Of course, much of this has been known for some time, given that Hussein recorded the conversation, released the transcript a month or so after invading Kuwait, including Glaspie's line about the U.S. taking "no interest in Arab-Arab affairs," a transcript which she dutifully ignored when some French journalists stuck it in front of her face.
The Gulf War wasn't just used as election promotion by the elder Bush--it was also a way of terrifying the Saudis into letting U.S. troops stay on Saudi soil (one primary reason among several for the arbitrary creation of the no-fly zones), the presence of which inflamed not only the religious extremists, but the moderate Saudi clergy, as well, and which directly led to a decade of attacks on U.S. symbols of power, culminating in the attacks on 9/11.
There was a reason why Little Boots started moving troops out of Saudi Arabia soon after 9/11. One attack he could use for his own political and geopolitical purposes. Two would have made him seem utterly incompetent, so he removed the motivation for further attacks.
Thus, the Bushes created the circumstances for a new amorphous enemy to replace the fallen Soviet Union....
There was a reason why Little Boots started moving troops out of Saudi Arabia soon after 9/11..... so he removed the motivation for further attacks.
....yet another steaming pile of donkey shit deposited here by Montag.
The US didn't remove any significant numbers of troops from Saudi Arabia until April of 2003, a redeployment involving mostly the U.S. Air Force. There was no longer any threat from his (former) buddy Saddam Hussein.
" The Persian Gulf, Rumsfeld said, "is now a safer region because of the change in Iraq." He also said U.S. planes no longer are needed to enforce a "no-fly" zone over Iraq. American military aircraft patrolling the southern half of Iraq did so in part from Saudi Arabia. "
.....and there was plenty of motivation and targets for attack from jihadi crazies once the US coalition occupied Iraq. But even with that, as history shows, the supply of suicide bombers eventually dwindled -- much to the extreme sadness of people like Montag. There simply wasn't an endless stream of willing jihadis spilling into Iraq and the US led coalition prevailed in a decisive fashion.
As usual, quite stupid and disingenuous to claim a liar like Rummy as a primary source.
Here's the way it really went down. In the first four months after Sept., 2001, the U.S. built thirteen tent cities outside of SA, to position personnel outside SA (negotiations were still going on with the Saudi royals to keep troops in SA for an invasion, but by the spring of 2002, when Rummy and Cheney were planning the invasion of Iraq in earnest, the SA royals were adamant that attacks could not originate from SA unless there was a UN resolution, which did not exist at the time, and that meant the U.S. could not count on mounting most of its air attack from SA).
Equipment and personnel began to be shifted out of SA to Al Udeid in Qatar in November, 2001, and forces began to be diverted to and built up in other countries in the region, beginning in earnest around Nov., 2001, including Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.
Prior to 9/11, military deployment strength in SA was typically at or above the 10.000 range, not including contractors (and, depending on periodic exercises conducted, probably peaked at around 17,000). By Oct., 2002, that number had dropped to about 6,000. By the time the invasion of Iraq had started, the UN resolution was in place, so the U.S. had permission from the Saudis to continue some operations out of Prince Sultan, but, those were limited and destined to be short-lived, since the intention--since the winter of 2001-2--was to take Iraq and use that country as a primary Middle Eastern base. By Apr., 2003, in the first days of the invasion, the number of military personnel in SA was down to 5,000. As I said, US military presence in Saudi Arabia was reduced, beginning after Sept., 2001.
The U.S. military did not, as you suggest, begin to reduce deployment in SA only after Apr., 2003. It began in piecemeal fashion almost immediately after the 9/11 attacks, and continued through to the invasion of Iraq.
It wasn't as if no one could figure out that the presence of U.S. soldiers wasn't an affront to religious Saudis--there were reports of even moderate clerics there asking--in Nov., 1990--when the U.S. soldiers were going to leave, and bin Laden had made it clear in speeches as early as early 1992, after it was apparent that the U.S. military was not leaving Saudi Arabia, that the situation was intolerable.
Once 9/11 happened, the process of withdrawal of forces from Saudi Arabia began, and a complete withdrawal was delayed only by Rummy's and Cheney's need to have another place (Iraq) to put them. But, the religious wackos could see movement in that direction, which may well be a primary reason why there have not been successive massed terror attacks on the U.S. Moreover, if 9/11 had nothing to do with the U.S. military in Saudi Arabia, why were they withdrawn at all? Much safer to keep combat aircraft in a neighboring country outside the war zone where they can't be damaged by ground attacks.
You believe Rummy, and I'll believe the contemporary news reports of the time.
You believe Rummy, and I'll believe the contemporary news reports of the time.
A good deal, indeed. And reflective of your habitual position of arguing from point of weakness.
I guess that puts me in the enviable position of believing a person who would have known the facts, rather than (as you say) "contemporary news reports".
Donald Rumsfeld = US Secretary of Defense
Contemporary news reporters = people who wouldn't be in a strong position to know the facts = unknown source which you mysteriously failed to provide
Oh yeah, and one more thing. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan are well on their way to a free and more prosperous future. You seem to grow increasingly shrill in your frustration but you still cannot stop the progress of freedom. Yet another instance of people like me holding the moral high ground and being on the right side of history -- and people like you, Montag, being..... well.....you know how it goes....
Fully 10% of our income taxes go to satisfy the egos of asshats like OnAn, and their telepathic bloodlust for Empire.
Hedley with yet another barefaced lie. The United States hasn't annexed an inch of land anywhere since the Spanish-American War over 110 years ago.
The United States isn't a militaristic hegemon as Hedley attempts to portray. Cultural hegemony, yes indeed, military hegemony, definitely not. If that were the case (militarily) then the entire planet would have been US territory a long time ago.
Funny, the militarist cheerleader reverses himself and now declares the U.S. isn't a dominant military power rather a cultural hegemon?
The U.S. maintains over 700 military bases in over 150 countries around the world with 369,000 troops.
The U.S. spends one-half of all global expenditures on military force. China, the next largest military spender, spends 10% what the U.S. spends.
The armchair militarist repudiates the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan as military operations, somehow redefining them as 'cultural' missions?
HAHAHAHAHA.
OnAn, if you showed half the empathy for your fellow Americans as you do for nameless and faceless Iraqis and Afghanis (the ones who don't get blown to bits by 'errant' smart bombs or whatever) I'd give you a bit of credibility. But you don't give a shit about what's happening here at the expense of the foreign military adventures that arouse you to such heights.
OnAn, you're an amoral fraud, as slippery as an eel and about as intelligent.
Hedley. You must be slipping off your meds again? Here you are (again) wishing for me to encounter misfortune.
You did that a few months ago when you hoped that I might contract illness leading to death.
Methinks you might be in need of another adjustment of your re-uptake inhibitors regimen.
....reverses himself and now declares the U.S. isn't a dominant military power rather a cultural hegemon?
When did I claim that "the US isn't a dominant military power?" You must have imagined that one in your drug induced haze.
By the way.... Intelligent readers probably noticed that you didn't dispute my assertion that the US hasn't annexed any land in over 100 years. All you did was provide various bits that detail our military superiority.
that you failed to mention American Samoa and the Marianas as 'officially' annexed territories since the Spanish/American War, not to mention the 'unofficial' annexation of certain Middle Eastern states.
Intelligent observers would most likely notice OnAn's ommissions of fact and twisted logic.
It's funny that you should mention that, Hedley. One could certainly view my presence here as possibly filling some kind of void. [if one were inclined toward such theorizing....]
Here's one such theory that I heard a couple of years ago:
People often come to discussion blogs to replace something that's mostly missing in their lives. For instance...you (Hedley) could be coming here to sing with the choir, to find people that will agree with you -- not easy for a nutcake -- in other words, to find friends because you don't have many (or any). I, on the other hand, I'm a longtime member of the trolletariat -- could possibly be coming here to find opposition and grapple with negativity, something that I don't usually encounter, thus filling something that may be missing from my life.
But that's all just a theory....
Perhaps you could ask Dr Bob what he thinks? You really should see the Doc soon anyway to adjust yer meds. It's obvious that you've gone off the rails again, especially with all this death wishing you've been engaging in recently.
Rising Hegemon
21 comments:
what does april glaspie say?
Of course, much of this has been known for some time, given that Hussein recorded the conversation, released the transcript a month or so after invading Kuwait, including Glaspie's line about the U.S. taking "no interest in Arab-Arab affairs," a transcript which she dutifully ignored when some French journalists stuck it in front of her face.
The Gulf War wasn't just used as election promotion by the elder Bush--it was also a way of terrifying the Saudis into letting U.S. troops stay on Saudi soil (one primary reason among several for the arbitrary creation of the no-fly zones), the presence of which inflamed not only the religious extremists, but the moderate Saudi clergy, as well, and which directly led to a decade of attacks on U.S. symbols of power, culminating in the attacks on 9/11.
There was a reason why Little Boots started moving troops out of Saudi Arabia soon after 9/11. One attack he could use for his own political and geopolitical purposes. Two would have made him seem utterly incompetent, so he removed the motivation for further attacks.
Thus, the Bushes created the circumstances for a new amorphous enemy to replace the fallen Soviet Union....
There was a reason why Little Boots started moving troops out of Saudi Arabia soon after 9/11..... so he removed the motivation for further attacks.
....yet another steaming pile of donkey shit deposited here by Montag.
The US didn't remove any significant numbers of troops from Saudi Arabia until April of 2003, a redeployment involving mostly the U.S. Air Force. There was no longer any threat from his (former) buddy Saddam Hussein.
" The Persian Gulf, Rumsfeld said, "is now a safer region because of the change in Iraq." He also said U.S. planes no longer are needed to enforce a "no-fly" zone over Iraq. American military aircraft patrolling the southern half of Iraq did so in part from Saudi Arabia. "
.....and there was plenty of motivation and targets for attack from jihadi crazies once the US coalition occupied Iraq. But even with that, as history shows, the supply of suicide bombers eventually dwindled -- much to the extreme sadness of people like Montag. There simply wasn't an endless stream of willing jihadis spilling into Iraq and the US led coalition prevailed in a decisive fashion.
.
O&A loves Rummy, and trusts everything he says.
As usual, quite stupid and disingenuous to claim a liar like Rummy as a primary source.
Here's the way it really went down. In the first four months after Sept., 2001, the U.S. built thirteen tent cities outside of SA, to position personnel outside SA (negotiations were still going on with the Saudi royals to keep troops in SA for an invasion, but by the spring of 2002, when Rummy and Cheney were planning the invasion of Iraq in earnest, the SA royals were adamant that attacks could not originate from SA unless there was a UN resolution, which did not exist at the time, and that meant the U.S. could not count on mounting most of its air attack from SA).
Equipment and personnel began to be shifted out of SA to Al Udeid in Qatar in November, 2001, and forces began to be diverted to and built up in other countries in the region, beginning in earnest around Nov., 2001, including Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.
Prior to 9/11, military deployment strength in SA was typically at or above the 10.000 range, not including contractors (and, depending on periodic exercises conducted, probably peaked at around 17,000). By Oct., 2002, that number had dropped to about 6,000. By the time the invasion of Iraq had started, the UN resolution was in place, so the U.S. had permission from the Saudis to continue some operations out of Prince Sultan, but, those were limited and destined to be short-lived, since the intention--since the winter of 2001-2--was to take Iraq and use that country as a primary Middle Eastern base. By Apr., 2003, in the first days of the invasion, the number of military personnel in SA was down to 5,000. As I said, US military presence in Saudi Arabia was reduced, beginning after Sept., 2001.
The U.S. military did not, as you suggest, begin to reduce deployment in SA only after Apr., 2003. It began in piecemeal fashion almost immediately after the 9/11 attacks, and continued through to the invasion of Iraq.
It wasn't as if no one could figure out that the presence of U.S. soldiers wasn't an affront to religious Saudis--there were reports of even moderate clerics there asking--in Nov., 1990--when the U.S. soldiers were going to leave, and bin Laden had made it clear in speeches as early as early 1992, after it was apparent that the U.S. military was not leaving Saudi Arabia, that the situation was intolerable.
Once 9/11 happened, the process of withdrawal of forces from Saudi Arabia began, and a complete withdrawal was delayed only by Rummy's and Cheney's need to have another place (Iraq) to put them. But, the religious wackos could see movement in that direction, which may well be a primary reason why there have not been successive massed terror attacks on the U.S. Moreover, if 9/11 had nothing to do with the U.S. military in Saudi Arabia, why were they withdrawn at all? Much safer to keep combat aircraft in a neighboring country outside the war zone where they can't be damaged by ground attacks.
You believe Rummy, and I'll believe the contemporary news reports of the time.
you'd think saddam would have compiled a compendium that exposed his US patrons if anything happened to him.
maybe that's why his wife and daughter are allowed to remain in jordan.
,
You believe Rummy, and I'll believe the contemporary news reports of the time.
A good deal, indeed. And reflective of your habitual position of arguing from point of weakness.
I guess that puts me in the enviable position of believing a person who would have known the facts, rather than (as you say) "contemporary news reports".
Donald Rumsfeld = US Secretary of Defense
Contemporary news reporters = people who wouldn't be in a strong position to know the facts = unknown source which you mysteriously failed to provide
Oh yeah, and one more thing.
The people of Iraq and Afghanistan are well on their way to a free and more prosperous future. You seem to grow increasingly shrill in your frustration but you still cannot stop the progress of freedom.
Yet another instance of people like me holding the moral high ground and being on the right side of history -- and people like you, Montag, being..... well.....you know how it goes....
.
blah bla bl b.
"The people of Iraq and Afghanistan are well on their way to a free and more prosperous future."
At the expense of American workers who are lucky to have a job, much less any real wage increase in 10 years.
Fully 10% of our income taxes go to satisfy the egos of asshats like OnAn, and their telepathic bloodlust for Empire.
And the Iraqis want the U.S. out. How does one define an 'occupation'?
"Yet another instance of people like me holding the moral high ground and being on the right side of history..."
People like you used to wear necklaces named 'Mme. Guillotine'
If only...
Fully 10% of our income taxes go to satisfy the egos of asshats like OnAn, and their telepathic bloodlust for Empire.
Hedley with yet another barefaced lie.
The United States hasn't annexed an inch of land anywhere since the Spanish-American War over 110 years ago.
The United States isn't a militaristic hegemon as Hedley attempts to portray. Cultural hegemony, yes indeed, military hegemony, definitely not. If that were the case (militarily) then the entire planet would have been US territory a long time ago.
Funny, the militarist cheerleader reverses himself and now declares the U.S. isn't a dominant military power rather a cultural hegemon?
The U.S. maintains over 700 military bases in over 150 countries around the world with 369,000 troops.
The U.S. spends one-half of all global expenditures on military force. China, the next largest military spender, spends 10% what the U.S. spends.
The armchair militarist repudiates the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan as military operations, somehow redefining them as 'cultural' missions?
HAHAHAHAHA.
OnAn, if you showed half the empathy for your fellow Americans as you do for nameless and faceless Iraqis and Afghanis (the ones who don't get blown to bits by 'errant' smart bombs or whatever) I'd give you a bit of credibility. But you don't give a shit about what's happening here at the expense of the foreign military adventures that arouse you to such heights.
OnAn, you're an amoral fraud, as slippery as an eel and about as intelligent.
As stated earlier, "If only..."
As stated earlier, "If only..."
Hedley.
You must be slipping off your meds again? Here you are (again) wishing for me to encounter misfortune.
You did that a few months ago when you hoped that I might contract illness leading to death.
Methinks you might be in need of another adjustment of your re-uptake inhibitors regimen.
....reverses himself and now declares the U.S. isn't a dominant military power rather a cultural hegemon?
When did I claim that "the US isn't a dominant military power?" You must have imagined that one in your drug induced haze.
By the way....
Intelligent readers probably noticed that you didn't dispute my assertion that the US hasn't annexed any land in over 100 years. All you did was provide various bits that detail our military superiority.
Olives and Arrows
Olives,
"You did that a few months ago when you hoped that I might contract illness leading to death."
You must mean 'years' when I inferred that your expiration from the nonsense you type at your keyboard might be cause for celebration.
You're a shitbag.
I would pay to see your head under a blade.
"Intelligent readers probably noticed..."
that you failed to mention American Samoa and the Marianas as 'officially' annexed territories since the Spanish/American War, not to mention the 'unofficial' annexation of certain Middle Eastern states.
Intelligent observers would most likely notice OnAn's ommissions of fact and twisted logic.
add to OnAn's list of omissions:
U.S. Virgin Islands
and OnA's favorite masturbatory detention center:
Guantanamo!
,
heh/
Denmark sold the Virgin Islands to the US.
American Samoa is self-governing.
Spain ceded (Guam) Marianas to the US as a result of the aforementioned Spanish American War, 110 years ago.
Guantanamo was leased to the US under the 1903 Cuban-American Treaty.
Wowser. What a sorry bunch of losers.... Facts are the arch enemy of the leftist ideologue.
I've taken a screenshot capture of Hedley's 10:52 nonsense.
Attaturk, I ask that you remove his disturbing "comment" from your blog.
Olives, what's a 'winner' like you spending so much time hanging out with losers like us?
Trying to make up for some deficiency?
It's funny that you should mention that, Hedley.
One could certainly view my presence here as possibly filling some kind of void. [if one were inclined toward such theorizing....]
Here's one such theory that I heard a couple of years ago:
People often come to discussion blogs to replace something that's mostly missing in their lives.
For instance...you (Hedley) could be coming here to sing with the choir, to find people that will agree with you -- not easy for a nutcake -- in other words, to find friends because you don't have many (or any).
I, on the other hand, I'm a longtime member of the trolletariat -- could possibly be coming here to find opposition and grapple with negativity, something that I don't usually encounter, thus filling something that may be missing from my life.
But that's all just a theory....
Perhaps you could ask Dr Bob what he thinks?
You really should see the Doc soon anyway to adjust yer meds. It's obvious that you've gone off the rails again, especially with all this death wishing you've been engaging in recently.
Not bothering to read, Olives.
You're truly beneath contempt. Not worth the time nor energy.
,
Bawahahahaha !!!
Too fuckin funny !
Hedley makes a comment to tell us he won't bother to comment !
Fucking hilarious. His medication sure makes him do some funny stuff...
Ya just can't buy entertainment like this.
I really should hit Attaturk's tip jar.....
Post a Comment