 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / July 2007Galloway: response to Michael West's post
I apologise for the disruption. I'm having so much trouble sending this that I'm beginning to think my access is being interfered with. Or else both Google and aieo are screweed up at the same time. OK, that sounds more reasonable. This is what I've been trying to send: My free server is once again demonstrating the truth of the adage, but I didn't want to seem to be sulking; here is what I would have posted yesterday: There is some evidence. I admit that the interpretation is mine (as well as that of many others). And, while i'm admitting things, I might as well add that I got this citation from Wiki; it agrees with my memory of the news coverage at the time, though. 'On Wednesday July 25, 1990, the American Ambassador in Iraq, April Glaspie, asked the Iraqi high command to explain the military preparations in progress, including the massing of Iraqi troops near the border. The American ambassador declared to her Iraqi interlocutor that Washington, "inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, does not have an opinion" on the disagreement which opposes Kuwait to Iraq, stating "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts". She also let Saddam Hussein know that the U.S. did not intend "to start an economic war against Iraq". These statements may have misled Saddam into believing he had received a diplomatic green light from the United States to invade Kuwait' (New York Times, September 23, 1990). >I apologise for the disruption. I'm having so much trouble sending >this that I'm beginning to think my access is being interfered with. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >into believing he had received a diplomatic green light from the >United States to invade Kuwait' (New York Times, September 23, 1990). Hmm. Thanks for that. Me, I think Saddam's "downfall" was entirely contained within his refusal to let the UNSCOM inspectors do what they needed to do unhindered. The matter was entirely in his hands, and he, I think, misjudged the patience of the UN. He thought it was infinite. He found that it was a few degrees shorter than infinite. So farewell, Saddam. No one, as far as I can tell, is sorry about your demise. Except perhaps those of the suicide bombers who are killing as many innocents as they can in your name. . > Thanks for that. Me, I think Well, you've been asleep as long as Sleeping Beauty, missed everything (as shown by preposterous invention # 2 below) and probably still in a daze. The surprise is that one graces us with "thought" on zero-fact basis as if we were TV viewers. > Saddam's "downfall" was entirely > contained within his refusal to let the UNSCOM inspectors do what they > needed to do unhindered. Michael West wrote: [ ... ] > So farewell, Saddam. No one, as far as I can tell, is sorry about your > demise. Except perhaps those of the suicide bombers who are killing as > many innocents as they can in your name. What this American is sorry about is what we allowed to happen in Iraq after we ousted Saddam. It makes the response to Katrina look like a success story. George Packer's *The Assassin's Gate* is a good place to start. >Michael West wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >after we ousted Saddam. It makes the response to Katrina look like a >success story. FWIW, I agree completely. Bureaucratic incompetence on a staggering scale. Michael West wrote: >>I apologise for the disruption. I'm having so much trouble sending >>this that I'm beginning to think my access is being interfered with. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > contained within his refusal to let the UNSCOM inspectors do what they > needed to do unhindered. They could go anywhere. Including presidential palaces on short notice. > The matter was entirely in his hands, and he, > I think, misjudged the patience of the UN. He thought it was infinite. > He found that it was a few degrees shorter than infinite. It wasn't a UN decision. Bush decided to attack Iraq before the dust settled in lower Manhattan, if not well before that, and nothing was going to get in his way. > So farewell, Saddam. No one, as far as I can tell, is sorry about your > demise. Except perhaps those of the suicide bombers who are killing as > many innocents as they can in your name. The U.S. will just find other hideous dictators to support. --Jeff  Signature"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the spinal cord would fully suffice." --Albert Einstein > Thanks for that. Me, I think Saddam's "downfall" was entirely > contained within his refusal to let the UNSCOM inspectors do what they > needed to do unhindered. The matter was entirely in his hands, and he, > I think, misjudged the patience of the UN. He thought it was infinite. > He found that it was a few degrees shorter than infinite. The UN? Pull the other one, it's got bells on! It was the Bush axis which stopped the inspections. Of course there was the usual obstructiveness, but the inspectors were getting their job done, and it was becoming increasingly obvious that there wasn't anything important to be found. > So farewell, Saddam. No one, as far as I can tell, is sorry about your > demise. Except perhaps those of the suicide bombers who are killing as > many innocents as they can in your name. Your heart's in the right place, I can see. But I'm unaware of many suicide bombers who are doing their thing in Saddam's name. Why would anybody do that? -- Mike. >Your heart's in the right place, I can see. But I'm unaware of many >suicide bombers who are doing their thing in Saddam's name. Why would >anybody do that? As far as I know, it may be true that they are just "bombers" rather than "suicide bombers", but I don't think that alters the point of what I meant to say. It is well documented that there are Baathist supporters among the many splinter groups that make up what is usually called "the insurgency". Not all of them are Islamists. See, for example, http://tinyurl.com/2zb8jc Exemplifying the hideous complexity of the Iraq picture, it appears that there are other (or maybe the same) erstwhile Baathist militants who, at least some of the time, fight with, rather than against, the coalition. http://tinyurl.com/ypaaqu > On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:03:07 -0700, Mike Lyle > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > many splinter groups that make up what is usually called "the > insurgency". Not all of them are Islamists. See, for example,http://tinyurl.com/2zb8jc [...] As long as we can agree that Ba'athism (no, of course it isn't Islamicist -- that's by definition) neither began nor ended with Saddam. -- Mike. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.