Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

A gathering fit for ghouls

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
happydreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:00 PM
Original message
A gathering fit for ghouls
Edited on Fri Dec-29-06 05:17 PM by happydreams
A day for the ghouls as they prepare to slay another hapless puppet of American geopolitics and Bush Dynasty intrigues. Saddam was twice given a greenlight by the first Bush Adminstration to attack Kuwait in the summer of 1990.

"We have no opinion on Arab border disputes" Ambassador Glaspie told Saddam when he indicated an interest in "annexing" Kuwait a few weeks before the invasion.

"The US has no treaty aggreements with Kuwait". Undersecretary of State John Kelly told the US Congress in a hearing over Iraq's troop movements a few days before the August 1,1990 invasion. A message that aired internationally. Kelly later acknowledged this was a deception.

"Come, let us go to the border" Saddam Hussein invited Glaspie, "I will show you" (the oil platforms angle drilling under the border with Kuwait into the Rumailiah oil field).

The theft of the oil, estimated at $2.5 billion, cost the war ravaged Iraq $89 billion in lost revenues. Hussein had lodged complaints over the previous few years to the UN and the Gulf Cooperation Council about Kuwaits actions, to no avail.
Coincidently $2.5 billion was the estimated value of an oil company named Santa Fe International whose manager, Brent Scowcroft, GW Bush's NSC, was given that job by its Kuwaiti owners. Was it Santa Fe International that was doing the angle drilling?

Kuwait, being a creation of the British Empire in the 20's was carved out of Iraq and Saddam claimed that it was a inherently a part of Iraq.

Here was Saddam, assessing the situation in 1990. The US had supported him in a tough war with Iran. We've seen the pictures of Rumsfeld shaking hands with him in the mid 1980's serving as Reagan's point man in the Mid-East. When he reportedly gassed the Kurds in 1988, the US did not impose sanctions. In fact both GW Bush and Henry Kissinger, the latter with his company "Kissinger and Associates" heavily invested in Iraq, encouraged Reagan not to sanction Iraq over the Kurds massacre. Business interests always trumped moral ones in the Bush dynasty.

Did this just encourage Saddam to become more aggressive? How could it not have?

What was Saddam to believe?
Maybe he remembered how Indonesia's Suharto was backed by the US when he "took" East Timor for the oil there in 1975 and maintained that backing afterwards. Timor was unquestionably a sovereign nation, Kuwait was arguably part of Iraqi territory. In the delicate geo-political calculus this could only have added to the "greenlight" effect.
"Did the US want him to be a Suharto of the Middle East", Saddam may have asked?

Is it not, at minimum, criminal neglect on the part of GW Bush to allow such ambiguity at such a crucial time?

After Iraq attacked Kuwait, having recieved NO warning from the US, the loud belligerent response from GW Bush. He even drew a "line in the sand" like another Texan, Will Travis, at the Alamo,
"This will not stand" said GH Bush, as eager to combat the "wimp" label he wore a the time.

Liberate Kuwait was the mantra. But Kuwait was a slave-holding country and would be after it was "liberated". This fact lost by the liberal media in the rush to war along with alot of other lies..."Belgian babies" removed from incubators in occupied Kuwait by Iraqi troops.

The flowing robed Al Sabahs hired the public relations firm of Hill and Knowlton to gloss over these uncomfortable truths before their tour of the US.

It was a new world since the Soviet collapse a few months before. No more worries by the Bushies about their reaction to the new geo-political balance of power. Maybe Saddam should have paid more attention to Kuwaiti influence of the US Treasury where it owned, in combination with the Saudis, over 10% of the US T-Bills. Like Manuel Noriega of Panama who had been ousted less than a year previously Saddam was a man who knew too much about the inner workings of the Bush dynasty--drugs, oil, chaos and murder.

If Saddam is hung it will be the closing of another sad and sordid chapter in the history fascism America. To be compared and contrasted with Hitler's "Night of the Longknives".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. Delete
Edited on Fri Dec-29-06 05:10 PM by Old and In the Way
duplicate post
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
2. It's been a non-stop 25 year war on Iraq by Big Oil and their political
front group, the Republican Party. We will need a Truth and Reconciliation Committee to make sure that the real history of our dealings with Iraq don't get buried along with Saddam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
happydreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. So much of the stuff I cite was in the news at the time
but only in bits and pieces.
The angle-drilling part was mentioned by Jimmy Carter on a TV interview. I corroborated it with research.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jan 19th 2018, 05:20 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC