US-Iraq Relations in 1980s: Mistake or Policy? (Fairly Long)

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by litost *
What do you think I was referring to by hypocrisy? I said they condoned it by not doing anything after the gassing except a proclamation from someone which actually made the administration uncomfortable. By not doing anything, I was directly referring to how they killed a sanctions bill. You quibbled on the definition of hypocrisy in response to me but accept the above!

Why is it false to claim that the US Govt. condoned (not approved, I never used that word) the monstrous actions taken by Saddam and hence has little moral credibility to use the he-gassed-own-people rhetoric as one of the many legitimate reasons now?Yes, because Olentzero made his point clearly in that post, as opposed to your and CP’s continual conflating of 1988 with 2002. Even in your last post, where you delved at length into the alleged inconsistencies between the administration’s words and its actions in 1988, you wrapped it all up by saying:

Why is it false to claim that the US Govt. condoned (not approved, I never used that word) the monstrous actions taken by Saddam and hence has little moral credibility to use the he-gassed-own-people rhetoric as one of the many legitimate reasons now?

Silly me, I thought this was a discussion about that “now” part. You know, like you and the OP stated?

Also, the attack referred to in my cite was on Kurdish villages. They could have been aimed at resistance fighters but clearly a much larger population was targeted, and many villagers were uprooted.

“Clearly”? Quite the contrary. I was unable to find any substantiation that anybody was killed or injured in those gas attacks–just at Halabja. And “uprooted” isn’t exactly the issue here, since the US has never cared one but about the general attack on the Kurds or the Kurdish insurgents–just the gas attacks.

CP: An unfortunate choice of words on my part, in that I was, in my own mind, differentiating between the use of gas on civilians and the use of gas on armed reistance fighters, i.e., soldiers. I was and am aware that has had been used–with undetermined results–on the latter, about which I really don’t care. Halabja was believed at the time and may well still be the only time when civilians were the targets of an Iraqi gas attack.

[Olentzero]

*Originally posted by minty green *
**Sure, you could easily count that as hypocrisy. Of course, that’s not the alleged hypocrisy you identified in the OP, is it? **

As far as I know it is. Or at least part of it. The first hypocritical element is the continued supply of military aid and intelligence to Iraq even though evidence had already come in that Saddam was using weapons of mass destruction. The second hypocritical element is the use of those same events as justification for war - events that likely would not have happened if the US hadn’t supplied Iraq with chemical weaponry.

Ultimately, the whole hypocritical foundation is the justification of “defense of democracy” for both actions. Giving a dictator chemical weapons isn’t defending democracy, and going in to replace him with your own choice of leader when he uses the weapons you gave him isn’t defending democracy either. There’s nothing democratic about the US doing what it can to maintain its superiority over the whole Middle East region.

Dave, my stance is based partly on the fact that US actions in and towards Iraq since 1980 have resulted in nothing but increased misery for the majority of the Iraqi population. The US shouldn’t have sent Saddam all that military aid in the 1980s, as it was used both against Iranian soldiers (and is there any definite proof that Iraqi civilians weren’t killed at that time by those same gasses?) and then against Kurdish civilians. Now, the US should not invade because the absolute misery and ruination that the Gulf War and sanctions have caused will be multiplied untold times. From that perspective, it becomes quite easy to assert that yes, you can “have it both ways”.

Neurotik - let’s take a look at a key paragraph from that Country Analysis site you linked to:

Kuwait’s current policy, in place since 1975, limits the participation of foreign oil companies to providing technical assistance and construction and maintenance services under contracts, which pay them fixed prices for specific activities. In fact, Kuwait’s constitution forbids the award of concessions which give an ownership interest in Kuwait’s natural resources to foreign entities. Nevertheless, the government has repeatedly hinted at a desire to find a way to involve foreign oil companies in increasing production without violating the constitution.

I’ve underlined the relevant passages. Under full nationalization, no foreign companies would have even those roles they play now. The nation of Kuwait alone would handle technical assistance, construction, and maintenance, and the nation of Kuwait alone would explore and develop methods of increasing production without even a thought to extending such a privilege to companies like Texaco or Exxon or anyone else. How Kuwait is handling its mineral resources has elements in common with nationalization, but it is not nationalization. If Kuwait kicked out all foreign oil companies and took the jobs of construction, maintenance, development, production, and sale for itself and itself alone, dollars to doghnuts the US would have a serious enough issue with the move to start threatening the Kuwaiti monarchy.

[Neurotik]

I see. I have apparently misunderstood that disturbingly narrow definition of nationalization. And quite frankly, I think you are inventing it in order to not be proven wrong. But, since I like you, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and let you prove to me that those situations existed in Iran under Mossadegh and Egypt under Nasser.

And out of your list, outside of the neutral zone, development, production and sale are already for Kuwait and Kuwait alone. See, the government is trying to introduce foreign development. It doesn’t exist there right now. So your scenario about kicking out all foreign oil companies and taking the jobs of “construction, maintenance, development, production and sale for itself” is ridiculous, since three-fifths of that list is already in effect. So that leaves us with just construction and maintenance. I don’t see the US undermining the Kuwaiti government simply due to that, since I don’t think it’s a major strategic concern of the US as their supply of oil is.

Now, the real question is, why the Kuwaitis are looking for more foreign investment. Out of pressure from the evil, imperialist US? No, probably not, otherwise they would have done it sooner. No, because they don’t have the current domestic capabilities to expand development on their own and need foreign capital. Same with construction and maintenance. Western oil companies have better access to research facilities and technology than Kuwait. So why not let them build better facilities and maintain them more efficiently than Kuwait could by itself.

Quite frankly, I think your analysis is off, Olentzero.

[Olentzero]

You’re really diverting things from the main thrust of the argument here, Neurotik. As far as this debate is concerned, I really don’t care why the Kuwaitis are looking for more foreign investment and what-all. The situations in Egypt under Nasser and Iran under Mossadegh are germane, so I’ll pursue that line of study over the next couple of days.

So your scenario about kicking out all foreign oil companies and taking the jobs of “construction, maintenance, development, production and sale for itself” is ridiculous, since three-fifths of that list is already in effect.

So if the Wright brothers had gotten their plane only three-fifths built, we should have considered the first flight accomplished at that point and taken the rest for granted? How about construction of the Brooklyn Bridge being left off at three-fifths complete, and opening it for traffic? Similarly, I see no reason to accept “three-fifths” nationalization as being nationalization. Sorry if it’s too narrow for your tastes, but your definition is too sloppy for mine.

[litost]

*Originally posted by minty green *
Why is it false to claim that the US Govt. condoned (not approved, I never used that word) the monstrous actions taken by Saddam and hence has little moral credibility to use the he-gassed-own-people rhetoric as one of the many legitimate reasons now?Yes, because Olentzero made his point clearly in that post, as opposed to your and CP’s continual conflating of 1988 with 2002. Even in your last post, where you delved at length into the alleged inconsistencies between the administration’s words and its actions in 1988, you wrapped it all up by saying:Silly me, I thought this was a discussion about that “now” part. You know, like you and the OP stated?

Must be strange that people who are skeptical about the proposed war on Iraq (for probably the same reasons?) are arguing about one of the legitimate reasons stated by the Bush administration

But, I am still a bit flustered. You agree it was hypocritical for the US Govt. to condemn Saddam and then kill a sanctions bill and increase aid afterwards? What you don’t seem to be agreeing to is the argument that a similar hypocrisy would repeat if the current administration used Saddam’s actions (condoned in the past by past administrations) as fodder for the war they propose?

Is this because we are talking multiple administrations? Then, I agree. However, from my perspective, the US Govt as a single continuing entity cannot choose to be morally outraged when it suits its purpose. Which is why 1988 is linked to 2002.

[Neurotik]

*Originally posted by Olentzero *
You’re really diverting things from the main thrust of the argument here, Neurotik. As far as this debate is concerned, I really don’t care why the Kuwaitis are looking for more foreign investment and what-all. The situations in Egypt under Nasser and Iran under Mossadegh are germane, so I’ll pursue that line of study over the next couple of days.

Well, I think our discussion has sort of completely been diverted from the main thrust of the OP. As evidence, I submit our still friendly tone and lack of venom as compared to the other discussion going on in this thread.

I actually brought up the reasons for Kuwait’s quest for foreign investment because I thought it was germane. That’s because my guess would be that if Kuwait opened its borders to foreign investment, many people (not necessarily you) would claim that they did it because the US will not tolerate nationalization of oil fields and that US pressure forced them to do it, when that does not appear the case at all.

You are right, however, and it is a bit tangential to the discussion at hand and we can discuss it more at length if/when it actually happens.

As for Nasser and Mossadegh, I’ll be very interested to find out what your research yields. In truth, I asked you to provide cites only because I couldn’t come up with anything on my own in terms of Iran contracting out for maintenance and construction.

**So if the Wright brothers had gotten their plane only three-fifths built, we should have considered the first flight accomplished at that point and taken the rest for granted? How about construction of the Brooklyn Bridge being left off at three-fifths complete, and opening it for traffic? Similarly, I see no reason to accept “three-fifths” nationalization as being nationalization. Sorry if it’s too narrow for your tastes, but your definition is too sloppy for mine. **

Come now. Look in the dictionary. Merriam-Webster defines nationalization as merely to invest control or ownership in the national government. Dictionary.com defines it as diverting from private control to government control.

Control is the issue here. I don’t think that you can assert that control of the oil fields and oil industry is not in the hands of the Kuwaiti government. The oil fields have been completely nationalized. The oil industry in Kuwait proper has been completely nationalized. No other country or business has a say in how that industry is developed. Construction and maintenance are merely subcontracted out.

The oil fields have been nationalized in Kuwait. If the Kuwaiti government decides to give one of the oil fields to Texaco as Texaco’s property and merely tax it, then the oil fields will cease to be nationalized. But that has not happened yet.

[Mr.Svinlesha]

litost:

• You agree it was hypocritical for the US Govt. to condemn Saddam and then kill a sanctions bill and increase aid afterwards? What you don’t seem to be agreeing to is the argument that a similar hypocrisy would repeat if the current administration used Saddam’s actions (condoned in the past by past administrations) as fodder for the war they propose?

Is this because we are talking multiple administrations? Then, I agree. However, from my perspective, the US Govt as a single continuing entity cannot choose to be morally outraged when it suits its purpose. *

Actually, in point of fact, these two administration are composed of many of the same people: Chaney was Secretary of Defense back then, Rumsfeld was Special Envoy to the Middle East (and played a crucial role in maintaining US relations with Bhagdad), Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld’s current assistant) was an influential policy wonk, etc. The fact that many of the people directing US foreign policy today were directing it in 1988 as well (including a whole slew of behind-the-scene actors, appointed administrators, and so forth) lends charges of hypocrisy significantly more weight, IMHO.
Neurotik and Olentzero:

Interesting discussion on Kuwait – I had no idea their oilfields were nationalized.

However, regarding the stance of the US government on this issue, it is also of importance to discover if Kuwait nationalized its oilfields at some point – that is, if the fields were once owned by US or other foreign interests, and subsequently taken by the Kuwait government. Those are the sorts of situations that generally provoke a strong US reaction. If, on the other hand, they were nationalized by tradition, long before foreign investors had begun to show an interest in them, then I guess the US government would simply work with the existing power structure in the region (i.e., the Kuwaiti government) – as long as they could come to some sort of “gentleman’s agreement,” anyway.

[Neurotik]

No, it’s the first one. The oil fields were nationalized in 1976. Prior to that, they had been owned by the Kuwait Oil Company which was a joint American/British venture formed when the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (a subsidiary of BP) and the American Gulf Oil Company were jointly granted the rights to the Burgan Oil Field.

The difference is that I think the Kuwaiti government bought out the foreign interests, and didn’t just steal them.

[Weirddave]

*Originally posted by Olentzero *
** Now, the US should not invade because the absolute will be multiplied untold times. From that perspective, it becomes quite easy to assert that yes, you can “have it both ways”.

[ **

I would ask for evidence that a war with Iraq would cause the “misery and ruination that the Gulf War and sanctions have caused” to be “multiplied untold times.” It’s already pretty bad over there, unless you are talking about the inevitable civilian deaths that will occur, although the U.S. tries like no other country in the world to minimize “collateral dammage” ( Not really germain to the discussion, but something that I think should be kept in mind when condeming the U.S. for it’s military actions. I think any other superpower in our situation would have attacked in force by now and damn the consiquences to civilians. (assuming they existed and had the ability to do so. I’m thinking the USSR 30 years ago or China today if Iran was on it’s border ))

Other than that, what have you got? Leave those citizens under a despotic regime that can and does kill them at will? Let the squalor continue until disease is rampant throughout the population? Increase sanctions until they starve?

OR

Replace the current regime with a more progressive one and then allow full trade with Iraq again? Allow oil money to flow freely to the economy, rebuild the infrastructure and provide the food and medicine that the civilians need? Help establish Iraq as what we thought it could be in the 80s, a stable, peaceful bastion against extremism right smack dab in the middle of the Mid East? Ask yourself this: The “average Afghan”, the man-on-the-street in Kabul, as it were: Is he better off today than he was 3 years ago? I think the answer is yes.

[Weirddave]

Geeze, I used “cut” instead of “copy”. : rolleyes: OZ’s quote above should read:

Now, the US should not invade because the absolute misery and ruination that the Gulf War and sanctions have caused will be multiplied untold times. From that perspective, it becomes quite easy to assert that yes, you can “have it both ways”.

Sorry 'bout that! :smack:

[Weirddave]

Not my day for coding, it seems. :rolleyes:

[Olentzero]

OK, here we go.

I haven’t found a whole lot of in-depth detail about the nationalization of Iranian oil by Mossadeq in 1951, but one detail does stand out - the British employees of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company left the country soon after. What this is telling me is that Iran most likely nationalized the oil industry there without recompense to the British oil interests. Since Mossadeq was an ardent Arab nationalist, this doesn’t seem entirely implausible. Britian found the matter of enough concern to take its grievance to the UN, while the US involved itself in fomenting unrest and helping parts of the Iranian military stage a coup which overthrew Mossadeq in 1953. (Side note: A fellow involved in smuggling money to the US-sympathetic forces in Iran at the time was one Norman Schwarzkopf, Sr.)
So, why the different reactions to the nationalization of oil by Kuwait versus that of Iran? Well, the nationalization of Kuwaiti oil was obviously carried out by the Kuwaiti royal family, who weren’t all that eager to upset the major imperialist forces in the region (Britain and the US) because they owed their existence as the royal family to those same powers. More than likely their nationalization was acoomplished with much recompense and extension of privileges to the foreign oil companies drilling on their territory. The oil companies are happy, their respective governments are happy, the oil keeps flowing.
Arab nationalists (of whom Saddam Hussein is one) tend to nationalize oil without thought of recompense - at least judging by the scant information I’ve dug up on Mossadeq. This certainly explains why the US found both Iran’s Islamic fundamentalism and Iraq’s Arab nationalism distasteful, and preferred to remain neutral in the 1980s war until Iran got the upper hand.
Like as not, then, if Saddam had successfully held on to Kuwait he would have nationalized the oil like Mossadeq nationalized Iranian oil - a no-go as far as the US was concerned.

I think that pretty much explains the difference - that the US will tolerate nationalization as long as the proper palms are greased. Essentially what Neurotik said, although I wouldn’t call it stealing, myself.

So let me see if I can’t tie all these thoughts up into one neat little paragraph. (Fat chance, we all know how long-winded I can get.)

Kuwait is the richest source of oil in the Middle East. It has some seriously profitable oil concessions granted to big American (and other international) oil companies. Therefore protecting Kuwait’s oil supply (and thus the concessions) becomes of great importance to the oil companies and their respective governments. Iran threatened Kuwait in the early 80s through its near-victory over Iraq. So the US funneled arms, weapons, and intelligence to Saddam Hussein - who already had evidence against him of war crimes - in order to prevent Iran from final victory. Iraq grows strong enough to beat Iran back, then turns around and does the same thing Iran threatened to do - takes Kuwait. Doesn’t matter whether it’s Islamic fundamentalism or Arab nationalism, the oil is most likely to get taken from the foreign oil companies without recompense. So the war in Iraq boils down to two things: protection of foreign oil interests in Kuwait and bald-faced US dominance in the Middle East. All other reasons supplied by the Clinton and second Bush administrations serve only to cloak and disguise that fact and, IMO, don’t generally stand up to close and careful examination. Such as “Saddam gassed his own people” (the main theme of this thread and the target for the article quoted in the OP) - it was US policy in the 1980s to provide him with the tools to do exactly that.

[Neurotik]

Who says that nothing gets resolved in Great Debates?

Olentzero, I have some nitpicks:

Saudi Arabia is the richest source of oil in the Middle East. It’s not even close. Iraq is number two. Kuwait is number three. Iran comes in a close number four, and could conceivably climb to number three with a bit more exploration. But the basic gist of Kuwait being a very important oil country remains the same.

But we both agree that it’s more or less OK to nationalize so long as proper compensation is paid. Which is what happened to Kuwaiti Oil. They acted essentially as though they were a business attempting to buy out another company. The government didn’t just steal the company’s assets. Basically the same situation as in Saudi Arabia.

You are also correct in stating that Kuwait has special concessions to western oil companies. Namely buy back programs. These are where a foreign company signs a service contract with the host country where they provide the capital for field development and get a return on that investment through discounted oil prices over a period of time. However, it is interesting to note that Iran was the leader in developing these types of agreements to get around constitutional requirements for national ownership while meeting the need for outside help in developing oil resources. In fact, the Iranian government recently inked an agreement of this type with some Japanese firms to develop some fields in the Straights of Hormuz. Also interesting is that a US firm was supposed to ink a similar deal to develop the Sirri fields, but lost that contract to a French company when the US government put pressure on it to cancel the contract.

What’s missing in your analysis, Olentzero, is that the trend in the Middle East is away from nationalization. In fact, internal pressures and the need for more capital is forcing more and more nationalized fields to be opened to US, British, Russian and other nations. However, even this is not enough to get the US to drop sanctions on Iran. There must be other reasons to keep them isolated, and I believe that a fear of terrorism exports is one of those reasons.

Indeed, it is even more remarkable since those states that were formally communist/nationalist and are now moving towards foreign participation have largely been welcomed into US trade agreements. For example, look at China. Economic opportunity loomed, and trade was opened. The same thing is happening in Vietnam now. So why is Iran still being blocked out? One reason is its support of Hezbollah, although that is not the only reason. Bitterness over the whole hostage thing, as well.

So, I think your analysis is leaving a few things out. One, the traditional friendly relationship between Israel and the US. Israel is likely genuinely concerned about Iraq developing WMDs because of the likelihood that he would consider providing them to a terrorist group to use against Israel if he thought it would boost his standing in the Arab world. The same concerns are apparent in Iran. Especially the delicate tightrope the US is trying to walk in supporting Israel, but also preventing full scale hostilities between Israel and US Arab allies. Remember that Israel played both sides off each other, provided arms and intelligence to both sides and generally encouraged war because it felt that war between Iraq and Iran kept them off Israel’s case and helped weaken both sides in the eventuality that Israel would need to go to war with them.

Oil is almost most certainly a factor, but it is by no means the sole motivator. Not even necessarily the most important determinant of policy (although it certainly is at times).

Boiling the issue down to one factor just blurs the issue, and makes for sloppy analysis. Although I will certainly agree with you that the whole “gassing his own people” has practically nothing to do with the reasons behind the current war push by the administration.

[Weirddave]

No answers my questions above?

[Olentzero]

*Originally posted by Neurotik *
Saudi Arabia is the richest source of oil in the Middle East. It’s not even close. Iraq is number two. Kuwait is number three

My sources tell me different. Kuwait was created because it’s the richest in oil and the British didn’t want either Iraq or Saudi Arabia to have any claim to it.

But we both agree that it’s more or less OK to nationalize so long as proper compensation is paid.

No, we certainly do not. What’s good for the US government and the oil companies concerned is not necessarily good for me. Or the general population of the country in question - you’ll note the earlier assertions that Kuwait is hardly a democratic country, denying citizenship and basic rights to at least a third of its population. Kuwait’s palm-greasing was calculated to keep the monarchy on the throne and thereby continue the “undemocracy” and the oppression.

What’s missing in your analysis, Olentzero, is that the trend in the Middle East is away from nationalization.

And therefore what? If the governments are moving away from nationalization, it becomes completely impossible for anyone else to support it? There is no chance that another Arab leader, come to power by democratic means or by force, will put nationalization on the agenda?

In fact, internal pressures and the need for more capital is forcing more and more nationalized fields to be opened to US, British, Russian and other nations.

Right, and the fields are developed, and production and refining capacities are increased. Where’s the obstacle to nationalization after that’s completed?

However, even this is not enough to get the US to drop sanctions on Iran. There must be other reasons to keep them isolated, and I believe that a fear of terrorism exports is one of those reasons.

A rather galling assertion, considering which country’s been the biggest exporter of terror since 1945.

So why is Iran still being blocked out? One reason is its support of Hezbollah, although that is not the only reason. Bitterness over the whole hostage thing, as well.

I’m still following up on this one - haven’t located a copy of the source yet - but it appears that Israel itself supported Hezbollah in the 1970s and 1980s to try and weaken the strength the PLO enjoyed at that time. As for the hostages - it’s not like that came out of nowhere. The whole of Iran was pissed at the US for its support of the Shah. Not that I condone the action - there are better ways of handling that. Nationalization without recompense, for one.

So, I think your analysis is leaving a few things out. One, the traditional friendly relationship between Israel and the US. Israel is likely genuinely concerned about Iraq developing WMDs because of the likelihood that he would consider providing them to a terrorist group to use against Israel if he thought it would boost his standing in the Arab world.

And this differs from other Arab countries how? You’re forgetting that Arab hatred of Israel is not based on religious differences, but that Israel’s been the (more often vicious than not) watchdog state for the US in the Middle East. Vicious oppression of national minorities within its borders? Check. Invasion of neighboring countries? Check. Sounds like Iraq to me. The difference? Israel opposes pan-Arab nationalism as much as the US does. So that, in the eyes of Washington, excuses the rest of it.

The same concerns are apparent in Iran. Especially the delicate tightrope the US is trying to walk in supporting Israel, but also preventing full scale hostilities between Israel and US Arab allies.

“Preventing hostilities” is a smokescreen. The US is firmly on Israel’s side.

Remember that Israel played both sides off each other, provided arms and intelligence to both sides and generally encouraged war because it felt that war between Iraq and Iran kept them off Israel’s case and helped weaken both sides in the eventuality that Israel would need to go to war with them.

Sounds like the same thing the US did. And Israel has even less reason to go to war with any Arab country than the US does.

Oil is almost most certainly a factor, but it is by no means the sole motivator. Not even necessarily the most important determinant of policy (although it certainly is at times).

Oil is the foundation of US policy in the Middle East. It is the reason the US supports vicious dictators when they play ball and turns on them when they don’t. It is the reason the US provides Israel with the most foreign aid overall. US pursuit of oil profits, through corporate activity and government policy, which is terror in itself, provokes the kind of reaction and desperation that produces terror on the part of the Arab community. This is not a conspiracy - this is how “the market” works.

Boiling the issue down to one factor just blurs the issue, and makes for sloppy analysis.

Not if you can prove that the one issue is at the foundation of all the others.

[Olentzero]

*Originally posted by Weirddave *
**No answers my questions above? **

Why, is the whole debate going to fall apart if your question isn’t answered?

Your question is really a false dichotomy - not all scenarios in which the US does not involve itself in a war on Iraq will inevitably end in the continuation of the oppression of the Iraqi people. Therefore, US military involvement is not the only rational (or moral) choice.

Additionally, how is it possible to question the devastating effect of a war? Yes, things are horrible over there in Iraq now, but does that somehow prove that the next war won’t damage as much? Is there some sort of calculus of devastation that determines a limit beyond which no further damage can occur? That once that limit is reached, even endless war will not make things any worse? For lack of a more couth phrase, Dave, get your head out of your ass.

Bully for the US in its “trying” to minimize civilian casualties during wartime. From what I’ve read on the success rate of their much-vaunted “smart” bombs and missiles, they haven’t been doing very well. War and military action can’t be justified simply because those running it are “trying” to keep it clean. Civilians died in the Gulf War, they died because of the sanctions and the aftereffects of blown-up chemical dumps and depleted uranium dust from armor-piercing shells, and they will die when this next war begins. All because the US doesn’t like their leader, whose party they helped install. for using weapons which they gave him and threatening US corporate interests in a neighboring country. “Trying not to kill civilians” is laughable when the whole basis for the war is unmitigated bullshit.

[Neurotik]

*Originally posted by Olentzero *
My sources tell me different. Kuwait was created because it’s the richest in oil and the British didn’t want either Iraq or Saudi Arabia to have any claim to it.

Well, then your sources are utterly wrong. In terms of provable reserves, Saudi Arabia has the most by far and Iraq comes in second. Just google search.

As for the history of Kuwait, that’s not quite it. Kuwait was an autonomous region during the days of the Ottoman Empire. Second, why would the British care whether Iraq had Kuwait or not when they were creating the borders for those states? Iraq was set up to be a British colony.

No, we certainly do not. What’s good for the US government and the oil companies concerned is not necessarily good for me.

Sorry, I miswrote my original post. I meant to say that we both agree that the US government feels that it is OK to naitonalize as long as compensation is given.

A rather galling assertion, considering which country’s been the biggest exporter of terror since 1945.

Again, perhaps I wasn’t entirely clear. I was referring to terrorism against US allies, not terrorism in general. And whether it’s a galling assertion, or hypocritical, it’s still a large factor in US relations with Iran.

I’m still following up on this one - haven’t located a copy of the source yet - but it appears that Israel itself supported Hezbollah in the 1970s and 1980s to try and weaken the strength the PLO enjoyed at that time.

Well, it wouldn’t surprise me as Israel helped both sides in the Iran-Iraq war. Again, it’s different when our allies do it in the eyes of the US government.

As for the hostages - it’s not like that came out of nowhere. The whole of Iran was pissed at the US for its support of the Shah.

I didn’t say it did. Whether justified or not, it’s still a factor. But not the only factor, nor the most important. Still there, though.

And this differs from other Arab countries how?

Well, it differs because those other Arab countries in good standing with the US aren’t aggressively pursuing WMDs and the means to deliver them, AFAIK.

You’re forgetting that Arab hatred of Israel is not based on religious differences, but that Israel’s been the (more often vicious than not) watchdog state for the US in the Middle East.

Bullshit. Arab hatred of Israel, or even the concept of a Zionist state in the region, precedes its conception and precedes the close ties between the US and Israel. That said, I don’t think Israel should have been created in the first place. But it was.

Besides all that, this entire reasoning is a smoke screen. I never said Israel is a just state or that the relationship is some sort of noble agreement. But the relationship exists, and it is a factor. And Israel is not there as some sort of oil watchdog. I’ve heard you argue this before, and I don’t think the arguments hold up. But we can make another thread out of it, if you want.

Preventing hostilities" is a smokescreen. The US is firmly on Israel’s side.

It’s not a smokescreen. The US being on Israel’s side is beside the point. Full scale war between Israel and the surrounding Arab states would not be good for the US, as it would likely cause significatn damage to oil fields and facilities, as well as disruptions in oil flow, plus pipeline damage, etc.

**Sounds like the same thing the US did. And Israel has even less reason to go to war with any Arab country than the US does.

**
Yeah, more or less. And Israel isn’t worried about initiating war with either of them, but of them initiating war with Israel as a move to boost their Pan-Arab standing, since that has been one of the reasons that Arab leaders have initiated hostilities against her. If Iran and Iraq brought each other to their knees, then Israel wouldn’t have much to worry about from them for a while. At least, that was the theory.

By the way, I’m working down at the Corcoran for a little while down on 17th and E. Does the lunch bunch still meet on Fridays? Where and when? And how would one go about identifying the group?

[Olentzero]

*Originally posted by Neurotik *
Well, then your sources are utterly wrong. In terms of provable reserves, Saudi Arabia has the most by far and Iraq comes in second. Just google search.

A case of me misreading my sources. At the time of its creation as an independent country after WWI, Kuwait was the biggest oil-producing region in the Gulf. The borders were drawn up by Britian in order to prevent any other state in the region from controlling it.

Again, perhaps I wasn’t entirely clear. I was referring to terrorism against US allies, not terrorism in general. And whether it’s a galling assertion, or hypocritical, it’s still a large factor in US relations with Iran.

The hypocrisy doesn’t disappear because of the factor’s existence. It remains hypocritical and should therefore be thoroughly rejected as a justification for US policy towards Iran, or Iraq, or North Korea, or China, or Cuba, or anywhere.

Well, it wouldn’t surprise me as Israel helped both sides in the Iran-Iraq war. Again, it’s different when our allies do it in the eyes of the US government.

But does that make it any better? Of course not. It should be as roundly criticized as the use of terror by countries the US regards as its enemies.

I didn’t say [the taking of US hostages in Iran in 1979 came out of nowhere]. Whether justified or not, it’s still a factor. But not the only factor, nor the most important. Still there, though.

So what if it’s still there? I’m not sure what overall point you’re trying to make by asserting again and again that the factors informing relations between the US and Iran do in fact exist. I’m not denying they do.

Well, it differs because those other Arab countries in good standing with the US aren’t aggressively pursuing WMDs and the means to deliver them, AFAIK.

It’s been proven by documents from the UN and the IAEA that Iraq’s capacity to aggressively pursue the development of WMD and delivery methods were either seriously hobbled or destroyed by the end of the 90s. The best Bush can come up with is “They’re lying, but we don’t have to prove it to anyone but ourselves here in the Oval Office and the Pentagon”, let alone the fact that the US is certainly responsible for enabling Iraq to aggressively pursue those aims in the first place.

Bullshit. Arab hatred of Israel, or even the concept of a Zionist state in the region, precedes its conception and precedes the close ties between the US and Israel.

Why, though? Becasue Arabs are irrationally anti-Semitic or because the foundation of Israel was accomplished by copious amounts of bloodshed initiated by the Zionists?

That said, I don’t think Israel should have been created in the first place. But it was.

And therefore, because it’s a fait accompli, all criticism is useless and should be silenced? Is that the point you’re trying to make by saying again and again, “This exists”?

And Israel is not there as some sort of oil watchdog. I’ve heard you argue this before, and I don’t think the arguments hold up.

Then you misunderstand me. Israel is the linchpin in the US policy of unchallenged superiority in the Middle East, a policy that has oil at its very heart. It is not a watchdog to ensure the oil keeps flowing - it’s a watchdog to ensure the surrounding Arab countries don’t get too uppity and start claiming more national rights than the US feels they’re entitled to - like nationalization without compensation, for example.

It’s not a smokescreen. The US being on Israel’s side is beside the point.

Absolutely not. It gives the lie to the US’ claim that it is committed to “peace in the Middle East”, unless you define “peace” to be “the US faces no serious challenges to getting its way in the region”.

Full scale war between Israel and the surrounding Arab states would not be good for the US, as it would likely cause significatn damage to oil fields and facilities, as well as disruptions in oil flow, plus pipeline damage, etc.

Oil companies would drool over the opportunity to be able to rebuild destroyed oil fields. Perfect way to attract new investments and reap bigger profits.

If Iran and Iraq brought each other to their knees, then Israel wouldn’t have much to worry about from them for a while. At least, that was the theory.

Same as the theory that informed the US’ non-involvement in the Iran-Iraq war at the beginning, and their later support of Iraq when the tables turned in Iran’s favor. “Keep 'em fighting each other and they can’t mess with our interests.”

**By the way, I’m working down at the Corcoran for a little while down on 17th and E. Does the lunch bunch still meet on Fridays? Where and when? And how would one go about identifying the group? **

Keep an eye out for the “Lunch Bunch” thread in MPSIMS. It’ll be bumped early next week.

[Olentzero]

Just found this article in the Los Angeles Times (registration required, but it’s free) and thought I might try to blend it into the thread here.

The article takes a look at the first Gulf War, claiming

The first Bush administration, which featured Dick Cheney, Paul D. Wolfowitz and Colin L. Powell at the Pentagon, systematically misrepresented the cause of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the nature of Iraq’s conduct in Kuwait and the cost of the Persian Gulf War

which it backs up rather admirably.

The major issue, according to Papa Bush, was that the world had to stand up to aggressive dictators bent on world conquest.

The administration leaked reports that tens of thousands of Iraqi troops were massing on the border of Saudi Arabia in preparation for an invasion of the world’s major oil fields… [but] the administration’s estimate of Iraqi troop strength was also grossly exaggerated. After the war, Newsday’s Susan Sachs called Iraq the “phantom enemy”: “The bulk of the mighty Iraqi army, said to number more than 500,000 in Kuwait and southern Iraq, couldn’t be found.”

If Saddam was bent on conquest of the oilfields on the Arabian peninsula, where was his army, then?

Of course, that begs the question of whether or not Saddam really was bent on conquest.

Students of the Gulf War largely agree that Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait was primarily motivated by specific historical grievances, not by Hitler-style ambitions. Like most Iraqi rulers before him, Hussein refused to accept borders drawn by Britain after World War I that virtually cut Iraq off from the Gulf

i.e. the borders of the modern state of Kuwait. Which all the Iraqi leaders before him felt the same way about. That doesn’t justify his actions at all. But it gives the lie to the argument that Saddam somehow represents an exception in modern Iraqi history.

How did the US government react to the invasion?

The National Security Council’s first meeting after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was equally low key. As one participant reportedly put it, the attitude was, “Hey, too bad about Kuwait, but it’s just a gas station – and who cares whether the sign says Sinclair or Exxon?”

Hardly a call for a war on terror and aggression, eh? Bush didn’t want any of that:

The White House torpedoed diplomatic initiatives to end the crisis, including a compromise, crafted by Arab leaders, to let Iraq annex a small slice of Kuwait and withdraw

If you can’t justify a war, create a situation where it seems justified.

What was all this about, then?

[Bush] administration hawks, led by Cheney, saw a huge opportunity to capitalize on Iraq’s move against Kuwait. The elder Bush publicly pronounced, “a line has been drawn in the sand,” and he called for a “new world order … free from the threat of terror.” His unstated premise, as noted by National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, was that the United States “henceforth would be obligated to lead the world community to an unprecedented degree” as it attempted “to pursue our national interests.”

And there you have it. Push 'em around so we can get our way.

Was this war as clean as Bush and Schwarzkopf presented it?

While American TV repeatedly broadcast pictures of cruise missiles homing in on their targets, the Pentagon quietly went about a campaign of carpet bombing. Of the 142,000 tons of bombs dropped on Iraq and Kuwait in 43 days, only about 8% were of the “smart” variety.

Tout the-top-of-the-line weaponry as “what the war’s all about” and sweep the other 90% used under the carpet.

The indiscriminate targeting of Iraq’s civilian infrastructure left the country in ruins. A United Nations mission in March 1991 described the allied bombing of Iraq as “near apocalyptic” and said it threatened to reduce “a rather highly urbanized and mechanized society … to a preindustrial age.” Officially, the U.S. military listed only 79 American soldiers killed in action, plus 59 members of allied forces.

Doesn’t sound like a war fought between a dictator bent on world domination and the only country that can defend the world from him, does it?

What about the human cost on the Iraqi side?

A subsequent demographic study by the U.S. Census Bureau concluded that Iraq probably suffered 145,000 dead – 40,000 military and 5,000 civilian deaths during the war and 100,000 postwar deaths because of violence and health conditions. The war also produced more than 5 million refugees. Subsequent sanctions were estimated to have killed more than half a million Iraqi children, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization and other international bodies.

In other words, the claim that the US tried to keep civilian casualties to a minimum proves to be utter garbage. Sanctions are just as much an act of war against a populace as actual bombing is.

So, in conclusion - if the justification for the first Gulf War turns out to be a pack of lies, and manufactured ones at that, what does that say about the justification for this war against Iraq?