Saddam Is Dead

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by wil

Yeah, and then we *******ized it by electing instead of appointing Senators...and then gave non-landowners, non-businessowners the right to vote...and then direct taxes...

And to add insult to injury Maryland just voted to eliminate our presidential vote all together! If all goes the way they wish all of Marylands electoral college votes will go with the national popular vote despite the wishes of the voters in Maryland! What kind of garbage is that?

All hail the Oligarchy!

I'm sorry you hate your governemt so much. IAW the Constitution, you can affect change...just depends on how much effort one is willing to put into actually changing it...

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Saddam Hussein started the war against the United States back in 1987, when he sent two exocet missiles into the USS Stark, and damn near cut it in half. Not so much as an I'm sorry. And the anger began to build and the war machine began to turn...

Actually Saddam wrote an immediate letter of applogy to Reagen and ordered his airforce to fully co-operate with the American enquiry. As a result the pilot of the attacking plane was subsequently executed. At this time Reagen was still on good terms with Saddam and a White House press realease actually went on to blame Iran for the incident.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Actually Saddam wrote an immediate letter of applogy to Reagen and ordered his airforce to fully co-operate with the American enquiry. As a result the pilot of the attacking plane was subsequently executed. At this time Reagen was still on good terms with Saddam and a White House press realease actually went on to blame Iran for the incident.

Actually Tao, that isn't correct either. There were two jets, and both pilots were not executed. The apology was an admonishment for the US not letting Iraq know they were around...(it stated they didn't feel it was their fault). Reagan's Vice President went to war officially two years later with Iraq (you'd think there would have been negotiations with such good "friends")...so much for being on good terms.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I'm sorry you hate your governemt so much. IAW the Constitution, you can affect change...just depends on how much effort one is willing to put into actually changing it...

Excuse me? Everything I spoke of were changes which diluted the Constitution. And I click to vote them out every time I can. Hate it, no, highly disapointed when our elected leaders don't look out for those that elected them or pay them.

What is it...the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Like religion, any gov't that can't stand scrutiny ain't worth its salt. Anyone that has a need to scream anti-patriotism or herecy instead of openly discussing the issues is concerned we'll find the smoking gun...imo

Rumsfeld Meets Hussein - Google Video

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by wil

Excuse me? Everything I spoke of were changes which diluted the Constitution. And I click to vote them out every time I can. Hate it, no, highly disapointed when our elected leaders don't look out for those that elected them or pay them.

What is it...the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Like religion, any gov't that can't stand scrutiny ain't worth its salt. Anyone that has a need to scream anti-patriotism or herecy instead of openly discussing the issues is concerned we'll find the smoking gun...imo

Rumsfeld Meets Hussein - Google Video

Excuse me. The Constitution is specific about the right of citizens to "change" the government, or to abolish it altogether and start again. I didn't make it up. Our forefathers did. Shoot them.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Actually Tao, that isn't correct either. There were two jets, and both pilots were not executed. The apology was an admonishment for the US not letting Iraq know they were around...(it stated they didn't feel it was their fault). Reagan's Vice President went to war officially two years later with Iraq (you'd think there would have been negotiations with such good "friends")...so much for being on good terms.

1 plane according to the AWAC that monitored it from take off to landing and the Captain of the Stark.
The appology was obviously incinsere.
They were on 'good' (you know what I mean), terms right up until the US had successfully lured Saddam into invading Kuwait.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

1 plane according to the AWAC that monitored it from take off to landing and the Captain of the Stark.
The appology was obviously incinsere.
They were on 'good' (you know what I mean), terms right up until the US had successfully lured Saddam into invading Kuwait.

Kuwait was what Saddam always wanted. It used to be part of Iraq before the British split the land up. The US didn't lure Iraq into invading anything. And in fact Iraq was warned against invading Iran (by the Reagan administration). He just didn't listen...

[wil]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

They were on 'good' (you know what I mean), terms right up until the US had successfully lured Saddam into invading Kuwait.

I met an Army recruiter...every morning they fire up their computers to see what the powers that be need...engineers, mechanics, what kind of skills and what kind of tests are needed. Recruiting ain't like it used to be, when if youi couldn't make it in college or needed to get straightened out, or the judge ordered you to go to jail or join the Army...

Todays Army is picky, they weren't looking for grunts with backs and muscle, they were looking for some brains as well...or some other easily transferable skill. So everymorning he turns on his computer to see what he is supposed to find...and it comes up 10,000 grunts...anyone and everyone, sign them up!!

He is confused, calls his buddy at another center...he turns on his computer...gets the same thing?? They make some calls, are told to wait and within minutes...blip...its back to specific skills, low numbers, tests to to take...they wonder what the hell happened??

Then later we watch the news as Sadam's tanks roll across the border into Kuwait...and the next morning...their computers have the 10,000 back...and they recruit away...and order the body bags.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Kuwait was what Saddam always wanted. It used to be part of Iraq before the British split the land up. The US didn't lure Iraq into invading anything. And in fact Iraq was warned against invading Iran (by the Reagan administration). He just didn't listen...

from wiki

Meetings with Saddam Hussein

Glaspie's appointment followed a period from 1980 to 1988 during which the United States had given covert support to Iraq during its war with Iran (see Iran-Iraq War). Although the extent of U.S. assistance to Iraq during the period is disputed (the Soviet Union and France also supplied aid to Iraq), it was substantial.
It was in this context that Glaspie had her first meeting with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz on July 25, 1990. At least two transcripts of the meeting have been published. The State Department has not confirmed the accuracy of these transcripts, but Glaspie's cable has been released at the Bush Library and placed online by the Margaret Thatcher Foundation.[1]
One version of the transcript has Glaspie saying: "We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?"
Later the transcript has Glaspie saying: "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."
Another version of the transcript (the one published in the New York Times on 23 September 1990) has Glaspie saying: "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 '60s. 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 [Chadli Klibi, Secretary General of the Arab League] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly."
When these purported transcripts were made public, Glaspie was accused of having given approval for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which took place on August 2, 1990.
The transcript also shows that Glaspie expressed the hope that the Iraq-Kuwait dispute would be "solved quickly."
Many have argued that Glaspie's statements that "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts" and that "the Kuwait issue is not associated with America" were interpreted by Saddam as giving free reign to handle his disputes with Kuwait as he saw fit
It has been argued that Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait had he been given an explicit warning that such an invasion would be met with force by the United States as turned out to be the case.

One can read the entire declassified transcript from the Bush Library (items 27-30)

[wil]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Excuse me. The Constitution is specific about the right of citizens to "change" the government, or to abolish it altogether and start again. I didn't make it up. Our forefathers did. Shoot them.

Someone should have told the Confederacy. (we do know the war was not about slavery don't we??)

[Tao_Equus]

Ty Wil,

The Glaspie transcript confirms what I say. The ambasador conveys to Saddam that he is to ignore the american media and that the President, (Bush snr), is a freind. And that they (the US) have 'no opinion' on Saddams dispute with Kuwait and the UAE. Of course Saddam is going to interpret this as a green light to send his already in place army to march into Kuwait.
So Q, I stand firmly by my statement that he was indeed lured. And the reason? Could it be that it is a family pastime to invade countries to profit in ones own oil business interests? Too damn right it is.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Ty Wil,

The Glaspie transcript confirms what I say. The ambasador conveys to Saddam that he is to ignore the american media and that the President, (Bush snr), is a freind. And that they (the US) have 'no opinion' on Saddams dispute with Kuwait and the UAE. Of course Saddam is going to interpret this as a green light to send his already in place army to march into Kuwait.
So Q, I stand firmly by my statement that he was indeed lured. And the reason? Could it be that it is a family pastime to invade countries to profit in ones own oil business interests? Too damn right it is.

Thats why Iraq was given six months to withdrawl before hostilities commenced:

"On the morning of August 2, 1990 the mechanized infantry, armor, and tank units of the Iraqi Republican Guard invaded Kuwait and seized control of that country. The invasion triggered a United States response, Operation DESERT SHIELD, to deter any invasion of Kuwait's oil rich neighbor, Saudi Arabia. On August 7, deployment of U.S. forces began. United Nations Security Council Resolutions 660 and 662 condemned Iraq's invasion and annexation and called for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces. On August 20 President Bush signed National Security Directive 45, "U.S. Policy in Response to the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait," outlining U.S. objectives - which included the "immediate, complete, and unconditional withdrawal of all Iraqi forces from Kuwait," and the "restoration of Kuwait's legitimate government to replace the puppet regime installed by Iraq.

" A U.N. ultimatum, Security Council Resolution 678, followed on November 29, 1990. It stipulated that if Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein did not remove his troops from Kuwait by January 15, 1991 a U.S.-led coalition was authorized to drive them out. Early in the morning of January 17, Baghdad time, the U.S.-led coalition launched air attacks against Iraqi targets. On February 24, coalition ground forces begin their attack. On February 27, Kuwait City was declared liberated, and with allied forces having driven well into Iraq, President Bush and his advisers decided to halt the war. A cease-fire took effect at 8:00 the following morning."

hmmm, Glaspie's conflicting "statements" as noted, or actual facts as they occured (including the timelines).

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Thats why Iraq was given six months to withdrawl before hostilities commenced:

"On the morning of August 2, 1990 the mechanized infantry, armor, and tank units of the Iraqi Republican Guard invaded Kuwait and seized control of that country. The invasion triggered a United States response, Operation DESERT SHIELD, to deter any invasion of Kuwait's oil rich neighbor, Saudi Arabia. On August 7, deployment of U.S. forces began. United Nations Security Council Resolutions 660 and 662 condemned Iraq's invasion and annexation and called for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces. On August 20 President Bush signed National Security Directive 45, "U.S. Policy in Response to the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait," outlining U.S. objectives - which included the "immediate, complete, and unconditional withdrawal of all Iraqi forces from Kuwait," and the "restoration of Kuwait's legitimate government to replace the puppet regime installed by Iraq.

" A U.N. ultimatum, Security Council Resolution 678, followed on November 29, 1990. It stipulated that if Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein did not remove his troops from Kuwait by January 15, 1991 a U.S.-led coalition was authorized to drive them out. Early in the morning of January 17, Baghdad time, the U.S.-led coalition launched air attacks against Iraqi targets. On February 24, coalition ground forces begin their attack. On February 27, Kuwait City was declared liberated, and with allied forces having driven well into Iraq, President Bush and his advisers decided to halt the war. A cease-fire took effect at 8:00 the following morning."

hmmm, Glaspie's conflicting "statements" as noted, or actual facts as they occured (including the timelines).

Sorry Q I am not sure quite what you are trying to say. The time line after Saddam had pushed into Kuwait is irrelevant to the point I was making, that is - that he was 'lured' in. Bush knew fine well that once in Saddam could not simply walk out again when merely asked to do so. Something that Saddam himself states unequivocaly on the same transcript.
Glaspies 'conflicting' statements? I am working from the transcript of the conversation the US Ambasdaor to Iraq had with Saddam a few days before he rolled in.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

The "celtic flower" is a knot representing the "Trinity".

And the billion dollars a day you refer to is a series of "short term loans" that go back and forth between the nations (specifically the major banks)...that's where prime rate comes from. The loans are for a few days at most, and a few hours normally...the Chinese are figuring out capitalism quite quickly I should think...

v/r

Joshua

By chance on tonights BBC TV news I got more information on this. America is now in debt to China to the tune of $1.3 Trillion. Of which $560 Billion are US treasury notes, (I.O.U's in effect). So that is not the day to day or hr to hour to-ing and fro-ing you would like to believe. It is infact $1 billion dollars a day for the last 560 days, with no payments. The reason this has made the news is because economists have estimated for the past 4 years that the figure of $1.4 Trillion is the point at which China would have the ability to 'crash' the US economy.

TE

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Sorry Q I am not sure quite what you are trying to say. The time line after Saddam had pushed into Kuwait is irrelevant to the point I was making, that is - that he was 'lured' in. Bush knew fine well that once in Saddam could not simply walk out again when merely asked to do so. Something that Saddam himself states unequivocaly on the same transcript.
Glaspies 'conflicting' statements? I am working from the transcript of the conversation the US Ambasdaor to Iraq had with Saddam a few days before he rolled in.

Indeed, Glaspie's transcript has three conflicting variances as to what the good ambassador stated.

The point I made is that no hostilities occured for six months after the invasion. Furthermore the coalition that finally did go in included Arab nations as well as the US, and was Sanctioned by the UN. Also, Bush Senior, once accomplishing the santioned goals, called a halt to hostilities, nor did he go into Iraq and attempt to dismantle the army, nor topple Saddam.

Saddam, had six months to leave Kuwait and back his army away from Saudi Arabia UAE and Kuwait, BEFORE the US lead coalition went in and forced him to withdrawl back to within his own borders.

I am of the opinion that you are deliberately not understanding the actual events leading up to the first Gulf war.

I can't help that.

v/r

Joshua