That’s really impressive, Chumpsky. You demand that I provide evidence to back up my charge against you, yet you ignore the evidence I already presented, evidence which I note came from your own citation.
If you missed it, here it is again, from the Christian Science Monitor.
Is it your position, Chumpsky, that Deputy Prime Minister Aziz was lying? That the United States, through Glaspie, gave Iraq permission to invade Kuwait, but for mysterious reasonos Aziz decided to deny that his government was acting with permission?
All you have to support your position is an Iraqi document that the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq has disavowed.
What, did Saddam forget to send Aziz the memo?
You somehow keep missing that bit from your own citation. Weird.
As for your second Glaspie quote:
Your cite links to page titled “Quotes of the 20th Century.” There is nothing provided as to date - which leads to an interesting question: you said that Glaspie said this “shortly after the Iraqi invasion.” Where did you get that timing from - or did you make that up, too?
Your “cite” also doesn’t tell us to whom Glaspie purportedly made that statement, where, why, etc.
But hey, you got a quote off the Internet with no other information. Must be true. After all, I found this quote from Dan Quayle on another quotations website, brainyquote.com
“I was recently on a tour of Latin America,and the only regret I have was that I didn’t study Latin harder in school so I could converse with those people.”
Sua, history shows that Social Security was in a separate budget until it was made part of the unified budget because it made it look good. No other reason. There is zero, as in 0, chance that Social Security will ever be financed, in your lifetime or mine, by anything other than the tax dedicated to it.
Highways have always run a surplus. I don’t know where you got the data that they haven’t or that they ever weren’t in surplus. That fund has been used since the Dead Sea was sick to cover up deficits in general revenues. So if you’ve got any proof that this is not the case, show it.
The political point is not being made by me, it’s being made by the Presidents who have in the past bounced Social Security in and out of the budget on a whim.
Finally, the debt rose by 421 billion because of spending that was outside of the trust funds. The trust funds cut the net interest payments of the government by 170 billion, by the surpluses that they run. This serves to hide just how badly general tax revenues are falling behind the actual expenditures of the government. The largest of those expenses is defense. Inconvenient for you, but that doesn’t make it any less true.
You would do well to investigate instead why the government reports a deficit that is less than half of the real deficit as shown on the web site above, put out by that wild leftist organization The Bureau of the Public Debt, rather than believing at face value the figures reported in the papers. This is real money, the tax dollars that you and I pay that’s being burned up like there’s no tomorrow. Which there might not be, if everyone just ignores the facts because they’re inconvenient. The simple fact of the matter is that tax revenues even today are falling very badly short of the actual expenses being run. Further tax cuts will make that worse. Further increases in defense spending at the same time as these taxes are being cut will really cause it to balloon. If you don’t mind that, fine, but at least make the decision with all of the facts properly lined up. 421 billion is pretty close to half a trillion, as a deficit, in one year. Even for the Feds, that’s real money.
BTW, I got that site from a rightward leaning source which described it as “the most honest government web site” he’d ever seen.
I missed this gem on the first go round, but if you’re going to state that actual Social Security funds are being spent for general revenue purposes, you’re going to have to back that up. I’ve never heard anyone say that.
Debt is being issued, and that debt is partially being absorbed by the trust fund surpluses, Social Security’s surplus included. But the source of the money is not and legally can’t be Social Security, or the Highway trust fund or any other trust fund, for that matter.
All screed quoted was originally spewed by Chumpsky
And
It’s always the innocent little dictators that are misled by the big bad democratic warmongers. Someone should do something about that!
Wait a second. You’re arguing that the US has no business being involved in the dealings of other countries. This entire thread has seen you repeatedly and viehamently ( sadly, not coherently ) contesting that we should stay within our own borders, and now this? Which is it?
And finally, most astonishingly:
How can we note this? This is what you are trying to prove! You can’t state your conclusion as a prerequsite for you proof! It’s circular reasoning!
Finally, what about Sua’s post? His refutation of your assertations that the US invited Iraq to invade Kuwait? All you have posted to conter that is a document from an Iraqi sourse that claims to be a transcript of the meeting. That is hardly an unbiased source. You’ve also ignored the statements by Iraq’s own minister posted by Sua that give lie to your assertations. Is this the “ignore it and hope it goes away” school of debate?
That is not what I have said, but it is beside the point. The point of the remarks about U.S. inaction with regard to Iraq’s aggression is that the U.S. knew that the dispute would lead to armed conflict, but showed no interest in “defending” Kuwait, in effect giving the green light to Saddam.
This does not hinge on statements ambassador Glaspie may or may not have said. Rather, it is replete in the record. For example, on July 31, 1990 (2 days before the invasion of Kuwait), the US Assistant Secretary of state John Kelly testified on Capitol Hill before the Middle East subcommittee of the House of Representatives. He was asked repeatedly to clarify the U.S. position regarding Iraq, with the knowledge that Iraqi tanks were amassing on Kuwait’s border. A partial transcript reads as follows:
Representative Hamilton: Defense Secretary Richard Cheney has been quoted in the press as saying that the United States was commited to going to the defese of Kuwait if she were attacked. Is that exactly what was said? Could Mr Kelly clarify this?
Assistant Secretary Kelly: … We have no defense treaty relationship with any Gulf country…
Hamilton: Do we have a commitment to our friends in the Gulf in the event that they are engaged in oil or territorial disputes with their neighbors?
Kelly: As I said, Mr Chairman, we have no defense treaty relationships with any of the countries. We have historically avoided taking a position on border disputes or on internal OPEC deliberations…
Hamilton: If Iraq, for example, charged across the border into Kuwait, for whatever reason, what would be our position with regard to the use of US forces?
Kelly: That, Mr Chairman, is a hypothetical or a contingency, the kind of which I can’t get into. Suffice it to say that we would be extremely concerned, but I cannot get into the realm of “what if” answers.
Hamilton: In that circumstance, is it correct to say, however, that we do not have a treaty commitment which would obligate us to engage US forces?
Kelly: That is correct.
Hamilton: That is correct, is it not?
Kelly: That is correct, sir.
These statements were broadcast on the BBC, and were heard in Baghdad. This was a clear signal that the U.S. would not intervene. It couldn’t get any clearer.
From the same site referenced above:
In short, the U.S. sent very clear messages to Iraq that it was free to take over at least the oil fields on the border. Whether this was misinterpreted to mean a green light for a full invasion is, of course, an open question, like I said before.
Incidentally, there is a site on Iraq I can’t recommend too highly, here: http://pilger.carlton.com/iraq
This is the site of John Pilger, who has done some truly extraordinary journalism on many subjects, including Iraq. Check it out, especially the video.
we spend so much on defense because of all the research and testing that goes on. That black budget stuff gets expensive. Secondly, because war is good business. It stimulates the economy. So we start conflicts and then get involved.
Bullshit. You could take that Kelly-Hamilton colloquy, change the name from Kuwait to Taiwan, and it would be a concise statement of U.S. policy towards the China-Taiwan dispute. Does that mean that China has a “green light” to attack Taiwan? No.
For someone so opposed to the U.S. military, you have an odd view of that military’s role in the world. Should the U.S. have stated that it would intervene? Under your lights that would have been an imperialist power grab defending an evil monarchy.
Your argument is that the U.S. is responsible for making the rules for the world, and it is culpable if it doesn’t act in an imperialist manner. Pretty odd argument coming from you.
But all of this is moot. You keep saying the Iraqis got a “green light.” You consistently refuse to address the simple fact that, as Tarik Aziz stated, the Iraqis did not believe they had a green light.
Don’t you get it yet? Your position is that the Iraqis believed that they could invade Kuwait with no response from the U.S. If the Iraqis believed there would be a response, your position is incorrect.
And what did the Iraqis believe? Well, for the third time, let’s ask the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq:
“Mr. Aziz, did Iraq believe that the U.S. had given them a green light to invade Kuwait?”
Hmm, interesting. The Iraqis knew the United States would have a strong reaction to their invasion. They didn’t think they had permission.
Why do you keep insisting that they thought they had permission.
As the quote above illustrates, the U.S. sent very clear signals that there would be no U.S. military response, that it would be given a pass to invade. There would, of course, have to be some kind of response, but the nature of this response was what was in question.
Let’s take another example of a U.S. ally invading another country to get some idea of what the Iraqis thought they could expect. Consider, for example, Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor in 1975. The invasion was immediately condemned by the U.N., even including the U.S. However, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Daniel Patrick Moynihan, wrote in his memoirs that he went to the U.N. on State Department orders to ensure “that whatever action the U.N. carried out would be utterly ineffective.” This he succeeded in doing, as he brags in his book, “with not inconsiderable success.” He notes that within months 60,000 were dead, 1/10 of the population. This number would grow to over 200,000, 1/3 of the population.
So, Iraq most likely expected that the U.S. would make some noises, but would not do anything about it. Indeed, this was exactly the message the U.S. was sending to Iraq.
And, by the way, after a bit of research, the USA Today article appears to be at least misleading, if not an outright deception. Here is a site dealing with the Aziz quote, with quotes from Milton Viorst’s book Sandcastles: http://www.psych.upenn.edu/~fjgil/Aziz.html
Viorst notes of the Iraqi transcript that, “It covered more ground than Glaspie’s account, and though she characterized it as incomplete, the State Department never challenged the accuracy of its content.” The briefing Glaspie gave in congress, when she tried to do some damage control, simply reiterates my point, that Iraq was given the message that the U.S. would not respond to Iraq taking over at least the oil fields.
And, as I have been stressing, this issue does not hinge on one interview with Glaspie. Rather, there was a whole series of events and statements coming from the U.S. sending a very clear message to Iraq.
Good points, I tend to think the left hand didn’t know what the right hand was doing. Maybe we would have left Saddam alone if all he took was the oil fields. Who knows.
I see your getting lots of tactful comments from the debate brigade.
A simple examination of the Gulf War timeline (drawn from PBS):
Aug. 2, 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait. U.N. demands withdrawl.
Aug. 9, 1990: First U.S. forces arrinve in Saudi Arabia.
Dec. 17, 1990: U.N. sets deadline for Iraqi withdrawl on Jan. 15, 1991.
Jan. 15, 1991: Deadline passes without Iraqi withdrawl.
Jan. 17, 1991: Operation “Desert Storm” begins.
Feb. 26, 1991: Saddam Hussein announces Iraqi withdrawl from Kuwait.
Chumpsky, I realize you have some bizarre erotic fixation on the idea that the United States is the most evil organization in the history of the universe, if not for all time, but don’t even dream that the people on this board are idiots who will gladly accept your particular line of complete bullshit. You’re trying to imply that the U.S. gave implicit permission for Iraq to invade Kuwait because they didn’t explicitly speak against it. By that logic, if I never explicity said publicly “Don’t burn down the shed behind Chumpsky’s house”, I could be held partly responsible if an arsonist decided to torch your rain-soaked collection of back issues of Cosmopolitan and Hustler.
By the way, people; please don’t burn down the shed behind Chumpsky’s house.
Anyhoo, the timeline listed shows the falsehood of your premise that the U.S. encouraged an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and then pounced instantly in some bizarre political strategy. Fully five-and-a-half months passed between the initial invasion and Desert Storm. During that time, Iraq could easily have withdrawn. Had they done so before Jan 15, they probably would have escaped military retribution of any kind. Regardless of any possible mixed signals they got before Aug. 2, Iraq certainly had plenty of time afterward to withdraw when the international outcry started and the U.S. gradually built up forces in the neighboring nations. Are you claiming that the U.S. somehow took advantage of Iraq’s immense stupidity? What are you claiming, anyway, beside the repetitive “U.S. = Evil” statement?
Iraq is solely responsible for the invasion. Even if the U.S. had given explicit permission, how does that mitigate anything? How does having one neighbor’s permission to kill another neighbor reduce your own responsibility?
Maybe in your world it does. In that case, I’d better be careful, because if I don’t tell everybody on the SDMB not to torture your pets, I’ll be responsible if one of them decides to torture your pets.
By the way, people, please don’t torture Chumpsky’s pets.