We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

OptimisticallyCynical • 3 years ago

I was in the Navy during Desert Storm and spent time in Saudi Arabia during that war. I recall the dismay and occasional outrage from the public and media regarding the "Highway of Death". My first thought: what the hell did you all expect? People wanted war, they got it. Devastating a retreating enemy is part of the deal. If people don't want that, they shouldn't support a war to begin with.

Americans are too insulated from the realities of war. The last time war was on our own doorstep was about 150 years ago. That man who'd been burned alive....that's what war looks like. When one supports a war, that's what he is supporting.

bartofsky • 3 years ago

"My first thought: what the hell did you all expect? People wanted war, they got it."
What people?

Serious Questions • 3 years ago

The first Gulf War was pretty popularly supported in the US.

Genuine Realist • 3 years ago

Saddam Hussein had invaded another soverieign nation. The US did not act unilaterally, but was backed by the UN and just about every other nation in the region. There was no reason why it shouldn't have been popular.

As for the question of pictures, the only objection is that they're one sided. Hussein would never have allowed exposure of his own atrocities. (Right now, ISIS is making a huge mistake in its use of social media for that very reason). So the public will always see only the violence done by the open society, never the other.

veerkg_23 • 3 years ago

It was reality, not an atrocity. Even if war is justified it should not be sanitized.

Roger Allen Abbott • 11 months ago

Amen brother amen!

NormanKnight • 3 years ago

U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie certainly did nothing to prevent it.

"Saddam reportedly decided on war sometime in July 1990, but before sending his army into Kuwait, he approached the United States to find out how it would react. In a now famous interview with the Iraqi leader, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam, "[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." The U.S. State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had "no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait." The United States may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did." (quoting John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, "An Unnecessary War," Foreign Policy, Jan/Feb 2003 http://tinyurl.com/l42g4de )

rar113 • 3 years ago

I don't believe Mearsheimer and Walt are terribly credible sources. You can agree or disagree with their agenda, but it's certain that they are agenda-driven.

NormanKnight • 3 years ago

Thanks for your opinion. I do disagree. Moreover, in the case at hand, they are undoubtedly correct in their assessment.

Genuine Realist • 3 years ago

That's called a screw up, which happens.

So what?

NormanKnight • 3 years ago

If you seek to minimized U.S. responsibility and claim moral justification for the war--as you have done--then you call it a "screw-up."

However, if you confront facts in the context of history, then you call it a planned and immoral war--like most wars and interventions our country has fought since the 1890's--that should not have been popular with the American people as you have asserted.

“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” said F.D.R.

So what? The Gulf War was not accidental, as you now imply. Remember the lies about babies taken from incubators? http://tinyurl.com/5vr1

Genuine Realist • 3 years ago

Oh, please. Another entrant in the 'The-United-States-Is-Always-Responsible' sweepstakes, this one dumber than most.

Glaspie's gaffe was succeeded by a military build up that went on for more than nine months (with most of the nations in the world participating), one warning after another from every chief executive in the world (including GHWB), a public and televised debate in Congress, and a series of ultimatums.

The person who caused the Gulf War was one Sadaam Hussein and no other. The prosaic reason was that Iraq was near bankrupt, after epic mismanagement in the mid 80's. He had ample correction of Glaspie's misstatement, and chose to ignore it all.

It does make good fooder for the historical paranoids, though.

NormanKnight • 3 years ago

Your reply supports my contention that the war was not accidental (a "screw-up") at all. Wasn't that your last position? It was well planned and engineered over a long period of time by the usual suspects. Of course, you never bother to acknowledge the reason for Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil. It looks to me like Kuwait is to blame and the usual suspects in the U.S. government did nothing to prevent it. In fact, it clearly engaged in propaganda to convince the American people that the expensive debacle was justified. Nothing is accidental about that. So naturally Kuwait, first, and then elements inside the U.S. government--which lead the effort to assemble the "coalition of the willing"--were responsible.

P.S. "[E]very chief executive in the world" is a gross exaggeration. How sad that you feel compelled to resort to such a blatantly weak tactic, combined with ad hominem, to defend your point of view.

Genuine Realist • 3 years ago

Oh, right. Kuwait was stealing Iraq's oil.

Go in peace. You are dismissed.

NormanKnight • 3 years ago

"The invasion was the result of a long-standing territorial dispute. Iraq accused Kuwait of violating the Iraqi border to secure oil resources, (on July 17, 1990 Saddam Hussein accused Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates of flooding the world oil market. In addition, he singled out Kuwait for the production of oil from a disputed supply, the Rumaila oil field), and demanded that its debt repayments should be waived."

Go in peace and with knowledge. Class dismissed.

Genuine Realist • 3 years ago

Right. Your 'objective' source is an Iraq history site that recites all of Hussein's rationalizations as objective fact. Did you think I wouldn't check?

I can hear the cuckoos singing in the cuckooberry tree - or, more accurately, a bigot of 'The-United-States-Is-Always-Responsible' school, finding shreds and patches wherever you can. Hussein did not commit several hundred thousand troops to a military operation based on a chance remark by one ambassador.

Read any objective history. (You won't). There was a reason why ALL the nations of the MidEast joined the alliance, despite the always dubious relationship of the US and Israel.

NormanKnight • 3 years ago

I posted it, so that you could check it. There are plenty of sources if you were really interested. e.g., http://tinyurl.com/nlej2m5 Most of "Hussein's rationalizations" are easily proven facts, some may not be proven, but are more than plausible, as the dispute between Iraq and Kuwait is ongoing: http://tinyurl.com/of9zw8w

If you don't like web sources, here is the New York Times which reads, in part:

"The Kuwaiti royal family did not respond to a request made Friday to a spokesman in Taif, Saudi Arabia, where the family is in exile, for comment on Kuwait's production at the Rumaila field.

Kuwait's overall production in 1989, an average of 1.8 million barrels a day, exceeded its OPEC quota by 700,000 barrels. The Kuwaiti Government's hope was to force Mr. Hussein to the bargaining table, and then extract from him a border truce that included Rumaila drilling rights, as well as a non-aggression pact. Instead, Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait and drove its ruling family into exile."
Read it all carefully: http://tinyurl.com/p4s99n8

There is more to this story than you know, obviously.

Genuine Realist • 3 years ago

You should read your own source. more carefully. The New York Times is discussing the geological issues that underly the iraqi contention.

Your Iraqi source stated that the war was a 'result' of this disagreement. But that's not a casus belli and never was. It's a matter for arbitration and negotiation. It is not even justification for a seizure of the disputed oil field.

But Hussein used is as a pretext for a full scale invasion of Kuwait, with an intent to annex it into Iraq. The war wasn't a 'result' of the dispute. The dispute was the cynical rationalization.

NormanKnight • 3 years ago

The New York Times article discusses much more than the underlying geology. Did you really read it? If you did, then you are the one with reading comprehension difficulties. You should have followed my advice to read it carefully. You seemed to have missed this portion of the NYT article, dated September 3, 1990, reads:

"'Economic Warfare'

Henry M. Schuler, director of the energy security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said that, from the Iraqi viewpoint, the Kuwait Government was ''acting aggressively - it was economic warfare.''

''Whether he's Hitler or not, he has some reason on his side,'' Mr. Schuler said of President Hussein. He added that American officials needed to appreciate the economic and psychological significance the Rumaila field holds for the Iraqis and why Kuwait's exploitation of Rumaila, in addition to its high oil output in the 1980's, was an afront to the Iraqis.

''It's not just the emotional man in the street in the Arab world who finds the Iraq case appealing,'' he said. '' So do many of those who are thinking, intelligent people. If the Iraqi people feel they are the victims of aggression, and that their legitimate claims are being stifled now by American intervention, they will hang in there a lot longer than if that were not the case.''"

P.S. Guess what other countries were involved in Kuwati oil production?

Genuine Realist • 3 years ago

Please. As noted, this was not a casus belli. Every nation in the world has constant border disputes with its neighbors. These are not causes for an assault on national sovereignty, as well you know. The US does not have the right to invade Canada and occupy Ottawa because of indignation over fishing rights off Nova Scotia. And you know this.

And the quote is from a single person at some think tank. His views reflect his own bias, which you obviously share. I love the quote about how 'the Iraqi people' will react, when the Iraqi people meant about as much in the equation as the Russian people to Stalin. Six weeks later, the same sort of superficial salonist was decrying Bush for not supporting the people in deposing Hussein.

Give it up.

NormanKnight • 3 years ago

And if I posted six sources who agree with Mr. Schuler you would complain that it is only the opinion of six, then one hundred, people.

There is no need to reveal that you are a liberal in your profile, because it is readily apparent from your method of argumentation. You have offered no evidence to support your position. You simply attack me and mine.

Since you have proffered no evidence, perhaps you should "give it up."

Genuine Realist • 3 years ago

No. I would mostly say what I've said, that a border dispute is not a cause for total war. Obviously. A nation bent on war can find a pretext, and Hussein did. You can choose to believe it, as did your 'source'. There were many more than six at the time - Kuwait was once a part of the territory that is now Iraq (Hussein referred to it as another province at that time), the borders were arbitrary, there was legal justification, blah, blah, blah. Even the devil can quote scripture, as Luther said.

But in reality I marshalled a considerable number of facts. The most salient was that Kuwait WAS independent, recognized by the UN, and inhabited by a population that had no wish to be governed by the insanely despotic Hussein. There was neither moral nor legal judtification for the invasion. attempted to destroy it as a nation. You began with an Iraqi site that blithely claimed that the war 'resulted' from the the dispute, as if two armed powers clashed over the isssue. That was simply not true.

And on terms of numbers, counting heads, it was the recognition of that truth that was the reason for the unanimous condemnation by the nations of the world, including traditional enemies of the United States - a lot more than one or 6 por 6,000. That, btw, is one central fact you've ignored in every post you've made. If you want to speak of moral and legal condemnation, men put into the field as representatives of a huge array of nations matter a lot more than someone available for a newspaper quote. You come up with one spokesman for a thinktank who blathers about the 'people of Iraq', who in fact could hardly wait to see Hussein dangling from a rope - and this is supposed to signify

And - btw - how in any sense does the misstatement of an American ambassador give Iraq permission to invade . . . Kuwait??? How on earth did you get there??

So, yeah, give it up. You are believing your own rationalizations.

NormanKnight • 3 years ago

Nice. A sensible reply, finally. The ambassador's "misstatement"--as you call it--sent Iraq a message that the U.S. would neither object, not interfere, in the dispute. You seem to view it as negligence while I view it as an enticement (almost an invitation) to invade. Saddam Hussein told the world why he invaded Kuwait whether you believe him or not. His rationale is not open to debate. That rationale (you dispute the veracity), combined with the ambassador's nonchalance, or permission, was the cause of the conflict. It is likely that the U.S. could have averted the invasion of Kuwait with a more potent message from either the ambassador or Washington. Why was a more potent message not delivered until Iraq had already invaded Kuwait? I suggest it was because a variety of interests saw--at the very least--a financial opportunity.

Kuwait Oil Company was established in 1934 by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, which is known today as BP (British Petroleum), and Gulf Oil Corporation, now known as Chevron. http://tinyurl.com/myses3a For a contemporary list of the foreign beneficiaries of Kuwati oil and gas see: http://tinyurl.com/la5tf5l

The U.S. lead coalition was for the most part, Britain, France, Italy and Egypt. The others were window dressing who contributed little, if anything, apart from their names. Egypt was essentially paid to participate and Britain (BP) and France (ELF Aquitaine) had direct or indirect financial interests, just like the U.S., in Kuwaiti oil and gas production. I don't know why Italy was involved, but I suspect it was for the same reason. At the end of the day, the West was waging economic warfare on Iraq, through a client state, Kuwait. What is the big dispute?

The U.S. is frequently engaged in warfare for economic advantage and this is not a recent development. As General Smedley Butler said, "I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested." http://tinyurl.com/lbymzv2

Genuine Realist • 3 years ago

Finally? Look above. I have been pointing out the unanimity of world opinion from the start.

As to the the misstatement, it was corrected within a few weeks, not to say days. And which - taken at its best - in no way gave permission for the dicatotor to invade a neighboring company. This constitutes 'enticement'? Do be serious.

And enticement . . . for what benefit to the West, exactly? So it could liberate Kuwait at great expense and go back to buying oil on exactly the same terms as it did before?

Hussein needed Kuwait to bail himself out from a desperate financial situation. could have avoided the war by withdrawing. He received warnings from every major nation in the world, including the President. And to the end, he could have avoided war by withdrawing. His rationale was the same as any other totalitarian despot - a rationale. There was not the remotest relation to an actual casus belli.

But this is becoming repetitive. I get your point - the US Is Always Responsible. There is no such thing as a repugnant dictator. In five years, you'll be writing confidently how ISIS was really a CIA plot to undermine the Maliki regime.

One last point - re oil conspiracies, please search the Internet and find any evidence that the US bought so much as a barrel of oil on any better terms than OPEC sells it. There isn't any. Kuwait vends oil through the cartel on pretty much the same terms as it always did. Which sorta brings up the question of what possible benefit Hussein's action did for the West.

NormanKnight • 3 years ago

Finally, as in your sticking to substance, rather than diversionary attacks on sources and persons. Only now your reply is peppered with exaggeration and a disingenuous misrepresentation of my position. Claiming "unanimity" is but one of your latest exaggerations.

Substantial support for the Western (G.H.W. Bush-led) position was built through extensive diplomacy. How exactly was this achieved? Why did it take so much time? It shouldn't surprise you that the U.S. dollar can buy lots of allies, at least over the short term. And the most powerful military in the world combined with that economic power can coerce a lot of support as well. So, let's not pretend that the "whole world" was so outraged that they formed a global coalition overnight to displace Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The coalition, such as it was, was cobbled together and not spontaneous.

The benefit to the West could have been only to preserve petrodollar hegemony. That is reason enough; but surely there was more to it than that. For example, I have already highlighted the disputed territory, namely the Rumaila oil fields, and Kuwait exceeding OPEC oil production quotas which had the effect of reducing oil prices. After the liberation, the dispute becomes moot, at least for a time, so more oil and gas can be produced from Kuwait. Kuwait was also free to over-produce as it did prior to the invasion to suppress oil prices. That would be beneficial to Western countries. Plenty of American and European companies did benefit from the conflict and not just oil and gas companies. International bankers (owners of the FED) and the military industrial complex always benefit when we go to war.

Since you brought it up, ISIS is a Zionist enterprise to displace Assad that has expanded its objectives with or without approval from its paymasters. Israel benefits from a destabilized Syria and Iraq. The C.I.A. could be involved, but not necessarily.

As to your final paragraph, the U.S. military fights for American economic interests (not our freedom) and that includes big oil. That is a fact, not a conspiracy theory. And no matter what price the U.S. pays, it always pays it in depreciated/ing U.S. dollars. Preserving that sweetheart deal, by itself, is motivation enough for those in power to send the U.S. to war. Geo-political strategies are not well understood by the public--since the government lies about them so frequently--and can be quite complex.

Genuine Realist • 3 years ago

Oh, dear, oh dear. Seems in all that verbiage you forgot to explain what the US had to gain by 'enticing' Saddam Hussein to occupy Kuwait.

O woe. In now nine posts, you have utterly failed to explain why a dispute over oil field allocation would give Iraq the right to obliterate Kuwait as a nation, and subject the people who lived there to a tyrannical rule they most emphatically rejected.. (Hint: it doesn't - there is no right. For bonus points, can you think of another example in recent history in which a dispute over territorial righs was used as a pretext to start a war of national destruction? I'd tell you, but it would violate Godwin's law).

O further woe. The participants in the Alliance included most Middle Eastern nations that had been clients of the USSR, and opposed to the United States because of its alliance with Israel. The fact that nations with this background perceived the cause in this way is of major, even decisive, significance. Interesting that all that political and military might didn't bring them over before - and interesting that it didn't 12 years later, in 2003. Their cooperation then just might have had something to do with the fact that Hussein was frightening to the whole region, with a huge miltiary build up and a cynical view of might-makes-right that endangered them as well as Kuwait.

As for the effect of the petrodollar reserve . . . you are absolutely right. The nations of the world were scared to death that the critical oil market of the world would be controlled or influence by a violent, irresponsible sociopath. You . . . ah . . . have a disagreement with that?

Let me summarize YOUR position.

(1) Because there was a disagreement about the Ramala oil fields, Iraq had the right to invade Kuwait and obliterate its existence. You can't articulate the basis, but . . . what the hell. It's not that you could be in error.

(2) The US for some unknown reason enticed Saddam to do this, even though the ambassador's statement was disavowed within days or weeks. You don't know what the motive for the enticement was, but it somehow deprives the other nations of the world of any right to dispossess Iraq of Kuwait. You don't know WHY it deprives them of tht right, but you are conflident it does. Otherewise . . . you'd be wrong. And that can't be.

Have I got it right?

The reality is that Saddam Hussein neeeded Kuwait for economic reasons, found a pretext on the most cynical basis, prepared an invasion, executed it even after warnings (well after he or anyone would have realized that Glaspie had not conveyed the position of the US accurately), committed thereby a serious breach of morality and international law, was wasrned repeatedly to withdraw, and did not. The war ensued.

Remember when I associated you with the 'The-United-States-Is-Responsible-For-Everything' school? Beginning to understand why?

Oh, right There's this guy ina think tank who says . . .

Gimme a break,

NormanKnight • 3 years ago

You have become tiresome and a bore. I give your summary a D.

Genuine Realist • 3 years ago

I have become more and more pointed and correct. You gave no rejoinder because there is none. You could rethink your world view, but that's not going to happen, is it?

You have proved to your own complete satisfaction that the chance remark of a US ambassador, almost instantly repudiated, makes the United States completely responsible for the course of conduct of a socipathic dictator, who stands in your eyes as a victim rather than victimizer. Well, you're completely right in your universe of one.

But it's a pretty small world, ain't it?

NormanKnight • 3 years ago

The rejoinder is I have become tired of presenting evidence to someone who never does. The best you can do is exaggerate (e.g., "unanimity", not even close), place words in my mouth, argue about the quality of sources and call me names rather than address the substance of the argument. I guess that is the kind of government lawyer you were in the land of fruits and nuts too. Saul Alinsky would be so proud of you, but no one else is.

Genuine Realist • 3 years ago

Never did deal with 'enticement', did you?

Not unanimous? Near unaimous will do. Go find the grody little countries that did support Saddam. It would make an interesting list.

Your basic problem is that the entire line of argument, described ad nauseam above, is preposterous and without any solid historical foundation. You've reasoned from your pre-existing values, untroubled by fact. I've also described the school of thought to which you subscribe succinctly elsewhere.


NormanKnight • 3 years ago

And yet, I supported my arguments and you did not. Apparently, you think cheap tricks and repeating yourself is persuasive. Where were you educated? Didn't they teach you how to present an affirmative case?

"02 Jul 90 US Intel spots 30,000 Iraqi troops on the Kuwaiti border, building. "Internal Look", a US War Game, shows that Saudi Arabia could be defended from an Iraqi invasion only at great cost. . . .

15 Jul 90 Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz sends letter to Chedli Klibi, the Arab League Sec Gen, accusing Kuwait of stealing oil from the Rumalia Field and adapting a policy of harming Iraq conspiring with the UAE to glut the world oil market. He specified that Iraq had the right to retrieve stolen funds and recover territories.

16 Jul 90 Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz attacks Kuwait and the UAE for "direct aggression" against Iraq due to their refusal to honor oil production reductions. http://tinyurl.com/mafdjfc

Nota Bene: After this Ambassador Glaspie winks at Saddam Hussein. A possible reason is explained below.

"Iraq has accused its wartime ally Kuwait of stealing Iraqi oil, building military installations on its territory and reducing its oil income by cooperating with an "imperialist-Zionist plan" to depress oil prices through overproduction.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz made the charges against the desert sheikdom in a letter to the Arab League made public today. A day earlier, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein charged that some Persian Gulf states had stabbed Iraq in the back "with a poison dagger" by exceeding their oil-production quotas in what he said was a U.S.-led conspiracy to ensure cheap petroleum prices." http://tinyurl.com/mtedo9r

4AP Press Toronto Star (January 20, 1991) A18

The Iraqi government had also accused the Kuwaitis of stealing 2.5 billion barrels of oil from its Rumaila oil fields by sliding drills into Iraqi oil pipelines. They had also accused Kuwait of exceeding OPEC oil production which had dropped the price of oil from $20 a barrel to $13 a barrel in the first six months of 1990. This meant 1 billion dollars less for Iraq everytime that price of an oil barrel went down by a dollar. Saddam said he would stop them from continuing aggressive action:"The oil quota violators have stabbed Iraq with poison dagger. Iraqis will not forget the saying that cutting necks is better than cutting means of living. O'God almighty, be witness that we have warned them".1 His foreign minister Tariq Aziz later said in a letter to the Arab league that Kuwait is "systematically, deliberately and continuously" harming Iraq by encroaching on its territory, stealing oil, and destroying its economy.1 "Such behaviour amounts to military aggression".1 These were just signs of the Desert Storm to come.


4AP Press Toronto Star (February 14, 1991) A13

Another reason that has been suggested is that Iraq was permitted to invade Kuwait just to give the U.S. an excuse to attack the Iraqis so that they would no longer be a threat to other countries [Israel] in the region. This would also make the Arab nations dependent on the Americans for their defense so that they would not try to attempt hostile actions in terms of increasing the cost of the oil to them or limiting the production of petroleum as had been demonstrated by the OPEC nations in the 1970s. http://tinyurl.com/k4pwmhz

Benjamin Gruder • 4 months ago

" ISIS is a Zionist enterprise to displace Assad" OK, I was following you till this. You might as well hang out with the Birthers.

MatthewBMany • 2 years ago

http://dontfallacy.me/list/ Here is a game to help improve your debate because you have been using poor logic. good luck.

Genuine Realist • 2 years ago

One elementary technique is not to address arguments made years after the fact. Which I am not about to do.

And good luck to you. Be a little more timely in future.

Jimmy S. • 11 months ago

So what? I find your comment rather crass. How many Americans died due to government foreign policy screwups? There are many cemeteries in Europe FULL of US soldiers who died due to Woodrow Wilson's & FDR's "screwups".

JJinCO • 3 years ago

Saddam messed up. He trusted us.

JH • 11 months ago

Another screw up by the State Dept. The Korean War started in a similar way when a U.S. diplomat forgot to include South Korea when discussing our defensive perimeter in the western Pacific.

Guest • 3 years ago
Genuine Realist • 3 years ago

The invasion of Kuwait was quite genuine and quite threatening, and the absurd Kuwaiti propaganda came well after the fact. The invasion was not 'we', but 'us', supported by the entire world with troops and materiel. Get a life.

musimann • 3 years ago

ISIS is a creation of the Zionist west. It was armed and trained (brainwashed) in Jordan. It was meant to attack Syria. It is already out of control. Another legacy of Obama's hypocrisy.

Pfruit • 3 years ago

That is so true.

I saw a website that shows a secret video of Obama himself training ISIL fighters at a secret camp in 1612. The CIA has time travel technology that enables them to train and arm in secret! That is why no one ever sees until the Lizard-people overlords allow them to come to our time to wreak their havoc!

Thank you Musimann for fighting the good fight and not allowing western "logic" or "facts" to skew your beliefs.

N. Mara Czarnecki • 3 years ago

Were the Lizard-people theory actually true, even the Lizards would be more sane than Musimann.

Edcedc8 • 3 years ago

you got dropped on your head as a baby a lot.

N. Mara Czarnecki • 3 years ago

That is an insult to those poor babies that have to go through that.

N. Mara Czarnecki • 3 years ago

An Anti-Semitic organization is the creation of self-respecting Jews? Your contention is illogical, foolish, and Anti Semitic.

Benjamin Gruder • 4 months ago

They'll tar and feather you for calling it antisemitic, but I'm pretty sure they would also say that the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is mostly true. Walks like a duck...

NormanKnight • 3 years ago

Of course, they supported it, they are so easily manipulated into a war frenzy.

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY." --Hermann Goering

bartofsky • 3 years ago

Oh, it is based on the new entrant into polling market, NYT, which always supported both sides to get paper sales up.
But reputable CBS, Pew and Gallup found the American opinion on this subject was different, one example: http://www.gallup.com/poll/...

Serious Questions • 3 years ago

All the war-related polling there is for the second Gulf War. Desert Storm was the first Gulf War.

EDIT: Not only is that poll for the wrong war, it's from eleven years after the beginning of the wrong war. At the time of the second Gulf War (which, again, is not the war being discussed), Gallup showed a strong majority of Americans in favor.

bartofsky • 3 years ago

After the war started in Nov 15-18, in favor 37%, opposed 51%
And this is despite the polls showed the majority of Americans: 52/43 believed WMD were found; 53/34 Saddam Hussein was involved in 9-11; 79/19 raq is the threat to USA; 52/43 Saddam Hussein was with the al Qaeda...
This is how propaganda works.