Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
btw, a minor quibble but re GW1. It very nearly wasn't fought at all. Saddam sought and gained permission from the US to invade

GW1 wiki

On the 25th, Saddam Hussein met with April Glaspie, an American ambassador, in Baghdad. According to an Iraqi transcript of that meeting, Glaspie told the Iraqi delegation,

    "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts."

The US sent troops to defend Saudi, but it wasn't until the Kuwait govt in exile contracted the lobbying firm Hill and Knowlton to create a view in DC to intervene. Their campaign included the farcical Senate committee hearings where the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador masqueraded as a nurse talking of babies thrown from incubators and other imagined atrocities (I am not suggesting none took place, but the testifier could not have known of them). The final Senate vote to re-invade Kuwait was 52-47, with several Senators admitting they had been exclusively swayed by the testimony of "atrocities".

I really don't think the mood in DC or the wider US was all that interested till then. The US was bounced into the war.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon May 30th, 2011 at 10:27:07 AM EST
I don't see the part of the diary that the "minor quibble" disputes. We went to war, and it was about oil. You seem to be reinforcing the diary argument, rather than quibbling about it.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon May 30th, 2011 at 12:26:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But Gulf War I was fought because Saddam had his army invade Kuwait, and we counter-invaded because Kuwait had a lot of oil and the invasion made a lot of other Gulf Oil Nations very nervous about what would happen to them if the precedent stood.

And, indeed, even if we counter-invaded because that's what we always do when an authoritarian monarchical state is invaded by an authoritarian fascist state somewhere around the world (stay with me here, I said even if) ... Saddam invaded because Kuwait had oil.

Whilst I agree with the second paragraph 100% in that the re-invasion would never have happened without the oil, I still feel that it was more about how the USA (and world opinion) was bounced into doing the right thing against their will. After all, Iraq was a US asset. Saddam was their guy to the extent that he'd already asked permission to invade and received it beforehand.

The US officially didn't care cos they knew that they would be sold the oil whoever controlled it. So why should they go to war ? It doesn't make sense. Sure Cheney was in cahoots with the House of Saud who were nervous about the precedent of Saddam taking over a neighbour with impunity but that in itself wasn't enough. They'd already expressed indifference.

so, the presence of oil was irrelevant to the decision cos the US would have got the oil anyway and inaction would have been cheaper. No, the Senate was bounced by a clever pr campaign and an ambassador's daughter who lied.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon May 30th, 2011 at 02:23:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
so, the presence of oil was irrelevant to the decision cos the US would have got the oil anyway and inaction would have been cheaper. No, the Senate was bounced by a clever pr campaign and an ambassador's daughter who lied.
In what way does any of that work out that way if Kuwait's chief export is dried fish?

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon May 30th, 2011 at 02:53:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That depends on how many of their fishing boats are owned by United Fish.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon May 30th, 2011 at 03:22:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Whilst I agree with the second paragraph 100% in that the re-invasion would never have happened without the oil, I still feel that it was more about how the USA (and world opinion) was bounced into doing the right thing against their will. After all, Iraq was a US asset. Saddam was their guy to the extent that he'd already asked permission to invade and received it beforehand.

just like that

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon May 30th, 2011 at 03:26:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So it was about the oil.

Since the diary takes no position at all on how the details worked out, I still do not see how it contradicts any claim in the diary.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon May 30th, 2011 at 03:42:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... or elsewhere is only a secondary issue in determining whether there is an intervention.

If Saddam was the State Department's "man" in that part of the world, George HW Bush was Saudi Arabia's "man in DC", and whether the go ahead was given by State, not understanding the "special relationship" of the Bushes and the House of Saud, the go ahead was given by the White House, not understanding the House of Saud's position on the question, or the effort was to give a go ahead for a protection racket extortion threat, not understanding that for Saddam, that meant going and taking it if the Kuwaiti's did not make the extortion payment ...

... the House of Saud did not like the precedent of Saddam invading and looting an oil rich nation, and with their man in DC as President of the United States, a more recalcitrant Congress would likely have represented a delay rather than a prevention of the counter-invasion.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue May 31st, 2011 at 08:52:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display: