20 ms·

Didn't the US win the First Gulf War? What else would you call that?

jessaustin 4y ago
If you win the war you get to go home. USA presence in the Arabian peninsula was cited by ObL as the reason for 9/11. Kuwait does export useful hydrocarbons, but much less than the Kingdom which could have increased production to make up for a temporary pause of Kuwait exports. The pause would have been temporary because Iraq would have restarted the export of Kuwaiti hydrocarbons as soon as possible. If anything, fighting a war disrupted the market more than not fighting it would have. A war that was fought for no reason, that didn't end before causing the most disastrous attack on USA soil since 1814, I would call "dumb".
- 123pie123 4y ago
  >If you win the war you get to go home so America lost WWII then by that logic, because they never went home?
- toss1 4y ago
  >>A war that was fought for no reason Serious ignorance, right there. The entire reason the war was fought was to enforce the principle that taking other sovereign territory by force is not acceptable. It is the same reason that we support Ukraine's fight for self-determination. You can always make excuses to allow bullies to win. As you pointed out, we didn't rescue Kuwait for their oil, which Iraq would have soon put back on the market. We — the entire alliance of free-world nations — did it, and are helping Ukraine, to support self-determination. Once the principle is established of allowing bullies and autocrats to take what they want, it will never end until they have everything.
  - jessaustin 4y ago
    The entire reason the war was fought was to enforce the principle that taking other sovereign territory by force is not acceptable. A better way for USA to support that principle would have been not to invade the sovereign nations of Cuba, Philippines, Hawai'i, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Panama, North Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Grenada, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Serbia, etc. Those are just a selection of the invasions our leaders admit. There have been far more unacknowledged actions in various parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, as well as violent actions that didn't include uniformed USA troops like when we paid Saddam Hussein to have a horrible war with Iran. Also there have been violent actions for which some local support could have been argued, such as when Suharto and his CIA handlers killed millions of people in Indonesia. Also we genocided American Indians for centuries. As soon as there weren't any more of them to kill, the exact same USA army officers were doing the exact same racist violence in Philippines. USA's existence is one continuous rejection of sovereignty. Crackpot realists ITT will gleefully point to my list of USA military victims and crow about "victories" in "war". Many of these were "police actions" in which there wasn't even an opposing force, just civilian victims. That's not war. Also, although every one of these actions served the someone's interests, not one accomplished a military objective that benefited the average American. That's not winning.
    - toss1 4y ago
      And, in how many of those places in which actions took place in the modern era (I totally agree with harshest of assessments of the treatment of the Native Americans) did the US, or any other democratic country, ANNEX the place and take it for their own territory? ZERO. Yes, autocratic rulers were deposed, and in some cases, 'democratically elected' rulers who were openly working with autocrats (USSR, CCP). Was any of it done perfectly? No. But fighting authoritarianism, and in some cases using our authoritarian to fight a worse one was done. I don't necessarily agree with it or disagree, in any particular circumstance, and we'd have to review each one case-by-case. But none of the incidents you cite as "whataboutism" changes the facts of the one being discussed. You even correctly pointed out that it was not for the oil. It was to uphold that principle. The same goes for Ukraine. And many of the others. Geopolitics is an ugly game. But without pushing back, hard, on authoritarians, and building a world order based on forbidding violent taking of territory as Russia is doing in Ukraine (completely consistent with its history since the 1400s). There was a lot done badly, but that is no reason to not attempt to do it better. And leaving it to the Putins, Xis, and Uns of the world will damn sure make it worse in a hurry.
      - krapp 4y ago
        >And, in how many of those places in which actions took place in the modern era (I totally agree with harshest of assessments of the treatment of the Native Americans) did the US, or any other democratic country, ANNEX the place and take it for their own territory? Hawaii.
        toss1 4y ago
        Hawaii, annexed in 1898... not exactly modern era. The point is that there was an age of empire, where it was accepted to take territory by force. It was pretty much that way since Alexander, Ghengis Kahn, through all of European history since the middle ages. The point is that the era of empire by violent imperialist conquest is over. While authoritarians want to continue acting like might-is-right empires, the democratic nations of the free world reject that concept The free world understanding that it is unsustainable. The lands of previous empires are largely returned, India, most of Africa, Carribbean, etc. Just because governments since the age of empire still retain continuity and the same name, that does not mean they are the same. England, France, Germany, US, have rejected authoritarianism and empire, while Russia, and China still want to continue it. Treating something that has the same name but is different is a falsehood. (A caveat here is that there are authoritarian movements in all of the democratic countries, in no small part aided and fomented by the authoritarian govts as part of hybrid warfare, so it is possible for them to flip back.)
pwinnski 4y ago
At the risk of becoming a guy who recommends a ten-hour podcast in answer to single questions, here's a ten-hour podcast to answer your single question: https://blowback.show/Season-1 https://blowback.show/Season-1 I would call it many things, but "a war we won" is not one of them, not at all.
- mercutio2 4y ago
  Isn’t that about the second gulf war? His explicitly stated point was about the first.
  - pwinnski 4y ago
    That is the subject of the first couple of episodes.

If you win the war you get to go home. USA presence in the Arabian peninsula was cited by ObL as the reason for 9/11. Kuwait does export useful hydrocarbons, but much less than the Kingdom which could have increased production to make up for a temporary pause of Kuwait exports. The pause would have been temporary because Iraq would have restarted the export of Kuwaiti hydrocarbons as soon as possible. If anything, fighting a war disrupted the market more than not fighting it would have. A war that was fought for no reason, that didn't end before causing the most disastrous attack on USA soil since 1814, I would call "dumb".

123pie123 4y ago
>If you win the war you get to go home so America lost WWII then by that logic, because they never went home?
toss1 4y ago
>>A war that was fought for no reason Serious ignorance, right there. The entire reason the war was fought was to enforce the principle that taking other sovereign territory by force is not acceptable. It is the same reason that we support Ukraine's fight for self-determination. You can always make excuses to allow bullies to win. As you pointed out, we didn't rescue Kuwait for their oil, which Iraq would have soon put back on the market. We — the entire alliance of free-world nations — did it, and are helping Ukraine, to support self-determination. Once the principle is established of allowing bullies and autocrats to take what they want, it will never end until they have everything.
- jessaustin 4y ago
  The entire reason the war was fought was to enforce the principle that taking other sovereign territory by force is not acceptable. A better way for USA to support that principle would have been not to invade the sovereign nations of Cuba, Philippines, Hawai'i, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Panama, North Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Grenada, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Serbia, etc. Those are just a selection of the invasions our leaders admit. There have been far more unacknowledged actions in various parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, as well as violent actions that didn't include uniformed USA troops like when we paid Saddam Hussein to have a horrible war with Iran. Also there have been violent actions for which some local support could have been argued, such as when Suharto and his CIA handlers killed millions of people in Indonesia. Also we genocided American Indians for centuries. As soon as there weren't any more of them to kill, the exact same USA army officers were doing the exact same racist violence in Philippines. USA's existence is one continuous rejection of sovereignty. Crackpot realists ITT will gleefully point to my list of USA military victims and crow about "victories" in "war". Many of these were "police actions" in which there wasn't even an opposing force, just civilian victims. That's not war. Also, although every one of these actions served the someone's interests, not one accomplished a military objective that benefited the average American. That's not winning.
  - toss1 4y ago
    And, in how many of those places in which actions took place in the modern era (I totally agree with harshest of assessments of the treatment of the Native Americans) did the US, or any other democratic country, ANNEX the place and take it for their own territory? ZERO. Yes, autocratic rulers were deposed, and in some cases, 'democratically elected' rulers who were openly working with autocrats (USSR, CCP). Was any of it done perfectly? No. But fighting authoritarianism, and in some cases using our authoritarian to fight a worse one was done. I don't necessarily agree with it or disagree, in any particular circumstance, and we'd have to review each one case-by-case. But none of the incidents you cite as "whataboutism" changes the facts of the one being discussed. You even correctly pointed out that it was not for the oil. It was to uphold that principle. The same goes for Ukraine. And many of the others. Geopolitics is an ugly game. But without pushing back, hard, on authoritarians, and building a world order based on forbidding violent taking of territory as Russia is doing in Ukraine (completely consistent with its history since the 1400s). There was a lot done badly, but that is no reason to not attempt to do it better. And leaving it to the Putins, Xis, and Uns of the world will damn sure make it worse in a hurry.
    - krapp 4y ago
      >And, in how many of those places in which actions took place in the modern era (I totally agree with harshest of assessments of the treatment of the Native Americans) did the US, or any other democratic country, ANNEX the place and take it for their own territory? Hawaii.
      - toss1 4y ago
        Hawaii, annexed in 1898... not exactly modern era. The point is that there was an age of empire, where it was accepted to take territory by force. It was pretty much that way since Alexander, Ghengis Kahn, through all of European history since the middle ages. The point is that the era of empire by violent imperialist conquest is over. While authoritarians want to continue acting like might-is-right empires, the democratic nations of the free world reject that concept The free world understanding that it is unsustainable. The lands of previous empires are largely returned, India, most of Africa, Carribbean, etc. Just because governments since the age of empire still retain continuity and the same name, that does not mean they are the same. England, France, Germany, US, have rejected authoritarianism and empire, while Russia, and China still want to continue it. Treating something that has the same name but is different is a falsehood. (A caveat here is that there are authoritarian movements in all of the democratic countries, in no small part aided and fomented by the authoritarian govts as part of hybrid warfare, so it is possible for them to flip back.)

pwinnski 4y ago

At the risk of becoming a guy who recommends a ten-hour podcast in answer to single questions, here's a ten-hour podcast to answer your single question: https://blowback.show/Season-1 https://blowback.show/Season-1 I would call it many things, but "a war we won" is not one of them, not at all.

mercutio2 4y ago
Isn’t that about the second gulf war? His explicitly stated point was about the first.
- pwinnski 4y ago
  That is the subject of the first couple of episodes.