"O, Heinous, Strong, and Bold Conspiracy!”

) the war was not about the liberation of Kuwait, nor about ridding the region of a menace predisposed to taking on further regional conquests — it was about oil, pure and simple.

If this war was about oil, we would be allied with Saddam.

What most people have forgotten is that we were invited into Iraq's oil industry just prior to the invasion of Kuwait. When Saddam rolled into Kuwait we had a decision to make; back Saddam and we have entry to both Iraq and Kuwait; fight Saddam and possibly lose access to the Iraqi oil industry.

We chose, and have been locked out of Iraq's oil industry since. Mind you, we could probably have negotiated an end to the sanctions, in return for our investment dollars, at any time. If it was just about oil.

On the other hand, isolating Iraq from the market has helped the Saudis, keeping the price of oil a little more firm. Returning Iraq to full production will be bad for the Saudis. Also bad for major new US investments in Central Asia and West Africa. If it were just about oil, it might be better to keep Iraq bottled up, depending on your specific interest.

Don't make any big difference now, but I'll not ever doubt that Saddam was either intentionally goaded or accidentally misled into thinking he had the green light.

Saddam Hussein leaves clues abounding as to how he sees himself in the world, and it aint pretty.

Europe and the UN is going to look pretty stupid, or maybe a better term would be 'irrelevant' when the United States of America sends yet another commie/ dictator/ facist/ whatever type into the dustbin of history.........I can hear it now, "Yeah those Americans were right again."

Whether it's 'Tear Down That Wall', or, 'I Shall Return' we always have a good response to the slavemasters of the world.

Well, I think if there was any miscalculation it involved Saddam's megalomania, which wasn't apparent before the height of the Gulf War. About your one point, lemme say that those who claim such events are some Manichaean conflict between the "Big Oil Barons" and the commonfolk just strike me as distinctly ignorant about macroeconomics & global affairs in general. The key, in my view, to properly evaluating the period leading up to and following the Gulf War, is to not think in hindsight but in foresight.

Before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the U.S. sphere of influence was actually rather tenuous at best in the Persian Gulf region. The Iranian intentions to exert influence over the oil shiekdoms and their ability to close down the oil lanes were no big secret - I even remember a lengthy discussion in a National Geographic issue that came out that year (I think the U.A.E. was the actual topic). The Iranians had a border dispute with the U.A.E. (over some islands) which were feared to become a rationale for a sudden cross-Gulf attack.

Moreover, had Iran made a sudden move to capture any part or all of the Saudi peninsula, the U.S. allies would've been in quite a bind - with their closest major installations under NATO command (recall, also, that there was no question at that time of NATO acting as anything more than a defensive pact against the Soviet Union). The Cold War standoff had left both superpowers of the time with only peripheral military access to the Mideast region. Once U.S. forces moved into the area during Gulf War I, Iran has remained tightly contained with the magnitude of its previous military threat long eclipsed.

As for Saddam himself, it's hardly far-fetched to think that he would've withdrawn in the face of invasion (indeed, that's reportedly what the Bush administration expected). Moreover, without the Desert Storm attacks & the following sanctions, he would not have been able to consolidate his power to quite the extent he has - making internal overthrow, whether by natural development or external 'assistance', a much more viable outcome. In short, I'm just saying that people should consider how the situation looked at the time, not just how it looks now, from a vantage point of 12 years hence.

In short, I'm just saying that people should consider how the situation looked at the time, not just how it looks now, from a vantage point of 12 years hence.

I respect your post, you raise great points, I would ask you to consider things 12 years from now.

It's also possible, of course, that #41 didn't expect Saddam to go so far as occupation & annexation of Kuwait. They may've expected the military buildup & standoff to get resolved by some means short of full-scale war (not that this amounted to much, considering the vast power differential between Iraq & Kuwait). My problem with that idea is: why didn't the State Dept. then take some more aggressive approach to resolving that dispute? The reason I remember all this so well is because I kept expecting some major development (I've always been fascinated with brainstorming where the next war's gonna happen - call me eccentric, or whatever) and I didn't see anything much in the mainstream media or on the diplomatic front.

In short, I just can't see how the State Department couldn't see events unfolding in that direction when it seemed fairly obvious from my insignificant vantage point. I was actually quite surprised when the Bush administration reacted with such vehemence thinking that they would've not signalled their earlier indifference (as I interpreted at least) had they found such a development of any great concern. At first, I just figured it'd be another random 3rd World conflict which would amount to little more significant than some minor atlas changes. Much to my surprise, it became a far more pivotal and enduring event within global affairs, to say the very least. Regardless of all this, it can't be discounted that it ultimately just came down to misreading the situation on the part of the U.S. government.

I respect your post, you raise great points, I would ask you to consider things 12 years from now.

Heh! Well, that's not the topic of this thread, but I'm frequently off in my own little world pondering how the future's gonna turn out - I guess it's the scifi devotee in me. If you're suggesting that I'm implying we don't need to deal with Saddam in the here & now, I'm not saying that in the slightest. What's past is done; Saddam clearly represents a very different sort of threat now than he did in 1990. His developing a nuclear capability would prove disastrous and he cannot be allowed to do that. It's unfortunate that much of the world is fighting tooth & nail against his necessary overthrow in lieu of disarmament - I'm honestly quite perplexed by the resistance.