chrissndrl2003 in Politics & Government > Military > Question said:
The Persian Gulf war was to get Saddam out of Kuwait. The mission was accomplished. I was there from November of 90 to November of 91. I did my 1 year tour. It sucked. It was hot, the flies and fleas were bad, sand storms every other day...
MY REPLY
In November 1990, the company that I worked for secured Saddam's agreement to withdraw from Kuwait and his invasion of Kuwait was something in which our nation had no legal right to act. The only time we could legally get involved in a conflict like that was if Saddam had committed an act of naked aggression. Meaning he invaded for no good cause and his motive was for material gains or to take over another nation. Both was not the case. Saddam's action was to correct a wrong, Kuwait's violation of OPEC rules. A policing action like what our nation does many times around the world!
You people should hold Bush's feet to the fire and hold him accountable!
.
2007-05-17 03:40:43 · 12 answers · asked by peacenegotiator 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
His loyal followers do NOT care at all about this. Listen to what they say. Here is a typical example. "It doesn't matter how or why we got into Iraq, we just need to fix it and not cut and run". It does matter to me and it does matter to millions of Iraqi's. I do think Bush needs to be held accountable.
2007-05-17 03:49:34 · answer #1 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Are you talking about the George W Bush or his father? His father was resposible for the first Gulf War, not W.
Iraq invaded Kuwait because Saddam needed money to support his war with Iran. Saddam wanted Kuwait and other oil based countried to slow production so they could raise gas prices, so Saddam could get more money out of the rest of the world, Kuwait said no. So, Saddam invaded Kuwait to take over their oil, so they could get more money that way. This dind't work, because Kuwait is a part of the UN and the UN helps each other when a non member invades them. So, we did step up and help them. Granted, we pretty much took over, but we got Saddam out.
The second Gulf War was due to Saddam lying about the WMD's. Saddam failed to let the UN inspectors in and inspect where they wanted to, when they wanted to. Saddam kept delaying and stalling, so he could move the WMD's or hide them.
Whether Bush was right or wrong, I will support him. He might not be the best president, but he is the one that was voted into office. Any other person in his position would have made the same choice or they would have too affraid to make a choice and the US might have been in a worse shape than it is now. If another person would have not went to war with Iraq again, then Saddam would still be causing trouble, Osama would probably launch more attacks on us, simply because we had a president they could walk all over. Bush made the right choice at the time. He might have not made the same choice then if he knew what he knows today, but I am sure you made many wrong decisions, but you know what, you have to live with them. Granted, your not in the position to send people over there, abd he does, but that is his elected duty to do so.
As far as holding him accountable, you are forgetting, Bush can't just attack a country on his own, he has to get approval from Congress. Congress agreed to let him go over there again, plus, there were many Americans who had no political influence in favor of going back over there and finishing the job.
Kuwait didn't violate OPEC rules, if they did, we would have sided with Iraq, and the other OPEC countries would have demanded we not help Kuwait.
2007-05-17 04:11:51 · answer #2 · answered by George P 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You state:
"The only time we could legally get involved in a conflict like that was if Saddam had committed an act of naked aggression. Meaning he invaded for no good cause and his motive was for material gains or to take over another nation. Both was not the case. Saddam's action was to correct a wrong, Kuwait's violation of OPEC rules."
So...he invaded a seperate, sovereign nation because they broke a trade agreement (financial partnership). By your own words, both WERE the case.
2007-05-17 03:48:04 · answer #3 · answered by evans_michael_ya 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You really should check your information before spouting off what other people have told you to believe. If you are just now a grad student, I assume you were still sleeping with the lights on back in 1990 and don't remember what the rest of us actually saw back then.
You have been seriously mislead if you can characterize what Saddam did to Kuwait back in 1990 as a "police" action that was justified. Look it up for yourself in a reputable source before posting more questions on Y/A.
2007-05-17 03:53:09 · answer #4 · answered by bkc99xx 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think that most people know what really happened.
There are, however, some slightly less sane people out there who spend their time going to question and answer sites trying to campaign some sort of uprising against the president. They have a pretty close-minded sense of right and wrong, and believe that all others just believe in their version of truth and justice.
Either take some sort of legal action or seek help for your obsessing.
2007-05-17 03:53:48 · answer #5 · answered by Norman 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Even though it came from the UN and NOT the US? Saddam did invade for personal gain and to take over the country! That was why the UN approved it!
2007-05-17 03:51:14 · answer #6 · answered by Chase 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
There is nothing noble about our involvement in Iraq or in any other place in the Middle-East. It is now and always has been about OIL.
Our government doesn't give a hooters dam about "democracy" or "freedom" over there. They only want to protect our sources for oil....thats all.
If the agenda was to bring "democracy", the U.S. would have invaded all the countries over there that are ruled by the Princes and Emirs... What our government does is toady to them, kiss their royal butts (no pun intended) and leave them alone to run their own little tyrannies.
If our government was so concerned about "human rights" or "genocide", we would have a presence in Rwanda and Darfur and other countries where genocide has killed millions....
If our government was so concerned about "weapons of mass destruction", they would have kept an eye on N. Korea, India and Pakistan and blown their nuclear facilities to he11....
George Bush is an idiot. He is also a liar. He and his cronies are the most corrupt and vicious administration I have ever seen - worse than Nixon could ever imagine...and I'm no spring chicken. My first presidential vote was cast for John Kennedy.
He will go down in history as the worst president my beloved country has ever had....and the world will remember him as one of the worst terrorists in the world.
2007-05-17 03:55:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Check the previous UN resolutions and try again
2007-05-17 03:56:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Is there a legit link to this story or is it just some poster. Because I or anyone can pretend to be anything on Y/A.
2007-05-17 03:45:02 · answer #9 · answered by Tin Foil Fez 5 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Trust me - Dubya's incompetence and arrogance has not slipped past me.
I hold him and his administration responsible for all of the atrocities they have committed and allowed.
He and his cabal will pay for the lies and death.
2007-05-17 03:44:46 · answer #10 · answered by Joe M 5 · 4⤊ 5⤋