Quote:
Originally Posted by Splum
You do realize Iraq attacked Kuwait which was Sunni? He also annexed the UN mandated buffer zone between Saudi Arabia and Iraq without the Saudis approval. The Saudis BEGGED for us to protect them after Saddam attacked Kuwait. Saddam was more dangerous to Saudi Arabia than Iran that is a fact, hell Iraqs military decimated and beat the Iranians. Saddam was dangerous for EVERYONE, Bush did the Saudis a favor by removing Saddam.
|
Kuwait as a nation state is primarily a creation of Britain, whom Kuwait only declared independence from in 1961. European colonialists have historically used clever partitioning of countries when pulling out, whether in Africa, in Southeast Asia, or the Middle East to keep their access to prized resources, or to ensure political divisions that benefitted the Europeans even after they ceded political control.
To summarize the Iraq invasion of Kuwait (which I believe was dealt with better than the current US invasion of Iraq), Kuwait was a huge financeer of the Iraqi's in their war with Iran. Following the end of that war (which ended in a stalemate), Kuwait demanded that Iraq repay them, even though Iraq was still in shambles economically and unable to do so.
The situation deteriorated further when Iraq claimed that Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraq (from disputed area to begin with) and pulling out Iraqi oil.
When Iraq flew some trial balloons up about an Iraq invasion of Kuwait, it has been suggested that the U.S. (under the first President Bush) sent mixed signals to Iraq, precipitating their attack.
True, while the Saudi leaders feared Saddam, and were undoubtedly happy to see him toppled, I very much doubt that they would prefer a Shiite regime in control of Iraq, that allies itself with Iran, although that appears to be what is transpiring.
Short of the U.S attacking Iran and attempting to overthrow their government too, and thereby risking a world war, it would appear that Iraq will devolve into all out civil war, and that a Shiite run government allied with Iran will emerge.
The U.S. course in the Middle East has been a treacherous one at best for many decades. It will likely remain so.
I like to believe that there can be some long-term diplomatic solutions to the problems plaguing that region.
To do so will require that the Republicans and Democrats come to some consensus as to what is practical and achievable, and at what price. The Bush style was never about consensus, which is why it cannot succeed.
Hopefully, the next President (since I doubt anything will be resolved until a new Administration is installed), will be wiser, and will share such a view, whichever party prevails, otherwise we will remain a nation divided.
We are badly served, when either side winning an election, ignores the other side. It is a shaky foundation to wage war from.
As for the "War on Terror", read the entire Wikipedia article you cited, expecially the "criticism" about the War on Terror section.
The war on terror is just more political rhetoric used for it's propaganda appeal by cynical and manipulative politicians, and is not a formal Declaration of War, which carries a far different meaning.
It's been fun playing, but I need some sleep...
ADG Webmaster