-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Should America have gotten involved in the first gulf war?
- Thread starter Spiderman
- Start date
psychoslice
Veteran Member
I think America should keep their nose out of all wars, they only stuff it all up.
Spiderman
Veteran Member
Kuwait might still be occupied by a bloodthirsty Dictator. It worked out better for Kuwait did it not?
I voted no, because as I interpret the question you mean "get involved" in the sense of military action, sending troops, bombing things, etc.
What I think the U.S. should have done is get involved in sanctions and embargos. These things do work. The oil in Kuwait would have no value if no one will buy it.
What I think the U.S. should have done is get involved in sanctions and embargos. These things do work. The oil in Kuwait would have no value if no one will buy it.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Let them sort out their own affairs.
I believe that the USA, or more precisely President Bush, instigated the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
I came to believe that due to talking with an assortment of highly educated and well informed Muslims with roots in the region.
Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Bush going back to when Bush was top CIA official. Bush hated Iran and used Hussein to launch a horrible war against Iran, with a death toll over a million. But he failed to topple the Iranian Revolution and Bush wanted to replace him. So the USA told Hussein he could invade and annex Kuwait, then "rescued" the Kuwaitis clearing a path to regime change in Iraq.
The reason that didn't happen is because Bush was expecting victory over Iraq to boost his presidential campaign, but Bill Clinton was winning big with his "It's the economy, stupid" stump speeches. So Bush dropped that ball in Iraq and focused on getting reelected. Remember NAFTA? That was a plan put together by the Republicans trying to get on "the economy".
I learned a huge amount talking to those Muslims. They were friendly and open and the conversations went on for quite awhile. They also predicted:
A) No weapons of mass destruction would be found.
B) The Iraqis would hate the USA no matter what. Even the ones who hated Hussein would still hate us after we killed him.
C) The Iraqis would have no interest in a western style democracy. They would indulge in a violent civil war first.
D) The power vacuum, unless filled immediately with a substitute tyrant, would lead to a rogue Islamic army. We know call that army ISIS.
They explained at great length why they believed all these things. I learned a lot about Islamic middle eastern culture. I also learned a lot of horrible things about my own country. Nauseatingly evil, but easily documented, things.
I firmly believe that the Bush administration started the invasion of Kuwait in a cynical ploy to play power politics in the oil fields of the Gulf region.
Tom
I came to believe that due to talking with an assortment of highly educated and well informed Muslims with roots in the region.
Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Bush going back to when Bush was top CIA official. Bush hated Iran and used Hussein to launch a horrible war against Iran, with a death toll over a million. But he failed to topple the Iranian Revolution and Bush wanted to replace him. So the USA told Hussein he could invade and annex Kuwait, then "rescued" the Kuwaitis clearing a path to regime change in Iraq.
The reason that didn't happen is because Bush was expecting victory over Iraq to boost his presidential campaign, but Bill Clinton was winning big with his "It's the economy, stupid" stump speeches. So Bush dropped that ball in Iraq and focused on getting reelected. Remember NAFTA? That was a plan put together by the Republicans trying to get on "the economy".
I learned a huge amount talking to those Muslims. They were friendly and open and the conversations went on for quite awhile. They also predicted:
A) No weapons of mass destruction would be found.
B) The Iraqis would hate the USA no matter what. Even the ones who hated Hussein would still hate us after we killed him.
C) The Iraqis would have no interest in a western style democracy. They would indulge in a violent civil war first.
D) The power vacuum, unless filled immediately with a substitute tyrant, would lead to a rogue Islamic army. We know call that army ISIS.
They explained at great length why they believed all these things. I learned a lot about Islamic middle eastern culture. I also learned a lot of horrible things about my own country. Nauseatingly evil, but easily documented, things.
I firmly believe that the Bush administration started the invasion of Kuwait in a cynical ploy to play power politics in the oil fields of the Gulf region.
Tom
esmith
Veteran Member
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
Are you saying he did?
esmith
Veteran Member
Yes.
Do you really know what WMD's consist of? If you do not think he had WMD you don't.
roger1440
I do stuff
Who is "them"?
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
MARTIN NIEMÖLLER
Martin Niemöller: "First they came for the Socialists..."
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Don't be so paranoid.
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
Evidence please.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Oh, don't let that bother you because the Republican mantra on this is that anything bigger than a firecracker is a WMD. It's just a cover-up of the fact that what they said Saddam had or was supposedly developing turned out to be bogus-- so they invent fairy tales and then blindly believed in them. No nukes; no new chemical-gas production; most of the old that were stockpiled were destroyed; no fleets of Iraqi jets flying to Syria, etc. All make-believe, much like the supposed "death panels" under Obamacare.
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
If I remember correctly, the last time someone on RF tried to convince me that Saddam had WMDs, I was directed to news articles regarding IEDs and undetonated artillery shells found in Iraq. :/
Somehow it looked like it was our job to step in. If I recall correctly rumors were that he could start another world war. I was not an adult, but I remember that. I think there was concern about pursuing a plan of appeasement, that if this man were allowed to take one neighbor he would keep going. Some or all of his neighboring states desired intervention from anyone who had the firepower to stop him. I think Israel was concerned, too; because he was saber rattling at them.
esmith
Veteran Member
First let's identify WMD's
A weapon of mass destruction is any weapon that will cause mass casualties. Now this includes nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. We know that Saddam had and used chemical weapons against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. We also know that he used chemical weapons against the Kurds (Halabja)
Now do any of you dispute any of the above?
Now let's move to the gulf war. I am providing one article out of many that relates to Saddam having WMD. If you want more just search for "Saddam had biological and chemical weapons"
U.S. Nerve Gas Hit Our Own Troops in Iraq
Is this enough evidence for you?
Underhill
Well-Known Member
I actually agree. I think booting Saddam made sense. I also think we made the right choice in ending it there. There were plenty of mistakes made both before and after these events but that is a separate discussion.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
Reminds me of the old one liner... "How do we know Saddam has WMD's?" "We gave them to him..."
Whether or not he had them when we invaded is almost irrelevant however. The bigger, and more obvious, question is... was he a threat to us? I think the obvious answer was no. He was a bad guy. Brutal. But the more I see of the middle east the more I wonder if that is the only real recipe for success in the region.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
I voted yes (and evened the score at 4 all)
Though I think they should have kept going and finished it then, arguably the 1st Gulf war still continues, by virtue of the West repeatedly pulling back too early, and letting enemies regroup.