Originally posted by whodeyNo, Iraq and Kuwait - our ally - were at war the first time.
True. It is too dangerous going after countries with WMD's. LOL.
Anyhew, the Sudan has been notorious for their genocide in that country much like Saddam has been caught doing. Are they not similar in that regard? After all, was the US and Iraq at war before we went in the first time?
1 edit
Originally posted by karnachzCan't Israel be defended from US bases in Israel?
Can't Israel be defended from US bases in Israel?
The Kurds were also slaughtered with weapons that the US gave to Saddam Hussein. This is an example of "blowback", i.e. the unintended consequences of interfering in places like the Middle-East.
What made it so pressing to invade Iraq that it was worth over 4,000 US soldiers and countless more Iraqis ...[text shortened]... oney could instead have been spent on healthcare and other infrastructure projects back home?
Not necessarily. Iraq is close to Iran. From Iraq you can address threats the moment they are launched instead of waiting for them to arrive. From Iraq you can threaten invasion which forces Iran to keep defensive reserves. Missiles with multiple warheads are easier to stop soon after liftoff than after they've spread their little seeds of death up in the air (should Iran ever get any such weapons). It's easier to gather intelligence from up close. Iraq cuts off transport routes between Palestine and Iran. Ships involved in the Afghanistan war can support an Iraq war without moving much. From the Eastern Mediterranean the ships will be on the wrong side of Israel to intercept aircraft, missiles, etc. and won't be able to redeploy troops to and from Afghanistan easily.
What made it so pressing to invade Iraq that it was worth over 4,000 US soldiers and countless more Iraqis dying, and spending countless hundreds of billion of dollars on the Iraq war when that money could instead have been spent on healthcare and other infrastructure projects back home?
Zero or almost zero terrorism (depending on what you consider terrorism) on US soil since 9-11 indicates that Bush got something right. US allies are not threatened by Hussein any more. LOTS of terrorists killed; the rest are enduring war weariness and financial strain that's far worse than anything we're facing. Anyone who thinks they can pressure us by being savage and merciless now understands that they're on very thin ice. We've underscored the need for people to engage us diplomatically instead of violently. Al Quaida's insainity, lack of integrity and weakness have been made very clear. For example, this guy - a former AQ terrorist from Saudi Arabia is now on our side because of the contempt AQ has for it's agents:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/14/reformed.jihadist/index.html
I don't think anyone thinks removing Hussein was a bad thing. The problem is when we try to control too tightly what happens afterwards.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhat an oddly disingenuous way of framing it. Or is it you having been duped yet again?
No, Iraq and Kuwait - our ally - were at war the first time.
Iraq was also your ally at that time. How on earth can you not mention that when talking about this issue?
On July 25, 1990 US Ambassador April Glaspie was summoned by Saddam Hussein and his plans to resolve Iraq's disputes with Kuwait (the bizarre trapeze shaped Kuwait had been created by the British in order to undemine the Iraq state it also set up, so they had a claim of sorts on "Kuwait territory" and there were oil issues too) and basically ran his invasion plans past her. She said that the U.S. would not intervene. Here are her very words:
" We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."
Funnily enough, there are full transcripts of the U.S. 'green light' being shown to Hussein.
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE5DD1730F930A25754C0A967958260
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=us_iraq_80s_807
http://www.c-span.org/iraq/history.asp?Cat=Current_Event&Code=Iraq
http://www.thetip.org/art_April_Glaspie___US_Ambassador_to_Iraq______292_icle.html
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFIraq initiated hostilities. Are you implying the US had an offensive alliance with Iraq - that we'd pledged to support their offensive activities?
What an oddly disingenuous way of framing it. Or is it you having been duped yet again?
Iraq was also your ally at that time. How on earth can you not mention that when talking about this issue?
On July 25, 1990 US Ambassador April Glaspie was summoned by Saddam Hussein and his plans to resolve Iraq's disputes with Kuwait (the bizarre trapeze shaped Kuwait Iraq
http://www.thetip.org/art_April_Glaspie___US_Ambassador_to_Iraq______292_icle.html
I'll take a look at the links you provided.
the NY Times query link doesn't say Glaspie gave the go-ahead, instead it says this:
"At the center of the dispute is a July 25, 1990, meeting between April C. Glaspie, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, and President Saddam Hussein. In September, Iraq released what it described as a transcript of the meeting, but the Administration said the Iraqi document was incomplete and misleading, and in March Ms. Glaspie said it was largely fabricated. "
Originally posted by FMFThis link you offered does not have that information.
What an oddly disingenuous way of framing it. Or is it you having been duped yet again?
Iraq was also your ally at that time. How on earth can you not mention that when talking about this issue?
On July 25, 1990 US Ambassador April Glaspie was summoned by Saddam Hussein and his plans to resolve Iraq's disputes with Kuwait (the bizarre trapeze shaped Kuwait ...[text shortened]... Iraq
http://www.thetip.org/art_April_Glaspie___US_Ambassador_to_Iraq______292_icle.html
http://www.c-span.org/iraq/history.asp?Cat=Current_Event&Code=Iraq
Originally posted by AThousandYoungTypical. You conjure up some sort of ludicrous point of your own that I clearly wasn't making and then pose a daft rhetorical question about it.
Iraq initiated hostilities. Are you implying the US had an offensive alliance with Iraq - that we'd pledged to support their offensive activities?
Originally posted by FMFThe first link does not contain the quote you offered. Instead it has this:
What an oddly disingenuous way of framing it. Or is it you having been duped yet again?
Iraq was also your ally at that time. How on earth can you not mention that when talking about this issue?
On July 25, 1990 US Ambassador April Glaspie was summoned by Saddam Hussein and his plans to resolve Iraq's disputes with Kuwait (the bizarre trapeze shaped Kuwait ...[text shortened]... Iraq
http://www.thetip.org/art_April_Glaspie___US_Ambassador_to_Iraq______292_icle.html
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 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 via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly.
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html
"emphasize the instruction" is not contained in that transcript. Instead Glasbie says "The instruction we had during this period [the late 60's] was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America."
Who's being disingenuous now?
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotMy interpretation of all this is that it was a sting operation by the U.S. carried out because it felt that the time was right to pull the plug on an awkward ally.
i guess we ought to trust Hussein's govt, tho. surely they wouldn't fabricate anything.
On July 31st, two days before the Iraqi invasion, John Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs, testified to Congress that the "United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait and the U.S. has no intention of defending Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq."
Other interesting links:
http://www.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20051226/029273.html
http://independentindian.com/category/april-glaspie/
Here're Gaspie's comments (for the purposes of balance):
http://thestressblog.com/2008/04/03/april-glaspie-on-the-record/
Originally posted by whodeyI do fault them for their selfishness and not putting the environment first before their own petty interests.
Calm down their son. After all, China and India are simply trying to meet their energy needs. I don't think anyone faults them for that. I know I don't. Its called, taking care of business.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou didn't point out anything. Those sources speak for themselves.
I already pointed out that your sources do not say what you claim they say. You're a liar and pretending like nobody noticed. It's not working.
On July 31st, two days before the Iraqi invasion, John Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs, testified to Congress that the "United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait and the U.S. has no intention of defending Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq."