Kuwait was drilling Iraqi oil. This isn't something the Iraqis made up - the Kuwaitis have admitted doing it. Kuwait was also exporting more than its OPEC quota of oil, thus keeping oil prices low (therefore, seriously cutting into Iraqi revenues). At the same time, Kuwait was insisting that Iraq fully repay the loans that it got from Kuwait during the Iran war. Naturally, Kuwait had every right to demand the repayment of these loans - but when it was simultaneously stealing Iraq's revenues, there was certainly ample cause for a dispute. I'm not saying Iraq was right to invade - what I am saying is that they did have their reasons.Originally posted by Aries
What are these supposed "valid reasons" Saddam had for invading Kuwait. Kuwait was a breakaway Iraqi province? Kuwait was drilling Iraqi oil? those are bullshit. he invaded cause they had oil and he wanted it. the invasion was nothing more than a country-sized street mugging. and how did he get assurance that the US wouldn't react when we most definately DID react? if that's rational to you, fine. And he did go to war with the US. we told him to get out of Kuwait and he didn't, so we made him get out.
The US, through their ambassador April Glaspie, told Saddam Hussein that they "have no opinion" on conflicts between Arab states. The only such conflict at the time was the Iraq-Kuwait dispute. The Iraqis, understandably, read this as meaning that the US would not react. Later, when US satellite photos started revealing a massive buildup of Iraqi forces on the Kuwait border, the US did not voice any protests. Ergo, the Iraqis were convinced, on August 2nd 1990, that there would be no reaction.
The US did indeed offer Iraq a chance to get out of Kuwait. Iraq's response was positive. They agreed to withdraw, provided certain conditions were met. These conditions were quite acceptable, really - mediation in the Iraq-Kuwait dispute, and an international conference on the Palestine issue. The US rejected these proposals and insisted for an unconditional withdrawal, which they knew Saddam Hussein could not accept without facing a revolution.
Errr... yes. See, that's exactly how he determined which villages to gas - he gassed the ones that were supporting the uprising. This wasn't a genocide - the estimate, if I recall correctly, was about 2,000 people. Needless to say, there's a lot more Kurds in Iraq than that. There is no similiarity in this to what Hitler did. If anything, Saddam Hussein's actions resemble those of Winston Churchill, who... attacked Kurdish civilians in Iraq with mustard gas in the 1930s. Fancy that, I guess Churchill was also a Hitler-in-disguise.if that wasn't a war, i don't know what is. as for killing those who oppose him, do you really think that all those villages he has gassed opposed him?
Well, Israel is pretty much the only conflict you could be referring to when you talk about suicide bombers exploding in shopping malls...as for your thing about repression, i will assume you mean israel. as for them, i don't know what the fuck they think.
As for the logic behind a strategy that doesn't work... indeed, if a strategy doesn't work, then there is no logic in pursuing it. The trick is, you have to know that it doesn't work. This is clearly a problem in the middle of a conflict, as both the Palestinians and Israelis continue to demonstrate.
The article that Phillip Tanaka posted supports my point very well - it starts by saying that there is no evidence of Saddam Hussein's involvement in the anthrax attacks or September 11th, but that Saddam Hussein is a very bad guy who won't hesitate to use WMDs, because he's... umm, because he's bad. Oh yeah, and because this time the US wants to kill him, so he'll want to take a lot of people down with him. Why? Because he's BAD, man!