20-03-2003 03:14									#31
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Even logistical support is an iffy thing for most of the countries on the list...

If there's anything, it's token...

	20-03-2003 03:20									#32
	Remove this text

Frogger: It doesn't have to be major to be support. A lot of the smaller nations simply don't have the resources even if they do have the desire.

	20-03-2003 04:06									#33
	Remove this text

That's great. MtG.

So Hussein has broken a whole string of agreements in regard to his Cease Fire opportunity.




Anyone play Civ II ? If you do, maybe this will help.
You're battling an opponent, and sign a cease fire.
If you or the opponent don't act right, sign an official Peace Treaty maybe, what happens?
Back to the war.
Even during the cease fire, you will generally see AI troops massing just outside your city.


Kind of like real life.

	20-03-2003 04:09									#34
	Put an end to popups!

Sloww, don't you ever get tired of kissing the President's posterior?

	20-03-2003 04:14									#35
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

What I'm doing is showing he's doing what he should have done, and what Clinton before him should have done, and what Daddy Bush should have done.
They didn't.

You can call my endorsement whatever you want.

	20-03-2003 04:57									#36
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand That's great. MtG. So Hussein has broken a whole string of agreements in regard to his Cease Fire opportunity. Anyone play Civ II ? If you do, maybe this will help. You're battling an opponent, and sign a cease fire. If you or the opponent don't act right, sign an official Peace Treaty maybe, what happens? Back to the war. Even during the cease fire, you will generally see AI troops massing just outside your city. Kind of like real life.

Actually, it's really not clear he's violated any agreement to which he was a party. The terms in the signed cessation of hostilities agreement were pretty minimal and apolitical, IIRC. Just the UNSCRs related to leaving Kuwait, not removing Kuwaiti property, turn over of heavy equipment, exchange of POW's, etc. Where he hose the allies was in helo flights - the Iraqis claimed they needed to use them due to bridges and roads being out, and to get commanders back and forth to their units and bases, etc., and were granted the right to use helos. They then used those to go after Shiite and Kurd rebels, hence the no fly zones were imposed after the fact (but never agreed to).

The difference in the NFZs was that under the terms of the cessastion of hostilities, the Iraqis were never allowed to operate fixed wing military aircraft. The NFZs extended that to be a blanket prohibition of any military flights.

I don't recall that the Iraqis ever signed the March 4 agreement - the shooting had stopped for five and a half days by then, and I don't remember. I think the UNSC issued the approved cease fire and said "this is it," but that's a bit different for one side to amend an agreement that was already made and signed by both sides.

	20-03-2003 05:02									#37
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Well, he may not have returned Scott Speicher (sp?) a navy fighter pilot from Jacksonville. A defector says he saw an American pilot in one of Hussein's prisons.

While I don't think we should bomb a whole people to get one man back, I do think we should have sent people in to try and get him back, by force.

	20-03-2003 05:08									#38
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Actually, it's really not clear he's violated any agreement to which he was a party. The terms in the signed cessation of hostilities agreement were pretty minimal and apolitical, IIRC. Just the UNSCRs related to leaving Kuwait, not removing Kuwaiti property, turn over of heavy equipment, exchange of POW's, etc. Where he hose the allies was in helo flights - the Iraqis claimed they needed to use them due to bridges and roads being out, and to get commanders back and forth to their units and bases, etc., and were granted the right to use helos. They then used those to go after Shiite and Kurd rebels, hence the no fly zones were imposed after the fact (but never agreed to). The difference in the NFZs was that under the terms of the cessastion of hostilities, the Iraqis were never allowed to operate fixed wing military aircraft. The NFZs extended that to be a blanket prohibition of any military flights. I don't recall that the Iraqis ever signed the March 4 agreement - the shooting had stopped for five and a half days by then, and I don't remember. I think the UNSC issued the approved cease fire and said "this is it," but that's a bit different for one side to amend an agreement that was already made and signed by both sides.

As I said before, MtG, this is exactly Hitler's argument about Versailles: it was imposed on Germany post facto. Germany never agreed to it or anything like it when they signed the Armistice.

Accepting, then that Hitler was right, as your argument in connection with the 1991 cease-fire agreements would suggest, then Britain's war against Nazi Germany in 1939 was unjust.

	20-03-2003 05:09									#39
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Actually, it's really not clear he's violated any agreement to which he was a party. The terms in the signed cessation of hostilities agreement were pretty minimal and apolitical, IIRC. Just the UNSCRs related to leaving Kuwait, not removing Kuwaiti property, turn over of heavy equipment, exchange of POW's, etc. Where he hose the allies was in helo flights - the Iraqis claimed they needed to use them due to bridges and roads being out, and to get commanders back and forth to their units and bases, etc., and were granted the right to use helos. They then used those to go after Shiite and Kurd rebels, hence the no fly zones were imposed after the fact (but never agreed to). The difference in the NFZs was that under the terms of the cessastion of hostilities, the Iraqis were never allowed to operate fixed wing military aircraft. The NFZs extended that to be a blanket prohibition of any military flights. I don't recall that the Iraqis ever signed the March 4 agreement - the shooting had stopped for five and a half days by then, and I don't remember. I think the UNSC issued the approved cease fire and said "this is it," but that's a bit different for one side to amend an agreement that was already made and signed by both sides.

And still nothing that says this is not just a continuance of a previous war, which is all this thread is saying.

Your interpretation doesn't have to match mine.
Mine evidently match how the relevant country's leaders interpret it.

The fact remains, had there been a surrender document, Iraq probably would have been occupied, just as Japan and Germany were.

	20-03-2003 05:11									#40
	Increase Your PM Length

Well, in 1939 it wasn't about enforcing Versailles, it was defending Poland (or rather their investments in Poland). When Germany absorbed Austria and Bohemia, it had already gone beyond restoring the territorial integrity of the German Empire.

	20-03-2003 05:11									#41
	Tired of ads?

And Che.
If civilians are hurt, it will be because Hussein places them in harm's way.

	20-03-2003 05:14									#42
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand And still nothing that says this is not just a continuance of a previous war, which is all this thread is saying. Your interpretation doesn't have to match mine. Mine evidently match how the relevant country's leaders interpret it. The fact remains, had there been a surrender document, Iraq probably would have been occupied, just as Japan and Germany were.

According to al Qaeda and a large number of fundamentalist moslems, this is just a continuation of the first crusade, so what's your point?

There could not have been a surrender, in any case, because the legal authority for the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait recognized the sovereignty of both countries. There was nothing to surrender other than forces in Kuwait.

	20-03-2003 05:15									#43
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Ned As I said before, MtG, this is exactly Hitler's argument about Versailles: it was imposed on Germany post facto. Germany never agreed to it or anything like it when they signed the Armistice. Accepting, then that Hitler was right, as your argument in connection with the 1991 cease-fire agreements would suggest, then Britain's war against Nazi Germany in 1939 was unjust.

Britian and France declared war on Germany on Sept 3, 1939 due to Germany's invasion of Poland on sept. 1 after both Britain and France had guaranteed the territorial integrity of Poland. The treaty of Versailles had NOTHING to do with it or the legaliuty of the war. If war had begun in 1935 over Germany's scrapping the treaty or in 1936 for militarizing the Rhineland, then prhaps this notion would make any sense.

	20-03-2003 05:25									#44
	Put an end to popups!

GePap, Hitler's war with Poland was over the Corridor and Danzig.

	20-03-2003 05:29									#45
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat According to al Qaeda and a large number of fundamentalist moslems, this is just a continuation of the first crusade, so what's your point? There could not have been a surrender, in any case, because the legal authority for the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait recognized the sovereignty of both countries. There was nothing to surrender other than forces in Kuwait.

If that's the position you want to take, that's fine.
Then it's not over from longer. Whatever.

And yes, there could have been a surrender, just like the one we'll see.
Disposition of Hussein and his, and occupation.

	20-03-2003 06:20									#46
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand If that's the position you want to take, that's fine. Then it's not over from longer. Whatever.

You can invent whatever rationalizations you want, but what's the point? It's a different war.

quote: And yes, there could have been a surrender, just like the one we'll see. Disposition of Hussein and his, and occupation.

Why would someone surrender when their nation and most of their forces are intact? Just the invading ones pushed back from where they don't belong with 70% losses.

And it would be rather tough for us to have pulled off, without access to our supplies in Saudia, and with everyone else's troops pulling out of the line.

	20-03-2003 06:25									#47
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Ned GePap, Hitler's war with Poland was over the Corridor and Danzig.

Obviosuly not, since they had secured the whole corridor by sept 2 and did not stop there, now did they?

I am sorry Ned, but that answer is just plain wrong: Germany invalidated its commitment to Versailles in 1935; Had war begun then, maybe your argument makes sense, but after the Germans took the whole of Czechoslovakia in March of 39 it was clear they had intentiona far beyond regaining what they had lost, since Czechslovakia had never been German territory.

So no, even if one admits that Germany should not have been held to its versailles agreemnt, once it invaded all of Poland, bombed Warsaw and so forth it had commited a brand new act of aggresion for 2which a new war was called for and fully justified.

	20-03-2003 06:29									#48
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Why would someone surrender when their nation and most of their forces are intact?

According to the Frontline I watched last night, Hussein had already accepted total defeat and was almost in tears (according to Hussein's former security chief). If we had pushed, they probably would have toppled.

	20-03-2003 06:34									#49
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

It was just a matter of taking him, but Senior Bush followed the U.N.'s request.

And here we are today, still.

	20-03-2003 06:42									#50
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Not merely the U.N.'s. How many of our Arab allies would have balked? We did not build the global coalition around invading Iraq, only liberating Kuwait. The USSR still existed at the time, and they and the Chinese were only bought off by assurances that we would not invade Iraq. If we betrayed our promises, US diplomacy would have been seriously hurt. The USSR might even still exist today, since they would have had proof positive of the US' untrustworthiness and the generals wouldn't have given up so easily. . . . yeah, I guess you're right, we'd all have been much better off.

	20-03-2003 06:45									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

The USSR was in the tank years before the ultimate split.
They never gave me pause. They were too busy standing in line for toilet paper.
China? Different thing. China is disturbing.

	20-03-2003 06:48									#52
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara According to the Frontline I watched last night, Hussein had already accepted total defeat and was almost in tears (according to Hussein's former security chief). If we had pushed, they probably would have toppled.

Hussein knew that nobody was going to go to Iraq proper. He might or might not have been almost in tears at some point, but the Iraqis still maintained a lot of forces outside the KTO that we barely touched.

Practically, we didn't have the line up of forces or supply points, especially once everyone else pulled out of the line, and the Saudis revoked basing authority, which they would have done. We didn't have the ability to maintain the supply lines politically unless we just attacked everyone and took over the entire region.

	20-03-2003 06:48									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand China? Different thing. China is disturbing.

Hey, cowboy, something we can agree on.

	20-03-2003 06:53									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Had I known that this would put such a bug up your ass, I'd have posted it much, much earlier .

Been saving it for just the right time.

	20-03-2003 07:00									#55
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand Had I known that this would put such a bug up your ass, I'd have posted it much, much earlier . Been saving it for just the right time.

I'd expect no less.

You can always tell a Texan. You just can't tell him much.

	20-03-2003 07:08									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

So true.

	20-03-2003 08:05									#57
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by GePap Obviosuly not, since they had secured the whole corridor by sept 2 and did not stop there, now did they? I am sorry Ned, but that answer is just plain wrong: Germany invalidated its commitment to Versailles in 1935; Had war begun then, maybe your argument makes sense, but after the Germans took the whole of Czechoslovakia in March of 39 it was clear they had intentiona far beyond regaining what they had lost, since Czechslovakia had never been German territory. So no, even if one admits that Germany should not have been held to its versailles agreemnt, once it invaded all of Poland, bombed Warsaw and so forth it had commited a brand new act of aggresion for 2which a new war was called for and fully justified.

Let's be honest. The Polish military was defending Poland and had to be defeated if Germany were to accept the Corridor and Danzig in any peace settlement. However, Britain's declaration of war changed everything, didn't it? Germany now had to secure their rear while they turned to face the French and English.