Por Que ? Why ? IRAQ SURGE

[lieexpsr]

JIMmoyer

[ Today, 03:20 PM

Holy Advisor​

Location: Winchester Virginia
Posts: 4,032
Rep:

Is anyone aware of the justifications for the Gulf War now known to be based on untrue propaganda and demonizing of Iraq? ....I would also suggest that we were burned in the same manner by taking part in the Kosovo war.
-----------------------------------------lieexpsr----------------------------------------------------


The First Gulf War was to repulse Saddam Hussein out of his invasion of Kuwait.

Big reason.

Simple.

Of course none of the neighboring nations respect Kuwait's status, but they certainly
don't want to allow a precedent of invasion go without a response, n'est pas ???

And you'll remember the condition of Japan and Saudi Arabia to pay for the war
and for European nations to join in the 500,000 soldier coalition was a demand we NOT
go to Baghdad, but rather just repulse Saddam from Kuwait, ONLY, despite all the Scub
missles lobbied into Israel and Saudi Arabia.



And Kosovo ???


Kosovo was turning into another ethnic cleansing situation.

Also US waited almost 9 years until enterring the Yugoslavian wars which began in 1991
with Slovenia and then Croatia breaking off.
/QUOTE]

I'm well aware of the expressed reason for the Gulf War but my purpose is to investigate those reasons in some depth with those who are totally familiar with the circumstances. In any case perhaps you are aware that there were more reasons stated than just the repelling of Saddam's armies from Kuwait. You may recall that one of the chief specific justification was to protect Saudi because it was claimed that there was a massive troop buildup on the Kuwait/Saudi border. Of course it was proven beyond a doubt IMO that there was no troop buildup of any sort. This is just one embarassing fact for the U.S. which appears to have been discarded. Does the pattern strike you as being a familiar one now that we have learned that the current war was justified on a bunch of bogus reasons?

You refer to 'all the scud missiles lobbed into Israel and Saudi Arabia' and I wonder if you can give me a reference which tells of the specific number of missiles lobbed at the Saudis and Israel?

Briefly on Kosovo: I think you are wrong about Kosovo turning into another ethnic cleansing situation. In fact is was claimed in March 99 that the ethnic cleansing was well advanced and the mass graves numbered in the 100's of thousands. Of course later we learned that there were really only about 550 mass graves ever found and of that number many were containing the bodies of Romas, Serbs, and other ethnicities.

I find it quite unusual to find an American who defends both the Kosovo campaign and the current Iraq war. In fact in my experience it is often Republican supporters who support Iraq (or did) and they condemn the Kosovo war. The opposite seems to be largely true for Democrat supporters. Are you aware of the number of Republicans who condemned Clinton's Kosovo campaign?

Your comments so far? Is there anyone on this forum who is knowledgable on the issues I wish to discuss or am I in the wrong forum?

 

[lieexpsr]

You're absolutely right darkbeaver and it's so refreshing to hear someone who understands the whole situation. Of course the U.S. didn't invade Iraq for next years cabbage crop and it probably wasn't because they love the Iraqi people! I also think you are right about the U.S. being about to use nuclear weapons in the M.E. This IMO will expose us all in the West to continuing and ongoing wars. It's especially troubling knowing that nuclear war in the M.E. is prophesied in the minds of those holding power in the U.S. I've heard it said that an atomic bomb being detonated in New York city would be celebrated by those who predict an eventual Armageddon.

 

[jimmoyer]

Here we go again with the Debt Mythologies.

Toro, isn't American debt less than 5 percent of its total economy, GDP ???

 

[darkbeaver]

You're absolutely right darkbeaver and it's so refreshing to hear someone who understands the whole situation. Of course the U.S. didn't invade Iraq for next years cabbage crop and it probably wasn't because they love the Iraqi people! I also think you are right about the U.S. being about to use nuclear weapons in the M.E. This IMO will expose us all in the West to continuing and ongoing wars. It's especially troubling knowing that nuclear war in the M.E. is prophesied in the minds of those holding power in the U.S. I've heard it said that an atomic bomb being detonated in New York city would be celebrated by those who predict an eventual Armageddon.

It would be a mistake to conclude from my scribblins that I understand the whole situation.
Afterall I'm just a beaver, who's scared ****less by the near future. Ya the armageddon fans don't care where the big bang happens, just the miraculous works of what's hs name.:wave:

 

[Kreskin]

The US has been the self-proclaimed flagship of ethics, morals, freedom, human rights, and everything else that is supposed to be right. Nothing is ever perfect but for the most part it has stood for all of those during its acquisition of power. Bush was handed this tremendous power and stood with unprecedented support worldwide in 2001 then he literally flushed 200 years of goodwill down the toilet by abusing the power entrusted upon him. He not only divided the world he divided Americans. What has transpired in the name of the war on terror has been disgraceful, disappointing, shocking, deadly, and inept.

America is a great country. Its present leadership is an absolute disaster.

 

[lieexpsr]

I posted a more lengthy reply here and it seems to be lost. Hummph! What's the point? And as I see it there is no way of contacting a moderator to have it posted.

darkbeaver- I gather from your scribblings that you do understand the situatin quite well. Perhaps we become intimidated by all the pro-war propaganda to the point where we don't trust our senses as much as we should. I agree with you on your assertion that debt has a lot to do with the reason why the U.S. is meddling in Iraq but that's not saying it's not arguable. What isn't arguable IMO is that the U.S. is hellbent on establishing control over the M.E. And I will just add, if there was nothing to lose by leaving and anandoning their interests, there would be little reason to support their M.E. proxy Israel. Thanks for your ideas and perhaps you have some ideas on the real reasons for the first Gulf War?

 

[lieexpsr]

Kreskin- I couldn't agree more with what you say about the U.S. Sadly the present leadership is dragging that country down in the eyes of the world and the people have been so soundly brainwashed by his supposed war on terror that they seem to be too afraid to stop him.

 

[#juan]

America is a great country. Its present leadership is an absolute disaster.

But not for the oil companies.......:?

 

[lieexpsr]

Juan- When we talk about the oil being the real and logical reason for the Iraq war we need to be able to separate it from a justification of profits for the oil companies. Although certainly that is true too but Kreskin is on the right track with his comments. That is that the supply of cheap oil (affordable oil) must coninue to be available to the U.S. and that is why they need to sit on the oil resources of the M.E. As well they of course need a steady and constant supply of oil from Canada which is now their biggest supplier. The U.S. consumes something like 2,000,000 barrels of oil a day and if even a small part doesn't reach them then they know that their reserves will become depleted quite rapidly.

Of course this is the reason why wars are fought and to make up a multitude of other excuses for the Iraq war is just plain ridiculous. The oil is the reason why the first Gulf War was waged against Iraq also and if you read the literature which has been written on that war it is freely admitted. Iraq was simply becoming extremely powerful and prosperous under Saddam's rule and the U.S. has a hardline approach against preventing any nation in the M.E. from becoming powerful enough that the U.S. can not safely destroy them. In fact it is stated U.S. policy from the neocons that no nation will ever again be allowed to become powerful to the point where it can't be easily destroyed by the U.S. if it is deemed a threat. Nuclear weapons are of course the threat which mus be prevented at all costs.

It is for these reasons that I wanted to explore the fact that Iraq was setup to invade Kuwait in order for the U.S. to be able to justify pushing for a war and involving other nations, especially important among them being Canada.

 

[darkbeaver]

Juan- When we talk about the oil being the real and logical reason for the Iraq war we need to be able to separate it from a justification of profits for the oil companies. Although certainly that is true too but Kreskin is on the right track with his comments. That is that the supply of cheap oil (affordable oil) must coninue to be available to the U.S. and that is why they need to sit on the oil resources of the M.E. As well they of course need a steady and constant supply of oil from Canada which is now their biggest supplier. The U.S. consumes something like 2,000,000 barrels of oil a day and if even a small part doesn't reach them then they know that their reserves will become depleted quite rapidly.

Of course this is the reason why wars are fought and to make up a multitude of other excuses for the Iraq war is just plain ridiculous. The oil is the reason why the first Gulf War was waged against Iraq also and if you read the literature which has been written on that war it is freely admitted. Iraq was simply becoming extremely powerful and prosperous under Saddam's rule and the U.S. has a hardline approach against preventing any nation in the M.E. from becoming powerful enough that the U.S. can not safely destroy them. In fact it is stated U.S. policy from the neocons that no nation will ever again be allowed to become powerful to the point where it can't be easily destroyed by the U.S. if it is deemed a threat. Nuclear weapons are of course the threat which mus be prevented at all costs.

It is for these reasons that I wanted to explore the fact that Iraq was setup to invade Kuwait in order for the U.S. to be able to justify pushing for a war and involving other nations, especially important among them being Canada.

I agree, the American ambassador to Iraq I believe gave Saddam the green light for Kuwait, ostensibly to deal with the Kuwaiti habit of drilling under the border into the Iraqs side of the oil field.
I've forgotten the Ambassadors name and she seems to have dropped out of sight since.:wave:

 

[lieexpsr]

Her name is April Glaspie and she has indeed dropped off the face of the earth. The U.S. claims that she wasn't authorized to speak for them.

And yes, you are right about the slant drilling going on and that little sojourn was done with the aid of the U.S. What bothers me most though is that decent Canadians have to bear the guilt from taking part in that U.S. aggression. Well, at least those of us who aren't afraid to face the truth.

 

[darkbeaver]

Her name is April Glaspie and she has indeed dropped off the face of the earth. The U.S. claims that she wasn't authorized to speak for them.

And yes, you are right about the slant drilling going on and that little sojourn was done with the aid of the U.S. What bothers me most though is that decent Canadians have to bear the guilt from taking part in that U.S. aggression. Well, at least those of us who aren't afraid to face the truth.

The truth of the past I can face the truth of the near future I don't know if any of us will be able to handle. :wave:

 

[jimmoyer]

I'm well aware of the expressed reason for the Gulf War but my purpose is to investigate those reasons in some depth with those who are totally familiar with the circumstances. In any case perhaps you are aware that there were more reasons stated than just the repelling of Saddam's armies from Kuwait. You may recall that one of the chief specific justification was to protect Saudi because it was claimed that there was a massive troop buildup on the Kuwait/Saudi border. Of course it was proven beyond a doubt IMO that there was no troop buildup of any sort. This is just one embarassing fact for the U.S. which appears to have been discarded. Does the pattern strike you as being a familiar one now that we have learned that the current war was justified on a bunch of bogus reasons?

You refer to 'all the scud missiles lobbed into Israel and Saudi Arabia' and I wonder if you can give me a reference which tells of the specific number of missiles lobbed at the Saudis and Israel?

Briefly on Kosovo: I think you are wrong about Kosovo turning into another ethnic cleansing situation. In fact is was claimed in March 99 that the ethnic cleansing was well advanced and the mass graves numbered in the 100's of thousands. Of course later we learned that there were really only about 550 mass graves ever found and of that number many were containing the bodies of Romas, Serbs, and other ethnicities.

I find it quite unusual to find an American who defends both the Kosovo campaign and the current Iraq war. In fact in my experience it is often Republican supporters who support Iraq (or did) and they condemn the Kosovo war. The opposite seems to be largely true for Democrat supporters. Are you aware of the number of Republicans who condemned Clinton's Kosovo campaign?

Your comments so far? Is there anyone on this forum who is knowledgable on the issues I wish to discuss or am I in the wrong forum?

-----------------------------------------------------lieexpsr--------------------------------------

In Gulf War I you say there was no troop build up along the Saudi border ?
Are you literally suggesting they had to be right there on the sand on the other side ???
Are you also missing the natural edginess the Saudi Kingdom felt about Iraq invading
Kuwait with no retaliation back such brazenness ???

Despite all the other dark machinations that drive our leaders, the above issue
was a much more stark issue, easily visible to you and me.

Saddam invading another
oil rich country like Kuwait should not be expected to have no retaliation unless one
is a childish moron who understands little of the politics of national interests.

Notice how all the morally righteous nations are waiting around for the USA to
do something about Darfur ? Notice there is no pressure on China who owns
controlling oil interest in Sudan ???

All that said, I started this thread feeling the Bush White House was too egotistical
in thinking we could do any of this alone in Iraq.

 

[lieexpsr]

To correct a typo, I earlier said that the U.S. consumes 2,000,000 barrels of oil a day and it should have read 22,000,000 barrels a day.

jimmoyer wrote:

In Gulf War I you say there was no troop build up along the Saudi border ?
Are you literally suggesting they had to be right there on the sand on the other side ???
Are you also missing the natural edginess the Saudi Kingdom felt about Iraq invading
Kuwait with no retaliation back such brazenness ???

No, there was no troop Iraqi troop buildup along the Saudi/Kuwait border. The U.S. claimed there were 265,000 Iraqi troops and a large number of tanks prepared to attack Saudi and it was a lie. Also, if you read up on what actually happened you will find that the Saudis had to be convinced by the U.S. that there was a threat to Kuwait. Clearly Saddam had no intention of continuing on into Kuwait.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030315-satellites01.htm

In September 1990, the first Bush administration said that 265,000 Iraqi troops and at least 1,500 tanks were in Kuwait, many positioned along the border with Saudi Arabia, poised for an invasion. Based on those reports, the Saudis asked a coalition of forces, including the United States, to provide protection. The St. Petersburg Times purchased Soviet commercial satellite photos of the border and had them examined in detail by two imaging specialists, including Zimmerman. They found no evidence of significant military buildups along the Saudi border.

jimmoyer

Saddam invading another
oil rich country like Kuwait should not be expected to have no retaliation unless one
is a childish moron who understands little of the politics of national interests.

Just hold off on the childish charges and allow me to make my case. I intend to show that the U.S. had no opinion on whether or not Saddam invaded Kuwait. Not only that but Saddam attempted to negotiate a withdrawal and was prevented from doing so by the U.S. Rather than we who understand the situation fully being childish morons, we could more accurately be called those who are not as easily propagandized and lied to by the U.S. The U.S. was intent on destroying the Iraqi forces and did so, murdering in cold blood thousands and perhaps near a hundred thousand Iraqis as the retreated waving white flags. The bodies were bulldozed under the sand, some still alive, creating probably the largest mass grave ever known to mankind.

 

[jimmoyer]

the Saudis had to be convinced by the U.S. that there was a threat to Kuwait. Clearly Saddam had no intention of continuing on into Kuwait.
---------------------------------------------------lieexpsr----------------------------------------------


Are you suggesting that Kuwait was NOT invaded by Saddam ??

And if you admit that he did invade Kuwait, didn't those troops sit
in a country next to Saudi Arabia ?

You should google scud missles and Gulf War and you'll get whatever answer you want
to fit your bias.

Are you under 40 years old ?

Final comment: I do not wish to offend, but I am incredulous at some of your
perceptions on the First Gulf War and the Yugoslavian Wars.

Am I under the influence of propaganda ? Probably.

Are You ? Probably.

There are several thundering herds of buffalo on this Earth, each subscribing to the
direction of their own herd.

 

[lieexpsr]

Actually jimmoyer, I meant to say above that "the Saudis had to be convinced by the U.S. that there was a threat to their country" (Saudi) Sorry for the typo.

You asked: "And if you admit that he did invade Kuwait, didn't those troops sit
in a country next to Saudi Arabia ?"

Yes, but the point still is, the Saudis had to be convinced that Saddam was a threat to their country and the evidence to prove that was manufactured by the U.S. Ignore that fact if you choose to but keep in mind you need to play to your audience in order to maintain credibility. My motive is only to show your audience that the lies were perpetrated by the U.S. and they can form their own conclusions on the reasons for the lies. But frankly jimmoyer, IMO your trying to claim that the Iraqi forces were in Kuwait as opposed to being formed up on the Saudi border readying for an attack, comes off as desperation, although it is imaginative and a new defence to counter the lies. Are you perhaps saying that Bush1 didn't use that lie as one of the main justifications for war? Along with the incubator babies being thrown on the floor by the Iraqis who needed the incubators for the manufacture of chemical weapons, that is. LOL

You said: " You should google scud missles and Gulf War and you'll get whatever answer you want
to fit your bias."

If you want me to google scud missiles and Gulf War then you should at least supply a reason why that would be worthwhile. Are you perhaps suggesting that Iraq attacked the Saudis with scud missiles in order to sidetrack the discussion?

Yes, I am over 40 years old.

You said: " Final comment: I do not wish to offend, but I am incredulous at some of your
perceptions on the First Gulf War and the Yugoslavian Wars."

Don't worry about offending me but just make sure you keep it within the limits of the forum rules. I think the reason why you are incredulous is because I am bringing new information to you which you have not considered in the past. My task at the moment is to try to ascertain just how uninformed your really are. We'll get to that. Anyting I say about the Gulf War will based on more than just perceptions. And let's dispense with the Yugoslavian wars right now. I have referred only to the Kosovo war of 99. So far I have claimed that it was propagandized at the time that there were over 50,000 ethnic Albanians in mass graves, put there by the Serbs. In fact there have only been around 550 bodies found in mass graves and of those many were Serbs, Romas, and other ethnicities. The genocide never did take place and the alleged ethnic cleansing was on a scale which pales in comparison to U.S. war crimes. And I'll just add, the massacre at Racak was a fake puton by the U.S. in order to justify war against the FRY. In any case rather a dumb argument to get yourself into now jim as the Albanian population in Kosovo is immersed in their program of ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo as part of their program of creating a Greater Albania.

Suggesting that we are both propagandized is a weak tactic, although it is a familiar one to me. We'll deal with that too as I substantiate my claims with evidence to back them. You can do the same but keep in mind that the U.S. now has a lousy track record which is going to be hanging around your neck. I'm interested also in hearing how you will deal with that!

 

[jimmoyer]

LOL lieexpsr !!!

Somehow, I am glad you are over 40.

Remember when we said you couldn't trust anyone over 30 ?
New rule. I don't trust anyone under 40. Just for the helluvit. Be groovy.


You commented "
I think the reason why you are incredulous is because I am bringing new information to you which you have not considered in the past...."

Not true. Your facts are not new to me.
I'd like to have the time to tediously argue each one of your "facts" and your
interpretations of them. And I will. No worries.

Regarding you isolating Kosovo. It is certainly true the ethnic cleansing was done by all
sides of these Yugoslavian wars. The Croats did it to the Serbs when they aided
the Nazis in WWII and then again for their war of independence against Serbian dominance
in the federal government. And the latest is in Kosovo by the Albanian Muslims towards
the Russo-Greek Orthodox christian Serbs.

Both sides (including you) might be inclined to go too far one way or the other about
some of the ethnic cleansing. You might be inclined to under-report the stats to battle those
who inflate the stats.

 

[darkbeaver]

There is no civil war in Iraq the majority of civilian bombings are carried out by American paid operatives, since 2004 the occupation forces have been desperate to foment civil war through murder and kidnapping. Now we hear about the phoney charges of Iranian arms being shipped into the occupation zone and used to kill Americans. This is a feeble attempt to raise support for the destruction of Iran. But of course feeble evidence is all that's required to enlist American peasent support for an attack on Iran or anyplace else, even when most of the American public dosen't know where the country is.:wave:

 

[lieexpsr]

jimmoyer- Personally, I have no reason to not trust anyone under 40. In fact I find the idea quite ridiculous and I would suggest that anyone who would suggest such a thing needs to gain a little humility. I think I will just forget you said it as it tends to demean your character in my estimation.

If you want to talk about Kosovo then do so. If you want to talk about any of the other Balkan wars then do that too and we can rehash it all, but please start a thread specifically for that. I'm beginning to think that you are just using that as a stalling tactic now. My claims stand on the Kosovo war and your attempting to tell me that I am isolating Kosovo is rather disingenuous and evasive don't you think?

But back to my issue: Why do you attempt to obfuscate the evidence that Bush1 lied about the impending Iraqi invasion into Saudi? Are you suggesting that it was not important at the time in helping to form opinion on the question of the Gulf War? Would you like to suggest that if it wasn't for that misinformation there probably would have not been a Gulf War? And the incubator baby lie? Are you even familiar with the story and if you are, would you contend that that lie did not tip the scales in the U.S. in favour of war.

Now how about you stop telling me that you are going to do this and that as you sit there with egg on your face? I hope your non-rebuttal of the Bush1 lies is not an indication of how you are going to argue facts!

 

[lieexpsr]

There is no civil war in Iraq the majority of civilian bombings are carried out by American paid operatives, since 2004 the occupation forces have been desperate to foment civil war through murder and kidnapping. Now we hear about the phoney charges of Iranian arms being shipped into the occupation zone and used to kill Americans. This is a feeble attempt to raise support for the destruction of Iran. But of course feeble evidence is all that's required to enlist American peasent support for an attack on Iran or anyplace else, even when most of the American public dosen't know where the country is.:wave:

Of course you are right darkbeaver and the charge that Iran is supplying weapons is not corroborated by any outside source other than the U.S. propagandists. Of some things you can be certain, the U.S. is not going to leave Iraq without first making sure that U.S. control is consolidated over the Iraqi oil resources. At this point in time the Iraqi people are adamant and firm in their demands that will not happen, even though the U.S. puppet regime in Iraq is attempting to comply with U.S. wishes. A Dem. government with a Dem. president in the U.S. will not change that in the least, even though it will be played for all it's worth by the Dems. in order to fool the fools once again.