Post #9,057
9/14/01 7:13:26 AM
|
Re: Excuse me...but...
> And in NO TIME have I said that the terrorists' action was JUSTIFIABLE. Just that it was something that US and its policies has been "begging for". > > So you indeed believe that our actions in Yugoslavia and Iraq somehow rationalize an attack that was attempting to kill nearly 60,000 CIVILIANS? Rationalize? If I can rationalize it THAT way, I would be one of those terrorists, won't I? Have you CONSIDER the viewpoint of those in the countries that got carpet bombed? Even if it was indeed ONLY MILITARY facilities that got the brunt? You just need to look around at SOME of your fellow Americans who are calling for the eradication of an entire country for harbouring terrorists to see what kind of RATIONALIZATION you can expect similar "loonies" in the "victim" countries. > Your own country is only as successful as it is because of the volume of business it does with us. You are communicating in this forum largely because of this success. > > Is this arrogance? No. It is simply the truth. Never doubted that. And it's indeed the truth. And believe me, it's greatly appreciated. But not when you try to dictate how the country should be run. No thank you.
|
Post #9,058
9/14/01 8:01:39 AM
|
Considered?
Iraq was carpet bombed. And they had MONTHS to avoid it. And that bombing was conducted over open desert containing military installations that housed an elite armed force.
Iraq started a war against a sovereign state. That state asked us for assistance...indeed they asked the world for assistance. Did Saddam actually believe that noone would come to the aid of Kuwait?
I understand that they hate us. And the sentiment you here in the US is that WE would like to retaliate in kind...instead of in kindness. What that means...we will find those responsible..and we will strike them...and those that we can identify that assisted them...but we will NOT...nor have we ever, targeted large civilian gatherings.
There are some people in this country that would like to see that change...and I cannot say that I blame them for feeling that way.
But we won't change that. And the Afghan people and Iraqi people should thank Allah for that.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #9,061
9/14/01 9:09:37 AM
|
Unbelievable but true.
"Did Saddam actually believe that noone would come to the aid of Kuwait?"
In a word, yes. He did believe that, or at least that the US didn't have a problem with him invading Kuwait. Why did he believe this? Because he essentially asked permission first and got a green light from our embassy in Iraq. I remember several different news stories where this came out after the fact. I'll see if I can find any links and post them in a follow-up.
"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Post #9,065
9/14/01 10:03:24 AM
|
Well,
Because he essentially asked permission first and got a green light from our embassy in Iraq.
I don't think it was that clear cut.
Apparently, there was 'something lost in translation'. Iraq thought he'd asked, and apparently the US didn't realise he had, didn't realise the answer indicated that.
Addison
|
Post #9,066
9/14/01 10:17:43 AM
|
Either that...
or we wanted to give him a green light so we could go in and attack.
|
Post #9,071
9/14/01 11:07:20 AM
|
No
It was pretty clear cut.
[link|http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html|article]
[link|http://www.security-policy.org/papers/1991/91-P22.html|article]
[link|http://www.thestarsandstripes.com/arkin/secret/weekone.shtml|article]
[link|http://www.booknotes.org/transcripts/10136.htm|article]
[link|http://www.journalism.sfsu.edu/www/pubs/prism/apr98/features/saddam1.html|article]
a quote from the last article linked above--
"April Glaspie gave Saddam Hussein the understanding that the U.S. was going to stand aloof from the crisis," says Dr. Dwight Simpson, Professor of International Relations at San Francisco State University. "In effect you could say, and this is one means of interpreting this, that the U.S. gave Saddam a sort of green light [to invade Kuwait]."
April Glaspie has since been retired from the foreign service and has never made any comments with regard to this."
"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Post #9,178
9/14/01 5:09:37 PM
|
It wasn't "pretty clear cut" IMO.
See, e.g., [link|http://www.wwnorton.com/lenses/demo_historical_bg1.htm|this] analysis: President George Bush had been receiving assurances from around the Arab world that the positioning of Iraqi troops along the Kuwaiti border was nothing more than Iraqi saber-rattling. President Mubarak of Egypt, King Hussein (no relation to Saddam) of Jordan, and King Fahd of Saudi Arabia all passed along this communication, in part, because they had been given this explanation by Saddam Hussein himself. The general message coming out of the Arab world portrayed the situation as an Arab dispute that would be resolved diplomatically.
On July 25, 1990, the American ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, was summoned to meet with Saddam Hussein, who questioned her directly about America's position toward Iraq. During the meeting Ambassador Glaspie reportedly said, " . . .[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait . . . . We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via . . . President Mubarak [of Egypt].\ufffd Saddam responded that he had agreed to diplomatic meetings being set up through the efforts of Mubarak and had told the Egyptian president to \ufffdassure the Kuwaitis and give them our word that we are not going to do anything until we meet with them.\ufffd Saddam went on to tell Ambassador Glaspie, \ufffdThere, you have good news.\ufffd [Glaspie transcript, p.130, 133].
In Washington D.C., Richard Haass, the director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the United States National Security Council, was just completing an assessment of the situation in which he had laid out three possible scenarios for President Bush: (1) This Iraqi military movement was \ufffdmuscular diplomacy\ufffd; that is, Iraq was trying to intimidate Kuwait into a diplomatic compromise on oil production quotas and loan repayment; (2) Iraq was positioning itself to take a northern Kuwaiti oil field in an effort to raise the stakes and compel a negotiated settlement; (3) Iraq was preparing an all-out invasion and intended to occupy the entire country. Haass had already concluded that the third scenario was the least likely, and upon receiving a report from Ambassador Glaspie, he forwarded his report with a sense that the crisis was actually winding down (Interview with Haass).
Most major leaders were convinced that an actual occupation was not going to happen given what Saddam Hussein himself had been saying. Thus, the full-scale occupation of Kuwait was seen in Washington and around the Arab world as the consequence of a major ruse on the part of Saddam Hussein. Their reaction to the invasion, therefore, was influenced by the sense among these leaders that they had been deceived. The seriousness of the Iraqi action, however, became more intense as Iraq's military forces began to head beyond Kuwait City toward the Saudi Arabian border. While American relations with Kuwait had been indifferent before the invasion, Saudi Arabia represented a key regional player and American friend. American regional economic and political interests relied on good relations with the Saudi royal family. The possibility of an attack on Saudi Arabia energized the Bush administration's national security team, and important decisions were made rapidly in the course of the first week of August. There's a big difference between being not expressing an opinion on how a conflict should be peacefully resolved with the help of a third party, and giving a "green light" to an invasion. Saddam apparently didn't understand that, or didn't care. But I don't think it would have deterred him anyway. He didn't spend years and billions assembling an army with 10,000 tanks to back down once he decided he wanted Kuwait. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #9,228
9/14/01 10:05:38 PM
|
"We have no opinion"?
Saying "We have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts" isn't giving a green light? If I were Sadaam, my eyes would have lit up like a miniature Christmas tree at that.
Bad choice of words. "We do not think highly of any aggressive moves on the part of any Arab state" might have sent an entirely different message.
That no man should scruple, or hesitate a moment to use arms in defense of so valuable a blessing [as freedom], on which all the good and evil of life depends, is clearly my opinion; yet arms ... should be the last resource. - George Washington
|
Post #9,169
9/14/01 4:18:09 PM
|
Give me a break.
One statement from this person? Saddam had made up his mind to invade.
After the invasion he was told to pull back. Again and again and again. He witnessed the massing of incredible force designed to repel his armies. He did nothing.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #9,170
9/14/01 4:21:50 PM
|
OK but what's your point?
You saying that he did not ask what the stance of the US was? And that the response was, in effect, we don't care what arabs do to other arabs? Sure he may have been planning to invade no matter what. But he asked first and got a go ahead.
"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Post #9,171
9/14/01 4:29:36 PM
|
I would not...
...consider that exchange a "go ahead".
And my original post was a response to the carpet bombing comment made by our illustrious other poster.
Like I said...US sentiment right now would support a random attack that killed thousands of civilians. We will not, however, do that. These leaders may view that as a weakness. I hope the people they rule realize that it is, instead, a blessing.
Our actions against Iraq were actions against military targets in a time of war. A war we may have, according to you, been able to avoid at the diplomatic table. A war that Saddam had ample time to avoid simply by backing his tanks up some 100 miles....about a 3 hour trip. Instead...he watched a multinational force build for weeks. Did he think it would not be used against him?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #9,174
9/14/01 4:44:51 PM
|
So we disagree
It appears to me that tacit permission was indeed given to Saddam to go ahead with his kuwait invasion. He may have decided against the invasion without the permission, but I personally doubt it. I think he was going to attack Kuwait no matter what. As far as retreating goes, I think he truly felt he could win so why would he retreat? Ludicrous in retrospect, but I think he was going from the history of our war in Viet Nam and expected a repeat.
"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Post #9,207
9/14/01 8:25:45 PM
|
Re: I would not...
> And my original post was a response to the carpet bombing comment made by our illustrious other poster.
Would it somehow change the overall US reaction if only it was only the Pentagon (a Military target)?
Again. I am NOT justifying the rationale, there is NONE. Nada.
These are the actions of fanatical loonies, from a RATIONAL point of view.
Just taking Iraq as an example. To those in Iraq, civilians or lunatics or otherwise, their beliefs, regardless of whether RIGHT OR WRONG, based on truth or myth, whatever, is that no matter what they do, they will no longer be given proper sovereign right, with economic embargo and other sanctions, and with the US constantly trying to "make trouble" for them.
Can you imagine bombs dropping over military targets in US for say its action over Cuba by say Iraq? [link|http://www.leler.com/cuba/embargo.html|http://www.leler.co...embargo.html]
Yes, only military targets. What then?
I can understand the grief and anger over the attack. But what the heck, the way you guys are reacting to my post, it's like I'm one of those ****ing lunatics who are somehow involved in the attack.
|
Post #9,223
9/14/01 9:43:13 PM
|
Relax dude.
I understand where you're coming from.
We're not the most loved nation on the planet. And this has been covered over and over again. We're hated...but we're also the first asked for help. The "damned if you do, damned if you don't" argument.
We've never been consistent in Middle East policy...or Far East policy...etc...
However, our policies change due to the nature of our people and our government of the people. We have a short term view. What we want now will not be what we want 10 years from now. Other cultures have a problem identifying with that...much the same as we have difficulty identifying with cultures like the Chinese whose viewpoint encompasses history and long term thought.
It would be helpful if everyone figured that out. Like us or not...we have to be dealt with...and this terrorist activity will only piss us off...and pissing us off can be very dangerous. I've a feeling you'll see just how dangerous in a very short time.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #9,245
9/15/01 12:14:45 AM
|
Re: Relax dude.
> I understand where you're coming from.
Thank you. It's definitely better than "who give a hoot what the world thinks" kind of reponses I've received.
> We're not the most loved nation on the planet. And this has been covered over and over again. We're hated...but we're also the first asked for help. The "damned if you do, damned if you don't" argument.
Kind of similar to the US laws on Monopoly. You've got to tread carefully.
> It would be helpful if everyone figured that out. Like us or not...we have to be dealt with...and this terrorist activity will only piss us off...and pissing us off can be very dangerous. I've a feeling you'll see just how dangerous in a very short time.
Hopefully that will not be necessary.
|
Post #9,213
9/14/01 9:10:57 PM
|
I want to share your assessment.
That is, I agree it would not be in our 'national character' to readily yield to (what the Hermann Kahn boys called) spasm war.
What concerns me is the person serving as Selected Resident, his life-history and (whatever) relationship to Dad. This-all is coming too close to Greek tragedy; Son one-ups Dad: goes All the Way (no more wimpy Saddam mistakes of, stopping at the gates). Now throw in : Powell.. And John Ashcroft (re taking care of civil liberties 'at home' - during a decared 'emergency').
No of course I have no 'data' on the inner workings of Bushie IIs mind -- but recall how *EARLY* came into that steel-trap the phrase, (maybe a word altered, but I heard him say it)
..this will not stand. Can we ID the source for that?
(We are not here dealing in this game with, FDR's Brain Trust - and we need actually more than that - given the Jihad and meta-Jihad overtones.)
A.
|
