It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Woman Who Caused Gulf War I Still Gagged

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   


www.jang.com.pk...

It is now more than fifteen years since that fateful meeting on July 25, 1990 between then-US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie and President Saddam Hussein that the Iraqi leader interpreted as a green light from Washington for his invasion of Kuwait eight days later.

The US State Department, which is said to have placed a gag order on Glaspie in August 1990 prohibiting her from talking to the media about what had transpired at that meeting, is apparently still keeping her under wraps despite the fact that she retired from the American Foreign Service in 2002. .

In all the years since her meeting with Saddam Hussein, Glaspie has never spoken about it to the media, never appeared as a guest on a TV talk show, never written an article or a book about her time as the US’s top diplomat in Baghdad. The question is: why? What has she got to hide?


Out of fear of their own people the US gov has for 15 years kept secret the real reason why Gulf War I happened.

Saddam was not going to invade Kuwait without a green light from its biggest ally, America.

What was Saddam to think when she said "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasise the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

And later when John Kelly said "United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait and the US has no intention of defending Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq" what was Iraq to think?

In order to LIBERATE the Kuwaiti people from the puppet dictatorship the Brits imposed over the former Iraqi land the dictators were thrown out, and Iraqi forces took over security.

In an effort to re-impose the dictatorship America bombed, and invaded its former ally despite having given assurances that this would not happen.

Say one thing, do another.

And people still wonder why Iraqis don't trust us....




posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Well the "Kuwaiti dictatorship" compared extremely favourably to the Sadam's Iraq republic. Or can you name me people executed in Kuwait under emir?
Besides it was not certain US will come to help to Kuwait. Remeber that it was at the end of Cold war and USSR still existed. Of course US wanted to make no promises when they didn't know how would USSR (Iraq ally) react.
PLease stop blaming US for everything on this planet.



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Well the "Kuwaiti dictatorship" compared extremely favourably to the Sadam's Iraq republic. Or can you name me people executed in Kuwait under emir?


Countless references

Take some time and read the Kuwaiti constitution, and try to say that this is not a dictatorship.

The Kuwaiti Royal family has powers far greater than Saddam could dream.

They were given power, not by the people, but by the foriegn invaders.

All underwent the Rite of Heredom, and swore allegiance to the CROWN.

The same is true for all other mid-east monarchies.

Iraq too was a CROWN dictatorship until the Iraqis threw the puppets out.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   
The US originally had no intentions concerning Kuwait. Kuwait is a nation controlled by the British Hegemony back in the days of the Empire as what the history books call a protectorate.

If you look at the records carefully ..if you can even find a video of this...George Bush Senior was not going to do anything until the British PM Margret Thatcher came to America to the Aspen Institute and had a meeting with the President. George Bush Senior went into this meeting a dove and came out a hawk. George was given marching orders by Margret Thatcher and whoever she represented. From then on the war took a different turn. Keeping this from the public eye is the reason for April Galispie's silence.

The "Special" relationship with Britian and the United States is known by many peoples. It is just not spoken about publically or correctly written about in books. You will find this outlined in one difficult to find book titled "The Empire of the City" by E.C. Knuth.
The United States is and since about 1898 been the boot lackey for the British merchant monopoly also called the "City"or the "Crown". We do thier bidding when ordered to do so. WE die for them in places around the world to protect their investments. We have replaced the French as thier bootlackeys back during the First World War.
Most of the oil resources in the Mid East were developed and staked out by these merchants between WW1 and WW2. It is the British Government acting in the forefront for the Crowns merchants who developed whole nations to manage from behind the scenes and caused many of the problems we see in the mid east today. Trans Jordan and Kuwait are two of the nations developed by this merchant system.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

Well the "Kuwaiti dictatorship" compared extremely favourably to the Sadam's Iraq republic. Or can you name me people executed in Kuwait under emir?


Countless references

Take some time and read the Kuwaiti constitution, and try to say that this is not a dictatorship.

The Kuwaiti Royal family has powers far greater than Saddam could dream.

They were given power, not by the people, but by the foriegn invaders.

All underwent the Rite of Heredom, and swore allegiance to the CROWN.

The same is true for all other mid-east monarchies.

Iraq too was a CROWN dictatorship until the Iraqis threw the puppets out.


Maybe I was not clear, I meant executions of political prisoners. Indeed accrding to constitution Kuwait is dictature - or better said absolutistic monarchy. But does it mean the human rights are worse in KUwait than in Iraq "republic"? Certainly not. And under this "protectorate" Kuwaiti people had much better life than other surrounding states - including NO taxes. Kuwait was also the most liberal country in Gulf.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   
your point is well made. Buisnesses historically dont care about what type of government is in power as long as it does not adversly affect their profits. Any type of Government will do as long as they and thier investments are left alone. Dictatorships are fine with these buisnesses..any type until it affects thier profits.
Now when it affects thier investments ..such as Saddam invading Kuwait and alters the take or profit...that will have to be taken care of..adjustments have to be made. A nation can execute as many of its people as it want or needs ..as long as it does not effect the profits of these corporations. This is called foreign policy or diplomacy.
I would like to see a series of history books based on investments in nations by national or foreign buisnesses and their effects on those nations. By this I mean Banks, Insurance companys, and manufacturers/producers. This would make for a very different read than what passes for History in most of our books. I doubt that this type of history would be permitted to be accurately written.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Funny, longbow. What ever happened to promoting democracy around the world?

Take a hike. I'm sure the Kuwaiti regime will welcome you. With open arms.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Funny, longbow. What ever happened to promoting democracy around the world?

Take a hike. I'm sure the Kuwaiti regime will welcome you. With open arms.


Kuwaiti regime is one of the best in midde east you fool. I don't want to live in Middle east, but If I had to choose my choices would be

1. Bahrain
2 Qatar
3. Kuwait

All of them are "dictatorships" and close allies of US and UK, and all od them have - surprise,surprise - most liberal enviroments in region, DESPITE being "dictatorships". But autokratic doesn't necessarly mean bad, certainly if you look at the middle east. Democracy doesn't always fit well, especially if the people are not prepared to it. Certainly those dictatorship goverments do more good to their citiziens than many western democracies.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join