Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Thanks Obama Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 11:16:50 -0800 Organization: Wheeler&Wheeler Lines: 54 Message-ID: <87fuxmvlct.fsf@garlic.com> References: <2ua1nc-s8a.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> <305009405.475003211.604742.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> <7d2733cb-9118-4291-a14d-d925f85f200f@googlegroups.com> <3beb92c8-a21f-4a6e-a52a-f2d234aec70d@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="9a6c8ce24fcd2caeb84dd64e0fa6007c"; logging-data="1915"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18fIuqYkrw3rNRoPJk+yfEtIzfZHRGmwtE=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:qMEB6gTsh7waQLYMMNXLt9/GBj0= sha1:6sTnqZPLal+f0ggvZ3ljq4VLAr4= Xref: csiph.com alt.folklore.computers:157511 "J. Clarke" writes: > Had the US not invaded Iraq, Saddam probably would not have fired those > missiles, so you're arguing a straw man. > > The reason Gulf War I had to happen was Saddam invading Kuwait. He was > given an opportunity to say "oops" and pull out, he refused to take it > instead using Kuwait as a bargaining chip to try to get the Israelis to > pull out of Palestine. That wasn't on the table and wasn't going to be > on the table. He was given told "remove your army from Kuwait or we > will remove it for you", and he decided to let the coalition do the > removing, which it promptly did. > > One could argue that the invasion of Kuwait was a failure of US > diplomacy in that the US ambassador failed to make it clear to Saddam > that if he invaded Kuwait the US would kill all of his soldiers and blow > up all his tanks and airplanes. > > After Gulf War I he did not shoot missiles at anybody. The problem > there was that after being defeated, insted of getting on with life he > decided to play games and after a while he got the Western public > confused over what was true, what was false, and what was a game he was > playing, which gave Bush ample rope to hang him. > > Removing him was a bad thing because more people have died as a result > of his removal than would have died if he had continued to lob his 50 > years out of date rockets at Israel, which seemed to be treating them as > an opportunity for trap-shooting on a grand scale. US had horribly offended Iran, disposing the elected government and putting the Shah in power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat and training his police (Schwarzkopf senior), the Savak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK After the revolution, US backed Iraq&Sadaam. The claim isn't so much that Saddam invaded Kuwait ... but it was then making preparation to invade Saudi. Then US has to choose between Iraq and Saudi (Saddam possibly believing that he had so tight with US that he could have his way in the mid-east). This account has Saddam believing that the US ambassdar gave him approval for invasion of Kuwait. http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/?p=517 Which goes along with the sat photo analyst account that the administration wasn't concerned until he reported that Iraq was marshaling forces for invasion of Saudi. Note last decade, the administration blocked families of 9/11 victims from suing Saudi as responsible (that legal system can't sue a country). The was lifted the end of 2013 and they went ahead suing Saudi as responsible for 9/11. The speculation is that the increasing US energy independence allowed the US to show more freedom in dealing with Saudi. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970