>>> PT, Do you honestly believe that Hussein would have stopped in Kuwait & not gone on to Saudi Arabia? The current war is debatable, but you give Hussein far too much benefit of the doubt. All of his actions at the time indicate a quest for domination of the region and a massive miscalculation of US response.<<<
No, I don't think he would have invaded Saudi Arabia. The Saudis military certainly has been beefed up by US military technology. And the US historically has held a cozy relationship with the Saudi dictatorship for obvious reasons, even to a point of looking the other way and ignoring the Saudi human rights violations. Ever friendly with the oil-hungry USA, the Saudis had no reason to fear Saddam which would come to its rescue were Saddam to make such a move. I further believe Saddam is smart enough to know this as well.
He wanted Kuwait to solve three matters: a) the territorial claim dating back to before the Brits redrew the Middle East boundaries of nations, that Kuwait was actually a province of Iraq; b) a belief Kuwait was using newly developed slant oil drilling technology, taking oil from under Iraqi territory; and, more importantly, c) a belief that his war, his sacrifice, against Iran also protected Kuwait from possible Iranian fundamentalist expansion and that Kuwait therefore should help with both the costs of that war and with Iraq's reconstruction.
Saddam's war with Iran was pleasing to the US for several reasons. The US cozied strategically into the Saudis in the aftermath of the oil crisis that plagued the Carter Administration and the Iraq vs. Iran war helped on two fronts: a) revenge for the Iranian hostage crisis and the toppling of the US-friendly dictator, the Shah of Iran; and, b) Iraq at war enabled the Saudis a primtime posture for exporting US-friendly oil, and keeping Iraq's oil off the market, due to the war, was very helpful for the Saudis.
When Saddam confronted the US ambassador with his concerns regarding Kuwait, the US ambassador, April Glaspie, told him the US was not concerned with Arab vs. Arab disputes and had no position in the matter. Thinking himself allied with the US for doing the US bidding against Iran, Saddam miscalculated and invaded Kuwait.
Rather than go on, the below article, I believe, you and others will find helpful in understanding what actually happened. Do be assured that FoxNews and AM Radio won't provide an accurate account of history.
Excerpt:
" Is Saddam a Serial Aggressor?
Those who call for preventive war begin by portraying Saddam as a serial aggressor bent on dominating the Persian Gulf. The war party also contends that Saddam is either irrational or prone to serious miscalculation, which means he may not be deterred by even credible threats of retaliation. Kenneth Pollack, former director for gulf affairs at the National Security Council and a proponent of war with Iraq, goes so far as to argue that Saddam is ?unintentionally suicidal.?
The facts, however, tell a different story. Saddam has dominated Iraqi politics for more than 30 years. During that period, he started two wars against his neighbors?Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. Saddam?s record in this regard is no worse than that of neighboring states such as Egypt or Israel, each of which played a role in starting several wars since 1948. Furthermore, a careful look at Saddam?s two wars shows his behavior was far from reckless. Both times, he attacked because Iraq was vulnerable and because he believed his targets were weak and isolated. In each case, his goal was to rectify Iraq?s strategic dilemma with a limited military victory. Such reasoning does not excuse Saddam?s aggression, but his willingness to use force on these occasions hardly demonstrates that he cannot be deterred."
foreignpolicy.com
Also noteworthy, Steeny, is ultimately in the world of what-if, we don't know. However, there is a sense of prudency that tells us that most wars in recent times have more to do with territorial dispute or are civil in nature. Outright invasions are the excepton, not the norm. So, all things in consideration that don't stem from a source of propaganda, I don't believe Saddam would have invaded Saudi Arabia. That was a false picture presented by the first Bush Administration in order to get a military foothold into Saudi Arabia.
>>>Militant Islam & anti US ravings were long in existence before US troops entered Saudi. Saudi schools have been teaching extreme Islam & anti-Americanism as a way to keep their people in check. These guys are terrified of Democracy because they know their dictatorship will fall. This was true through the 70s & 80s. Saudi was funneling money to OBL from the days he was a Mujahadeen. He had been blackmailing the Saudis through the 90s & the US presence in Saudi was just the excuse that replaced US support of Israel. 9-11 was going to happen either way.<<<
But the fact of the matter is that those military forces in Saudi Arabia helped beef up Al Qaeda. The overall situation will worsen once a US military occupation becomes prevalent in Iraq. In one sense it'll be harder to win the peace than it'll be to win the war. Again, OBL, of all people anywhere, is the one rooting most strongly for Bush to make the crucial error of taking over Iraq.
>>>Your second point argues that the creation of AQ makes Saudi Arabia vulnerable & therefore Bush needs Iraqi oil more than before. There is validity to this. I would say this is a reason to go to war. Should AQ get a hold of Saudi, it is in our interest to have a democracy in the region which could prevent their spread. Also, if we are really cynical, why didn't Bush1 just let have Hussein have Kuwait? He would have provided us with a stable supply of oil & at the time we liked him.<<<
So a war for oil is worth death and destruction, huh? Thus, innocent people should die because American policy makers both ignored and wasted efforts to create and implement alternative sources of oil and repeatedly caved in to corporations which lobbied hard and heavy?
Nope. I don't buy that a bit. Stealing and killing for other people's oil is not a just cause for war!
American technology invented wind and solar techniques, but ironically it is Germany and Japan who are implementing and marketing them. I guess that's what happens when friends let friends vote Republican. And it's my view the Democrats could have done better than they did when they held power.
Regarding letting Saddam just have Kuwait? Saddam violated international law by this invasion. He also did when he invaded Iran. But no on liked Iran at the time Iraq invaded, so, again, the eyes got turned another way, this while the US did everything it could to circumvent UN opposition to Iraq's invasion.
>>>I think you agree that oil is not our sole reason for going to war, albeit you think it is 90% of the reason & I think it is 50%. Afghanistan was not about oil, but self defense. Iraq also has a 50% self defense element IMO. The Arab lands must change. They show little signs of doing it on their own and they represent a clear and present danger to the US.<<<
My position as to why this war is happening is that Saddam is weak, vulnerable and has a bad reputation. He's easy pickings, especially for a US president in a bad economy who otherwise would have nothing to show for voters in the next presidential eleciton. It's been a pat line in American diners and truckstops that "we shouldda got that bastard during the last war." It's this mentality that forces Karl Rove to force George W. Bush to take out Saddam, the theory being taking out Saddam means reelection.
The additional bonus is the greasy oil-ridden Administration and friends all make out with padded no-ceiling contracts for waging the war, rebuilding after the war and from the oil deals that'll set the table for the future. This war isn't going to do anything to help the people who empty the bedpans of the elderly in good ole' USA.
>>>Look, Bush is a moron who has handled this situation ineptly & he & Cheney's oil cronies are going to reap the spoils of this war. I can't stand defending them. We should have taken care of Palestine first. These facts alone do not make this war unjust.<<<
The hawks pushing this war have made much of Kenneth Pollack's favoring the idea of taking out Saddam. However, if you really examine what Pollack recommended, you'll find the Bush Administration skipping over several key points. Please do read, you'll find this enlightening.
thenation.com
Finally, thanks for your response, Steeny. It's good to see meaningful content on this board and to have the opportunity to respond to meaningful viewpoints instead of the distractionists who pervade on this thread in an attempt to distort meaningful dialogue. Please do keep chipping in! |
