Invading Kuwait didnt exactly do him any favours, and yes i know Iraq essentially had there reasons, but Saddam probably should
have thought a little bit more about that one.
That is obviously a fact. But what isn’t so well known is the account I personally received talking to some Iraqi defectors (former Ba’athists) in
It’s how the US State Department basically told Saddam (pre-invasion) that invading Kuwait would be perfectly fine…
It is now more than fifteen years since that fateful meeting on July 25, 1990 between then-US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie and President
Saddam Hussein that the Iraqi leader interpreted as a green light from Washington for his invasion of Kuwait eight days later.
It seems far more likely that Saddam Hussein went ahead with the invasion because he believed the US would not react with anything more than
verbal condemnation. That was an inference he could well have drawn from his meeting with US Ambassador April Glaspie on July 25, and from statements
by State Department officials in Washington at the same time publicly disavowing any US security commitments to Kuwait, but also from the success of
both the Reagan and the Bush administrations in heading off attempts by the US Senate to impose sanctions on Iraq for previous breaches of
international law. en.wikipedia.org...
In a now famous interview with the Iraqi leader, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam, ‘[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts,
like your border disagreement with Kuwait.' The U.S. State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had ‘no special defense or security
commitments to Kuwait.' The United States may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did."
After the Iran-Iraq war Iraq was left with one of the largest militaries in the world. It’s equipment had been bought of the international
market, and so was very dated in comparison to the e.g. cruise missiles, or stealth fighters the US had been developing. However it was huge, and was
deemed a potential threat to Israel –not helped by Saddam’s (like many Muslim men’s) personal commitment to the Palestinian cause –including
the occasional use of terrorism against both settlers-colonists, and legitimate Israeli citizens.
Worse: He wanted to spread his Ba’ath Party ideology (of Westernisation), and if he couldn’t do it through force, then he would do by
backing revolution within our unstable allies, oil supplying, despotic regimes.
We needed to “cut him down to size” but had zero excuse (as he wasn’t doing anything particularly wrong) (just yet, in the 3 years
following the Iran-Iraq wars close). But Kuwait (under Western encouragement) was both stealing Iraqi oil through slant drilling, and simultaneously
flooding the market with it’s oil. (Kuwait was formally part of Mesopotamia –modern day Iraq) for thousands of years until the British Empire
separated it by giving it independence in 1961 –30 years after doing the same for Iraq.
In the 1930’s we had included as much Iraqi oil as possible within it’s borders, in the name of preventing Iraq being too powerful in the then
This had caused an Iraqi recession as the country was loaded to the eye balls with war debt (primarily for weapons the US and Europe had made a small
fortune by supplying both sides).
4. So having (in private) given him the impression it was ok, as a US ally, to reunite Kuwait with Iraq, we then immediately criticised him the moment
he did it. Now a Western leader could just withdraw their forces. Unfortunately Arabs have this pride about not bowing down, and kissing the feet of
Western forces. Consequently had Saddam just withdrawn –basically done a raid on Kuwait which would have taught them a lesson not to be forgotten
lightly… Well… With the majority of the population Shiite -i.e. religiously hostile to him and his people, he realised the conditions would be
right for a coup against him (since as said, these were heavily armed people, from his now oversized military). So he left the troops there until they
were bombed out (thinking they would be less likely to rebel, and conditions would quickly return to normal). Afterwards there was a Shiite uprising
However America betrayed them, when the president publically promised them support, only for the military to take photos as Iraqi helicopters poured
petrol on the muteness crowds. Without US intervention, or even supply of weapons the rebellion which at one point had reached around 80% of Iraq’s
cities was doomed.
Why We Didn’t Help the Uprising
1. Iraq had WMD’s: Not such a problem in Saddam’s hands as he already proven himself sane enough not to use them against coalition forces in
Dessert Storm. However if his government was overthrown, you then get “the inevitable period of anarchy” in which people can walk into military
bases, and deliver them into terrorists hands. Terrorists who could exercise exactly no control-influence on whatsoever, terrorists more than likely
to e.g. use biological weapons against Israel’s tiny population of then 6 million.
2. We didn’t much like the idea of a Shiite population ruling Iraq anyway, as they would be (religiously & culturally) natural allies of the Iranian
people & therefore regime.
3. There was much we liked about Saddam (being naturally both anti Communist, and anti-Iranian). In addition he had proven himself to be one of the
few regimes (after many before him) capable of holding Iraq together (useful for Western businesses hoping to do productive business there).
All he had to agree to was…
A. Stop supporting the Palestinians (he never did)
B. Give up on any ideology ideas of spreading Ba’ath Party outside Iraq (again he never did)
C. Accept Kuwait is never going to be part of Iraq (he did by formally recognising it in 1994)
D. Agree to a reduced military even after sanctions (it never got that far)
After Saddam had disarmed Iraq of WMD’s (actually completed in 1995 after a close friend, and party member, betrayed the location of the remaining
ones to the UN, he had tried to keep behind), and with Bush the 2nd coming to power (and now after 12 years of Saddam not even half complying with the
above demands) we thought we could impose a “democracy” that would fulfil all the above demands, and keep the country reasonably stable, and
therefore produce a good country to increase world oil market supply (and therefore price stability).
Whilst the new Iraqi government is (currently) keeping to all the above demands, it’s new liberated Shiite nature, together
with the low living standards, will quite inevitably make it (to all practical purposes) a territorial expansion of Iran (the only difference is the
new Iraqi generation lack of education, grinding poverty, and experience of invasion, make it in many ways an even more religiously & ideologically
extreme partner to their Iranian population counter-parts.
Furthermore: We have completely “shot to pieces” the idea a dictator can unilaterally get rid of his WMD’s, and not face “regime change” at
the earliest, politically convenient opportunity (as Iraq and now Libya both confirm). This is bad news, as now we are currently trying to persuade
Iran we’ll actually tolerate piece with them (without supporting regime change with external or internal) if only they would be stupid enough to get
rid of their WMD’s.
Propaganda is when you try in influence people. Its doesnt have to be a bad thing. Its bad that you dont know what it is
even though I have showed you.
When people try to influence others for commercial gain it’s called “Marketing” and when people do it in politics it’s “Campaigning”. I
agree that both (are technically) propaganda, and therefore yes, you could say I was a propagandist. But in practice: To call someone a
propagandist is to accuse them of campaigning-marketing with dubious tactics.
I believe I’ve displayed none, and therefore reject to this
It’s rather like (how technically) the word “Nigger” is Latin for “black” or “gay” means “happy”. But you wouldn’t go casually
calling people Gay-Nigger without expecting a rather different response to any obscure meaning you (may) have actually meant!
edit on 090705 by
Liberal1984 because: (no reason given)