Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Lets remember: USA gave Saddam green light to invade Kuwait


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#1 SloboFan

SloboFan

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 04:33 AM

Go to Google and search for:
"Hussein ambassador April Glaspie"

You will find a plethora of links, but here are 2 of them:

-For the good parts:
http://www.totse.com...er/glaspie.html

-For the entire interview:
http://www.chss.mont...rr/glaspie.html
  • 0

#2 SloboFan

SloboFan

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 04:34 AM

Here are the interesting excerpts:

Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. - July 25, 1990

(Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait)

July 25, 1990 - Presidential Palace - Baghdad

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 threats 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 acceptable??

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)

On August 2, 1990 four days later, Saddam?s massed troops invade and occupy Kuwait.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Baghdad, September 2, 1990, U.S. Embassy

One month later, British journalist obtain the the above tape and transcript of the Saddam - Glaspie meeting of July 29, 1990. Astounded, they confront Ms. Glaspie as she leaves the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

Journalist 1 -

?Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador??

(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond)

Journalist 2 -

?You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait) but you didn?t warn him not to. You didn?t tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the oppose - that America was not associated with Kuwait.?

Journalist 1 -

?You encouraged this aggression - his invasion. What were you thinking??

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie -

?Obviously, I didn?t think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.?

Journalist 1 -

?You thought he was just going to take some of it? But, how could you? Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed, he would give up his Iran (Shatt al Arab waterway) goal for the ?Whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be.? You know that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as an historic part of their country!?

Journalist 1 -

?American green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signaling Saddam that some aggression was okay - that the U.S. would not oppose a grab of the al-Rumeilah oil field, the disputed border strip and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan) - the territories claimed by Iraq??

(Ambassador Glaspie says nothing as a limousine door closed behind her and the car drives off.)
  • 0

#3 SloboFan

SloboFan

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 08:32 AM

Diogenes, here are big excerpts of that meeting:

http://www.chss.mont...rr/glaspie.html

this is a New York Times document.

The good part is at the end, (underscored document).

Its not a matter of a couple of words being left in or out of the transcript. It is all the interview, you see very clearly that the US ambassador is giving Saddam green light to invade Kuwait.
Otherwise, she would have been more energic and clear. Consider that Saddam was already threatening to invade Kuwait,
with troops gathered near the border.


Let me paste here a fragment:

*************
TARIQ AZIZ: Our policy in OPEC opposes sudden jumps in oil prices.

HUSSEIN: Twenty-five dollars a barrel is not a high price.

GLASPIE: We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above $25 because they come from oil-producing states.

HUSSEIN: The price at one stage had dropped to $12 a barrel and a reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of $6 billion to $7 billion is a disaster.

GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. 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. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?

*********

even if the sentence "we hope is that these issues are solved quickly" had been modified from a hypothetical "we hope is that these issues are solved peacefully", this doesn't change the whole picture.

The whole picture says: we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

Let me paste again:

*****
GLASPIE: We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above $25 because they come from oil-producing states.

*****
So, Glaspie told Hussein, that the US would also like to get the price up to $25, because many americans (i.e., Texans, Bush) would win with that move.

And, I say again, in the context of Saddam threatening to invade Kuwait, Glaspie was extremely soft, and understanding towards Saddam. This was an implicit green light.

Don't deny this, Diogenes.
It was a green light.
  • 0

#4 SloboFan

SloboFan

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 03:05 PM

geez! I don't know why noone replies to this thread.

I know that this is old news, but there are newbies here that need to learn the basics ... no? ;)
  • 0

#5 RRBum

RRBum

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 172 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 03:14 PM

Of course you're right, SF. The US ambassador, April Glaspie gave S. Hussein the go-ahead to move into the plutocratic sheikdom of Iraq which had been stealing Iraqi oil by slant-drilling, and was actually historically a part of Iraq, until stolen away by the British imperialists.

Glaspie told Hussein that the US had no objections to his moving on Iraq.

Then the Jewish propaganda machine took over and began fabricating pretenses for attacking Iraq: lies about Iraqi soldiers throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators, lies about Iraqi troops massing on the Saudi border...


rrb
  • 0

#6 RRBum

RRBum

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 172 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 03:16 PM

The Jewish warmongers make up their lies and excuses for destroying Iraq as they go along.

Current article from New Yorker magazine about Bush and his lies:

http://www.newyorker...?030331fa_fact1
  • 0

#7 Tokyoman

Tokyoman

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2784 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 03:17 PM

I listened to the whole of Glaspie`s testimony before the SFRC. It`s available at CSPAN. While she admitted she wasn`t persuasive enough in dissuading Saddam from invasion, she never tried to give him the impression it was OK either.

http://www.c-span.org/iraq/history.asp

US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie

Carleton Cole

Eight days before his Aug. 2, 1990, invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein met with April Glaspie, then America's ambassador to Iraq. It was the last high-level contact between the two countries before Iraq went to war.

From a translation of Iraq's transcript of the meeting, released that September, press and pundits concluded that Ms. Glaspie had (in effect) given Saddam a green light to invade.

"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts," the transcript reports Glaspie saying, "such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction ... that Kuwait is not associated with America."

The Persian Gulf War began Jan. 17, 1991. But before the official end of the war (April 11), Glaspie was called to testify informally before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

She said she was the victim of "deliberate deception on a major scale," and denounced the Iraqi transcript as "a fabrication" that distorted her position, though it contained "a great deal" that was accurate.

The veteran diplomat awaited her next assignment, later taking a low-profile job at the United Nations.

In November 1992, Iraq's former deputy prime minister, Tarik Aziz, gave Glaspie some vindication. He said she had not given Iraq a green light. "She just listened and made general comments," he told USA Today. "We knew the United States would have a strong reaction."

Glaspie is now US consul general in Cape Town, South Africa.
  • 0

#8 RRBum

RRBum

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 172 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 03:22 PM

"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts," the transcript reports Glaspie saying, "such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction ... that Kuwait is not associated with America."

What more did you expect? Hussein went to the trouble of getting the OK from the US ambassador!

Then she tries to do some damage control, cover her ***, no surprise.


rrb
  • 0

#9 SloboFan

SloboFan

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 03:34 PM

Thanks RRB!

Yes, and also note that:

-In the war against Iran, Iraq borrowed the money from Kuwait.
Iraq and Kuwait were allies against Iran's fundamentalism.
-Iraq failed to beat Iran; and so, Iraq's economy was badly hurt, and accumulated a huge debt to Kuwait.
-Later, Kuwait and the UAE's policies caused the oil price to drop dramatically, hurting Iraqs economy even more! So Saddam was right! Kuwait wanted to destroy Iraq. Or, in other words, Kuwait wanted to ruin Iraq, and then, buy it cheap, in exchange for the debt.

Saddam was very angry, because in the Iraq-Iran war, Iraq had the compromise to protect Kuwait. So Saddam argues that this debt should not be considered a normal debt, and the Kuwaities should be flexible.
But the Kuwaities were not flexible. In fact, they ran policies in order to damage Iraq's economy more and more.

In this context, the softness of Glaspie with Saddam must be interpreted as a green light for the Kuwait invasion.
  • 0

#10 SloboFan

SloboFan

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 03:48 PM

Tokio Man:
I don't know if Tarik Aziz is on drugs or what!
Glaspie's comments were not "General comments". They were very precisely targeted comments.
Note that Saddam had gathered troops on the Kuwat border, and he was threatening to invade.

If the US didn't want that, the logical attitude of the US ambassador, Glaspie, would have been energic warning.
But she, instead, said that the US didn't have opinion about that
dispute.

Don't you think that this light is green enough?
It looks very green to me!
  • 0

#11 SmallMind

SmallMind

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 387 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 03:54 PM

Originally posted by RRBum
"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts," the transcript reports Glaspie saying, "such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction ... that Kuwait is not associated with America."

What more did you expect? Hussein went to the trouble of getting the OK from the US ambassador!

Then she tries to do some damage control, cover her ***, no surprise.

rrb /QUOTE



It is only american propagandists that deny it. Saddam said a few years ago that he was set up. He had proof that the Kuwaitis under CIA had planned to assassinate high level Iraqi leadership in 91 from documents sized in Kuwait. And Cheenies company was the one that did the slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields and stealing Iraqi oil and selling it below market rates. Bush family also had a big role in setting up the Kuwaiti regime and their Independence from Britain.

And glaspy got hers, they dumped her into some remote dead end jobs for her trouble instead of a promotion. Didn't she think her interview was being taped?
  • 0

#12 porky

porky

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4585 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 03:54 PM

Q: Could you elaborate on the point about mixed signals sent by the U.S. during the run-up to the invasion of Kuwait? How did those influence your government's decision?

A: There were no mixed signals. We should not forget that the whole period before August 2 witnessed a negative American policy towards Iraq. So it would be quite foolish to think that, if we go to Kuwait, then America would like that. Because the American tendency . . . was to untie Iraq. So how could we imagine that such a step was going to be appreciated by the Americans? It looks foolish, you see, this is fiction. About the meeting with April Glaspie--it was a routine meeting. There was nothing extraordinary in it. She didn't say anything extraordinary beyond what any professional diplomat would say without previous instructions from his government. She did not ask for an audience with the president. She was summoned by the president. He telephoned me and said, "Bring the American ambassador. I want to see her." She was not prepared, because it was not morning in Washington. People in Washington were asleep, so she needed a half-hour

To contact anybody in Washington and seek instructions. So, what she said were routine, classical comments on what the president was asking her to convey to President Bush. He wanted her to carry a message to George Bush--not to receive a message through her from Washington.

http://www.pbs.org/w...views/aziz.html
  • 0

#13 porky

porky

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4585 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 03:58 PM

Q: Why did the President summon April Glaspie that day, and what do you remember about that meeting?

Aziz: The President wanted to send a message to George Bush that we are not the enemies of the United States, we do not intend to threaten the interest of the United States or to threaten our neighbours.

There was a crisis with Kuwait and we really wanted to solve it peacefully and during the meeting he received a call from President Mubarak. President Mubarak told him that he was in Kuwait and then in Saudia Arabia and he arranged a meeting between us and the Kuwaitis in Jeddah, and he informed her of that news in a happy manner. He told her, "Look, the good news, President Mubarak told us that he's arranging a meeting between us and Kuwait." So he hopefully wanted a peaceful settlement to that crisis and that was the message to the Americans.

That was not the first message. On the 6th of August, after we went to Kuwait, he summoned the American Charge d'Affaires, Mr Wilson, I think his name, and he gave him a similar message, he told him, "Look I want you to convey to President Bush that I don't want a conflict with the United States", I would like to have good relations with the United States and I am ready to solve this problem by peaceful diplomatic means.

Q: In April, what was your assessment of what the Americans would do--what was April Glaspie saying?

Aziz: She didn't tell us anything strange. She didn't tell us in the sense that we concluded that the Americans will not retaliate. That was nonsense you see. It was nonsense to think that the Americans would not attack us. In the early hours of the 2nd of August, the whole apparatus of the leadership took precautions for an American speedy immediate retaliation.

With the exception of me, as Foreign Minister, I had to stay in my office, the President and all the leadership apparatus was being repositioned..... a precaution from an American attack. So we had no illusions that the Americans will not retaliate against being in Kuwait because they knew that this was a conflict between the two of us-- Iraq and the United States. It was not actually a conflict between Iraq and Kuwait and in my meeting with Mr. Baker in Geneva, he said, "You have a problem with the international community". I said, "No, we have a problem with you. The representative of the international community, the Secretary General of the United Nations is not talking with me now, you are talking with me."

http://www.pbs.org/w...ral/aziz/2.html
  • 0

#14 SmallMind

SmallMind

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 387 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 03:59 PM

Dont forget the justice department notes and telegraphs that were declassified which shows the Iraqi documents were genuine.
  • 0

#15 SmallMind

SmallMind

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 387 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 04:12 PM

Iraq was set up. The hundreds of thousands of combat uniforms for desert warfare and the desert training the US troops got clearely shows that. No matter what the Iraqi's thought, the americans set them up.





Q: You thought Iraq could take on America?

Aziz: We were pushed into a fatal struggle in the sense of a struggle in which your fate will be decided. You will either be hit inside your house and destroyed, economically and militarily. Or you go outside and attack the enemy in one of his bases. We had to do that, we had no choice, we had no other choice.

Iraq was designated by George Bush for destruction, with or without Kuwait. Inside Kuwait or outside Kuwait. Before the 2nd of August or after the 2nd of August.

: Did you expect them to send millions of troops to Saudi Arabia?

Aziz: No, I wouldn't say that we thought in every detail what they would do but we thought that there will be a retaliation and a serious one and America is a super power and very powerful military power in this region, with fleets and military bases. So we didn't have any illusions about the power, the seriousness of the American retaliation.



Q: Why did the Arabs not succeed?

Aziz: It was America. America didn't want the the peaceful initiatives to succeed because George Bush decided to go to war. If you are seeking the truth about that period, you should have seen that the decision for war was finally taken in the meeting between George Bush and Margaret Thatcher when she was there in the States. And that was the decision of President Bush also.

Q: They wouldn't have gone to war if you'd withdrawn, that would have been too difficult....

Aziz: This is very hypothetical. As I told you, Margaret Thatcher and George Bush spoke about dismantling Iraq's military power, even if Iraq withdraws from Kuwait, so what does that mean? It means some sort of a war, with or without Kuwait.
  • 0

#16 SloboFan

SloboFan

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 04:22 PM

@ Porky:

I am puzzled with Aziz!
so the iraquis did know that the USA would retaliate?
Then why did they invaded Kuwait?
And, then, in the subsequent war with the US, why the Iraqis didn't show resistance like they are doing now ?

I don't understand anything.


Also, Aziz says that the Glaspie interview was irrelevant.
Well, that is bullshit. Its not logical. If the US was really worried that Iraq wanted to invade, the ambassador would have shown more energy, even if that meeting was improvised by Saddam.

This would confirm something I have said before: Saddam is a US agent:
Iraq invades Kuwait.
USA liberates Kuwait. So, now, Kuwait belongs to USA.
Does it make sense?
  • 0

#17 SloboFan

SloboFan

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 04:27 PM

@ Small Mind:
I am confused. I don't know what to think... about Saddam being a US agent or not... what do you think?:confused:
  • 0

#18 SmallMind

SmallMind

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 387 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 04:38 PM

Well there is a high level rat in the Iraqi leadership, not sure if it is Saddam itself or one of his closest advisor's. Remember Saddam nationalized all the US/UK oil assets in 70 and started OPEC but bush went along hoping things would change, some of his comments talk about betrayal by Saddam. This entire thing started when Saddam refused to sign over the mining and mineral rights of Iraq to the americans in 88. Which clearely indicated that no matter how long the americans waited, they would not get access to Iraqi resources.

Look at the interview of Aziz, it certainly gives the impression that Iraq was a carrot and stick case, helping them against Iran because suddenly they found a much harder foe coming up. But the carrot did not work and while the Iraqi economy was devastated in the war, their military capability was enhanced many fold, a country with 1/4 the resources have to compromise many things to not loose fast any war. So that military had to be taken care off now that it was not needed.

Very illuminating interview, seems they were not ignorant of things. But decided to take the fight out of the house. Just their battle tactics did not take into account of a protracted heavy conflict but just temporary skrimishes. understandable since Sadda had just executed 100 of his most experienced commanders. Same tactics in Iran, when they executed 5000 of their most serior military officers, Iraq was made to attack them. But guess by whom... The saudi's under preassure by the americans.



http://www.pbs.org/w...ral/aziz/1.html
  • 0

#19 porky

porky

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4585 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 04:40 PM

The idea that Saddam could have been a US agent in the past has been debunked. The US helped his old boss against the Communists. They had nothing to do with Saddam taking over.

As for Glaspie, she was just ignorant. She didn't know that Saddam was going to invade Kuwait, and she didn't know what to say except to be neutral. That's why she was demoted and sent off to South Africa.
  • 0

#20 SmallMind

SmallMind

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 387 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 04:47 PM

>>As for Glaspie, she was just ignorant. She didn't know that Saddam was going to invade Kuwait<<

Then she is not only ignorant but also stupid. Saddam was very clear that if diplomatic efforts failed he would not only attack Kuwait but annex it as well and the 200,000 troops massed on the border and Saddam going we are pissed off and the end is near should be obvious to anyone.

And also saying she was ignorant does not make sense since state department declassified papers clea-rely shows that she should give the impression that the US is neutral in the problem.

Which clea-rely was not the case because they HAD already planned a massive military intervention in Iraq.


Also all the Kuwaiti leadership escaped in the surprise attack. A country smaller than many islands and not much larger than many cities. Which shows even they KNEW there would be an attack.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru