Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Gave Green Light for Iraq to Invade Kuwait
Arabic-Media ^ | March 3,2003 | Untitled

Posted on 03/21/2004 7:15:26 AM PST by Pan_Yan

April in July

On July 25, 1990, eight days before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, a quiet, largely unreported meeting took place between Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie at the Presidential Palace in Baghdad, which has since been destroyed by the war. The transcript of this meeting is as follows:

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 have 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 other 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 (which, in Saddam's view, includes 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?"

(Pause, then Ambassador Glaspie speaks carefully)

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.)


The Green Light and the Limosine

At a Washington press conference called the next day, State Department spokesperson Margaret Tutweiler was asked by journalists:

"Has the United States sent any type of diplomatic message to the Iraqis about putting 30,000 troops on the border with Kuwait? Has there been any type of protest communicated from the United States government?"

to which she responded:

"I'm entirely unaware of any such protest."

On July 31st, two days before the Iraqi invasion, John Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs, testified to Congress that the

"United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait and the U.S. has no intention of defending Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq."

Eight days later, on August 2, 1990, Saddam Hussein's massed troops invaded and occupied Kuwait (ironically, this was done in a method historically similar to the American anexation of Texas). One month later in Baghdad, British journalists obtained the tape and transcript of the Hussein-Glaspie meeting on July 25, 1990. In order to verify this astounding information, they attempted to confront Ms. Glaspie as she was leaving 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!"

(Ambassador Glaspie says nothing, pushing past the two journalists to leave)

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

(Again, Ambassador Glaspie says nothing as a limousine door closes behind her and the car drives off.)


Ross Perot gets to The National Honor

Two years later, during NBC News Decision '92's 3rd round of The Presidential Debate, 1992 presidential candidate Ross Perot was quoted as saying:

"...we told him he could take the northern part of Kuwait; and when he took the whole thing we went nuts. And if we didn't tell him that, why won't we even let the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee see the written instructions for Ambassador Glaspie? - "

At this point, he was interrupted by former president George Bush who yelled:

"I've got to reply on that. That gets to the National Honour!... That is absolutely absurd!"

Later on in the debate, President Bill Clinton stated:

"...Several government departments, several, had information that he was converting our aid to military purposes and trying to develop weapons of mass destruction, but in late '89 the President signed a secret policy saying we were going to continue to try to improve relations with him, and we sent him some sort of communication on the eve of his invasion of Kuwait that we still wanted better relations..."

On August 23rd, Iraq offered to withdraw in return for the lifting of economic sanctions, guaranteed access to the Gulf, and full control of the Rumalyah oil field. The proposal was not accepted. In late February, the Soviets negotiated a peace proposal involving a three-week withdrawal period on the part of the Iraqis, in exchange for removal of the sanctions. George Bush did not accept.

It soon became reported in American newspapers, magazines, and television media that the Iraqis had the world's fourth-largest army with estimates of up to a million soldiers, including the battle-hardened elite republican guard. Later, it was estimates were reduced to 2-3 hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers. By the end of the war, this number was further reduced to a hundred-thousand untrained troops, most of whom were forced to maintain their positions. This is ironic, considering that in the fall of 1990, after the start of the war, Canadian military analyst Gwynne Dyer remarked that "Saddam Hussein was not a problem that kept anybody awake in July." Three successive American administrations did nothing from 1980 to 1988, when Saddam Hussein was responsible for killing over 150,000 Iranians and 13,000 of his own civilians including approximately 4,000 unarmed Kurds.




(Excerpt) Read more at arabic-media.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: 1990; aprilglaspie; glaspie; gulfwar; iraq; kuwait
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last
This text is actually a internal link from a page of Iraqi history. I hadn't heard this story before. (I know it's from the Arabic Media, don't flame me)

I was doing some research on where Iraq's present boundaries came from when I stumbled on this page.
1 posted on 03/21/2004 7:15:26 AM PST by Pan_Yan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
This is so, like, last Bush Administration.

Hard to know exactly what the truth was around that meeting. However, it set Saddam down a path of chronic misjudgement of what actions American was willing to take against him. You would have thunk that sooner or later the despot would have gotten the picture.

2 posted on 03/21/2004 7:18:13 AM PST by dirtboy (Howard, we hardly knew ye. Not that we're complaining, mind you...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
This story made the rounds long long ago. It's total BS. Someone please pull this thread.
3 posted on 03/21/2004 7:20:16 AM PST by zook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zook
Don't pull it. Let it get debunked. That's more useful, isn't it? I've heard the allegation before, I'd be interested to see some citations refuting it.
4 posted on 03/21/2004 7:21:49 AM PST by prion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: prion
This rumor has been around since the fall of 1990. (1990 fell with a crash.)
5 posted on 03/21/2004 7:22:42 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: prion
Agree
6 posted on 03/21/2004 7:22:47 AM PST by pitinkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
The link to this article is under to words the go ahead in the section titled Saddam Hussein and the invasion of Kuwait. It is about 4/5 of the way down the page.
7 posted on 03/21/2004 7:23:02 AM PST by Pan_Yan (I think the first Mars colony should have 535 members.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
These transcripts, or something very like them, were released before, during the first President Bush's presidency.

As you can see if you read them very carefully, the conversation with April Glaspie is ambiguous, although Saddam seems to have taken her words as a permission.

At the time, April Glaspie was blamed for screwing up and giving Saddam a false impression that he had permission to invade Kuwait. What the actual facts were we may never know.

It should also be remembered that there was a war going on then between Iran and Iraq. Iran was considered our worse enemy, Iraq was a fractious ally.

That was one reason why Bush I didn't finish the war with Saddam--balance of power politics. It was thought that if Saddam was crushed and his army destroyed, Iran would move into the power vacuum and take over the Middle East. In fact, that made a good deal of sense. We had no desire to go in there ourselves for the long term, which meant that preserving the balance of power was the only alternative.
8 posted on 03/21/2004 7:23:41 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
I hadn't heard this story before.

Ok no flame.

But I do remember this and it was debunked a long time ago.

You can probably find some threads on it if you search.

9 posted on 03/21/2004 7:23:47 AM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Proudly out of step with the majority since 1973)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
The inept bunglings of Ambassador Glaspie are well documented.

Saddam was lead down the wrong path twice:
FIRST by Mzzz Glaspie.
SECOND by the French, leading to his ultimate demise.

Of course his own policy of murdering anyone who gave him a realistic interpretation of world events may have been also contributory.

10 posted on 03/21/2004 7:24:43 AM PST by evad (Such an enemy cannot be deterred, detained, appeased, or negotiated with. It can only be destroyed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
I hadn't heard this story before.

Old slam on W's daddy. Saddam may have understood creatively, but GHWB didn't authorize and was not pleased when Saddam took Kuwait.

11 posted on 03/21/2004 7:25:30 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
Even if the dialogue quoted above was verbatim (which I highly doubt), it is still quite a stretch to make the case from those conversations that the United States endorsed the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
12 posted on 03/21/2004 7:25:47 AM PST by SamAdams76 (I'm voting for John Kerry until I vote against him in November)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
This story was widely reported during and immediately following the first Gulf War. In fact, unless the onset of senior citizenship has caused me recollection dementia, I believe there were some congressional hearings on this FUBAR. In any case, the matter is non sequitur.
13 posted on 03/21/2004 7:28:07 AM PST by middie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
!

14 posted on 03/21/2004 7:28:10 AM PST by Fiddlstix (This Space Available for Rent or Lease by the Day, Week, or Month. Reasonable Rates. Inquire within.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
I should add that it's very hard to conceive why Bush would have given Saddam permission to go ahead. At the time it was clear that Saddam's real goal was Saudi Arabia. He would have knifed right through Kuwait and taken over the Saudi oil fields if we hadn't intervened.

For that reason, the most credible explanation is that April Glaspie simply didn't make it clear enough to Saddam that he would not be allowed to invade Kuwait. Usually the job of an ambassador is to get along with her hosts. Plus Saddam was a megalomaniac who may well have misinterpreted her warnings because they were not explicit enough. He has always thought that he was destined to conquer and rule.
15 posted on 03/21/2004 7:29:13 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
"U.S. Gave Green Light for Iraq to Invade Kuwait"... sure... and don't forget how the Jews use the blood of little Arab children to make matzo for Passover...
16 posted on 03/21/2004 7:29:48 AM PST by thoughtomator (Voting Bush because there is no reasonable alternative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
And here is what really happened. Amb GLaspie did have a meeting with Saddam 8 days before the invasion. She never said any of the things mentioned in this transcript. She listened and that was about all. The released transcripts were a total fabrication by the Iraqis. She testified to this before the Senate. Terek Aziz later admitted she was telling the truth, that in fact all she did was listen. So, we are still debating Iraqi propoganda as truth.
17 posted on 03/21/2004 7:33:27 AM PST by Casloy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fiddlstix; All
It doesn't hurt my feelings if the story is false. I would like to think that we aren't quite so incompetent that we would imply to a thug we approve of a "little" invasion, just not a "big" invasion.

However, what I know of the State Department leaves the door open for this kind of idiocy.

This is what FR does best, right? Thousands of smart people use their collective information to cull the truth from various shady sources.
18 posted on 03/21/2004 7:34:36 AM PST by Pan_Yan (I think the first Mars colony should have 535 members.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: prion
The Ambassador denied this occured. She may have indicated that the US took no official stand regarding any boundary dispute. That, of course, is not "giving a green light for war."

Frankly, I'd rather see it pulled. It was refuted long ago and I'm tired of having to reinvent the wheel each time some old story pops up. There's enough of this stuff on DU.
19 posted on 03/21/2004 7:35:13 AM PST by zook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: zook
No one is forcing you to read this tread or post to it. You made your opinion clear on post #3. I'll send a little extra in my monthy donation to pay for the band width that this thread is using up. I'm sorry it hurts you so much.
20 posted on 03/21/2004 7:38:27 AM PST by Pan_Yan (This rant provided as a public service.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
"I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices

That says more to me about "read my lips" Bush than anything else in the article.

21 posted on 03/21/2004 7:42:34 AM PST by lewislynn (Free traders know it isn't , they just believe cheap popcorn makers raises their living standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
It doesn't hurt me. It's just bullsh**. If you like spreading bullsh**, then post away. Hope you're enjoying your Moby CDs.
22 posted on 03/21/2004 7:44:23 AM PST by zook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
The fact that April Glaspie is an idiot has been widely known since 1991.

Her stupidity pales in comparison, however , to that of Saddams.

Saddam didn't learn from his mistake back in 1991 either.

He still didn't understand that there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans.

23 posted on 03/21/2004 7:46:01 AM PST by Rome2000 (Foreign leaders for Kerry!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
This is the transcript that Hussein prepared of his meeting with Gillespie. As such, it's veracity should be taken with a grain of salt, particularly since the meeting that is allegedly transcribed here took place in Iraq, which meant that Ms. Gillespie probably didn't have her own transcriber at the ready.
24 posted on 03/21/2004 7:46:17 AM PST by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
The use of the term "Greenlight" is misleading in that America did not santion or issue invasion orders to Iraqi troops. In addition, it was diplomatically unacceptable for an American official to advise against invasion of Kuwait.

America's dominant reasons for militarily stopping Saddam in 1990 was the protection of Saudi oil fields and the maintenance of stabiilty in the Middle East.

25 posted on 03/21/2004 7:47:50 AM PST by Stagerite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zook
This is the rational reasoning and substantiated analysis of our resident academic?
26 posted on 03/21/2004 7:53:28 AM PST by Pan_Yan (This rant provided as a public service.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Casloy
"So, we are still debating Iraqi propaganda as truth."

What? Arabs lie?

Surely you joust?

s/
27 posted on 03/21/2004 8:08:00 AM PST by RonHolzwarth (History repeats itself - first as tragedy, then as farce.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Casloy
When she appeared before House and Senate panels last March, the former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, persuaded their members that she had talked tough to Saddam Hussein in the days before he invaded Kuwait. "I hope my credibility is at least as great as Saddam Hussein's," she told the Senators then. Contradicting the Iraqi leader's derisive account, she insisted that she had firmly warned him that the U.S. would not tolerate the use of force against Kuwait.

Not so, say Senators who have now seen the cables she sent back to the State Department in those critical days. Instead of a spirited defense of U.S. interests, Senators found waffling and appeasement. "No place does [Glaspie] report clearly delivering the kind of warning she described in her testimony to the committee," said Democratic Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island. California Democratic Senator Alan Cranston charged that she "deliberately misled Congress about her role."


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Time, 7/22/91, Vol. 138 Issue 3, p44, 1p
28 posted on 03/21/2004 8:09:40 AM PST by Pan_Yan (This rant provided as a public service.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
Oh geez, not this $h!t again.
29 posted on 03/21/2004 8:10:56 AM PST by Petronski (Kerry knew...and did nothing. THAT....is weakness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Where are the endorsements by then Pres. Bush Sr. for Iraqi military members to condone the dismemberment and torture of little children, infants, minorities, and women, particularly pregnant ones...

Y-A-W-N!!!

Also, if this is true, then where was all the outrage in the then media as a result of the Cain raised by the Iraqi's and Sad-damn Hussein for getting "double crossed" by Bush.

This notion is as silly as that of Kerry being anything other than a fool.

30 posted on 03/21/2004 8:13:28 AM PST by wingster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: wingster
Congress seemed to accept Glaspie's claim that she dealt firmly with Saddam, and that served both her interests and Baker's. No one in the administration was eager to admit, on the record, that prewar U.S. policy toward Iraq was tinged with appeasement in hopes of making Saddam more cooperative. "We virtually gave him the green light [to attack Kuwait]," said a senior U.S. diplomat in the Middle East. "If I had been sitting where he was sitting and getting the signals he was getting from Washington and elsewhere at the time, I would probably also have gambled on the invasion of Kuwait." So far, the State Department refuses to publish Glaspie's cable. The administration deliberately muzzled her as the gulf crisis unfolded, a Bush aide conceded, in order to cut off discussion of how Washington had handled Saddam. "It would have highlighted how cozy we were trying to be with him," he said.

Could the invasion have been prevented by a stern lecture on July 25? Not from a schoolmarmish ambassador, and probably not from anyone. Even if Glaspie had adopted a tougher tone, it would not have made any difference. Except to her career. Although Glaspie may have salvaged her reputation, she herself is stuck in bureaucratic limbo. Her successor in Baghdad has already been selected, and so far no new job has been announced for her. She is an expert on the Arabs, and speaks their language "like a nightingale," says one of her friends. She was the first American woman to become ambassador to an Arab country and was highly regarded by her professional peers. But Washington's judgments often put style ahead of substance, and April Glaspie is unlikely to win another high-profile Arab embassy.

Source: Newsweek, 4/1/91, Vol. 117 Issue 13, p17, 1p

I don't see how this means we gave permission for torture, etc. It just raises the question of how competent our policy was with regards to Iraq prior to the Kuwait invasion.

I expected more factual data from FR than this. If this story is such BS, then FR should be full of links and posts refuting it with facts. So far I haven't gotten any.
31 posted on 03/21/2004 8:21:13 AM PST by Pan_Yan (This rant provided as a public service.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
Whose transcript do you think you are reading? Do you think that is Gillespie's transcript of the meeting because Hussein kindly let her bring her own transcriber to their meeting, which took place in one of Hussein's pleasure palaces, or do you think that is Hussein's transcript of the meeting? Answers these questions and you'll figure out why people didn't pay too much attention to the argument that Hussein made on this subject.
32 posted on 03/21/2004 8:25:32 AM PST by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
Don't be a dope!

I was clearly being facetious. If even an inkling of this had been true Blather, Brokenjaw, CNN, the NYT, LAT, etc., etc., etc. would have been all over this like a cheap suit at some point. Can you even imagine?

They get excited over lies, pure lies. If this had been true we wouldn't have been here discussing this today wondering if it were or not. It'd have been out a decade ago easy. And in spades!

It's drivel! Screed!

33 posted on 03/21/2004 9:04:47 AM PST by wingster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
Try to catch up to the rest of us.
34 posted on 03/21/2004 9:12:10 AM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Consort; wingster
I am trying to catch up. Thats why I posted this and asked the Freepers to fill me in on what I had missed. Once again, I am looking for the truth and am only getting white noise.

Feel free to show me where this has been debunked by a legitimate source. The Arabic Media might be slightly biased (/sarcasm). But your propaganda doesn't cancel out their propaganda. It just puts you in the same class as them.
35 posted on 03/21/2004 10:05:36 AM PST by Pan_Yan (This rant provided as a public service.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
The point wasn't whether she told Saddam what he should or shouldn't do regarding Iraq. The point is she never told him the US wouldn't care if he invaded Iraq. I have no idea if she is defensible or not, and at this point it is totally irrelevant. On the other hand, I wouldn't put a lot of value in anything Pell or Cranston said, either.
36 posted on 03/21/2004 10:09:25 AM PST by Casloy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
I am trying to catch up.

You have to try harder. Don't worry about what happened back then; the Democrats will do that for you.

37 posted on 03/21/2004 1:16:26 PM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: wingster
It'd have been out a decade ago easy. And in spades!

It was out a decade ago.

It's another reason you shouldn't send a woman to do a mans job.

The fact that Glaspie didn't have enough sense to make herself clear about the consequences of an Iraqi invasion of Kuwat doesn't translate into her or the USA being responsible for that maniacs agression.

It just makes us responsible for putting the wrong person in the job.

38 posted on 03/21/2004 1:22:02 PM PST by Rome2000 (Foreign leaders for Kerry!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
My reasoning? Well, I'd never allow much class time to be spent on passing myths for facts. I wouldn't allow students to use class time to spread phony ideas. The story you posted falls into the category of "Hitler didn't really kill all those people" type stories. You could have done a few web searches and found out that the story was bogus. But instead, you posted it here with an aura of phony innocence.

I hear "We Are All Made Of Stars" is a really nice tune.
39 posted on 03/21/2004 1:27:14 PM PST by zook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
It's another reason you shouldn't send a woman to do a mans job.

Tell it to Maggie Thatcher :)

40 posted on 03/21/2004 1:32:17 PM PST by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
Oh horsenuance. The Kuwaitis were bucking OPEC quotas and thereby keeping the price of oil low, which was good for us. The Iraqis were threatening war over it. We basically said, you can browbeat them into sticking to their OPEC quotas and we won't go to war over it - it isn't in our interests, but it is a minor concession to yours and not worth a fight. They misinterpreted this as permission to invade and seize the whole country, then were brain dead enough not to back down when we told them to get back out.
41 posted on 03/21/2004 1:58:20 PM PST by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: zook
What's with the personnal attacks? I haven't gone out of my way to insult you. If you have something constructive to add, please do so. If you're looking for an outlet for your pent up aggression go to a Yahoo! chat room.

For the umpteenth time, if you want to refute this material, use facts. Yelling Bullsh**! and calling names puts you in a class with Paul Begala.

It doesn't hurt me. It's just bullsh**. If you like spreading bullsh**, then post away. Hope you're enjoying your Moby CDs

I wouldn't suggest entering this arguement for the next Susan Colver-Rosenberger Prize for best dissertation.
42 posted on 03/21/2004 2:20:38 PM PST by Pan_Yan (Are you a member of the NEA?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Consort
Just so you understand my intent, my wife and I have been discussing why we should / shouldn't allow Iraq to divide itself into three seperate countries. I stumbled upon this little excerpt while reading about Iraqi history.

I think that without an iron fist in place, Iraq will end up in three pieces no matter what the map says. The arbitrary lines established by the British in 1932 mean nothing to the Kurds, Sunni, and Shites in Iraq. The country will be plunged into civil war soon after we leave. Or another dictator will arise. I can't see another outcome.

I'm not trying to re-live 1990 (I spent the first gulf war on a submarine in dry dock in Newport News and have no desire to go back).

I support the Presidents decision to invade Iraq. I think he is pursuing the larger goal of changing the power structure in the Middle East, much like Reagan went into office determined to win the cold war. I hope we have some brilliant political plan to make Iraq a thriving democracy, but I think it is a path fraught with dangers for Iraq.

I hope you see that this is relevent, much like the Shites distrust of us after we called for them to rise up in 1991 and then let them get slaughtered.
43 posted on 03/21/2004 2:55:32 PM PST by Pan_Yan (This rant provided as a public service.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
You've got thin skin. I said you seemed to want to spread BS. Why are you doing this? I have no aggression against you. You're probably a very nice fellow/lady/whatever. But if you think you can toss raw Sadaam propaganda out here without getting flack for it, you're quite mistaken.

The only thing I said that came close to calling you a name was the Moby crack. And quite frankly, your post fits with that.
44 posted on 03/21/2004 4:41:15 PM PST by zook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: zook
The only thing I said that came close to calling you a name was the Moby crack

Who or what is a "Moby"?

45 posted on 03/21/2004 5:24:41 PM PST by lewislynn (Free traders know it isn't , they just believe cheap popcorn makers raises their living standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: JasonC
Oh horsenuance

----

"I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices..."

It's in quotations.

46 posted on 03/21/2004 5:29:08 PM PST by lewislynn (Free traders know it isn't , they just believe cheap popcorn makers raises their living standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
...a quiet, largely unreported meeting took place between Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie...

Largely unreported? Really? Where? I remember it got quite a bit of run here in the States, back at the time. This particular passage is such a howler that it's hard to take anything else in the article seriously.

47 posted on 03/21/2004 5:31:52 PM PST by RichInOC (Busting Saddam's ass...better late than never.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
"It's in quotations."

Yes, as quoted by Saddam, thus is means nothing or did you believe Baghdad Bob?
48 posted on 03/21/2004 5:50:23 PM PST by Bonny Dick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
...why we should / shouldn't allow Iraq to divide itself into three seperate countries.

We should not be part of that process. There are too many variables in the equation.

\ The arbitrary lines established by the British in 1932 mean nothing to the Kurds, Sunni, and Shites in Iraq. The country will be plunged into civil war soon after we leave.

We cannot be the long-term iron fist. If civil war breaks out, we will be caught in the crossfire no matter which side we choose, if any. The British screwed up. The Kurds want their own country and the Turks may not agree. The rest of Iraq may or may not agree.

I support the Presidents decision to invade Iraq.

Liberate Iraq. If civil war breaks out, or a new dictator takes over, we will begin a new cycle again and deal with the new government....as allies or as enemies.

49 posted on 03/21/2004 7:45:27 PM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Bonny Dick
Yes, as quoted by Saddam, thus is means nothing or did you believe Baghdad Bob?

Journalist 1:

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

(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond)

She had her chance(s) and didn't dispute them...grow up.

50 posted on 03/21/2004 8:50:34 PM PST by lewislynn (Free traders know it isn't , they just believe cheap popcorn makers raises their living standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson