It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Anyway, USA didn't win first IRAQ war and...

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 16 2003 @ 08:05 AM
... History allways repeat, almost when the 2nd IRAQ war will be made by BUSH junior.

If the ELDER cannot kill or capture SADDAM, just tell me HOW the son will be better than the father ?!

posted on Feb, 16 2003 @ 08:12 AM
What, did you sleep through the first war? Pappa Bush did not attempt to capture Hussein; that was not what the mission was.

posted on Feb, 16 2003 @ 01:15 PM
Nans, you seem to have lost the plot somewhere along the line.

The objective of GWI was to free Kuwait, not capture Saddam Hussein.

The objective of GWII is to disarm Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction.

What is the point youre trying to make here anyway? If you have an argument, then logically present it and provide documentation and relevant links. Otherwise, youre like wind chimes clanging in the wind. A bit of noise and very little substance.

Think about it,

posted on Feb, 16 2003 @ 01:18 PM
During Gulf War 1, Saddams main oil contracts were with Bush, which is why he didnt attempt to capture or kill Saddam.... However, in recent years FRANCE has taken that role from Bush, and since Saddam has certain incriminating information regarding the Bush family, he is now a target for elimination.... meanwhile, FRANCE, who since GW1, has been busily providing Saddam with every new military technology they can smuggle into the country, is now roadblocking all attempts, as they do not want anything to happen to thier most lucrative cash cow.

posted on Feb, 16 2003 @ 01:22 PM
i agree deepwaters. i have even read that norman schwarzkopf asked powell and bush to remove saddam, but he did not get green light. but this time they will get saddam...i hope so.

posted on Feb, 16 2003 @ 01:47 PM
Pirate, read Schwarzkopf's book - "It Doesn't Take A Hero". He lays out all his frustrations and resentments about stupid burocrats limiting the military machine from completing it's objectives in GWI. He said, "Look, we're here now and need to finish the job by taking Baghdad", but the damned politicians interferred and blocked him from accomplishing that.

I also believe that France has a vested interest in blocking the U.S. from toppling Saddam, because all their oil deals with him would be jeprodized. Both France and Germany have deals for Iraqi oil and resent / fear American involvement and especially control over the oil flow in Iraq (to them).

So they continue to stall for time, thereby aiding Saddam because they all know that the longer this drags out, the more war protestors will get on TV, swaying public sentiment. Also, the incredible cost of maintaining the military build-up and readiness would be compromised.

Let's face the facts: Saddam Hussein is a threat to world peace and his days are numbered. The allied forces aren't there for a picnic, and will surely go in, do the business and get him - one way or another. Even, if he went into exile, his life wouldn't be worth a plugged nickel.

posted on Feb, 16 2003 @ 09:16 PM
Nans DESMICHELS you are confused as to how America operates. Just like Osama bin laden was confused in relation to the World Trade Center, it was not actually the place where the United States conducted is world operations in relation to economics.

Beyond the President of the United States there is someone else who makes the decisions. The only reason he decided not to attack Iraq in QW1 was in relation to the Soviet Union, which was in the process of becoming the Russian Republic. There has been no elder or no son involved in this decision, both son and elder are following orders. Be certain of this Nans DESMICHELS you support a man who committed
Genocide nothing else is important, Saddams time is short and those who support him support mass

posted on Feb, 17 2003 @ 02:06 AM
link free KUWAIT, but I often hear BUSH the elder says that A SECONDARY objective was to kill SADDAM HUSSAIN or to dont let him to power.

Anyway, I think about all this in week-end. And I remember that in 1933, pacifists says also that HITLER wasn't dangerous.

And I now fear that all these movements for peace worldwide finally make SADDAM confiant.

First, I didn't realised the danger that saddam represents : A "pseudo-muslim" leader not only in IRAQ but almost in all arabian world...

Political analysts will often tell you that in way to devellopement countries, politicals institutions have to be hold by a strong power... A dictature system is often the best way to industrialisation...

But I think that SADDAM wants more than devellop IRAQ...
A friend of me told me that he wants to do like SALADIN or HULAYMAN MAGNIFICIENT :

Conquer arabian world from TURQUEY to MAROC...

I'm not blind... I know that saddam can easily buy NUCLEAR MATERIAL for SOME milions $, on the russian market. These materials can be carry in something as small as an attache-case...

UN should confisqu him his lauchers SCUD first. If he refuse, then he have bad intentions.


And I think it's too easy for him... he only have to make a decret to forbidden WMD ?! He joking on us !

[Edited on 17-2-2003 by Nans DESMICHELS]

posted on Feb, 20 2003 @ 08:21 PM
Should the WMD be of Russian Origin having been purchased on the black market, Saddam Hussein?
would not under any circumstances want to turn them into the UN.

He would be exposing not only himself to condemnation for illegally purchasing WMD, but as well expose elements of the Russian Mafia to attention
they would not want.

As well would Russia react violently knowing that for all these years. Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons, which if analyzed would point to them as
the source.

As far as I know a majority of those weapons did come from Russia. Given that who would be the best suppliers of spare parts?

posted on Feb, 20 2003 @ 08:36 PM
nans i'm just gonna reinterate what others said

the first gulf war(1990-1991) was about liberating Kuwait not toppling Saddam so, therefore the US did win, it liberated kuwait and protected saudi arabia from a possible invasion,

now whats ironic is that in 1991 france wanted to drive to baghdad and topple saddam but the US chose not 2, now the US wants saddam toppled but the french don;t want to

posted on Feb, 20 2003 @ 09:08 PM
I've never heard GB say he wanted to kill Saddam in the GW. And I just heard Powell (again) on BET's Openmic program saying the goal was not to go to Baghdad. Other Arab leader also didn't want Saddam to be overthrown. I've even heard Iran said they would 'delivers Saddams head on a silver platter' if the US wanted. The mission, as Powell just said again tonight, was to liberate Kuwait. That mission was completed with great success.

posted on Feb, 20 2003 @ 10:25 PM
The generals in GW1 wanted to roll into baghdad and impliment regime change, but were halted by the United nations mandate. The Mandate was to expel Saddam from Kuwait..which happened and it ended there.

If the UN had a set of nads Iraq would have been Saddam free for 12 years.


posted on Feb, 21 2003 @ 03:37 AM
My friend in reply to your topic.
There are no winners in War, only loosers.

posted on Feb, 21 2003 @ 03:55 AM

Originally posted by barba007
My friend in reply to your topic.
There are no winners in War, only loosers.

The answer is not as easy as that my friend. War for the right reasons saves countless more lives than doing nothing.
Whilst there are some losers in any war, if war had not implemented change then there would be far more losers.

top topics


log in