01-15-2003, 08:40 AM
|
#19
|
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Originally posted by wellard:
quote:
Originally posted by antryg:
The US often becomes the policeman when other countries aren't willing to act. The Gulf War could be seen as the West's desire that Saddamm would not control Kuwait's oil, and possibly use it as blackmail on the international front. MANY western European countries were much more dependent on Kuwatti oil than the US, their economies hurt much more by rising oil prices, yet they didn't help and loudly condemned American imperialism. It was American lives, equipment, and money on the line so the USA was engaged in European-style "imperialsim" that benefited the complainers more than it did the USA. Other countries refused to get involved because they feared terrorist retaliation. They wanted somebody else to do the job for them and then they complained. (9-11 was, at least in part, a terrorist response to the Gulf War.)
|
[img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img]
AHHHH so the other troops over in Kuwait from around the world were just peeling potatoes, I seem to recall that the british had more deaths from US than Iraq bullets. Its just this type of thinking that gets up the nose of most other people from around the world Antryg even those that ARE your friends.[/QUOTE] Wellard, some facts of joint force exercises. You will note that when you try to integrate two disparate forces, things can and do go wrong. Friendly fire accidents happen and have happened in every major conflict....in the Gulf British casualties from the US forces may have been higher, in world war two an entire division of US troops was carpet bombed into oblivion by the royal air force....I don't see military commanders on either side heaping undue blame on the other for those incidents. Regrettable? yes, fact of life and joint ops....yes.
|
|
|
|