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: Hawkmoon who wrote (115926)	9/29/2003 5:18:09 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "Once again Jochen, I thank you for posting that link. It clearly states that Saddam lied to Glaspie about his intentions related to invading Kuwait. How ANYONE (and they know who they are) can translate that into some kind of "blessing upon Saddam" by the previous Bush administration is ABSURD." I agree completely. I only wish the apple hadn't fallen so far from the tree. -- Carl

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (115926)	9/29/2003 7:01:50 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 281500

Hawk, I agree with you that Saddam had pretty much made up his mind to invade Kuwait and was probably using the message to Bush as a deceit. But it looks to me that he was somewhat interested in how the USA would see his attack and what they might do. His troops were lined up ready to rumble. He deceived Kuwait by lying about his intentions for hui. Got the message from April that it was a go [no USA position]. Wanted to go [war and fights to the death, preferably others' deaths, are fun for Saddam]. Went. I suppose we'll just have to see the same thing in different ways. If I was Saddam, from the conversation, I'd think there was a good chance of getting away with it [grabbing Kuwait and the oil and repudiating the aid debts, which he disputed anyway, consolidating territorial position, access to the ocean and becoming a big time boss man]. I'd think the USA was probably not that worried about Kuwait. I'd think they weren't too worried about oil prices being higher, as long as they were in the Goldilocks range: not too high, not too low, just right. Being a megalomaniac, who loves violent confrontation and crushing opposition, I'd think that it was a pretty good bet. It's fascinating how different people see the same events and conclude different things and when motive and meaning is interpreted from language, any number of ideas are formed, especially when the language is deceitful language. Saddam was no doubt going for an element of surprise. But on USA attitude, it's interesting that April gave the Baker-approved, "We do not have a position", which anyone would take as a green light to sort out disputes at the local level, just a few days before Saddam attacked. The USA was completely aware of the Iraqi military buildup and obvious intention to attack, so it wasn't a surprise to the USA and it was obviously a last ditch situation before the main event. In the same vein, Kissinger gave the same, "We do not have a position" in regard to Indonesia's attack on and annexation of East Timor the day after he flew out having met the Indonesian bosses. The reason Kissinger [and the USA] didn't have a position was that they considered the East Timorese a commie place and part of the USSR sphere of influence. It needed to be suppressed. That was in the days before the USA learned that the USSR had much more in common with them than the USA had with Islamic Jihad. The cold war and MADness kept the USA in thrall to noocular Armageddon with the USSR. They didn't notice that Gorby was more civilized than Nixon and was very interested in making changes. Now the USA has somewhat belatedly figured out that Islamic Jihad isn't just anti-commie, it's anti-infidel. Up until 11 September, the USA was even supporting Chechen 'freedom fighters'. Or, if not actively supporting, was in sympathy with them. Even though Chechen rebels had hacked the heads off 3 British and a Kiwi, Stan Shaw, who were telecommunications workers, and left them on the side of a road. news.bbc.co.uk Americans used to be dead keen on supporting the IRA too [whose horrors are legion]. Gerry Adams gets feted in the USA although he's the IRA equivalent of Osama Bin Laden. Anyway, I don't care that Saddam was conned. I'm in favour of getting Saddam and have paid lots of taxes towards it [via my QUALCOMM shareholding]. Good riddance. Good for April that she played her part. I don't mind either than Goldilocks oil prices benefit USA companies [and BP and other energy suppliers]. But I'd like it better if there is a free market in oil and Iraq's oil is on the market and Iraqis get to have a great life and the UN is changed to what's required in the 21st century. I don't mind OPEC either - if they want to band together to fix prices and supply, I don't care. That's part of a free market in my book. If the USA charged a tariff for imported oil, that would make sense to me too. I'm all over the map! I'm in favour of Kuwait being part of Iraq too and turning it into the first country of the NUN millennium. The UN saved Kuwait's bacon [which isn't a good expression in an Islamic context] and it's a fake country anyway, made by an arbitrary line in the sand by the British to serve oil interests. East Timor's annexation had USA approval and Saddam's attack on Kuwait had USA approval too [though that one was a trap]. April didn't say "Saddam, keep your cotton pickin' hands offa Kuwait or we'll nuke you and conduct a turkey shoot from Kuwait to Baghdad as you run for it". Which she could have done. She came over all limp and said they didn't have an opinion and hoped some talky talk would make things better. The truth was that the USA did have an opinion and it was that if Saddam attacked Kuwait, he was going to get it, and he won't be selling any oil, which would keep the Goldilocks oil price just right and profits high for good ole boy Texans whose high-priced oil would sell at high margins. Saddam was aware that the USA might not remove sanctions if he pulled out of Kuwait and so it turned out to be. That's because Iraqi oil flooding the market would NOT be good for the Goldilocks oil price as it would undercut Texas Tea prices and King George I's oil buddies [not to mention Alaskan oil]. You would have noticed how April and Saddam got to talking about the price of oil pretty quickly, rather than the price of fish. Or chickens. Presidents don't do chickens [as Yeltsin said]. But they certainly do oil. Oil before freedom and democracy! Mqurice