English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

We did George Bush senior fight Iraq over invading Kuwait? I never heard of Kuwait before he sent troops there.

Why haven't we sent our troops to Rwanda and Darfur too? I haven't heard of those places too till they started having problems

2007-02-18 14:17:07 · 11 answers · asked by . 1 in Politics & Government Military

11 answers

Well, that's just it, isn't it? You never here about the normal things that go on every day that go right. Only the screw ups are newsworthy (according to our media). But, to answer your question.... 1) George Bush Sr. sent troops to fight Iraq in Desert Storm because Iraq invaded Kuwait and was beginning to take over the country. 2) We haven't sent our troops to Rwanda and Darfur because we are kinda busy right now in Iraq, Afghanistan, and with the whole Iran and N. Korea thing. We just don't want to get involved with another war at this point (almost like we did with Somalia in the 1990's). We are afraid that we might get beat, because strategically speaking, it isn't good to fight a war on many fronts, or many wars at the same time. Well, hope this helps! :)

2007-02-18 14:31:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Saddam invaded Kuwait and the UN wanted him out of there and the USA went to war to
remove his forces from Kuwait!! The UN has
peace keepers in Rwanda and Darfur!!!

2007-02-24 05:19:09 · answer #2 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 0 0

The Kuwaitis were in fact "slant drilling", extracting oil from the Iraqi side of the border.

I hate to agree with Saddam, but it is a fact that Kuwait is legally the seventeenth province of Iraq. The British established their favored puppet regime in Kuwait, the dynasty which is still in power, by arranging for their chosen puppet to murder his uncle with a dagger while he was sleeping.

That change in administration was accomplished under the shadow of British guns from warships in the harbor making sure that the British would get what they wanted - a pliant puppet regime in a location that would control access to the route to India. The new regime installed by the British agreed to allow all its foreign policy decisions to be checked by the British before they became law.

The British feared that the Kaiser's Berlin-to-Baghdad Railway was to be extended to the Gulf and German trade would then threaten Britain's dominance over India. The Germans at that time were producing goods of better quality than the British, at lower prices.

Kuwait is not a real state but just a little piece of real estate torn away from Iraq for Britain's geopolitical ends in pursuing their longstanding quarrel with the Kaiser of Germany. America has foolishly inherited and perpetuated the imperialist British attempt to dominate the region. That's why Bush I fought over Kuwait, and it's why Bush II dragged us into his pointless invasion of Iraq. To put it bluntly, we were suckered.

2007-02-26 04:20:36 · answer #3 · answered by fra59e 4 · 0 0

Control of the price of oil. Darfur has nothing of interest to the U.S. Merely usless humans. Poor humans that makes them dispicable and worhtless in the eyes of the government the proof is in the fact poor humans of their own are treated with contempt and as the case of the victims of hurricain Katrina, they were not only not helped, policed shot them, organized looting. Fema delayed tiny little beyound any reasonable excuse. Then refused to allow people to haul these miserable little trailers to their own land. No FEMA insisted on fencing them all inside wired fenced off lots. Then before they could possably have found alternative housing started demanding the return of the trailers. Judges had to step in and reign in the madness....Mary

2007-02-25 15:12:02 · answer #4 · answered by mary57whalen 5 · 0 0

Kuwait was our ally, and friends of the Saudis (also our allies). G.Bush Sr. got many other allies together and got agreement to push the Iraqis back and get them out of Kuwait and leave it at that.

That stands in direct contrast to his son who invaded Iraq in response to no specific aggression on Iraq's part (and NO, they did not do 9/11), and ignored the allies, and the world, for that matter, and invaded.

Dubya's father was prudent. Dubya himself acted foolishly.

2007-02-18 14:27:05 · answer #5 · answered by T J 6 · 2 1

Rwanda and Darfur have nothing that the us wants or needs so the US has no interest there.

2007-02-18 14:39:07 · answer #6 · answered by tcher 2 · 1 0

Because saddam hussien invaded kuwait his niebor to the south, he thought he was going to control the oil that came from the regien. He thought wrong we needed the oil more than he did.

2007-02-18 15:18:05 · answer #7 · answered by Steven F 1 · 0 0

listen, Americans fight over anything they think they own
an American banana corporation
United Fruit Company of Boston
stole thousands of square miles of lush, rich agricultural land in Guatemala
their corporate interests were presented to the State Department
followed by CIA covert TERRORIST action
resulting in a coup of a DEMOCRATIC government
followed by the DEATH SQUADS of your beloved Negroponte
resulting in a 30 year civil war
and 200,000 civilian deaths...

you American Nazi's will reap what you have / are sowing

God have mercy on the naive Americans who are swallowing all this Government Military Propaganda on present day Iran and Iraq and 9/11 attacks

wake up

2007-02-18 14:31:40 · answer #8 · answered by lovefights 3 · 0 1

Till we get someone who cares about life not money or fame in the white house, then and only then will we have what we ambition for? LIFE AND FREEDOM FOR ALL!!!

2007-02-26 12:22:57 · answer #9 · answered by lizziemoffles 4 · 0 0

the Bush,es and Clintons and our world corp. congressmen have been in power 29years pluss its all planned its called the new world order. our republic is gone!

2007-02-25 01:37:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers