Betrayed by the United States of America

[Anathema]

Some people claim that the US abandoned the Iraqis in 1991 in the middle of an uprising because the UN told them to. Bullsh1t. The US doesn't exactly have a history of doing exactly what the UN tells them. Here's an overview of the uprisings history. Because I know some people will call it utter leftist propaganda I'll provide two sources.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/unfinished/war/index2.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/iraq_events/html/uprisings.stm

Kurds and Shiites rose up against Sadam, stronly encouraged by the US.

"There is another way for the bloodshed to stop: And that is, for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside and then comply with the United Nations' resolutions and rejoin the family of peace-loving nations," Bush said on February 15, 1991.

Leaflets were thrown around, the presidents words were broadcasted and the Iraqis truly believed that the US would support them. 28 februari however, the US declared a cease fire on their own, wich was before the UN declared a cease fire, wich wasn't until 2 march. The US decided they would not support the rebels.

As the revolt spread, the U.S. -- worried that a fractured Iraq would create more instability in an unpredictable region -- chose not to support the rebellion. With no military assistance, the rebels were overwhelmed and crushed.

And thus broke their promises. They did nothing to stop Sadams retaliation. After all, it wasn't their responsibility, was it?

As part of the cease-fire agreement negotiated by Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf, the United States military agreed to let Iraq fly its own helicopters. Iraq claimed they were needed to transport their leaders; instead, they were used as gun ships against the rebels.

The Iraqi choppers could have been taken out by US aircraft with no risk at all, but apparently they didn't care. The rebels were hoping for US support, but when they looked behind them when Sadam came the US had already left. As a result 30,000 - 60,000 Iraqis were killed, with the silent approval of the US. Brent Scowcroft, at that time national security advisor, said it was a mistake.

"I suggested to Secretary Cheney and to Gen. Powell that we rescind Gen. Schwartzkopf's permission. They said it would be a serious thing to do. It would undermine his command over his forces and so on -- so I didn't pursue it," explains then-National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft. "It was a mistake... If we had taken it to the president, I would have been very strongly opposed to letting them continue to fly."

[Acriku]

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/b920330.htm

Q. Why did you end the war when you did, instead of going on to Baghdad to get Saddam Hussein?

A. It was never part of our mission to take Baghdad. We stopped the war when we achieved our objectives -- to liberate Kuwait and destroy Iraq's offensive military capability, its ability to threaten its neighbors. That was the mission agreed to by Congress, the United Nations, and our coalition partners, and supported overwhelmingly by the American people.

We ended the war when the enemy was defeated. It was a unanimous recommendation of Secretary Cheney, General Powell, and General Schwarzkopf.

To then ask American troops to continue their combat operations, to continue the killing and the destruction, was not something we were eager to do. There is a basic decency to our men and women in uniform. They quickly made the transition from being warriors to being angels of mercy, taking care of the thousands of surrendering Iraqi prisoners. The pictures of those young Americans caring for the Iraqi soldiers were some of the most poignant images of the war.

If we had kept going, we would have gone beyond what we said we intended to do, beyond what our coalition partners agreed to, beyond what the UN Security Council signed up to, and beyond what the Congress and the American people approved. We entered the war with clear-cut military objectives.

We certainly had the military capability to go on to Baghdad, but for what purpose? To get Saddam Hussein? I doubt that he would have waited at his palace for us to drive up and get him. So we would have needed to send a very large force and might well have faced intensive combat inside the city. The artillery, tanks, and air power that performed so well for us in the open desert would not have been very useful inside a major city. That would have cost us dearly in terms of additional casualties. And I'm not sure what we would have done with Baghdad, once we had it.

But once we had prevailed and had toppled Saddam Hussein's government, we presumably would have had to stay there and put another government in place. And what would that have been: a Suni government, a Shia government, a Kurdish government, or another Bathist regime? How long would US forces have been required to say in to prop the government up? And how effective could it have been if the government we put in had been perceived as a puppet of the US military?

My guess is that if we had gone to Baghdad, we'd still have US forces there today. And to involve American forces in a civil war inside Iraq would have been a quagmire, because we would have gone in there with no clear-cut military objective. It's just as important to know when not to use force as it is to know when to use it. And we got it right both times.

[Anathema]

That doesn't change the point that the US encouraged the civilians to rise up, while they weren't even sure they really intended to back them up. They didn't even forbid Sadam from using his choppers, wich they could have done easily and should have done.

Also, as that article stated taking Baghdad was never part of the plan. Some people around here claim that they did but that they didn't go through with it because the UN told them not to, wich is false.

[Acriku]

Baghdad was never part of the plan, only liberating Kuwait. In the quote it explains the difficulties of going into Baghdad. Hindsight is 20/20. Forget complaining, it's done. That's what I say to people who write up articles and articles about how bad the US was.

[Anathema]

This topic was mainly meant for some people around here claim that the US did want to go to Baghdad but that the UN told them not to, and that they didn't go through with it because of that.

[Miles]

The UN might not have "told" us to stop the war after liberating Kuwait, but sure would have raised a stink if we had gone on. We did not continue because of the original agreement to support us by the UN. Nor, did we want to piss off other Arab nations who supported us to that point. This is why we stopped when we did.

However, I am ashamed that we did not support the uprising after the war which we encouraged. We did fail the Iraqis and this is one reason that they are subdued to this point, contrary to other people's notion that the Iraqis support Saddam Hussein. Hopefully, when we can show that Saddam is soon to be history to the Iraqi civilians, they will rise up again and this time we will be there to help.

[Gobalopper]

I was watching a program on the first Gulf War a few days ago and they mentioned that Isreal was about to attack Iraq. Israel had told the US that because the Patriot missile system didn't work they were going to go into Iraq and remove the Scuds themselves. A few days later the US called for a ceasefire. Odd coincidence.

[SurlyPIG]

As usual, the whole story has not been told Earthnuker. If Israel had gone into Iraq, the entire Middle-East would have errupted in war.

[Anathema]

What does that have to do with the uprising? The US gave the people false hope that they would support them, and then they ditched them. Whereas some people have the nerve to blame the UN for the death of those rebels.

[Caid Ivik]

The only blame of their death lies upon Saddam. USA wouldn't attack without UN mandate, they haven't felt such threat from every side as today, after 11th september 2001.

[Anathema]

The only blame of their death lies upon Saddam.

Fine, I will accept this. However it shows that human lives weren't all that important to the US afterall, and even the Iraqis don't trust them anymore.

And the US attacked dozens of nations without UN mandate, so it's crystal clear that the US didn't let Sadam in power just because the UN didn't authorise them to attack.

[lowzeewee]

Already hundreds of civillians dead,Saddam's fault???He bombed them?

[ken124578]

No, he kindly asked them if he could murder them and their families ::)

Ofcourse he killed his own people! not by bombing them though, gassing them did happen once (as far as i can remember it)

[lowzeewee]

he gassed rebels[kurds] but overall they are still iraqis,like if N Korea fights S Korea,its like a civil war,they are still koreans ;)

Thats y my good friend is 'Chemical Ali',the Lt General who gave the orders to gas those *************s.

[ken124578]

he gassed rebels[kurds]

He gassed harmless civillian kurds*

[lowzeewee]

no matter what,this is Iraq,not any other kind of place,Iraq!Let them do whatever they want unless u want their oilfields ;)

Hey brother,Dick Cheney,are u listening?

[Miles]

Already hundreds of civillians dead,Saddam's fault???He bombed them?

He placed his military intentionally within civilian populations. Surface to surface missiles, anti-aircraft guns etc... were intentionally put in areas that civilians could be used as human shields. This is a cowardly act and shows the importance that Saddam puts on the lives of his civilians.

Furthermore, in his efforts to preserve his SAM sights, he has ceased using radar to guide them because we detect that radar and blow it away, so now his army shoots these missiles at coalition aircraft without guideance. This is a danger to his civilians as what goes up must come down. This is a possible explanation of what happened in the marketplace.

Name a war in which so much effort has been taken by one side to limit civilian casualties. We are spending billions of dollars to keep these to a minimum, and so far, have been very successful, as there really have been relatively few.

no matter what,this is Iraq,not any other kind of place,Iraq!Let them do whatever they want unless u want their oilfields

So, let Saddam kill his own people in mass? Let Saddam develope WMD? Let Saddam steal Iraq's money for palaces and such, while civilians starve? Yeah, sounds like a good idea. ::)

[exatreide]

Already hundreds of civillians dead,Saddam's fault???He bombed them?

He placed his military intentionally within civilian populations. Surface to surface missiles, anti-aircraft guns etc... were intentionally put in areas that civilians could be used as human shields. This is a cowardly act and shows the importance that Saddam puts on the lives of his civilians.

Furthermore, in his efforts to preserve his SAM sights, he has ceased using radar to guide them because we detect that radar and blow it away, so now his army shoots these missiles at coalition aircraft without guideance. This is a danger to his civilians as what goes up must come down. This is a possible explanation of what happened in the marketplace.

Name a war in which so much effort has been taken by one side to limit civilian casualties. We are spending billions of dollars to keep these to a minimum, and so far, have been very successful, as there really have been relatively few.

no matter what,this is Iraq,not any other kind of place,Iraq!Let them do whatever they want unless u want their oilfields

So, let Saddam kill his own people in mass? Let Saddam develope WMD? Let Saddam steal Iraq's money for palaces and such, while civilians starve? Yeah, sounds like a good idea. ::)

Vietnam, thats a example for you we didnt want Casulties so we didnt bomb any military instalation near civialns, we tried to fight a limited war whare a limited war could not be faught, we fallowed those rules for a very long time in the war. But rules are ment for braking. And this whole Civialn Bs is just that BS. You cant when a war by strategic bombing. you can nock down all the republic gaurd buildings in Baghdad but when your forces get there, their are gona get some heavy fighting.

My advice. Carpet bomb the hell out of Baghdad. This is war people, people die in war, get used to it, we can try to limit the civies deaths as much as we can, but its war. Baghdad is heavily foritified, think how many soviet troops died taking berlin in 45, and thats when most of the city was already in Ruin, You try to take out Saddams elite military gaurd, and the local milita,

The soviets were facing 14 year old boys. America will be facing battle hardend troops who have had time to dig in. If america takes baghdad with out carpet bombing the hell out of it first,america will lose 10,000 troops taking the city.

[SurlyPIG]

Exactly when and how did Bush Sr. give them the impression that the US would back up any revolutionary attempt? You can't possibly mean that one quote, Earthnuker, do you really think those people even heard him say that let alone assumed he meant he'd send in reinforcements?

[ordos45]

Actually I believe the number of Kurds was in the thousands, not hundreds.

[lowzeewee]

USA invading Iraq without Iraq actually doing an direct harm to them is a WAR CRIME.They just want their oilfields,not to control Iraq.

*Hears cheney loading his M60 clip ::)*

*Lowzeewee changes it to-They just want to control Iraq*

*Hears cheney leaving*

[ordos45]

Well let's see...there was the little thing of 12 years of enforcing the No-Fly Zone set up by the United Nations. You know...12 years worth of our planes getting shot at, enforcing the UN's will.

By the way, if we go by your reasoning on War Crimes, then you have just labelled the United Nations as a war criminal organization. How, you ask?

Simple, in the 1990s the United Nations invaded the country of Haiti in the Carribean. Their reason, to help the poor citizens, and to free them from an oppressive dictator...boy does that line sound familiar to anyone else?

Oh and if you have the ability to go see Haiti today, the UN Invasion helped very little, if it didn't make things worse. They have bombings every election day, gangs can enforce what they want on the streets, the democratically elected President has become mainly a dictator. The National Bank recently closed, taking all the money in the banks with them. And all aid from the United Nations was cut off due to the corruption in the new dictatorship they installed. (Did I mention the part where you have to bribe the people in customs if you're a private organization bringing aid in?)

So thanks for proving, by your reasoning, why the United States and the United Nations are both War Criminals.

[SurlyPIG]

Well said Ordos. I find it funny how the anti-war positions consist mostly of American-bashing and litte to do with anything productive.

[Dante]

Notice how many people say "Saddam killing his own civilians." ?

There. They are, in YOUR OWN WORDS, his civilians . Therefore they are his, therefore he can do what he likes with them. As for putting militarty structures where civilians are, sounds like sound militarty practice to me. It's protection.

I also notice how everybody is so extremely upset by the pictures of dead Iraqis and knowledge of gassed civilians. America is flourishing the Geneva convention... ahem, who else can remember Guatanamo bay? And that the people in Guatanamo have been shown on film, in direct contradiction to the Geneva convention?

And that more British troops have been killed by Americans than by Iraqis?

There. Some healthy America-bashing with a point to it. Lets stop the hypocracy, shall we?

[lowzeewee]

USA needs interpretation lessons.

Let saddam torture his people as much as the americans detest colored pple

Hey USA/UK reporters,Kurds/Shiites doesnt mean american