Wow. 
Saddam could have played games with the oil market , just by controlling his block. Eliminated his war debt faster , gotten good interest rates for new military equipment ,and assuming the soviets still implode , picked up top of the line military equipment for a song.
By inaction on the part of the rest of the world , he may have decided at some point that he could grab more , or become imbroiled in a renewed war with Iran.
I am not sure that the average saudi would have noticed , or the vast amounts of hired help that are 3 third class citizens, but combine Iraq’s , Kuwaits , and Saudis oil reserves , that has obvious red flags going up , if its only controlled by one party.
“Fuck Israel” hyperbole aside (aren’t you glad this board doen’t have an Israeli Aldebaran?) what your describing is less an Arab Ataturk and more an Arab Bismark. What you’re presening here is a replay of 1860’s Europe, culminating in the 1870 Franco-Prussian War, with Israel taking the place of France and the West Bank standing in for Alsacsz-Lorrainne(sp?).
I don’t think the war will end with an Israeli Sedan, though, just as I think U.S. inimidation would be neccessary to detr war - after all, its not as if Israel hasn’t beaten off a united Arabia before, and this time at least the Egyptians and Hussain’s elite Bedouin army won’t be taking part. Hussain would invade, be soundly defeated, and his whole house of cards would collapse, leaving the U.S. to pick up the pieces and send peacekeeping troops to look after the gulf oil wells.
I don’t think “ally” is the right word. He was a US client, a realpolitik our-son-of-a-bitch tool of expedience of the sort we’ve had all over the world.
The Saudis, OTOH are/were seen as long-term US allies. (wrongly, perhaps) What was revealed in invading Kuwait and threatening the Saudis was that had his own ambitions that did not coincide with US interests. He spoke of himself as a sort of pan-arab savior.
Even if he left the Saudis alone, militarily he could have taken some of the other gulf states (UAE, Qatar, etc.) and owned a huge chunk of the world’s oil supply. That’s a long-term Bad Thing.
We might have averted Gulf War I, had we started the military and diplomatic defense before Sadam’s invasion of Kuwait.
Unlike the imaginery evidence of WMD to justify the second war, we had adundant hard evidence Sadam was going to invade Kuwait. Bush I stuck his head in the sand just like his son would do concerning the warnings of 911. Bush II did nothing domestically about the intelligence of an imminant terrorist attack, Bush I didn’t move troops, a war ship or anything to show we were prepared to fight Iraq’s invasion intentions.
I always saw one positive of GWI as a hardcore demonstration to the world that, yes, the Cold War is over.
I mean, the USA and Russia working together on…anything?!? Inconcievable!
-Joe, not Siciliian
OK, so what would have happened if Saddam had taken over the entire Arab world? (And I’m granting a lot here. I don’t think it would have come to that.)
So he’d control a lot of oil. And? That would be worse than the present situation ($50 bbl oil) in what way? He would still have to sell his oil, wouldn’t he? And we wouldn’t be threatened by Islamic terrorists, would we?
Which is worse: pricy oil or the threat of terrorism? Hell, right now we have both.
On a related subject, regardless of whether you think starting Gulf War I was a mistake, once it began, do you think the U.S. should have pushed onward to Baghdad rather than stopping when they did? Why or why not?
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
And the Iraqi treatment of the Kuwaitis was awful.
QUOTE]
And the American treatment of the Iraqis is commendable??
[QUOTE=wisernow]
Puh-Lease, it may not be, but to put it in the same league as Saddam is laughable and downright offensive.
Bush I had good reasons to stop where he did.
Bush II decided the voices in his head were worth more than the voice of his pappy.
Of course, had we done this 13 years ago instead, we might have soldiers from other nations dying, rather than (almost) exclusively Americans and Iraqis.
-Joe
No, we should not have ‘finished the job’ in 1991; it would have unified the Arab world against us, made our coalition dissolve, and violated the UN mandate we had in the first place.
I do think we should have supported later uprisings in Iraq with weapons and arms, and know for a fact that including helicopters in the no-fly-list from 1992-1993 would have resulted in the rebels winning in their uprising against Saddam at that time. He literally controlled nothing of Iraq outside of Bagdad at one point, until he got his choppers flying, and they he savagely put down the rebellion using air power which we allowed him to have.
The problem might have been a fundamentalist Iraq, but as we had supported that fundamentalist group into power it would likely have a better relationship than we entertain now…
I’m really ambivilent on this question. At the time of the war, I was against it. Now, looking back, it’s more of a mixed bag.
The pros:
-
Stopping an agressive war of conquest. The UN was involved, everybody got together, and we took care of business. This is the way the UN is supposed to work. This is part of the reason it was founded in the first place.
-
Destruction of Iraq’s military and the end of Hussien’s nuclear ambitions. Shame Bush had to lie about it in order to justify the current debacle.
-
Ensured that not too much of the oil supply would fall under the control of one country, and therefore could not be used (much) as a weapon against the oil-dependant west. Of course, we could have focused on using less oil instead…
The cons:
-
The fact that the war was fought at all represents a failure of diplomacy.
-
The previously mentioned failure to support an uprising that could have toppled S.H. But that’s really a mistake made after the war and does not have a bearing on the decision to fight the war in the first place.
-
The fact that we went to war for a monarchy and not a democracy. This was a big factor in my opposition to the war in the first place.
-
I think the war was seen as the first phase of Bush I’s reelection campaign. Waging war for domestic political advantage is a dangerous precedent in a democracy.
-
By standing up against one form of international agression and ignoring others, it made us look like hypocrites. I thought at the time it was a war for oil, and I still think so.
-
Hoo boy did it put some bad ideers in W.'s head!
So, in conclusion, I don’t know how I feel about the first Gulf war, except that in retrospect I think the professional and rational way it was run makes the current leadership look like a bunch of amateurs.
I never thought about it before. The first gulf war really was about oil, and trying to prevent Saddam from having a strangehold on the world’s oil economy. But would him controlling large sums of oil be any worse for the world than the Saudis controlling them?
I would say overall the first gulf war was not a good idea, but I think that terrorists would still hate us violently and would still attack. The motivation for terrorism seems to largely be based on xenophobia, racism and anger over their dying culture. True US troops in saudi arabia pissed them off but so does US support of Israel, so does the fact that more Jews live in the US than live in Israel, so does american entertainment, and so does US support of politicians in the middle east. Ayatollah Khomeini came to power on a hate america platform 12 years before the gulf war.
-
Iran signed a peace treaty with Iraq in 1988, and the gulf war was in 1990. Besides, wouldn’t an armed Iran on a war footing be more dangerous than one that didn’t have to worry about invasion? Iran on a war footing would be more interested in purchasing military hardware, developing WMD and building up a military infrastructure with competent spies, assassins, terrorists, etc.
-
I was going to make this long post about how Saddam was responsible for the suffering under the sanctions but figure it’ll take away from the purpose of this thread. Overall though my point was that the blame on the US for the deaths in Iraq is largely unfair and even though terrorists blame us for the deaths of Iraqi children, their blame is irrational and basing foreign policy on what doesn’t anger hate filled people with an axe to grind is not a good way to run a country. Had they not been pissed about this they would’ve found something else to wail about.
Jeesus as if there is any democracies in the Middle East anyway. So how can you oppose it? Saddams alternative isn’t better.
This question not even remotely a ‘mixed bag’. Anyone who thinks that, A) Arabs would have been better off if Saddam had been left alone to do what he wanted in the middle east, or B) War could have been averted, is crazy or horribly misguided.
Look, if Saddam had been allowed to stay in Kuwait, he would have had a huge new source of oil revenue. He would have had his deep water ports for his Navy. He would have had nuclear weapons within a few years - he was a lot closer in 1991 than the intelligence community knew. They blew the WMD question then as well, only that time they erred on the wrong side.
So what happens next? Saddam invades Saudi Arabia. How many people would die in that invasion? Hundreds of thousands. Do you think the world would stay out of THAT one? Not a chance. So we would have gone to war anyway, only maybe in 1995 or so, against a MUCH stronger Saddam, over a much larger territory, and perhaps facing nuclear weapons.
But let’s say you guys were running the government, and therefore elected to let Saddam occupy Saudi Arabia. You think the Saudis would be better off? There would have been purges and oppressions and outright genocide. Saddam was willing to kill his own people by the hundreds of thousands. What do you think he would have done to the people in occupied lands? It would be brutal.
But anyway, the dove party agrees that Saddam can be ‘worked with’, and leaves him alone. What’s next? Well, of course a series of wars to eliminate the smaller countries - Bahrain, Jordan, Lebanon, etc. Now Saddam is on Israel’s border. Israel is an ally, and a democratic country. Do we defend it? If not, do you know what would happen? Let me tell you: About 100-200 nuclear detonations in the middle east as Israel uses everything it’s got to survive. Millions dead. If Israel falls, the genocide there would rival the Holocaust. But who cares, eh? They’re onlly Jews. Come on, Brainglutton - just say it. You apparently think the Jews haven’t been ‘Fucked without lubricant’ enough.
But let’s say we stay home from that war too, and let Saddam win (he might not - Israel has kicked the asses of Arab coalition armies before). But let’s say he wins. What then? You think he’s going to go, “Hey, look! Pan Arabism! Now we can all stop fighting and hug puppies!”? No, he’s going to continue on. Egypt? Turkey? Iran? ,
At some point, he would have to be confronted. Will you never learn from history? Appeasing expansionist dictators is a VERY bad idea. It never turns out happy.
There are good arguments for and against the second gulf war. The first gulf war was an absolute necessity. Hell, the U.N. and most of the countries on the planet agreed with that one. I have this suspicion that the only reason we’re revisiting this now and re-thinking it is because you Kerry supporters are trying to justify Kerry’s NO vote on this war. You just can’t admit he was out to lunch and showed horribly bad judgement. So let the rationalizations begin!
Wow, someone with balls who talks sense. I think what you have just said Sam should of been said ages ago.
But anyway, good post.
And, we were so clearly shocked by this choice that we immediately condemned him and withdrew our support completely from him!
Oh wait…I was in one of those parallel universes again!
Oh, could someone remind me again exactly which WMD ‘Reagan’ gave Iraq? I mean, aside from the small amount of anthrax that he got from the Department of agriculture for public health purposes?