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

and how did president bush (not george bush, but his father) assuse that the war would be a success?

2007-06-10 08:36:52 · 10 answers · asked by niuen 2 in Politics & Government Politics

and how did president bush (not george bush, but his father) assure that the war would be a success?

2007-06-10 08:48:34 · update #1

10 answers

Wikipedia. I don't see the point in asking questions like this when you can get more detailed information from other sources rather than people from Yahoo answers.

2007-06-10 08:44:54 · answer #1 · answered by Open your eyes 4 · 1 3

The 1991 war was triggered when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. The U.S. went over there and kicked the Iraqis back out of Kuwait.

Not sure what you mean by "assuse". But it was successful because we're good at war. We're not good at the things that come after the actual war, but we're good at the actual war (the part with tanks and planes and guys in uniform).

2007-06-10 08:41:48 · answer #2 · answered by Farly the Seer 5 · 2 0

Stephanie is partially correct.
To understand the whole of the situation, you should really go back decades.
That war, then as is now, was about oil and who controls it. When Reagan was President, he reflagged all of the foreign oil tankers passing through the region (and provided them with U.S. Navy escorts) to protect them from Chinese made Silkworm missiles -- usually fired from the Iranian side. The world's economy runs on oil. Eisenhower knew this, Reagan knew this. Even crazy Saddam recognized this. He also wanted/needed greater port facilities into the gulf. Kuwait offered both. He took them.
Not that I disagree with what we are currently doing there, but back during Bush's (senior) day, he new that there is a vast difference between being a liberator and a conqueror. This was one of his BIG selling points to form the coalition. It's also why he stopped us on the highway to hell when we had the remander of his forces on the run out of Kuwait City heading back to Baghdad.
Offering a perspective you did not ask for... If you look at it strictly from an historical timeline perspective, this current war is nothing more than a continuation of that first gulf war.

2007-06-10 08:52:43 · answer #3 · answered by Doc 7 · 0 1

The Gulf War or the Persian Gulf War (16 January 1991–28 According to Wikipedia, the war was a conflict between Iraq and a coalition force of approximately 30 nations led and authorized by the United Nations (UN) in order to liberate Kuwait. The war developed out of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990. The aggression was met with immediate economic sanctions by the UN against Iraq. The international armed intervention began in January, 1991 and resulted in a decisive victory for the coalition forces, which drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait with minimal coalition deaths.

George Senior didn't capture Hussein, though our forced could have, because our forces complied with the UN who insisted we not and it was their operation, not ours.

2007-06-10 08:44:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

I believe it was for Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Bush senior's intention was to get them out of Kuwait and he never intended to go into Iraq after Saddam, unlike the popular misconception that he didn't finish the job by doing so. He had a real coalition of countries mainly because the Saudis were scared they were next.

2007-06-10 08:42:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Iraq under Sadaam came up with a pretext (that historically Kuwait had been "the 19th province of Iraq) and invaded and conquered Kuwait.

After doplomatic efforts failed, and after successfully building an international coalition under UN auspices, the US attacked Iraq to force them out of Kuwait.

Push (the first) stated a clear and limited set of goals--in short, that our only major objective was to free Kuwait. No further objectives (regime change, brining democracy to Iraq, etc.) were established.

finally,Bush (though he had his faults) was honest with the American people--there were no vague cllaims of terrorist conspiracies, WMD, etc. And he was also honest in that when the stated objective--liberating Kuwait--was achieved, he withdrew US forces from Iraq.

Too bad his son isn't half the man his father was.

2007-06-10 09:02:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

The US went to war against Iraq in 1991 because Bush went back on his word to allow Saddam to conquer Kuwait. Saddam was a US ally back in the 80s (as was that infamous 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Whatshisname), and in the middle of 1990, Bush told him he could have Kuwait. Bush would go back on his word in 1991 and demand that Saddam leave Kuwait. Bush also made the claim that Saddam was "gassing his people," which if it was true, was done with gas provided by the United States through the Defense budget.

Bush was well-aware that Iraq was a 3rd World Country and a non-enemy. He was certain of victory from the outset.

The major fighting ended quickly and Bush decided to follow the laws passed by Congress and not go for regime change. However, he placed troops in the Muslim holy land of Saudi Arabia and the US would bomb Iraq for 10 years afterward (which is mostly Clinton's responsibility). The current Iraq War began with a resolution passed at the wish of Bill Clinton in 1998.

Osama would declare war on the US in 1996, specifically mentioning our actions in Iraq and our troops in Saudi Arabia as the reasons why he did so. He recruited Muslim college students from Germany to carry out the plan he called the 'airplanes plan.' These college students were stunned that the airplane security was as weak as it was. The government had taken away the ability of passengers and pilots to carry guns to defend themselves. Bush II would ignore a memo enitled 'bin Laden determined to strike in US.' The college students bought tickets for 4 different flights and knives which were allowed on planes (though which the pilots were not equipped with) from Wal-Mart. They boarded the flights on the morning of September 11th, successfully hijacked all of them, and crashed all 4 of them. Two of them hit Towers of the World Trade Center. Another hit the Pentagon. The 4th crashed around Pittsburgh, but was supposed to hit the building where Congress meets.

Bush II's response was to refuse to negotiate with the government of Afghanistan to have Osama turned over and to just overthrow that government. Then he allowed Osama to escape into Pakistan, a supposed ally that is giving him asylum to this day. Next, he had a 2nd resolution passed relating to the Iraq War II, which Bill Clinton had planned just a few years earlier. He would invade Iraq, overthrow Saddam, capture him, put him through a sham trial, execute him, and institute a Democracy (also known as an elected dictatorship) in Iraq to replace the previous form of dictatorship. As everybody knows, this has been a total and complete disaster. In recent months, Hillary Clinton has been claiming that this is George Bush's war and that she had no part in it, while ignoring the reality that this is Bill Clinton's war and that Bush just continued and escalated Clinton's bad policy, which is going to lead to even more terrorism.

Iraq I was not a success by any stretch of the imagination. The reality is that the War on Iraq never truly ended and that both Wars are actually one War that has been going on for 15-20 years now. The US is about to start a War with the pro-America non-enemy known as Iran, if the Democrats don't instigate hatred in the Sudan first (Bush II has fortunately not continued the Clintonista policy of warmongering in Eastern Europe). Neither the Bush nor the Clinton families should be considered fit to hold the White House ever again. They are warmongers who make America less safe.

2007-06-10 09:34:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Iraq invaded Kuwait. The war was a success because we didnt attempt to overthrow Saddam, just push him out of Kuwait.

2007-06-10 08:39:20 · answer #8 · answered by Stephanie is awesome!! 7 · 2 1

We were defending the people of Kuwait (the history of which is kind of shady). Old George encouraged the people to revolt against Saddam, then he left them high and dry.

2007-06-10 08:44:07 · answer #9 · answered by Dull Jon 6 · 1 0

examine the question human beings........ she isn't talking relating to the conflict in Iraq, she is talking relating to the conflict against the small far jap principality of Irag. The English military have been suffering huge losses in this conflict and is on the verge of resign. I comprehend the UN are to intervene.

2017-01-06 04:01:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers