The Israeli's can handle conventional threats, but if Saddam had used the WMDs he once had on Israel, the Israelis would have had little choice but to nuke Iraq, then it would have escelated into a problem much bigger than the one we have now, people should keep that in mind with regards to Iran, allthough i think the recent deals reached were enough for now, the bottom line is that you just can't trust dictators with WMDs, Saddams and Assads can't be trusted around WMDs as proven, and North Korea are terrifying, we can't stop them now and we couldn't before because of China, but at least we know Gadaffi, Saddam and Assad will never be able to bother their people or Israel with WMDs ever again.
The colonial experiment "Israel" has threatened or outright attacked nearly all of its neighbors since its inception. To suggest Iraq would have used its WMD on so called "Israel" is quite strange considering it did bomb "Israel" during the first Gulf War when it had chemical weapons (supplied by the west to combat Iran) and the means to deliver them.
Iraq fired 39 Scud missiles armed with conventional warheads at Israel during the first Gulf War and managed to kill 1 Israeli...
Knowing that "Israel" secretly has a full nuclear arsenal and even neutron bombs was and continues to be enough to stop ANY nation daring to attack the apartheid state for fear of retaliation.
These "Israeli" undeclared nukes are the cause of the arms race across the middle east with all nations that fear their aggressive neighbor seeking to also procure weapons of a similar nature to defend themselves.
Nukes are the only way to guarantee the west -or indeed any power- will not invade your country and the reason we attacked Iraq/Syria/Libya but would never dare to attack North Korea...
The only nation to use a nuke was of course not a dictatorship so lets assume that not only dictators but also democracies cannot be trusted with nukes!
Hey perhaps somebody could update me, most of the posts seem to imply that 9/11 happened after IRAQ was invaded? Is that correct? Also the same posts seem to suggest that the Iraq invasion marks the very beginning of the Middle East timeline when everything got messy?
Hey perhaps somebody could update me, most of the posts seem to imply that 9/11 happened after IRAQ was invaded? Is that correct? Also the same posts seem to suggest that the Iraq invasion marks the very beginning of the Middle East timeline when everything got messy?
The Middle East got messy in two particular ways. Then it became a whole lot more messy after two other things happened. But essentially yes, 9/11 happened after Iraq and Iraq was a major part of the September 11 attacks, but not in a way that anyone seems to say.
1. After the UK gave half of Palestine to Jews displaced after WW2. The concept that Jews deserve their own state is called "Zionism" and, while not a problem in itself, the people who you throw out to make space for them can get a bit tetchy.
2. After the UK (and CIA) launched Operation Ajax in Iran. Back in the early 50s Iran was a secular state with a democratically elected leader, one who wore a suit, Mohammad Mossadegh. The problem is he was rather leftist. He basically had state control over the oil production of the country and kept the revenue from it for Iran. The Anglo-Persian oil company (APOC) didn't like that one bit. Seeking the help of the CIA (who were in full on "kill the communists because of domino theory and lock up the socialists!" mode) they displaced the leader of the country and replaced him with a puppet called The Shah (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi). This guy was a brutal dictator, but he was our dictator, so he was tolerated (if you want to know what happened under him look up SAVAK). After being pushed to breaking point there was revolution, mostly organized by the nations clerics (who enjoyed a certain level of immunity from SAVAK), who then took over the nation.
Both of the above events made the Middle East deeply mistrustful of the West. But worse was to come.
In the 1980s the Soviet Union moved into Afghanistan. Reagan, a man so stupid he thought trees caused pollution, was sufficiently impressed by this dumb CIA video entitled "Afghanistan: The gallant struggle":
...to provide as much help as he could to the warlords there.
Then, in 1990, the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein launched an invasion of his small southern neighbour Kuwait. Kuwait was not only oil rich but was a strong ally of the west in the Middle East. Furthermore, nobody really wanted Hussein thinking he could get away with randomly invading small countries because he felt like it. A massive coalition was formed of many nations to throw him out. The UN voted and the security council vote was unanimous - military action was authorized.
So began the gulf war, and boom boom boom went the bombs and rockets. In just a few weeks after the onset of hostilities the Iraqi army fled from Kuwait. And I really do mean fled, "The Road to Basra" was horrific.
But, and this is the important point as far as 9/11 is concerned, after the war the Americans left a massive garrison of troops in Saudi Arabia. 5,000 troops and ordinance. A lot of it in support of policing the "no fly zones" over southern and northern Iraq where Hussein was not allowed to fly military aircraft.
In 1996 Bin Laden issued a Fatwa calling on the Americans to get out of his country. He issued another in 1998, here is the important bit:
First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples. If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it.
The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless. Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.
So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors. Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq,Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.
After that attacks started to occur. Bin Laden was behind both WTC attacks - the one in 1993 and the other in 2001, as well as attacks on other US infrastructure.
So Whilst Iraq wasn't directly responsible for anything that happened, but it proved to be a catalyst in the terrorism that was to come.
EDIT: Just to be clear, the 2003 Iraq invasion (which Blair is involved in) came AFTER the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Some say that Bush was looking for a distraction, not having caught Bin Laden with a 2004 election looming.
Hey perhaps somebody could update me, most of the posts seem to imply that 9/11 happened after IRAQ was invaded? Is that correct? Also the same posts seem to suggest that the Iraq invasion marks the very beginning of the Middle East timeline when everything got messy?
Most of the issues with the Middle East, stem from deals made to the Arab tribes, by T E Lawrence; during the first world war and then broken, by the Allied powers, after the war.
Hey perhaps somebody could update me, most of the posts seem to imply that 9/11 happened after IRAQ was invaded? Is that correct? Also the same posts seem to suggest that the Iraq invasion marks the very beginning of the Middle East timeline when everything got messy?
Hey perhaps somebody could update me, most of the posts seem to imply that 9/11 happened after IRAQ was invaded? Is that correct? Also the same posts seem to suggest that the Iraq invasion marks the very beginning of the Middle East timeline when everything got messy?
Iraq was first invaded in August 1990 and Operation Desert Storm lasted until February 1991. Kuwait was used as the excuse to attack even though the situation between Iraq and Kuwait was complex and many believe that Kuwait baited and lied about Iraq's actions in the 6 month occupation leading up to the war.*
*(Between 1985 and 1989, Iraq lost US$14 billion a year due to Kuwait’s oil price strategy,” and “Kuwait’s refusal to decrease its oil production was viewed by Iraq as an act of aggression against it.”
There were additional disputes between the two countries centering on Kuwait’s exploitation of the Rumaila oil fields, which straddled the border between the two countries. Kuwait was accused of using a technique known as “slant-drilling” to siphon off oil from the Iraqi side. The "Nayira" incident and subsequent reveal by John MacArthur in The New York Times in 1992)
The middle east got "messy" many years before that in 1948 when the Arab–Israeli War took place. Though long before that the alliance powers had a lot to answer for after their disgraceful actions post WW2.
However to answer your question the beginning of the Iraq mess was brought about when the west supported Saddam in the overthrow of Abd al-Karim Qasim.
Abd al-Karim Qasim was -compared to those before or after him- a revolutionary and reformist but had formed ties with the Soviets and therefore the west decided to back other parties in order to overthrow him and place a western puppet in his place...Coup d'état are a favorite tool of the west in the destabilization of its enemies see Libya/ Syria/Afghanistan/Egypt etc...
The second Iraq invasion began on the 20th March 2003 and i am sure you know a lot about that...
Iraq was first invaded in August 1990 and Operation Desert Storm lasted until February 1991. Kuwait was used as the excuse to attack even though the situation between Iraq and Kuwait was complex and many believe that Kuwait baited and lied about Iraq's actions in the 6 month occupation leading up to the war.*
*(Between 1985 and 1989, Iraq lost US$14 billion a year due to Kuwait’s oil price strategy,” and “Kuwait’s refusal to decrease its oil production was viewed by Iraq as an act of aggression against it.”
There were additional disputes between the two countries centering on Kuwait’s exploitation of the Rumaila oil fields, which straddled the border between the two countries. Kuwait was accused of using a technique known as “slant-drilling” to siphon off oil from the Iraqi side. The "Nayira" incident and subsequent reveal by John MacArthur in The New York Times in 1992)
The middle east got "messy" many years before that in 1948 when the Arab–Israeli War took place. Though long before that the alliance powers had a lot to answer for after their disgraceful actions post WW2.
However to answer your question the beginning of the Iraq mess was brought about when the west supported Saddam in the overthrow of Abd al-Karim Qasim.
Abd al-Karim Qasim was -compared to those before or after him- a revolutionary and reformist but had formed ties with the Soviets and therefore the west decided to back other parties in order to overthrow him and place a western puppet in his place...Coup d'état are a favorite tool of the west in the destabilization of its enemies see Libya/ Syria/Afghanistan/Egypt etc...
The second Iraq invasion began on the 20th March 2003 and i am sure you know a lot about that...
Hi thanks for the response! Just checked the dates and IRAQ was not invaded in 1990 as far as I can see. Yes the Allies crossed the border but that was to "Liberate" Kuwait? Iraq was not actually invaded until 2003, two years after 9/11.
I have looked closely at all the "posts" and it would seem fault lies with T E Lawrence after the 1914/18 war, fault also lies with the French/British for the Syria/Lebanon involvement that led to the Assad regime, also fault seems to lie with the greedy Americans/West when Oil was discovered.....oh and I forgot fault also lies with the Israel and Zionism! Of course fault also lies with America/Allies for invading IRAQ in 2003!
I am not a scholar, just a space commander, but it seems very peculiar that not one bit of the blame for the "Mess" in the Middle East is attributed to the Arabs themselves, or the terrible Sunni/Shiite sectarianism (That goes back 100's years) or lack of democracy?
Oh well I am off to Kaushpoos to sell my Rare Goods!
Hi thanks for the response! Just checked the dates and IRAQ was not invaded in 1990 as far as I can see. Yes the Allies crossed the border but that was to "Liberate" Kuwait? Iraq was not actually invaded until 2003, two years after 9/11.
I have looked closely at all the "posts" and it would seem fault lies with T E Lawrence after the 1914/18 war, fault also lies with the French/British for the Syria/Lebanon involvement that led to the Assad regime, also fault seems to lie with the greedy Americans/West when Oil was discovered.....oh and I forgot fault also lies with the Israel and Zionism! Of course fault also lies with America/Allies for invading IRAQ in 2003!
I am not a scholar, just a space commander, but it seems very peculiar that not one bit of the blame for the "Mess" in the Middle East is attributed to the Arabs themselves, or the terrible Sunni/Shiite sectarianism (That goes back 100's years) or lack of democracy?
Oh well I am off to Kaushpoos to sell my Rare Goods!
T E Lawrence acted in good faith. It was the allied powers, appeasing the locals and trying to maintain power in the region that caused the bases of the issues we have today. The map was drawn up to create states, that did not exist before hand. If left alone afterwards, the tribes would have probably gone back to their own lands and all would have been well.
Yep, this stuffs getting heavy, we are all ED players at the end of the day and part of a diverse but good community, i'm off to upgrade the Corvette at Deciat.
Yep, this stuffs getting heavy, we are all ED players at the end of the day and part of a diverse but good community, i'm off to upgrade the Corvette at Deciat.
T E Lawrence acted in good faith. It was the allied powers, appeasing the locals and trying to maintain power in the region that caused the bases of the issues we have today. The map was drawn up to create states, that did not exist before hand. If left alone afterwards, the tribes would have probably gone back to their own lands and all would have been well.
Well the extreme Wahhabi sect pre-dates the 14/18 war as but one example? Also the Sunni/Shiite sectarianism also pre dated that? There were also huge upheavals and ethnic cleansing during the several hundred years of the Ottoman Caliphate? Do you really believe that all would "be well" if the Allied powers had not meddled?
PS....I got a really good price for my rare goods!
Hi thanks for the response! Just checked the dates and IRAQ was not invaded in 1990 as far as I can see. Yes the Allies crossed the border but that was to "Liberate" Kuwait? Iraq was not actually invaded until 2003, two years after 9/11.
I have looked closely at all the "posts" and it would seem fault lies with T E Lawrence after the 1914/18 war, fault also lies with the French/British for the Syria/Lebanon involvement that led to the Assad regime, also fault seems to lie with the greedy Americans/West when Oil was discovered.....oh and I forgot fault also lies with the Israel and Zionism! Of course fault also lies with America/Allies for invading IRAQ in 2003!
I am not a scholar, just a space commander, but it seems very peculiar that not one bit of the blame for the "Mess" in the Middle East is attributed to the Arabs themselves, or the terrible Sunni/Shiite sectarianism (That goes back 100's years) or lack of democracy?
Oh well I am off to Kaushpoos to sell my Rare Goods!
Iraq was definitely invaded in 1991 with its lead-up in 1990 paving the way for the invasion..i remember it quite clearly unfortunatly
The initial conflict to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait began with an aerial and naval bombardment in January 1991, continuing for five weeks. This was followed by a ground assault in February. This was a decisive victory for the Coalition forces, who liberated Kuwait and advanced into Iraqi territory. The Coalition ceased its advance, and declared a cease-fire 100 hours after the ground campaign started. Aerial and ground combat was confined to Iraq, Kuwait, and areas on Saudi Arabia's border.
Stopping just outside of Baghdad the western forces -worried of the power vacuum that would be left by the toppling of Saddam- decided to stop short of full regime change.
Well the extreme Wahhabi sect pre-dates the 14/18 war as but one example? Also the Sunni/Shiite sectarianism also pre dated that? There were also huge upheavals and ethnic cleansing during the several hundred years of the Ottoman Caliphate? Do you really believe that all would "be well" if the Allied powers had not meddled?
PS....I got a really good price for my rare goods!
The theory was to over throw the Ottoman empire and go back to their own lands at the end of the fighting. Most of the Arab tribes had that before the war and needed to be united to deal with the Ottoman Empire. However the allied powers, re-drew the maps. Look at the middle east and you will see a lot of straight lines, for country boarders. There lies the biggest issue, for the indigenous populations.
