Civil war in Iraq "Likely"

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I don't know about the Kuwait issue. I never really looked into it very far and what I did hear about it seemed pretty shaky. I personally find it very hard to believe that this country encouraged SH to invade Kuwait. Just because we turned a blind eye to some things he did doesn't mean we wanted him to invade Kuwait?? We could have invaded Iraq after liberating Kuwait and deposed SH, but choose not to. I fail to see any collusion between us and SH in regards to the invasion of Kuwait, but I really have looked into it very far either, like I never looked into the supposed missle that hit the Pentagon.

After WWII we set up this whole scenario to create unrest in the area because we wanted their oil. Divided they fall, so to speak. Heck, we even set up a Jewish nation right in the middle of them.

The Kings and Princes and Shieks all gladly went for it because it made them all filthy rich. Then enter jealousy, the few had it so well while the many had it so bad. The Shah of Iran was dethroned. It was the decadent west that was to blame, their religious leaders told them. Can you say Ayatolla Kohmenia? I think the rich oil sheiks of the middle east are the ones bankrolling the insurgents, at least in the beginning, to keep the attention of the people off of them and on the evil, decandent, western infidels.

"This war with Iraq grew out of liberal fantasies, as surely as the previous one did. In the late 1980s liberals in the U.S. State Department were busy fantasizing that the Arab world accepted the Western notion of male and female equality. Thus they sent April Gillespie, a woman, to represent United States diplomatic interests in Iraq. The reality was that sending a woman to the Arab world was an insult to the host nation, and a sign of American weakness. Saddam Hussein cozied up to Ms. Gillespie one evening and suggested that oil would flow more smoothly from Iraq if Kuwait were not in the way. Ms. Gillespie's response was that the United States did not interfere in the domestic affairs of other nations. Can you say "green light" for an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait's oil fields?"

There are many sites and logic dictates this is what occured..

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I don't know about the Kuwait issue. I never really looked into it very far and what I did hear about it seemed pretty shaky. I personally find it very hard to believe that this country encouraged SH to invade Kuwait. Just because we turned a blind eye to some things he did doesn't mean we wanted him to invade Kuwait?? We could have invaded Iraq after liberating Kuwait and deposed SH, but choose not to. I fail to see any collusion between us and SH in regards to the invasion of Kuwait, but I really have looked into it very far either, like I never looked into the supposed missle that hit the Pentagon.

After WWII we set up this whole scenario to create unrest in the area because we wanted their oil. Divided they fall, so to speak. Heck, we even set up a Jewish nation right in the middle of them.

The Kings and Princes and Shieks all gladly went for it because it made them all filthy rich. Then enter jealousy, the few had it so well while the many had it so bad. The Shah of Iran was dethroned. It was the decadent west that was to blame, their religious leaders told them. Can you say Ayatolla Kohmenia? I think the rich oil sheiks of the middle east are the ones bankrolling the insurgents, at least in the beginning, to keep the attention of the people off of them and on the evil, decandent, western infidels.

"This war with Iraq grew out of liberal fantasies, as surely as the previous one did. In the late 1980s liberals in the U.S. State Department were busy fantasizing that the Arab world accepted the Western notion of male and female equality. Thus they sent April Gillespie, a woman, to represent United States diplomatic interests in Iraq. The reality was that sending a woman to the Arab world was an insult to the host nation, and a sign of American weakness. Saddam Hussein cozied up to Ms. Gillespie one evening and suggested that oil would flow more smoothly from Iraq if Kuwait were not in the way. Ms. Gillespie's response was that the United States did not interfere in the domestic affairs of other nations. Can you say "green light" for an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait's oil fields?"

There are many sites and logic dictates this is what occured..

April Gillespie was sent to Iraq by george hw bush. If you consider him a liberal then indeed liberals sent her. :roll:

Saddam: Made in the USA

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I don't know about the Kuwait issue. I never really looked into it very far and what I did hear about it seemed pretty shaky. I personally find it very hard to believe that this country encouraged SH to invade Kuwait. Just because we turned a blind eye to some things he did doesn't mean we wanted him to invade Kuwait?? We could have invaded Iraq after liberating Kuwait and deposed SH, but choose not to. I fail to see any collusion between us and SH in regards to the invasion of Kuwait, but I really have looked into it very far either, like I never looked into the supposed missle that hit the Pentagon.

After WWII we set up this whole scenario to create unrest in the area because we wanted their oil. Divided they fall, so to speak. Heck, we even set up a Jewish nation right in the middle of them.

The Kings and Princes and Shieks all gladly went for it because it made them all filthy rich. Then enter jealousy, the few had it so well while the many had it so bad. The Shah of Iran was dethroned. It was the decadent west that was to blame, their religious leaders told them. Can you say Ayatolla Kohmenia? I think the rich oil sheiks of the middle east are the ones bankrolling the insurgents, at least in the beginning, to keep the attention of the people off of them and on the evil, decandent, western infidels.

"This war with Iraq grew out of liberal fantasies, as surely as the previous one did. In the late 1980s liberals in the U.S. State Department were busy fantasizing that the Arab world accepted the Western notion of male and female equality. Thus they sent April Gillespie, a woman, to represent United States diplomatic interests in Iraq. The reality was that sending a woman to the Arab world was an insult to the host nation, and a sign of American weakness. Saddam Hussein cozied up to Ms. Gillespie one evening and suggested that oil would flow more smoothly from Iraq if Kuwait were not in the way. Ms. Gillespie's response was that the United States did not interfere in the domestic affairs of other nations. Can you say "green light" for an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait's oil fields?"

There are many sites and logic dictates this is what occured..

I personally can't see how that can be construed as a green ligh to invade Kuwaitt? Did SH assume that statment meant we would not help Kuwait if he invaded them and they asked for our help? That was a pretty hefty assumption on his part. Besides, his invasion of Kuwait had nothing to do with the domestic affairs of his nation, it has to do with the international affairs of his naiton, a completely different animal.

Her response may not have been the most concise, but if it needed further clarification then it should have come from a lot higher up then her and I think SH knew that. Here's another article that seems to have another, broader view of how we sent mixed signals.

Saddam: Made in the USA

As the world watched the military build up at the Kuwaiti border, Saddam called a meeting with then US ambassador April Gillespie, who told Saddam: "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." She went on to say: "James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction." (San Francisco Examiner, 11/18/02)

He said she said he said? I don't know how they know what she said to Saddam? How does anybosy really know what was said?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I don't know about the Kuwait issue. I never really looked into it very far and what I did hear about it seemed pretty shaky. I personally find it very hard to believe that this country encouraged SH to invade Kuwait. Just because we turned a blind eye to some things he did doesn't mean we wanted him to invade Kuwait?? We could have invaded Iraq after liberating Kuwait and deposed SH, but choose not to. I fail to see any collusion between us and SH in regards to the invasion of Kuwait, but I really have looked into it very far either, like I never looked into the supposed missle that hit the Pentagon.

After WWII we set up this whole scenario to create unrest in the area because we wanted their oil. Divided they fall, so to speak. Heck, we even set up a Jewish nation right in the middle of them.

The Kings and Princes and Shieks all gladly went for it because it made them all filthy rich. Then enter jealousy, the few had it so well while the many had it so bad. The Shah of Iran was dethroned. It was the decadent west that was to blame, their religious leaders told them. Can you say Ayatolla Kohmenia? I think the rich oil sheiks of the middle east are the ones bankrolling the insurgents, at least in the beginning, to keep the attention of the people off of them and on the evil, decandent, western infidels.

"This war with Iraq grew out of liberal fantasies, as surely as the previous one did. In the late 1980s liberals in the U.S. State Department were busy fantasizing that the Arab world accepted the Western notion of male and female equality. Thus they sent April Gillespie, a woman, to represent United States diplomatic interests in Iraq. The reality was that sending a woman to the Arab world was an insult to the host nation, and a sign of American weakness. Saddam Hussein cozied up to Ms. Gillespie one evening and suggested that oil would flow more smoothly from Iraq if Kuwait were not in the way. Ms. Gillespie's response was that the United States did not interfere in the domestic affairs of other nations. Can you say "green light" for an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait's oil fields?"

There are many sites and logic dictates this is what occured..

I personally can't see how that can be construed as a green ligh to invade Kuwaitt? Did SH assume that statment meant we would not help Kuwait if he invaded them and they asked for our help? That was a pretty hefty assumption on his part. Besides, his invasion of Kuwait had nothing to do with the domestic affairs of his nation, it has to do with the international affairs of his naiton, a completely different animal.

Her response may not have been the most concise, but if it needed further clarification then it should have come from a lot higher up then her and I think SH knew that. Here's another article that seems to have another, broader view of how we sent mixed signals.

Saddam: Made in the USA

As the world watched the military build up at the Kuwaiti border, Saddam called a meeting with then US ambassador April Gillespie, who told Saddam: "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." She went on to say: "James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction." (San Francisco Examiner, 11/18/02)

He said she said he said? I don't know how they know what she said to Saddam? How does anybosy really know what was said?

I think April said she said what was said in that meeting(s) and that was what has been quoted a number of times. Additionally, I've read that the Administration's position regarding the ME was consistent with that as well. I think we didn't intend to interfere with Iraqi domestic issues or anyone elses at that time.

" just 8 days before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the US Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie - in response to a complaint from Saddam about Kuwaiti actions against Iraq - told him:
". . . we have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. If we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death."
Could diplomatic language be any clearer that the US was acquiescing in some kind of Iraqi action against Kuwait? Indeed, just 4 days before our ambassador's meeting with Saddam, Bush I's administration issued a press release reminding the world that the US had no treaty with the Kuwaiti Government. One might be curious as to why Saddam Hussein - just after he had moved his troops up close to the Kuwaiti border - had to be reminded of that!
With that kind of encouragement from the US, Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990. In response to a reporter's question, after the US-led attack on Iraq in early 1991, the ex-ambassador said:
". . . we never expected them to take all of Kuwait."
In other words, the administration did expect Iraq to take some of Kuwait - in which it acquiesced!"
a sorta reasonable site but the quotes are accurate

a better site ... go a bit down and there are more objective analysis

In context, Iraq was our buddy for quite some time. Iraq was buddies with lots of folks it seems including the USSR at the time. He was touted as having the fourth largest and best equipped military on earth. He took on Iran with our support and used WMD in that event too... perhaps ones we sent him.. (I'm not convinced about the chemical weapons being USA originated). Iraq was a stablizing force in the Mid East from many POV. Kuwait was part of Persia or at least part of Iraq's historical land. I think SH expected to be able to call in the 'Kuwaiti card' with little or no US interference. Many nations in the area didn't care for the Westernized Kuwaiti anyhow. It would have been great for Iraq to seize Kuwait and have all that 'oil delivery' capability as well as the additional oil reserves.

I think it is the Agenda underlying all what has occurred that stays hidden...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I don't know about the Kuwait issue. I never really looked into it very far and what I did hear about it seemed pretty shaky. I personally find it very hard to believe that this country encouraged SH to invade Kuwait. Just because we turned a blind eye to some things he did doesn't mean we wanted him to invade Kuwait?? We could have invaded Iraq after liberating Kuwait and deposed SH, but choose not to. I fail to see any collusion between us and SH in regards to the invasion of Kuwait, but I really have looked into it very far either, like I never looked into the supposed missle that hit the Pentagon.

After WWII we set up this whole scenario to create unrest in the area because we wanted their oil. Divided they fall, so to speak. Heck, we even set up a Jewish nation right in the middle of them.

The Kings and Princes and Shieks all gladly went for it because it made them all filthy rich. Then enter jealousy, the few had it so well while the many had it so bad. The Shah of Iran was dethroned. It was the decadent west that was to blame, their religious leaders told them. Can you say Ayatolla Kohmenia? I think the rich oil sheiks of the middle east are the ones bankrolling the insurgents, at least in the beginning, to keep the attention of the people off of them and on the evil, decandent, western infidels.

"This war with Iraq grew out of liberal fantasies, as surely as the previous one did. In the late 1980s liberals in the U.S. State Department were busy fantasizing that the Arab world accepted the Western notion of male and female equality. Thus they sent April Gillespie, a woman, to represent United States diplomatic interests in Iraq. The reality was that sending a woman to the Arab world was an insult to the host nation, and a sign of American weakness. Saddam Hussein cozied up to Ms. Gillespie one evening and suggested that oil would flow more smoothly from Iraq if Kuwait were not in the way. Ms. Gillespie's response was that the United States did not interfere in the domestic affairs of other nations. Can you say "green light" for an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait's oil fields?"

There are many sites and logic dictates this is what occured..

I personally can't see how that can be construed as a green ligh to invade Kuwaitt? Did SH assume that statment meant we would not help Kuwait if he invaded them and they asked for our help? That was a pretty hefty assumption on his part. Besides, his invasion of Kuwait had nothing to do with the domestic affairs of his nation, it has to do with the international affairs of his naiton, a completely different animal.

Her response may not have been the most concise, but if it needed further clarification then it should have come from a lot higher up then her and I think SH knew that. Here's another article that seems to have another, broader view of how we sent mixed signals.

Saddam: Made in the USA

As the world watched the military build up at the Kuwaiti border, Saddam called a meeting with then US ambassador April Gillespie, who told Saddam: "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." She went on to say: "James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction." (San Francisco Examiner, 11/18/02)

He said she said he said? I don't know how they know what she said to Saddam? How does anybosy really know what was said?

I think April said she said what was said in that meeting(s) and that was what has been quoted a number of times. Additionally, I've read that the Administration's position regarding the ME was consistent with that as well. I think we didn't intend to interfere with Iraqi domestic issues or anyone elses at that time.

" just 8 days before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the US Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie - in response to a complaint from Saddam about Kuwaiti actions against Iraq - told him:
". . . we have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. If we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death."
Could diplomatic language be any clearer that the US was acquiescing in some kind of Iraqi action against Kuwait? Indeed, just 4 days before our ambassador's meeting with Saddam, Bush I's administration issued a press release reminding the world that the US had no treaty with the Kuwaiti Government. One might be curious as to why Saddam Hussein - just after he had moved his troops up close to the Kuwaiti border - had to be reminded of that!
With that kind of encouragement from the US, Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990. In response to a reporter's question, after the US-led attack on Iraq in early 1991, the ex-ambassador said:
". . . we never expected them to take all of Kuwait."
In other words, the administration did expect Iraq to take some of Kuwait - in which it acquiesced!"
a sorta reasonable site but the quotes are accurate

a better site ... go a bit down and there are more objective analysis

In context, Iraq was our buddy for quite some time. Iraq was buddies with lots of folks it seems including the USSR at the time. He was touted as having the fourth largest and best equipped military on earth. He took on Iran with our support and used WMD in that event too... perhaps ones we sent him.. (I'm not convinced about the chemical weapons being USA originated). Iraq was a stablizing force in the Mid East from many POV. Kuwait was part of Persia or at least part of Iraq's historical land. I think SH expected to be able to call in the 'Kuwaiti card' with little or no US interference. Many nations in the area didn't care for the Westernized Kuwaiti anyhow. It would have been great for Iraq to seize Kuwait and have all that 'oil delivery' capability as well as the additional oil reserves.

I think it is the Agenda underlying all what has occurred that stays hidden...

I have trouble attributing an agenda to politicians that requires forethought greater than 5 minutes. I do know that one of the properties of intelligence is to see patterns, sometimes ones that aren't really there. This civil war thingi is, in my opinion just another of them. Sectarian violence, yes, civil war, no.

 

[LunarRay]

Herr Dr. Moonbeam,

I have trouble attributing an agenda to politicians that requires forethought greater than 5 minutes. I do know that one of the properties of intelligence is to see patterns, sometimes ones that aren't really there. This civil war thingi is, in my opinion just another of them. Sectarian violence, yes, civil war, no.

I think there is alot more than civil war going on actually. I think there are groups from various ME nations all coming to Iraq to stir up the pot and create havoc. I think if left to their own 'devices' the Iraqi may settle into a normal Arab state. BUT.... with folks determined to undermine any attempt at this civility no prospect for peace is at hand.

You and I don't know what the CIA or the US position was or is regarding Iraq other than we know that the UNSC would have had 4 major players veto the resolution to authorize invasion .. we went ahead with England and Poland anyhow.. There must be some reason for this complete disregard for the only international body able to authorize aggressive actions. I think this entire mess has so many legs and arms that everyone is involved in the Iraqi issue and each with an agenda that suits their own desires.. Peace in Iraq is impossible under that condition.. imo

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Herr Dr. Moonbeam,

I have trouble attributing an agenda to politicians that requires forethought greater than 5 minutes. I do know that one of the properties of intelligence is to see patterns, sometimes ones that aren't really there. This civil war thingi is, in my opinion just another of them. Sectarian violence, yes, civil war, no.

I think there is alot more than civil war going on actually. I think there are groups from various ME nations all coming to Iraq to stir up the pot and create havoc. I think if left to their own 'devices' the Iraqi may settle into a normal Arab state. BUT.... with folks determined to undermine any attempt at this civility no prospect for peace is at hand.

You and I don't know what the CIA or the US position was or is regarding Iraq other than we know that the UNSC would have had 4 major players veto the resolution to authorize invasion .. we went ahead with England and Poland anyhow.. There must be some reason for this complete disregard for the only international body able to authorize aggressive actions. I think this entire mess has so many legs and arms that everyone is involved in the Iraqi issue and each with an agenda that suits their own desires.. Peace in Iraq is impossible under that condition.. imo

No doubt we need a new President to run the occupation and with him a clear moral vision, the the current joker tired in the Hague.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

I think it is the Agenda underlying all what has occurred that stays hidden...

I fail to see how SH would jepordize his dictaorship by double crossing us and invading all of Kuwait. The way I see it the other nations (the ones who didn't like a westernized Kuwait) whould be fearful that they (or their oil fields)were next. IMO, Saddam was too smart to put himself in that position.

One thing that bothers me is why he would purposely put himself in the position to be invaded. He had it made, he had everything, things that normal people can't even begin to imagine. I can't bring myself to believe that if there was some under the table deals going on that SH wouldn't have made sure how far he could safley go. Look at what he lost in this deal, his 2 sons, all his money, and a totally insane amount of power. Now he sits in jail and is lucky to be alive.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: LunarRay

I think it is the Agenda underlying all what has occurred that stays hidden...

I fail to see how SH would jepordize his dictaorship by double crossing us and invading all of Kuwait. The way I see it the other nations (the ones who didn't like a westernized Kuwait) whould be fearful that they (or their oil fields)were next. IMO, Saddam was too smart to put himself in that position.

One thing that bothers me is why he would purposely put himself in the position to be invaded. He had it made, he had everything, things that normal people can't even begin to imagine. I can't bring myself to believe that if there was some under the table deals going on that SH wouldn't have made sure how far he could safley go. Look at what he lost in this deal, his 2 sons, all his money, and a totally insane amount of power. Now he sits in jail and is lucky to be alive.

He is too smart a cookie to have gone to Kuwait without some understanding or tacit approval. It is this tacit April Galaspie (or however her name is spelt) approval that I think gave him wink and nod he needed.
I think that he was a pawn in a grander scheme that is still unfolding or that fell apart. I'm not sure what it is or was nor do I think I'll see and know it if it occurs or has occurred.
For the US to withdraw the resolution authorizing invasion makes sense. Better that than to allow the other big boys to veto it. The US couldn't easily have gone ahead with invasion in face of that. As it is a major body of legal opinion point to the US invasion event as violating international and US law by not following the UN Charter as it applies (we do have a treaty with the UN).

There is so little any of us know for sure that there is always wiggle room for the supporters of Bush to be safe in continued support.... let the US death toll rise I think both parties of Congress will be forced to a vote of no confidence. It is then that Iraq will become the battle ground for the multitude.. Civil war or sectarian war or what ever.. folks are gonna die.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: LunarRay


He is too smart a cookie to have gone to Kuwait without some understanding or tacit approval. It is this tacit April Galaspie (or however her name is spelt) approval that I think gave him wink and nod he needed.
I think that he was a pawn in a grander scheme that is still unfolding or that fell apart. I'm not sure what it is or was nor do I think I'll see and know it if it occurs or has occurred.
For the US to withdraw the resolution authorizing invasion makes sense. Better that than to allow the other big boys to veto it. The US couldn't easily have gone ahead with invasion in face of that. As it is a major body of legal opinion point to the US invasion event as violating international and US law by not following the UN Charter as it applies (we do have a treaty with the UN).

There is so little any of us know for sure that there is always wiggle room for the supporters of Bush to be safe in continued support.... let the US death toll rise I think both parties of Congress will be forced to a vote of no confidence. It is then that Iraq will become the battle ground for the multitude.. Civil war or sectarian war or what ever.. folks are gonna die.

Very good point. I think your right, he was too smart to invade on his own. But don't you think he was also too smart to risk his "God" status for a little more land?

If in fact we did agree to let him take over the oil fields, why did he take all of Kuwait? I just can't fathom that he/we were unclear as to what was up for grabs if he invaded Kuwait. It's just too hard for me to swallow that he risked everything just to control a few more people.

 

[LunarRay]

1EZduzit,

Very good point. I think your right, he was too smart to invade on his own. But don't you think he was also too smart to risk his "God" status for a little more land?

If in fact we did agree to let him take over the oil fields, why did he take all of Kuwait? I just can't fathom that he/we were unclear as to what was up for grabs if he invaded Kuwait. It's just too hard for me to swallow that he risked everything just to control a few more people.

OK... what I would have done if I were in SH's shoes is this... given I don't have a clue about what we know or don't know that is truth...
I'd have realized that this invasion of Kuwait is the last best chance to enrich me and Iraq and further establish me as the major player in the ME... money talks and his military assets needed upkeep and replacement, as we found out so he knew this at the time. I couldn't just invade a few miles into Kuwait and negotiate a few back out... I'd have gone in as he did and assumed the US would bargain for Kuwait and demand back some portion which I'd give up on to "keep the Peace". But, I'd have secured the major oil deliver system or at least half of it along with the fields that are in the contested area... and knowing that if I pump that oil I also get the oil on Kuwait's side.. oil is liquid and flows.. I'd cease pumping Iraqi oil and save for the future.. I would create the scenario that SH is the great Peace maker and hero of the ME people..

edit: all I'd need was some assurance.... even tacit as might have been the case..

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: ccbadd

Uh ...... pretty sure it could have been prevented had we not invaded a country, that posed no danger to us whatsoever, in the first place. FTW.

You are so wise as to know this. Every Islamic country poses a threat to every non-Ilsamic contry by there own confession. "Convert or Kill" doctrine! Islamic people have never preached peaceful cohabitation. China is more friendly to other countries then any Islamic country. How many bombings has Christian, Buddist, even Aethist groups brought to bear on innocense without provocation?

What type of garbage is this ? There were no WMD's as the UN inspectors before they were rushed out told the world and us that Iraq was free of WMD's. Of course cowboys like yourself couldn't wait to start munching on freedom fries to watch the "awe and shock" show on Faux news and ignored it all.

Experts in the CIA, US Defense Department, etc.. basically laid out the dangers of removing Saddam and pitfalls of not having a force large enough to police the nation until so semblance of order could be restored. Basically you had the whole world including many experts in our own intelligence agencies telling you cowboys that invading Iraq was not a smart thing to do yet you all ignored this advise and "Stayed the course" right off that cliff. Geez talk about having the blinders on.

A large enough police force can still go in and should go in.

Basically what you are saying is we need another Saddam or Saddam like force.

No, basically that is what you are hearing, not what I am saying. We have police forces in this country and they are not like Saddam.

We have around 150,000+ soldiers in Iraq + Iraqi troops and police forces. Yet it doesn't seem to be working right for some reason because people keeping fighting and dieing in droves there.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: ccbadd

Uh ...... pretty sure it could have been prevented had we not invaded a country, that posed no danger to us whatsoever, in the first place. FTW.

You are so wise as to know this. Every Islamic country poses a threat to every non-Ilsamic contry by there own confession. "Convert or Kill" doctrine! Islamic people have never preached peaceful cohabitation. China is more friendly to other countries then any Islamic country. How many bombings has Christian, Buddist, even Aethist groups brought to bear on innocense without provocation?

What type of garbage is this ? There were no WMD's as the UN inspectors before they were rushed out told the world and us that Iraq was free of WMD's. Of course cowboys like yourself couldn't wait to start munching on freedom fries to watch the "awe and shock" show on Faux news and ignored it all.

Experts in the CIA, US Defense Department, etc.. basically laid out the dangers of removing Saddam and pitfalls of not having a force large enough to police the nation until so semblance of order could be restored. Basically you had the whole world including many experts in our own intelligence agencies telling you cowboys that invading Iraq was not a smart thing to do yet you all ignored this advise and "Stayed the course" right off that cliff. Geez talk about having the blinders on.

A large enough police force can still go in and should go in.

Basically what you are saying is we need another Saddam or Saddam like force.

No, basically that is what you are hearing, not what I am saying. We have police forces in this country and they are not like Saddam.

We have around 150,000+ soldiers in Iraq + Iraqi troops and police forces. Yet it doesn't seem to be working right for some reason because people keeping fighting and dieing in droves there.

Not enough.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
1EZduzit,

Very good point. I think your right, he was too smart to invade on his own. But don't you think he was also too smart to risk his "God" status for a little more land?

If in fact we did agree to let him take over the oil fields, why did he take all of Kuwait? I just can't fathom that he/we were unclear as to what was up for grabs if he invaded Kuwait. It's just too hard for me to swallow that he risked everything just to control a few more people.

OK... what I would have done if I were in SH's shoes is this... given I don't have a clue about what we know or don't know that is truth...
I'd have realized that this invasion of Kuwait is the last best chance to enrich me and Iraq and further establish me as the major player in the ME... money talks and his military assets needed upkeep and replacement, as we found out so he knew this at the time. I couldn't just invade a few miles into Kuwait and negotiate a few back out... I'd have gone in as he did and assumed the US would bargain for Kuwait and demand back some portion which I'd give up on to "keep the Peace". But, I'd have secured the major oil deliver system or at least half of it along with the fields that are in the contested area... and knowing that if I pump that oil I also get the oil on Kuwait's side.. oil is liquid and flows.. I'd cease pumping Iraqi oil and save for the future.. I would create the scenario that SH is the great Peace maker and hero of the ME people..

edit: all I'd need was some assurance.... even tacit as might have been the case..

And how is that going to let the "oil flow more smoothly"? Alll the oil people swear up and down that all the wells are running at 90%+ capacity to keep up with world demand.

Saddam Hussein cozied up to Ms. Gillespie one evening and suggested that oil would flow more smoothly from Iraq if Kuwait were not in the way. Ms. Gillespie's response was that the United States did not interfere in the domestic affairs of other nations. Can you say "green light" for an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait's oil fields?"

The whole thing is just insane. If I'm going to believe there was a conspiracy it seems to me just as likely that the conspiracy was to disrupt the flow of oil. One things for sure, if there was collusion, both sides outsmarted themselves.