120,000 more US troops going to Gulf

fran441 · March 27, 2003 8:06PM

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

Sounds bad. Just more troops away from their families and put in harms way. My only hope this war is over very soon.

stunned · March 27, 2003 8:13PM

Thats a lot of troops. Guess the war will take much longer than i tot.

Not good.

fran441 · March 27, 2003 8:27PM

Well if they had 250,000 troops already over there, then you're looking at a new force that is half the size of the troops we already have over there. I wonder what prompted the move.

alcimedes · March 27, 2003 10:30PM

this was expected. i know some of the guys going over there now, and they've been expecting this since day one. they actually might have been over there sooner if it weren't for turkey.

shawnpatrickjoyce · March 27, 2003 10:51PM

I think we're going to be saying "that was to be expected" for every troop number increase...

sammi jo · March 28, 2003 1:39AM

With some 350,000 US troops holed up in Iraq, perhaps North Korea's loose cannon Kim Jing Il is tempted to take a preemptive strike on S. Korea and engage the 50,000 US troops stationed there with his 4 million strong army.

If that nightmare scenario develops, what the hell would we do in response?

groverat · March 28, 2003 2:10AM

There are 90,000 American troops in Iraq right now.

groverat · March 28, 2003 2:12AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sammi jo

With some 350,000 US troops holed up in Iraq, perhaps North Korea's loose cannon Kim Jing Il is tempted to take a preemptive strike on S. Korea and engage the 50,000 US troops stationed there with his 4 million strong army.

If that nightmare scenario develops, what the hell would we do in response?

Perhaps the UN would get involved. Maybe only after a few million South Koreans died, though.

Just kidding, I know the UN wouldn't do anything.

colanderofdeath · March 28, 2003 2:22AM

Now now groverat. We do know that even if we exclude the previous Korean conflict when the Russians were off protesting Bush and missed the vote that we can still say that the UN once responded to an attack on Kuwait. So there is one precedent for action. Granted the US led the formation and diplomacy of that coalition and that Mitterand had to be dragged along kicking and screaming. And granted that if failed to support an actual solution to the conflict rather than the mere liberation of Kuwait. But who is to say that the UN won't follow through on a second action now?

We could let the South Koreans fight the war. That would make a lot of sense since they have a lot lot lot lot more troops in South Korean than us. Just a thought.

powerdoc · March 28, 2003 3:42AM

If north korea invaded the south, i will vote for french entering in a war under UN immediatly.

I was for the first gulf war and the kosovo war.

I am quite sure that a korean war will rebuilt the UN, but frankly i do not wish for south korean people that such a nightmare will arrive.

stupider...likeafox · March 28, 2003 3:55AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath

And granted that if failed to support an actual solution to the conflict rather than the mere liberation of Kuwait.

If the liberation of Kuwait wasn't the solution to the problem then what was?

And remember before you answer that right up until that invasion Saddam was the US's pet dictator in the region.

harald · March 28, 2003 4:03AM

Everyone would support the UN in kicking them out. I would. It would be in result of an aggressive act. Remember how the security council voted in favour of action in Kuwait? And how that action had the support of all the countries in the middle east? Exactly the opposite of this war?

Just because the current war is the most dangerous, terrible, illegitimate nightmare since the Second World War and will increase global terror by a factor of 10 doesn't mean that no wars should be fought.

bunge · March 28, 2003 8:47AM

Quote:

Originally posted by stupider...likeafox

If the liberation of Kuwait wasn't the solution to the problem then what was?

Killing and more killing. Haven't you figured it out yet? If the hawks can't have free reign with their toys, then it's not a solution.

colanderofdeath · March 28, 2003 12:05PM

Quote:

If the liberation of Kuwait wasn't the solution to the problem then what was?

And remember before you answer that right up until that invasion Saddam was the US's pet dictator in the region.

Right. I cannot have a position which would contradict the one that Reagan and Father Shrubbery had been party to. I am beholden to consistency with others' stances which I did not support. That makes complete sense. Therefore I also cannot say that we should have gone to Baghdad in 91. Especially once the Iraqi rebellion had taken what, 14 out of 18 provinces? That makes perfect sense.

The solution the UN and the US mistakenly took only resolved Kuwait. That solution did not resolve why Kuwait was an issue in the first place, why the Kurds were an issue, why the Shi'a were an issue, why the Marsh Arabs were an issue, why Saudi Arabia was almost an issue, why Iran-Iraq had been an issue and why WOMD and sanctions would continue to be issues for another 12 years. If that view means condemning Bush, Reagan, Cheney, Powell and various others along with the UN for both their support of Saddam and later their bandaid solution to his regime's aggression then I have no problem with that. As far as I'm concerned you can put a Glock to Reagan's oatmeal filled dome and pull the trigger for his administration's culpability. Or indict him if you prefer to be civilized. I didn't support our support of Hussein at the time and I don't retroactively support it now.

Quote:

Remember how the security council voted in favour of action in Kuwait? And how that action had the support of all the countries in the middle east? Exactly the opposite of this war?

Just because the current war is the most dangerous, terrible, illegitimate nightmare since the Second World War and will increase global terror by a factor of 10 doesn't mean that no wars should be fought.

This war doesn't prove that no wars should be fought. But there are plenty of other wars that show that as far as the collective wisdom of the UN Security Council is concerned, that body does not have the unity nor the stomach to provide genuine solutions. You can certainly make enough of a case for why this war should not be sanctioned by the UN, I'll disagree but I recognize that your stance in entirely reasonable and moral.

But even if we had not gone to war, the Security Council still had no solution. One year ago at this time we had had eleven ****ing years of sanctions which mainly hurt the population rather than the regime, no change in regime, continued possession of WOMD and the UN wasn't even bothering to do anything about it. Three years of paralysis since the inspectors left 12/98. What kind of contribution to Security is that? The Security Council, while a noble idea, is a joke. Very few if any wars have been fought or for that stopped from being fought in that body's name. You've mentioned other ones yourself at times that you supported where the UN could not provide a solution.

Why don't you start another thread and list every conflict, civil or international in the post-WWII era and show how the UN dealt with each one.

noahj · March 28, 2003 12:17PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bunge

Killing and more killing. Haven't you figured it out yet? If the hawks can't have free reign with their toys, then it's not a solution.

Yeah, nuke em till they glow and then shoot em in the dark.

noahj · March 28, 2003 12:20PM

bunge · March 28, 2003 12:46PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NoahJ

Yeah, nuke em till they glow and then shoot em in the dark.

You don't have to use nukes, but most hawks do seem to enjoy a little bit of the old ultra violence.

groverat · March 28, 2003 1:04PM

Funny stuff, Noah, funny stuff.

The UN will sit, twiddling its thumbs and whistling while hundreds of thousands of people are slaughtered. It reminds me of Eddie Izzard talking about Pol Pot and Stalin, how we don't care if a brutal regime is slaughtering millions, as long as it is their own people.

The UN's handling of the Iraq question was an absolute abortion.

noahj · March 28, 2003 1:16PM

Quote:

Originally posted by groverat

Funny stuff, Noah, funny stuff.

The UN will sit, twiddling its thumbs and whistling while hundreds of thousands of people are slaughtered. It reminds me of Eddie Izzard talking about Pol Pot and Stalin, how we don't care if a brutal regime is slaughtering millions, as long as it is their own people.

The UN's handling of the Iraq question was an absolute abortion.

outsider · March 28, 2003 1:29PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NoahJ

Not cool.

pscates · March 28, 2003 1:30PM

For Noah, Scott, the 'rat, Fellowship, SDW, etc., here's a site you might dig:

http://www.protestwarrior.com/

The photo above is from these guys and their funny "infiltrations" of various "peace" marches.

Check out the gallery on their site, of some of their posters. Notice how oblivious everyone around them is to their signs. They apparently aren't even reading what is on them!

"Oh cool...another protest sign. Let's welcome them to the fold and not actually realize they're tweaking us...".

If there's one group out there BEGGING to be made fun of, it's the hardcore, lay-in-the-street, march-at-the-drop-of-a-hat, "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!" goobers who are going to hate anything and everything done by a Republican administration and are looking for any excuse to scream, tote signs, march, fight with cops, etc.

120,000 more US troops going to Gulf

Comments