Jump to content

Talk:Gulf War/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Air campaign

Seems to me the last paragraphs recently added here are quite rambling. --Gadget850 18:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I question this paragraph in particular and have removed it from the article:
The Iraqi decision not to deploy the vast majority of Air defence assets to the war theatre in Kuwait greatly reduced the war fighting capabilities of the divisions deployed. The protection of Iraqi power generation facilities, factories and bridges against strategic bombing from the Allies with the vast majority of Air defence assets served no purpose. This is because even under the longest conceivable time frame of conflict these assets would not have influenced the outcome of the conflict. Only when the time frame of conflict exceeds many months does strategic bombing and the defence against strategic bombing become logical. The Air defence assets had they been deployed in Kuwait in far greater quantities would have slightly increased the number of Allied planes shot down but far more importantly would have greatly reduced the accuracy and lethality of the Allied bombing of ground targets. While the accuracy of guided munitions in unopposed tests range between 80-90%, in opposed test the figure falls dramatically to 50-60%. While the slower attrition of Iraqi forces in Kuwait may have simply lengthened the duration of the Air campaign, it ignores the fact that towards the end of the Air campaign there was great pressure for U.S. to committ to a ground offensive because of the negative impact that the length of the bombings were having in neighboring Arab nations. A large number of the Iraqi forces in Kuwait were shell shocked and had very low morale when the actual ground combat did begin because of this illogical decision.
I dispute that the loss of bridges and power plants would not affect a short term conflict, "what ifs" about Arab allies suddenly changing sides if the war had lasted a couple more weeeks seems silly speculation for an encyclopedia and "illogical decision" - source please! Rmhermen 18:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Casualties??

25.000 - 100.000 dead, 100.000 - 300.000 wounded? This is news to me. Whats the source? --James Bond 16:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the above debate? Rmhermen 17:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Cease Fire and UN resolutions request

The article is missing the end of the war ceasefire agreement including what the UN resolutions were for the ceasfire and its effects. Thanks

Israeli Involvement

According to the Israeli Special Forces Homepage (www.isayeret.com) it has been confirmed that Israel did indeed send in a Special Operations Task Force to Iraq to help search for and destroy SCUD missiles. They were deployed in an area known as "SCUD Boulevarde". Israel was given tacit approval by the Coalition's major partners as a compromise to prevent Israel from overtly participating in the war, due to the difficulty experienced by the Coalition in tracking down SCUD Batteries and preventing the missiles from being launched against Israeli population areas.

The Israeli Task Force was comprised of members from these units:

-Sayeret Matkal (General Staff Reconnaisance Unit - Israel's premiere Special Operations Unit) -Sayeret Shaldag (Israel Air Force Special Reconnaisance/Observation/Surveillance/Target-Designation/BDA unit) -Sayeret Maglan (Israeli Army Special Operations Anti-Armor Unit) -Sayeret Tzanhanim (Israeli Army Paratrooper Brigade's Special Operations/Pathfinder/Ranger-type Unit)

The Task Force was inserted into Iraq by IDF/AF CH-53's and helped designate targets for Coalition aircraft, and in one instance destroyed a SCUD Battery when the Iraqis decided to set up near one of the Sayeret's hides. The commandos couldn't believe their luck, and taking a calculated gamble, initated a successful surprise attack against the more numerous enemy personnel, wiping them out with no loss.

The force was quietly withdrawn shortly before war's end with no losses.

I figure this would deserve some mention in the wikipedia Gulf War article.

Tomcat200 22 May 2006


Gulf War - Naming

The Arabian Gulf War is commonly known as the Gulf War - as the title implies. A debate has already been had by other editors of this page. Some said they were unhappy with the term "Gulf War", but accepted this was the term most commonly applied: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gulf_War#Name_change_from_.22Gulf_War.22_to_.22Persian_Gulf_War.22 So, it is strange that people are imposing "Persian Gulf War" without discussion! Perhaps this matter needs arbitration.--Ahwaz 21:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Commanders?

Why is Saddam lised as the commander on the Iraqi side, and not Bush on the US side? William M. Connolley 08:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say that Saddam was the operational commander on the Iraqi side, as was Schwarzkopf on the US side. While Bush was the US Commander in Chief, he wasn't the one with boots on the ground. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Was he really the operational commander? Presumably they had generals and stuff, even if no-one can be bothered to find out who they were... William M. Connolley 19:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I could probably dig up some of my old briefing materials, but I am sure that Saddam retained operational control. That sort of regime just doesn't let control out of their hands. Certainly Bush did not exercise operational control during the defense and liberation. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Cause and Effects

okay so i need help with my DBQ and here's my question: What were the causes and effects of Desert Storm, and did Desert Storm's effects affect the U.S. position in the Iraqui War. Please answer in a Pro/Con response to the affecting U.S. position in Iraqui War. Thax and have fun with this

An old woman's reaction to the Gulf War

During the Gulf war in 1991, my mother was 80 years old and living in a trailer in Lebanon, Oregon. She wrote this poem about the Gulf War.


Stand In Silence

by Helen Christensen


Stand in Silence Little Man.

You don't count Little Man.

Look above you, skies are blue.

Tomorrow will they be black with smoke?


When Shells and Fire rain down,

When the Earth trembles in shattering Fury,

Stand in Silence Little Man.

You don't count Little Man.


When children scream in Terror,

As thunderous Noise rolls round,

When Parents cry to God for Help,

Stand in Silence Little Man.


As Rulers and Presidents of the World,

With no Meeting of the Minds,

Cry "War is inevitable to save us all."

Stand in Silence Little Man.

Your Voice does not count Little Man.


As you Body falls in anguish,

As the Pain and Fire takes you away,

Lay in Silence Little man.

Your Death did not count Little Man. 

             The End

Helen is now (April 2006) 95 years-old and living in a nursing home with dementia. I ran across this poem today stuck in a book. I remember how I was surprised when I read it for the first time in 1991. Helen was a good writer and an agnostic. I wasn't sure if I agreed with the fatalistic message of the poem, but it is so like her to feel this way about life and war. I just wanted to share it as part of the American public's reaction to the Gulf War.


-- she sounds like a raving moonbat, you might want to Schiavo her ASAP 71.96.101.186 21:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)ghuxbley

Death list

Hello, I found this in the French Wikepedia Article, its about the losses of the coalition, it's verry informatvive and I think some-one should add it :

United States : 148 Deads, 458 Wounded, 60 Planes (34 shot down, 26 accidents), 15 Helicopters, 18 tanks M1 Abrams and 2 ships (USS Tripoli et USS Princeton) both put or-combat by mines. UK: 6 Deads, 6 Wounded, 7 Planes. Saudi-Arabia : 18 Dead, 20 Wounded, 2 Planes. Arab Alience : 13 Dead, 43 Wounded. France : 2 Dead, 27 Wounded. Itali : 1 Plane. Sénégal : 8 Wounded

Someone had deleted our casualties section (and over a month ago.) Does the French version have sources for these numbers? Rmhermen 14:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

date for starting

The article states !Hostilities commenced in January 1991". What was the exact date?KarlXII 19:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Then shouldn't this be included in the text?KarlXII 20:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  • It's down in the Air campaign. Hmmm... this section implies that there was only air conflict during this period. I'll have to check my logbooks.


Thank you for your replies.KarlXII 17:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Top picture

Is the Bradley silhouette a good picture for the top of the article? Is it really a good picture for an encyclopedia article on the Gulf War in any section? How about emphasizing the air campaign or a scene where you can actually see things or the map instead? Rtt71 21:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably prejudiced as a former Bradley commander, but that photo is just so darn cool. It really emphasizes the open loneliness of the desert. The map is where it belongs in the ground campaign section. The best would be something that emphasizes either the invasion of or the liberation of Kuwait. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest a group of pictures much like articles on WWI and WWII. Enjoyhats 06:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Kuwait inavasion Deaths

I may have missed it but there is not a statement of the amount of deaths suffered by Kuwait during its invasion. Whats missing is the amount of military/civilian deaths kuwait suffered during the border invasion as well as Iraq military deaths. Also this article seem to not cover the starting invation. Its skips from Causes to Pre-war Iraqi-American relations.--Doom Child

Requested move

Since this article keeps getting the name in the lead-in changed for apparent POV reasons, I propose a change of name to Liberation of Kuwait. This removes the ambiguious Gulf War and the edit war of Persian and Arabian. Liberation of Kuwait is the term used by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait- the term passes the Google test. If there are any other proposals, then please make them here and discuss the issue instead of making weasle changes.

This article can never hope to become a featured article as long as this section remains unstable in this manner. Changing this back and forth distracts editors from the real task: making this article as good as it can be. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose or support and comment below:

Oppose - I see the point of changing the name away from Gulf War, which could imply either war in the Gulf. However, I feel that Liberation of Kuwait is not politically neutral title. It resonates too much with ideas that the US's prime aim in the second Gulf War was "liberating" Iraq from Hussein. Maybe a change of name to "Gulf War (1990-91)" would be better. --Jim 10:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose- as above--Thud495 19:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - It's the Gulf War! (Have you met any "Liberation of Kuwait War Veterans"?) If there was another Gulf War, I guess I'd call this the "Gulf War (1990-91)" as above, but otherwise, any change is just a PC shell game. -HiFiGuy 02:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Five of the Gulf War Military Awards were for the Liberation of Kuwait, while the US issued the Southwest Asia Service Medal. See Iran-Iraq War for what was once referred to as the Gulf War and Naming the Gulf War for other names. --Gadget850 ( Ed)

Oppose - That sounds like a blatently biased position on what is to me a hotly contested issue (whether Kuwait was liberated, or deliberately set up as a pretext), violating the neutrality of the article.--Fieldlab 09:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move failed- the article name stands as is. Thank you for your votes and comments- this is how the process is supposed to work. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Consequences

One might argue that one of the consequences of the Gulf War was the September 11 attacks on the United States... Osama bin Laden didn't take too kindly to the stationing of infidel US troops on Saudi Arabian soil. Should this be added as a consequence? -HiFiGuy 02:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I added mention of the fatwa in that section. I think it would be best to find a respected source for the claim that 9/11 was an indirect consequence, since that might be considered a matter of interpretation. -- Beland 22:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Prostitution?

Under 'Cost' --

Various allegations that the Saudis provided prostitutes were later proven false.

If allegations were false, why do we need to include this in the article? What does this bring to the quality of the article? --Sartan 07:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"Former" president of Iraq

Even if Saddam Hussein is no longer the president of the Iraq Republic, he was at the time of the war, and therefore he should be presented as such, and not as "former" Iraqi president. If you support the "former" line, you should accept that George Bush (father) has "former" put in front of his Presdent title.--BlaiseMuhaddib 14:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Some might say that when a leader is deposed, he loses his title. Any news report I've listened to has referred to Hussein as "Iraq's former president" or "Iraq's former dictator". Different titles may have different conventions on retention, particularly in the case of a leader who is forcibly removed. That said, your logic makes sense, and I have no real preference; if nobody else has any objections, your way is fine. (On an unrelated note, it appears you're editing with two accounts; is this the case? There's nothing wrong with that, but it looks like User:Kwame Nkrumah and User:BlaiseMuhaddib are working on similar things, and using them both will only tend to make your editing presence less clear.) --Emufarmers(T/C) 14:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a historical article, and should represent titles and positions as they were when these events happened. If we were to add former to Saddam Hussein, then it must be applied to everyone in the article. Doing this will be very confusing, so I'm opposed. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Niger not Nigeria

pretty sure it was Niger that was one of the coalition, not Nigeria. [1] This seems to be a common mistake, as Nigeria is the one you might expect being the stronger military/economic power --Astrokey44 12:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan troop deployment

Pakistan's troop deployment was in the region of between 5,000 [2] and 7,000 [3] troops. The toops did not take part in any operations against Iraqi forces but instead provided security in Saudi Arabia's two important cities, Mecca and Medina. -- ChopperHarley 15:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

US and Allied Troop Commitments

Whoever posted the commitments, I don't remember seeing a source for those numbers. After extensive research I came upon two sites: 1) was a personal website similar to the numbers listed here, but did not have Turkey listed and no source. 2) From Arabic Media.com: [4] -- MPA 8:54pm, August 30, 2006

Pre-war Iraqi-American relations

I just tagged a paragraph as unreferenced and full of weasel words. Phrases such as "widely known", "seen by many", "suspicions exist", "might be", "obvious considerations" and "strangely difficult" make this difficult to understand. If it can't be readily fixed it should go. I'm not sure how much it adds to the article. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Corrected Captions

Corrected "USAF A-10A Thunderbolt II ground attack plane over target area during Desert Storm." to: "USAF A-10A Thunderbolt II ground attack plane over circles of irrigated crops during Desert Storm." The round circles are crops, not targets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrigated Suggest somebody go back and check if this was actually taken during Desert Storm. Appears to have been taken from aft station of a refueling aircraft as nose refuling door is open. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.57.200 (talk • contribs)

You are right- I just never saw those areas from the air. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Casualties

WHY you dont change the iraqi wounded if you have change the iraqi dead because at each 1 dead 3 are wounded so its impossible that we have 100,000 300,000 WIA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.252.32 (talk • contribs)

Claims of high number of disabled Gulf war vets

I have tried to check sources for the numbers stating that 183,000 vets from the gulf war are permanently disabled. However The only thing I can find from the VA or DOD is that 183,000 Gulf War Era vets have received some type of disability status or assitance. There are many repeated claims by anti-DU web sites that 300,000+ to 500,000 gulf war vets are permanantly disabled. You have to remember that close to four million people served in the US armed forces at that time and some real research needs to be done to find out if any of these high claims of disabled vets have anything to do with the Gulf War or are even true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.24.238 (talk • contribs)

I'm one of those statistics. I'm a Gulf War combat vet, and a partially disabled vet. They have noting to do with each other though, as my injuries occured before and after the war, but I could be classified as a Gulf War era disabled vet. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Iraqi troops deployed

360 000 iraqi troops were deployed in the conflict, because the rest were placed in reserve in their barracks.


"First Gulf War"

I am not sure that it is accurate to characterize the 1990-91 war as the "First Gulf War". If memory serves, the phrase "Gulf War" was sometimes used to refer to the air/naval tanker war fought between Iraq and Iran during the 1980-89 campaign (which included limited U.S.-allied participation toward the end.) Does anybody have any recollection/info on that? (In fact, if memory serves, I believe James Dunnigan referred to this as the SECOND Gulf War for that very reason in his book A Quick And Dirty Guide to War 2d ed.) Jkp1187 16:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This is covered in Naming the Gulf War. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


I don't know whether to be pleased or profoundly disturbed that people are creating Wikipedia entries on naming of articles. Jkp1187 18:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Never mind -- not quite what I thought it was above. In any event, since both First Gulf War and Second Gulf War are listed there, perhaps both should be included -- or the First G.W. taken out. Jkp1187 18:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Naming the American Civil War is even longer- I used it as a model when I created that article. I don't quite follow your second statement. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


Iraq Debts To Kuwait?

Shouldnt it be mentioned that Iraq was the only buffer between the rest of the mid east and iran during the iraq iran war and that countries in the mid east were giving Iraq funds for their own protection? I do acknowledge Iraq di start the war but it just got to a point of panic when Iran started pushing iraq back. Just a suggestion. 66.90.226.168 17:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

depleted uranium

i added a small section on the health effects
KonaScout 15:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gulf_War/Archive_4&oldid=390325750"