This Just In: Iraq Concedes to Inspections...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Have you read his testimony before the US Senate in 1998?

He has changed his opinion, you know. At the time he was pissed because the Iraqis kept playing games with him and he couldn't find anything. Well, there wasn't that much left to find, and the stuff he was uncovering left the Iraqis vulnerable to the US.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by walruskkkch
Which brings me back to my orginal disagreement with your premise that the US didn't want to do anything about Kuwait in the first place.

That was never my point, nor did I ever write such. I have said all along that the US was the driving force, and that had the Security Council not gone along with Sush's war drive, he would have attacked Iraq anyway. Which means that the UN did not order an attack on Iraq, it allowed one.

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What Hussein may or may not have done in 1990-91 before the war and ten years of sanctions and after are very likely two different things.

Doubtful... His track record since taking power indicates he was making empty promises back then as well.

But I find it interesting that you give him the benifit of the doubt all the time, but never do the same for the US.

Could it be because that would weaken your arguments

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
He has changed his opinion, you know.

Based on what? The $400,000 he recieved from an Iraqi-American businessman with ties to Saddam?

[nationalist]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


A number of reasons, in no particular order.

Kuwait is historically part of Iraq.

The majority of the population of Kuwait are virtual slaves.

I don't give a damn about the property of royalty.

As bad as Iraq is, it was among the most Westernized and moder of Arab states, with the highest levels of literacy, health, and rights for women.

Kuwait was an excuse, the war wasn't primarily about Kuwait or oil, it was about demonstrating American power while the USSR was falling.

A problem among the Arab states should be solved by the Arabs themselves, and not have soultions forced upon them by outsiders who are interested in seeing the Arab people carved up into tiny statelets.

I saw no reason why Americans should die for the profits of oil companies and American control of European oil supplies.

It would destablize the region and lead to more terrorism.

Iraq had legitmiate greivances with Kuwait, including the theft of Iraqi oil via slant drilling, as well as over-producing to drive down oil prices, which hurt thr Iraqi economy.

Good God, I actually agree with most of the things that Che said. What's going to be put in place after Sadaam? A weak government that will probably fall to Islamic Fundamentalists is my guess. We had our chance for regime change ten years ago. Its not worth one American life. If the Iraqis want regime change, it will be changed eventually.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ming
But I find it interesting that you give him the benifit of the doubt all the time, but never do the same for the US.

Could it be because that would weaken your arguments

Given US track records, there is no reason to give the US the benefit of the doubt.

Nor do I simply assume that Hussein would have followed his word. However, the option was never explored, and it resulted in a situation that has led to the deaths of over a million people. At the very least, given that the military force was in place, the US could have tried negotiations, and then attacked if that failed.

I still would have opposed it. In a confrontation between to thugs I side with the innocent bystanders.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Based on what? The $400,000 he recieved from an Iraqi-American businessman with ties to Saddam?

I'd like to see your source, which I'm sure will be shortly forthcoming, you damn linkmaster.

[Arrian]

Che,

Kuwait is historically part of Iraq.

Yeah, and Poland was once under Germany rule. What's your point?

A problem among the Arab states should be solved by the Arabs themselves, and not have soultions forced upon them by outsiders who are interested in seeing the Arab people carved up into tiny statelet.

Hmm. Well, I suppose you don't like the UN much, do you? In theory (though certainly not in practice) the UN is supposed to keep the peace. The "problem among the Arab States" that you refer to was the invasion of one by another. If you favor leaving that to the other Arab States to deal with, you favor getting rid of the UN, or at least changing it supposed role.

Iraq had legitmiate greivances with Kuwait, including the theft of Iraqi oil via slant drilling, as well as over-producing to drive down oil prices, which hurt thr Iraqi economy.

Iraq repeatedly indicated its willingness to withdraw from Kuwait if its grievences were discuessed, offers which were considered serious by every country but the US and Britain.

These two are doozies. Let's go back to my Poland/Germany example. Based on the fact that Poland was created using portions of formerly Germany land, Hitler had "legitimate greivances" with Poland. As for the second part, I have no recollection of an Iraqi offer to withdraw, but even if we assume that you are correct, such an offer is hardly acceptable - since it effectively boils down to Saddam holding a country hostage for leverage regarding his "greivances." Further, I don't believe for a second that he intended to withdraw.

Kuwait was an excuse, the war wasn't primarily about Kuwait or oil, it was about demonstrating American power while the USSR was falling.

I saw no reason why Americans should die for the profits of oil companies and American control of European oil supplies.

Those two are contradictory.

Normally I find your posts well thought-out and interesting to read. That list was not characteristic. It's a pile of crap.

-Arrian

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Kuwait is historically part of Iraq.

And the US is historically a part of England and many other countries... are you saying England or Spain have the right to invade the US because of past history?

The majority of the population of Kuwait are virtual slaves.

Hmmmm... let's talk about the Kurds...

I don't give a damn about the property of royalty.

Well I don't give a damn about your property, does that give me the right to take it away from you?

As bad as Iraq is, it was among the most Westernized and moder of Arab states, with the highest levels of literacy, health, and rights for women.

I will grant you that one.

I oppose American imperialism on principle.

Hmmm... did we take any land for ourselves in this situation... Hmmm

Kuwait was an excuse, the war wasn't primarily about Kuwait or oil, it was about demonstrating American power while the USSR was falling.

So you saying that even if no invasion of Kuwait would have happened, we would have attacked a country just to prove how strong we were?


Please remember that Iraq was the agressor and doing the attacking... You can attempt to change people's perspective on history, but the facts are very simple and clear here... Iraq was in the wrong here. They started the war.

[Ming]

Hey Arrian... Good Cross Posting...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I'd like to see your source, which I'm sure will be shortly forthcoming, you damn linkmaster.

[Ritter] acknowledges, as well, that the U.S. government doesn't like how the film was financed. Shakir al-Khafaji, an Iraqi-American real estate developer living in Michigan, kicked in $400,000. By Ritter's own admission, al-Khafaji is "openly sympathetic with the regime in Baghdad." Al-Khafaji, who accompanied Ritter as he filmed the documentary and facilitated many of the meetings, travels to and from Iraq regularly in his capacity as chairman of "Iraqi expatriate conferences." Those conferences, held in Baghdad every two years, are sponsored and subsidized by Saddam Hussein.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...p?ZoomFont=YES

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
MtG, al-Qaeda is not being harbored by the Kurds in Northern Iraq. The Kurds, like the rest of Iraq, are ruled by secular leaders, specifically two Maoist factions. Al-Qaeda linked operatives are attacking the current Kurdish "government." They are operating in a border area along Iran and Northern Iraq.

It looks like the communists and the US will again be allies against a common foe. China, communist Kurdistan and the US all on the same side!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Arrian
Che,

Yeah, and Poland was once under Germany rule. What's your point?

Poles and Germans are two different ethnicities. Kuwaitis and Iraqis are (mostly) the same ethnicity, Arabs. There is no Kuwaiti nation, it was historically part of the Basra province, and until the Brits ripped the terrirotry from the Ottoman empire, it had been part of Iraq for over a thousnads years. Same peope, same language, same history. When the Brits decolonied in 1960, the semi-democratic Iraqi regime attempted to retake the territory. Only the mobilization of Britain in the Gulf prevented Kuwait from being reabsorbed then.

Hmm. Well, I suppose you don't like the UN much, do you? In theory (though certainly not in practice) the UN is supposed to keep the peace. The "problem among the Arab States" that you refer to was the invasion of one by another. If you favor leaving that to the other Arab States to deal with, you favor getting rid of the UN, or at least changing it supposed role.

I think the UN's a nice concept. The reality is, aside from the NGOs which do a lot of good work for people in developing nations, it's either totally ineffective as a method of solving disputes between nations or it is a rubber stamp for US imperialism.

As for the second part, I have no recollection of an Iraqi offer to withdraw, but even if we assume that you are correct, such an offer is hardly acceptable - since it effectively boils down to Saddam holding a country hostage for leverage regarding his "greivances." Further, I don't believe for a second that he intended to withdraw.

The US media didn't cover it much at the time and has completely ignored it since. What coverage did exist at the time was simply parroting Bush's rhetoric that the offers were insincere (which they may well have been, we'll never know). Our group had media duty assigned, and we had people watch every news program and report everything that was said in the media, including Spanish language TV (which generally had far superior reporting).

Next, I don't believe in the rights of states over the rights of people. I especially don't believe in the rights of kings. The majority of the Kuwaiti people were Palestinian workers with no rights and who terribly abused by the Kuwaitis. While the US and others prepared for war, the Kuwaitis danced in Cairo nightclubs. I had many Arabic friends from the entire Arab world. None of them liked the Kuwatis after that.

So I don't care that Hussein was holding Kuwait hostage. They are an evil little country ruled by selfish little people. If they hadn't been waging an economic war against Iraq, it wouldn't have turned into a hot one.

Kuwait was an excuse, the war wasn't primarily about Kuwait or oil, it was about demonstrating American power while the USSR was falling.

I saw no reason why Americans should die for the profits of oil companies and American control of European oil supplies.

Those two are contradictory.

Normally I find your posts well thought-out and interesting to read. That list was not characteristic. It's a pile of crap.

-Arrian

Two you need to remember, I was asked why I was opposed to it (which meant at the time, and not now). The second thing you need to remember is that in the first quote I used the word primarily which indicates it wasn't the only reason. A war can be primarily about one thing, and also about others. In this case, it was primarily about the US telling the world who was boss, and secondarily about getting its hands around the life blood of its chief economic rival's energy supplies.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Roland


Agree with all that, but wonder: IYO, why are the "hawks" so hellbent on having this war, and having it soon ?

I think there are a bunch of reasons - it's pissing me off right now, because it's ****ing with the gas and oil futures markets.

Some of the reasons are probably personal - Cheney et al feel humiliated by Saddam. Some have to do with a perceived desire to return to the "glory days" of the Reagan administration, when the US clearly swung the biggest **** on the planet.

Cheney has always been a hawk - he was gung ho over Panama, and instrumental in sacking General Fred Woerner, then head of US Southern Command, because Woerner didn't see the necessity for invading Panama. Cheney has characteristically been a ***** - he said of Woerner (a 34 year decorated combat veteran with an outstanding record) that he'd "gone native down there" in Panama - an extremely petty character swipe at Woerner's patriotism. Early on in his tenure as SecDef, Cheney publically called out then Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Larry Welch, after which Welch (a veteran of 137 combat sorties over North Vietnam) semi-privately remarked "I've been shot at by professionals. Getting shot at by an amateur is no big deal."


During the first gulf war, Cheney pushed for an early offensive prior to the arrival of US VII Corps from Europe - with less than half the total forces in theater, in a direct frontal assault into Kuwait, and with far less (3-4 days) aerial prep. Gen. Schwarzkopf (not exactly a pansy) was livid about being pressured operationally and about the fact that he couldn't simultaneously deal with Washington, deal with the coalition forces and run a theater preparing for combat ops halfway around the world. Powell managed to convince the hawks then to wait until there was what Schwarzkopf considered an adequate force buildup and deployment.

There are a bunch of other motivations going - and at least a part of it is that Saddam is a *****, and is a long term strategic threat. I don't have issues with removing him, I thought it should have been done long ago. My sole issue is with the timing and the state of preparation of US forces, plus the lack of a coherent strategy for what the hell to do with Iraq after Saddam. US unilateral action is pretty delusional - the US has less forces available, a greater scope of action, commitments in Afghanistan, etc. So I don't see US unilateral action as viable, assuming you want to achieve a positive long term goal.

"Soon" is also not about to happen - despite the chest thumping, it takes time to deploy heavy units, and there's not enough in transit or in theater to work with. Deploying out of a box is an invitation to Saddam to use anything he has.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned


It looks like the communists and the US will again be allies against a common foe. China, communist Kurdistan and the US all on the same side!

Against the would be restorers of feudalism and clerical reactionaries, the bourgeoisie and proletariat have a common interest. They are our common enemy.