2007-11-29 04:22:14 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Lets see, we had a 560,000 Multi-national coalition force; the cost was paid by non-participating countries like Japan; all of the Arab nations supported us AND, we still were able to leave intact the regional power distribution (namely Iraq and Iran). More importantly, it was NOT a pre-emptive, unprovoked attack and, most of the troops were able to return home after a few months.
2007-11-29 04:39:38 · answer #1 · answered by outcrop 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Just to make things clear to everyone, Kuwait was never considered an ally before we went to war for them. People also forget that Iraq had legitimate grievances with Kuwait, and had exhausted other avenues of dealing with them before they invaded. Also keep in mind the words of the US ambassador, where she made it clear that the US would not have a problem with Iraq invading Kuwait. And then there was the false testimony before Congress alleging Iraqi atrocities that never happened. Should we even get into the tremendous press build up of the "mighty" Iraqi military, which neglected to mention that while they had a sizable army, it was poorly equipped and not capable of standing up to a legitimate force? There have been countless times when one country invades another, and we didn't bat an eyelash. The only reason for the first Gulf War was to keep the military budget from getting cut after the end of the Cold War.
2007-11-29 12:31:59 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Not at all. The first Gulf war was more of a world police action. It was not an occupation. It was a true coalition of countries working together. It cost the U.S. a whopping $9billion dollars. In the Bush Jr. war, it cost us that much every hour.
2007-11-29 12:25:49 · answer #3 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
NO
As a 24/7 liberal and X USMC grunt I am 100% pro war.
I think all war is good if you just look close enough.
2007-11-29 12:28:10 · answer #4 · answered by whirling W dervish 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Defending an ally against in invasion is a perfectly justifiable use of force. A war of choice is not.
2007-11-29 12:26:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
As a democrat at the time, i had no issue. Iraq invaded a country, and we helped that country out.
2007-11-29 12:26:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
At least George H W Bush was honest when he said that the United States had "longstanding vital interests" in the region, i.e., oil.
2007-11-29 12:32:40 · answer #7 · answered by tribeca_belle 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
i don't know about other liberals, but i did.
see, i remember our SecState Baker, through his representative April Glaspie, telling Saddam that the US had no problem with him dealing with Kuwait as he saw fit.
2007-11-29 12:45:25 · answer #8 · answered by Andrew 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Funny how cons say Israel is our only ally in the middle east but we went to war for Kuwait.
2007-11-29 12:27:03 · answer #9 · answered by The President 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋
No, makes you wonder doesn't it? We did not occupy during that war...the results are THIS war (which is a continuation)...
2007-11-29 12:27:43 · answer #10 · answered by Erinyes 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋