I’m not saying it’s impossible to create a fabrication, I’m asking for proof, besides Glaspie’s statements, that this transcript was even 10% fabricated.
Perhaps Iraq expected the “strong reaction” to be a breakoff of diplomatic relations and a complaint to the UN. Perhaps they thought it would be a denial of Most Favored Nation status. I don’t think Iraq had considered the possibility that the US’ reaction would be to bomb their country back to the 1700s and starve the population for ten years through stringent sanctions -or if they did, that there wasn’t a good chance of that happening.
If Iraq didn’t think the US gave them the green light, then why in the hell did they invade Kuwait?
Based on that factor alone, then it looks like Iraq got the green light, doesn’t it? If they didn’t believe they’d gotten the green light, most likely they wouldn’t have invaded Kuwait.
Made after the fact. Everything that happened in August 1991 indicates that Iraq believed it had gotten the green light. If Glaspie’s statement is definitively proven to be a fabrication, then we can say “The US did not give Iraq the green light” and move on.
elucidator, read it again - Glaspie didn’t say “strong response,” Aziz did. Whatever Glaspie said, the Iraqis believed there would be a “strong response.”
Well, thats fine, Sua, but my point stands nonetheless. If the consequences of any given action is “war” that must be stated in no uncertain terms. A policeman does not shout “Halt! Or there will be consequences!”.
OK. Why would Aziz lie “after the fact”? What benefit derived to Aziz or Iraq by falsely asserting, in effect, that the transcript was fabricated?
Let’s start with definitions; how do you define “green light”? I define green light as words that leave the impression “do whatever the hell you want to; we don’t care.” You seem to define it as anything less than “if you invade Iraq, we will declare war on you.”
If that is your definition, I find your position ironic – wouldn’t that be a pretty damn imperialistic thing to do, threatening military force against a weaker sovereign country if they don’t do what the US wants them to do?
But as for why Iraq invaded if there wasn’t a green light, I can think of lots of reasons:
They misunderstood the US position;
They didn’t take the US position seriously;
They thought they could blackmail the US to prevent it from responding militarily by threatening to cut off the Saudi supply; and
They thought they could beat the US military.
Your “green light” theory is one of five options. The evidence for it is contradicted by the (then) #2 man in Iraq. Yet before you will abandon your unsupported theory, you demand that the US prove a negative.
Adding to Sua’s comments, even if Bush had signed a treaty saying that the US had no problem with Iraq taking over Kuwait, that still would not have been a green light, because Kuwait wasn’t ours to give. Unless you accept the proposition that the US either owns the whole world or that we are the accepted policeman, judge, jury, and caretaker for the whole world.
Grimpixie, I disagree that, “Proving that Iraq has WoMD should be easy - find them.” America has WMDs, namely anthrax. Our entire government hasn’t been able to find it after a year of searching. What chance would anyone have of finding anthrax in Iraq against the active oppostion of their government?
BTW, the answer to the OP in practice is that it’s Iraq’s point to prove. Why? Because that’s George Bush’s answer, and he has the biggest vote.
Whoa whoa whoa, I’m not asking the US to prove a negative - I’m asking you to. Secondly, I’m outraged because the US, which is the possessor of one of, if not the largest arsenals of WMD in the world, is arrogant enough to call another country with far less - if any - WMD a “threat to civilization” and threaten war if its demands for proof are not satisfied. It has nothing to do with who’s being required to do what.
So you believe that the US is the world’s policeman.
Well, Iraq has broken international law by violating the Gulf War resolutions. Why are you opposed to the world’s policeman enforcing international law?
But, Olentzero, doesn’t the nation that you assert is obliged to stop sovereign nations from invading other sovereign nations need to have more and bigger weapons, so that it can effectively act in the role you have assigned it as the world’s policeman?
A cop armed with a peashooter isn’t very effective.
Sua: I want you to do something for me. It’s obvious, even from here, that you’re getting too worked up to continue this debate rationally.
Close your eyes, breathe deeply, and count to ten.
Take a quick walk around the office. Go get a drink of water or something.
Are you calmed down yet? OK, let’s continue.
I’m not asserting that Aziz definitely lied in 1992 - but there is a contradiction here, namely whether or not Glaspie made a statement a transcript claims she made. If the statement was not made, then the transcript is fabricated and Aziz told the truth in 1992. If Glaspie did make the statement, then whether other parts of the transcript were fabricated is irrelevant, and Aziz’ statment that “we did not get the green light” is false. Nothing has been proven either way.
I’m going to put your “definition” and Glaspie’s statement in the same quote box, and I want you to tell me how they differ.
It seems to me that Glaspie’s statement fits rather well in your definition of “green light”, does it not?
Where did I assert that? Besides, doesn’t “do whatever the hell you want; we don’t care” fall under that category?
My sentiments exactly. How is that ironic?
How is it unsupported? We have a statement by a US ambassador that matches your definition for “green light”. It hasn’t yet been proven that the statement wasn’t made - and there’s nothing inherently wrong with asking anyone to prove something is not true - so the theory is still pretty strongly supported.
after previewing
Of course, “the US” is not code for SuaSponte, and the only thing I stand guilty of there is an editing mistake. Better it should have been “when it is proven” or something more general.
erislover, that perspectice isn’t one that’s all that far out there. Allow me to reproduce an exchange between Leslie Stahl and Madeleine Albright from a “60 Minutes” interview on 12 May 1996:
No, that is, apparently, a misinterpretation on my part. I assumed that your talk about the “green light” was relevant. The only relevance I can see is if the US had a duty or obligation to tell the Iraqi government what they can or cannot do.
If you are not saying that the US has such an obligation, I’m curious - what is the relevance of this whole green light business?
You ever heard of the concept of a busybody, Sua? They feel they can go in and meddle about in other people’s affairs because they can, rather than out of a sense of duty or obligation. Schoolyard bullies often do the same thing.
The US has no duty or obligation to tell Iraq what to do and what not to do, but that’s not going to prevent them from doing so when they want to.
The relevance of the whole “green light” business is that if Glaspie’s statements are not fabrications of the Iraqi government, then the whole justification for the US going in to “stand up against dictators for freedom and democracy” (not that Kuwait was - or is - a democracy) falls apart.
Actually, I’m having a lot of fun. You are posting amazingly self-contradictory stuff, and it’s a blast to pick apart the illogics in your posts.
This ain’t anger; I’ve simply tasted blood and I liiiiiiiiiiiiiike it!!
Now, on to your latest post.
Um, the motivations and interests of Aziz are irrelevant? Why would Aziz lie? The Iraqis released the transcript (real or fabricated) for a reason, and the reason was to assert that the US had given them the “green light.” Why would Aziz undermine that Iraqi goal?
In law, we call this a ‘statement against interest.’ A statement against interest is inherently considered to be more likely to be true than a statement that advances a party’s interest.
Because your position appears to be that the US did something wrong by not instructing a weaker power (Iraq) to act as the US wanted (not invade Kuwait), under threat of military force.
Once again, if you do not consider it the US’s job to tell Iraq not to invade Kuwait, what is the relevance of whatever Glaspie said? If she had given Iraq a firm red light, wouldn’t that have been the very type of “imperialist” action you so despise? Or is it only “imperialist” when you don’t like it?
Could be a case of saying “You are” when the guy who just pounded the living shit out of you asks you “Who’s your daddy?”
Let me try to restate it, simply. Two scenarios:
Glaspie did actually say “We have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts.” (I think by now we’re in agreement, under your definition, that this is a “green light” statement. If not, please explain how this does not fall under the “do whatever the hell you want; we don’t care” definition you provided earlier.) Therefore Aziz lied in 1992 when he said “Iraq didn’t get the green light.”
Glaspie made no such statement and the transcript, as far as that statement is concerned, is a fabrication. Aziz is therefore not lying when he said “Iraq didn’t get the green light”, but that’s not saying they got a red light either.
Now, since neither scenario has been definitely eliminated as yet, speculation as to why Aziz would lie is useless. It hasn’t been proven that he lied. Speculation on reasons he wouldn’t lie is not proof that he didn’t.
Does the law equate “inherent consideration” with solid proof? Or does the law require further verification?
Because if she did say it, therefore giving Iraq the green light, using the invasion of Kuwait as justification for the Gulf War becomes hypocritical.
Glaspie: “We have no opinion on your conflicts.”
Hussein: “OK.” invades Kuwait
George HW Bush: “You invaded Kuwait. We’re gonna carpet bomb you now.”
This makes sense to you?
Of course I would have despised that action as well. The US has invaded dozens of countries over the past century, basically whenever it felt like it. Where does it get off telling other countries whether it can or can’t invade?
If this is a compromise that “none of us know what actually happened,” I accept it.
Actually, yes it does.
To analogize - two friends of yours are both interested in the same girl. They are bickering and yelling at each other.
You say, ‘don’t even try to drag me into this one. I’m not getting involved.’
Thereupon, one of your friends hauls off and slugs the other, then starts bashing his head into the ground. You drag the slugger off the sluggee, hitting several times in the process.
The sluggee turns around and says, “why the hell did you drag me off him? You said you weren’t getting involved?”
You respond, “I didn’t say you could hit him!”
Are you a hypocrite?
If the US says it has no opinion as to who is right and wrong as to a border dispute, that means the US has no opinion as to who is right and wrong in a border dispute. It doesn’t mean, “and furthermore, if you want to invade and occupy the guy you’re having this dispute with, that’s cool, too.”
To fine-tune the analogy a bit, not only did you hit the initiator, you cracked a couple of ribs, punctured a lung, and broke both his arms. Of course, that pisses a friend of his off, who takes it upon himself to kick you square in the testicles at a party you’re all attending. So you pound the shit out of him, and then turn on the fellow that started the fight over the girl and do more damage to him because he might start a fight with you again - for telling him who he could and couldn’t hit or because you just beat his friend to a pulp - even though both his arms are still in casts.
Personally, I still think the evidence that Glaspie did make the statement outweighs the evidence that she didn’t. I still plan on using it as an argument against the war in Iraq.
