OT--Thanks For The Memories



Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Howard Kveck

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html
>
>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>

> slant drilling into Iraqi oilfields, not Kuwait flooding of the oil market.

Well, the oil production issue was one of many: the Iraqis pointed out that the Kuwaitis had been
far over their OPEC production quota, and that -did- sort of help lower the price of a barrel.
But the Iraqis also were irked that the Kuwaits were thought to be taking oil out of their side
of the shared oil field, as you mention (I think they were, btw, based on articles I read back in
the early '90s that talked about how the Kuwaiti equipment was set up and where it was). Another
factor was the fact that Iraq wanted Kuwait to forgive the approximately $13 billion they had
borrowed during the Iran-Iraq war. There had been disputes over the border for decades, and
British fiddling with it in the early part of the century didn't help matters. Pretty good
description of it here: <http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/kuwait/kuwait39.html>

--
tanx, Howard

"We're not laughing -at- you, we're laughing -with- you..) "But... I'm not
laughing???" Happiness

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
H

Hold My Beer An

Guest
"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> No. You'll just have to restrain your finger from clicking on an OT
posting
> and retrain it further from clicking on the link.

Before I was pretty sure that you were a complete asswipe, now you've confirmed it for me beyond any
reasonable doubt.

**** like this almost makes me want to re-evaluate my position that killfiles are for pussies.
 
B

B. Lafferty

Guest
"Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Kurgan Gringioni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dumbass -
> >
> >

Kuwaiti
> > slant drilling into Iraqi oilfields, not Kuwait flooding of the oil
market.
>
> Well, the oil production issue was one of many: the Iraqis pointed out that the Kuwaitis had
> been far over their OPEC production quota, and that -did- sort of help lower the price of a
> barrel. But the Iraqis also were irked that the Kuwaits were thought to be taking oil out of
> their side of the shared oil field, as you mention (I think they were, btw, based on articles I
> read back in the early '90s that talked about how the Kuwaiti equipment was set up and where it
> was). Another factor was the fact that Iraq wanted Kuwait to forgive the approximately $13
> billion they had borrowed during the Iran-Iraq war. There had been disputes over the border for
> decades, and British fiddling with it in the early part of the century didn't help matters.
> Pretty good description of it here: <http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-
> study/kuwait/kuwait39.html>
>
> --
> tanx, Howard
>

I agree that the oil/border dispute was complex. Whatever the drivers of that dispute, the US
position conveyed by our ambassador, April Gillespie was indeed a green light for the invasion. But
the point of the piece is really the nature of a multi-decade relationship between the US and
Saddam. We have always had him as ours. I wonder if CBS would run this piece if Soros were to pay
for the air time. ;-)
 
B

B. Lafferty

Guest
"hold my beer and watch this..." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > No. You'll just have to restrain your finger from clicking on an OT
> posting
> > and retrain it further from clicking on the link.
>
> Before I was pretty sure that you were a complete asswipe, now you've confirmed it for me beyond
> any reasonable doubt.
>
> **** like this almost makes me want to re-evaluate my position that killfiles are for pussies.

Do whatever pleases you, Little Man.
 
M

Michael Zaharis

Guest
B. Lafferty wrote:
>>
>
>
> I agree that the oil/border dispute was complex. Whatever the drivers of that dispute, the US
> position conveyed by our ambassador, April Gillespie was indeed a green light for the invasion.
> But the point of the piece is really the nature of a multi-decade relationship between the US and
> Saddam. We have always had him as ours. I wonder if CBS would run this piece if Soros were to pay
> for the air time. ;-)
>
>
Please - not the Glaspie (not Gillespie) thing again. The worst she can be accused of is not laying
out the consequences of an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait clearly enough. She stated that the US would not
take a position on the Iraqi/Kuwaiti border dispute, not thinking that Iraq was seriously
considering an invasion.

Most of the transcripts were released by Iraq, which I would not consider a reliable source of full
and complete disclosure (draw your own conclusions). When you take a statement such as the "US does
not take a position on the border dispute", but leave out the rest of the talk indicating that it
would be resolved by diplomatic means (through Mubarak or or the Secretary General of the Arab
League), it appears that the US supported the invasion of Kuwait, but requires ignoring much of the
conversation that actually took place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie
 
B

B. Lafferty

Guest
"Michael Zaharis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
> >>
> >
> >
> > I agree that the oil/border dispute was complex. Whatever the drivers
of
> > that dispute, the US position conveyed by our ambassador, April
Gillespie
> > was indeed a green light for the invasion. But the point of the piece
is
> > really the nature of a multi-decade relationship between the US and
Saddam.
> > We have always had him as ours. I wonder if CBS would run this piece if Soros were to pay for
> > the air time. ;-)
> >
> >
> Please - not the Glaspie (not Gillespie) thing again. The worst she can be accused of is not
> laying out the consequences of an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait clearly enough. She stated that the US
> would not take a position on the Iraqi/Kuwaiti border dispute, not thinking that Iraq was
> seriously considering an invasion.
>
> Most of the transcripts were released by Iraq, which I would not consider a reliable source of
> full and complete disclosure (draw your own conclusions). When you take a statement such as the
> "US does not take a position on the border dispute", but leave out the rest of the talk indicating
> that it would be resolved by diplomatic means (through Mubarak or or the Secretary General of the
> Arab League), it appears that the US supported the invasion of Kuwait, but requires ignoring much
> of the conversation that actually took place.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie

The message that Ambassador Glaspie (thanks for the correction) gave was one which she was
specifically told to give. Under the circumstances, it is hardly surprising what the result was--no
perceived consequences of the sort eventually delivered by Bush I. What follows is the transcript
and subsequent questions put to her in Baghdad.
--------------------------------------------
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html

Yes, remember April Glaspie and her amazing stint at Middle East diplomacy?

Saddam-Glaspie meeting

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 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)

On August 2, 1990, Saddam's massed troops invade and occupy Kuwait. _____

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

One month later, British journalists 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 opposite - that America was not
associated with Kuwait.

Journalist 1 - You encouraged this aggression - his invasi on. 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.)

_____

To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed.
Information last updated on: 02/09/96
 
M

Michael Zaharis

Guest
B. Lafferty wrote:

> "Michael Zaharis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I agree that the oil/border dispute was complex. Whatever the drivers
>
>
> of
>
>>> that dispute, the US position conveyed by our ambassador, April
>
>
> Gillespie
>
>>> was indeed a green light for the invasion. But the point of the piece
>
>
> is
>
>>> really the nature of a multi-decade relationship between the US and
>
>
> Saddam.
>
>>> We have always had him as ours. I wonder if CBS would run this
piece if
>>> Soros were to pay for the air time.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Please - not the Glaspie (not Gillespie) thing again. The worst she can be accused of is not
>> laying out the consequences of an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait clearly enough. She stated that the
>> US would not take a position on the Iraqi/Kuwaiti border dispute, not thinking that Iraq was
>> seriously considering an invasion.
>>
>> Most of the transcripts were released by Iraq, which I would not consider a reliable source of
>> full and complete disclosure (draw your own conclusions). When you take a statement such as the
>> "US does not take a position on the border dispute", but leave out the rest of the talk
>> indicating that it would be resolved by diplomatic means (through Mubarak or or the Secretary
>> General of the Arab League), it appears that the US supported the invasion of Kuwait, but
>> requires ignoring much of the conversation that actually took place.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie
>
>
>
> The message that Ambassador Glaspie (thanks for the correction) gave
was one
> which she was specifically told to give. Under the circumstances, it is hardly surprising what
> the result was--no perceived consequences of
the sort
> eventually delivered by Bush I. What follows is the transcript and subsequent questions put to
> her in Baghdad.

<Snipped transcripts>

Yes, I saw that one too prior to sending my response. Again, incomplete transcript, from suspect
source (Iraqi released). Also, the version of the transcript that you cited does not the references
that Glaspie made to arrangin

See this version of the transcript - a much more complete one than the one you cited:

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html

"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? "

Why would she have referred to Klibi (the Secretary General of the Arab League) or Egyptian
President Mubarak as "suitable methods" if she thought that the Iraqis were going to invade to
resolve the issue?

She thought that the Iraqis were saber rattling and told them that we had no position on their
border problem, not that you may as well go and invade. To take her statement as a US approval of
invasion requires you to ignore large parts of even the Iraqi transcript, which one can assume has
omissions that support Iraq's position.

(Quotes from Wikipedia article that I cited earlier)

"At least two purported transcripts of the meeting have been published, both apparently based on
versions released by Iraq. The State Department has not confirmed the accuracy of these transcripts,
and they must be treated with caution. " . . . "Glaspie later testified that she had given Saddam
such a warning, but no mention of this appears in the published transcripts. This is hardly
surprising since these transcripts were released to further Iraq's ends." . . . "James Akins, the
American Saudi Ambassador at the time, offered a slightly different perspective, in a 2000 PBS
interview: "[Glaspie] took the straight American line, which is we do not take positions on border
disputes between friendly countries. That's standard. That's what you always say. You would not have
said, "Mr. President, if you really are considering invading Kuwait, by God, we'll bring down the
wrath of God on your palaces, and on your country, and you'll all be destroyed." She wouldn't say
that, nor would I. Neither would any diplomat.""
 
M

Michael Zaharis

Guest
One other thing regarding the Glaspie matter:

I have always thought that the reason why this became an issue in the first place is that diplomats
generally use language that is very circumspect. When read by laypeople, this language appears to
convey a different meaning than that which should be understood by other diplomats. I have wondered
if, assuming that Hussein took this conversation to indicate that he could invade without
consequence, Hussein himself did not understand the meaning of this language.
 
K

Kurgan Gringion

Guest
"Michael Zaharis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> One other thing regarding the Glaspie matter:
>
> I have always thought that the reason why this became an issue in the first place is that
> diplomats generally use language that is very circumspect. When read by laypeople, this language
> appears to convey a different meaning than that which should be understood by other diplomats. I
> have wondered if, assuming that Hussein took this conversation to indicate that he could invade
> without consequence, Hussein himself did not understand the meaning of this language.

Dumbass -

Yes, Glaspie gave the wrong impression.

Yes, Hussein miscalculated, to his severe detriment.

didn't go on the talk show circuit defending herself. An "Ambassador to IRAQ" should have studied
and understood the mind of Saddam Hussein and understood his belief that brute force is the way to
settle disputes. ****, he invaded Iran for no better reason than wanting their oil - why wouldn't he
invade Kuwait when they were slant drilling into his oil fields?

Dumbass.
 
M

Michael Zaharis

Guest
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> "Michael Zaharis" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Dumbass -
>
>
> Yes, Glaspie gave the wrong impression.
>
>
> Yes, Hussein miscalculated, to his severe detriment.
>
>

> didn't go on the talk show circuit defending herself. An "Ambassador to IRAQ" should have studied
> and understood the mind of Saddam Hussein and understood his belief that brute force is the way to
> settle disputes. ****, he invaded Iran for no better reason than wanting their oil - why wouldn't
> he invade Kuwait when they were slant drilling into his oil fields?
>
>
> Dumbass.
>

Wow, my first "Dumbass". Thanks.

As for why she may have screwed the pooch on this one, here's more of James Akin's (US Ambassador to
Saudi Arabia at the time) quote from his appearance on PBS "Frontline".

From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/akins.html :

Were we telling Saddam, "You're our man in the Middle East, you can do anything and we will go
along?" Are we talking about anything that would allow him to reach that conclusion? I don't think
so. I don't think we were deliberately doing that, but we certainly preferred Saddam to the mullahs.
We were very tolerant of Saddam. There was no great outcry when the Kurdish villages were destroyed
and the Kurds were all murdered. There was not really much outcry after Saddam allegedly used gas
against the Kurds. Saddam could quite reasonably conclude that, with all of these signals, the
testimony in the congress, people talking about the economic importance of Iraq, that he would be
able to get away with what he intended to do in Kuwait. I've given some of the reasons before. April
Glaspie, who was the American ambassador at the time, had never met Saddam, and she was called in to
see Saddam with no notice at all. In other words, there wasn't any possibility of her getting back
to Washington saying, "I'm seeing Saddam for the first time. What shall I say, what messages shall I
pass?" She couldn't do that.

So she went to see Saddam. And she's been held, I think quite unfairly, as the scapegoat for our
failed policy in the area. I think she is totally blameless. I have talked to a lot of my colleagues
and said, "What would you have said if you were with Saddam and the subject of Kuwait came up? You
would say exactly what April said, wouldn't you?" I know I would have. He talked about the border
dispute with Kuwait, and she took the straight American line, which is we do not take positions on
border disputes between friendly countries. That's standard. That's what you always say. You would
not have said, "Mr. President, if you really are considering invading Kuwait, by God, we'll bring
down the wrath of God on your palaces, and on your country, and you'll all be destroyed." She
wouldn't say that, nor would I. Neither would any diplomat. Yet she's been punished for not having
made that extraordinary statement. It's an absurdity. But you had to find scapegoats. And who is the
scapegoat--George Bush? Baker? Metzenbaum? Dole? None are satisfactory scapegoats. April Glaspie has
no constituency at all.
 
B

B. Lafferty

Guest
"Michael Zaharis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> > "Michael Zaharis" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > Dumbass -
> >
> >
> > Yes, Glaspie gave the wrong impression.
> >
> >
> > Yes, Hussein miscalculated, to his severe detriment.
> >
> >

> > didn't go on the talk show circuit defending herself. An "Ambassador to IRAQ" should have
> > studied and understood the mind of Saddam Hussein and understood his belief that brute force is
> > the way to settle disputes.
****,
> > he invaded Iran for no better reason than wanting their oil - why
wouldn't
> > he invade Kuwait when they were slant drilling into his oil fields?
> >
> >
> > Dumbass.
> >
>
>
> Wow, my first "Dumbass". Thanks.
>
> As for why she may have screwed the pooch on this one, here's more of James Akin's (US Ambassador
> to Saudi Arabia at the time) quote from his appearance on PBS "Frontline".
>
>
> From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/akins.html
:
>
> Were we telling Saddam, "You're our man in the Middle East, you can do anything and we will go
> along?" Are we talking about anything that would allow him to reach that conclusion? I don't think
> so. I don't think we were deliberately doing that, but we certainly preferred Saddam to the
> mullahs. We were very tolerant of Saddam. There was no great outcry when the Kurdish villages were
> destroyed and the Kurds were all murdered. There was not really much outcry after Saddam allegedly
> used gas against the Kurds. Saddam could quite reasonably conclude that, with all of these
> signals, the testimony in the congress, people talking about the economic importance of Iraq, that
> he would be able to get away with what he intended to do in Kuwait. I've given some of the reasons
> before. April Glaspie, who was the American ambassador at the time, had never met Saddam, and she
> was called in to see Saddam with no notice at all. In other words, there wasn't any possibility of
> her getting back to Washington saying, "I'm seeing Saddam for the first time. What shall I say,
> what messages shall I pass?" She couldn't do that.
>
> So she went to see Saddam. And she's been held, I think quite unfairly, as the scapegoat for our
> failed policy in the area. I think she is totally blameless. I have talked to a lot of my
> colleagues and said, "What would you have said if you were with Saddam and the subject of Kuwait
> came up? You would say exactly what April said, wouldn't you?" I know I would have. He talked
> about the border dispute with Kuwait, and she took the straight American line, which is we do not
> take positions on border disputes between friendly countries. That's standard. That's what you
> always say. You would not have said, "Mr. President, if you really are considering invading
> Kuwait, by God, we'll bring down the wrath of God on your palaces, and on your country, and you'll
> all be destroyed." She wouldn't say that, nor would I. Neither would any diplomat. Yet she's been
> punished for not having made that extraordinary statement. It's an absurdity. But you had to find
> scapegoats. And who is the scapegoat--George Bush? Baker? Metzenbaum? Dole? None are satisfactory
> scapegoats. April Glaspie has no constituency at all.
>

What is clear is that she relayed the American Position quite clearly to Saddam. The American
Position clearly did not make clear the US government's opposition to Iraq settling it's dispute
with K. with force. Given the history of dealing with Saddam previously, this was a very serious mistake---
unless there is another, ulterior US motive.

As I posted earlier, the film's main point it to highlight the decades long interaction the US had
with Saddam who was the CIA's asset for many years. Perhaps we should ask for Rummy's thoughts on
the matter. He had more dealings with Saddam than April.
 

Daremo

New Member
Jul 29, 2003
317
0
0
51
Why don't you go dig up one where it charts the whole relationship between the Taliban, Osama, and the rest during the Afghan/USSR conflict and how the US basically funded and trained the whole war ................

It doesn't really make a difference. HE still trained and funded the people who killed thousands of innocents because he was ****** at his view of the U.S. So what if we trained him originally.

ALL major governments have their hands and training in every part of the world. Conspiracy theorists could dig up whatever the hell they wanted to make some leader look bad, or country look bad.

Before all this s--t happened, even before I was over in Saudi Arabia for Desert Storm, the U.S. and British military has had "advisors" in every country where there was any sort of conflict. Special Ops teams have been there/done that in every situation for more years than most people realize.

The general public is better off NOT knowing where a lot of their tax dollars go. But know you this ............. it has sure saved more American lives, interests, and money than it has hurt locals in that region.

Face it, we ARE the most powerful nation in the world. Pull out all the police keeping that we do with the military, and pull out all our money in foreign interests and governments, and watch the world go to sh-t. Bottom line, the world needs our power and resources. They can bit-h all they want, but in the end who do they come crying to for help??
 
L

Lindsay

Guest
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:57:38 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>The message that Ambassador Glaspie (thanks for the correction) gave was one which she was
>specifically told to give. Under the circumstances, it is hardly surprising what the result was--no
>perceived consequences of the sort eventually delivered by Bush I. What follows is the transcript
>and subsequent questions put to her in Baghdad.
>--------------------------------------------
>http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html

This is a blatant lie. I can't believe people fall for this ****.

Laughable.
 
B

B. Lafferty

Guest
"Lindsay" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:57:38 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >The message that Ambassador Glaspie (thanks for the correction) gave was
one
> >which she was specifically told to give. Under the circumstances, it is hardly surprising what
> >the result was--no perceived consequences of the
sort
> >eventually delivered by Bush I. What follows is the transcript and subsequent questions put to
> >her in Baghdad.
> >--------------------------------------------
> >http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html
>
> This is a blatant lie. I can't believe people fall for this ****.

By all means do explain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.