Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

UK intelligence officer discusses US foreign policy the last 25 years.

MattTheSkywalker

Elite Mentor
Platinum
The guy who wrote this was a British intelligence officer with extensive expereicne in Middle east affiars and contacts with leaders from numerous nations. There is a lot in here that you never hear about. yet given the chain of events, it makes sense. I've never heard anyone who was able to refute any of this.



by Richard Cummings; October 11, 2002

One day, quite a few years ago, I was having lunch with my Iranian friend, Rudy Alam, who was attending the University of Pennsylvania, and who was the daughter of the then Prime Minster of Iran. It was a student hangout, and a waitress recognized her.

"Well, I guess you’ll be going home to Iraq for summer vacation," she said amiably.

"Iran," Rudy said.

To which the waitress replied: "Oh well, whatever."

Oh well, indeed. Rudy’s father was prime minister of Iran because the Shah was on the Peacock throne thanks to Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA station chief in Teheran, who engineered the coup that deposed Prime Minister Mohamed Mossadegh, who had headed a secular, fledgling democracy that had the temerity to nationalize the oil fields that, up to that point, had been exploited by BP. Having sued in the World Court and lost, the UK turned to its ally, Uncle Sam, to get the oil fields back. Rent-a-Mobs appeared, the CIA paid off the military, and Mossadegh fled in his pajamas. Once in power, the Shah stifled all dissent, using the notorious SAVAK, his intelligence service, to torture his political opponents, all under the watchful and approving eye of the United States government.

This was the first great "regime change," which ultimately begat the fundamentalist Islamic revolution led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who promptly re-nationalized the oil fields and took a whole bunch of Americans hostage. To free them, Jimmy Carter sent in troops in a stupid action that failed and which led Cyrus Vance to resign as Secretary of State, one of the few noble acts by an American cabinet member in the nation’s history.

Fear of the fundamentalist revolution spread to oil rich nations such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, with their entrenched, sybaritic royal families who paid lip service to Islam while they boozed and caroused from Beirut to Bangkok and beyond. Iran flexed its military muscle and threatened to take over the entire Middle East.

Enter Saddam Hussein, Baathist dictator of Iraq, who was part of the movement that overthrew the British-backed puppet monarchy that came originally from Saudi Arabia, but which lost out to the House of Saud, which won because of its alliance with the fierce Ikhwan, or "Brotherhood," the military arm of Wahhabism, that swept down on the royal opposition and decapitated them. The CIA had given its approval to Saddam’s coup against his Baathist allies, without knowing, until much later, that his hero was Joseph Stalin. Oh, well, whatever. I was sitting in the rooms of a prominent Cambridge don, having drinks with him and a British intelligence officer when the monarchy first fell. After downing a stiff drink, the MI6 gentleman looked at me and said, " Iraq is your baby now." You bet.

Years later, I am attending a breakfast at the River Club, a swank bastion of New York exclusivity, hosted by Ambassador Angier Biddle Duke, in honor of the guest speaker, Tariq Aziz, Saddam’s bag man. Lots of top brass, bankers, and intelligence types are present, devouring bacon and eggs, sipping coffee and listening in rapt attention. Tariq Aziz is cheered as he tells us that Iraq is prepared to take out Iran and stop the spread of its dangerous Islamic revolution. "Give us the tools and we will do the job," he says, echoing Churchill.

So we do, and Saddam Hussein stops the Iranians, until Oliver North gets the bright idea from the Israelis to sell arms to Iran, in violation of the embargo, so it can fight Iraq to a standstill, thereby neutralizing them both. We will make contact with the Iranian-backed terrorists who are holding Americans captive in Beirut to get their release (they knock off a CIA intelligence officer), and the proceeds of the sale will go to the Contras in Nicaragua, so William Casey can engineer a regime change there in violation of federal law. The current president of Nicaragua, heir to the Contra legacy, is on the way to the can for corruption.

But Saddam starts to lose, so we ship him the ingredients to make chemical and biological weapons, which he uses on the Iranians, who back off. Saddam, who has figured out by now how America stabbed him in the back, asks the Al Sabas, the ruling royals of Kuwait, to forgive his debt to them that he took out to fight the war to save their necks. "Bug off," they tell him. He asks the American ambassador what the US will do if he invades Kuwait. She makes a phone call, comes back and tells him, famously, "Nothing."

So he does it, and we get Desert Storm. But Bush Pear (as in Pere, but some sort of exotic desert fruit) decides to let Sadam stay in power, out of fear that Iran would march on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Saddam starts making weapons of mass destruction from the stuff we gave him.

Meanwhile, over in Afghanistan (I used to have dinner, when the Afghan royal family still ruled, at the Afghan embassy in London, with the son of the ambassador and an Englishman who was a descendant of Lord North, the first architect of stupid colonial escapades), where the Evil Empire had installed a secular puppet regime that let girls go to school. The US of A unleashed the fundamentalist Moslem mujahadeen from Pakistan to drive out the infidels, after a pep talk by Zbignew Brezinski, who, with a towel wrapped around his head, yelled at them to launch a "Jihad," a term Moslems had not used for centuries. But, boy, do they remember how to use it now.

A young, enormously wealthy religious zealot from Saudi Arabia, who is inspired by the Iranian fundamentalist revolution, funds a good part of this operation with his own money. (The CIA under Allen Dulles and William Casey always found private money for their covert operations.) He arms the volunteer fighters and takes down their names, addresses, phone numbers, and if available, e-mail addresses, and writes them in a schoolboy’s notebook, calling the whole business "Al Queda," or "The Base." Which is what it is, just over the border in Pakistan. His name is Osama bin Laden (Oh well, whatever.)

And after we win and allow the Taliban to take power because they approve of the big pipeline project, Sheik Omar welcomes bin Laden and his army as honored guests in Afghanistan. When the US of A decides to keep its troops in Saudi Arabia, the Moslem Holy Land, he declares war on the United States from a cave in Afghanistan. (Oh well, whatever.) Asleep at the switch, the CIA and FBI, at constant war with each other over bureaucratic turf, allow the worse to happen, 9/11. Bush declares war back. The Taliban are toast. He argues for a preemptive strike against Iraq, which must certainly be called "Dessert Storm."

So now, eminent Arabist, Bernard Lewis, says the problem with Islam is a lack of democracy. His solution? A regime change in Iraq and Iran. Iran? That’s where it all started, with a regime change by the CIA that set off the entire chain of events. And oh, yes, do remember that it was that regime change that overthrew a democracy and installed a dictator. I guess you can say that this bunch is like the Bourbons of France, of whom it was said, "They learned nothing and they forgot nothing." Oh, well, whatever.

 
This says that Iraq owed Kuwait money. Your earlier statement that Kuwait owed Iraq 100 billion did not make sense.


Aside from the Marshall plan....what country has benefited when we decided who should rule their lands and how they sould do it?
 
Oh BTW Matt....I was thinking that perhaps you should take a look at the "life energy paradigm" by Hans Selye. I'm not convinced that people can work 16 hour days indefinitley.

I studied that a long time ago.....perhaps a misspelling?
 
Last edited:
MattTheSkywalker said:
There is a lot in here that you never hear about. yet given the chain of events, it makes sense. I've never heard anyone who was able to refute any of this.

[/i]

nice cut and paste job... by the way, how do you refute an opinion??
 
Messing with other countries just results in a big mess. People will never learn that.

nice cut and paste job... by the way, how do you refute an opinion??
You could start with the facts the author states.
 
Man I so want to post some info/d-intel I have that pertains to this thread! I had a Security Breech "Event" in the last 24, so I "Misplaced" the info! Much Finer detail! Dam I'm pissed that I "Misplaced" it to well! :mad:
 
Re: Re: UK intelligence officer discusses US foreign policy the last 25 years.

SV2 said:


nice cut and paste job... by the way, how do you refute an opinion??


what



Anyway, good read
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
There is a lot in here that you never hear about.


I've heard much of this before.

MattTheSkywalker said:

I've never heard anyone who was able to refute any of this.

Some of it can be refuted

MattTheSkywalker said:



Oh well, indeed. Rudy’s father was prime minister of Iran because the Shah was on the Peacock throne thanks to Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA station chief in Teheran, who engineered the coup that deposed Prime Minister Mohamed Mossadegh, who had headed a secular, fledgling democracy that had the temerity to nationalize the oil fields that, up to that point, had been exploited by BP. Having sued in the World Court and lost, the UK turned to its ally, Uncle Sam, to get the oil fields back. Rent-a-Mobs appeared, the CIA paid off the military, and Mossadegh fled in his pajamas. Once in power, the Shah stifled all dissent, using the notorious SAVAK, his intelligence service, to torture his political opponents, all under the watchful and approving eye of the United States government.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-mossadegh.html

He [Mossadegh] then displayed a streak of authoritarianism, bypassing Parliament by conducting a national referendum to win approval for its dissolution.

Since when did dissolving parliment become an act of a fledgling democracy?

I'm not saying it was ok or right to overthrow a democracy (although i probably sound like an apologist for it), but i fail to see how Iran, which doesn't have a respectable democracy within 1000 miles of its borders, could've ended up 'ok' if the US hadn't intervened. Freedom house says there is only 1 Islamic government (out of 47) that gives its people basic civil or political rights.

Iranians, i'm sure, would've been better off if Mossadegh had stayed in power. But to give the illusion that a government where the Premier dissolved parliment or where the people (Middle easterners who subscribe to Islam) are notorious for having governments that reject human, political or cultural rights is naive. Only 2% of governments with Islamic populations respect basic civil or political freedoms. Why would Iran be any different?

MattTheSkywalker said:

This was the first great "regime change," which ultimately begat the fundamentalist Islamic revolution led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who promptly re-nationalized the oil fields and took a whole bunch of Americans hostage. To free them, Jimmy Carter sent in troops in a stupid action that failed and which led Cyrus Vance to resign as Secretary of State, one of the few noble acts by an American cabinet member in the nation’s history.

Fear of the fundamentalist revolution spread to oil rich nations such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, with their entrenched, sybaritic royal families who paid lip service to Islam while they boozed and caroused from Beirut to Bangkok and beyond. Iran flexed its military muscle and threatened to take over the entire Middle East.

Enter Saddam Hussein, Baathist dictator of Iraq, who was part of the movement that overthrew the British-backed puppet monarchy that came originally from Saudi Arabia, but which lost out to the House of Saud, which won because of its alliance with the fierce Ikhwan, or "Brotherhood," the military arm of Wahhabism, that swept down on the royal opposition and decapitated them. The CIA had given its approval to Saddam’s coup against his Baathist allies, without knowing, until much later, that his hero was Joseph Stalin. Oh, well, whatever. I was sitting in the rooms of a prominent Cambridge don, having drinks with him and a British intelligence officer when the monarchy first fell. After downing a stiff drink, the MI6 gentleman looked at me and said, " Iraq is your baby now." You bet.

MattTheSkywalker said:

Years later, I am attending a breakfast at the River Club, a swank bastion of New York exclusivity, hosted by Ambassador Angier Biddle Duke, in honor of the guest speaker, Tariq Aziz, Saddam’s bag man. Lots of top brass, bankers, and intelligence types are present, devouring bacon and eggs, sipping coffee and listening in rapt attention. Tariq Aziz is cheered as he tells us that Iraq is prepared to take out Iran and stop the spread of its dangerous Islamic revolution. "Give us the tools and we will do the job," he says, echoing Churchill.

So we do, and Saddam Hussein stops the Iranians, until Oliver North gets the bright idea from the Israelis to sell arms to Iran, in violation of the embargo, so it can fight Iraq to a standstill, thereby neutralizing them both. We will make contact with the Iranian-backed terrorists who are holding Americans captive in Beirut to get their release (they knock off a CIA intelligence officer), and the proceeds of the sale will go to the Contras in Nicaragua, so William Casey can engineer a regime change there in violation of federal law. The current president of Nicaragua, heir to the Contra legacy, is on the way to the can for corruption.

The US provided 1% of the arms Iraq used in the Iraq/Iran war. USSR provided 57%, France 13%, China 12%, Egypt 2%, Czeck republic 7-9%. We barely armed Saddam. Brazil or Egypt gave more arms than the US & UK combined.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/iraniraq.htm

many countries armed Saddam and Iran. But all get the green light to give military hardware to evil dictators but the US (naturally).

MattTheSkywalker said:

But Saddam starts to lose, so we ship him the ingredients to make chemical and biological weapons, which he uses on the Iranians, who back off.

Don't know how true this is.

MattTheSkywalker said:

Saddam, who has figured out by now how America stabbed him in the back, asks the Al Sabas, the ruling royals of Kuwait, to forgive his debt to them that he took out to fight the war to save their necks. "Bug off," they tell him. He asks the American ambassador what the US will do if he invades Kuwait. She makes a phone call, comes back and tells him, famously, "Nothing."

From the mouth of Tariq Aziz himself

In November 1992, Iraq's former deputy prime minister, Tarik Aziz, gave Glaspie some vindication. He said she had not given Iraq a green light. "She just listened and made general comments," he told USA Today. "We knew the United States would have a strong reaction."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...s/aburish2.html

Did he expect the U.S. to respond [to the invasion of Kuwait]?

No, he did not expect the United States to respond to his invasion of Kuwait the way it did. He personally analyzed the situation, had that famous meeting with American Ambassador April Glaspie in Baghdad. And he believed the United States gave him a green light to occupy Kuwait. Well, that shows Saddam's lack of education because there was no way the United States was going to allow Saddam Hussein to control the flow and price of oil in the Middle East. Impossible. And there is evidence that people within his inner circle told him not to do it and he did it. He thought he would bargain.


There were several reasons for the Kuwaiti war.

1. slant drilling was removing Iraqi oil.
2. Kuwait was overproducing oil, lowering the market price & bankrupting the Iraqi economy which was damaged from an 8 year war.
3. Iraq had a 1.2 million man army and no one to fight with, demobilizing might fuck up the Iraqi economy
4. Saddam wanted to be the next Saladin so he decided to annex Kuwait as part of his empire.

Also, the UN gave many resolutions telling Iraq to pull out of Kuwait. 660-662, 664-667, 669, 670, 674, 676 & finally 678. http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html


MattTheSkywalker said:

So he does it, and we get Desert Storm. But Bush Pear (as in Pere, but some sort of exotic desert fruit) decides to let Sadam stay in power, out of fear that Iran would march on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Saddam starts making weapons of mass destruction from the stuff we gave him.

What is he basing the statement "decides to let Sadam stay in power, out of fear that Iran would march on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia." on?

The UN mandate never called for removing Saddam from power.

http://www.rupe-india.org/34/app2.html


MattTheSkywalker said:

Meanwhile, over in Afghanistan (I used to have dinner, when the Afghan royal family still ruled, at the Afghan embassy in London, with the son of the ambassador and an Englishman who was a descendant of Lord North, the first architect of stupid colonial escapades), where the Evil Empire had installed a secular puppet regime that let girls go to school. The US of A unleashed the fundamentalist Moslem mujahadeen from Pakistan to drive out the infidels, after a pep talk by Zbignew Brezinski, who, with a towel wrapped around his head, yelled at them to launch a "Jihad," a term Moslems had not used for centuries. But, boy, do they remember how to use it now.

A young, enormously wealthy religious zealot from Saudi Arabia, who is inspired by the Iranian fundamentalist revolution, funds a good part of this operation with his own money. (The CIA under Allen Dulles and William Casey always found private money for their covert operations.) He arms the volunteer fighters and takes down their names, addresses, phone numbers, and if available, e-mail addresses, and writes them in a schoolboy’s notebook, calling the whole business "Al Queda," or "The Base." Which is what it is, just over the border in Pakistan. His name is Osama bin Laden (Oh well, whatever.)

And after we win and allow the Taliban to take power because they approve of the big pipeline project, Sheik Omar welcomes bin Laden and his army as honored guests in Afghanistan. When the US of A decides to keep its troops in Saudi Arabia, the Moslem Holy Land, he declares war on the United States from a cave in Afghanistan. (Oh well, whatever.) Asleep at the switch, the CIA and FBI, at constant war with each other over bureaucratic turf, allow the worse to happen, 9/11. Bush declares war back. The Taliban are toast. He argues for a preemptive strike against Iraq, which must certainly be called "Dessert Storm."


We let the Taliban take power? The Taliban didn't come to power until 1996, 8 years after the war ended. And it was mainly with the help of Pakistan, not the US (notice that the author never blames anyone but the US for anything) and Unocal pulled out of the pipeline deal in 1998 due to Taliban instability.

I am not sure what the truth is, but all the info i can find on the internet that says we 'let' the Taliban take power are from hard left/hate the US news agencies that quote 'sources' or singular individuals.

Fucking informations superhighway my white ass. All it is is a bunch of propaganda and half proven assessments. What do legitimate news agencies have to say about the US's support of the Taliban? I need to look that up.

As far as i can tell, what happened is this. The US provided funding to the ISI, which recruited radical Islamists in Afghanistan. Tha would make the US partially responsible, but not wholly. The blame also belongs to Pakistan.

MattTheSkywalker said:

So now, eminent Arabist, Bernard Lewis, says the problem with Islam is a lack of democracy. His solution? A regime change in Iraq and Iran. Iran? That’s where it all started, with a regime change by the CIA that set off the entire chain of events. And oh, yes, do remember that it was that regime change that overthrew a democracy and installed a dictator. I guess you can say that this bunch is like the Bourbons of France, of whom it was said, "They learned nothing and they forgot nothing." Oh, well, whatever.

Bernard Lewis is probably more educated and less biased in regards to middle east scenarios than the author of this article.

So the argument is the overthrow of Iran due to oil lead to the Islamic revolution, which led to Iraq's war, which led to the Gulf war, which led to 9/11? That is a pretty straight argument but i don't think it is as simple as it is made out to be.

There is a difference between even handed criticism designed to point out faults and excessive blame done with an agenda. Some of this report is only half true or debatable, which sadly prevents the valid points from being taken seriously because the article comes across as propaganda (like how the overthrow of the Iranian democracy led to Islamic fundamentalism for example. That would've been a good point if the article were more even handed). This guy shows an amazing lack of ability to blame anyone but the US for anything or to look at situations in context.

Take a look at what your brilliant news source (Richard Cummings) has also written

http://www.lewrockwell.com/cummings/cummings17.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/cummings/cummings18.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/cummings7.html

He is also a contributor at Zmag, which is to the hate america left wing what Pat Buchanun is to the Love america right wing. Hardly an objective source.
 
Last edited:
I will return to disprove more anti US propaganda as time allows it.

I am not adverse to intelligent, proven, objective criticism designed to point out faults. But this is just propaganda by someone with an agenda. It is hard to tell where the truth ends and manipulation begins with Cummings's report.
 
nordstrom said:
I will return to disprove more anti US propaganda as time allows it.

I am not adverse to intelligent, proven, objective criticism designed to point out faults. But this is just propaganda by someone with an agenda. It is hard to tell where the truth ends and manipulation begins with Cummings's report.


Good man nordstrom....I like to see both sides represented fairly and intelligently (somewhat).
 
Re: Re: UK intelligence officer discusses US foreign policy the last 25 years.

Nordstrom,

There are some facts that remain....facts....

1. We didn't do shit in Iran until they took control of their own oil. The move to dissolve Parliament was via national referendum, not by force.

2. We certainly prolonged the Iran-Iraq war. So did a lot of people.

3. We missed a chance to avert the entire Iraq-Kuwait situation as Iraq put their intentions on the table and would have negotiated.

4. There is no doubt we provided weapons and training to the mujahedin. There is little doubt it was OBLs money that paid for this.




All I see in your posts is:

1. National referendum in Iran leads to dissolved Parliament - dictator.

2. The US wasn't responsible for Iran/Iraq because other people sold them weapons too.

3. The US ambassador's feeble reply to Iraq was better than saying "go for it".

4. Second world Pakistan is equally responsible for the Taliban as single superpower US.

5. The author is a hater.

Only #2 is remotely accuraetly critical. remotely.
 
That long winded statement is not a fact... A fact is not what you believe, its what you can prove.

what was said in that long statement that any of you can PROVE??

It's opinion until you offer me concrete proof. I will not argue an opinion.
 
SV2 said:
what was said in that long statement that any of you can PROVE??

It's opinion until you offer me concrete proof. I will not argue an opinion.

there is in fact very liitle you can prove about specific happenings in history for the very reason that they have already happened.
 
Gosh....most of the history that I have read could be called opinion. Especially since the winner gets to write it.


I wonder what the Japanese texts say about Pearl Harbor and Nagasaki. I wonder what the Chinese texts say about the Japanese overrun of their country. I wonder what the Russian texts say about who defeated Hitler. I wonder what the Vietnam texts say about Vietnam.


What I really wonder though is what will future texts say about America in the early 21st century. I suspect it may imply that we sacked nations and took oil/money.
 
SV2 said:
That long winded statement is not a fact... A fact is not what you believe, its what you can prove.

what was said in that long statement that any of you can PROVE??

It's opinion until you offer me concrete proof. I will not argue an opinion.



That applies to every single one of your posts too..including your fav ones about clinton's corruption
 
This is shit I've been saying all along on EF. About over throwing the democratic regime in place in Iran for the Shah. And April Glaspie giving the green light to Saddam to invade Kuwait. Oh well.
 
Re: Re: Re: UK intelligence officer discusses US foreign policy the last 25 years.

MattTheSkywalker said:
Nordstrom,

There are some facts that remain....facts....

1. We didn't do shit in Iran until they took control of their own oil. The move to dissolve Parliament was via national referendum, not by force.

2. We certainly prolonged the Iran-Iraq war. So did a lot of people.

3. We missed a chance to avert the entire Iraq-Kuwait situation as Iraq put their intentions on the table and would have negotiated.

4. There is no doubt we provided weapons and training to the mujahedin. There is little doubt it was OBLs money that paid for this.

1. Probably True.

2. True.

3. Can you back that statement up?

4. True.

MattTheSkywalker said:

All I see in your posts is:

1. National referendum in Iran leads to dissolved Parliament - dictator.

2. The US wasn't responsible for Iran/Iraq because other people sold them weapons too.

3. The US ambassador's feeble reply to Iraq was better than saying "go for it".

4. Second world Pakistan is equally responsible for the Taliban as single superpower US.

5. The author is a hater.

Only #2 is remotely accuraetly critical. remotely.

No. 1 was a remark. The author was trying to paint the US in as bad a light as he could, and what better way than to say the US wanted to destroy a functioning democracy and institute a brutal repressive regime in order to make money? The truth is probably not as black and white as that. From what i'm reading the iranian democracy was very unstable and only had 1 election.

http://www.jebhemelli.org/Mosadegh/English-Mosadegh.htm

It doesn't make it ok to overthrow it, but the issue of the US raping respectable governments to make oil money strikes me as only half true.

No. 2 was a remark about how people who claim to be pointing out this stuff never blame anyone but the US. If Mexico decided to nuke Canada tomorrow people like that would blame the US (and the US alone) for 'letting' Mexico use our airspace.

3. Tariq Aziz admitted he knew there would be consequences to the invasion. The UN condemned the invasion the day after it happened. What more do you want? Glaspie says she was the victim of revisionist history and Aziz says she never gave the green light.

Pakistan had a big hand in building the Taliban. I don't know how big exactly, but they were one of only 3 countries that recognized the Taliban and they funneled weapons & people into Afghanistan to help the Taliban. I am not sure who was 'responsible' for the Taliban. Probably a mix of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan & the US. Here is one example listing Pakistan's assistance to the Taliban.

Number 5 is incorrect? The guy who writesthis is not a hater?


The US & UK overthrew Iran and instituted a worse government to make money. The US armed (mildly) Iraq & Iran. The US also supported Bin Ladin during the Soviet Invasion. As far as i know, those are the only proven true things in Cummings's half true attempts at blanket condemnation of the US. Sad that there are no objective detailings and criticisms of the US's failings. all anyone has to choose from is this agenda laced manipulative propaganda.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: UK intelligence officer discusses US foreign policy the last 25 years.

nordstrom said:

3. Can you back that statement up?

in reference to

We missed a chance to avert the entire Iraq-Kuwait situation as Iraq put their intentions on the table and would have negotiated.


Aziz called the US ambassador and conveyed that Iraq was serious about invading Kuwait.

As per Aziz: She just listened and made general comments

If this wasn't a reach for diplomatic intervention, I don't know what is. That doesn't mean that the US should respond to blackmail, but look at what played out: Iraq invaded Kuwait and occupied it for 4 months. The US invaded Iraq and smashed them. Oil wells were set ablaze, 140 American died. Thousands of Iraqi's died. Saddam stayed in power.

How much more badly could things have been handled?




No. 1 was a remark. The author was trying to paint the US in as bad a light as he could, and what better way than to say the US wanted to destroy a functioning democracy and institute a brutal repressive regime in order to make money? The truth is probably not as black and white as that. From what i'm reading the iranian democracy was very unstable and only had 1 election.

http://www.jebhemelli.org/Mosadegh/English-Mosadegh.htm

The author's feelings are very thinly veiled. iranian democracy had a long way to go, to be sure. Our actions brought on a hard line Islamic theocracy. It might have happened anyway, but maybe without the hostages, the terrorism and the whole Great Satan thing.


It doesn't make it ok to overthrow it, but the issue of the US raping respectable governments to make oil money strikes me as only half true.

Half true? Maybe. But still a long way from justifiable.



No. 2 was a remark about how people who claim to be pointing out this stuff never blame anyone but the US. If Mexico decided to nuke Canada tomorrow people like that would blame the US (and the US alone) for 'letting' Mexico use our airspace.


Funny example. Also sadly true.


3. Tariq Aziz admitted he knew there would be consequences to the invasion. The UN condemned the invasion the day after it happened. What more do you want? Glaspie says she was the victim of revisionist history and Aziz says she never gave the green light.

No matter the exact words, the handling of the matter could not have been worse. I know Glaspie is a State Department Functionary, and I know we have hindsight, but the situation was butchered.


Pakistan had a big hand in building the Taliban. I don't know how big exactly, but they were one of only 3 countries that recognized the Taliban and they funneled weapons & people into Afghanistan to help the Taliban. I am not sure who was 'responsible' for the Taliban. Probably a mix of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan & the US. Here is one example listing Pakistan's assistance to the Taliban.


The Taliban was a great distraction for Pakistan, while it armed itself with nukes. The super-fundamentalists could go somewhere else. And the US did accomplish its mission with the mujahedin: destroying the USSR.



Number 5 is incorrect? The guy who writesthis is not a hater?

He is a hater but bias does not inherently make him wrong.


The US & UK overthrew Iran and instituted a worse government to make money. The US armed (mildly) Iraq & Iran. The US also supported Bin Ladin during the Soviet Invasion. As far as i know, those are the only proven true things in Cummings's half true attempts at blanket condemnation of the US. Sad that there are no objective detailings and criticisms of the US's failings. all anyone has to choose from is this agenda laced manipulative propaganda.

The deeper we dig, teh more truth we will uncover.
 
Top Bottom