Eat this Saddam lovers

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
You obviously live in a parallel universe where disclosing classified documents is the accepted norm. I come from another place than that.

It may be a crime, but it certainly isn't treason, unless you can show how it gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

[Saint Marcus]

so Americans found a bunch of conventional weapons that weren't banned by the UN.

That's it?

geez...you guys must be getting desperate to find anything whatsoever. damn.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Oh hell. Again with the stinking red savages?
They have it made.
They're spending the equivalent of the national deficit, adding on to their bingo halls.

Still waiting for an explanation, Sloww.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

It may be a crime, but it certainly isn't treason, unless you can show how it gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

You're right, it probably wasnt treason. It was probably just illegal conduct by people who should know better. Perhaps I read more into your statement about the Pentagon papers than you meant.


But I doubt it

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Not true. Several times during the month leading up to the invasion, the CIA reported that Iraq was definately going to invade Kuwait. The U.S. began moving naval forces into the region in July. And, anecdotally, the army began gearing up for a major deployement.

I know you've addressed these before (the CIA says lots of things, often contradictory--the U.S. had ships stationed in the Gulf to protect shipping--individual anecdotes don't prove anything). Maybe that's true or maybe there's some fire causing that smoke. It shouldn't be dismissed sumarily.

The assessment was that Saddam was likely to make a border incursion or two into the disputed zone, as a further saber rattling exercise, a la the way he managed to bungle into a full fledged war with Iran over the Ayatollah's various misdeeds including abrogation of a bilateral treaty over the Shatt-al-Arab.

There was only one mid-level analyst who suggested a full invasion, and the official analysis was that Saddam was just up to his usual aggressive posturing, because he stood to gain more for less by bending the Kuwaitis to his will than he did by occupying the whole country.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Berzerker
MtG -

The photos allegedly showed Iraqi armor across the border, and that was what Bush and his cronies told us and the Saudis (I presume). I remember that was the message we were told in the lead up to the war.

I think the operative term is/should be "across from" the border. Most of the SA-Kuwait and SA-Iraq border is unmarked or very casually marked at best, except the area right along the gulf and the couple of highways that go from Dhahran to Kuwait City on the coast, and KKMC to Kuwait City via al Batin. The Saudis had photo-recon capability inside their own airspace, and SANG (Saudi Arabia National Guard) units on OP along a lateral front to either side of each highway. What the OP's couldn't see was the force strength and composition behind the Iraqi units recon screen.

Tanks in the desert look like tanks in the desert from aerial or reconsat photos, so it's not like you could really doctor them in any meaningful way - Iraqis holding up signs saying "Hi, we're here in Sunny Saudi Arabia, wish you were here" wouldn't quite cut it - and without reference to some obvious landmark, you couldn't "prove" the location on either side of the border. The Saudis weren't so dumb they wouldn't know that, as a lot of them are US trained, and they had SANG units already in place on the ground. Nothing more than speed bumps, but they'd sure as hell know (and be obligated by the royal's ego to respond) about any incursion into Saudi territory.

Maybe we're talking about different photos, I believe it was a Ft Lauderdale paper that exposed at least some of the photos had been doctored to show Iraqis in SA. Perhaps I heard the story wrong, but I'm very sure of this.

What we did do, which was at least partly deceptive, is not prioritize telling the Saudis that the IRG had pulled back and that the line was being filled with replacement units who were digging in.

I don't hold her accountable, she's just a bureaucrat who I assume was following orders. But when "Hitler revisited" is massing troops on a neighbor's border ~immediately after another war had ended, telling Saddam we won't get involved in his dispute with the Kuwaitis and that we have no treaty with them is, in my book, a green light.

If Saddam had discussed invasion, then yes. But if Saddam was just doing Saddamesque saber rattling (and it was over a year after the last war, which the Iranians had coming to them) while Arab diplomats were planning on mediating the issue at an Arab League meeting and everyone appeared to be on that page for dealing with the issue, then it's a lot less clear. At any rate, it would be assinine for the US to insist unilaterally that we'd defend Kuwait when no invasion was threatened and when we had no treaty relations with any party that would even give us basing rights to do so.

Baker said he asked the Russians if they were going to pull on Saddam's leash and I have to ask why we didn't when we had the chance.

We didn't have the chance. Remember, this was after "Iraqgate" and the leadup to what would become the BNL trial in Atlanta, so the US wasn't providing any more off-books funding (the war was over), and well after the Iran-Contra thing had broken so that the Iraqis knew we'd been double-dealing with the Iranians during the war courtesy of Reagan, Poindexter and Ollie North fun and games. Our credibility with and leverage over the Iraqis, to the extent we'd gained either during the Reagan administration, was pretty much shot by 1990.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


As long as it's one third world country at a time.

Well, we don't want to give ourselves a hernia.

[HershOstropoler]

Softballs.

[MrFun]

You just wait until it's your country's turn, Hersh.

[chequita guevara]

Countries that annex Austria don't seem to have good runs at world conquest.

[MrFun]

We can try, damn it!!

[MichaeltheGreat]

They shouldn't have given positions to all those singing mountain navy pukes. That's what did 'em in.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
They shouldn't have given positions to all those singing mountain navy pukes. That's what did 'em in.

I see -- I learn something new on here everyday.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Countries that annex Austria don't seem to have good runs at world conquest.

Countries? Oh come on, we've only been annexed once.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
They shouldn't have given positions to all those singing mountain navy pukes. That's what did 'em in.

That's just a long term strategy to wipe out what remains of America's intelligence. It was designed to do as little collateral damage as possible, and it's working brilliantly so far.