The Associated Press story of the smuggling leaves a lot to the imagination -- I'm looking for some more about it but it seems to be a non-starter this morning.
Hi Blatham. where you bin? Canada?
Met piffka and mr Piffka last week in London. They're just over the border in Washington State (The Evergreen State, state insect a dragonfly, you know the one). You could shout across the border at one another if you wanted...but I digress.
Football hooligan? Quite right, I was feeling pretty hooliganish last night, losing 2:1 to those Germans (I have been in communication with Walter about this), but I digress again.
Now what was I going to say? Oh yes. Is there anyone around who thinks oil and gas had little or nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq?
And is there anyone who opposed the war brave enough to admit that oil and gas is vitally important to western industrialised society?
The Iraqi resistance guerilla warfare is getting more sophisticated:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?vts=100220030827
Is anyone else the least bit apprehensive about the course this is taking? Again, more American deaths in this invasion than the entire first two years of the Vietnam American involvement.
Cmon guyz !! The news abt Kuwait screwing Iraw during the war is OLD news !! Everyone knows abt it. Infact, the Iraqi govt even informed the US ambassador before they were going to invade Kuwait !! (dont remember where I have read it, but I am sure I have)
US ambassador thinks
- Let Iraq invade Kuwait
- We liberate Kuwait
- We control Kuwaiti oil
- we make Saddam the Villan
- we invade Iraq
- we control the Iraqi oil
Since we already control the Saudi oil, we will be home and dry !
Gautam
What you were thinking of was an interview Saddam granted to April Glaspie, US Ambassador:-
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html
Cheers Steve !!! The prosecution rests !
Gautam, Your math looks pretty good from here!
Whatever happened to Glaspie? It seemed possible to me she could have made a horrific screw up.
I have read this account before, and was bothered in the extreme. Could she have been unaware of Saddam's between the lines intentions?
Might be just my warped anti American (government) -ism coming through here but it seems pretty clear to me that the US wanted to control Iraq's energy resources from the moment they beat Iran to a standstill. Iraq provided a brilliant excuse for intervention by invading Kuwait. But Saddam's regime did not implode as it was supposed to. Clinton didn't have the stomach to continue the programme, but Bush 2 did. It just took a while to come up with a legal excuse for re starting it, and we all know what that was.
Quote:
My assessment after 25 years' service in this area is that your objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and painful war. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship -- not in the spirit of confrontation -- regarding your intentions.
Failed to read between the lines ? Or misled Saddam regarding US's real intentions ?
Sofia,
No I think she was used by Bush 1 to give a clear sign to Saddam to encourage him to invade Kuwait. Saddam took the bait and the rest as they say is history.
So much diplomacy and so much transparancy. The trouble is, most people do look right through it.
I do not believe it was legal!!!
Didn't explain myself very well here Bill. What I meant was that WMD and Iraq's "defiance of the UN" was the nearest they could get to providing a legal fig leaf for starting a war which otherwise was patently illegal.
US/UK failed to get the second resolution but went ahead with their war plans anyway and blamed it all on the French. Neat.
In the UK great emphasis was placed on disarming Iraq as the legal basis for war. Now there are no WMD people are asking if the continuing occupation is therefore illegal. Lord Goldsmith the attorney General pronounced the war legal, but guess what, he's saying nothing now. [We of course have to accept that legal advice to government is never made public (except to confirm the govt. is acting in accordance with UK and International Law)
]
This is the most interesting page of posts that has been on this thread for a while.
Steve, you asked:
Quote:And is there anyone who opposed the war brave enough to admit that oil and gas is vitally important to western industrialised society?
I was totally opposed to the war and I think it is obvious that oil and gas are vitally important to western society. I do not think that makes me brave. I think it means that there has to be a better way of securing our energy future than by colonizing oil-rich countries.
The United States wants to secure the flow of oil. This understandable and known. But it must not deploy methods which the United States says it disapproves of -- flexing muscles and pressure.
If you use pressure, we will deploy pressure and force. We know that you can harm us although we do not threaten you. But we too can harm you. Everyone can cause harm according to their ability and their size. We cannot come all the way to you in the United States, but individual Arabs may reach you.[/u]
Still reading, but wanted to point this out. Very thinly veiled reference to threat of terrorism. From the above Glaspie interview link.
I'm surprised to find that it's not universally understood that the war has been, all along, about the U.S. fears of dependence on foreign oil controlled by countries hostile to the U.S. It is actually a danger.........and I think we should be planning for it. I'm just don't think war is the way to go.
As to the question about whether war was necessary now with Iraq, as I've said above, I don't think it was. It's necessary, I think to exhaust all attempts at diplomacy before resorting to violence. I don't mean to say that coercion is never necessary. In the case of self defense, I wholeheartedly condone it. But, IMO, we had not exhausted our options in a way that was convincing to our allies or the U.N. before taking this grave action that's cost and is continuing to cost so many lives. Coercion should be used only as a last resort and sparingly. Saddam was a tyrant and is a madman and unlikely to be a person who will negotiate in good faith. I hold out no hope of Saddam. It's the pre-emptiveness (is that a word - my spell checker says not) that's the problem, and the failure to work with our allies.
It's been my experience with people involved in the religious right wing, as Karl Rove and Bush have been and still are, that they are overly dependent on literal interpretations and fanatical religion. They depend heavily on coercive techniques and they are in this case applying this method in our relations with other countries. They resort almost totally to coercion rather than favoring attempts to influence or even manipulate through diplomacy.
These are people who send their children to schools in which they are never exposed to ideas other than their own. They're frightened people, unversed in the pleasures of the intricacies, intimacies and delicacies of relating openly with others. It's sad really how little these folks know about getting messy with another person. They're too afraid of losing to try to win by exposing themselves to the dependency and fear of loss that accompanies the effort of trying and taking a real risk that they could lose a battle or two and suffer the consequences. They miss the pleasure of trying and succeeding in a way that would affirm all people, not just make some of us, (the bullies) feel safer. This is true on a personal level, within their families and churches and their organizations (including political). Call me disingenuous if you please, but I don't agree that it's poly anna or overly manipulative to believe in the potential of human beings to work together and tolerate the risks of winning and losing and to expect some measure of fair play or ethical behavior on the part of our politicians. I think it's a sorry excuse for being a bully to say that reasonable fair play and ethical behavior is impossible, whether in politics or otherwise..
Note to Italgato:
The source for the above post is myself. It's my opinion, my attempt to communicate with you and the others on this board who I am and what I believe. It's about being myself so that others can know who I am. I expect others to let me know who they are as well, that's the way we learn from and influence each other. You're responses to these attempts by, not just me, but most of the rest of us is to attempt to force us to bow to the rule of authority (mostly your own.)
You use fallacious reasoning to make your points. An ad hominem fallacy is one in which a person tries to win a debate by discounting the other. Discounting the other's sources or choice of sources is discounting the judgment of the other. Which is an ad hom. It's like you're saying, "you're foolish to believe this source." Further when I quote a source, it's also an ad hom to argue against the opinion of the source by discounting the source. This tactic doesn't win points in a debate. I know others have said this to you before, but I'm trying again. Did you know you're not arguing logically?
But I think your technique is the very essence of what I believe is the problem with this administration's technique. They appeal to authority, only one authority, the one of their choosing. You say in essence, "don't think for yourself or express an opinion, or consider others opinions........pay attention only to the one true opinion."
Joan Didion has a lot of experience in the world of Washington and politics. What she writes is her opinion. But this is true about what everyone writes. It's up to each of us to construct our own opinions. And it's irresponsible to depend too heavily on the authority of any other person's opinion. In the same way it's a mistake to depend only on our own. I could just as easily point to Timber's source of the news story last night about the WMD in Kawait. It's a site supported by the functionaries of Richard Mellon Scaife's foundations. I could argue and I may, sometime on a different thread, that RMS is an authoritarian madman, but in that case, that would be the question and then we could all speak to that.
One of the reasons I'm here, discussing politics with my friends is because I want to be exposed to the opinion of others. And of course, I hope to influence as well as be influenced. We call that communication. But in order to communicate with others, I believe we must have some working hypothesis that is currently acceptable to ourselves before we can participate in any discussion. I prefer to think for myself. This is what I try to do, and what most of the other posters on this board try to do. It's usually a friendly, if sometimes strained, mutual attempt. You don't have to attack us to make your points. Please speak to the question and not to the character of the others here.
(Edited however many times to eliminate fallacies in reasoning, as well as poor grammar and spelling. I should edit and think a little longer before submitting.)
I read carefully, and see how Glaspie and Saddam's words could easily be misconstrued. The first time I read it, I saw it differently--I guess because Saddam seemed so sensible and deferential, I held Glaspie to a much higher level of doubt.
It seems, as she said at one point early on, (paraphrasing) You have mentioned some things I don't have the authority to address. It read like she was there to soften Bush's rhetoric surrounding statements he'd made recently about Saddam. Her only authority seemed to be to extend friendship, soften impressions and gather information.
See this:
Quote:HUSSEIN: Brother President Mubarak told me they were scared. They said troops were only 20 kilometers north of the Arab League line. I said to him that regardless of what is there, whether they are police, border guards or army, and regardless of how many are there, and what they are doing, assure the Kuwaitis and give them our word that we are not going to do anything until we meet with them. When we meet and when we see that there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death, even though wisdom is above everything else. There you have good news.
Not accepting death, and invading a country are two seperate things. Still, Glaspie was over her head, saying we had no interest in 'border disputes'. She should have added, as long as they remain 'disputes'.
But, I can ably see how Saddam could have interpreted it as untying his hands.
Good post, Lola.
But how did Joan Didion get into this? Did I miss a reference to her in someone's post? I just read in the NYTimes Book Review a piece about her new book dissing California. I have read everything Joan Didion has written but, as a native Californian, I may give a pass to this book which sounds a bit contrived.
