Iraq formally seeks US air strikes

[ClutchClark]

I just posted this on the other thread, which now seems defunct. So for those not fully aware of the history leading to the US presence in the region.... And not just the US. (I am a Brit by the way and a Blair Hater)

The Brits and others started meddling in the Arabian desert during the First World War and inspired the Arab revolt, which led to the Arab conquering of Damascus and Aleppo. Funnily enough the first Arabian oil was discovered in the early 1900's, but no one really knew how to get the stuff out of the ground. After numerous treaties, led mostly by the Brits and the French the Middle East was carved up in convenient blocks with, no doubt, future oil wealth being of speculative importance. (The Brits even had the audacity to promise Palestine to the family Rothschild in 1916). By 1932 Al Saud and specifically Abdul-Aziz was proclaimed as the King of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 6 short years later the Americans had installed themselves and played an important role in the first discovery of oil in the kingdom. ARAMCO was formed and together with British and French oil company interest elsewhere in the conveniently sliced up region, the foundations for the exploitation of the Arabs, Persians, Kurds, and Turks - (Shia, Sunni, Christian, Jews and a dozen other religious sects) - was nicely arranged. And everything in the garden was rosey until events such as the Suez crisis, the Aden crisis, the 6 day war, and numerous other little know events all shaped the Middle East we know today; The Middle East - the region of primary interest to the Americans for the past 90 years. Some in here talk about Sunni v Shia since the year 632. In some part yes they have always been at loggerheads, but, it is the slicing up of a continent by the western powers and the enormous influence of the American insatiable desire for the black gold that leaves millions dead, slaughtered, wounded, homeless, orphaned, raped, tortured, abused, starving and helpless across the continent. It is far more than a few dunes; some recent war fighting (or operations room) veterans I am afraid miss this point as can be seen from a good number of posts above. ISIS is just another disenfranchised group that see American and their Allies interference in the region as intolerable. I don't support their terror methods no more than I support the West's eternal interference and desire (and NEED) to impose democracy on nations that are neither ready or equipped to morph in to Uncle Sam's New World Order.

The US best course of action IMO is to return home; they no longer need the oil - they have more than enough of their own. Let the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa sort themselves out. Non nuclear proliferation can be managed by strategic cruise missile strikes. Surely this is enough?

This was not about the US needing the Iraqi oil at the time either.

It was about global business (petroleum) interests of the neo-cons and their influential friends.

[ClutchClark]

The oil majors are too heavily invested in Iraq and will be strongly lobbying their governments not to walk away.

We already have discussions of US air strikes, Brit SAS there or on the way. Seems to be working.

Exactly.

[ClutchClark]

We Americans sure opened this can 'o worms.

If only Saddam had not been involved in the 9/11 terror attacks against the US.

My mistake, I meant if only Saddam did not have an active WMD program and a stockpile of those WMD's then the US would never had to go in there.

Not arguing the bogus reasons for the previous USA intervention.

That said, Saddam did not exactly stabilize the region - Iraq was actually at odds with most neighboring countries at one point

or another, during his reign. Even disregarding that, and seeing him as a necessary evil, how were things supposed to go on

after him? Far as I recall, he did a good job of cutting down to size most eligible alternative leaders likely to have carried on.

The mess Iraq is in, or something similar, was always brewing under the surface. Just a question of time and circumstances

as to when it would come to a head.

Some valid points; however, we removed whatever chance there was for a peaceful transition when we destroyed the entire countries infrastructure with our "shock & awe" and did not provide the Iraqi people time to prepare for the eventual vacuum that would have occurred when he died or was ousted from power by fellow Iraqis.

Was it even a decade later that the Arab spring took place?

And in the process, we lost the credibility the US once held globally, we showed our enemies that our military can't even fight small wars effectively and that we don't have enough military to even fight two regional wars, we cost many American and Allied soldiers loss of life, and left many more seriously injured and absent limbs, we spent a trillion of taxpayer dollars and we have witnessed how many tens of thousands of Iraqis killed both before and during this civil war and the violence is growing worse.

And regardless who voted for it, the war drums were beaten by an administration of neo-cons with proven interest in attacking Iraq prior to 9/11 and who made fictitious ties between 9/11 and saddam in oder to manipulate the country into doing their dirty work and furthering their own business interests.

What peaceful transition do you imagine there would have been if Saddam was deposed by rivals or died of old age?

There wasn't anyone in a position to take charge. Yes, he was grooming his sons for the job, but would probably have

ended the same way Syria did. Youngsters weren't up to it.

They would have had the same crisis (that is, splitting up to three distinctive groups) either way. Infrastructure nothing

to do with this.

Like I said, no beef with the bogus reasons for going to war in the first place. And like most wars, there are many bad

side effects. That is by no means unique.

So you don't think the US removed whatever chance there was for a more peaceful, less destructive transition of power that might have avoided the complete annihilation of the country?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[Chicog]

I might ask you the same question about the history lesson you so obligingly provided us.

The US had nothing to do with Saddam's rise to power. He did it the old fashioned way, through intrigue and back room deals following a couple of coups. He was ruthless during his rise in the Ba'ath Party and the immediate years following the coup in 1968. He either murdered his opposition or had somebody do it for him.

The CIA were supporting him and the Ba'ath party from 1963 to prise Iraq from Russian influence.

The coup that brought the Ba'ath Party to power in 1963 was celebrated by the United States.

The CIA had a hand in it. They had funded the Ba'ath Party - of which Saddam Hussein was a young member - when it was in opposition.

US diplomat James Akins served in the Baghdad Embassy at the time.

"I knew all the Ba'ath Party leaders and I liked them," he told me.

"The CIA were definitely involved in that coup. We saw the rise of the Ba'athists as a way of replacing a pro-Soviet government with a pro-American one and you don't get that chance very often.

"Sure, some people were rounded up and shot but these were mostly communists so that didn't bother us".

This happy co-existence lasted right through the 1980s.

When the Ayatollah Khomeini seized power in Iran in 1979, America set about turning Saddam Hussein into Our Man in the Gulf Region.

Washington gave Baghdad intelligence support.

President Reagan sent a special presidential envoy to Baghdad to talk to Saddam in person.

The envoy's name was Donald Rumsfeld.

Ah yes, and the "We did not sell them chemical weapons" is just plausible deniability, you simply sold them the raw materials and the instruction manual.

Oh and helped them in all sorts of other ways in that war.

That's why I found it so funny when all of sudden he became the bad guy.

Your effort to pin the rise of Saddam on the US is fruitless.

Your original claim was..." ignoring the fact that the US put Saddam in power and funded him through an eight year war against their new arch-enemy".

Now you come up with the following quote from some unattributed article that you use to support your position that the US "put Saddam in power".

Your own link says..."The CIA had a hand in it. They had funded the Ba'ath Party - of which Saddam Hussein was a young member - when it was in opposition."

I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around how the CIA funding of a political party where Saddam was claimed to be a "young member", suddenly changed into "the US put Saddam in power."

What am I missing here? Anybody?

That's just when they *started* Chuck.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Morch]

Not arguing the bogus reasons for the previous USA intervention.

That said, Saddam did not exactly stabilize the region - Iraq was actually at odds with most neighboring countries at one point

or another, during his reign. Even disregarding that, and seeing him as a necessary evil, how were things supposed to go on

after him? Far as I recall, he did a good job of cutting down to size most eligible alternative leaders likely to have carried on.

The mess Iraq is in, or something similar, was always brewing under the surface. Just a question of time and circumstances

as to when it would come to a head.

Some valid points; however, we removed whatever chance there was for a peaceful transition when we destroyed the entire countries infrastructure with our "shock & awe" and did not provide the Iraqi people time to prepare for the eventual vacuum that would have occurred when he died or was ousted from power by fellow Iraqis.

Was it even a decade later that the Arab spring took place?

And in the process, we lost the credibility the US once held globally, we showed our enemies that our military can't even fight small wars effectively and that we don't have enough military to even fight two regional wars, we cost many American and Allied soldiers loss of life, and left many more seriously injured and absent limbs, we spent a trillion of taxpayer dollars and we have witnessed how many tens of thousands of Iraqis killed both before and during this civil war and the violence is growing worse.

And regardless who voted for it, the war drums were beaten by an administration of neo-cons with proven interest in attacking Iraq prior to 9/11 and who made fictitious ties between 9/11 and saddam in oder to manipulate the country into doing their dirty work and furthering their own business interests.

What peaceful transition do you imagine there would have been if Saddam was deposed by rivals or died of old age?

There wasn't anyone in a position to take charge. Yes, he was grooming his sons for the job, but would probably have

ended the same way Syria did. Youngsters weren't up to it.

They would have had the same crisis (that is, splitting up to three distinctive groups) either way. Infrastructure nothing

to do with this.

Like I said, no beef with the bogus reasons for going to war in the first place. And like most wars, there are many bad

side effects. That is by no means unique.

So you don't think the US removed whatever chance there was for a more peaceful, less destructive transition of power that might have avoided the complete annihilation of the country?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I don't think that there was any real chance of that. The only thing that held Iraq together was Saddam's ruthlessness.

There was enough distrust and hate around between the three major factions to make sure this would have gone down one way or another (and that's without factoring the in-fighting, splits and divides among each of them). They would have been right at each other throat, with neighboring countries meddling, some trying to carve some pieces for themselves.

As with other countries in the Middle East, people may carry passports of countries, doesn't always make them uphold the notion of that country high on their lists. Religious, regional and tribal affiliations play a more important role for many. The current Iraqi leadership takes care of their own. If the tables were turned, their rivals would be doing the very same. Unity is not something inherent in Iraq.

[folium]

I might ask you the same question about the history lesson you so obligingly provided us.

The US had nothing to do with Saddam's rise to power. He did it the old fashioned way, through intrigue and back room deals following a couple of coups. He was ruthless during his rise in the Ba'ath Party and the immediate years following the coup in 1968. He either murdered his opposition or had somebody do it for him.

The CIA were supporting him and the Ba'ath party from 1963 to prise Iraq from Russian influence.

The coup that brought the Ba'ath Party to power in 1963 was celebrated by the United States.

The CIA had a hand in it. They had funded the Ba'ath Party - of which Saddam Hussein was a young member - when it was in opposition.

US diplomat James Akins served in the Baghdad Embassy at the time.

"I knew all the Ba'ath Party leaders and I liked them," he told me.

"The CIA were definitely involved in that coup. We saw the rise of the Ba'athists as a way of replacing a pro-Soviet government with a pro-American one and you don't get that chance very often.

"Sure, some people were rounded up and shot but these were mostly communists so that didn't bother us".

This happy co-existence lasted right through the 1980s.

When the Ayatollah Khomeini seized power in Iran in 1979, America set about turning Saddam Hussein into Our Man in the Gulf Region.

Washington gave Baghdad intelligence support.

President Reagan sent a special presidential envoy to Baghdad to talk to Saddam in person.

The envoy's name was Donald Rumsfeld.

Ah yes, and the "We did not sell them chemical weapons" is just plausible deniability, you simply sold them the raw materials and the instruction manual.

Oh and helped them in all sorts of other ways in that war.

That's why I found it so funny when all of sudden he became the bad guy.

Your effort to pin the rise of Saddam on the US is fruitless.

Your original claim was..." ignoring the fact that the US put Saddam in power and funded him through an eight year war against their new arch-enemy".

Now you come up with the following quote from some unattributed article that you use to support your position that the US "put Saddam in power".

Your own link says..."The CIA had a hand in it. They had funded the Ba'ath Party - of which Saddam Hussein was a young member - when it was in opposition."

I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around how the CIA funding of a political party where Saddam was claimed to be a "young member", suddenly changed into "the US put Saddam in power."

What am I missing here? Anybody?

As ever with the Middle East the situation re the US, Saddam and Iraq is far more complicated and at all sorts of different levels, for all sorts of conflicting reasons, often all happening at the same time. If the ME was simple there would not be half the problems that fester today!

The CIA undoubtedly knew about the 1963 coup and initially had few issues with it, especially as it seemed to be a blow to Soviet influence, but claiming that the CIA had a hand in it seems unsupported by evidence.Saddam did not come to power until the 1968 coup, coming in the wake of the disastrous (for pan-Arabism) 1967 5 Day War. By this stage the US had broken off diplomatic relations with Iraq and Congress had declared illegal any arms sales. So again, little evidence of US support for the 1968 coup and Saddam's rise to power.

To further underline the marginal role of the US, Saddam visited Moscow in 1972 and signed a 15 year Friendship Pact which triggered large quantities of Soviet arms sales, making them the largest supplier to Iraq.

The fall of the Shah, to whom the US has transferred their interest, reopened possibilities for US/Iraq cooperation especially with the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War 1980-88. While the US supplied intelligence and logistical support the "relationship" was further strained by Iran-Contra 1985-86.

If you want a foreign power that was a significant ally and supporter of Iraq, look no further than the blessed French. Chirac was a long term fan of Saddam.

As ever French commercial opportunities drove this relationship and France became second only to the Soviets in terms of supplying military hardware. Mirage and Super Etendard jets, the Osirak nuclear reactor (bombed by Israel in 1981), assorted missiles, training and AMX-30 tanks, were all shipped out to Iraq. In return? Total and Elf were to get first shout on enormous oil and gas fields in southern Iraq once UN sanctions were lifted. Perhaps one reason why France so opposed the invasion in 2003.

Edited June 19, 2014 by folium

[ClutchClark]

Some valid points; however, we removed whatever chance there was for a peaceful transition when we destroyed the entire countries infrastructure with our "shock & awe" and did not provide the Iraqi people time to prepare for the eventual vacuum that would have occurred when he died or was ousted from power by fellow Iraqis.

Was it even a decade later that the Arab spring took place?

And in the process, we lost the credibility the US once held globally, we showed our enemies that our military can't even fight small wars effectively and that we don't have enough military to even fight two regional wars, we cost many American and Allied soldiers loss of life, and left many more seriously injured and absent limbs, we spent a trillion of taxpayer dollars and we have witnessed how many tens of thousands of Iraqis killed both before and during this civil war and the violence is growing worse.

And regardless who voted for it, the war drums were beaten by an administration of neo-cons with proven interest in attacking Iraq prior to 9/11 and who made fictitious ties between 9/11 and saddam in oder to manipulate the country into doing their dirty work and furthering their own business interests.

What peaceful transition do you imagine there would have been if Saddam was deposed by rivals or died of old age?

There wasn't anyone in a position to take charge. Yes, he was grooming his sons for the job, but would probably have

ended the same way Syria did. Youngsters weren't up to it.

They would have had the same crisis (that is, splitting up to three distinctive groups) either way. Infrastructure nothing

to do with this.

Like I said, no beef with the bogus reasons for going to war in the first place. And like most wars, there are many bad

side effects. That is by no means unique.

So you don't think the US removed whatever chance there was for a more peaceful, less destructive transition of power that might have avoided the complete annihilation of the country?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I don't think that there was any real chance of that.

The only thing that held Iraq together was Saddam's ruthlessness.

There was enough distrust and hate around between the three major factions to make sure this would have gone down

one way or another (and that's without factoring the in-fighting, splits and divides among each of them). They would have

been right at each other throat, with neighboring countries meddling, some trying to carve some pieces for themselves.

As with other countries in the Middle East, people may carry passports of countries, doesn't always make them uphold the

notion of that country high on their lists. Religious, regional and tribal affiliations play a more important role for many. The

current Iraqi leadership takes care of their own. If the tables were turned, their rivals would be doing the very same. Unity

is not something inherent in Iraq.

So you are saying that you see no other possibility than exactly what has occurred.

You think that tens of thousands of tons of ordinance dropped during air campaigns would have occurred regardless the US and Allied forces doing so?

OK.

[folium]

Well he gave them fair warning to stop drilling under the border into Iraq's reserves. I don't think he had any other aspirations.

Probably would have done little harm if the US had left him alone. I'm guessing he would have cleared all their oil kit, pushed the border back a bit and gone home.

Saddam's invasion of Kuwait had more to it than just Kuwaiti slant drilling Iraqi oilfields along a poorly demarcated boundary.

Kuwait was carved out of Ottoman-controlled Mesopotamia by the Brits in the late 19th century to install a friendly emir. On 3 occasions (the most recent being 1961) the Brits had to stand tough against a threatened Iraqi invasion to recover the "lost province". The existence of Kuwait drastically diminished Iraqi access to the Gulf with the Shatt al Arab waterway shared with Iran, and the scene of intense fighting in the Iran-Iraq War, 1980-88. Pre 1990 Iraq was keen to fully demarcate the border and take possession of 2 islands to give them more protected access to the Gulf.

Ironically Kuwait had been a key ally to Iraq during the conflict with Iran, providing ports to export oil and also $15 billion in funding. With the end of the war Iraq hoped that these loans would become gifts as a reward for protecting the Gulf Arabs from the Persian threat. Kuwait was having none of this, instead greatly exceeding its oil production quota which caused the oil price to slump from $20 to $14/barrel. Each $1 drop in the oil price cost Iraq $1billion in revenue.

The rapid collapse of Kuwait's military in August 1990 allowed Saddam to gain control of a combined 19% of global oil reserves. The Saudis (another huge creditor with $20billion loans to Iraq) hit the panic button as Saddam massed troops on the Saudi border, and the possibility was there for Saddam to wipe out most of his debts, at the least to sort out another undemarcated area on their shared border (the Neutral Zone), and also more importantly gain control of almost 60% of the world's oil if he pushed into eastern Saudi. He did actually invade Saudi in Jan 1991 when his forces pre-empted the Allied assault by seizing the Saudi town of Khafji.

Saddam's history of confrontation with almost all his neighbours and with a brutal track record against internal opponents makes the claim that he "probably would have done little harm if the US had left him alone" look somewhat optimistic....

[Scott]

Posts and replies have been removed.

[iancnx]

I just posted this on the other thread, which now seems defunct. So for those not fully aware of the history leading to the US presence in the region.... And not just the US. (I am a Brit by the way and a Blair Hater)

The Brits and others started meddling in the Arabian desert during the First World War and inspired the Arab revolt, which led to the Arab conquering of Damascus and Aleppo. Funnily enough the first Arabian oil was discovered in the early 1900's, but no one really knew how to get the stuff out of the ground. After numerous treaties, led mostly by the Brits and the French the Middle East was carved up in convenient blocks with, no doubt, future oil wealth being of speculative importance. (The Brits even had the audacity to promise Palestine to the family Rothschild in 1916). By 1932 Al Saud and specifically Abdul-Aziz was proclaimed as the King of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 6 short years later the Americans had installed themselves and played an important role in the first discovery of oil in the kingdom. ARAMCO was formed and together with British and French oil company interest elsewhere in the conveniently sliced up region, the foundations for the exploitation of the Arabs, Persians, Kurds, and Turks - (Shia, Sunni, Christian, Jews and a dozen other religious sects) - was nicely arranged. And everything in the garden was rosey until events such as the Suez crisis, the Aden crisis, the 6 day war, and numerous other little know events all shaped the Middle East we know today; The Middle East - the region of primary interest to the Americans for the past 90 years. Some in here talk about Sunni v Shia since the year 632. In some part yes they have always been at loggerheads, but, it is the slicing up of a continent by the western powers and the enormous influence of the American insatiable desire for the black gold that leaves millions dead, slaughtered, wounded, homeless, orphaned, raped, tortured, abused, starving and helpless across the continent. It is far more than a few dunes; some recent war fighting (or operations room) veterans I am afraid miss this point as can be seen from a good number of posts above. ISIS is just another disenfranchised group that see American and their Allies interference in the region as intolerable. I don't support their terror methods no more than I support the West's eternal interference and desire (and NEED) to impose democracy on nations that are neither ready or equipped to morph in to Uncle Sam's New World Order.

The US best course of action IMO is to return home; they no longer need the oil - they have more than enough of their own. Let the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa sort themselves out. Non nuclear proliferation can be managed by strategic cruise missile strikes. Surely this is enough?

A good post and necessarily abbreviated history. Look at the borders of Israel and closer to (our) home those of Brunei too. Us Brits have a lot to answer for a few generations back, then we handed the baton to the US.

The oil majors are too heavily invested in Iraq and will be strongly lobbying their governments not to walk away.

We already have discussions of US air strikes, Brit SAS there or on the way. Seems to be working.

Off topic, but as a Brit I concur regarding meddling Brits. Just look at the mess we have made in the South, a result of us slicing up Malaysia!

[Chicog]

The rapid collapse of Kuwait's military in August 1990 allowed Saddam to gain control of a combined 19% of global oil reserves. The Saudis (another huge creditor with $20billion loans to Iraq) hit the panic button as Saddam massed troops on the Saudi border, and the possibility was there for Saddam to wipe out most of his debts, at the least to sort out another undemarcated area on their shared border (the Neutral Zone), and also more importantly gain control of almost 60% of the world's oil if he pushed into eastern Saudi. He did actually invade Saudi in Jan 1991 when his forces pre-empted the Allied assault by seizing the Saudi town of Khafji.

If Saddam had wanted to roll into Saudi Arabia he could and would have done it in 1990, with virtually no opposition. And that would have made the coalition's job infinitely harder. That alone demonstrated to me that he had no such ambitions.

The incursion into Khafji was a military operation against the Coalition, and would not have happened if they hadn't been there.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Chicog

[chuckd]

The rapid collapse of Kuwait's military in August 1990 allowed Saddam to gain control of a combined 19% of global oil reserves. The Saudis (another huge creditor with $20billion loans to Iraq) hit the panic button as Saddam massed troops on the Saudi border, and the possibility was there for Saddam to wipe out most of his debts, at the least to sort out another undemarcated area on their shared border (the Neutral Zone), and also more importantly gain control of almost 60% of the world's oil if he pushed into eastern Saudi. He did actually invade Saudi in Jan 1991 when his forces pre-empted the Allied assault by seizing the Saudi town of Khafji.

If Saddam had wanted to roll into Saudi Arabia he could and would have done it in 1990, with virtually no opposition. And that would have made the coalition's job infinitely harder. That alone demonstrated to me that he had no such ambitions.

The incursion into Khafji was a military operation against the Coalition, and would not have happened if they hadn't been there.

Saddam knew very well the US and Saudi had good relations and any real incursion into Saudi would be met with US retaliation. Yet another factor in his decision making was he feared outrunning his supply lines. Those are his real reasons for not invading Saudi in August 1990.

It is true that Saddam could have had the entire Eastern Province of Saudi under his control had he decided to move in August. In September and October, the US buildup was beginning and his opportunity was lost

I was not there in August, having come back to Thailand for a break. However, I went back when called in September to help run a program in a city some 60 miles south of Khafji.

The Iraqis believed Khafji to be deserted at the time of the attack. It largely was deserted except for a small force of US Marines that were in the town at the time. The Marines called for assistance and Arab forces came in relief. It was over in a couple of days.

The tanks and other military vehicles taken from the Iraq army in Khafji ended up parked in the city where I was. All of it Russian equipment.

[Morch]

What peaceful transition do you imagine there would have been if Saddam was deposed by rivals or died of old age?

There wasn't anyone in a position to take charge. Yes, he was grooming his sons for the job, but would probably have

ended the same way Syria did. Youngsters weren't up to it.

They would have had the same crisis (that is, splitting up to three distinctive groups) either way. Infrastructure nothing

to do with this.

Like I said, no beef with the bogus reasons for going to war in the first place. And like most wars, there are many bad

side effects. That is by no means unique.

So you don't think the US removed whatever chance there was for a more peaceful, less destructive transition of power that might have avoided the complete annihilation of the country?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I don't think that there was any real chance of that.

The only thing that held Iraq together was Saddam's ruthlessness.

There was enough distrust and hate around between the three major factions to make sure this would have gone down

one way or another (and that's without factoring the in-fighting, splits and divides among each of them). They would have

been right at each other throat, with neighboring countries meddling, some trying to carve some pieces for themselves.

As with other countries in the Middle East, people may carry passports of countries, doesn't always make them uphold the

notion of that country high on their lists. Religious, regional and tribal affiliations play a more important role for many. The

current Iraqi leadership takes care of their own. If the tables were turned, their rivals would be doing the very same. Unity

is not something inherent in Iraq.

So you are saying that you see no other possibility than exactly what has occurred.

You think that tens of thousands of tons of ordinance dropped during air campaigns would have occurred regardless the US and Allied forces doing so?

OK.

Keep twisting it as much as you like.

I'm saying they various factions in Iraq would have eventually clashed anyway, even without USA intervention.

They would have done a fine job of inflicting damage and horrors all by themselves, probably aided by their

good neighbors.

This does not mean that the USA intervention was a positive thing.

[midas]

If only Saddam did not repeatedly violate sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions and refused full access to international weapons inspectors, he would still be in Iraq brutally murdering his populace without a care and ISIS would not be marching on Baghdad.

Wow, nice job on the whitewash. The UN inspectors repeatedly reported that there were no WMDs. The CIA knew it but Uncle George and the gang decided to go to war anyway and ended up killing up to a million people over complete lies. Just in case you think people are going to believe your lies.

One may well ask why disturb an otherwise well managed country?. The decision to eliminate Saddam Hussein was made by the same people who eliminated a past US President for synergistic reasons (China and Russia together are now coincidentally quietly working towards the same scenario but fortunately for them they are a bit too big to be eliminated )

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998512,00.html

Edited June 20, 2014 by midas

[Chicog]

The rapid collapse of Kuwait's military in August 1990 allowed Saddam to gain control of a combined 19% of global oil reserves. The Saudis (another huge creditor with $20billion loans to Iraq) hit the panic button as Saddam massed troops on the Saudi border, and the possibility was there for Saddam to wipe out most of his debts, at the least to sort out another undemarcated area on their shared border (the Neutral Zone), and also more importantly gain control of almost 60% of the world's oil if he pushed into eastern Saudi. He did actually invade Saudi in Jan 1991 when his forces pre-empted the Allied assault by seizing the Saudi town of Khafji.

If Saddam had wanted to roll into Saudi Arabia he could and would have done it in 1990, with virtually no opposition. And that would have made the coalition's job infinitely harder. That alone demonstrated to me that he had no such ambitions.

The incursion into Khafji was a military operation against the Coalition, and would not have happened if they hadn't been there.

Saddam knew very well the US and Saudi had good relations and any real incursion into Saudi would be met with US retaliation. Yet another factor in his decision making was he feared outrunning his supply lines. Those are his real reasons for not invading Saudi in August 1990.

The US didn't have anywhere near the hardware to take on Iraq at that time. It took months to organise.

As for supply lines, taking Saudi Arabia would have given Saddam ample routes for that.

I was there from '87 onwards, and no-one I met was that bothered about Iraq and Kuwait, in fact most people think the Kuwaitis are second only to the Saudis in being arrogant gits.

It wasn't until he started lobbing scuds everywhere that public opinion in the Gulf turned against him.

Still got my piece of one.

Added: In fact somewhere I have a cassette recording of Bahgdad Betty. "To the American Soldiers from the United States, don't you know that you will die in the desert and be eaten by worms?", etc.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Chicog