US not interested in Assange extradition 'saga': ambassador
Source: Canberra Times
Nathan Paull
July 5, 2012
... ''I'm always surprised by the discussion about Julian Assange here, because for one thing, there has not been an indictment issued against Julian Assange,'' he said during Independence Day celebrations in Brisbane.
Mr Bleich said investigations were centred around US soldier Bradley Manning, not Assange, over the theft of classified information ...
''If we were going to extradite him, we could extradite him as easily from the UK or from Sweden, so we have no interest at all in that proceeding,'' he said ...
US Consul General for NSW and Queensland Niels Marquardt says US citizens aren't interested in what's happening with Assange. ''He's not the household name in the US that you might think,'' he said.
Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/us-not-interested-in-assange-extradition-saga-ambassador-20120704-21ht8.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Not interested? Sure, whatever you say, Mr. Ambassador. 
The official State Department discussion between Saddam and April Catherine Glaspie from July 25, 1990:
US 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 have lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country (after the Iran-Iraq war). 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 other 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?”
President 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 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.”
US Ambassador Glaspie:
“What solution would be acceptable?”
President 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 (which, in Iraq’s view, includes 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?”
US 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 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.“
July 23, 2008
Eighteen years ago, the infamous meeting between Saddam Hussein and April Glaspie took place. Most people only recall that April Glaspie, in her ambiguity, may have given Saddam a "green light" to enter Kuwait. But, there was much more to the meeting than this oft-told allegation. Saddam let Glaspie know that he and his government were well aware that the U.S. and Kuwait were attempting to undermine Iraq’s economy. Hindsight shows us today that this meeting dealt with many issues that were involved in the U.S. aggression against Iraq, not just the border problem with Kuwait.
Here is another interesting aspect of this conversation. Today, the U.S. public is complaining about gasoline prices, yet Saddam Hussein told April Glaspie that $25 a barrel was an equitable price and that some of his Arab counterparts wanted to increase the price. In 2003, the U.S. public was told that Iraq had to be invaded to ensure the flow of oil from the Middle East. Just the opposite was true.
Transcript of the meeting between Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, July 25, 1990
Transcript:
http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m45924&hd=&size=1&l=e
"yet Saddam Hussein told April Glaspie that $25 a barrel was an equitable price and that some of his Arab counterparts wanted to increase the price"
And there you have perhaps the biggest reason for taking out Saddam. He was pumping too much oil and depressing the OPEC price. So Bush,Baker, big oil banks and their good friends and partners in Saudi Arabia and OPEC conspired to crush the Iraqi military, demoralize the Iraqi people through deprivation, and later with the help of 16 Saudis, remove Saddam. This is the only reasonable conclusion to reach that covers all the evidence.
