The war in Iraq

I remember talking to some of my mates about the first gulf war and they were on about how it was unjust and america (and allies) was only doing it for the oils ect I pointed out to them that a big powerful expansionist country(Iraq) had just invaded a little one(Kuwait) and did'nt they thing that the "civilised" world should do something about it? They begrudedly agreed but said it was wrong as lots of contries do this but the "civilised" world is'nt interested as they dont have oil.

My point was that it was a just war (ie stopping an agressive state) but probably for the wrong reasons (only realy interested in oil)

Anyway I see a lot of simularities in this one. Sadam by most people definition was a dangerous egotistical butcher who repressed his own people and was a danger to the region. So do you think that the "civilised" world should of done something about it? What about places like North Korea, Burma, if they controled vast oil supplies do you think the regimes would still be in power ? What about China ?. Who decides what is right or wrong and who should enforce it?

China, N.Korea and Burma are not good examples:
China is too powerful to tackle without starting WW3, both Myanmar and N.Korea are too close to China to invade without China getting involved.

Otherwise, I agree with your comment.
I'd add strategic reasons as a 'hidden' motive, it's not all about oil.

^ Gulf War I, was promoted by the U.S.

The former U.S. ambassador to Kuwait has testified under oath about the communication between the U.S. and Saddam Hussein prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuawait.

It was officially called an Iraqi "internal" matter.

Iraq did not recognize Kuwait until the early 1960s.

A Wahhabbi family basically gave Kuwait to another Wahhabbi family in the early 20th Century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stroller

China, N.Korea and Burma are not good examples: China is too powerful to tackle without starting WW3, both Myanmar and N.Korea are too close to China to invade without China getting involved.

---

Thats why I put them in. If you say it is just to stand up for certain things, then where do you draw the line ie we could all agree that Burma was a represive regime but not do anything about it as the risk/reward just is'nt there, same with China is it right for the world to let China do whatever it wants as its too big and powerful. What if Iraq was as big and powerful as China ?

Ah, I see.
The answer to this would be that you intervene whereever there's a good chance of being successful.
Which still leaves the question, why Iraq, why not some African or South-American murderous regimes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stroller

Which still leaves the question, why Iraq, why not some African or South-American murderous regimes?

---

I would assume that it is because there is only a finite number of troops and countries willing to shed their own blood on other peoples problems. Also no one in Africa threatened to kill the current POTUS's daddy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stroller

Which still leaves the question, why Iraq, why not some African or South-American murderous regimes?

---

Well I think we coverd the "Why Iraq" bit. It has oil and "strategic" significance also it would of probably been pretty up there on a list of "countries you would like to invade" As to why not the others I suspect its cos the powers to be could'nt really give a toss.

It would be nice to see some of the more right wing views on this, they are probaly looking for something to cut and paste in as we speak :)

As a matter of intrest what countries/regimes would you support a war of "liberation" against....nah thats another thread save it for tomorrow :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomChances

and "strategic" significance

---

It does help them surround Iran to make a policy of containment more feasible and it also cuts off Iran from 2 countries who would probably aid it in a time of war:

https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2006/05/325.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob

I would assume that it is because there is only a finite number of troops and countries willing to shed their own blood on other peoples problems. Also no one in Africa threatened to kill the current POTUS's daddy.

---

There are several countries in Africa which harbour known terrorists and allow these to operate on their territory, this includes bomb attacks on US embassies.

But they have little natural resources, and are of no strategic value. :sheep2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob

It does help them surround Iran to make a policy of containment more feasible and it also cuts off Iran from 2 countries who would probably aid it in a time of war:

---

Yes mate, I was'nt being sarcastic on the strategic bit, just put it in " " as stroll brought it up.

Nice map although not being an American I did actually know where the countries where:sheep2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomChances

There are several countries in Africa which harbour known terrorists and allow these to operate on their territory, this includes bomb attacks on US embassies.

---

Sudan, Somalia ? What about Yemen although it is not in Africa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomChances

Nice map although not being an American I did actually know where the countries where

---

The map wasn't for geography's sake, more for the position of the bases, which is something I wasn't too sure about.
;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stroller

There are several countries in Africa which harbour known terrorists and allow these to operate on their territory, this includes bomb attacks on US embassies.

---

So what exactly do you think should be done about it? Are you suggesting the US should take it for action or might another fine country step up for a little heavy lifting ? Or do you really just not have a point or a plan or even a clue? Seems to me you're one of the posters who think/thought we should have just left Saddam in charge to murder, rape, torture ... why aren't you hapy to let thing remain the status quo in these other countries ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

So what exactly do you think should be done about it?

---

What do you think should be done about it SK ? America like it or not is the only country in the world with the militery capability to enforce any change of regime. Should the UN take a firmer role?

Here we go again ... SK asks a question and the response will be a question putting the burden on my shoulders. Then I'll get bashed for not asnwering the question. Or if I do answer the question I'm ignorant trailer trash, warmongering slime. OK ? Then my answer is this ... everybody seems to be saying we fugged it away in Iraq and our military can't do anything right. I think we should do something about it now ... I'd like to see the UK/AUS/CAN/NZ team up and show us how it's done. The US will support in every way, dollars and equipment, except manpower.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Here we go again ... SK asks a question and the response will be a question putting the burden on my shoulders.

---

Hey I dont do these political thing often.... I was just asking what you would do>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Then my answer is this ... everybody seems to be saying we fugged it away in Iraq and our military can't do anything right. I think we should do something about it now ....

---

As I stated at the start of this I think that it was the right thing to do but probably for the wrong reasons. Unfortunatly winning a war is easy I dont think there is enough thought into what comes after.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

I'd like to see the UK/AUS/CAN/NZ team up and show us how it's done. The US will support in every way, dollars and equipment, except manpower.

---

Population wise those countries together probably arent as much as some of your larger states, what about europe, japan (with its large economy should'nt it take on some share) or even russia

Well the main question is how pre-emptive do we want to be ? and who should be making the decision ?

I think the main concern over the Iraq war is not so much the US removing Saddam and invading the country, but more about their unilateral approach, ignoring allies, the UN and creating a sense of emergency that didn't exist. Basically taking the rest of the world for fools and monkeys. Guess what ? who is the fool and who is the monkey now ?

The US will eventually leave Baghdad ala Saigon with the world to witness their inability to fight and win easily a conventional war. So it's not all bad. A lesson to be learn for the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Well the main question is how pre-emptive do we want to be ? and who should be making the decision ?

I think the main concern over the Iraq war is not so much the US removing Saddam and invading the country, but more about their unilateral approach, ignoring allies, the UN and creating a sense of emergency that didn't exist. Basically taking the rest of the world for fools and monkeys. Guess what ? who is the fool and who is the monkey now ?

The US will eventually leave Baghdad ala Saigon with the world to witness their inability to fight and win easily a conventional war. So it's not all bad. A lesson to be learn for the future.

---

Ever the optimist!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

So what exactly do you think should be done about it? Are you suggesting the US should take it for action or might another fine country step up for a little heavy lifting ? Or do you really just not have a point or a plan or even a clue? Seems to me you're one of the posters who think/thought we should have just left Saddam in charge to murder, rape, torture ... why aren't you hapy to let thing remain the status quo in these other countries ?

---

You've missed the point of my post, which was a response to Bob.

No need to draw conclusions I haven't implied and snap at me. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomChances

I remember talking to some of my mates about the first gulf war and they were on about how it was unjust and america (and allies) was only doing it for the oils ect I pointed out to them that a big powerful expansionist country(Iraq) had just invaded a little one(Kuwait) and did'nt they thing that the "civilised" world should do something about it? They begrudedly agreed but said it was wrong as lots of contries do this but the "civilised" world is'nt interested as they dont have oil.

My point was that it was a just war (ie stopping an agressive state) but probably for the wrong reasons (only realy interested in oil)

Anyway I see a lot of simularities in this one. Sadam by most people definition was a dangerous egotistical butcher who repressed his own people and was a danger to the region. So do you think that the "civilised" world should of done something about it? What about places like North Korea, Burma, if they controled vast oil supplies do you think the regimes would still be in power ? What about China ?. Who decides what is right or wrong and who should enforce it?

---

I remember a Chinese General threatening to use nukes if America bull shits with China about Taiwan.Still GWB is inviting Hu Jintao to the white house for better diplomatic relations and Trade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mhz

I remember a Chinese General threatening to use nukes if America bull shits with China about Taiwan.Still GWB is inviting Hu Jintao to the white house for better diplomatic relations and Trade.

---

I think it's tremed "real politic" or something like that. I think Americas long term aim is supposed to be to bring about change in China by trade and closer ties.....A billion odd people is a really big market. Anyway Mhz what was your view on the original question, do you think it was the right thing to topple Hussain or would you prefer to still see him in power ?

I wish that MOFO Saddam would be hanged tomorrow but the thing is that he was brought in to power by the CIA in 1969.Whats the surety that America wont bring someone worse than Saddam this time??

I never loved Saddam but my question is why did America bring him into Power??

Why did America supply biological and chemical weapons to that animal??

^ Oil and Money

We are going in circle here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mhz

I never loved Saddam but my question is why did America bring him into Power??

---

Did they bring him into power ? I think they supported him during the Iran/Iraq war as he was seen to be pro American and the lesser of two evils. I dont know about the WMD, it would be ironic if they did supply them and then go to war cos he's got them !!

Is'nt Pakistan a military dictatorship? sorry I forget the name of the Pakistani leader but he seems to be sidling up to the US at the moment....wonder how long that will last :rolleyes:

THE U.S BROUGHT SADDAM IN POWER AND GAVE HIM THE WEAPONS.

US Intelligence Helps Saddam’s Party Seize Power in 1963
Saddam Key in Early CIA Plot (April 10, 2003)
According to former US intelligence officials and diplomats, the CIA's relationship with Saddam Hussein dates back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad that attempted to assassinate Iraqi Prime Minister Abd al-Karim Qasim. (United Press International)

A Tyrant Forty Years in the Making (March 14, 2003)
Roger Morris writes of the "regime change" carried out by the CIA in Iraq forty years ago. Among the CIA's actions were attempted political assassinations and the handing over of a list of suspected communists and leftists that led to the deaths of thousands of Iraqis at the hands of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party. (New York Times)

CIA Lists Provide Basis for Iraqi Bloodbath
In this excerpt from his classic study of Iraqi politics, Hanna Batatu discusses how the Ba`ath Party seized power for the first time in a military coup in February 1963. He speaks of lists, provided by US intelligence, that enabled the party to hunt down its enemies, particularly the Communists, in a terrible bloodletting.

So as we can see that Saddam's Ba'ath Party came into power with the help of U.S.Then the U.S was sitting silent and watching when Saddam was using those weapons against the Kurds and Iran.
If U.S was worried about the cruel regime of Saddam and the people being killed by him why did'nt the U.S attack at the moment when he was busy in all those attrocities????


http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issue...usseinindex.htm