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

#41 SmallMind

SmallMind

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 387 posts

Posted 04 May 2003 - 07:48 PM

IV - Weapons Of Mass Destruction and demonization

Chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) were relatively well documented at the time. Not the same could be said about the possibility that Saddam Hussein had or was on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons. Demonization and character assassination are tools of the warring trade that has been immaculately perfected.

a) Chemical ordnances

Iraq had turned to chemical warfare in the last part of the Iraq-Iran war when the Iraqis were on the brink of being submerged by human waves of Iranian fighters, often teen-agers. The Reagan Administration turned a blind eye on, and winked at the Iraqi actions as the U.S. covertly supported the Iraqi regime in its endeavor to defeat the Iranians, fearing that the Ayatollahs (Khomeini & co.) would export their fundamentalist revolution to the entire Arabian Gulf Peninsula (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Emirates, etc.). Iranians reciprocated, though to a lesser extent, until, exhausted, the two sides reached a cease-fire.

After the invasion of Kuwait, in August 1990, the Bush Administration began asserting that the Iraqi regime had gassed its own people in Northern Iraq (the Kurds). The administration was specifically pointing its finger to the Halabjah deadly gas attack in March 1988 (Halabjah is a Kurdish town in Northern Iraq), after the cease-fire had taken place. The event took place. Halabjah was gassed. What is not clear is which side did it. At the time, the Reagan administration suggested that the Iranians were the culprits. Upon careful consideration, analysts have come to the conclusion that the Iraqis were responsible for the attack. The town had been taken over by Iranian elite forces and it would have made little sense for their government to gas its own troops while, in all likelihood, the Iraqis had reasons to proceed with such a dire attack. The town, as said, had been taken over by the Iranians and some Kurd factions had allied themselves with Iran. The fact remains that to this day, there is no definite evidence of who did what. While logic might point into the Iraqi direction (see the analysis of Glen Rangwala on the CASI forum, at http://www.casi.org....2/msg00034.html) doubts linger. For example, Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies notes that "Iranians also used poison gas at Halabjah and may have caused some of the casualties" (The Military Threat from Iraq, page 36). See also the March 2002 opinion of Anthony Arnove on Zmag, "Convenient And Not So Convenient Massacres," at http://www.zmag.org/...03/28arnove.cfm to get an idea of the selective use of these events by the US government.

[ed. The following two paragraphs were added on February 1, 2003.] The New York Times published a January 31, 2003 Op-Ed by Stephen C. Pelletiere who was the CIA's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000. According to Pelletiere who, in his words, "was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington," "[Saddam Hussein] has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war." (we append a relevant excerpt of this Op-Ed at the end of this dossier.)

Murky business, isn't it? Both Iran and Iraq violated the international chemical weapons treaty (as did the USA in Vietnam... Remember Agent Orange? Has the USA ever paid war reparations for using WMD in Vietnam?). But, Phyllis Bennis, a Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, writes in a primer, Understanding the U.S.-Iraq Crisis, that "One former Iraqi officer, General al-Shamari, told Newsweek that he was in charge of firing chemical weapons from howitzers against Iranian troops, and that U.S. satellite information provided the targeting information. A former CIA official confirmed to Newsweek that the U.S. provided military intelligence to Iraq, including on chemical warfare. General al-Shamari now lives safely in the U.S., running a restaurant outside of Washington DC." (See http://www.ips-dc.or...primer4.htm#33.) Murky business indeed!

B) Nuclear weapons

The Bush administration and the main media made a relentless case about the dangers of seeing Iraq acquire nuclear weapons. Whether the Iraqi regime had procured them already, or was on the edge of acquiring them, was the object of intense debates and speculations. The bottom line was that the "civilized" world could not let such abominable weapons fall into the hands of a bloodthirsty dictator. Forget that the Iraqis had no way of delivering such a deadly weapon upon the continental United States. They could reach our friends and allies in the region, we were told. Forget that the Israelis, having concluded that the Iraqis were not truly a threat to the existence of their state, had taken no action (they did level the French-built Osirak nuclear plant in 1981), the Iraqi regime, personalized by Saddam Hussein, was deemed so "evil" that they would nuke the entire world. (Forget also that the Iraqis, during the Gulf War, did not use chemical weapons. They might have been "evildoers" but they certainly were not suicidal. See Tarik Aziz oral history on Frontline at http://www.pbs.org/w...al/aziz/1.html.) So, we will never know the true assessment of the Iraqi nuclear reality of that time. The U.S. Congress however -- and with the help of the incubators story -- needed no further explanation. Why? That's where, among other things, the demonization of Saddam Hussein played a big role.

c) Dehumanization and Demonization of the enemy

Another technique that has been refined over time; Public eye.org defines thus: "To understand scapegoating we must consider how we identify and perceive our enemies. A first step is marginalization, the processes whereby targeted individuals or groups are pictured (in the sense of being framed) as outside the circle of wholesome mainstream society. The next step is objectification or dehumanization, the process of negatively labeling a person or group of people so they become perceived more as objects rather than real people. Dehumanization often is associated with the belief that a particular group of people are inferior or threatening. The final step is demonization, the person or group is seen as totally malevolent, sinful, and evil. It is easier to rationalize stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination, and even violence against those who are dehumanized or demonized.

Demonization fuels dualism -- a form of binary thinking that divides the world into good versus evil with no middle ground tolerated. Dualism allows no acknowledgment of complexity, nuance, or ambiguity in debates; and promotes hostility toward those who suggest coexistence, toleration, pragmatism, compromise, or mediation.

Aho observes that our notions of the enemy 'in our everyday life world,' is that the 'enemy's presence in our midst is a pathology of the social organism serious enough to require the most far-reaching remedies: quarantine, political excision, or, to use a particularly revealing, expression, liquidation and expulsion.'" (See, http://www.publiceye...goating-01.htm.)

The Bush administration played the phenomenon to the hilt. The American people fell for it.

The rest is history, which in the present, short and medium terms is and will be recorded by the same people who made up the deception in the first place. Long term history will once again be less delicate. But we will all be dead.

In the meantime Gulf War II will have taken place, following the same patterns...and to what results?




http://www.swans.com...art8/ga138.html
  • 0

#42 SmallMind

SmallMind

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 387 posts

Posted 04 May 2003 - 11:50 PM

Persian Gulf War Set up of Iraq

http://www.geocities...fwar/setup.html

There were many ways in which the US government and other US institutions aided Saddam Hussein up to the point of the invasion of Kuwait. The support of US business interests over many years for Saddam Hussein is well documented, part of the general Western support for the Iraqi regime.

On April 12th, 1990 Saddam met with 5 US senators. Robert Dole, Alan Simpson, Howard Metzenbaum, James McClure and Frank Murkowski; the US ambassador, soon to be famous for her own 'green light' to Saddam, was also present. The US senators criticised the American press in their attempts to propitiate Saddam, emphasising that there was a difference between the attitudes of the US government and those of journalists. Senator Dole commented:

Please allow me to say that only twelve hours earlier President Bush had assured me that he wants better relations, and that the US government wants better relations with Iraq... I assume that President Bush will oppose sanctions, and he might veto them, unless something provocative were to happen...
It was clear that Iraq's war on Iran, its human record, and its increasingly bellicose efforts to impose its will on the Gulf region were not judged to be sufficiently 'provocative'. Ambassador Glaspie then chipped in to affirm that she was certain 'that this is the policy of the US'(that is, that Presidnet Bush saw nothing about Iraq that would impede the development of good relations).


Senator Howard Metzenbaum ('I am a jew and a staunch supporter of Israel') payed Saddam a compliment: '... I have been sitting here listening to you for about an hour, and I am now aware that you are a strong and intelligent man and that you want peace.. if.. you were to focus on the value of the peace that we greatly need to achieve in the Middle East then there would not be a leader to compare with you in the Middle East..'
On July 25 1990, a day after 2 Iraqi armoured divisions moved from their bases to take up positions on the Kuwaiti border, Saddam Hussein summoned US Ambassador April Glaspie to his office. Even at this late statge , with an obviosly deteriorating situation in the Gulf, Glaspie still made efforts to placate Saddam Hussein. She emphasised that President Bush had rejected the ideaof trade sanctions against Iraq, to which Saddam replied:

There is nothing left for us to buy from America except wheat. Every time we want to buy something, they say it is forbidden. I am afraid that one day you will say, "You are going to make gunpowder out of wheat."

Glapsie was quick to reassure to Saddam: "I have direct instruction from the President to seek better relations with Iraq." She then went to say her much-quoted comment that was perhaps the biggest 'green light' of all:

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 Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait

In short, the US ambassador to Baghdad was here telling Saddam Hussein that he had a legitimate case against Kuwait and that the matter was no business of the United States.

On July 31 (2 days before the invasion of Kuwait), the US Assistant Secretary of state John Kelly testified on Capitol Hill before the Middle East subcommittee of the House of Representatives. Aimed at clarifying the attitude of the Bush administration to the escalating crisis in the Gulf:

Representative Hamilton: Defense Secretary Richard Cheney has been quoted in the press as saying that the United States was commited to going to the defese of Kuwait if she were attacked. Is that exactly what was said? Could Mr Kelly clarify this?
Assistant Secretary Kelly: .. We have no defense treaty relationship with any Gulf country...

Hamilton: Do we have a commitment to our friends in the Gulf in the event that they are engaged in oil or territorial disputes with their neighbors?

Kelly: As I said, Mr Chairman, we have no defense treaty relationships with any of the countries. We have historically avoided taking a position on border disputes or on internal OPEC deliberations...

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 that we would be extremely concerned, but I cannot get into the realm of "what if" answers.
Hamilton: In that circumstance, is it correct to say, however, that we do not have a treaty commitment which would obligate us to engage US forces?
Kelly: That is correct.
Hamilton: That is correct, is it not?
Kelly: That is correct, sir.
These statements broadcast on the World Service of the BBC, were heard in Baghdad. At a crucial momment, a senior offical of the Bush administration had sent Saddam Hussein a signal that the US would not intervene. The American setup for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait had been complete.


Bibliography:
Simons, Geoff. Iraq From Sumer to Saddam St. Martin Press, NY 1994
Articles:
Was Gulf War A Set up for Iraq? by Karen Nakamura (The Coastal Post 6/98)
Excerpts from 3rd 1992 presidential debate (10/19/92)
US conspiracy to Initiate the War Against Iraq by Brian Becker (1992)
The CIA and Gulf War by John Stockwell (2/20/91)
Who lost Kuwait? by Murray Waas (San Francisco Bay Guardian 1/30/91)
Meeting between Saddam and US Ambassador (7/25/90)
  • 0

#43 SmallMind

SmallMind

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 387 posts

Posted 04 May 2003 - 11:51 PM

Was Gulf War A Set up for Iraq? by Karen Nakamura (The Coastal Post 6/98)

Excerted from http://www.coastalpost.com/98/6/4.htm
Was Gulf War A Setup For Iraq?
By Karen Nakamura The Coastal Post - June, 1998
Was the Gulf War a set-up by Reagan/Bush to sell weapons, win elections and extend the West's sphere of influence in the Middle East?
Some experts think so. And they think sanctions are just a part of Bush & Co. conning Saddam into the Gulf War. Why? Because Saddam Hussein won't play ball with the West. Instead, he cared to build his own army. But mostly because he refused to deliver up Iraq's oil and mineral rights. Because he won't play ball and fetch, he's been deemed "expendable." Saddam doesn't have to be right to have been wronged.

Ollie North shredded a lot of history. Even so, let's consider what Craig Hullet, Middle East expert and lawyer, found through the Freedom of Information Act.

A CIA transcript of October 29, 1985, described a meeting between Oliver North, Richard Secord and Albert Hakkim, in Frankfort, Germany, with a "second channel" from Iran.

Iran-Contra experts will recognize this trio. Not only did they sell weapons to Iran, they made an amazing promise: America would overthrow Saddam for Iran.

During the Iran/Iraq war ("The Way to Jerusalem is through Baghdad"), instead of military support, Kuwait and other Arab states gave money. In 1988, according to the London Economist, at the end of the war, James Baker visited Saddam. He said Iraq wouldn't get more credit from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or the West to pay their war debts unless Iraq gave up phosphate, sulfate, oil and other raw material rights as collateral and in perpetuity. Saddam was outraged and refused.

Kuwait began demanding payment of its "war loans." The Iraqis, unable and unwilling to repay, said the money was Kuwait's war contribution. Here Saddam had saved the Arabs. Now, he was supposed to foot the bill. Early in 1990, Kuwait glutted the oil market with Iraqi oil. Already low prices tumbled. Iraqi's shaky economy went belly-up.

Important is a dispute over Iraq and Kuwait's "floating border." Iraq never accepted Kuwait's claim to land abutting Iraq's lucrative Rumanian [sic] oil fields. During the Iran War, Kuwait sneaked in and grabbed the turf.

Less than six months after certain November '89 meetings in Kuwait, Kuwait started drilling sideways under the new border to collect its debt. This was the oil Kuwait used to flood the market.

Interestingly, Kuwait purchased its slanted drilling equipment from the Santa Fe Drilling Company. A large stockholder was Brent Scrowcroft, Bush's National Security Advisor.

Saddam demanded negotiations. The Kuwaitis insulted him. Kuwait would ignore Iraq's protests. "Let them try to occupy our territory. We're going to have the Americans come in."

Way before that, when James Baker told Saddam to turn over his oil rights or face the consequences, Secretary of State George Schultz got sanctions against Iraq for poisoning the Kurds in March, 1988. The photos shocked us into the Chemical Weapons Age. Even the Pentagon agreed there was no proof Iraq did the gassing. Both Iran and Iraq were using chemicals by then. Iran had cyanide. That's what killed the Kurds. Iraq did not. The Pentagon investigated. The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College said:

"Having looked at all the evidence available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim poison gas was used by Iraq in this incident."

The UN came to the same conclusion. Jordan decided much of the evidence was outright forgery.

The Institute concluded, "...Congress acted more on...emotionalism than factual information."

Consider this anecdote told by Mr. Hulet: A lawyer, he's a stickler for authenticity. After the Gulf War, Kuwaiti Foreign Minister al-Shabott, "...confronted Tariq Aziz [Iraqi's Foreign Minister]...jabbed his finger at [him] and said, 'You nasty rascal. You...invaded my country... It was totally unjustified... You people are going to pay...'

"Tariq Aziz...said, 'You...better be extremely careful what you say...in public because we're in possession of documented proof of the...meetings...you were holding in the foreign ministry of Kuwait with...Central Intelligence Agency officials working out a covert operation against Saddam Hussein in Iraq."

"...Foreign Minister Shabott...passed out. Fainted dead away..."

A little history to understand context: In mid-1989, when Gorbachev began dismantling the Soviet Army, the military/industrial complex was not amused. Top-level meetings were held to find ways to retain military relevancy and funding. The decision was to re-tool for small wars in unstable countries and create a military "shield" to protect access to raw materials for a new "Northern Industrial Alliance."

By November 14, 1989 (watch this date), a decision had been made to pursue a clandestine operation against Saddam. That was the same week Communism crumpled. The Berlin Wall fell November 9; Czechoslovakia, November 17.

A January, 1990, military document, entitled "Global Reach, Global Power," designated the Iraq/Kuwait border dispute an example of how to demonstrate the need for massive U.S. military development.

That same month, at an Iraq Arms Fair, the world's death merchants complained bitterly about plunging profits.

April 19, 1990, Bush convened the Western Powers. A White Paper stated that as the Soviet Union was no longer a player in the Middle East, the West should move in to fill the vacuum. The region could "stabilize" by eliminating military powers in Iraq, Iran and Syria.

The same month, Senator Bob Dole and other Congressional leaders visited Iraq and presented an ultimatum: disarm and play fetch or face the consequences. Saddam refused. Not until Israel did the same. Saddam had tripped the trap.

Which gets us to Tariq Aziz and the documents found by the Iraqis. A memo dated November 14, 1989, and prepared by the Kuwait Security Minister, outlined meetings with the CIA. It stated Kuwait entered into an agreement with the CIA to apply pressure on Iraq to create a confrontation to be used as a reason for toppling Saddam.

Recently, the International Atomic Energy Agency said it considers Iraq free of nuclear weapons. The military/industrial complex is not amused. Saddam still won't play ball and fetch. Aid isn't getting to the needy. Hundreds of kids still die every day.

In April, AmeriCare shipped a planeload of medical supplies. The International Action Center, founded by Ramsey Clark, sent another planeload in May with more on the way. Through the goodness of supply companies, $1 buys about $100 in medicine. Make your check as stated to be tax deductible.

People's Rights Fund/Medical Aid c/o International Action Center, 2489 Mission St. #28, San Francisco 94110. Internet: npcsf@igc.apc.org. Call Richard or Ron at (415) 821-7575; fax (415) 821-5782.
  • 0

#44 SmallMind

SmallMind

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 387 posts

Posted 04 May 2003 - 11:55 PM

US conspiracy to Initiate the War Against Iraq by Brian Becker (1992)

Excerted from http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-consp.htm
U.S. Conspiracy to Initiate the War Against Iraq

Brian Becker
Even before the first day of the Persian Gulf crisis George Bush and the Pentagon wanted to wage war against Iraq.
What was the character of this war? Iraq neither attacked nor threatened the United States. We believe that this was a war to redivide and redistribute the fabulous markets and resources of the Middle East, in other words this was an imperialist war. The Bush administration, on behalf of the giant oil corporations and banks, sought to strengthen its domination of this strategic region. It did this in league with the former colonial powers of the region, namely Britain and France, and in opposition to the Iraqi people's claim on their own land and especially their natural resources.

As is customary in such wars, the government is compelled to mask the truth about the war - both its origin and goals and the nature of the "enemy" - in order to win over the people of this country. That's why it is important to get the facts. There is ample evidence that the U.S. was eagerly planning to fight the war even before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990. With its plans in tact, we must detemmine if it is possible that the U.S. government actually sought a pretext for a military intervention in the Middle East.

Information that has come to light suggests that the United States interfered in and aggravated the Iraq-Kuwait dispute, knew that an Iraqi military response against Kuwait was likely, and then took advantage of the Iraqi move to carry out a long-planned U.S. military intervention in the Middle East. This evidence includes:


<snip>

A War to Destroy Iraq as a Regional Power
That the Bush administration wanted the war is obvious by its steadfast refusal to enter into any genuine negotiations with Iraq that could have achieved a diplomatic solution. Iraq's August 12, 1990, negotiation proposal, which indicated that Iraq was willing to make significant concessions in return for a comprehensive discussion of other unresolved Middle East conflicts, was rejected out of hand by the Bush administration. So was another Iraqi offer made in December that was reported by Knut Royce in Newsday.

President Bush avoided diplomacy and negotiations, even refusing to send Secretary of State Baker to meet Saddam Hussein before the January 15, 1991 deadline as he had promised on November 30, 1990. Bush also rejected Iraq's withdrawal offer of February 15, 1991, two days aver U.S. planes incinerated hundreds of women and children sleeping in the al-Arneriyah bomb shelter. The Iraqis immediately agreed to the Soviet proposal of February 18, 1991 - that is four days before the so-called ground war was launched - which required Iraq to abide by all UN resolutions.

The U.S. ground war against Iraqi positions resulted in the greatest number of casualties in the conflict. As many as 50,000 to 100,000 Iraqi soldiers may have died after the Iraqi government had fully capitulated to all U.S. and UN demands. It is thus obvious that the U.S. government did not fight the war to secure Iraq's eviction from Kuwait but rather proceeded with this unparalleled massacre for other foreign policy objectives. These objectives have never been defined for the broader public but only referred to euphemistically under the rubric of the New World Order.

<snip>

Iran-lraq War and U.S. Strategy
That the U.S. sought to permanently weaken or crush Iraq, as a regional power capable of asserting even a nominal challenge to U.S. dominance over this strategic oil-rich region, fits in with a longer historical pattern. Since the discovery of vast oil deposits in the Middle East, and even earlier, the strategy of the U.S. and other European colonial powers was to prevent the emergence of any strong nationalist regime in the region. The U.S. has relied on corrupted and despised hereditary monarchies and dictatorships in the Middle East. Such regimes have served as puppets for U.S. interests in exchange for U.S. protection. When the Shah of Iran was overthrown in 1979 by a massive popular revolution, it came as a complete shock to U.S. oil companies, the CIA, and the Pentagon, which used the hated Shah as a pro-U.S. policeman of the Gulf region.

<snip>

The New World Order and Big Oil
We believe that the real goal of the United States war against Iraq is to return to the "good old days" when the U.S. and some European countries totally plundered the resources of the Middle East. Five of the twelve largest corporations in the United States are oil monopolies. Before the rise of Arab nationalism and the anti-feudal revolutions that swept out colonialist regimes in Iraq and other Middle Eastem countries in the 1950s and 1960s, U.S., British, and Dutch oil companies owned Arab and Iranian oil fields outright. Between 1948 and 1960 U.S. oil companies received $13 billion in profit from their Persian Gulf holdings. That was half the return on all overseas investment by all U.S. companies in those years.

In recent decades U.S. companies no longer directly own the oil fields of the Middle East, but they still get rich from them. That is because the royal families of the oil-rich Arabian peninsula, who were put on their thrones by the British empire and are kept there by the U.S. military and the CIA, have loyally turned their kingdoms into cash cows for Wall Street banks and corporations.

This is one way it works. Money spent on Saudi Arabian oil, for example, once went into the accounts of Rockefeller-controlled oil corporations at the Rockefeller-controlled Chase Manhattan Bank. Now it is deposited in the Saudi king's huge account at Chase Manhattan which reinvests it at a hefty profit to the Rockefellers. Chase Manhattan also manages the Saudi Industrial Development Fund and the Saudi Investment Bank. Morgan Guaranty Trust Company, which is linked to Mobil and Texaco, has a representative on the Board of the Saudi Monetary Authority and controls another big chunk of the kingdom's income. Citicorp handles much of the Emir of Kuwait's $120 billion investment portfolio.[l5] The total amount that the Gulf's feudal lords have put at the disposal of the western bankers is conservatively estimated at $1 trillion. It is probably much more.

While the big oil companies have a going partnership with the feudal rulers of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, etc., they are relatively locked out of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Yemen, and Algeria. The goal of the U.S. war is to roll back the Arab revolution and all the other revolutionary movements that have swept the region since World War II.

The New World Order that Bush has in mind is, in fact, not so new. It is an attempt to turn the clock back to the pre-World War II era of unchallenged colonial domination and plunder of the land, labor, and resources of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East by a handful of industrialized capitalist countries. Unlike the old world order of outright colonialism, the new world order will be imposed by Stealth aircraft, guided missiles, smart bombs, and tactical nuclear weapons - not l9th-century gunboats. This is based on grand geopolitical strategy that flows like water from Pentagon-sponsored think tanks in Washington. It leaves out the most important factor in the equation of the Middle East - the broad mass of the people whose hatred for foreign domination and capacity to struggle remains as powerful as ever.

The U.S. and its imperialist allies have won a temporary victory in the Middle East. But their policy of military domination to stop the natural progression of history - for people to liberate themselves from the yoke of colonialism - cannot succeed.

Notes
New York Times, September 3, 1990.
Stated to Brian Becker and other members of the Muhammad Ali Peace Delegation on November 30, 1990 by Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Ramadan.
Newsweek, January 28, 1990; for more information on the revamping of Pentagon strategy in early 1990 see Michael T. Klare, "Policing the Gulf - And the World," The Nation, October 15, 1990.
New York Times, October 16, 1990.
New York Times, October 16, 1990.
Jean Heller, "Public Doesn't Get Picture with Gulf Satellite Photos," St Petersburg Times, January 6, 1991. Rpt. In These Times, February 27-March 19, 1991: 7.
Newsday, August 20, 1991.
See James Ridgeway, "Third World Wars: Iraq is a Model for Post-Cold War Colonies," Village Voice, January 29, 1991.
Newsday, February 4, 1991?our emphasis.
Speech by Secretary of State James Baker, New York Times, September 4, 1990.
American Foreign Policy: Current Documents {Washington, DC: Department of State, 1991X, p. 260.
New York Times, February 16, 1991: A5.
Don Oberdorfer, Washington Post, February 16, 1991.
Stephen C. Pelletiere, et al. Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East (Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 1990), p. 53.
Liberation and Marxism, #7 11990).
Brian Becker was a member of the Muhammad Ali Peace Delegation which travelled to Iraq in late November 1990 in an effort to prevent the war. This report was presented at the New York Commission hearing on May 11, 1991.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WWW URL: http://deoxy.org/wc-consp.htm
Copyright ? 1992 by The Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal
  • 0

#45 SmallMind

SmallMind

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 387 posts

Posted 10 May 2003 - 10:32 PM

Western Imperialism and Iraq:
The Torment of Iraq

The Iran-Iraq war formally ended in 1990 with both participants-potentially prosperous and powerful countries-having suffered terrible losses. The 'war of the cities' had targeted major population centres and industrial sites on both sides, particularly oil refineries. Iran, lacking the steady flow of sophisticated weapons and American help enjoyed by Iraq, had managed to fight back Iraq's attacks by mobilising great 'human waves' of young volunteers, even teenage boys. While the tactic worked, the cost in lives was enormous. It was the apprehension of an internal uprising that led the Iranian leaders to come to terms with Iraq after the fall of the Fao peninsula in 1988.

Iraq's economy too badly needed re-building. Developmental programmes had been neglected for the previous decade. Exploration and development of the country's fabulous oil resources had stagnated. To pay for the war, the country had accumulated an $80 billion foreign debt - more than half of that owed to the Gulf states. Having nothing to show for the terrible price of the war, Iraq's rulers were desperate.

An opportunity for the US
For the US, however, this catastrophe for the two countries was a satisfactory situation, and held promise of much greater gains. The exhausted Iran was no longer a major threat to American interests in the rest of the region. And, as we shall see, Iraq's unstable situation was creating conditions for the US to achieve a vital objective: permanent installation of its military in West Asia. Direct control over West Asian oil resources-the world's richest and most cheaply accessible-would allow the US to manipulate oil supplies and prices according to its strategic interests, and thereby consolidate American global supremacy against any future challenger. (This aspect has been dealt with in a separate article in this issue.)

The world situation was favourable to such a plan. The Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse, and would be unable to prevent American intervention in the region. Nor would European, Japanese or Chinese reservations be of much consequence. The real hurdle was the opposition of the Arab masses to any such presence of American troops-even more to their permanent installation.

What was required, then, was a credible pretext for US intervention and continuing presence.

http://www.rupe-indi...34/torment.html
  • 0

#46 smartcode

smartcode

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 237 posts

Posted 15 May 2003 - 10:51 AM

Diogenes
Senior Member

Registered: Jan 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 1277
Smartcode: "Then we can say it loudly..."

Say it as loudly as you want. That still doesn't make it true.



Why diogn..?
Is it because you are denying that. Ohhh Do you think your self the only one living on this planet who decide everything.
  • 0

#47 grob

grob

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4579 posts

Posted 29 January 2004 - 03:43 PM

Lest we forget!
  • 0

#48 FtheUS?FU!!

FtheUS?FU!!

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 77 posts

Posted 29 January 2004 - 03:49 PM

It may be true but most likely the Iraqi's (Hussein) simply misinterpreted what my country was saying. Maybe 'get laid' was misheard as 'invade'. I like how everything gets turned around to point at the USA as the bad guy. We are the power that contains evil in this world and you all should be thanking US for defending the planet. THE ENTIRE PLANET! USA4U
  • 0

#49 Patrick

Patrick

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4962 posts

Posted 29 January 2004 - 03:52 PM

''It may be true but most likely the Iraqi's (Hussein) simply misinterpreted what my country was saying. ''

Horsespit...

.....I remember seeing this live back then; they said ''go for it'', then had the excuse to start the ''jews''' war...

.....How much American blood will be shed for the antiChrist ''jew''?
  • 0

#50 Source

Source

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9046 posts

Posted 29 January 2004 - 04:43 PM

"We are the power that contains evil in this world"

quite.
  • 0

#51 grob

grob

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4579 posts

Posted 29 January 2004 - 04:51 PM

The desert war training, the equipment all ready, the goading and the Kuwaiti's plainly saying, we are not going to give anything back and if you act up we will just call in the americans.

yea they spent billions, all the planning, all the stupid idiotic comments.. It was all for hmm yea a joke yea thats it.. Americans do this alla tyme.. They have nothing better to do...


:rolleyes:
  • 0

#52 robertromano

robertromano

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 735 posts

Posted 29 January 2004 - 05:02 PM

NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, can ever find any proof that the US "gave the green light" to invade Iraq.

If you guys REALLY believe this, then you are all very stupid. Keep believing it.

The US said "this is not our business" basically, in reference to Iraq and Kuwaits beef. Iraq wants to attack and occupy Kuwait because of slant-drilling, now..... THE US DIDNT OK THAT.

If Saddam wanted the rope to hang himself, and we gave it to him. its a shame he was such a gullbile "great" leader of the middle east....tsk tsk
  • 0

#53 grob

grob

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4579 posts

Posted 29 January 2004 - 06:15 PM

Glaspie said she knew the history of the region.. History said Iraq never recognized the British partitioning Kuwait into a separate country and Iraq made a claim at the UN for it.

Senate Hearing committee said, gee this does not look good Glaspie, it is like you told him it was okay to go ahead..

And after being confronted with the transcript outside by 2 reporters, she yells, BUT WE DIDN'T KNOW HE WAS GOING TO TAKE THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. We thought he only wanted part of it.

DOH!!!!!!!!!

Never send a white woman to do a MAN's job... Maybe thats why she got transfered to the jungle to arrange things with monkey people now.
  • 0

#54 Tokyoman

Tokyoman

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2784 posts

Posted 29 January 2004 - 06:21 PM

Go to the start of this thread.

Listen to Glaspie's testimony.

Read porky's posts.

Stop blabbering your misinformed nonsense.
  • 0

#55 grob

grob

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4579 posts

Posted 29 January 2004 - 06:34 PM

Only a moron wannabe would negate what she herself has said. DOH!
  • 0

#56 robertromano

robertromano

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 735 posts

Posted 29 January 2004 - 08:19 PM

>>>Robert - Sec. Baker told Glaspie we would not interfere in inter-Arab wars. How much proof do you need?

First of all, like I said we gave Saddam the rope to hang himself.

Second of all, that is total garbage "proof". All you "proved" is that Baker told Glaspie that we wont interfere in inter-Arab wars.

I hate to quote such sources but I will:

whatreallyhappened.com>>>

****************
Glaspie: 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.

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.
****************

Now, the only possible way to call that a "green light" to inavde Kuwait, is if you TOTALLY DISREGARD THE FIRST PART IN WHICH SHE SAYS THE US DOESNT WANT IRAQ TO INVADE!!!!!:confused:

And, since you are READING INTO THIS and applying undertones to the conversation, one call also assume this is a message NOT TO INVADE KUWAIT because we are "CONCERNED". Then Saddam talks about the territory he wants as either the Shatt or whatever, and Glaspie says the US has no opinion on that matter.

AS YOU CAN SEE I AM TWISTING HER WORDS AND APPLYING A MEANING WHICH IS NOT OVERTLY STATED, and therefore NOT CERTAINLY THE TRUE MEANING. JUST LIKE YOU GUYS. its a game the whole family can play.

NO GREEN LIGHT. We voiced concern and then said we have no opinion on which territory he should try to take over. We stopped short of advising him on war tactics, and instead expressed concern. After all, he was somewhat of an ally at the time.

NO PROOF NO GREEN LIGHT. NO DEFINITIVE ANSWER. read it yourself, toner, yuo are drawing the conclusion that SUITS YOU BEST, thats all.
  • 0

#57 Rich

Rich

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts

Posted 29 January 2004 - 08:23 PM

Green light? GREEN LIGHT?!?! Hahahaha.

Oh wow! Thanks, that was funny as hell. Hehehe. I'm gonna be laughing the next few days over that one.

Yeah, it's all coming back to me now. Didn't GW senior actually come out on TV and say specifically "Saddam, go ahead and invade Kuwait, we need a practice venue for our new improved armed forces." Man, I've seen some good ones in this forum but that's got to be in the top ten.
  • 0

#58 usa_resident

usa_resident

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 2612 posts

Posted 29 January 2004 - 08:24 PM

light to invade Kuwait.

You believe this because you're either very stupid, or insane.
  • 0

#59 grob

grob

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4579 posts

Posted 29 January 2004 - 08:32 PM

Are you too stupid to read?

:rolleyes:

lol americans!
  • 0

#60 Rich

Rich

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts

Posted 29 January 2004 - 08:33 PM

Not at all! I just read your post. It said "Are you too stupid to read?"

Any more ridiculous questions?
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru