What if Iraq got to keep Kuwait?

I know hindsight is 20/20 but let's just suppose for the sake of argument that Iraq got to kept Kuwait in the first Gulf War. How would things be different? The reason why I brought this up is because:

1) The US liberated Kuwait from Iraq but did it really make a difference? The people of Kuwait simply went from a monarch to a dictator and back again.

2) Wasn't the fear of Iraq invading Saudi Arabia after Kuwait what drew the S. Arabian Royal Family to request intervention of the US.

3) It doesn't seem right that both the Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti government have not been outspoken in support of the US involvement considering those two countries had the most to lose without the military involvement of the west.

4) Most terrorist organizations seem to have ties to Saudi Arabia but that country has not seem to be proactive in speaking out against terrorism in fear of angering the Arab "brotherhood."

5) It seems that many people in the Middle East are upset of western/US military involvement but it seems that the only reason this has happened is because the dictators in that region can't keep their own house straight.

6) Hate to say this but Saddam kept the Iranians in check.

Sometimes I think maybe the US should have left Kuwait the way it was and let these Muslim brotherhoods *ahem* dictators sort out their mess. Why should the blood and tears of our people flow to try to bring "democracy" to a region where it isn't welcomed. How can you teach the values of freedom to a part of the world that has been under the rule of the sword for thousand of years. Do they even understand or need "democracy."

Perhaps if the US never got involved in Kuwait and let the Arabs battle it out themselves then the backlash against the US wouldn't be as extreme as how it is now.







[edit on 6-2-2006 by hotsheets]

If the Brits didnt make borders in countries they thought the owned there was a lot more peace in this world.

Originally posted by Abu Hamza
If the Brits didnt make borders in countries they thought the owned there was a lot more peace in this world.

Even if the Brits didn't make the borders, those people prefer to be seperate from the other people, hence we have different ME countries. There were people that seperated during the Islamic Empire. No matter how much you try to unite even under one religion, there will be differences. Thats why you don't see the Muslim countries trying to unite. Except those Islamic extremists who dreams of another Caliphate.

Originally posted by hotsheets


6) Hate to say this but Saddam kept the Iranians in check.

I cant dissagree with you, but you leave out that Sadam's Iran is a pre Nuke Iran, today we are on the verge of a nuclear Iran. And thats a major difference.

But we also must remember: The ENTIRE world was for liberating Kuwait, there were no second guesses.

I think in hindsight the coalition should have taken Iraq back then, when most of the world, and Iraqi's, wanted it.

And yes, the Saudi's are meatheads. Yes, I said it!

Originally posted by hotsheets
Sometimes I think maybe the US should have left Kuwait the way it was and let these Muslim brotherhoods *ahem* dictators sort out their mess. Why should the blood and tears of our people flow to try to bring "democracy" to a region where it isn't welcomed. How can you teach the values of freedom to a part of the world that has been under the rule of the sword for thousand of years. Do they even understand or need "democracy."

Perhaps if the US never got involved in Kuwait and let the Arabs battle it out themselves then the backlash against the US wouldn't be as extreme as how it is now.

bin ladin has stated many times infact in nearly every speach before september 11 2001 attacks that he wants american millitry bases out of every muslim country and see's american millitry bases as an invasion of muslim countries spearheaded by arab dictators and america. thats rearly when america put there bases in saudi arabia in the lead up to the kuwait "liberation" war.

Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 6-2-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by deltaboy

Even if the Brits didn't make the borders, those people prefer to be seperate from the other people, hence we have different ME countries. There were people that seperated during the Islamic Empire. No matter how much you try to unite even under one religion, there will be differences. Thats why you don't see the Muslim countries trying to unite. Except those Islamic extremists who dreams of another Caliphate.

actually you are way off. nobody wanted to seperate under the calipahte apart from nationalists who where against islam. the only time where more people started to want to seperate was under the ottoman empire which ortadox muslims don't recognise as a lagitimate caliphate. so there where pretty much 3 groups of people that wanted to :

1. this group wanted nationalistic countries becuase they where nationalists.

2. this group wanted a new islamic caliphate which was not under turkish rule.

3. wanted to stay under turkish ottoman control.

group 1 won on all sides(middle east and turkey)with the help of the british. mustafa kumal helped speed along the breakup & seperation of the turkish side into the hyper nationalistic turkish country that exists today.

muslims today and always have wanted all muslim countries to join together to make a country with multiple states with 1 democratically elected leader. like the USA ruled by a caliphate system.

Maybe should have let Saddam go into Saudi Arabia first, kill their royal family and all the mujahideen forces, THEN go in and liberate and democratize the 3 countries at once.

[edit on 2/6/2006 by djohnsto77]

I tell you one thing. Whenever there is a disaster in the middle east it's the aid workers from western nations that's mobilized and ready to go. Where's the middle east "brotherhood" when disaster strikes? No where!