That is a matter of perspective.

Post #69,682 by mmoffitt 12/18/02 3:21:41 PM Reply	That is a matter of perspective. And, admittedly, when it comes to Bush/Reagan/Bush II, et. al. mine may be a little jaded. However, I think there is a very strong argument that by "not giving a red light" we gave the "green light".
Post #69,701 by Brandioch 12/18/02 3:57:44 PM Reply	Ditto. We knew Iraq would attack if we didn't tell them not to. We didn't tell them not to attack. So they attacked. True, we didn't tell them to attack, they just checked with us first to see if we had any objections to them attacking. We told them we didn't and they attacked. Anything else is semantic bull shit.
Post #69,718 by bepatient 12/18/02 4:46:31 PM 12/18/02 9:48:03 PM Reply	Not even close. But your statement still applies. Nothing in the record shows anything other than a diplomat saying "we have no interest". It's obvious to everyone that is only a "codeword" for "invade".[image\|/forums/images/warning.png\|0\|This is sarcasm...] You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient Dec. 18, 2002, 05:00:01 PM EST Edited by bepatient Dec. 18, 2002, 09:48:03 PM EST Expand All History
Post #69,732 by Mike 12/18/02 5:22:23 PM Reply	I think..... ....this represents a shift from the "we suckered them into an invasion so we could kick the crap out of them" theme at the beginning of this thread. I think you can make a case that the State Department did a shit job of sending a clear unambiguous message about our position. But the contention that we gave Iraq no signals that we would respond aggressively? Sorry I think that's wrong. "The Bush administration yesterday called for a diplomatic solution to the Persian Gulf crisis, warned Iraq against "coercion and intimidation," and ordered U.S. forces in the gulf on an emergency training exercise that officials said is meant as a response to the military buildup on the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border." Patrick E. Tyler - Washington Post July 25, 1990* -Mike *You'll have to pay to view the archives. -- The truth is somewhere in between --
Post #69,740 by Simon_Jester 12/18/02 5:36:24 PM Reply	There were lots of signals.... There were lots of signals... Specifically, we didn't tell them that we would attack if he attacked Kuwait. That's because, as far as we can tell, it was our official position. (Which may or may not have been what Saddam was asking when he originally summoned Glaspie) 31 July: Kelly told Congress: "We have no defense treaty relationship with any Gulf country. That is clear. ... We have historically avoided taking a position on border disputes or on internal OPEC deliberations." Rep. Lee Hamilton asked if it would be correct to say that if Iraq "charged across the border into Kuwait" the United States did "not have a treaty commitment which would obligate us to engage U.S. forces" there. "That is correct," Kelly responded.{16} [link\|http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Iraq_KH.html\| source ] Certainly we didn't do all we could have to avoid a war. And if that was our goal - then our State department did a fine job.
Post #69,764 by Mike 12/18/02 8:02:56 PM Reply	Oh my...... Here is what was said between Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs John H. Kelly, and Representative Lee Hamilton: Hamilton: If Iraq, for example, charged across the border into Kuwait, for whatever reason, what would be our position with regard to the use of US forces? Kelly: That, Mr. Chairman, is a hypothetical or a contingency, the kind of which I can't get into. Suffice it to say we would be extremely concerned, but I cannot get into the realm of "what if" answers. THEN..... Hamilton: In that circumstance, it is correct to say, however, that we do not have a treaty commitment which would obligate us to engage US forces? Kelly: That is correct. And this, THIS.....counts for "evidence" of our official position? -- The truth is somewhere in between --
Post #69,835 by Simon_Jester 12/19/02 7:58:03 AM Reply	I did state - as far as we can tell.... because that's what we were telling our own Congressmen and we've never admitted to having an official agreement with Kuwait that stated that we would assist them if Iraq invaded. However, Kuwait seemed to think so, as one of their leaders bragged that if Iraq came after them they'd send in the Americans. Also, Iraq produced after the invasion a document from the CIA that stated (to the effect) that we would offer Kuwait protection from Iraq. (The CIA denies that this is an official document and that no agreement existed - but then again, we run back into the problems with Iraq creating a forgery, if it wanted to create a forgery, wouldn't it have said something far worse?) And - Bush's final communication to Iraq prior to the invasion did state that the US was concerned - but did not mention Kuwait and did not mention that America would attack.
Post #69,858 by Mike 12/19/02 9:08:29 AM Reply	Yes >>However, Kuwait seemed to think so, as one of their leaders bragged that if >>Iraq came after them they'd send in the Americans. .....yes! And this much is also acknowledged by Tariq Aziz in his frontline interview. He even goes further.....he says Iraq were convinced that the U.S.A were actually supporting Kuwait in their economic warfare. -- The truth is somewhere in between --
Post #69,870 by Simon_Jester 12/19/02 9:51:38 AM Reply	Which goes back to my original question.... What were you saying about it being wrong to ransack your neighbors house?
Post #69,943 by Mike 12/19/02 1:22:33 PM Reply	I gerfot...... ...remind me? -- The truth is somewhere in between --
Post #70,194 by dmarker 12/20/02 9:03:46 PM Reply	Re: Debating Trees when discussion is about forests ... I find that Mike argues deeply at the detail level whilst ignoring the macro or high level. My this I mean he is quite good at talking about trees but too often the others in the debate are discussing forests. If you push him at the macro level, and that involes challenging US policy and behind the scenes US manipulation, he accuses you of being a conspiracy theorist, ie if the topic isn't documented somewhere in detail (barring heated debates about the meaning of words) then you are a conspiratist - doesn't seem able or willing to debate actions and there consequences as evidence of intention & deed. e.g. If we argue that Bush Snr & his admin blatantly manipulated the situation in Iraq/Iran/Kuwait particularly from 1980 to 1991 1) 1st to contain Iran - achieved by covertly supplying war materials & loans to Iraq 2) to then contain Iraq - by helping Iran, by encouraging Kuwait & Saudi to demand repayment for war loans at a time when Iraq's oil infrastructure was wreaked 3) by then encouraging Hussien to invake Kuwait so he could be isoltaed & villanized in the Arab world Why do all these things. One has to do a little bit of deduction & reading ... (Per FORBES magazine August 2002 page 23) Iraq is believed to have even greater reserves of oil than Saudi Arabia (but after what US did by manipulating Iraq over the Iran war, Iraq had no desire to deal with US companies - DSM). So Russia's Lukoil consortium had signed a deal with Iraq to develop the massive West Quarna field (est 8 billion barrels) & China's China National Petroleum had signed with Iraq to develop a smaller field. No western (US) based companies were making any progress in negotiating further exploration & development with Iraq (for plainly obvious reasons) - Last week (under war threat from US) Iraq cancelled the Russian deal. To avoid another potentially ugly & sematic war with Mike over the above - I will let the reader draw their own conclusions as to why US is really threatening Iraq and demonizing Saddam. But come back to the original point about describing the trees when often the discussion is about forests. Doug Marker
Post #69,786 by Brandioch 12/18/02 10:11:41 PM Reply	How many incidents are needed? There's Saddam talking to April. There's Kelly addressing Congress. Now, take just those two incidents and compare them with Bush's speeches after the invasion. Prior to the invasion, we're talking about not getting involved in border disputes and so forth. After the invasion, Bush was very clear about how he felt about it. Where was the very clearly stated position PRIOR to the invasion? Why were we only able to articulate it AFTER the invasion? Our own people were asking what our position was prior to the invasion and the administration wouldn't give a clear answer. Does anyone have any doubt that the current Bush would have trouble articulating our reaction to a "what if Iraq invaded country X" scenario? But his daddy couldn't do that?
Post #70,074 by Ashton 12/20/02 1:05:09 AM Reply	An angle on the times: HBO "Live from Baghdad" re the events just before and during the bombing. This from perspectiveof the folks that showed the real-time events, from CNN. Can't ever be sure that the conversations depict events unslanted natch, but the dialogue is articulate enough - and Saddam's warts and.. viewpoint are given ~ 'equal time'. Friend had a tape of this. It doesn't pursue the angle of 'false diplomatic stage-setting', but the man playing a high Iraqi official (and today is even Higher) is acted by David Suchet, perhaps the best Poirot of all time. His performance alone, makes this a Must See IMhO. Decidedly better quality a presentation than typ Hollywood dreck. Ashton When the rich assemble to concern themselves with the business of the poor, it is called Charity. When the poor assemble to concern themselves with the business of the rich, it is called Anarchy. -Paul Richards

Welcome to IWETHEY!