Previous  1  2  3  4

Yeah, I know what happened wrt the creation of Kuwait.

But why stop there? Why not go further back? Maybe we can go back to when no countries existed at all! Awesome!

Sorry Charlie.

On August 8, Iraq declared parts of Kuwait to be extensions of the Iraqi province of Basra and the rest to be the 19th province of Iraq.

A long series of UN Security Council and Arab League resolutions were passed regarding the conflict. One of the most important was Resolution 678, passed on November 29, giving Iraq a withdrawal deadline of January 15, 1991, and authorizing "all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660", a diplomatic formulation authorizing the use of force.

The world, I'm afraid, had spoken. Should Kuwait not be sovereign? Should Russian retake the break-aways?

The diverse coalition consisted of such neo-con stalwarts as Egypt, Afghanistan, Turkey, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, France, Germany, and others.

For a guy with the quote you have as your signature, you sure do a whole lot of cutting and pasting and add very little of your own.

   

Unfortunately, it is at your hyperbole.

OK, here we go…

“The story I heard, was,”

Uh oh. This ain’t starting out so hot.

“So, Iraq goes to the US ambassador, some lady I can't recall her name, I think she's in charge of the ice machine at the base in Antarctica now. He asks her, 'hey, I'm seriously thinking of taking the boots to Kuwait over this, are you guys gonna try to stop me?'

'No.' She said.”

The woman’s name is April Glaspie. There are conflicting accounts as to what was said, but one version (to which you are inaccurately and hyperbolically referring) is this:

“We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late '60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via [Chadli] Klibi [then Arab League General Secretary] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly.

Even if this is accurate, which again, is in question, it is at worst consistent with the US's official policy of neutrality on the Iraq-Kuwait issue...until Saddam went invaded a sovereign country, of course. I’d have much preferred that a firm "We firmly..." were relayed, but that isn’t fitting with the neutral stance. Neutrality can suck. So can twisting the facts, Sgt.


“So, then Kuwait, being very sneaky, build these slanted oil wells that drill at an angle down UNDER the Iraq border, sucking their oil out right under the carpet. Imagine if the US put in some oil fields along the Alberta border and did this to us? Well, ok, they are already sucking our lakes dry while we wine and moan in the background.”

Well, no. That was part of the argument long before the war began. The Alberta comment is irrelevant and generally lame. And I drink wine. You whine.

“Jeez, I just WONDER if [sic] Britian has serious oil interests in Kuwait”

So what? Of course they do.

“So that was it, the US and [sic] Britian decided that day that they were going to sever ties with Saddam and stab him in the back. Why has never been very clear.”

LOL!

If you don’t understand how annexing another nation isn’t a pretty big “why” you should be committed.

“We kicked Saddam's butt right out of Kuwait, which I'm sure the oil companies with refineries and fields there were quite happy about.”

As were, I’m sure, the people of that country. Good grief. But enough about them anyhow, right? They were just subjects of Saddam, the man who’d drained the swamps and starved off the marsh Arabs? Ahhhh…and those oil refineries he lit ablaze? Are you aware of the environmental disaster those caused? You know he let a million gallons of oil in to the water too, right? Worst ever spill? Only this was on purpose?

“So we have to ask ourselves, small dinky countries like Kuwait have been getting stomped all over, pretty much every year, since the end of World War II, and the UN Security council has done NOTHING. Why suddenly did they decide to move?”

It is sad, isn’t it? We really should be doing more. We need to make up for past mistakes. I’m glad you’re seeing the light. Thankfully we’re doing the right thing in Afghanistan!

“there was a REALLY GOOD REASON to go.
Protecting Strategic Oil Supplies for the world.”

You’re damn straight! Strategic assets. So what? Had Saddam not crossed the line, it wouldn’t have happened, but he did, and for valid reasons (see above) he was stopped.

“Hindsight is 20/20, but seeing the effect those crippling post-war sanctions had on the Iraqi civilian population, I'd say it was all one long descent into nightmare from here”

Yeah, a shame the way Saddam was skimming billions from the mouths of his own people so he could build a palace in every province and give $25 grand to the families of suicide bombers who detonated indiscriminately, slaughtering innocent women and children.

Peace.

   

and are reduced to cut and paste jobs of questionable figures, can you just post the link so the board isn't four thousand pages deep?

Thanks.

   

having read your submissins I see no original thought. give a counter claim

---
Real education must ultimately be limited to men who insist on knowing, the rest is mere sheep-herding.
Ezra Pound
The only good is knowledge...

   

APRIL GLASPIE TRANSCRIPT



Yes, remember April Glaspie and her amazing stint at Middle East diplomacy?

Saddam-Glaspie meeting

Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. - July 25, 1990 (Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait)

July 25, 1990 - Presidential Palace - Baghdad

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?

Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptab le?

Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)

On August 2, 1990, Saddam's massed troops invade and occupy Kuwait. _____

Baghdad, September 2, 1990, U.S. Embassy

One month later, British journalists obtain the the above tape and transcript of the Saddam - Glaspie meeting of July 29, 1990. Astounded, they confront Ms. Glaspie as she leaves the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

Journalist 1 - Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador?(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond)

Journalist 2 - You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait ) but you didn't warn him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite - that America was not associated with Kuwait.

Journalist 1 - You encouraged this aggression - his invasi on. What were you thinking?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.

Journalist 1 - You thought he was just going to take some of it? But, how could you? Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed , he would give up his Iran (Shatt al Arab waterway) goal for the Whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be. You know that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as an historic part of their country!

Journalist 1 - American green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signaling Saddam that some aggression was okay - that the U.S. would not oppose a grab of the al-Rumeilah oil field, the disputed border strip and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan) - the territories claimed by Iraq?

(Ambassador Glaspie says nothing as a limousine door closed behind her and the car drives off.)

_____

To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed. Information last updated on: 02/09/96

---
Real education must ultimately be limited to men who insist on knowing, the rest is mere sheep-herding.
Ezra Pound
The only good is knowledge...

   

1. Please tey to keep in mind that these transcripts were released by the Iraqi government for very obvious and self-serving reasons. Like any propaganda, they should be taken with a grain of salt. I mean, multiple versions have come out.

2. In April 1991 Glaspie testified before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate. She said that at the meeting she had "repeatedly warned Iraqi President Saddam Hussein against using force to settle his dispute with Kuwait." She also said that Saddam had lied to her by denying he would invade Kuwait. Asked to explain how Saddam could have interpreted her comments as implying U.S. approval for the invasion of Kuwait, she replied: "We foolishly did not realize he [Saddam] was stupid." – remember – those “transcripts” came from the Iraqi government.

3. Tariq Aziz, who was at the meeting, claimed in a 1996 PBS interview that Iraq "had no illusions" prior to the invasion of Kuwait about the likelihood of U.S. military intervention.

4. In 2000, again on PBS, Tariq Aziz, who again, was present at the meeting, said "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." He characterized the meeting with Glaspie as "nothing extraordinary".

5. Joe Wilson, Glaspie's successor as ambassador to Iraq, referred to her meeting with Saddam Hussein in a Democracy Now interview on May 14, 2004: an "Iraqi participant in the meeting [...] said to me very clearly that Saddam did not misunderstand, did not think he was getting a green or yellow light."

6. What kind of transcript includes “Saddam smiled”?

   

Peace. Sounds like Jeff's signature. Wonder if you guys are the same body with two id's, would seem practical considering how few in number you types are, and therefore the need to inflate your numbers.

Please go back to watching Fox News and believing the American side to all arguments, it will get you far in your NeoCon fantasy world of good guys in white hats and evil Middle Eastern cow rustlers. Your counter-arguments read like a White House press release. At least I was posting in a sense of humerous speculation. You, otoh, apparently believe what you were told on CNN during the first Gulf war.

   

You may be correct.

my point is that even WITH a programme it is difficult to believe the players



---
Real education must ultimately be limited to men who insist on knowing, the rest is mere sheep-herding.
Ezra Pound
The only good is knowledge...

   

Yes, Bino and Jeff are one in the same for reasons I'd explained earlier. Your "few in numbers" comment is a joke.

Now, as far as "Please go back to watching Fox News and believing the American side to all arguments, it will get you far in your NeoCon fantasy world of good guys in white hats and evil Middle Eastern cow rustlers."

That, too is a joke.

As far as "Your counter-arguments read like a White House press release" that is also a joke. Please, link me more inane sites like "smirkingchimp.com" and tell me again about bias and credibility.

"At least I was posting in a sense of humerous speculation." Yeah. Real good one.

"You, otoh, apparently believe what you were told on CNN during the first Gulf war."

Whatever you say. Which isn't much. you added nothing with this but slams on me based on your own delusions and paranoid fantasy. Good luck with that. ATEOTD, I added factual content and you added really lame lines about "CNN". Nicely played.

   

Yes, that is all it is, delusions and paranoid fantasy. Go on believing your media, it is all true, really.

Since the sum of your response is to brand everything I say 'a joke' I have nothing further to discuss with you.

My only mistake was musing on your perhaps membership in the Canadian Intelligence Community.

Go have a cool coors 16 ouncer on me, bud. Your world history will live on, glorious, in your own mind, as dictated to you by your favorite media channels.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4