Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 7 years ago

Why did the US attack Iraq when Saddam invaded Kuwait?

I thought it wasn't any of your business. I came across a transcript of a meeting between April Glapsie (then US ambassador to Iraq) and Saddam Hussein. Apparently Saddam told her that if he couldn't keep all of Shat Al Arab he would take over Kuwait which he saw as part of Iraq. He then asked her what America's opinion was, and she replied "this is an Arab-Arab conflict which has nothing to do with us, we have no opinion". Saddam then smiled.

We know what happened after that, Saddam invades Kuwait, the US attacks Iraq and imposes sanctions. Over a decade later Bush decides to invade Iraq for violating those sanctions and also lies about WMD's. When US troops arrive in Iraq all they find is a stockpile of old burned Chemical weapons (including Mustard gas) which were sold to Saddam by none other than Ronald Reagen during the Iran-Iraq war.

Here is the transcript:

July 25, 1990 - Presidential Palace - Baghdad

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?

Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptable?

Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles).

On August 2, 1990, Saddam's massed troops invade and occupy Kuwait.

URL: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ARTICLE5...

By the way do you know who really has WMD's? Bashar al Assad, Kim Yong Un, Bibi Netanyahu, Vladamir Putin, Xi Jinping, David Cameron, Francois Hollande. Not Saddam Hussein!

Update:

I swear, are people on this site illiterate. If the US cared about Kuwait's sovereignty they wouldn't have given Saddam the greenlight to invade. No they actually dared him into invading, they set him up.

Update 2:

I swear, are people on this site illiterate. If the US cared about Kuwait's sovereignty they wouldn't have given Saddam the greenlight to invade. No they actually dared him into invading, they set him up.

12 Answers

Relevance
  • 7 years ago
    Best Answer

    The reason why the United States of America became involved in the multinational invasion of Iraq on 2 August 1990 was due to the (vulturous, warmongering) United Nations utilizing the multiple United Nations Security Council Resolutions 660-678.

    The United States did not act unilaterally in Iraq, at any time, nor did the United States initiate the war, as its military force was chosen by the United Nations to lead a multinational stryke force against Iraq at the behest of the Security Council. The massive amount of public ignorance regarding the details of events surrounding Iraq over the last three decades is astounding, to say the least. It is amazing the people who discuss Middle Eastern political policy involving the West are able to walk whilst simultaneously chewing gum, as even that would be a developmental evolution far beyond their limited mental capabilities.

    Such events as "Desert Storm" are the epitome of the imbecilic nonsence giving legitimate reason for organizations like the United Nations and its subsidiaries (i.e., trade unions such as the EU, CAFTA, etc.) to be dissolved and banished, as they are an extreme threat against individual sovereignties and human rights. The United Nations and its subsidiaries are irrefutably treasonous to every sovereignty pledging membership to it.

    Every war since WWI has been the unabashed direct result of the League of Nations/United Nations (LN/SDN) centralized global governing and international sustainability policy.

  • 7 years ago

    I love the Arab mind

    We(Iraq) want this (Shatt Al Arab , higher oil prices ,Kuwait or whatever) .They therefore enter into negotiations in which they simply state -- we are bigger and stronger so give us what we demand -- or we will invade you.

    So Iraq invades Kuwait, kidnaps, tortures and rapes Kuwaiti citizens, generally loots the place, seizes its oil fields and then threatens Saudi Arabia -- and you ask what has that to do with the West or anyone else ?

    Do you ever wonder why Arabs/Islam get such a bad press around the world

  • 3 years ago

    US agenda since, well, end of WWII - Capitalist/Imperialism. Middle Eastern agenda - OIL, and the "Lions share" of it!!! Global dominance through economic superiority or force of arms, or both. Same WAS with Soviet Union, now belittled to Russia. (Putin: "“America is a great power. Today, probably, the only superpower. We accept that,".) Saddam was played, but, no excuse for invasion. Ditto for US invasion of Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc..

  • 7 years ago

    The United Nations forced Iraq out of Kuwait, the independent country Iraq invaded.

    The United States was NOT the only nation involved. It was a coalition of over 20 naitons.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • IVOR
    Lv 6
    7 years ago

    Because Saddam's`s next move would have been to invade Saudi Arabia and control it`s oil supplies to the rest of the world.

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    The USA drove Saddam out of Kuwait and stopped, they should have taken Saddam's head then and the Muslim Brotherhood would not have had the chance to take over without Obama's assistance.

    Source(s): 想改善經痛C~
  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    They attacked for exactly the same reason as Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia did........defence of a sovereign nation.........

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    We were confronting even MORE OF THE NONSTOP RADICAL ISLAMIST trouble that is occuring world wide. And I am PROUD we did it and hope it continues MOHAMAD.

    Source(s): Hope you all get your 72 virgins soon.
  • MYRTEL
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    Oil.

    Edit > CAN OF CORN > The naivety you show is almost shocking. Answer this then clever dick > if no oil existed at all, not one drop and the whole region was sand with a few cows/camels - are you saying Bush the psycho would send in troops. laugh - I nearly died.??

  • 7 years ago

    Oil, land and "terrorism"

    Source(s): Ketchup.
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.