Courtesy of your friendly neighbourhood Wikileaks mirror.
CABLE 90BAGHDAD4237, SADDAM'S MESSAGE OF FRIENDSHIP TO PRESIDENT BUSH
Important part here:
NOTE: ON THE BORDER QUESTION, SADDAM REFERRED TO THE 1961 AGREEMENT AND A "LINE OF PATROL" IT HAD ESTABLISHED. THE KUWAITIS, HE SAID, HAD TOLD MUBARAK IRAQ WAS 20 KILOMETERS "IN FRONT" OF THIS LINE. THE AMBASSADOR SAID THAT SHE HAD SERVED IN KUWAIT 20 YEARS BEFORE; THEN, AS NOW, WE TOOK NO POSITION ON THESE ARAB AFFAIRS.
Yeah, I'm a non-conformist asshole. Freely admitted.
But I like to think I'm the right kind of asshole.
I love you, Negs.
Yesterday's freedom fighter? Well, maybe, if he goes back in time and impregnates Sarah Connor or something.
Anyway, this little nugget is of particular interest. For years people like me have claimed that the first Bush Administration basically told Saddam not to expect any military repercussions if he decided to attack Kuwait-- if not exactly giving the green light, then certainly not putting any roadblocks in the way.
And now, thanks to Julian Assange & crew, we have it all in black and white.
Was this just a colossal foreign policy blunder? Or was Bush I planning to use the Iraq/Kuwait dispute as a pretext for a permanent military occupation of the Gulf region? Twenty years on, with everything that has gone down, it doesn't sound as far-fetched.
Actually, they were never given the 'Green Light', they were just given a "meh" and a shrug by the Americans. "We take no position on...." is completely accepted diplo-speak for everything from "I don't really know about that." all the way up to "I am not authorised to comment on that, but I am not going to say so." via "Shit, I didn't see that coming! Don't react, don't react, don't let them see you panic!!"
It was Thatcher that made Bush sit up and do something. Thatcher's arrival at Camp David a few days after the invasion is pinpointed as the point where it all started to go wrong for Saddam. This is historically accepted.
None of this was a "secret" of any kind.
It was also Saddam's continuation past the 20km line of partol, his reinforcement along the Kuwaiti border and maneouvers that looked very like he was about to have a crack at the Saudi's that pushed the allies / coalition past a strategy of containment and tolerating and way over to actually doing something. Don't forget that the coalition included quite a few Arab nations as well.
Like 75% (or more) of these Wikileaks, it's stuff that really isn't worth getting THAT excited over.
Thatcher may have kept Bush from "going wobbly," but she wasn't the driving force for setting Bush on a path to war against Iraq. Then as now, the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party, who had been gaining ground since the Reagan years, and the Israel Lobby, were instrumental in pushing a somewhat moderate president towards the greatest American military mobilization since WWII. This too is historically accepted.
Daltons chin dimple wrote:
It was also Saddam's continuation past the 20km line of partol, his reinforcement along the Kuwaiti border and maneouvers that looked very like he was about to have a crack at the Saudi's that pushed the allies / coalition past a strategy of containment and tolerating and way over to actually doing something.
It's now also accepted that this alleged Iraqi threat against Saudi territory, used to bolster the case for war, was based on dodgy, if not outright fabricated photographic "evidence".
Like father, like son.
Daltons chin dimple wrote:
Don't forget that the coalition included quite a few Arab nations as well.
If by "Arab nations," you are referring to an assortment of venal, corrupt autocracies bought and paid for by Western money, then yeah, you're right. But the overwhelming Arab public opinion of the time was most definitely antiwar.
With the Cold War over, securing key oil-rich areas throughout the troubled Muslim world (such as the Gulf, Central Asia) was made much easier. This fits a pattern seen many times in US foreign policy. All you need is the right justification, the right jingoism to sell it to uneducated or ill-informed voters, and some veneer of multilateral support, and you have your war.
Daltons chin dimple wrote:
Like 75% (or more) of these Wikileaks, it's stuff that really isn't worth getting THAT excited over.
Speak for yourself. As far as I'm concerned, Christmas came early last year. :)
Space Tycoon wrote:
Speak for yourself. As far as I'm concerned, Christmas came early last year. :)
Sarkozy is short.
Berlesconi is a womaniser and an idiot.
Cameron is a lightweight.
It's hardly Watergate!
Daltons chin dimple wrote:
It's hardly Watergate!
You're right. Everything's just fine.
Nothing to see here folks! Your government has your best interests at heart.
Space Tycoon wrote:
You're right. Everything's just fine. Nothing to see here folks! Your government has your best interests at heart.
Ah, I didn't say that. I also don't subscribe to the eeeeeeeevil master plan as reported on www.reactionaryliberalwhoisnotreallyliberal.com.
It's realpolitik and the truth is somewhere between the two.
I also like Cameron, but I think he needs to grow a pair on a number of issues.
Daltons chin dimple wrote:
I don't subscribe to the eeeeeeeevil master plan
Your avatar suggests differently, ha ha. ;)
Wikileaks doesn't deal in conspiracy theories or unprovable allegations. Neither do I. Truth is much more interesting.
Julian Assange, Pvt. Bradley Manning and many others have finally restored the promise and the purpose of the Internet: a free and open exposition of unpleasant facts, most of which the powers that be would rather whitewash, ignore, or spin. For that they are being punished.
If Cablegate is no big deal, why have columnists in major newspapers (including a Canadian newspaper) been calling for Assange's immediate execution? Why are right-wingers forming common cause with radical feminists in accusing him of "rape," based on some otherworldy, Scandinavian, ultraleft interpretation of consensual sexual relations?
Because Wikiileaks and its many mirror sites, have touched a nerve. They have started something glorious. Full disclosure. Openness.
Whether the bullies and thieves who run the world like it or not.
There is an amusing level of hypocrisy in self-appointed champions of a free press calling for the execution of somebody, I'll grant you, but total lack of a sense of irony is something that US politicians on both sides of the House are known for outside the USA and is not new. I also think that if you scratched the surface in most other Western nations I think you could find examples.
The whole Assange rape issue would be amusing, if it didn't involve rape, because of the sheer spin it has got the left into. There has also been a similar effect regarding the phone tapping scandal that was unfolding over here in the UK before the left went suspiciously quiet over it.
Daltons chin dimple wrote:
The whole Assange rape issue would be amusing, if it didn't involve rape, because of the sheer spin it has got the left into.
From what I've read, it doesn't sound like he raped anybody. Unless, as I say, one happens to be a radical feminist who sees rape anywhere and everywhere.
To put all TV actresses on an even playing field, rape arcs should be inserted for all of them.
Add Comment
neglet
Location:
Posts: 1434
Posted: 13 years 16 weeks ago
I don't know why you all keep complaining we can't see who starts threads on the forum listings. I knew exactly who started this one as soon as I saw the title.