04-09-2017, 06:03 PM
(04-09-2017, 04:23 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It's not apples to oranges. Use of military force is use of military force. Any country always has the right to defend itself without UN approval. Otherwise, there is a protocol like we followed during Desert Storm. That protocol applies to use of military force directed against countries for internal conflicts as the case is with Syria now.
No, it is apples to oranges. For one, the Soviet Union, not Russia, existed during the Gulf War. The Soviet Union was at the end of its days and nearing collapse. There was mass division and political confusion and a collapsing economy on their hands. In other words, the Soviet Union was in no position to defend the acts of Iraq invading Kuwait. Iraq wasn't shooting chemical weapons at civilians, they took an entire country and claimed it as theres. This was a highly detestable act that the Soviet Union simply could not defend, nor were they in a position to due to their own internal struggles. The Soviets were not looking to get themselves in any more trouble by not supporting the UN resolution. So they opted to vote in favor of the resolution, thinking that Saddam would actually withdraw from Kuwait by the deadline. They were wrong and underestimated the lunacy of Saddam, who in response to the resolution didn't budge an inch.
Kuwait was also the only pro-Soviet country in the region at the time which also inclined the Soviets to support them rather than Saddam. During the time of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, the Soviet leader was trying to counter the collapse of the Soviet Union by building relationships with other countries, mainly the United States. This put Gorbachev in a tight spot and the Soviets basically had no choice other than to support the resolution.
What's going on with Syria is not the same. Different countries, different leaders, different political climate, different interests.
Quote:It's easier to suggest others should go off to combat than yourself or a family member.
But that's not my argument. I never suggested that others should go fight in an armed conflict while I sit comfortably at home. That's a perversion of what I said. I simply said I support military action. Whoever decides to be in the military is their choice. I'm just saying I support the military efforts and those who choose to be in that line of duty., assuming that the conflict we're involved in is being fought appropriately and something we should actually be involved in.
