Started By
Message
locked post

Given today's mindset on the right of "Stay out of Ukraine", what about Kuwaitt in '90?

Posted on 11/15/23 at 10:11 pm
Posted by Ag Zwin
Member since Mar 2016
25400 posts
Posted on 11/15/23 at 10:11 pm
I am like most on this board (I think). I believe the US and Nato had a role in provoking the situation in Ukraine. I also believe Ukraine bears even more responsibility, and that we have no reason to put boots on the ground. Support is a debatable topic, but we have already passed the limit of what I think we should send (especially "soft" aid like debt payments on their behalf).

That being said, I am not sure how I reconcile that with Kuwaitt in 1990. I was in favor of that action, but I didn't have a son in the military (as I do now) and we had not seen 20 years of wasted action in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yeah, that war was about oil, but it's too simplistic to say it was just for oil profits. We were highly dependent on that oil, and it would have crippled us for a long time. Now, we could be independent relatively easily.

No real point I am trying to make here. Just wondering if others have an easier time of reconciling support for that war over the issue in Ukraine (which does have significant knock-on effects).
Posted by Tigertittie
Member since Sep 2021
868 posts
Posted on 11/15/23 at 10:15 pm to
Well the real question is, why did we arm Saddam for years prior to Kuwait?

I mean we kind of create our own problems.

And yes I know it was to for him to fight Iran. But we still created our own problem.
Posted by TigerDoc
Texas
Member since Apr 2004
11528 posts
Posted on 11/15/23 at 10:22 pm to
It was a very easy war to justify. An ally was being invaded by an aggressor whose actions the world was unified in opposing. There was no major opposition at all (even the USSR, which still existed at the time, actually approved of the military intervention). It stuck to the UN authorization, met its objectives, had low American casualties.
Posted by Errerrerrwere
Member since Aug 2015
43203 posts
Posted on 11/15/23 at 10:24 pm to
quote:

An ally was being invaded by an aggressor whose actions the world was unified in opposing.


But why did Russia invade? Were they fricking with it?
Posted by TigerDoc
Texas
Member since Apr 2004
11528 posts
Posted on 11/15/23 at 10:24 pm to
We're talking Iraq and Kuwait, baw.
Posted by Sneauxghost
Member since Sep 2020
1289 posts
Posted on 11/15/23 at 10:32 pm to
US replaced the government in Ukraine under Obama. Putin is taking out bio labs and taking back Russian speaking areas. Biden is launders a mountain of money there with all this support. Your whole premise lacks the correct facts. Don’t shoot the messenger. I am an observer like everyone else.
Posted by WinnPtiger
Fort Worth
Member since Mar 2011
24959 posts
Posted on 11/15/23 at 10:34 pm to
quote:

TigerDoc


you should pay the posters you quote on DU. it isn’t your material
Posted by Pandy Fackler
Member since Jun 2018
21114 posts
Posted on 11/15/23 at 10:42 pm to
quote:

Given today's mindset on the right of "Stay out of Ukraine", what about Kuwaitt in '90?


Iraq was staging to invade Saudi Arabia. To do so would've thrown the globe into an energy crisis.

It had to happen.



Posted by touchdownjeebus
Member since Sep 2010
26074 posts
Posted on 11/15/23 at 10:46 pm to
Kuwait was really our fault. It's a long convoluted story where, of course, we dont understand the culture and mores and basically gave Saddam permission to attack. He attempted to solve it without conflict by sending Aziz to Kuwait but it failed, and the Kuwaitis insulted Saddam.

The Kuwaitis were sideways drilling into the Basra oil pits. Saddam asked to them to stop or to be compensated. When Saddam reached out to the US for counsel, it was explained that this was an arab matter. In Arab culture, we basically gave him our blessing to handle it how he saw fit.

He sent Tariq Aziz to Kuwait to further stress a resolution and Aziz was told that Saddam's mom's pussy is home to a thousand camels. Aziz returned to Baghdad and informed Saddam.

Once Saddam acted, he painted himself into a corner. Initially he thought the US was using rhetoric to and that he still had permission. Once he fully committed, he was stuck. Had he retreated, it would be viewed as weakness, and since his country was recently out of a long war with Iran, this weakness would definitely be acted upon by the Shia, the Kurds, and of course Mehdi and the Iranians.

His only choice was to move forward. He knew he was going to get skull fricked, but that it would at least save face, standing up to the mighty US.

This is according to Saddam, his closest confidants, to include Khamis Al-Dulaimi, and Tariq Aziz, who was a fricking filthy arse dude.

That or I am full of shite...
Posted by Errerrerrwere
Member since Aug 2015
43203 posts
Posted on 11/15/23 at 10:48 pm to
quote:

We're talking Iraq and Kuwait, baw.


Right but I don't remember Kuwait launching missiles into Iraq.
Posted by scrooster
Resident Ethicist
Member since Jul 2012
42169 posts
Posted on 11/15/23 at 10:50 pm to
You did a good job with that.

Posted by riccoar
Arkansas
Member since Mar 2006
4679 posts
Posted on 11/15/23 at 10:53 pm to
Biden provoked this war and has been a big reason no cease fire has been discussed.

Posted by Pandy Fackler
Member since Jun 2018
21114 posts
Posted on 11/15/23 at 10:54 pm to
Upvote earned and given.
Posted by touchdownjeebus
Member since Sep 2010
26074 posts
Posted on 11/15/23 at 11:07 pm to
Thanks. One day we can discuss the day of Saddam’s execution.

Don’t get me wrong, Saddam was a douche, but they did his arse all kinds of wrong, lol. It wasn’t us. That was 100% the Iraqis.
Posted by davyjones
NELA
Member since Feb 2019
35108 posts
Posted on 11/15/23 at 11:11 pm to
I always thought that Saddam was probably the best person to keep the trashy Islamic fundamentalists at bay and under control to the fullest extent possible, because he likely didn’t much care for the threat to his absolute power in that country. He wasn’t all about the jihadist life like the terrorists were or are. And he didn’t have to worry with all that red tape in shaking them down for info like we do. They probably didn’t really want to mess around with his arse, I’d reckon.
Posted by Privateer 2007
Member since Jan 2020
7746 posts
Posted on 11/15/23 at 11:16 pm to
quote:

horizontal drilling into Iraq


Old timers at a certain "Big Blue" oilfield services company, have told me same.
Posted by touchdownjeebus
Member since Sep 2010
26074 posts
Posted on 11/15/23 at 11:19 pm to
Saddam was actually secular. He only became religious when it benefited him. He NEVER talked about religion when he was detained unless it benefited him, like ever.

Some dudes would espouse all kinds of rhetoric. Those guys were the legit mooj. Saddam hated those dudes, lol.

Edit: and before someone asks, no. I didn’t hang out with Saddam. I had access to the notes and reports because they were important for other things. I did have access to khamis Al dulaimi and very limited access to Tariq Aziz.
This post was edited on 11/15/23 at 11:22 pm
Posted by davyjones
NELA
Member since Feb 2019
35108 posts
Posted on 11/15/23 at 11:21 pm to
Exactly. He most definitely wasn’t about cozying up with them and letting them stay in his guest house when they were passing through town. I would imagine they had rivaling goals. And surely Saddam wasn’t accepting of the idea of rivaling goals and people amongst his populace.
This post was edited on 11/15/23 at 11:22 pm
Posted by The Boat
Member since Oct 2008
175883 posts
Posted on 11/15/23 at 11:35 pm to
The issue with the Gulf War was stationing in Saudi Arabia which was the main driving point behind Osama going after the US. Osama was pissed about the “presence of infidels” in their “holy land”. If the US never stationed in Saudi Arabia the WTC may still be standing.
Posted by davyjones
NELA
Member since Feb 2019
35108 posts
Posted on 11/15/23 at 11:56 pm to
quote:

If the US never stationed in Saudi Arabia the WTC may still be standing.

Maybe, but I wouldn’t bet money on that being the case. Those folks have other issues with the west, just in general. Or maybe not “just in general,” but for an array of other motivations it would seem. There were other terrorist acts before our Gulf War stationing in SA. Marine barracks in Beirut, Pan Am 103, amongst other examples. Then there was the first WTC bombing. Etc etc. Them people are just haters bro. And very very insecure with the covering of their women….. I guess they’re convinced everyone wants to get up in that if they catch a glimpse of that velvety smooth skin.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram