$400 per gallon oil. 100+ fuel trucks set on fire

Quote from Claudius:

This is a complete BS rewrite of actual history.
If Bush Snr. had finished the job in the first Gulf War and taken out Saddam back in 1991, the US wouldn't have been forced to maintain bases in Saudi Arabia for the next 9 years.
That was one of the main grievances that Al Qaida used to justify the 9/11 attacks.

We'll never know for sure, but it's possible that 9/11, the Iraq War and Afghanistan could all have been avoided had the original Gulf War been finished properly.
More...

The reason bush sr didnt go all in on iraq was exactly because he and his advisors realized what a disaster it will be for the us. And they have been proven right as evident by the iraq war bush jr got us into.

Man are you really that stupid, you think if bush sr decided to invade iraq back then, the result will be different than the current disaster over there? also at that time there was no 9/11 to be used as a backdrop to rally support in america/world for the war. Do you also think having us forces occupy iraq will not give al qaida more ammo than having a base in saudi arabia? Btw the base in saudi arabia will always be there until their oil runs out, iraq wasnt the only concern, there was iran/afgan/soviet etc..
 
We operate under a war economy. You would think that some of you guys would figure it out after awhile but I guess not. Each generation, like clockwork, has another war awaiting them, regardless of the merits of entering war or lack thereof.
 
Quote from newguy05:

The reason bush sr didnt go all in on iraq was exactly because he and his advisors realized what a disaster it will be for the us. And they have been proven right as evident by the iraq war bush jr got us into.

Man are you really that stupid, you think if bush sr decided to invade iraq back then, the result will be different than the current disaster over there? also at that time there was no 9/11 to be used as a backdrop to rally support in america/world for the war. Do you also think having us forces occupy iraq will not give al qaida more ammo than having a base in saudi arabia? Btw the base in saudi arabia will always be there until their oil runs out, iraq wasnt the only concern, there was iran/afgan/soviet etc..
More...

Again, simply not true.
I'd suggest you get yourself a little more knowledge and a little less opinion.

There was broad international and regional support for the first Gulf War against Iraq.
In truth nobody knows what the outcome would have been, but for a variety of reasons, a war back then probably would have been much less costly.
1. The Iraqis wouldn't have had so much time to pre-plan and prepare for their own counter-insurgency operation.
2. There wouldn't have been the huge number of foreign Al Qaida pouring out of Afghanistan into Iraq.
3. At that time it would have been easier to justify simply grabbing Saddam and his two sons and getting out, leaving the Bathest party in control of the country with (hopefully) a more pro-western leader taking over. Saddam used the time between the wars to eliminate all possible sources or opposition within Iraq.

I strongly suspect that Bush Sr. believed at the time that the Iraqis would somehow get rid of Saddam themselves through a coup d'etat. Unfortunately he was wrong.

Saudi Arabia is sacred to Muslims in a way other countries in the region aren't. I'm not exactly sure, but I believe that US bases in Saudi Arabia were closed in 2003. After Iraq fell, there was no reason to maintain them.
 
Quote from abducens:

They block the border, the fuel trucks pile up to wait and they are sitting ducks for attack. What a setup.
More...
These taliban and afghan people are intelligent. Worldwide people think afghan people are primitive/tribal people without any brains.

This "blocking idea/tactics" was used in world war 2 to destroy tank columns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top