Good questions Harry but your knowledge of one
element throws doubt on your whole argument. It is a well
documented fact and I have posted to the list documentation from several news
sources that Sadaam invaded Kuwait BECAUSE he had been driven bankrupt by the
war with Iran where he served as a surrogate for the US. Also he
asked the US Ambassador to explore the US policy with regard to invading Kuwait
BEFORE he did it. The Ambassador said that America would have no
problem with it.
Once again, a careful look shows Saddam was neither mindlessly aggressive nor particularly reckless. If anything, the evidence supports the opposite conclusion.Saddam’s decision to invade Kuwait was primarily an attempt to deal with Iraq’s continued vulnerability. Iraq’s economy, badly damaged by its war with Iran, continued to decline after that war ended. An important cause of Iraq’s difficulties was Kuwait’s refusal both to loan Iraq $10 billion and to write off debts Iraq had incurred during the Iran-Iraq War. Saddam believed Iraq was entitled to additional aid because the country helped protect Kuwait and other Gulf states from Iranian expansionism. To make matters worse, Kuwait was overproducing the quotas set by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which drove down world oil prices and reduced Iraqi oil profits. Saddam tried using diplomacy to solve the problem, but Kuwait hardly budged. As Karsh and fellow Hussein biographer Inari Rautsi note, the Kuwaitis “suspected that some concessions might be necessary, but were determined to reduce them to the barest minimum.”
Saddam reportedly decided on war sometime in July 1990, but before sending his army into Kuwait, he approached the United States to find out how it would react. In a now famous interview with the Iraqi leader, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam, “[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.” The U.S. State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had “no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.” The United States may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did.Saddam invaded Kuwait in early August 1990. This act was an obvious violation of international law, and the United States was justified in opposing the invasion and organizing a coalition against it. But Saddam’s decision to invade was hardly irrational or reckless. Deterrence did not fail in this case; it was never tried.The answer is no. Once again, a careful look shows Saddam was neither mindlessly aggressive nor particularly reckless. If anything, the evidence supports the opposite conclusion.Saddam’s decision to invade Kuwait was primarily an attempt to deal with Iraq’s continued vulnerability. Iraq’s economy, badly damaged by its war with Iran, continued to decline after that war ended. An important cause of Iraq’s difficulties was Kuwait’s refusal both to loan Iraq $10 billion and to write off debts Iraq had incurred during the Iran-Iraq War. Saddam believed Iraq was entitled to additional aid because the country helped protect Kuwait and other Gulf states from Iranian expansionism. To make matters worse, Kuwait was overproducing the quotas set by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which drove down world oil prices and reduced Iraqi oil profits. Saddam tried using diplomacy to solve the problem, but Kuwait hardly budged. As Karsh and fellow Hussein biographer Inari Rautsi note, the Kuwaitis “suspected that some concessions might be necessary, but were determined to reduce them to the barest minimum.”
Saddam reportedly decided on war sometime in July 1990, but before sending his army into Kuwait, he approached the United States to find out how it would react. In a now famous interview with the Iraqi leader, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam, “[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.” The U.S. State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had “no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.” The United States may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did.Saddam invaded Kuwait in early August 1990. This act was an obvious violation of international law, and the United States was justified in opposing the invasion and organizing a coalition against it. But Saddam’s decision to invade was hardly irrational or reckless. Deterrence did not fail in this case; it was never tried.
So Harry, I think you can never truly know
an enemy until you understand the rational and the best that he has
done. Thus far this has been embarrassingly amateur hack
work. Its obvious that this administration has little culture and a
very poor knowledge of rational history. Bookworms trapped in
the library of their own inadequacies.
Perhaps you could enlighten me about the
enemy. I've listed the questions before.
What kind of society does he have compared
to other despots?
What kind of Moslem is he?
Is his brutality common in his
culture?
(Can we be sure that the deferential
man that we had as a President and CIA Director is not as brutal?)
The reason for being concerned is the
ability to know the future of work in Iraq. Sadaam replaced
someone we didn't like only to become someone we didn't like as
well. The problem of culture is that America is English and so
is America's Democracy with a taste of Iroquois. Iraq is not
English and one would think that a people who had been in that area on many
different occasions would have a sense of how much of a possibility for success
GWB's pipe dream about Democracy in Iraq has. Or is English culture
just incapable of seeing other cultures as grown-ups and viable alternatives to
their native systems? We should remember that the only
Democracy and a socialist one at that, in the area is
Israel. A country filled with a common people that have
been forced to learn the ways of the entire world over a 2,000 year
period. In spite of such wisdom they still seem to be making a
mess of it and resorting to the most vulgar form of force betraying their own
myths and morality and are in danger of losing that which kept them
alive as a people for two thousand years.
Remember America is a nation filled with a
constant flood of escapees from other
systems. But its heart is stubbornly English.
Might that stubbornness become a liability in dealing with the real
world? Especially if we do not have a genius or scholar for a
President dealing with these sleazy world professionals at Realpolitik?
What do you think Harry?
REH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: It's the testosterone (was Re:
[Futurework] Powerful stuff!
>
> One of the best programs on American television is "This Week" on ABC in
> the Sunday morning television ghetto - when no-one is watching. However, it
> is good enough to have achieved a sizable audience over several decades.
> This morning we heard about 20 minutes of Colin Powell answering some
> provocative questions.
>
> The round table contains several people of different political believes who
> argue persuasively but without acrimony. George Will is the conservative
> and he made, I think, a good point.
>
> He said that compared with containment, war will reduce the loss of life in
> Iraq. The deaths happening now in Iraq over the next 10 years will be about
> 1 million - of whom 600,000 are likely to be children. Ending this
> situation even with casualties will in effect save the lives of those who
> are doomed to die if nothing violent happens.
>
> It is easily tossed around that US sanctions are responsible for hundreds
> of thousands of deaths, yet this seems to me to be propaganda rather than
> reality.
>
> First, sanctions are the historical alternative to force. Mostly they don't
> seem to work - though they are supposed to have been successful with South
> Africa. They were not successful against Mussolini's quest for the Italian
> Imperium and supremacy in the Mediterranean.
>
> This, in spite of the ineffectual League of Nations' imposition of
> sanctions that didn't include oil.
>
> Musso later said that had oil been sanctioned, the invasion of what is now
> Ethiopia would have stopped. I have no idea why the League didn't sanction
> oil - perhaps because Italian families would be without heat in the winter
> - I don't know.
>
> The year after he had finished mustard gassing the Abyssinians, Musso
> announced the "Rome-Berlin Axis" - thereby coining a name that persisted.
>
> The US stayed out of this, stimulating condemnation that they had destroyed
> the League. There are eerie parallels between then and now - but certainly
> with a different outcome.
>
> The US sanctions are said to be responsible for the deaths of many
> children. But these are UN sanctions. Iraq has been able to export oil for
> most of the period since the Gulf War. It is sending out now about three
> quarters of the oil of the pre-war period. That should be sufficient to
> feed any children who are hungry. Except that it is being used for Saddam's
> purposes, which do not give high priority to feeding children.
>
> Constantly in the news is the issue to Iraqis of five months food supply in
> expectation of the coming conflict. Where did it come from? How can people
> be starving if there is that much food available? Well, it's probably
> propaganda anyway.
>
> On a point I rarely have heard mentioned in these discussions. The UN takes
> 28% of the oil revenue for its expenses. That's a large lump that could
> surely feed a lot of children.
>
> Another point, not often mentioned, is the economic condition of Iraq after
> the war with Iran. It was a basket case. Perhaps the invasion of Kuwait had
> no other purpose than to fill Saddam's piggy-bank.
>
> Now to make an awkward segue.
>
> Your other remark is of great interest to me. How responsible are the women
> and children for the activities of their government? Was Dresden just
> another part of Germany and were the people of Dresden as much responsible
> for those 65 million deaths as their rulers.
>
> How much "liberated" French art arrived in Dresden? Nothing seems more
> unnecessary than to have destroyed Dresden. Yet, should the people and
> their city be allowed to have a "good war" - relatively unaffected by the
> horrors that were suffered by so many scores of millions?
>
> Whether they like it or not, women are special. On them depends survival.
> Men are expendable - but women and children are protected. Their special
> position is why they come into the discussion, even though men are most
> likely to be killed.
>
> So, are they equally responsible with the men for how their country behaves?
>
> In a dictatorship, they don't have a lot of chance to protest. But, most
> don't anyway. One recalls at the German death camps when Americans gave the
> local townspeople a tour, they protested they knew nothing of what was
> going on. It was a lie.
>
> Keep your eyes averted and your nose clean and cover your ears. Does that
> make them responsible for the unleashed horrors? While they were enjoying
> their sylvan surroundings down the road from the concentration camp, more
> Brits were being killed than Americans, from a country one fifth the size
> of the US - plus another 100,000 Commonwealth deaths. I recall the horror
> and dismay when almost a thousand Canadians were lost at Dieppe. Not a good
> day.
>
> But, that wasn't the fault of the German women and children, was it? The
> Nazi philosophy prevented the use of women workers in their factories at
> first, but later they were forced to recruit them. As women turned out
> bombs, were they not resp0onsible for the casualties eventually caused by
> the explosives?
>
> British women had a choice - they could work in a factory, or on farms in
> the Land Army. They didn't live in a dictatorship. This was the result of
> democratic law. Surely, in a democracy, if you produce bombs or rations for
> soldiers, you are responsible for killing people?
>
> Should you be ashamed because 40,000 soldiers that you are supporting will
> soon be killing people?
>
> Should Americans be shamed because they will soon be killing women and
> children?
>
> Both countries are supposed to be governed by their peoples. Are their
> people responsible?
>
> It seems to me that philosophical libertarians have a point. They won't
> vote, saying that if they do they would be supporting a system with which
> they disagree.
>
> Anyway, I am simply the messenger with these thoughts. Can we talk about
> where responsibility begins and ends?
>
> Harry
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Keith wrote:
>
> >Harry,
> >
> >It's the testosterone that's doing it! At this stage of the war, all sorts
> >of otherwise reasonable male politicians (as well as the male editor and
> >mainly male staff of the Economist) are becoming turned on and turning into
> >rabid supporters.
> >
> >To the male of the species, war is the ultimate football game. Even I --
> >who believes he detests this coming war -- will be watching TV with
> >fascination as events unfurl.
> >
> >Shame on them for forsaking their rationality. Shame on them for
> >"justifying" the deaths of women and children in their rationalisations.
> >Shame on me for not having been more active in opposing this war. I should
> >at least have written to my MP to have given him my support. But I didn't.
> >
> >This is as corrupt and artificially concocted a war as any could be and I'm
> >deeply ashamed of perforce being a party to it.
> >
> >Keith Hudson
> >
> >
> >At 11:15 14/03/03 -0800, you wrote:
> > >Keith,
> > >
> > >I had just sent off my post to you when I turned to the Economist and an
> > >editorial on Saddam and the UN.
> > >
> > >I thought it was a pretty reasoned editorial. Check it at:
> > >
> > >http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?Story_ID=1632521
> > >
> > >The Economist is also for getting on with it.
> > >
> > >Harry
>
>
> ******************************
> Harry Pollard
> Henry George School of LA
> Box 655
> Tujunga CA 91042
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Tel: (818) 352-4141
> Fax: (818) 353-2242
> *******************************
>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.462 / Virus Database: 261 - Release Date: 3/13/2003
>
