Gulf War Presentation Notes

INTRO

Before 1990, many North Americans had never heard of Iraq, or at most thought it was a typo on the map of the Middle
East. Today, Saddam Hussein has been elevated to the status of a modern-day Adolf Hitler, eager to invade the 
countries around him, terrorize his own people and launch weapons of mass destruction against the peace-loving 
peoples of the world without provocation. It is certainly safe to say that Hussein is not the most saintly 
persona in world politics. However, a more detailed examination of Saddam Hussein's actions, especially during 
the Gulf War and the most recent actions by the U.S. and her allies is needed to understand what has been 
happening in the Middle East in the last ten years.

REGIONAL HISTORY 

The Gulf War was not a complete surprise to anyone who was aware of the treacherous history of the region. Iraq's 
issues with Kuwait long preceded their invasion in 1990.

When the Ottoman Empire deteriorated during World War I, many of the provinces that made up the empire became 
independent nations. Many had borders that were artificially imposed on them by the invading British, who 
found themselves 'protectors' of many of these nascent states.

The countries that would later become Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were three of these 'protectorates'. Sir 
Anthony Parsons, a former British ambassador to the United Nations acknowledged the manipulation of the region:

"We, the British, cobbled Iraq together. It was always an artificial state; it had nothing to do with the 
people that lived there."

Iraq as a culture was of course far older than the British or even the Roman Empire, but the borders formed 
in 1922 became officially recognized first by the League of Nations and later by its successor the United Nations.

Similarly, Kuwait owes its existence to the British. Although it was also part of the Ottoman Empire, the tiny 
province broke away from the Empire with British recognition and protection. The Ottomans never respected this 
separation and considered it a rebellious city-port in their Basra province. When the Empire finally collapsed, 
Kuwait was able to become a fully recognized nation, at least as far as the British were concerned.

Although the border between Iraq and Kuwait exists on a map of the world, there are many disputes over the nature 
of that border. In fact, most Iraqis consider Kuwait as being part of their country, similar to China's view of 
Taiwan. While this certainly does not condone invasion and annexation a century after the fact, it is important 
to recognize that Iraq has never completely acknowledged Kuwait as an independent nation.

At a 1922 meeting at a tent in the middle of the desert, the borders were decided. Iraq was represented by a 
junior official that was there more for show than as a legal ambassador. Parsons, with his usual brutal honesty 
remembers:

"We protected our strategic interests rather successfully, but in doing so we didn't worry too much about the 
people living there. We created a situation where people felt they had been wronged."

In modern times, this is further complicated by the all-important main export of both countries: oil. Kuwait 
with its small land mass, easy access to ports and high concentrations of oil enjoys one of the richest economies 
in the world. Iraq on the other hand has a much larger land mass, a smaller (though still significant) abundance 
of oil and a large, poverty-stricken population.

Considering the artificiality of the borders and the skewed distribution of wealth, it is somewhat understandable 
that Iraq and Kuwait have never been on the friendliest of terms. It was not until 1963 that Iraq grudgingly 
recognized the country of Kuwait, though the actual borders and the ownership of the Rumaila oil fields and 
access to the Gulf, have always been disputed. 

ORIGINS OF CONFLICT 

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was a surprise to most of the world. Even the Arab nations, who were long accustomed 
to Hussein's aggressive language, seemed genuinely shocked by the actual invasion.

Iraq had recently finished a lengthy and expensive war with its other neighbour Iran. Although that conflict had 
settled into relative peace, Iraq was left with both a staggering debt and a massive army. Iraq had considered 
the war with Iran to be a battle for all Arabs. Many of the more moderate Arab nations resented the radical 
Islamic government of Iran. To these nations, Islam should be as seperate from their governments as Church and 
State are considered in North America. Many Arab states DID consider Iran a threat and Iraq was somewhat justified 
in asking those nations to help support the war that they helped start and perpetuate.

Of course, the other nations felt no compunction to help Iraq and many profited by Iraq's reduction of oil 
producing ability as a result of their war effort. They flatly refused to assist Iraq and some, including Kuwait, 
became more bellicose using this as a pretext. 

Kuwait not only refused to lend Iraq funds; they demanded ALL previous debt be re-paid immediately. Kuwait had also 
been stealing Iraqi oil by drilling 'diagonally' under the border, taking more than their fair-share of the disputed 
Ramaila oil fields. Kuwait had also engaged in 'economic warfare' (according to Iraq) by significantly lowering 
the price of oil against OPEC standards, costing Iraq billions of dollars. To add insult ot injury, the Kuwaiti 
leaders and ambassadors had openly humiliated Saddam Hussein at several pan-Arab meetings. 

With a large battle-hardened army, a bankrupt treasury and years of built up resentment, Kuwait must have seemed 
like a very tempting target.

GULF WAR TIMELINE 

In July of 1990, Saddam mobilized a large contingent of its military on the border of Iraq and Kuwait. This was 
NOT the first time they had done this. Although this mobilization was seen by American satellites, the U.S. claims 
they did not expect an actual invasion.

On July 24, Egyptian president Mubarak was personally assured by Saddam Hussein that he would not invade Kuwait. 
Note that Egypt has long been a U.S. client starte in the area and therefore it can be assumed that the U.S. was 
also privy to this information.

However, the next day, April Glaspie, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq met with Saddam Hussein to discuss the brewing 
conflict with Kuwait. Glaspie told Hussein:

"We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border agreement with Kuwait"

A week later on August 2, Saddam Hussein gave orders to invade and the occupation of Kuwait began.

Although this would seem to indicate that the U.S. was aware of the plans for invasion, Glaspie later claimed that 
she did not think Hussein was serious. She is quoted as saying:

"We didn't understand Saddam Hussein. We foolishly did not realize he was stupid."

Did the U.S. give tacit permission for Iraq to invade or were they genuinely surprised by the invasion? There is 
evidence that either might be the case. Noam Chomsky believes that this was simply a case of crossed wires; that 
U.S. intelligence did not believe Hussein would give the order. Iraq had long served American interests in the 
area, especially in their war with Iran, and it is entirely possible that Iraq was under the false impression that 
they were the favoured party in any Gulf conflict.

Even the day before the actual invasion, military contracts were signed with the Iraqi government. In fact, up 
until the army actually crossed into Kuwait, U.S. had a policy of 'business as usual'. 

To make matters even more confusing, one must examine the way the U.S. demonizes its opponents. Fabricated stories 
of massacres such as Racak in Kosovo are often used as a pretext for bombings or invasions by U.S. forces. It 
doesn't matter if these stories are true, just that the hearts and minds of the American public are in line with 
the state's actions.

The event that is used most often to demonize Hussein is his alleged gassing of Kurds in the northern part of Iraq. 
Iraq HAS used chemical weapons, most notably in their war with Iran. Both Iran and Iraq used mustard gas and serin 
against their opponents. Both sides have admitted to this violation of international law. However, Iraq has always 
flatly denied their use of gas against the Kurds.

In fact, the type of gas used on the Kurds was NOT known to have been possessed by Iraq at that time, according to 
U.S. intelligence. Much of the reporting on this attack came from the CIA operatives in the area (mostly stationed 
in Turkey). Therefore, it is important to at least consider that we are not hearing the entire truth when examining 
such a sensitive issue.

Both the Iranians and the Turks had the means and motives to attack the Kurds. The Iranians had allied with the 
rebellious Kurds out of convenience during their war with Iraq throughout the 1980's. When the war ended, Iran 
abandoned their allies even as the Iraqis attempted to quell the rebellion that Iran had helped stir. The gas used 
on the Kurds was the most common gas used by Iran in their attacks on Iraq. Is it possible that Iran was attempting 
to tie up loose ends?

Meanwhile, Turkey which has both a rich history of genocide and oppression was also having problems with Kurdish 
rebels along their easternmost borders, shared with Iraq. Turkey has consistently crossed the porous border into 
Iraqi territory illegaly to massacre helpless Kurds. It is entirely possible that they had some hand in the events 
that transpired there.

In any case, the U.S. did not condemn Saddam Hussein for the massacres; Iraq was still receiving military aid during 
and after the Kurdish gas attacks. Whatever horror this inspired in the American hearts and minds, there was little 
affect on American profit from arms sales.

Is it possible however that the U.S. was planning on a war with Iraq long before the actual invasion of Kuwait? If 
this war was planned, Saddam's gassing of his own people could be used as a pretext as it was later used to justify 
sanctions and no-fly zones.

There is evidence to support this theory. General Schwarzkopf let slip in a public statement that their plans dated 
back to at least two years before any known Iraqi aggression. Of course, the U.S. has military blueprints for every 
region of the world, so this may be more a case of too much preparation for war in general than for a specific war 
with Iraq.

The invasion of Kuwait was relatively easy for Iraq. Since even Kuwait seemed to be surprised by Iraq's invasion, 
there was little to stop the Iraqi army from quickly occupying the small country. Kuwait has no military to speak 
of, mostly consisting of a well-trained poilce force. Within two days, Kuwait was completely subjugated.

Immediately, George Bush cried outrage at the barbarism committed by the Iraqi soldiers. Stories surfaced of Iraqi 
soldiers throwing babies out of incubators and torturing the civilian population. 

An acquaintence of mine in my first year at the university who had been forced to flee Kuwait during the Gulf War 
told me that his brand new Thunderbird convertible was stolen from him at gunpoint by Iraqi soldiers during the 
invasion. Interestingly, he was also very critical of Kuwait's relationship with Iraq and it was he who originally 
inspired me to look past the American media for the real answers. 

Bush addressed the people of the U.S. on live television on August 8, making the public aware of Iraq's invason 
and of U.S. intentions to protect Saudi Arabia from similar attacks. Saddam Hussein was made to appear as a modern 
day Hitler, ready to invade every country that bordered his own. It is questionable whether Saudi Arabia was ever 
directly threatened by Iraq. It is true that there had occasionally been some posturing by both countries but nothing 
that was particularly unusual for the region. Saddam's intention was to annex Kuwait; he was quite explicit about 
this. It is interesting to note that there was no mobilization or claimed intent to attack Saudi Arabia until the 
U.S. had declared war and set up shop along the Saudi Arabia border.

Nevertheless, Iraq broke international law by invading and occupying Kuwait. The United Nations condemned the invasion 
and emergency meetings were held to discuss action. Resolutions were passed, with the U.S. as a security council 
member leading the way.

As the American media would have us believe, there was a unanimous decision to remove Saddam's army from Kuwait by 
any means necessary. This was far from the case. There were many debates about how to accomplish the removal of 
Iraqi forces, mostly consisting of diplomacy and the use of sanctions. The U.S. used its security council status 
to veto any possibility that did not include military force. 

A coallition force was gathered consisting of the following countries:

Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Germany, Great 
Britain, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, 
Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United States.
 
Arab members of the coalition were: Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the 
United Arab Emirates. 

Jordan, Libya and Yemen opposed the involvement of non-Arab countries in the war, but did not fight against the 
coalition. 

China and the Soviet Union did not join the coalition, but their cooperation as members of the UN's Security Council 
allowed the UN to play a leading role in the war.  

Although many countries contributed troops to the coalition force, the vast majority were American servicemen. It 
was dressed up as being a United Nations operation, but none of the soldiers wore blue helmets, least of all Norman 
Schwarzkopf.

PUBLIC PERCEPTION/MEIA COVERAGE

Throughout the conflict, the North American media presented Saddam Hussein as the world's biggest threat, suddenly 
appearing out of nowhere with an invincible army poised to take over the world. His army was presented as being 
more than a match for the coallition force. 

Chomsky, a year later in an interview related:

"The population was sold a bill of goods in which Iraq was presented as a major military power poised to virtually 
take over the world on the way to becoming impregnable... Schwarzkopf gave interviews in which he described how we 
were outmanned and outgunned and were going to fight anyway. Then this miracle took place, due to the incredible 
courage and brilliance of our leader and his generals, and we managed to overcome this immense colossus without the 
vast casualties and destruction on our side that were predicted and anticipated as part of this disinformation 
campaign. Under those conditions, part of the euphoria [about involvement in the Gulf War and winning it] is quite 
genuine."

The truth of course was that the Iraqi army was demoralized before they even entered Kuwait; many had not been paid 
since the war with Iran had ended. Also, many of the soldiers involved with the invasion of Kuwait were untrained 
conscripts from the nearby villages; most were simple farmers or workers who had never even held a rifle before. 
Also, many of these conscripts were from the minority groups in the south of Iraq, mostly Shi'ite muslims; not 
Saddam's favourite people.

Saddam's 'elite' troops, the Republican Guard, mostly managed to avoid armed conflict during the war. These elites 
were later used to quell the rebellions in both the north and south once the Gulf War had ended.

There was very little content that was reported in the media that was accurate, much less informative. All news was 
filtered through the military censors prior to being reported nationally. Much of the time, the truth was simply not 
available because the military would not allow it to be known. Newspapers and magazines that attmepted to analyze 
the war from an angle not favourable to the U.S. were banned from press conferences.

Much of the reporting was done by CNN who acted almost as a mouthpiece for the government itself. Their contribution 
to reporting was to constantly interview the forlorn wives of the American soldiers sent overseas. By doing this, many 
of the events of the war were obfuscated by American pride or pity.

Similarly, an atmosphere developed in which a person was considered either 'For the war OR against American troops'. 
It was not possible to question the war without being considered somehow anti-American. Baseball caps were sold with 
Desert Storm slogans, making it seem less of a war and more of a sports event. 

When the invasion first took place, a young female 'refugee' from Kuwait claimed she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers 
throwing newborn babies out of incubators onto the floor and then bayonetting them. It later turned out she was the 
daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S. and was not even in Kuwait City when the invasion took place. This 
demonization seems to happen in almost any conflict. In World War I, German soldiers were rumoured to eat Belgian 
babies. Most recently, the Serbs have felt the fangs of demonization as they are made out to be only interested in 
massacring helpless Albanian civilians, even as NATO stories are found to be complete falsifications. 

Throughout the war, Bush claimed that Saddam had resisted any attempts at diplomatic solutions. This is completely 
untrue.

On August 12, 1990, Iraq offered to pull out of Kuwait but proposed that round table discussions be set up which 
discussed the occupation of ALL Arab lands. This was the first time that Hussein attempted to link the Israeli 
occupation of Palestine with his own occupation of Kuwait. It was ignored by American media although covered heavily 
in Europe and the Middle East where being critical of Israel is not considered the same as being anti-semitic. 

On August 19, Iraq offered to discuss his invasion of Kuwait with the Arab Leage. The Arab League was to meet soon 
after and Saddam offered to go by the decision of that meeting. It is interesting to note that he was unanimously 
condemned by the other Arab nations at this point in time. Clearly, they would have asked him to leave and he must 
have realized this, making this seem to be a genuine offer.

On August 23, Hussein offered to withdraw from Kuwait in exchange for the ending of sanctions against Iraq, and offered 
to free all hostages and detainees. The only stipulation was that Iraq be given unrestricted access to the Persian 
Gulf (Iraq is blocked from the Gulf by Kuwait) and wished to discuss the disputed Rumaila oil fields. These were not
unreasonable requests and were in fact eventually included in the UN resolutions after the war.

On January 16, 1991 Mikhail Gorbachev undertook an independent peace initiative. He along with the world had condemned 
the invasion of Kuwait but had also been opposed to any use of force to remove Iraq. Gorbachev convinced Hussein that 
it was in his best interests not to offer to withdraw (since this had been ignored) but simply to begin withdrawing 
forces without conditions. Huseein complied and gave the order almost immediately, asking a few weeks to allow 
complete withdrawal. Bush replied by insisting the forces be removed within 48 hours... hardly a reasonable request. 

On February 15, Saddam made a substantive peace offer. George Bush called this a 'cruel hoax' and ignored him. As 
Hussein followed through on his promise and began withdrawing forces, the coalition forces attacked without provocation.

It is interesting to note that George Bush consistently claimed that Hussein was not willing to negotiate. At the 
same time Bush also insisted throughout the war that 'There will be no negotiation, no compromise, no saving face 
for Saddam Hussein'. This, Bush's repeated mantra would seem to indicate that HE was the one unwilling to negotiate.

It was also this unreasonably hardline stance that would eventually contribute to dissent in the coalition. Many 
of the other countries in the coalition were more than willing to discuss terms of withdrawal and were hesitant to 
commit their troops to combat activities that were not necessary. Many felt that there was more than enough room to 
begin diplomatic talks which would eventually have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

The actual conflict consisted of the air war and the ground war. The air war was quickly decided by the American led 
coalition as they had superior technology and numbers. The mostly American pilots removed any threat of retaliation 
by destroying the small Iraqi air force and any surface-to-air missile capability.

They then proceeded to launch an extensive bombing camapign on the Iraqi people. Although it is claimed that American 
bombs were only dropped on legitimate military targets, the list of actual targets reads as almost identical to the 
list of targets considered to be illegal by international law.

A total of 88,500 tonnes of bombs were dropped, mostly inside Baghdad. Of this total, only seven percent were so-called 
'smart bombs'. Many of these smart bombs it later turned out were not as smart as the military claimed. Considering the 
majority of bombs were simple drop-and-forget bombs rather than guided. Dropping these with any accuracy in a heavily 
populated city is hardly easy to do.

Also, many of the weapons used by the Americans were illegal themselves. Cluster bombs which are designed to fragment 
on the ground and become landmines. Fuel-air explosives, basically large scale napalm weapons were used in areas 
highly populated with civilians. It is hard to rationalize how these weapons can be dropped in the middle of a city 
and yet also be considered only for military targets. At one point, a penetration bomb was targeted at a bomb shelter 
where hundreds of cowering civilians were trying to escape the burning city... 300 were killed. The U.S. claimed that 
their tactical maps must have been wrong. They were sure the bomb shelter was a weapons cache. 

There are estimates that the air war in Baghdad caused the deaths of over 200,000 Iraqi civilians. If the bombers had 
really meant to protect civilian casualties as they claimed, WHY were the first targets all outbound trains and highways? 

Overall, the infrastructure of Baghdad was completely obliterated. Loss of electrical power, destruction of food 
processing plants and hospitals all contributed to many more deaths after the bombing stopped. When added to the 
heavy sanctions, it is no surprise that the city has yet to fully recover.

Israel itself was never a part of the coalition but was bombed by Iraq as an attempt by Hussein to link the issues 
of Israeli repression of Palestinians to his own cause, a ploy that was mostly unsuccesful. Israel is also widely 
recognized as an American client state among many angry Arab nations and since Hussein did not have the capability 
to target Washington DC, Tel Aviv must have seemed an acceptable alternative.

The ground war was short and decisive. Altogether the 'official' ground war took 4 days to complete. This does not 
include the retreating Iraqi soldiers who were carpet-bombed by U.S. forces AFTER the ceasefire was signed.

The strategy consisted of surrounding Iraqi forces (mostly confined to bunkers) and then essentially burying them 
with bombs; afterwards using ground troops to mop up and kill any survivors. Many firsthand accounts from coalition 
soldiers exist of Iraqi soldiers being executed rather than being allowed to surrender. Similarly, retreating unarmed 
soldiers were butchered while they ran. The number of bodies since uncovered who appear to have been shot in the back 
while running seems to give credence to this.

The infamous 'Highway of Death' involved the blockade of retreating Iraqi forces along the main road out of Kuwait. 
Approximately ten thousand Iraqi soldiers were withdrawing from Kuwait in compliance with UN resloutions. American 
forces trapped them by disabling the vehicles at the front of the convoy and then proceeded to bomb them from above 
for many hours. Of the ten thousand or so retreating soldiers in the convoy approximately 300 survived to surrender. 
Also among the dead were busloads of 'liberated' Palestinians and Iraqi civilians who were used more or less as 
indentured workers in Kuwait City. Although many American military personnel later came forward to condemn this 
attack the U.S. government still claims that this was a 'classic tank battle'.

The Iraqis were less successful but just as flagrantly broke international law. Their SCUD missile attacks on the 
civilian centres of Israel and Saudi Arabia can not be condoned. These were also rumoured to contain chemical warheads, 
though use of chemical weapons in the Gulf War was never confirmed.

Iraq's military death toll is reported at more than 100,000 soldiers killed.

By contrast, the coalition lost 148 soldiers, most of these due to friendly fire incidents.

All in all, Iraq was devastated as a result of the Gulf War. Many questions remain as to why this war was fought and 
what was accomplished as a result.

[Ask for opinions on WHY war would have benefited the U.S.]

Here are some possible answers:

-> Brian Becker, who worked with Ramsey Clark on the International War Crimes Tribunal claims: 

"What was the character of this war? Iraq neither attacked nor threatened the United States. We believe that this was 
a war to redivide and redistribute the fabulous markets and resources of the Middle East, in other words this was an 
imperialist war. The Bush administration, on behalf of the giant oil corporations and banks, sought to strengthen its 
domination of this strategic region. It did this in league with the former colonial powers of the region, namely 
Britain and France, and in opposition to the Iraqi people's claim on their own land and especially their natural 
resources." 

-> Bush often repeated the mantra of a 'New World Order'. The Gulf War and the brief invasion into Panama that preceded 
it were the first major confrontations since the Cold War in which the Soviet Union was not used as a pretext. Although 
the Soviet Union still existed, it was a fraction of the power it used to be and seemed either unwilling or unable to 
counter American aggression. Is it possible that the U.S. was testing just how much they could get away with in a 
'uni-polar' world? 

-> Saddam Hussein was guilty of one crime that did not make it into the popular Gulf War articles. Many other nations 
have been harrassed, invaded and even massacred as a result of the hideous crime of 'nationalism'. Like Noriega in 
Panama, Saddam Hussein was a former U.S. lackey who had begun to stifle somewhat under the conditions imposed on him 
by his masters in Washington. American foreign policy has always been opposed to nationalist fervor. Although Saddam 
Hussein likely is not completely sympathetic to the plight of Arabs, he could use this as a stepping stone to become 
a true world power. Recent events suggest that this may still be possible. 

-> Was Iraq becoming a threat to Israel? Iraq was the only country in the region with anything close to the military 
might of Israel. Not only did Hussein constantly attempt to link the issues with Israel with their own invasion of 
Kuwait... Iraq had definite reasons to fear Israel. In 1981, Israel bombed a nuclear plant inside Iraq without 
provocation, claiming that Iraq was using the site to produce nuclear weapons. On the other hand, Israel had been 
secretly stockpiling nuclear weapons for years and was a definite threat to the countries around it. It is possible 
that had the Gulf War not happened, Saddam Hussein would have been able to unite the Arab world against Israel.

-> Although 'oil' seems the most obvious answer to why the U.S. would involve itself in a war with Iraq, this requires 
much deeper analysis. Firstly, the price of oil depends on the prices established by the OPEC nations of which Iraq and 
Kuwait are a part. However, it is unlikely that even were Kuwait to be annexed by Iraq that the prices would change that 
much... why would they? In fact, the price of oil did rise considerably DURING the war and never fell to their previous 
levels. The price did not raise because of OPEC raising its prices; OPEC's prices remained constant; the price rose 
because the Oil companies increased their prices. Since the U.S. at that time had enough oil reserves to survive for 
years without having to rely on the Arab suppliers... why did the price increase? And more relevantly, why did the price 
never return to reasonable levels? 

-> Was this the U.S. trying to create a market that they could later exploit? By destroying Iraq's infrastructure, they 
are ensuring that eventually that infrastructure will need to be re-built. This seems a rather odd way to go about this 
but it has been suggested as a possible motive. The sanctions that have continued to keep Iraq in the 'stone age' might 
suggest that the U.S. actually WANTS them to be there. 

-> Was the war a 'personal' dispute between George Bush and Saddam Hussein? Unlikely... Bush's behaviour may have 
seemed odd at the time but considering the eventual truths that came out, he may have put up the appearance of 
indignation in order to himself commit undignifiied acts. It is plain to see that Bush WANTED a war with Iraq, so 
he couldn't very well admit that Iraq had made peaceful overtures. He had to make it appear as if Hussein was a 
monster and by getting 'personal' this might help along those lines. However, Bush's approval rating was never so 
high as when he spewed his vitrol over 'Sodom' Hussein. Before the Gulf War he was seen as an emasculated wimp... 
The new president being Bush's son only adds to the illusion that there is a feud between Saddam and George Sr. More 
accurate to say would be that the 'interests' that put Senior in power are the same 'interests' that put his son there.

NAVIGATION

Homepage -> Archive of Writings -> Wes' Gulf War Presentation