A simple question. Was the Iraq war unjust? Whats your view on it? Do you believe all the stories several American leaders made up such as that Iraq was a chemical threat, a biological threat, a nuclear threat, that Iraq was tied to al-Qaeda, among other claims?
This goes much further back then the WMD claims. First of all, Saddam in the 90's has carried out much worse atrocities then what Gadaffi was capable of. I'm willing to bet The UN has passed far more resolutions for Iraqs humanitarian violations then todays Libya and Syria combined, The world should have deposed of him back then. Since the Gulf War every administration we've had has been military engaged in Iraq. We've really been at war with iraq for 6 or so years before the 2003 invasion. My only gripe is We should have left after the elections, and concentrated much more resources to the infrastrucutre.
Yeah, there is much previous history to it... The US seems to "pick and choose" which dictators they support, and when they want to stop supporting them. The US bombarded Iraq for a long time, then talked the UN into sanctioning Iraq. Pretty much plagued Iraq before the 2003 invasion on Iraq.
The UN sanctions of Iraq began after he invaded Kuwait and declared that Kuwait no longer existed. He really should have been sanctioned and disposed when he began wipeing out 1,000's of villages with chemical weapons and killing over 100,000 kurds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Anfal_Campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Uprising_in_Karbala http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Uprising_in_As_Sulaymaniyah If these happened during this "arab spring", the world would have overthrown Saddam on humanitarian grounds alone.
What do you mean "all thru the 1990s? The first Gulf War began in January of 1991.. Around US$36 billion of the US$60 billion cost was paid by Saudi Arabia.
Don't forget that Kuwait was pushing on Iraq (or provoking Iraq) when demanding the immediate payment after the Iran-Iraq war, while the US "green lighted" Iraq's invasion of Kuwait during the meeting between Saddam and the US ambassador Glapsie. From what I know, I believe Iraq said Kuwait no longer existed because Iraq's historic claim to Kuwait. Kuwait had been an administrative sub district of the Iraqi province of Basra in Ottoman times (that's about 400 years). Besides what I've said already, I believe that Iraq invaded Kuwait for several purposes. First, Iraq believed that Kuwait owned some kind of a "debt" to Iraq for 'saving' them during the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq thought that they should not have to pay back Kuwait for this purpose (or at least not immediately). Iraq was also angry at Kuwait for allegedly taking from the Rumaila field, and stealing oil from Iraq. Apparently from 1980 to 1990 Kuwait pumped about 2.4 billion USD worth of oil belonging to Iraq from Rumaila field. Saddam specifically called this action an "act of war". Also the issue of Iraq's access to the Gulf. Iraq is a 170,000 square miles, but is virtually land locked... It was also said that in June 1988 before the cease-fire with Iran, Iraq informed Kuwait its ready to settle all major issues, but Kuwait temporized. Simply though, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was really no different than what Indonesia had done to East Timor, with Washington's "confirmation". The Arabs and neighboring countries failed to detect Iraq's explosive potential, that is for sure. Yeah, Saddam did treat the Kurds bad. But just as in any highly centralized dictatorship, they try to exterminate anybody working to overthrow the regime. Although, during 1972 to about 1975, the US (I think it was Nixon and Kissinger) provided military aid to the Kurds fighting for their autonomy in Iraq. Then the US abandoned the Kurds after trying to create tension between Iran and Iraq, and extract oil, leaving the Kurds' forces destroyed. And there is some uncertainty with some of Saddam's attacks against the Kurds. For example in Halabaj it was unsure who used the chemical weapons. It could have either been Iran or Iraq. The Kurds killed with chemcial weapons there indicated they had been killed with a blood agent, which Iran was known to use, while it was unknown if Iraq possessed this. But ultimately I did not agree with the large death of civilians. The Kurds however did usually side with Iran against Iraq (so their own government). And they also much of the time during Iraq's attacks upon the Kurds, had the peshmerga guerillas fighting against Iraq. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not trying to legitimatize any crimes committed against the Kurds. About the sanctions now... The US and Britain did relentlessly bomb Iraq day after day for a while, destroying one of the most sophisticated and advanced societies in the Middle East. For example, every time the US knocked out the lighting or what not in Bagdad, (during the bombings) the Iraqis always found a a way to fix it! The US dropped nearly 117 million pounds of bombs on the people of Iraq, including the depleted uranium leading many to cancers and sundry congenital problems. Like I said, once the US talked the UN into sanctioning Iraq this just caused more problems for Iraq - as a whole. This kept Iraq from reconstructing all the infrastructure that had been destroyed by the US. This also amounted in the death of over a million Iraqi children, and many more adults. The biological and chemical weapons used against Iraq, destroying the Iraqi military, the infrastructure destroyed, dreadful health problems, and the sanctions, did not solve anything...
Iraq wanted Kuwait to forget the debt entirely because they felt they did some sort of service to the region but who invaded who? Iraq invaded Iran. Also think about what you are saying. You say Halabaj could have been Iran, yet you also say the Kurds supported Iran against Iraq. That makes no sense. Iran welcomed the Kurds refugees during Al Anfal campaign The diplomat did not green light the invasion. the U.S. abassadors in the region where instructed to have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts. Kuwait and the UAE came to a deal with the price of oil so that it wouldnt hurt Iraqs economy. Iraq needed another excuse to invade Kuwait which was slant drilling. what better way to clear your debt then to invade your debtors. Saddam did more damage to Iraqs infrascture then the years of US bombing, as you said it was easily fixed the next day. Saddam Drained the Mesopotamian Marshes, roughly 20,000 square kilometers of fertile land, the US didnt turn Iraqs fertile land into desert.
I agree, Saddam believed that he had blocked al-bawwabah al sharqiyyah (the Eastern Gateway) to the Arab world in the face of Khomeini's "hordes". He thought this is what saved the other Arab Gulf States, notably Kuwait from ruin. Even though as you said, it was Iraq who invaded Iran. The United States 'urged' Saddam to attack Iran even. The US didn't try to stop the violence though, in fact the US helped both countries militarily and monetarily, especially Iraq - including chemical and biological weapons. It's true, the US was unsure what Saddam going to do. They didn't actually think Saddam was going to take military action (although eventually they predicted it), especially after Bush's talk with Hussein of Jordan. If Iraq's invasion was only to acquire disputed territories between the countries, then most likely US intervention would not have occurred. Although, during Glapsie and Saddam's talk, Glapsie did say the US had "no position on these Arab affairs". This would lead Saddam to believe that no matter his action, US intervention is not to happen. And this is after Glapsie asks what Saddam's "intentions" are with all the troops massing on the Kuwaiti border. Well, during the Iran-Iraq war, several countries were supporting Iraq. Once the war ended though, all the countries were asking or demanding for their money. Kuwait, which Iraq owed the most money to, was demanding the payment. Iraq needed to reconstruct its economy and expand its industrial-technological infrastructure. This could have been achieved if Iraq increased its oil revenues through higher oil prices. Simply, Iraq didn't have the money. As you say they came to an agreement with the oil prices. Although, there was overproduction of OPEC quotas amongst the Gulf countries (in other words produced beyond their quotes). This made in certain instances Iraq's oil value plummeting to $7 per barrel, although, the agreed upon was $18 per barrel. This meant the loss of 1 billion per annum for Iraq. During the time between the cease-fire with Iran in August 1988 and Jidda conference just prior to the invasion on August 2, Saddam called this overproduction an "act of war" at the Jidda conference. Again, I don't agree with any murder of the Kurds committed by Saddam's regime. I was just simply pointing out that the Kurds were against their government during the campaign and were sided with Iran on many instances. There is a possibility that Iran could have used the weapons on Halabaj, trying to frame Iraq. After all, they were both framing one another. Stephen Pelletiere, the CIA's senior political analyst on Iraq during the 1980s wrote that "We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds." He also mentioned that this was during a battle with the Iranians. He wrote that "Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town ... The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target" and "The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time." There is no doubt Saddam treated the Kurds bad, that is a fact. I was just simply was pointing out the controversy on ONE of those issues. Like I said in my previous post though, when a group of people who are struggling against the government, presumably working against the government of a highly centralized dictatorship, then they are sure to be killed. Don't get me wrong though, I am not disagreeing with you, Saddam did treat the Kurds horrible. Actually, your rather strange idea that Saddam some how did more damage to infrastructure than the US did confuses me. Saddam would have never allowed the current situation in Iraq. Yes, Saddam was bad, but the US isn't any better for Iraq (perhaps worse, much worse). Now back to the US bombings in 1991 to around 2003. Again, the US bombed the hell out of Iraq during this time. After Iraq's invasion of Kuwait the US bombed Iraq from Baghdad to the Kuwaiti border. Destroying all type of civilian infrastructure, including bridges, hospitals, dams, hotels, schools, TV/radio stations, communication systems, highways, and other stuff. The hundreds of pounds of bombs dropped on Iraq - which included depleted uranium - caused health problems too. After the sanctions, none of these things were able to be rebuilt, a million children were dead, and many more adults. The US and British planes went over this "burned up ash" of Iraq nearly everyday in the no fly-zone. The US put Iraq in a terrible state and inflicted so much vindictive punishment on it. Anybody with some sense wouldn't see this as justified. Even if Saddam killed the Kurds... Iraq was a completely failed country, even more so with this 2003 invasion. Which before US intervention in 1990 Iraq was one of the most advanced societies in the Middle East. I'll say this again, I do not agree with some actions taken by Saddam and his regime.
Here's the "tl;dr" of the whole thread: US foreign policy in the Middle East was pretty schizophrenic and inconsistent during the Cold War. Then, the Great Decider came along and pointed out "Hey, genocidal military dictatorships are bad, and theocracy is bad. The right of the people of every country to choose the form and function of their own government is good. Our foreign policy might want to keep this in mind." Granted, this wasn't applied with 100% consistency (case in point: Saudi Arabia), but the basic idea that we should be G.I Joe, fighting for freedom wherever there's trouble, was certainly better than the idea that we should support any dictatorship that sided with us against the USSR.
