Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Invasion Strategy and Results


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Invasion Strategy and Results Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Invasion Strategy and Results - 3/31/2007 8:14:05 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Kofi Annan - United Nations. The invasion is illegal and not recognised by those signed up to international convention.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1305709,00.html


Gent, no-one really cares what the "U.N." thinks anymore, at least here in the U.S.
Oh sure, you'll get those few "heavy lifters" in the State Dept or people who go to that snake-pit of global socialism "The JFK school of "government" who do but (they're) all looking for desk jobs on the public dime. They call it "public service", I call it "White Collar Welfare."
That's one of the reasons that I like Cong. Ron Paul who's running for President, he wants the U.S. out of the "U.N."
Oh, and Kofi Anan's gone now. I hope he's happily back in his home country of Ghana shooting elephants, snake hunting or whatever they do there.

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: Invasion Strategy and Results - 3/31/2007 8:44:27 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

There are several ways this can happen, but it will not happen overnight. It is already being mentioned on some radio talk shows, in barbershops, various places and has been gaining momentum for a few years. Actually it partially happened just recently when the republicans lost control of the House. The Dem's want to say it was over the War but it is not. Moderate Republicans all over were sending a message that they had entrusted the House of Representatives to them over a decade ago and not one of them had fulfilled their "contract with America". Instead they got in there, felt the power and have done everything they can to keep it. Now there has been a turnover and I don't think the Dem's are going to do much better because it will still be business as usual. So this will take a couple of more times and some steadfastness from US citizens. Keep replacing the politicians until they get they idea that they are there for the people.

Next the Senators need to go back to being appointed by the States and not elected by popular vote. This brings balance of power and the states are actually represented in the government. This is what was intended by the founding fathers and was changed by an amendment. Abolih the damn amendment and make it so they will not be corporate suck ups for money, so they can fuel campaigns.

Next you put the Senate in charge of campaign reform. None of them now have a vested interest, and campaign reform would get a serious looking into and change. Once the flow of money from special interest and corporations stops, then and only then will the people start to gain some control.

The people need to stop asking the government for more programs. More programs means more control over our daily lives. Change in the tax structure and tax laws so that more money is brought to the local level where people are held more accountable and have a better idea how things should be. Now states would compete with each other for attracting the better businesses and people to their area.

There is a long list of things but the first thing is we as US Citizens have to accept responsibility for what is happening, regardless of party lines, and regardless of being apathetic and not voting. Until we do that, we are just spectators to the Federal Government show.

Orion


what advantage do you see in having the states vote for senators rather then the people?  i have a hard on for consolidation of power you know LOL

We wont get anything done in the senate as long as the we have the black cloud fed reserve over their heads threatening them.  we need to give them the job of dismantling the fed reserve numero uno.  Let the gov primt money for nothing for a while and that interest go back to us.

Once they are history then do what you said and and kick all the stat quo out and put constitutionalists in. 

Add the enforcement of a  "ContralorĂ­a"  legal team that we pay for as a nation to watch over them so that they can maintain standards with the constitution and are accountable to insure those assholes play by the books from now on.  

Get rid of the supreme court and get in new members as well, or at least those who voted on anything unconstitutional in their history.

Then once the dust settles a bit do an extensive review of the constitution and put in an amendment so these morons can never do this shit to us again.  Like say it straight up the fed is accountable and will do time for the crime no pardons!!!!!  etc.   than after that is all done start on tearing apart all the bullshit corporate law we have and restructure our social security so it is not part of the goverment and many of these other social programs that people have been nursing off of and evolve into programs that do not make us a socialist society my means of government control.

not saying they should do that instead of your suggestions but in addition to them for the most part.  had a couple beers for the fist time in a long time not sure if i am still making sense...  of course ky would say i never did but my heart is in the right place LOL


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: Invasion Strategy and Results - 3/31/2007 9:06:16 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
Realone, I agree, we need to follow the U.S. Constitution more closely and kick big business out of government.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: Invasion Strategy and Results - 3/31/2007 9:31:06 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline
NG and Realone.....I was refering to this comment, "The British Navy were in Iraqi waters, the same country that the army are encamped in defiance of international opinion. "  It is in reference to the current hostage situation.  NG falsely alleges that The Brits are there in Defiance of international opinion.  I gave him the UN Sec council resolutions that show the Brits were 100% legal to be there.  Kofi Annan, was not a king and did not rule by fiat.  His declaration means absolutly nothing.  The UN did not take any action against the US and Britian, but instead legitimized the occupation.  I have seen a perfectly sound case that the invasion was legal.  And no action has been taken to alledge otherwise.  And NG look up the meaning of Unilateral...

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: Invasion Strategy and Results - 3/31/2007 10:31:14 PM   
SimplyMichael


Posts: 7229
Joined: 1/7/2007
Status: offline
The MP5 is a overated overcomplicated POS.  It is very VERY ammo sensative and only sells well because H&K pays the highest bribes in the industry.  The L34 is quiter, more accurate, and far far more reliable.

As for the current 6.8 it is a masterbatory fantasy for reloaders but as a combat round it has a very very fatal flaw which I am sure none of you can even grasp.  Saddly, most don't know a primary cause of the AK's reliablility.  Besides, the .280 British and the 7mm FN short have always been about optimal although the .286 would have been really cool.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: Invasion Strategy and Results - 4/1/2007 5:24:06 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

I would have to disagree with this in a sense.  It is not people who refuse to accept that, it is (by and large) American citizens. 
Not sure people worldwide think of the United States as the "Freedom country."  People I know and have talked to in Canada and Europe tend to be dumbfounded at the ignorance of the American people about the actions of our government.



Sinergy, I meant the American people - although it wasn't clear from my post. One of the differences could quite well be that Europeans are fully aware of what our countries have done over the centuries. There is a sense that European imperialism was chaotic and does not belong in the modern world.

I read a good book by an American (Mark Hertsgaard) called "Why The World Hates America" - it's not really about the world hating the US at all, it's about why some Americans struggle to understand some issues on which the rest of the world generally holds a consensus view. His conclusion is the lack of investigative journalism in the mainstream media - meaning lots of information by-passes the majority of the population. It sounds hard to believe because in a country of 300 million people, there must be some good news sources? Can you shed any light on this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

One aspect of the American self image is the idea that the United States trots in with our military and our wealth and saves the day.  We became involved in World War 1, and according to us, we solved the problem.  We became involved in World War 2, according to us, we won the war.  We became involved in Korea, and according to us, we prevented World War 3 by partitioning the country.  We stood up to the Red Menace and Reagan handily defeated them.  It has been hundreds of years since the United States has faced a foreign enemy on our soil, and the verbal and written lessons from our founding seem to have gotten lost in the jingoistic flag waving during these conflicts.



That's an interesting way of looking at it:

WW1 - the US aren't seen as a major player over here.
WW2 - a lot of US soldiers died, but the consensus view is the Russians took the brunt of the war.
WW3 - that's quite funny, lol...weren't the Americans flying bombers around for 24 hours a day in an attempt to overwhelm the Soviets? The best way to prevent a war is not to go charging 'round like strutting peacocks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Early on in the Vietnam War, the United States people were told repeatedly by our government that the Vietnamese wanted us there, it was a few malcontents who were arguing, etc.  Reading the writings of the Vietnamese, a dramatically different picture emerges. 



Lessons from history eh. A recent poll reported in British news suggests 76% of Iraqis do not want foreign troops on their soil.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Vietnam was a loss of the United State's innocence and sense of righteousness.  Since then, it has been somewhat of a struggle to rebuild our own collective self-esteem as well as try to formulate relationships with the rest of the world.



After WW2, the US had a rock solid reputation in Europe. I would say they still had a good write-up in Britain...until Bush. Then again, most realise that the current government is out of control and not representative of a significant number of Americans.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

I suppose I will be shouted down for this, but I will say it anyway.  None of the people involved in the decision to take us to war in Iraq were involved in Vietnam.  More importantly, all of them drummed up a way to avoid being involved in Vietnam.



It's the age old way isn't it. Kings and the landed classes (and their modern day equivalents) start the war and gain from the war, but they never fight them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Unfortunately, Monkeyboy has now made me an accessory to murder.



I think it's a wise way of looking at it. There's no sense in Britons playing the get out of jail free card by saying he's nothing to do with us. He's our elected Prime Minister, if we take responsibility then there's a chance we'll be shamed in to doing our best to ensure another one like him is not elected in the future.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: Invasion Strategy and Results - 4/1/2007 5:38:54 AM   
Amaros


Posts: 1363
Joined: 7/25/2005
Status: offline
Sombody said: States behave much like idividual, only less rational - basically, because ther ies a great deal of traction to be had in pretending to know "what prople think", or want to hear, etc., usually based on some erroneous pardigm of human nature that happens to be politically expedient.

"People" mostly want to eat and raise their kids: politicians. typically requrie some afirmation of thier self worth through political power - which they can only get through duping the constuancy tha tput them into positions of power to begin with.

Democracy, theoretically, only allows you to rech this conclusion more quickly and with less fuss.

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: Invasion Strategy and Results - 4/1/2007 5:46:18 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

I don't see just withdrawing, as a sane option. I see that as an easy option.
 
Keep in mind that I agree completely that two governments, the United States and Great Britain, should be held accountable for lying to the world about the reason for war in Iraq. You get no argument from me there.
 


If you accept that the British and US governments lied, then you must accept that there was an ulterior motive beyond WMDs. The obvious conclusion is that this motive suited British and US interests rather than Iraqi. What makes you think the British and US governments are suddenly going to develop concern for the Iraqis? Their motive for being there is out of vested interest and it's not going to change. The Iraqis can't gain from the occupation of foreign forces directed by governments who see them as resources to be exploited. Moreover, while they remain, they are fuelling nationalism, chaos and instability.

A recent poll reported in British news suggested that 76% of Iraqis do not want occupying forces in their country.

By staying in Iraq, it furthers the illusion that they are doing some good in the Middle East and that they have legitimacy in confronting Iran. It is a recipe for trouble. They're in serious danger of biting off a lot more than they can chew here, and where are you going to draw the line - 10,000 dead US soldiers/600,000 dead Iraqis, 20,000 dead US soldiers/1 million dead Iraqis/200,000 dead Iranians - when is enough really enough?

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Do you really think if we leave now ... just take our troops and leave ... that we will then be allowing the Iraqi people self-determination? I certainly don't. I think we will be handing them over to Iran ... the same Iran that thinks they can take British soldiers in Iraqi waters, without provocation.
 


1) Whilst the US and British armies are in Iraq, there is no self-determination, they are being occupied - a statement of fact.
2) When they leave, there are various possible scenarios, all of which are open to debate - a matter of personal opinion.

You're a stoic, remember Caitlyn? Fact over opinion?


_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: Invasion Strategy and Results - 4/1/2007 6:01:09 AM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline
The advantage I see in States appointing their Senators is this:

1) The rights of the State are now being represented, just as it should in a republic. Look to all the examples of the structure of a republic, Rome before Imperator is a good example.

2) If they are appointed then they do not have to run a huge pulic campaign of ads and such, that requires alot of money. If they do not need alot of money then big business will not have as much influence over them.

3) They are seperated from having to be popular so they can often make unpopular decisions and not worry as much about making unpopular decisions, though the State reps who select them may have to answer for that unpopularity.

4) The constitution was originally this way, many do not realize that. What might you think was their idea behind this in the beginning?

Orion

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: Invasion Strategy and Results - 4/1/2007 7:04:42 AM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

That's an interesting way of looking at it:

WW1 - the US aren't seen as a major player over here.
WW2 - a lot of US soldiers died, but the consensus view is the Russians took the brunt of the war.
WW3 - that's quite funny, lol...weren't the Americans flying bombers around for 24 hours a day in an attempt to overwhelm the Soviets? The best way to prevent a war is not to go charging 'round like strutting peacocks.



I did not mean to imply I believed it.  But it is something which the US people tend to believe.

Mutually assured destruction is seen in the United States as one of the main things our policy makers did to prevent a war.  I am trying to remember the administration (I am thinking Reagan) that allowed our military to go to DEFCON 2 (finger on the button) and the Soviets (wisely) decided they could not trust the US to not let our missiles fly if they didnt refuse to elevate their defense status as well.

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Unfortunately, Monkeyboy has now made me an accessory to murder.



I think it's a wise way of looking at it. There's no sense in Britons playing the get out of jail free card by saying he's nothing to do with us. He's our elected Prime Minister, if we take responsibility then there's a chance we'll be shamed in to doing our best to ensure another one like him is not elected in the future.



Happily, the Religious Right (40% of the Republicans) have vowed to stay home and not vote if McCain or Giuliani are nominated for the Republican candidate.  While it is not a right/left thing for the most part, the Republican experiment to see what happens when you elect an idiot will soon end.  I dont see much hope for the Republicans in 2008, unless the Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Sinergy 

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: Invasion Strategy and Results - 4/1/2007 7:08:45 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
I don't agree with the notion that all governments are corrupt because they inevitably empire build out of self-interest.

We have had a real problem in the last 30 years precisely because of this notion which, in fact, was put forward by our government. The reason being, it supported their view of the world - markets provide freedom in a way politicians cannot. An opinion I will vehemently disagree with 'til the cows come home.

The corrupt British government of the last 30 years is a matter of personality rather than general human frailty.

If we consider that politicians are merely the elected employees of the people, then there is no reason to claim they are corrupt by nature. Unless of course you believe humans are inherently driven by selfishness, which is not my opinion.



_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Amaros)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: Invasion Strategy and Results - 4/1/2007 7:19:52 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

I did not mean to imply I believed it.  But it is something which the US people tend to believe.



Yeah, I can tell from your posts, Sinergy. You don't exactly grab me as the gullible type. Monkeyboy being a start!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Mutually assured destruction is seen in the United States as one of the main things our policy makers did to prevent a war.  I am trying to remember the administration (I am thinking Reagan) that allowed our military to go to DEFCON 2 (finger on the button) and the Soviets (wisely) decided they could not trust the US to not let our missiles fly if they didnt refuse to elevate their defense status as well.

quote:



I've read a bit about this - threatening the Soviets in an attempt to impress upon them that it was not in their interests to attack the US - sort of creating an equilibrium of power. I suppose that's an arms race in general - with the old European empires doing a similar thing. Nukes obviously adds a different dimension as getting out of hand would be catostrophic.

My problem with all of this: the suspicion, aggression, general distrust - which in my book acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy generating aggression.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Happily, the Religious Right (40% of the Republicans) have vowed to stay home and not vote if McCain or Giuliani are nominated for the Republican candidate.  While it is not a right/left thing for the most part, the Republican experiment to see what happens when you elect an idiot will soon end.  I dont see much hope for the Republicans in 2008, unless the Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.



A less aggressive government is needed. Isn't there a problem with campaign finance and big-business buying both main parties over there? - can the Democrats operate independently of the big corporations?

< Message edited by NorthernGent -- 4/1/2007 7:20:53 AM >


_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: Invasion Strategy and Results - 4/1/2007 7:21:55 AM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline
You can make a pretty strong case for the importance of the United States as one of the major players in The Second World War.
 
Remember, while the United States only supplied just over eleven percent of Soviet eventual war potential, the larger issue is, when it was supplied, that is was delivered, and fronted without very good prospects of payment.
 
Eight Air Force bombing cant be overlooked.
 
I don't think any of the major powers can claim to have won the war, because I don't think any of them could have won without the other. The possible exception may be that the British and American could have won without the Soviets, probably at the cost of many more troops and bomber crews, and millions of civilians killed in British cities.
 
As far as your stoicism point ... I'm sure you know that a major part of stoicism, is seeing things as they are, not as you would desire them to be. That we could leave Iraq, and not have Iran move in, is wishful thinking, on the order of dreamland. Certainly not part of stoicism at all. 

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: Invasion Strategy and Results - 4/1/2007 7:28:00 AM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

As far as your stoicism point ... I'm sure you know that a major part of stoicism, is seeing things as they are, not as you would desire them to be. That we could leave Iraq, and not have Iran move in, is wishful thinking, on the order of dreamland. Certainly not part of stoicism at all. 



I believe that is going to happen, caitlyn.

I believed going in that it would happen.

I have been maintaining all along that the United States will eventually leave, and the whole place will go to hell in a handbasket.

The question I keep asking those who want to stay the course is the same one asked during the Vietnam War.  In a conflict with no clear goals and no possibility of winning due to external factors, how many people are we willing to sacrifice to a lost cause before we bring the rest home?

Pottery Barn rules apply.  Monkeyboy broke it.  Now he gets to take it home.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: Invasion Strategy and Results - 4/1/2007 7:42:37 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

You can make a pretty strong case for the importance of the United States as one of the major players in The Second World War.
 


I'd be very surprised if you can find anyone who will disagree with the above. It still doesn't change the fact that the Soviets took the brunt of the German war machine.

 
quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

As far as your stoicism point ... I'm sure you know that a major part of stoicism, is seeing things as they are, not as you would desire them to be. That we could leave Iraq, and not have Iran move in, is wishful thinking, on the order of dreamland. Certainly not part of stoicism at all. 



The opinion that Iran will move into Iraq is seeing things as they are? It's fair to say opinions of future events do not equate to reality.

Regardless, it's not your business.

Caitlyn, maybe it's time to consider that the US government and military is not the solution to world affairs and, in fact, in this instance they are creating only problems, not generating solutions.


_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: Invasion Strategy and Results - 4/1/2007 8:24:21 AM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
Caitlyn, maybe it's time to consider that the US government and military is not the solution to world affairs and, in fact, in this instance they are creating only problems, not generating solutions.


Once again, you are responding to a point that was never made. We should have never gone to Iraq in the first place. I don't know how many times I have to say it, before your ears actually hear it.
 
Perhaps the hair is getting in your way.  

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: Invasion Strategy and Results - 4/1/2007 9:01:19 AM   
SimplyMichael


Posts: 7229
Joined: 1/7/2007
Status: offline
Sinergy,

quote:

I believe that is going to happen, caitlyn.

I believed going in that it would happen.


I agree although I have come to wonder if turning Iraq to shit wasn't part of the plan all along.  The kurds could lay claim, and I have seen neocon fantasy maps showing this, to the Iranian coast where the turkmen and marsh arabs are the majority.  Considering Cheney's long involvement in Iran, he was Rayguns bagman for the money for hostages deal they used to fuck Carter, as well as Halliburton's and other efforts in Iran, one wonders if that wasn't the prize after all.

I mean consider the occupation of Iraq, even with odds one would do a few things right and yet they haven't even managed that.  It takes a lot of careful thought to ALWAYS fuck up.  Bush may be an imbecile but Cheney is anything but.  It just makes ya wonder though what the end game really is.  They did destroy the federal government under debt, the whole "down the baby in the bathtub" that was proposed in the 1990s.  They did get their PNAC "pearl harbor type event" and they did invade Iraq.  They have a plan I think, I just don't think it is one that has America or its citizens as anything but suckers to be raped and pillaged.

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: Invasion Strategy and Results - 4/1/2007 9:26:00 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
Caitlyn, maybe it's time to consider that the US government and military is not the solution to world affairs and, in fact, in this instance they are creating only problems, not generating solutions.


Once again, you are responding to a point that was never made. We should have never gone to Iraq in the first place. I don't know how many times I have to say it, before your ears actually hear it.
 
Perhaps the hair is getting in your way.  


It should be clear that I was talking about them staying in Iraq - in the context of the chat.

Yes, I do have a tendency to trip over my hair if I'm not careful.

Shouldn't you be out with a boyfriend drinking candle wax or something?












_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 78
Iraq invasion of Kuwait - 4/1/2007 10:55:01 AM   
kiyari


Posts: 631
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
When a country invades another country without provocation, it is quite clear which country has the agenda.


You mean like when Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation?


My understanding about that issue was that there was some dispute about Kuwait's tapping into Iraq's oil, Iraq's not having it's own port access, and Kuwait depressing oil prices by exceeding it's OPEC production... and Kuwait's turning a deaf ear to Iraq's complaints. As well, Iraq did 'clear it' with the US Ambassador beforehand (after a fashion).

http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_saddamhusseinandaprilglespie21703.html

IRAQ: Saddam Hussein and Ambassador April Glespie





Miles Seeley says: "I remember Ambassador April Glaspie meeting Saddam shortly before he invaded Kuwait. The Iraqis said they had a tape of the conversation, during which Saddam recited his complaints against Kuwait (slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields for example) and his alleged attempts to resolve them peacefully. Then he asked what the US reaction would be if he invaded Kuwait. Glaspie allegedly replied that it was not our business and did not involve us, or something like that. There was Congressional hearing later, and the State Department denied the Iraqi tape was legitimate. At the time I thought the whole thing smacked of a coverup by State, although I had no real evidence. I would be most interested if any WAISers know more". RH: Phili`Terzian said the story was a canard. Did the State Department issue its own version?
Ronald Hilton - 2/17/03

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: Iraq invasion of Kuwait - 4/1/2007 11:13:05 AM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline
     The quote I have from Ambassador Glaspie is, "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait."  Later explained by saying, "Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take ALL of Kuwait."

(in reply to kiyari)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Invasion Strategy and Results Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109