Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (115856)	9/28/2003 4:38:05 PM
From: Elsewhere	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

By the way, I couldn't find a full transcript of the interview between Gillespie and Saddam. psych.upenn.edu

To: Bilow who wrote (115856)	9/28/2003 5:59:53 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<Our country is led by fools and imbeciles and pretty much always has been> Carl, Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. Alan Green$pan KBE is highly intelligent. Raygun wasn't the brightest light bulb in the house, but King George I wasn't exactly lacking in brain power. Even King George II shouldn't be misunderestimated. Carter was alleged to be positively intellectual. Kennedy and Nixon and Ford weren't exactly stupid. Johnson had big ears, which matched his beagles' ears, which he lifted one by. lbjlib.utexas.edu I'm not sure about his brainpower. They could all hire pretty smart people and did. Henry Kissinger, McNamara and others were considered brains trust types. Smart, wise and ethical are not necessarily included in the same package. Interests are what are discussed in politics, unless some hypocritical cant about America's values are being thrown around to gull the public. Votes are bought. Support is bought. I dare say you have heard of the words pork barrel politics. Notice how April didn't discuss milk for Iraqi children, but focused on the price of oil. And even pointed out that some political leaders from oil states are in favour of higher oil prices. It was all about oil. She emphasized and re-emphasized that particular instructions had been given to her that the border and relations between Iraq and Kuwait were not the business of the USA. There was no room for misinterpretation. Saddam mistakenly thought the USA wanted cheap oil. April pointed out that while that was true in some ways, that wasn't universally the case, giving particular reference to oil state politicians [King George I and II for example]. There is a Goldilocks price for oil, not too hot, not too cold, just right. That situation applies today too. The Shah of Iran learned about that decades ago. Here's April: <....Mr. President, not only do I want to say that President Bush wanted better and deeper relations with Iraq, but he also wants an Iraqi contribution to peace and prosperity in the Middle East. President Bush is an intelligent man. He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq. You are right. It is true what you say that we do not want higher prices for oil. But I would ask you to examine the possibility of not charging too high a price for oil. HUSSEIN: We do not want too high prices for oil. And I remind you that in 1974 I gave Tariq Aziz the idea for an article he wrote which criticized the policy of keeping oil prices high. It was the first Arab article which expressed this view. [Me: Ooops, Saddam wanted lower prices which conflicted with Texas Tea politicians' interests]. Shifting Price of Oil TARIQ AZIZ: Our policy in OPEC opposes sudden jumps in oil prices. HUSSEIN: Twenty-five dollars a barrel is not a high price. GLASPIE: We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above $25 because they come from oil-producing states. [Me: April is quick to point out that cheap oil isn't necessarily good oil and did her president come from an oil-producing state? Giggle] HUSSEIN: The price at one stage had dropped to $12 a barrel and a reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of $6 billion to $7 billion is a disaster. GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us? 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 only see 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. [Me: In full knowledge of imminent war against Kuwait, she emphasizes and re-emphasizes and elaborates that the USA has no opinion. She didn't say the USA is against invasion which would have been easy enough to say. But higher priced oil would be no bad thing. It's all about oil. Not milk for Iraqi children.] I simply describe the concern of my Government. And I do not mean that the situation is a simple situation. But our concern is a simple one. HUSSEIN: We do not ask people not to be concerned when peace is at issue. This is a noble human feeling which we all feel. It is natural for you as a superpower to be concerned. But what we ask is not to express your concern in a way that would make an aggressor believe that he is getting support for his aggression. We want to find a just solution which will give us our rights but not deprive others of their rights. But at the same time, we want the others to know that our patience is running out regarding their action, which is harming even the milk our children drink, and the pensions of the widow who lost her husband during the war, and the pensions of the orphans who lost their parents. As a country, we have the right to prosper. We lost so many opportunities, and the others should value the Iraqi role in their protection. Event this Iraqi [the President points to the interpreter] feels bitter like all other Iraqis. We are not aggressors but we do not accept aggression either. We sent them envoys and handwritten letters. We tried everything. We asked the Servant of the Two Shrines - King Fahd - to hold a four-member summit, but he suggested a meeting between the Oil Ministers. We agreed. And as you know, the meeting took place in Jidda. They reached an agreement which did not express what we wanted, but we agreed. Only two days after the meeting, the Kuwaiti Oil Minister made a statement that contradicted the agreement. We also discussed the issue during the Baghdad summit. I told the Arab Kings and Presidents that some brothers are fighting an economic war against us. And that not all wars use weapons and we regard this kind of war as a military action against us. Because if the capability of our army is lowered then, if Iran renewed the war, it could achieve goals which it could not achieve before. And if we lowered the standard of our defenses, then this could encourage Israel to attack us. I said that before the Arab Kings and Presidents. Only I did not mention Kuwait and U.A.E. by name, because they were my guests. Before this, I had sent them envoys reminding them that our war had included their defense. Therefore the aid they gave us should not be regarded as a debt. We did no more than the United States would have done against someone who attacked its interests.... > So, Kuwait gave financial support to Saddam in his and the USA's war with Iran and calls it a debt. I don't think the Iraqis owe Kuwait a brass razzoo. The eventual new Iraq should repudiate the debts. Or, hand them to the USA as the new owner of Iraq. Come to think of it, I think the UN should take over Kuwait as well as Iraq. Especially the disputed oil fields on the border, which Kuwait had been sucking at causing the problems. Surely they had enough without greedily piping into Iraqi oil too. Kuwait was just an arbitrary British line through the sand. Better to reamalgamate it as part of the tidying up of the post-colonial mess in the region under a new UN constitution. Mqurice

To: Bilow who wrote (115856)	9/28/2003 6:29:24 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<led by fools and imbeciles and pretty much always has been.> When a successful Roman Emperor came back to Rome and had his Triumph parade, part of the ceremony was, a slave would walk beside him, continuously whispering in his ear, "Remember, Caesar, that thou art mortal." Modern leaders habitually surround themselves with people who whisper continuously in their ears, "Remember, Caesar, that thou art God, and even thy farts smell like roses." The problem is not intelligence, but hubris, and positive-feedback loops that reinforce myths of omnipotence.