Talk:Gulf War/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Naming

DanKeshet proposed on my talk page to name it differently. Sebastian 18:42 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

A name that people might be able to recognize would be Operation Desert Storm (which is just a redirect at the moment). --mav 20:29 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is rather the a code name, and it is probably not as widely know around the world as it is in America. I find Iraq-Kuwait War an accurate description because the point of the war was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.Sebastian 21:00 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)
Operation Desert Storm is a widely known alternative to the more widely known "Gulf War". I've never once heard of an "Iraq-Kuwait War" - and it is not at all accurate. Iraq invaded Kuwait and then a US and other forces in Operation Desert Storm fought the Iraqis mostly in Iraq. Relatively little fighting went on Kuwait. --mav
I agree with parts of what both of you have said. Operation Desert Storm is a codename for only one part of the war, namely the coalition bombardment part (or was it the invasion part?). It does not include the Iraqi defenses or the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. But Iraq-Kuwait war is grossly misleading. How about placing the page at Gulf War (1990-1991)? That way it's disambiguated without using extremely uncommon or incomplete names. Not great, I know, but better than the others? Graft 19:17 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)
I still think that any move is way too premature. As I state above "Gulf War" was the most common name for the Iran Iraq War before 1990 but after the American led Gulf War that name was subverted for the newer conflict. I'm sure the media will figure this out with the war that will be starting soon. The best thing would be to undo the premature move and then follow common usage as soon as it is changed. --mav
Though I think "Gulf War" is a valid descriptor for the 1990/1991 conflict in the US and much of the west, I wonder how people in the Gulf itself describe it, since we pretty much always called the "First Gulf War" as the "Iran-Iraq War", and thus saw no need to disambiguate the second one. I.e., I don't think there's a need to disambiguate in the West, since "Gulf War" and "Iran-Iraq War" are the common terms. So... should we leave it at that, or do we also need to disambiguate for english-speakers from the Gulf? I.e., is "common usage" a term for people who speak English in the West, or people who speak English everywhere? This is the decision that has to be made. Graft
Common usage is common to all English speakers with an emphasis on native speakers. The number of English native English speakers in Gulf is probably too low to subvert terms used by the vast majority of other English speakers. The Vietnam War is called the "American War" by English speakers in Vietnam, BTW. --mav
At any rate, I think we can agree that the need for disambiguation doesn't warrant moving it to the very poorly-titled "Iraq-Kuwait War". I'm in favor of moving it back to Gulf War, though I'm not sure what to do with the edit histories and such. Perhaps it just needs to be cut'n'pasted? This is how it was moved here, so if we delete Gulf War, we lose its history. Graft
The page was changed to "Persian Gulf War". I think this is POV, even though most people are not aware of it. Persians and Arabs dispute whether the Gulf is the "Arabian Gulf" or the "Persian Gulf". To call the war the "Persian Gulf War" instead of the "Gulf War" transforms the neutral title into one that adopts the Iranian/Persian POV. It is telling that the user who appears to have done the move, Mani1, is from Iran. Kaltes

Various fixes

Removed the statement that the Republican Guard lay in tatters. The Republican Guard actually retreated in fairly good order.

I removed references to the two presidential speeches below, because I found it distracting to focus on George Bush' particular words, as opposed to what actually happened. I left in the reference to the first Presidential statement, because that sentence was about what the president said, not what happened.

[USPRES2]: Presidential statement, 1991-01-16

[USPRES3]: President Addresses the Nation, 1991-02-23

The USA was mindful of its cultural and moral duties: targets were allegedly selected and prioritized so as to minimize civilian ("collateral") casualties and minimize damage to culturally sensitive sites (such as Mosques).

I removed the above sentence, because it seems to be contradicted by the evidence presented re: destruction of water plants, etc. I do remember much hype re: the cultural sensitivity of the bombing. If somebody could find a cite indicating an actual policy, then we should put this back in.

Responding to myself, I found an interesting document at http://www.fas.org/spp/aircraft/part08.htm (among other interesting documents, http://www.fas.org is an absolutely incredible site) that implies both could be pretty much correct (minus the window dressing re: cultural duties): there were relatively few civilian casualties from "collateral damage", that is, damage done by missiles hitting civilian facilities they weren't intended to hit. This seems to be confirmed by UNICEF reports, though I lost the URL. However, there was gigantic damage done by the secondary effects of missiles hitting intended dual-use targets: bridges, power plants, water facilities, oil wells, etc. Hopefully we can find a good way of explaining this split.

Also 90% of the bombs dropped were good old dumb bombs... which aren't too culturally or morally sensitive... I don't konw where this absurdly low 100 civilian casualties comes from, that has to be propaganda from the US side.

The US government doesn't claim 100. The aspin report: http://es.rice.edu/projects/Poli378/Gulf/aspin_rpt.html claims about 9,000 killed during the air campaign, and doesn't give an exact estimate of the ground campaign (unless I'm reading it wrong). If we can't find a citation on the 100, we should replace that with the lowest figure we can actually find a citation for. Same goes for 200,000; the largest number I've run into so far is 100,000, though I admit I haven't searched that hard. It would be interesting to give official american and iraqi estimates of casualties on both sides.
Nevermind, that. The 100 is referring to civilian casualties; I haven't found what the US government says about civilian casualties. They don't advertise them very loudly in their analyses of the war...

I think it's valid that the US *tried* to limit the civilian casualties - it was a UN operation after all... however during the Afghan war they would have little compunction against destroying a hospital to get at one helicopter etc.

A link to an estimate of 200,000 civilian casulties can be found here. http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0031858.html I don't know where the 100 civilian casulties thing comes from, I have left it in as the lower estimate. The link to es.rice.edu above doesn't work. M-Henry 11:43, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Here's another link http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/feb2003/nf2003026_0167_db052.htm There is always the problem of how you count these things, as excess deaths in consequence of war damage, or just persons killed by guns and bombs.M-Henry 12:00, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Links for further research:

Critics have called it the First Oil War because of the central role oil exports and petroleum interests played in motivating, intervening, supporting, and ending the conflict.

I removed this for several reasons: 1) I have never heard it before. A quick google search reveals one person beside ourselves referring to the Gulf War as the "First Oil War," whereas a few more people refer to the 1956 Suez War as the First Oil War. In each case, in fact, nobody actually refers to it as the "First Oil War" but rather claims that they do in an aside, while actually referring to it by it's more common name. 2) What does it mean to be a "critic" of the war? Perhaps they are critics of pariticipants in the war? If that's the case, we should say who these critics are criticizing. DanKeshet

Why isn't Operation Desert Storm mentioned in the article? - User:Olivier

Because you didn't add it? ;-) Seriously, I have no idea, but if you think it should be in there, just add it. Jeronimo

Some added text that I have removed.

in only 100 hours of hostilities.

This is only true if you don't consider bombing "hostilities". This is highy misleading.

The hastily reached cease-fire settlement established several key issues, including the continuing rule of Saddam Hussein, and the establishment of "no-fly zones" in northern and southern Iraq.

This is incorrect. The "hastily reached cease-fire settlement" did not have no-fly zones; they were added months later.

"...as George Bush| put it: "The Gulf War established that what we say goes" ...and you better understand it. It was understood." "The US returned to its support for its old friend Saddam while he murdered Shiites and Kurds. Since then, [Hussein] has been returning to a rather rational policy of destroying Iraqi society."-Noam Chomsky (.1)

This is thrown-in analysis, and inappropriate for a Wikipedia article.

The political rhetoric in the US and most of the world was clear, and often very explicit about its goals in the region. George Bush, in an address to Congress, said "there will be a lasting role for the United States in assisting the nations of the Persian Gulf. Our role, with others, is to deter future aggression." Later in the same speech, in the context of Americas domestic budget crisis, he added: "For America to lead, America must remain strong and vital. Our world leadership and domestic strength are mutual and reinforcing." "...Higher oil prices slow our growth, and higher defense costs would only make our fiscal deficit problem worse." In the open Western rhetoric at the time, there was little shyness in citing oil as a primary factor in the repulsion of Iraq from Kuwait.
Shortly after the speech, in answering press questions about the degree American oil-interests had in the conflict, George Bush attempted to distance the issue from oil: "its not about oil, its about aggression", he said. Nearly a decade later, in an interview he said something else: "I never said oil was'nt a factor; it certainly was."

We already have a paragraph that's strikingly similar to these two, a few paragraphs down. It starts "The United States went through a number of different public justifications for their involvement in the conflict.". We should merge the information from the two added paragraphs into the already existing paragraph. DanKeshet

Regarding the debt figure to Kuwait: I have found a figure of $80B for total Iraqi indebtedness, period. This leads me to believe that it was in error, rather than disputed fact, that we had that figure for Iraqi indebtedness to Kuwait. In the Glaspie transcript, Hussein puts the total indebtedness figure at $40B, though he doesn't count debts to Arab countries, as he doesn't consider them debts, he considers them payments for services rendered.

Also, I am not opposed to using footnotes to further explain where we got the numbers from. The only reason I took the footnote out was because it seemed awkward once I removed the question about the $80B DanKeshet 16:57 Feb 4, 2003 (UTC)

Re: the air raid shelter attack: the fact that this was an air raid shelter is not in dispute. Everybody agrees this. The Pentagon claimed that, in addition to an air raid shelter, it was a military communications facility, although AFAIK, they have never offered any evidence for this assertion and nobody else has found evidence for it.

Re: the water supply: I removed the war crime bit (which I added to begin with), because AFAIK, it's only idle speculation and nobody has started procedures to indict the perpetrators. However, the fact that it was anticipated is extremely well-established and the fact that it was intended is broadly accepted. (The idea being that making the civilian population suffer would encourage people to overthrow Hussein.) DanKeshet 19:22 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)


The Hill & Knowlton "Babies thrown from incubators" fiasco now has it's own article, Nurse Nayirah. The summary of it here should probably be summarized a bit more, and a link made to the new article. -- Khym Chanur 07:19, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

The line "Ideologically the invasion of Kuwait was justified by Saddam truning the Arab nationalism" has been there since August 21. I'm not sure what the original contributor meant - I'm guessing 'tuning' as it seems to fit best, but it still doesn't seem right. Deadlock 12:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nations involved

34 nations (to agree with our own sources below; wonder what the discrepancy is))

Hmm, not sure. Although the 32 came from an article that seemed slightly slanted against the 1991 gulf war, so they were probably being unusually picky about which countries to include in the coalition. Guess I should have checked a couple of different sources. 34's probably correct.

Does Canada's involvement warrant such a large section, whereas no other non-US nation was cited? David.Monniaux

This is one of those issues that comes up in Wikipedia. The information on Canada is extremely useful, I think. It makes for an unbalanced article, but it's better to retain this imbalance and work to improve it by adding other countries' involvements. If they get too numerous or too large, we can isolate them in separate articles like: Canada and the Vietnam War. DanKeshet 18:38, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • I think the section should be retitled (Individual nations contributions?), with Canada as a subsection - giving the clear indication that details on other nations will soon follow (e.g. UK, Germany, France, etc). The current format gives the impression that Canada was in some way 'special', and having 34 sections might make things look rather unbalanced Average Earthman 11:40, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

William Blum

Here is the relevant text from the Wash Post, Aug 19, 1990:

Kuwait's foreign minister, Sabah Ahmed Sabah, fainted at the Arab summit in Cairo last week when his Iraqi counterpart, Tariq Aziz, threatened to disclose the contents of conversations and documents revealing communication between the Kuwaiti minister's office and the Central Intelligence Agency about how to deal with Iraq, according to a number of sources who attended the Cairo meeting.

Thank you, Lexis-Nexis. I hope this at least supports the authenticity of the account. Other references can be provided if necessary... Graft 22:29, 10 May 2004 (UTC)


Dear anonymous person, can you at least lay out criteria that would establish William Blum as "credible"? At least then we might be able to do something towards satisfying you. Graft 18:08, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Protection

Re: rv... can someone please lock this page so this puerile debate is forced to talk (Graft's edit summary)

I protected the page. Hopefully, the anon will join the discussion now. 172 19:47, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


A good start would be some evidence of his qualifications as either an historian or a journalist, rather than a politically motivated purveyor of unsubstantiated theories and, in this case, debunked forgeries. Including William Blum's views in a serious discussion of the history of the Gulf War is akin to including The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in entries dealing with anti-Semitism as if it were legitimate.

The fact that the page has been locked with the dubious portions retained rather than the other way around says a great deal about the intellectual honesty, or lack thereof, of those editing this document.

Alternatively, people might be merely unfamiliar with the allegations in question. Care to provide some worthwhile reading? Graft 22:23, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
The only substantial content I got from that was "debunked forgeries". Are you saying that a document Blum relies on is a forgery and was debunked? If so, please tell.
While I'm at it, I hope we take this opportunity to improve other parts of the article. For example, the fainting incident is the only mention of the Extraordinary and Emergency Arab summits of August 2 and 10. DanKeshet 04:08, May 13, 2004 (UTC)


Graft, before making further requests and attempting to change the subject, perhaps you could provide some evidence re: the credibility of William Blum. And yes, the document Blum relies on is widely known to be a forgery.

A short biography of Bill Blum, in case anybody doesn't know who he is. Meantime, I know I've read others who say much the same thing he does; I'll try to find them. Anon: please give more information. You say: "a document Blum relies on is widely known to be a forgery". Which document? Who says it's a forgery? Do you have a citation or something we can chase down? DanKeshet 06:45, May 14, 2004 (UTC)


The document is the "Brigadier Fahd Ahmed Al-Fahd memorandum" that supposedly caused the Kuwaiti foreign minister to faint. There's not much about it online unfortunately, but it is referenced by Todd Leventhal, the longtime expert on KGB disinformation, in a report from the US Government here: [1] .

From that:

In an October 27 letter to UN Secretary General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah had said the document contained "falsehoods and groundless lies" and "linguistic expressions that have never been used in Kuwait...." He also noted that "its style differs from that used between Kuwaiti officials."

That the US and Kuwait call it a forgery should be expected whether or not it were a forgery; the article already indicates that. Also, I think it's a bit much to request Blum to respond to papers written four years after his book was published. Unfortunately, the Leventhal paper is not in any libraries I have access to and the think tank that sponsored it charges a fee to read it. Do you have an electronic copy? Could you upload the relevant chapter or send it to me via the e-mail this user feature? That would qualify as fair use so I don't think there's any copyright worries. DanKeshet 17:10, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

Which again goes back to Blum's credibility (or lack thereof.) The letter from the Kuwaiti foreign minister to the UN head was not published four years later. Furthermore, Blum is the one who should be checking his facts; it is not incumbent upon others to disprove Blum's claims, it is incumbent upon Blum to prove his - which he hasn't done. Consequently, including his charges without any supporting evidence offered is dishonest and does not contribute to the accuracy of this article.

So, on two tracks here: 1) We have the discussion of Blum's personal credibility and eligibility for inclusion, and 2) We have the disussion of the evidence regarding pre-invasion Kuwait-CIA collaboration.
1)The criteria we have for expert at Wikipedia is not well-defined. For NPOV reasons, we do not restrict citations to any class of people: say, accredited academics, government officials, et cetera. Blum uses standard methodologies; he cites sources that we can track down (see below). He has a history of involvement in the world of foreign affairs, both as staff at the State Department and decades of experience regarding world affairs afterward. His voice is credible enough on the subject for my criteria. So I'm going to repeat the question Graft asked above: what is your definition of credibility which Blum fails?
2) Regarding the evidence itself: Blum provides dozens of citations in the chapter re: evidence for pre-war collaboration. The chapter we're discussing is online and linked to from the bottom of the article. Graft has reproduced one of these citations above and offered to reproduce more (I would like the LA Times article if you can get it, Graft). Are there other citations of Blum's you would like to challenge? Conversely, you say that one of the documents he uses is a "well-known forgery". Please provide more evidence for this. So far, we only have a document from the white house and a quote from a Kuwaiti official. There is a UAE-sponsored think tank paper in existence, but none of us have access to it. Please, I'm very serious, if you have more evidence I would like to evaluate it. DanKeshet 19:06, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

He has a history of involvement in the world of foreign affairs, both as staff at the State Department and decades of experience regarding world affairs afterward. His voice is credible enough on the subject for my criteria.

He has not had a position in the government for nearly four decades. Since then he has been promoting the notion that the CIA has been at the root of every supposedly evil foreign policy action of the United States, without any regard for objective analysis. Put aside left-leaning progressive opinion journals such as ZMag and Counterpunch and Blum ceases to exist as a commentator on international affairs. If this meets your criteria, then perhaps your criteria need to be reevaluated.

Without accepting your summary of his career, I'd like to point out that NPOV policy does not let us "put aside left-leaning progressive opinion journals such as ZMag and Counterpunch", rather it suggests that, if they support a theory, we properly attribute it to them, while providing room for other opinions.

Blum provides dozens of citations in the chapter re: evidence for pre-war collaboration.

He cites dozens of newspaper articles, including opinion pieces. There is no original research there. Furthermore, one can not objectively conclude anything about the veracity of any documents merely because the Kuwaiti foreign official fainted, even if one accepts the Washington Post's unnamed sources as reliable. In any event, it is the responsibility of Blum and those who support Blum as a serious source of history to provide evidence to support his claims, not the reverse.

I agree with you that any move we can make toward primary documents where they exist would be a plus, but unless we have them, it's better to rely on second- and third-hand sources than nothing. DanKeshet 05:34, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
I'm still unclear what the alleged forgeries you mentioned are. Above is a reasonable list of credentials and citations that goes some distance towards corroborating Blum's writing. Can you provide indications or instances where Blum has dissembled or fabricated stories, or where you have reason to believe that the facts he cites are incorrect or important facts are omitted? Otherwise I see no reason to consider your criticism as valid, other than your personal distaste for Blum's point of view. Graft 17:37, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Kuwait

Death Toll The death toll of Kuwaitis from the Iraqi invasion is not discussed. Between 600 and 1,000 Kuwaitis likely died from the invasion. No mention is made of the Emir fleeing to Saudi Arabia for the war.

Back on William Blum and all

I agree with you that any move we can make toward primary documents where they exist would be a plus, but unless we have them, it's better to rely on second- and third-hand sources than nothing.

Not if the third-hand sources are making unfounded conclusions, such as Blum's contention that the Kuwaiti foreign minister's supposed fainting is evidence that the "Brigadier Fahd Ahmed Al-Fahd memorandum" is legitimate.

I'm still unclear what the alleged forgeries you mentioned are.

Again, the "Brigadier Fahd Ahmed Al-Fahd memorandum".

I'd like to point out that NPOV policy does not let us "put aside left-leaning progressive opinion journals such as ZMag and Counterpunch", rather it suggests that, if they support a theory, we properly attribute it to them, while providing room for other opinions.

You are taking that statement out of context. Blum's legitimacy as a "scholar" as you described him has yet to be established. He is only cited by an expert by the above mentioned publications and not by any serious journal of either history, policy, or current events. Consequently, to include his opinions, which are based on his interpretation of newspaper articles and not any personal experience or original research, is in effect allowing Wikipedia entries to be polluted by anyone anywhere with an opinion about the issue at hand, regardless of whatever personal agenda they are attempting to promote - and without taking into account the quality of the information they provide.

New try?

To try to bring the paragraphs in question more in line with NPOV, I have edited them below. The first paragraph contains nothing controversial, I think. (Everyone agrees the meeting took place, everyone agrees that the Washington Post reported a fainting; everyone agrees that Iraq claimed there was a CIA-Kuwaiti plot, etc.). The last paragraph is the only paragraph of analysis. It is properly attributed to William Blum, whom anon. agrees is considered an expert in some communities, but believes, contrary to NPOV, that that community should be excluded because it is not "serious", whatever that means. The first two paragraphs should definitely be included in the article; the last paragraph is not as important, although I think it should be there. DanKeshet 22:45, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

In November 1999, CIA director William Webster met with the Kuwaiti head of security, Brigadier Fahd Ahmed Al-Fahd. Subsequent to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Iraq claimed to have found a memorandum pertaining to this conversation. The Washington Post reported that Kuwaiti's foreign minister fainted when confronted with this document at an Arab summit in August. Later, Iraq cited this memorandum as evidence of a CIA-Kuwaiti plot to destabilize Iraq economically and politically. The CIA and Kuwait have described the meeting as routine and the memorandum as a forgery. The document reads in part:

"We agreed with the American side that it was important to take advantage of the deteriorating economic situation in Iraq in order to put pressure on that country's government to delineate our common border. The Central Intelligence Agency gave us its view of appropriate means of pressure, saying that broad cooperation should be initiated between us on condition that such activities be coordinated at a high level."

Left-wing journalist William Blum argues that Iraq was right about the CIA-Kuwait plot. The plot, Blum argues, was in response to increasing Iraqi warnings about American hegemony in the Gulf region, as well as to help stanch expected cuts in defense spending and boost President Bush's domestic popularity. (Blum, Ch. 52)

I think the fact that Blum talks about the "desert holocaust" when referencing U.S. aerial bombings and then talks about stuff like "we dropped atomic bombs on Japan...ATOMIC BOMBS" without, of course, mentioning the fact that we helped rebuild the country -- I think stuff like this would make people question his credibility. Aren't there any other sources for this supposed destabilization campaign? I mean other commentators that might find it credible BESIDES a guy of the Chomskian "Amerika bad no matter what" variety. Saying "Mr. Blum agrees with this" is like me saying that "David Horowitz agrees with the assessment of the Contras as starry-eyed freedom fighters." It doesn't add any credibility to the allegations.

Also, some of Blum's material gets into severe Michael Moore territory. This supposed memo might warrant questioning (remember though, that the government of Iraq wasn't exactly the most unbiased source of information) but I don't think him speculating about how Bush Sr. needed this war to boost his sagging popularity ratings is really relevant or necessary, particularly when the Security Council unanimously approved the action (so it was more than just a "hegemony-expanding," self-serving American plot.) Trey Stone 09:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Taking the issues out of order: 1) How does the fact that the Security Council approved Bush's plan give us insight into why he proposed it? 2) As noted, the Security Council's approval was, while unanimous, significantly coerced. Famously, the American ambassador told the Yemeni ambassador that his vote against one particular American bill was "the most expensive vote you'll ever make" and the next day, the U.S. cut off all aid to Yemen. 3) Indeed, Iraq, Kuwait, and the United States aren't unbiased sources of information. This article contains alot of material and pictures from the US government (credited as such) and some information from the Iraqi government (credited as such). What's wrong with that? 4) If non-mainstream views can only be included when attributed to speakers who are in the mainstream, then only mainstream views will be included in the article. 5) "Some of Blum's material gets into severe Michael Moore territory". I don't understand what this means.
Having said all that, I agree that the article would always be better with more sources and I will look for more. DanKeshet 03:05, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see what makes Blum any more reliable than people like Chomsky and Herman. He's a left-wing pundit who excoriates the U.S. for everything it does. It's like me including a JBS article in communism to prove why it doesn't work. J. Parker Stone 08:59, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting

I will try unprotecting this page, given this latest request. [2] I think that there is a chance that the edit war will resume, though. If so, I should restore the protection, or another admin should do so-- whichever comes first. 172 06:18, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

date of Iraq's Kuwait invasion

The opening paragraph of the article says Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1991. As the article makes clear this occurred in 1990.

overwhelmed by counterprotesters

"and demonstrations in the United States were often overwhelmed by people protesting the protesters"

This may have happened somewhere--I don't know--but it was not the norm. See [3] and [4] for some discussion of the protests. Also, I am going to remove "but never reached the size..." because it's misleading. Protests against the Gulf War were larger by many orders of magnitude than protests against the Vietnam War at comparable stages in the war. The Gulf War simply did not last as long. DanKeshet 19:23, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

It definitely did not have the same level of unpopularity as Vietnam, at least in the U.S. Trey Stone 15:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gulf_War/Archive_2&oldid=370024912"