Replies

The Nayirah testimony was the controversial testimony given before the non-governmental Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990 by a female who provided only her first name, Nayirah. In her emotional testimony, Nayirah stated that after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers take babies out of incubators in a Kuwaiti hospital, take the incubators, and leave the babies to die. Though reporters did not then have access to Kuwait, her testimony was regarded as credible at the time and was widely publicized. It was cited numerous times by United States senators and the American president in their rationale to back Kuwait in the Gulf War. Her story was initially corroborated by Amnesty International[1] and testimony from evacuees. Following the liberation of Kuwait, reporters were given access to the country. An ABC report found that "patients, including premature babies, did die, when many of Kuwait's nurses and doctors...fled" but Iraqi troops "almost certainly had not stolen hospital incubators and left hundreds of Kuwaiti babies to die."[2][3] In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah's last name was al-Ṣabaḥ (Arabic: نيره الصباح‎) and that she was the daughter of Saud bin Nasir Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government. Following this, al-Sabah's testimony has come to be regarded as a classic example of modern wartime propaganda.[4][5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)

Yep, I have come to the conclusion that the first Gulf War was a colossal mistake.

Especially in the end, since we left Saddam in power, who from that point on vowed revenge against the US, and ultimately led to the second Iraq war to remove him.

Up to the First Gulf War, while he was a bad guy, he served as a buffer against the Iranians.

The Nayirah testimony... was propaganda, true, but had nothing to do with the real reason to move against Saddam Hussein.

The real reason was that Saddam Hussein stood to end up with control, either direct or effective, of most of the Middle Eastern oil supply. 23 years ago, that was a much bigger deal than it would be today.

I suppose one can make the argument that if the US truly was an "Imperialist" power, we should allied even more closely with Saddam, say in return for leaving Israel alone. That would have given US defacto control of all that oil. But Saddam was such an unreliable, despicable sort, that it never would have worked for long.