US soldier refuses to serve in ‘illegal Iraq war’

Cordelier · #**371** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

I would have dealt with Saddam prior to his going into Kuwait...I would not have allowed our Ambassador to indicate to him that we weren't concerned and that that issue was a local matter...we set him up for failure...the real question is why did he fall out of favor with Bush Sr/Cheney/RumDum?

What was that all about?

The question was what Clinton could have done differently, though.

I think Bush, Sr. was as surprised as anyone when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

nefarious_plot · #**372** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 09:32 PM

This is like some dumb bar room brawl. You dint like the fact the guy ingored you and "dissed" you. Its the pathetic reason to start a war. Over the ten years nothing signifigant came from this weaker and weaker military. The Americans are simply cowards to claim they are threatend from military this antiquated and weak

areyoushittin'me? · #**373** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Resolution 1441 gave Iraq one last chance to comply with it's obligation to provide "an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure" of all aspects of it's weapons programmes. Paragraph 4 stated that "any false statements or omissions" in this submission would constitute a further material breach of Resolution 687.

On December 7, 2002, Iraq submitted a 12,000 page document which they purported to be it's final disclosure... this report, by Dr. Blix's own statement before the Security Council on January 27, 2003, fell far short of the mark and was rife with factual omissions and false statements.

Paragraph 13 warned Iraq of "serious consequences" for continued non-compliance. Paragraph 2 expressly stated that this was Iraq's final opportunity for compliance.

How many "final chances" was Iraq supposed to have before the Coalition was justified in using military action? Resolution 678 gave the authority to use force - it was the authority under which the Coalition operated in the Gulf War and maintaining the no-fly zones for 12 years. Going from Operation Desert Storm to the No-Fly Zones to Operation Iraqi Freedom was simply a matter of degree.

A final opportunity is a final opportunity - there was no need whatsoever for the Security Council to pass another Resolution to state the obvious - that Iraq had squandered it's final opportunity to live up to it's ceasefire obligations.

We've been over this enough...read what was provided for near the end...going back to the UNSC.

Cordelier · #**374** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

We've been over this enough...read what was provided for near the end...going back to the UNSC.

So I'm dismissed, then?

Look, if you don't have an adequate response to my arguments, just come out and say so. If you just want to agree to disagree, that's alright too. But you don't get to wave me off and say "we've been over this enough" - that's just a dick move.

areyoushittin'me? · #**375** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

The question was what Clinton could have done differently, though.

No...you asked, "What would you have done and when would you have done it if you were President instead of Clinton?"...lol...I realize you meant to turn it onto Clinton but I figured to address an even more important point which I notice you avoided.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

I think Bush, Sr. was as surprised as anyone when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Well then, he's a damn fool andwasn't paying attention...something which I don't believe...check this out...

Quote:

APRIL GLASPIE TRANSCRIPT

Yes, remember April Glaspie and her amazing stint at Middle East diplomacy?

Saddam-Glaspie meeting

Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. - July 25, 1990 (Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait)

July 25, 1990 - Presidential Palace - Baghdad

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) 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?

Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptable?

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 (i.e., in Saddams view, including 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. (Saddam smiles)

On August 2, 1990, Saddam's massed troops invade and occupy Kuwait. _____

Baghdad, September 2, 1990, U.S. Embassy

One month later, British journalists obtain the the above tape and transcript of the Saddam - Glaspie meeting of July 29, 1990. Astounded, they confront Ms. Glaspie as she leaves the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

Journalist 1 - Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador?(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond)

Journalist 2 - You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait ) but you didn't warn him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite - that America was not associated with Kuwait.

Journalist 1 - You encouraged this aggression - his invasi on. What were you thinking?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.

Journalist 1 - You thought he was just going to take some of it? But, how could you? Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed , he would give up his Iran (Shatt al Arab waterway) goal for the Whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be. You know that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as an historic part of their country!
Journalist 1 - American green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signaling Saddam that some aggression was okay - that the U.S. would not oppose a grab of the al-Rumeilah oil field, the disputed border strip and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan) - the territories claimed by Iraq?

(Ambassador Glaspie says nothing as a limousine door closed behind her and the car drives off.)

Bush basically gave Saddam the green light...my question is WHY?

AND, why in hell didn't we tell him if he went into Kuwait we'd kick his ass?

areyoushittin'me? · #**376** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

So I'm dismissed, then?

Look, if you don't have an adequate response to my arguments, just come out and say so. If you just want to agree to disagree, that's alright too. But you don't get to wave me off and say "we've been over this enough" - that's just a dick move.

Jeezus H...I'm not dismissing you...I said go read what actions were then called for and indicated you would find it near the bottom...must I dig it up again and quote it to you? I'll be happy to do so if you can't handle it on your own.

areyoushittin'me? · #**377** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

If you just want to agree to disagree, that's alright too.

We could do that but it doesn't appear that many are too concerned with the OP and we are just beginning to have some fun...after looking at the BushCoSr position vis a vie Glaspie we can get into why we didn't find the mass quantities of troops that were "amassed on the Saudi border" that were shown to be there in the satellite photos that nobody saw except the Saudi's and we can also look into the Hill and Knowleton advertising lies about babies being thrown out of incubators in Kuwait.

No, no, way to much fun yet to come regarding Bushshit Wars I and II.

Tileman · #**378** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 10:12 PM

OUCH!...

Once again having your ass handed to you, but this time from a Canadian? *it's gotta hurt*

areyoushittinme? You are trying to make a case of the fact no single resolution says *WAR IS IMMENENT ON THIS DAY AND TIME IF YOU DO NOT COMPLY*... That is where your logic is seriously misguided.

To use your *same illogical stance* with equal merit could claim the exact opposite of no resolution preventing military action.....
---Now, since we have proved that your stance of NO RESOLUTION that stipulates a military action has to be taken AND NO RESOLUTION that stipulates military action is approved we have to review all previous resolutions in their entirety...

None said INVADE NOW, NONE said DON'T INVADE. What is most important is the previous resolutions that were *STILL ACTIVE BY THE UN SINCE NO RESOLUTION HAD VOIDED, CHANGED NOR CONTRADICTED THEM* was present even though they were submitted but failed to even reach a vote is the most influencial of all evidence! That WOULD explain why previous resolutions were absolutely active regardless of the date they were passed.

Now, soak in the reality a little while and recognize there was NOT ONE RESOLUTION that says nobody can attack on any given date! The BEST you can muster is resolutions that state *not immediate* which is NOT an argument.

Can we can back to the topic if a soldier that deserve to be in the STOCKADE? he broke his damn contract!

Cordelier · #**379** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

No...you asked, "What would you have done and when would you have done it if you were President instead of Clinton?"...lol...I realize you meant to turn it onto Clinton but I figured to address an even more important point which I notice you avoided.

I was addressing Nefarious' comment about 10 years of doing nothing about Iraq's ceasefire violations, the bulk of which covered Clinton's term in office.

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

Well then, he's a damn fool andwasn't paying attention...something which I don't believe...check this out...

Bush basically gave Saddam the green light...my question is WHY?

AND, why in hell didn't we tell him if he went into Kuwait we'd kick his ass?

Nobody though Iraq would be stupid enough to invade Kuwait - the buildup of Iraqi forces in the south was just taken to be characteristic posturing by Saddam.

If they thought Saddam was bluffing, then why worsen relations by making unnecessary threats? Saddam knew that Kuwait was allied with the US, and as far as Bush was concerned, he should have known that the US would side with Kuwait in any conflict. The problem was that Ambassador Glaspie was talking diplomatically and Saddam had anything but a diplomatic mentality. He heard what he wanted to hear.

Cordelier · #**380** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

Jeezus H...I'm not dismissing you...I said go read what actions were then called for and indicated you would find it near the bottom...must I dig it up again and quote it to you? I'll be happy to do so if you can't handle it on your own.

Are you referring to Paragraph 12 of Resolution 1441? That the Security Council had to convene upon receipt of the report?