Why did so many countries join the First Gulf War against Saddam? He had to fight literally the entire Western Alliance plus half of the Arab world.
Did the world really care that much about Kuwait? Was it the 1990s feeling of cooperation and Ameriboo-ism?
How could Saddam have miscalculated international sentiment so badly?
Looking at this map, he never stood a chance.
Other urls found in this thread:
c-span.org
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
slate.com
forward.com
m.huffpost.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
When even Bengladesh goes at war, you know there's something fishy...
He had plenty of support because his allies knew that Baathist Iraq was independent from the west and they didn't have a Rothschild bank.
>Why did so many countries join the First Gulf War against Saddam?
Because they didn't want one man to control so much of the world's oil supply.
>How could Saddam have miscalculated international sentiment so badly?
He actually asked America for permission to invade Kuwait, and he received an answer that he interpreted as "Yes, go ahead, we're cool with it." In other words, Saddam thought that America had approved of the invasion. Why he continued to believe this after receiving many, many contradictory statements is harder to explain.
>Why he continued to believe this after receiving many, many contradictory statements is harder to explain.
I think the idea was that he thought the international condemnation would die down and it would all blow over if he just dug in and presented a difficult enough target to dislodge.
Unfortunately for him, the coalition was able to pretty much dismantle the entire Iraqi army from the air, so when the time came for the ground war, it was kicking down the facade that remained.
In the case of the Arabs, George H. W. Bush had Colin Powell go around and tell them that if they wanted American to do the job that they would foot the bill. The US actually made a profit on the war itself.
c-span.org
While we're on the subject, it's worth mentioning video related. Bush sent an 8 minute video to Iraq related to the situation in Kuwait. Saddam sent an hour some video in response. Worth a look if you want to see early stage Gulf War diplomacy.
It was the end of the Cold War, Russia was basically dead, all the countries of the world wanted to jump ship and show their allegiance to the United States to keep getting aid and loans forgiven. America basically threatened a bunch of third world nations by threatening to cancel aid money, and used its financial leverage to bully in the rest of the world.
Saddam wanted to build a new pan-Arab nationalist superpower, that was his end goal, of course America wouldn't allow anyone to threaten their world dominance. Iraq represented the last nation willing to not bow to American hegemony so America resolves to destroy it.
A bunch of countries did side with Iraq: Yemen, Jordan, PLO, Algeria, Tunis, Sudan, Libya, Mauritania, and Cuba.
Americans fear a United arab ummah, so they try to kill all nationalist Arab leaders: Saddam, Gaddafi, and now Bashar.
Actually they then gave them billions of dollars of debt forgiveness and military aid. The whole "Arabs footed the bill" was purely for domestic American consumption, considering the massive amounts of aid and debt forgiveness America gave to Egypt, Syria, Kuwait, and even Jordan afterwards.
t. Muhammad
We fucked over Saddam in Gulf and 2001, but he was always our dog.
1. the Kingdom of Kuwait was stealing Iraq's oil. This had to be dealt with.
2. The Turks were using the Ataturk Water Diversion Project to reduce the flow of water into Iraq via the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers, This threatened to strand the river port of Basra (Iraq has no seaport) and Iraq's agriculture irrigation, thus reducing Iraq's ability to both grow and import food. Seizing Kuwait solved all three of these problems, and would have made the Arabian Peninsula a more stable and peaceful region. Desert Shield/Storm were two of the major mistakes of the 20th. century, with the end no where in sight.
You're both retards. Saddam wasn't an American dog, he was an opportunist. His entire military was supplied by Soviet technology and he was great friends with the Eastern Block, that entire region together with Iran really fucking defies Cold War politics and the USSR/USA dichotomy.
Second, he didn't want to create an Arab state. That plan died with Nasser.
Argentina wanted to have good relationship with USA so it sent one (or two, can't remember) helicopters
>c-span.org
holy shit that is amazing... thank you
i think ill file that away next to my gadafi UN speech
Also a navy taskforce that took part on sea operations, several destroyers and transport aircraft IIRC. It was called Operation Alfil.
>Second, he didn't want to create an Arab state. That plan died with Nasser.
You couldn't be more wrong.
On my phone, quick rundown?
Saddam wanted a Greater Iraq, which is not the same thing.
He planned on uniting with Syria through the 80's but it fell through cause he wanted full union but Syrians wanted a gradual transition to federation
Also, the Americans released many of his private conversations, and he himself spoke about it plenty. He definitely believed in uniting the Arabs like Saladin did before retaking Jerusalem
I don't know about UN speeches, but here's an infamous speech at a meeting of Arab leaders where he was mocked and laughed at while he explained why the Arab States' policies are stupid and accurately predicted the future.
Ghadaffi knew Americans would remove him because they were the ones who put him to power to begin with.
Oh boy I get to post this.
en.wikipedia.org
>A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (commonly known as the "Clean Break" report) is a policy document that was prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu, the then Prime Minister of Israel.[1] The report explained a new approach to solving Israel's security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on "Western values." It has since been criticized for advocating an aggressive new policy including the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and the containment of Syria by engaging in proxy warfare and highlighting its possession of "weapons of mass destruction". Certain parts of the polices set forth in the paper were rejected by Netanyahu.
en.wikipedia.org
>Richard Norman Perle (born September 16, 1941) is an American political advisor, consultant, and lobbyist who began his career in government as a senior staff member to Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson on the Senate Armed Services Committee in the 1970s.[2] Later he was heavily involved with the Reagan administration and served as an assistant Secretary of Defense and also worked on the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee from 1987 to 2004. He was Chairman of the Board in 2001 under the Bush Administration but eventually resigned in 2003 due to conflict of interests.
Ofc he leaves after the invasion has begun.
pretty much this, can be used for just about all western interventions of the ME
This.
But Americans had nothing to gain by Gaddafi's removal, if anything he had been cooperating with America for some time and eliminated his WMDs. Only one country was still his firect enemy and profitted from his fall.
This
And then when Hillary was the most vocal supporter of war against Assad the "Neoconservatives" left the Republicans and supported her.
>She spent significantly more time railing against the “alarming” Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement, which is gaining traction on college campuses nationwide. Pledging to “take our alliance to the next level,” Clinton said that one of the first things she’d do in office is invite the Israeli prime minister to the White House. That was a barely veiled rebuke to Obama, who never treated Benjamin Netanyahu with the deference the prime minister felt entitled to. Before the speech, some had hoped that Clinton might offer a word of solidarity or encouragement to beleaguered progressives in Israel. She gave them nothing.
The Jews have loyalty to each other first and only.
It's almost as if Neoconservatives love foreign adventures! No that can't be it, we should just single out the religion of some of them and blame a global conspiracy. Not like there weren't a bajillion non-jews who love bombing the third world.
>the religion of some of them
I love how Jewish identity alternates between being solely religious and ethnic whenever it serves their interests.
The Waltons, Trump, the Kochs are all rich and all influence politics, yet I see no one talking about some dastardly Christian conspiracy. It's almost as if rich people use their wealth to influence politics!
don't forget papa bush, he also announced he voted for killary
its sad that trump proved himself to be too much of a brainlet to weave himself around politics and his own administration spun circles around him so fast to keep him out of the loop and effectively make his administration Clinton's second coming
people will say >muh oil, but that's just a part of it
>wanted to conquer neighboring countries (Iran, then Kuwait)
>wanted to build an Empire
>was pan-arab nationalist
>had the 5th largest army in the world
>had chemical and bio weapons and was working on nukes
>was very anti-Western and anti-Israel
so basically swarthy Hitler
Gulf war served as a warning to all Arab dictators
he was never a good guy like people claimed after rise of ISIS
>at least he wasn't islamist
Ba'ath was LITERAL islamic communism
ISIS is led by his former officers
>so basically swarthy Hitler
>he actually believes this
wierd to see the uk argentina together in alliance so soon after the falklands
The Waltons, Trumps, and Koch's aren't virulent Jewish Zionist billionaires buying politicians for Israeli interests.
>Christian conspiracy
Is it?
forward.com
>Billionaire Sheldon Adelson’s new campus operation to defend Israel has picked David Brog, the head of the largest Christian Zionist organization, as its first leader.
Damn, but those are just Christians, Adelson couldn't buy a whole part-
m.huffpost.com
>WASHINGTON, Sept 24 (Reuters) - U.S. billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson has set a new record in political donations by giving $70 million to help Republicans in the 2012 elections, nearly triple the previous highest amount, according to news outlet Politico on Monday.
cool
The Gulf states payed more than half of the cost of the Gulf war, but the rest was mostly payed by the US, yes.
It's not Albert Wohlstetter at the top left, it's Richard Pipes, whose son, Daniel Pipes, was also one of the leading supporters of Iraq War, and who also, "coincidentally", happens to be Jewish
You're completely missing my point user. The gulf states "paid the bill". But America gave out billions of dollars of free aid and debt forgiveness as a "thank you" gift afterwards to many of the Arab countries involved
Baathism was founded by a Christian and Saddam's deputy was a Christian. He actively purged Islamists.
You're just lying.
>the religion of some of them
You mean virtually all of them? There were some non-Jewish politicians who adopted neoconservative ideology, but almost all neoconservative "intellectuals" are Jewish, with very rare exceptions like Douglas Murray and Niall Ferguson, both of whom are exteme Judeophiles.
Why do you find it so hard to believe that some Americans may be more loyal to countries other than America and that these Americans would try to use their influence to promote foreign policy which will be more beneficial fot the state they are more loyal to than it will be for the US?
Try to be more subtle next time, Shlomo
>3340216
>wanted to conquer neighboring countries (Iran, then Kuwait)
>wanted to build an Empire
>was pan-arab nationalist
>had the 5th largest army in the world
>had chemical and bio weapons and was working on nukes
>was very anti-Western and anti-Israel
Unironically based. Shame he didn't win.