|
crepeface posted:weren't they running out of oil and steel the common line around this point is that Japan was going to run out of scrap steel for their refineries and oil in a matter of months since both were imported almost entirely from the US. from here, the opinion is advanced that japan was going to lose the fleet and empire anyway if they waited.
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 11:55 |
|
|
# ? May 23, 2024 11:24 |
|
the us oil embargo basically forced japan to either acquire other sources of oil or to stop the war in china. and since the army was a state within the state and run by a buncha ultranationalist fanatics stopping the war in china was kinda off the table. that left seizing the dutch east indies as the remaining acceptable alternative since the navy was also a state within the state and they wanted to do that all along, and it's not like they would stop pushing for even more once they got a whiff of success because the navy was also run by a buncha ultranationalist fanatics. so all in all japan would have crossed a line that would drag the us into the war eventually not to deflect any blame from the rest of the japanese government though, they absolutely created this situation for themselves
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 12:08 |
|
gradenko_2000 posted:on that note, was there some kind of significant economic transformation when the US joined the Entente in WWI? yes, I have a copy of The Economics of WW1 around here somewhere. It also hosed up the economies of south america, there’s a book about that on libgen.
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 13:00 |
|
Japan would have kept Korea and Taiwan if they agreed to leave China and slowly leave Manchuria. The Manchuria part is negotiable because Russia/Soviet wanted the Lushun port and the Japanese empire could have used it to make a deal with Soviet. With an agreement between Japan and Soviet, they probably could establish a permanent separated country in Manchuria despite China's protest.
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 13:18 |
|
Weka posted:I think Iraq was a draw. America is still there but barely I believe. The current Prime Minister is pro-Iranian and the US is slowly being pushed out, it looks like a defeat in progress.
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 13:37 |
|
Ardennes posted:The current Prime Minister is pro-Iranian and the US is slowly being pushed out, it looks like a defeat in progress. But then ISIS suddenly showed up, weakening and destabilizing Iraq and Syria, tying down Iran with a massive military commitment, and providing a reason for the US to operate in both countries, occupying Syrian territory. Weird.
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 13:39 |
|
Arguably Gulf War Iraq was a coalition win. But over a decade later, the US and three other countries decided to go back into Iraq in 2003 in order to find a war to lose in the strategic sense.
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 13:40 |
|
pretty hard to fund the ME anymore after the CIA's ~6.2 billion usd got scammed away by the hotdog man
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 13:41 |
|
mlmp08 posted:Arguably Gulf War Iraq was a coalition win. But over a decade later, the US and three other countries decided to go back into Iraq in 2003 in order to find a war to lose in the strategic sense. Syria was in the coalition. Arguably because that was a nadir of Pan-Arabism and there had been long tensions over who the real Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party was, probably some bad blood after Iran-Iraq but nonetheless, Syria helped fight for Kuwait. It feels like it's been completely memory holed or is almost considered a conspiracy theory, but the neocons had planned to invade seven countries ofter the New Pearl Harbour, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran. Now keep in mind that in 1991, Syrian was occupying Lebanon and at war with Iraq. The United States created its own enemies in the Middle East.
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 13:44 |
|
Frosted Flake posted:But then ISIS suddenly showed up, weakening and destabilizing Iraq and Syria, tying down Iran with a massive military commitment, and providing a reason for the US to operate in both countries, occupying Syrian territory. I am speaking more recently, but I actually think a lot of former army at this point is either in the popular mobilization forces or retired at this point. I don’t know if the US would be able to pull the same trick twice, it seems like all 3 countries would be ready for it.
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 13:46 |
|
Ardennes posted:I am speaking more recently. Well, I don't know how the gently caress they get the Americans to leave. The Syrians have the same problem. The Taliban are apparently musing allowing a small US presence to fight ISIS-K, the Definitely-Not-Funded-By-America Group that suddenly popped up to destabilize them once they had won. In all these cases, asking Americans to leave has proven to be much more difficult than asking (or not asking) for them to arrive in the first place.
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 13:48 |
|
Frosted Flake posted:Well, I don't know how the gently caress they get the Americans to leave. The Syrians have the same problem. The Taliban are apparently musing allowing a small US presence to fight ISIS-K, the Definitely-Not-Funded-By-America Group that suddenly popped up to destabilize them once they had won. In all these cases, asking Americans to leave has proven to be much more difficult than asking (or not asking) for them to arrive in the first place. The answer is probably the US can be everywhere at once and it gets pressured in multiple directions, something has got to give. The US is going to have to have a presence in the “Indo-Pacific” as well eventually.
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 13:50 |
|
osama bin laden really nailed it
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 13:51 |
|
Frosted Flake posted:Syria was in the coalition. Yeah. The coalition was pretty huge in 1991. People tend to memory hole just how small and select the coalition of four whole countries was who invaded Iraq in 2003. The former was a massive multinational coalition kicking an invader out of a country. The latter just the US neocons and a few friends being really awful.
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 13:53 |
|
mlmp08 posted:Yeah. The coalition was pretty huge in 1991. People tend to memory hole just how small and select the coalition of four whole countries was who invaded Iraq in 2003. The former was a massive multinational coalition kicking an invader out of a country. The latter just the US neocons and a few friends being really awful. uh lol
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 13:55 |
|
Of course, if America had goaded Saddam into invading Kuwait just to create such a coalition after the fall of the USSR, establish direct US military intervention in the region instead of using Israel as a proxy, and in line with 1988-91 neocon policy papers that said Iraq becoming a regional power was an unacceptable threat to American hegemony in a unipolar world...
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 13:56 |
|
lol
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 13:56 |
|
Cuttlefush posted:uh lol pro-Iraq war Americans like to imagine it was some big happy coalition, when it was just a few countries, 3 of which are just the US, UK, US. Then you get people who seem to believe that it was some massive NATO invasion of like 30 countries or was supported directly by Arab neighbors (rather than simply tolerating the US basing its forces inside those countries). It's stupider when someone looks back and realizes, it really was just the US, UK, Australia, and... Poland decided to invade Iraq in 2003.
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 13:58 |
|
that's not what im lolling about though
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 14:00 |
|
You’re not getting such a coalition in 1991 if Iraq hadn’t invaded and tried to annex its neighbor. That really helps solidify coalition-building from Iraq’s Arab nation neighbors.
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 14:02 |
|
america's signalling (both the stuff that is kind of iffy about exact dialogue and the stuff that was publicly stated by the state department) made iraq think they got a nod. Frosted Flake posted:Of course, if America had goaded Saddam into invading Kuwait just to create such a coalition after the fall of the USSR, establish direct US military intervention in the region instead of using Israel as a proxy, and in line with 1988-91 neocon policy papers that said Iraq becoming a regional power was an unacceptable threat to American hegemony in a unipolar world... which makes "The latter just the US neocons and a few friends being really awful." funny
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 14:05 |
|
If Iraq’s leadership earnestly believed thought they got a subtle signal that they could take Kuwait without consequence, they sure missed the very overt international signal that a coalition of dozens of countries, including their neighbors, was forming up explicitly to kick them back out of that country.
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 14:12 |
|
Frosted Flake posted:But then ISIS suddenly showed up, weakening and destabilizing Iraq and Syria, tying down Iran with a massive military commitment, and providing a reason for the US to operate in both countries, occupying Syrian territory. Also ISIS only operates in the bits where the oil wells are. Fortunately the US will guard and look after the wells. They might also take the oil but that's just business, can't expect all that regional security to be free after all.
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 14:14 |
|
one happened before the other
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 14:14 |
|
Cuttlefush posted:one happened before the other Iraq’s leadership watched a massive coalition form up and deploy for half a year without backing down. Maybe they really thought it was all an elaborate bluff or that Iraq could win, but if they still thought they had some kind of approval to seize Kuwait after the UNSC vote results and coalition-building, months before combat kicked off, they were very, very bad at reading the room.
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 14:25 |
|
lmao of course mlp would start white knighting the coalition to restore the gulf monarchy slave state
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 14:26 |
|
the coalition formed way after the annexation. there wasn't any option to not be invaded after going in for iraq. you really should know how this goes since you've seen several iterations. probably been in one or two.
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 14:29 |
|
Cerebral Bore posted:the us oil embargo basically forced japan to either acquire other sources of oil or to stop the war in china. and since the army was a state within the state and run by a buncha ultranationalist fanatics stopping the war in china was kinda off the table. that left seizing the dutch east indies as the remaining acceptable alternative since the navy was also a state within the state and they wanted to do that all along, and it's not like they would stop pushing for even more once they got a whiff of success because the navy was also run by a buncha ultranationalist fanatics. so all in all japan would have crossed a line that would drag the us into the war eventually Japan taking the dutch east indies doesn't give FDR such a free hand as bombing the fleet at harbour. Sure war would have happened but America has lost a bunch of wars in Asia when the stakes stayed in Asia. Ardennes posted:The answer is probably the US can be everywhere at once and it gets pressured in multiple directions, something has got to give. The US is going to have to have a presence in the “Indo-Pacific” as well eventually. That's why JSOC is so big, proxy forces are back in fashion. God willing you are right that it ends in Iraqi victory and I think you will be, but it's not there yet. mlmp08 posted:Arguably Gulf War Iraq was a coalition win. But over a decade later, the US and three other countries decided to go back into Iraq in 2003 in order to find a war to lose in the strategic sense. It was phase two of an attempt to conquer Iraq. It never really ended.
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 14:29 |
|
would leaving Kuwait have been enough for the Coalition to not bomb Iraq? like, I'm not even talking about practical reality here: did the Coalition ask Iraq to leave Kuwait in exchange for not getting attacked?
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 14:30 |
|
It’s not white knighting Kuwait’s government and policies to point out that if Iraq thought their neighbors and the UN and Russia was fine with invading Kuwait, Iraq was very mistaken and blind. This isn’t about moral judgements of each countries governmental makeup. It’s that if Iraq was still watching the UNSCR pass with US and Russian support and without meaningful opposition while building a massive coalition, but Iraq was still thinking that actually no one was going to oppose them, they were not good at reading the situation at all.
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 14:30 |
|
gradenko_2000 posted:like, I'm not even talking about practical reality here: did the Coalition ask Iraq to leave Kuwait in exchange for not getting attacked? The UNSCR didn't only authorize attack. The UNSCR gave Iraq 6 weeks to leave Kuwait of their own choice (this was the UNSCR endorsed by Russia). Iraq refused to leave. Combat kicked off a few days after the deadline elapsed. E: correction, it gave Iraq 7 weeks to leave.
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 14:33 |
|
gee i wonder if iraq tried to negotiate at all or if there was a back and forth with increasing offers to leave and concessions by iraq that were rejected by the us. no probably nothing like that. saddam just decided he wanted to get rolled because he's a fool. that's probably correct.
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 14:36 |
|
it's definitely different from the other time america invaded iraq after bullshitting about negotiations
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 14:39 |
|
DancingShade posted:Also ISIS only operates in the bits where the oil wells are. Fortunately the US will guard and look after the wells. They might also take the oil but that's just business, can't expect all that regional security to be free after all. lol, years back this is what finally got me to realize that the 'Rojava revolution' was a US proxy and that's why the US government weren't bothering to arrest or otherwise stop all the American adventure tourists going over there to play at war long live the non-specific anti-authoritarian revolution, it is imperative that we turn over all the oil to the United States as Bookchin said
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 14:40 |
|
Cuttlefush posted:saddam just decided he wanted to get rolled because he's a fool. that's probably correct. I guess he was what he did. The UNSCR was pretty clear that he had 7 weeks to leave. He chose to stay and fight, and it went poorly for Iraq in ‘91. By the time of the 30+ coalition country force force buildup, probably no real saving his army even if they announced they would give Kuwait back, but that was months after the UNSCR was passed and weeks after the UNSCR deadline.
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 14:42 |
|
Mister Bates posted:lol, years back this is what finally got me to realize that the 'Rojava revolution' was a US proxy and that's why the US government weren't bothering to arrest or otherwise stop all the American adventure tourists going over there to play at war im not as cynical about rojava as you are, i think its more that america can use the threat of türkiye to keep them in line
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 14:44 |
|
*carefully puts mlmp's brain jar back on the shelf*
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 14:46 |
|
Cuttlefush posted:it's definitely different from the other time america invaded iraq after bullshitting about negotiations National Interest, March 1, 1994: Victory Came Too Easily; Review of Rick Atkinson, Crusade: The Untold Story of the Gulf War by Paul Wolfowitz The architect of American Foreign Policy posted:Rick Atkinson has written an excellent account of the victory of the U.S.-led coalition against Iraq in the Persian Gulf War, a work impressive for both the breadth of its research and for the drama of its narrative. That said, perhaps the most serious problem with the book is its somewhat misleading title.
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 14:50 |
|
Don't forget Dunya used NATO east ward expansion to trade eastern Europe's support of the 2nd Iraqi war in the UN. So in order to pull off his Iraqi war II, George W planted the seed for both the future Ukrainian war and the 2009 financial crisis!
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 14:51 |
|
|
# ? May 23, 2024 11:24 |
|
did the Iraqi government make any significant statements in the time between their invasion of Kuwait [1990-08-02] and the start of the Coalition air campaign [1991-01-17]? from some cursory googling it looks like the more bellicose of Saddam's statements were made after the Coalition had already started bombing him, which is to be expected, so I'm wondering if they ever said anything about whether how they did think they were entitled to invade Kuwait (i.e. Glaspie) and/or their reaction to this ultimatum from the UN
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 14:53 |