It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why didn't U.S. and UN forces go onto Baghdad and get rid of Saddam Hussein in 1991? Think about al

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Think about all the crap we would have avoided had we gone onto to Baghdad and take him out in 1991. I understand the UN mandate only allowed the liberate Kuwait but looking back think of all the crap we would have avoided. Had we done that in 1991, the twin towers would have been standing, the U.S. and it's allies would not invade Afghanistan at all, save more than 10,000 American and coalition lives, and we would been still have a standing as peace in the middle east.




posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 


Here is my two cents on why.

A QUICK WAR IS NOT A PROFITABLE WAR



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paulioetc15
the twin towers would have been standing


Um... If you honestly believe that, you need to do some reading. SEE: any internet news related to 9/11 in the past decade.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Why didn't U.S. and UN forces go onto Baghdad and get rid of Saddam Hussein in 1991

The United States forces were the ones on the border to go into Iraq.
The United Nations told George Bush (41) that he couldn't go to Baghdad. They disapproved.
George Bush - being the good lil' NWO boy - did what the United Nations told him to do.
Why he bowed down to that organization is a mystery. But he did.
If he had the backbone that he should have, he could have ended it all in 1991 and
we never would have gone into Iraq under Bush43.

Anyways - we didn't go into Baghdad because Bush41 did what the UN told him to do - not go.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Because Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a counterbalance to Iran. Once that counterweight was removed, Iran would go ballistic and try to dominate the region. In fact, that's what's happening now. Iran would never dare to mine the Strait of Hormuz with Saddam breathing down their necks.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 



Shouldn`t have been there in 1991 never mind any other time.
What did Saddam or Iraq have to do with the Twin Towers ?
I really think you need to research these illegal wars/invasions.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by lambros56
 



I really think you need to research these illegal wars/invasions.


I think you need to research who invaded who in 1991.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 


First off 9/11 has nothing to do with Saddam. Saddam, dispite being a war monger, dictating pshychopath, he did keep the region stable. I went to school with people from Bagdad and they didn't like Saddam one bit. But like they said. One crazy guy running the show and keeping all the other crazies in check. Or killing the head crazy and let all the other run free. See they needed Saddam to keep the peace for a little while. The Americans were not affraid of Saddam. Not at all. So they kept him there so they could do their own business unimpeded then when they needed to destablize the region for further conquering they killed him. Same with Gadafi.
edit on 9-2-2012 by XLR8R because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
I wanted to but they wouldn't let me.I also told them we would have to come back,nobody listens.Where we dropped the ball was in not supporting the uprising that occurred after I invaded.Well..not JUST me, there were some other people.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by lambros56
 



I really think you need to research these illegal wars/invasions.


I think you need to research who invaded who in 1991.




I believe The invasion of Kuwait was set up.....which led to the invasion/war of Iraq.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Why didn't U.S. and UN forces go onto Baghdad and get rid of Saddam Hussein in 1991

The United States forces were the ones on the border to go into Iraq.
The United Nations told George Bush (41) that he couldn't go to Baghdad. They disapproved.
George Bush - being the good lil' NWO boy - did what the United Nations told him to do.
Why he bowed down to that organization is a mystery. But he did.
If he had the backbone that he should have, he could have ended it all in 1991 and
we never would have gone into Iraq under Bush43.

Anyways - we didn't go into Baghdad because Bush41 did what the UN told him to do - not go.


Do you really think that it was the U.N. that stopped Bush 41? I doubt it. I would suggest that you take a little time and investigate a Mr. John Perkins and his book, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman." Here's a background article that will get you off to a good start; www.wanttoknow.info...

In this short video Mr Perkins touches on the reasons for not going to Baghdad in '91



For a more complete and in depth explanation, you owe it to yourself to watch this video;



It really is a little deeper than Bush41 bowing down to the U.N..



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Errrr because they decided it was far more proffitable to stangle him with sanctions, steal as much oil as they could and spend the next ten years bombing it every day weakening it to the point where a later invasion would be a cake walk. Which it was.

They could also blame him for something. Which they did.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 




Why didn't U.S. and UN forces go onto Baghdad and get rid of Saddam Hussein in 1991?


Well, on the surface, it was a promise NOT to invade Iraq once Kuwait had been liberated, that was the common thread in what was then referred to as the 'coalition of nations'. For the first time in history, US, European, Arabic, Baltic, Asian and African nations worked together both in the field and behind the scenes.

That's the surface features... the topography of the historical record. And it holds water because later, when 'W' Bush was elected and made a bee-line for Iraq after 9.11, it seemed just too obvious that he wanted to save his daddy's honor (Hussein had shamed him in the no-fly zones) by sacking the paper tyrant.

Unfortunately, the 2003 invasion would eventually backfire so horribly as to make the US a pariah among nations... and turn a world that was our friends into political enemies. It will take decades to undo this mess...

On a final note... I'd like to add that the US has made a second blunder by pulling out of Iraq here on the verge of potential hostilities with Iran. Babylon is holy ground when it comes to war in that region... giving it away is contrary to good thinking. We could have hung around another year or two, built schools and repaved their roads and still had the same effect as an infantry division or two would have had to the strategic climate.




edit on 9-2-2012 by redoubt because: typos



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Are you referring to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq that got underway because of the silent nod by the USA that it would be ok ?

Or do you believe still today that Saddam Hussein was completely nuts and his background deals with the CIA had no importance nor the USA support for Iraq conflict with Iran...

The reason why Saddam got into Kuwait was because of oil prices, the Kuwaitis were undermining Iraq (you also need to know a bit about the history of the region, something that was never properly told to Western public)...



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by XLR8R
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 


First off 9/11 has nothing to do with Saddam. Saddam, dispite being a war monger, dictating pshychopath, he did keep the region stable. I went to school with people from Bagdad and they didn't like Saddam one bit. But like they said. One crazy guy running the show and keeping all the other crazies in check. Or killing the head crazy and let all the other run free. See they needed Saddam to keep the peace for a little while. The Americans were not affraid of Saddam. Not at all. So they kept him there so they could do their own business unimpeded then when they needed to destablize the region for further conquering they killed him. Same with Gadafi.
edit on 9-2-2012 by XLR8R because: (no reason given)


It's not that. The presence in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s is one of the reasons why Bin Laden attacked the U.S. in 9/11 and now we are in Afghanistan because of it. Yes 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq and Bush uses as an excuse but isn't my point. That means we should have taken Saddam out in 1991.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 





Well, on the surface, it was a promise NOT to invade Iraq once Kuwait had been liberated, that was the common thread in what was then referred to as the 'coalition of nations'. For the first time in history, US, European, Arabic, Baltic, Asian and African nations worked together both in the field and behind the scenes.


Do you read what i said in my post. I do understand that it was not a mission to remove Saddam as at that time to remove Saddam from Kuwait. I don't think religions violence had to do with anything. Either Bush Sr should have finished the job or don't go help Saudi Arabia at all. Simply as that. Besides why can't the Arabs handle themselves instead of relying on the U.S. and it's allies for help?



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Can i suggest that toppling Saddam in 1991 and staying around as an occupying power (stability force) throughout the 1990s is unlikely to have made the USA any more popular with the disenfranchised Saudi Arabians that blew up the WTC in 2001.

If anything it may have made it happen earlier.

The ground invasion of Iraq was old school imperialism (and settlement of a bush family grudge) dressed up as protecting america. Nothing at all to do with 9/11 at all.


edit on 9-2-2012 by justwokeup because: pesky spellchecker...



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, or Saddam Hussein. The mission of the "first Gulf War" was to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait who had invaded.
It wasn't just the UN that told Bush no.... His own field commanders...at the time General Colin Powell who told him no, and why that would be a major mistake.

I still believe that's why Bush Jr. almost immediately after 9/11 happened told his staff to try to find a link to 9/11 and Iraq. He wanted to finish what he thought his father should have. There never was a link. We still invaded on the pretext of freeing a terrorist state, or some BS like that.

No...continuing to Baghdad in 1991 would have been a mistake. Saudi Arabia and many other Arab states at the time FULLY supported the US removing Saddam from Kuwait. But would have balked at us going any farther than than. It wasn't a war to defeat Iraq. It was to remove Iraq from Kuwait.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by webpirate
 




It wasn't just the UN that told Bush no.... His own field commanders...at the time General Colin Powell who told him no, and why that would be a major mistake


Please explain why would it be a major mistake to charge into Baghdad and remove Saddam in 1991? Please explain. This is what i'm talking about and none of them people answer here knows what i'm talking about. Do you realize our presence in Saudi Arabia is one of the reasons why 9/11 happened?



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paulioetc15
reply to post by webpirate
 




It wasn't just the UN that told Bush no.... His own field commanders...at the time General Colin Powell who told him no, and why that would be a major mistake


Please explain why would it be a major mistake to charge into Baghdad and remove Saddam in 1991? Please explain. This is what i'm talking about and none of them people answer here knows what i'm talking about. Do you realize our presence in Saudi Arabia is one of the reasons why 9/11 happened?


Indeed we do.

What we don't understand is why you think in addition to having the facilities in Saudi and other gulf states, having an occupying force bleeding in Iraq for most of the 1990s would have made those Saudi extremists any happier with the USA.

Clarify your point please.




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join