Why did the US leave Saddam in power in 1991?

Why did the US leave Saddam in power in 1991?

A)Because occupying Baghdad was a mission too far?
0
No votes
B)Because it would have been necessary to destroy the Republican Guard thus leaving the ME open to Iranian aggression?
0
No votes
C)Because our ME allies would not support it?
1
20%
D)Because people in other ME countries would want what the Iraqis would have had - Democracy?
0
No votes
E)The moral high ground is at the pinnacle of a slippery slope. It should be avoided at all costs.
0
No votes
F)All of the above
0
No votes
G)A, B, and C
3
60%
H)D and E
1
20%
 
Total votes: 5

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Why did the US leave Saddam in power in 1991?

Post by Doc »

Seems to be a lot of views on this. He killed 100,000 immediately there after. Brant Scowcroft bragged that of course he ordered American troops to stand down and literally watch in plain sight as 1000's of Shites were rounded up by Saddam's thugs and killed.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Why did the US leave Saddam in power in 1991?

Post by Ibrahim »

Some combination of the first three, but the main excuse is "stability." People underestimate how opposed US foreign policy is to any kind of instability, first on the justification that it was fertile ground for communism, now under the justification that it is fertile ground of terrorism.

Regional allies supported this plan at the time for various self-interested reasons.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Why did the US leave Saddam in power in 1991?

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:Some combination of the first three, but the main excuse is "stability." People underestimate how opposed US foreign policy is to any kind of instability, first on the justification that it was fertile ground for communism, now under the justification that it is fertile ground of terrorism.

Regional allies supported this plan at the time for various self-interested reasons.
But remember Ibrahim this was 1991 there wasn't any soviet Union at that time.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Why did the US leave Saddam in power in 1991?

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Some combination of the first three, but the main excuse is "stability." People underestimate how opposed US foreign policy is to any kind of instability, first on the justification that it was fertile ground for communism, now under the justification that it is fertile ground of terrorism.

Regional allies supported this plan at the time for various self-interested reasons.
But remember Ibrahim this was 1991 there wasn't any soviet Union at that time.
Iran/Hezbollah
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Why did the US leave Saddam in power in 1991?

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Some combination of the first three, but the main excuse is "stability." People underestimate how opposed US foreign policy is to any kind of instability, first on the justification that it was fertile ground for communism, now under the justification that it is fertile ground of terrorism.

Regional allies supported this plan at the time for various self-interested reasons.
But remember Ibrahim this was 1991 there wasn't any soviet Union at that time.
Iran/Hezbollah
As I recall there was not much going on in the way of terrorism at the time either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_te ... ents,_1991

Yeap one incident in Lebanon. All other terrorism was in the non Muslim parts of the world. Mostly due to the collaspe of the Soviet Union and its support for ME terrorism.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Why did the US leave Saddam in power in 1991?

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Some combination of the first three, but the main excuse is "stability." People underestimate how opposed US foreign policy is to any kind of instability, first on the justification that it was fertile ground for communism, now under the justification that it is fertile ground of terrorism.

Regional allies supported this plan at the time for various self-interested reasons.
But remember Ibrahim this was 1991 there wasn't any soviet Union at that time.
Iran/Hezbollah
As I recall there was not much going on in the way of terrorism at the time either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_te ... ents,_1991

Yeap one incident in Lebanon. All other terrorism was in the non Muslim parts of the world. Mostly due to the collaspe of the Soviet Union and its support for ME terrorism.

Wow, if you are claiming that Hezbollah was not on the radar in 1991, and that Iraq as a counterbalance to Iran and growing Iranian influence in Lebanon was not a consideration, then your understanding of the most basic modern history of the region is sorely lacking. Especially considering that the First Intafada was still going on at this time, and Israel was greatly concerned about facing multiple threats at the same time.

Various "lists of terrorist attacks" are meaningless without context, and I seldom see educated people post them.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Why did the US leave Saddam in power in 1991?

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Some combination of the first three, but the main excuse is "stability." People underestimate how opposed US foreign policy is to any kind of instability, first on the justification that it was fertile ground for communism, now under the justification that it is fertile ground of terrorism.

Regional allies supported this plan at the time for various self-interested reasons.
But remember Ibrahim this was 1991 there wasn't any soviet Union at that time.
Iran/Hezbollah
As I recall there was not much going on in the way of terrorism at the time either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_te ... ents,_1991

Yeap one incident in Lebanon. All other terrorism was in the non Muslim parts of the world. Mostly due to the collaspe of the Soviet Union and its support for ME terrorism.

Wow, if you are claiming that Hezbollah was not on the radar in 1991, and that Iraq as a counterbalance to Iran and growing Iranian influence in Lebanon was not a consideration, then your understanding of the most basic modern history of the region is sorely lacking. Especially considering that the First Intafada was still going on at this time, and Israel was greatly concerned about facing multiple threats at the same time.

Various "lists of terrorist attacks" are meaningless without context, and I seldom see educated people post them.
Where did I say that Hezbollah did not exist in 1991? I said there was only one major terror attack in the ME in 1991. That was in Lebanon. Terrorism was not as big a deal at that time because of the fall of the Soviet Union. The Iran/Iraq war was over. US troops were in Saudi Arabia so Iran was held in check on the ground and had no interest in going head to head with the US military at that time.

Had US forces in not the coalition gone to Baghdad the 80% of Iraqis not Sunni-Arabs would have supported the ouster of Saddam. After feeling betrayed in the 1991 war they weren't so supportive in 2003.

When did Arafat go to the West Bank effectively ending the first intifada? Seems like it was right after the first gulf war. So not so much a problem after all. Except for Gaza and West bank Palestinians that supported his return of course.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Azrael
Posts: 1863
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: Why did the US leave Saddam in power in 1991?

Post by Azrael »

Bush left him in power because he was no longer strong enough to threaten Saudi Arabia; but just strong enough to keep Iran out of Basra.
cultivate a white rose
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Why did the US leave Saddam in power in 1991?

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Some combination of the first three, but the main excuse is "stability." People underestimate how opposed US foreign policy is to any kind of instability, first on the justification that it was fertile ground for communism, now under the justification that it is fertile ground of terrorism.

Regional allies supported this plan at the time for various self-interested reasons.
But remember Ibrahim this was 1991 there wasn't any soviet Union at that time.
Iran/Hezbollah
As I recall there was not much going on in the way of terrorism at the time either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_te ... ents,_1991

Yeap one incident in Lebanon. All other terrorism was in the non Muslim parts of the world. Mostly due to the collaspe of the Soviet Union and its support for ME terrorism.

Wow, if you are claiming that Hezbollah was not on the radar in 1991, and that Iraq as a counterbalance to Iran and growing Iranian influence in Lebanon was not a consideration, then your understanding of the most basic modern history of the region is sorely lacking. Especially considering that the First Intafada was still going on at this time, and Israel was greatly concerned about facing multiple threats at the same time.

Various "lists of terrorist attacks" are meaningless without context, and I seldom see educated people post them.
Where did I say that Hezbollah did not exist in 1991?
Where did I say you did. You said there was "not much going on," which is clearly wrong.

I said there was only one major terror attack in the ME in 1991.
Not relevant.


Terrorism was not as big a deal at that time because of the fall of the Soviet Union.
The two things are not connected.

The Iran/Iraq war was over. US troops were in Saudi Arabia so Iran was held in check on the ground and had no interest in going head to head with the US military at that time.
That's just the point, they could harass Israel and the US by way of Lebanon. Maybe even shipping Hezbollah some of the weapons Reagan covertly sold them.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Why did the US leave Saddam in power in 1991?

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote: As I recall there was not much going on in the way of terrorism at the time either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_te ... ents,_1991

Yeap one incident in Lebanon. All other terrorism was in the non Muslim parts of the world. Mostly due to the collaspe of the Soviet Union and its support for ME terrorism.

Wow, if you are claiming that Hezbollah was not on the radar in 1991, and that Iraq as a counterbalance to Iran and growing Iranian influence in Lebanon was not a consideration, then your understanding of the most basic modern history of the region is sorely lacking. Especially considering that the First Intafada was still going on at this time, and Israel was greatly concerned about facing multiple threats at the same time.

Various "lists of terrorist attacks" are meaningless without context, and I seldom see educated people post them.
Where did I say that Hezbollah did not exist in 1991?
Where did I say you did. You said there was "not much going on," which is clearly wrong.

I said there was only one major terror attack in the ME in 1991.
Not relevant.
As in "not much going on" it certainly is


Terrorism was not as big a deal at that time because of the fall of the Soviet Union.
The two things are not connected.
Nice easy claim you make. However the facts don't agree with it at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_ ... viet_Union
Soviet secret services have been described by GRU defectors Viktor Suvorov and Stanislav Lunev as "the primary instructors of terrorists worldwide"[3][4][5] According to Ion Mihai Pacepa, KGB General Aleksandr Sakharovsky once said: "In today’s world, when nuclear arms have made military force obsolete, terrorism should become our main weapon."[6] He also claimed that "Airplane hijacking is my own invention".

He claims that in 1969 alone, 82 planes were hijacked worldwide by the KGB-financed PLO.[6] George Habash, who worked under KGB guidance,[7] explained:

"Killing one Jew far away from the field of battle is more effective than killing a hundred Jews on the field of battle, because it attracts more attention."[6]

Lt. General Ion Mihai Pacepa described operation "SIG" (“Zionist Governments”) that was devised in 1972, to turn the whole Islamic world against Israel and the United States. KGB chairman Yury Andropov explained to Pacepa that

"a billion adversaries could inflict far greater damage on America than could a few millions. We needed to instill a Nazi-style hatred for the Jews throughout the Islamic world, and to turn this weapon of the emotions into a terrorist bloodbath against Israel and its main supporter, the United States."[citation needed]

The following terrorist organizations have been established by the KGB: PLO, National Liberation Army of Bolivia (created in 1964 with help from Ernesto Che Guevara); the National Liberation Army of Colombia (created in 1965 with help from Cuba), Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine in 1969, and the Secret Army for Liberation of Armenia in 1975. [8] The leader of the PLO, Yasser Arafat, established close collaboration with the Romanian Securitate service and the Soviet KGB in the beginning of the 1970s.[9] The secret training of PLO guerrillas was provided by the KGB.[10] However, the main KGB activities and arms shipments were channeled through Wadie Haddad of the DFLP organization, who usually stayed in a KGB dacha BARVIKHA-1 during his visits to Russia. Led by Carlos the Jackal, a group of PFLP fighters accomplished a spectacular raid the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries office in Vienna in 1975. Advance notice of this operation "was almost certainly" given to the KGB.[9]

A number of notable operations have been conducted by the KGB to support international terrorists with weapons on the orders from the Soviet Communist Party, including:

Transfer of machine-guns, automatic rifles, Walther pistols, and cartridges to the Provisional Irish Republican Army by the Soviet intelligence vessel Reduktor (operation SPLASH) in 1972 to fulfill a personal request of arms from Michael O'Riordan.[11]
Transfer of anti-tank grenade RPG-7 launchers, radio-controlled SNOP mines, pistols with silencers, machine guns, and other weaponry to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine through Wadi Haddad who was recruited as a KGB agent in 1970 (operation VOSTOK, "East").[12]

Cold war and terrorism

Large-scale sabotage operations have been prepared by the KGB and GRU against the United States, Canada and Europe, as alleged by intelligence historian Christopher Andrew in Mitrokhin Archive [13] and in books by former GRU and SVR officers Victor Suvorov[14] and Stanislav Lunev, and Kouzminov. [15] Among the planned operations were the following:

Large arms caches were hidden in many countries for the planned terrorism acts. They were booby-trapped with "Lightning" explosive devices. One of such cache, which was identified by Mitrokhin, exploded when Swiss authorities tried to remove it from woods near Bern. Several others caches (probably not equipped with the "Lightnings") were removed successfully.[16]
Preparations for nuclear sabotage. Some of the hidden caches could contain portable tactical nuclear weapons known as RA-115 "suitcase bombs" prepared to assassinate US leaders in the event of war, according to GRU defector Stanislav Lunev.[3] Lunev states that he had personally looked for hiding places for weapons caches in the Shenandoah Valley area[3] and that "it is surprisingly easy to smuggle nuclear weapons into the US" ether across the Mexican border or using a small transport missile that can slip undetected when launched from a Russian airplane [3]
Extensive sabotage plans in London, Washington, Paris, Bonn, Rome, and other Western capitals have been reveled by KGB defector Oleg Lyalin in 1971, including plan to flood the London underground and deliver poison capsules to Whitehall. This disclosure triggered mass expulsion of Russian spies from London [17]
FSLN leader Carlos Fonseca Amador was described as "a trusted agent" in KGB files. "Sandinista guerrillas formed the basis for a KGB sabotage and intelligence group established in 1966 on the Mexican US border".[18]
Disruption of the power supply in the entire New York State by KGB sabotage teams, which would be based along the Delaware River, in the Big Spring Park.[19]
An "immensely detailed" plan to destroy "oil refineries and oil and gas pipelines across Canada from British Columbia to Montreal" (operation "Cedar") has been prepared, which took twelve years to complete.[20]
A plan for sabotage of Hungry Horse Dam in Montana.[19]
A detailed plan to destroy the port of New York (target GRANIT); most vulnerable points of the port were marked at maps.[19]

According to Lunev, a probable scenario in the event of war would be poisoning of the Potomac River with chemical or biological weapons, "targeting the residents of Washington DC". [3] He also noted that it is "likely" that GRU operatives have placed already "poison supplies near the tributaries to major US reservoirs." [21] This information was confirmed by Alexander Kouzminov, who was responsible for transporting dangerous pathogens from around the world for Russian program of biological weapons in the 1980s and the beginning of 1990s. He described a variety of biological terrorism acts that would be carried out on the order of the Russian President in the event of hostilities, including poisoning public drinking-water supplies and food processing plants. [22]At the end of the 1980s, the Soviet Union "was the only country in the world that could start and win a global biological war, something we had already established that the West was not ready for.", according to Kouzminov.
The Iran/Iraq war was over. US troops were in Saudi Arabia so Iran was held in check on the ground and had no interest in going head to head with the US military at that time.
Ibrahim wrote:That's just the point, they could harass Israel and the US by way of Lebanon. Maybe even shipping Hezbollah some of the weapons Reagan covertly sold them.
Harassing Israel is hardly what we are talking about even if the Iranians had not used up most of their weapons fighting Saddam
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Why did the US leave Saddam in power in 1991?

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote: As I recall there was not much going on in the way of terrorism at the time either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_te ... ents,_1991

Yeap one incident in Lebanon. All other terrorism was in the non Muslim parts of the world. Mostly due to the collaspe of the Soviet Union and its support for ME terrorism.

Wow, if you are claiming that Hezbollah was not on the radar in 1991, and that Iraq as a counterbalance to Iran and growing Iranian influence in Lebanon was not a consideration, then your understanding of the most basic modern history of the region is sorely lacking. Especially considering that the First Intafada was still going on at this time, and Israel was greatly concerned about facing multiple threats at the same time.

Various "lists of terrorist attacks" are meaningless without context, and I seldom see educated people post them.
Where did I say that Hezbollah did not exist in 1991?
Where did I say you did. You said there was "not much going on," which is clearly wrong.

I said there was only one major terror attack in the ME in 1991.
Not relevant.
As in "not much going on" it certainly is
You're still basing your comments on a "list of terrorist attacks," which tells us nothing here. The potential for Hezbollah, backed by Iran, to threaten Israel while they were dealing with the First Intifada was very real, and clearly one of several considerations in the US deliberately keeping Saddam in power. You're not really even disputing this.


Terrorism was not as big a deal at that time because of the fall of the Soviet Union.
The two things are not connected.
Nice easy claim you make. However the facts don't agree with it at all.
Actually not only are you wrong here but you've got the minor details backwards. The fall of the USSR led to increased clandestine arms sales of former Soviet weaponry, which was ideal for Iran's efforts to supply Hezbollah, SCIRI, and perhaps even the West Bank. The end of the USSR makes the potential terror threat in the region even greater. But my original critique was that your more direct connection was groundless. The marginally increased ease with which arms dealers might have operated post-USSR doesn't mean that there is some concrete connection between Iranian-backed regional terrorism and the USSR. Now, you might have just read a wikipedia article about Soviet terrorism sponsorship, but your implication here is contradicted by your own "list of terrorist attacks." We now know, as a fact, that Iran-sponsored terrorism in the region has only increased post-USSR.







The Iran/Iraq war was over. US troops were in Saudi Arabia so Iran was held in check on the ground and had no interest in going head to head with the US military at that time.
Ibrahim wrote:That's just the point, they could harass Israel and the US by way of Lebanon. Maybe even shipping Hezbollah some of the weapons Reagan covertly sold them.
Harassing Israel is hardly what we are talking about even if the Iranians had not used up most of their weapons fighting Saddam
Its exactly what we are talking about. The perceived threat to Israel was one of the main reasons the US kept Saddam in power, and obviously Iran has not "used up most of their weapons fighting Saddam" since they have supplied Hezbollah (who recently fought a war with Israel) and the Iraqi opposition to the US, and have massive stockpiles of weaponry in preparation for an Israeli/US attack.

In fact, ever since the Iranian revolution almost all of the US policy in the region has been to contain Iranian influence (and protect the Saudi monarchy). Even if many of those efforts turned out to actually benefit Iran in the long run.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Why did the US leave Saddam in power in 1991?

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote: As I recall there was not much going on in the way of terrorism at the time either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_te ... ents,_1991

Yeap one incident in Lebanon. All other terrorism was in the non Muslim parts of the world. Mostly due to the collaspe of the Soviet Union and its support for ME terrorism.

Wow, if you are claiming that Hezbollah was not on the radar in 1991, and that Iraq as a counterbalance to Iran and growing Iranian influence in Lebanon was not a consideration, then your understanding of the most basic modern history of the region is sorely lacking. Especially considering that the First Intafada was still going on at this time, and Israel was greatly concerned about facing multiple threats at the same time.

Various "lists of terrorist attacks" are meaningless without context, and I seldom see educated people post them.
Where did I say that Hezbollah did not exist in 1991?
Where did I say you did.



"Wow, if you are claiming that Hezbollah was not on the radar in 1991"

You said there was "not much going on," which is clearly wrong.
Wow, if you are claiming that Hezbollah was not on the radar in 1991

I said there was only one major terror attack in the ME in 1991.
Not relevant.
As in "not much going on" it certainly is
You're still basing your comments on a "list of terrorist attacks," which tells us nothing here.
How about you posting something other than opinion masquerading as fact?


The potential for Hezbollah, backed by Iran, to threaten Israel while they were dealing with the First Intifada was very real, and clearly one of several considerations in the US deliberately keeping Saddam in power. You're not really even disputing this.
It may have been "Very real" but it had very little to do with Saddam or the Iranians at that time. All the Israelis needed to do was give up the occupation and Allow Arafat into the west bank under the guise of a face saving "peace agreement". Later if you will recall Saddam was giving the families of suicide bombers money as compensation. Something he would not have been able to do if he were no longer in power.


Terrorism was not as big a deal at that time because of the fall of the Soviet Union.
The two things are not connected.
Nice easy claim you make. However the facts don't agree with it at all.
Actually not only are you wrong here but you've got the minor details backwards.

Actually I am not wrong here as I pointed out with a link instead of simply saying "It is not so"

The fall of the USSR led to increased clandestine arms sales of former Soviet weaponry, which was ideal for Iran's efforts to supply Hezbollah, SCIRI, and perhaps even the West Bank. The end of the USSR makes the potential terror threat in the region even greater. But my original critique was that your more direct connection was groundless. The marginally increased ease with which arms dealers might have operated post-USSR doesn't mean that there is some concrete connection between Iranian-backed regional terrorism and the USSR. Now, you might have just read a wikipedia article about Soviet terrorism sponsorship, but your implication here is contradicted by your own "list of terrorist attacks." We now know, as a fact, that Iran-sponsored terrorism in the region has only increased post-USSR.







The Iran/Iraq war was over. US troops were in Saudi Arabia so Iran was held in check on the ground and had no interest in going head to head with the US military at that time.
Ibrahim wrote:That's just the point, they could harass Israel and the US by way of Lebanon. Maybe even shipping Hezbollah some of the weapons Reagan covertly sold them.
Harassing Israel is hardly what we are talking about even if the Iranians had not used up most of their weapons fighting Saddam
Its exactly what we are talking about. The perceived threat to Israel was one of the main reasons the US kept Saddam in power, and obviously Iran has not "used up most of their weapons fighting Saddam" since they have supplied Hezbollah (who recently fought a war with Israel) and the Iraqi opposition to the US, and have massive stockpiles of weaponry in preparation for an Israeli/US attack.

In fact, ever since the Iranian revolution almost all of the US policy in the region has been to contain Iranian influence (and protect the Saudi monarchy). Even if many of those efforts turned out to actually benefit Iran in the long run.
Again this is a "Just because I say so" argument you are making. IE you have as yet shown nothing to back up what you are claiming.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Why did the US leave Saddam in power in 1991?

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:How about you posting something other than opinion masquerading as fact?
Actually I'm just correcting your false statements.


The potential for Hezbollah, backed by Iran, to threaten Israel while they were dealing with the First Intifada was very real, and clearly one of several considerations in the US deliberately keeping Saddam in power. You're not really even disputing this.
It may have been "Very real" but it had very little to do with Saddam or the Iranians at that time.
That is clearly false. The US had not only viewed Iraq as a counterbalance to Iran prior to the first Gulf War, but had armed and paid Saddam handsomely. Even though compelled to invade Iraq on behalf of the Kuwaitis, obviously their intent in leaving him in power was to retain Iraq as a dictatorship counterbalancing Iran. Indeed, the Bush I administration felt strongly enough about this to leave him the means to mass-murder the Kurds and other factions they have just encouraged to rise up against Saddam only months before.

Hezbollah, then as now, is intimately connected to Iran. Again, you keep claiming that this wasn't a consideration (i.e. not on the radar) but you've never actually given any evidence to support this opinion.



Later if you will recall Saddam was giving the families of suicide bombers money as compensation. Something he would not have been able to do if he were no longer in power.
This is one of many reasons that the Bush I administration choosing to keep Saddam in power was stupid, counterproductive, and immoral.



Actually not only are you wrong here but you've got the minor details backwards.
Actually I am not wrong here as I pointed out with a link instead of simply saying "It is not so"
Your link did not substantiate your claims, it merely supplied unrelated information. I explained why in the previous post.





Its exactly what we are talking about. The perceived threat to Israel was one of the main reasons the US kept Saddam in power, and obviously Iran has not "used up most of their weapons fighting Saddam" since they have supplied Hezbollah (who recently fought a war with Israel) and the Iraqi opposition to the US, and have massive stockpiles of weaponry in preparation for an Israeli/US attack.

In fact, ever since the Iranian revolution almost all of the US policy in the region has been to contain Iranian influence (and protect the Saudi monarchy). Even if many of those efforts turned out to actually benefit Iran in the long run.
Again this is a "Just because I say so" argument you are making. IE you have as yet shown nothing to back up what you are claiming.
Which details do you believe are incorrect and why?
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Why did the US leave Saddam in power in 1991?

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:How about you posting something other than opinion masquerading as fact?
Actually I'm just correcting your false statements.

False statements solely in "your opinion" you have posted absolutely nothing to back up your statement which leaves them in the realm of opinion.


The potential for Hezbollah, backed by Iran, to threaten Israel while they were dealing with the First Intifada was very real, and clearly one of several considerations in the US deliberately keeping Saddam in power. You're not really even disputing this.
It may have been "Very real" but it had very little to do with Saddam or the Iranians at that time.
That is clearly false. The US had not only viewed Iraq as a counterbalance to Iran prior to the first Gulf War, but had armed and paid Saddam handsomely. Even though compelled to invade Iraq on behalf of the Kuwaitis, obviously their intent in leaving him in power was to retain Iraq as a dictatorship counterbalancing Iran. Indeed, the Bush I administration felt strongly enough about this to leave him the means to mass-murder the Kurds and other factions they have just encouraged to rise up against Saddam only months before.
I never said anything different. In fact I have brought up this point many many times. As in once the US was in a position to remove Saddam we bought Iraq as was being said at the time to justify not going to Baghdad. Instead HW Bush left the Shites and Kurds to die. Even after encouraging them to stand up and fight Saddam like we were going to support them. This is not to say that people involved could not look at leaving Saddam in power as wrong. As indeed many of them did. Including as Zack likes to say the "Zionist Pig" Wolfowitz.
Hezbollah, then as now, is intimately connected to Iran. Again, you keep claiming that this wasn't a consideration (i.e. not on the radar) but you've never actually given any evidence to support this opinion
.

You have not given any evidence what so ever. Hezbollah was not in Gaza or the west bank at that time. There were few if any missiles coming from there and hitting Israel except from Iraq. The idiots of Hamas were growing then but still not very strong.



Later if you will recall Saddam was giving the families of suicide bombers money as compensation. Something he would not have been able to do if he were no longer in power.
This is one of many reasons that the Bush I administration choosing to keep Saddam in power was stupid, counterproductive, and immoral.
?? WHy would Saddam giving money to Suicide bombers that did not show up until years later in Israel be a reason to keep him in power in 1991? Are you sure you did not mis speak ?



Actually not only are you wrong here but you've got the minor details backwards.
Actually I am not wrong here as I pointed out with a link instead of simply saying "It is not so"
Your link did not substantiate your claims, it merely supplied unrelated information. I explained why in the previous post.

Again you have provided no information at all except for your opinion.





Its exactly what we are talking about. The perceived threat to Israel was one of the main reasons the US kept Saddam in power, and obviously Iran has not "used up most of their weapons fighting Saddam" since they have supplied Hezbollah (who recently fought a war with Israel) and the Iraqi opposition to the US, and have massive stockpiles of weaponry in preparation for an Israeli/US attack.

In fact, ever since the Iranian revolution almost all of the US policy in the region has been to contain Iranian influence (and protect the Saudi monarchy). Even if many of those efforts turned out to actually benefit Iran in the long run.
Again this is a "Just because I say so" argument you are making. IE you have as yet shown nothing to back up what you are claiming.
Which details do you believe are incorrect and why?[/quote]

That Hezbollah was anything like a major threat to Israel in 1991. They were not even close to being a real threat to Israel back then
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Why did the US leave Saddam in power in 1991?

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:I never said anything different. In fact I have brought up this point many many times. As in once the US was in a position to remove Saddam we bought Iraq as was being said at the time to justify not going to Baghdad. Instead HW Bush left the Shites and Kurds to die. Even after encouraging them to stand up and fight Saddam like we were going to support them. This is not to say that people involved could not look at leaving Saddam in power as wrong. As indeed many of them did. Including as Zack likes to say the "Zionist Pig" Wolfowitz.
Ok so what's your problem then? You don't agree with my point that Iraq was left under Saddam as a counterbalance to Iran? I'm not seeing a counter-theory.


Hezbollah, then as now, is intimately connected to Iran. Again, you keep claiming that this wasn't a consideration (i.e. not on the radar) but you've never actually given any evidence to support this opinion
.

You have not given any evidence what so ever. Hezbollah was not in Gaza or the west bank at that time.
Hezbollah was never in Gaza or the West Bank, they are and have always been in Lebanon, and fight Israel there, and launch rockets at Israel from there. Are you sure you know what group we are talking about?




Later if you will recall Saddam was giving the families of suicide bombers money as compensation. Something he would not have been able to do if he were no longer in power.
This is one of many reasons that the Bush I administration choosing to keep Saddam in power was stupid, counterproductive, and immoral.
WHy would Saddam giving money to Suicide bombers that did not show up until years later in Israel be a reason to keep him in power in 1991? Are you sure you did not mis speak ?
No, you mis-read. Saddam got into sponsoring terrorism to a limited degree well after the US decided to leave him in power, which is simply further evidence that leaving him in power was a mistake. It had nothing to do with why he was left in power in 1991, its just another example of why that was the wrong decision.



Your link did not substantiate your claims, it merely supplied unrelated information. I explained why in the previous post.

Again you have provided no information at all except for your opinion.
I am summarizing what happened. If you disagree with that summary then state why.





Its exactly what we are talking about. The perceived threat to Israel was one of the main reasons the US kept Saddam in power, and obviously Iran has not "used up most of their weapons fighting Saddam" since they have supplied Hezbollah (who recently fought a war with Israel) and the Iraqi opposition to the US, and have massive stockpiles of weaponry in preparation for an Israeli/US attack.

In fact, ever since the Iranian revolution almost all of the US policy in the region has been to contain Iranian influence (and protect the Saudi monarchy). Even if many of those efforts turned out to actually benefit Iran in the long run.
Again this is a "Just because I say so" argument you are making. IE you have as yet shown nothing to back up what you are claiming.
Which details do you believe are incorrect and why?
That Hezbollah was anything like a major threat to Israel in 1991. They were not even close to being a real threat to Israel back then
I said they were one of several simultaneous threats to Israel, but more importantly they are an extension of Iranian power in the region.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Why did the US leave Saddam in power in 1991?

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:I never said anything different. In fact I have brought up this point many many times. As in once the US was in a position to remove Saddam we bought Iraq as was being said at the time to justify not going to Baghdad. Instead HW Bush left the Shites and Kurds to die. Even after encouraging them to stand up and fight Saddam like we were going to support them. This is not to say that people involved could not look at leaving Saddam in power as wrong. As indeed many of them did. Including as Zack likes to say the "Zionist Pig" Wolfowitz.
Ok so what's your problem then? You don't agree with my point that Iraq was left under Saddam as a counterbalance to Iran? I'm not seeing a counter-theory.
I think that the main reason was to keep a lid on the Arab world for the despots. They were certainly against removing Saddam. I just think that the correct answer is "all of the above"


Hezbollah, then as now, is intimately connected to Iran. Again, you keep claiming that this wasn't a consideration (i.e. not on the radar) but you've never actually given any evidence to support this opinion
.

You have not given any evidence what so ever. Hezbollah was not in Gaza or the west bank at that time.
Hezbollah was never in Gaza or the West Bank, they are and have always been in Lebanon, and fight Israel there, and launch rockets at Israel from there. Are you sure you know what group we are talking about?
[/quote]

Of course I do. But they were not a threat at that time. Later on they got a lot stronger but at that time they were not capable of threatening Israeli in any serious way.




Later if you will recall Saddam was giving the families of suicide bombers money as compensation. Something he would not have been able to do if he were no longer in power.
This is one of many reasons that the Bush I administration choosing to keep Saddam in power was stupid, counterproductive, and immoral.
WHy would Saddam giving money to Suicide bombers that did not show up until years later in Israel be a reason to keep him in power in 1991? Are you sure you did not mis speak ?
No, you mis-read. Saddam got into sponsoring terrorism to a limited degree well after the US decided to leave him in power, which is simply further evidence that leaving him in power was a mistake. It had nothing to do with why he was left in power in 1991, its just another example of why that was the wrong decision.
You brought threats to Israel up. From Saddam they did not exist until after the gulf war which is what I already said.



Your link did not substantiate your claims, it merely supplied unrelated information. I explained why in the previous post.

Again you have provided no information at all except for your opinion.
I am summarizing what happened. If you disagree with that summary then state why.
I have





Its exactly what we are talking about. The perceived threat to Israel was one of the main reasons the US kept Saddam in power, and obviously Iran has not "used up most of their weapons fighting Saddam" since they have supplied Hezbollah (who recently fought a war with Israel) and the Iraqi opposition to the US, and have massive stockpiles of weaponry in preparation for an Israeli/US attack.

In fact, ever since the Iranian revolution almost all of the US policy in the region has been to contain Iranian influence (and protect the Saudi monarchy). Even if many of those efforts turned out to actually benefit Iran in the long run.
Again this is a "Just because I say so" argument you are making. IE you have as yet shown nothing to back up what you are claiming.
Which details do you believe are incorrect and why?
That Hezbollah was anything like a major threat to Israel in 1991. They were not even close to being a real threat to Israel back then
I said they were one of several simultaneous threats to Israel
you have yet to name any others

, but more importantly they are an extension of Iranian power in the region.
They were nothing but terrorists at the time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hezbollah
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Why did the US leave Saddam in power in 1991?

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:I never said anything different. In fact I have brought up this point many many times. As in once the US was in a position to remove Saddam we bought Iraq as was being said at the time to justify not going to Baghdad. Instead HW Bush left the Shites and Kurds to die. Even after encouraging them to stand up and fight Saddam like we were going to support them. This is not to say that people involved could not look at leaving Saddam in power as wrong. As indeed many of them did. Including as Zack likes to say the "Zionist Pig" Wolfowitz.
Ok so what's your problem then? You don't agree with my point that Iraq was left under Saddam as a counterbalance to Iran? I'm not seeing a counter-theory.
I think that the main reason was to keep a lid on the Arab world for the despots. They were certainly against removing Saddam.
Who are you referring to here?






Hezbollah was never in Gaza or the West Bank, they are and have always been in Lebanon, and fight Israel there, and launch rockets at Israel from there. Are you sure you know what group we are talking about?
Of course I do. But they were not a threat at that time. Later on they got a lot stronger but at that time they were not capable of threatening Israeli in any serious way.
What are you basing this on, and why did they suddenly get stronger at a later time? Clearly they were a threat to Israel at the time, given their ability to launch rockets at Northern Israel any time they wanted.



No, you mis-read. Saddam got into sponsoring terrorism to a limited degree well after the US decided to leave him in power, which is simply further evidence that leaving him in power was a mistake. It had nothing to do with why he was left in power in 1991, its just another example of why that was the wrong decision.
You brought threats to Israel up. From Saddam they did not exist until after the gulf war which is what I already said.
You still don't seem to understand. The idea was that Saddam would preoccupy Iran, preventing them from threatening Israel via Hezbollah and other proxies.


I said they were one of several simultaneous threats to Israel
you have yet to name any others
That is blatantly false. I mentioned several times that the First Intifada was ongoing at this time.

, but more importantly they are an extension of Iranian power in the region.
They were nothing but terrorists at the time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hezbollah
Their threat is precisely that of a terrorist organization, one backed by Iran. This point, and the article you linked, conform to my statements and argument entirely.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Why did the US leave Saddam in power in 1991?

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:I never said anything different. In fact I have brought up this point many many times. As in once the US was in a position to remove Saddam we bought Iraq as was being said at the time to justify not going to Baghdad. Instead HW Bush left the Shites and Kurds to die. Even after encouraging them to stand up and fight Saddam like we were going to support them. This is not to say that people involved could not look at leaving Saddam in power as wrong. As indeed many of them did. Including as Zack likes to say the "Zionist Pig" Wolfowitz.
Ok so what's your problem then? You don't agree with my point that Iraq was left under Saddam as a counterbalance to Iran? I'm not seeing a counter-theory.
I think that the main reason was to keep a lid on the Arab world for the despots. They were certainly against removing Saddam.
Who are you referring to here?
THe Despots of the Arab world who else?






Hezbollah was never in Gaza or the West Bank, they are and have always been in Lebanon, and fight Israel there, and launch rockets at Israel from there. Are you sure you know what group we are talking about?
Of course I do. But they were not a threat at that time. Later on they got a lot stronger but at that time they were not capable of threatening Israeli in any serious way.
What are you basing this on, and why did they suddenly get stronger at a later time? Clearly they were a threat to Israel at the time, given their ability to launch rockets at Northern Israel any time they wanted.[/quote]

They gradually got stronger over time. Particularly after the Israelis left Lebanon in 2000



No, you mis-read. Saddam got into sponsoring terrorism to a limited degree well after the US decided to leave him in power, which is simply further evidence that leaving him in power was a mistake. It had nothing to do with why he was left in power in 1991, its just another example of why that was the wrong decision.
You brought threats to Israel up. From Saddam they did not exist until after the gulf war which is what I already said.
You still don't seem to understand. The idea was that Saddam would preoccupy Iran, preventing them from threatening Israel via Hezbollah and other proxies.
The idea was that he would keep Iran busy so they could not threaten the Arab despots. Israel the last time I checked does not border Iran. As I further pointed out Hezbollah was not much of a threat at the time.


I said they were one of several simultaneous threats to Israel
you have yet to name any others
That is blatantly false. I mentioned several times that the First Intifada was ongoing at this time.[/auote]

It ended right after the Gulf war. Compared to what came after it was far less violent. Besides that there is no way to this day that the Palestinians could defeat Israel.

, but more importantly they are an extension of Iranian power in the region.
They were nothing but terrorists at the time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hezbollah
Their threat is precisely that of a terrorist organization, one backed by Iran. This point, and the article you linked, conform to my statements and argument entirely.[/quote]

A terrorist organization is not that much of a military threat. It is the last resort of those that don't have a real military threat.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Why did the US leave Saddam in power in 1991?

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
I think that the main reason was to keep a lid on the Arab world for the despots. They were certainly against removing Saddam.
Who are you referring to here?
THe Despots of the Arab world who else?
So the US decided not to depose Saddam Hussein because various unidentified Arab despots asked them not to?


What are you basing this on, and why did they suddenly get stronger at a later time? Clearly they were a threat to Israel at the time, given their ability to launch rockets at Northern Israel any time they wanted.
They gradually got stronger over time. Particularly after the Israelis left Lebanon in 2000
So their existence and possession of rockets in 1991 was insignificant?



You still don't seem to understand. The idea was that Saddam would preoccupy Iran, preventing them from threatening Israel via Hezbollah and other proxies.
The idea was that he would keep Iran busy so they could not threaten the Arab despots.
This presupposes that these still-unidentified "Arab despots" have more sway with the US than Israel, and that Iran was a greater them.

Israel the last time I checked does not border Iran.
:lol: :lol: :lol: Right, modern geopolitics is like Risk, you can only act against states directly adjacent to you.


As I further pointed out Hezbollah was not much of a threat at the time.
You did say that.




That is blatantly false. I mentioned several times that the First Intifada was ongoing at this time.
It ended right after the Gulf war.
It ended in 1993, we are talking about 1991. Your claim that I mentioned no other threats is blatantly false.




Their threat is precisely that of a terrorist organization, one backed by Iran. This point, and the article you linked, conform to my statements and argument entirely.
A terrorist organization is not that much of a military threat. It is the last resort of those that don't have a real military threat.
I guess you should tell Israel so they can stop occupying the Palestinian territories and blockading Gaza. Oh, and tell the US military so they can stop killing and torturing people all over the world. Its not much of a threat, after all, so what's the big deal?
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Why did the US leave Saddam in power in 1991?

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
I think that the main reason was to keep a lid on the Arab world for the despots. They were certainly against removing Saddam.
Who are you referring to here?
THe Despots of the Arab world who else?
So the US decided not to depose Saddam Hussein because various unidentified Arab despots asked them not to?
Presumably the Saudis. But I bet it was not limited to them.


What are you basing this on, and why did they suddenly get stronger at a later time? Clearly they were a threat to Israel at the time, given their ability to launch rockets at Northern Israel any time they wanted.
They gradually got stronger over time. Particularly after the Israelis left Lebanon in 2000
So their existence and possession of rockets in 1991 was insignificant?
How much damage could they do back then? Not much. They could not reach very far into Israel.



You still don't seem to understand. The idea was that Saddam would preoccupy Iran, preventing them from threatening Israel via Hezbollah and other proxies.
The idea was that he would keep Iran busy so they could not threaten the Arab despots.
This presupposes that these still-unidentified "Arab despots" have more sway with the US than Israel, and that Iran was a greater them.
Given that these same Arab Despots were both part of the coalition and in part paying for the war they had considerable influence. In fact I think that James Baker had quite a bit to say about the Saudis and another country said they would pull out if the objective was Baghdad.

Israel the last time I checked does not border Iran.
:lol: :lol: :lol: Right, modern geopolitics is like Risk, you can only act against states directly adjacent to you.[/quote]

DO you imagine that even today Iran is capable of going to war with Israel?


As I further pointed out Hezbollah was not much of a threat at the time.
You did say that.




That is blatantly false. I mentioned several times that the First Intifada was ongoing at this time.
It ended right after the Gulf war.
It ended in 1993, we are talking about 1991. Your claim that I mentioned no other threats is blatantly false.[/quote]

Okay Sorry what were they again?




Their threat is precisely that of a terrorist organization, one backed by Iran. This point, and the article you linked, conform to my statements and argument entirely.
A terrorist organization is not that much of a military threat. It is the last resort of those that don't have a real military threat.
I guess you should tell Israel so they can stop occupying the Palestinian territories and blockading Gaza. Oh, and tell the US military so they can stop killing and torturing people all over the world. Its not much of a threat, after all, so what's the big deal?[/quote]

Do you see where I said not much of a "military threat"? 911 was an exceptional terrorist attack by anyone's standards. Until terrorist groups get WMD it will probably not be matched in scale.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Why did the US leave Saddam in power in 1991?

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
I think that the main reason was to keep a lid on the Arab world for the despots. They were certainly against removing Saddam.
Who are you referring to here?
THe Despots of the Arab world who else?
So the US decided not to depose Saddam Hussein because various unidentified Arab despots asked them not to?
Presumably the Saudis. But I bet it was not limited to them.
So the Saudis, who were directly threatened by Saddam, and who requested US troops be placed stationed in Western Saudi Arabia to protect against an attack by Saddam, asked the US to keep Saddam in power?


What are you basing this on, and why did they suddenly get stronger at a later time? Clearly they were a threat to Israel at the time, given their ability to launch rockets at Northern Israel any time they wanted.
They gradually got stronger over time. Particularly after the Israelis left Lebanon in 2000
So their existence and possession of rockets in 1991 was insignificant?
How much damage could they do back then? Not much. They could not reach very far into Israel.
Rocket attacks never do a lot of damage in Israel, but they use them to justify all kinds of attacks and ongoing occupations. What's your theory here, Israel just didn't care and thought it would be fine if Iran kept sending them more weapons?



Given that these same Arab Despots were both part of the coalition and in part paying for the war they had considerable influence. In fact I think that James Baker had quite a bit to say about the Saudis and another country said they would pull out if the objective was Baghdad.
Maybe. It would help if you could identify these countries beyond just calling them "Arab Despots."




Israel the last time I checked does not border Iran.
:lol: :lol: :lol: Right, modern geopolitics is like Risk, you can only act against states directly adjacent to you.
DO you imagine that even today Iran is capable of going to war with Israel?
Well I was talking about supporting proxies against them, but yes, Iran has the capability to go to war with Israel. Probably not win a war with Israel, but certainly they could engage them.










That is blatantly false. I mentioned several times that the First Intifada was ongoing at this time.
It ended right after the Gulf war.
It ended in 1993, we are talking about 1991. Your claim that I mentioned no other threats is blatantly false.
Okay Sorry what were they again?


First Intifada, Hezbollah via Lebanon, Iran. Not to mention the back-burner hostility of Egypt and Syria.



Their threat is precisely that of a terrorist organization, one backed by Iran. This point, and the article you linked, conform to my statements and argument entirely.
A terrorist organization is not that much of a military threat. It is the last resort of those that don't have a real military threat.
I guess you should tell Israel so they can stop occupying the Palestinian territories and blockading Gaza. Oh, and tell the US military so they can stop killing and torturing people all over the world. Its not much of a threat, after all, so what's the big deal?
Do you see where I said not much of a "military threat"? 911 was an exceptional terrorist attack by anyone's standards. Until terrorist groups get WMD it will probably not be matched in scale.
So then it would be reasonable to worry about the "non military" threat of a group like Hezbollah, and the damage they could potentially do with more arms.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Why did the US leave Saddam in power in 1991?

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
I think that the main reason was to keep a lid on the Arab world for the despots. They were certainly against removing Saddam.
Who are you referring to here?
THe Despots of the Arab world who else?
So the US decided not to depose Saddam Hussein because various unidentified Arab despots asked them not to?
Presumably the Saudis. But I bet it was not limited to them.
So the Saudis, who were directly threatened by Saddam, and who requested US troops be placed stationed in Western Saudi Arabia to protect against an attack by Saddam, asked the US to keep Saddam in power?
That is what Baker said. (May have been scowcroft)


What are you basing this on, and why did they suddenly get stronger at a later time? Clearly they were a threat to Israel at the time, given their ability to launch rockets at Northern Israel any time they wanted.
They gradually got stronger over time. Particularly after the Israelis left Lebanon in 2000
So their existence and possession of rockets in 1991 was insignificant?
How much damage could they do back then? Not much. They could not reach very far into Israel.
Rocket attacks never do a lot of damage in Israel, but they use them to justify all kinds of attacks and ongoing occupations. What's your theory here, Israel just didn't care and thought it would be fine if Iran kept sending them more weapons?[/quote]

Saddam was a bigger enemy than Iran at the time. Saddam almost had nuclear weapons. He actually had a working bomb but no fuel to arm it with. Remember real missiles were falling on Israel from Western Iraq.



Given that these same Arab Despots were both part of the coalition and in part paying for the war they had considerable influence. In fact I think that James Baker had quite a bit to say about the Saudis and another country said they would pull out if the objective was Baghdad.
Maybe. It would help if you could identify these countries beyond just calling them "Arab Despots." [/quote]

I named the important one. I can't remember the other that he named.
Israel the last time I checked does not border Iran.
:lol: :lol: :lol: Right, modern geopolitics is like Risk, you can only act against states directly adjacent to you.
DO you imagine that even today Iran is capable of going to war with Israel?
Well I was talking about supporting proxies against them, but yes, Iran has the capability to go to war with Israel. Probably not win a war with Israel, but certainly they could engage them.[/quote]

Not in 1991.
That is blatantly false. I mentioned several times that the First Intifada was ongoing at this time.
It ended right after the Gulf war.
It ended in 1993, we are talking about 1991. Your claim that I mentioned no other threats is blatantly false.
Okay Sorry what were they again?


First Intifada, Hezbollah via Lebanon, Iran. Not to mention the back-burner hostility of Egypt and Syria.

Forget Syria. Their major sponsor was having problems at the time. As I said the first intifada nor Iran nor Hezbollah were a serious threat to Israel at that time. Egypt still had Mubarak then. There was no way he was going to de rail his gravy train.



Their threat is precisely that of a terrorist organization, one backed by Iran. This point, and the article you linked, conform to my statements and argument entirely.
A terrorist organization is not that much of a military threat. It is the last resort of those that don't have a real military threat.
I guess you should tell Israel so they can stop occupying the Palestinian territories and blockading Gaza. Oh, and tell the US military so they can stop killing and torturing people all over the world. Its not much of a threat, after all, so what's the big deal?
Do you see where I said not much of a "military threat"? 911 was an exceptional terrorist attack by anyone's standards. Until terrorist groups get WMD it will probably not be matched in scale.
So then it would be reasonable to worry about the "non military" threat of a group like Hezbollah, and the damage they could potentially do with more arms.
If they had more and better arms. I don't doubt they could do some damage to Israel today if Israel invaded Lebanon. But they would ultimately lose.

Back in 1991 no way.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Why did the US leave Saddam in power in 1991?

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:That is what Baker said. (May have been scowcroft)
Ok, let me know when you find out which one.

Saddam was a bigger enemy than Iran at the time.
After the US trashed his military? Not likely.



Maybe. It would help if you could identify these countries beyond just calling them "Arab Despots."
I named the important one. I can't remember the other that he named.
Ok, we'll just say Saudi Arabia then.


Well I was talking about supporting proxies against them, but yes, Iran has the capability to go to war with Israel. Probably not win a war with Israel, but certainly they could engage them.
Not in 1991.


Why not?


First Intifada, Hezbollah via Lebanon, Iran. Not to mention the back-burner hostility of Egypt and Syria.
As I said the first intifada nor Iran nor Hezbollah were a serious threat to Israel at that time.
You keep saying that, despite the lack of any evidence and the contrary actions of the IDF.



So then it would be reasonable to worry about the "non military" threat of a group like Hezbollah, and the damage they could potentially do with more arms.
If they had more and better arms. I don't doubt they could do some damage to Israel today if Israel invaded Lebanon. But they would ultimately lose.

Back in 1991 no way.
You keep making this same irrational statement. "Yes they could attack them, but they couldn't wipe them out, so they weren't a threat and Israel wasn't worried about them."
User avatar
Azrael
Posts: 1863
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: Why did the US leave Saddam in power in 1991?

Post by Azrael »

Azrael wrote:Bush left him in power because he was no longer strong enough to threaten Saudi Arabia; but just strong enough to keep Iran out of Basra.
An additional motive to leave Saddam in power could have been to provide an excuse to station large numbers of troops in the Persian Gulf region -- "to contain Saddam".
cultivate a white rose
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Why did the US leave Saddam in power in 1991?

Post by Doc »

Azrael wrote:
Azrael wrote:Bush left him in power because he was no longer strong enough to threaten Saudi Arabia; but just strong enough to keep Iran out of Basra.
An additional motive to leave Saddam in power could have been to provide an excuse to station large numbers of troops in the Persian Gulf region -- "to contain Saddam".
That is a good point. In Fact the Kuwaitis didn't even want Egyptian troops to protect them. Just US troops.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Post Reply