Obama: Bush Senior “did an excellent job when it came to the Gulf War"

my2hands

UN Resolution
Within hours of the invasion, Kuwaiti and US delegations requested a meeting of the UN Security Council, which passed Resolution 660, condemning the invasion and demanding a withdrawal of Iraqi troops. On August 3, the Arab League passed its own resolution. The resolution also called for a solution to the conflict from within the League, and warned against foreign intervention. On August 6, UN Resolution 661 placed economic sanctions on Iraq.


Building a coalition
A long series of UN Security Council resolutions and Arab League resolutions were passed regarding the conflict. One of the most important was Resolution 678, passed on November 29, giving Iraq a withdrawal deadline of January 15, 1991, and authorizing “all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660,” a diplomatic formulation authorizing the use of force[citation needed].

The United States, especially Secretary of State James Baker, assembled a coalition of forces to join it in opposing Iraq, consisting of forces from 34 countries: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, France, Greece, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Spain, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States itself[18]. Although they did not contribute any forces, Japan and West Germany did make financial contributions totaling $10 billion and $6.6 billion respectively. US troops represented 47% of the coalition’s 2,660,000 troops in Iraq. Many of the coalition forces were reluctant to join; some felt that the war was an internal Arab affair, or feared increasing American influence in Kuwait. In the end, many nations were persuaded by Iraq’s belligerence towards other Arab states, and offers of economic aid or debt forgiveness.

UN coalition-building efforts were so successful that by the time the fighting (Operation Desert Storm) began on January 16, 1991, twelve countries had sent naval forces, joining the regional states of Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf states, as well as the huge array of the US Navy, which deployed six aircraft-carrier battle groups; eight countries had sent ground forces, joining the regional troops of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, as well as the seventeen heavy and six light brigades of the US Army and nine Marine regiments, with their large support and service forces; and four countries had sent combat aircraft, joining the local air forces of Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, as well as the US Air Force, US Navy, and U.S. Marine aviation, for a grand total of 2,430 fixed-wing aircraft.

my2hands

so people can read the entire thing instead of reading one sentence and taking it completely out of context


In the version published by The New York Times on September 23, 1990, Glaspie expressed concern over the troop buildup to Saddam Hussein:

“ We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late ’60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via [Chadli] Klibi [then Arab League General Secretary] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?
My assessment after 25 years' service in this area is that your objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil. But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and painful war. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship — not in the spirit of confrontation — regarding your intentions. I simply describe the position of my Government. And I do not mean that the situation is a simple situation. But our concern is a simple one.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

Commy wrote:

handled well, sure. Slaughtering Iraqi soldiers as they fled Kuwait, great job. Some 200,000 were killed, the road from Kuwait to BAghdad renamed the highway of death. And do you remember those plows on the front of American tanks? They used those to bury Iraqi soldiers alive, simply firing a machine gun down the length of the tranch and filling it with dirt as they drove by. Very well handled, sure..
.

yeah. we should have waited for them to regroup since their leaders were fuckups.. its the honorable thing to do right?

please. This isnt a fucking football game where you put your second stringers in when your up 30 points. its fucking war. War isnt honorable. You kill motherfuckers until they give up. thats it.

And sanctions are a failed diplomatic policy, not an aspect of war in this case. Actually, in this case, going straight into a poorly defended iraq and killing Saddam would have been the right thing to do as it would have saved countless lives caused by the failed diplomatic policy of sanctions, but hindsight is 20/20. but i doubt you would have been for that either.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

why wasn't Saddam screaming bloody murder that he had been duped by the US into invading Kuwait? Strange...

RolandTD20Kdrummer

my2hands wrote:

let me say this again for you...

we controlled saddam so we controlled the oil. fact. what dont you understand about that? you said he was a puppet for us, which is correct. so why bait him? we already owned him. we didnt bait him, he went for the prize. the world with UN approval stepped in militarily to kick him out. we left him in power.

then when we baited him, why not take him out?



you have not answered my question yet so let me make it even shorter and simpler....

You wake up and Iraq has invaded Kuwait with a 150,000 man army. what do you do?

Wake up,and all of the sudden? You believe that's how it went down?

One step at a time. You think the US could obliterate his army which was considered a win in the public eye btw...as in the war is over... then move in and mercilessly start shooting up the streets of Iraq afterwards and take over the country itself through guerrilla warfare by ousting Saddam? are you high?

Who would stomach that action on this planet in one fell swoop? Think about it.

That's a quite a sell to the public pre 9/11 dontchya think?

I think you're naive and will justify any reasoning to maintain your ideology of what war is about....and has been about.

war = peace... I'm not seeing that concept, I think it's a hoax played out on people to open doors to new conflicts.

if actions of the past are any indication...

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MrSmith wrote:

why wasn't Saddam screaming bloody murder that he had been duped by the US into invading Kuwait? Strange...

You mean admit he's a big fat stupid idiot to the world?

I can't imagine him not jumping at the chance...

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

war = peace... I'm not seeing that concept, I think it's a hoax played out on people to open doors to new conflicts.
...

its worked pretty well in Europe, north America and japan since WWII...

but maybe youre familiar with this concept. the only true peace is enslavement and surrender, because there will always be evil fucks out there that want your shit.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

You mean admit he's a big fat stupid idiot to the world?

I can't imagine him not jumping at the chance...

dude, thats just weak

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MrSmith wrote:

its worked pretty well in Europe, north America and japan since WWII...

but maybe youre familiar with this concept. the only true peace is enslavement and surrender, because there will always be evil fucks out there that want your shit.

How so? who admitted what conspiracies?

"there will always be evil fucks out there that want your shit"

I agree and they are taking it right now...from everyone both here and abroad.

Just going on statistics alone in weighing out the various conflicts it's a war of terror.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MrSmith wrote:

dude, thats just weak

It's totally accurate.

Egos are huge my friend in the realm of dictators...bigger than you can fathom.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

How so? who admitted what conspiracies?

"there will always be evil fucks out there that want your shit"

I agree and they are taking it right now...from everyone both here and abroad.

Just going on statistics alone in weighing out the various conflicts it's a war of terror.

Well don't fight back when they come for you because then you are a warmonger only interested in your own self interests.

angelica

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

war = peace... I'm not seeing that concept, I think it's a hoax played out on people to open doors to new conflicts.

You are one of the rare individuals who gets this. Anyone who justifies war equalling peace is firmly entrenched in illusions. It's the most base psychological problem of the split psyche that is fragmented from itself, and therefore distorts reality. Unfortunately it's a mass-delusion that perpetuates the self-fulfillment of untold numbers of people magnetizing themselves to external manifestations of the conflict they hold deeply within.

People choose and revel in conflict and war. Willfully. And they choose the consequences, too. And then they conveniently forget they chose them.

It is rare to see the truth beyond the self-delusions. A sure sign, however, is double-speak.

Awesome stuff, Roland.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

i think the problem here is that if America does something in their own self interests, that, in and of itself, is considered an evil act. Nevermind that in this case it was also in Kuwait and the rest of the middle east's best interests (and internationally sanctioned as the right action to take). Because America's interests were also protected, America was wrong to act. Certain people are so conditioned to believe America is always in the wrong (and often we are. see: NOW) that they are incapable of actually thinking the US can act in the right.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MrSmith wrote:

i think the problem here is that if America does something in their own self interests, that, in and of itself, is considered an evil act. Nevermind that in this case it was also in Kuwait and the rest of the middle east's best interests (and internationally sanctioned as the right action to take). Because America's interests were also protected, America was wrong to act. Certain people are so conditioned to believe America is always in the wrong (and often we are. see: NOW) that they are incapable of actually thinking the US can act in the right.

History tells a rather candid tale of regime manipulation and military instigation. The problem is it hasn't stopped, it's still going on right this very second.

Self defense is one thing, I'm not seeing that plight. I'm seeing a strong case for imperialism over what I think can be justified.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

angelica wrote:

You are one of the rare individuals who gets this. Anyone who justifies war equalling peace is firmly entrenched in illusions. It's the most base psychological problem of the split psyche that is fragmented from itself, and therefore distorts reality. Unfortunately it's a mass-delusion that perpetuates the self-fulfillment of untold numbers of people magnetizing themselves to external manifestations of the conflict they hold deeply within.

People choose and revel in conflict and war. Willfully. And they choose the consequences, too. And then they conveniently forget they chose them.

It is rare to see the truth beyond the self-delusions. A sure sign, however, is double-speak.

Awesome stuff, Roland.

the whole war=peace is jingoistic crap parroted by pacifists to justify their cowardice. its a false comparison. No one says war = peace (except pacifists), they say peace will follow war, which is true. Sure leaders in wars are always preaching about "peace in our time" and that rallying to war will lead to peace, but most sensible people realize that war doesnt mean peace forever.

thats like saying "rain=sunshine" is a stupid idea. the fact is after rain, there will be sunshine, so in that sense it is true. After sunshine is rain.
Eternal peace is the illusion. Peace is the time between conflict. conflict is the time between peace. That duality of conflict and peace is the only thing thats eternal.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

War = Peace was made up by those who pass argument that war is in fact necessary to obtain peace.

That would be greedy murdering warmongers, not pacifists.

Same as the "support the troops" gets people to help promote the war through guilt.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

War = Peace was made up by those who pass argument that war is in fact necessary to obtain peace.

.

What most people would understand to be implied must be spelled out for you, so i will.

war is in fact SOMETIMES necessary to obtain a good peace. there is good and bad peace just like war. As i said, enslavement and complete capitulation is a form of peace. freedom and prosperity is another form of peace (and sadly, often shortterm). When someone decides to fight "for peace" most intelligent, sensible people will take that to mean "fight for a desirable and longlasting peace." Not end all war for all time or some such ridiculousness.

a pacifist plays 'words lawyer" and simply oversimplifies that to "war=peace? that dont make no sense!". most people arent that naive.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MrSmith wrote:

What most people would understand to be implied must be spelled out for you, so i will.

war is in fact SOMETIMES necessary to obtain a good peace. there is good and bad peace just like war. As i said, enslavement and complete capitulation is a form of peace. freedom and prosperity is another form of peace (and sadly, often shortterm). When someone decides to fight "for peace" most intelligent, sensible people will take that to mean "fight for a desirable and longlasting peace." Not end all war for all time or some such ridiculousness.

a pacifist plays 'words lawyer" and simply oversimplifies that to "war=peace? that dont make no sense!". most people arent that naive.

I think you explained nothing to me. It akin to support the troops. It's a methodology to get people onboard the conflict, and support it knowing peace will follow, but in reality that's not what happens, unless you practically genocide the opposition.

This prhase is meaningless in todays world, and those that use it are fooling people in to thinking it's a possibility.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I think you explained nothing to me. It akin to support the troops. It's a methodology to get people onboard the conflict, and support it knowing peace will follow, but in reality that's not what happens, unless you practically genocide the opposition.

This prhase is meaningless in todays world, and those that use it are fooling people in to thinking it's a possibility.

who is being fooled?!?! who do you know over the age of twelve that really thinks one particular war (assuming at least 2 people survive) will result in everlasting peace? Who would be so foolish as to take that so literally? name one person!

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MrSmith wrote:

who is being fooled?!?! who do you know over the age of twelve that really thinks one particular war (assuming at least 2 people survive) will result in everlasting peace? Who would be so foolish as to take that so literally? name one person!

You mean who has a crystal ball and can read into the future? Not too many people.

Unless there's a miscommunication going on here, it's passed off by warmongers as a means to an end. The entire phrase is synonymous with the world "solution".

War is not a solution unless you kill man woman and child indiscriminately. That is not an option anymore these days as it was in the past.

The whole terminology has become defunct, and is a misnomer used to fool people into accepting war.

Kinda like dangling the proverbial carrot in front of the mule.