Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

President George H.W. Bush has died, age 94.

1356

Posts

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    Short thread from a U Baltimore professor on the time the Bush administration manufactured a drug deal for policy pr and left a first time offender in prison for 10 years



    He was a monster like all the others.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    DoodmannIncenjucarOne Thousand CablesEmerlmaster999Man in the MistsshrykewanderingTicaldfjamCantidoGennenalyse RuebenDarkPrimusRedTideBlackDragon480BigJoeMfurliondurandal4532YoutubeVanguardJuliusKarozMagellskyknytHermanoMrVyngaardjoshofalltradesYamiB.milskiHacksawKamarGiggles_FunsworthThawmusDouglasDangerDuke 2.0
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Also if we want to draw lines between Bush and Trump, Bush pardoned people to kill the investigation into Iran-Contra

    PhillishereMan in the MistsmonikerBigJoeMFencingsaxdurandal4532YoutubeskyknytMrVyngaardjoshofalltradesEddyYamiB.Giggles_FunsworthKristmas Kthulhu
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Or maybe how he encouraged Kurdish rebellion and then left them to get slaughtered.

    Bad man is dead.

    PhillishereRedTideBigJoeMdurandal4532YoutubeskyknytMrVyngaardYamiB.HacksawDouglasDanger
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    Or maybe how he encouraged Kurdish rebellion and then left them to get slaughtered.

    Bad man is dead.

    Also, how he encouraged and courted Hussein up to the point of accidentally greenlighting the Kuwait invasion in the first place.

    Phillishere on
    Man in the MistsYoutubevalhalla130DouglasDangerDracomicron
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    Or maybe how he encouraged Kurdish rebellion and then left them to get slaughtered.

    Bad man is dead.

    Also, how he encouraged and courted Hussein up to the point of accidentally greenlighting the Kuwait invasion in the first place.

    This is complete bullshit based on continuing revisionism with the conversation between Gillespie and Hussein in which at no point did the ambassador "green light" the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

    Have you ever actually read the transcript of that conversation or are you basing this off of other people telling you we "gave the green light" for Iraq to invade Kuwait?

    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Or maybe how he encouraged Kurdish rebellion and then left them to get slaughtered.

    Bad man is dead.

    Also, how he encouraged and courted Hussein up to the point of accidentally greenlighting the Kuwait invasion in the first place.

    This is complete bullshit based on continuing revisionism with the conversation between Gillespie and Hussein in which at no point did the ambassador "green light" the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

    Have you ever actually read the transcript of that conversation or are you basing this off of other people telling you we "gave the green light" for Iraq to invade Kuwait?

    Yes. I have.

    Accidentally is the key word you missed.
    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)

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.globalresearch.ca/gulf-war-documents-meeting-between-saddam-hussein-and-ambassador-to-iraq-april-glaspie/31145/amp

    valhalla130Gnome-Interruptus
  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Registered User regular
    afaik Saddam was going to do it even if we told him to fuck off, he thought all we would/could deploy were light forces that would be overrun by Iraqi tanks

  • BedlamBedlam Registered User regular
    My dad took me to see Bush Sr during his reelection campaign when I was in 4th grade. I could barely see him because there were so many people there but my dad let me look through his camera and I could kind of see him that way. People shouted 4 more years a lot.

    Dont know much about his politics as I was too young. Just bits and pieces of him being in the news.

  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Or maybe how he encouraged Kurdish rebellion and then left them to get slaughtered.

    Bad man is dead.

    Also, how he encouraged and courted Hussein up to the point of accidentally greenlighting the Kuwait invasion in the first place.

    This is complete bullshit based on continuing revisionism with the conversation between Gillespie and Hussein in which at no point did the ambassador "green light" the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

    Have you ever actually read the transcript of that conversation or are you basing this off of other people telling you we "gave the green light" for Iraq to invade Kuwait?

    Yes. I have.

    Accidentally is the key word you missed.
    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)

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.globalresearch.ca/gulf-war-documents-meeting-between-saddam-hussein-and-ambassador-to-iraq-april-glaspie/31145/amp

    Only through the most tortured interpretation can "we have no opinion on Arab - Arab conflicts" be argued to "green light" anything. And even saying it was done accidentally is stretching the definition of "green light" to absurd bounds. The United States not expressing an opinion on, for example, Japanese - Chinese conflicts was not a "green light" for the invasion of Manchuria.

    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Or maybe how he encouraged Kurdish rebellion and then left them to get slaughtered.

    Bad man is dead.

    Also, how he encouraged and courted Hussein up to the point of accidentally greenlighting the Kuwait invasion in the first place.

    This is complete bullshit based on continuing revisionism with the conversation between Gillespie and Hussein in which at no point did the ambassador "green light" the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

    Have you ever actually read the transcript of that conversation or are you basing this off of other people telling you we "gave the green light" for Iraq to invade Kuwait?

    Yes. I have.

    Accidentally is the key word you missed.
    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)

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.globalresearch.ca/gulf-war-documents-meeting-between-saddam-hussein-and-ambassador-to-iraq-april-glaspie/31145/amp

    Only through the most tortured interpretation can "we have no opinion on Arab - Arab conflicts" be argued to "green light" anything. And even saying it was done accidentally is stretching the definition of "green light" to absurd bounds. The United States not expressing an opinion on, for example, Japanese - Chinese conflicts was not a "green light" for the invasion of Manchuria.

    Really? He's fishing for the US opinion on relations with Kuwait and we told him we didn't really care. Its not a stretch for that to be interpreted as "do whatever you want".

    shrykePhillishereMan in the MistsKayne Red RobeOneAngryPossumAngelHedgieFencingsaxYoutubePolaritieJuliusMagellSolarMrVyngaardDoodmannKamarThawmusiTunesIsEvilKristmas KthulhuKaputaGnome-Interruptus
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    afaik Saddam was going to do it even if we told him to fuck off, he thought all we would/could deploy were light forces that would be overrun by Iraqi tanks

    If there is any fault to be levied in the run up to the invasion it was a misunderstanding of the signals Hussein was throwing out such as characterizing the post Iran - Iraq War relationship with Kuwait as "economic warfare". But that's with the benefit of hindsight.

    As for the US response, actually looking through the archives at the Bush library you'll find a significant amount of correspondence and documents showing the administrstion pushed for a non military solution consistently until the dead line for military response.

    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Or maybe how he encouraged Kurdish rebellion and then left them to get slaughtered.

    Bad man is dead.

    Also, how he encouraged and courted Hussein up to the point of accidentally greenlighting the Kuwait invasion in the first place.

    This is complete bullshit based on continuing revisionism with the conversation between Gillespie and Hussein in which at no point did the ambassador "green light" the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

    Have you ever actually read the transcript of that conversation or are you basing this off of other people telling you we "gave the green light" for Iraq to invade Kuwait?

    Yes. I have.

    Accidentally is the key word you missed.
    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)

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.globalresearch.ca/gulf-war-documents-meeting-between-saddam-hussein-and-ambassador-to-iraq-april-glaspie/31145/amp

    Only through the most tortured interpretation can "we have no opinion on Arab - Arab conflicts" be argued to "green light" anything. And even saying it was done accidentally is stretching the definition of "green light" to absurd bounds. The United States not expressing an opinion on, for example, Japanese - Chinese conflicts was not a "green light" for the invasion of Manchuria.

    The point is that Saddam took that tortured interpretation to be mean just that. I am not even sure what you are arguing here, since this isn’t exactly some conspiracy theory.

    Here’s a good overview:

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/twenty-five-years-after-another-gulf-war/amp

    Phillishere on
    valhalla130
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    edited December 2018
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Or maybe how he encouraged Kurdish rebellion and then left them to get slaughtered.

    Bad man is dead.

    Also, how he encouraged and courted Hussein up to the point of accidentally greenlighting the Kuwait invasion in the first place.

    This is complete bullshit based on continuing revisionism with the conversation between Gillespie and Hussein in which at no point did the ambassador "green light" the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

    Have you ever actually read the transcript of that conversation or are you basing this off of other people telling you we "gave the green light" for Iraq to invade Kuwait?

    Yes. I have.

    Accidentally is the key word you missed.
    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)

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.globalresearch.ca/gulf-war-documents-meeting-between-saddam-hussein-and-ambassador-to-iraq-april-glaspie/31145/amp

    Only through the most tortured interpretation can "we have no opinion on Arab - Arab conflicts" be argued to "green light" anything. And even saying it was done accidentally is stretching the definition of "green light" to absurd bounds. The United States not expressing an opinion on, for example, Japanese - Chinese conflicts was not a "green light" for the invasion of Manchuria.

    Really? He's fishing for the US opinion on relations with Kuwait and we told him we didn't really care. Its not a stretch for that to be interpreted as "do whatever you want".

    I have no opinion on the conflict between you and your neighbor in which you allege he is siphoning gas out of your car.

    Is that me giving you the green light to walk into his house and beat him with a baseball bat?

    NSDFRand on
    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Or maybe how he encouraged Kurdish rebellion and then left them to get slaughtered.

    Bad man is dead.

    Also, how he encouraged and courted Hussein up to the point of accidentally greenlighting the Kuwait invasion in the first place.

    This is complete bullshit based on continuing revisionism with the conversation between Gillespie and Hussein in which at no point did the ambassador "green light" the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

    Have you ever actually read the transcript of that conversation or are you basing this off of other people telling you we "gave the green light" for Iraq to invade Kuwait?

    Yes. I have.

    Accidentally is the key word you missed.
    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)

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.globalresearch.ca/gulf-war-documents-meeting-between-saddam-hussein-and-ambassador-to-iraq-april-glaspie/31145/amp

    Only through the most tortured interpretation can "we have no opinion on Arab - Arab conflicts" be argued to "green light" anything. And even saying it was done accidentally is stretching the definition of "green light" to absurd bounds. The United States not expressing an opinion on, for example, Japanese - Chinese conflicts was not a "green light" for the invasion of Manchuria.

    The point is that Saddam took that tortured interpretation to be mean just that. I am not even sure what you are arguing here, since this isn’t exactly some conspiracy theory.

    Here’s a good overview:

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/twenty-five-years-after-another-gulf-war/amp

    I'm aware of the argument. I disagree that it is somehow actively the fault of the ambassador or the administrstion that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Or maybe how he encouraged Kurdish rebellion and then left them to get slaughtered.

    Bad man is dead.

    Also, how he encouraged and courted Hussein up to the point of accidentally greenlighting the Kuwait invasion in the first place.

    This is complete bullshit based on continuing revisionism with the conversation between Gillespie and Hussein in which at no point did the ambassador "green light" the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

    Have you ever actually read the transcript of that conversation or are you basing this off of other people telling you we "gave the green light" for Iraq to invade Kuwait?

    Yes. I have.

    Accidentally is the key word you missed.
    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)

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.globalresearch.ca/gulf-war-documents-meeting-between-saddam-hussein-and-ambassador-to-iraq-april-glaspie/31145/amp

    Only through the most tortured interpretation can "we have no opinion on Arab - Arab conflicts" be argued to "green light" anything. And even saying it was done accidentally is stretching the definition of "green light" to absurd bounds. The United States not expressing an opinion on, for example, Japanese - Chinese conflicts was not a "green light" for the invasion of Manchuria.

    Really? He's fishing for the US opinion on relations with Kuwait and we told him we didn't really care. Its not a stretch for that to be interpreted as "do whatever you want".

    I have no opinion on the conflict between you and your neighbor in which you allege he is siphoning gas out of your car.

    Is that me giving you the green light to walk into his house and beat him with a baseball bat?

    If I know you have designs on the gas tank and tell you I have no opinions on what happens to it then yeah.

    JuliusMagellEinzeliTunesIsEvilGnome-Interruptus
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Or maybe how he encouraged Kurdish rebellion and then left them to get slaughtered.

    Bad man is dead.

    Also, how he encouraged and courted Hussein up to the point of accidentally greenlighting the Kuwait invasion in the first place.

    This is complete bullshit based on continuing revisionism with the conversation between Gillespie and Hussein in which at no point did the ambassador "green light" the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

    Have you ever actually read the transcript of that conversation or are you basing this off of other people telling you we "gave the green light" for Iraq to invade Kuwait?

    Yes. I have.

    Accidentally is the key word you missed.
    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)

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.globalresearch.ca/gulf-war-documents-meeting-between-saddam-hussein-and-ambassador-to-iraq-april-glaspie/31145/amp

    Only through the most tortured interpretation can "we have no opinion on Arab - Arab conflicts" be argued to "green light" anything. And even saying it was done accidentally is stretching the definition of "green light" to absurd bounds. The United States not expressing an opinion on, for example, Japanese - Chinese conflicts was not a "green light" for the invasion of Manchuria.

    Really? He's fishing for the US opinion on relations with Kuwait and we told him we didn't really care. Its not a stretch for that to be interpreted as "do whatever you want".

    I have no opinion on the conflict between you and your neighbor in which you allege he is siphoning gas out of your car.

    Is that me giving you the green light to walk into his house and beat him with a baseball bat?

    Personally, I don’t see any point in debating specific and heavily documented/discussed issues in global foreign policy in terms of what I would do about my neighbors.

    Styrofoam SammichAngelHedgievisiblehowlMrVyngaardjoshofalltradesThawmusKaputaiTunesIsEvil
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    No one is saying they told him it was fine to invade Kuwait. What they did was get so buddy with Hussein and get so sloppy that he interpreted their support as a greenlight for invading Kuwait. You might think its unfair but its explicitly the job of a diplomat to be clear with our desires and expectations.

    PhillishereJepheryAngelHedgieFencingsaxJuliusEinzelThawmusGnome-Interruptus
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Or maybe how he encouraged Kurdish rebellion and then left them to get slaughtered.

    Bad man is dead.

    Also, how he encouraged and courted Hussein up to the point of accidentally greenlighting the Kuwait invasion in the first place.

    This is complete bullshit based on continuing revisionism with the conversation between Gillespie and Hussein in which at no point did the ambassador "green light" the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

    Have you ever actually read the transcript of that conversation or are you basing this off of other people telling you we "gave the green light" for Iraq to invade Kuwait?

    Yes. I have.

    Accidentally is the key word you missed.
    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)

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.globalresearch.ca/gulf-war-documents-meeting-between-saddam-hussein-and-ambassador-to-iraq-april-glaspie/31145/amp

    Only through the most tortured interpretation can "we have no opinion on Arab - Arab conflicts" be argued to "green light" anything. And even saying it was done accidentally is stretching the definition of "green light" to absurd bounds. The United States not expressing an opinion on, for example, Japanese - Chinese conflicts was not a "green light" for the invasion of Manchuria.

    Really? He's fishing for the US opinion on relations with Kuwait and we told him we didn't really care. Its not a stretch for that to be interpreted as "do whatever you want".

    I have no opinion on the conflict between you and your neighbor in which you allege he is siphoning gas out of your car.

    Is that me giving you the green light to walk into his house and beat him with a baseball bat?

    But that's not what was said. This is "If I don't get X, I'm thinking of doing Y. What's your opinion on that?". And the US is all "We have no opinion on that.".

    That pretty clearly looks like a "Do whatever you want".

    PhillishereMan in the MistsAngelHedgiedispatch.oYamiB.Kamarvalhalla130ThawmusKaputaKristmas KthulhuGnome-Interruptus
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Or maybe how he encouraged Kurdish rebellion and then left them to get slaughtered.

    Bad man is dead.

    Also, how he encouraged and courted Hussein up to the point of accidentally greenlighting the Kuwait invasion in the first place.

    This is complete bullshit based on continuing revisionism with the conversation between Gillespie and Hussein in which at no point did the ambassador "green light" the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

    Have you ever actually read the transcript of that conversation or are you basing this off of other people telling you we "gave the green light" for Iraq to invade Kuwait?

    Yes. I have.

    Accidentally is the key word you missed.
    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)

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.globalresearch.ca/gulf-war-documents-meeting-between-saddam-hussein-and-ambassador-to-iraq-april-glaspie/31145/amp

    Only through the most tortured interpretation can "we have no opinion on Arab - Arab conflicts" be argued to "green light" anything. And even saying it was done accidentally is stretching the definition of "green light" to absurd bounds. The United States not expressing an opinion on, for example, Japanese - Chinese conflicts was not a "green light" for the invasion of Manchuria.

    Really? He's fishing for the US opinion on relations with Kuwait and we told him we didn't really care. Its not a stretch for that to be interpreted as "do whatever you want".

    I have no opinion on the conflict between you and your neighbor in which you allege he is siphoning gas out of your car.

    Is that me giving you the green light to walk into his house and beat him with a baseball bat?

    But that's not what was said. This is "If I don't get X, I'm thinking of doing Y. What's your opinion on that?". And the US is all "We have no opinion on that.".

    That pretty clearly looks like a "Do whatever you want".

    Glaspie’s also been quoted as saying, “We didn’t think he would take all of Kuwait.” I suspect the truth lies in that one.

    QanamilThawmusGnome-Interruptus
  • HeirHeir Registered User regular
    afaik Saddam was going to do it even if we told him to fuck off, he thought all we would/could deploy were light forces that would be overrun by Iraqi tanks

    I'm fascinated by this. Why did he think all we would deploy would be light forces? Based on what we had in the area or more of a political will thing?

    camo_sig2.png
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Heir wrote: »
    afaik Saddam was going to do it even if we told him to fuck off, he thought all we would/could deploy were light forces that would be overrun by Iraqi tanks

    I'm fascinated by this. Why did he think all we would deploy would be light forces? Based on what we had in the area or more of a political will thing?

    I’d like to see a link or quote with evidence of this, as well.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Or maybe how he encouraged Kurdish rebellion and then left them to get slaughtered.

    Bad man is dead.

    Also, how he encouraged and courted Hussein up to the point of accidentally greenlighting the Kuwait invasion in the first place.

    This is complete bullshit based on continuing revisionism with the conversation between Gillespie and Hussein in which at no point did the ambassador "green light" the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

    Have you ever actually read the transcript of that conversation or are you basing this off of other people telling you we "gave the green light" for Iraq to invade Kuwait?

    Yes. I have.

    Accidentally is the key word you missed.
    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)

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.globalresearch.ca/gulf-war-documents-meeting-between-saddam-hussein-and-ambassador-to-iraq-april-glaspie/31145/amp

    Only through the most tortured interpretation can "we have no opinion on Arab - Arab conflicts" be argued to "green light" anything. And even saying it was done accidentally is stretching the definition of "green light" to absurd bounds. The United States not expressing an opinion on, for example, Japanese - Chinese conflicts was not a "green light" for the invasion of Manchuria.

    Really? He's fishing for the US opinion on relations with Kuwait and we told him we didn't really care. Its not a stretch for that to be interpreted as "do whatever you want".

    I have no opinion on the conflict between you and your neighbor in which you allege he is siphoning gas out of your car.

    Is that me giving you the green light to walk into his house and beat him with a baseball bat?

    Given that there's a pretty famous anti-DV ad that makes a similar argument (the ad argued that not speaking up about abuse was akin to handing the abuser a bat), I don't think this already tortured analogy really holds up as much as you think. The reality was that Saddam wanted the war, yes - which is why the Bush Administration not making it abundantly clear that any aggression would be responded to with force was a clear failure of the State Department doing their jobs.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Or maybe how he encouraged Kurdish rebellion and then left them to get slaughtered.

    Bad man is dead.

    Also, how he encouraged and courted Hussein up to the point of accidentally greenlighting the Kuwait invasion in the first place.

    This is complete bullshit based on continuing revisionism with the conversation between Gillespie and Hussein in which at no point did the ambassador "green light" the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

    Have you ever actually read the transcript of that conversation or are you basing this off of other people telling you we "gave the green light" for Iraq to invade Kuwait?

    Yes. I have.

    Accidentally is the key word you missed.
    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)

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.globalresearch.ca/gulf-war-documents-meeting-between-saddam-hussein-and-ambassador-to-iraq-april-glaspie/31145/amp

    Only through the most tortured interpretation can "we have no opinion on Arab - Arab conflicts" be argued to "green light" anything. And even saying it was done accidentally is stretching the definition of "green light" to absurd bounds. The United States not expressing an opinion on, for example, Japanese - Chinese conflicts was not a "green light" for the invasion of Manchuria.

    Really? He's fishing for the US opinion on relations with Kuwait and we told him we didn't really care. Its not a stretch for that to be interpreted as "do whatever you want".

    I have no opinion on the conflict between you and your neighbor in which you allege he is siphoning gas out of your car.

    Is that me giving you the green light to walk into his house and beat him with a baseball bat?

    Given that there's a pretty famous anti-DV ad that makes a similar argument (the ad argued that not speaking up about abuse was akin to handing the abuser a bat), I don't think this already tortured analogy really holds up as much as you think. The reality was that Saddam wanted the war, yes - which is why the Bush Administration not making it abundantly clear that any aggression would be responded to with force was a clear failure of the State Department doing their jobs.

    He's also proposing that the existence of evidence that the U.S. was pushing for a peaceful resolution negates this understanding of the discussion. I don't think there is any contradiction.

    Yes, the U.S. may have told Saddam, possibly repeatedly, that they'd prefer to handle this peacefully. Saddam knew this, but when he called the ambassador to a meeting, he wanted to know the answer to this question - "We want Kuwait back by negotiation or force, and we only would have been willing to negotiate with Kuwait if we have had gotten all the land we wanted in the Iraq War. We didn't, so if we decide to handle this by force, what is the U.S. position?"

    We responded that we had no stake in the conflict. Saddam took that to mean, not unreasonably, that we would not involve ourselves if they decided to invade. That doesn't mean that we never suggested a different approach, but it does mean that when Saddam told us he was unwilling to listen to our advice, we told him that what he did about the issue wasn't our concern.

    Phillishere on
  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    What Glaspie told Saddam was that the US did not have a position on the Kuwait-Iraq border dispute over Rumailia, not that the US has no position on a war between Kuwait and Iraq. She was essentially communicating that the US would not arbitrate Arab border disputes, and was trying to assuage Saddam's anguish over Iraq's post-war economic crisis by assuring him the US was not helping other Arab powers fuck around with Iraqi oil exports.
    Heir wrote: »
    afaik Saddam was going to do it even if we told him to fuck off, he thought all we would/could deploy were light forces that would be overrun by Iraqi tanks

    I'm fascinated by this. Why did he think all we would deploy would be light forces? Based on what we had in the area or more of a political will thing?

    I’d like to see a link or quote with evidence of this, as well.

    I will have to dig around to find sources (it's from courses and research I did couple years ago), but the answer is both.

    In 1991, the United States' military presence in the Gulf was minimal. The Army was still heavily geared up for war in Europe, with a lot of heavy divisions pre-positioned to deploy to Germany. These forces were never intended rapidly redeploy to the Middle East on short notice, for various logistical reasons, without significant effort. The Navy also did not have a Fleet command based in the region - for the Gulf War, 7th Fleet, based in Japan, was given temporary responsibility for operations against Iraq. It wasn't until 1995 that they stood up 5th Fleet out of Bahrain.
    The forces which the US could deploy on very short notice were basically just the 82nd Airborne, the first battalion of which reached Saudi Arabia a day or two after the fall of Kuwait. If Saddam had wanted to invade Saudi Arabia, a single parachute battalion would have been a speedbump. It took a massive six-month strategic air/sealift operation to amass the heavy divisions to liberate Kuwait.

    Saddam, not unreasonably, thought that the US would not go to the vast expense of repositioning half a million troops, to a theater in which they had no major standing forces, in order to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Up to this point, the US had not conducted a major expeditionary war since Vietnam. The Army's only real battles had been fought by the 82nd Airborne and the Rangers in Panama and Granada while the tanks stayed parked in Europe. Why would they send heavy forces thousands of miles away for Kuwait, a country they had no treaty obligations toward?

    It's important to remember that US decisionmakers in both the military and the White House did not anticipate Desert Storm to be the curbstomp that it was. They expected to win, sure, but the Iraqi Army was a huge mechanized force with 10 years' combat experience - which is about 9 years and 8 months more combat experience than the US Army had in the 1980s. The military-technical revolution embodied in precision-guided munitions and modern sensors was still a mostly untested theory; the reality everyone remembered was the hundreds of American jets shot down over North Vietnam. Bush was told that thousands of American troops would die liberating Kuwait. In the post-Vietnam era, it seemed plausible that the US would not commit to such a war.

    Dongs Galore on
    Kipling217
  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Registered User regular
    Saddam knew this, but when he called the ambassador to a meeting, he wanted to know the answer to this question - "We want Kuwait back by negotiation or force, and we only would have been willing to negotiate with Kuwait if we have had gotten all the land we wanted in the Iraq War. We didn't, so if we decide to handle this by force, what is the U.S. position?"

    In which transcript does this quote appear?

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    Saddam knew this, but when he called the ambassador to a meeting, he wanted to know the answer to this question - "We want Kuwait back by negotiation or force, and we only would have been willing to negotiate with Kuwait if we have had gotten all the land we wanted in the Iraq War. We didn't, so if we decide to handle this by force, what is the U.S. position?"

    In which transcript does this quote appear?

    It's a direct paraphrase of the quote earlier in this thread.

    "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?"

    Phillishere on
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    Saddam knew this, but when he called the ambassador to a meeting, he wanted to know the answer to this question - "We want Kuwait back by negotiation or force, and we only would have been willing to negotiate with Kuwait if we have had gotten all the land we wanted in the Iraq War. We didn't, so if we decide to handle this by force, what is the U.S. position?"

    In which transcript does this quote appear?

    It's a direct paraphrase of the quote earlier in this thread.

    "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?"

    Well, if we are bitching about the US being vague, then the fact that Saddam saw Kuwait as a part of Iraq and forgot to emphasize this to the US is an equally big lapse. As it is, without the bolded, one could think they where just talking about the oil fields. Giving a fairly sensible view that at most Iraq would cross the border to destroy the oil derricks on the Kuwaiti side(more likely shell them a bit to show they mean business). A more likely view to anyone used to ME realpolitik, would be Saddam driving all his tanks up to the border and demanding concessions about oil drilling and debt. You know, basic gun boat diplomacy.

    Shit, if Saddam had done that, he would probably still be in power.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Saddam knew this, but when he called the ambassador to a meeting, he wanted to know the answer to this question - "We want Kuwait back by negotiation or force, and we only would have been willing to negotiate with Kuwait if we have had gotten all the land we wanted in the Iraq War. We didn't, so if we decide to handle this by force, what is the U.S. position?"

    In which transcript does this quote appear?

    It's a direct paraphrase of the quote earlier in this thread.

    "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?"

    Well, if we are bitching about the US being vague, then the fact that Saddam saw Kuwait as a part of Iraq and forgot to emphasize this to the US is an equally big lapse. As it is, without the bolded, one could think they where just talking about the oil fields. Giving a fairly sensible view that at most Iraq would cross the border to destroy the oil derricks on the Kuwaiti side(more likely shell them a bit to show they mean business). A more likely view to anyone used to ME realpolitik, would be Saddam driving all his tanks up to the border and demanding concessions about oil drilling and debt. You know, basic gun boat diplomacy.

    Shit, if Saddam had done that, he would probably still be in power.

    Knowing that context and responding accordingly is what the State Department is all about. This is a major reason it is so concerning that so many of the career professionals in the Department are quitting.

    Phillishere on
    FencingsaxMan in the MistsMvrckGnome-Interruptus
  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    Saddam knew this, but when he called the ambassador to a meeting, he wanted to know the answer to this question - "We want Kuwait back by negotiation or force, and we only would have been willing to negotiate with Kuwait if we have had gotten all the land we wanted in the Iraq War. We didn't, so if we decide to handle this by force, what is the U.S. position?"

    In which transcript does this quote appear?

    It's a direct paraphrase of the quote earlier in this thread.

    "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?"

    The context of this quote in the transcripts is Saddam is accusing the US of being hostile to Iraq, that the US is conspiring with Kuwait to destroy the Iraqi economy, and that everyone is against Iraq.
    The ambassador's response is essentially "No, we are not hostile to Iraq, we are not biased against Iraq."
    The transcript also includes the State analysis (p. 7) that Saddam perceived US maneuvers with the UAE as the US taking sides against Iraq. Threatening to go to war over Kuwait would only reinforce Saddam's perception that the US was part of a hostile encirclement of Iraq.

    Yes, State failed to read Saddam's intentions, but it wasn't telling him "do whatever you want" or "we don't care", it was trying to reassure a paranoiac that everyone isn't out to get him. There was no 'green light'. She was being diplomatic, as diplomats do, and not threatening war in the middle of a third party's ongoing negotiations.

    also, like, "we will give up the rest of the Shatt (to Iran) to defend our claims on Kuwait" is a lot less explicit than we will handle this by force. He could just as well be describing a negotiating position, not making a threat.

    Dongs Galore on
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Saddam knew this, but when he called the ambassador to a meeting, he wanted to know the answer to this question - "We want Kuwait back by negotiation or force, and we only would have been willing to negotiate with Kuwait if we have had gotten all the land we wanted in the Iraq War. We didn't, so if we decide to handle this by force, what is the U.S. position?"

    In which transcript does this quote appear?

    It's a direct paraphrase of the quote earlier in this thread.

    "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?"

    Well, if we are bitching about the US being vague, then the fact that Saddam saw Kuwait as a part of Iraq and forgot to emphasize this to the US is an equally big lapse. As it is, without the bolded, one could think they where just talking about the oil fields. Giving a fairly sensible view that at most Iraq would cross the border to destroy the oil derricks on the Kuwaiti side(more likely shell them a bit to show they mean business). A more likely view to anyone used to ME realpolitik, would be Saddam driving all his tanks up to the border and demanding concessions about oil drilling and debt. You know, basic gun boat diplomacy.

    Shit, if Saddam had done that, he would probably still be in power.

    Knowing that context and responding accordingly is what the State Department is all about. This is a major reason it is so concerning that so many of the career professionals in the Department are quitting.

    Dude no, even knowing the supposed context(which was pretty much in Saddams head and nowhere in the history of the region in the last 300 years), what Saddam said was super vague. You can claim that the State Department was supposed to be a bunch of mind readers, but even a mind reader couldn't pick up the idea that this was asking for some sort of go ahead for an outright invasion followed by annexation.

    That is jumping to conclusions several steps beyond what a sane person would dream of. Like even with the bolded, my "at most" version of events would be the most extreme end of it.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Saddam knew this, but when he called the ambassador to a meeting, he wanted to know the answer to this question - "We want Kuwait back by negotiation or force, and we only would have been willing to negotiate with Kuwait if we have had gotten all the land we wanted in the Iraq War. We didn't, so if we decide to handle this by force, what is the U.S. position?"

    In which transcript does this quote appear?

    It's a direct paraphrase of the quote earlier in this thread.

    "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?"

    Well, if we are bitching about the US being vague, then the fact that Saddam saw Kuwait as a part of Iraq and forgot to emphasize this to the US is an equally big lapse. As it is, without the bolded, one could think they where just talking about the oil fields. Giving a fairly sensible view that at most Iraq would cross the border to destroy the oil derricks on the Kuwaiti side(more likely shell them a bit to show they mean business). A more likely view to anyone used to ME realpolitik, would be Saddam driving all his tanks up to the border and demanding concessions about oil drilling and debt. You know, basic gun boat diplomacy.

    Shit, if Saddam had done that, he would probably still be in power.

    Knowing that context and responding accordingly is what the State Department is all about. This is a major reason it is so concerning that so many of the career professionals in the Department are quitting.

    Dude no, even knowing the supposed context(which was pretty much in Saddams head and nowhere in the history of the region in the last 300 years), what Saddam said was super vague. You can claim that the State Department was supposed to be a bunch of mind readers, but even a mind reader couldn't pick up the idea that this was asking for some sort of go ahead for an outright invasion followed by annexation.

    That is jumping to conclusions several steps beyond what a sane person would dream of. Like even with the bolded, my "at most" version of events would be the most extreme end of it.

    Iraq had been claiming that Kuwait was part of it for years before the war, and their national TV had been more stridently making the claim in the runup to it. This was the environment when Glaspie met with Hussein, and not knowing this context meant that either she or her staff had not been paying attention to local media in the runup to the conflict.

    The conversation is a vague one, which led to the misunderstanding. The idea that Iraq was claiming Kuwait was part of its territory, however, was not something that was unknown at the time.

    Incidentally, this is why I said earlier that I think Glaspie's statement earlier that she didn't realize Hussein meant to take all of Kuwait was probably the most honest interpretation. She was signalling that the U.S. did not intend to get directly involved if Hussein took action against Kuwait's oil fields - which were sideways drilling to drink Iraq's milkshakes, incidentally, because there are no good guys in this story - and Hussein took it to mean that the U.S. would not intervene beyond the normal pro forma protests if he just took it all.

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular

    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Saddam knew this, but when he called the ambassador to a meeting, he wanted to know the answer to this question - "We want Kuwait back by negotiation or force, and we only would have been willing to negotiate with Kuwait if we have had gotten all the land we wanted in the Iraq War. We didn't, so if we decide to handle this by force, what is the U.S. position?"

    In which transcript does this quote appear?

    It's a direct paraphrase of the quote earlier in this thread.

    "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?"

    Well, if we are bitching about the US being vague, then the fact that Saddam saw Kuwait as a part of Iraq and forgot to emphasize this to the US is an equally big lapse. As it is, without the bolded, one could think they where just talking about the oil fields. Giving a fairly sensible view that at most Iraq would cross the border to destroy the oil derricks on the Kuwaiti side(more likely shell them a bit to show they mean business). A more likely view to anyone used to ME realpolitik, would be Saddam driving all his tanks up to the border and demanding concessions about oil drilling and debt. You know, basic gun boat diplomacy.

    Shit, if Saddam had done that, he would probably still be in power.

    Knowing that context and responding accordingly is what the State Department is all about. This is a major reason it is so concerning that so many of the career professionals in the Department are quitting.

    Dude no, even knowing the supposed context(which was pretty much in Saddams head and nowhere in the history of the region in the last 300 years), what Saddam said was super vague. You can claim that the State Department was supposed to be a bunch of mind readers, but even a mind reader couldn't pick up the idea that this was asking for some sort of go ahead for an outright invasion followed by annexation.

    That is jumping to conclusions several steps beyond what a sane person would dream of. Like even with the bolded, my "at most" version of events would be the most extreme end of it.

    Iraq had been claiming that Kuwait was part of it for years before the war, and their national TV had been more stridently making the claim in the runup to it. This was the environment when Glaspie met with Hussein, and not knowing this context meant that either she or her staff had not been paying attention to local media in the runup to the conflict.

    The conversation is a vague one, which led to the misunderstanding. The idea that Iraq was claiming Kuwait was part of its territory, however, was not something that was unknown at the time.

    Incidentally, this is why I said earlier that I think Glaspie's statement earlier that she didn't realize Hussein meant to take all of Kuwait was probably the most honest interpretation. She was signalling that the U.S. did not intend to get directly involved if Hussein took action against Kuwait's oil fields - which were sideways drilling to drink Iraq's milkshakes, incidentally, because there are no good guys in this story - and Hussein took it to mean that the U.S. would not intervene beyond the normal pro forma protests if he just took it all.

    I had a post explaining all the ways you where wrong, but luckily I decided to read your post again and this is you agreeing with me about Saddam being vague.

    As for the context. Here is one; Iraq had border disputes with all their neighbors. Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia AND Kuwait. The propaganda spiel on their national TV was commonplace, switching out the enemy nation on the regular. It usually ended with the Iraqis claiming to want a "diplomatic solution" and then moving on to the next nation. Iran had been an exception to the rule, mostly brought on by the Priest interfering with the Shia and Kurds and looking weak in the aftermath of the revolutionary purges.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Saddam knew this, but when he called the ambassador to a meeting, he wanted to know the answer to this question - "We want Kuwait back by negotiation or force, and we only would have been willing to negotiate with Kuwait if we have had gotten all the land we wanted in the Iraq War. We didn't, so if we decide to handle this by force, what is the U.S. position?"

    In which transcript does this quote appear?

    It's a direct paraphrase of the quote earlier in this thread.

    "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?"

    Well, if we are bitching about the US being vague, then the fact that Saddam saw Kuwait as a part of Iraq and forgot to emphasize this to the US is an equally big lapse. As it is, without the bolded, one could think they where just talking about the oil fields. Giving a fairly sensible view that at most Iraq would cross the border to destroy the oil derricks on the Kuwaiti side(more likely shell them a bit to show they mean business). A more likely view to anyone used to ME realpolitik, would be Saddam driving all his tanks up to the border and demanding concessions about oil drilling and debt. You know, basic gun boat diplomacy.

    Shit, if Saddam had done that, he would probably still be in power.

    Knowing that context and responding accordingly is what the State Department is all about. This is a major reason it is so concerning that so many of the career professionals in the Department are quitting.

    Dude no, even knowing the supposed context(which was pretty much in Saddams head and nowhere in the history of the region in the last 300 years), what Saddam said was super vague. You can claim that the State Department was supposed to be a bunch of mind readers, but even a mind reader couldn't pick up the idea that this was asking for some sort of go ahead for an outright invasion followed by annexation.

    That is jumping to conclusions several steps beyond what a sane person would dream of. Like even with the bolded, my "at most" version of events would be the most extreme end of it.

    Iraq had been claiming that Kuwait was part of it for years before the war, and their national TV had been more stridently making the claim in the runup to it. This was the environment when Glaspie met with Hussein, and not knowing this context meant that either she or her staff had not been paying attention to local media in the runup to the conflict.

    The conversation is a vague one, which led to the misunderstanding. The idea that Iraq was claiming Kuwait was part of its territory, however, was not something that was unknown at the time.

    Incidentally, this is why I said earlier that I think Glaspie's statement earlier that she didn't realize Hussein meant to take all of Kuwait was probably the most honest interpretation. She was signalling that the U.S. did not intend to get directly involved if Hussein took action against Kuwait's oil fields - which were sideways drilling to drink Iraq's milkshakes, incidentally, because there are no good guys in this story - and Hussein took it to mean that the U.S. would not intervene beyond the normal pro forma protests if he just took it all.

    I had a post explaining all the ways you where wrong, but luckily I decided to read your post again and this is you agreeing with me about Saddam being vague.

    As for the context. Here is one; Iraq had border disputes with all their neighbors. Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia AND Kuwait. The propaganda spiel on their national TV was commonplace, switching out the enemy nation on the regular. It usually ended with the Iraqis claiming to want a "diplomatic solution" and then moving on to the next nation. Iran had been an exception to the rule, mostly brought on by the Priest interfering with the Shia and Kurds and looking weak in the aftermath of the revolutionary purges.

    From an a cable sent by Glaspie immediately after the meeting to James Baker:

    Saddam wished to convey an important message to President Bush: Iraq wants friendship, but does the U.S.G. [ United States Government ] ? Iraq suffered 100,000's of casualties and is now so poor that war orphan pensions will soon be cut, yet rich Kuwait will not even accept OPEC discipline. Iraq is sick of war, but Kuwait has ignored diplomacy. U.S. maneuvers with the U.A.E. [ United Arab Emirates ] will encourage the U.A.E. and Kuwait to ignore conventional diplomacy. If Iraq is publicly humiliated by the U.S.G., it will have no choice but to "respond," however illogical and self-destructive that would prove.

    The U.S. was aware of the stakes and the seriousness of Iraq's intentions. They just didn't realize that Saddam had left the meeting thinking he had, if not American blessing, an assurance that the invasion would not lead to a U.S. military response.

    It's also worth looking at other statements from U.S. officials in the period. The State Department was extremely unhappy with Glaspie, and her career dead-ended in the aftermath. The big controversy in the immediate aftermath was, instead, over whether Glaspie or Baker was ultimately responsible for the mixed message to Hussein.

    Phillishere on
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    Okay, have you read my post? Because nowhere does Saddam give the impression that he thinks Kuwait is a part of Iraq and that he is planning to invade and annex it. He mentions the Oil Fields and how the war with Iran didn't give him the new(Oil Rich) Lands he wanted, but nowhere in his statement does he give a hint of actually wanting to invade.

    That is what I was pointing at, that Saddam was being so vague that nobody sane would think he was talking about Invasion. In fact given the History of Kuwait during the Iran/Iraq war, where they lent Iraq money, Let Iraq ship oil to Kuwaiti Oil Depot and have it shipped out on Kuwaiti Tankers(escorted by USN), how could anybody think that an invasion was imminent? A case of Gun Boat Diplomacy to get control of the Oil fields and get out of paying the war debt, sure.. but an invasion.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Okay, have you read my post? Because nowhere does Saddam give the impression that he thinks Kuwait is a part of Iraq and that he is planning to invade and annex it. He mentions the Oil Fields and how the war with Iran didn't give him the new(Oil Rich) Lands he wanted, but nowhere in his statement does he give a hint of actually wanting to invade.

    That is what I was pointing at, that Saddam was being so vague that nobody sane would think he was talking about Invasion. In fact given the History of Kuwait during the Iran/Iraq war, where they lent Iraq money, Let Iraq ship oil to Kuwaiti Oil Depot and have it shipped out on Kuwaiti Tankers(escorted by USN), how could anybody think that an invasion was imminent? A case of Gun Boat Diplomacy to get control of the Oil fields and get out of paying the war debt, sure.. but an invasion.

    Here's a question I can't readily answer, but may answer your question. I've seen that transcript multiple times over the years and this part is always included:
    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.

    Where did that (i.e. in Saddam's view...) come from? Because if it is from the period, then the initial State Department transcript was made in awareness of Saddam's claim to Kuwait.

    Phillishere on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    The official Trump statement:


    It contains a small factual error because they have to screw up everything in some way:
    CNN analyst:

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    Here's a question I can't readily answer, but may answer your question. I've seen that transcript multiple times over the years and this part is always included:
    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.

    Where did that (i.e. in Saddam's view...) come from? Because if it is from the period, then the initial State Department transcript was made in awareness of Saddam's claim to Kuwait.

    Well, the obvious answer is probably in hindsight, because hindsight is 2020, but that does seem to be the source of our disagreement(and strange that they would edit such a thing). If you can find a source that says it was from the initial transcript(pre-invasion), I yield my point.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    -Tal wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    It also makes me think about how much society has changed since he was president. I know it doesn't seem like much, but there has been a sea-change in how we view certain issues.

    Couscous's comment about him being forced to give a shit about HIV people is pretty much spot on. BUUUUT, at the time HIV was a marginal disease that affected a pretty hated group(the Gays if you felt nice, the Fags or Queers if not). Like 10 000 people worldwide, the vast majority of them Gay. In a world where cancer and heart problems killed because bypass surgery and MRI where experimental tech reserved only for a few test-subjects.

    And Gay people where not the marginal group they are today. They where actively hated, discriminated and Marginalized by a large portion of the population. Why? Because there was a wide belief that Gay = perverts and child Molesters . Yes, that was a fairly common belief. One held by a substantial portion of the general population. (Most people's exposure to Gays was either Church propaganda or the occasional gays that approached them in dark alleys and bathroom stalls).

    Lets not even get into how much change we have seen with Trans people. I mean up until around 2010-12, you could used Tranny in conversation without people commenting on it. Certainly jokes about "Tranny hookers" was still a thing.

    What I am saying is that he was quite Homophobic, but that it was quite a Homophobic time. People should read the book And the Band Played on for how bad it was... then remember its still pretty bad.

    All right, here's your $5 for winning the contest of "who can string the most slurs together to say the 80s and 90s were homophobic"

    I think that "sure he was homophobic, but lots of people were homophobic then" might work as a reason to keep your grandpa's watch that you inherited.

    I think it is less successful as a defense for a goddamn President of the USA letting a lot of people die and delaying or setting back acceptance significantly. but maybe I'm not white and heterosexual enough.

    Harry DresdenFencingsaxAngelHedgietynicMan in the MistsOne Thousand CablesskyknytGennenalyse RuebenCouscousMrVyngaardVargbalerbowerGnome-Interruptus
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Here's a question I can't readily answer, but may answer your question. I've seen that transcript multiple times over the years and this part is always included:
    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.

    Where did that (i.e. in Saddam's view...) come from? Because if it is from the period, then the initial State Department transcript was made in awareness of Saddam's claim to Kuwait.

    Well, the obvious answer is probably in hindsight, because hindsight is 2020, but that does seem to be the source of our disagreement(and strange that they would edit such a thing). If you can find a source that says it was from the initial transcript(pre-invasion), I yield my point.

    this discussion is done now, it's oustide the scope of this thread

  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    -Tal wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    It also makes me think about how much society has changed since he was president. I know it doesn't seem like much, but there has been a sea-change in how we view certain issues.

    Couscous's comment about him being forced to give a shit about HIV people is pretty much spot on. BUUUUT, at the time HIV was a marginal disease that affected a pretty hated group(the Gays if you felt nice, the Fags or Queers if not). Like 10 000 people worldwide, the vast majority of them Gay. In a world where cancer and heart problems killed because bypass surgery and MRI where experimental tech reserved only for a few test-subjects.

    And Gay people where not the marginal group they are today. They where actively hated, discriminated and Marginalized by a large portion of the population. Why? Because there was a wide belief that Gay = perverts and child Molesters . Yes, that was a fairly common belief. One held by a substantial portion of the general population. (Most people's exposure to Gays was either Church propaganda or the occasional gays that approached them in dark alleys and bathroom stalls).

    Lets not even get into how much change we have seen with Trans people. I mean up until around 2010-12, you could used Tranny in conversation without people commenting on it. Certainly jokes about "Tranny hookers" was still a thing.

    What I am saying is that he was quite Homophobic, but that it was quite a Homophobic time. People should read the book And the Band Played on for how bad it was... then remember its still pretty bad.

    All right, here's your $5 for winning the contest of "who can string the most slurs together to say the 80s and 90s were homophobic"

    I think that "sure he was homophobic, but lots of people were homophobic then" might work as a reason to keep your grandpa's watch that you inherited.

    I think it is less successful as a defense for a goddamn President of the USA letting a lot of people die and delaying or setting back acceptance significantly. but maybe I'm not white and heterosexual enough.

    Grading history on a curve is a bad idea. “Well it was the 1800s, lots of people were fine with slavery.” Not the abolitionists! The whole idea ends up encouraging us to excuse not just the past but the present, where plenty of people still hold execrable views, none of whom should be our leaders. We should behave now like the future is watching. We should look back ourselves with clear eyes.

    ACsTqqK.jpg
    physi_marcLord PalingtonEddyAistanmonikerJuliusMan in the MistsDarkPrimustynicMrVyngaardLabelDisruptedCapitalistEinzelForarkimeKristmas KthulhuKaputaVargbalerbowerGnome-Interruptus
Sign In or Register to comment.