The 2nd Gulf War, Why?

Originally posted by cattus Maju, I am critical of the amount of US tax payer money Originally posted by Spartakus They could have thrown him in 1991.They deliberatly left a dictator in power for 10 years,putting embargo and starving Iraqis,and then "suddenly" the President "cared" for them and went to liberatethem.Terrorism is nothing more than a political propaganda.Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 or Osama.Saddam's regime was not a religious one,but a cosmic one.Religious extremists were his enemies.Iraq has a great geostrategic position,near Iran and Middle East.So control of Iraq,gives you control of the area near it. *Sigh* Overthrowing Saddam in 1991 was not the UN objective."Suddenly" went in there? Do you know nothing of what went on for the past decade and how Saddam continualy thumbed his nose at the world? I cant believe that the US did not invade Iraq sooner! Who said Iraq had ties with Al Qaeda or 9/11.. even so, how are you so sure they did not? What difference does it make that Iraq was secular when it was led by an insane dictator that allowed the bases of religious extemist to run and gladly harbored known terrorist? Ask Jordan if all terrorism is,is nothing more than a political propaganda.

UN objective?.Well,President Bush went to Iraq without even the permission of UN,in 2003.The US goverment does not give a sh*t about UN objectives.Well,Saddam was doing what a dictator would do during the past decade,caring for his ass.You said it yourself.He was insane.Yet he was left in power FOR A WHOLE DECADE,permitting him to harm more the Iraqis and sending to death more than 100.000 Iraqis(the last ten years) from deseases,from hunger,and from other causes.So the primary excuse for this invasion,to help the Iraqi people,was more than hypocritical.

Originally posted by yan. Sorry for being anal, but aren't you guys talking about Gulf war no.3?  As far as I remember, the answer for no.2 is OIL, just like in the first one: Saddam wanted someone else's oil, therefore he made up territorial claims and invaded one of his neighbours - this time Kuweit.

True about Saddam, except that he didn't make up the territorial claims, since they were around a long time before.

I assume you're counting Iran-Iraq as Gulf War 1? what about the Anglo-Indian invasion in 1914-18? And a whole string of wars in the Gulf area going back a few thousand years?

Basically the reason WWI is called the 'first' world war (rather than say the Seven Years War) and GWI called the 'first' gulf war is that they were the first ones that the US fought in.

UN objective?.Well,President Bush went to Iraq without even the permission of UN,in 2003.The US goverment does not give a sh*t about UN objectives.Well,Saddam was doing what a dictator would do during the past decade,caring for his ass.You said it yourself.He was insane.Yet he was left in power FOR A WHOLE DECADE,permitting him to harm more the Iraqis and sending to death more than 100.000 Iraqis(the last ten years) from deseases,from hunger,and from other causes.So the primary excuse for this invasion,to help the Iraqi people,was more than hypocritical.

If you're really angry because Bill Clinton and a chamberlainian international community are responsible for Iraqi welfare, how does W fit in the equation?

After George Bush Sr. came a president that signed the Iraq Liberation Act, had the authority but didnt have the political kahunas to do anything about Saddam. The next president did have the kahunas.. and in the wake of 9/11, where the climate of thought on terrorism changed,was not in the mood for games. One president tried to talk terrorist to death, one is out to kill them.

So what is the basic point of your post, are you bitter because the US should have gone in sooner like I do or bitter about the recent invasion? If you have suspicions about the recent invasion, just lay them on the table.

Originally posted by yan. The first world war is called 'first' because a second one came after it. Before the second, it was just called 'world war', at least in German("Weltkrieg").

It was never known as the 'world war' in Britain anyway. It was always referred to as the 'Great War' until 1939. I guess 'Great War II' sounded silly.

As a candidate for the first world war the Seven Years war is pretty good, making the one that broke out in 1793 the second.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by yan. The first world war is called 'first' because a second one came after it. Before the second, it was just called 'world war', at least in German("Weltkrieg"). It was never known as the 'world war' in Britain anyway. It was always referred to as the 'Great War' until 1939. I guess 'Great War II' sounded silly. As a candidate for the first world war the Seven Years war is pretty good, making the one that broke out in 1793 the second.

French also speak of grande guerre and seconde guerre mondiale, don't they? and what about 1793?

Could it be the rest of the world just took over the German term? It would make some sense, given the german role in boith of that conflicts, and the way both wars were connected with each other..