Saddam's execution

[Moonlapse]

I disagree with Moonlapse on this issue though, yes the Americans supplied him with chemical and biological weapons, but not to use on his own people.

Agreed, but the Reagan administration looked the other way while he used them in his own country. True, this may have been critical to to keeping order in a unified Iraq, but as bad as it sounds I think things would be better off if the country had been left to fracture along cultural lines and I think it will ultimately end up this way. Regime change should primarily be left up to the people in whatever country is in question.

[Gaius Octavius]

I can't understand the oil business. Oil is a fungible commodity. During Soviet times, the U.S. couldn't sell grain to the USSR, nor import oil from them. The solution was to use Algeria as a middle man, i.e., the U.S. sold grain to Algeria, and the Soviets, oil to them. Both using foreign flagged ships. Title to cargo switched in mid ocean.

 

If Saddam (or anyone else) stopped selling oil directly to the West, it would release supplies from other suppliers to be sold to the West. He (or the other suppliers) would continue to sell oil on the world market - they all want to get the loot into their Swiss bank accounts.

 

Perhaps, this is where the Seven Deadly Sisters, the Carlyle Group, Bechtel and Halliburton come into the picture.

 

I disagree with Moonlapse on this issue though, yes the Americans supplied him with chemical and biological weapons, but not to use on his own people.

Agreed, but the Reagan administration looked the other way while he used them in his own country. True, this may have been critical to to keeping order in a unified Iraq, but as bad as it sounds I think things would be better off if the country had been left to fracture along cultural lines and I think it will ultimately end up this way. Regime change should primarily be left up to the people in whatever country is in question.

 

And then there was Iran-Contra.

 

(editing some horrible grammar in my quote - Moon)

Edited January 2, 2007 by Moonlapse

[Virgil61]

...Furthermore, the first Gulf war was nothing but an American trap by the Bush senior and Baker team. I'm one who hates conspiracy theories, especially the 9/11 ridicolous theories, but this is not a theory, Saddam took permission from the U.S. before he invaded Kuwait and they gave him the greenlight, they set the trap and turned on him the next day...

 

This isn't true at all. Saddam never 'took' permission, he had one meeting with Amb. Glaspie where she failed to give him a strong enough warning, and there's speculation a US warning wouldn't have worked anyway. She had to deal with the fallout to her career and reputation ever since.

[Gaius Octavius]

...Furthermore, the first Gulf war was nothing but an American trap by the Bush senior and Baker team. I'm one who hates conspiracy theories, especially the 9/11 ridicolous theories, but this is not a theory, Saddam took permission from the U.S. before he invaded Kuwait and they gave him the greenlight, they set the trap and turned on him the next day...

 

This isn't true at all. Saddam never 'took' permission, he had one meeting with Amb. Glaspie where she failed to give him a strong enough warning, and there's speculation a US warning wouldn't have worked anyway. She had to deal with the fallout to her career and reputation ever since.

 

V61, I believe that you are in error. When asked the question by Saddam, she answered that border adjustments would not be a concern of the U.S., as I said in an earlier post. Again, Saddam could easily have assumed that this was his reward for the Iran-Iraq War. There could also have been a translation problem. He was still a pal of the U.S. then. It could also be that someone in the Bush I administration woke up to the fact that there once was a rhombus shaped piece of land between Saudi Arabia and Iraq, one of whose points bordered on Kuwait, that had been a bone of contention between the former two.

[Virgil61]

This isn't true at all. Saddam never 'took' permission, he had one meeting with Amb. Glaspie where she failed to give him a strong enough warning, and there's speculation a US warning wouldn't have worked anyway. She had to deal with the fallout to her career and reputation ever since.

 

V61, I believe that you are in error. When asked the question by Saddam, she answered that border adjustments would not be a concern of the U.S., as I said in an earlier post. Again, Saddam could easily have assumed that this was his reward for the Iran-Iraq War. There could also have been a translation problem...

 

Recap of the Hussein/Glaspie meeting shows otherwise. So does a NY Times recap: Link.

 

But even if you think that's a fake to cover up a conspiracy,the point is that the invasion wasn't a 'set up' by the US. Saddam's (and Iraqi) interest and threats to Kuwait were long-standing and he was stuck in debt-repayment obligations.

Edited January 2, 2007 by Virgil61

[Primus Pilus]

Quick Off-Topic: I moved this and the Iran thread to the Arena, not because of any overwhelming lack of civility or abhorrent behavior, but simply as a matter of course related to the nature of the topics.

[tflex]

Agreed, but the Reagan administration looked the other way while he used them in his own country. True, this may have been critical to to keeping order in a unified Iraq, but as bad as it sounds I think things would be better off if the country had been left to fracture along cultural lines and I think it will ultimately end up this way. Regime change should primarily be left up to the people in whatever country is in question.

 

Yes, but my point was the U.S. didn't give Saddam these weapons so he could gas unarmed Kurds, maybe they were just naive. I agree that Iraq is an artificial country, Great Britian and France had a very bad habit of drawing up artificial borders in the Middle East to keep them divided. The more divided they are, the more influence the west can have over the oil flow. But Arabs only have themselves to blame, they are unable to unite and their culture is pretty screwed up.

 

This isn't true at all. Saddam never 'took' permission, he had one meeting with Amb. Glaspie where she failed to give him a strong enough warning, and there's speculation a US warning wouldn't have worked anyway. She had to deal with the fallout to her career and reputation ever since.

 

Common Virgil, be realistic, what you hear in public is not what goes on in private. The U.S. was Iraq's closest ally at that point, they were their main weapons supplier, Saddam as dumb as he is was not going to enter Kuwait without consulting with the U.S., and the U.S. knew his intentions anyways from intelligence sources, but they didn't try to stop him. Infact they did not interfere in anyway shape or form pre-invasion, and in political terms thats a green light. Saddam was expendable, and he probably deserved it. But, there is a reason why Muqtada Al Sadr and all those crazy clerics were silent during the Saddam era, because the butcher of Baghdad spoke their language which is violence. Al Sadr's father was assassinated by Saddam, I don't approve of assassinations, but I don't disaprove of that particular one.

[Virgil61]

...

Common Virgil, be realistic, what you hear in public is not what goes on in private. The U.S. was Iraq's closest ally at that point, they were their main weapons supplier, Saddam as dumb as he is was not going to enter Kuwait without consulting with the U.S., and the U.S. knew his intentions anyways from intelligence sources...

 

So you actually think it was a predetermined trap for Hussein? You really, really need to stop watching so many movies. Honestly, some of you need to spend some time in MI, the State Dept, DoD or some Federal service to get a grip on the realities of some things going on. While the CIA might play that sort of game, they aren't going to use some life-long civil servant Foreign Service Officer--as Glaspie was--to execute it. State and CIA don't play well together.

 

Also, I was in MI (military intelligence) at the time and within 1st Special Operations Command. We certainly weren't prepared for it even though we were the first to deploy behind the 82nd's Division Ready Force in August of '90. Certainly someone in the command or the Pentagon would have been in on the plan or--as usually happens--caught wind of it somehow and had at least stopped deployment exercises, leaves, or some sort of hint that things were about to happen.

 

It's one thing to be naive, it's another to have vague conspiratorial notions.

[The Augusta]

What I've found is an ideology centered around manufacturing realities as a means to an end. This includes the belief that we are benevolently spreading 'democracy'. These intentions will always be noble in the utmost.

 

Oh, dear! That may be the US's belief, Moonlapse - but it is hardly a universal truth. You see, we in the West constantly cast ourselves as 'the good guys'. It is, in my humble opinion, the epitome of arrogance. At the end of the day, this is all about perspective. A Muslim perspective will hardly be the same as ours. The pespective of a superpower will hardly be the same as an allied state.

 

Why do we start from the premise that spreading democracy will 'always be noble in the utmost'? Do we have some god-given right to enforce our idealism on the world? Don't get me wrong here. I am not 'sticking up' for the military dictatorships of the Middle-East or wherever, or the Islamic Revolution that changed Iran - I am merely trying to put forward the view that there are many viewpoints. Perhaps its a question of who is the most powerful? And then - if that is the case - do we have any right to call it a 'moral' standpoint at all?

 

I will freely admit - even on this board where I have many American friends - the US governmental foreign policy terrifies me as much as any military dictatorship terrifies me. Personally - I can't wait until Bush is out.

 

I'm not 'having a go' here, Moonlapse - I would merely welcome a discussion on this.

Edited January 2, 2007 by The Augusta

[Northern Neil]

Arabs only have themselves to blame, they are unable to unite and their culture is pretty screwed up.

 

This is a huge assumption, and mistake. Arabs have a unified culture and unified language. I would like to see the assumption that their culture is 'screwed up' qualified - in what way? to what degree? Why? They have to blame many agencies, including themselves - and also us (westerners) as has already been suggested, by the divide and rule attitude to 'artificial' countries and the drawing up of arbitary borders. The reason they do not unite is because the West props up many regimes such as the House of Saud - far more murderous than the secular, western-style government of Saddam. The Saudis have a financial and vested interest in not uniting with the pan arab movement - largely because of western sweetners - yet we look the other way when they commit human rights abuses and inforce Islamic Sharia law in such a way as to make Saddam (the erstwhile enemy) look like a real gentleman. If the Arabs and their culture are screwed up and disunited then it is a state of affairs we have brought about, and utterly intentionally. But please do not underestimate their ability to unite - surely, the current 'cold war 2' situation we are now in is testament to the fact that they can.

[Moonlapse]

What I've found is an ideology centered around manufacturing realities as a means to an end. This includes the belief that we are benevolently spreading 'democracy'. These intentions will always be noble in the utmost.

 

Oh, dear! That may be the US's belief, Moonlapse - but it is hardly a universal truth. You see, we in the West constantly cast ourselves as 'the good guys'. It is, in my humble opinion, the epitome of arrogance. At the end of the day, this is all about perspective. A Muslim perspective will hardly be the same as ours. The pespective of a superpower will hardly be the same as an allied state.

 

Why do we start from the premise that spreading democracy will 'always be noble in the utmost'? Do we have some god-given right to enforce our idealism on the world? Don't get me wrong here. I am not 'sticking up' for the military dictatorships of the Middle-East or wherever, or the Islamic Revolution that changed Iran - I am merely trying to put forward the view that there are many viewpoints. Perhaps its a question of who is the most powerful? And then - if that is the case - do we have any right to call it a 'moral' standpoint at all?

 

I will freely admit - even on this board where I have many American friends - the US governmental foreign policy terrifies me as much as any military dictatorship terrifies me. Personally - I can't wait until Bush is out.

 

I'm not 'having a go' here, Moonlapse - I would merely welcome a discussion on this.

I suppose that I've failed in making my point. I was trying to reveal the previously mentioned belief as a pretext that has been purposefully manufactured. Other pretexts are required to accept this belief, as you've indicated. This current conflict has roots going back to the 19th century. Coincidentally, that was a period when means of perception management were being scientized by people like Wilhelm Wundt. Everything is based on justifications, and therefore based on a notion of right (noble) and wrong. These things that we have been taught (implying the use of teachers in various forms) to accept as right and wrong are absolutely critical to our perception of current affairs.

 

I don't consider your post to be contradictory to mine.

[Gaius Octavius]

While the CIA might play that sort of game, they aren't going to use some life-long civil servant Foreign Service Officer--as Glaspie was--to execute it. State and CIA don't play well together.

 

How about Negroponte in Central America?

[Virgil61]

While the CIA might play that sort of game, they aren't going to use some life-long civil servant Foreign Service Officer--as Glaspie was--to execute it. State and CIA don't play well together.

 

How about Negroponte in Central America?

 

That's not an example. The opposition to the Sandanistas and support of the Contras was a co-ordinated policy and well known, not just some subterfuge hidden from the other agencies and armed services. If I say the State and CIA don't work well together, a statement well accepted in Foggy Bottom and McLean, then anyone can pull a name or two out of a hat to show different. If I join the Foreign Service and work for State I have friends who work in McLean and I'm sure I'll keep in contact with them. Doesn't change the fact the two have a lot of antagonism towards each other as institutions.

[Gaius Octavius]

Negroponte wasn't/isn't a life long civil servant? Well, then, how about Tenent? Iran-Contra well known? - well, that is until someone spilled the beans. I have no intention to carry this any further.

Edited January 3, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[Virgil61]

Negroponte wasn't/isn't a life long civil servant? Well, then, how about Tenent?

 

Who's said anything about civil servants in general? He was a State Dept employee. Tenet was never a State employee if I'm not mistaken, but he was director of the CIA. I'm left thinking what was your point.

 

Iran-Contra well known? - well, that is until someone spilled the beans.

 

I meant support for the Contras was known within the intel community dealing with the region, not the larger public.

Edited January 3, 2007 by Virgil61