's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

did Bush senior provoke Iraq to invade Kuwait?(22 posts)

did Bush senior provoke Iraq to invade Kuwait?gtx
Jan 15, 2004 10:11 AM
Ramsey Clark makes a good case for this in his book "The Fire This Time: U.S. Crimes in the Gulf"


Clark says that in Secret Dossier: The Hidden Agenda Behind the Gulf War," Pierre Salinger notes that Kuwait greatly increased its oil production on August 8, 1988. Iraq was dependent on stable oil prices, and Kuwait's action sent oil prices spiraling down.

Kuwait also demanded a 50 percent increase in the OPEC quotas and wanted to extract additional oil from the Rumaila field on the Iraq-Kuwait border. The U. S. supplied Kuwait with the drilling technology to steal oil from the part of Rumaila that was inside Iraq, says Salinger.

In addition, Kuwait had been one of Iraq's main creditors, and Kuwait started pushing Iraq to pay back their debt. The sudden belligerent attitude of Kuwait toward Iraq was encouraged by the U. S., according to Middle East expert Milton Viorst, who in The New Yorker quoted Kuwaiti business owner and pro-democracy activist Ali al-Bedah, who said, "I think if the Americans had not pushed, the royal family [of Kuwait] would have never taken the steps that it did to provoke Saddam."
CSAOML [coffee spewed all over monitor laughing] nmDougSloan
Jan 15, 2004 10:19 AM
I'm going to put that one in my memory banksNo_sprint
Jan 15, 2004 10:20 AM
I did the same seeing that subject!
so you're saying...gtx
Jan 15, 2004 10:38 AM
it's all lies? Kuwait didn't greatly increase oil production and drive down oil prices, work to extract oil from the Rumalia fields on the Iraq-Kuwait border, or suddenly start pushing Iraq to pay back their debt? And if they did this they did it all on their own, with no ecouragement from the US?
you haven't exactly connected all the dots nmDougSloan
Jan 15, 2004 10:41 AM
Clark did in his bookgtx
Jan 15, 2004 10:47 AM
which I read last year. I was curious to hear other people's thoughts. I assume you haven't read the book and/or the rest of the stuff in the first link I provided, and have no interest in doing so, which is fine with me. But I'm not sure how you can dismiss these allegations outright.
Clark did in his bookDougSloan
Jan 15, 2004 10:53 AM
Well, if I had time to read everything someone challenged us to read just on this forum alone, I doubt I'd have time to eat.

It just does not make any sense, smacks of nutty conspiracy theories, and leaves me with a huge "WHY?" question in my mind.

If that's the case, then I suppose FDR provoked Germany and Japan to start WWII, also, right? I'd bet someone could make just as strong an argument, but it's too nutty to even consider.

absolutely notmohair_chair
Jan 15, 2004 10:26 AM
It was Clinton's fault. Duh.
I thought this was common knowledge?OldEdScott
Jan 15, 2004 10:26 AM
Along with our concommitant encourgement of Iraq to invade. "Naw, man, go ahead on, invade them bastards who's doin this awful shyt to you, we'll look the other way, don't you worry about a THING."

Clever politics.
You know what else?53T
Jan 15, 2004 10:54 AM
Roosevelt baited the Japaneese into bombing Peal Harbor. There was no other ggod reason to have the entire Pacific fleet anchored in one spot. FDR hated Hitler so bad he would sacrifice anything to get into the war in Europe.

Of course this is nonsence....or is it?
apparently notgtx
Jan 15, 2004 10:54 AM
I've only talked to a few people who have even heard of Clark's allegations. To most people it smacks of conspiracy theory. But I'd like to hear if anyone can disprove it and/or come up with legitimate points that would discredit it.
Provoke? No. Discourage? . . . .No.czardonic
Jan 15, 2004 11:10 AM
And I think it was one of Bush's subordinates that screwed up -- without Bush's knowledge or approval.
Provoke? No. Discourage? . . . .No.gtx
Jan 15, 2004 11:24 AM
is this what you are referring to?
Jan 15, 2004 11:33 AM
That's it. (nm)czardonic
Jan 15, 2004 11:40 AM
wow. some pretty big names close to the current admin.rufus
Jan 15, 2004 7:31 PM
cheney. baker. all kissing saddam's ass, and not giving a crap about what he did to his own people. i wonder what caused them to change their opinion?
When you say "Ramsey Clark" and "Pierre Salinger"MR_GRUMPY
Jan 15, 2004 11:21 AM
in the same sentence, I say DUCK, here comes a load of "you know what."
Bush Sr owns a little blame for Gulf war#1, because he didn't give Saddam the correct signals when the bad boy started talking about taking back Kuwait. Not a terrible mistake, but still a screw up.
Jan 15, 2004 11:26 AM
I agree, Pierre Salinger seems to be a bit of a nut...
Jan 15, 2004 11:30 AM
Why would he do that, then lead the UN in resolutions to require Saddam to leave? What if Saddam had complied? Was Bush counting on him not leaving?

I can understand wanting to put the screws to Saddam, but provoking him to invade is something else. The US has put the screws to lots of counties that never invaded a neighbor.

Can you, since you read the book, summarize the "WHY?" for us? Thanks.

Jan 15, 2004 11:39 AM
If I remember right Clark shows that Bush was taking steps behind the scenes to put Saddam in a position that would make it nearly impossible for him to comply with the UN resolutions and thus force the war.

For more stuff on the diplomatic moves before the war try these links. I also provided them above
Remeber Doug, Saddam was still Bush's man in the M.E.czardonic
Jan 15, 2004 11:45 AM
So it stands to perfect reason that Bush would be using him as a tool to further our interests and keep other regional players in line.

It wasn't until Saddam went too far and became a loose cannon that Bush "found religion" on the evil that Saddam represented.
I thought the pretext of Iraq invading Kuwait was that...Dwayne Barry
Jan 16, 2004 7:03 AM
Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields (which was true)? And wasn't there an issue about the US ambasador to Iraq (or Kuwait?) more or less giving Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait?