US greenlighted Iraqi-Kuwait war
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Well, that strikes Ron Paul from the list of sane possible Presidential candidates.
In NO place in the dispatches and documents that Paul read did the USA approve the invasion of Kuwait.
In no place did they strongly oppose it.
They merely recognized that the "dispute", a diplomatic disagreement, was Arab business and none of their's.
Then Paul starts in with the conjecture.....and it is BS. American support of Hussein was VERY limited in the Iran-Iraq conflict. Despite their problems with Iran, the USA had NOTHING to do with the original Iraqi attack, and only and only aided Iraq when Iran was on the offensive, and it looked like they might win the war, taking control of much of the Persian Gulf.
There is NO indication that the USA had ANY indication Hussein was about to attack Kuwait, in fact, just the opposite.
The attack took the USA by surprise.............and they reacted perfectly correctly.....except, in the end, they should have gone to Baghdad in 1991 instead of 2003.
Mr, Paul is either being disingenuous....or he is a moron.
Either way, he is not fit for the top office.
And, for those who remember those days, Saddam explained that he understood this to mean that the US didn't care. And therefore he was surprised that the US, who had, after all, given him WMDs to fight Iran, was suddenly turning on him for doing something that they didn't care about.
Sometimes, being an 'ally' of the US is not worth the trouble; you can't actually count on them, or believe what they say.
Not really I bet its way more complicated then that.
Why would it be classified if it wasn't something really big?
Bush Sr said that; Quote: "babies were thrown out of incubators so that Kuwait could systematically be dismantled"
Last edited:
I am trying to recall a news clip that did make the news where the US Ambassador had
said this was a dispute between Arab Cousins or something like that. If I were a world
leader, I would take that to mean it was of no concern to America.
Secondly how did these two areas become separated? Kuwait was once a part of Iraq.
The British carved the area off to redefine the area without regard for the nation as it then
existed and it was done for oil likely or a naval base take your pick. Probably for naval
reasons though Britain was at the height of its naval and world power status until it could
no longer afford its own Imperialism.
said this was a dispute between Arab Cousins or something like that. If I were a world
leader, I would take that to mean it was of no concern to America.
Secondly how did these two areas become separated? Kuwait was once a part of Iraq.
The British carved the area off to redefine the area without regard for the nation as it then
existed and it was done for oil likely or a naval base take your pick. Probably for naval
reasons though Britain was at the height of its naval and world power status until it could
no longer afford its own Imperialism.
I'm pretty sure the commonwealth carved out Iraq as well.
Anyway, regardless of whatever misunderstandings may have taken place early on, the U.S. made it unmistakeably clear to Saddam that he would be attacked if he didn't leave Kuwait. There's no way he misunderstood that.
Anyway, regardless of whatever misunderstandings may have taken place early on, the U.S. made it unmistakeably clear to Saddam that he would be attacked if he didn't leave Kuwait. There's no way he misunderstood that.
Apparently it didn't stop Canada from deploying either. They were one of the first ones onboard.
Please tell me what "WMD" the United States supplied to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran War.
Why not just buy the oil from Saddam?????
He was their great ally, according to you guys.
And Saddam certainly thought they would.........
And why didn't the USA go to Baghdad then??? (They should have)
And if they had some great territorial ambition, why did they withdraw???
Unfortunately, your position is nonsense.
Oh, and while I'm at it.....Iraq did not have nukes, its nuclear facilities were built with the help of France, and blown to smithereens (thank God!) by the Israelis..........
Iraq did not have, or at least never used, biological weapons. One wonders how much support they got, as biological weapons would seenm to be easily developed, if one already has the necessary biological agents.........
Iraq DID have, and used, chemical WMDs.....................no aspect of which is listed in your (as yet uncredited) article listing US aid to Saddam.........
Which leaves my original question as yet unanswered.......
Please tell me what "WMD" the United States supplied to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran War????????.
Of course it is from Wikipedia, what do you think 'favorite uncle' means? But we all know that it's complete falsity anyway.
The US never helped Iraq with chemical weapons, it's a complete myth. In fact, Saddam was an enemy of the US from time's very beginning.
The US never helped Iraq with chemical weapons, it's a complete myth. In fact, Saddam was an enemy of the US from time's very beginning.
Ahhh Actually, I thought you meant Uncle Sam...lol.
You're right, it is a falacy, as I explained........
Only if time began in 1990.
By Rep. Paul's own words, there was no greenlighting or approval of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait from the U.S.
The supposedly damning quote from the cable is something like: "The U.S. takes no position on these Arab affairs."
"No position" does not equal greenlighting or approval. Pretty cut and dry.
The supposedly damning quote from the cable is something like: "The U.S. takes no position on these Arab affairs."
"No position" does not equal greenlighting or approval. Pretty cut and dry.
If it was me, I would take that to mean that the u.s. would be keeping their nose out of it entirely.