gmcase Loc: Galt's Gulch

Blurry - he has been suffering from increasing levels of dementia for some time and I am not kidding. Obvious symptons. Best to ignore the old fool or wave him off with a few words here and there.

mwalsh Loc: Houston

No, but he did exhort the trumpettes to throw them out, one time yelling something like take his coat, it 20 degrees outside, he will freeze....he did offer to pay the legal bills of trumpettes if they roughed folks up a bit too much...he did encourage violence...

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

I think you might seriously be right.

BigWahoo Loc: Kentucky

You may want to look at this:


How Bush 41 Tricked
Saddam Into
Invading Kuwait
Gulf War 1 - The April Glaspie interview
1-15-6

According to the book Unholy Babylon by Adel Darwish and Gregory Alexander (Gollancz Paperback 1991):

The US before the first Gulf War gave Saddam to understand that it would not interfere in its quarrel with Kuwait. US Ambassador April Glaspie conveyed the message to Saddam that the US 'had no opinion' on Iraq's future intentions with regard to Kuwait.

(Kuwait as a state separate from Iraq was a creation of the British to protect their oil interests.) The book makes the situation painfully clear: Washington sent many messages to the Iraqi leader, all of them with the same theme. 'We won't interfere.

We apologise for anything the nasty journalists have written about you, we prefer you to those fanatic Iranians.' This is the 'how' of American diplomacy. The reasons are now clearer..""

http://rense.com/general69/41.htm

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

So by not actually interfering, the U.S. "tricked" Sadam into invading Kuwait? Did he not want to invade before he heard this? By using the word "tricked" you are implying that Saddam really did not want to do it, but the U.S. deceptively made him do it. If you are insinuating that the U.S. is somehow responsible for the invasion of Kuwait, this is just nonsense. Heaven forbid that anybody would blame Saddam Hussein for invading Kuwait. By this logic, every single country in the World "tricked" Saddam because none of them threatened to interfere either. Diplomatic niceties are almost completely irrelevant when a tyrannical genocidal dictator is involved.

This story may be true, but I think it is completely meaningless.

wilpharm Loc: Oklahoma

meaningless and total BS...

BigWahoo Loc: Kentucky

I didn't use the word 'tricked'.

You might notice that I included a link to the article and book. I realize it might not be in agreement with what you wish to believe.

Personally I prefer to hear both sides of an idea before I make up my mind.

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

Agreed.

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

Again, you believe you know what Trump wants......you don't. I will hold by my comment that the way we have been treating Euro countries (old Euro, in particular) for decades has not worked out very well for the U.S. and it's taxpayers. the choice is not a binary one between WWI and II and what's been going on since.

Trying to make all decisions binary is one of the problems we encounter today......the world is not really ON/OFF, O/1, all or nothing. We have bigger enemies than Russia right now (the old "in basket test"), by the way, and I have not seen the 70 years of peace on earth you describe!

As far as NATO goes, I like it as long as they pay their own way.

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

First, let's clarify, the situation is not about what Trump wants, but what Trump DOES.

I disagree that things haven't worked out well--70 years of peace is an accomplishment you can't deny--particularly when you look at history in which victory in WWI couldn't establish a peace that lasted 20 years, but actually laid the groundwork for WWII.

We've avoided that recurrence for 70 years and counting, and I call that success; you may disagree, if you wish.

Don't understand your comments about Binary--I know what the term means, but not your application.

"...by the way, and I have not seen the 70 years of peace on earth you describe!" Well, explain to me when WWIII occurred--it's long past overdue, compared to the first two, isn't it?

"As far as NATO goes, I like it as long as they pay their own way."

The obligations for NATO members is a certain fee for administration, based upon the size of each member's economy--our economy is the largest, so we pay most--and an obligation to devote 2% of each nation's GDP toward their own military, which is to be achieved by the year 2024.

Many members are not there yet, but they have until 2024 to get right with their obligations.

NATO does not "pay" anyone, least of all the USA for protecting them, as Donald seems to think.

"We have bigger enemies than Russia right now...". I don't agree. We are under attack today from ISIS or fundamental Islamic believers (which we brought upon ourselves within several differing dimensions) and it is very inconvenient; however, ISIS is not yet attacking our Constitution or Declaration Of Independence, that is the very foundations of our way of life; ISIS would love to destroy us, but so far they are only an inconvenience, not a profound threat.

Russia, on the other hand, is attacking us on that level, and has scored their greatest victory in keeping Hillary from being elected (they are terrified of Hillary, which is why they took such a severe position) and saddling us with Donald Trump--who may or may not be indebted to Russia, and perhaps harbors profound sympathy of Russia's aims for business or other reasons). That is what the current investigation is all about.

You may think ISIS is the greater threat, but I think Russia is.

Keenan Loc: Central Coast California

"Well, explain to me when WWIII occurred--it's long past overdue, compared to the first two, isn't it?"

Not to worry. Trump is on top of that one! He is doing everything within his capabilities to hasten it's arrival. I believe that if there is one goal with which he will succeed if allowed to finish out a full term, it will be this one. well, ok, likely one more "success" as well: Destroying everything that was good about America.

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

Absolutely, friggin' Agree!

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Transcripts of the conversation are available. Ambassador Glaspie told Saddam that the US was unconcerned about Arab on Arab violence. Afterwards the US said gotcha. I'm not calling names, you may be smart enough, but you need to read up on this one. I have no idea the motive. There may not have been one. Glaspie may have just screwed up.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

I can't imagine the Saudis getting too excited about cutting heads off. If I'm not mistaken they cut off as many heads as everyone else put together. The fact that it isn't them doing it probably upsets them. You can trace most Muslim violence (at least Sunni) to the Saudis.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

If you really want to upset him, suggest that you think Dirt is smarter than he is. He will become highly agitated.