You sure Bush won't be the one to bomb Iran???

[Sparky]

...was a legitimate military target.

I prefer "THEY FUCKING STARTED IT" arguement.

Churchill tried to distance himself from Dresden. Even in Total War (which WWII was) wreaking that kind of carnage on civilian populations (25k to 40k innocents dead) is wrong. The Wehrmacht were pretty much on the ropes by that stage. And so what if Russia asked us to do it, we should have listened to Patton, Churchill and Monty and kicked their red assess out of Europe in 1945 except your pres' was weak.

How can the Jewish race having been through the horrors of the holocaust condone Israels persecution of Palestine and the West Bank? I am not defending Palestine terror groups. However the grinding poverty; unemployment; poor sanitation; restriction of the freedoms of movement and association; death & short life expectancy; etc must recruit many into the arms of terror groups.

To answer the op's question: give sanctions, negotiation, diplomacy MUCH more effort and time. Going nuclear should not be considered. Demonise and further isolate Iran and it will not end well for anyone.

Also how many of those who post here demanding nuclear strikes have ever fought in armed conflict? I have friends and family who are vets from WWII, Korea, Falklands and both Gulf Wars. Every vet I have ever known is very reluctant to advocate military force. Because unlike the cowardly politicians (and some posting here) they know how much it fucks them and those they maim and kill.

(I am way over 20, ski a bit, have some life and military experience; do I qualify to comment? )

[Roo]

That's the biggest bunch of crap I've heard in awhile.
Become a Quaker. They are dedicated to peace.

A Quaker magazine, reporting the work of an international working party on the Israeli-Palestine conflcit notes that 'we have been disturbed to find that within Israel the option of 'transfer' - that is, the ethnic cleansing of large numbers of Palestinians from the occupied territories, or even of Palestinian citizens from inside Israel itself - is now discussed openly by politicians, intellectuals, religious leaders and many other segments of society... we condemn this idea and any other proposal that fails to respect the equal worth of all of God's children.'

The effect of this policy? Amnesty International devoted a whole report to the targeting of civilians by Palestinian suicide bombers. Between September 2000 and July 2002, at least 350 civilians, most of them Israeli, had been killed in over 128 attacksby Palestinian armed groups or individuals. 'Civilians should never be the focus of attacks, not in the name of security and not in the name of liberty,' Amnesty said. 'We call on the leadership of all Palestinian armed groups to cease attacking civilians, immediately and unconditionally.' The oldest victim of a suicide attack, according to Amnesty, was Chagan Rogan, killed in a Passover bombing at a Netanya hotel on March 27 2002. She was ninety years old.

Grim stuff. Yet there is still a colonial mentality amongst Israeli settlers. Bob Lang , native of Manuet, New York, graduate of Wisconsin University and resdient of Efrat, a settlement of 3,500 inhabitants onm the Hebron road, has clear views on this."No wonder we have these problems. The status quo today is no good. As long as Arabs living here think they will one day have a Palestinian state, they have no reason to come to terms with us. So Israel should stop the military occupation and annex it all outright and tell the Arabs "Your nationalist rights on this side of the River Jordan are finished." The Arabs will accept this when they realise we are serious. The land is mine. I feel it in my bones. It's mine."



This ethnic cleansing must stop if there is to be any hope of peace. For years Palestinians have been failed by their leaders, most notably by Arafat. With a swelling, young population, the genie is escaping from the bottle and Israel needs to act fast if it's to avoid being outbred. Abbas realises this. If Hamas was prepared to play a longer game, they'd win the moral high ground. As ever, Palestinian groups conspire to squander any residual goodwill.

[Craven Morehead]

A Quaker magazine, reporting the work of an international working party on the Israeli-Palestine conflcit notes that 'we have been disturbed to find that within Israel the option of 'transfer' - that is, the ethnic cleansing of large numbers of Palestinians from the occupied territories, or even of Palestinian citizens from inside Israel itself - is now discussed openly by politicians, intellectuals, religious leaders and many other segments of society... we condemn this idea and any other proposal that fails to respect the equal worth of all of God's children.'

The effect of this policy? Amnesty International devoted a whole report to the targeting of civilians by Palestinian suicide bombers. Between September 2000 and July 2002, at least 350 civilians, most of them Israeli, had been killed in over 128 attacksby Palestinian armed groups or individuals. 'Civilians should never be the focus of attacks, not in the name of security and not in the name of liberty,' Amnesty said. 'We call on the leadership of all Palestinian armed groups to cease attacking civilians, immediately and unconditionally.' The oldest victim of a suicide attack, according to Amnesty, was Chagan Rogan, killed in a Passover bombing at a Netanya hotel on March 27 2002. She was ninety years old.

Grim stuff. Yet there is still a colonial mentality amongst Israeli settlers. Bob Lang , native of Manuet, New York, graduate of Wisconsin University and resdient of Efrat, a settlement of 3,500 inhabitants onm the Hebron road, has clear views on this."No wonder we have these problems. The status quo today is no good. As long as Arabs living here think they will one day have a Palestinian state, they have no reason to come to terms with us. So Israel should stop the military occupation and annex it all outright and tell the Arabs "Your nationalist rights on this side of the River Jordan are finished." The Arabs will accept this when they realise we are serious. The land is mine. I feel it in my bones. It's mine."



This ethnic cleansing must stop if there is to be any hope of peace. For years Palestinians have been failed by their leaders, most notably by Arafat. With a swelling, young population, the genie is escaping from the bottle and Israel needs to act fast if it's to avoid being outbred. Abbas realises this. If Hamas was prepared to play a longer game, they'd win the moral high ground. As ever, Palestinian groups conspire to squander any residual goodwill.

As long as evangelical christendom holds to the philosophy of dispensationalism and the idea that Israel still holds God's title to the area, then Israel can do whatever they want and we will stand idly watching thinking it's God's will.
This is the evangelical philosophy behind the support of Israel no matter what and the associated neo-cons like Cheney and GW. And Israel milks this for all it's worth.


Dispensationalism rejects the notion of supersessionism, sees the Jewish people as the true people of God, and sees the modern State of Israel as identical to the Israel of the Bible. John Nelson Darby taught, and most subsequent dispensationalists have consistently maintained, that God looks upon the Jews as his chosen people even as they remain in rejection of Jesus Christ, and God continues to have a place for them in the dispensational, prophetic scheme of things. Dispensationalists teach that a remnant within the nation of Israel will be born again, called of God, and by grace brought to realize they crucified their Messiah. Dispensationalism is unique in teaching that the Church is a provisional parenthesis, until the Jewish remnant finally recognize Jesus as their promised Messiah during the trials that come upon the Jews in the Great Tribulation after the Church is raptured. Darby's prophecies envision Judaism as continuing to enjoy God's protection literally to the End of Time, and teach that God has a separate 'program', to use J. Dwight Pentecost's term, in the prophecies for Jews apart from the Church. Dispensationalists believe that God, is currently dealing with the church, recognized in the New Testament as the "body of Christ," and "house of God," and as a mystery unknown in Old Testament times. They teach that God has not forgotten His eternal covenants with Israel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism


Here's more blaming Katrina on Gaza.

Divine Reminders: God's punishment?
A Reuters story reported that some Christian fundamentalists were interpreting the devastating impact on New Orleans as God's retribution on a sinful city.

Michael Marcavage, the director of the Philadelphia-based group Repent America said "we must not forget that the citizens of New Orleans tolerated and welcomed the wickedness in their city for so long. May this act of God cause us all to think about what we tolerate in our city limits." [3]

One participant in an online discussion on the Christian Broadcasting Network website attributed the hurricane to U.S. support for Israel's withdrawal from Gaza settlements. "Whenever this country encourages Israel to give up any part of their rightful God-given land we have suffered the consequences," they wrote. [4]

"Rick Scarborough of Vision America and the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration has stepped up to the plate, blaming Katrina on gay marriage, man-on-horse sex, and Israel for evacuating a portion of the Messiah's planned landing strip," Max Blumenthal reported September 5, 2005, in the Huffington Post.

Media Matters for America has documented statements from three "religious conservative media figures" who "claim Katrina was God's omen, punishment for the United States."

On his September 12, 2005, Christian Broadcasting Network 700 Club program, Pat Robertson, "founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former Republican presidential candidate, linked Hurricane Katrina and terrorist attacks to legalized abortion." Additionally, on his September 1, 2005, broadcast, Robertson said that President Bush's Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts, Jr. "can 'be thankful that a tragedy has brought him some good,' inasmuch as Democratic senators may be less likely to question him aggressively." [5]
On the September 9, 2005, broadcast of the Trinity Broadcasting Network's International Intelligence Briefing, Hal Lindsey said "It seems clear that the prophetic times I have been expecting for decades have finally arrived. And even worse, it appears that the judgment of America has begun." [6]
"On the September 12 [2005] broadcast of his BreakPoint radio program, former Nixon special counsel-turned-Christian radio commentator Charles Colson speculated that God allowed Hurricane Katrina as a reminder to the United States of the importance of winning the 'war on terror'." [7]

[splat]

On his September 12, 2005, Christian Broadcasting Network 700 Club program, Pat Robertson, "founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former Republican presidential candidate, linked Hurricane Katrina and terrorist attacks to legalized abortion." Additionally, on his September 1, 2005, broadcast, Robertson said that President Bush's Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts, Jr. "can 'be thankful that a tragedy has brought him some good,' inasmuch as Democratic senators may be less likely to question him aggressively." [5]
On the September 9, 2005, broadcast of the Trinity Broadcasting Network's International Intelligence Briefing, Hal Lindsey said "It seems clear that the prophetic times I have been expecting for decades have finally arrived. And even worse, it appears that the judgment of America has begun." [6]
"On the September 12 [2005] broadcast of his BreakPoint radio program, former Nixon special counsel-turned-Christian radio commentator Charles Colson speculated that God allowed Hurricane Katrina as a reminder to the United States of the importance of winning the 'war on terror'." [7]

Nuthin gives me a woody like Pat Robertson saying we should assassinate Hugo Chavez. Think his direct line to God was a little fuzzy that day?

[Gripen]

Dresden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing...n_World_War_II

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/histori...r_bomber.shtml

Dresden was the result of this guys inability to have reality meet his rhetoric.

[Craven Morehead]

Nuthin gives me a woody like Pat Robertson saying we should assassinate Hugo Chavez. Think his direct line to God was a little fuzzy that day?

God didn't help him much with his Zaire diamond mining venture.
Wonder if he might be.....OMG.....a false prophet!!


Matt 7:15
[15] Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

[doughboyshredder]

You don't think we have a better bargaining position having our forces on two of their borders they we would have an aircraft carrier parked in the Persian Gulf? According to one report that was released in the papers months ago the Iranians stopped developing Nuclear Weapons in 2003 when we invaded.

That's a good point, that I hadn't really thought of. But, could those troops even be mobilized to deal with Iran? It seems they are pretty well occupied at the time.

[Cono Este]

Churchill tried to distance himself from Dresden. Even in Total War (which WWII was) wreaking that kind of carnage on civilian populations (25k to 40k innocents dead) is wrong. The Wehrmacht were pretty much on the ropes by that stage. And so what if Russia asked us to do it, we should have listened to Patton, Churchill and Monty and kicked their red assess out of Europe in 1945 except your pres' was weak.

How can the Jewish race having been through the horrors of the holocaust condone Israels persecution of Palestine and the West Bank? I am not defending Palestine terror groups. However the grinding poverty; unemployment; poor sanitation; restriction of the freedoms of movement and association; death & short life expectancy; etc must recruit many into the arms of terror groups.

To answer the op's question: give sanctions, negotiation, diplomacy MUCH more effort and time. Going nuclear should not be considered. Demonise and further isolate Iran and it will not end well for anyone.

Also how many of those who post here demanding nuclear strikes have ever fought in armed conflict? I have friends and family who are vets from WWII, Korea, Falklands and both Gulf Wars. Every vet I have ever known is very reluctant to advocate military force. Because unlike the cowardly politicians (and some posting here) they know how much it fucks them and those they maim and kill.

(I am way over 20, ski a bit, have some life and military experience; do I qualify to comment? )

It does make a fucking difference ya know? When you've had your own home and town leveled and you were not the aggressor to begin with. My gramps flew a Dresden raid, and those were his word. "they fucking/bloody started it"

Pretty simple.

[Craven Morehead]

It does make a fucking difference ya know? When you've had your own home and town leveled and you were not the aggressor to begin with. My gramps flew a Dresden raid, and those were his word. "they fucking/bloody started it"

Pretty simple.

Kind of like Iraq who had nothing to do with 9/11.
So when they shoot our troops and civilian contractors......they can say
"They fucking/bloody started it"

excellent post CONO!!

[AKPogue]

That's a good point, that I hadn't really thought of. But, could those troops even be mobilized to deal with Iran? It seems they are pretty well occupied at the time.

I don't see a war with Iran in the future. Maybe a possibility of an airstrike and that is about it. We now dominate the Persian Gulf. The Iranians are really scared and it is a big topic in their discussions with Iraq. So now we deal with the Iranians in a position of strength.

What would we gain in invading Iran except an even bigger mess than Iraq? What most people don't realize is that there is a lot of Iraqi's that are extremely happy that we knocked off Saddam. The problem after the invasion and what we are still dealing with is the inner power struggle of who is going to control Iraq after we leave.

Also why would we invade Iran? I very well doubt that they are planning to invade any neighboring country anytime soon. So in reality the only threat they have is either through terrorism(which they do support) or by developing Nuclear weapons. I personally don't really worry about Iran getting Nukes. Why? Because why would they use them? What would they gain in using them? Only a very few people are suicidal enough to want to kill themselves and using a Nuke on another country would ensure their destruction. A lot of what is printed in the papers is for public consumption and isn't anywhere near the real truth. There is a lot more that goes on behind closed doors than people realize.

[Cono Este]

Kind of like Iraq who had nothing to do with 9/11.
So when they shoot our troops and civilian contractors......they can say
"They fucking/bloody started it"

excellent post CONO!!

Let them say whatever the fuck they want to.

But, If you want to place our troops and civilian contractors at the moral disadvantage of some foreign Jihad Joe type then I feel sorry for you.

[Liberal Genius]

Kind of like Iraq who had nothing to do with 9/11.
So when they shoot our troops and civilian contractors......they can say
"They fucking/bloody started it"

excellent post CONO!!

Dude, last I heard, Al Qaida is still recruiting.

Simpleton.

[AstroPax]

Kind of like Iraq who had nothing to do with 9/11.

Personally, I really don't give a flying fuck if Iraq did or did not have anything to do with 9/11.

Iraq lost the Gulf War, we kicked their ass out of Kuwait, and then they proceeded to violate the terms of the cease fire agreement on a regular and continuing basis, to include pulling a bunch of bullshit within the northern and southern no-fly zones. As far as I'm concerned, that was enough for me...Saddam Hussein had to go.

The biggest mistake that the Bush administration made relative to Iraq was not the invasion itself, but rather allowing a vacuum to develop in the aftermath.

So when they shoot our troops and civilian contractors......they can say
"They fucking/bloody started it"

OK, fine. In that case, now that we have gone full circle, stop your fucking whining every time we shoot back!

-Astro

[Liberal Genius]

Personally, I really don't give a flying fuck if Iraq did or did not have anything to do with 9/11.

Iraq lost the Gulf War, we kicked their ass out of Kuwait, and then they proceeded to violate the terms of the cease fire agreement on a regular and continuing basis, to include pulling a bunch of bullshit within the northern and southern no-fly zones. As far as I'm concerned, that was enough for me...Saddam Hussein had to go.

The biggest mistake that the Bush administration made relative to Iraq was

ASTROPAX=SMARTER THAN YOU

Nice post, I can hear the idiots rushing in though.

[Sparky]

It does make a fucking difference ya know? When you've had your own home and town leveled and you were not the aggressor to begin with. My gramps flew a Dresden raid, and those were his word. "they fucking/bloody started it"

Pretty simple.

If you had to grow up in a UK townscape designed by postwar architects you have my sympathies. Shit I lived in Plymouth and what they did there was bad.

Yep my mates chip shop was bombed; one grandfather pretty much lost his whole battalion in Malaya; the other lost his bro' and most of his mates in Europe; mate i could go on all day.

Not detracting from the heroism of those who flew in Bomber Command, I personally don't think going after non military or industrial targets was a wise move in moral or strategic terms, and retrospective analysis bares this out. Neither would I malign bomber Harris. It's very cosy and liberal of me to look back with hindsight not having had to make tough decisions at the time.

BUT Likewise it seems very easy for the neo-cons to advocate strikes against Iran (then think about the consequences and fixing the aftermath later i guess if recent history has taught them anything)

[Craven Morehead]

Personally, I really don't give a flying fuck if Iraq did or did not have anything to do with 9/11.

Iraq lost the Gulf War, we kicked their ass out of Kuwait, and then they proceeded to violate the terms of the cease fire agreement on a regular and continuing basis, to include pulling a bunch of bullshit within the northern and southern no-fly zones. As far as I'm concerned, that was enough for me...Saddam Hussein had to go.

The biggest mistake that the Bush administration made relative to Iraq was not the invasion itself, but rather allowing a vacuum to develop in the aftermath.



OK, fine. In that case, now that we have gone full circle, stop your fucking whining every time we shoot back!

-Astro

Why did we bother with saving Kuwait anyway? Maybe because our little Bush butt buddies the Saudis who were the source of the 9/11 terrorists were scared of Iraq.

Saddam was fine while we fed him the names of communist sympathizers to kill. Saddam was fine when we worked the war with Iran. Rummy thought highly enough of Saddam to shake his paw.

We could have just as well bought oil from Kuwait under Saddam as the corrupt monarchies of Kuwait and the Saudis.

Neither operation solved anything except waste our taxdollars.

As far as no-fly zones....Now the Kurds get attacked by Turkey......what's the difference?

Saddam hated the al-quaeda wackos. We would be better off with him back in power. You a Joo or something?

[AKPogue]

BUT Likewise it seems very easy for the neo-cons to advocate strikes against Iran (then think about the consequences and fixing the aftermath later i guess if recent history has taught them anything)

Well Israel bombing Nuclear operations in both Iraq and Syria seemed to work out all right.

[Liberal Genius]

Why did we bother with saving Kuwait anyway?

Our oil supplier, dipshit

Maybe because our little Bush butt buddies the Saudis who were the source of the 9/11 terrorists were scared of Iraq.

Just like the US was the source of the Oklahoma City bombing, right?

Saddam was fine while we fed him the names of communist sympathizers to kill. Saddam was fine when we worked the war with Iran. Rummy thought highly enough of Saddam to shake his paw.

World politics change. Bet you drive a japanese/german car. MORON.

Saddam hated the al-quaeda wackos. We would be better off with him back in power. You a Joo or something?

Saddam hated Al-Qaida? Learn that watching cartoons?
Antisemite douchebag.

You might be the dumbest person to ever grace this forum. Congratulations!

[Craven Morehead]

Our oil supplier, dipshit
World politics change. Bet you drive a japanese/german car. MORON.
Saddam hated Al-Qaida? Learn that watching cartoons?
Antisemite douchebag.
You might be the dumbest person to ever grace this forum. Congratulations!

I drive a Dodge

You're quite adept at throwing out insults DARTH.
You sure act like a Joo.

A little Saddam history for your closed mind:

Saddam Hussein


There are several reasons why Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. "After the 8 year war with Iran over territorial disputes and religious rivalries between the Iranian Shiites and Iraqi Sunni factions, Iraq had a massive debt to many Arab nations including Kuwait."2 The rulers of these nations wanted some of their money back but Iraq thought they were ingrates and were ungrateful for defending the Arab emirs from the Iranian Islamic fundamentalism. The Arab emirs were afraid that the Islamic fundamentalists would rise against the government and eventually take over the government as they had Iran against the Shah. Kuwait was also afraid of this and so they supported the Iraqi Arabs against the Iranian Persians.
The funds that Gulf countries lent to Iraq were used to buy high tech weapons, high tech weapons that made Iraq one of the largest armies in the world and a force to contend with. "Ironically much of the money and weapons came from the countries that united to fight against him."1 The Gulf countries bankrolled him while the Western nations, who had many defense contractors going out of business because of the end of the Cold War, supplied him with the weapons to fight Iran and later Kuwait and the Coalition. With a large army like his, it would be very easy to defeat the far smaller Kuwaiti army compared to his.
Historically Iraq had claimed that it had a right to Kuwait. "They were jealous that Kuwait was in control of the two islands needed for a deep water shipping port:the Bubiyan and Warbah islands."4 These islands along with some parts of Kuwait were a part of Mesopotamia which the Ottoman Turks conquered. "The Ottoman Empire was defeated during World War I and the British made their "own lines in the sand", dividing up the land according to their own strategic needs and in the process recklessly dividing up ancient communities and boundaries that had been recognized for decades."1 Most of Mesopotamia became Iraq and some other parts to Kuwait. In 1961, Kuwait became independent and the Iraqis threatened to invade except that British troops kept the peace. This was to be the first of many border skirmishes which include Iraqi missiles fired at Kuwaiti oil installations and the reflagging of Kuwaiti oil tankers during the Iran-Iraq War in which U.S. ships patrolled the Persian Gulf and Kuwaiti tankers were reflagged with U.S. flags.

The Iraqi government had also accused the Kuwaitis of stealing 2.5 billion barrels of oil from its Rumaila oil fields by sliding drills into Iraqi oil pipelines. They had also accused Kuwait of exceeding OPEC oil production which had dropped the price of oil from $20 a barrel to $13 a barrel in the first six months of 1990. This meant 1 billion dollars less for Iraq everytime that price of an oil barrel went down by a dollar. Saddam said he would stop them from continuing aggressive action:"The oil quota violators have stabbed Iraq with poison dagger. Iraqis will not forget the saying that cutting necks is better than cutting means of living. O'God almighty, be witness that we have warned them".1 His foreign minister Tariq Aziz later said in a letter to the Arab league that Kuwait is "systematically, deliberately and continuously" harming Iraq by encroaching on its territory, stealing oil, and destroying its economy.1 "Such behaviour amounts to military aggression".1 These were just signs of the Desert Storm to come.

Personally, Saddam Hussein had reasons to want to go to war against the Western nations. He grew up as young boy hating the British for imprisoning the uncle that had cared for him. Later, he joined the Baath Party which was based on a platform of Arab unity and as a member was sent to try to assassinate General Abdul Karim Qasim who they believed to be very friendly with the Western nations. By going to war, he hoped to foster Arab unity against the Western nations, like an Islamic holy war against the "infidels". He also believed that it was his destiny to fulfil the prophecy of ruling an Arab nation streching from Euphrates to the Suez.

The Western and Gulf nations united together to form a coalition to fight against Iraq that followed the United Nations resolution that Iraq must pull out of Iraq on January 15, 1991. They had several reasons for wanting Iraq out of Kuwait. "The 2 main reasons are the vast amounts oil in the region which account for 53% of the world's known petroleum reserves and the stability of the nations that have the oil."4 The 2 biggest in the region are Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The Saudis were afraid that Iraq would invade Saudi Arabia just like Kuwait.
"The United States depends on Middle East petroleum for about 25% of its energy needs and other Western nations even more on Middle East."4 Many of these nations have very few oil resources and if they did it would cost too much to develop them like the estimated 300 billion barrels of oil in the Alberta and Saskatchewan tar sands. "Other nations like Japan have very few alternative sources for petroleum so they depend greatly on the oil from the Middle East."1 Other sources of power are generally too expensive to be practical or still under development. So any disruption of oil from this region would seriously negatively affect the economies of the Western nations, just as they were slipping into a recession which would not be very good for the leaders of these countries at the ballot box.

However going to war or even the real possibility of it would give a big short term boost to the economies of these nations by increasing the price for a barrel of oil which would allow oil companies to make bigger profits and there would be more exploration in North America to discover new sources of oil. This would help boost the stock markets by increasing positive activity in the trading of shares. Also by going to war, it would create jobs in many sectors of the economy from the defense contractors to the service industries down the line.

The main reason that Coalition was formed was to protect the "vital interests" in the often unstable Middle East. "The Middle East had been the source of many of the world's wars after World War II, sometimes almost to point of going nuclear."4 The Arab partners in the Coalition joined the union to prevent what had happened to Kuwait to occur to them. The United States and the other Western partners wanted to ensure a steady supply of cheap oil and the invasion of Kuwait had risen the price of oil along with creating instability in the Middle East. The best way to restore order to the region and create some stability was to force Iraq out of Kuwait and severely weaken his government and military which the Allies were successful in doing.


Another reason that has been suggested is that Iraq was permitted to invade Kuwait just to give the U.S. an excuse to attack the Iraqis so that they would no longer be a threat to other countries in the region. This would also make the Arab nations dependent on the Americans for their defense so that they would not try to attempt hostile actions in terms of increasing the cost of the oil to them or limiting the production of petroleum as had been demonstrated by the OPEC nations in the 1970s.
George Herbert Walker Bush also had personal reasons as to why he wanted Iraq to leave Kuwait. As the youngest fighter pilot in the Navy during World War II, he flew in many missions before being shot down. "These missions helped to shape his beliefs that the U.S. should be like a global policeman and Saddam Hussein must be stopped just as Hitler should have been stopped from breaking the conditions of the treaties the Germans signed ending World War I."1 Another reason he felt he had to take military action was that there were American hostages held by the Iraqis after the invasion of Kuwait for a couple of months.


A little tidbit on Saudis:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/ar...11/11saudi.htm

Not quite the same as Ok city darth.....you silly holloween costume boy.

[Jer]

I drive a Dodge

You're quite adept at throwing out insults DARTH.
You sure act like a Joo.

A little Saddam history for your closed mind:

Saddam Hussein


There are several reasons why Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. "After the 8 year war with Iran over territorial disputes and religious rivalries between the Iranian Shiites and Iraqi Sunni factions, Iraq had a massive debt to many Arab nations including Kuwait."2 The rulers of these nations wanted some of their money back but Iraq thought they were ingrates and were ungrateful for defending the Arab emirs from the Iranian Islamic fundamentalism. The Arab emirs were afraid that the Islamic fundamentalists would rise against the government and eventually take over the government as they had Iran against the Shah. Kuwait was also afraid of this and so they supported the Iraqi Arabs against the Iranian Persians.
The funds that Gulf countries lent to Iraq were used to buy high tech weapons, high tech weapons that made Iraq one of the largest armies in the world and a force to contend with. "Ironically much of the money and weapons came from the countries that united to fight against him."1 The Gulf countries bankrolled him while the Western nations, who had many defense contractors going out of business because of the end of the Cold War, supplied him with the weapons to fight Iran and later Kuwait and the Coalition. With a large army like his, it would be very easy to defeat the far smaller Kuwaiti army compared to his.
Historically Iraq had claimed that it had a right to Kuwait. "They were jealous that Kuwait was in control of the two islands needed for a deep water shipping port:the Bubiyan and Warbah islands."4 These islands along with some parts of Kuwait were a part of Mesopotamia which the Ottoman Turks conquered. "The Ottoman Empire was defeated during World War I and the British made their "own lines in the sand", dividing up the land according to their own strategic needs and in the process recklessly dividing up ancient communities and boundaries that had been recognized for decades."1 Most of Mesopotamia became Iraq and some other parts to Kuwait. In 1961, Kuwait became independent and the Iraqis threatened to invade except that British troops kept the peace. This was to be the first of many border skirmishes which include Iraqi missiles fired at Kuwaiti oil installations and the reflagging of Kuwaiti oil tankers during the Iran-Iraq War in which U.S. ships patrolled the Persian Gulf and Kuwaiti tankers were reflagged with U.S. flags.

The Iraqi government had also accused the Kuwaitis of stealing 2.5 billion barrels of oil from its Rumaila oil fields by sliding drills into Iraqi oil pipelines. They had also accused Kuwait of exceeding OPEC oil production which had dropped the price of oil from $20 a barrel to $13 a barrel in the first six months of 1990. This meant 1 billion dollars less for Iraq everytime that price of an oil barrel went down by a dollar. Saddam said he would stop them from continuing aggressive action:"The oil quota violators have stabbed Iraq with poison dagger. Iraqis will not forget the saying that cutting necks is better than cutting means of living. O'God almighty, be witness that we have warned them".1 His foreign minister Tariq Aziz later said in a letter to the Arab league that Kuwait is "systematically, deliberately and continuously" harming Iraq by encroaching on its territory, stealing oil, and destroying its economy.1 "Such behaviour amounts to military aggression".1 These were just signs of the Desert Storm to come.

Personally, Saddam Hussein had reasons to want to go to war against the Western nations. He grew up as young boy hating the British for imprisoning the uncle that had cared for him. Later, he joined the Baath Party which was based on a platform of Arab unity and as a member was sent to try to assassinate General Abdul Karim Qasim who they believed to be very friendly with the Western nations. By going to war, he hoped to foster Arab unity against the Western nations, like an Islamic holy war against the "infidels". He also believed that it was his destiny to fulfil the prophecy of ruling an Arab nation streching from Euphrates to the Suez.

The Western and Gulf nations united together to form a coalition to fight against Iraq that followed the United Nations resolution that Iraq must pull out of Iraq on January 15, 1991. They had several reasons for wanting Iraq out of Kuwait. "The 2 main reasons are the vast amounts oil in the region which account for 53% of the world's known petroleum reserves and the stability of the nations that have the oil."4 The 2 biggest in the region are Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The Saudis were afraid that Iraq would invade Saudi Arabia just like Kuwait.
"The United States depends on Middle East petroleum for about 25% of its energy needs and other Western nations even more on Middle East."4 Many of these nations have very few oil resources and if they did it would cost too much to develop them like the estimated 300 billion barrels of oil in the Alberta and Saskatchewan tar sands. "Other nations like Japan have very few alternative sources for petroleum so they depend greatly on the oil from the Middle East."1 Other sources of power are generally too expensive to be practical or still under development. So any disruption of oil from this region would seriously negatively affect the economies of the Western nations, just as they were slipping into a recession which would not be very good for the leaders of these countries at the ballot box.

However going to war or even the real possibility of it would give a big short term boost to the economies of these nations by increasing the price for a barrel of oil which would allow oil companies to make bigger profits and there would be more exploration in North America to discover new sources of oil. This would help boost the stock markets by increasing positive activity in the trading of shares. Also by going to war, it would create jobs in many sectors of the economy from the defense contractors to the service industries down the line.

The main reason that Coalition was formed was to protect the "vital interests" in the often unstable Middle East. "The Middle East had been the source of many of the world's wars after World War II, sometimes almost to point of going nuclear."4 The Arab partners in the Coalition joined the union to prevent what had happened to Kuwait to occur to them. The United States and the other Western partners wanted to ensure a steady supply of cheap oil and the invasion of Kuwait had risen the price of oil along with creating instability in the Middle East. The best way to restore order to the region and create some stability was to force Iraq out of Kuwait and severely weaken his government and military which the Allies were successful in doing.


Another reason that has been suggested is that Iraq was permitted to invade Kuwait just to give the U.S. an excuse to attack the Iraqis so that they would no longer be a threat to other countries in the region. This would also make the Arab nations dependent on the Americans for their defense so that they would not try to attempt hostile actions in terms of increasing the cost of the oil to them or limiting the production of petroleum as had been demonstrated by the OPEC nations in the 1970s.
George Herbert Walker Bush also had personal reasons as to why he wanted Iraq to leave Kuwait. As the youngest fighter pilot in the Navy during World War II, he flew in many missions before being shot down. "These missions helped to shape his beliefs that the U.S. should be like a global policeman and Saddam Hussein must be stopped just as Hitler should have been stopped from breaking the conditions of the treaties the Germans signed ending World War I."1 Another reason he felt he had to take military action was that there were American hostages held by the Iraqis after the invasion of Kuwait for a couple of months.


A little tidbit on Saudis:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/ar...11/11saudi.htm

Not quite the same as Ok city darth.....you silly holloween costume boy.

UR gay. Stop being gay, you gay.

[Craven Morehead]

Not me. I'm no homersexual. Darth might be with his big black helmet head. Wonder if Cheney likes to sit on that Darth Librodouche
helmet? Watches Liz eat a donut.

[Jer]

Not me. I'm no homersexual. Darth might be with his big black helmet head. Wonder if Cheney likes to sit on that Darth Librodouche
helmet? Watches Liz eat a donut.

Wow - you're blowin' up in tha TGR!

[Craven Morehead]

Think I'll grab the 556 and go shooting......ears ring so much I can't understand the words.......Jer......please post lyrics with the songs for the hearing impaired

[Jer]

[AstroPax]

Who wants to nuke who?



-Astro