Post #45,699
7/15/02 6:41:29 PM
|
Other reasons for war
One other reason for Iraq's invasion of Kuwait that I have heard from more then one source was that Iraq was angry that Kuwait was depressing the price for oil at just the time that Iraq needed to get huge amounts of money to pay of it's war debt.
Kuwait was intentionally depressing the price of oil at the time as part of it's deal with the US for protection during the Iraq/Iran war. From what I have read this makes sense, and explains why Saddam's negotiations with Kuwait where not so much about them stopping but them paying him for his loses. Simply put, he wanted a bribe to cover his loses for their actions.
What I do find hard to believe is that the US intentionally set Saddam up during the invasion of Kuwait. I find the idea that they just bungled the situation far easier to believe. The US intelligence and diplomatic agencies simply didn't realize the lengths that Saddam was willing to go.
Jay
|
Post #45,707
7/15/02 7:20:01 PM
|
I have this *exact* answer for you, from an Expert:
The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves that make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them that we are missing.
--Gamel Abdel Nasser (via Ric Locke) {sigh} Is this *really* much of an exaggeration ???
|
Post #45,722
7/15/02 10:36:53 PM
7/15/02 10:40:30 PM
|
Re: Other reasons for war
Some fundamental questions - easy to answer - no tricks in them
Do you believe that US UK & Germany were covertly supplying Iraq to fight Iran ?
Do you believe that US Govt had a covert operation to counter supply Iran against Iraq ? (perhaps led by a Marine named Col North)
Do you believe that Kuwait was ever part of Iraq ?
Do you believe the Kuwaitis would ever stoop to slant drilling into Iraq oil ?
Do you believe that west wanted to take away the very weapons they helped Saddam build, once the war had ended ?
Do you believe that the published letter from April Galaspie to the Iraqi Govt was forged, (the one she publicly admitted to writing) ?
If you were Hussien and had recieved that letter after asking US for its position on Iraq using military means to resolve the dispute, what might you conclude ?
No real need to answer them, just worth thinking about.
Cheers
Doug
Edited by dmarker2
July 15, 2002, 10:40:30 PM EDT
|
Post #45,731
7/16/02 1:02:51 AM
|
Re: Other reasons for war
Do you believe that US UK & Germany were covertly supplying Iraq to fight Iran ?
Yep, and there wasn't much covert about it. At the time Saddam was seen as a useful foil to Iran, which was making a lot of noise about exporting the revolution.
Do you believe that US Govt had a covert operation to counter supply Iran against Iraq ? (perhaps led by a Marine named Col North)
Not really. Iran-Contra was a specific deal, trading arms for hostages. But it doesn't appear to have been part of a wide spread policy. Most of the weapons bought as part of Iran-Contra where funneled back in Nicaragua, not sent to Iran.
Iran at the time was desperate for supplies and willing to deal with anybody because black market supplies where the only ones available. Iran actually bought supplies from Isreal during the war.
Do you believe that Kuwait was ever part of Iraq ?
Sure. And I fully agree that the methods used to seperate Kuwait from Iran where both dirty and purely political. But I also think they had been seperate for too long for them to be easily rejoined, even if both countries wanted to.
Do you believe the Kuwaitis would ever stoop to slant drilling into Iraq oil ?
Would? Yes. Did? Harder to say. Kuwait has little reason to do so after all. It's not like they have a shortage of oil. And note that in the transcript below, Saddam doesn't actually complain about slant drilling but does complain about the price of oil.
Do you believe that west wanted to take away the very weapons they helped Saddam build, once the war had ended ?
Probably, it would have been the wise course of action considering that he had one of the largest armies in the world and had proved willing to use it.
Do you believe that the published letter from April Galaspie to the Iraqi Govt was forged, (the one she publicly admitted to writing) ?
I'm not sure what you are talking about here. But if you are talking about this [link|http://www.psych.upenn.edu/~fjgil/transcript.html|Transcript of meeting] then no I don't think it's forged. It reads rather like a poor attempt to judge Saddam's intentions then an attempt to send him a message.
If you were Hussien and had recieved that letter after asking US for its position on Iraq using military means to resolve the dispute, what might you conclude ?
If the message is the one I think it is, then I think Saddam would have taken it correctly. That the US would take no side in the border dispute but was concerned with Iraq's military movements.
I think the State Department sorely misjudged Saddam here, thinking he wouldn't start a new war so soon after the last one had ground into a statemate. Remember that the Iran/Iraq war didn't really end, negotiations over that where still going at the time.
For his part, I think Saddam got exactly the response he wanted. I think Saddam had already decided to go to war, and only the most dire of threats from the US envoy had a chance of stopping it. Instead he got a response that said the US considered his talk of retaking Kuwait was posturing and that the US expected him to continue negotiations through Egypt or some other middle eastern power.
Jay
|
Post #45,742
7/16/02 7:33:12 AM
|
Re: Nice response - well researched
"Do you believe that US Govt had a covert operation to counter supply Iran against Iraq ? (perhaps led by a Marine named Col North)"
>>Not really. Iran-Contra was a specific deal, trading arms for hostages. But it doesn't appear to have been part of a wide spread policy. Most of the weapons bought as part of Iran-Contra where funneled back in Nicaragua, not sent to Iran. Iran at the time was desperate for supplies and willing to deal with anybody because black market supplies where the only ones available. Iran actually bought supplies from Isreal during the war.
Yup I too understood that Ollie North was doing a secret hostages for weapons deal. I also believe Ollie was managing the financing & arming of the contras in Nicaragua at about the same time - a fact the Reagan later denied he knew about (that was when Reagan began to be known as the teflon president). Your points are good.
***************
Do you believe the Kuwaitis would ever stoop to slant drilling into Iraq oil ?
>>Would? Yes. Did? Harder to say. Kuwait has little reason to do so after all. It's not like they have a shortage of oil. And note that in the transcript below, Saddam doesn't actually complain about slant drilling but does complain about the price of oil.
On balance, I believe they did do so but it is now a moot point.
***************
RE your link to the Hussien Glaspie meeting - that was a very good read. I have never read the full transcript before. I had thought it was a letter from Glaspie to Hussien. I saw photocopies but I now think they were of a transcript of Glaspie's replies.
Thanks for adding to my knowledge of the events - I really found that transcript interesting
Cheers
Doug
|
Post #45,762
7/16/02 10:14:25 AM
|
Yet another reason...
although it's not been widely discussed, was that Iraq was developing a space program.
An expert in ballistics had proposed to the US the development of a super-artillery - one that could fire small (20lb approx) projectiles into space. The project was eventually shutdown (HARM?) and he went to where his services were needed.
The place - Iraq. Where he was developing same said super-artillery for Saddam Hussein. (In addition, he was help SH tie together SCUD missile to get longer ranges out of them.)
He was in Britain when Israel Intelligence meet with him. Hours later, he was shot and killed by unknown assailents. No one saw a thing, no one heard a thing.
Also - British force intercepted a shipment of parts for the super-artillery. (Unknown who tipped them.)
During Desert Storm, the UN forces did seize the super-artillery and blew it up.
My opinion --
Saddam Hussein probably never cared much for the super-artillery - he seemed more interested in the SCUDs. However the super-artillery was the life-long dream of the expert.
However, a gun that can fire a projectile into space can also fire a projectile into Israel...or even the US. The US (and others) could not allow that to happen.
Could we allow Kuwait to be attacked merely to get an excuse to go into Iraq and destroy a potential weapon against the US?
|
Post #45,815
7/16/02 6:28:42 PM
|
Canadian astrophysicist Gerald Bull
In this [link|http://www.rense.com/general18/dep.htm|Blast] from the past, which indicates some other factors in all those machinations, spin and Flag-waving.
Ashton
|
Post #45,838
7/16/02 10:29:15 PM
7/17/02 10:16:16 AM
|
Re: Gerald Bull - theories on who shot him
The best one I heard was that he had fallen out with Iraqi leaders & because he knew so much they decided to bump him off. IIRC it happened in Belgium (not Paris).
Bull was said to be a not nice type - a whore who would sell his organ (brain) to the highest bidder just as long as he he 'get it off' on his dreams.
He was also involved with super guns in Sth Africa.
What he was believed to have designed was a massive cannon that could put a sattelite into low orbit but it could also put a nuke in the same place. There were theories that the 1st firing would be a nuke into Israel.
The cannon was supposedly very long.
The segments for it were being built in UK etc: as agricultural piping.
UK intercepted some of them & this I think ended the plan.
Cheers
Doug
Edited by dmarker2
July 17, 2002, 10:16:16 AM EDT
|
Post #45,848
7/16/02 11:39:11 PM
|
I prefer this link myself...
Oddly enough, Bull himself was not particularly militarist. He never saw military service or even owned a handgun. He was said to be generous and thoughtful. He just found something that he really loved doing.
He consulted for everyone, but ran into trouble when he worked for the South Africans. The South Africans were having trouble in Angola at the time (the mid-Seventies). The communist government, aided by Cuban troops and Soviet artillery, was pounding their proxy soldiers to bits. Bull, with the implicit encouragment of the CIA, helped them design a new 155-mm howitzer with 50% more range than anything else at the time. He sold them gun barrels for it and thousands of shells. With the new guns, the South Africans were able to stop the Angolans cold.
Then Carter was elected, and South Africa was no longer in favor. Bull was brought up on charges of illegal arms dealing. On the advice of his lawyer, he pleaded guilty and served six months in prison in 1980.
[link|http://world.std.com/~jlr/doom/bull.htm| Source ]
|
Post #45,857
7/17/02 2:46:29 AM
|
Then how about this - with a neat M$ jibe too:
The Real pioneer of (critical pieces of) [link|http://world.std.com/~jlr/doom/armstrng.htm|Radio]
This web host is an ordinary (?) non-IT engineer but he groks to fullness the essence of Corporate mindset and of Andy's epitaph..
Microsoft is a true reflection of Bill Gates' personality - the sleaziest, most unethical, ugliest little rat's ass the world has seen unto this time. -- Andrew Grygus
(When you've achieved infamy early - your epitaph gets written early too)
|
Post #45,944
7/17/02 10:29:05 PM
|
Re: Thanks Ashton. I remember reading...
some of this story many years ago in an IEEE periodical and hadn't thought of it since.
Alex
"Television: chewing gum for the eyes." -- Frank Lloyd Wright
|
Post #45,954
7/18/02 5:15:23 AM
|
PBS did a piece on Armstrong
a few years back. Maybe American Masters ? That photo with the first "portable" superhet beach radio was in it. May be available at the PBS video outlet; it was a nicely done bio of an irascible but honest prodigy. I think this article captures the sense of Armstrong's actually grokking FM, where the equations led to no sense of how you could Do that, practically.
No question what kind of bastard he was dealing with in 'General' David Sarnoff - perhaps the epitome of vanity and a prequel to The Billy. Ditto Lee de Forest: the vanity without the talent to even understand how his 'audion' worked, nor the guts to thank Armstrong for explaining it! Creep.
I recall seeing a film of a This Is Your Life smarmy tribute to de Forest... prolly in the '50s from appearances of the players. It was exactly like a M/Sloth "innovation" press conference; almost nothing said about deF was accurate.. but he ate it all up.
My intro to big science electronics was via my boss and I (on a weekend) assembling a super-regen FM receiver with a simple slope-detector ... out of junk lab parts (and a box of Really old resistors from his junk box!).
Bloody thing worked.. just like A. said it should. Amazing (to me then) to take circuits right out of textbooks and see them work! Getting local KPFA after switching it on - goosebumps. I began to think there might be something long-term to this 'lectronics stuff (but I was wrong again).
Seems to have been lots of techno-rotters.. you can drive by the site of the first actual Tee Vee - Philo Farnsworth's lab in SF (ironically now housing a TV ads production company!) He too was screwed out of his clearly 'prior art' - by those famous 'Market Forces' which measure our hallowed succession of truly nasty bastards in expensive suits.
Cheers,
Ashton Helmholtz Tesla
(with either a slope- or ratio detector: I detect little that is honest in most any Captain of Industry.. it's the Opposite of science or even 'science' -- success IS only about lying with a certain consistency.)
|
