What or who actually started the Iraqi War.. I thought it was the Kuwait invasion

slatr

Senior member
May 28, 2001
957
2
81
Dmcowen says Bush Sr.

Well, shouldn't we finish what we started?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Go dig up the UN ceasefire agreement from the UN site. The resolution was I believe 687.

If you dont understand what the ceasefire entailed then I dont think you should be making claims about the liberation of Kuwait ends the thread.

 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
Gulf War I was a UN mission. This mess was made by the USA.

and paid for by her citizens but profits go to her corporations
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,616
4,705
136
Originally posted by: Genx87
Go dig up the UN ceasefire agreement from the UN site. The resolution was I believe 687.

If you dont understand what the ceasefire entailed then I dont think you should be making claims about the liberation of Kuwait ends the thread.

If you don't understand the point of my post, then I don't think you should be making claims about the U.N ceasefire agreement.

;)
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: Genx87
Go dig up the UN ceasefire agreement from the UN site. The resolution was I believe 687.

If you dont understand what the ceasefire entailed then I dont think you should be making claims about the liberation of Kuwait ends the thread.

If you don't understand the point of my post, then I don't think you should be making claims about the U.N ceasefire agreement.

;)

What is the point of your post then? If it was sarcasm I suggest adding a tag.
Otherwise the liberation of Kuwait was only part of the ceasefire agreement. The other major part of Iraq was not to be an external threat and would allow unfettered access to his weapons programs and facilities.

He failed on 2/3's of those up until the invasion.

 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: Genx87
Go dig up the UN ceasefire agreement from the UN site. The resolution was I believe 687.

If you dont understand what the ceasefire entailed then I dont think you should be making claims about the liberation of Kuwait ends the thread.

If you don't understand the point of my post, then I don't think you should be making claims about the U.N ceasefire agreement.

;)

What is the point of your post then? If it was sarcasm I suggest adding a tag.
Otherwise the liberation of Kuwait was only part of the ceasefire agreement. The other major part of Iraq was not to be an external threat and would allow unfettered access to his weapons programs and facilities.

He failed on 2/3's of those up until the invasion.

Our little war-child didn't like it when we told him to give back the toys we gave him? (WMD's)
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
61
91
Originally posted by: slatr
What or who actually started the Iraqi War.. I thought it was the Kuwait
It depends on which war in Iraq you mean. The first Gulf War was triggered when Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait. The response was an action by a real coalition including forces from several Arab nations:
Five days after Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990, the United States started to deploy entire Army, Navy, Marine, Air Force, and Coast Guard units to Saudi Arabia (Operation Desert Shield), while at the same time urging other countries to send their own forces to the scene. U.S. coalition-building efforts were so successful that by the time the fighting (Operation Desert Storm) began on January 17, 1991, twelve countries had sent naval forces, joining the local navies of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, as well as the huge array of the U.S. Navy, with no fewer than six aircraft-carrier battle groups; eight countries had sent ground forces, joining the local troops of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, as well as the seventeen heavy, six light, and nine marine brigades of the U.S. Army, with all their vast support and service forces (including thousands of female reservists); and four countries had sent combat aircraft, joining the local air forces of Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, as well as the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Marine aviation, for a grand total of 2,430 fixed-wing aircraft.
Originally posted by: slatr[/i]
Well, shouldn't we finish what we started?
If you're asking about the first Gulf War, Bushwhacko's father knew where to stop, and he said so. In his memoirs, A World Transformed (1998), written with Brent Scowcroft, on pp. 489 - 490, George H.W. Bush wrote:
Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
Sound familiar? If only his idiot son could read! :(
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
We also had a clearly-defined and very capable exit strategy in Gulf War 1.

From what I have read, PNAC was not happy with Bush Sr. for ending it when he did, but knowing what we know now, he made the right decision.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Saddam's ultimate goal that he wished to achieve through invasion was to become a Nasser-like pan-Arab leader (Nasser sort of never recover from Egypt's destruction at the hands of the Israelis). Wealth (through oil) and land control were to be the chief contributors to his claim.

Other than that, Kuwait was pumping a hell of a lot of oil back then - depressing the price of oil quite a bit, which obviously affected Iraq ($1 drop = $1 billion lost revenue). He used some halfassed claim of disputed land to invade the country and the war was on.

Remember that there were two operations in the Middle East in that time: Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm. Desert Shield's goal was to protect the kingdom of Saudi Arabia from the Iraqi forces, and for a number of months the U.S./Saudi troops were in serious trouble if Saddam had decided to steamroll forwards. But he stayed put, and forces built up in Saudi Arabia to the point where taking back Kuwait was feasible. I should note here that former President Bush was smart about this: He realized that if you go to war, you really go to war. How much troops were ready to roll in the Middle East by the end - half a million? The first President Bush really doesn't get enough credit for what he did during his term in office.

If you're being technical, there is the fact that Hussein offered to pull out of Kuwait a few hours before Operation Desert Storm was about to begin. However, the decision was made by all involved (both the U.S., the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, the other allies) to not leave Saddam's war machine intact now that his belligerence had been proven. Saddam was given an unrealistic timeline to retreat and the operation was on.

bamacre is right about Desert Storm - it was an operation that had clearly defined goals with realistic expectations. Read retired general G. Norman Schwarzkopf's autobiography on the war and he'll tell you bluntly why they didn't go into Baghdad: It wasn't his mission. Saddam had been expelled from Kuwait and his military machine was in pieces. Nowhere in his orders was he told to execute regime change as well. Neither did the administration believe that the political capital was there to pay the price for that change - the hundreds of soldiers who would be lost in the bloody door-to-door urban campaign in the city.

Argubly it's a different world we live in today - can we really tolerate foreign nations expounding their belief that we should all be killed when we know what individual who may or may not get their help might get it in their heads to do? Would you have wanted to wait for Saddam or his sons to finally acquire nukes so we could see another invasion in the Middle East? There's a lot of tough questions to be asked, and though I support the current President Bush's decision to finish the job, do I ever wish he had done it the way his father would have. Never fight war on the cheap, kids.
 

conehead433

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2002
5,566
899
126
Originally posted by: yllus
Saddam's ultimate goal that he wished to achieve through invasion was to become a Nasser-like pan-Arab leader (Nasser sort of never recover from Egypt's destruction at the hands of the Israelis). Wealth (through oil) and land control were to be the chief contributors to his claim.

Other than that, Kuwait was pumping a hell of a lot of oil back then - depressing the price of oil quite a bit, which obviously affected Iraq ($1 drop = $1 billion lost revenue). He used some halfassed claim of disputed land to invade the country and the war was on.

Remember that there were two operations in the Middle East in that time: Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm. Desert Shield's goal was to protect the kingdom of Saudi Arabia from the Iraqi forces, and for a number of months the U.S./Saudi troops were in serious trouble if Saddam had decided to steamroll forwards. But he stayed put, and forces built up in Saudi Arabia to the point where taking back Kuwait was feasible. I should note here that former President Bush was smart about this: He realized that if you go to war, you really go to war. How much troops were ready to roll in the Middle East by the end - half a million? The first President Bush really doesn't get enough credit for what he did during his term in office.

If you're being technical, there is the fact that Hussein offered to pull out of Kuwait a few hours before Operation Desert Storm was about to begin. However, the decision was made by all involved (both the U.S., the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, the other allies) to not leave Saddam's war machine intact now that his belligerence had been proven. Saddam was given an unrealistic timeline to retreat and the operation was on.

bamacre is right about Desert Storm - it was an operation that had clearly defined goals with realistic expectations. Read retired general G. Norman Schwarzkopf's autobiography on the war and he'll tell you bluntly why they didn't go into Baghdad: It wasn't his mission. Saddam had been expelled from Kuwait and his military machine was in pieces. Nowhere in his orders was he told to execute regime change as well. Neither did the administration believe that the political capital was there to pay the price for that change - the hundreds of soldiers who would be lost in the bloody door-to-door urban campaign in the city.

Argubly it's a different world we live in today - can we really tolerate foreign nations expounding their belief that we should all be killed when we know what individual who may or may not get their help might get it in their heads to do? Would you have wanted to wait for Saddam or his sons to finally acquire nukes so we could see another invasion in the Middle East? There's a lot of tough questions to be asked, and though I support the current President Bush's decision to finish the job, do I ever wish he had done it the way his father would have. Never fight war on the cheap, kids.

According to Iraq Kuwait had been slant drilling for oil and actually taking oil that was technically below Iraq. This stealing of oil is why Iraq invaded Kuwait. And Iraq with nukes would have been a scary thought for us here in the U.S. They had missiles that could barely go 100 miles. The only thing Bush has succeeded in doing was to get the price of oil raised for his oil buddies. And although we have had a temporary reprieve in gas prices I am sure he will get the prices back up by attacking Iran at some point before he leaves office. Our current situation is what happens when people support idiots like George W.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Originally posted by: conehead433
According to Iraq Kuwait had been slant drilling for oil and actually taking oil that was technically below Iraq. This stealing of oil is why Iraq invaded Kuwait. And Iraq with nukes would have been a scary thought for us here in the U.S. They had missiles that could barely go 100 miles. The only thing Bush has succeeded in doing was to get the price of oil raised for his oil buddies. And although we have had a temporary reprieve in gas prices I am sure he will get the prices back up by attacking Iran at some point before he leaves office. Our current situation is what happens when people support idiots like George W.
Key words bolded. Nonsensical even if was happening anyways - who spools up a major invasion, topples the Kuwaiti monarchy and occupies an entire country for drilling slightly over the border? That would simply call for a buffer zone being created and occupied, not a full-fledged invasion.

Why would those missiles need to fly more than 100 miles when the vast majority of the world's oil reserves are within that sphere of attack? Threaten to nuke some of the world's oil fields and you're all set to make your demands.

Our current situation is what happens when people are too shortsighted to see the long-term consequences of their present words and actions. Hint, hint.
 

conehead433

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2002
5,566
899
126
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: conehead433
According to Iraq Kuwait had been slant drilling for oil and actually taking oil that was technically below Iraq. This stealing of oil is why Iraq invaded Kuwait. And Iraq with nukes would have been a scary thought for us here in the U.S. They had missiles that could barely go 100 miles. The only thing Bush has succeeded in doing was to get the price of oil raised for his oil buddies. And although we have had a temporary reprieve in gas prices I am sure he will get the prices back up by attacking Iran at some point before he leaves office. Our current situation is what happens when people support idiots like George W.
Key words bolded. Nonsensical even if was happening anyways - who spools up a major invasion, topples the Kuwaiti monarchy and occupies an entire country for drilling slightly over the border? That would simply call for a buffer zone being created and occupied, not a full-fledged invasion.

Why would those missiles need to fly more than 100 miles when the vast majority of the world's oil reserves are within that sphere of attack? Threaten to nuke some of the world's oil fields and you're all set to make your demands.

Our current situation is what happens when people are too shortsighted to see the long-term consequences of their present words and actions. Hint, hint.

Too bad you can't vote for Bush again. The Middle East oil situation makes it imperative that we become non dependent on Middle East oil and leave the region entirely to become the hell it apparently is headed to becoming. Let's just allow them to do so without our help.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: Genx87
Go dig up the UN ceasefire agreement from the UN site. The resolution was I believe 687.

If you dont understand what the ceasefire entailed then I dont think you should be making claims about the liberation of Kuwait ends the thread.

If you don't understand the point of my post, then I don't think you should be making claims about the U.N ceasefire agreement.

;)

What is the point of your post then? If it was sarcasm I suggest adding a tag.
Otherwise the liberation of Kuwait was only part of the ceasefire agreement. The other major part of Iraq was not to be an external threat and would allow unfettered access to his weapons programs and facilities.

He failed on 2/3's of those up until the invasion.
I'm pretty sure he was in compliance completely, unless you know about a wmd program and military noone else knew about.

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: Genx87
Go dig up the UN ceasefire agreement from the UN site. The resolution was I believe 687.

If you dont understand what the ceasefire entailed then I dont think you should be making claims about the liberation of Kuwait ends the thread.

If you don't understand the point of my post, then I don't think you should be making claims about the U.N ceasefire agreement.

;)

What is the point of your post then? If it was sarcasm I suggest adding a tag.
Otherwise the liberation of Kuwait was only part of the ceasefire agreement. The other major part of Iraq was not to be an external threat and would allow unfettered access to his weapons programs and facilities.

He failed on 2/3's of those up until the invasion.
I'm pretty sure he was in compliance completely, unless you know about a wmd program and military noone else knew about.

And you knew this 100% in 2002-03 how?

 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
61
91
Originally posted by: Genx87
And you knew this 100% in 2002-03 how?
That's what Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei said in Februry, 2003
Bush administration stung by second report of Iraq inspectors

By Patrick Martin
15 February 2003


The Bush administration reacted bitterly to the second report delivered Friday by the chief weapons inspectors, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, in which they declared that no evidence had been found that Iraq currently possesses nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell listened stone-faced as the reports of Blix and ElBaradei explicitly contradicted the basic premises upon which the Bush administration?s drive to war is based.

Their report was immediately cited by diplomats from France, Russia, China and Germany as the basis for rejecting a US demand for the UN Security Council to authorize military action against Iraq.

Blix cited improved cooperation on the part of Iraq in recent weeks, including the first private interviews with Iraqi weapons scientists and permission for the UN to operate U-2 spy plane flights across Iraq?s territory. Iraq was continuing to give full access to UN inspectors to visit whatever site in the country they chose, he said.

The Swedish diplomat explicitly rebutted several of the charges which Powell made last week in his address to the Security Council.

Referring to satellite photos of an Iraqi ammunition depot, which Powell had presented to the UN as evidence of Iraqi concealment of banned weapons, Blix said, ?The reported movement of munitions at the site could just as easily have been a routine activity,? rather than an attempt to hide materials from inspectors. ?In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming,? he said, contradicting another Powell claim.

Blix said that a UN weapons panel had concluded that Iraq?s Al Samoud 2 missile was in violation of a Security Council ban on possession of missiles with a range exceeding 150 kilometers in range (93 miles). The missiles traveled 110 miles in a test firing, a relatively minor difference. More significant was Blix?s admission that Iraq had voluntarily supplied the information about the missile.

Iraq has not supplied all the information sought by inspectors about when and how it destroyed previous stocks of chemical and biological weapons, built up during the 1980s with assistance from the United States and European countries, Blix said. It was impossible as yet to prove conclusively that all these weapons had been destroyed.

?One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist,? Blix said. ?However, that possibility is also not excluded.? In a clear reference to the unsupported character of allegations by the Bush administration, he said, ?Inspectors, for their part, must base their reports only on evidence, which they can, themselves, examine and present publicly. Without evidence, confidence cannot arise.?

ElBaradei?s report was even less favorable from the standpoint of the Bush administration. ?We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq,? he said.

ElBaradei, who heads the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), directly contradicted Bush administration claims that Iraq could hide a nuclear program, adding, ?The IAEA?s experience in nuclear verification shows that it is possible, particularly with an intrusive verification system, to assess the presence or absence of a nuclear weapons program in a state even without the full cooperation of the inspected state.?
.
.
(continues)
That's a good start on why the world opposed Bush's move, and they were right. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:
 

MAW1082

Senior member
Jun 17, 2003
510
7
81
Originally posted by: Genx87

And you knew this 100% in 2002-03 how?

Yeah, people said that Iraq had no weapons worth going after from the start of the war . . .

For example, the yellow cake uranium that Iraq was alleged to have purchased from Niger. Italian intelligence has discredited this allegation months before the 2003 invasion. People like Noam Chomsky highlighted the assessment of the Italians. Furthermore, it was seriously doubted that Iraq possessed mobile chemical weapons labs. The satellite photos Powell and Bush touted were seriously doubted by people from all parts of the political spectrum.

What really gets me is that during the lead up to the war, the voices of the skeptics were drowned out by the corporate media and the after the war, when those same people re-asserted their original skeptical views, the right-wingers ask 'where were you before the war?' Revisionist Historian claims. It really makes me sick.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: MAW1082
Originally posted by: Genx87

And you knew this 100% in 2002-03 how?
Yeah, people said that Iraq had no weapons worth going after from the start of the war . . .

For example, the yellow cake uranium that Iraq was alleged to have purchased from Niger. Italian intelligence has discredited this allegation months before the 2003 invasion. People like Noam Chomsky highlighted the assessment of the Italians. Furthermore, it was seriously doubted that Iraq possessed mobile chemical weapons labs. The satellite photos Powell and Bush touted were seriously doubted by people from all parts of the political spectrum.

What really gets me is that during the lead up to the war, the voices of the skeptics were drowned out by the corporate media and the after the war, when those same people re-asserted their original skeptical views, the right-wingers ask 'where were you before the war?' Revisionist Historian claims. It really makes me sick.
The problem with your theory is that EVERYONE believed that Saddam did in fact have WMD at the start of the war. There was not one major country in the world standing up and saying ?no he does not have WMD? not one.
The whole ?drowned out by the corporate media? crap is revisionist history. Find me one article or statement by a major world leader stating that Iraq had no WMD BEFORE the invasion.

Saddam may not have had WMD, but he continued to act like he did and he did this right up to the very end. Like in the 1990 when the pressure neared its peak all of a sudden he started to play ball.
After 9-11 Bush started pushing for weapons inspectors. Even after the invasion of Afghanistan though Saddam did not cooperate. It was not until the UN passed its tough actions resolution that Saddam decided to play along, and even then Blix says they did not give ?full cooperation.?
From March 1, 2003 link
"Iraq could have made greater efforts to find any remaining proscribed items or provide credible evidence showing the absence of such items," Mr Blix wrote in his 17-page report. "The results in terms of disarmament have been very limited so far."
More from Blix. Iraq claimed to have destroyed much of their WMD and along with the weapons destroyed the research and procurement papers as well. In other words they destroyed everything, even proof that the stuff was destroyed was destroyed. This lead to this statement by Blix in January 2003 UN link (I highly recommend you read the whole document, it details some of the 'missing Iraq weapons, such as 6500 chemical warheads.)
When we have urged our Iraqi counterparts to present more evidence, we have all too often met the response that there are no more documents. All existing relevant documents have been presented, we are told. All documents relating to the biological weapons programme were destroyed together with the weapons.

However, Iraq has all the archives of the Government and its various departments, institutions and mechanisms. It should have budgetary documents, requests for funds and reports on how they have been used. It should also have letters of credit and bills of lading, reports on production and losses of material.

In response to a recent UNMOVIC request for a number of specific documents, the only new documents Iraq provided was a ledger of 193 pages which Iraq stated included all imports from 1983 to 1990 by the Technical and Scientific Importation Division, the importing authority for the biological weapons programme. Potentially, it might help to clear some open issues.

The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side, which claims that research staff sometimes may bring home papers from their work places. On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes.

Any further sign of the concealment of documents would be serious. The Iraqi side committed itself at our recent talks to encourage persons to accept access also to private sites. There can be no sanctuaries for proscribed items, activities or documents. A denial of prompt access to any site would be a very serious matter.

When Iraq claims that tangible evidence in the form of documents is not available, it ought at least to find individuals, engineers, scientists and managers to testify about their experience. Large weapons programmes are moved and managed by people. Interviews with individuals who may have worked in programmes in the past may fill blank spots in our knowledge and understanding. It could also be useful to learn that they are now employed in peaceful sectors. These were the reasons why UNMOVIC asked for a list of such persons, in accordance with resolution 1441.

Some 400 names for all biological and chemical weapons programmes as well as their missile programmes were provided by the Iraqi side. This can be compared to over 3,500 names of people associated with those past weapons programmes that UNSCOM either interviewed in the 1990s or knew from documents and other sources. At my recent meeting in Baghdad, the Iraqi side committed itself to supplementing the list and some 80 additional names have been provided.
Remember the scientist with the parts of a centrifuge buried in his front yard along with other nuclear material? That proves exactly what Blix was saying at the time.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Was Saddam a Threat to the USA .. You know... North America?

Was he aligned with Osam Bin Laden

Was he a huge supporter of the Taliban

Were any of the hijackers from Iraq

When was the last time Saddam or even an Iraqi killed an American citizen

 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Also, as an answer to the thread title.
Timeline of events:
Saddam invaded Kuwait, we push Saddam out of Kuwait and force him to sign a ceasefire agreement.

Notice it was a ceasefire agreement, not an agreement of surrender. The definition of a ceasefire is: is a temporary stoppage of a war or any armed conflict, where each side of the conflict agrees with the other to suspend aggressive actions. One of the elements of the ceasefire was that Saddam would surrender his WMD program and cooperate with the UN in activly proving such a program had been dismantled. However, Saddam did no such thing and instead fought inspectors every step of the way, including throwing them out of the country on several occasions.

This leads us to 2002 when Bush starts to apply preassure to Saddam to comply with the 1991 agrement once and for all.
Saddam again does not fulfill his end of the agrement, at least in the eyes of Bush, and therefore we resume hostilities. Therefore, in a strict technical sense the Gulf War of 2003 was not in fact a new war, but a continuation of the previous war.
I know a lot of you may disagree with this line of thinking, but it is correct in a strict legal sense. Even the 2002 Joint Resolution to Authorize force used the noncompiance of the 1991 cease fire as justification.