-Caveat Lector-
Alamaine Ratliff wrote:
>
>What calamity (if any) was about to befall Geo Bush (Sr) when it was
>originally decided to act against Iraq back in '90? It seems as though
>when 'genderhood' is threatened, Hussein appears to be the one they try to
>geld. I refer to this in view of the Sudan/Afghanistan strikes (following
>Grand Jury testimony) and now this. The impetus for my comment stems in
>part from an O'Reilly (Fox News) piece with Al Haig, during which Haig
>referred to striking Iraq as being a way to prove 'manhood' ... is Willie
>Clinton the only one to whom Haig may have referred?
>
Sorry to respond so late.
I don't think Bush intended to attack Iraq at all. I recall that
there was a regularly scheduled meeting of world leaders shortly after the
invasion of Kuwait (G7 in Denver?) where the press had its first crack at
the collected government leaders. When the question of Iraq came up Bush
hemmed and hawed about an appropriate response; it was Margaret Thatcher
who weighed in with threats to kick Saddam's ass all the way back to
Baghdad. After that the idea of ousting Saddam from Kuwait wouldn't go away
but neither was it a unanimous public opinion which is why the "incubator
babies" incident was required.
I suspect that the invasion of Kuwait had something to do with the
manipulation of oil prices, possibly by placing an embargo on Iraqi oil
(including the conquered oil, whether that was meant to be the disputed oil
field or all of Kuwait's production). In return Saddam might get whatever
he could haul out of Kuwait and the assurance that things would cool down
after a couple of years and he could resume pumping oil (if Saddam's
complicity was even required). Perhaps it was Bush's failure to achieve the
original target that caused him to step aside (so to speak) but it might
have been his final act anyway -- so many scandals barely under the surface,
and Bush may be more effective away from the public eye. Maggie didn't last
long after that and I don't doubt that she was turfed for speaking out of
turn.
It's also interesting to consider the consequences of the recent
fireworks and ponder whether they were intended or not. Saddam now has a
*greater* opportunity to build "weapons of mass destruction" since it will
now be difficult for the U.S. to get world support to force Iraq to admit
inspectors. Maybe there wasn't enough terrorism in the world? Russia is
making noises about re-arming, China has cracked down on democracy activists;
all in all America has lost its "moral authority" which may give despots
everywhere the opportunity to eliminate nuisances without fear of reprisals.
Something to consider, anyway.
Gerry
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
