Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-02-2013, 08:36 PM
 
2,096 posts, read 4,779,467 times
Reputation: 1272

Advertisements

Considering we bombed Iraq throughout the 90s and early 00s does it really make sense to speak of two different wars?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-02-2013, 08:58 PM
 
Location: North of Canada, but not the Arctic
21,156 posts, read 19,742,228 times
Reputation: 25695
I believe it was an extension, but I see no reason not to speak of them as two different wars.

As an analogy, WWII was an extension of WWI, but distinct enough to merit another title.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2013, 03:34 AM
 
2,096 posts, read 4,779,467 times
Reputation: 1272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit View Post
I believe it was an extension, but I see no reason not to speak of them as two different wars.

As an analogy, WWII was an extension of WWI, but distinct enough to merit another title.
True, but was there continuous conflict between the Allies and Axis in the years 1920-1936?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2013, 09:10 AM
 
14,994 posts, read 23,909,120 times
Reputation: 26534
It was clearly an extension, and I think even more then WW1 vs. WW2 connections, as the 1st gulf war never really ended, it was simply a cease fire, and the 2nd gulf war were violations of the cease fire agreements from the 1st gulf war (please no WMD/Bush discussion in this thread, we don't want the P&C crowd here with there hysterics).

However, it was also correct that their should be seperation of labels because it would be confusing otherwise. So we have "the first gulf war" and "the second gulf war"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2013, 09:42 PM
 
14,029 posts, read 15,041,009 times
Reputation: 10476
Quote:
Originally Posted by belmont22 View Post
True, but was there continuous conflict between the Allies and Axis in the years 1920-1936?
The Russian Civil war put Russias former Allies up and arms to protect it's former Government. (1922) Poland so 1922-1935 was an interlude a mere 13 years seperating 1914-1922 and 1935-1945 (18 years) and France Occupied western Germany 1918-1936.
Italys invaded Ethiopia in 1935
Then the Spanish Civil war pit the Allies vs Axis
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2013, 12:05 PM
 
14,994 posts, read 23,909,120 times
Reputation: 26534
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4 View Post
The Russian Civil war put Russias former Allies up and arms to protect it's former Government. (1922) Poland so 1922-1935 was an interlude a mere 13 years seperating 1914-1922 and 1935-1945 (18 years) and France Occupied western Germany 1918-1936.
Italys invaded Ethiopia in 1935
Then the Spanish Civil war pit the Allies vs Axis
Although there is a connecting thread to these all, these are all distinctly seperate conflicts. Otherwise we can label WW2 as an extension of WW1, which in turn is an extension of the Franco-Prussian war which in turn would be an extension of the Napoleonic Wars, which in turn would be an extension of the.... You see what I mean.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2013, 02:51 PM
 
Location: Emmaus, PA
3,859 posts, read 3,048,833 times
Reputation: 2808
When Bush Jr. became President, he was dissatisfied with the fact that his father stopped before getting rid of Saddam Hussein. As President, he wasn't going to make the same mistake. His "intelligence" (I'll let you believe it's accuracy) said that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD's). He used this as the excuse to invade Iraq a second time, this time finishing the job.
Was this an extension of the first war - YES and NO.
Bush Sr had an excuse - the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.
Bush Jr's excuse was flimsy, at best.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2013, 02:51 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,371,777 times
Reputation: 7990
The motives for Desert Storm and the 2003 invasion were very different. In Desert Storm the motive was just to get Saddam out of Kuwait. In 2003 it was a lot more complicated, but it was in essence about the War on Terror. People can argue all day about whether it was wrong, right, dumb, smart etc., but that was the impetus.

Ironically in both cases Dick Cheney was a major force behind the decision. In 1991 some had wanted to go to Baghdad, but Cheney (then Sec Def) said no. He thought that the Iraqis themselves would take out Saddam, and that was a preferable way to handle the problem. By 2003, Cheney decided that that had been a mistake.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2013, 03:07 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,371,777 times
Reputation: 7990
Quote:
Originally Posted by John F S View Post
When Bush Jr. became President, he was dissatisfied with the fact that his father stopped before getting rid of Saddam Hussein. As President, he wasn't going to make the same mistake. His "intelligence" (I'll let you believe it's accuracy) said that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD's). He used this as the excuse to invade Iraq a second time, this time finishing the job.
Was this an extension of the first war - YES and NO.
Bush Sr had an excuse - the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.
Bush Jr's excuse was flimsy, at best.
This is not so. On Sept 15, 2001, W Bush convened a 2 day meeting at Camp David of all top national security players in the admin--Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. Towards the end of the meeting W Bush spoke to JCS chairman Hugh Shelton. Bush asked Shelton about Saddam and Iraq. Shelton told him that invading Iraq

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra II
would upset the Middle East and hamper the coalition-building effort. Nor, he added, was there any reason to think that Iraq was linked to the September 11 attacks.

"That's what I think," Bush told Shelton. "We will get this guy but at a time and place of our choosing," Bush added, referring to Saddam.
(from Cobra II, by Gen B. Trainor and NYT reporter Michael Gordon, p. 19)

The main early proponent of invading Iraq was actually Rumsfeld, not W Bush.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2013, 07:37 PM
 
3,804 posts, read 6,176,140 times
Reputation: 3339
And the main reason for not going after Saddam was two fold. One the Arab governments and Arab street were rather high on the US at the time as it had liberated Kuwait, let the Kuwaiti military salvage its honor by being the first into Kuwait City, and kept the Isrealis from retaliating after Saddam's scud attacks. There was a fear that a large scale invasion and occupation of Iraq would squander that good will and break the coalition. Secondly while there was the feeling that with air cover the Iraqis would Saddam out, there was also the realization was that Saddam wasn't a guy who would quietly accept going into a luxurious exile/retirement in Saudi Arabia. He would stand and fight if his removal was a part of any peace offer which throws us back into reason number one why he wasn't taken out at the time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top