Do you believe US intervention in the 1990-91 Gulf War was justified?

[Fozz]

Was US intervention justified in the Gulf War?

[GreenLP]

Which military intervention ever was?

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Absolutely not... We went in based on lies and did not even finish the job. Not much changes!

[Fozz]

Which military intervention ever was?

Are you a pacifist?

[Fozz]

Absolutely not... We went in based on lies and did not even finish the job. Not much changes!

I believe the goal was to stop Saddam from seizing the abundant oil supply in Kuwait, and possibly the rest of the Persian Gulf. What were the lies, other than a broken promise to stay out of Arab-Arab conflicts?

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Nurse Nayirah

[Nate-ForLiberty]

YouTube - The Kuwaiti Incubator Babies - LIE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu8CCJTJCQk&feature=related)

[RonPaulCult]

I believe the goal was to stop Saddam from seizing the abundant oil supply in Kuwait, and possibly the rest of the Persian Gulf. What were the lies, other than a broken promise to stay out of Arab-Arab conflicts?

You're willing to trade blood for oil? Wow.

[Fozz]

You're willing to trade blood for oil? Wow.

What were the lies?

[GreenLP]

Are you a pacifist?
A question like that makes me ask if you're a warmonger. ;)

But to answer your question, no. If a country is and has minded its business and gets attacked, then no mercy to those attackers. Same if someone breaks into your house.

[RonPaulCult]

What were the lies?

See the video above. I assume it is about:


In October, 1990, a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, identified only as Nayirah, appeared in Washington before the House of Representatives' Human Rights Caucus. She testified that Iraqi soldiers who had invaded Kuwait on August 2nd tore hundreds of babies from hospital incubators and killed them.

Television flashed her testimony around the world. It electrified opposition to Iraq's president, Saddam Hussein, who was now portrayed by U.S. president George Bush not only as "the Butcher of Baghdad" but -- so much for old friends -- "a tyrant worse than Hitler."

Bush quoted Nayirah at every opportunity. Six times in one month he referred to "312 premature babies at Kuwait City's maternity hospital who died after Iraqi soldiers stole their incubators and left the infants on the floor,"(1) and of "babies pulled from incubators and scattered like firewood across the floor." Bush used Nayirah's testimony to lambaste Senate Democrats still supporting "only" sanctions against Iraq -- the blockade of trade which alone would cause hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to die of hunger and disease -- but who waffled on endorsing the policy Bush wanted to implement: outright bombardment. Republicans and pro-war Democrats used Nayirah's tale to hammer their fellow politicians into line behind Bush's war in the Persian Gulf.(2)

Nayirah, though, was no impartial eyewitness, a fact carefully concealed by her handlers. She was the daughter of one Saud Nasir Al-Sabah, Kuwait's ambassador to the United States. A few key Congressional leaders and reporters knew who Nayirah was, but none of them thought of sharing that minor detail with Congress, let alone the American people.

[Anti Federalist]

What were the lies?

Do you even read your own thread?

Incubator babies.

April Glasbie

Kuwait was innocent. (No, they funded Iraq in it's war with Iran. Most likely at our behest.)

Kuwaiti "slant drilling" into Iraqi oil fields.

[RonPaulCult]

What were the lies?

Furthermore - it doesn't matter if Bush lied or not in regard to this conversation. The question you asked was if the war was justified.

I am not willing to put my country at war to keep oil prices down or to keep the economy swinging. I am not willing to send our young to die for those things.

To me this is trading blood for oil, wealth and convenience.

I question you - is that a trade you are willing to make?

Some are - I am not.

Our freedom and our lives were not at stake. Just our money and the gas in our cars.

[Fozz]

Furthermore - it doesn't matter if Bush lied or not in regard to this conversation. The question you asked was if the war was justified.

I am not willing to put my country at war to keep oil prices down or to keep the economy swinging. I am not willing to send our young to die for those things.

To me this is trading blood for oil, wealth and convenience.

I question you - is that a trade you are willing to make?

Some are - I am not.

Our freedom and our lives were not at stake. Just our money and the gas in our cars.

My concern is not about oil prices as much as it's about an evil dictator seizing an enormous amount of wealth to consolidate his power and possibly expand further into the Middle East, killing a lot more people than were killed in getting Iraq out of Kuwait. I wouldn't have wanted Saddam to build a regional empire and monopolize on the Persian Gulf oil.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

My concern is not about oil prices as much as it's about an evil dictator seizing an enormous amount of wealth to consolidate his power and possibly expand further into the Middle East, killing a lot more people than were killed in getting Iraq out of Kuwait. I wouldn't have wanted Saddam to build a regional empire and monopolize on the Persian Gulf oil.

What were Saddam's reasons for invading Kuwait?

[Anti Federalist]

My concern is not about oil prices as much as it's about an evil dictator seizing an enormous amount of wealth to consolidate his power and possibly expand further into the Middle East, killing a lot more people than were killed in getting Iraq out of Kuwait. I wouldn't have wanted Saddam to build a regional empire and monopolize on the Persian Gulf oil.

I'd suggest then that maybe we should not have supported, armed and funded him in multi year war with Iran that left millions dead.

[GreenLP]

My concern is not about oil prices as much as it's about an evil dictator seizing an enormous amount of wealth to consolidate his power and possibly expand further into the Middle East, killing a lot more people than were killed in getting Iraq out of Kuwait. I wouldn't have wanted Saddam to build a regional empire and monopolize on the Persian Gulf oil.
I think you'd have a better case if you said "shouldn't we take out the Dictator we helped put in?"

[Anti Federalist]

My concern is not about oil prices as much as it's about an evil dictator seizing an enormous amount of wealth to consolidate his power and possibly expand further into the Middle East, killing a lot more people than were killed in getting Iraq out of Kuwait. I wouldn't have wanted Saddam to build a regional empire and monopolize on the Persian Gulf oil.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2944731&postcount=43

YouTube - Successful Troll Song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnhF1QAEZjU)

[Fozz]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2944731&postcount=43

YouTube - Successful Troll Song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnhF1QAEZjU)

I am not a troll. It is possible to believe it is a good idea to maintain balance of power, while at the same time condemning neoconservatives who support senseless wars.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2944731&postcount=43



http://ranyliq.com/wp-content/uploads/lol.jpg

[RonPaulCult]

My concern is not about oil prices as much as it's about an evil dictator seizing an enormous amount of wealth to consolidate his power and possibly expand further into the Middle East, killing a lot more people than were killed in getting Iraq out of Kuwait. I wouldn't have wanted Saddam to build a regional empire and monopolize on the Persian Gulf oil.

Why is the assumption always that only the United States can prevent bad things from happening in the world? Why was it the job of OUR young and OUR troops to take care of this problem? Why was the burden put on we the taxpayers?

I think it's a false assumption that the countries of the middle east couldn't clean up the garbage going on in the own backyard by themselves.

What if we had left it to the arab countries to do this job? They could have joined together. They possibly could have allied with Israel - who knows.

What if we hadn't been involved? We've been there for 20 years - the bombs never stopped dropping and we're still seeing action.

We built bases in the middle east that led to 9/11.

The first Gulf War led to the "new" wars we are involved with now. Our nation is going bankrupt because of these wars.

Do you see now why it was not only unjustified but foolish?

The cost of being "policeman of the world" is far too high in every way imaginable.

[Fozz]

What were Saddam's reasons for invading Kuwait?

A badly damaged economy after its recent war with Iran, and Kuwait overproduction of oil.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

A badly damaged economy after its recent war with Iran, and Kuwait overproduction of oil.

I'm really confused here. Is it your assertion that the U.S. was justified in perpetrating the "Gulf War" on the Kuwaiti, Iraqi, and American people?

[Anti Federalist]

I am not a troll. It is possible to believe it is a good idea to maintain balance of power, while at the same time condemning neoconservatives who support senseless wars.

So a war of death, destruction and property loss is OK with you, as long as it's for the furtherance of some "realpolitik" balance of power?

Not to mention the "protection of Israel" angle, which is the very crowning hallmark of true "neo conservatism".

If you're not a troll, you're awfully confused.

[Fozz]

Why is the assumption always that only the United States can prevent bad things from happening in the world? Why was it the job of OUR young and OUR troops to take care of this problem? Why was the burden put on we the taxpayers?

I think it's a false assumption that the countries of the middle east couldn't clean up the garbage going on in the own backyard by themselves.

What if we had left it to the arab countries to do this job? They could have joined together. They possibly could have allied with Israel - who knows.

What if we hadn't been involved? We've been there for 20 years - the bombs never stopped dropping and we're still seeing action.

We built bases in the middle east that led to 9/11.

The first Gulf War led to the "new" wars we are involved with now. Our nation is going bankrupt because of these wars.

Do you see now why it was not only unjustified but foolish?

The cost of being "policeman of the world" is far too high in every way imaginable.

The US is the world's superpower, so we have more control over what happens in the world than any other country, and I'd like for that power to be used to maintain peace (and by historical standards we are living in a very peaceful time in spite of what you hear about terrorism). But I also think some countries that are in no danger at all (much of Europe) need to stop free-riding from the stability that we provide, and they should take care of themselves.

With Saddam seizing Kuwait and increasing his country's GDP by 40%, he likely would have used the wealth to consolidate his power, and we're talking about an evil dictator who used chemical weapons against his own people. I'd hate to imagine what would happen to the world (and yes, even our country) if an evil dictator were to ever seize all or most of the oil of the Persian Gulf. I think we are better off that it didn't happen.

But I agree that the stuff that was done after that was a terrible mistake, from the sanctions to the current Iraq war to the military bases in Saudi Arabia----this is stuff that led to 9/11, so of course I realize that they were very wrong.

[Monarchist]

There's nothing wrong with the US helping a small, defenseless nation liberate itself from the subjugation of an evil dictator. Especially if the evil dictator was the US government's pet project gone freakishly wrong. That said, Kuwait was kind of asking for it.

[Fozz]

So a war of death, destruction and property loss is OK with you, as long as it's for the furtherance of some "realpolitik" balance of power?
We did not start that war, Saddam did.


Not to mention the "protection of Israel" angle, which is the very crowning hallmark of true "neo conservatism".

Where did I bring up Israel? I have always been very critical of our special relationship with that country.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

The US is the world's superpower, so we have more control over what happens in the world than any other country, and I'd like for that power to be used to maintain peace (and by historical standards we are living in a very peaceful time in spite of what you hear about terrorism). But I also think some countries that are in no danger at all (much of Europe) need to stop free-riding from the stability that we provide, and they should take care of themselves.

With Saddam seizing Kuwait and increasing his country's GDP by 40%, he likely would have used the wealth to consolidate his power, and we're talking about an evil dictator who used chemical weapons against his own people. I'd hate to imagine what would happen to the world (and yes, even our country) if an evil dictator were to ever seize all or most of the oil of the Persian Gulf. I think we are better off that it didn't happen.

But I agree that the stuff that was done after that was a terrible mistake, from the sanctions to the current Iraq war to the military bases in Saudi Arabia----this is stuff that led to 9/11, so of course I realize that they were very wrong.

Well, while you are worried about evil dictators abroad, you are allowing evil minions at home to hoodwink you into supporting imperialistic actions that will result in the fall of the republic you are so scared of losing.

If it was so necessary to get rid of Saddam, why not let Iran spend all the money and manpower to do it, instead of spending a ton of money and resources supporting Saddam and then another ton of money and resources defeating him?

[RonPaulCult]

The US is the world's superpower, so we have more control over what happens in the world than any other country, and I'd like for that power to be used to maintain peace (and by historical standards we are living in a very peaceful time in spite of what you hear about terrorism). But I also think some countries that are in no danger at all (much of Europe) need to stop free-riding from the stability that we provide, and they should take care of themselves.

With Saddam seizing Kuwait and increasing his country's GDP by 40%, he likely would have used the wealth to consolidate his power, and we're talking about an evil dictator who used chemical weapons against his own people. I'd hate to imagine what would happen to the world (and yes, even our country) if an evil dictator were to ever seize all or most of the oil of the Persian Gulf. I think we are better off that it didn't happen.

But I agree that the stuff that was done after that was a terrible mistake, from the sanctions to the current Iraq war to the military bases in Saudi Arabia----this is stuff that led to 9/11, so of course I realize that they were very wrong.

To the rest of you in this thread - I don't think Fozz is a troll. A lot of people think like him. He seems to have some neo-con foreign policies viewpoints but not entirely. It's an interesting conversation and one worthy of a respectful discussion.

I love my country - but it's clear that we have used our superpower status not to "maintain peace" but to cause violence and destruction all over the world. Dropping bombs and enforcing sanctions is not a peaceful act.

I can imagine why neighbors of Iraq had much to fear from chemical weapons. But come on - should anybody be foolish enough to use such weapons against us - we could wipe out their entire country by the push of one button. We have the bombs and the might. Nobody can F with us. We don't have to send our troops halfway around the world to prevent future attacks against us (even if such a thing works which I would argue it doesn't).

If Saddam made sense - where do we stop? How many more wars? Iran? North Korea? Venezuela? There's no shortage of crazies out there who hate us.

[GreenLP]

A badly damaged economy after its recent war with Iran, and Kuwait overproduction of oil.
Maybe the US should have sent troops to end Kuwait's slant drilling (i.e. stealing) of Iraq's oil.

[Fozz]

Well, while you are worried about evil dictators abroad, you are allowing evil minions at home to hoodwink you into supporting imperialistic actions that will result in the fall of the republic you are so scared of losing.
I do not support the current war in Afghanistan or the Iraq war.



If it was so necessary to get rid of Saddam, why not let Iran spend all the money and manpower to do it, instead of spending a ton of money and resources supporting Saddam and then another ton of money and resources defeating him?

What war are you talking about? Back in the 80s, most Western nations were concerned about Iran expanding its Islamic revolution to other countries (such as Iraq), so the US supported Iraq to defend it from a theocratic Iran.

[Fozz]

To the rest of you in this thread - I don't think Fozz is a troll. A lot of people think like him. He seems to have some neo-con foreign policies viewpoints but not entirely. It's an interesting conversation and one worthy of a respectful discussion.

I love my country - but it's clear that we have used our superpower status not to "maintain peace" but to cause violence and destruction all over the world. Dropping bombs and enforcing sanctions is not a peaceful act.
Our power is sometimes abused but it has prevented many very dangerous conflicts from arising, from Europe (during the Cold War) to East Asia.



I can imagine why neighbors of Iraq had much to fear from chemical weapons. But come on - should anybody be foolish enough to use such weapons against us - we could wipe out their entire country by the push of one button. We have the bombs and the might. Nobody can F with us. We don't have to send our troops halfway around the world to prevent future attacks against us (even if such a thing works which I would argue it doesn't).

If Saddam made sense - where do we stop? How many more wars? Iran? North Korea? Venezuela? There's no shortage of crazies out there who hate us.

Like I said, I do not support the Iraq war of 2003 (which is pretty much over now). That was completely a neocon war that was sold to the American people based on fear of a mushroom cloud exploding over an American city and other WMDs. Nor do I support a war against any of the other countries you mentioned in your last paragraph.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Fozz, do you see any parallels between the U.S. foreign policy of the 80's/90's and the U.S. foreign policy that led to Afghanistan and Iraq '03?

[Fozz]

Maybe the US should have sent troops to end Kuwait's slant drilling (i.e. stealing) of Iraq's oil.

Not our concern.

The biggest mistake we made in that war was to give Saddam the green light to attack Kuwait by saying we would not be involved in an Arab-Arab conflict. If we hadn't said that, the Gulf war would have never happened. Saddam was not an irrational actor.

[GreenLP]

Not our concern.

The biggest mistake we made in that war was to give Saddam the green light to attack Kuwait by saying we would not be involved in an Arab-Arab conflict. If we hadn't said that, the Gulf war would have never happened. Saddam was not an irrational actor.
So it's not our concern if a country steals another country's oil, but it is our concern if the country that's getting its oil stolen defends its property?

[Fozz]

So it's not our concern if a country steals another country's oil, but it is our concern if the country that's getting its oil stolen defends its property?

By invasion and annexation?

[GreenLP]

By invasion and annexation?
by whatever Iraq did.

[squarepusher]

we are on a roll here!

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Well others touched on pretty much everything I was going to say in response to your question Fozz. I think there is plenty of evidence laid out that we were lied to so that we would go into a patriotic uproar and hang yellow ribbons from everything anyone could think of to show our support of sticking our noses where it did not belong.

A pro Kuwaiti lobbyist firm that toured college campuses nationwide trying to rile up students about the atrocities there.

A relative of the Kuwaiti ambassador hired by a lobbyist firm to lie about being a nurse and give tear jerking testimony on Capital Hill.

CNN faking footage

The media and our government telling us that poor Kuwait did nothing only to find out later that they were stealing oil that did rightfully belong to Iraq.

etc,etc,etc.. and we funded the guy!

Can you honestly say with a straight face that this was still worth even one American life or one American tax dollar? If you can than perhaps you should try Hannity Forums and join in on the warmonger circle jerk!

[Pauls' Revere]

In retrospect no. At the time back then yes. Wow, have I come around...what a journey it's been. Thanks Dr Paul.

[wildfirepower]

Russia is as strong as USA but Russia never gets involved in other country's military matters.

[kahless]

Russia is as strong as USA but Russia never gets involved in other country's military matters.

Really, I hope you are joking.

[Fozz]

Russia is as strong as USA but Russia never gets involved in other country's military matters.

lol

[Fozz]

perhaps you should try Hannity Forums and join in on the warmonger circle jerk!

lol

[jmhudak17]

I find it kinda funny that someone who supports one war is branded as a warmonger. The name calling gets a little out of hand.

[pcosmar]

I find it kinda funny that someone who supports one war is branded as a warmonger. The name calling gets a little out of hand.

:confused:
One war?
I am no pacifist, and in fact was somewhat mercenary in my youth. I really dislike violence but am well acquainted with it and it's use.
The only war that is in any way justified is in self defense.
The Gulf war was not. By any stretch of imagination.
:(

[LibertyEagle]

I believe the goal was to stop Saddam from seizing the abundant oil supply in Kuwait, and possibly the rest of the Persian Gulf. What were the lies, other than a broken promise to stay out of Arab-Arab conflicts?

There was more to it than that, I think. Back at the time, there was a Kuwaiti leader, don't remember his name, who said the goal was to create a smokescreen to get him out as a leader. I remember that happened. I think he died mysteriously. Sorry, I don't remember more than that.

Suffice it to say, I don't think we have been told the real reasons we went over there.

[LibertyEagle]

I find it kinda funny that someone who supports one war is branded as a warmonger. The name calling gets a little out of hand.

Yes, it sure does, doesn't it.

[jmhudak17]

:confused:
One war?
I am no pacifist, and in fact was somewhat mercenary in my youth. I really dislike violence but am well acquainted with it and it's use.
The only war that is in any way justified is in self defense.
The Gulf war was not. By any stretch of imagination.
:(

I'm not saying I support that war (as it did look to be a world police type conflict), but to say that anyone who does is a warmonger is a little far-fetched.

[Krugerrand]

My concern is not about oil prices as much as it's about an evil dictator seizing an enormous amount of wealth to consolidate his power and possibly expand further into the Middle East, killing a lot more people than were killed in getting Iraq out of Kuwait. I wouldn't have wanted Saddam to build a regional empire and monopolize on the Persian Gulf oil.

I support allowing any effort on your part to contribute your own funds and even volunteer in involved military forces to try and make that happen.

I do not support forcing me to pay for such endeavors either by taxation or by stripping the value of my dollar. I do not support using our military to make that happen.

I would consider allowing our soldiers to volunteer to participate in other involved militaries.

[Fozz]

I support allowing any effort on your part to contribute your own funds and even volunteer in involved military forces to try and make that happen.

I do not support forcing me to pay for such endeavors either by taxation or by stripping the value of my dollar. I do not support using our military to make that happen.

I would consider allowing our soldiers to volunteer to participate in other involved militaries.

The world doesn't work that way, unfortunately.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

The world doesn't work that way, unfortunately.

no shit, but we can change that, which is part of why we are here.

[fisharmor]

Another more general problem is that we are the world's experts at making war seem much less serious than it is.
We're civilized, see? We're not nuking the place! We're just blasting through walls as families are eating dinner together, shooting the breadwinner mistakenly, and moving on!
Their society loves democracy now!

....and painting a gigantic target on OUR chests in the process.

It really doesn't matter to me that casualty rates are so low - that they're low is the frickin' problem. It's getting to be exactly like that old Star Trek episode where the two civilizations at war have the entire thing run by computers. Nobody on our side wants to stop it because it's not affecting us, aside from a few misguided parents who worship the state and are actually proud to offer their children to it.

If it affected us the way wars are supposed to, we wouldn't have it.
If it affected the people who live there the way wars are supposed to, we'd invariably find that they wouldn't put up with it very long, either.
Problem is, they've been dehumanized by politicians and media for so long that very few Americans really believe we're dealing with human beings over there.

[Anti Federalist]

Where did I bring up Israel? I have always been very critical of our special relationship with that country.

Anything we do in the Middle East is always done with one eye firmly planted on Israel, making sure she approves and we're kissing the ring properly.

Any military intervention is done with Israel's interests front and center.

[klamath]

Not if you believe in nonintervention.

[Krugerrand]

The world doesn't work that way, unfortunately.

Sure it does. It happens all the time. The Irish of the US were huge supporters of the resistance against the British in Northern Ireland. It would happen more in the Middle East, except that there is more organized opposition to individuals supporting one side or another.

[Fozz]

Anything we do in the Middle East is always done with one eye firmly planted on Israel, making sure she approves and we're kissing the ring properly.

Any military intervention is done with Israel's interests front and center.

I understand your concern about our excessive support for Israel, but I think your last sentence stretches the truth.

If ANYTHING or "any military intervention" was done with Israel's interests front and center, we would have gone to war against Iran in 2006.

[Fozz]

Sure it does. It happens all the time. The Irish of the US were huge supporters of the resistance against the British in Northern Ireland. It would happen more in the Middle East, except that there is more organized opposition to individuals supporting one side or another.

The conflict over Northern Ireland did not involve an evil dictator that annexed a tiny country to extract its wealth.

[Krugerrand]

The conflict over Northern Ireland did not involve an evil dictator that annexed a tiny country to extract its wealth.

That may depend on who you ask.

[Acala]

Unfortunately, our history puts the lie to any claim that our foreign policy is benevolent and aimed at achieving world peace and justice. Rather, it is corrupt and designed primarily to put money into the hands of banks and military contractors, and power in the hands of politicians.

The bottom line is that we cannot be trusted to be the world's policeman. Nobody can.

[Acala]

I AM encouraged by the polling numbers here.

[Fozz]

Unfortunately, our history puts the lie to any claim that our foreign policy is benevolent and aimed at achieving world peace and justice. Rather, it is corrupt and designed primarily to put money into the hands of banks and military contractors, and power in the hands of politicians.

The bottom line is that we cannot be trusted to be the world's policeman. Nobody can.

Our foreign policy is not benevolent, and neither is any superpower. But it isn't particularly tyrannical either, if you want to compare us to other empires in history.

[RonPaulCult]

Our foreign policy is not benevolent, and neither is any superpower. But it isn't particularly tyrannical either, if you want to compare us to other empires in history.

Isn't that kind of like saying Stalin was less tyrannical than Mao?

[amy31416]

Our foreign policy is not benevolent, and neither is any superpower. But it isn't particularly tyrannical either, if you want to compare us to other empires in history.

I have a slight hunch that Iraqis, Pakistanis and Afghanis just might disagree with you--you should take a poll there.

[pcosmar]

The conflict over Northern Ireland did not involve an evil dictator that annexed a tiny country to extract its wealth.

Would that be an "evil dictator" that we supported and encouraged and a regional conflict that had nothing to do with the defense of the United States?

[Acala]

Our foreign policy is not benevolent, and neither is any superpower. But it isn't particularly tyrannical either, if you want to compare us to other empires in history.

Are you saying that our corrupt and brutal foreign policy is okay because it isn't as corrupt and brutal as it COULD be?

Here's an idea: let's mind our own business and defend our own people from attack. Let go of the idea of engineering the world. Then it becomes so simple. You don't need the Dr. Strangelove types huddled around their world maps ordering the murder of millions of people in pursuit of their game of Risk. You don't need the spies and the creepy surveillance. You don't need to spend a trillion dollars a year making enemies all over the globe. You don't need the physically and mentally ruined vets rotting away in the VA. All you need is some guys patrolling our borders, a small military to back them if needed, and a nuclear deterrent to keep the big boys out of our hair. Done. Move on to living life. and everyone will be happier and more prosperous - except the banks and military contractors.

[pcosmar]

Our foreign policy is not benevolent, and neither is any superpower. But it isn't particularly tyrannical either, if you want to compare us to other empires in history.

Tell that to the people that lived under Savak.
:(

[Fozz]

I have a slight hunch that Iraqis, Pakistanis and Afghanis just might disagree with you--you should take a poll there.

I know that many Pakistanis absolutely hate the US, because of using Musharraf as a puppet, and then droning parts of their country, and the imprisonment of Aafia Siddiqi. When I see images of Pakistanis burning US flags, I don't blame them. I am against the Afghanistan/Pakistan war.

[Todd]

In retrospect no. At the time back then yes. Wow, have I come around...what a journey it's been. Thanks Dr Paul.

That is many peoples journey including mine.

Back then, it was clear cut case of one nation state imposing it's will on another. Knowing the little details 20 years later has made a difference.

[moostraks]

The conflict over Northern Ireland did not involve an evil dictator that annexed a tiny country to extract its wealth.

You did not go there. Tell me you did not go there...:mad:

[Brian4Liberty]

To play Devil's Advocate, what should the punishment be for a country (especially it's leadership) that initiates war (violence) against another? And who should do the judging and punishing, if anyone?

Despite all of the warmongering lies that that Bush the First used, the foremost and most effective justification (in the eyes of many in the US and the world) for using US resources and military against Iraq was the standard NATO/UN policy of defending a fellow country from an attack. Of course in reality, that is just hiding behind a "policy" or justification that is arbitrarily enforced at best. Who should be the world Police? That is the question.

"No one" is probably the best answer, yet at the same time, you still end up with the law of the jungle, where the most powerful can do anything it wants...which is pretty much where we are today.

[Brian4Liberty]

Here's an idea: let's mind our own business and defend our own people from attack. Let go of the idea of engineering the world. Then it becomes so simple. You don't need the Dr. Strangelove types huddled around their world maps ordering the murder of millions of people in pursuit of their game of Risk. You don't need the spies and the creepy surveillance. You don't need to spend a trillion dollars a year making enemies all over the globe. You don't need the physically and mentally ruined vets rotting away in the VA. All you need is some guys patrolling our borders, a small military to back them if needed, and a nuclear deterrent to keep the big boys out of our hair. Done. Move on to living life. and everyone will be happier and more prosperous - except the banks and military contractors.

I like that idea. Now how do we keep our own government from initiating violence? :confused:

[LibertyEagle]

Our foreign policy is not benevolent, and neither is any superpower. But it isn't particularly tyrannical either, if you want to compare us to other empires in history.

Here's the thing, we were not founded to be an empire at all. Why are you just taking it for granted that we should be?

[Acala]

To play Devil's Advocate, what should the punishment be for a country (especially it's leadership) that initiates war (violence) against another? And who should do the judging and punishing, if anyone?

Despite all of the warmongering lies that that Bush the First used, the foremost and most effective justification (in the eyes of many in the US and the world) for using US resources and military against Iraq was the standard NATO/UN policy of defending a fellow country from an attack. Of course in reality, that is just hiding behind a "policy" or justification that is arbitrarily enforced at best. Who should be the world Police? That is the question.

"No one" is probably the best answer, yet at the same time, you still end up with the law of the jungle, where the most powerful can do anything it wants...which is pretty much where we are today.

No government can be the world police - using force to first extract money from its own people and then using force to impose somebody's idea of justice on the world. However, you, personally, may choose to commit your wealth and resources to defend another country. And if enough people thought the actions of a particular country were unjust, there just might be enough individuals to volunteer to fix the problem. Sort of a self-policing world.

[Brian4Liberty]

However, you, personally, may choose to commit your wealth and resources to defend another country.

Isn't that what we have today to a certain extent? People donate their money to lobby groups. Those lobby groups then lobby (and pressure, bribe, etc.) the US government to go after other countries. Iraq for example.

[fisharmor]

The conflict over Northern Ireland did not involve an evil dictator that annexed a tiny country to extract its wealth.

In 2005 I was in Wales on business.
I was there over a weekend and went to church on Sunday morning.
The pastor asked me to introduce myself after the service.
On my way out, one of the older gentleman had this to say:
"Yer from America, eh? Ye know, yer not the first ones to fight the English!"

This was right after a Christian worship service, 800 years after Wales' conquest by the English.

That, dear friends, is the end result of nation building.

[Acala]

Isn't that what we have today to a certain extent? People donate their money to lobby groups. Those lobby groups then lobby (and pressure, bribe, etc.) the US government to go after other countries. Iraq for example.

Are you serious? Please tell me you aren't.

[oyarde]

I support allowing any effort on your part to contribute your own funds and even volunteer in involved military forces to try and make that happen.

I do not support forcing me to pay for such endeavors either by taxation or by stripping the value of my dollar. I do not support using our military to make that happen.

I would consider allowing our soldiers to volunteer to participate in other involved militaries.

I would be very leery of letting soldiers serve in combat under command of another nation. That is something you could consider of citizens in the civilian population.

[Brian4Liberty]

Are you serious? Please tell me you aren't.

Which part? You don't believe that lobby groups exist?

[Acala]

Which part? You don't believe that lobby groups exist?

So you don't see the difference between sending your OWN money to Kuwait (just for example) so they can buy guns and using your money to lobby our government to FORCE me to send MY money to kuwait so they can buy guns? Those seem to be equivalent to you?

[oyarde]

So you don't see the difference between sending your OWN money to Kuwait (just for example) so they can buy guns and using your money to lobby our government to FORCE me to send MY money to kuwait so they can buy guns? Those seem to be equivalent to you?

Kuwait can afford to buy guns .

[fisharmor]

Kuwait can afford to buy guns .

That's the part that stymies me... that we need to spend so much time, effort, and blood to protect people that have the ability to protect themselves, and choose not to.

[oyarde]

That's the part that stymies me... that we need to spend so much time, effort, and blood to protect people that have the ability to protect themselves, and choose not to.

Good point . Countries like Kuwait and israel should be able to take care of themselves .

[johnrocks]

no

[Anti Federalist]

I understand your concern about our excessive support for Israel, but I think your last sentence stretches the truth.

If ANYTHING or "any military intervention" was done with Israel's interests front and center, we would have gone to war against Iran in 2006.

Well, frankly, you're being naive now.

There is nothing more I can say if you don't think that Israel's foreign interests are a prime directive and motivator regarding our actions in the Middle East, both military and diplomatic.

War in Iraq = O.I.L.

Oil
Israel
Land for military bases

[Fozz]

Well, frankly, you're being naive now.

There is nothing more I can say if you don't think that Israel's foreign interests are a prime directive and motivator regarding our actions in the Middle East, both military and diplomatic.

War in Iraq = O.I.L.

Oil
Israel
Land for military bases

Israel didn't really care about the Iraq war.

[ibaghdadi]

I believe the goal was to stop Saddam from seizing the abundant oil supply in Kuwait, and possibly the rest of the Persian Gulf. What were the lies, other than a broken promise to stay out of Arab-Arab conflicts?
More like the United States luring Iraq into Kuwait in order to have a pretext to destroy it on Israel's behest.

[Anti Federalist]

Israel didn't really care about the Iraq war.

Wow.

Justify that.

(This I can't wait to hear)

[Fozz]

Wow.

Justify that.

(This I can't wait to hear)

They have always wanted a war against Iran, rather than Iraq.

(And I was referring to the Iraq war of Bush43)

[robert68]

What were the lies?

Unless I missed it, another lie made by the Bush administration to justify the Gulf War, was the claim that satellite photos showed Iraqi troops on the Kuwait/Saudi border, ready to invade Saudi Arabia. From "In war, some facts less factual" (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.html):


Citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated in mid–September that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key US oil supplier.

But when the St. Petersburg Times in Florida acquired two commercial Soviet satellite images of the same area, taken at the same time, no Iraqi troops were visible near the Saudi border – just empty desert.

"It was a pretty serious fib," says Jean Heller, the Times journalist who broke the story...

Examining the evidence
Shortly before US strikes began in the Gulf War, for example, the St. Petersburg Times asked two experts to examine the satellite images of the Kuwait and Saudi Arabia border area taken in mid-September 1990, a month and a half after the Iraqi invasion. The experts, including a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst who specialized in desert warfare, pointed out the US build-up – jet fighters standing wing-tip to wing-tip at Saudi bases – but were surprised to see almost no sign of the Iraqis.

"That [Iraqi buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn't exist," Ms. Heller says. Three times Heller contacted the office of Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney (now vice president) for evidence refuting the Times photos or analysis – offering to hold the story if proven wrong.

The official response: "Trust us." To this day, the Pentagon's photographs of the Iraqi troop buildup remain classified.

[oyarde]

Unless I missed it, another lie made by the Bush administration to justify the Gulf War, was the claim that satellite photos showed Iraqi troops on the Kuwait/Saudi border, ready to invade Saudi Arabia. From "In war, some facts less factual" (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.html):

Well they did have alot of troops deployed because they were expecting something after going into Kuwait . They were not right on the border . If they did that they would be in .155 range .

[Brian4Liberty]

So you don't see the difference between sending your OWN money to Kuwait (just for example) so they can buy guns and using your money to lobby our government to FORCE me to send MY money to kuwait so they can buy guns? Those seem to be equivalent to you?

Why didn't you say so? ;) No, they are not equivalent. I don't like my money being misused by government anymore than you.

So now that we are on the topic, there is the freedom for people to pool money and use it the way they want. How do you propose that we stop them from lobbying government to spend taxpayer money (usually the equivalent of leveraging their money into much large amounts of government money)? Because politicians are willing to spend taxpayer money in that way, they create an incentive for lobby groups to bribe or bully them.

[djinwa]

I don't understand the argument that we have to wage war to protect our access to oil.

Why do we have to force another country to sell us oil? Why wouldn't a country want to get rich selling oil?

Saddam attacked to protect his interests, then we attack to protect ours. Which is worse?

Following our lead, someday it will be China coming after us to guarantee access to our food. Why not?

[Brian4Liberty]

I don't understand the argument that we have to wage war to protect our access to oil.

Why do we have to force another country to sell us oil? Why wouldn't a country want to get rich selling oil?

Saddam attacked to protect his interests, then we attack to protect ours. Which is worse?

Following our lead, someday it will be China coming after us to guarantee access to our food. Why not?

It's like a hostile takeover. The current "owners" want to prevent a new owner from taking over.

[merrimac]

From what I understand Saddam was peed-off that Kuwait was slant drilling some of their oil. In our eyes Saddam became the most evil person to ever live only after he was no longer any use to us.

[klamath]

From what I understand Saddam was peed-off that Kuwait was slant drilling some of their oil. In our eyes Saddam became the most evil person to ever live only after he was no longer any use to us.
Saddam WAS an evil person but that doesn't make it right for us to have intervened.

[LoneWolf]

No. Only if we are attacked directly or u.s citizens or businesses are attacked overseas.

[pcosmar]

http://cupofcha.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/rumsfeld_saddam.gif

Photo taken when Saddam was gassing folks.
With Chemicals bought from US.
Using Helicopters supplied by US
And targeting using Intel supplied by US.

:mad:

[acptulsa]

What were Saddam's reasons for invading Kuwait?

Our ambassador told him that the First Burning Bush Administration didn't give a damn if he did or not.

True story.

[BuddyRey]

Unequivocally no. It was a completely senseless waste of lives and resources based on false intel and outright lies. Vietnam 2.0.

[PatriotOne]

This is the television speech Bush Sr. gave shortly after the air attack had commenced. See bolded part in particular.

January 16, 1991 - President George Bush

Just 2 hours ago, allied air forces began an attack on military targets in Iraq and Kuwait. These attacks continue as I speak. Ground forces are not engaged.

This conflict started August 2nd when the dictator of Iraq invaded a small and helpless neighbor. Kuwait -- a member of the Arab League and a member of the United Nations -- was crushed; its people, brutalized. Five months ago, Saddam Hussein started this cruel war against Kuwait. Tonight, the battle has been joined.

This military action, taken in accord with United Nations resolutions and with the consent of the United States Congress, follows months of constant and virtually endless diplomatic activity on the part of the United Nations, the United States, and many, many other countries. Arab leaders sought what became known as an Arab solution, only to conclude that Saddam Hussein was unwilling to leave Kuwait. Others traveled to Baghdad in a variety of efforts to restore peace and justice. Our Secretary of State, James Baker, held an historic meeting in Geneva, only to be totally rebuffed. This past weekend, in a last-ditch effort, the Secretary-General of the United Nations went to the Middle East with peace in his heart -- his second such mission. And he came back from Baghdad with no progress at all in getting Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait.

Now the 28 countries with forces in the Gulf area have exhausted all reasonable efforts to reach a peaceful resolution -- have no choice but to drive Saddam from Kuwait by force. We will not fail.

As I report to you, air attacks are underway against military targets in Iraq. We are determined to knock out Saddam Hussein's nuclear bomb potential. We will also destroy his chemical weapons facilities. Much of Saddam's artillery and tanks will be destroyed. Our operations are designed to best protect the lives of all the coalition forces by targeting Saddam's vast military arsenal. Initial reports from General Schwarzkopf are that our operations are proceeding according to plan.

Our objectives are clear: Saddam Hussein's forces will leave Kuwait. The legitimate government of Kuwait will be restored to its rightful place, and Kuwait will once again be free. Iraq will eventually comply with all relevant United Nations resolutions, and then, when peace is restored, it is our hope that Iraq will live as a peaceful and cooperative member of the family of nations, thus enhancing the security and stability of the Gulf.

Some may ask: Why act now? Why not wait? The answer is clear: The world could wait no longer. Sanctions, though having some effect, showed no signs of accomplishing their objective. Sanctions were tried for well over 5 months, and we and our allies concluded that sanctions alone would not force Saddam from Kuwait.

While the world waited, Saddam Hussein systematically raped, pillaged, and plundered a tiny nation, no threat to his own. He subjected the people of Kuwait to unspeakable atrocities -- and among those maimed and murdered, innocent children.

While the world waited, Saddam sought to add to the chemical weapons arsenal he now possesses, an infinitely more dangerous weapon of mass destruction -- a nuclear weapon. And while the world waited, while the world talked peace and withdrawal, Saddam Hussein dug in and moved massive forces into Kuwait.

While the world waited, while Saddam stalled, more damage was being done to the fragile economies of the Third World, emerging democracies of Eastern Europe, to the entire world, including to our own economy.

The United States, together with the United Nations, exhausted every means at our disposal to bring this crisis to a peaceful end. However, Saddam clearly felt that by stalling and threatening and defying the United Nations, he could weaken the forces arrayed against him.

While the world waited, Saddam Hussein met every overture of peace with open contempt. While the world prayed for peace, Saddam prepared for war.

I had hoped that when the United States Congress, in historic debate, took its resolute action, Saddam would realize he could not prevail and would move out of Kuwait in accord with the United Nation resolutions. He did not do that. Instead, he remained intransigent, certain that time was on his side.

Saddam was warned over and over again to comply with the will of the United Nations: Leave Kuwait, or be driven out. Saddam has arrogantly rejected all warnings. Instead, he tried to make this a dispute between Iraq and the United States of America.

Well, he failed. Tonight, 28 nations -- countries from 5 continents, Europe and Asia, Africa, and the Arab League -- have forces in the Gulf area standing shoulder to shoulder against Saddam Hussein. These countries had hoped the use of force could be avoided. Regrettably, we now believe that only force will make him leave.

Prior to ordering our forces into battle, I instructed our military commanders to take every necessary step to prevail as quickly as possible, and with the greatest degree of protection possible for American and allied service men and women. I've told the American people before that this will not be another Vietnam, and I repeat this here tonight. Our troops will have the best possible support in the entire world, and they will not be asked to fight with one hand tied behind their back. I'm hopeful that this fighting will not go on for long and that casualties will be held to an absolute minimum.

This is an historic moment. We have in this past year made great progress in ending the long era of conflict and cold war. We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order -- a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful -- and we will be -- we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders.

We have no argument with the people of Iraq. Indeed, for the innocents caught in this conflict, I pray for their safety. Our goal is not the conquest of Iraq. It is the liberation of Kuwait. It is my hope that somehow the Iraqi people can, even now, convince their dictator that he must lay down his arms, leave Kuwait, and let Iraq itself rejoin the family of peace-loving nations.

Thomas Paine wrote many years ago: "These are the times that try men's souls.'' Those well-known words are so very true today. But even as planes of the multinational forces attack Iraq, I prefer to think of peace, not war. I am convinced not only that we will prevail but that out of the horror of combat will come the recognition that no nation can stand against a world united, no nation will be permitted to brutally assault its neighbor.

No President can easily commit our sons and daughters to war. They are the Nation's finest. Ours is an all-volunteer force, magnificently trained, highly motivated. The troops know why they're there. And listen to what they say, for they've said it better than any President or Prime Minister ever could.

Listen to Hollywood Huddleston, Marine lance corporal. He says, "Let's free these people, so we can go home and be free again.'' And he's right. The terrible crimes and tortures committed by Saddam's henchmen against the innocent people of Kuwait are an affront to mankind and a challenge to the freedom of all.

Listen to one of our great officers out there, Marine Lieutenant General Walter Boomer. He said: "There are things worth fighting for. A world in which brutality and lawlessness are allowed to go unchecked isn't the kind of world we're going to want to live in.''

Listen to Master Sergeant J.P. Kendall of the 82nd Airborne: "We're here for more than just the price of a gallon of gas. What we're doing is going to chart the future of the world for the next 100 years. It's better to deal with this guy now than 5 years from now.''

And finally, we should all sit up and listen to Jackie Jones, an Army lieutenant, when she says, "If we let him get away with this, who knows what's going to be next?''

I have called upon Hollywood and Walter and J.P. and Jackie and all their courageous comrades-in-arms to do what must be done. Tonight, America and the world are deeply grateful to them and to their families. And let me say to everyone listening or watching tonight: When the troops we've sent in finish their work, I am determined to bring them home as soon as possible.

Tonight, as our forces fight, they and their families are in our prayers. May God bless each and every one of them, and the coalition forces at our side in the Gulf, and may He continue to bless our nation, the United States of America.

President Bush's speech to Congress

March 6, 1991 (extracts). This speech has often been cited as the US administration’s principal policy statement on the new order in the Middle East following the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait.


... Tonight I come to this House to speak about the world – the world after war.

The recent challenge could not have been clearer. Saddam Hussein was the villain, Kuwait the victim. To the aid of this small country came nations from North America and Europe, from Asia and South America, from Africa and the Arab world, all united against aggression.

Our uncommon coalition must now work in common purpose to forge a future that should never again be held hostage to the darker side of human nature.

Tonight in Iraq, Saddam walks amidst ruin. His war machine is crushed. His ability to threaten mass destruction is itself destroyed. His people have been lied to, denied the truth. And when his defeated legions come home, all Iraqis will see and feel the havoc he has wrought. And this I promise you: for all that Saddam has done to his own people, to the Kuwaitis, and to the entire world, Saddam and those around him are accountable.

All of us grieve for the victims of war, for the people of Kuwait and the suffering that scars the soul of that proud nation. We grieve for all our fallen soldiers and their families, for all the innocents caught up in this conflict. And, yes, we grieve for the people of Iraq, a people who have never been our enemy. My hope is that one day we will once again welcome them as friends into the community of nations.

Our commitment to peace in the Middle East does not end with the liberation of Kuwait. So tonight let me outline four key challenges to be met.

First, we must work together to create shared security arrangements in the region. Our friends and allies in the Middle East recognise that they will bear the bulk of the responsibility for regional security. But we want them to know that just as we stood with them to repel aggression, so now America stands ready to work with them to secure the peace.

This does not mean stationing US ground forces on the Arabian Peninsula, but it does mean American participation in joint exercises involving both air and ground forces. It means maintaining a capable US naval presence in the region, just as we have for over 40 years. Let it be clear: our vital national interests depend on a stable and secure Gulf.

Second, we must act to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the missiles used to deliver them. It would be tragic if the nations of the Middle East and Persian Gulf were now, in the wake of war, to embark on a new arms race. Iraq requires special vigilance. Until Iraq convinces the world of its peaceful intentions – that its leaders will not use new revenues to re-arm and rebuild its menacing war machine – Iraq must not have access to the instruments of war.

And third, we must work to create new opportunities for peace and stability in the Middle East. On the night I announced Operation Desert Storm, I expressed my hope that out of the horrors of war might come new momentum for peace. We have learned in the modern age geography cannot guarantee security and security does not come from military power alone.

All of us know the depth of bitterness that has made the dispute between Israel and its neighbours so painful and intractable. Yet, in the conflict just concluded, Israel and many of the Arab states have for the first time found themselves confronting the same aggressor. By now, it should be plain to all parties that peacemaking in the Middle East requires compromise. At the same time, peace brings real benefits to everyone. We must do all that we can to close the gap between Israel and the Arab states – and between Israelis and Palestinians. The tactics of terror lead nowhere. There can be no substitute for diplomacy.

A comprehensive peace must be grounded in United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and the principle of territory for peace. This principle must be elaborated to provide for Israel’s security and recognition, and at the same time for legitimate Palestinian political rights. Anything else would fail the twin tests of fairness and security. The time has come to put an end to Arab-Israeli conflict.

The war with Iraq is over. The quest for solutions to the problem in Lebanon, in the Arab-Israeli dispute, and in the Gulf must go forward with new vigour and determination. And I guarantee you: no one will work harder for a stable peace in the region than we will.

Fourth, we must foster economic development for the sake of peace and progress. The Persian Gulf and Middle East form a region rich in natural resources with a wealth of untapped human potential. Resources once squandered on military might must be redirected to more peaceful ends. We are already addressing the immediate economic consequences of Iraq’s aggression. Now the challenge is to reach higher – to foster economic freedom and prosperity for all people of the region.

By meeting these four challenges, we can build a framework for peace. I’ve asked Secretary of State Baker to go to the Middle East to begin the process. He will go to listen, to probe, to offer suggestions, and to advance the search for peace and stability. I have also asked him to raise the plight of the hostages held in Lebanon. We have not forgotten them, and we will not forget them.

To all the challenges that confront this region of the world, there is no single solution, no solely American answer. But we can make a difference. America will work tirelessly as a catalyst for positive change.

But we cannot lead a new world abroad if, at home, it’s politics as usual on American defense and diplomacy. It’s time to turn away from the temptation to protect unneeded weapons systems and obsolete bases. It’s time to put an end to micro-management of foreign and security assistance programs, micro-management that humiliates our friends and allies and hamstrings our diplomacy. It’s time to rise above the parochial and the pork barrel, to do what is necessary, what’s right and what will enable this nation to play the leadership role required of us.

The consequences of the conflict in the Gulf reach far beyond the confines of the Middle East. Twice before in this century, an entire world was convulsed by war. Twice this century, out of the horrors of war hope emerged for enduring peace. Twice before, those hopes proved to be a distant dream, beyond the grasp of man.

Until now, the world we’ve known has been a world divided – a world of barbed wire and concrete block, conflict and cold war.

Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a "world order" in which "the principles of justice and fair play ... protect the weak against the strong ..." A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfil the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.

The Gulf war put this new world to its first test, and, my fellow Americans, we passed that test.

For the sake of our principles, for the sake of the Kuwaiti people, we stood our ground. Because the world would not look the other way, Ambassador [Saud Nasir] al-Sabah, to-night, Kuwait is free.

Tonight as our troops begin to come home, let us recognise that the hard work of freedom still calls us forward. We’ve learned the hard lessons of history. The victory over Iraq was not waged as "a war to end all wars." Even the new world order cannot guarantee an era of perpetual peace. But enduring peace must be our mission ...

Desert Storm Glock
This was a 1991 series of 1000 Glock 17s which had special engraving on it. A list of names of all the coalition countries is engraved down the top of the slide; "Operation Desert Storm/January 16-February 27, 1991" is engraved on the right side. On the left side is "New World Order/Commemorative".

The first 15 Desert Storm Glocks were special presentation models and had the special "bright black" finish. The special engraving on these was also slightly altered from the standard. These pistols were supposed to go to:

UD000US: George Bush, Commander-in-Chief
UD001US: Gen. H. Norman Schwartzkopf III (Commander-in-Chief, CentCom)
UD002US: James Baker III (Secy of State)
UD003US: Gen. Colin Powell (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff)
UD004US: Dick Cheney (Secy of Defense)
UD005US: Brent Scowcroft (National Security Advisor)
UD006US: Lt. Gen. Thomas Kelly
UD007US: Lt. Gen. Chuck Horner (Commander, Air Forces, CentCom)
UD008US: Maj. Gen. Robert B Johnston (Chief-of-Staff, CentCom)
UD009US: Lt. Gen. Calvin Waller (Dpty Commander-in-Chief, CentCom)
UD010US: Lt. Gen. Walter Boomer (Commander, I MEF)
UD011US: Vice Adm. Stanley Arthur (Commander, Naval Forces, CentCom)
UD012US: Maj. Gen. William "Gus" Pagonis (Chief of Logistics, CentCom)
UD013US: Brig. Gen. Richard Neal (Operations Ofcr., CentCom)

http://glockfaq.com/rare.htm#desert

http://glockfaq.com/imageview.htm

[PatriotOne]

Well, frankly, you're being naive now.

There is nothing more I can say if you don't think that Israel's foreign interests are a prime directive and motivator regarding our actions in the Middle East, both military and diplomatic.

War in Iraq = O.I.L.

Oil
Israel
Land for military bases

I once worked for a brilliant retired Rear Admiral in the navy. At the time I worked for him he was pulled out of retirement to serve during the cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan (August 1998) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infinite_Reach

I asked him why we were going to war. He told me that "No matter what else I hear on TV, it was about oil. War is ALWAYS about oil".

Shocked the crap outta me and left me speechless. I was too ignorant of such things back then to even converse further on that particular statement but I have never forgot it either.

[klamath]

I once worked for a brilliant retired Rear Admiral in the navy. At the time I worked for him he was pulled out of retirement to serve during the cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan (August 1998) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infinite_Reach

I asked him why we were going to war. He told me that "No matter what else I hear on TV, it was about oil. War is ALWAYS about oil".

Shocked the crap outta me and left me speechless. I was too ignorant of such things back then to even converse further on that particular statement but I have never forgot it either.
Bit shallow. War is always about raw resources for raw resource equal wealth and power. It is not just oil as wars have been fought long before they knew about oil.

[Suzu]

I don't think we have been told the real reasons we went over there.

But we can know. Here's some info:

http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-index.htm

Special attention to Part Three, Section 1.

[pcosmar]

2 yes
120 No

I wonder why those 2 are here. In opposition to all common sense and the position of Ron Paul and the liberty movement.

[djinwa]

From Patriotones's posting of Bush1's speech:


Let it be clear: our vital national interests depend on a stable and secure Gulf.

This pretty much sums it up. And what are our vital national interests? The ability to drive our Winnebago anywhere, anytime, for cheap. Also to fuel our farm tractors for cheap so we don't have to work, and can sit around and play video games and eat cheap government subsidized food. Which then leads to obesity and diabetes, which makes government health care supposedly necessary.

And round and round we go.

I was working in a vet clinic when the bombing of the first gulf war started. I remember listening to the bombing news on the radio and getting all tingly and excited that we were killing the evil enemy. Actually decided it sounded better than cleaning up dog shit, so joined up. Bailed nine years later after slowly learning our military was being misused and full of the same kind of shit I had dealt with before.

Humans are the dumbest animal I've dealt with.

[PatriotOne]

Bit shallow. War is always about raw resources for raw resource equal wealth and power. It is not just oil as wars have been fought long before they knew about oil.

Yes. I agree. Though during his tenure in the navy, war for oil (and all the perks that come with the control of oil) was probably the prevalent reason. In retrospect, I found it interesting though that he recognized and admitted that wars were fought for far different reasons than was being told to the people. I often think about contacting him again so we can have a REAL discussion about foreign policy now that I am so much more informed about the subject.

[PatriotOne]

From Patriotones's posting of Bush1's speech:

This pretty much sums it up. And what are our vital national interests?

Humans are the dumbest animal I've dealt with.

When Bush said "our vital interests" he didn't mean yours or mine vital interests. He meant his and his elites vital interests.

Gotta agree with the last observation ;)

[ProBlue33]

Just a question as I read this thread, if America said it didn't care if Iraq invaded and took out Kuwait 1 of 3 things happened.
1)They outright lied to them and set them up.
2)Massive communication errors.
3)Other American allies more important than Iraq screamed very loud after the fact, causing a change of policy.

If the later two took place, Saddam was just too proud to reverse course after the deed was done.

[MelissaWV]

2 yes
120 No

I wonder why those 2 are here. In opposition to all common sense and the position of Ron Paul and the liberty movement.

I'm guessing it's the OP (or else why ask the question), and maybe a misvote, or maybe someone who believes intervention is justified based on stopping an evil person from taking over the region and killing a whole lot of civilians. The latter possibility relies only on believing the standard and superficial version of the war conflict and the reasons for it, coupled with the notion that you should go to war to defend the little guy. It's not out of the question someone like that voted "Yes," too.

I can only hope they come back to the thread and read what others have written, to consider whether or not their reasons are really as valid as they thought they were when they clicked "Yes."

[Brian4Liberty]

Just a question as I read this thread, if America said it didn't care if Iraq invaded and took out Kuwait 1 of 3 things happened.
1)They outright lied to them and set them up.
2)Massive communication errors.
3)Other American allies more important than Iraq screamed very loud after the fact, causing a change of policy.

If the later two took place, Saddam was just too proud to reverse course after the deed was done.

The answers to your question can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie

[Acala]

Why didn't you say so?

I said people should be free to spend their own money to support a war they believe in. You then said this:


Isn't that what we have today to a certain extent? People donate their money to lobby groups. Those lobby groups then lobby (and pressure, bribe, etc.) the US government to go after other countries. Iraq for example.

The clear implication being that lobbying to get government to force other people to spend their money is somehow the same as spending your own money. It isn't remotely the same in any way. I was so amazed that you would suggest it that I thought you were kidding. But apparently you were not? Or you were just trolling?

To answer your question, you get people to stop lobbying government by taking away the power from government to bestow anything of value on anyone.

[erowe1]

If the '91 Gulf War was justified, then it seems to me that we're not left with very strong arguments against the more recent Iraq War.

The '91 War ended with a peace agreement in which G. H. W. Bush did not invade Iraq, recognizing that the cost of doing that would have been much greater than merely kicking Saddam out of Kuwait, and Saddam made concessions that included the allowance of weapons inspectors to insure that he got rid of and did not make any more WMDs.

The demand that he not pursue WMDs was either right or wrong.

If that demand was wrong, then I think that gets us back to questioning the rightness of the '91 Gulf War itself, since Saddam without such a constraint could have attacked Kuwait again and expanded his power in a way Fozz fears he would have done without serious consequences, knowing that nothing he could do would result in his own nation being invaded.

But if that demand was right, then it could not have been an idle threat that Saddam could ignore without consequence. It would have to be enforced with whatever means it took to enforce. Once Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors, and continued to skirt the demands of that peace agreement even under economic sanctions, and continued to do so after G.W. Bush gave him that fateful ultimatum, "Allow the inspections to resume unhindered by this date or else we'll invade." then it seems to me that going back and finishing the job that G.H.W. Bush had left undone in '91 would be justified just as much as the '91 war itself is presumed to have been.

Conversely, if the recent Iraq War was not justified, then neither were the demands placed on Iraq in the conclusion of the '91 war, and by extension, neither was that war itself.

[Original_Intent]

Not our concern.

The biggest mistake we made in that war was to give Saddam the green light to attack Kuwait by saying we would not be involved in an Arab-Arab conflict. If we hadn't said that, the Gulf war would have never happened. Saddam was not an irrational actor.

You think it was a mistake? He was green lighted to attack Kuwait to give us a reason to attack him. 99% of Americans have no idea who April Glaspie is, they do not know there was a conversation between her and Saddam a week before Kuwait was invaded when she gave the go-ahead - why is this conversation still not available thru FOIA due to "national security" concerns?

[Brian4Liberty]

The clear implication being that lobbying to get government to force other people to spend their money is somehow the same as spending your own money. It isn't remotely the same in any way. I was so amazed that you would suggest it that I thought you were kidding. But apparently you were not? Or you were just trolling?

To answer your question, you get people to stop lobbying government by taking away the power from government to bestow anything of value on anyone.

You want people to have the freedom to "spend their own money" on an issue that they feel is important. Can they spend their own money to lobby one government to attack another government?

[klamath]

Saddamn was intending to control a lot more land than Iraq and kuwait But it still wasn't Our business to stop him. Anybody that thinks otherwise have not personally seen the devastation his war with Iran caused. The man was a power hungry brutal sob but still it was not our place to fight wars for other people even thought the kuwaitis paid for the whole thing. He Gassed the Kurdish civilians and before someone starts spouting off that we sold him the weapons I have seen his weapons and they nearly all came from western europe and the Soviets. Sure there might be a small thin thread of supplies from the US but the US as a whole were not his weapons supplier.
And still we should not have been over there.