Why did Bush Sr not invade Iraq during the Gulf War?

Question

Saddam was just executed for crimes against humanity... all these crimes were committed in the 80s or prior.

Gulf War 1989 - Saddam invades Kuwait and we go in and run him out.... right. He also had WMDs at the time.

Now he is executed and Iraq is occupied for those crimes and violations... Why didn't we do it then?

Just wondering?

Crap forgot to mention that we already knew he had gased the Kurds at that time.

Answer 1

You need to go to www.history.com and read or get the audio/visual answers there? They are more accurately explained. But I will try, GHB went into Iraq to beg upon them when he was VP under Reagan? (VP is in charge of Foreign affairs eh? ) and he being former CIA knew that jerk Saddam from his military involvements,( if you want to call it military, Ha! He was a terrorist then), We hired him to help us with the conflict in Iran, and if you go to the Iran/Contra issue you will see the Ollie North trials and the South American connection as well? Saddam was promised after the Iran settlement, to get in on the big oil biz with the Kuwaitis and the Saudis? (Bin Laden family as well) and when he wanted in they said no! the President was Bush then and the Saudis (his buddies, Oil?) gave America 11million dollars to go in and clean Saddam's clock! Bush pulled out and left alot of equipment behind, and still remember we armed Iraq to fight Iran for us, and we also trained them in battle too! Saddam continued to have open training terrorist camps to the highest bidders of his group! And Bush knew this and left it all a secret eh? What secret? Do you think it was easy walking into the White House after that fiasco? Clinton was faced with a real mess! My God Yemen was up for grabs, and Pakistan continually stated they were going to nuke us! Clinton and Gore simmered those animals down for 8 years, and all the Bush family did was stir it all up again! That is what they do? They spy and send others to die after they start wars to control, they are simply identified with. They are instigators and infiltrators, they use covert actions for just about everything! Bush Sr. or Junior are not Soldiers they are spies in pollitics, to put it mildly, and they can only cause debacle, disaster, and doom! And lastly to execute Saddam then we needed an excuse? WMD? Because when Clinton was in he would not let them ever! Because it would cause a real War then! Of course Clinton knew about Bin Laden, that family is synonomis with oil? But to assassinate one of them is to give the arabs a reason to kill the infidel! There is always more ways to skin a cat you know? Kill them with kindness worked in that case then. And when Junior got in he started it all up again to finish what his father didn't and his friends were insecure in Saudi and Kuwait? And Israel is secondary to Bush or don't you know that ?

Answer 2

We did invade then withdrew. Now we invaded and are occupying.

1. Saddam was just executed for crimes against humanity... all these crimes were committed in the 80s or prior.

Yes, while he was on the US payroll and was supported in his attack on Iran.

2. Gulf War 1989 - Saddam invades Kuwait and we go in and run him out.... right. He also had WMDs at the time.

Yes, we knew about the WMD's because we still had the receipts for them. He gave up his WMD's when the inspectors went in and was never misleading about them in the least. He cooperated fully with UN inspection teams. The Kuwait thing was entirely to protect Saudi oil.

3. Now he is executed and Iraq is occupied for those crimes and violations... Why didn't we do it then?

It is all show! We don't care about that petty crime he was executed for in the least. This was a PR stunt plain and simple, a dumb one which backfired completely... We didn't do it then for the same reason we didn't do it to people like Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Somoza in Nicaragua, Marcos in the Philippines, Duvalier in Haiti, the Saudi royal family and many other brutal killers we support or have supported.

Answer 3

According to what I've read, the leading military generals advised Bush against invading Iraq in the early 1990s. The generals told Bush Sr. that:

1. The coalition forces joined America in fighting against Iraq to get Iraq out of Kuwait. Those partners in the war would not support an invasion of Iraq.

2. The generals told Bush Sr. that there is a difference between defeating an enemy and occupying a defeated enemy. The generals felt the USA did not have the capability of maintaining an occupying force in Iraq.

So, Bush Sr. did not attack Iraq, but Iraq had to agree to stipulations in their defeat like allow inspectors into the country to make sure there was no nuclear or biological weapons being built. Subsequently, over the next 10 years Sadam ignored inspectors and prevented them from insuring there were no mass destruction weapons being built. He did this for 10 years!

Then after 9-11, poor intelligence agency data said that Sadam was building weapons of mass destruction. In a post 9-11 era, the current Bush decided it was in the best interest of the USA to invade before Iraq sponsored an attack on our soil again. Congress, based on the information we had, agreed and allowed the President to attack Iraq.

Now, with poor progress in Iraq and no clear plan of occupation, Congressional Democrats are blaming Bush for believing data that they themselves agreed to. In their eyes, its all his fault. Bottom line the bad news is that Iraq is a mess, but the good news is that since our attack against Islamic radicals in both Afghanistan and Iraq, we have had no further attacks on the USA.

I'm sure you'll find responses to your question that will tell you that the current Bush was wrong to invade Iraq. You'll get politically motivated responses the will give you their emotional response instead of factual responses. Bush has many haters in the USA. The war in Iraq is hard and many want us to just leave the country. There are also those who think he's doing his best to protect our country today. I've tried to be non-political here and give you just the facts.

Hope this helps.

Answer 4

Because the UN mandate only was for getting Saddam out of Kuwait, the other nations in the coalition would not go after another countries souverign.

The sanctions were put into effect.

He believed that the people of Iraq would be able to succeed with their revolt and drive Saddam out of power. However we did not help them and so we have the situation we have now, with little trust of Americans.

If Bush the elder had continued to Bagdad, we would not be engaged in combat now. If Clinton had done anything real about it we would not either.
They should not have waited 12 years for things to ferment.

Answer 5

Because it doesn't take a military genius to foresee what has happened now. It would have been the exact same mess. They knew it and weren't stupid.

Of course America knew Saddam had WMD and gas, isn't that what the Iran and Iraq contra was all about? I don't know all the details because I'm too young and haven't done a research project but you probably know right BB.

Answer 6

When Iraq was invaded, I remember reading and hearing about GWB going in and finishing off Saddam...for his daddy. At the time, I thought this was ludicrous and horribly small minded. Now, I'm not so sure....

The old addage holds true, once again...'time will tell'. Looking at this whole story, with father and son, we have the benefit of almost 20 years of action and experience to look back on. And more and more, it would appear that the capture and execution of Saddam became retributive justice for daddy. At the time, senior listened to his advisors...and he did what was considered to be the right thing...by many. Fast forward, and we see the progress of 'evil' as a result of his listening to those advisors. Junior swoops in to save the day - and clear daddy's name from any criticism for not taking care of him when he had the chance.

Not sure if this is accurate, but it would surely make a great plot for a novel...and sadly, it wouldn't surprise me a bit. POTUS has been the greatest gig of GWB's lifetime...he's had a ball! He may well want to go on speaking tours through schools in the US after his replacement in the Oval Office...showing bullies that their actions could just prove to be a great training for the best job in the US...President!

Answer 7

Can't give you solid info, but there was a video tape of Jr. talking to a dinner group, about the war in Iraq. The look on Sr.'s face was unmistakable. His look of disapproval and even disgust, could not be missed. The news media made a small play on this, but it suddenly disappeared.

Answer 8

The US government made three key mistakes in handling the end of the 1991 war. It encouraged the Shiites and Kurds to rebel, but didn't support them. Second, the U.S government assumed that Saddam's regime was so damaged that his fall was inevitable." We were dissapointed that Saddam's defeat did not break his hold on power, as... we had come to expect," the first president wrote in his memoir with his national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft in 1998.Third, The U.S military didn't undercut the core of Saddam Hussein's power.

Answer 9

It was 10 years and 17 UN Resolutions earlier! Russia also was not in agreement and we probably and foolishly hoped Saddamn Insane could be brought back to reality!

Truth, there are sound arguments that Kuwait belongs to Iraq!

The massacre of the Kurds and others after the first Gulf War also damned him!

He was invited to just grab all the money he could carry and settle in Sa'udi Arabia, but chose to be defiant!

Answer 10

It was because George sr. followed the advise of his commanders and the Saudi government that warned him of what would happen if he did. Fast foreward to George jr and his disregard of advise from every one and the results have been just as projected in the first Gulf war. I guess it boils down to Dad was smarter then son. To top it off by the time that jr came around Saddam was contained, he could not even fly from one part of Iraq to another. He would be no threat at the time.