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

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


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

You can invent whatever rationalizations you want, but what's the point? It's a different war.

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

Why would someone surrender when their nation and most of their forces are intact? Just the invading ones pushed back from where they don't belong with 70% losses.

And it would be rather tough for us to have pulled off, without access to our supplies in Saudia, and with everyone else's troops pulling out of the line.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, Hitler's war with Poland was over the Corridor and Danzig.

Obviosuly not, since they had secured the whole corridor by sept 2 and did not stop there, now did they?

I am sorry Ned, but that answer is just plain wrong: Germany invalidated its commitment to Versailles in 1935; Had war begun then, maybe your argument makes sense, but after the Germans took the whole of Czechoslovakia in March of 39 it was clear they had intentiona far beyond regaining what they had lost, since Czechslovakia had never been German territory.

So no, even if one admits that Germany should not have been held to its versailles agreemnt, once it invaded all of Poland, bombed Warsaw and so forth it had commited a brand new act of aggresion for 2which a new war was called for and fully justified.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Why would someone surrender when their nation and most of their forces are intact?

According to the Frontline I watched last night, Hussein had already accepted total defeat and was almost in tears (according to Hussein's former security chief). If we had pushed, they probably would have toppled.

[SlowwHand]

It was just a matter of taking him, but Senior Bush followed the U.N.'s request.

And here we are today, still.

[chequita guevara]

Not merely the U.N.'s. How many of our Arab allies would have balked? We did not build the global coalition around invading Iraq, only liberating Kuwait. The USSR still existed at the time, and they and the Chinese were only bought off by assurances that we would not invade Iraq. If we betrayed our promises, US diplomacy would have been seriously hurt. The USSR might even still exist today, since they would have had proof positive of the US' untrustworthiness and the generals wouldn't have given up so easily. . . . yeah, I guess you're right, we'd all have been much better off.

[SlowwHand]

The USSR was in the tank years before the ultimate split.
They never gave me pause. They were too busy standing in line for toilet paper.
China? Different thing. China is disturbing.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


According to the Frontline I watched last night, Hussein had already accepted total defeat and was almost in tears (according to Hussein's former security chief). If we had pushed, they probably would have toppled.

Hussein knew that nobody was going to go to Iraq proper. He might or might not have been almost in tears at some point, but the Iraqis still maintained a lot of forces outside the KTO that we barely touched.

Practically, we didn't have the line up of forces or supply points, especially once everyone else pulled out of the line, and the Saudis revoked basing authority, which they would have done. We didn't have the ability to maintain the supply lines politically unless we just attacked everyone and took over the entire region.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
China? Different thing. China is disturbing.

Hey, cowboy, something we can agree on.

[SlowwHand]

Had I known that this would put such a bug up your ass, I'd have posted it much, much earlier .

Been saving it for just the right time.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Had I known that this would put such a bug up your ass, I'd have posted it much, much earlier .

Been saving it for just the right time.

I'd expect no less.

You can always tell a Texan. You just can't tell him much.

[SlowwHand]

So true.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


Obviosuly not, since they had secured the whole corridor by sept 2 and did not stop there, now did they?

I am sorry Ned, but that answer is just plain wrong: Germany invalidated its commitment to Versailles in 1935; Had war begun then, maybe your argument makes sense, but after the Germans took the whole of Czechoslovakia in March of 39 it was clear they had intentiona far beyond regaining what they had lost, since Czechslovakia had never been German territory.

So no, even if one admits that Germany should not have been held to its versailles agreemnt, once it invaded all of Poland, bombed Warsaw and so forth it had commited a brand new act of aggresion for 2which a new war was called for and fully justified.

Let's be honest. The Polish military was defending Poland and had to be defeated if Germany were to accept the Corridor and Danzig in any peace settlement. However, Britain's declaration of war changed everything, didn't it? Germany now had to secure their rear while they turned to face the French and English.