The Persian Gulf War (Aug. 2, 1990–April 6, 1991)

[KrazyHorse]

Even logistical support is an iffy thing for most of the countries on the list...

If there's anything, it's token...

[PLATO]

Frogger: It doesn't have to be major to be support. A lot of the smaller nations simply don't have the resources even if they do have the desire.

[SlowwHand]

That's great. MtG.

So Hussein has broken a whole string of agreements in regard to his Cease Fire opportunity.




Anyone play Civ II ? If you do, maybe this will help.
You're battling an opponent, and sign a cease fire.
If you or the opponent don't act right, sign an official Peace Treaty maybe, what happens?
Back to the war.
Even during the cease fire, you will generally see AI troops massing just outside your city.


Kind of like real life.

[chequita guevara]

Sloww, don't you ever get tired of kissing the President's posterior?

[SlowwHand]

What I'm doing is showing he's doing what he should have done, and what Clinton before him should have done, and what Daddy Bush should have done.
They didn't.

You can call my endorsement whatever you want.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
That's great. MtG.

So Hussein has broken a whole string of agreements in regard to his Cease Fire opportunity.




Anyone play Civ II ? If you do, maybe this will help.
You're battling an opponent, and sign a cease fire.
If you or the opponent don't act right, sign an official Peace Treaty maybe, what happens?
Back to the war.
Even during the cease fire, you will generally see AI troops massing just outside your city.


Kind of like real life.

Actually, it's really not clear he's violated any agreement to which he was a party. The terms in the signed cessation of hostilities agreement were pretty minimal and apolitical, IIRC. Just the UNSCRs related to leaving Kuwait, not removing Kuwaiti property, turn over of heavy equipment, exchange of POW's, etc. Where he hose the allies was in helo flights - the Iraqis claimed they needed to use them due to bridges and roads being out, and to get commanders back and forth to their units and bases, etc., and were granted the right to use helos. They then used those to go after Shiite and Kurd rebels, hence the no fly zones were imposed after the fact (but never agreed to).

The difference in the NFZs was that under the terms of the cessastion of hostilities, the Iraqis were never allowed to operate fixed wing military aircraft. The NFZs extended that to be a blanket prohibition of any military flights.

I don't recall that the Iraqis ever signed the March 4 agreement - the shooting had stopped for five and a half days by then, and I don't remember. I think the UNSC issued the approved cease fire and said "this is it," but that's a bit different for one side to amend an agreement that was already made and signed by both sides.

[chequita guevara]

Well, he may not have returned Scott Speicher (sp?) a navy fighter pilot from Jacksonville. A defector says he saw an American pilot in one of Hussein's prisons.

While I don't think we should bomb a whole people to get one man back, I do think we should have sent people in to try and get him back, by force.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Actually, it's really not clear he's violated any agreement to which he was a party. The terms in the signed cessation of hostilities agreement were pretty minimal and apolitical, IIRC. Just the UNSCRs related to leaving Kuwait, not removing Kuwaiti property, turn over of heavy equipment, exchange of POW's, etc. Where he hose the allies was in helo flights - the Iraqis claimed they needed to use them due to bridges and roads being out, and to get commanders back and forth to their units and bases, etc., and were granted the right to use helos. They then used those to go after Shiite and Kurd rebels, hence the no fly zones were imposed after the fact (but never agreed to).

The difference in the NFZs was that under the terms of the cessastion of hostilities, the Iraqis were never allowed to operate fixed wing military aircraft. The NFZs extended that to be a blanket prohibition of any military flights.

I don't recall that the Iraqis ever signed the March 4 agreement - the shooting had stopped for five and a half days by then, and I don't remember. I think the UNSC issued the approved cease fire and said "this is it," but that's a bit different for one side to amend an agreement that was already made and signed by both sides.

As I said before, MtG, this is exactly Hitler's argument about Versailles: it was imposed on Germany post facto. Germany never agreed to it or anything like it when they signed the Armistice.

Accepting, then that Hitler was right, as your argument in connection with the 1991 cease-fire agreements would suggest, then Britain's war against Nazi Germany in 1939 was unjust.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Actually, it's really not clear he's violated any agreement to which he was a party. The terms in the signed cessation of hostilities agreement were pretty minimal and apolitical, IIRC. Just the UNSCRs related to leaving Kuwait, not removing Kuwaiti property, turn over of heavy equipment, exchange of POW's, etc. Where he hose the allies was in helo flights - the Iraqis claimed they needed to use them due to bridges and roads being out, and to get commanders back and forth to their units and bases, etc., and were granted the right to use helos. They then used those to go after Shiite and Kurd rebels, hence the no fly zones were imposed after the fact (but never agreed to).

The difference in the NFZs was that under the terms of the cessastion of hostilities, the Iraqis were never allowed to operate fixed wing military aircraft. The NFZs extended that to be a blanket prohibition of any military flights.

I don't recall that the Iraqis ever signed the March 4 agreement - the shooting had stopped for five and a half days by then, and I don't remember. I think the UNSC issued the approved cease fire and said "this is it," but that's a bit different for one side to amend an agreement that was already made and signed by both sides.

And still nothing that says this is not just a continuance of a previous war, which is all this thread is saying.

Your interpretation doesn't have to match mine.
Mine evidently match how the relevant country's leaders interpret it.

The fact remains, had there been a surrender document, Iraq probably would have been occupied, just as Japan and Germany were.

[chequita guevara]

Well, in 1939 it wasn't about enforcing Versailles, it was defending Poland (or rather their investments in Poland). When Germany absorbed Austria and Bohemia, it had already gone beyond restoring the territorial integrity of the German Empire.

[SlowwHand]

And Che.
If civilians are hurt, it will be because Hussein places them in harm's way.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by SlowwHand



And still nothing that says this is not just a continuance of a previous war, which is all this thread is saying.

Your interpretation doesn't have to match mine.
Mine evidently match how the relevant country's leaders interpret it.

The fact remains, had there been a surrender document, Iraq probably would have been occupied, just as Japan and Germany were.

According to al Qaeda and a large number of fundamentalist moslems, this is just a continuation of the first crusade, so what's your point?

There could not have been a surrender, in any case, because the legal authority for the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait recognized the sovereignty of both countries. There was nothing to surrender other than forces in Kuwait.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


As I said before, MtG, this is exactly Hitler's argument about Versailles: it was imposed on Germany post facto. Germany never agreed to it or anything like it when they signed the Armistice.

Accepting, then that Hitler was right, as your argument in connection with the 1991 cease-fire agreements would suggest, then Britain's war against Nazi Germany in 1939 was unjust.

Britian and France declared war on Germany on Sept 3, 1939 due to Germany's invasion of Poland on sept. 1 after both Britain and France had guaranteed the territorial integrity of Poland. The treaty of Versailles had NOTHING to do with it or the legaliuty of the war. If war had begun in 1935 over Germany's scrapping the treaty or in 1936 for militarizing the Rhineland, then prhaps this notion would make any sense.

[Ned]

GePap, Hitler's war with Poland was over the Corridor and Danzig.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


According to al Qaeda and a large number of fundamentalist moslems, this is just a continuation of the first crusade, so what's your point?

There could not have been a surrender, in any case, because the legal authority for the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait recognized the sovereignty of both countries. There was nothing to surrender other than forces in Kuwait.

If that's the position you want to take, that's fine.
Then it's not over from longer. Whatever.

And yes, there could have been a surrender, just like the one we'll see.
Disposition of Hussein and his, and occupation.