Question 2: What was the stated reason that George H.W. Bush gave for not pursuing Gulf War 1 all the way to Baghdad in 1991?
2006-09-24
04:37:54
·
17 answers
·
asked by
Samuel Crow
3
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
In light of the fact that there was no evidence to suggest that Iraq possessed any "weapons of mass destruction" and no ability to manufacture WMD: Do you believe George W Bush would have invaded had it not been for the attacks of 9/11? And, how is it that Iraq became tied to the War on Terror, the war without end? I personally don't recall hearing a great deal about Al Queda in Iraq before the U.S. invasion. In 1991 Saddam Hussein did invade a nation without provocation (sound familiar), and therefore was justly and forcefully evicted from that country. The American President and allied forces chose not to pursue Hussein to the capital of Baghdad for fear it would create a power vacuum and lead to widespread civil unrest and terrorism, and would destabilize the region. His polls were at 93% percent after he "won" that war, but sadly only 10 points ABOVE his son's current numbers when he lost re-election. (Read my lips, no new taxes).
2006-09-24
05:13:26 ·
update #1
1.Wasnt the stated reason because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was an imminent threat to America.And that we didnt want the smoking gun of proof to be a mushroom cloud?
2.Because regime change was not feasible? You couldnt control the regime once Saddam was gone?
Im not sure about the second one at all, I was only 11 then, but I think I read in a book about George Bush, the first one.
2006-09-24 05:06:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by stephaniemariewalksonwater 5
·
3⤊
1⤋
Saddams refusal to allow weapons inspections in Iraq set off the chain of events. The resolution was signed by Iraq after the first Gulf war but they kicked-out the inspectors after Clinton was elected. The invasion took place with the approval of over twenty other countries and the UN. Iraq was given over eight months to comply with the original resolution beforehand but continued to play games. The King of Jordan privately told our head of armed forces that Saddam had WMD's and would use them. He had a history of using WMD's against his own people after an attempted coup. A General in Saddams army (now living in the US) has now stated publicly that the WMD's were moved to Syria before the invaision. Who knows? There were mistakes made in both wars, probably the biggest was when Bush Sr. didn't oust Saddam in the first war. Now we have another madman rattling his saber at the free world -- do you trust Iran NOT to use a nuke? I sure as hell don't.
2006-09-24 12:07:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
1) he first stated wmd and connections to 9/11, but a week or two ago, he said simply that he felt that Hussein had to be removed, in other words everything he said before was a lie. A simple minded bully, lashing out at the easiest target, rather than the right one. Ignorant people will fail to see the string of lies, that is what is great about this country.
2) Bush 1 knew that there was no exit once we got there. He ended the present threat and that was that. Prior to our invasion, I think Bill Maher was correct when he said that Hussein was just the mayor of Baghdad, no threat to anybody. Bush 1 knew we could ultimately control Hussein easier than a country without a government.
2006-09-24 11:54:39
·
answer #3
·
answered by SUPERMANMIKE 3
·
0⤊
3⤋
1. George the Younger went to war with Iraq for its staunch refusal to comply with U.N. resolutions. To Hussein the resolutions were no more than toilet paper. Faulty intelligence indicated they had WMDs. Correct intelligence indicated Iraq had the capabilities for producing WMDs, namely chemical weapons.
2. George the Elder was prevented from doing so for a couple of reasons: The original stated intent was to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. The second was tremendous pressure from neighboring middle east countries (Egypt, Jordan, Syria) to cease hostilities.
2006-09-24 11:46:46
·
answer #4
·
answered by Albannach 6
·
5⤊
0⤋
The reason was that we were allowed by the UN charter to go in and protect the Kuwaitis. We were not there to wage an all out war. The reason for war #2 was that Saddam continued to ignore the agreements that he made with with the UN to stand down his aggressive behavior. This went on for 11 years before the US, who had been carrying the lion share of the police duties, finally took him out. We were allowed by his agreement to fly recon missions over his country in a peaceful manner. Which we did do until he started firing missiles at our aircraft. Time and time again.
2006-09-24 11:48:14
·
answer #5
·
answered by It All Matters.~☺♥ 6
·
4⤊
1⤋
the reasons for the US Invasion of Iraq are as follows
1. violating 23 UN resolutions
2. providing training Manuel's to Al Qaida
3. financial support of Al Qaida
4. providing medical support to Al Qaida
5. having established support to Al Qaida
6. providing a place for Al Qaida to establish a place to network from
7. funding Al Qaida's attack on the USS Cole
8. Bin Laden was attempting to build a relationship with saddam based on hate for the USA and to move his base to Iraq becasue of tensions with the Taliban
9. saddam possesed NBC weapons which had used 10 times since 1983 and 3 times since the first Gulf War.
10. Saddam supported hizbollah
finally , it was also because of the support the president recieved when he said we would hunt down and destroy the terrorists and those that support them.
2006-09-24 12:00:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
0⤋
George W Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (proven false), had ties with Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda (also proven false), and was a threat to the United States, and some goobely-**** about "liberating" the Iraqi people and making them a democratic country (debatable).
I don't think there was any stated reason why George HW Bush gave up, I think that there was probably an economic reason at the time to keep Saddam in power, but who knows, maybe he was just a pansy. At that point though, we had a LEGITIMATE reason to throw Saddam out, the current conflict, I really don't think so.
2006-09-24 11:56:39
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
4⤋
He built up 9/11 as us having to go after the "bad guys" and the terrorists. If you remember, in the initial invasion and months of occupation, Bush still continued to deny it was a "war".
Then his next reason was to form a democracy there. Obviously, this didn't work. They still don't have a stable government or police force.
As for the reason for not pursuing the Gulf War all the way to Baghdad in 1991? I think I've forgottent that reason, but I'm sure he made up something.
2006-09-24 11:43:20
·
answer #8
·
answered by Big Bear 7
·
1⤊
5⤋
Finally, ~hayesfamily~. This is the first time I have ever heard anyone answer this question with the truth. Keep at it. Maybe there are still a few people that really want to know the truth.
2006-09-24 11:56:39
·
answer #9
·
answered by kyme 2
·
4⤊
0⤋
WMD.
2. That the objective was to get Sadam out of Kuwait and that had been achieved.
2006-09-24 11:51:29
·
answer #10
·
answered by fatsausage 7
·
3⤊
0⤋