I know I might be preaching to the already converted, but after having a quick look at Jim Reed’s timeline on the events that led to the war in Iraq from the Iplayer, I’m wondering if the BBC ever learns anything.

Not that I’m disputing Iraqs use of chemical weapons in 1998, but the rest of the remainder of the timeline seems highly erroneous.

The BBC claims that the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 came as a surprise.

Didn’t the USA give Saddam the green light to walk in?

Then with the sanctions, wasn’t that just an attempt to degrade the civilian opposition to Saddam?

Then when the American chemical weapons nspectors were kicked out of Iraq, wasn’t this a decision made by the UN on the grounds that the Americans were clearly found to have been spying?

No mention by the BBC that George Bush was angered by Saddam trading oil for Euros, much to the detriment of the Dollar.

The politicians that led us into the 2003 Iraq war were bad enough but I’m surprised and angered by the BBC’s spineless and docile inability to attempt to get its facts right.

Troll ?

1) The BBC claims that the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 came as a surprise.

2) Didn’t the USA give Saddam the green light to walk in?

3) Then with the sanctions, wasn’t that just an attempt to degrade the civilian opposition to Saddam?

4) Then when the American chemical weapons nspectors were kicked out of Iraq, wasn’t this a decision made by the UN on the grounds that the Americans were clearly found to have been spying?

5) No mention by the BBC that George Bush was angered by Saddam trading oil for Euros, much to the detriment of the Dollar.

1) yes it was

2) absolutely not

3) not at all, idea was to such money from Sadam’s regime and weaken it (referenced in Chilcot)

4) it was their job to look for weapons technology/capability

5) nothing Iraq was doing had any impact on dollar, Chilcot refers to black market trading via Turkey

Ineptitude rant spoiled by ranting in the wrong forum.

1/10

On point four, American weapons inspectors.

It certainly wasn’t their job to spy. Despite being kicked out by the UN, the BBC to this day maintains that they were kicked out by Saddam.

This isn’t about the rights and wrongs of war, it’s about the BBC’s patronising attitude, thrown into sharp relief again.

As for point five, I can’t get my hands on anything more substantial at the moment, but I watched something on YouTube where it was argued that the dollar only recovered once Iraq had been invaded.

Though it was the former comedian Rob (something, ex Mary White House experience) who highlighted the connection between the events leading up to the 2003 Iraq invasion and Saddams decision to trade in Euros.

Thing is, apart from the fringes of the mass media, there was nothing but the most febrile, simpering attempt to examine the governments explanation for the 2003 Iraq war.

As for point five, I can’t get my hands on anything more substantial at the moment, but I watched something on YouTube

After the whole Iraq fiasco you are annoyed at the BBC’s timeline?

Well, on point two, Tariq Aziz didn’t seem to think so (1996 interview)

Q. Could you elaborate on the point about mixed signals sent by the U.S. during the run-up to the invasion of Kuwait? How did those influence your government’s decision?

Aziz: There were no mixed signals. We should not forget that the whole period before August 2 witnessed a negative American policy towards Iraq. So it would be quite foolish to think that, if we go to Kuwait, then America would like that. Because the American tendency . . . was to untie Iraq. So how could we imagine that such a step was going to be appreciated by the Americans? It looks foolish, you see, this is fiction.

Q: What was your assessment of what America would do when you moved on Kuwait?

Aziz: Our analysis was that it was foolish of Kuwait to threaten Iraq, if it was not pushed and backed by the United States. How could a tiny emirate like Kuwait challenge Iraq in that way, if it did not agree on that with a super power?

The United States at that period was becoming the sole super power, the Soviet Union was at its weakest point and we knew very well that that was an American plan, because Kuwait could do the economic war….

Q: But then why did you go ahead knowing the Americans would fight a war?

Aziz: We were expecting an Israeli aggression or an American aggression or both, during that period, regardless of whether we go to Kuwait or not. That was our analysis, that was our conviction, that the United States, after the weakening of the Soviet Union, when George Bush started to feel that he’s the most powerful leader in the world. He decided to take over this region. He decided to put his hand on the oil reserves. He couldn’t do that successfully fully without destroying Iraq and destroying the military power of Iraq and removing this nationalist, patriotic leadership.

Q: So you knew from the beginning that America was likely to take action?

Aziz: Yes, we had no illusions about that. We thought that attacking them in Kuwait would change the balance in our favor because Kuwait was still being used against us. Why not attack that which was being used against us? That could change the balance of power, at least slightly for our favor.

Does that read like they had a ‘green light’ from the Americans to you?

Politicians lied, Americans accused of spying and news broadcasters bobbing along to the tune of the paymaster, whatever next.

@ninfan

Not disputing the account of Tariq Aziz, but that’s just one account.

There’s been a discussion as to whether the US ambassador Glespie, gave the Iraqis the impression that walking into Kuwait would be tolerated by the US, owing to the lack of any treaty between the US and Kuwait. That any possible conflict between Iraq and Kuwait would be seen as a purely ‘arab’ problem.

Could have been a problem of misinterpretation/ translation.

But that’s not the problem.

It’s the media’s continued presentation of the first gulf war as a unilateral act of aggression, divorced from any historical context that rankles.

Anyway, I’ve learnt considerably more by digging into this topic.

Here’s the YouTube stuff…

https://youtu.be/f8Ne9V8BCXI

And Rob Newman for a chuckle

Sorry, second last link again…