LOL, that's what I thought. NOTHING. ZERO. What more could I expect anyway. I just wanted to hear you say it straight out. Thanks for your candor.
Make Love Not War
- Thread starter Babak
- Start date
I found the transcript that makes this outrageous claim, a document from the Iraqi government, as was the original source of this lie. Here's what Glaspie said which the Iraqi's then claimed gave them "permission:"
"But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."
Here is the entire transcript as it came from the Iraqi's and has never been authenticated by the State dept:
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html
I did not say that - I said there is significant doubt. The lack of enthusiasm from other countries is proof of that doubt. That the Bush adminstration itself cannot agree on it is another.
(to preempt the accepted response, I'll offer it: "screw the UN, screw the generals, screw the rest of the world, the US won WWII, the US invented McDonald's, and anyone not ready to kill because Rumsfeld said so is a traitor and a communist"
)Ok, I'll cut to the chase. Here are some specific proposals to deal with Saddam:
Continue to keep him in his "box" as long as he violates UN resolutions. The threat from Saddam is way overblown IMHO. North Korea has long range ballistic missles (something Saddam doesn't have), they are probably much further along in their nuclear program than Iraq, yet South Korea, Japan and the US are not beating the war drums against North Korea. Relations are getting better not progressively worst. That country is one of the most oppressive places in the world.
Radically alter our dependence on foreign oil. If W stood up to the big oil companies and to the Detroit lobby, we could dramaticall reduce our need for oil from OPEC, etc. Start by raising fuel standards on cars. Limit the gas guzzling SUV's. Create more incentives for companies to produce hybrid vehicles.
Why is Iraq forbidden from having WMD when other potentially dangerous and wild regimes (Syria, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, etc) are allowed to have them? The UN needs to draw the line somewhere.
Continue to fund the Iraqi opposition groups.
The UN needs to figure out what the consequences are when their resolutions are violated. Of course, since Israel constantly thumbs its nose at UN resolutions, the US walks a very delicate line.
Continue to keep him in his "box" as long as he violates UN resolutions. The threat from Saddam is way overblown IMHO. North Korea has long range ballistic missles (something Saddam doesn't have), they are probably much further along in their nuclear program than Iraq, yet South Korea, Japan and the US are not beating the war drums against North Korea. Relations are getting better not progressively worst. That country is one of the most oppressive places in the world.
Radically alter our dependence on foreign oil. If W stood up to the big oil companies and to the Detroit lobby, we could dramaticall reduce our need for oil from OPEC, etc. Start by raising fuel standards on cars. Limit the gas guzzling SUV's. Create more incentives for companies to produce hybrid vehicles.
Why is Iraq forbidden from having WMD when other potentially dangerous and wild regimes (Syria, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, etc) are allowed to have them? The UN needs to draw the line somewhere.
Continue to fund the Iraqi opposition groups.
The UN needs to figure out what the consequences are when their resolutions are violated. Of course, since Israel constantly thumbs its nose at UN resolutions, the US walks a very delicate line.
Bill Clinton ordered the merciless bombing of Serbia, CARPET BOMBING, for 80 STRAIGHT DAYS. The reason was that a crazy dictator was taking over the area. That dictator never even once posed any direct threat to the United States and had no weapons of mass destruction. THERE WAS NO PROTEST BECAUSE IT WAS ORDERED BY A DEMOCRAT.
Maybe I'm way off but reading the above (and assuming that the US did say that to Saddam) I do not get "if you attack and take over Kuwait we will just sit on our hands and not have an opinion".
I mean, "disagreement" is rather different than "invade and occupy", at least last time I looked in the dictionary.
What I do get from that statement is "look, you both are soverign states and you have a dispute, we'll stay out of it."
IF the US had not stayed out of that conflict, tried to solve it or threatened Iraq PREEMPTIVELY (to back down and be quiet like a good little dictator) then the same liberals would be howling that the US was intervening in the affairs of soverign states and medddling with something that was not our business at all.
--------------------------------------
Regarding Yugoslavia and that genocidal maniac Milosovic....the US took action that saved thousands of Muslims.
But I guess that their motives were suspect and that they still are the great evil meddler of the world. Right?
I somehow don't think Osama or other so-called Muslims sent the US a thank you note for saving their brethren from certain slow and painful death in concentration camps.