Benjamin Netanyahu for US President

Post Reply New Topic

On the other hand the Iraqis did have the option of food for oil in 1991, but only agreed in 1995. So they are in part to blame, as well as the US, ad UN (who's members also were complicit in the embezzling including possibly Kofi Annan's son).

What is interesting is since 2006 infant mortality has fallen. Obviously this is only part of the mortality picture but found this

It is highly unlikely that US gave the go-ahead to Iraq to invade Kuwait, US business interest were already firmly established in the region.

Kuwait invasion is an example of Saddam's mindset. The Iraqis were accusing the Kuwaitis of drilling sideways over miles, a feat that wasn't actually viable under the technology at the time. Saddam had their eye on Kuwait resources, and was aware of their vulnerability as a small state. I think it was an attempt of populist nationalism, and expansionism.

Iraq in it day was a force to be recoded with militarily. Saddam actually fired almost 40 scud missiles at Israel. I believe his intent was to show he could strike Tel Aviv.

Iran never did anything like that (despite the capability existing), though they have funded and trained Hezbollah, and exported rockets to Hezbollah and Hamas.

Saddam actually offered to the the shah/US to have Ruhollah Khomeini killed when he was in Iraq, they declined and he was turfed out and went to Paris, then the french offered to have him killed. Or so some sources claim.

April Glaspie the Ambassador to Iraq for the US in 1990 met with Saddam and told him that "the US has no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts" and that "the Kuwait issue is not associated with America" which Saddam took as that the US essentially giving him to green light or that at least the US would not respond with force. There is real question whether or not Saddam would of invaded Kuwait had he known the US would go to war to protect it.

From what I've heard Saddam's firing Scud missiles at Israel during the First Gulf War was to provoke Israel into responding militarily which would in turn he hoped would rally Arabs around him against the crusader invaders and Israel. The US had to beg Israel not to respond and promise that they'd take care of it to guard against this.

Whether he took it as an endorsement doesn't mean it was.

At best it was a massive oversight with devastating consequence

I disagree, you are talking from hindsight as if it was the necessary motivation. I don't think that floats, not with Saddam's track record.

In early 1990, what they had was a territory/drilling dispute, which didn't involve the whole Kuwait. These dispute are a dime a dozen in the world. Nobody at the time though it was going to be a full scale invasion.

Highlight is a wonderful thing, but there is no evidence that if the US were more forward, that Saddam wouldn't have done it anyway.

US/Iraq relations were already pretty poor by 1990. There is evidence that it was planed way before august 1990 or even July.

Saddam modeled himself on Stalin, right down to the mustache and talouring, with similar ambitions.

My original point was Iraq chain of command was much flatter then Ian. That made scud attack, and doomsday gun attack more likely becuase Saddam was more volatile in general.

Whilst the Ayatollahs rule is supreme, in reality there is a court of advisers. With Saddam, he only liked if if you agreed with him, and if he wanted to do something you did it.

So do you think Saddam still invades Kuwait knowing the response it would illicit? It is not as if he would of had any realistic hope of victory so I have to assume invaded thinking he would be able to get away with it with nothing short of a slap on the wrist as he was the buffer between Iran and the Saudis.

I think Iran is a pretty rational non-threatening country, it is a democracy albeit obviously flawed blended with a theocracy governing a relatively liberal and modern people. I don't think there is any real comparison between them and Saddam's Iraq, its just that the same Neocons that advocated war with Iraq now want it with Iran. I find Iran preferable to Saudi Arabia as well.

Saddam invading Kuwait was easy, he had a vastly superior force.

The Kuwaitis actually agreed to limiting production of oil (which was the real bone of contention rather then implausible slant drilling), but they invaded anyway.

It is a democracy, except the clerics overrule laws, inquiries, political nominees etc. They also have paramilitary force, that answers only tot he supreme leader, which is separate from the military. Generally we are in agreement, there are far worse places.

They also have quite a lot of political prisoners, and restriction on liberties on some aspect of life, but not as much as China.

Iran is neither a free or democratic country by the standards we hold our own western countries to but it is definitely a step up from a lot its immediate neighbors and some of our close allies. It's sad that we're so tied into this dick measuring contest(which is downplaying the seriousness of it obviously) between Iran and Israel/Saudi Arabia that we can't have a normal relationship with was and still is one of the more modern thinking and liberal countries in the middle east. It goes to show you that it has nothing to do with democracy or human rights, its all about global hegemony and we're just pieces on a chessboard to them. I think we're both in agreement about opening up relations and having open non-judging non-coercive dialogue with, I feel the same way about Cuba and Russia too. We can accomplish way more together than we can apart, instead of focusing on our differences we should work together on our shared strategic interests and the most obvious example right now is with ISIS. Israel and Saudi Arabia are more worried about Iran's influence growing than they are combating a literal terrorist state and it disgusts me. We can't even entertain the idea of combating ISIS because we have two hands tied behind our back by our supposed allies, their interests aren't the same as ours and quite frankly to me they should pound sand.

I agree with you in general.

it appears Netanyahu is in real danger of losing his election on the 16th

the world will be better off if he loses

Yes but not just from the left but the far right as well.

No one on the far right is going to overtake Netanyahu however that is who he will form a government with but that already is the case with the current government. The momentum seems to be against Netanyahu right now and Likud is trailing Zionist Union in pretty much every recent poll, things are looking good.

I kind of wish Obama was a real dick and visited Israel this weekend to meet with the opposition, I'd almost have to support him then

Then there is an issue with ultra-orthodox community growing minority though. Friend of my dad's, one of their sons has gone down this route, much to his dismay as he ran an organization improve to try relations with Israelis and Palestinians and is moderate.

It is pretty bizarre that US election candidates visit Israel as if it was the 53rd state.

I still believe though, and you will probably disagree with me, that in 1946, before the Arab-Israeli war, the Palestinians had an excellent, excellent deal in hindsight. A deal they didn't have under the British the Turks, the Byzantines, the Fatimids, Romans, etc. A deal they never had, ever in fact.

That is, they had the same amount of land that was to become Israel. It was like a Battenburg cake, both had access to the Mediterranean, and the east, and neither controlled the centre.

Also the land was greater than Lebanon, with less people in and less diversity. So if Lebanon could have done it so could have they.

The idea is a land issue, is somewhat misleading. It realty is a conflict over which religion can control the holy land. The land issue have resulted due to the politics of suffering/oppression, which has caused real suffering.

Neither the Palestinians nor the Isrealis are faultless, but the last thing it need is for the crisis be internationalized further, they need to take responsibility for their conflict and stop relying on go-between, which is an excuse for inaction. We need to create the incentive to do that.

John Kerry made massive miscalculation, before this recent Gaza action. He tried to force through a peace process. Why was it misguided? Well anyone who knows about conflict resolution will tell you that you don't get peace without incentive. Neither Abbas nor Netanyahu had the slightest bit of interest in this process and Kerry was very premature. Abbas and Netanyahu showed remarkable cooperation...in killing the process. The problem is they had to bring out the big guns to do it, to deleterious effect. All becuase Kerry and the US administration, whether through an ego trip or through good intention tried to force the process at the worse possible time.

This is why I think if we should do anything at all it, should not be mediation. It should be in making it disadvantageous for them not to meet directly, so their population will not stand for it.