If America Had Let Iraq Take Kuwait

I was listening to an interview with Craig Winn (yah I know he's kind of crazy) on Coast to Coast AM. And he made an argument that really got me thinking and I wanted your views on it.

I'm paraphrasing here, but he basically said that the first Gulf War was fought for Bush's best interest, not America's best interest. He claimed that the real reason the war was started was to stop Iraq from taking Saudi Arabia after Kuwait, because of George Bush's business deals with the Saudi's.

He went on to say that America's best interest would have been to stay out and let Saddam go on and declare war on the Saudi's and eventually annex them. He claimed that with him in charge of Iraq/Kuwait/Arabia that terrorism over the next years would have dramatically decreased. He used the example that Iraq averaged 3 terrorist attacks a year under Saddam vs. the 1000's a year that happen now.

So my question is do you think he is right? Was it the wrong decision?

Heh I caught that episode last night too user. It's sad just how much the average guest circles the drain these days last night's show was with Winn was really good.

Yes it was a great episode. It's really had me wondering how it could have played out. He had some very interesting ideas. They still put good shows together occasionally.

If it had been played a little differently, Saddam could have been the guy basically in charge of the middle east. He would have made a strong ally for the US. One capable of keeping Iran in check.

And I didn't listen to the other segment with the woman talking about near death experiences lol

The damage done by terriorism isnmuch smaller than the damage done by a strong unified governement controlling the Persian gulf. Also, Saudi Arabia had just finished its best decade with the United States where it agreed to lower oil prices to help undercut the Soviets. So do we let the Ally that we know fall in hopes that the next guy is better. Even though he is negoiating from a postition of power. Also, no one in 1990 could know how much damage Muslism extremist would do.
Maybe the inavasion was personallt benificial to Bush, but it also made perfect strategic sense to the United States to not let anyone fuck with persian gulf oil.

Well personally I don't think his idea that if Saddam ran the show things would have been all that much better as Saddam would not have been willing to play ball with the petrodollar it would have probably plunged the world into chaos.

Also I'm not so sure about his claim that Saddam was anti terrorist as he paid off lofty sums to Palestinian suicide bomber's families for blowing themselves up.

Still interesting though I'm going to look up more stuff by Winn he seems to have some interesting writings of you set aside the biblical prophecy stuff.

The leverage of Sadam in thst position of power is way too much. It might have been better for the middle east, but certsinly not the US.

I dont know that I would call the Saudi's allies though. That's what it all comes down to. Remember where the highjackers came from? The fundamentalists? The country building mosques all around the world?

I think if Saddam had gotten it though, he could have came to the table with the US. Remember, a few years prior the US supported him in the war against Iran. And he was also shocked that the US came to help Kuwait...which they weren't really there to help Kuwait...but you get the picture.

Now say he comes to the table and offers the US a good deal, now you got a balance of power against Iran. An ally in the middle east who isn't programming terrorists to attack the West.

Well, i mean obviously the people of saudia arabia hate the united states much like the people of the unitwd states hating Suadia Arabia. However, both governments have worked together quite well over. As they are mutaully useful to eachother. And the support of fundementalist in Saudi Arabia was not meant as an attack on the US it was an attempt to sure up domestic support. The extent of damage done by the terror cells that were passively accepted was unforseen by both nations.

Saddam was a strategic ally against Iran that doesnt mean that he would.be allowed to do whatever he liked. War in Saudia Arabia would be extremely demitrimental to the stsbility of the persian gulf. If Saddam were allowes Kuwait and moved to Saudis why we would he not also take UAE and Qatar.

>. He claimed that with him in charge of Iraq/Kuwait/Arabia that terrorism over the next years would have dramatically decreased.
claimed, no one knows what would have actually happened in X was Y instead in history. If you could make a statement that was true of one single event you would have to game all possible other outcomes with people involved at the time to come to a conclusion which still wouldnt be accurate as no one knows all the events that occurred at the time to game them. Its a guess by a guy that makes youtube videos to earn a living, its like the little fun snipets they put in newspapers to fill space.

You realize Kuwait is nice and secular? Saudi 2030 is a direct result of protecting them. We AngloAmericans plan other countries so that ours may be free.

Not that we had the biggest moral obligation, but this aggression could not stand man.

And the fact that we pushed him out while thoroughly pushing his shit in, means that there was no harm no foul.

That was Saddam's Sudetanland, and he wasn't gonna stop.

It would've been a terrible geopolitical move if we let saddam take Kuwait. Already a regional power independent from the American sphere of influence it would've become enriched from oil production and might've allied with Russia against America.

Wow...

Okay, first off, Iraq was not independent from the American sphere of influence. It was, indeed, a key ally against Russia, acting a lynch pin against Russian influence in Iran. Which is why we spent so much money (and the occasional WMD) to fight both their war against Iran, and their civil war against the Iranian backed Kurds. All the wargames of the late 80's (both the military's and those sold to the public by Microprose) centered around US forces, based in Iraq, attacking Russian backed forces in Iran.

Further, the Soviet Union had already collapsed when the Iraq/Kuwait became a thing.

And Iraq was going to invade Kuwait, with or without Saddam's support. Various financial interests in Iraq were tired of taking up the ass from Kuwait every which way (including the classic "I drink your milkshake" move.), and were threatening to do just that. Saddam explained this to us, that not taking action risked his regime's grip on power and thus stability of the region, and asked us what we'd do if he invaded Kuwait - and we told him we didn't give a shit, as had been our official line on the potential conflict for nearly half a decade.

Unfortunately it was a case of one hand of government not knowing what the other hand was doing, as when some folks ran the numbers of the consequences, not just for the Bush family and the Saudis, but for several our allies oil industries, we suddenly changed our mind - but by then it was far too late.

In the end, the whole war was just one big misunderstanding snowballed out of control by some over the top PR campaigns. Granted, it didn't help that Saddam took it so personally, nor that we painted him as the worst thing since Hitler, or maybe everyone could have just rolled back and made some compromises to stabilize things, which, yes, would mean we wouldn't be nearly in the mess we're in now... But alas, hindsight is 20-20, and shit happens.

You are both disastrously stupid faggots.
First, Saddam wasn't anti-Russian or anti-communist at any point of his life and Iraqi military had nothing but Eastern Block technology. The biggest weapons contractor of my country (Czechoslovakia) was Iraq and they were considered key strategic patners.
Second, Russian influence in Iran, seriously? During the Iraq-Iran war, BOTH USA and USSR supported the Iraqis, while Iranians were pretty much on their own.

Don't you fags remember Hitler?
The same arguments you are making were made back in the day, and allowed him to take all his border states unopposed.
Now we know better than to do that, and when a nationalist militaristic expansionist total government attacks a small state near it, we go for the throat. Kill it before it gets bigger and stronger, because it will never be peaceful.

The world would be a better place, as by now the Iraqis would have eliminated, one way or another, all the so-called Royal families. There would now be something like the United States of Arabia and one of our best allies instead of a huge festering boil.

>France, Britain and Israel fail to take Egypt
>USSR, USA and Iraq fail to take Iran

Why are muslims so good at war, bros?

>implying western leaders give a shit about terrorists

>Saudi 2030
Oh wow a PowerPoint that a high school kid could've made is what we got out of the deal? Awesome!

Why the fuck did he want to annex Kuwait?

Oil?

it seems to me that it was just to gain poplar support, kind of like when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands.

it seems to me that it was just to gain poplar support, kind of like when Argentina invaded the Malvinas Islands.

>ftfy

I can see some long term logic of how ultimately the move strengthened Saudi Arabia to the detriment of everyone else, but in the immediate term the USA needed to enforce the UN prohibition of the use of force. That norm is worth upholding and discouraged other aggression during the 1990s.

Wasn't he up to his ears in debt after the war with Iran?