I can't believe this is still being debated.
One always hears the rhetoric that Hussein doesn't allow observers into Iraq, that he perceives the US to be Satan, that he's the worst thing since Hitler, ad infinitum. It's sad to see that people blindly believe the rhetoric that is spouted and make no attempt to get at the crux of the issue.
Iraq did indeed invade Kuwait, and Iraq is wrong for doing so. Of course, Hussein *did* pester the US ambassador to Iraq for months before the invasion, checking to see if there would be ramifications, to which he was told repeatedly, the US has no opinion as it would be essentially an internal Iraqi/Kuwaiti conflict.
Saddam Hussein summoned U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie to his office in what seems to have been a final attempt to clarify Washington’s position on his dispute with Kuwait. Glaspie assured him: "We have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. ... [Secretary of State] James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction." She said she was expressing official policy. On 24 July, she had received a cable from the State Department explicitly directing her to reiterate that the United States had "no position" on "Arab-Arab" conflicts.
Were we wrong for telling Hussein it was ok? Of course - but it makes better soundbytes to say that Iraq is the aggressor and we had no hand in anything. Sheesh, if we didn't give our implicit go-ahead, this never would have happened.
Remember the oil crisis in the 70's? Not many of you do, I'm sure. For those that do: did you know that Kissinger wanted to keep events liek that from ever happening again, so he put into effect a plan that involved the creation of armed forces and a policy to *specifically* take out an oil-producing Arab country? And that after a while Norman Schwarzkopf was placed in charge of said group in the 80's, well before the Gulf conflict?
WaterB said:
how would you like it if you're own country's army started dropping Chemical and Biological weapons on you?
The US has already done that, my friend. Both to wartime military, and to peacetime civilians. Agent Orange, Project MK Ultra, heck, here in Rochester last year there was a scandal because local civilians in the 40's & 50's were used as test subjects without their knowledge - dangerous radioactive isotopes were injected into their bloodstreams without their knowledge. And if I recall correctly, didn't we dump chemical weapons on US soldiers ("accidentally", of course) during the Gulf War?
scarier said:
negotiations have been attempted for many many years, and nothing has come of them.
Negotiations in *ill faith* have been attempted for many years. The example with the US ambassador is just one: lets not forget the "negotiating" we did during the Iran-Iraq War, either.
Al made mention of the Iraqis seeing the US as followers of Satan. This is true in a sense: but if we try to see their statements as *they* see it, rather than as we do, it takes on a whole new context. They don't see Satan as an evil demon with horns, hooves, and all that, like we do. I believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong) they see Satan as a liar and a deceiver, which is closer to at least the biblical (old testament) perception of "satan". When you look at how the US has treated Iraq for so long, you can see how perhaps their perception is justified.
Want to learn more?
http://www.iacenter.org/fireice.htm
http://www.halcyon.com/wfrazier/iraq.htm
http://msanews.mynet.net/MSANEWS/199802/19980226.2.html
http://www.wakefieldcam.freeserve.co.uk/iraqchronology.htm
Just remember, everyone - there's more to the news than what USA Today and your government would have you know.
------------------
My knob tastes funny.
