Yeah, but the cat was outta bag with the weapons. You can't Monday morning quarterback everything. But working with the event as is, the invasion, how would death with that?
The US told Saddam to leave and he was pretty much ready to leave, but the problem is that at the same time Republicans were running bullshit propaganda campaign telling that Iraqi soldiers are murdering babies in hospitals and we just can't wait we need to bomb them now, can't do diplomacy.
Then the whole notion that any of that is in any way morally justified goes down the drain and we're admitting that the whole thing is by the law of the jungle.
Give them a stern talking to and then quietly talk shit about them behind their back. That should teach 'em.
Yes those countries are responsible too.
I think this is the part that everybody forget about.
I think this is the part that everybody forget about.
And my point not that Iraq was justified in reacting to that with an act of war, they obviously weren't, but that this is not conflict that sprung out of thin air, it was going on for a while and if America showed interest in solving it before bullets started flying I think there is a very good chance this whole thing could have been avoided.
But instead -
I think there is a fairly convincing evidence that Saddam thought America would be mostly okay with invading Kuwait, I don't want to speculate too much on what would have happened if America made if crystal clear to him that war would be unacceptable, I just wish to see the US pursue diplomacy as hard as we pursue war. You can always do the war thing if diplomacy doesn't work anyway.
My point is that USA is not world police who gets to decide which country it wants to make follow international laws and which it doesn't. If you're going to apply an action to Iraq, go apply it to other countries. Otherwise the resentment in the region keeps growing and rightly so.
If the United States could have stopped Russia from taking Ukraine without risking nuclear war they would have. The possible death of everyone on the planet is a large factor in determing the use of force.
This just makes the case for Saddam to pursue nukes then, so everyone would triple think of butting heads. I understand though. Saddam was completely wrong to invade Kuwait even if he had reasons related to Kuwait stealing his oil or otherwise. I just feel disgusted supporting the military industrial complex' adventures in the middle east, good intentions or otherwise.
If you're a nation-state not aligned with either China, US, or France, the best realpolitik move is to pursue nuclear weapons. My pessimistic take is that as the technology for laser centrifuges(anyone building a traditional centrifuge will be easily observed and either invaded or Stuxnetted) becomes more attainable we'll see a dangerous increase in nuclear proliferation, leading to nuclear war in the global South in the next 30 years.
It's like no one understand why countries getting nukes is a big deal.
Some posters here are Arab leftists, who have been on the receiving end of US/western powers meddling which includes using the likes of saddam against their predecessors.
And on that we agree, armed fight against fascism is justified. And guess what that's what imperialist policy is. Fascism. Be it from saddam or from Reagan or from mitterand or from brezhnev
I'm really not fond of Mitterrand but in this case, he was presented with some shots about the situation and didn't really have the time or the means to go any other way than be part of the coalition.
He's not even top 10 of French politician in that regard....heck maybe not even in the 80's or 90s!
