Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

historys judgement on Gulf War 2

Options
  • 09-01-2004 1:37pm
    #1
    magick
    Registered Users Posts: 2,478 ✭✭✭


    how do you think history will judge Gulf War 2, favourably? or as something more sinister, most of the teams are now moving back to the USA according to the bbcs web site since they have a "lack of anything to report"?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    regeneration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 590 ✭✭✭regeneration


    It will be judged as a continued knee-jerk reaction to 911, as a justification for a huge increase in military development and spending in the US, and as a PR disaster where the public reasons for the war were never actually found.


  • Options
    #3
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,267 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    I suspect in a similar way to the now discredited Gulf of Tonkin incident or the Bay of Pigs Invasion. Different only insofar as this one seeems to have been "successful" so far.


  • Options
    #4
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    But Gulf War 1 had a similar anti-war movement which accused the Bush administration of being after oil. And look how that's treated nowadays?

    Then again that did have a much larger amount of international support.

    I remember seeing an old 'Spitting Image' a few weeks ago where they made a whole skit on Bush Sr. being told to keep the word 'oil' out of his vocablary by his aides...


  • Options
    #5
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,669 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    An example of an accelerated trend of the UN authority of legitimisation of international intervention being superseded by the US, working in essence in its own self interest.

    History should dwell on the positive aspects, e.g. Sadaam gone, but if this leads to a break-up of Iraq into differing entities or even neighbouring countries pursuing territorial gains, it will be judged a mistake.


  • Options
    #6
    regeneration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 590 ✭✭✭regeneration


    Originally posted by Manach
    History should dwell on the positive aspects, e.g. Sadaam gone, but if this leads to a break-up of Iraq into differing entities or even neighbouring countries pursuing territorial gains, it will be judged a mistake.
    Well Im willing to make a small bet that whatever ruling faction gains control of Iraq will cause as much problems as Saddam ever did. It will become a theocracy, which is never a good thing


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    The Beer Baron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 693 ✭✭✭The Beer Baron


    Don't you mean Gulf War 3?
    Or arguably 4?


  • Options
    #8
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Bit too soon to judge historys judgement methinks...

    Mike.


  • Options
    #9
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,762 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Originally posted by The Beer Baron
    Don't you mean Gulf War 3?
    Or arguably 4?
    American casulties were relative high (for them) during the first one.
    http://usresolve.org/uss-stark-ffg31.php

    Warmongering view with facts distorted ...
    http://www.mobrien.com/twr/Gulfwar/uss-stark.htm

    Which might explain this...
    http://aviation-safety.net/database/1988/880703-0.htm

    Actually no it doesn't ..

    [edit]found this - not authoritive but if true...
    http://www.countries.com/messageboard/messages/1621.html


Advertisement