The US will lose WW3

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > The US will lose WW3

Doktor Avalanche: Dec 30, 2008

I'm loving this gulf war crack ping, I knew the US gave mixed signals to Iraq but now it looks like they orchestrated the whole thing top to bottom

# ? Aug 1, 2023 02:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 11:45

Complications: Jun 19, 2014

What strikes me is not only the US went in on this colossal screw job but so did forty other countries, a lot of them with their own surveillance satellites that would've told them the same things the Russians and the CIA knew. Look at who was involved. This was a giant gently caress off colonial powers reunion tour with a couple bootlickers wrecking a stable, resource heavy country's military and most of its modern civilian infrastructure as a celebration that imperial capitalism was triumphant. They picked a target and exampled somebody so everyone else would fall in line. Then Iraq didn't fully collapse on cue and 2004 happened to drive the point home.

I knew the Iraq War of 1990 was the USA rug pulling Saddam but criminy this was some practiced evil.

# ? Aug 1, 2023 03:18

Frosted Flake: Sep 13, 2011; Semper Shitpost Ubique

How the gently caress did they talk Japan into paying for 16% of the war?!

# ? Aug 1, 2023 03:22

Slavvy: Dec 11, 2012

Notice me senpai

# ? Aug 1, 2023 03:25

Cuttlefush: Jan 15, 2014; gotta have my purp

what's japan gonna do. say no?

# ? Aug 1, 2023 03:28

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

Frosted Flake posted:

How the gently caress did they talk Japan into paying for 16% of the war?!

you click the increase vassal tribute button a few times and bob's your uncle

# ? Aug 1, 2023 03:33

Best Friends: Nov 4, 2011

Japan in 91 was widely perceived as getting a free ride to vast riches by the benevolence of the Liberal World Order.

# ? Aug 1, 2023 03:36

stephenthinkpad: Jan 2, 2020

Japan in 1991 probably hadn't realized they have entered the "lost decades" yet.

# ? Aug 1, 2023 03:39

Cuttlefush: Jan 15, 2014; gotta have my purp

looking through an NRC report from then to see if there was anything special about it. it sounds like the us was constantly Doubting Japan's Commitment and putting up that much cash is what the factions that didn't want to be left out or disappoint senpai too much.

Japan's Response to the Persian Gulf Crisis:
Implications for U.S.-Japan Relations
May 23, 1991
Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress
by Larry A. Niksch & Robert G. Sutter

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs8/m1/1/high_res_d/91-444f_1991May23.txt

quote:

A second important limiting influence seems to be Japan's
relations with the United States. Japanese officials acknowledge
that because Japan's security policy is heavily based on the
U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, Japanese officials are prone to wait
until they receive clear signals from the U.S. Government before
they formulate responses to international crises. (.\20) Some
Japanese officials seem to judge that crises like the Persian
Gulf War are important only in the context of Japan's relations
with the United States. This was clearly the case in the first
few weeks after the Iraqi invasion. Japan took no action on
either financial support of multinational troop deployments or
even refugee aid until the Bush Administration requested this
assistance and the U.S. Congress began to complain of inaction.
In defending Japanese government proposals on the Gulf before the
Diet and in public fora, government officials and political
leaders constantly justified the proposals as necessary to
reinforce cooperation with the United States and prevent damage
to relations with Washington.

so yeah, they were told that they'd be paying.

# ? Aug 1, 2023 03:39

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

Doktor Avalanche posted:

I'm loving this gulf war crack ping, I knew the US gave mixed signals to Iraq but now it looks like they orchestrated the whole thing top to bottom

It�s crazy how everyone just went along with this orchestrated conspiracy, including Iraq, Russia, China, and even Kuwait going along with pretending to be invaded by Iraq. The US apparently used to be so good at perfectly orchestrating all world events, but I guess they�ve lost their edge.

# ? Aug 1, 2023 03:55

Doktor Avalanche: Dec 30, 2008

Frosted Flake posted:

How the gently caress did they talk Japan into paying for 16% of the war?!

if they "talked" them into the plaza accords then they can do anything to them

# ? Aug 1, 2023 03:55

Doktor Avalanche: Dec 30, 2008

mlmp08 posted:

It�s crazy how everyone just went along with this orchestrated conspiracy, including Iraq, Russia, China, and even Kuwait going along with pretending to be invaded by Iraq. The US apparently used to be so good at perfectly orchestrating all world events, but I guess they�ve lost their edge.

russia was a shell of its former self in 1991, and china would probably go along with almost whatever the americans do, this isn't the slam dunk you think it is

# ? Aug 1, 2023 03:57

Cuttlefush: Jan 15, 2014; gotta have my purp

mlmp08 posted:

It�s crazy how everyone just went along with this orchestrated conspiracy, including Iraq, Russia, China, and even Kuwait going along with pretending to be invaded by Iraq. The US apparently used to be so good at perfectly orchestrating all world events, but I guess they�ve lost their edge.

no the same parts of the map still go along with the us.

# ? Aug 1, 2023 04:00

stephenthinkpad: Jan 2, 2020

So what was the reason Germany paid 10% and other EU countries paid buckiss? Surely other European countries used persian gulf oil too. I know the French be like gently caress you we have nuclear.

# ? Aug 1, 2023 04:01

Cuttlefush: Jan 15, 2014; gotta have my purp

stephenthinkpad posted:

So what was the reason Germany paid 10% and other EU countries paid buckiss? Surely other European countries used persian gulf oil too. I know the French be like gently caress you we have nuclear.

germany sent more $ in lieu of and people or stuff. other countries sent people or stuff. not sure if that covers it or if there were additional reasons but like japan they didn't really send people.

# ? Aug 1, 2023 04:04

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

Cuttlefush posted:

no the same parts of the map still go along with the us.

This is pretty strongly worded, and Russia voted for it. So Russia's participation in this is a pretty big deal, given their veto power on the UNSCR. They probably wouldn't nowadays.

quote:

Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwill, to do so; authorizes Member States cooperating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 Jan. 1991 fully implements the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the resolution; requests the States concerned to keep the Security Council regularly informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the resolution; decides to remain seized of the matter.

# ? Aug 1, 2023 04:12

crepeface: Nov 5, 2004; r*p*f*c*

lol at mlmp using the agency of free sovereign nations argument again

# ? Aug 1, 2023 04:14

Cuttlefush: Jan 15, 2014; gotta have my purp

boris yeltsin was a bad man

# ? Aug 1, 2023 04:19

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

Russia didn't oppose NATO expansion into the Balkans and the Baltics, that must mean they were fine with it

# ? Aug 1, 2023 04:20

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

gradenko_2000 posted:

Russia didn't oppose NATO expansion into the Balkans and the Baltics, that must mean they were fine with it

The Soviet Union (and then Russia) didn't have a veto power on NATO membership. The Soviet Union (and then Russia) do have a permanent veto power at the UNSC. Or hell, even abstain from voting. The Soviet Union voted in the affirmative. Maybe they thought Iraq would back down and voted that way in hopes that Iraq would still avoid a military conflict.

In Gorbachevs words:

quote:

Q: You issued a joint Soviet-American statement condemning Iraq within two days of the invasion. What led you to do that?

Gorbachev: The world had become different and the two superpowers were in the situation where we had to show whether we were able to cooperate in this new situation, especially on such a critical issue like aggression. A country was occupied. If we were not able to cope with that situation, everything else would have been made null and void.

Q: How difficult was that decision to throw your lot in with the United States?

Gorbachev: We were quite firm about it. Similar steps were made by other countries. We called for an immediate end to the aggression and solving the problem politically. But, we did not declare that we were breaking all our relations with Iraq at once. On the contrary by this firm demand we gave them a clear-cut signal that we would be together with the UN and what they did was unacceptable. But on the other hand, we were also acting as friends of Iraq. There was no contradiction in it. We were throwing a life ring to Iraq. If they reversed the situation, they could have preserved the relations. We didn't say we were breaking everything at once.

Q: Were you worried that the Americans would maybe use going into Saudi Arabia as an excuse for a permanent military presence in the Gulf?

Gorbachev: No. It was very easy for us to understand the American administration. In America you can only win your ratings by decisive actions. If you start all sorts of discussions, then you are not President.

Q: Just before the Helsinki meeting, I believe Saddam wrote to you a private letter--do you remember that?

Gorbachev: I can't recall all the details now of this process because we were in constant contact with Iraq.

But I met with Aziz when he came to us and we had a very long conversation. I pointed out Iraq was acting as if in a vacuum, in unreality. There already was a US-Soviet declaration. There was the Security Council position, the opinion of the world community and the public. I asked: `Can you imagine what that might lead to?' 'Yes' he said. `This might lead not only to the endangering of the region but to a world conflict. But we are not afraid--neither of the world conflict nor of the Americans. He therefore meant that when the Soviet Union joined in collective action within the framework of the Security Council, the Soviet Union was afraid. It was all nonsense.

From the very beginning we realized how sensitive this region was. Oil was there. The protracted Middle East crisis was waiting for a solution. It was a very conflict-prone region. I told Aziz: `You don't realize what you are doing ...it might turn into tragedy for the Iraqi state and people. I do not think this is what the Iraqi people want its government to do.'

That is not the exact quote, but is the gist of it.

This first visit showed that that was a very dangerous leadership, and we had to act decisively and coordinate our actions, so that not to give them any opening for a way out. They were looking for such an opening, to split up the allies. This talk took place just three days before the Helsinki meeting.

I told him, "I remember you always ask for Allah's advice, because this is what you have started our meeting with. Let me use the opportunity of this meeting to give a piece of advice to you - reconsider your position, because it is dangerous. Pass this message from the Soviet leadership and from me in person to Saddam Hussein--the path you have chosen means trouble for Iraq, the world community would never agree to that, it would not let a conflict with such dangerous consequences to start as a result of your adventure." That was our tough, but absolutely just, position. It was in everybody's interest, and most of all to the interest of Iraq.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/gorbachev/1.html

mlmp08 has issued a correction as of 04:34 on Aug 1, 2023

# ? Aug 1, 2023 04:27

Cuttlefush: Jan 15, 2014; gotta have my purp

what point are you making

# ? Aug 1, 2023 04:28

bedpan: Apr 23, 2008

Cuttlefush posted:

what point are you making

Gorbachev got owned and conned by the west but he at least got a pizza hut commercial. totally owned the soviet people

# ? Aug 1, 2023 04:30

Stairmaster: Jun 8, 2012

gorbachev was a loving mark

# ? Aug 1, 2023 04:31

Cuttlefush: Jan 15, 2014; gotta have my purp

he was really bad at his job. boris was just a rat. poor gorbachev believed

# ? Aug 1, 2023 04:31

stephenthinkpad: Jan 2, 2020

Gulf war happened right around the time Soviet was breaking up? Saddam picked the wrong time to piss off the world.

Also one year after Tiananmen, China was just still getting MFN reviewed by the US congress annually and didn't want to be the odd man out.

# ? Aug 1, 2023 04:34

Danann: Aug 4, 2013

https://twitter.com/USArmy/status/1672726549181628416

my "the m10 booker is a combat vehicle and not a tank" t-shirt already has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my shirt

# ? Aug 1, 2023 04:36

Doktor Avalanche: Dec 30, 2008

when the major piece of evidence for your argument is gorbachev's vote in the UN being pro-US as if he wasn't a lickspittle you have to stop and rethink what the gently caress you're talking about

# ? Aug 1, 2023 04:38

DancingShade: Jul 26, 2007; by Fluffdaddy

Danann posted:

https://twitter.com/USArmy/status/1672726549181628416

my "the m10 booker is a combat vehicle and not a tank" t-shirt already has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my shirt

Would it still be called an armoured combat vehicle if we replaced the non structural steel panels with fibreglass?

I think it would.

# ? Aug 1, 2023 05:15

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

i like how mlp is pretending that the us doesn't have a long history of twisting un resolutions into meaning whatever they want them to, even after we had documentation posted itt about the russians complaining that the us was exceeding the un mandate in this very case

# ? Aug 1, 2023 05:50

Cuttlefush: Jan 15, 2014; gotta have my purp

i really think there's just a short circuit or something. i dunno. it's a good foil because i wouldn't have gone back into that stuff otherwise probably.

# ? Aug 1, 2023 05:54

Delta-Wye: Sep 29, 2005

Danann posted:

https://twitter.com/USArmy/status/1672726549181628416

my "the m10 booker is a combat vehicle and not a tank" t-shirt already has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my shirt

40 tons of not a tank lmao

# ? Aug 1, 2023 05:59

Cuttlefush: Jan 15, 2014; gotta have my purp

it actually looks like a decent design to the assault gun use case tanks/ifvs end up in outside of actual armored pushes. im not sure if that 105 still has pretty lovely HE or what but trying to armor something enough to defeat atgms is not happening so just enough armor for .50 and maybe some types of autocannon rounds and most importantly shrapnel

assault guns good. that might be grifted to poo poo of course but it's not a stupid niche to make something for.

# ? Aug 1, 2023 06:05

KomradeX: Oct 29, 2011

You know an ironic brightside of the first Gulf War is it got the UN to stop treating the Iranians like the aggressor in the war in which they were invaded by Iraq. Because remember in the lead up and during the Gulf War theres still a ton of diplomatic stuff to finally close out the Iran-Iraq war going on in the background

# ? Aug 1, 2023 06:10

The Oldest Man: Jul 28, 2003

Delta-Wye posted:

40 tons of not a tank lmao

The late model 105 Shermans weighed just slightly less; it's not really a ridiculous notion.

# ? Aug 1, 2023 06:11

KomradeX: Oct 29, 2011

The Oldest Man posted:

The late model 105 Shermans weighed just slightly less; it's not really a ridiculous notion.

Aren't all the Soviet/ Russian tanks in the 40-50 ton range

# ? Aug 1, 2023 06:14

Delta-Wye: Sep 29, 2005

KomradeX posted:

Aren't all the Soviet/ Russian tanks in the 40-50 ton range

i think the problem is im used to combloc-scale tanks. compared to a supersized abrams, it's not that pudgy at all

# ? Aug 1, 2023 06:18

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

one of my colleagues in the brain-trust pointed me in the direction of "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed The Art of War", by Robert Coram

this about John Boyd, who wrote "the first manual on jet aerial combat", was a lead designer for the F-15 and F-16, and was a strong voice in the post-Vietnam military reforms, in particular the concept of the "Observation, Orientation, Decision, Action" loop

to be clear, that strategy proposed by Spinney was, in fact, a broad description of what played out during Desert Storm

that quote from Cheney, about Schwarzkopf's original plan going "hey diddle-diddle, right up the middle" is repeated in Tom Clancy's non-fiction book about Desert Storm, "Every Man a Tiger"

I bring this all up because there's been a lot of talk about how the West has strongly adopted this theory of maneuver warfare as the crux of its warmaking, all the way to driving Ukraine to try and practice the same (with seemingly less-than-stellar results), and these passages reflect how that transformation was driven by the Fighter Mafia having influenced Dick Cheney to put it into practice during Desert Storm.

# ? Aug 1, 2023 06:19

KomradeX: Oct 29, 2011

Delta-Wye posted:

i think the problem is im used to combloc-scale tanks. compared to a supersized abrams, it's not that pudgy at all

Week yeah 40 tons is light compared to the Abrams

# ? Aug 1, 2023 06:20

Slavvy: Dec 11, 2012

Cuttlefush posted:

it actually looks like a decent design to the assault gun use case tanks/ifvs end up in outside of actual armored pushes. im not sure if that 105 still has pretty lovely HE or what but trying to armor something enough to defeat atgms is not happening so just enough armor for .50 and maybe some types of autocannon rounds and most importantly shrapnel

assault guns good. that might be grifted to poo poo of course but it's not a stupid niche to make something for.

You absolutely can protect against atgm's effectively with era, it's just something that's unamerican

We also learned decades ago that for infantry fire support a large auto cannon is better than a low velocity big bore cannon. It is basically an ifv that can't carry infantry, or alternatively, it's a tank substitute because the Abrams is insanely expensive and logistically demanding to use for anything so you can't just attach them to infantry companies like a stug.

Really they just need a fucken stug.

# ? Aug 1, 2023 06:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 11:45

Cuttlefush: Jan 15, 2014; gotta have my purp

Slavvy posted:

You absolutely can protect against atgm's effectively with era, it's just something that's unamerican

We also learned decades ago that for infantry fire support a large auto cannon is better than a low velocity big bore cannon. It is basically an ifv that can't carry infantry, or alternatively, it's a tank substitute because the Abrams is insanely expensive and logistically demanding to use for anything so you can't just attach them to infantry companies like a stug.

Really they just need a fucken stug.

right (sort of - most are dual charge but other active stuff can) i was talking about the armor armor.

Slavvy posted:

Really they just need a fucken stug.

- every fascist ever

lol gradenko doing double duty here and epstein

# ? Aug 1, 2023 06:23

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > The US will lose WW3

«‹›603 »