Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What was the reasoning Bush 1 used for not going after Saddam in 1991?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 11:58 AM
Original message
What was the reasoning Bush 1 used for not going after Saddam in 1991?
If Saddam was such a horrible man and we knew he had all of those WMD and we knew he gassed his own people and did all the deeds the current administration keeps referring to, why didn't the Republicans demand we take him out? Why did they let such a "Hitler" stay in power. They have referred to Saddam as Hitler many many times. If it is okay for us to do this now why not twelve years ago when we had twice the number of troops on the ground and ready to rumble. Was their argument not substantial enough at the time? Every time they use the argument that getting Saddam saves lives we must ask why they waited and allowed all those lives to be taken by a Hitler?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FreeperSlayer Donating Member (666 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. The same reason we're having probs now...
Kurdish autonomy, Sh'ia representation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
toddzilla Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. wasn't in the UN mandate
simple as that. we were "authorized" to get saddam out of kuwait, not overthrow the gov't of iraq. this doesn't mean to encourage a revolution and then watch the citizens get slaughtered while we stand by and do nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. Yep
No power vacuum in the Persian Gulf, was the cry. No problem this time around, apparently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ramapo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. Instability
Bush 1 feared instability among the different factionsin Iraq (as we're seeing today) and did not want to inflame the other Arab nations by overstepping our bounds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistress Quickly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
3. The UN resolution didn't allow for it
at least that's the spin.

Varying opinions, from no UN mandate, to they wanted Saddam still in power. Depends on the news source.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spoon Donating Member (401 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
5. I was thinking about this earlier, actually.
The official line is that is would have broken the broad coalition, nor did Congress and the UN "authorize" going all the way, if I remember correctly. It was a horrible error not to, in my mind. Think of all Iraqis that died for supporting us after being promised protection, and all the dead Iraqis from the decade long sanctions. And all the money wasted to ship back all the equipment needed to fight again (and enforce the sanctions).

The political climate wouldn't allow it back then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim4319 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
6. I can do you one better than that.
Edited on Mon Jan-26-04 12:20 PM by Tim4319
If the WMD's were such big deal, how come when Donald Rumsfeld was over there, in Iraq, trying to cut a deal with Saddam for an oil pipeline, during the Reagan era! How come, WMD were not investigated then? This during the Ronald Reagan era!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
central scrutinizer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
7. in their own words
http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm

The Memory Hole rescued this essay from oblivion - Newsweek scrubbed it from their archives
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fairfaxvadem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
8. because the Saudis and Kuwaitis told us to "git"...
Once Saddam was out of Kuwait, they could not afford to have a strong American presence on their soil (which continued to cause problems for the Saudis, as we later saw). Their potential for domestic unrest, as we know, is substantial. Anyhow, they needed us out, said "Thank you very much, he's our ass****, we'll take it from here, you can go home now." Let's not forget that they ponied up a substantial amount of cash for this venture.

Despite the official version of the UN mandate, etc., I pretty much believe that was the real reason behind our leaving. If the Kingdoms had wanted him gone, we'd have done it for them, UN mandate or no.

My question, which may get lost as this is a late posting, is:

If Saddam was such a threat, why weren't his neighbors making a bigger stink? You simply hear nothing from SA or Kuwait, etc.,They certainly were not jumping up and down over the last few years alerting us to the fact that Saddam was ready to blow again. If they didn't seem particularly concerend about him, then what gives??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. But we didn't get out of either country
In fact we built permanent bases there. In fact if I remember a few years after Gulf War 1 one of our bases in Saudi Arabia was hit by terrorist truck bombers and did much damage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denverbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Which was one of Bin Laden's PRIMARY complaints.
"Infidels in the Holy Land!"

American soldiers in Saudi Arabia!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC