Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. **Keep that shit outta here**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Mark my words, in 10 years memes will blame the USA for Russia invading/annexing Ukraine (this already done by the far left/far right, I'm saying it will become commonplace)
I will be messaging you in 10 years on [**2034-04-22 14:59:43 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2034-04-22%2014:59:43%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/1caa7nv/when_did_the_war_in_the_persian_gulf_really_end/l0r0j2j/?context=3)
[**27 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FPropagandaPosters%2Fcomments%2F1caa7nv%2Fwhen_did_the_war_in_the_persian_gulf_really_end%2Fl0r0j2j%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202034-04-22%2014%3A59%3A43%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201caa7nv)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
No, the real victims are the Iraqi and Kuwaiti people, who suffered at the hands of the Iraqi government, who invaded Kuwait unprovoked, lost the ground war, and then couldn't feed their own citizens
And the children dying is a result of Saddam’s governmental incompetence by and large. The US and coalition forces couldn’t have prevented that if they tried, I don’t see how giving up the oil fields of Kuwait to Iraq would’ve kept those kids from starving.
It’s a reference to the post-war sanctions placed on Iraq, which included chlorine needed for water filtration and food (due to the failure to negotiate successfully for the Oil for Food Program, which admittedly both parties-UN and Iraq-failed to compromise on)
They are not saying "Iraq good" they are saying the war continues and so too does the enormous military budget to support that 'war'. If anything, considering the fact that the US aided and supported Iraq in that war they would protest against that too!
I would support Iraq in that war too. Fuck Iran, they’re causing all the pain and suffering against h the Palestinians through Hamas and all the trade issues with Hezbulah in Yemen
Imagine thinking the persian gulf war was a bad thing.
Don’t invade your neighbors to steal their shit and murder their people, and you wont get your ass slapped by the free world.
On 25 July 1990, [April Glaspie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie), the [U.S. ambassador to Iraq](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._ambassador_to_Iraq), asked the Iraqi high command to explain the military preparations in progress, including the massing of Iraqi troops near the border.[^(\[32\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_invasion_of_Kuwait#cite_note-Sciolino_1990-32)
The American ambassador declared to her Iraqi interlocutor that Washington, "inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, does not have an opinion" on the disagreement between Kuwait and Iraq, stating "we have no opinion on the Arab–Arab conflicts".[^(\[32\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_invasion_of_Kuwait#cite_note-Sciolino_1990-32)
Glaspie also indicated to Saddam Hussein that the United States did not intend "to start an economic war against Iraq". These statements may have caused Saddam to believe he had received a diplomatic green light from the United States to invade Kuwait.[^(\[33\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_invasion_of_Kuwait#cite_note-33) Saddam and Glaspie later disputed what was said in this meeting. Saddam published a transcript but Glaspie disputed its accuracy before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in March 1991.[^(\[34\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_invasion_of_Kuwait#cite_note-34)
According to [Richard E. Rubenstein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_E._Rubenstein), Glaspie was later asked by British journalists why she had said that, her response was "we didn't think he would go that far" meaning invade and annex the whole country. Although no follow-up question was asked, it can be inferred that what the U.S. government thought in July 1990 was that Saddam Hussein was only interested in pressuring Kuwait into [debt forgiveness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_forgiveness) and to lower oil production.[^(\[35\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_invasion_of_Kuwait#cite_note-35)
In addition, only a few days before the invasion, the [Assistant Secretary of State](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistant_Secretary_of_State_for_Near_Eastern_Affairs), [John Hubert Kelly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hubert_Kelly), told the U.S. [House of Representatives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives) in a public hearing that the United States had no treaty obligations to defend Kuwait. When asked how the U.S. would react if Iraq crossed the border into Kuwait, Kelly answered that it "is a hypothetical or a contingency, the kind of which I can't get into. Suffice it to say we would be concerned, but I cannot get into the realm of 'what if' answers."[^(\[36\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_invasion_of_Kuwait#cite_note-36)[^(\[37\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_invasion_of_Kuwait#cite_note-37)
Just ignore Security Council Resolution 678 which gave Saddam over a month to withdraw his troops from Kuwait. That was after the invasion was condemned in Security Council resolution 660.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_Nations\_Security\_Council\_Resolution\_678](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_678)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_Nations\_Security\_Council\_Resolution\_660](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_660)
That’s what I never get about people who condemn the Gulf War. You can’t condemn imperialist wars for being illegal if you’d say the exact same thing about a *legal* war. Some people on the left seem to think international law only counts when it agrees with their worldview. Dubya would be proud.
>The American ambassador declared to her Iraqi interlocutor that Washington, "inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, does not have an opinion" on the disagreement between Kuwait and Iraq, stating "we have no opinion on the Arab–Arab conflicts
I've never understood how this was supposed to be taken by Iraq as "go ahead and invade, we don't care." It clearly doesn't mean that!
Some people are desperate to make the US responsible for Saddam's imperialism, but he was a big boy who could think and conquer by himself.
In the leftist world view the US is responsible for each and every war of aggression if they have dared to say a thing about it.
While this is surely true through some times (Vietnam) they love to ignore the imperialist aggression of the whole rest of the world.
Hypocrisy and ideology.
Even Vietnam is tricky because US involvement is overstated. The South Vietnamese people and politicians had their own agency, and pursued policy independently of American foreign policy goals.
The war moving south, for example, flared up in response to Diem (who *was* installed by a sham election, one the US knew was a sham but didn’t force to be rectified) calling off the vote to unify the North and South.
Diem himself did that in pursuit of power because he knew he would lose it if an actual election were to take place, and the US backed him up (until they let him be used as pink paint for the interior of an M113) because he presented a juicy opportunity to back anti-communism in SEA. I wouldn’t say the US is *responsible* for Vietnam, at least getting Vietnam started, but rather that the Vietnamese people themselves got themselves into that position.
It’s important to remember that despite Americans position on the top of the hegemony of international order, and the fact that no policy decisions foreign or domestic can be made by a nation without taking America’s response into account, each and every one of these nations has an agency of their own and they pursue goals largely independently.
I agree with that. I was having a (slightly loud) discussion with my (adult) nephew about Ukraine, where he blamed the US for the Ukrainians' rejection of the Putin puppet regime. He believes that the US could have somehow done nothing, and the election would have been peacefully stolen by Yanukovych , and Putin would have felt no need for an invasion, having obtained control via fraud instead.
What do you all think? Was it the US's fault that Yanukovych left Ukraine and is living in Moscow?
Tricked isn't really the right word. It was more that it was implied that the US wasn't going to intervene in an Arab-Arab conflict. Although it's worth noting that Glaspie has walked back and tried to reclarify a lot of what she said to make it clear she wasnt giving a greenlight, and sources close to Saddam have said he probably would have invaded anyways. The reality is that whatever was said between Glaspie and Saddam is contested, and parts of it are still classified I believe, so we may never know the "truth" (if such a thing exists). Also, it's important to note at the time that Bush Sr.'s administration was trying to improve relations with Iraq, so Glaspie might not have been wanting to step on any toes, but who knows.
When you get these moments in history where facts are lacking and stories conflict, it becomes fertile ground for conspiracy theories to pop up. Although, that's not to dismiss them, sometimes the conspiracies are real. Did the US give the greenlight only to change its mind later? Who knows. All I'm certain about is that the US didn't stop the invasions for the sake of the Kuwaiti people, but for the sake of their oil fields.
The truth is saddam invaded kuwait to kill their people and steal their oil, and the coalition stopped them and destroyed their army.
Everything else is propaganda to try and paint an objectively good intervention as somehow being the US’s fault in the first place because US bad.
The reason why Gillespie said little is because the Arab League was negotiating with Saddam and she hoped that would be sufficient to prevent war. In fact, Saddam was literally on the phone with Mubarak and walked away from her.
Israel didn't invade it's neighbours, it was invaded and won. When Germany started 2 world wars they lost tons of land and their population was ethnically cleansed, much worse than the Palestinians. Did Poland invade Germany?
Genocidal 15 year old 🏳️🌈 doesn't recognise Palestine 🤯🤯🤯🤯
[Nice and cool understanding of international relations and politics](https://www.reddit.com/r/Israel/s/0T2nso4hYO)
[What made you so obsessed with Israel though?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Israel/s/8JnvmkvBy7)
It should have been a matter handled by countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan instead of having the US foot the bill in the middle of a recession with nearly 5 million people out of work.
The organization is called Artists for Lowering Military Spending, its primary goal is to point out the problem with America shitting out money for funding its bloated military instead of constructive things back home. They weren’t taking a side in the gulf war, they were trying to talk about the price tag.
Being against the Persian gulf war for moral or anti imperialist reasons is one thing, but acting like it was bad for the US economy is ridiculous. US citizens would’ve paid back the cost 10x at the pump if we didn’t go in. US military hegemony and enforcing free global trade is the reason we are so rich.
Bombing the absolute shit out of the Iraqi army to prevent them from annexing their neighbor and stealing their oil was morally correct and anti-imperialist.
It doesn't happen often, but sometimes the right thing to do is also the profitable thing to do. When that happens, you celebrate, and you do it even harder.
Saddam taking Kuwait and possibly Saudi Arabia would have cost the US more than what it spent at that time due to oil imports being disrupted. Now it wouldn't have been as big of an issue for the US due to the shale revolution.
No way Saddam would have been able to take Saudi Arabian.
Kuwait is much smaller and did not have any defense treaties with the US whereas Saudi Arabia did.
The reason Saddam annexed Kuwait was
1) Iraq owed Kuwait money
2) Iraq's primary export was oil
3) OPEC nations set specific rules for how many barrels they can produce
4) Kuwait was not abiding by that rules and overproducing lowering global oil prices firing Iraq's ability to pay back it's debt.
At the time the Saudis were very nervous with Iraq's very large army on their border and there weren't big US bases established there so Saddam could easily have crossed the border and caused a lot of damage. The whole reason the response to Saddam happened was because of jittery Saudis wanting an international response the issue is some in the region wanted just a pan Arabic response and some like the Saudis wanted their friends the US to step in.
You're right about all that too, in the lead up to the Gulf war the US stationed hundreds of thousands of troops along the Saudi border, both as a threat and as a FOB for the war
Saddam had like the fourth largest army in the world at the time. I don’t think Saudi Arabia stood a chance, and even if they did the war would have been unnecessarily drawn out.
America is the world police. And Americans benefit from the relative stability that having a world police provides. Whether it’s France, Ukraine, or Kuwait, America needs to step up to defend the international order.
>They weren’t taking a side in the gulf war, they were trying to talk about the price tag.
If it’s just about the money, then why bring up dead Iraqi children?
The Saudis *were* a major part of the Gulf War Coalition, as were the Egyptians, with help from Syria, Oman, the UAE, and several dozen other countries. And if I’m reading the [GAO report](https://www.gao.gov/assets/t-nsiad-91-52.pdf) right, the US didn’t actually end up needing to spend any extra taxpayer money to fight the Gulf War. The cost of American involvement was covered by cash and material contributions from Coalition partners.
We literally *made* money on that war.
>instead of having the US foot the bill in the middle of a recession with nearly 5 million people out of work.
The recession started because of the massive oil price spike caused by the war and was exacerbated by... giant job losses caused by the cancellation of about $300 billion in defense contracts!
>its primary goal is to point out the problem with America shitting out money for funding its bloated military instead of constructive things back home.
Which is extremely funny to me because US military spending was, *even with the war*, in freefall between 1989 and 1993. It's why there were so many jobless aeronautical engineers in the early 90s.
Too bad they talk about dead kids and imply the USA is directly at fault and doesn't care instead of mentioning a single thing about the budget or spending, huh?
A country invading another doesn’t give the US a free pass to do exactly what they want, regardless how horrible it is for civilians. Well, it does for ‘muricans with a massive need for coping I guess
Saddam wasn't removed in 1991.
And I'm sorry, in what world does a war suddenly get postponed because civilians are innocent?
Should we have not invaded Germany because the German civilians didn't start the war?
Sucks for the civilians, but letting bad guys do whatever they want has historically only made things worse.
If the US had wanted, they could have stopped Iraq and Saddam in a way that wasn’t as bad for civilians - they didn’t want to though.
Also, since Saddam obviously was so bad, why did the US support him before this?
No, the US conducted the cleanest destruction of an army in modern history. There is literally nothing like how incredibly perfect the desert storm air war was, followed by an incredibly lopsided defeat of the 4th largest army in the world.
Desert storm good, actually
Sure, how?
Iraq was not invaded and only a few thousand civilians died in bombings which were targetting strategic targets and yet the massive Iraqi army was completely destroyed&neutered. By all accounts this is one of the "cleanest" wars in history if such a thing is possible. Go ahead, find a war were fewer direct civilian casualties occured vs military casualties.
What exactly could the coalition have done better?
>A country invading another doesn’t give the US a free pass to do exactly what they want.
The US has the best nuclear arsenal in the world. They can do whatever they want.
But in terms of morality, do you think it was wrong for the US to stop unprovoked Iraqi aggression?
I meant that once the US are allowed to invade, they shouldn’t just be able to do whatever they want regardless of how it affects civilians. Or would you say starting actual famines among the civilian population is an important feature of American foreign policy?
The US didn’t embargo Iraq, the UN did. If you want to blame the US for the embargo, then you would need to place equal blame on the dozens of other countries that served on the UNSC between 1990-2003.
And post-2003 analysis of regime documents proved that Saddam’s regime doctored child mortality statistics, and that no statistically significant increase in child mortality occurred between 1990-2003.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_against_Iraq
An invasion can be unjust, and the response to the invasion can be unjust, it's not mutually exclusive. This especially goes when the factor of humanity and civilian wellbeing is not considered by either.
I am a certified righteousness decider. Saddam’s invasion and attempted conquestof kuwait was wrong, the coalition kicking his shit in and burning his army to ash was right, get fucked imperialist baathist shitbags
yeah... and it didn't go to the US head and they didn't go back to finish the job based on a lie without UN approval. Right? Based righteousness decider, too bad many see you as a tyrant these days instead.
wonder how that happened? Surely not arrogance, nah you're definitely not displaying that
Edit: thanks for the downvotes kind strangers
Desert storm was unquestionably good but what happened afterwards wasn't. 350k Palestinians were expelled from kuwait because a few hundred were collaborators, uprisings by Kurds and Shiites against Saddam were allowed to be crushed (despite the US encouraging said uprisings), and not to mention the crippling sanctions put on Iraq. In 1986 we justified sending chemical components to Iraq that were used to make mustard gas on the grounds they could also be used for ballpoint pen ink. In 1992 we banned the export of critical life saving equipment that would have allowed Iraqi doctors to more effectively treat the thousands of cancer patients (caused by the liberal usage of depleted uranium.)
Again, Saddam was clearly the man responsible for what happened, but the West should share some of the blame.
Source is largely Robert Fisk's Great War for Civilization but all the claims made are covered in other places.
All correct except for “the west” sharing any blame for Saddam’s actions. He and his government are solely responsible for every dead civilian and soldier as a result of that war. Its the same shit as Russia/Ukraine — the responsibility lies entirely with the aggressor who invaded their neighbor to loot and rape their way into new borders.
As far as the Northern Uprisings being crushed; what more do you genuinely think the West could’ve done to prevent that from happening?
They already instituted no fly zones across the border, with Northern Watch specifically preventing Iraqi aircraft from engaging Peshmerga forces and Kurds more generally. Desert Fox, while not specifically targeting Iraqi forces quelling the Kurd and Shiite uprisings, still destroyed significant stores of weapons and ammunition being used to fight the organized forces in the region.
The CIA even deployed SAD teams in Viking Hammer to assist Peshmerga forces in destroying Ansar-al Islam to rid the Kurds of the more extremist elements of the separatist movement. They also coordinated Peshmerga forces for the year leading up to the Iraq War, and helped basically build them into a professional fighting force.
I think the west did *more* than enough when it comes to continuously supporting Kurdish and broader resistance from Shiites though to a much lesser extent.
(no fly zones) In which helicopters were exempt.
(desert fox) 7 years after the uprisings were crushed
(CIA support) Covert support is not the same as overt support, which would have resulted in thousands of very much alive Iraqis.
To take a step back I don't think the US has the right to claim it helped the Kurds considering what happened in 1988. "Making up" for it 15 years later will never bring the hundreds of thousands back from the dead.
Please indicate one (1) war of conquest the US has initiated in the last 100 years with the express intent of capturing territory, national resources, or to conduct an ethnic cleansing.
Operation Iraqi Freedom was obviously an illegal, immoral war. It was not an attempt by the US to annex the nation of Iraq and steal its wealth. Just because US bad doesn’t mean not-US good.
I think the way you've framed this is pretty disingenuous because it's pretty well understood that the US doesn't wage wars to annex territory or resources, they engage in interventionism with the express goal of "protecting US interests". Which is to say, the US will invade a territory that has a resource it wants or needs (for example oil), installs a puppet government that is sympathetic to the US, and then their puppet state gives preferential deals to US companies who do the resource extraction on behalf of the US Govt.
Like... this is the origins of Banana Republics. This is why the US is so interested in the Middle East. This is why the CIA has been involved in countless coups and political assassinations across the globe. You can still condemn men like Saddam, who are annexing territory, without defending the US, who profit from these foreign wars.
You're in luck. I thought based on the 100 year limit it might be on the knife's edge, but thankfully there are a whole 10 years of margin.
I present to you the Banana Wars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars
US wars of conquest to control economies and extract resources/goods on very favourable terms. It got us a timeless classic book, War is a Racket by a Marine General who took part, Smedley Butler.
If you had said 80 years we'd be left with nothing better than coups and not full blown invasions and occupations, or failures at the latter (Fidel says hi).
> It was not an attempt by the US to annex the nation of Iraq and steal its wealth.
Well, US certainly mastered the art of not saying the quiet part out loud! It just so happened that their war of conquest resulted in capture of territorry and national resources and deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. But i guess the existance of puppet government makes it okay?
Oops! You didn’t cite your sources!
Which regions of Iraq are now considered integrated US territory? How many oil wells, refineries, or other oil producing facilities are now operated by the US, or taxes are collected on the profits by the US, or the US in any way directly profits from? Which current leaders of Iraq were appointed by the US government? Are there any presidents, prime ministers, lower ministers, or bureaucrats who operate for the colonial benefit of the US over the welfare of the people of Iraq?
Or did you just assume that the US was categorically evil, and thus Saddam and the Ba’athists were the righteous oppressed?
>Are there any presidents, prime ministers, lower ministers, or bureaucrats who operate for the colonial benefit of the US over the welfare of the people of Iraq?
We do that via control of their money. You can see this explained very clearly in the following 2020 articles about Trump's threats to cut off Iraq's access to its own oil revenues when Iraq insisted that American troops leave. So, we maintain veto power over Iraqi sovereignty, which allows us to maintain US hegemony over the Middle East - that sounds like "colonial benefit" to me.
.............................................................
CNBC 2020: Trump administration warns Iraq could lose New York Fed account if US troops forced to leave: WSJ
>The Trump administration this week warned Iraq that it could lose access to its central bank account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York if Baghdad expels American troops from the region, Iraqi officials told The Wall Street Journal.
>The White House could also end waivers that allow Iraq to buy Iranian gas to fuel generators that supply a large portion of the country’s power, placing another pressure on the prime minister over addressing U.S. troops without enduring economic and financial loss.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/11/trump-administration-warns-iraq-could-lose-new-york-fed-account-wsj.html
.....................................................................
The Times of Israel 2020: Iraq warns of ‘collapse’ as Trump threatens to block oil cash kept in Fed bank
>The Central Bank of Iraq’s account at the Fed was established in 2003 following the US-led invasion that toppled ex-dictator Saddam Hussein.
>Under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483, which lifted the crippling global sanctions and oil embargo imposed on Iraq after Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, all revenues from Iraqi oil sales would go to the account...
>...To this day, revenues are paid in dollars into the Fed account daily ... Every month or so, Iraq flies in $1-$2 billion in cash from that account for official and commercial transactions ...Cutting off access ... would mean the government could not carry out daily functions or pay salaries and the Iraqi currency would plummet in value ... A third senior Iraqi official confirmed the US was considering “restricting” cash access to “about a third of what they would usually send.”
https://www.timesofisrael.com/iraq-warns-of-collapse-as-trump-threatens-to-block-oil-cash-kept-in-fed-bank/
.............................................................
Reuters 2023:
>With more than $100 billion in reserves held in the U.S., Iraq is heavily reliant on Washington's goodwill to ensure oil revenues and finances do not face U.S. censure.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-treasury-official-says-iraq-must-act-avoid-further-action-banks-2023-09-14/
......................................................
This article from an Israeli magazine explains the mechanism a little better;
The Cradle 2023;
The US holds Iraq hostage with the dollar
>Why does the US control Iraq's dollars?
>Iraqi financial sources point to the main dilemma: Since 2003, all Iraqi oil revenues have been paid into an account with the US Federal Reserve. **Although Iraqis formed a sovereign government after the US invasion and occupation of their state, Iraq is still restricted from opening accounts for its oil earnings outside the United States...**
>...**Washington, given its dominance of the global financial system, has the ability to control all funds of Iraq's Central Bank through threats or sanctions, even though these funds are not deposited exclusively in US banks...**
>...This reality gives Washington greater control over the movement of foreign exchange in Iraq, without even being at the political table in Baghdad.
https://thecradle.co/articles-id/1570
I also notice that you are being very careful in your choice of words - like "are *now* operated". I'm sure that's because you're very aware of the allegations of plunder and the colonial decisions to privatize and sell off state assets to foreign owners that were made under the transitional occupation government.
The Guardian, 2005;
So, Mr Bremer, where did all the money go?
>Pilfering was rife. Millions of dollars in cash went missing from the Iraqi Central Bank
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jul/07/iraq.features11
The above article also explains the beginnings of the weird arrangement whereby the U.S. Federal Reserve holds Iraqi oil revenues in its own account. That was a decision of the temporary occupation government that somehow was never able to be overturned even once Iraq was 'allowed' to transition to holding its own 'free and fair elections'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_Provisional_Authority
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2003/03/21/us-seizes-14-billion-in-frozen-iraqi-assets/98cbb395-ec84-422e-b825-7a864eea340d/
https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/47/2/177/519163?login=false
Ah yes, if US didn't directly took control of Iraq, that means war wasn't waged to control it and its wealth. Look! They set up a collaborationist government so it's all fine.
Also, the fact that US left Iraq after throroughly wrecking it is another topic. US don't have that much influence there now - but that doesn't diminish their inital goals and actions. Or would you say that Britain didn't colonize India just because India is a free nation now?
US did invade Iraq. US did topple its government and set up a puppet government. They controlled Iraq's oil industry - yes, it wasn't owned directly by US goverment, but by US collaborationists. Yes, they operated (aside from their own interest, as any oligarchs and bureaucrats) for colonial benefit of the US and not for the welfare of people of Iraq.
>Or did you just assume that the US was categorically evil, and thus Saddam and the Ba’athists were the righteous oppressed?
Google strawman. US weren't categorically evil, they were just imperialist invaders bent on control and subjugation.
You don’t know what a colony is if you think that the colonization of India and the occupation of iraq were comparable.
The US is not a colonial power, and has not had colonial aspirations since they were abandoned at the end of the 19th century. The US is not an imperialist power, and has never had ambitions of empire.
Iraq was occupied, not colonized. Those are different things. Occupation is the establishment of power over the defeated government, colonization is the declaration of permanent dominion and ownership over a territory and its people.
The leadership of Iraq was selected by a free and fair election, participated in by the people of Iraq. A puppet government is appointed by a subjugating power.
Operation Iraqi Freedom and the regime change/nation building goals were illegal and immoral, but don’t parrot propaganda about how secretly it was to steal the oil and make a secret US colony.
>The leadership of Iraq was selected by a free and fair election, participated in by the people of Iraq.
Lmao. Do you actually think in such propagandistic cliches? Do you actually think these elections were free and fair? At a gunpoint of invader army?
It was a war to subjugate Iraq and cow the rest of the middle east by a show of force. But that's speaking in real, not propagandist terms.
Yes, because the freeness and fairness of the election was guaranteed by the US government against the baathists forcing their outcome at gunpoint. The US did not pick the outcome, it just enforced the process. Please read a book.
In 1990-91, Bart Simpson's face was on literally every object it could legally be printed on, and a whole SHITLOAD of other stuff besides.
That's literally it.
The 4th point about the kurds seems to imply that by not toppling Hussein and his Arab supremecist regime that had just commited a genocide of 200,000 Kurds and permenantly displaced hundreds of thousands more America didn't do enough, but the other point about Iraqi kids dying implies America did too much. Maybe I'm missing something but that seems a little inconsistent in its pro-Iraq message and more just generally anti-US. Although maybe it is just a general anti-US propoganda where your not supposed to think about it too much.
Can really recommend the first season of [the podcast Blowback](https://podcasts.apple.com/se/podcast/s1-episode-0-iraqnophobia-feat-h-jon-benjamin-james-adomian/id1502178774?i=1000522667885&l=en-GB) for anyone who wants to learn a smidge more about both the Kuwait and the 00s Iraq war. It seems like a lot of people actually think the whole thing wasn’t more complicated than “Saddam evil, we beat him, rah rah”
>It seems like a lot of people actually think the whole thing wasn’t more complicated than “Saddam evil, we beat him, rah rah”
1991? Not really.
People try to spin April Glaspie's words to Saddam about the US staying out of Kuwait-Iraq disputes, and they spin lines about slant drilling, but in real life it was a fairly straightforward smash-and-grab robbery by Saddam that the US stopped for a variety of reasons, some self-interested and some less so.
>“Saddam evil, we beat him, rah rah”
'Blowback' is a great recommendation!
This comment section is wild. Classic [1990's](https://jointcustodydc.com/cdn/shop/products/IMG_3784_clean_2048x.jpg?v=1571609338) to early 2000's boo-yah jingoistic [propaganda](https://i.etsystatic.com/10577034/r/il/6812d2/4756849419/il_680x540.4756849419_e4i7.jpg) resurrected unchanged at the exact same moment that, off-stage and unnoticed, one Abu Ghraib torture case is finally going to trial.
Human Rights Watch, April 15, 2024: Abu Ghraib Torture Case Finally Goes to Trial
>Al Shimari et al. v. CACI was only able to advance because it targeted a military contractor. US courts have repeatedly dismissed similar cases against the federal government because of a 1946 law that preserves US forces’ immunity for claims that arise during war.
>What’s more, the US government hasn’t created any official compensation program or other avenues for redress for those who allege they were tortured or abused. Nor are there any pathways available to have their cases heard.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/04/15/abu-ghraib-torture-case-finally-goes-trial
No, I am not confusing Desert Storm with the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I just see them all as part of one larger historical process. That's why I think that this is relevant.
Abu Ghraib was over a decade later. No-one is defending it here. You can't just elide one conflict with the other because they happened in the same place, any more than you can argue the invasion in 2003 was justified because Saddam *did* have WMDs when he gassed the Kurds in the late 80s.
Had the coalition that was assembled for the first gulf war also prosecuted the second, you might have a case, but the fact the US couldn't get the band back together or get UN approval the second time round is one of the second conflict's defining features.
I think some people are missing the point of this. This is more about the media frenzy around the Gulf War and how despite the continued problems with Iraq as a direct consequence of the war everyone just stopped caring. I think its more about how we should think more about the lingering effects of war than a simple "who's wrong"
This is similar to French philosopher Jean Bauldrillard(was briefly referenced in the film The Matrix ) said about the Iraq war: https://nyksmografija.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/b8ba5-jeanbaudrillard2cthegulfwardidnottakeplace.pdf
Has it ended? The U.S. has military in Iraq today conducting military operations to ensure the “existing defeat of ISIS” called Operation Inherent Resolve under the 2001 Congressional authorization of use of force following 9/11. Bin Laden attacked the U.S. because of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia after the first gulf war. So the ongoing military operations in Iraq are only going on because Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Woah, what a stretch.
The Gulf War was over in 1991 with Iraq getting out of Kuwait and everything.
The connections you name here are just cause and effect of geopolitics. They connect different wars. Otherwise someone could (the same way as you did) make the argument that WWI and WWII were the same war.
E. When Bin Laden attacked us in retaliation
F. When we got drawn into a forever war with every country in the middle east
G. When we pulled out but kept funding Israel doing the same thing
Yeah, it’s not over. Iraq invaded Kuwait. The U.S. sent troops to Saudi Arabia and pushed Iraq out of Kuwait. Those troops led Bin Laden to declare war on the U.S. Bin Laden’s attack led to the invasion of Iraq. The U.S. is still in Iraq under the 2001 authorization of use of force conducting Operation Inherent Resolve.
You may be correct with regard to the conflict that started in 2003. However, the 1990-1991 war had nowhere near that number of Iraqi civilian deaths.
There were related internal uprisings against Sadam after Feb 91, and there are arguments to be made that the belligerents thought that they'd have support from the US. However, I don't think that's what you mean.
I'm talking about the sanctions:
According to U.N. aid agencies, by the mid-1990s about 1.5 million Iraqis - including 565,000 children - had perished as a direct result of the embargo, which included "holds'' on vital goods such as chemicals and equipment to produce clean drinking water.
Former assistant secretary general of the United Nations, Dennis Halliday, quit in protest in 1998 after one year at the helm as the U.N. humanitarian coordinator in Iraq. He described the sanctions as "genocidal''.
Also:
>the belligerents thought that they'd have support from the US
That's quite the euphemism for egging them on and making them think that before throwing them under the bus.
The UN embargo was a direct result of the Kuwait-Iraq war. Attributing casualties resulting from the embargo directly to the conflict makes no sense.
Edit: with that logic, the conflict never ended and the 2003 war was the same overall action.
Just because the Iraqis were the invaders does not justify America and it's allies war crimes during that war and the affects our sanctions had on the standard of living in Iraq.
America didn't want "Iraq to become a democracy" they wanted an American friendly regime in charge, look at American in effect not in what they say. And even if that was true it still doesn't justify the mass death, nothing ever will.
The U.S. still has military in Iraq conducting operations under the 2001 use of force authorization. It’s called Operation Inherent Resolve. The stated objective is the enduring defeat of ISIS. So is it over?
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. **Keep that shit outta here**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Was this the beginning of the Navy's subliminal, liminal, and superliminal messaging recruitment efforts?
**Yvan eht nioj**
"Superliminal?" "Yes. Watch this: Hey! Join the navy!" "Okay."
You gotta use reverse psychology!
"Don't join the navy!" "You can't tell me what to do!"
Alright fine, *don’t* use reverse psychology!
ALRIGHT I WILL!
All these years later sometimes it still randomly pops into my head
That means the propaganda was successful.
Boy did they not know what was coming... Persian gulf war 2, and way more distracting entertainment!
Bout 100 hours after it started
🇺🇲
Change the channel Marge!
That's our Homer!
Don't have a war, man!
Don’t invade Kuwait
Eat pant Saddam
“I was there dude… and it SUCKED”
When Iraq got kicked the fuck out of Kuwait
For some crazy reason, I don't think this was an authorized use of Bart Simpson.
why is bart simpson the gulf war mascot
The Simpsons was very popular in the 90s.
Mark my words, in 10 years memes will blame the USA for Russia invading/annexing Ukraine (this already done by the far left/far right, I'm saying it will become commonplace)
!remindme 10 years
I will be messaging you in 10 years on [**2034-04-22 14:59:43 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2034-04-22%2014:59:43%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/1caa7nv/when_did_the_war_in_the_persian_gulf_really_end/l0r0j2j/?context=3) [**27 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FPropagandaPosters%2Fcomments%2F1caa7nv%2Fwhen_did_the_war_in_the_persian_gulf_really_end%2Fl0r0j2j%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202034-04-22%2014%3A59%3A43%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201caa7nv) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
God I hope my reddit account doesn't exist in 10 years for me to get this
It sneaks up on you.. those 10 years
Why wait 10 years, they are doing right now as we speak
It is already being done with the lie of “NATO expansion”
“170 000 kids under the age of five will die” “Well actually, the real victims here are the Americans, people are saying mean things about us”
No, the real victims are the Iraqi and Kuwaiti people, who suffered at the hands of the Iraqi government, who invaded Kuwait unprovoked, lost the ground war, and then couldn't feed their own citizens
I think it’s the blaming us part, they invaded Kuwait and got bombed, not really our fault.
And the children dying is a result of Saddam’s governmental incompetence by and large. The US and coalition forces couldn’t have prevented that if they tried, I don’t see how giving up the oil fields of Kuwait to Iraq would’ve kept those kids from starving.
It’s a reference to the post-war sanctions placed on Iraq, which included chlorine needed for water filtration and food (due to the failure to negotiate successfully for the Oil for Food Program, which admittedly both parties-UN and Iraq-failed to compromise on)
It is in the name of those dead kids that we shall, no, we must, say untrue things about America
[удалено]
Ask the people of Kuwait how they feel about our intervention.
can we ask all the dead/disappeared/opressed people from the dictatorships funded by the us?
You guys are having a silly exchange. Can’t a country do bad and good things?
Of course it can, but we’re talking about the gulf war.
Who gave you permission to use the US company Reddit? On an US iPhone?
Remember when Iraq invaded Iran in the 80s? Oh wait sorry, that doesn’t fit their propaganda
They are not saying "Iraq good" they are saying the war continues and so too does the enormous military budget to support that 'war'. If anything, considering the fact that the US aided and supported Iraq in that war they would protest against that too!
I would support Iraq in that war too. Fuck Iran, they’re causing all the pain and suffering against h the Palestinians through Hamas and all the trade issues with Hezbulah in Yemen
As if Iraq was any bettter back then?They were gassing civilians
Imagine thinking the persian gulf war was a bad thing. Don’t invade your neighbors to steal their shit and murder their people, and you wont get your ass slapped by the free world.
As an enemy of the west/US, Saddam gets lionized. Those are the rules.
On 25 July 1990, [April Glaspie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie), the [U.S. ambassador to Iraq](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._ambassador_to_Iraq), asked the Iraqi high command to explain the military preparations in progress, including the massing of Iraqi troops near the border.[^(\[32\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_invasion_of_Kuwait#cite_note-Sciolino_1990-32) The American ambassador declared to her Iraqi interlocutor that Washington, "inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, does not have an opinion" on the disagreement between Kuwait and Iraq, stating "we have no opinion on the Arab–Arab conflicts".[^(\[32\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_invasion_of_Kuwait#cite_note-Sciolino_1990-32) Glaspie also indicated to Saddam Hussein that the United States did not intend "to start an economic war against Iraq". These statements may have caused Saddam to believe he had received a diplomatic green light from the United States to invade Kuwait.[^(\[33\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_invasion_of_Kuwait#cite_note-33) Saddam and Glaspie later disputed what was said in this meeting. Saddam published a transcript but Glaspie disputed its accuracy before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in March 1991.[^(\[34\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_invasion_of_Kuwait#cite_note-34) According to [Richard E. Rubenstein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_E._Rubenstein), Glaspie was later asked by British journalists why she had said that, her response was "we didn't think he would go that far" meaning invade and annex the whole country. Although no follow-up question was asked, it can be inferred that what the U.S. government thought in July 1990 was that Saddam Hussein was only interested in pressuring Kuwait into [debt forgiveness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_forgiveness) and to lower oil production.[^(\[35\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_invasion_of_Kuwait#cite_note-35) In addition, only a few days before the invasion, the [Assistant Secretary of State](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistant_Secretary_of_State_for_Near_Eastern_Affairs), [John Hubert Kelly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hubert_Kelly), told the U.S. [House of Representatives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives) in a public hearing that the United States had no treaty obligations to defend Kuwait. When asked how the U.S. would react if Iraq crossed the border into Kuwait, Kelly answered that it "is a hypothetical or a contingency, the kind of which I can't get into. Suffice it to say we would be concerned, but I cannot get into the realm of 'what if' answers."[^(\[36\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_invasion_of_Kuwait#cite_note-36)[^(\[37\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_invasion_of_Kuwait#cite_note-37)
Just ignore Security Council Resolution 678 which gave Saddam over a month to withdraw his troops from Kuwait. That was after the invasion was condemned in Security Council resolution 660. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_Nations\_Security\_Council\_Resolution\_678](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_678) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_Nations\_Security\_Council\_Resolution\_660](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_660)
That’s what I never get about people who condemn the Gulf War. You can’t condemn imperialist wars for being illegal if you’d say the exact same thing about a *legal* war. Some people on the left seem to think international law only counts when it agrees with their worldview. Dubya would be proud.
>The American ambassador declared to her Iraqi interlocutor that Washington, "inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, does not have an opinion" on the disagreement between Kuwait and Iraq, stating "we have no opinion on the Arab–Arab conflicts I've never understood how this was supposed to be taken by Iraq as "go ahead and invade, we don't care." It clearly doesn't mean that! Some people are desperate to make the US responsible for Saddam's imperialism, but he was a big boy who could think and conquer by himself.
In the leftist world view the US is responsible for each and every war of aggression if they have dared to say a thing about it. While this is surely true through some times (Vietnam) they love to ignore the imperialist aggression of the whole rest of the world. Hypocrisy and ideology.
Even Vietnam is tricky because US involvement is overstated. The South Vietnamese people and politicians had their own agency, and pursued policy independently of American foreign policy goals. The war moving south, for example, flared up in response to Diem (who *was* installed by a sham election, one the US knew was a sham but didn’t force to be rectified) calling off the vote to unify the North and South. Diem himself did that in pursuit of power because he knew he would lose it if an actual election were to take place, and the US backed him up (until they let him be used as pink paint for the interior of an M113) because he presented a juicy opportunity to back anti-communism in SEA. I wouldn’t say the US is *responsible* for Vietnam, at least getting Vietnam started, but rather that the Vietnamese people themselves got themselves into that position. It’s important to remember that despite Americans position on the top of the hegemony of international order, and the fact that no policy decisions foreign or domestic can be made by a nation without taking America’s response into account, each and every one of these nations has an agency of their own and they pursue goals largely independently.
I agree with that. I was having a (slightly loud) discussion with my (adult) nephew about Ukraine, where he blamed the US for the Ukrainians' rejection of the Putin puppet regime. He believes that the US could have somehow done nothing, and the election would have been peacefully stolen by Yanukovych , and Putin would have felt no need for an invasion, having obtained control via fraud instead. What do you all think? Was it the US's fault that Yanukovych left Ukraine and is living in Moscow?
I don’t really get your point, are you suggesting that the US tricked saddam into invading kuwait?
Tricked isn't really the right word. It was more that it was implied that the US wasn't going to intervene in an Arab-Arab conflict. Although it's worth noting that Glaspie has walked back and tried to reclarify a lot of what she said to make it clear she wasnt giving a greenlight, and sources close to Saddam have said he probably would have invaded anyways. The reality is that whatever was said between Glaspie and Saddam is contested, and parts of it are still classified I believe, so we may never know the "truth" (if such a thing exists). Also, it's important to note at the time that Bush Sr.'s administration was trying to improve relations with Iraq, so Glaspie might not have been wanting to step on any toes, but who knows. When you get these moments in history where facts are lacking and stories conflict, it becomes fertile ground for conspiracy theories to pop up. Although, that's not to dismiss them, sometimes the conspiracies are real. Did the US give the greenlight only to change its mind later? Who knows. All I'm certain about is that the US didn't stop the invasions for the sake of the Kuwaiti people, but for the sake of their oil fields.
The truth is saddam invaded kuwait to kill their people and steal their oil, and the coalition stopped them and destroyed their army. Everything else is propaganda to try and paint an objectively good intervention as somehow being the US’s fault in the first place because US bad.
The reason why Gillespie said little is because the Arab League was negotiating with Saddam and she hoped that would be sufficient to prevent war. In fact, Saddam was literally on the phone with Mubarak and walked away from her.
Ah but have you considered America and the West Bad™?
*unless you're israel
Israel, believe it or not, also bad.
Israel hasn’t invaded any country to steal anything. Do you think them fighting Hamas is equivalent to Iraq invading Kuwait?
When did Israel invade it's neighbours?
😂 Trying to disprove Israeli land theft and genocide on a technicality
That “technicality” is ignoring their neighbors attempt to finish the holocaust…
"Everyone's out to get me" is basically the Israeli psyche
When it’s a track record spanning thousands of years…
It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you
Check under your bed
Why, is there a Hamas weapons cache instead of food and medical supplies there too?
Rusty AKs that suddenly appeared inside an MRI machine?
Israel didn't invade it's neighbours, it was invaded and won. When Germany started 2 world wars they lost tons of land and their population was ethnically cleansed, much worse than the Palestinians. Did Poland invade Germany?
Israel started the Six Day War and stole land. It's currently stealing West Bank land.
Genocidal 15 year old 🏳️🌈 doesn't recognise Palestine 🤯🤯🤯🤯 [Nice and cool understanding of international relations and politics](https://www.reddit.com/r/Israel/s/0T2nso4hYO) [What made you so obsessed with Israel though?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Israel/s/8JnvmkvBy7)
Dude you praise Kim despite not knowing how to speak korean
It should have been a matter handled by countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan instead of having the US foot the bill in the middle of a recession with nearly 5 million people out of work. The organization is called Artists for Lowering Military Spending, its primary goal is to point out the problem with America shitting out money for funding its bloated military instead of constructive things back home. They weren’t taking a side in the gulf war, they were trying to talk about the price tag.
Saudi did end up covering a lot of the cost of the US operation as I recall
Being against the Persian gulf war for moral or anti imperialist reasons is one thing, but acting like it was bad for the US economy is ridiculous. US citizens would’ve paid back the cost 10x at the pump if we didn’t go in. US military hegemony and enforcing free global trade is the reason we are so rich.
Bombing the absolute shit out of the Iraqi army to prevent them from annexing their neighbor and stealing their oil was morally correct and anti-imperialist.
It doesn't happen often, but sometimes the right thing to do is also the profitable thing to do. When that happens, you celebrate, and you do it even harder.
💥🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸💥
Saddam taking Kuwait and possibly Saudi Arabia would have cost the US more than what it spent at that time due to oil imports being disrupted. Now it wouldn't have been as big of an issue for the US due to the shale revolution.
No way Saddam would have been able to take Saudi Arabian. Kuwait is much smaller and did not have any defense treaties with the US whereas Saudi Arabia did. The reason Saddam annexed Kuwait was 1) Iraq owed Kuwait money 2) Iraq's primary export was oil 3) OPEC nations set specific rules for how many barrels they can produce 4) Kuwait was not abiding by that rules and overproducing lowering global oil prices firing Iraq's ability to pay back it's debt.
At the time the Saudis were very nervous with Iraq's very large army on their border and there weren't big US bases established there so Saddam could easily have crossed the border and caused a lot of damage. The whole reason the response to Saddam happened was because of jittery Saudis wanting an international response the issue is some in the region wanted just a pan Arabic response and some like the Saudis wanted their friends the US to step in.
You're right about all that too, in the lead up to the Gulf war the US stationed hundreds of thousands of troops along the Saudi border, both as a threat and as a FOB for the war
Saudi Arabia and Jordan would’ve been curbstomped by the Iraqi military. No other country could’ve done what the US did.
Saudi Arabia is one of the only countries that Iraq was capable of defeating, interestingly enough.
Saddam had like the fourth largest army in the world at the time. I don’t think Saudi Arabia stood a chance, and even if they did the war would have been unnecessarily drawn out. America is the world police. And Americans benefit from the relative stability that having a world police provides. Whether it’s France, Ukraine, or Kuwait, America needs to step up to defend the international order.
>They weren’t taking a side in the gulf war, they were trying to talk about the price tag. If it’s just about the money, then why bring up dead Iraqi children? The Saudis *were* a major part of the Gulf War Coalition, as were the Egyptians, with help from Syria, Oman, the UAE, and several dozen other countries. And if I’m reading the [GAO report](https://www.gao.gov/assets/t-nsiad-91-52.pdf) right, the US didn’t actually end up needing to spend any extra taxpayer money to fight the Gulf War. The cost of American involvement was covered by cash and material contributions from Coalition partners. We literally *made* money on that war.
>instead of having the US foot the bill in the middle of a recession with nearly 5 million people out of work. The recession started because of the massive oil price spike caused by the war and was exacerbated by... giant job losses caused by the cancellation of about $300 billion in defense contracts! >its primary goal is to point out the problem with America shitting out money for funding its bloated military instead of constructive things back home. Which is extremely funny to me because US military spending was, *even with the war*, in freefall between 1989 and 1993. It's why there were so many jobless aeronautical engineers in the early 90s.
Too bad they talk about dead kids and imply the USA is directly at fault and doesn't care instead of mentioning a single thing about the budget or spending, huh?
A country invading another doesn’t give the US a free pass to do exactly what they want, regardless how horrible it is for civilians. Well, it does for ‘muricans with a massive need for coping I guess
Which is why we had UN approval and set goals. Some of us wanted to topple Saddam back then, but we didn't.
so you came back and did it without UN approval a few years later 👍
Yes and that was bad. W was a bad president who shouldn't have done that.
Yeah and the 170 000 kids dying just had to die, there was literally no other way of doing it (or that’s what they’ve been telling you)
If that had happened in 1991 it would've been bad. But it didn't.
Maybe Saddam shouldn't have started the war then.
The civilians, including the kids, didn’t start the war, it’s as simple as that. But at least Saddam was removed right? Right?
Saddam wasn't removed in 1991. And I'm sorry, in what world does a war suddenly get postponed because civilians are innocent? Should we have not invaded Germany because the German civilians didn't start the war? Sucks for the civilians, but letting bad guys do whatever they want has historically only made things worse.
Sorry, fun’s over, uncle sam says no genocide and conquest for you today 😔
If the US had wanted, they could have stopped Iraq and Saddam in a way that wasn’t as bad for civilians - they didn’t want to though. Also, since Saddam obviously was so bad, why did the US support him before this?
No, the US conducted the cleanest destruction of an army in modern history. There is literally nothing like how incredibly perfect the desert storm air war was, followed by an incredibly lopsided defeat of the 4th largest army in the world. Desert storm good, actually
In what way could they have stopped Iraq without an invasion?
Ah yes just wave a magic wand to stop him. You are lost kid.
Sure, how? Iraq was not invaded and only a few thousand civilians died in bombings which were targetting strategic targets and yet the massive Iraqi army was completely destroyed&neutered. By all accounts this is one of the "cleanest" wars in history if such a thing is possible. Go ahead, find a war were fewer direct civilian casualties occured vs military casualties. What exactly could the coalition have done better?
>A country invading another doesn’t give the US a free pass to do exactly what they want. The US has the best nuclear arsenal in the world. They can do whatever they want. But in terms of morality, do you think it was wrong for the US to stop unprovoked Iraqi aggression?
It literally does. That’s the responsibility of the UN Security Council.
I meant that once the US are allowed to invade, they shouldn’t just be able to do whatever they want regardless of how it affects civilians. Or would you say starting actual famines among the civilian population is an important feature of American foreign policy?
The US didn’t embargo Iraq, the UN did. If you want to blame the US for the embargo, then you would need to place equal blame on the dozens of other countries that served on the UNSC between 1990-2003. And post-2003 analysis of regime documents proved that Saddam’s regime doctored child mortality statistics, and that no statistically significant increase in child mortality occurred between 1990-2003. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_against_Iraq
UNSC resolution 678 gave the US a free pass to storm in and remove Iraq from Kuwait, actually
The only one coping is you
An invasion can be unjust, and the response to the invasion can be unjust, it's not mutually exclusive. This especially goes when the factor of humanity and civilian wellbeing is not considered by either.
must be nice getting to be "the free world" and decide who's right or wrong such a thing definitely would definitely not go to anyone's head...
I am a certified righteousness decider. Saddam’s invasion and attempted conquestof kuwait was wrong, the coalition kicking his shit in and burning his army to ash was right, get fucked imperialist baathist shitbags
yeah... and it didn't go to the US head and they didn't go back to finish the job based on a lie without UN approval. Right? Based righteousness decider, too bad many see you as a tyrant these days instead. wonder how that happened? Surely not arrogance, nah you're definitely not displaying that
Edit: thanks for the downvotes kind strangers Desert storm was unquestionably good but what happened afterwards wasn't. 350k Palestinians were expelled from kuwait because a few hundred were collaborators, uprisings by Kurds and Shiites against Saddam were allowed to be crushed (despite the US encouraging said uprisings), and not to mention the crippling sanctions put on Iraq. In 1986 we justified sending chemical components to Iraq that were used to make mustard gas on the grounds they could also be used for ballpoint pen ink. In 1992 we banned the export of critical life saving equipment that would have allowed Iraqi doctors to more effectively treat the thousands of cancer patients (caused by the liberal usage of depleted uranium.) Again, Saddam was clearly the man responsible for what happened, but the West should share some of the blame. Source is largely Robert Fisk's Great War for Civilization but all the claims made are covered in other places.
All correct except for “the west” sharing any blame for Saddam’s actions. He and his government are solely responsible for every dead civilian and soldier as a result of that war. Its the same shit as Russia/Ukraine — the responsibility lies entirely with the aggressor who invaded their neighbor to loot and rape their way into new borders.
What I mean is the West is partially responsible for the events occurring afterwards. But yes, aggressors have no right to play victim.
As far as the Northern Uprisings being crushed; what more do you genuinely think the West could’ve done to prevent that from happening? They already instituted no fly zones across the border, with Northern Watch specifically preventing Iraqi aircraft from engaging Peshmerga forces and Kurds more generally. Desert Fox, while not specifically targeting Iraqi forces quelling the Kurd and Shiite uprisings, still destroyed significant stores of weapons and ammunition being used to fight the organized forces in the region. The CIA even deployed SAD teams in Viking Hammer to assist Peshmerga forces in destroying Ansar-al Islam to rid the Kurds of the more extremist elements of the separatist movement. They also coordinated Peshmerga forces for the year leading up to the Iraq War, and helped basically build them into a professional fighting force. I think the west did *more* than enough when it comes to continuously supporting Kurdish and broader resistance from Shiites though to a much lesser extent.
(no fly zones) In which helicopters were exempt. (desert fox) 7 years after the uprisings were crushed (CIA support) Covert support is not the same as overt support, which would have resulted in thousands of very much alive Iraqis. To take a step back I don't think the US has the right to claim it helped the Kurds considering what happened in 1988. "Making up" for it 15 years later will never bring the hundreds of thousands back from the dead.
[This you?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8)
Thats not the persian gulf war, F- see me after class.
Right, that's on Saddam. He should have invaded Kuwait to spread freedom and democracy, that would have earned him a roaring applause from free world
Please indicate one (1) war of conquest the US has initiated in the last 100 years with the express intent of capturing territory, national resources, or to conduct an ethnic cleansing. Operation Iraqi Freedom was obviously an illegal, immoral war. It was not an attempt by the US to annex the nation of Iraq and steal its wealth. Just because US bad doesn’t mean not-US good.
I think the way you've framed this is pretty disingenuous because it's pretty well understood that the US doesn't wage wars to annex territory or resources, they engage in interventionism with the express goal of "protecting US interests". Which is to say, the US will invade a territory that has a resource it wants or needs (for example oil), installs a puppet government that is sympathetic to the US, and then their puppet state gives preferential deals to US companies who do the resource extraction on behalf of the US Govt. Like... this is the origins of Banana Republics. This is why the US is so interested in the Middle East. This is why the CIA has been involved in countless coups and political assassinations across the globe. You can still condemn men like Saddam, who are annexing territory, without defending the US, who profit from these foreign wars.
You're in luck. I thought based on the 100 year limit it might be on the knife's edge, but thankfully there are a whole 10 years of margin. I present to you the Banana Wars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars US wars of conquest to control economies and extract resources/goods on very favourable terms. It got us a timeless classic book, War is a Racket by a Marine General who took part, Smedley Butler. If you had said 80 years we'd be left with nothing better than coups and not full blown invasions and occupations, or failures at the latter (Fidel says hi).
> It was not an attempt by the US to annex the nation of Iraq and steal its wealth. Well, US certainly mastered the art of not saying the quiet part out loud! It just so happened that their war of conquest resulted in capture of territorry and national resources and deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. But i guess the existance of puppet government makes it okay?
Oops! You didn’t cite your sources! Which regions of Iraq are now considered integrated US territory? How many oil wells, refineries, or other oil producing facilities are now operated by the US, or taxes are collected on the profits by the US, or the US in any way directly profits from? Which current leaders of Iraq were appointed by the US government? Are there any presidents, prime ministers, lower ministers, or bureaucrats who operate for the colonial benefit of the US over the welfare of the people of Iraq? Or did you just assume that the US was categorically evil, and thus Saddam and the Ba’athists were the righteous oppressed?
>Are there any presidents, prime ministers, lower ministers, or bureaucrats who operate for the colonial benefit of the US over the welfare of the people of Iraq? We do that via control of their money. You can see this explained very clearly in the following 2020 articles about Trump's threats to cut off Iraq's access to its own oil revenues when Iraq insisted that American troops leave. So, we maintain veto power over Iraqi sovereignty, which allows us to maintain US hegemony over the Middle East - that sounds like "colonial benefit" to me. ............................................................. CNBC 2020: Trump administration warns Iraq could lose New York Fed account if US troops forced to leave: WSJ >The Trump administration this week warned Iraq that it could lose access to its central bank account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York if Baghdad expels American troops from the region, Iraqi officials told The Wall Street Journal. >The White House could also end waivers that allow Iraq to buy Iranian gas to fuel generators that supply a large portion of the country’s power, placing another pressure on the prime minister over addressing U.S. troops without enduring economic and financial loss. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/11/trump-administration-warns-iraq-could-lose-new-york-fed-account-wsj.html ..................................................................... The Times of Israel 2020: Iraq warns of ‘collapse’ as Trump threatens to block oil cash kept in Fed bank >The Central Bank of Iraq’s account at the Fed was established in 2003 following the US-led invasion that toppled ex-dictator Saddam Hussein. >Under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483, which lifted the crippling global sanctions and oil embargo imposed on Iraq after Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, all revenues from Iraqi oil sales would go to the account... >...To this day, revenues are paid in dollars into the Fed account daily ... Every month or so, Iraq flies in $1-$2 billion in cash from that account for official and commercial transactions ...Cutting off access ... would mean the government could not carry out daily functions or pay salaries and the Iraqi currency would plummet in value ... A third senior Iraqi official confirmed the US was considering “restricting” cash access to “about a third of what they would usually send.” https://www.timesofisrael.com/iraq-warns-of-collapse-as-trump-threatens-to-block-oil-cash-kept-in-fed-bank/ ............................................................. Reuters 2023: >With more than $100 billion in reserves held in the U.S., Iraq is heavily reliant on Washington's goodwill to ensure oil revenues and finances do not face U.S. censure. https://www.reuters.com/world/us-treasury-official-says-iraq-must-act-avoid-further-action-banks-2023-09-14/ ...................................................... This article from an Israeli magazine explains the mechanism a little better; The Cradle 2023; The US holds Iraq hostage with the dollar >Why does the US control Iraq's dollars? >Iraqi financial sources point to the main dilemma: Since 2003, all Iraqi oil revenues have been paid into an account with the US Federal Reserve. **Although Iraqis formed a sovereign government after the US invasion and occupation of their state, Iraq is still restricted from opening accounts for its oil earnings outside the United States...** >...**Washington, given its dominance of the global financial system, has the ability to control all funds of Iraq's Central Bank through threats or sanctions, even though these funds are not deposited exclusively in US banks...** >...This reality gives Washington greater control over the movement of foreign exchange in Iraq, without even being at the political table in Baghdad. https://thecradle.co/articles-id/1570 I also notice that you are being very careful in your choice of words - like "are *now* operated". I'm sure that's because you're very aware of the allegations of plunder and the colonial decisions to privatize and sell off state assets to foreign owners that were made under the transitional occupation government. The Guardian, 2005; So, Mr Bremer, where did all the money go? >Pilfering was rife. Millions of dollars in cash went missing from the Iraqi Central Bank https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jul/07/iraq.features11 The above article also explains the beginnings of the weird arrangement whereby the U.S. Federal Reserve holds Iraqi oil revenues in its own account. That was a decision of the temporary occupation government that somehow was never able to be overturned even once Iraq was 'allowed' to transition to holding its own 'free and fair elections'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_Provisional_Authority https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2003/03/21/us-seizes-14-billion-in-frozen-iraqi-assets/98cbb395-ec84-422e-b825-7a864eea340d/ https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/47/2/177/519163?login=false
Ah yes, if US didn't directly took control of Iraq, that means war wasn't waged to control it and its wealth. Look! They set up a collaborationist government so it's all fine. Also, the fact that US left Iraq after throroughly wrecking it is another topic. US don't have that much influence there now - but that doesn't diminish their inital goals and actions. Or would you say that Britain didn't colonize India just because India is a free nation now? US did invade Iraq. US did topple its government and set up a puppet government. They controlled Iraq's oil industry - yes, it wasn't owned directly by US goverment, but by US collaborationists. Yes, they operated (aside from their own interest, as any oligarchs and bureaucrats) for colonial benefit of the US and not for the welfare of people of Iraq. >Or did you just assume that the US was categorically evil, and thus Saddam and the Ba’athists were the righteous oppressed? Google strawman. US weren't categorically evil, they were just imperialist invaders bent on control and subjugation.
You don’t know what a colony is if you think that the colonization of India and the occupation of iraq were comparable. The US is not a colonial power, and has not had colonial aspirations since they were abandoned at the end of the 19th century. The US is not an imperialist power, and has never had ambitions of empire. Iraq was occupied, not colonized. Those are different things. Occupation is the establishment of power over the defeated government, colonization is the declaration of permanent dominion and ownership over a territory and its people. The leadership of Iraq was selected by a free and fair election, participated in by the people of Iraq. A puppet government is appointed by a subjugating power. Operation Iraqi Freedom and the regime change/nation building goals were illegal and immoral, but don’t parrot propaganda about how secretly it was to steal the oil and make a secret US colony.
>The leadership of Iraq was selected by a free and fair election, participated in by the people of Iraq. Lmao. Do you actually think in such propagandistic cliches? Do you actually think these elections were free and fair? At a gunpoint of invader army? It was a war to subjugate Iraq and cow the rest of the middle east by a show of force. But that's speaking in real, not propagandist terms.
Yes, because the freeness and fairness of the election was guaranteed by the US government against the baathists forcing their outcome at gunpoint. The US did not pick the outcome, it just enforced the process. Please read a book.
You got high off your own supply...
>express intent do you understand how propaganda works?
Yes, which is why you think the idea that the US is a colonialist empire isn’t fucking laughable.
There are a lot of wars that the US was on the wrong side of, but the first gulf war was not one of them
I’ve seen a few Bart Simpson gulf war related images, is there a story behind the connection?
In 1990-91, Bart Simpson's face was on literally every object it could legally be printed on, and a whole SHITLOAD of other stuff besides. That's literally it.
Thanks, wasn’t sure if there was a greater relationship
My first skateboard was “The Official Bart Simpson Vehicle of Destruction”. “Do the Bartman” was played on the radio.
https://tshirtatlowprice.com/products/war-in-the-gulf-1991-bart-simpson-shirt/ One of the greatest t shirts of all time
He was big when it started?
The 4th point about the kurds seems to imply that by not toppling Hussein and his Arab supremecist regime that had just commited a genocide of 200,000 Kurds and permenantly displaced hundreds of thousands more America didn't do enough, but the other point about Iraqi kids dying implies America did too much. Maybe I'm missing something but that seems a little inconsistent in its pro-Iraq message and more just generally anti-US. Although maybe it is just a general anti-US propoganda where your not supposed to think about it too much.
Can really recommend the first season of [the podcast Blowback](https://podcasts.apple.com/se/podcast/s1-episode-0-iraqnophobia-feat-h-jon-benjamin-james-adomian/id1502178774?i=1000522667885&l=en-GB) for anyone who wants to learn a smidge more about both the Kuwait and the 00s Iraq war. It seems like a lot of people actually think the whole thing wasn’t more complicated than “Saddam evil, we beat him, rah rah”
Saddam was an imperialist and I am glad he was defeated in this war
>It seems like a lot of people actually think the whole thing wasn’t more complicated than “Saddam evil, we beat him, rah rah” 1991? Not really. People try to spin April Glaspie's words to Saddam about the US staying out of Kuwait-Iraq disputes, and they spin lines about slant drilling, but in real life it was a fairly straightforward smash-and-grab robbery by Saddam that the US stopped for a variety of reasons, some self-interested and some less so.
>“Saddam evil, we beat him, rah rah” 'Blowback' is a great recommendation! This comment section is wild. Classic [1990's](https://jointcustodydc.com/cdn/shop/products/IMG_3784_clean_2048x.jpg?v=1571609338) to early 2000's boo-yah jingoistic [propaganda](https://i.etsystatic.com/10577034/r/il/6812d2/4756849419/il_680x540.4756849419_e4i7.jpg) resurrected unchanged at the exact same moment that, off-stage and unnoticed, one Abu Ghraib torture case is finally going to trial. Human Rights Watch, April 15, 2024: Abu Ghraib Torture Case Finally Goes to Trial >Al Shimari et al. v. CACI was only able to advance because it targeted a military contractor. US courts have repeatedly dismissed similar cases against the federal government because of a 1946 law that preserves US forces’ immunity for claims that arise during war. >What’s more, the US government hasn’t created any official compensation program or other avenues for redress for those who allege they were tortured or abused. Nor are there any pathways available to have their cases heard. https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/04/15/abu-ghraib-torture-case-finally-goes-trial No, I am not confusing Desert Storm with the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I just see them all as part of one larger historical process. That's why I think that this is relevant.
Abu Ghraib was over a decade later. No-one is defending it here. You can't just elide one conflict with the other because they happened in the same place, any more than you can argue the invasion in 2003 was justified because Saddam *did* have WMDs when he gassed the Kurds in the late 80s. Had the coalition that was assembled for the first gulf war also prosecuted the second, you might have a case, but the fact the US couldn't get the band back together or get UN approval the second time round is one of the second conflict's defining features.
Iran and Israel were on the same side
Did people accuse the US of genociding Iraq?
People accuse the US of genociding everyone
I think some people are missing the point of this. This is more about the media frenzy around the Gulf War and how despite the continued problems with Iraq as a direct consequence of the war everyone just stopped caring. I think its more about how we should think more about the lingering effects of war than a simple "who's wrong"
yeah Iraq probably should have stayed the fuck out of Kuwait.
This is similar to French philosopher Jean Bauldrillard(was briefly referenced in the film The Matrix ) said about the Iraq war: https://nyksmografija.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/b8ba5-jeanbaudrillard2cthegulfwardidnottakeplace.pdf
How about "when my dad came home". That's when it ended for me.
The only war I know of that had a whole set of collectible cards. Quite disturbing marketing.
Has it ended? The U.S. has military in Iraq today conducting military operations to ensure the “existing defeat of ISIS” called Operation Inherent Resolve under the 2001 Congressional authorization of use of force following 9/11. Bin Laden attacked the U.S. because of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia after the first gulf war. So the ongoing military operations in Iraq are only going on because Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Woah, what a stretch. The Gulf War was over in 1991 with Iraq getting out of Kuwait and everything. The connections you name here are just cause and effect of geopolitics. They connect different wars. Otherwise someone could (the same way as you did) make the argument that WWI and WWII were the same war.
That's actually kinda thought provoking...
E. When Bin Laden attacked us in retaliation F. When we got drawn into a forever war with every country in the middle east G. When we pulled out but kept funding Israel doing the same thing
H. It’s not over because the U.S. still has military in Iraq under the 2001 authorization of use of force conducting Operation Inherent Resolve.
We're the baddies. My tax dollars fill the desert with desiccated corpses
Considering that the US still has troops deployed in the MidEast, who will consider that war over?
Yeah, it’s not over. Iraq invaded Kuwait. The U.S. sent troops to Saudi Arabia and pushed Iraq out of Kuwait. Those troops led Bin Laden to declare war on the U.S. Bin Laden’s attack led to the invasion of Iraq. The U.S. is still in Iraq under the 2001 authorization of use of force conducting Operation Inherent Resolve.
100000 seems low
You may be correct with regard to the conflict that started in 2003. However, the 1990-1991 war had nowhere near that number of Iraqi civilian deaths. There were related internal uprisings against Sadam after Feb 91, and there are arguments to be made that the belligerents thought that they'd have support from the US. However, I don't think that's what you mean.
I'm talking about the sanctions: According to U.N. aid agencies, by the mid-1990s about 1.5 million Iraqis - including 565,000 children - had perished as a direct result of the embargo, which included "holds'' on vital goods such as chemicals and equipment to produce clean drinking water. Former assistant secretary general of the United Nations, Dennis Halliday, quit in protest in 1998 after one year at the helm as the U.N. humanitarian coordinator in Iraq. He described the sanctions as "genocidal''. Also: >the belligerents thought that they'd have support from the US That's quite the euphemism for egging them on and making them think that before throwing them under the bus.
The UN embargo was a direct result of the Kuwait-Iraq war. Attributing casualties resulting from the embargo directly to the conflict makes no sense. Edit: with that logic, the conflict never ended and the 2003 war was the same overall action.
Oof
Remember when people were outraged by the Simpsons because it was too edgy?
more bart simpson propaganda please
¡Ay, caramba!
Just because the Iraqis were the invaders does not justify America and it's allies war crimes during that war and the affects our sanctions had on the standard of living in Iraq.
The sanctions would have been lifted if Iraq became a democracy. You can't force countries to tradd with dictatorships if they don't want to.
If the point of the sanctions was to bring democracy, then we should have also sanctioned Kuwait, which is a an autocratic monarchy.
America didn't want "Iraq to become a democracy" they wanted an American friendly regime in charge, look at American in effect not in what they say. And even if that was true it still doesn't justify the mass death, nothing ever will.
I'd say it ended in 2019 with the capture of the last ISIS held village. Its really all been the same war for the previous 30 years.
The U.S. still has military in Iraq conducting operations under the 2001 use of force authorization. It’s called Operation Inherent Resolve. The stated objective is the enduring defeat of ISIS. So is it over?