Syrian Civil War

[dre]

It's not "Bush telling Saddam that it's ok to attack Kuwait."

[GostHacked]

Exactly. The lengths in which the pro-Saddam/anti-American types around here will go never ceases to amaze me.

Show America's hypocrisy? Get labeled a terrorist.

[GostHacked]

That's how communication worked between the Bush government and Saddam Hussein. Through the US state department, and the US ambassador.

And to think this kind of thing happens everywhere. How does Obama send a message to Putin? Does he have Putin's direct number? Or does he have to go through diplomatic channels?

[Guest American Woman]

I suppose it's good that you can at least laugh at yourself for having made a false claim.

[bud]

I never said anything about being pro-saddam.

no need to validate yourself to slimeballs like shady.

this conversation clearly shows that saddam was told that what saddam wants to do with kuwait is not associated with the u.s. of course, in the face of facts, the usual will still deny, in order not to disturb their narrative. people without integrity don't care about facts.

Saddam Hussein:

"If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (which, in Saddam's view, includes Kuwait) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?"

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie:

"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

[bud]

Did you even read what you provided lol? Bud speaking about focus-go read what you are relying on. Lol. You clearly didn't.

hey rue?

focus buddy. seriously, try to focus on what i will be posting from the article that you say doesn't say that the u.s. helped iraq with its chemical attacks. there are more than 1 pages in the article. you need to focus on this as well. there are also copies of memos and letters that have been released which follow the article. focus on that as well.

okay, here we go. i will only post this once. even if you post a long winded response denying it, this will be my last time that i will share this information with you and acknowledge your denial of facts. because if you are going to deny the following, then you are beyond hopeless.

okay, so this is from the same article from page 3:

President Reagan read the report and, according to Francona, wrote a note in the margin addressed to Secretary of Defense Frank C. Carlucci: "An Iranian victory is unacceptable."

Subsequently, a decision was made at the top level of the U.S. government (almost certainly requiring the approval of the National Security Council and the CIA). The DIA was authorized to give the Iraqi intelligence services as much detailed information as was available about the deployments and movements of all Iranian combat units. That included satellite imagery and perhaps some sanitized electronic intelligence. There was a particular focus on the area east of the city of Basrah where the DIA was convinced the next big Iranian offensive would come. The agency also provided data on the locations of key Iranian logistics facilities, and the strength and capabilities of the Iranian air force and air defense system. Francona described much of the information as "targeting packages" suitable for use by the Iraqi air force to destroy these targets.

The sarin attacks then followed.

By 1988, U.S. intelligence was flowing freely to Hussein's military. That March, Iraq launched a nerve gas attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja in northern Iraq.

[Argus]

No I would call it tacit approval.

"Dad, can I have some Icecream?"

"I dont care."

It could be interpreted that way, in retrospect, and it could also be interpeted as standard State Department gobbledegook where nothing is said or given away. I would also think that if the ambassador expressed his concern about the troop buildup and asked why that in itself could also be interpeted as a signal. If they didn't care what the Iraqis did with respect to Kuwait why would he have even expressed his concern about the troop buildup in the first place?

[Argus]

I never said anything about being pro-saddam. I personally think the guy was a dirt bag. I would say that because I think it was a mistake for the US to be using this kind of Ambiguous language while Saddam was amassing troops and tanks on the Kuwaiti border makes me anti American either. Lots of Americans have said the same thing.

But ambassadors almost always use ambiguous language. He was instructed to ask, without pissing the man off, what he was doing with all those troops at his border and what his intentions were. He was obviously NOT told to express any opinion until higher authority decided what should be said and how it should be phrased. That's not unusual at all. As I said in my earlier post you can suggest that when he said 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 other threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. that was an indication the US was not happy. If they didn't care what the Iraqis did they would not have bothered to express concern. Of course, such things are easily lost in translation between languages and cultures.

[-TSS-]

Assad will be history next week. I am just trying to get my head around as to why the US wants to install a government of islamic bigots to replace Assad's regime. Perhaps just for the sake of creating further instability ion the region.

[Shady]

Assad will be history next week. I am just trying to get my head around as to why the US wants to install a government of islamic bigots to replace Assad's regime. Perhaps just for the sake of creating further instability ion the region.

No, Assad won't be history next week.

[dre]

But ambassadors almost always use ambiguous language. He was instructed to ask, without pissing the man off, what he was doing with all those troops at his border and what his intentions were. He was obviously NOT told to express any opinion until higher authority decided what should be said and how it should be phrased. That's not unusual at all. As I said in my earlier post you can suggest that when he said 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 other threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. that was an indication the US was not happy. If they didn't care what the Iraqis did they would not have bothered to express concern. Of course, such things are easily lost in translation between languages and cultures.

No she went out of her way to emphasize that the US would not intervene. The message she was carrying for the Bush administration was "we dont care, and we wont make it our business".

[dre]

Assad will be history next week. I am just trying to get my head around as to why the US wants to install a government of islamic bigots to replace Assad's regime. Perhaps just for the sake of creating further instability ion the region.

Here's Obamas freedom fighters in action! Any attack on Assad helps these people, no matter which way you slice it.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7ba_1372272716

Obamas Freedom Fighters! Beheading a christian bishop

It will be interesting to see the blowback from THIS one.

Edited September 8, 2013 by dre

[Topaz]

Question, why would Assad gas his own people rather than gassing the REBELS? Think, if he gassed and killed all his people than that would only leave the rebels . I think there's more to this and since no knows who actually used it and many countries and groups could have, I think Minsiter Baird should quite down he views that Syria did, which may or may not be true.

[Argus]

No she went out of her way to emphasize that the US would not intervene. The message she was carrying for the Bush administration was "we dont care, and we wont make it our business".

Well, that's your interpretation.

[Argus]

Question, why would Assad gas his own people rather than gassing the REBELS? T

He DID gas the rebels. You haven't actually bothered to read any newspapers or magazines or even do more than skim a few headlines on this, have you?

[Argus]

Here's Obamas freedom fighters in action! Any attack on Assad helps these people, no matter which way you slice it.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7ba_1372272716

Obamas Freedom Fighters! Beheading a christian bishop

It will be interesting to see the blowback from THIS one.

You know, this post reads disturbingly like a releaes from the Syrian propoganda ministry. Have you taken on a part time job, Dre?

In point of fact the Vatican has already said that none of the men in this video was a Catholic Bishop. However, a Catholic priest was murdered in that area, shot to death some days earlier.

Obamas freedom fighters? Really!? You really wrote that?!

Sorry, but you've just lost any and all credibility you had as far as I'm concerned.

It's true there are a number of rebel factions fighting against Assad, and at least a couple of them are Islamists, but the largest group is not, and trying to figure out a way to support them and not the others has been the West's dilemna for some time now. Anyone who has made even a perfunctory effort to educate themselves on what's going on over there would know that. Your frantic, knee-jerk anti-war sentiment, however, has carried you into the realm of being easily dismissed with the likes of truthers and rand paul nutjobs.

Edited September 8, 2013 by Argus

[bud]

oh no. NOT GLENN BECK!

HE'S WORKING FOR ASSAD!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfHSPLW63Gg

[dre]

Well, that's your interpretation.

Not really...

Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

The fact remains that as Saddam had amassed troops and tanks and the Kuwaiti border, the message he was getting from the Bush Administration was "meh... whatever".

And when confronted Glaspie said...

In September 1990, a pair of British journalists confronted Glaspie with the transcript of her meeting with Saddam Hussein, to which she replied that "Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.

Note the keyword being "all", suggesting she only expected him to take "some" of it.

[Argus]

This is an excellent column highlighting the hypocrisy and ignorance of much of the 'anti-war' crowd on the Syrian issue, and their in-your-face attitude that puts the death of tens of thousands a several dozen notches below importance in their delight at finding a coupon from MacDonalds to feed their fat faces.

Is it possible for the spoiled children of the western world’s bourgeoisie to get any more repulsive than this?

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/Cynical+indifference+mass+murder+Syria/8869744/story.html

[Argus]

Not really...

The fact remains

I'm not interested in your made-up facts or your nonsensical conspiracy theories. Whether an ambassador miscommunicated or not, whether the Iraqis misunderstood or the US could have been clearer in its warnings the idea the US told Iraq they didn't care if they attacked Kuwait is ludicrous and preposterous.

Edited September 8, 2013 by Argus

[Argus]

oh no. NOT GLENN BECK!

HE'S WORKING FOR ASSAD!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfHSPLW63Gg

Do you honestly think you have any more credibility on the far fringes of the left than Beck does on the far fringes of the right?

[dre]

You know, this post reads disturbingly like a releaes from the Syrian propoganda ministry. Have you taken on a part time job, Dre?

In point of fact the Vatican has already said that none of the men in this video was a Catholic Bishop. However, a Catholic priest was murdered in that area, shot to death some days earlier.

Obamas freedom fighters? Really!? You really wrote that?!

Sorry, but you've just lost any and all credibility you had as far as I'm concerned.

It's true there are a number of rebel factions fighting against Assad, and at least a couple of them are Islamists, but the largest group is not, and trying to figure out a way to support them and not the others has been the West's dilemna for some time now. Anyone who has made even a perfunctory effort to educate themselves on what's going on over there would know that. Your frantic, knee-jerk anti-war sentiment, however, has carried you into the realm of being easily dismissed with the likes of truthers and rand paul nutjobs.

Actually according to what Iv read the Islamists are the fiercest and most effective factions. In any case, these are the folks that will be helped if the west cripples Assad enough to shift the balance of power.

Your frantic, knee-jerk anti-war sentiment, however, has carried you into the realm of being easily dismissed with the likes of truthers and rand paul nutjobs.

Nothing frantic about it at all. Thats the Syrian "resistance" in action. Whats happening over there is a sectarian war similar to what we saw in Iraq, with sunnis fighting allawites and in this case Christians as well. What you saw in that video is playing out all across the countrie, especially in the North.

[bud]

argus, you speak with such confidence.

He DID gas the rebels. You haven't actually bothered to read any newspapers or magazines or even do more than skim a few headlines on this, have you?

even obama has not yet been able to show concrete evidence that the chemical weapons were used by assad. despite what the newspapers have said. maybe you have some concrete evidence that you can show to the world, including the UN.

You know, this post reads disturbingly like a releaes from the Syrian propoganda ministry. Have you taken on a part time job, Dre?

In point of fact the Vatican has already said that none of the men in this video was a Catholic Bishop. However, a Catholic priest was murdered in that area, shot to death some days earlier.

Obamas freedom fighters? Really!? You really wrote that?!

Sorry, but you've just lost any and all credibility you had as far as I'm concerned.

It's true there are a number of rebel factions fighting against Assad, and at least a couple of them are Islamists, but the largest group is not, and trying to figure out a way to support them and not the others has been the West's dilemna for some time now. Anyone who has made even a perfunctory effort to educate themselves on what's going on over there would know that. Your frantic, knee-jerk anti-war sentiment, however, has carried you into the realm of being easily dismissed with the likes of truthers and rand paul nutjobs.

who is the propagandist? "a couple of them"? get real. how many people do you see in this video? who said the priests were "catholic". they are said to be christian priests. so what if they're not "catholic".

these are the fanatical wahabist islamists, who are coming in from and backed by saudi, qatar and with the blessing of u.s. and israel. these guys are going to be replacing assad, a secularist dictator, who happens to be supporting the main piece of the chess piece, the queen, that the zionists want to remove, iran.

[dre]

I'm not interested in your made-up facts or your nonsensical conspiracy theories. Whether an ambassador miscommunicated or not, whether the Iraqis misunderstood or the US could have been clearer in its warnings the idea the US told Iraq they didn't care if they attacked Kuwait is ludicrous and preposterous.

They arent made up facts, they are the literal meaning of what was spoken. Did I "make up" that transcript? Nope. Did I make up the fact that US senators and congressmen lambasted Baker and Glaspie for the exact same thing? Nope.

Theres nothing to indicate anyone miscommunicated. What happened was that instead of Hussein taking only part of Kuwait along the border as the US had expected, he took the whole thing which made it impossible for anyone ignore.

[Argus]

Actually according to what Iv read the Islamists are the fiercest and most effective factions.

Because they're being given the money and weapons from the likes of Saudi Arabia that no one is funneling to the FSA.

Nothing frantic about it at all. Thats the Syrian "resistance" in action. Whats happening over there is a sectarian war similar to what we saw in Iraq, with sunnis fighting allawites and in this case Christians as well. What you saw in that video is playing out all across the countrie, especially in the North.

And will continue to play out for years on end, on all sides if no one does anything. People like you have no idea what civil wars are like, or how death begets death and revenge begets revenge. Fat and comfy and pig-ignorant of the realities of the world without a care in the world that doesn't focus on your own belly.

You can go back to the American revolution, if you dare to ever read history, and see the atrocities commited between Americans AGAINST EACH OTHER as they fought over whether to throw the British out. We're talking rape, child murders, torture, families burned alive, men nailed alive to doorways, gutted and thrown into pigpens etc. etc. This is how humans act when law and society deteriorate. That's why some people feel the need to intervene.

Then there's the likes of you, walking along, fat and happy "Not my problem, bro!" you'll cheerfully say as you hum the lastest song on your ipod.