|
 mr freedom
enthusiast
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 232
Last seen: 18 years, 26 days
|
 Re: iraq  [Re: Lallafa]
#820905 - 08/16/02 12:32 PM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
The topic, gentlemen, is an article about the U.S., publicly, considering STARTING a war with Iraq. Granted, the article is from an interesting source, but the source of the article is irrelevant. I am sure most of you have watched the news in the past month, at least once, and everyday there is something on the subject of war with Iraq.
As to why this information is being bantered about in mainstream press, it should be obvious to anybody with half a brain. The president has been advised to goad Iraq into an attack of some sort, perhaps even the mear threat of an attack would be enough.
What the fed is doing is immoral in the extreme. If this continues we will become the single worst nation in the history of the world. Far surpassing the inhumanity exibited by even as outrageous an example as Stalin, Hitler and Musillini. I will be ashamed to call myself a U.S. citizen; hell, I almost am now.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: iraq [Re: Phluck]
#821085 - 08/16/02 01:31 PM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Phluck writes:
...and what I meant was, communism and socialism are two totally different things.
Not totally different at all. They are fundamentally the same thing, it is merely a matter of degree.
As for your examples of "Socialist" European countries, many of them are not strictly speaking socialist at all, but Interventionist, in that the means of production is not State-owned, just highly regulated. The US is also an interventionist country, of course, but to a much lesser degree (so far).
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
|
mr freedom writes:
What the fed is doing is immoral in the extreme. If this continues we will become the single worst nation in the history of the world. Far surpassing the inhumanity exibited by even as outrageous an example as Stalin, Hitler and Musillini. I will be ashamed to call myself a U.S. citizen; hell, I almost am now.
Interesting comment. Do you believe that a free country does not have the right to invade a totalitarian one with the aim of freeing the enslaved populace? Before you answer that, think it all the way through.
pinky
--------------------
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 month, 19 days
|
|
If my ideologies are so silly, could you explain to me what they are?
I didn't think I had any ideologies. I'm the first to admit I don't know the best way to run a country.
Are you saying I'm a socialist and a communist? What the hell are you talking about? I certainly have socialist leanings, but why the fuck are you calling me a communist? I've said many times that it's obvious communism is naive idealism and it doesn't work.
I'll come back and read this thread sober. Maybe I misunderstood what you're trying to say, but right now you seem pretty dumb.
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
mr freedom
enthusiast
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 232
Last seen: 18 years, 26 days
|
Re: iraq [Re: Phred]
#822701 - 08/17/02 03:05 AM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
"Do you believe that a free country does not have the right to invade a totalitarian one with the aim of freeing the enslaved populace? "
Ok, I am assuming, hypotheticaly speaking that is, that there is significant proof of enslavement? That there is a concensus in the other "free" nations and that their is support for the invasion?
Even with these two questions being answered in the affirmative, my answer is still no. A free nation does not have the RIGHT to invade in these circumstances. A free nation must accept that to invade would be violation of national soveriegnty.
The question then becomes, do we have a RESPONSIBILITY to invade? That is the trillion dollar question and we can save it for a later time.
The point is that Iraq's populace LIKES Saddam and no nation has the right to invade Iraq and remove him.
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 month, 19 days
|
|
I wouldn't go so far to say that they like him, but that's certainly the information they're feeding us.
The thing is though, Saddam certainly thinks he's running his government the way it should be, and the way his "God" would want it to be run.
When terrorists attack the US, it's because they think it's an evil immoral nation, just the same as when the US attacks Iraq.
What gives the US, or these terrorists the right to decide how others can run their country?
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
 Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
Re: iraq [Re: Phluck]
#822849 - 08/17/02 05:00 AM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
In my opinion people like you while claiming to stand up for freedom always see the good in socialism ie: communism
you're a living contridiction....which is just plain dumb
--------------------
America....FUCK YEAH!!!
Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
Lallafa
p_g monocle
Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: iraq [Re: Phred]
#822992 - 08/17/02 06:52 AM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
we are freeing them?
they wont get a democracy
they will simply get a pliant client regime dedicated to serving the interests of imperialism
i dont know how you can see it as a free country liberating an oppressed one
far from this being the case, an attack on iraq by the united states would be an unprovoked war of aggression
_p> a socialist might say that the US ruling class is attempting to bolster its own faltering position vis-a-vis its rivals, in an attempt to "keep America strong" and thus prevent the great social polarization of society from coming to the surface
_p> a capitalist might say that the United States and its Liberation Army are simply trying to protect itself from radicals who commit unprovoked attacks for no reason on the greatest country on earth, and free an oppressed populace while they are at it
_p> thus right-wingers and left-wingers can never have any real debate
_p> since they start from things which they cannot prove
--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
|
mr freedom writes:
Even with these two questions being answered in the affirmative, my answer is still no. A free nation does not have the RIGHT to invade in these circumstances. A free nation must accept that to invade would be violation of national soveriegnty.
So the Allies did not have the right to invade Nazi Germany, then, even though the consensus of the free world was that they did.
I submit that free countries do have the right (but not the obligation) to overthrow a murderous, totalitarian regime that enslaves its own populace. Once a new government has been established which respects human rights, the foreign liberator must, however, then withdraw. The overthrow of a murderous regime may not be used as an excuse for annexation.
Any free country, not just the US, had the right to overthrow the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, for example.
The question then becomes, do we have a RESPONSIBILITY to invade?
No. The government of a free country is responsible only for the welfare of its own citizens. Although it has the moral right to assist citizens of another country to free themselves, it is not obligated to do so.
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: iraq [Re: Lallafa]
#823649 - 08/17/02 12:50 PM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Lallafa,
I apologize for not making it clear that my question was not directed at Iraq specifically. It was meant to be a general question of fundamental principles. My fault entirely for the misunderstanding. However, to address Iraq specifically:
we are freeing them?
Iraqis of Kurdish heritage (if there any left) would certainly see it that way.
they wont get a democracy
You have no way of knowing that.
they will simply get a pliant client regime dedicated to serving the interests of imperialism
You mean like the way the new government of post-Taliban Afghanistan is dedicated to serving the interests of imperialism?
far from this being the case, an attack on iraq by the united states would be an unprovoked war of aggression
There are times when it is correct to make a pre-emptive strike. The world would have been saved a ton of grief if the Allies had deposed Hitler in early 1939, for example. It would also have been saved a ton of grief if a pre-emptive strike had been made against Hussein before he rolled into Kuwait, or if Osama bin Laden had been assassinated by an Israeli hit squad two years ago.
To call a pre-emptive strike "unprovoked aggression" is naive. Is it necessary for a SWAT sniper to wait until the bullet is out of the barrel of the hostage-taker's gun before he takes out the bad guy? Hardly.
The question to be asked is, "Is Hussain truly planning more acts of aggression, possibly involving weapons of mass destruction?"
There is, as yet, no firm consensus on this. His past actions lead little doubt that he is capable of doing so (again). But perhaps he has repented his sins, turned over a new leaf, and is no longer a threat. Arguments are being made for both possibilities.
But if he lobs a few SCUDS equipped with anthrax warheads into Tel Aviv next week, those who were opposed to taking him out will look pretty foolish. Or maybe not... they'll probably claim the Israelis had it coming to them for the Jenin "massacre".
pinky
--------------------
|
mr freedom
enthusiast
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 232
Last seen: 18 years, 26 days
|
Re: iraq [Re: Phred]
#824471 - 08/17/02 06:34 PM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Pink, I am sure you are trying to show me something, but I fail to see what it is.
Of course the allies had the RIGHT to invade Germany. Japan was "allied" with them and italy and japan bombed the U.S. It is a moral stance to defend ones self, and you know this.
No it is NOT a RIGHT to overthrow any government, unless, of course, that government has intiated, or directly threatened another government or "free nation" if you will. The question, sans these two occurances, must lie with what our "obligation" or "responsibilty" to other country's is. In other words, what do we owe to the citizens of a dictatorial regime? You said it yourself, we owe them nothing.
Where rights exist, so must there exist, responsibility; or obligation if you will. If we have the right to invade, then we must have the obligation to invade, in every circumstance, or we and our policy's are morally corrupt (please, I know the fed is corrupt, this is just an exercise in thougt).
There exists a thing, a right, of national soveriegnty. This is to say that no other nation may say to another "you must do this; or else". Yes, even if that means that civilians are being massacred in great numbers. It is not the domain for nations to try to police other nations. We do have the U.N., but honestly, I don't think it is a good idea nor an acceptable entity ( I will eventually support this statment in a future post).
Do I think it is a moral action to help those that cannot defend themselves? Of course I do. This is the nature of a responsible society, that people are willing to come to their neighbors defense. However, nations must respect other nations, even when our society, customs and our own morality is in conflict.
Until such time as all nations come under one flag, one domain or one ideaology, then we, all nations, must accept that ruthless people will come to power and that there is little we can do about it.
Now, what if every nation on earth, stopped buying Iraq oil; period? Would that impact them? I think it would, it's not like they are exporting astounding technology or anything.
|
wingnutx
Registered: 09/24/00
Posts: 2,283
|
|
Actually, the leaks are not to goad Iraq into committing an act of war. They are to goad some of Saddam's people to shoot him in the back of the head. They got his son in the arm the other day 
We don't need Iraq to do anything, really, since they are not satisfying the terms of the armistice. That is out casus belli, nothing else needed. The rest is icing on the cake.
|
Lallafa
p_g monocle
Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: iraq [Re: Phred]
#826445 - 08/18/02 05:07 PM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
"You mean like the way the new government of post-Taliban Afghanistan is dedicated to serving the interests of imperialism?"
Nothing underscores the beleaguered and dependent character of the Afghan administration so much as the decision this week to replace the Afghan troops guarding transitional president Hamid Karzai with a squad of 45 to 50 American soldiers, including Special Forces troops.
Karzai is now completely reliant on the US, not only for economic, political and military support but also his personal security. The move demonstrates that the transitional president, installed at last months loya jirga, or grand tribal assembly, with Washingtons assistance, cannot depend on any group of local soldiers to prevent an attempt on his life.
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld confirmed the decision but attempted to play down its significance, saying it was a short-term measure. What that means, whether its weeks or months or several months, I dont know, he declared, adding that it was "important that the Afghan people not have an interruption in their leadership... its a very straightforward issue."
Karzai is tolerated by the countrys powerbrokers because he is backed by the US and is crucial to the dispensing of foreign aid on which Afghanistan heavily depends.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jul2002/afgh-j25.shtml
Main Entry: im?pe?ri?al?ism
Pronunciation: im-'pir-E-&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1845
1 : imperial government, authority, or system
2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence
--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson
Edited by Lallafa (08/18/02 05:14 PM)
|
Lallafa
p_g monocle
Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: iraq [Re: Phred]
#826455 - 08/18/02 05:09 PM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
"There are times when it is correct to make a pre-emptive strike."
vietnam comes to mind..
--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson
|
Lallafa
p_g monocle
Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: iraq [Re: Phred]
#826560 - 08/18/02 05:47 PM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
"There are times when it is correct to make a pre-emptive strike. The world would have been saved a ton of grief if the Allies had deposed Hitler in early 1939, for example. It would also have been saved a ton of grief if a pre-emptive strike had been made against Hussein before he rolled into Kuwait, or if Osama bin Laden had been assassinated by an Israeli hit squad two years ago"
your "allusion to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlains reluctance to go to war against Adolf Hitlers Nazi regime, imply that anyone who questions Washingtons war plans is guilty of prostration before a potential global dictator. This turns reality on its head. In the first place, Hitler headed a major capitalist power bent on expansion across Europe; Saddam is a petty tyrant in a country and a region long oppressed by the major polong oppressed by the major powers. Secondly, it is the US, not Iraq that is proposing an invasion."
onto attacking hussein before he rolled into kuwait, you neglect to mention that he was lured into the war by bush the elder.
you duly mention bin laden as a target for a "pre-emptive strike", but forget to mention why bin Laden would be a target for a strike in the first place.
thirdly, "no evidence has been produced that Iraq has assembled chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, while the US is known to have stockpiles of each. The US and its allies have demanded that Iraq perform the impossible and prove a negative: that it has no such weapons, or even the capacity to manufacture them. Given the technologies involved, this is tantamount to requiring the destruction of the countrys remaining industrial and scientific facilities"
yet
"To call a pre-emptive strike "unprovoked aggression" is naive. Is it necessary for a SWAT sniper to wait until the bullet is out of the barrel of the hostage-taker's gun before he takes out the bad guy? Hardly."
you draw similarities between a SWAT team and a 12 figure armada of American capitalism on a "pre-emptive strike" or an "unprovoked war of aggression". for someone who presents themselves as so schooled, educated and proper, would you consider this a reasonable comparison?
--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson
|
wingnutx
Registered: 09/24/00
Posts: 2,283
|
Re: iraq [Re: Lallafa]
#827835 - 08/19/02 09:32 AM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
In reply to:
hirdly, "no evidence has been produced that Iraq has assembled chemical, biological or nuclear weapons,
The UN inspectors did indeed find facilities for the production of chem/bio agents in the 90s, but they had not been recently used.
Also, Iraq used Sarin, Tabun, VX, and Mustard gasses against both Kurd civilians and Iranian troops, according to the US and UN. They simply claim that they no longer have any. Iraq is actually the only country known to have used nerve gas in actual combat.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: iraq [Re: Lallafa]
#828008 - 08/19/02 10:38 AM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Lallafa writes:
vietnam comes to mind.
The war in Viet Nam was not an example of a pre-emptive strike, which is why I didn't use it.
your "allusion to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlains reluctance to go to war against Adolf Hitlers Nazi regime, imply that anyone who questions Washingtons war plans is guilty of prostration before a potential global dictator.
It implies no such thing. I admit that Washington MAY be wrong in their estimation of Saddam's intentions. Saddam may have destroyed all his weapons of mass destruction, he may have no plans to manufacture more, and he may be content to remain within his own borders for the rest of his days. I don't possess the knowledge to say one way or the other. Bush gets better intel than I (or you) do.
In the first place, Hitler headed a major capitalist power bent on expansion across Europe...
Nazi Germany was not Capitalist.
Saddam is a petty tyrant...
It is irrelevant whether he is "petty" or not, or whether he plans to conquer all of the Middle East or just a country or two. Does he plan further invasions or doesn't he? If he does, he should be prevented from carrying out those plans.
...in a country and a region long oppressed by the major polong oppressed by the major powers.
Which major power oppressed Iraq? When? Can you provide a source for this claim?
Secondly, it is the US, not Iraq that is proposing an invasion.
You and I don't know whether or not he is planning an invasion. And in my opinion, it is not necessary to invade Iraq in order to eliminate the threat of Saddam (if he is indeed a threat), it is simply necessary to assassinate him.
onto attacking hussein before he rolled into kuwait, you neglect to mention that he was lured into the war by bush the elder.
If that is in fact true (got a source to back up this astonishing statement?) it doesn't matter. What is relevant is not his MOTIVATION for initiating an invasion of a peaceful neighboring country, but the fact that he did it.
you duly mention bin laden as a target for a "pre-emptive strike", but forget to mention why bin Laden would be a target for a strike in the first place.
Because it was widely known that bin Laden and Al-Quaeda had already carried out several other terrorist attacks, and it was further known that they were planning a big operation scheduled for early September.
you draw similarities between a SWAT team and a 12 figure armada of American capitalism on a "pre-emptive strike"...
They are identical in principle. Hussein intended to (and, in actual fact, did) initiate deadly force against Kuwait. The hostage-taker intends to (and will, if he's not killed first) initiate deadly force against his hostages. The fact that one example involves a single SWAT sniper against a single criminal gunman and the other example involves a large strike force against a large army doesn't alter the principle involved. It's merely a difference in scale.
or an "unprovoked war of aggression".
A pre-emptive strike is not an act of aggression. The purpose of a pre-emptive strike is to PREVENT an act of aggression.
for someone who presents themselves as so schooled, educated and proper, would you consider this a reasonable comparison?
Well, I am capable of grasping the fundamental principles of a given situation, not just the superficial details. Whether that is due to my education or not, I can't say.
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
|
mr freedom writes:
Of course the allies had the RIGHT to invade Germany. Japan was "allied" with them and italy and japan bombed the U.S. It is a moral stance to defend ones self, and you know this.
But it can be (and has been) argued by some that it was wrong to invade Germany itslef; that it was only correct to liberate the various occupied countries, then stop. These people say that the Allies had no RIGHT to cross the pre-war borders of Germany. This is, of course, the same mindset that prevented the UN coalition in the Gulf War from rolling into Baghdad and deposing Hussein once Kuwait had been liberated.
No it is NOT a RIGHT to overthrow any government, unless, of course, that government has intiated, or directly threatened another government or "free nation" if you will.
So they can do anything they want to "their own" citizens, and those citizens must depose their opressors with no outside assistance?
You said it yourself, we owe them nothing.
Just because we are not OBLIGATED to render them assistance does not mean that we have no RIGHT to.
Where rights exist, so must there exist, responsibility; or obligation if you will.
Why fo you believe that? The only rights any individual has are natural rights -- the rights to take whatever actions he deems fit for the furtherance of his existence, always with the caveat that he take no actions which prevent others from doing the same. What obligations does he have (other than refraining from violating the rights of others), and TO WHOM? He wasn't GIVEN these rights be anyone, so how can he be obligated to anyone?
If we have the right to invade, then we must have the obligation to invade, in every circumstance...
How does this follow? You have the RIGHT to spend all your waking hours and every spare penny raising abandoned orphans. Does this mean you are OBLIGATED to do so?
There exists a thing, a right, of national soveriegnty. This is to say that no other nation may say to another "you must do this; or else". Yes, even if that means that civilians are being massacred in great numbers. It is not the domain for nations to try to police other nations. We do have the U.N., but honestly, I don't think it is a good idea nor an acceptable entity ( I will eventually support this statment in a future post).
"National Sovereignty" is a valid concept only if the government of the nation respects individual rights. If it doesn't, then it is not the government of a sovereign nation, but a rogue entity with no rights, which may properly be removed at any time, by anybody. Even the charter of the United Nations (and I agree with you that the UN is a useless entity) recognizes this.
pinky
--------------------
|
Lallafa
p_g monocle
Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: iraq [Re: Phred]
#832511 - 08/21/02 08:38 AM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
"Nazi Germany was not Capitalist."
you capitalize "Capitalism" and try to make concrete out of what is abstract: the fact remains that Nazi Germany was a country that operated under the profit system, and capitalist private property. Adolf Hitler was himself a rich man, as was the leader of every other capitalist power who fought in the war. German production was very much done on a for-profit basis, even under the totalitarian fascistic state.
if Nazi Germany was not "Capitalist", then what would you call it?
"Which major power oppressed Iraq?"
is this a question that you need to ask? British imperialism of recent centuries past carved up and created the modern nation-states of the Middle East today. American imperialism of recent years, on the other hand, would be by any objective standard a cause for disgust and horror. nevermind that Iraq's infrastructure was nearly entirely destroyed during the bombing campaign, the post-war sanctions have ensured that Iraq remains backward and impoverished.
this is considered by many people around the world to be oppression.
sources for any of this are readily available: yahoo.com
--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson
|
Lallafa
p_g monocle
Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: iraq [Re: Phred]
#832537 - 08/21/02 08:47 AM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
--On July 31, Kelly denied Kuwait three times before a House foreign affairs subcommittee. "Historically, the U.S. has taken no position on the border disputes in the area, not on matters pertaining to internal OPEC deliberations."
"We have no defense treaty relationship with any gulf country. That is clear . . . we have not historically taken a position on border disputes."
Representative Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.) asked Kelly, if it would be correct to say that, if Iraq invaded Kuwait, the United States would not be obligated to commit its military forces in Kuwait's defense.
Kelly replied, "That is correct."
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?
Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptab le?
Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - 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. (Saddam smiles)
This brief chronology excludes the well-documented meeting between Saddam and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie on July 25 in which Glaspie compared Saddam's bellicose response to his economic plight with an America's Founding Father's belief in "freedom or death."
you can find the exact transcript here
http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=july+25+glaspie+hussein&hc=0&hs=0
also, check out some of these links
http://www.msu.edu/debate/17.html
http://www.pdhealth.mil/gulf_war/gulfwar_bg.asp
read: http://www.psych.upenn.edu/~fjgil/Glaspie.html
--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson
Edited by Lallafa (08/21/02 09:11 AM)
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder 
Red Vein Kratom
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 all )
Anonymous
psilomonkey
Edame
Learyfan
