Ammonium - 2/15/2006 3:52 AM
chiphomme - 2/15/2006 2:53 AM
Ammonium - 2/15/2006 2:25 AM
I like history...
After the Iran/Iraq war Iraq was heavily in debt to several Arab countries. They owed 14 billion dollars to Kuwait alone. Iraq planned to pay off its debt by raising oil prices through OCEP. That is until Kuwait decided to increase production and drive the price of oil low in an attempt to gain some leverage on their ongoing boarder dispute with Iraq.
Iraq then started claiming, which were never proven by the way, that Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraq's oil fields. Also Iraq was claiming that because Iraq served as a buffer to Iran that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait should negotiate away Iraq's debt.
The increased production oil production, along with Iraq's assertion of wanting to annex Kuwait back into Iraq to pre-1913 convention boarders, was what drove Iraq into Kuwait. Then there was Bush 41 talking about how the US had no strategic interest in Kuwait. Bush 41 basically goated Saddam into invading.
Also important to note is that the US and the UN is nothing while Iraq was launching mustard gas and nerve agents at Iran and killing tens of thousands. Hell we gave him the fucking weapons in the first place. Reagan and Bush 41 were selling him Anthrax, bubonic plague, small pox, and just about anything else he wanted. The important part is that those things don't last forever. Max shelf life of 2-3 years tops. Last heard of anything was 1998 so by 2003 when we rolled in there even if he had Anthrax that shit was as dangerous as sand.
You want to talk WMD's..how about all the DU rounds that were used in both Gulf Wars? That shit is radioactive for the next 4.3 BILLION years and kills anyone. US soldiers(Gulf War syndrome), Iraqi soldiers, civilians, and children.
If you like you don't read it much and pull things out of context. Are you somehow rationalizing Iraq's behavior as benign and merely self defense? And are you blaming the US for the atrocities of Saddam? The reality is Saddam had Pan Arab dreams and claimed Kuwait as part of Iraq. He was a brutal dictator that attacked or threatened the entire region. A region which is of strategic importance to the US.
WE slapped him down and he was told to comply with a disarmamnet agreement. An agreement that he was repeatedly caught in violation of. The UN weapons inspectors, the Clinton administration, and every major intelligence agency had absolutely no faith in his compliance or they would have lifted the sanctions long before Bush took office.
Please tell me how you would have dealt with the Iraq threat. And do you believe Iraq is better off without the Baathists in power?
The problem with you anti Bush types is that you have no solutions just criticisms. That's the reason, even with Bush's low approval ratings, that a democrat didn't take the White House, the American people trust them less.
Before I get going realize you came at me first.
What exactly sir have I been wrong on and/or pulled out of context? Everything I have said has been backed by factual sources. Do I need to site them for you? You can find them in any up to date Middle East book dealing with history for the past 125 years.
If you were such an estute history student, as you claim to be, you would have known that Kuwait was carved out of Iraq in 1913 according to the Anglo-Ottoman Convention. But since you missed that detail I'm going to guess you really don't know jack shit about history. Even a simple google search would have turned more info that you could read in a day so really you're lazy too.
Was Saddam really a threat to the United States? He did not have ICBM's that could reach our boarders. The best Saddam could do was lob some Scud missles at Israel and maybe they'd actually go there they were aimed. Scud missles are terribly inaccurate. He did not have a nuclear program running at the time of the invasion in 2003 and even if we did again, he had no way to deliver said weapon. Do not forget the first nuclear bomb was the size of a 2 story house. Even Little Boy and Fat Man were the size of semi tractor trailers. It's pretty evident Saddam was in no way going to attack the United States, we already kicked his ass once and knew we could do it again at will, so why risk being taken out of power? Iraq was basically helpless but kept up the tough talk because if not, Iran would have marched right in. To deny Iran would do so is foolish.
Was Saddam a bad guy? Yeah, I think it's universally agreed on he was one son of a bitch. But there are a lot of other bad people in this world, many within our own boarders, and yet we do nothing. There are criminals that have committed documented genocide in Rwanda, Guatamala, and Bosnia yet we choose to go after Saddam only? Hmm...
Your whole argument for invading Iraq is based on Iraq being a threat to the United States. My contention is that they never were beyond being able to play with the price of oil. This is a key differnce in point of view between you and I and will continue to be a block on any further discussion on this topic until we come to a form of mutual agreement.
Is Iraq better off now than under Saddam? Based on what scale? Water, sewer, and electrical infrastructure are below pre-war levels. Crime is through the roof. Unemployment is through the roof. There are daily attacks against US forces. Looking at this evidence I would have to say no. Life was bad under Saddam but at least people had water, power, and a toilet to flush.
And you want a solution? We do a Nixon style withdraw with honor and let Iraq sort themselves out. We pull our troops out in stages and bring our troops home. Let the country fragmet into 3 seperate states and see where the cards fall afterwards. The Iraqi's view us as an occupying force and we'll never be thought of positively until this view changes but staying dug into Iraq is not the way to do it.