Paul Wolfowitz 1, Colin Powell 0

[Berzerker]

Watching Frontline (PBS) and learning some things not too flattering to Powell. Near the end up the Gulf War, Wolfowitz - then in the Bush administration - was angry that Bush 1 urged the Iraqi people to rebel only to stand by as they got slaughtered when they followed Bush's advice. Wolfowitz wanted us to take out Saddam, or at least, help the rebels overthrow Saddam, not stand by and do nothing. Powell and Bush opposed intervening. I keep hearing Wolfowitz is a hawk, and by implication, a warmonger we should be wary of. Perhaps, but he seems to have been the one with a conscience...

[Ted Striker]

I think when we left the rebels behind it was one of the most dishonorable things we have ever done.

That's one of the main reasons I support taking out Saddam is because we need to make good on what we originally told them.

Leaving Saddam behind though was a grave error. Never half ass the job.

[Berzerker]

Yup, and that wasn't the first time the US screwed Iraqi dissidents. I believe Nixon basicly did the same thing back when the Shah was in power in Iran. Iraq and Iran were at war and we supported Iran and Iraqi dissidents. But Iran signed a peace treaty with Iraq and the Iraqis were left twisting at the end of a rope.

[Ted Striker]

Damn I didn't know that part.

[David Floyd]

Berz,

Are you advocating that we should have militarily intervened again in Iraq back then? That's what it sounds like...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Leaving Saddam behind though was a grave error. Never half ass the job.

It would have been hard as Hell to get rid of him. We only had supplies to liberate Kuwait, and our allies would have definetly opposed taking Saddam out.

Not to mention Congress telling Bush I NO!

[Ted Striker]

That was the theory / justification but I don't buy it.

Allies had the momentum and I think Baghdad would have fallen very quickly.

This was a half assed job.

[Berzerker]

In Kuwait? No, my gripe is the same as Wolfowitz'. Bush 1 told the Iraqi people to rebel, and it's my understanding that he did that because Iraqi dissidents, wary of US policy ala Nixon's backstabbing from the 1970's, wanted some public assurance from Bush of support for the rebellion once they stuck their necks out.

1) I would not have had the US ambassador (April Glasby) tell Saddam we had no treaty with Kuwait and no desire to get involved in inter-Arab disputes at a time when Saddam was massing troops on the Kuwaiti border in response to a border dispute over Kuwait allegedly side drilling into Iraqi oil fields. It's clear to me Saddam did not want to do anything to really anger the US since we helped him during the war with Iran and sought the meeting with the US ambassador to get signals about our resolve should he invade Kuwait. Bush 1 really screwed up.

2) Once Bush 1 blundered by effectively sending him a green light, I would not have went to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait.

3) Once expelled from Kuwait and the message to rebel was sent by Bush 1, I would have supported the rebellion, not turned my back as they got slaughtered.

So my position depends on what point in time I'm put in charge, so to speak.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Leaving Saddam behind though was a grave error. Never half ass the job.

It would have been hard as Hell to get rid of him. We only had supplies to liberate Kuwait, and our allies would have definetly opposed taking Saddam out.

Not to mention Congress telling Bush I NO!

Yeah, the resolution said only to liberate kuwait. Unfortunately, we could not go after Saddam for that political reason. Hopefully politics will prevail today and allow us to take him out now.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Exactly, Kramerman, that resolution BARELY passed, with most Dems against it (and remember back then they had the majority).

[Berzerker]

Imran, what do you mean we lacked the supplies? Saddam was on the brink of collapse and just denying him the use of helicopter gunships might have been enough. The reason we stopped was the propsect of "instability" should Saddam fall. We didn't want Iran's position improved by the collapse of Saddam and Iraq thrown into turmoil over who would end up in charge. Plus, the Turks didn't want an independent Kurdistan on their border. The Shi'ite majority might have ended up in charge and they were more sympathetic with Iran than other Arab states, so Israel and Saudi Arabia didn't want Saddam to collapse either.

[Ted Striker]

I still don't buy it, I mean Bush got the no-fly zones installed easy enough.

If he knew he couldn't pull of support to take the capital then he shouldn't have asked the Iraqis to rebel and then leave them hanging.

I mean that is heartbreaking.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, what do you mean we lacked the supplies?

We only massed enough troops and gave them enough weaponry for liberation of Kuwait. We might have run all over Iraq easily (doubtful), but Saddam would have eluded us as OBL does today.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
I still don't buy it, I mean Bush got the no-fly zones installed easy enough.

If he knew he couldn't pull of support to take the capital then he shouldn't have asked the Iraqis to rebel and then leave them hanging.

I mean that is heartbreaking.

indeed. its like a Bay of Pigs part II

***

Berzerker,
reguardless of having supplies or not, we could not go after Saddam ourselves. Schwartzcopf (sp?...c'mon, gimme a break...) wanted to, but could not because of UN politics, he had to settle with a cease-fire. fear of instability had nothing to do with it, AFAIK. It is true Saddam was on the brink of collapse, that is why Bush incouraged the uprisings, right or wrong, this is why. The problem was, in the cease-fire we allowed Iraq to retain their helicopters, which they used to put down the rebellion with impunity. Whithout the helis, the uprisings might have had a chance in hell to have been successful with Saddams forces and resources still rearing from their massive defeat. tho, a more likely scenario would have been a coup in Saddam's weakest hour, and an equally dispicable man would be in power today.

kman

[Berzerker]

Imran, I didn't know you were so familiar with our logistics at the time. Like I said, we didn't need to take Baghdad, all we had to do was keep Iraqi helicopters from flying missions and we could have finished off the Iraqi Republican army before they could retreat to Baghdad.

Kramerman, Bush went to great effort to get a UN resolution to expel Iraq from Kuwait but made no effort to get UN support for helping the Iraqi dissidents he urged to rebel. And when the US was establishing the cease fire terms, Shwarzkopf even said they got "snookered" when they allowed Iraq to use helicopters for "transportation", helicopters used to put down the rebellion. Instability was one of 2 reasons stated by the Bush administration following questions about why he turned his back on the Iraqi dissidents, the other being lack of UN "permission". If Bush knew he couldn't help Iraqi dissidents, he should have NEVER told them to rebel. No amount of spin will ever change what happened, and you can bet the Kurds felt betrayed...