Did we score a victory?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by yavoon
umm kuwait was just slant drilling. thats like saying we steal the colorado river from mexico.

The oil field were claimed by Iraq and considered sovereing Iraqi territory. Slant drilling into Iraq oil fields is pretty damned inciteful, don't you think?

and I hardly think the US foreign policy WAS EVER to allow ANY consolidation of oil in the middle east. this constant espousing that the US was like "omg yah invade kuwait so u can have more oil and more power." is not only obviously stupid foreign policy from a selfish standpoint.

it just doesn't make any sense.

It doesn't make sense, which is why you have to wonder why it was done. Yet U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie assured Hussein the U.S. would never intervene militarily against Iraq...

[chequita guevara]

We have a religious fundimentalist running our country. It's not like we have much room to talk.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
They're not defending Hussein. They're exposing the Emperor's new clothes. There's a difference. We'd all like to see Hussein go. It's just that some of us don't think the price should be paid in thousands of Iraqi lives.

Others, like me, are unabashed anti-imperialists, and see no good coming of the US's ability to start wars at its pleasure.

exactly.

[Ned]

Vile hypocrisy of 'Chiraq'
LABOUR stalwart and ex-Cabinet enforcer Dr JACK CUNNINGHAM today rips into the vile hypocrisy of French President Jacques Chirac’s opposition to a war against Iraq.

Dr Cunningham, a former minister and Shadow Foreign Secretary, writing exclusively for The Sun and pictured right, exposes the squalid motives behind Chirac’s pledge to sabotage UN moves to approve the use of force to disarm Saddam Hussein.

IN recent weeks, Tony Blair has been working night and day to unite the world community on a second UN resolution on Iraq.

He has been ready to compromise, to listen to others and to offer Saddam a peaceful way out.

But this week, in the middle of these delicate and difficult negotiations, French President Jacques Chirac chose to intervene to sabotage his efforts.

By vowing to wield the French veto — “whatever the circumstance” and whatever the content of the second resolution — he set out deliberately to destroy the last chance for the international community to unite on disarming Saddam Hussein.

President Chirac likes to pretend his stance is to do with peace, the greater good of humanity and the security of the world.

But it’s nothing to do with peace. It’s about cynically protecting French business in Iraq.

It’s about French jealousy of the US and the UK — and President Chirac’s desperation to protect one of his long-time cronies.

The veto promise has finally exposed the nauseating hypocrisy of the French position.

Even if Saddam dropped chemical bombs again on his own civilians or fired banned missiles at his neighbours, we now know the Iraqi dictator can rely on the French president to try his best to block efforts by the international community to take action.

And the so-called Martini veto — to be used anytime, anywhere on anything — has finally highlighted Chirac’s absolute determination to protect the Iraqi dictator, no matter what.

Chirac and Saddam go back 30 years.

The French leader has been nicknamed Chiraq in the past by the French press for his closeness to the Iraqi dictator.

It was as Chirac’s private guest that Saddam made his only official trip to the West.

Pictures of the two leaders together — and the praise Chirac lavished on his guest — are parts of his history that the French president is keen to keep hidden.

So determined was Chirac to help Saddam that he sold him a nuclear reactor even though, in a country awash with oil, he must have known it would be used to develop nuclear weapons rather than for generating power.

It took a bombing raid by the Israeli air force in 1981 to stop the terrifying prospect of Saddam having a nuclear bomb in his arsenal.

But it’s not just nuclear weapons which France helped Saddam develop.

By 1982, Iraq accounted for 40 per cent of all France’s arms sales. Mirage fighters, Exocet missiles and armoured vehicles were all on the shopping list.

Weapons used to attack his neighbours, terrorise his own people — and which US and UK forces will have to face if military action is necessary.

The billions of pounds owed to the French for these weapons is why they only reluctantly joined the rest of the world in the military operation to liberate Kuwait after Iraq invaded.

And these debts and continuing business links are why the French have done everything they can for 12 years to water down sanctions and prevent any international action which might weaken Saddam’s position.

So while the French may now claim to want to give the UN weapons inspectors more time, they forget they abstained when it came to setting up the tougher inspection regime in 1999.

They may say they respect the United Nations but forget it was a French charter flight carrying government ministers and business leaders which broke the UN flight ban the following year.

French companies are Saddam’s biggest trading partners in the West and have won hugely lucrative deals to exploit Iraqi oil — contracts they fear they will lose if Saddam is ousted.

This is why Chirac is fighting so hard to protect Saddam, even if the consequence is more terror and starvation for the Iraqi people, an increased threat to the wider world and the loss of UN authority.

We can’t ignore the fact that he may also be doing it for fear of what might come out over his personal links with Saddam if people who know what went on can finally speak freely in Iraq.

And that’s something which those now fooled by Chirac’s claim to be acting for peace might like to think about long and hard in the coming days.

And why I will be supporting Tony Blair as he carries on his tireless efforts to disarm Saddam as the UN vowed to do.

[Drake Tungsten]

Making excuses for Hussein's invasion of Kuwait sure seems like a defense to me...

[chequita guevara]

The Sun? You may as well expect me to start posting articles from Workers World.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Making excuses for Hussein's invasion of Kuwait sure seems like a defense to me...

I should care about the Kuwaitis why? They practice slavery. No one in the Middle East likes them. I was part of an Arab student organization at my university (as well as Hillel and a Latino group, I was a popular guy), and even they didn't like the Kuwaitis.

[yavoon]

all you coddled people are woefully unaware of the scale we are talking about. yah the bush is religious and he is doing things somewhat in accordance w/ that. but to compare bush's religious beliefs w/ the religious fundamentalism of the middle east is just friggin naive.

and to boris, I find it no shock that iraq claimed the oil fields. as I don't find it any shock that the second the british/spanish/french/dutch landed on america they claimed ungodly tracks of territory. it would honestly seem like the thing to do.

I just don't believe that hussein was that stupid to think we would let him control kuwait. I mean how long did it take us after he invaded for us to be there w/ military? its not like it was even a decision on our part.

yet against all logic, all previous policy and all reason. u say that the embassador and hussein had this lil talk where its like "yah u can invade and occupy kuwait cuz they're stealing some of ur oil, thats cool"

its just...well a very bad word, thats wut it isl.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Making excuses for Hussein's invasion of Kuwait sure seems like a defense to me...

It's not excusing anything, as the position is that aggressive war is wrong no matter what.

It does, however, expose U.S. hypocrisy on the issue, and shows that things aren't as black-and-white as they may seem.

If a power-hungry dictator is given a de facto assurance of non-interference for his clearly stated aim of invading Kuwait to stop what was reasonably believed to be the outright and unapologetic theft of Iraqi property, I don't think the U.S. had any right to act surprised or particularly indignant when he did so.

Why should he have felt the U.S. would get upset about his invading people, since we egged him to do so against Iran only a few years before? Talk about mixed signals...

[Asher]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I should care about the Kuwaitis why?

I should care about the Iraqis why?

[Drake Tungsten]

I should care about the Kuwaitis why?

You're a real humanitarian, che...

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Prior to 1991, Iraq was one of the wealthiest Mideast countries, had a very high standard of living and was on its way to being a 1st-world nation in probably another decade.

Gee, what changed?

Boris, They had a decreasing GNP in the mid 1980's. Prior to Saddam taking over you are correct...they did have one of the highest living standards in ME. All downhill since then.

What changed...Sadam took power.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
Vile hypocrisy of 'Chiraq'
LABOUR stalwart and ex-Cabinet enforcer Dr JACK CUNNINGHAM today rips into the vile hypocrisy of French President Jacques Chirac’s opposition to a war against Iraq.

Does that make GWB into an honest person who tells nothing but the truth? How?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by yavoon
I find it no shock that iraq claimed the oil fields.

Seeing as the oil was on Iraq's side of the border, no one should be surprised. Slant drilling is just that, drilling at an angle, so that you can get at something you can't drill straight down on.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by yavoon
and to boris, I find it no shock that iraq claimed the oil fields. as I don't find it any shock that the second the british/spanish/french/dutch landed on america they claimed ungodly tracks of territory. it would honestly seem like the thing to do.

The oil fields were inside Iraqi territory! Why shouldn't he claim them?

I just don't believe that hussein was that stupid to think we would let him control kuwait. I mean how long did it take us after he invaded for us to be there w/ military? its not like it was even a decision on our part.

As I said in the last post, he had no real reason to think the U.S. would stop him, since we had supported his aggression against Iran in the past, and since a U.S. Ambassador assured him the U.S. didn't intend to interfere no matter what he did.

He was wrong to invade Kuwait, but his actions were hardly the bit of stupidity you're portraying them as.