May 10

Non-naval discussions about the Second World War. Military leaders, campaigns, weapons, etc.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: May 10

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Thu May 19, 2011 1:56 am

Bgile:
Point me to a reliable source which says the US Army was authorized by the coalition to invade Iraq.
When that has been required? Show me a reliable source that says the US was authorized by the UN or Security Council to invade Irak in 2003 or for that matter Grenada, Vietnam or Panama? It's just a matter of common sense and national interest. If the arabs didn't like the idea they can sell their oil to... let's see: Tanzania or Namibia to see how long their economy lasts.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: May 10

Post by Bgile » Thu May 19, 2011 3:23 am

Karl, not everyone feels the way you do about international agreements.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: May 10

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Thu May 19, 2011 3:27 am

That's your problem: I pointed out Historical facts and you point out your feelings.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7513
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: May 10

Post by RF » Thu May 19, 2011 8:44 am

Bgile wrote: Point me to a reliable source which says the US Army was authorized by the coalition to invade Iraq.
Coalition goals were never made crystal clear and the very fact that you have to ask whether the US Army was authorised to invade Iraq illustrates the background to a botched operation.

Lets be clear. I think that if a country invades without lawful reason another country in violation of the UN Charter then that country gives up all its rights to territorial integrity. The US Army acting on behalf of the UN in my opinion does not and should not require permission to invade Iraq.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7513
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: May 10

Post by RF » Thu May 19, 2011 8:57 am

lwd wrote:
Then show me how it's wrong. I certainly don't see it and your proclomation doesn't past muster as proof.
lwd, if you are faced with a threat the only solution is to eliminate the threat. Containment is not elimination. Containment, the policy used against Saddam Hussein for the 13 years prior to the 2003 invasion, allows the threat to continue so you have to devote resources permanently to contain and block.
Get rid of the threat once and for all no futher resources for perpetuity are required.

With respect to trhe Republican Guard divisions, they were degraded but not destroyed. They provided the means for keeping the B'aath regime in power over most of Iraq, so that it would then continue to pose a threat to Kuwait and to the stability of the Middle East.

Clearing the Iraq forces out of Kuwait in my view was only half the job. Removing the regime that invaded Kuwait should have been the number one goal. I see no difference between dealing with Hitler and Saddam Hussein. Nazi Germany was overhrown and its surviving leaders were put on trial in an international tribunal. That is what should have happened with the Iraqi leadership. As indeed did eventually happen with the Serbian leadership over its crimes commited in Yugoslavia.
Last edited by RF on Thu May 19, 2011 9:02 am, edited 2 times in total.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7513
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: May 10

Post by RF » Thu May 19, 2011 9:01 am

lwd wrote: There were incursions into Iraq but they were designed to cut off the Iraqii forces in Kuwait.
Question - if the purpose of Desert Storm was simply to clear the Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, then why block their exit routes?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: May 10

Post by Bgile » Thu May 19, 2011 6:06 pm

RF wrote:
lwd wrote: There were incursions into Iraq but they were designed to cut off the Iraqii forces in Kuwait.
Question - if the purpose of Desert Storm was simply to clear the Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, then why block their exit routes?
Obviously to destroy as many of them as possible before they could get back into Iraq. While that was not technically the objective, it was a desirable outcome.

You may think it was Ok for us to invade Iraq, but your opinion is opposed to the legal experts in the US who said it would be beyond our authority and there were no plans to do so.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: May 10

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Fri May 20, 2011 12:51 am

Bgile:
You may think it was Ok for us to invade Iraq, but your opinion is opposed to the legal experts in the US who said it would be beyond our authority and there were no plans to do so.
Were those the same legal expertes that advised against invading North Vietnam in the late 60ies? War is not the dominion of internation law... is a breach of it!

Clauswetiz:

War is the continuation of politics by other means.

Meaning that the National Interest of having a dangerous and cruel enemy killed and it's forces destroyed must prevail over a piece of paper (if it even exist in the first place) that is not worth the ink wasted in it.

I don't know you, but if my son or daughter was ordered to go to Iraq in 2003 and got killed because Bgile's lawyers were sensitive on some ambiguous and not-so-inteligent legal advise, believe me: I wil be very upsted against the goverment... but not the one that sent to fight and die but on the one that failed to do the job properly. Again: like invading and liberating France but restraining itself to invade Germany.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: May 10

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Fri May 20, 2011 3:35 am

Another from Clausewitz that may apply here:
"The first and most important rule to observe...is to use our entire forces with the utmost energy. The second rule is to concentrate our power as much as possible against that section where the chief blows are to be delivered and to incur disadvantages elsewhere, so that our chances of success may increase at the decisive point. The third rule is never to waste time. Unless important advantages are to be gained from hesitation, it is necessary to set to work at once. By this speed a hundred enemy measures are nipped in the bud, and public opinion is won most rapidly. Finally, the fourth rule is to follow up our successes with the utmost energy. Only pursuit of the beaten enemy gives the fruits of victory."
- Karl von Clausewitz
Profetic words of (course) a German general.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4000
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: May 10

Post by alecsandros » Fri May 20, 2011 7:16 am

Karl: :clap:

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7513
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: May 10

Post by RF » Fri May 20, 2011 6:00 pm

Bgile wrote:
RF wrote:
lwd wrote: There were incursions into Iraq but they were designed to cut off the Iraqii forces in Kuwait.
Question - if the purpose of Desert Storm was simply to clear the Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, then why block their exit routes?
Obviously to destroy as many of them as possible before they could get back into Iraq. While that was not technically the objective, it was a desirable outcome.
There is an outrighr contradiction here between expulsion from Iraq and destroying the Iraqi regime - a ''half and half'' approach that doesn't work and satisfies nobody. If it is desirable to destroy Iraqi forces then why only do it in Kuwait? If it was illegal under US law to go into Iraq then why did US forces step across the border? If expulsion was the objective then why block the exit routes, which forces the enemy to stand and fight and increase your casualties?

War is not a game of cricket - or baseball. In war there can only be one objective - absolute victory. Any thing less is a betrayal of what you are fighting for, a betrayal of serviceman's lives. Such a war should never be fought. And you don't need to study Clauswitz to understand that.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: May 10

Post by Bgile » Fri May 20, 2011 6:54 pm

I've come to believe that responses to my posts are coming closer and closer to ridiucle and direct personal attacks. I'm not having fun here anymore ... Karl was probably right when he posted here a long time ago to the effect that there is no place here for people who don't believe in German supremacy. In some cases I think I can add war of annihilation to that.

I will really miss some of the more polite exchanges we had a long time ago, where people actually thought about other points of view and made considerate replies. This is not directed at everyone here, but the climate has just become too unpleasant for me.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3299
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: May 10

Post by dunmunro » Fri May 20, 2011 7:12 pm

FWIW, most Canadians breathed a deep sigh of relief, when our government decided to stay out of Iraq.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: May 10

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Fri May 20, 2011 7:55 pm

Bgile:
I've come to believe that responses to my posts are coming closer and closer to ridiucle and direct personal attacks.
So, quoting Clausewitz as a response to your observations is getting closer to the ridicule? Personal attacks? It is you that made flawed observations and comments and it is us those that made the ridicule?

Very orwelian at the least.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: May 10

Post by lwd » Fri May 20, 2011 11:43 pm

First you say this:
Karl Heidenreich wrote: When that has been required? Show me a reliable source that says the US was authorized by the UN or Security Council to invade Irak in 2003 or for that matter Grenada, Vietnam or Panama? It's just a matter of common sense and national interest. If the arabs didn't like the idea they can sell their oil to... let's see: Tanzania or Namibia to see how long their economy lasts.
Then you quote Claistwetiz?
Karl Heidenreich wrote:Bgile:
Clauswetiz:
War is the continuation of politics by other means.
The US was part of a coalition. That means there were political dynamics other than just Iraq and the US. Furthermore some of the rational that our coalition partners had for not wanting Iraq destroyed were also concerns of the US. If we took out Iraq what was the counter balance to Iran for instance.

The US could and did enter Iraqi territory but regime change in Iraq was not what our coalition partners desired and the coalition was founded based to a large extent on their desires. We were after all operating out of Saudi territory and the were footing the fuel bill. Furthermore we didn't want nor did our allies want a permanent US force in the region. That said some of the air strikes were if not aimed directly at Sadam close to it.

Post Reply