StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I was wondering did US ever warn Iraq not to attack Kuwait prior to their invasion?

There is someone on SB that claims US didn't warn Iraq when they were mobilizing for an assault on Kuwait, but i do wonder about that. I can only find George Bush the elder condamned the attack after it had begun.

Hmm, would it have mattered?

Normaly no. But this person I am refering to is.... annoying as a rabid Trekkie only that she is an anti-american and lives in Netherlands. Its a long story, but I would like to se her wrong on this one.

To the contrary.

Saddam asked the US ambassador what the USA would do if he invaded Kuwait. The ambassador left the room for a 5 minute phone call, came back and answered: nothing.

Sebastin wrote:To the contrary.

Saddam asked the US ambassador what the USA would do if he invaded Kuwait. The ambassador left the room for a 5 minute phone call, came back and answered: nothing.

Dammit, she was right after all. But then why did US attack Iraq?

Oil.

But then why did US attack Iraq?

They threated Saudi Arabia, Our Allie

Kuwait at the time was not

Dark Primus wrote:

Sebastin wrote:To the contrary.

Saddam asked the US ambassador what the USA would do if he invaded Kuwait. The ambassador left the room for a 5 minute phone call, came back and answered: nothing.

Dammit, she was right after all. But then why did US attack Iraq?

From what I understand we attacked Iraq because they took over all of Kuwait and not just a piece.

The main reason was oil.
Just like the Afgan war, the US had a plan for a major pipeline from Georgia through Afganistan, so it wouldn't go tthrough Russia.Why else would the US also have troops in Georiga?

The US did not make it clear to Sadam not to invade Kuwait. Of course our response was largely about oil and a fear he would invade Saudi Arabia.

I think now, it does not appear Sadam wanted to invade SA, but it was not possible to know that at that time.

I recently read a good book called "Crusade" about the Persian Gulf War. It describes a lot of the behind the scenes politics of the time as well as some detailed descriptions of the fighting.

Ted seems to be under the mistaken impression that its ok in Invade US Allies

TED I answear your bullshit earierl in that other thread which you never bothered to respond back to, Yes Oil is what makes the World go round however its the long fucked stated position of the US YOU DONT FUCK WITH OUR ALLIES

Kuwait was not an Allie

Did they have oil? Yes

Saudi Arabia was our Allie
Did Saddam try and invade them to?
Yes

What does that mean?

Saddam attacked a US Allie
You don't fuck with US Allies,

Iraq didnt attack Saudi Arabia.
And as you said, Kuwait wasn't an ally, so why did they go in and liberate it? And why once they had, stop when they got to Iraqi boarders, when if you were concerned about the political stability in the region, you would have taken Bahgdad and set up a puppet government as an ally.



And please, learn to spell. Its ally, not allie.

And as you said, Kuwait wasn't an ally, so why did they go in and liberate it? And why once they had, stop when they got to Iraqi boarders, when if you were concerned about the political stability in the region, you would have taken Bahgdad and set up a puppet government as an ally.

We went in and Librate it because we had intercepts suggestion that Saddam was resting his forces in Kuwait and would invade SA the Following Month

And please, learn to spell. Its ally, not allie.

Hint, I dont give a flying fuck about spelling if you can understand me, For somone who self taught himself english I do pretty damn well don't you think?

Mr Bean wrote:
Hint, I dont give a flying fuck about spelling if you can understand me, For somone who self taught himself english I do pretty damn well don't you think?

So where are you from then?

So where are you from then?

Ask Evil Jerk, he managed to guess it

I suppose Russia?

Evil Jerk? Wheres Bean from?

IIRC Correctly, Iraq was massing forces on the southern border of Kuwait, mostly armored divisions within days of the invasion, he was obviously going for a blitzkrieg type manuver (somewhat atypical for a commander who used sand berms and fortifictaions as a primary means of defense. The Iraqi army is not used to being mobile) The US airlifted elements of the 101st and 82nd Airborne into Saudi Arabia right away and posted them on the border. The message was clear. There was no doubt that the 82nd and 101st would be overwhelmed by the Iraqi armored spearheads, but then Sadaam would have directly attacked US forces and opened himself up to a can of whoop ass.

I remember that for 24 hours we all held our breaths as we waited to see whther Sadaam would move in. Alot of militray advisors predicted that if he did not go in now, when the US presence was fairly small and light he would not go in at all. Surprisingly they were right. I say surprisingly because these were the same media advisors that were predicting 10,000 US casialties and a huge slugging match that would go from berm to berm, with the tough Iraqi army utilizing at it had learned against the Iranians to halt the US advance.

Anyway, so there you have it, they were going to go into Saudi Arabia.

BTW, as much as you might hate her, she was right, it was the same diplomatic snafu that started the KOrean war when the US described in an official announcement the US sphere of influence in Asia, specifically EXCLUDING South Korea. The North and Chinese saw this as a complicit signal from the US that they would not intervene. Thus touching off the Korean War and costing us 50,000 US lives and god knows how many North Korean and Chinese lives.

I'd be very interested to see this evidence that Iraq was going to attack Saudi Arabia. No hard evidence of massing forces was ever produced, IIRC.

If I'm wrong do tell but I distinctly remember reading that the entire SA thing was a big load of bullshit, just like the babies in incubators story, and the Patriots shooting down all those SCUDs.

I'd be very interested to see this evidence that Iraq was going to attack Saudi Arabia. No hard evidence of massing forces was ever produced, IIRC.

Trust me, we had them but I'm not allowed to say beyond that

Mr Bean wrote:Ted seems to be under the mistaken impression that its ok in Invade US Allies

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
He claimed that it was because of oil. In no way did he mention or imply any positive or negative effect of being a US ally.
You are confusing your own opinion that it was because Iraq threatened SA, with his opinion that oil and influence was the reason.

Mr Bean wrote:Yes Oil is what makes the World go round however its the long fucked stated position of the US YOU DONT FUCK WITH OUR ALLIES

Strange to see the normal analytical posts by bean deteriorate so fast.

Ted wrote:The main reason was oil.
Just like the Afgan war, the US had a plan for a major pipeline from Georgia through Afganistan, so it wouldn't go tthrough Russia.Why else would the US also have troops in Georiga?

Ted wrote:And please, learn to spell. Its ally, not allie.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... ttack.html
Check your post above. Don't trash someones bad spelling if you can't spell yourself.
A simple [Its ally, not allie.] would have sufficed.


Now to the issue at hand.

You are both wrong.
In the real world where politics and war happens the truth isn't black or white.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... lemma.html
Let's look at your arguments:
Did oil factor in?
Yes. Oil gives money. Money gives influence. Influence is what you need to make politics.
Did SaudiArabia being an ally factor in?
Yes. Hostile troops next to an ally of the US did concern USA. But more importantly, the ally wanted a US attack on Iraq and where willing to finance it.
Do you see how easy it is? There was not a single reason why the UN gave the mandate for sanctions followed by assault. Each reason in itself was not enough.

Also what both of you are forgetting is that it was not US who was the warmonger that time.
The outcry came first from Europe, which triggered NATO, which triggered the US, which triggered the UN.
Now why is this important?
Because both your motives only includes the politics of the USA without regard to the rest of the world.

Before the Iraq-Kuwait crisis, USA was pro-Iraq and pro-Saddam something which people seem to have forgotten today. There are even rumors that a US ambassador gave a "we don't care" message to Saddam before the attack.
Do a web search on "Ambassador", "Glaspie" and "Saddam".
So it actually took a push for the US to make a turn from regarding Iraq as a US friendly nation, to an axis of evil.
This push came from the rest of the world.
When Iraq not just took the border which was in dispute but instead invaded the whole of Kuwait, the world got first worried and then angry.
Much of the anger came from the media which was being fed propaganda both from exiled kuwaitis and from scared SaudiArabia.
Make a web-search for "Nayirah", "ambassador" and "testimony".
You will find that one of the more circulated atrocities of the Iraqi invasion was a fabrication.
Now don't make the logical mistake of saying that since this is untrue then no atrocities took place, it was an invasion, it was in the middle-east, the problem was that you needed a public outcry. Something which isn't created with rapes and torture. Hence the incubators story.

While I'm at it I will give you both a homework to do.

->Bean
Do a web search on "Saudi Arabia", "St. Petersburg Times" and "Peter Zimmerman".
You will find that the threat on Saudi-Arabia was exagerated. Also intelligence reports from captured Iraqi troops revealed that there existed no orders to attack Saudi-Arabia.
And people, don't make the logical mistake to say that this indicates that no such threat existed. It certainly did! If USA hadn't put a presence there they would have been a plausible target but not after the presence of US troops.

->Ted
Do a web search on "Africa", "oil" and "war".
You will find that there are wars in africa which include oil. These wars are small scale and fought with WWII methods. If US was so interested in securing oil fields and influence over oil prices then it would be much cheaper to settle one of the african wars than to invade a middle east country. So why don't they? We could also look at the Philippines etc.
And people, don't make the logical mistake to say that this indicates that oil don't influence where and when we fight our wars.

PS
This post took long time to make so please excuse me if the chronological order seems incorrect.
DS

Shit you managed to post 8 posts in the time it took me to write mine...

An interesting read for all of you from relatively informed US troops sources can be found here:
http://www.odssa.com/chrono.htm

Yes because I have a sixty word typing rate when I realy get going(Normaly its alot slower, 40-50)

He claimed that it was because of oil. In no way did he mention or imply any positive or negative effect of being a US ally.
You are confusing your own opinion that it was because Iraq threatened SA, with his opinion that oil and influence was the reason.

Wrgon, Straw-man would be to create a SEPERATE aurgment and attack that instead of his acutal aurgment, Rather I was disagreeing with his aurgment and provinding MY aurgment.

Thats just good debating now a Logic Fallacy

Strange to see the normal analytical posts by bean deteriorate so fast.

Ad-Homean attack you did not disagree with what I said you mearly implied that it was idiotic

Yes. Hostile troops next to an ally of the US did concern USA. But more importantly, the ally wanted a US attack on Iraq and where willing to finance it.
Do you see how easy it is? There was not a single reason why the UN gave the mandate for sanctions followed by assault. Each reason in itself was not enough.

The Hostile Invasion of a Friendly(Though not Allied) Nation was not reason enough? If Brazil where to invade Peru though niether is our ally would that not be sufficent reason to step in and take action?

Also what both of you are forgetting is that it was not US who was the warmonger that time.
The outcry came first from Europe, which triggered NATO, which triggered the US, which triggered the UN.
Now why is this important?
Because both your motives only includes the politics of the USA without regard to the rest of the world.

Before the Iraq-Kuwait crisis, USA was pro-Iraq and pro-Saddam something which people seem to have forgotten today. There are even rumors that a US ambassador gave a "we don't care" message to Saddam before the attack.
Do a web search on "Ambassador", "Glaspie" and "Saddam".
So it actually took a push for the US to make a turn from regarding Iraq as a US friendly nation, to an axis of evil.

And what had Saddamn done before this?
Your using Faulty logic, Up to now the only thing Saddam had ever done to us was praticly nothing, He had accepted demands the US had placed on him in exhange for help with a War with Iran(Another country we did not like)


Up until the German attack on Russia those countries had friendly ties with each other, Leading Elements of the Panzers even passed trains bound for Germany with supplies sent by the Russians

Up to that point in 91 Saddam had done nothing to any American Intrests, infact he had even attacked an enemy of ours and we where all to happy to supply him with weapons and material in the fight

Bean wrote:Quote:
He claimed that it was because of oil. In no way did he mention or imply any positive or negative effect of being a US ally.
You are confusing your own opinion that it was because Iraq threatened SA, with his opinion that oil and influence was the reason.


Wrgon, Straw-man would be to create a SEPERATE aurgment and attack that instead of his acutal aurgment, Rather I was disagreeing with his aurgment and provinding MY aurgment.

Thats just good debating now a Logic Fallacy

Bull from Bean. (Just had to use that pun).

Your statement was:

Bean wrote:Ted seems to be under the mistaken impression that its ok in Invade US Allies.

A typical strawman. You claimed that his opinion was that it was OK to invade a US ally. It was not his argument, it was the reversal of your own counter argument.

Up untill Saddam invaded Kuwait what had he truely done to any American Allies or Intrests?

Causes of the war or not there acutal happens to BE a Single cause for the 91, a Singel Justifcation though there might have been a thousand good ones

This Country has had a long standing Policy of Mutal Defense of Allies, if we are attack they will send aid and help, and if they are, we shall do the same in turn, there is not if's ands or buts associate with this. Legaly and moraly its quite simple

Attack an Ally of the US and we will respond

If your sitting in a middle of a desert it does not matter, if that desert happens to have large amounts of oil under it fine thats nice, but that does not change the bases reason.

By the way one last thing I left out, How many Iraq'y Generals did we capture?

If one is planning a suprise attack on another country typcialy those sorts of things don't filter down to the man on the ground until a week before....

We KNOW very much way Saddamn invaded Kuwait and stoped simple because what he did while he was there. He was considating his hold on the Country before moving on SA and his evntual target according to the Defecters after the fact was Isreal but, intellgently he did not want to have the Countries behind him rebel after the Tanks left the streets and he be shut in, Thefore he needed a definate supply line and bases to operate from, Somthing the Iraq's could not do at a moments notice.