1st Iraq War

[ComradeRed]

Why did we fight saddam in 1990ish if we didnt take him out and liberate iraq's people then? What was the official purpose and the real purpose?

[Hawker]

OIL!!!!

The main reason of the existance of Western Imperialism in the Middle East.The US and other western powers,when Saddam conquered Kuwait,were afraid that Saddam was going to raise the oil prices,so they formed a coalition and "Liberated" Kuwait,and kept the prices of oil the same.

[ComradeRed]

But what was the official Reason?

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 07:35 AM
But what was the official Reason?
It was supposedly to liberate Kuwait. But in reality, the U.S. basically lured Saddam into Kuwait. They blatantly told him that they had no interests in Kuwait when he asked what they thought of him invading it. The purpose was to devastate Iraq. And the point of devastating Iraq is to make further adventures simpler. And the point of further adventures is for oil, a puppet regime and military base to ensure further adventures in the region, distract the population of the U.S., and other reasons.

[SonofRage]

yeah, a US government official told Saddam something along the lines of "we have no interest in your border dispute with Kuwait" then the US government used the invasion as an excuse to start a war and keep troops in the region

[ComradeRed]

Thanks again comrades for your help.

[birdfarm]

There's a little more to it than that. Not that you're wrong, but...

Backtrack another decade. From 1980-88s, the US supported Hussein in a long and bloody war against Iran (begun after Iran's 1979 revolution dared to topple the US puppet in that country*). The US supported Iraq for a number of reasons, key among them (1) to overthrow Islamic revolution in Iran; (2) to counteract the Soviet Union, who was also supporting Iraq (god forbid Iraq--the major military & economic power in the region, as well as being oh-so-strategically located--should get too close to the Commies!). US companies sold Hussein all those chemical weapons for use against Iranian troops (who otherwise were winning), and the US stood by Hussein as he committed most of the atrocities that Bush likes to babble on about now--in fact, Rumsfeld was in Baghdad the day that Hussein gassed the Kurds**. The overall death toll from that war is thought to be about 1.5 million people, including the passengers of an Iranian commercial airliner that the US shot down ("by accident")(now who's a terrorist?).***

Moving on...the 80s drew to a close, the Berlin wall fell, blah blah blah, and the Cold War was declared over. Now what? The US has armed and supported Hussein for a long time--now he's got a lot of arms, a big army, and he's getting pretty cocky, what with having the US as his best buddy for over a decade. But things have changed--now we are the only power in the world. Back when the USSR was around, we had to let people be a little more independent, because if we weren't nice to them they would go over to "the other side." But no, Cold War's over, and there's no "other side" to go to. It's just us, and y'all better knuckle under, especially if you've got a lot of oil. Saddam Hussein in 1991 was exhibit A in the US's demonstration of this new total power.

Previous posters are right--April Gillespie, US ambassador, told Hussein we didn't care what he did with Kuwait (an imaginary country like Iraq, that the Brits just pulled out of their asses for fun when they were drawing the map of the Middle East). And, we probably didn't care. But we did care about proving who's boss, reining in Hussein's military & economic pre-eminence, etc. Somewhere on the internet you can find the document that announces the US decision to go to war, and it mentions oil in the second sentence.

I'm not sure why they didn't "go all the way" in 1991. The reasons given by Bush Sr. in his book are pretty much the reasons that many leftists were pointing out to Bush Jr in 2002--didn't want to alienate everyone in the region (not to mention the world), didn't want to destabilize the local ethnic/religious divisions... etc.

According to Gilbert Ashcar (excellent guy--look him up), the reason we "went all the way" this time is basically that Iraq's oil production was going to be needed for the world supply in the next twenty years or so, and we needed to get in there and start modernizing the equipment, but we couldn't do that with the sanctions in place. Lift the murderous sanctions? Never! Instead we'll kill some more people, just to save face.

Incidentally, we, the US, don't need Iraq's oil. We have plenty from Mexico & other closer allies. What we do want is to control ALL the world's oil. Think if we could have simply pulled the plug on our enemies in World War II by cutting off their oil supply. If we have total oil control, in a world that's run on oil-based technology, then we have total world control. Elementary my dear Watson. So, it's true that the war on Iraq is NOT about oil. It's about world domination--so much more handy than oil.

Just my two cents. Now the footnotes I asterisked above...

* That's a whole other interesting story. The cliff notes version: in 1953, Iraq had a nationlist/populist leader (Mossadegh), who dared to challenge Britain's imperial domination, and whom the CIA helped overthrow in order to re-instate the Shah (=king) as their puppet. Had Mossadegh succeeded, there would have been the first model of a "democratic" (if bourgeois democratic) state in the "Middle East". However, Iran did not become independent of imperial domination until the 1979 religious revolution. Take-home lesson for the "Middle East": popular government cannot stop imperialism, but radical religion can. Not exactly the model that anyone--imperialist or leftist--would have preferred that people adopt! Think about this anytime that someone tells you US interference will make things better. Even if it looks like it's "for a good reason," it always has extended messy consequences. And it's never for a good reason.

**Gassing the Kurds was done in retaliation for Kurds helping Iran fight Iraq. The Kurds have generally been mistreated by successive Iraqi governments ever since the Brits created Iraq. That gassing was a particularly horrifying incident, by the way--I have seen footage taken from a helicopter passing over the area just ten minutes after it happened--people were just dropped wherever they stood. Imagine flying over a town, street after street, full of busy morning foot traffic, all of which had just keeled over dead. It was literally stomach-turning.

***Another side note: while supplying Iraq with arms and support, the US also secretly supplied Iran with arms, in an attempt to negotiate liberation of US hostages held by Iran. That's the whole Oliver North "arms-for-hostages" deal that people mention sometimes. Isn't international politics fun?

[birdfarm]

P.S. I forgot to respond to the original poster's use of the word "liberate." I hope you were being sarcastic--I'll assume you were.

Anyone watch CNN the day they announced that Iraq's oil wells had been "liberated"? Doesn't anyone understand what that word even *means* anymore? (Rhetorical question)

For the record, removing one dictator (Hussein) and instituting another (Paul Bremer) does not constitute liberation. Iraq's people are definitely not "liberated," nor will they have "democracy." In the local "elections" that have been held, we have given them the option to elect any one of a number of candidates that we (the US) have selected for them--i.e. candidates who will be friendly to the US. (Generally, riots and protests ensue--people want to be able to elect local leaders, people they respect, not some US puppet flown in for the occasion). Any real election, that expressed the will of the people, would result in an anti-US government. The US can't take that chance. Everything must remain controlled. And it will be.

The day of real liberation in Iraq has been slowed, not hastened, by US interference. In history, imperial interference ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS creates a worse situation than before. I challenge anyone to come up with a counter-example.

The people must organize to create their own liberation--democracy cannot be "imposed," it must be won, in order to be lasting.

in solidarity
v

[Morpheus]

The reason the US didn't go all the way in '91 is because Iraq experienced a major working class upheval at the end of Gulf War One. Had Saddam not stayed in power Iraq would have experienced a social revolution. During the war there were large anti-war riots in Iraq and much of the Iraqi army mutinied. There were rebellions all over Iraq against Saddam and against the war. In the North Workers' Councils were formed, called Shoras. This was a much greater threat to the US than Saddam, so they massacred retreating Iraqi troops which had mutinied. They let him use helicopters against the rebellion, and quickly made a cease fire. See Ten Days that Shook Iraq (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/7672/tendays.html) and The Kurdish Uprising (http://geocities.com/cordobakaf/blob_kurds.html) for more on this.

[Hiero]

But if iraq did invade Kuwait since it was friends with USA wouldnt it keep the same prices anyway.

[LSD]

But if iraq did invade Kuwait since it was friends with USA wouldnt it keep the same prices anyway.

Not the point, they never really gave a shit about Kuwait, if they had they would of informed Hussein that they didn't want it touched and he sure as hell would of listened. No, the United States wanted an excuse to demonstrate how the post-cold war would work. They wanted to show off their big guns and Iraq was a good target. It was far away, it was a dictatorship (therefore evil), it was a reasonably aggressive country that they knew they could manipulate, and, of course, they knew all about its defenses because they had instaled them.

It was saber rattling, nothing more.

[LuZhiming]

* That's a whole other interesting story. The cliff notes version: in 1953, Iraq had a nationlist/populist leader (Mossadegh), who dared to challenge Britain's imperial domination, and whom the CIA helped overthrow in order to re-instate the Shah (=king) as their puppet. Had Mossadegh succeeded, there would have been the first model of a "democratic" (if bourgeois democratic) state in the "Middle East". However, Iran did not become independent of imperial domination until the 1979 religious revolution. Take-home lesson for the "Middle East": popular government cannot stop imperialism, but radical religion can. Not exactly the model that anyone--imperialist or leftist--would have preferred that people adopt! Think about this anytime that someone tells you US interference will make things better. Even if it looks like it's "for a good reason," it always has extended messy consequences. And it's never for a good reason.

Yes, check my avatar, I am an admirer of Mossadegh. :(

Also, I want to add the significant fact that the British owned Iranians largest oil company, and after the CIA intervention, the U.S. and Britain jointly gained profits from it. That is very significant for one to determine the motives of the operation.


Backtrack another decade. From 1980-88s, the US supported Hussein in a long and bloody war against Iran (begun after Iran's 1979 revolution dared to topple the US puppet in that country*). The US supported Iraq for a number of reasons, key among them (1) to overthrow Islamic revolution in Iran; (2) to counteract the Soviet Union, who was also supporting Iraq (god forbid Iraq--the major military & economic power in the region, as well as being oh-so-strategically located--should get too close to the Commies!). US companies sold Hussein all those chemical weapons for use against Iranian troops (who otherwise were winning), and the US stood by Hussein as he committed most of the atrocities that Bush likes to babble on about now--in fact, Rumsfeld was in Baghdad the day that Hussein gassed the Kurds**. The overall death toll from that war is thought to be about 1.5 million people, including the passengers of an Iranian commercial airliner that the US shot down ("by accident")(now who's a terrorist?).***

As you have mentioned in your third note, the U.S. secretly sent weapons to Iran. Perhaps you didn't mention it, but Jimmy Carter in fact encouraged Saddam to invade Iraq.(Through Faud of Saudi Arabia) The U.S. policy in that war is best demonstrated by the words of Henry Kissinger: "I hope they kill eachother."


Moving on...the 80s drew to a close, the Berlin wall fell, blah blah blah, and the Cold War was declared over. Now what? The US has armed and supported Hussein for a long time--now he's got a lot of arms, a big army, and he's getting pretty cocky, what with having the US as his best buddy for over a decade. But things have changed--now we are the only power in the world. Back when the USSR was around, we had to let people be a little more independent, because if we weren't nice to them they would go over to "the other side." But no, Cold War's over, and there's no "other side" to go to. It's just us, and y'all better knuckle under, especially if you've got a lot of oil. Saddam Hussein in 1991 was exhibit A in the US's demonstration of this new total power.

I don't agree with this interpretation. I believe the U.S. was planning the overthrow of Saddam since at the least, shortly before the Iran/Iraq War.


It's about world domination--so much more handy than oil.

I agree that that is the main reason for it, but I believe oil plays a role. It isn't the U.S.' need for the population to have it, it is simply the money it can make from owning it. Just like they did with the Shah in Iran.


***Another side note: while supplying Iraq with arms and support, the US also secretly supplied Iran with arms, in an attempt to negotiate liberation of US hostages held by Iran. That's the whole Oliver North "arms-for-hostages" deal that people mention sometimes. Isn't international politics fun?

I disagree with that interpretation. The words of Henry Kissinger show the reason for this particularU.S. policy.