Shortly after Iraq War I, there was an officer revolt against Saddam, why didn't the US support it?

Question

There was a military revolt, they asked for help, were ignored, got slaughtered.
If we are better off without Saddam, why didn't we help the Iraqis do it?

Answer 1

That's a question that many of us asked - why didn't we complete the job in 1991? Why did we encourage a revolt and then ignore those who rose up? This was a contemptuous action on the US's part, and it harmed us amongst people who would revolt - it harmed us getting people to support the government in Iraq, instead of their local strongman. It has harmed us because it meant our word could not be trusted. It harmed us because even our allies hedge their support for us.

As do the words and actions of the "run away" groups and politicians currently are doing.

Answer 2

At that time Saddam was supplying Iraq's crude oil to US at a very cheaper price to the oil companies owned by Bush family and Cheney's company Hailburton. Saddam did that to escape from the wrath of the world community after he attacked Kuwait. Later on Saddam changed his stand started supporting OPEC and stopped supplying oil to Bush and Cheney companies. Jr Bush was waiting to get elected as president and take revenge on Saddam. Every body thinks the war in Iraq is on terrorism. But very few people knew that actually the war is for OIL nothing else. Jr Bush thought by attacking Iraq and after killing Saddam his oil companies can take control of the Oil wells there. All his calculations gone wrong and to his shock the new problem of civil war between the three Muslim groups Shia, Sunni and Kurd erupted. Bush is hesitating to agree that what is happening in Iraq is not a civil war but actually it is a civil war. But there is a blessing in disguise. Because of Bush the civil war in Iraq is taking it's toll on other Muslim countries too like Lebanon, Syria, Palestine and even in Iran. Good for the world. Let the Muslims fight among themselves and kill each other. Now the Muslims will understand how their fundamentalism and terrorism hurts others. What ever may the intentions unknowingly Bush did a good job for which he needs the due credit.

Answer 3

no you may faux to understand precisely what got here approximately. What seems to be clean on the exterior ought to finally end up in sadness. The consensus is that Iraq replaced into in the back of the attack below Saddam's orders, yet this replaced into in no way shown. The uncertainty is defined via a senior CIA analyst on the time, Stephen C. Pelletiere, who claimed: "...a actuality that has no longer been effectively challenged is that Iraq isn't often happening to have possessed the cyanide-based blood brokers desperate to have been to blame for the condition of the bodies that have been examined and that blue discolorations around the mouths of the sufferers and of their extremities pointed to Iranian-used gas through fact the criminal" For me, it quite is available to have faith that the U.S. did no longer intentionally deflect complaint of Iraq. it may be an outright assumption to assert the U.S. lined it up. it quite is obtrusive we did no longer choose Iraq to lose to Iran. in spite of the shown fact that it quite is basically no longer risk-free to assume it replaced right into a consipiracy...

Answer 4

The US supported the movement, but did little to aid it. You are right to feel that this was wrong.

However, I find it pretty easy for many Liberals who called for action back then (remember they called Bush 1 a "wimp" for not "finishing the job"?) to now push for complete failure as long they get their political power back.

Let the military win, they can if they are allowed...

Answer 5

Because peacenik politicians claimed it was "a wrong war in the wrong place at a wrong time" (or words to that effect)

Topple murderous tyrants? Outrageous! Next thing you'll want is have a say about what your kids learn in school!

Answer 6

For the same reason they did not support the Shah of Iran when he asked for help to stop the coming of Khomeini, stupidity!

Answer 7

Ask Clinton.