U.S. Launches Millitary Strike Against Syria (merged)

Do you agree with Trump's decision to strike Syria?

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
#1,227
#1,227
NorthDallas40 said:
So basically just an excuse to escalate war in Syria.

We put troops out as bait, let them get hit, invoke their pain as reason to strike back ... and then strike a completely unrelated target but one we’d rather hit to ratchet up tensions. Frigging criminals.
Click to expand...
Neocons just love this sh*t:mad:
 
#1,233
#1,233
Grand Vol said:
Read for yourself and make up your own mind:

WikiLeaks, April Glaspie, and Saddam Hussein

Glaspie Memo Vindicates Her, Shows Saddam's Thinking

This link really sums it up:

A Bum Rap for April Glaspie — Saddam and the Start of the Iraq War

And the original cable about the meeting:

Wayback Machine
Click to expand...

Well, this info doesn't necessarily make things any better. Seems as though Saddam had a feeling that the US government or at least some in the US government were helping the UAE and Kuwait to keep oil prices low in spite of Saddam and Iraq needing for the prices to go up in order for them to rebuild Iraq after the 8 year war with Iran. What this seems to spell out here is that the US essentially pushed Saddam's back against the wall in the same manner that the US/UK embargo on Japan had pushed them to war.

One more question about this cable, who actually wrote or edited this cable? Was this Glaspie that wrote it or someone on her staff? Just suggesting that there may be sidebar conversations or just upfront conversations that may be missing in this cable that would have possibly shown Glaspie either leading Saddam to believe the US would not interfere or shows Glaspie not correcting or cautioning Saddam whenever he made statements that could be perceived as an attack on Kuwait... although, I believe by this time, Saddam had already had troops massing up on Kuwait's border. So it may have been quite obvious what Saddam's next move was. Which again, if he is massing troops on the border, there should have been a more stern and direct statement coming from Glaspie that an invasion would not be tolerated. Obviously, that stern message was not sent.
 
#1,234
#1,234
Rasputin_Vol said:
Well, this info doesn't necessarily make things any better. Seems as though Saddam had a feeling that the US government or at least some in the US government were helping the UAE and Kuwait to keep oil prices low in spite of Saddam and Iraq needing for the prices to go up in order for them to rebuild Iraq after the 8 year war with Iran. What this seems to spell out here is that the US essentially pushed Saddam's back against the wall in the same manner that the US/UK embargo on Japan had pushed them to war.

One more question about this cable, who actually wrote or edited this cable? Was this Glaspie that wrote it or someone on her staff? Just suggesting that there may be sidebar conversations or just upfront conversations that may be missing in this cable that would have possibly shown Glaspie either leading Saddam to believe the US would not interfere or shows Glaspie not correcting or cautioning Saddam whenever he made statements that could be perceived as an attack on Kuwait... although, I believe by this time, Saddam had already had troops massing up on Kuwait's border. So it may have been quite obvious what Saddam's next move was. Which again, if he is massing troops on the border, there should have been a more stern and direct statement coming from Glaspie that an invasion would not be tolerated. Obviously, that stern message was not sent.
Click to expand...

Don't get all cray on this over thinking we "pushed" Saddam into war. It wasn't just the oil profits, it was the fact he owed Kuwait a lot of money they loaned him during the Iran-Iraq War. As well as the Saudis. Regardless, the articles do give the lie to the statement she "gave a green light" to the invasion. Basically, Kuwait and Iraq had a border dispute going back well before the Gulf War and Iraq had pushed the envelope several times before that. That's the "border dispute" she said they weren't getting involved with.

And when does a simple (or even complex) border dispute or oil profit sharing turn into an overwhelming invasion? That's the real question here.

I highly doubt she wrote the cable specifically and was probably typed up by an aide or something. Obviously, she likely would have reviewed it for content before sending it. An assumption, but probably a good one. Yes, he had troops massing on the border, but he also gave assurances there would be no military action while diplomacy was going on as detailed in several of those articles.

On that "stern warning" you think she could have made. Remember, Iraq wasn't really a trusted ally at the time but more of ally of convenience in the war with Iran. I'd probably be accurate in saying it likely wasn't the most prestigious posting. Having said that to say this, one of the articles mentions she was summoned by Saddam while Washington was asleep, hence, she had no clear direction or instructions on what she could or couldn't say in the name of the United States. And chances are after that cable was received, they were going to take time formatting a response. Of course, the intel they had in hand said Saddam was going to negotiate on the 30th, but two days later, he invades Kuwait. Not a lot of time when most of the focus was still on the Soviet Union along with the failing East Bloc. It's very likely they put it on the back burner while focusing on more "important" issues.

Regardless, it's a serious twist of what was said and conveyed at the meeting to suggest she "gave them a green light" that's been said for years. The articles I posted as well as plenty of others do give the context of the meeting and why things happened the way they did.
 
#1,235
#1,235
Grand Vol said:
Don't get all cray on this over thinking we "pushed" Saddam into war. It wasn't just the oil profits, it was the fact he owed Kuwait a lot of money they loaned him during the Iran-Iraq War. As well as the Saudis. Regardless, the articles do give the lie to the statement she "gave a green light" to the invasion. Basically, Kuwait and Iraq had a border dispute going back well before the Gulf War and Iraq had pushed the envelope several times before that. That's the "border dispute" she said they weren't getting involved with.

And when does a simple (or even complex) border dispute or oil profit sharing turn into an overwhelming invasion? That's the real question here.

I highly doubt she wrote the cable specifically and was probably typed up by an aide or something. Obviously, she likely would have reviewed it for content before sending it. An assumption, but probably a good one. Yes, he had troops massing on the border, but he also gave assurances there would be no military action while diplomacy was going on as detailed in several of those articles.

On that "stern warning" you think she could have made. Remember, Iraq wasn't really a trusted ally at the time but more of ally of convenience in the war with Iran. I'd probably be accurate in saying it likely wasn't the most prestigious posting. Having said that to say this, one of the articles mentions she was summoned by Saddam while Washington was asleep, hence, she had no clear direction or instructions on what she could or couldn't say in the name of the United States. And chances are after that cable was received, they were going to take time formatting a response. Of course, the intel they had in hand said Saddam was going to negotiate on the 30th, but two days later, he invades Kuwait. Not a lot of time when most of the focus was still on the Soviet Union along with the failing East Bloc. It's very likely they put it on the back burner while focusing on more "important" issues.

Regardless, it's a serious twist of what was said and conveyed at the meeting to suggest she "gave them a green light" that's been said for years. The articles I posted as well as plenty of others do give the context of the meeting and why things happened the way they did.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s a twist to postulate that Saddam was given a “green light” at all or that he at least thought he was given a green light. It’s a reasonable hypothesis and is even backed by some of the articles you linked. What I find even more interesting is that it’s apparently a faux pas to awaken the creatures in DC who have the power to send young Americans to their death.
 
#1,236
#1,236
midnight orange said:
I don’t think it’s a twist to postulate that Saddam was given a “green light” at all or that he at least thought he was given a green light. It’s a reasonable hypothesis and is even backed by some of the articles you linked. What I find even more interesting is that it’s apparently a faux pas to awaken the creatures in DC who have the power to send young Americans to their death.
Click to expand...

It's not too far fetched to think we gave him a wink and a nod about invading Kuwait. It had been 20ish years since we had a war and the MIC needed a boost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol and midnight orange
#1,237
#1,237
midnight orange said:
I don’t think it’s a twist to postulate that Saddam was given a “green light” at all or that he at least thought he was given a green light. It’s a reasonable hypothesis and is even backed by some of the articles you linked. What I find even more interesting is that it’s apparently a faux pas to awaken the creatures in DC who have the power to send young Americans to their death.
Click to expand...

It's a twist to fit a narrative Ras likes to use when he gets in his "America Bad" mode.

Maybe something was lost in translation, maybe Saddam thought he could get away with it, maybe Bush wanted to put the military to use they had built up for the past decade.

Regardless, it doesn't answer the question as to why oil disputes and a border dispute turns into an outright invasion, annexation and Saddam setting up a Vichy style government before the end of 1990.

Nor the fact he owed Kuwait a lot of money.

And certainly don't forget he had already invaded Iran over their oil fields. Bit off a little more than he could chew on that one.

Let's not pretend he needed a "green light" from Washington to do what he did. If anyone is to blame, put it on Congress when they asked if we were treaty bound to defend Kuwait in an open session.
 
#1,238
#1,238
Grand Vol said:
It's a twist to fit a narrative Ras likes to use when he gets in his "America Bad" mode.

Maybe something was lost in translation, maybe Saddam thought he could get away with it, maybe Bush wanted to put the military to use they had built up for the past decade.

Regardless, it doesn't answer the question as to why oil disputes and a border dispute turns into an outright invasion, annexation and Saddam setting up a Vichy style government before the end of 1990.

Nor the fact he owed Kuwait a lot of money.

And certainly don't forget he had already invaded Iran over their oil fields. Bit off a little more than he could chew on that one.

Let's not pretend he needed a "green light" from Washington to do what he did. If anyone is to blame, put it on Congress when they asked if we were treaty bound to defend Kuwait in an open session.
Click to expand...
I can buy this. I think what you stated is a reasonable position. The only exception would be that I think Ras’s “America bad” is probably similar to mine. It’s not that America is bad, it’s that the leaders of this country going back over 100 years are depraved sociopaths who are willing to do unpleasant things to personally enrich their finances and power in the name of “America”. They also have excellent marketing to give cover to their schemes. The fault of Americans is that they keep electing these cretins.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol and hog88
#1,239
#1,239
midnight orange said:
I can buy this. I think what you stated is a reasonable position. The only exception would be that I think Ras’s “America bad” is probably similar to mine. It’s not that America is bad, it’s that the leaders of this country going back over 100 years are depraved sociopaths who are willing to do unpleasant things to personally enrich their finances and power in the name of “America”. They also have excellent marketing to give cover to their schemes. The fault of Americans is that they keep electing these cretins.
Click to expand...

I have zero doubt we've put on some pretty stupid wars over the last 120 years or so. But I don't think the Gulf War was "sponsored" by the MIC (sorry Hog) as Bush 41 was a pretty well known warmongering even before that time.

As wars go, I feel the Gulf War was justified as a person like Saddam wasn't going to be happy with just Kuwait since he had beef with the UAE as well. And the road to the UAE led through Saudi Arabia...

He basically tried the same land grab Hitler had been pursuing in the 30s and using shady justification for it. (That's not a Godwin Law reference, but rather the same motives)
 
#1,240
#1,240
Grand Vol said:
I have zero doubt we've put on some pretty stupid wars over the last 120 years or so. But I don't think the Gulf War was "sponsored" by the MIC (sorry Hog) as Bush 41 was a pretty well known warmongering even before that time.

As wars go, I feel the Gulf War was justified as a person like Saddam wasn't going to be happy with just Kuwait since he had beef with the UAE as well. And the road to the UAE led through Saudi Arabia...

He basically tried the same land grab Hitler had been pursuing in the 30s and using shady justification for it. (That's not a Godwin Law reference, but rather the same motives)
Click to expand...
It would tick off Ras but you could have said the Soviet/Russian justifications of creeping land grabs to avoid Godwin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grand Vol
#1,245
#1,245
Grand Vol said:
Don't get all cray on this over thinking we "pushed" Saddam into war. It wasn't just the oil profits, it was the fact he owed Kuwait a lot of money they loaned him during the Iran-Iraq War. As well as the Saudis. Regardless, the articles do give the lie to the statement she "gave a green light" to the invasion. Basically, Kuwait and Iraq had a border dispute going back well before the Gulf War and Iraq had pushed the envelope several times before that. That's the "border dispute" she said they weren't getting involved with.

And when does a simple (or even complex) border dispute or oil profit sharing turn into an overwhelming invasion? That's the real question here.

I highly doubt she wrote the cable specifically and was probably typed up by an aide or something. Obviously, she likely would have reviewed it for content before sending it. An assumption, but probably a good one. Yes, he had troops massing on the border, but he also gave assurances there would be no military action while diplomacy was going on as detailed in several of those articles.

On that "stern warning" you think she could have made. Remember, Iraq wasn't really a trusted ally at the time but more of ally of convenience in the war with Iran. I'd probably be accurate in saying it likely wasn't the most prestigious posting. Having said that to say this, one of the articles mentions she was summoned by Saddam while Washington was asleep, hence, she had no clear direction or instructions on what she could or couldn't say in the name of the United States. And chances are after that cable was received, they were going to take time formatting a response. Of course, the intel they had in hand said Saddam was going to negotiate on the 30th, but two days later, he invades Kuwait. Not a lot of time when most of the focus was still on the Soviet Union along with the failing East Bloc. It's very likely they put it on the back burner while focusing on more "important" issues.

Regardless, it's a serious twist of what was said and conveyed at the meeting to suggest she "gave them a green light" that's been said for years. The articles I posted as well as plenty of others do give the context of the meeting and why things happened the way they did.
Click to expand...

I would say that there was clearly a breakdown in communication somewhere. The kneejerk reaction for most would be to assume Saddam was the one being deceptive, and others would say that Glaspie may not have been given clear direction. Either way, this would have been a moot point had diplomacy worked in the days after Glaspie left and Saddam was meeting with reps from Egypt, Kuwait and UAE.

Also, I'm fully aware of the loans from Kuwait, also. This was just another sore spot. I think in Saddam's mind, he felt that he had earned a certain level of preferential treatment from the US and allies in the region for taking on Iran. From what it seems, I don't think anyone then or since has ever stated that what Saddam was requesting was unreasonable from Kuwait, OPEC and the US. I thin one flaw that Saddam seemed to show in this cable is that he seemed to let GHWB off the hook.

5. PICKING HIS WORDS WITH CARE, SADDAM SAID
THAT THERE ARE "SOME CIRCLES" IN THE USG,
INCLUDING IN CIA AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT,
BUT EMPHATICALLY EXCLUDING THE PRESIDENT AND
SECRETARY BAKER, WHO ARE NOT FRIENDLY TOWARD
IRAQ-U.S. RELATIONS.
Click to expand...

I would say that a former director of the CIA would still have plenty of contacts and influence in the CIA at that moment in time. The same couldn't have been said of Carter or Reagan.
 
#1,248
#1,248
Grand Vol said:
I have zero doubt we've put on some pretty stupid wars over the last 120 years or so. But I don't think the Gulf War was "sponsored" by the MIC (sorry Hog) as Bush 41 was a pretty well known warmongering even before that time.

As wars go, I feel the Gulf War was justified as a person like Saddam wasn't going to be happy with just Kuwait since he had beef with the UAE as well. And the road to the UAE led through Saudi Arabia...

He basically tried the same land grab Hitler had been pursuing in the 30s and using shady justification for it. (That's not a Godwin Law reference, but rather the same motives)
Click to expand...
Not sure what you are referencing, but I do know that Germany had been trying to establish a railroad that would go between Basra and berlin since the late 1800's... for the very same reason that they are looking towards Russia with the Nordstrom pipelines and the same reason why Hitler made a push towards the Caucasus, which is energy to feed their industrial needs.
 
#1,249
#1,249
Grand Vol said:
You know he started that one, right?
Click to expand...
That doesn't matter. The prevailing policy at the time was "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Again, that is why he felt that he was owed a certain measure of preferential treatment.

Not trying to be dismissive about who started what war over there. I'm not saying that Saddam was an angel. I'm simply trying to point out that Saddam may not be totally at fault in this particular situation with Kuwait. Other allowed the ball to be dropped on the diplomatic front and the sad fact is that the US had either enabled or turned a bling eye to Saddam for a while leading up to that point, so he might have had a bit more overconfidence or been a victim of poor communication.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top