[quote name='dafoomie']William Blum is a literary Michael Moore whose only claim to fame is that his polemical assault on post-WW2 America was embraced by Bin Laden. If you believe his stuff I have some loose change to sell you.
Iraq owed Kuwait a substantial amount of money it had borrowed to finance the war with Iran. Kuwait was also contributing to the oil glut of the 80s by keeping production high, depressing oil prices.
I don't suppose that his annexation of Kuwait as the 19th province of Iraq, or his occupation of Kuwait for 5 months prior to Desert Storm, would give you any indication of his intentions to hold it. And once he had conquered Kuwait he was in a position where he could attack Saudi oil fields and take control of most of the world's oil reserves.
All of Saddam's proposals to exit Kuwait included substantial concessions for Iraq which ranged from oil fields to linkage with Israel's occupation of Palestine and Syria's occupation of Lebanon. He was given an ultimatum to leave by a certain date and he didn't.
To say that Saddam was induced by the US to invade Kuwait as a pretext for a US attack is seriously out there. Tinfoil hat, bunker in the woods out there. The "evidence" offered to support this is simply a reflection of the US underestimating his willingness and ability to invade the entire country. They weren't going to get involved in what they saw as a way to leverage Kuwait into debt forgiveness and other concessions, or at worst a minor border skirmish.[/QUOTE]
So, lets see… attack the messenger (I listed plenty of other sources) instead of the message. Did they teach that to you in debate club? Oh no, bin Laden agreed with Blum's very well cited accounting. Yup, then it must be clearly false. I guess numerous State Dept, CIA, etc reports (which are never seen by the general public and obviously YOU) are false, “tin-foil” accounts simply because other Muslims agree with them, e.g. (paraphrasing OFFICIAL US reports) “there is anger against the USA in the Arab world because of the perception that we overthrow their governments and destabilize them to secure our interests… and they are correct.”
You obviously don’t understand international affairs. If you bothered to read anything on the subject then you wouldn't make up the excuses you are. The Blum account is very well put together and succinct. I figured even a layperson could follow that. His key facts come from very mainstream publishing and gov’t sources. It’s all there on the link I provided. If you don’t want to read something because the idiot box told you not too and all you got is that OBL praised his book, then you need to go back and tune in to Faux News or whatever crap you go to to lap up “information.”
[quote name='dafoomie']Iraq owed Kuwait a substantial amount of money it had borrowed to finance the war with Iran. Kuwait was also contributing to the oil glut of the 80s by keeping production high, depressing oil prices.[/QUOTE]
Your leader said any action by OPEC to protest the 2003 Iraq Illegal Invasion as an “act of war.” A tad hypocritical aren’t we? Typical. You obviously are clueless on slant-drilling… Typical. The invasion, right or wrong, the issue here is that the US WANTED their ALLY Iraq to invade. He asked the US for
PERMISSION.
"We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."
You obviously don’t understand international affairs.
And from, OH NO! Blum's book! Follow the CITATIONS. If you need instructions on how to, let me know. I'm sure anyone here with brain cell can.
"We have no defense treaty relationship with any Gulf country. That is clear. ... We have historically avoided taking a position on border disputes or on internal OPEC deliberations." Rep. Lee Hamilton asked if it would be correct to say that if Iraq "charged across the border into Kuwait" the United States did "not have a treaty commitment which would obligate us to engage U.S. forces" there. "That is correct," Kelly responded.
And surprise, surprise!!!! Kuwaiti memorandum on meeting with CIA director:
“We agreed with the American side that it was important to take advantage of the deteriorating economic situation in Iraq in order to put pressure on that country's government to delineate our common border. The Central Intelligence Agency gave us its view of appropriate means of pressure, saying that broad cooperation should be initiated between us on condition that such activities be coordinated at a high level.”
You do realize that we don’t and Iraq didn’t back then have teleportation device (although I’m sure the US would claim it to invade the nation if they could get away with it). It actually takes time to build up troops on a border… and people can see this via satellite… people like some country who has these toys… So, despite the shock Bushie displayed publicly when oh my! Iraq invaded, he knew. They had so many warnings… this is verifiable through many sources… if you could bother to do any research.
Nope, follow the formula… attack the messenger (especially with simple-minded crap said on the idiot box) and then bring out the big bad word…
CONSPIRACY!!!!! Oh no! # You got me with that AMAZING rebuttal. I guess, there are no conspiracies… NEVER! No Iran Contra Conspiracy, no WMD lies to invade Iraq CONSPIRACY (no “fixing of facts and intel around US policy”), no CIA covert ops (CONSPIRACY) (all verified by the tin-foil wearing CIA FOIA site) to covertly overthrow democratically elected gov’t, no, no conspiracies at all.
If you just don’t want to read anything outside of your narrow and limited brainwashed belief system then JUST SAY SO and GTFO of here and play some COD.
EDIT: And, oh no! "Michael Moore"!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!