The Invasion of Kuwait

[Woody]

Quote:

Iraq had invaded Kuwait and in the cease-fire treaty to end that conflict they agreed to allow weapons inspectors in the country and to have no-fly zones.

Yeah. True. And if Saddam had not invaded Kuwait he might still be using his WMD on his people. But he crossed a line in the sand by invading Kuwait.

[Woody]

But did Saddam consider the Kurds to be *his* people?

Well I can't get into his twisted mind - but the point is : He had WMD and used it on people.

[bonnie]

Why did Obama invade Iraq in the first place? I have never seen on good reason for him to start that war and bankrupt his country. 160,000 Iraqi civilians killed because he fell for the line that there were WMD...?

I wonder how many of those would have died under Saddam anyway or seen death as a pleasant alternative to living under his rule.How many civilians did he gas and torture?

Most recognizable names among democrat in power supported and "fell" for the same line.

[Guest]

Most recognizable names among democrats in power supported and "fell" for the same line.

Almost All! But they don't talk about that now for some reason. It was Bush who fell for the "line". They also don't talk about where the "line" came from, because then they wouldn't be able to refer to it as just a "line".

[Stan]

A higher percentage of Americans wanted Bush changed than the Iraqis want him changed... am not saying he (saddam) did not do anything wrong.

What he did right, was he protected Adventists, paid for most of the rebuilding of our Church there, gave our kids religious liberty NOT to write exams on Sabbath and had 12 seats every Sunday for them to write exams they would not on Sabbath. He encouraged us to us Iraq as a spring board to take adventism to the other muslim nations. AND had the adventist minister on his personal counsel.

I do agree with your RLH that GWB got taken by people he trusted. He did say something about that once. BUT he never offered to make that right.

[Dr. Shane]

I think Adventists as an organization tend to be submissive to civil governments because we see our mission as distinctly religious and not political. I support that. However that does mean that as an organization we end up supporting bad government dictatorships just like we also support good government democracies. I don't have a problem with that either because as an organization we do not have a political mission.

Understanding that, it only makes sense for dictators to be supportive of Adventists because they can feel relatively confident that the Adventist organization will not support an effort to overthrow them.

While a larger percentage of Americans may have disapproved of Bush than Iraqis disapproved of Saddam that doesn't mean a lot. The internals of those statistics would be more revealing. Did the Iraqi media inform the Iraqi public of all the bad things Saddam did to the same degree that the American media informed the American public of all the questionable things Bush or those in his administration did? The media played a huge role in driving Bush's approval rating down. How friendly was the Iraqi media to Saddam?

[Stan]

Dictator is word used my the media/gov't to bring anger against someone they want to overthrow.

In his trial the IRAQI judge said he was NOT a dictator..

What happened in Egypt was fascinating... the previous leader had 80% of the popular vote.. and was over thrown, by a group of people using Facebook and tweeter. When this elected official was labled as a dictator.. the world went against him.

Am not saying it wa right or wrong, am saying it was fascinating to follow.

Even Fidel gets elected... how weird is that?

[Woody]

Voting has little to do with it Stan.

In some countries - if you don't vote for the "strongman" you somehow "disappear".

[bonnie]

Dictator is word used my the media/gov't to bring anger against someone they want to overthrow.

In his trial the IRAQI judge said he was NOT a dictator..

What happened in Egypt was fascinating... the previous leader had 80% of the popular vote.. and was over thrown, by a group of people using Facebook and tweeter. When this elected official was labeled as a dictator.. the world went against him.

Am not saying it was right or wrong, am saying it was fascinating to follow.

Even Fidel gets elected... how weird is that?

Wikipedia............

Human rights organizations have documented government-approved executions, acts of torture and rape for decades since Saddam Hussein came to power in 1979 until his fall in 2003.

* In 2002, a resolution sponsored by the European Union was adopted by the Commission for Human Rights, which stated that there had been no improvement in the human rights crisis in Iraq. The statement condemned President Saddam Hussein's government for its "systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law". The resolution demanded that Iraq immediately put an end to its "summary and arbitrary executions... the use of rape as a political tool and all enforced and involuntary disappearances".[1]

* Full political participation at the national level was restricted only to members of the Ba'ath Party, which constituted only 8% of the population.

* Iraqi citizens were not allowed to assemble legally unless it was to express support for the government. The Iraqi government controlled the establishment of political parties, regulated their internal affairs and monitored their activities.

* Police checkpoints on Iraq's roads and highways prevented ordinary citizens from traveling abroad without government permission and expensive exit visas. Before traveling, an Iraqi citizen had to post collateral. Iraqi females could not travel outside of the country without the escort of a man relative.[2]

* The activities of citizens living inside Iraq who received money from relatives abroad were closely monitored[citation needed].

* Halabja poison gas attack:The Halabja poison gas attack occurred in the period 15–19 March 1988 during the Iran–Iraq War when chemical weapons were used by the Iraqi government forces and thousands of civilians in the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja were killed.[3]

* Al-Anfal Campaign: In 1988, the Hussein regime began a campaign of extermination against the Kurdish people living in Northern Iraq. This is known as the Anfal campaign. The campaign was mostly directed at Shiite kurds (Faili Kurds) who sided with Iranians during the Iraq-Iran War. The attacks resulted in the death of at least 50,000 (some reports estimate as many as 100,000 people), many of them women and children. A team of Human Rights Watch investigators determined, after analyzing eighteen tons of captured Iraqi documents, testing soil samples and carrying out interviews with more than 350 witnesses, that the attacks on the Kurdish people were characterized by gross violations of human rights, including mass executions and disappearances of many tens of thousands of noncombatants, widespread use of chemical weapons including Sarin, mustard gas and nerve agents that killed thousands, the arbitrary imprisoning of tens of thousands of women, children, and elderly people for months in conditions of extreme deprivation, forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of villagers after the demolition of their homes, and the wholesale destruction of nearly two thousand villages along with their schools, mosques, farms and power stations.[3][4]

* In April 1991, after Saddam lost control of Kuwait in the Persian Gulf War, he cracked down ruthlessly against several uprisings in the Kurdish north and the Shia south. His forces committed wholesale massacres and other gross human rights violations against both groups similar to the violations mentioned before. Estimates of deaths during that time range from 20,000 to 100,000 for Kurds, and 60,000 to 130,000 for Shi'ites.[5]

* In June 1994, the Hussein regime in Iraq established severe penalties, including amputation, branding and the death penalty for criminal offenses such as theft, corruption, currency speculation and military desertion, while government members and Saddam's family members were immune from punishments ranging around these crimes.[6]

* On March 23, 2003 during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Iraqi television presented and interviewed prisoners of war on TV, violating the Geneva Convention.

* Also in April 2003, CNN revealed that it had withheld information about Iraq torturing journalists and Iraqi citizens in the 1990s. According to CNN's chief news executive, the channel had been concerned for the safety not only of its own staff, but also of Iraqi sources and informants, who could expect punishment for speaking freely to reporters. Also according to the executive, "other news organizations were in the same bind."[7]

* After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, several mass graves were found in Iraq containing several thousand bodies total and more are being uncovered to this day.[8] While most of the dead in the graves were believed to have died in the 1991 uprising against Saddam Hussein, some of them appeared to have died due to executions or died at times other than the 1991 rebellion.

* Also after the invasion, numerous torture centers were found in security offices and police stations throughout Iraq. The equipment found at these centers typically included hooks for hanging people by the hands for beatings, devices for electric shock and other equipment often found in nations with harsh security services and other authoritarian nations.

[lazarus]

What happened in Egypt was fascinating... the previous leader had 80% of the popular vote.. and was over thrown, by a group of people using Facebook and tweeter. When this elected official was labled as a dictator.. the world went against him.

You're right, It is interesting how these guys were once staunch allies of the West and then suddenly become enemies of the West. In the west we are so easily manipulated. I'd encourage everyone to read (or Reread) Orwells 1984. IMHO things are slowly creeping in that direction.

[lazarus]

Some forget the thousands and thousands of people that died at the hands of Saddam's WMD that he used on his own people. He had to be stopped.

Come on!! He wasn't stopped becasue he used WMD on his people. That was 1988!! If there was no oil then Saddam would still be ruling Iraq today. He had to be stopped becasue the western nations had to have their supply of oil.

Why do you think we are engaged in so many wars, liberty? Are you kidding?

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: Woody

Some forget the thousands and thousands of people that died at the hands of Saddam's WMD that he used on his own people. He had to be stopped.

Come on!! He wasn't stopped becasue he used WMD on his people. That was 1988!! If there was no oil then Saddam would still be ruling Iraq today. He had to be stopped becasue the western nations had to have their supply of oil.

Why do you think we are engaged in so many wars, liberty? Are you kidding?

I don't think we have ever gotten more than 5% of our oil from Iraq and are getting less now than 1999.

I doubt this was about 5%

[lazarus]

5% is a lot of oil.

Iraq's proven oil reserves are 113 billion barrels, the second largest in the world after Saudi Arabia, and eleven percent of the world's total. The total reserves could be 200 million barrels or more, all of it relatively easy and cheap to extract.

I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil - Alan Greenspan (2007)

Of course it’s about oil, we can’t really deny that - General John Abizaid (2007)

People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America’s national interest. What the hell do you think they’re talking about? We’re not there for figs - Republican Senator Charles Hagel (2007)

[Woody]

I'm disappointed in your posts Laz.

The reason for the war with Iraq was multifaceted. The main reason was that an ally was attacked. This enemy had been warned. He had raped his own people and yes - we only warned him. But, attacking his neighbor was the last straw.

It really had almost nothing to do with oil. The only aspect of oil was the fact that he ruined his country's environment with his childish displays of letting the oil flow all over the desert. This angered the environmentalists in our country. But other than that - it really had nothing to do with oil.

[Dr. Shane]

Dictator is word used my the media/gov't to bring anger against someone they want to overthrow.

In his trial the IRAQI judge said he was NOT a dictator..

[Woody]

Exactly Shane. One thing that dictators have in common is that they manage to get nearly 100% of the vote.

[Dr. Shane]

If there was no oil then Saddam would still be ruling Iraq today.

[phkrause]

Lazarus I have to diagree with you. If we went over there just for the oil, than why is it we didn't get any? We actually protected the oil and Iraq has been selling it and making good money. The only problem I have with what was not done is, that we didn't make them pay for there own repairs, and have them pay us back for some of the money it cost us to help them out.

[Woody]

Lazarus I have to diagree with you. If we went over there just for the oil, than why is it we didn't get any? We actually protected the oil and Iraq has been selling it and making good money. The only problem I have with what was not done is, that we didn't make them pay for there own repairs, and have them pay us back for some of the money it cost us to help them out.

[lazarus]

Lazarus I have to diagree with you. If we went over there just for the oil, than why is it we didn't get any? We actually protected the oil and Iraq has been selling it and making good money. The only problem I have with what was not done is, that we didn't make them pay for there own repairs, and have them pay us back for some of the money it cost us to help them out.

It's not about getting some now its about securing the supply via US corporations 5, 10, 15 years hence.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/30/iraq.oil

The Iraqi government is to award a series of key oil contracts to British and US companies later today, fuelling criticism that the Iraq war was largely about oil.

The successful companies are expected to include Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Total.

Non-Western companies, notably those in Russia, are expected to lose out.

The government prosecutes the war and the corporations exploit the natural resources.

[lazarus]

Saddam's supply of oil allowed him to finance his WMD programs and to support terrorism. It also allowed him to bribe members of the UN Security Council. So I think it is very true that if it wasn't for Iraq's oil Saddam would still be ruling today.

It was documented that Key Bush admin figures did not see Saddam as a threat. They did not see his WMD's as a threat. WMD became a convenient reason after 911 to attempt to rearrange the Mid-East landscape by invading another country:Iraq.

Why is the US so interested in the Middle East anyway? Oil.

[Dr. Shane]

It was documented that Key Bush admin figures did not see Saddam as a threat. They did not see his WMD's as a threat.

Don't buy into the conspiracy theories. After 9/11 the President of Russia called President Bush directly and told him that Russian intelligence had information of a plot by Saddam Hussien to use terrorists to attack the US with WMDs. Saddam had already tried to assassinate a former US President. After the invasion we discovered the Russian intelligence was right but outdated. Saddam's plot had to attack the US on American soil using terrorists and WMDs was made in 1996 and never carried out.

If there was nothing to the WMDs concern, one might question why Senators Clinton and Kerry both believed it was a threat. We might also wonder why Al Gore Jr. and Bill Clinton were beating the war drums in 1998.

The US has a huge source of oil right here. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal and can turn coal into oil for $40/barrel. We don't need to go to war to get what we already have.

[Dr. Shane]

Why is the US so interested in the Middle East anyway? Oil.

No oil in Israel. There goes that conspiracy theory.

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: pkrause

Lazarus I have to diagree with you. If we went over there just for the oil, than why is it we didn't get any? We actually protected the oil and Iraq has been selling it and making good money. The only problem I have with what was not done is, that we didn't make them pay for there own repairs, and have them pay us back for some of the money it cost us to help them out.

It's not about getting some now its about securing the supply via US corporations 5, 10, 15 years hence.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/30/iraq.oil

The Iraqi government is to award a series of key oil contracts to British and US companies later today, fuelling criticism that the Iraq war was largely about oil.

The successful companies are expected to include Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Total.

Non-Western companies, notably those in Russia, are expected to lose out.

The government prosecutes the war and the corporations exploit the natural resources.

I still disagree, but you make a good point. We'll have to see down the line how true this well be.

[lazarus]

Don't buy into the conspiracy theories.

Sorry, simply facts...Here's Colin Powell Feb 2001: Cairo.

the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. (Emphasis added ) So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

Condi Rice CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer, July 29, 2001

Where's your evidence or do you simply rely on the spin from the government?