[kj] The war criminal Blair ?

[sade1]

... ... ... ... ... ... 

[looking at the current state of things..]
 
'Who has the fun.. 
  ..is it always a man with a gun...? 
    Someone must have told him if you work too hard... you can sweat" 




________________________________
From: Jim Harper <jimharper666 at yahoo.co.uk>
To: A list about all things Killing Joke (the band!) <gathering at misera.net>
Sent: Mon, February 15, 2010 3:58:37 PM
Subject: Re: [kj] The war criminal Blair ?


I've seen that quote before, and at the very least it's ambiguous. It's certainly political speak, but it could just as easily be the kind of patented non-commital response that politicians give to avoid being explicit about anything in case it gets thrown back at them. It could easily mean: "I'm not getting into it. Leave me out of this." Suggesting that it's somehow a US greenlight- even leaving aside the faintly ridiculous idea that Hussein felt the need to even consult the US on this issue- is stretching it a little too far.

As far as the question of legality goes, that's another thorny issue. Since the USA has no legal basis for 'greenlighting' such an action (not being in charge of either Iraq or Kuwait), they couldn't legally sanction or forbid the invasion of Kuwait, and Saddam Hussein was in no way bound by any judgements the US might have made on the situation. So why bother? 

Did the US know what was going to happen? Almost certainly. Does that amount to 'greenlighting' the invasion? ... Not unless there's some key evidence I'm missing. It's going to take more than one vague quote to convince me that the US should be held jointly responsible for the invasion of Kuwait.

Jim.

--- On Mon, 15/2/10, sade1 <saulomar1 at yahoo.com> wrote:


> Really? I could have sworn that your exact words were: 

>> "the U.S. has no opinion on Arab/Arab conflicts..." 

>

>   That's actually a real quote of the Ambassador [Glaspie] from a meeting where she responded to Saddam. 

>   In polit.speak, that was as green a light as a drag racing Christmas Tree light. 

>

>> And, again, please reconcile Hussein's history of ignoring the US with this supposed 'greenlight'. 

>> Asserting your belief that I'm wrong is not really an acceptable answer.

>

>   Didn't mean to imply you were wrong, I was just limiting my focus only as far as the legality of the actual war that happened and as it happened; that whether or not iRaq would've invaded anyway in some alternate scenario doesn't make iRaq legally any more guilty (or u.s. and Kuwait any less guilty) than the actual war that happened makes them out to be. 

>  Otherwise, in a different scenario, if the u.s. had not supported (w/cash or wink&nod) iRaq's hostilities and provocations, and if iRaq somehow could've gotten around the u.s.'s support of Kuwait with u.s. cash, connections, and arms, I'd otherwise agree that Hussein would've tried to attack, and maybe even have succeeded. 

> 

>> If that's a greenlight for criminal activities, then your 'no comment' is my permission 

>> to break into your neighbour's house. 

>

>  Okay yeah, it's not permission per se', but, given the players, given the context, given the paradigm, everyone involved understands that to have been a "green light;" the invasion caught none of them by surprise. 

>   It is, say, much more like a mafia don saying, "I have no comment.." when asked by an underling can said underling 'whack' another mafia underling, which would all categorically be (and intended as such by its speaker) a Greenlight.  

>[local/state/national/global politics tend much much more towards "The Godfather" than anything else that resembles human decency, empathy, and common sense. There's a reason why all those people scheming at the highest levels have studied Machiavelli and Sun Tzu and 'not so much' Buddha or the Essene Gospel Of Peace.]

>

>

>

>

>

>... ... ... ... ... ... 

>

>[looking at the current state of things..]

> 

>'Who has the fun.. 

>  ..is it always a man with a gun...? 

>    Someone must have told him if you work too hard... you can sweat" 

>

>

>

>

>

________________________________
From: Jim Harper <jimharper666 at yahoo.co.uk>

>To: A list about all things Killing Joke (the band!) <gathering at misera.net>

>Sent: Mon, February 15, 2010 1:30:21 PM

>Subject: Re: [kj] The war criminal Blair ?

>

>

>Really? I could have sworn that your exact words were:

>

>"the U.S. has no opinion on Arab/Arab conflicts..." 

>

>If that's a greenlight for criminal activities, then your 'no comment' is my permission to break into your neighbour's house. 

>

>And, again, please reconcile Hussein's history of ignoring the US with this supposed 'greenlight'. Asserting your belief that I'm wrong is not really an acceptable answer.

>

>Jim.

>

>--- On Mon, 15/2/10, sade1 <saulomar1 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>That - hypothetically - iRaq may have invaded anyway and - hypothetically - would've started a war doesn't deny that the U.S. in fact did go ahead and greenlight Saddam's real, actual invasion. We'll never know, except for what actually did happen and how it happened. And a greenlight is a greenlight.

>> 

>> 

>

>

>-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

>

>

>_______________________________________________

>Gathering mailing list

>Gathering at misera.net

>http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering

> 




      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://four.pairlist.net/pipermail/gathering/attachments/20100215/85b4fc81/attachment.htm>