The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - October 11, 2008

Advertisement


Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Attrition Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Re: casualties
mate@sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu    8/19/2001 12:52:21 AM
I think not marching on Bagdad in Desert Storm
had reasons other than fear of casualties. In a
coalition war the US was in no position to set
its own war aims.

The collapse of the Iraqui regime would have made
it hard to keep the Kurds from forming their own
state. The Kurdish population then extended to
five countries, including the Soviet Union. In
fact, Kurdish claim to Soviet territory might
have been such a cohesive force on the Soviet
Union that the Soviet collapse might never have
happened. Sure, the Soviet Union was in serious
trouble, but an external threat might have
strengthened it to carry on for a long time.
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
pfd    RE:Re: casualties   12/25/2001 2:40:56 PM
If I remember properly- once our war aims were met, we stopped shooting and began negotiations.
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3    RE:Re: casualties   7/17/2004 12:37:56 PM
Actually I never criticized Daddy Bush for that for the obviously biased reason that I agreed at the time. I have read someone compare the decision to a speculator that sells, only to find he could have got more money by hanging on to his stock; he still gained something. Whatever. In any case we cannot demand that we always obtain a total victory. Most wars do in fact end-if they end-in a negotiation rather than a conquest. And there are more than a hundred guys like Saddam: he just happend to be making himself unusually annoying at the time. I agreed with the second war. But not as a crusade to spread democracy. Rather as a punitive action. We needed to do something dramatic and I thought that Saddams behavior was nasty enough that we need not worry about our conscience before destroying him. A cynical way of putting it, but I am cynical sometimes. Now that a reasonably good government looks to be established in Iraq, all the better. By the way, on a irrelevant note, wouldn't it be great if the Iraqi's won a gold medal this year? That would certainly give a good start to a new state. And wasn't one of the original purposes of the Olympics to subliminate Nationalistic urges? Go Iraq!
 
Quote    Reply

juandos    RE:Re: casualties   9/30/2004 9:57:45 AM
mate@sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu says: "The collapse of the Iraqui regime would have made it hard to keep the Kurds from forming their own state. The Kurdish population then extended to five countries, including the Soviet Union. In fact, Kurdish claim to Soviet territory might have been such a cohesive force on the Soviet Union that the Soviet collapse might never have happened" This is as clear and succinct a common sense explanation as I've ever heard... Bravo mate! Really very good and I hope you don't mind if I pass your (with an attribute to you of course) wisdom onto others...
 
Quote    Reply

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy