Talk:Gulf War

Template:Vital article

Untitled

Article merged: See old talk-page here

cease fires do not end wars

The Gulf war technically ended in 2003. For certain analysis this is an important fact and it should be included here, as it is included in the Wikipedia ceasefire article. The Persian Gulf war ended with the fall of the Hussein government. TMLutas (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

PROPAGANDA

There is no UN authorization " coalition led by USA ," and it's pure propaganda. Where is source for this UN resolutions in which UN says "USA coalition has a UN mandate to attack Iraqi forces in Kuwait" ?

After every occupation (Iraq - Kuwait, Israel-Palestine, Israel - Syria, Israel - Egypt), United Nations declared resolution " UN condemns end of illegal occupation and requires for occupier to withdraw its army to specific dates, or next are consequences for violations of international law .

However, wiki are used by people from all over the planet and if USA citizens enjoy listening propaganda , rest of 98% of the planet does not have to listen this USA propaganda . So ,please source where UN says "UN gives authorization for U.S. led coalition attack". Even in Europe, no one speaks this USA propaganda story and even main stream media say "alleged or controversial"

The second thing!

USA - Iraq relations

The main thing is forgotten: USA with cooperation 2 more NATO countries flown to Iraq chemical weapons and helped organize Iraqi chemical weapons program and sent to Saddam satellite imagery position of the Kurds and Iraqis at which chemical weapons have the best effect.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

I bet that after next USA war no one will dare to write the truth as "United States is most responsible for creation of Iranian nuclear program and USA built the first reactor in Iran."

Propaganda brainwashed Americans, but the remaining of 98% of the planet does not have to read this nonsense — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirislanina (talk • contribs) 05:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The UN resolutions are all already mentioned and linked in the article. The rest is off-topic for this article. Rmhermen (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

In which part UN resolution says "UN gives authorization to coalition led by USA" or "USA coalitions act in the name of UN"? Wiki says "UN has given authorization to USA-led coalition", source is UN resolutions and there is not exists single word about any UN authorization to USA led coalition, and there is not exists single word about any UN authorization to USA coalitions ? Very easily, see UN resolution (which you put as a source for the claim "UN gave authorization to USA coalition") and you'll see that this is not true. Or you're doing it on purpose?

All people on the planet read wiki but do not have  all people to read usa propaganda.

In section USA - Iraq relations is a "very important" information that USA provide Iraqi non military aircraft, but the fact that USA created Iraqi chemical weapons program, enabled Saddam to purchase chemical toxins from the west and to provide satellite images of the target for chemical weapons attack it does not matter and this is off topic??? This is hilarious. There is no more important part in USA-Iraq relations in 80s than USA help to Iraqi chemical program. No military aircraft are off topic but USA role in creating Iraqi chemical program is most important thing in U.S. - Iraq relations in period before Desert Storm Prize question: Will people for 2 years or for 3 years start to laugh to wiki as today laugh to CNN and FOX nonsense? What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirislanina (talk • contribs) 23:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 is the one you are looking for and it is already linked in the text. Rmhermen (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, UN resolution 678 does not mention any "UN authorization to USA-led coalition" or "USA-led coalition acts in the name of the UN". As well as any UN resolution in case when one country occupies another country , UN says: "We call the state that occupied another country to retire army by a certain date or UN will take all necessary measures". There are 5-6 identical resolution in several different wars. It's the most normal procedure and next is procedure which directly empowers UN to act, all soldiers are under UN command , beginning and the end of the attack decides Security Council (not White House) , conditions for cessation of hostilities decides Security Council ....

Of course none of this not happen, of course that UN never gave authorization to USA-led coalition . The paradox is that UN Secretary General said "usa no-fly zones in Iraq are illegal and that it is against international law " ( see Iraqi no-fly zones ). That was USA condition for ending war. UN did not have the conditions for the end of war, because United Nations did not participate in the war. In China, India, most Asian countries, Muslim world, all European countries ( including all the countries of Western Europe ), Russia and ex USSR countries, South America, in all history books about the war in Gulf exists approximately the same this explanation about UN positions and procedures and if 98% of humanity is not superficial then even more ridiculous looks propaganda that radiates remaining 2% of humanity ( USA ) .

So, UN authorization to USA-led coalition is not mentioned anywhere in this resolution (in fact there is no mention USA, coalitions ,attack on Iraq , any forces that have links with UN ... nothing), not a single soldier was not under UN command, UN did not decide beginning of the war or about end of the war (February 28), UN did not decide conditions of end of the war and UN secretary general said that USA conditions are illegal but if the USA propaganda says "UN gave authorization USA-led coalition," then everything else is irrelevant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirislanina (talk • contribs) 15:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

This purpose of this talk page is to improve the article - not to debate the subject. If you do not understand diplomatic language or UN history, this is not the place to try to learn it. All reliable sources say that "Authorizes Member States ... to use all necessary means" in UN resolution 678 was the legal foundation of the war. You could try the humanities reference desk. Rmhermen (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I very well understand UN diplomatic language (as well as 2/3 of humanity that never circumvent UN)but when you write "Resolution 678 legalized war" and post a source UN resolution 678, then you're lying and Resolution 678 does not give authorization to USA-led coalition, does not give authorization to USA-led coalition to act on behalf of Un, does not mention word "war" , "attack", "coalition forces", "Un forces " ... ... and like in case of any other occupation UN resolutions says "commit all member states to cooperate with (government of country which is occupied ) to assist in establishing law and order". From Korea to Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Palestine until Iraqi - Iranian war, Gulf War, Bosnia ... all UN Resolution are identical and do not gives a mandate to a third party . Please do not make CNN / FOX propaganda on wiki page and before you post a source, first read this source. If UN is not accurate enough for you, you're not the one who should interpret UN resolution and explained that write something what do not write. Perhaps UN wanted to grant authorization to USA-led coalition to launch attack on Iraq and to justify USA attack but UN resolution does not mention any of that and you're not one who should to interpret what Un thoughts but did not written in resolution. Of course that UN resolution 678 is not " legal foundation of the war" because Resolution 678 does not mention words "legal" , " foundation " and "war". Try another source. CNN maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirislanina (talk • contribs) 10:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Countries in the infobox

Will whoever who keeps adding uninvolved countries in the infobox stop doing so without at least supplying sources? Thank you. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Propaganda in this article

Hello,

For readers wondering why this article is so full of propaganda,

See this link: http://rt.com/news/five-eyes-online-manipulation-deception-564/

This article details a Snowden leak about a program named Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group, an operation in which intelligence agencies infiltrate online communities such as Wikipedia to spread false information and propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.189.195 (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

An article from Russia Today accusing others of propaganda?TJ&TheAmericanWay (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Patriot missile effectiveness

I know that the effectiveness of these missiles in Israel is merely a footnote with respect to the rest of the war, but I was an eye witness to all of the engagements over the Israeli city of Haifa and find the content to be different from what I observed.

When a scud was incoming, an air raid siren would alert everyone to go into sealed rooms. This included all of the military on the Patriot sites except for the US infantry assigned to security. I was one of those infantrymen. At this point we would take over security from the Israeli IDF soldiers so they could also go into the bunker on the missile site. I had a clear view of every engagement from a rooftop near the fire control center.

The very first incoming scud had 10 patriots fired at it. There were always two fired at once so there was redundancy. This first engagement the patriots were on automatic. The system continued to engage the debris from the initial hit until the system was shutdown. After that they limited the response to the initial two missiles. From my perspective, there were no scuds launched towards Haifa that were missed by a patriot and my understanding from the soldiers at Tel Aviv was that they had the same results. Half of all of the missiles launched were redundant and there were an additional eight wasted during the first engagement. Perhaps that is where the 45% number comes from, but it is deceptive to just say that they missed. One possible explanation for the lower numbers is that the patriots were designed for engaging aircraft and therefore targeted the center of the target. This often left the warhead to continue, albeit on a different trajectory. This trajectory change is important because the mission was only to engage scuds on a trajectory which predicted it landing in an Israeli city. The news coverage down playing the patriot's effectiveness seemed to be politically motivated and far removed from my observations.

Again, this is not important in the grand scheme of things, but for accuracy's sake I thought I would mention it.--Jbaylor (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)