0
   

The US, UN & Iraq II

 
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2003 07:12 am
The White Man's Burden
by Rudyard Kipling

First published in McClure's Magazine (Feb. 1899).

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed-- Go, bind your sons to exile
To serve your captive's need; To wait, in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild-- Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.

Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide, To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride; By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain, To seek another's profit
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace-- Fill full the mouth of Famine,
And bid the sickness cease; And when your goal is nearest
(The end for others sought) Watch sloth and heathen folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden--
No iron rule of kings, But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things. The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread, Go, make them with your living
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden,
And reap his old reward-- The blame of those ye better
The hate of those ye guard-- The cry of those ye humor
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:-- "Why brought ye us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less-- Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloak your weariness. By all ye will or whisper,
By all ye leave or do, The silent sullen peoples
Shall weigh your God and you.

Take up the White Man's burden!
Have done with childish days-- The lightly-proffered laurel,
The easy ungrudged praise: Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years, Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2003 07:12 am
timberlandko wrote:
I would say a majority of the site's members have strong feelings on War in general. The website itself has no stance, allowing proponents of either argument to express their views and to examine the issue. I would say some members would prefer the members of the opposition had less voice, and that their own were more evident. Those members may be found on either side of the argument. So can lots of heat, but if you look hard, you can find worthy spokespersons for either argument among the hotheads and the simplistic. Among the rhetoricians are some thinkers, and there are some parrots. Which are which is easily determined.



He asked whether most people on this site were pro or anti war. It was answered correctly - mostly anti. But thanks, I'm sure someone desired your commentary on the character of the posters, and the lack of editorial stance of the site itself.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2003 07:17 am
nimb

I was re-assured also by Straw's comments. Until I listened to Blair in the House of Commons. He was asked to specifically deny that Britain would join in any American attack on Iran and Syria, and all he said was that "we have no plans to do so". Now it is of course absolutely forbidden to lie to the House of Commons. Therefore ways are devised "using parliamentary language" to get round this obstacle, and

"having no plans to...." is classic parliamentary language for saying

"We have no plans at present that I'm prepared to acknowledge (although contingency plans are of course in place for just about anything), so I'm not actually lying when I say we have no definite intentions of implementing any particular plan, and even if we did I wouldn't tell you. However, if things change we might have to look at plans we might or might not have in the light of changed circumstances whereby it becomes necessary to do exactly the opposite of what I appear to be saying now." Laughing
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2003 07:27 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
nimb


Oh my god not you, now. Not when finally perception stopped nimb'ing me. Shocked

<grins>
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2003 07:32 am
Sorry numb

NIMH

its just that b follows m a lot easier than h when you type fast

That two apologies I've mbade on a2k in the last 2 mbinutes. I mbustn't mbake a habit of it.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2003 08:02 am
More from the Russians



Quote:
In the area of the As-Zubair River port, which was declared to be under full coalition control just a week ago, a British patrol boat was attacked. The boat was carrying its crew and a marine infantry unit. As the result of the attack at least 4 British soldiers were killed and 9 were wounded.

The official coalition losses are, to put it mildly, falling behind the actual figures. The 57 dead acknowledged by the coalition command reflect losses as of the morning of March 26. This information was provided to a BBC correspondent by one of the top medical officials at a field hospital in Al Kuwait during a confidential conversation. "We have standing orders to acknowledge only those fatalities that have been delivered to the hospital, identified and prepared to be sent back home. The identification process and the required standard embalming takes some time occasionally up to several days. But only the command knows how many casualties we sustained today and you will learn about it in about three days" [Reverse-translated from Russian] This conversation was taped by the journalist and sent to the editor via a cellular phone network.

Based on the radio intercepts and internal information networks of the US field hospitals as of this morning the coalition losses include no less than 100 killed US servicemen and at least 35 dead British soldiers. Additionally, some 22 American and 11 British soldiers are officially considered to be missing in action and the whereabouts of another 400 servicemen are being established. The number of wounded has exceeded 480 people.

Russian military analysts are advising the Iraqi military command against excessive optimism. There is no question that the US blitzkrieg failed to take control of Iraq and to destroy its army. It is clear that the Americans got bogged down in Iraq and the military campaign hit a snag. However, the Iraqi command is now in danger of underestimating the enemy. For now there is no reason to question the resolve of the Americans and their determination to reach the set goal- the complete occupation of Iraq.

In reality, despite of some obvious miscalculations and errors of the coalition's high command, the [coalition] troops that have entered Iraq maintain high combat readiness and are willing to fight. The losses sustained during the past 12 days of fighting, although delivering a painful blow to the pride and striking the public opinion, are entirely insignificant militarily speaking.

Russian military analysts believe that the critical time for the US would be duration of the war over 90 days provided that during that time the coalition sustained over 1,000 killed. Under such circumstances a serious political crisis in the US and in the world will be unavoidable.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2003 08:14 am
Quote:
We went round the Imperial War museum


I went to the Imperial War Museum last year. I couldn't take more than a half an hour of it and, having misplaced my husband in that cavernous building, decided finally that he must have taken our car and gone back to the hotel. So I walked across the Thames and back to the hotel, a considerable distance, only to find that he had stayed two hours at the Museum, loving it, totally absorbed in the history of war, even forgot I was there...LOL.

I had been to Churchill's War Rooms the year before and stayed for a few hours. But his war rooms were so "real," and the War Museum was just full of the engines of destruction, so lifeless and unreal to me.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2003 08:36 am
If you dig deeper in the polls, the story about the popular support for Bush in this war turns out to be quite a bit more balanced than you might think. (all emphasis in the article below has been added by me)

Quote:
Poll Finds U.S. Public Rallying to Bush and Supporting U.N.
Jim Lobe


WASHINGTON, Mar 31 (IPS) - While a strong majority of the U.S. public is rallying behind President George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, they also support the United Nations Security Council and back multilateral diplomacy rather than unilateral U.S. action, according to a major poll released here Monday.

The poll, conducted during the first five days of the war by the University of Maryland's Programme on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), found that the current high levels of support for the war - between 70 and 75 percent in most polls - might be due more to a rallying effect than to real conviction on the public's part.

It also suggested that right-wing arguments that the Security Council has made itself irrelevant by failing to comply with U.S. demands for a war resolution have not significantly influenced the public's views. Majorities - sometimes quite significant - said they preferred the United Nations to take leading roles in international security rather than the United States. [..]

Twenty-three percent flatly opposed both the decision to ignore the Security Council and to go to war, while 21 percent said they agreed with the statement, ''I do not agree with the decision (to ignore the Security Council), but I still support the president'' [leaving a slight majority of 54 percent of respondents in support].

[..] Nor do a majority of the public consider Bush's choice to go to war without the Security Council's approval a precedent that should be repeated, as many neo-conservative and right-wing hawks have urged since Bush decided to withdraw a U.S.-British draft resolution authorising war earlier this month.

Asked whether the UN 's importance in global affairs will be diminished by the U.S. decision, 71 percent of respondents said the body will be at least as or more important than it was before the war. Only one in four respondents said it should be less so, roughly the same percentage of the U.S. public that has opposed multilateral commitments Washington over the last 25 years.

Moreover, asked whether in the future U.S. leaders should or should not feel freer to use military force without U.N. approval, only 29 percent said that it should, while two out of every three respondents said it should not.

A strong majority of respondents - 75 percent - also rejected calls by some hawks, particularly in Congress, to punish those countries that opposed the U.S. position in the Security Council.

More broadly, respondents said they continue to support a strong U.N. role in areas considered central to U.S. security interests. Asked for example, who should be put in charge of governing Iraq until a new Iraqi government was established, 52 percent chose the United Nations, while only 30 percent took the administration's view that U.S. officials should run the country. The remainder either offered no opinion or a third option, usually ''the Iraqi people''.

Strong support was also found for the idea that the United Nations is the forum best suited to deal with possible confrontations with the other two members of Bush's ''axis of evil'', Iran and North Korea.

Asked which would better ''ensure that Iran does not make nuclear weapons and support Palestinian groups that use terrorism'', 63 percent chose the United Nations, and only 32 percent opted for the Washington.

Likewise with North Korea's nuclear weapons: 72 percent said the world body was best suited to take the lead, while only 26 percent chose the United States. [..]

The notion that public support is not as strong as the gross figures indicate is bolstered by the sense among respondents that the war's consequences may be far more negative than positive.

For example, only 14 percent agreed with administration officials who have suggested that the war could decrease the likelihood that North Korea will produce nuclear weapons; that rose to a mere 24 percent with respect to Iran.

Pluralities also predicted that Washington's relations with the rest of the world will suffer. Only 15 percent assumed it will be easier ''for the U.S. to get cooperation from other countries on important international issues in general'', while 37 percent said it would be harder. Most of the rest predicted no change or had no opinion.

Presented with the neo-conservative view that U.S. relations in the Muslim world will improve after a convincing victory over Baghdad because it would inspire respect for Washington, only 12 percent of respondents agreed. Forty-eight percent said they would be worse. A majority of 51 percent said the war will increase the risk of terrorist attacks against the United States, while only 21 percent assumed they would be lower.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2003 08:43 am
That's from the IPS news agency; more interesting headlines at http://www.ipsnews.net/headlines.asp
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2003 08:52 am
Listen, I admit that having spent most of my adult life overseas, America is still a puzzlement to me in many ways. One of the puzzles is stated very clearly in Jim Lobe piece Nimh has posted, above: the disconnect between "support for Bush" and lack of support for his actions! I'm torn between believing that my fellow countrymen are terminally out-to-lunch and believing that a kind of politeness takes over when one is polled. "Oh, I wouldn't want to say a word against that nice boy in the White House but, yes, I think this war is a bad idea..." Depending on what I had for lunch on any given day, I waver between one belief and another!

But there is also another problem -- the extent to which so many Americans are swayed by the language and demagoguery of the media. People love to be part of the consensus when they call into a talk show -- a bonding thing. Yesterday I listened to a bonding process in a discussion, on the Michael Medved show, of peace marchers. Said Medved, in a calm voice: The antiwar people are ignorant, most of them are out of work, most of them are completely uneducated, they are a lower order of being, they are dangerous, we need to do something about them. A woman caller, obviously over-wrought, added, "Where are their decals! WHERE ARE THEIR DECALS! THEY DON'T HAVE FLAGS ON THEIR CARS. THEY DON'T WEAR FLAGS IN THEIR LAPELS. WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THEM!" Which segued smoothly into Medved's conflation: these people are dangerous, anti-patriotic, a lower order of being, and something MUST be done about them by the government. Now, I know Michael Medved is not stupid. He is (like so many of his confreres) deliberately fanning the fires.

The question is, how many people who listen to this stuff see through it? How much trouble is America we really in, or is it all just talk?
0 Replies
 
the prince
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2003 09:00 am
Reuters is reporting THIS

Another battle to win hearts and mind is lost I guess.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2003 09:10 am
This is an interesting report from Salam Pax.

http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/2003_01_01_dear_raed_archive.html#88042437
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2003 09:18 am
Tartarin

I cannot listen to most talk radio as I'm balding and cannot afford to be ripping out more hair, so I make it easy on myself and listen to none at all.

But a very interesting cultural event occurred here several years ago when Pierre Trudeau died. For much of the last decade and a half, the media had not only pretty much relegated the fellow to the trash heap of history, but also had forwarded the notion that his tenure, though flashy, had been mainly unfortunate for Canada. It was also not uncommon, in conversations, to hear people repeating the received wisdom that Trudeau had pumped up the size and role of government and spent too many tax dollars in the process (the facts were not supportive of this notion, where deficits skyrocketed under the next Conservative adminstration, precisely as had been the case there under Reagan). One began to get the notion that most of Canada agreed with this rewrite of history. But then he died. The outpouring of real loss from Canadians - loss of a man so intellectually gifted, so independent of mind, and so marked by honesty and integrity - was unprecedented in my lifetime. It took the media entirely by surprise, and it was several days before their editorials began to rethink what they'd been assuming for the last fifteen years.

It was one of the most encouraging moments of my adult life.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2003 09:20 am
Whoa, from the time I read it, 15 minutes earlier, to the time I posted the link here, the new entry has vanished. He was telling that Saddam is on Iraqi TV every night, at a round table with his generals. He gave lots of detail; it was astounding. That has all been blacked out.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2003 09:31 am
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/2003_01_01_dear_raed_archive.html#88042437
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2003 09:48 am
did that work?


Photos and links frm bejing


http://54boy.com/ziboyindex.htm

takes forever to load
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2003 09:53 am
Please -- those of you who have audio, listen later today to the first hour of today's Diane Rehm show. It's a very interesting centrist review of Congress, of Bush's prospects. It may make you feel much, much better! wamu.org/dr ...4/2 first hour
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2003 10:00 am
Kara

We have been to the Imperial War Museum in Duxford, which is the "outdoor aerial branch" of the one situated in London, including a great American Air Museum.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2003 10:01 am
Where's Raed?
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-web30.html
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2003 10:07 am
Wednesday, March 12, 2003

kindly translated by Douglas Gillison, merci mon ami, c'est tres thoughtful of you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.lemonde.fr/article/0,5987,3230--312297-,00.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Afternoon with Saddam
Monday 10 March 2003
(LE MONDE)

With a wave of his right hand, Saddam Hussein interrupted the briefing by the head of the Cuban Army's intelligence services on the capacities of the American military forces that were on the verge of punishing the invasion of Kuwait. "I've had several reports like this one. My ambassador at the UN sends me them and most of the time they end up in there," he said, pointing to a marble trash bin.

The comment seemed rather for the benefit of the handful of Iraqi military leaders seated on one side of the long table covered in dates and flowers. The Cubans opposite them, myself included, who had been sent by Fidel Castro to attempt to convince his ally in Baghdad of the likely outcome of a war in the gulf, understood that our afternoon at Al Qadissiyya palace would be difficult.

It was at the very beginning of November 1990. Four months earlier, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait had shocked the world and worried distant Cuba. One of the island's allies was defying at once the Arab world, of which Saddam was part, the Iranians, the Turks, the Israelis and the West in general, in deploying a crushingly superior military against a little independent neighbor. An incongruous scenario, that offered unfortunate similarities to the fears that Cuba's own big neighbor caused.

At first, Cuban diplomacy decided to play the ostrich. After all, the Kuwaitis were only distant acquaintances. One more absolute monarchy rotting in a sea of petroleum. Not allied with, of course, but having a penchant for, the United States. Saddam, however, was an old friend.

At the heart of the Communist Party's central committee, there were several of us among the old negotiators drawn from among the Cuban troops of Angola who proposed, on the contrary, that we distance ourselves from Baghdad's latest adventure. Saddam had already put us in an awkward position: we had him to thank for a number of misunderstandings with the non-Islamic clientele of Cuban policy in the third world, as with his own Arab brothers. Not to mention the numerous opponents of Iraq's bloody variation on Baathism who had ended up on the end of a rope in the Square of the Hanged, among whom were almost all of the local Communists. We needed to separate ourselves from this business to preserve Cuba's fundamental interests.

The commander in chief decided to criticize the invasion. Cuba, a non permanent member of the UN Security Council, voted in favor of resolution 660 of August 2 condemning Iraq's actions. Toward the middle of Autumn, it became obvious that the prolonged occupation of the Emirate, which Baghdad viewed as its 19th province, and the determination of the United States, heading an unprecedented international coalition, were leading to war. A conflict that, according to Cuba, would only offer the chance for a humongous display of force by the victors of the Cold War. Moscow, whose star was fading, barely attempted to limit the damage of Iraq's misstep while avoiding irritating George Bush.

For Havana, where the economy that had hitherto been propped up by the socialist countries was now beginning its free fall, things couldn't be worse. Any means would be acceptable to avoid catastrophe, including a personal appeal to Saddam. This was an idea of El Comandante's: convince the Iraqi numero uno of the enormity of the military retaliation that was then being prepared, and of which Cuba was amply informed thanks to its sources that were still in the USSR.

The mission had to be discrete. It would be led by José Ramon Fernandez, vice president of the Ministerial Council. This career officer and old-hand of the revolution, a key figure in the battles against the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, enjoyed the total confidence of the Commander in Chief. Despite his Asturian origins, he was dubbed "El Gallego" (the Galician), a name the Cubans gave to all the Spanish. Rodrigo Alvarez Cambras, the surgeon who several years earlier had removed a tumor from Saddam's spine, earning him top appointments in medicine as well as politics, was naturally part of the delegation. His presence underscored the friendly, almost intimate nature of the trip.

As for me, beyond my new responsibilities in relations outside the central committee, I had the advantage of knowing the country and its leader well, after a long stay in the Middle East. In 1975, I was the only Cuban journalist to go with the Iraqi army through the rocky and frozen cordilleras of Kurdistan to the headquarters of mullah Mustafa Barzani, a victory that had consolidated Saddam's power over Iraq's ethnic and religious mosaic.

To deliver the presentation, Raul Castro chose the young colonel Jaime Salas, who was then at the head of army intelligence. Body guards, assistants, translators, and the chancellery's vice-minister for Arab affairs made up the rest of the delegation. Fidel's personal message to Hussein gathered all the reasons for not allowing Washington to seize the opportunity to exert global hegemony. The heaviest job fell to colonel Salas: with Gorbachev's consent, the Soviet military, who were informed of this mission, had compiled highly detailed descriptions of the forces deployed on the Arabian peninsula and in Turkey. The Soviet base Torrens, just outside Havana, collected copious amounts of electronic data emitted by Florida command centers and from all over North America. The Cuban military analysts, exhausted from the study of all the armed conflicts in which the United States had ever been involved, had added their appraisals. Fidel put the finishing touch on the message: four pages of reflections in a measured and cordial tone, with the help of the Gallego Fernandez, who was to present it to Saddam. Then the Cuban expert most knowledgeable on Soviet matters was charged with editing a Russian version, with the slight modifications intended to make it acceptable in Gorbachev's eyes.

Fidel Castro took leave of us late in the evening at his office in the Palace of the Revolution. He had examined the diagrams, maps and photographs in the military dossier and reviewed its arguments one by one. He emphasized the crucial nature of the mission and the personal risks we would encounter in entering, at his request, an Iraq already besieged by allied forces. He saw us as soldiers going off to war. Before bestowing an accolade on each of us, he had a discrete aside with Fernandez, to whom he gave a sealed envelope, slipping an arm around his shoulders. "For expenses," he said. "in case anything should happen." An agreement whispered among "Gallegos."

We set out for Madrid and then for Amman, flying first class on Iberia and then Jordan Airlines. Once in Amman, we were told that Saddam's private jet would take us as far as Baghdad. To travel on board such a conspicuous aircraft, tracked by hundreds of enemy coalition radar systems, was not he best option. But there was no other. Declining our hosts offer was unthinkable and flights into Iraq were forbidden by the sanctions that were already in place.

Saddam's impeccable jet landed softly that night at Saddam international airport and we were rapidly taken to the residence prepared for the Cuban mission. The waiting began. The following day, a first attempt by the Iraqis to obtain Fidel's message met with resistance from Gallego Fernandez, who then displayed talents worthy of his studies at the Fort Silk artillery school in Oklahoma: the letter would only be submitted and explained to its addressee. This absurd game of hide-and-seek lasted several days. In vain, Alvarez Cambras called on his numerous contacts in the Iraqi political machine to obtain an audience with Saddam. With no more success, I tried to meet with Tarik Aziz, whom I had known since that distant time when he headed a press agency. But Saddam alone decided on his the use of his precious time.

On the fourth day, our hosts invited us to pass the time by visiting Babylon, the reconstruction of which was among the regime's priorities. We traveled southward. While visiting the paths in which Saddam, ever the Nebuchadnezzar, had had his name engraved in the thousands of replicated clay bricks in new constructions, we were urgently recalled to Baghdad: the meeting would take place the following day.

That evening the delegation reviewed the subjects to be touched on one last time. Toward midday, our convoy left for an unknown destination. Juan Aldama, stationed in Baghdad the previous two years, recognized the route we were taking. We were being led to the president's favorite palace: Radwaniyah, also known as Al Qadissiyya. It was one of Aldama's last meetings with Saddam. After receiving his diploma the school for foreign affairs in Moscow, he had returned to Baghdad, his first posting, in the company of a charming Russian wife, the daughter of an important Soviet functionary. One Spring evening in 1991 he would fire a bullet into his temple from the Makarov pistol that he always kept on him. His suicide was never made public and remains unexplained to this day.

Al Qadissiyya palace is one of the presidential residences suspected of housing lethal weapons laboratories. Our convoy passed quickly through the security checkpoints before arriving at one of the modern Islamic style buildings. We crossed the length of a hallway lined with Samarkand ceramic tiles and interior patios with with splendid fountains in order to arrive at the room scheduled for the meeting. Saddam appeared, followed by a half dozen high ranking army officers in field dress as impeccable as their chief's. He greeted El Gallego with a scarcely amiable gesture and the latter introduced us in turn. Without going through the usual introductions, Saddam pointed to his retinue with a vague motion and invited us to be seated around a long table in the middle of the room.

El Gallego began to speak. Our conduct was based, he said, on the solid friendship between Iraq and Cuba, Saddam and Fidel. The damage that the conflict would cause the Iraqi government worried us, as did the benefit that the United States would have in displaying their military power. The Iraqi listened, impassive. Fidel's message was then submitted to its addressee who read it attentively, with no more reaction than two or three words muttered under his breath and several movements of the head that were difficult to read.

After the long presentation by El Gallego, Saddam's impatience was palpable. It was impossible to discern among his entourage the least sign of approval for the Cuban position. I understood I had to be brief. A diplomatic outcome remained conceivable. Among the series of emissaries in Baghdad, the Soviet diplomats were struggling not to abandon an Arab ally, which would have been a first. The USSR could be counted on for a last minute effort at the Security Council that China would sign on to. The representatives of the third world would stop at nothing to arrive at an honorable solution, on the condition that Iraq agree to retreat from Kuwait. Territorial claims could be reformulated another time. The support of Javier Perez de Cuellar, UN Secretary General and close friend of Havana, was a passkey for negotiation. The presentation on diplomatic options received no comment.

Colonel Salas then approached a blackboard where there was a carefully arranged display of diagrams, maps, photographs and charts. He described the various stages of American and allied deployment since the Fall and specified the characteristics of the troops. He pointed out the latest developments in desert and amphibious combat, the high degree of readiness, the adversary's estimated strengths. He identified the points where the different units were concentrated, the foreseeable operations and likelihood of concerted action. He made a particularly overwhelming enumeration of the enemy's powerful weapons including many that would be used for the first time. The colonel spoke of a technological war, of multiple-head Tomahawk missiles that could be launched from the Red Sea of the Persian Gulf, of Apache antitank attack helicopters, of B-52 bombers, of the new F117 A Stealth fighters, undetectable to radar, Awacs command systems that would simultaneously orient hundreds of aircraft in combat, Patriot missiles, Abrams tanks equipped with 120 millimeter cannons, new GPS systems, unmanned aircraft and other smart weaponry, in addition to which there were those of US allies, all of which would assure that this war resembled no other.

The even-handed but invaluable comparison with the Iraqi forces made Saddam lose his patience. Though he had remained unmoved before the description of the capacity for resistance of his infantry, that numbered fewer than a million men, 7,000 tanks and many fewer pieces of artillery, as soon as the colonel began to describe the manifest air superiority of the enemy, Saddam ended the presentation.

After having shown us in a grave manner the place were diplomatic reports such as the one he had just heard would crash, he began a diatribe over the colonial injustice that the State of Kuwait had caused. He condemned the ingratitude of the Arab nation toward the only one of its members that had fought against Persian expansion in the Gulf. At first the victim of maneuvers on the petroleum market, he now found himself isolated in his new crusade against he West. He criticized the ingratitude of other friends, hostile to Iraq's decision not to give in before the enemy, the UN's impotence and the disloyalty of the Communist nations. He spoke of Saladin, a fellow native of Tikrit, he said, and then spoke of his date with history and of the formidable lesson that the Iraqi people, determined to be victorious, would give to any aggressor.

"You can tell comrade Fidel Castro," he said getting up, "that I thank him for his solicitude. If the troops of the United States invade Iraq, we shall crush them like that," he concluded resoundingly, stamping the carpet several times with his shining military boots... The audience had ended. Without smiling, Saddam shook the hands of each of the Cubans as we left the sumptuous hall. He bid the Gallego farewell with an Oriental embrace and asked that his greetings be sent to El Comandante.

That evening I drew up a long report. Two days later, we returned to Cuba the way we had come. At the residence of the Cuban ambassador to Madrid, Fernandez opened the envelope that Fidel had given him and gave each of us a hundred dollar bill and told us to buy souvenirs. On 12 November 1990, the official newspaper Granma reported the return from Iraq of an official delegation whose departure had never been announced. Fidel received us the same day. Without asking us to repeat what happened again, he only asked the Gallego to imitate with his own feet the gesture with which Saddam had shown how he would crush the Americans. We spoke of other things and Fernandez returned the envelope, explaining the expense from Madrid. El Comandante raised an eyebrow as if surprised but said nothing.

(Translated from the Spanish by Carmen Val Julian)

Alcibiades Hidalgo
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The US, UN & Iraq II
  3. » Page 129
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/06/2024 at 01:17:56