• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Drone Blowback in Pakistan is a Myth [W:24, 57]

Thoreau72 said:
Thanks for a straight answer.

Make sure you believe everything you read on Wikipedia. Probably no problem for you.
Click to expand...

Can't be any harder than what you do, which is believe any conspiracy theory you come across.
 
Thoreau72 said:
If you're in high school now, you must have been in diapers when Saddam invaded Kuwait. Do you get your world history from Wikipedia or where?

Maus

When all that happened, I was reading and watching news reports. For me, that was before the internet, but I did see April Glaspie on CSPAN testifying before Congress. My memory is still functional, and I did not read about that on the internet, I was reading it in the old fashioned newspapers.

Citation? What a silly boy you are. Go take a bike ride--it might clear your head.
Click to expand...

Saddam was installed by the US?

Citation?
 
Thoreau72 said:
If you're in high school now, you must have been in diapers when Saddam invaded Kuwait. Do you get your world history from Wikipedia or where?

Maus

When all that happened, I was reading and watching news reports. For me, that was before the internet, but I did see April Glaspie on CSPAN testifying before Congress. My memory is still functional, and I did not read about that on the internet, I was reading it in the old fashioned newspapers.

Citation? What a silly boy you are. Go take a bike ride--it might clear your head.
Click to expand...

Transcript?

She said we INSTALLED Saddam?

No, here is what she said.....

AMB. GLASPIE

He was told we would continue to defend our vital interests in the Gulf. And I think this is important: That we would support the sovereignty and integrity of the Gulf states. We would not take positions on the equities of bilateral Kuwaiti-Iraqi disputes, but we would insist that disputes be settled peacefully, not by threats or intimidation or, of course, by aggression. As soon as I received the cable containing these points I, of course, delivered them myself to the highest available Iraqi official in Baghdad.
 
Jack Hays said:
April Glaspie made a terrible mistake and paid for it with her career.
Click to expand...

How so? By speaking the truth in front of Congress?

She relayed a message from Saddam to her boss. Boss took it to his boss, and eventually instructed April to deliver their message to Saddam, that the US would consider any invasion of Kuwait by Iraq to be a matter of "inter-arab affairs". You know the rest of the story.

That, after Iraq's efforts to resolve slant drilling issues at the World Court failed.
 
Fledermaus said:
Saddam was installed by the US?

Citation?
Click to expand...

Are you hallucinating Maus? I never said Saddam was installed by the US.

He was favored by and supported by the US, many loans were made to him by the US Dept of Commerce, but I never said he was installed by the us. That must be some good **** you're smoking. :mrgreen:
 
Thoreau72 said:
How so? By speaking the truth in front of Congress?

She relayed a message from Saddam to her boss. Boss took it to his boss, and eventually instructed April to deliver their message to Saddam, that the US would consider any invasion of Kuwait by Iraq to be a matter of "inter-arab affairs". You know the rest of the story.

That, after Iraq's efforts to resolve slant drilling issues at the World Court failed.
Click to expand...

". . . we would insist that disputes be settled peacefully, not by threats or intimidation or, of course, by aggression. . . ."
 
Thoreau72 said:
Are you hallucinating Maus? I never said Saddam was installed by the US.

He was favored by and supported by the US, many loans were made to him by the US Dept of Commerce, but I never said he was installed by the us. That must be some good **** you're smoking. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

ORLY?

Post by me.

Fledermaus said:
TL: DR

Look, I get it.

You wish to blame the US for things done by tin-pot dictators we really have no control of. (Referring to Saddam)

I get it.

You want to accuse the US of being complicit in the gassing of both the Iranians and the Kurds.... Even though the only assistance given IN THE GASSING is targeting info for the Iranians (to which Saddam could have chosen other alternatives) and NO assistance in gassing the Kurds (Since Saddam already knew where trhey were). (Referring to Saddam)

And you will not clarify your nebulous statements... "used as cover fire for the coalition withdrawal"

Got it.
Click to expand...

Your response....


Thoreau72 said:
There are a few things you DON'T get, and one of them is that the tin-pot dictators you allude to have been oh-so-often installed by our boys in the CIA.
Click to expand...

You have made the claim before. And this was in response to a discussion about SADDAM.

So now you are backtracking?

We didn't install Saddam?
 
Last edited:
Thoreau72 said:
How so? By speaking the truth in front of Congress?

She relayed a message from Saddam to her boss. Boss took it to his boss, and eventually instructed April to deliver their message to Saddam, that the US would consider any invasion of Kuwait by Iraq to be a matter of "inter-arab affairs". You know the rest of the story.

That, after Iraq's efforts to resolve slant drilling issues at the World Court failed.
Click to expand...

AMB. GLASPIE

He was told we would continue to defend our vital interests in the Gulf. And I think this is important: That we would support the sovereignty and integrity of the Gulf states. We would not take positions on the equities of bilateral Kuwaiti-Iraqi disputes, but we would insist that disputes be settled peacefully, not by threats or intimidation or, of course, by aggression. As soon as I received the cable containing these points I, of course, delivered them myself to the highest available Iraqi official in Baghdad.

You keep ignoring that.....
 
Jack Hays said:
". . . we would insist that disputes be settled peacefully, not by threats or intimidation or, of course, by aggression. . . ."
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm too tired to understand your point Jack. Please help me and tell me what mistake Glaspie made. Sorry dude.
 
Fledermaus said:
AMB. GLASPIE

He was told we would continue to defend our vital interests in the Gulf. And I think this is important: That we would support the sovereignty and integrity of the Gulf states. We would not take positions on the equities of bilateral Kuwaiti-Iraqi disputes, but we would insist that disputes be settled peacefully, not by threats or intimidation or, of course, by aggression. As soon as I received the cable containing these points I, of course, delivered them myself to the highest available Iraqi official in Baghdad.

You keep ignoring that.....
Click to expand...

Are you pointing out the lies and innuendo passed along by the State Department? Or are you trying to illustrate the Grand Hypocrisy practiced by the US, in which it tells other to avoid aggression, but practices aggression anytime and anyplace it wants?

What's your bloody point Maus? Are you able to make a point without resorting to a link? Are you able to construct your own sentences to make a point?
 
Thoreau72 said:
Maybe I'm too tired to understand your point Jack. Please help me and tell me what mistake Glaspie made. Sorry dude.
Click to expand...

She conveyed the standard US line in opposition to settling questions by force, but she did not convey to Saddam what would be the full weight of US response.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Are you pointing out the lies and innuendo passed along by the State Department? Or are you trying to illustrate the Grand Hypocrisy practiced by the US, in which it tells other to avoid aggression, but practices aggression anytime and anyplace it wants?
Click to expand...

TRANLATION: The testimony does not say what he imagines it said.

Thoreau72 said:
What's your bloody point Maus? Are you able to make a point without resorting to a link? Are you able to construct your own sentences to make a point?
Click to expand...

My point is that you are talking out your posterior as to April Glaspie. Her testimony before Congress does not support your fantasy.

But we both know yours is feigned ignorance as to that point.
 
Jack Hays said:
She conveyed the standard US line in opposition to settling questions by force, but she did not convey to Saddam what would be the full weight of US response.
Click to expand...

And that was PRECISELY the message, subliminal if you wish, that her supervisors wished to convey. That the US would consider it a matter of "inter-arab affairs" was just like saying "we don't give a damn how you handle it". This, after 10 years of being treated as fair-haired son by the US. All the gas and weapons he wanted to wage war with Iran, all sorts of loans guaranteed by US Dept of Commerce, etc etc.

They set him up for what was to come.
 
Thoreau72 said:
And that was PRECISELY the message, subliminal if you wish, that her supervisors wished to convey. That the US would consider it a matter of "inter-arab affairs" was just like saying "we don't give a damn how you handle it". This, after 10 years of being treated as fair-haired son by the US. All the gas and weapons he wanted to wage war with Iran, all sorts of loans guaranteed by US Dept of Commerce, etc etc.

They set him up for what was to come.
Click to expand...

You have it completely backwards.
 
Thoreau72 said:
And that was PRECISELY the message, subliminal if you wish, that her supervisors wished to convey. That the US would consider it a matter of "inter-arab affairs" was just like saying "we don't give a damn how you handle it". This, after 10 years of being treated as fair-haired son by the US. All the gas and weapons he wanted to wage war with Iran, all sorts of loans guaranteed by US Dept of Commerce, etc etc.

They set him up for what was to come.
Click to expand...

Ah, the DON'T DO THAT = DO THAT fantasy.....

You claim "That the US would consider it a matter of "inter-arab affairs" was just like saying "we don't give a damn how you handle it"" but in reality what was stated was "We would not take positions on the equities of bilateral Kuwaiti-Iraqi disputes, but we would insist that disputes be settled peacefully, not by threats or intimidation or, of course, by aggression."

Looks like we cared enough to clearly state "we would insist that disputes be settled peacefully, not by threats or intimidation or, of course, by aggression".

I guess you read that as "Invade Kuwait".
 
Thoreau72 said:
And that was PRECISELY the message, subliminal if you wish, that her supervisors wished to convey. That the US would consider it a matter of "inter-arab affairs" was just like saying "we don't give a damn how you handle it". This, after 10 years of being treated as fair-haired son by the US. All the gas and weapons he wanted to wage war with Iran, all sorts of loans guaranteed by US Dept of Commerce, etc etc.

They set him up for what was to come.
Click to expand...

What gas?
 
Fledermaus said:
Ah, the DON'T DO THAT = DO THAT fantasy.....

You claim "That the US would consider it a matter of "inter-arab affairs" was just like saying "we don't give a damn how you handle it"" but in reality what was stated was "We would not take positions on the equities of bilateral Kuwaiti-Iraqi disputes, but we would insist that disputes be settled peacefully, not by threats or intimidation or, of course, by aggression."

Looks like we cared enough to clearly state "we would insist that disputes be settled peacefully, not by threats or intimidation or, of course, by aggression".

I guess you read that as "Invade Kuwait".
Click to expand...

I am more perceptive than you Maus, with all due respect.

You cannot read between the lines, and you're not very good at connecting dots either. I do a better job at both than you do. Peace, bro.
 
Fledermaus said:
IRT the Shiites... Who said we wanted Saddam to remain in power? Who 'denied' them what exactly?
Click to expand...

Well , given the level of support the US had given him previously , and factoring in the situation with Iraq at the time , it doesn't take a genius to understand why a defanged Saddam , that you had " no problem " with , would be better than the alternatives.

Would the US have preferred a shia dominated Iraq that might forge better relations with the real US bogeymen in Iran ?

Would it give the finger to the Turks with regards to a Kurdish autonomous state in Iraq ?

No to both imo

So if that's the case fine just don't incite the people to revolt and them leave them high and dry to get massacred

The rebels were denied weapons captured by the coalition forces. Weapons they needed against Husseins mob that in many cases were just destroyed. Not only that , they were often disarmed by coalition forces whilst moving around the country
And the helicopters were a mistake by Schwartzkoff. A mistake he admitted to.
Click to expand...

Come on !

Haven't you sussed this out yet ? Mistake my arse

Why would you accent to attack helicopters being used for ferrying officials around ?
See... This is the sort of talking points I was talking about.

If the US intervenes they are evil. If they don't intervene they are evil.

What would you have the US do? Interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq? Is that what you would prefer?
Click to expand...

There's a lot to this like Kuwaits behaviour after the end of the Iran Iraq war with oil quotas ect and alleged slant drilling. The US long time goal of having a strong military presence in Saudi etc

All's I know is that the UN mandate didn't cover regime change ( and it wouldn't have in 2003 that's why it was never sought ) so once he was out of Kuwait the American leadership had absolutely no justification for inciting people to overthrow the Iraqi regime with millions of leaflets and speeches on the tv. Especially when the alternatives I listed above would have been unacceptable to the US.

Then you deny the people the weapons needed to overthrow Saddam and allow him use of helicopter gunships

I don't think the US or anyone else should interfere with the internal affairs of other countries . If the boot were on the other foot you wouldn't accept Iraqi interference in your country
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom