Paul Wolfowitz 1, Colin Powell 0

[Straybow]

In the months before Operation Desert Storm both Saddam Hussein and King Hussein of Jordan began refering to Saudi Arabia as "Najd and Al-Hejaz."

SA is divided into six regions. Najd is the central region, from which the house of Saud rose to power. Al-Hejaz is the Red Sea coast and mountains, where Medina and Mecca reside. An-Nafud is the northern desert, including part of the oil fields. Al-Hasa is the Persian Sea coast, also including part of the oil fields (and Kuwait, btw). 2 other regions lie to the south.

King Hussein's grandfather ruled (under Turk authority) territory that included Palestine and Al-Hejaz. King Faisal conquered An-Nafud, Al-Hasa, and Al-Hejaz from the Turks. The British carved Kuwait out of Al-Hasa to split the oil fields into three parts and limit Saudi and Iraqi power.

I don't know how many other NME rulers were secretly hoping for a major rearrangement of things, but when Jordan and Iraq were calling the Saudis "Najd and Al-Hejaz" they were signalling that they considered Al-Hasa and An-Nafud up for grabs. (Yes, Jordan borders on An-Nafud.)

So don't think Bush was the only one sending signals that Saddam could interpret how he wished, or messages that rebels outside Mesopotamia could interpret as support for immediate action.

[DanS]

One thing to keep in mind is that we were slaughtering the Iraqi troops when we stopped the fighting--it wasn't a fight and perhaps would have been unethical to continue. It could have been ugly in the international community if we had any more Highway of Death incidents.

[Berzerker]

All we had to do was shoot down helicopters attacking dissidents and supress the Republican Guard by hitting them a few times when they rode out in their tanks to attack Iraqis. If the UN resolution made no provision for helping allies we told to rebel, then screw the UN, not the people we asked to rebel. This is the kind of amoral spin the Bush administration gave us for not helping the dissidents and proves once again why the UN is an amoral institution. That's why I gave Wolfowitz a point over Powell, he recognised the immorality of what we did.

[MichaeltheGreat]

The problem isn't immorality as much as it is misinterpretation. The "rebels" overreported their capabilities to the US and allies, to gain credibility. We expected themselves to be able to do more thant they were capable of, because they said they were more capable, and we expected the Iraqi military to be less capable, because we kicked the living **** out of them.

Wolfowitz's concerns with "immorality" are like a wolf worrying about the inhumane conditions under which sheep are kept by a farmer. He is using it as a pretext to support invasion and conquest, nothing more.

From a practical standpoint, we had no ability to act without our allies, because fuel and supply depots and major sections of front were controlled by allied forces. They agreed to participate in the war based upon UNSC resolutions, to kick Iraq out of Kuwait. With a loss of basing permissions, exposure of key positions, loss of access to supplies, and withdrawal of allied forces, the US would have been hard pressed to maintain a general offensive, and would have been hypocritical to do so, since the only legitimate authority for war was restoration of Kuwaiti sovereignty and territorial integrity.

[Ted Striker]

That's blaming the victim MTG.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Well, if the "victim" exaggerates their numbers, level of support, their command structure, and their capabilities, too bad. They expected that the US would come in and bail them out. It's a hell of a lot different situation than the Bay of Pigs, where we armed and trained these people, made firm commitments of support, put them in country, then hung them out to dry.

Our would-be rebel "allies" didn't have their **** together, and they lied to us, in the expectation that the Iraqi forces were in a state of collapse, and even if they weren't, we'd commit to a war we never planned or prepared for.

[Berzerker]

MtG -

The problem isn't immorality as much as it is misinterpretation. The "rebels" overreported their capabilities to the US and allies, to gain credibility. We expected themselves to be able to do more thant they were capable of, because they said they were more capable, and we expected the Iraqi military to be less capable, because we kicked the living **** out of them.

My God, more amoral spin, blaming the victims for the US not supporting them after we told them to rebel. And the poor USA was really the victim because they "lied" to us.

Wolfowitz's concerns with "immorality" are like a wolf worrying about the inhumane conditions under which sheep are kept by a farmer. He is using it as a pretext to support invasion and conquest, nothing more.

The documentary said he expressed his anger at the time this all happened.

From a practical standpoint, we had no ability to act without our allies, because fuel and supply depots and major sections of front were controlled by allied forces.

Yeah, the Zimbabweans were running our fuel depots.

They agreed to participate in the war based upon UNSC resolutions, to kick Iraq out of Kuwait.

Did they shut down all those fuel depots when we were creating no fly zones and enforcing them? Since when do you think we really care what the UN or our allies say? When the US invaded Panama or backed the Contras, we didn't let the UN or any allies dictate US policy.

With a loss of basing permissions, exposure of key positions, loss of access to supplies, and withdrawal of allied forces, the US would have been hard pressed to maintain a general offensive, and would have been hypocritical to do so, since the only legitimate authority for war was restoration of Kuwaiti sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Oh, so helping the people we told to rebel was not a legitimate reason for helping them? Then I guess all those arguments now about Saddam slaughtering people are illegitimate too. Btw, we could have moved enough equipment to Kuwait and Iraq to run the small amount of firepower needed to help the rebels even if the Saudis and Turks didn't like us helping the people we told to rebel. Your arguments only offer rationalizations for why we didn't help the rebels, not why Bush told them to rebel. Ask them what they think of being backstabbed twice by the US and if they think we will do it again once Saddam is out of power...

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by DanS
One thing to keep in mind is that we were slaughtering the Iraqi troops when we stopped the fighting--it wasn't a fight and perhaps would have been unethical to continue. It could have been ugly in the international community if we had any more Highway of Death incidents.

My father documented that incident for the Pentagon. In the soundtrack of the footage he had "highway to hell' playing...