Iraq Wants the US Out - Our New Saigon Moment

Nice of you to take pity on the poor Iraqi's who have now idea what's best for them even though they have lived there for thousands of years.

So like the imperialistic British, we need to go to other countries, invade them, subdue them, and teach them our ways which are vastly superior.

Heck, the American Indians didn't know what was good for them until we showed them the white man's way.

HUGE non sequitur my friend. Back up and try again.

We didn't threaten or invade Germany to start a war. But once they started a war, we finished it.

We didn't threaten or invade Japan to start a war. But once they started a war, we finished it.

We didn't threaten or invade Iraq to start a war. The difference there is that once they started a war, we just stopped it. We didn't finish it on the spot. If we had we might have avoided all the grief and tragedy of the twelve long years of sanctions followed by endless war.

What would have happened if had just stopped Germany and Japan and then went away allowing the same people to hold the power and allowing them to rebuild on their terms? Would the outcome have been as satisfactory even as both retain the best of their previous cultures? I can almost guarantee you that it would not. Nor do I think the outcome in Iraq will be as satisfactory as it would had we determined to demand unconditional surrender and then helped them rebuild into a peaceful prosperous nation.

The situation with the American Indians is a completely different circumstance as is the circumstance of all peoples who give over land and power to others who come in. That had little in common with winners and losers in war.

Iraq never started a war with us.

Neither did Germany.
 
HUGE non sequitur my friend. Back up and try again.

We didn't threaten or invade Germany to start a war. But once they started a war, we finished it.

We didn't threaten or invade Japan to start a war. But once they started a war, we finished it.

We didn't threaten or invade Iraq to start a war. The difference there is that once they started a war, we just stopped it. We didn't finish it on the spot. If we had we might have avoided all the grief and tragedy of the twelve long years of sanctions followed by endless war.

What would have happened if had just stopped Germany and Japan and then went away allowing the same people to hold the power and allowing them to rebuild on their terms? Would the outcome have been as satisfactory even as both retain the best of their previous cultures? I can almost guarantee you that it would not. Nor do I think the outcome in Iraq will be as satisfactory as it would had we determined to demand unconditional surrender and then helped them rebuild into a peaceful prosperous nation.

The situation with the American Indians is a completely different circumstance as is the circumstance of all peoples who give over land and power to others who come in. That had little in common with winners and losers in war.

Iraq never started a war with us.

No, but they did start a war with an ally when they invaded Kuwait and were threatening another when they amassed forces on their border with Saudi Arabia. And they were unlawfully threatening the oil supply to much of the free world. So when Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, with blessings of all their other neighbors, AND the U.N. asked for help, most of the free nations of the world stepped in.
.

Kuwait wasn't an Ally. Saddam asked the United States prior to invading Kuwait if it was going to be a problem. The Kuwaitis also sealed their own fate by screwing around with Iraq. Iraq wanted a port city, Hussien thought he was the second coming of Saladin and they were loathe to be intimidated over debts. That, and the Iraqis thought Kuwait was really part of their country. Lo and behold the US said, okie dokie..and Saddam went alot further then the Americans thought he would. That was sort of an "unintended consequence".
 
HUGE non sequitur my friend. Back up and try again.

We didn't threaten or invade Germany to start a war. But once they started a war, we finished it.

We didn't threaten or invade Japan to start a war. But once they started a war, we finished it.

We didn't threaten or invade Iraq to start a war. The difference there is that once they started a war, we just stopped it. We didn't finish it on the spot. If we had we might have avoided all the grief and tragedy of the twelve long years of sanctions followed by endless war.

What would have happened if had just stopped Germany and Japan and then went away allowing the same people to hold the power and allowing them to rebuild on their terms? Would the outcome have been as satisfactory even as both retain the best of their previous cultures? I can almost guarantee you that it would not. Nor do I think the outcome in Iraq will be as satisfactory as it would had we determined to demand unconditional surrender and then helped them rebuild into a peaceful prosperous nation.

The situation with the American Indians is a completely different circumstance as is the circumstance of all peoples who give over land and power to others who come in. That had little in common with winners and losers in war.

Iraq never started a war with us.

Neither did Germany.

Sure they did. After Japan declared war..Germany followed suit.
 
HUGE non sequitur my friend. Back up and try again.

We didn't threaten or invade Germany to start a war. But once they started a war, we finished it.

We didn't threaten or invade Japan to start a war. But once they started a war, we finished it.

We didn't threaten or invade Iraq to start a war. The difference there is that once they started a war, we just stopped it. We didn't finish it on the spot. If we had we might have avoided all the grief and tragedy of the twelve long years of sanctions followed by endless war.

What would have happened if had just stopped Germany and Japan and then went away allowing the same people to hold the power and allowing them to rebuild on their terms? Would the outcome have been as satisfactory even as both retain the best of their previous cultures? I can almost guarantee you that it would not. Nor do I think the outcome in Iraq will be as satisfactory as it would had we determined to demand unconditional surrender and then helped them rebuild into a peaceful prosperous nation.

The situation with the American Indians is a completely different circumstance as is the circumstance of all peoples who give over land and power to others who come in. That had little in common with winners and losers in war.

Iraq never started a war with us.

So what, Iraq is gone as it was known, the world is better off.

Which world? There has been a great deal of regional instability because of the American invasion.

Are you willing to take in Iraqi refugees? Millions of them have poured into Jordan and Syria.
 
Iraq never started a war with us.

Neither did Germany.

Sure they did. After Japan declared war..Germany followed suit.


They didn't start a war with us...Japan did.


But, I see what you're saying.


Iraq attacked and occupied Kuwait.

UN Resolution 678 required Iraq to withdrawal by 15 January 1991, and authorized “all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660,” and a diplomatic formulation authorizing the use of force if Iraq failed to comply.

The second invasion of Iraq was authorized by UN Resolution 1441:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). [1]


Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687.



Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1991 invasion and occupation.



It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."


 
HUGE non sequitur my friend. Back up and try again.

We didn't threaten or invade Germany to start a war. But once they started a war, we finished it.

We didn't threaten or invade Japan to start a war. But once they started a war, we finished it.

We didn't threaten or invade Iraq to start a war. The difference there is that once they started a war, we just stopped it. We didn't finish it on the spot. If we had we might have avoided all the grief and tragedy of the twelve long years of sanctions followed by endless war.

What would have happened if had just stopped Germany and Japan and then went away allowing the same people to hold the power and allowing them to rebuild on their terms? Would the outcome have been as satisfactory even as both retain the best of their previous cultures? I can almost guarantee you that it would not. Nor do I think the outcome in Iraq will be as satisfactory as it would had we determined to demand unconditional surrender and then helped them rebuild into a peaceful prosperous nation.

The situation with the American Indians is a completely different circumstance as is the circumstance of all peoples who give over land and power to others who come in. That had little in common with winners and losers in war.

Iraq never started a war with us.

Neither did Germany.

Um, yes they did.
 
Neither did Germany.

Sure they did. After Japan declared war..Germany followed suit.


They didn't start a war with us...Japan did.


But, I see what you're saying.


Iraq attacked and occupied Kuwait.

UN Resolution 678 required Iraq to withdrawal by 15 January 1991, and authorized “all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660,” and a diplomatic formulation authorizing the use of force if Iraq failed to comply.

The second invasion of Iraq was authorized by UN Resolution 1441:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). [1]


Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687.



Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1991 invasion and occupation.



It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."



I'll see your wiki..with this wiki!

April Glaspie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One version of the transcript has Glaspie saying:

“ 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 threats 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? ”

Later the transcript has Glaspie saying: "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

Another version of the transcript (the one published in The New York Times on 23 September 1990) has Glaspie saying:

“ But 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 Klibi (Chedli Klibi, Secretary General of the Arab League) or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. ”

When these purported transcripts were made public, Glaspie was accused of having given tacit approval for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which took place on August 2, 1990. It was argued that Glaspie's statements that "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts" and that "the Kuwait issue is not associated with America" were interpreted by Saddam as giving free rein to handle his disputes with Kuwait as he saw fit. It was also argued that Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait had he been given an explicit warning that such an invasion would be met with force by the United States.[2][3] Journalist Edward Mortimer wrote in the New York Review of Books in November 1990:

“ It seems far more likely that Saddam Hussein went ahead with the invasion because he believed the US would not react with anything more than verbal condemnation. That was an inference he could well have drawn from his meeting with US Ambassador April Glaspie on July 25, and from statements by State Department officials in Washington at the same time publicly disavowing any US security commitments to Kuwait, but also from the success of both the Reagan and the Bush administrations in heading off attempts by the US Senate to impose sanctions on Iraq for previous breaches of international law. ”

In September 1990, a pair of British journalists confronted Glaspie with the transcript of her meeting with Saddam Hussein, to which she replied that "Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.".
 
They didn't start a war with us...Japan did.
Read a history book junior.

Hitler's Germany declared war on the United States and began using their submarines to torpedo our merchant ships right off the American coast line.


I understand this, but Japan started the war with the U.S.

In World War II, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on the previous day, Germany and Italy, led respectively by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, declared war on the United States, and the U.S. Congress responded in kind [on the same day]

 
Sure they did. After Japan declared war..Germany followed suit.


They didn't start a war with us...Japan did.


But, I see what you're saying.


Iraq attacked and occupied Kuwait.

UN Resolution 678 required Iraq to withdrawal by 15 January 1991, and authorized “all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660,” and a diplomatic formulation authorizing the use of force if Iraq failed to comply.The second invasion of Iraq was authorized by UN Resolution 1441:
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). [1]


Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687.



Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1991 invasion and occupation.



It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."

I'll see your wiki..with this wiki!

April Glaspie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One version of the transcript has Glaspie saying:

“ 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 threats 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? ”

Later the transcript has Glaspie saying: "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

Another version of the transcript (the one published in The New York Times on 23 September 1990) has Glaspie saying:

“ But 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 Klibi (Chedli Klibi, Secretary General of the Arab League) or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. ”

When these purported transcripts were made public, Glaspie was accused of having given tacit approval for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which took place on August 2, 1990. It was argued that Glaspie's statements that "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts" and that "the Kuwait issue is not associated with America" were interpreted by Saddam as giving free rein to handle his disputes with Kuwait as he saw fit. It was also argued that Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait had he been given an explicit warning that such an invasion would be met with force by the United States.[2][3] Journalist Edward Mortimer wrote in the New York Review of Books in November 1990:

“ It seems far more likely that Saddam Hussein went ahead with the invasion because he believed the US would not react with anything more than verbal condemnation. That was an inference he could well have drawn from his meeting with US Ambassador April Glaspie on July 25, and from statements by State Department officials in Washington at the same time publicly disavowing any US security commitments to Kuwait, but also from the success of both the Reagan and the Bush administrations in heading off attempts by the US Senate to impose sanctions on Iraq for previous breaches of international law. ”

In September 1990, a pair of British journalists confronted Glaspie with the transcript of her meeting with Saddam Hussein, to which she replied that "Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.".


Sorry, I'm missing your point.

Regardless of what Glaspie said/didn't say/was perceived as saying/interpreted as not saying...the UN authorized the Gulf War and later, declared Iraq in final breach of the Gulf War Ceasefire.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I'm missing your point.

Regardless of what Glaspie said/didn't say/was perceived as saying/interpreted as not saying...the UN authorized the Gulf War and later, declared Iraq in final breach of the Gulf War Ceasefire.

The point being that Iraq asked..and basically got..and okay to attack Kuwait from the United States. After they beat the crap out of Kuwait, the very same United States said, "Opps, my bad..time to leave."

So how the heck do you do that? Seriously? If you are the leader of a screwed up little country like Iraq..which was very much like Yugoslavia; how exactly do you pull out of a campaign you've committed so much to without looking weak to your people, which would have been a death warrant.

This was an extremely big screw up on the part of the United States..and it continues to this day.
 
Sorry, I'm missing your point.

Regardless of what Glaspie said/didn't say/was perceived as saying/interpreted as not saying...the UN authorized the Gulf War and later, declared Iraq in final breach of the Gulf War Ceasefire.

The point being that Iraq asked..and basically got..and okay to attack Kuwait from the United States. After they beat the crap out of Kuwait, the very same United States said, "Opps, my bad..time to leave."

So how the heck do you do that? Seriously? If you are the leader of a screwed up little country like Iraq..which was very much like Yugoslavia; how exactly do you pull out of a campaign you've committed so much to without looking weak to your people, which would have been a death warrant.

This was an extremely big screw up on the part of the United States..and it continues to this day.


Sorry man, I don't see "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 threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned." as a tacit approval of anything except that the U.S. was concerned about Iraq's intentions.

I don't see anything in the text you submitted where Iraq asked anything.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I'm missing your point.

Regardless of what Glaspie said/didn't say/was perceived as saying/interpreted as not saying...the UN authorized the Gulf War and later, declared Iraq in final breach of the Gulf War Ceasefire.

The point being that Iraq asked..and basically got..and okay to attack Kuwait from the United States. After they beat the crap out of Kuwait, the very same United States said, "Opps, my bad..time to leave."

So how the heck do you do that? Seriously? If you are the leader of a screwed up little country like Iraq..which was very much like Yugoslavia; how exactly do you pull out of a campaign you've committed so much to without looking weak to your people, which would have been a death warrant.

This was an extremely big screw up on the part of the United States..and it continues to this day.


Sorry man, I don't see "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 threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned." as a tacit approval of anything except that the U.S. was concerned about Iraq's intentions.

I don't see anything in the text you submitted where Iraq asked anything.

Um..

When these purported transcripts were made public, Glaspie was accused of having given tacit approval for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which took place on August 2, 1990. It was argued that Glaspie's statements that "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts" and that "the Kuwait issue is not associated with America" were interpreted by Saddam as giving free rein to handle his disputes with Kuwait as he saw fit. It was also argued that Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait had he been given an explicit warning that such an invasion would be met with force by the United States.[2][3] Journalist Edward Mortimer wrote in the New York Review of Books in November 1990:

She went on to say that she did not think Iraq would grab "all" of Kuwait. And bear in mind this happened after Iraq attacked Iran..basically at the bidding of the United States.
 
Thousands of dead American soldiers and many more severely disabled.

Tens of thousands of dead civilian Iraqis and millions more displaced and homeless.

Close to a trillion dollars of taxpayer money spent.

And we accomplished???

According to the right, maybe those WERE the accomplishments.

I don't know, I can't figure it out. Now they are a hard right wing theocracy and still some call them a democracy. Just read their Republican supported constitution. It's all right there in black and white.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The point being that Iraq asked..and basically got..and okay to attack Kuwait from the United States. After they beat the crap out of Kuwait, the very same United States said, "Opps, my bad..time to leave."

So how the heck do you do that? Seriously? If you are the leader of a screwed up little country like Iraq..which was very much like Yugoslavia; how exactly do you pull out of a campaign you've committed so much to without looking weak to your people, which would have been a death warrant.

This was an extremely big screw up on the part of the United States..and it continues to this day.


Sorry man, I don't see "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 threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned." as a tacit approval of anything except that the U.S. was concerned about Iraq's intentions.

I don't see anything in the text you submitted where Iraq asked anything.

Um..

When these purported transcripts were made public, Glaspie was accused of having given tacit approval for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which took place on August 2, 1990. It was argued that Glaspie's statements that "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts" and that "the Kuwait issue is not associated with America" were interpreted by Saddam as giving free rein to handle his disputes with Kuwait as he saw fit. It was also argued that Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait had he been given an explicit warning that such an invasion would be met with force by the United States.[2][3] Journalist Edward Mortimer wrote in the New York Review of Books in November 1990:
She went on to say that she did not think Iraq would grab "all" of Kuwait. And bear in mind this happened after Iraq attacked Iran..basically at the bidding of the United States.


If Saddam made that interpretation from that sentence, he may have been one of the biggest imbeciles in human history.

I have no opinion on conflict between you and Rdean.

Do you take that no mean I would not intervene if you attacked him?



I think this another example of the left grasping at straws, except, in this case, there isn't a straw to grasp.
 
If Saddam made that interpretation from that sentence, he may have been one of the biggest imbeciles in human history.

I have no opinion on conflict between you and Rdean.

Do you take that no mean I would not intervene if you attacked him?



I think this another example of the left grasping at straws, except, in this case, there isn't a straw to grasp.

Actually..that doesn't work.

Our history with Saddam Hussien is a long, complicated and particularly shady one. Like I've posted before, he's done things that haven't been appreciated by the United States like dealing with Russia. But on the whole..he was useful. At the behest of America, the Iranians were attacked and forced into a long brutal war with Iraq. And Hussein was not the brightest light on the tree either. But he felt that he was a combination of Stalin and Saladin..and was going to be a lion of the Arab world. Glaspie, and those handling Hussien knew about the Iraqi problem with Kuwait. Lots of debt, no way to pay it (Because of the Iraq/Iran war), lots of noise, a desire for a port city and a very agitated Iraqi population. Even Glaspie admits that she thought there would be an attack..just not so large.

Be that as it may...that's what you get when you meddle. We keep trying to get resources on the cheap..through deceptive practices and military action. Which is why we keep getting these messes.
 
If Saddam made that interpretation from that sentence, he may have been one of the biggest imbeciles in human history.

I have no opinion on conflict between you and Rdean.

Do you take that no mean I would not intervene if you attacked him?



I think this another example of the left grasping at straws, except, in this case, there isn't a straw to grasp.

Actually..that doesn't work.

Our history with Saddam Hussien is a long, complicated and particularly shady one. Like I've posted before, he's done things that haven't been appreciated by the United States like dealing with Russia. But on the whole..he was useful. At the behest of America, the Iranians were attacked and forced into a long brutal war with Iraq. And Hussein was not the brightest light on the tree either. But he felt that he was a combination of Stalin and Saladin..and was going to be a lion of the Arab world. Glaspie, and those handling Hussien knew about the Iraqi problem with Kuwait. Lots of debt, no way to pay it (Because of the Iraq/Iran war), lots of noise, a desire for a port city and a very agitated Iraqi population. Even Glaspie admits that she thought there would be an attack..just not so large.

Be that as it may...that's what you get when you meddle. We keep trying to get resources on the cheap..through deceptive practices and military action. Which is why we keep getting these messes.

Glaspie thought there would be an attack...hence the concern at the massing of troops at the border.

Again, all I see is grasping.
 
If Saddam made that interpretation from that sentence, he may have been one of the biggest imbeciles in human history.

I have no opinion on conflict between you and Rdean.

Do you take that no mean I would not intervene if you attacked him?



I think this another example of the left grasping at straws, except, in this case, there isn't a straw to grasp.

Actually..that doesn't work.

Our history with Saddam Hussien is a long, complicated and particularly shady one. Like I've posted before, he's done things that haven't been appreciated by the United States like dealing with Russia. But on the whole..he was useful. At the behest of America, the Iranians were attacked and forced into a long brutal war with Iraq. And Hussein was not the brightest light on the tree either. But he felt that he was a combination of Stalin and Saladin..and was going to be a lion of the Arab world. Glaspie, and those handling Hussien knew about the Iraqi problem with Kuwait. Lots of debt, no way to pay it (Because of the Iraq/Iran war), lots of noise, a desire for a port city and a very agitated Iraqi population. Even Glaspie admits that she thought there would be an attack..just not so large.

Be that as it may...that's what you get when you meddle. We keep trying to get resources on the cheap..through deceptive practices and military action. Which is why we keep getting these messes.

Glaspie thought there would be an attack...hence the concern at the massing of troops at the border.

Again, all I see is grasping.

Grasping? She gave him an "okay". She basically knew he was going to attack..but thought it would be a limited one.

Gosh.
 
If Saddam made that interpretation from that sentence, he may have been one of the biggest imbeciles in human history.

I have no opinion on conflict between you and Rdean.

Do you take that no mean I would not intervene if you attacked him?



I think this another example of the left grasping at straws, except, in this case, there isn't a straw to grasp.

Actually..that doesn't work.

Our history with Saddam Hussien is a long, complicated and particularly shady one. Like I've posted before, he's done things that haven't been appreciated by the United States like dealing with Russia. But on the whole..he was useful. At the behest of America, the Iranians were attacked and forced into a long brutal war with Iraq. And Hussein was not the brightest light on the tree either. But he felt that he was a combination of Stalin and Saladin..and was going to be a lion of the Arab world. Glaspie, and those handling Hussien knew about the Iraqi problem with Kuwait. Lots of debt, no way to pay it (Because of the Iraq/Iran war), lots of noise, a desire for a port city and a very agitated Iraqi population. Even Glaspie admits that she thought there would be an attack..just not so large.

Be that as it may...that's what you get when you meddle. We keep trying to get resources on the cheap..through deceptive practices and military action. Which is why we keep getting these messes.


Saddam made a choice to invade a sovereign nation unprovoked.

The U.S. did not invade Iraq unprovoked.

See my original post.
 
Iraq never started a war with us.

No, but they did start a war with an ally when they invaded Kuwait and were threatening another when they amassed forces on their border with Saudi Arabia. And they were unlawfully threatening the oil supply to much of the free world. So when Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, with blessings of all their other neighbors, AND the U.N. asked for help, most of the free nations of the world stepped in.
.

Kuwait wasn't an Ally. Saddam asked the United States prior to invading Kuwait if it was going to be a problem. The Kuwaitis also sealed their own fate by screwing around with Iraq. Iraq wanted a port city, Hussien thought he was the second coming of Saladin and they were loathe to be intimidated over debts. That, and the Iraqis thought Kuwait was really part of their country. Lo and behold the US said, okie dokie..and Saddam went alot further then the Americans thought he would. That was sort of an "unintended consequence".

Saddam at best communicated with a woman ambassador, the basis of going to war hinged on this, strawman argument at best.

No way did Saddam think Kuwait was part of Iraq, of course thats what he wanted fools to believe. Kuwait was independent long before Iraq was carved out of the former Ottoman empire.

Saddam acted as the tribes of Arabia have acted for centuries, nothing more, nothing less.
History is crystal clear on this point.
 

Forum List

Back
Top