrationally religious, particularly with regard to Israel.

    Also, oil.
    I think almost any regime's top priority is self-preservation, and descriptions of the Iranian regime being fanatical and unpredictable are more propaganda than anything. Iran's been pretty reasonable about the whole nuclear thing (much more reasonable than the US or Israel, IMO), and while their government quells internal dissent ruthlessly, I haven't really seen them do anything I'd consider "irrational."

13»
Sign In or Register to comment.