How could Iraq win the Gulf War? What would be the main differences in history if they had won?
 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
|
How could Iraq win the Gulf War? What would be the main differences in history if they had won?
How could Iraq win the Gulf War? What would be the main differences in history if they had won?
|
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
|
They couldn't have won in literally any way. They got BTFO by a dozen NATO nations
>They got BTFO by a dozen NATO nations
Its like the US needed other allies to pancake Iraq.
They literally did kek
that was coalition building by Bush Senior, they wanted to use this as the first example of the New World Order going to war. It was a pure US affair, with bits handed off to other nations per their capabilities, but the goal was to have all the nations assist for political reasons
>It was a pure US affair
>with bits handed off to other nations per their capabilities
it's like you fail at reading.
The word "affair" in your post is vague.
By "pure US affair", I mean that the US is organizing the event to further its own agenda. So the US is solely responsible for deciding to go to war, and is using the other nations for propaganda - so they can say "the world will act against Iraq".
The US was sensitive about this because the Soviet Union had just broken up, leaving the US as the solitary "hyperpower". The Older Bush, HW, was actually a statesman and understood that it was best to not act alone, and that bringing other nations along with them would provide diplomatic cover, and help other nations feel good about the "New World Order". It was important that other nations not feel like the US would unilaterally decide to use it's military to decide things.
maybe try formulating an argument using words
Why lie or make bumbling rants that fly in the face of history when I can just post something as succinct as a screen cap?
well, your screencap shows that the UN voted for the war. You could mean this as a refutation of my points (the US did not act alone), or as support of my points (the US organized a UNSC vote to approve their plans).
Or maybe you're just adding some data to the discussion without meaning to make a statement either way
>the UN voted for the war.
If you don't know how the UNSC works, IQfy isn't the place for you.
if you can't formulate an argument and just try shitposting to win, IQfy isn't the place for you
you are incorrect and dumb. that's my argument.
ah, a scholar. nice.
>I mean that the US is organizing the event to further its own agenda.
Incorrect, as UNSC Resolution 660 clearly illustrates.
>So the US is solely responsible for deciding to go to war
Demonstrably false.
>is using the other nations for propaganda - so they can say "the world will act against Iraq".
Thank goodness we had so much influence in the USSR, China and Cuba in 1990.
>"the world will act against Iraq".
it did.
>The US was sensitive about this because the Soviet Union had just broken up
The USSR didn't break up until 1991 - boy you're really striking out here.
>The Older Bush, HW, was actually a statesman and understood that it was best to not act alone
Good thing he didn't have to.
>bringing other nations along with them would provide diplomatic cover
Really thankful for the friendly governments of the USSR, China and Cuba.
>It was important that other nations not feel like the US would unilaterally decide to use it's military to decide things.
Good thing we didn't have to do a fricking thing unilaterally to get this done.
>Incorrect, as UNSC Resolution 660 clearly illustrates.
You're assuming that the resolution was an honest 'meeting of the minds', and it wasn't engineered with the outcome assured beforehand.
>Demonstrably false.
ok, how? If you're just relying on your first point, I answered that. Is there something else to consider?
>it did
led by the US, which was my point
>The USSR didn't break up until 1991
it was over when the wall came down
>Good thing he didn't have to.
this is just another restatement of your claim
>Really thankful for the friendly governments of the USSR, China and Cuba.
They don't usually vote with the US. I wonder why they would have. It must be because they were terrified of Iraq
>Good thing we didn't have to do a fricking thing unilaterally to get this done.
We made the coalition.
Please explain why Cuba, China, and the USSR would give approval to a war driven purely by US motives. They voted with the US because Iraq was the aggressor and in flagrant violation of international law. I don't know what on earth you're trying to argue since you essentially concede that there was overwhelming international consensus against Iraq and the US, being the sole global superpower and wanting to secure an extremely strategically important region, naturally took a leading role in the ensuing war. If that's surprising or objectionable to you then you're an idiot.
>Please explain why Cuba, China, and the USSR would give approval to a war driven purely by US motives.
It was driven by Saudi motives.
>I don't know what on earth you're trying to argue
Your statement, "the US is organizing the event to further its own agenda."
>the US, being the sole global superpower
That is not what people thought in 1990.
>naturally took a leading role in the ensuing war.
At the behest of the Saudis. And other Arabs. Why do you think Israel wasn't involved?
>That is not what people thought in 1990
Well by your own argument the USSR was a complete non-factor, which is why they approved of the war in the UNSC
>I'm claiming that the overwhelming international consensus was built by the US. That's the difference.
Then that's utterly absurd. Do you think major powers want a status quo where invasions and annexations are acceptable? Do you think they're chill with some tin pot dictator controlling half the world's oil supply with his military?
I think the problem here is that you're making milquetoast claims that everyone agrees with at some level and then coaching it in some vaguely anti-US/NWO language, and then backing it up with the most idiotic arguments and reasoning. Yes, the US was extremely happy to use the coalition to establish itself as the global military leader, but there was broad global consensus and vested interests in destroying Iraq's military and liberating Kuwait, not just something astroturfed by the US like in the 2003 Iraq War.
America lost the gulf war.
Well done jidf.
>Please explain why Cuba, China, and the USSR would give approval to a war driven purely by US motives.
First, I'm not claiming that other nations had no opinions about it, nor that their interests weren't threatened. Here's my first post
So Bush directs the international response, including, I would guess, the US drafting of the draft resolution that goes to the security council. As for why other nations go along with 660, we can speculate but there isn't much information. Maybe they are genuinely concerned. Maybe since 660 is rather simple and only calls for withdrawal and negotiation, they go along and make their decisions later when it comes to action. Or maybe they yield to US pressure.
For Russia, there is some information here about Gorbachev's decisions
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2020-09-09/inside-gorbachev-bush-partnership-first-gulf-war-1990
here's one quote:
>Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev quickly decided that joint action with the United States was the most important course for the USSR in dealing with Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait 30 years ago, rather than the long-standing Soviet-Iraq alliance, and built what he explicitly called a “partnership” with the U.S. that was key to the international condemnation of Iraq’s actions, according to declassified Soviet and American documents published today by the National Security Archive.
I haven't found any similar information about China's decision to go along, they probably thought it was the most pragmatic thing to do, and there were probably some assurance from the US about favorable responses to other issues. But that's my opinion, I haven't seen any declassified documents about it.
Cuba, who knows. Are they still following the Soviet lead, or were they looking to maybe get an end to the US Embargo?
(cont)
(cont)
>They voted with the US because Iraq was the aggressor and in flagrant violation of international law.
I guess this is just a matter of opinion. A security council vote, or a UN vote adopting a security council resolution, is a valuable thing. Why give it away for free?
>I don't know what on earth you're trying to argue
First, that the International response to the invasion was co-ordinated by the White House, with Bush Sr using his established relationships with other leaders to pull them in. This is considered one of the great achievements of the Bush administration, so I don't think it's a controversial take.
Second, the military coalition for the invasion was assembled for political reasons, not military necessity. The US, alone, easily had the resources to defeat Iraq. But, looking forward, this was a moment to set a tone for the future, and move the UN beyond the essentially stalemate conditions that it had existed in for most of it's life. Post Korean War, there wasn't a lot of cooperation there.
>you essentially concede that there was overwhelming international consensus against Iraq and the US, being the sole global superpower and wanting to secure an extremely strategically important region, naturally took a leading role in the ensuing war.
Yes, I'm claiming that the overwhelming international consensus was built by the US. That's the difference.
>it was over when the wall came down
Also not 1990 lmao.
There's no argument to be had.
>The Older Bush, HW, was actually a statesman and understood that it was best to not act alone, and that bringing other nations along with them would provide diplomatic cover, and help other nations feel good about the "New World Order".
That only made auropeans become uppity and think they are still relevant to make decisions about the current world order. Wich was a mistake because they became the biggest gays on earth with american hate boners.
not on topic, but how do you frick up this bad bros? There's like 30 flags on the left, and only iraq on the right
Obviously Saddam didn’t understand the AE system
jews.
unironically.
Why did Iran stay out of it? I know they were spent from decades of fighting, but wouldn't they dogpile against Iraq as well?
Or did they think they'd be next if they annexed Iraqi territories in blatant disregard of international law?
Iran won 2003. In 1991 the cia lost the basra uprising and that's why America failed to take Iraq.
They were too weak to have any hope of contesting such a massive US military presence. That's basically exactly what they did after the second war though.
America lost the gulf war.
Well done jidf.
>Iraq invades Kuwait and de facto annexes their territory (all while thinking that US will be indifferent)
>becomes the West's bogeyman for it, invaded by largest coalition of countries ever assembled but foreign army leaves
>sike! invaded second time a decade later, occupied for another decade
>only resistance they can put is bombs strapped on kids
Meanwhile...
>Iran licks their wounds, bides their time
>wait until centralized Iraqi government is completely shattered by foreign occupation
>stir sectarian Shi'a sentiment all across Iraq
>end up controlling 1/3rd of the country through proxies
A tale of two countries lmao
>record scratch
>yup that's me
All of those countries are the United States, de facto.
>every country is just a puppet
Lmao sure thing
>every country is just a puppet
Not an argument gaytron.
Prove to me America somehow controls all these nations then shitdick.
It was a glorious future but leftists and then reactionaries had to ruin it with their butthurt and now the future is shit.
US did most of the fighting tho
>a dozen NATO nations
Three is not a dozen.
America lost the gulf war.
>totals that are ~10% of commonly accepted figures
>no mention of POWs
>figures are still significantly higher than coalition causalities
>its conclusion is that short largescale conflicts don't necessarily lead to high death tolls
Anon, what the frick is going through your head?
Your reply is idiotic.
Where have you been? I haven't seen one of your threads in quite some time. For the record, I must say it's quite the honor to interface with one of our era's premier intellectuals.
I find it hilarious you photos hopped that in the top
There aren't no plans for "win" against a counter-offensive by USA and butt-friends. You need remember the previous war made Iraq's army a paper tiger after made it bleed to death.
>How could Iraq win the Gulf War?
Iraq would have to prevent the Coalition from gaining air superiority, but there's almost no feasible way that could have happened. MAYBE if Iraq was able to get substantial aid from the Soviet Union and China? Saddam's air force was technologically outclassed and numerically overwhelmed.
It may have helped a little if Saddam hadn't purged all of the competent air force officers out of paranoia after the previous war.
By getting Kh-55 cruise missiles from the USSR would've allowed Saddam to strike the coalition airbases and destroy the coalition air force before they could take off and leave their airbases inoperable
Uhhhh have you seen the accuracy and effectiveness of Russian cruise missiles in Ukraine this year?
You're a NATO shill
Let me guess, you also belived those Ghost of Kiev stories right?: https://youtu.be/Y1urPMMB77c
See, that cruise missile completely missed the planes :^)
Not feasible. I doubt any other conflict has come as close to the Gulf War in terms of sheer disparity between military forces for centuries. The Iraqis lost 3,300 tanks, whereas the Americans lost 18, most of which were to friendly fire.
What about the falklands war?
America lost 20 tanks and that's all they had. Iraqi losses were abandoned equipment and fake numbers on Wikipedia.
The Falklands was definitely a much closer run thing than the Gulf War - remember Lord Craig saying 'Six better fuses and we would have lost' though it's a lot more complicated than that an Argentine victory is technically feasible in a way that an Iraqi victory isn't
Correct, america lost the gulf war.
Spend decade simping for the Soviets in order to get top of the line AA and AS missiles.
Impossible
If only Al-Steiner's counterattack had been successful
here's an outside the box idea
they could've made an alliance with Iran
This doesn't even represent the full number of aircraft present, but it should give you an idea of how silly this question is.
>build up vast anti-air capability
>dissolve army into huge number of sniper teams
>put mines everywhere
up vast anti-air capability
They did.
army into huge number of sniper teams
moronic.
>>put mines everywhere
They did this too.
invite an Iranian army into Basra and promise to let them keep it if they demonstrate unity against foreign invasion
actually, Erbil
They couldnt the US has infinite reinforcements
Fight US troops that were gathering up on its borders. It wouldn't work. But it would have been something.
by not fighting america in a conventional war, insurgency tactics only.
impossible in southern Iraq; everyone there hated Saddam.
insurgency only became possible when America (like morons) conquered the entire country. then Iran could seed an insurgency among the Shi'a, and various other factions could run insurgencies among the Sunnis. But George HW Bush wasn't a moron and didn't occupy more of Iraq than he had to, to achieve his narrow aim of restoring Kuwait
Don't waste military time building all those useless fortifications along the border
Instead, from the moment of occupation, spend the six months deporting/killing every single Kuwaiti and bring in truckloads of Iraqi civilians in a mass population replacement
That's all fake. America lost the gulf war. Those 20 Abrams were all they had and tf 1-41 retreated at 73 easting. At safwan they ran away and the ceasefire document doesn't exist.
Bet you don't have any proof for your claims.
Wouldn’t it just be easier to convince Kuwaitis that they are iraqis
Libs lost more weight of planes than Iraq did. A mig 21 is half the weight of a f 16 so america lost more aircraft than Iraq did.
Iraq had no intention of annexing Kuwait, there was no government or anything to do that. America failed at safwan and ran away after some theatrics. Captain Pope was there and he said his stuff all hit mines and was useless.
The 1st armored division had 400 abrams. The majority were lost to sand problems. Only 100 tanks were in desert storm at all and they all died.
There are some books written about the Iraqi military from Kevin Woods who interviewed a bunch of Saddam's generals. Look up the books "Saddam's Generals" and the "Iraqi Perspectives Project." It's pretty interesting. Saddam was terrified of a coup and designed the military in such a way to prevent that from happening but that prevented initiative and encouraged extreme sycophancy.
He doesn't have one on the Persian Gulf War, but does on the Iran-Iraq War and the 2003 war.
Saddam also believed in israeli conspiracies and blamed israelites for the Mongol sack of Baghdad. And "In a memorandum provided by the General Security Directorate in 2001 it was reported that 'the cartoon character Pokémon,' widely beloved by Iraqi youth, was part of a plot by international Zionism to undermine Iraq's security."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Perspectives_Project
This meme will never pick off. Go back to microwaving a taco.
Well done lib.
the guy isn't doing it for a meme, he is an unironic schizo
I'm a pretty sure it's a desperate attempt to write himself in IQfy lore. It's the only legacy he can hope for.
>"IQfy anons you recognize" threads
>hehe remember that anon who insists that Iraq won the Gulf War
That's why he is choosing such a moronic opinion (to stand out as farcical) and is spamming. He probably started this thread for a chance to spam.
He's been sperging out since 2020 non stop, by all means he's a resident schizo
Is he jidf?
the persian gulf thing is a relatively new schizo take of his, his most ancient one is the gdp = toruism one
He usually posts the Gulf War stuff on /k/
meaning the regular people in iraq "won" because their government got steamrolled fast rather than dragging the nation into a drawn-out conflict?
iraq still lost and the whole place frickin sucks anyway ever since the pigfricker muhammad
>blamed israelites for the Mongol sack of Baghdad
Rightly so
>Assassinate Sadaam, have a coup and the new leader immediately stand down the forces. they would have emerged well from that.
They could have won if Niger had not joined the coalition against them.
>How could Iraq win the Gulf War?
It was literally a cake walk, Iraq could've taken the whole gulf region with no local power to even face him, but then again ZOG would be crying out blood so glowies had to get involved.
Not have the US invade by having ICBMs
If they held the saddam line and bogged down the offensive it'd have given them enough time to reform their military although they'd still have heavy casualties due to enemy air dominance but if chemical and biological weapons were deployed the invasion would fail not because of military reasons but political ones since israel would instantly join the coalition causing the arab and middle eastern members to leave [with maybe the exception of egypt] or drastically reduce their support and the us would be unable to launch an effective response.
tl:dr: saddam shouldve used all his WMD's to cause the coalition to fracture and actually refinforced the shit out of the saddam line to bog everyone down
the only way Iraq could have won the war is by going on the offensive since they shit tier Iraq army have zero chance to repel the American invaders
Saddam should have sent his soldiers secretly to America by smuggling them to the country with illegal immigrants (via Mexico borders or via chinese ships) once they reach America they would go full Postal 2 mode and kill every American they come across, bring the wat the door of their house for a change so they can taste the same suffering they inflicted upon the rest of the world keep doing it terrorize the americans in their land kill as many Americans you can until they submit and agree to frick off from Iraq and leave them in peace
Iraq should do the same tactic to all those NATO pigs and Coalition rats to scare them into giving up and leaving the coalition
Black person Iraq had soviet-trained troops it was the one of the biggest armies in the world and the strongest in the middle east and north africa. It couldn't do shit because they had no way of dealing with first world technology.