How do you do that?

Post #80,189 by mmoffitt 2/7/03 3:51:28 PM Reply	How do you do that? Tell when an Iraqi diplomat is telling the truth and when he is lying? Oh, nevermind, I know, it depends on whether truth-telling or lying supports your position. Me, I just read the facts and it's clear to me (as it is to open-minded person).
Post #80,206 by bepatient 2/7/03 4:34:16 PM Reply	Occam If the person who says it, the person who hears it, the people they got instruction from and later consulted with all agree that it was NOT what you claim it to be...tis simpler to believe them than to believe an armchair quarterback with no experience in diplomacy. Good nuff? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,394 by mmoffitt 2/9/03 11:22:01 AM Reply	I chose to believe no one. I read a transcript of the meeting and made my own conclusion. (I can re-dig up the link if you've decided to make up your own mind. But I doubt that'll be necessary as you have Ultimate Faith(tm) in US Government (and particularly the current crop's) integrity).
Post #80,396 by bepatient 2/9/03 12:18:48 PM Reply	No I don't. But I don't read it the way you did. I read it the way it was stated. And those involved, when they spoke it, agree with >my< assessment of what was stated...not yours. Its that simple. I dont have to "believe" anyone. I also don't have to spend time "inventing" all of the conspiricy theories that eventually place all of the blame on the US for all the world's problems. That is strictly your MO. "What did you expect him to do...>we< told him to invade" Bullshit is what that is. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,440 by mmoffitt 2/9/03 3:53:41 PM Reply	Do you mangle everyone's statements, or just mine? You imply you're quoting me as follows: "What did you expect him to do...>we< told him to invade" I have never held that we gave him an "order to invade". I simply stated the fact that when he brought it up, we said it was "none of our concern". That is clearly a "green light" in diplospeak no matter how much you insist that it isn't. Why we wouldn't admit this officially is obvious. It's almost equally obvious that no Iraqi official wants to admit that they sought permission from the US for anything - Jesus, in Iraq they still celebrate their victory in Desert Storm. And these guys have credibility with you? It is to laugh, or cry, I'm not sure which. Because you are, as you say, in the majority. Much as flat-earthers were the majority once upon a time.
Post #80,444 by bepatient 2/9/03 4:54:21 PM Reply	Mangle?? Considering what followed...I'd say my summation was pretty damned accurate. We "green lighted" the invasion in "diplospeak"...certainly sounds like your tranlation was that we told them it was ok to invade...which is pretty much what I said you said, isn't it. You can try and weasel out any way you like..doesn't change what you're saying. Plus..you keep insisting that its only the Iraqi officials that I am listening to. Sorry to burst your bubble...but NOONE involved translates any of the events as you have...US or Iraqi. You..who were not there..read a transcript and invented a conspiricy theory that is invalid...yet you stick to it...I guess marks are due for tenacity...but your accuracy score is really really low. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,569 by mmoffitt 2/10/03 10:14:33 AM Reply	"Reading for Comprehension" != "Conspiracy Theory" Okay, what does this mean to you? A direct quote from April Glaspie's meeting with Saddam before Iraq invaded Kuwait: But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. If not a "green light", what exactly is the implication?
Post #80,593 by bepatient 2/10/03 11:38:25 AM Reply	Read the words. We have no opinion. Noone involved was naive enough to expect that position to remain in the event of an invasion. Only you. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,597 by mmoffitt 2/10/03 11:42:09 AM Reply	We have no opinion on your dispute. Sounds a hell of a lot like "I ain't got a dog in this fight" to everyone, but you. BTW, since Iraqi and US Government officials are "to be believed" you might want to check out my other posts. Seems even our own Intelligence Centers AND Britain's Intelligence Centers are taking Blair and Dubya to task for lying.
Post #80,628 by bepatient 2/10/03 1:54:31 PM Reply	Because... ...there was NO MILITARY INVOLVEMENT in that "dispute" at the time that statement was made. In other words..."your case with Kuwait may or may not have merit, the government of my country will not be taking an official position". Not one person in any diplomatic position would expect that a full invasion of a sovereign neighbor state would result in the US, indeed the world, "having no opinion" So...you are reading too far into that one statement...and inventing a conspiricy in which we essentially told Iraq to invade so we could then build an international coalition and mass a half million troops to drive them back. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,647 by mmoffitt 2/10/03 2:42:17 PM Reply	So, we're naive in addition to everything else. Military action could not have been predicted? Even following a "we ain't got a dog in this fight" statement from us? And, to be fair, you have to put that remark in the context of the entire meeting. You'd have to be a dolt not to understand what Saddam was getting at.
Post #80,649 by boxley 2/10/03 2:46:13 PM Reply	Ambassadors are party contributors (you said Dolt) will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #80,654 by mmoffitt 2/10/03 3:08:23 PM Reply	Ah, but she was quoting "James Baker" then SoS.
Post #80,658 by bepatient 2/10/03 3:15:13 PM Reply	Who is "we" You are the one inventing naivite. "We have no opinion" is NOT "You can resolve this in any fashion you see fit" Military force is NOT an assumed option to settle these disputes for any nation that is a member of the UN. [link\|http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/\|http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/] So, put simply, "We have no opinion" means >EXACTLY< what it states. It is NOT a "green light" for invasion...because invasion violates all the established protocols. In other words...we did NOT "green light" a war and it should be >expected< by any nation that military force is NOT an established option that can be used without repercussion. The only person I see failing to understand this is you...for whatever reason...who somehow feel compelled to blame the US for..well..seemingly everything...but in this particular case...for the invasion of Kuwait. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,660 by mmoffitt 2/10/03 3:20:05 PM Reply	"any suitable methods" YAN Quote from Gillespie (same meeting): I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. 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...All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. Now, who is it that's being naive?
Post #80,664 by bepatient 2/10/03 3:30:55 PM Reply	You can't read, can you. "any suitable method"...whoopie...big deal...MILTARY is off of the table for UN members...or didn't you actually read what all members agree to when they sign up. Introduce tanks into diplomatic negotiations...be advised that stated opinions >will< change. That is a guarantee. Iraq KNEW this. All the diplomats knew this. You are the only one that seems to not understand this. And its obvious that you will believe what you want...even though everyone personally involved has stated differently...even though your interpretation flys in the face of established diplomatic protocol..etc. So I see no real point in continuing this. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,716 by boxley 2/10/03 5:55:51 PM Reply	James Baker issued instructions in the late 60's and in 1991 nobody bother to check to see if they had changed? thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #80,758 by mmoffitt 2/10/03 7:52:14 PM Reply	Glaspie checked w/Baker before the meeting-thanks.
Post #80,661 by mmoffitt 2/10/03 3:24:07 PM Reply	Addendum. I do not blame the US for the invasion of Kuwait. I am, however, capable of understanding the 180 done so fast by the US that it could have broken her neck. During the 80's, our government was claiming that Saddam was "the leading force for democracy" in the region. We sold him biological weapons to use on the Kurds and Iranians and didn't complain about it - not even when Rumsfeld met Saddam to shake his hand. We're hypocrites. And if you can't see that, you really are off in la-la land.
Post #80,666 by bepatient 2/10/03 3:42:48 PM Reply	Wow... talk about completely unrelated points. In the mid-eighties the Hussein government was considered moderate. Compared to its neighbors it certainly was moderate. Aside from the turf war with Iran there didn't seem to be any reason to think otherwise. Hindsight is 20/20. And given what we know now...its pretty certain that we wouldn't have given lab samples of this crap to the University. (or are you claiming something else?..if so..please substantiate) The only way to guarantee that this doesn't happen anywhere in the future is to completely close our borders to every country. After all...who knows what they will be like 10/20/30 years from now...and that harmless fertilizer plant we helped them build to feed their people...modified to build explosives...we should have known...we should always know...we should be clairvoyant...it would make things SO much easier. Acceptable trade? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,697 by Ashton 2/10/03 5:19:43 PM Reply	Ah.. the Pontius Pilate lateral arabesque - "I wash my hands". Because NoOne Can foresee all possible future scenarios, we may close eyes to all aspects of a "helpful agreement with a local tool for our purposes". Yes, this would excuse Cuba (a revolution required to oust US gangsters), Chile (we think this guy might be a Commie), Nicaragua, [other local 'neighbours' we have 'helped' to a new US-friendly dictatorship]. It would also excuse our utter indifference to Rwanda, East Timor yada yada. Yup you're Right, Beep: the safest course for the world would be to put up that fence around US - for our safety and convenience. And theirs. With friends like us... Nobody's life liberty and wallet is safe while the ~~legislature is in session~~ US is playing World Cop, recognizes no world legal authority but its own and decides when it wants to invade to "improve things for The Peepul There" (Except Rwanda, E. Timor, various African Idi-Amin clones et al.) OK - time for The Fence Party to coagulate around your brilliant suggestion. It's Just the Right- Thing To Do\ufffd, while waiting for The Rapture.. We already gots The Tribulations and the Speaking in Tongue-lashings. Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction. -- Albert Einstein
Post #80,699 by bepatient 2/10/03 5:27:39 PM Reply	Ah...so you thought that.. ...a suggestion or a specific course of action? Bzzzt...wrong. You see...we venture forth, offer assistance, establish allies...and then every once in a while we may find ourselves surprised...some of our aid will be used against us...this is the price for NOT closing the borders and washing our hands of it. I'm perfectly willing to accept that as a risk. It does, however, lead to having armchair quarterbacking going on 15 years after the fact...when its very simple to realize...after your men were killed with your own weapons...that maybe selling them wasn't such a great idea. (and the only way to prevent it is to NOT do it...something you obviously see as distasteful) But your invented persona of me would never have such a realistic view of the world...so how could I assume you would understand such a basic point. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,713 by Ashton 2/10/03 5:52:43 PM Reply	Funny thing about our 'foresight'. Never mind '15 years' No 20/20 needed: it's NOW. Our Leader has stated overtly, and on many occasions confirmed with slightly altered phraseology: The US does not care what Anyone else in the world thinks, including the UN - and clearly including the demographic 'opinions' within even the few supposed remaining 'ally-Governments', re our now inexorable first-strike. Many, many have failed to see the urgency of this action, on through today's date - per se and comparative to other world problem situations also developing. I call this a pattern of Imperialistic behaviour and of disdain for the opinions of (billions?) - including US citizens, as regards our own new problems of Constitutional erosion. This ain't about foresight - it is about present-sight. WTF - this is all moot. We can all watch the phenomenon unfold. (Best get your overseas flying in reel soon, y'know?) Any bets on the shape of the web in 6 mos? in one year? as received in the US. Ashton PS - invented persona? Hah: you will advocate status quo on every issue, predictably. Of course you are merely playing Devil's advocate. Sure, that's it. Hmmmm whatever happened to that female officer-pilot who wouldn't wear a sack? It seems that more than just us loonies noticed that which you deemed silly at the time. Persona ?
Post #80,717 by bepatient 2/10/03 5:57:02 PM Reply	Whatever you say. Because precious little of it has to do with the above thread. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,722 by boxley 2/10/03 6:04:20 PM Reply	Then why are we not invading Syria as well? e are still using the same old, we will ignore your despostism because it suits our short term needs. As far as the pro Israel position, Israel would be better served by invading Syria than Iraq thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #80,807 by Silverlock 2/10/03 10:52:20 PM Reply	Ask Bush^H^H^H^H Rumsfeld. How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #80,724 by Ashton 2/10/03 6:05:29 PM Reply	Obtuse still? Pattern of behaviour is the constant.
Post #80,726 by bepatient 2/10/03 6:08:48 PM Reply	Yes you are still obtuse. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,738 by Ashton 2/10/03 6:30:07 PM Reply	Missed again: I'm scalene, as anyone on the Trilateral Commission would know. (Of course, you do live in New Jersey..) Gotta go - organize The Fence Party.
Post #80,745 by bepatient 2/10/03 6:48:12 PM Reply	No apparent need to do anything but repeat my previous post. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,792 by Silverlock 2/10/03 9:51:51 PM Reply	I can't think of an exclamatory strong enough You see...we venture forth, offer assistance, establish allies...and then every once in a while we may find ourselves surprised...some of our aid will be used against us (emphasis added) This is irony, right? How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #80,809 by bepatient 2/10/03 10:57:44 PM Reply	It is borne out in history... ...that in many cases our assistance has been used against us later. Japan is another example. Point being...do we stop offering aid and support...or do we continue offering aid and support...knowing that every once in a while its gonna jump up and bite us in the ass. Close the borders or continue to be an interested, active world citizen? There really isn't a whole lot of middle ground in this choice. Oh sure...we all have our "causes"...and we can't be all things to everyone..which means some peoples "causes" are left wanting...but we as a country are either out there..or we're not. If you go hunting for "irony"...you will find it often. This is not a blanket absolution for some of the stupid shit that we've done...just the either/or that is presented...we do or we don't. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,999 by mmoffitt 2/11/03 7:31:47 PM Reply	Boy, there's a euphemism for you. continue to be an interested, active world citizen? Don't think I've ever heard "imperialist" described so loftily.
Post #80,689 by Ashton 2/10/03 4:57:28 PM Reply	Oh, I see: the Market Will Correct. Right?
Post #80,695 by bepatient 2/10/03 5:10:47 PM Reply	What the???? possibly babble Maybe Peter should come back and start following you around. That was certainly a pointless shot...I guess you have to guarantee yourself the number one spot...and title only, nonsenical crap like that is one way to do it. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,701 by Ashton 2/10/03 5:32:05 PM Reply	It's the laissez-faire slogan, no? And yours is most often an apologia for any status which is quo. You appear to call that 'conservative'. I call that - ostrich position. As to the above thread re the meaning of "no opinion". I'll give you the point that a next military action would change the scale of the internecine fight.. but only barely. We deliberately stonewalled by obfuscation of what we really meant. This was baldfaced dissembling-by-omission at a critical juncture. No 20/20 hindsight needed. Of all the phraseology possible, there was not an iota of indication to Saddam, of what we could be cpable of, next -- and it was clear what his intentions were. Velvet trap. Yours is as simplistic a dismissal as you accuse Mike of. Laissez-faire.. yup, except - when United Fruit du jour needs our humanitarian intervention and an Allende assassinated. I think we are massive hypocrites; you appear to deem us Good Biznessmen. Both may be correct.
Post #80,715 by bepatient 2/10/03 5:55:03 PM Reply	As was thought... ...the figment of Ashton's imagination that is bepatient should understand only bizness...and should be completely unaware of the apparent hypocrisy because we are not fully involved in every crisis du jour around the globe. As a suggestion...follow the links provided by another to read more of the conversation...where the discussions were all about peaceful resolution to the dispute...and indeed hope that in a meeting to occur only days later would be where such peaceful resolution would occur. And do we, the US, have to explain in every simple diplomatic meeting what our military is capable of should we become "displeased"...I would venture a guess that such tactics would be 1)frowned upon in diplomatic circles and 2) entirely unecessary..as everyone already knows what we can do when motivated. By all means...continue now with your invention of all positions you will later attribute to me...program already in progress. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,797 by Silverlock 2/10/03 10:08:30 PM Reply	Do you even wonder why? And do we, the US, have to explain in every simple diplomatic meeting what our military is capable of should we become "displeased" If I read this statement correctly, it says, "don't do anything to displease the US. Even if the US doesn't know what is displeasing. Yet. How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #80,805 by bepatient 2/10/03 10:43:22 PM Reply	Wrong... simple statement that means...it is completely unecessary for us to tell any country that we could kick their ass in a fight. They already know this. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,808 by Silverlock 2/10/03 10:54:28 PM Reply	Well that explains it except for the "displeased" part. How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #81,000 by mmoffitt 2/11/03 7:33:28 PM Reply	"Displeased" is amorphus.
Post #80,670 by Another Scott 2/10/03 3:56:30 PM Reply	A different take on AG's conversation with Saddam. [link\|http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch36.htm\|Here]. The goal of the Bush administration remained normal relations and expanded trade with Iraq. On July 25, 1990, an American diplomat, April Glaspie, met with Saddam Hussein. She spoke of U.S. disapproval of settlement of disputes "by any but peaceful means," which to Saddam Hussein might have sounded like pacifist nonsense and hypocrisy. Then she told Saddam that "we have no opinion of the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." Since, AFAIK, the purported transcripts out there on the web often don't mention the "peaceful means" stuff, and AFAIK, the US State Department and AG haven't said those transcripts are genuine, I think we have to take these statements with a grain of salt. That includes [link\|http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html\|this] link Mike posted in December. And a lot of this stuff was already covered [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=69119\|here] in December. You guys might save some time by just reposting some of those links. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #80,448 by Brandioch 2/9/03 5:22:01 PM Reply	Ah, I see you've met "The Strawman".
Post #80,455 by orion 2/9/03 6:01:18 PM Reply	"The Strawman" Yes I met "The Strawman" once long ago, he seems to catch fire easily and is looking for a brain. But most people use him as an example in their arguments, but "The Strawman" continues to live on despite the number of time he has been used and set on fire. Most people just use the fire to blow more smoke, and get attention for themselves. But once the Fire Fighters put out the fire, things go back to normal. [link\|http://pub75.ezboard.com/bantiiwethey\| New and improved, Chicken Delvits!]
Post #80,458 by bepatient 2/9/03 6:19:07 PM Reply	From you? Thats funny. Too chicken to respond to the various places where your "logic" doesn't mesh from discussion to discussion...yet you feel inclined to spout off here. Why am I not surprised. And I know you know the definition..care to point out where it applies here? Thought so... TALWOASP You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,212 by Brandioch 2/7/03 4:57:44 PM Reply	Exactly. Tell when an Iraqi diplomat is telling the truth and when he is lying? Oh, nevermind, I know, it depends on whether truth-telling or lying supports your position. Bingo
Post #80,310 by bepatient 2/8/03 10:03:39 AM Reply	So now >you< believe this bunk? Its not just the Iraqi dimplomat...its ours...and their hiearchy. But, of course, you dictate truth or lies to support your position as well... SO I wouldn't get too smug about it here. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!