Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

The Bottom Line

0 views

Skip to first unread message

The Aggressor

unread,

Dec 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/20/99

It's become evident to me, after reading and participating in this NG
for some time now, that a great deal of blame has been placed on Kuwait for
Iraq's suffering, as well as the discussion of trivial and unnecissary
topics which do little but protray ignorance and insolence. In addition,
some individuals resort to personal insult, finger-pointing, social chastity
and accusations that have fairly weak grounds at best. Having said that, I
wish to lay down a few hilights once and for all, and would kindly invite
participants, as well as non-participants, who frequent this NG to send in
their feedback.

1) In May 1990 Iraqi troops mass along the Iraq-Kuwait border. Tensions
between the two countries intensifies as accusations are thrown back and
forth about a never-before-disputed Oil field that lies between the two
countries. Iraq also accuse Kuwait and the UAE of playing with world Oil
prices to drown Iraq into more debt. The Iraqi Military leadership claims
the presence of Iraqi troops a part of an exercise.

2) In June 1990, the summary of a meeting with Saddam Hussein and US
ambassador April Glaspie states that "the USA has no say in Arab-Arab
issues" in this region. UAE holds military exercises with US forces in the
region. Iraqi forces are reinforced further with units from the
Revolutionary Guards, all veterans of the 8-year war with Iran. The GCC
Governments urges the Iraqi regime to reconsider it's attitude for more open
dialogue.

3) In July 1990, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak hosts with Saddam Hussein
a meeting in which he is promised that Iraq has no aggressive intentions
towards Kuwait, only that it wishes to safeguard Iraqi intersts in it's
southern Oil fields.Kuwaiti Armed forces are "ordered to stand down" from
general alert.

4) On the first of August, a meeting between Tariq Aziz and Sheikh Sa'ad Al
Sabah is arranged in Saudi Arabia under the partonage of the Saudi King,
which proved to be unfruitful in easing tensions. US intelligence services
advise the US president that Iraqi troop formations do not conform with the
said mission of protecting interests. US forces in the region are alerted
that an invasion is imminent.

5) On the second of August 1990, Kuwait is Invaded and Occupied by Iraqi
forces claiming to be "invited" by a revolutionary militant group in Kuwait
asking for their help in overthrowing the Kuwaiti Monarchy, led by a man
called "Ala'a Hussein Ali". Kuwaiti military is caught in shock and
disorder,resistance lasted for about six hours. Kuwaiti Defence minister
orders all remaining units to retreat to Saudi Arabia.

*Kuwaiti families flee the occupied state to neighbouring Arab states.
Vacationing Kuwaitis in Europe and the USA gather around and pledge
allegiance to the Kuwaiti flag in front of their Embassies. Kuwaiti and
Iraqi overseas assets are frozen. An Iraqi-Backed Kuwaiti Provisional
Government is set up in Kuwait, headed by the revolution leader, Ala'a
Hussein Ali, which later turns out to be a hoax. The US security Council
condems the Iraqi attack and calls for immediate and unconditional withdrawl
of all Iraqi forces. The USA, USSR, UK, Switzerland, Germany and Japan are
among the many countries that blatantly condemn the Iraqi regime. For a
total of three consecutive days, not one Arab country answered Kuwaiti pleas
for help until Lebanon, and later Egypt spoke, followed by the Arab League,
with the PLO, Jordan, Sudan and Yemen abstaining.Civil disobediance is
agreed upon by all Kuwaitis trapped inside Kuwait. A growing armed Kuwaiti
resistance is organized by Army and Police officers refusing to leave Kuwait
and regroup in Saudi Arabia in defiance of the Kuwaiti Defence Minister's
orders.

6) On the fourth day of the Invasion, the First wave of the US military and
logistical support troops arrive in Saudi Arabia to set up a foundation for
the coming armies and navies of a 33-country coalition. Kuwait is formally
annexed by the Iraqi regime into "Greater Iraq".

*Troop numbers and economic aid intensify, armies and navies mass all over
the region, the UN Security council drafts resolution after resolution,
calling for Iraq to withdraw or face grave consequences, with little or no
success. The Kuwaiti resistance grows stronger and strikes everywhere in
occupied Kuwait as well in Iraq, blowing up a car bomb near an Army barracks
in Basrah. A deadline is set on the 25th of January for Iraq to "retreat" or
face a military confrontation.

7) On the night of the 25th, the Air war begins in Baghdad and Kuwait. CNN
reporters broadcast live picture and sound from Baghdad showing cruise
missiles and osunds of jets flying around and bombs blowing up military and
civilian installations in and around Baghdad. The Iraqi regime uses
foreigners as "Human Shields" in military installations all over the theatre
of operations.

8) On the 27th of January 1991, Kuwait is liberated, Iraqi forces are
routed and retreat to reinforce Baghdad. Iraqi troops are shown on TV
scurrying out of foxholes and dugouts starved and scared, some of them
half-naked, waving white flags and surrendering to camera crews and kissing
the boots of US soldiers. .

9) On the 28th of January 1991, Coalition Supreme Commander Gen. Shwartzkopf
comments that between his forces and Baghdad lies nothing but desert. Us
President Bush orders all US troops back into Kuwait and set up a buffer
zone. Iraq signs a ceasefire agreement and surrenders. The entire campaign
lasted a total of 100 hours.

*Stories of atrocities and evidence of mass killings and graves show up in
newspapers all over the world. Kuwaiti and foreign witnesses tell their side
of the story while under Iraqi occupation to news agencies. Camera crews
uncover torture chambers and tools in schools, police stations, abandoned
warehouses and homes. An archive of missing people and POW's is set up,
headed by the National Comittee for the Missing and POW's Affairs in Kuwait,
spearheaded by reports from the Red Cross, Red Crescent, Amnesty
International and Greenpeace, as well as other smaller organizations all
over Europe, the Middle East and USA.

10) In 1992 and onwards, Sporadic uprisings in the North by Kurds, and in
the South by Shiites, are continually crushed by surviving Iraqi forces.
Saddam Hussein remains in power thanks to his tight grip on security around
him. The Iraqi people live harshly under UN-imposed Economic sanctions till
today, with a continuously rising death toll, appalling health situations,
food shortages and little government relief, while Saddam Hussein builds a
bigger army, more statues, celebrates his birthdays and other events like
Army day and Revolution day.

* A number of assassination attempts by militant Iraqis fail against Saddam
Hussein as well as his son Udai. Members of his cabinet attempt to defect to
Jordan. Udai formes an 'elite' guard unit. Almost all of the humanitarian
relief from abroad is directed to military units and members of the
Revolutionary council in Iraq. Some relief pakages from GCC states are
refused by Iraqi authorities on grounds that the are "unfit for human
consumption".

11) Present day, Iraq still defies UN Security Council resolutions,
regardless of the fact that this step would bring about relief to the
declining Iraqi situation to a great extent. It still uses misinformation,
propaganda and truth-twisting to veer off from it's responsibilities towards
war reparations and other outyling issues like POW's and missing people. US
warplanes use bases in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to launch attacks on
military targets and impose the economic sanctions on Iraq, while the Iraqi
military command insists on retaliating with anti-aircraft guns and
provocative troop movements in and around civilian areas.

Regardless of smaller and/or trivial issues, these are the facts.

I feel for the Iraqis, so does all of Kuwait, government included.
However, it is unfair to blame Kuwait for how the Iraqis live today. Kuwait
did not invade Iraq and did not starve it's people by defying UN
resolutions. This is, in my opinion, the real issue we're trying to discuss
here, not individual behavior, not personal traits, and certainly not social
contrasts.
Two people could point fingers of blame at each other and insult each
other for as long as there is time, and not find a single solution to the
problems at hand. It's not wrong to side with what's right, and what's right
today is to admit fault and strive to correct it, not cast blame for "what
might have been" had not this-and-that happened.
605 is not a big number when compared to 18 million. But when the issue
is 'human beings',not cattle, just one life is valuable. Releasing
information, correct information, about the status of POW's held by Iraq is
one of the few resolutions that the UN security council calls for. Saddam
Hussein does not even admit that they exist, despite many Iraqi documents,
eyewitnesses and received letters by family members to the contrary.
What most people do not realize is that all Kuwait wants is some
information, any information, any kind of tangible evidence, that the 605
POW's & Missing people merely WERE alive. Kuwait has no use for Iraqi Oil,
nor Iraqi wealth, nor Iraqi anything for that matter, except a return to the
status quo and neighbourly trust, but without the current regime in place.
In return, all Iraq gains in return is an honorable, healthy life once
again, with a fresh new leadership and a fresh new start...and that is the
bottom line.

The Aggressor

Abuhashim

unread,

Dec 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/20/99

Very interesting Aggressor. Why did you chose that name, when you call
for peace??

Your articles includes grave and biased points. Let's have a look:

> 1) In May 1990 Iraqi troops mass along the Iraq-Kuwait border.
> Tensions between the two countries intensifies as accusations are
thrown back and forth about a never-before-disputed Oil field that lies
between the two countries. Iraq also accuse Kuwait and the UAE of
playing with world Oil prices to drown Iraq into more debt. The Iraqi
Military leadership claims the presence of Iraqi troops a part of an
exercise.

The fact that Kuwait was pumping oil from a field inside Iraq was not
mentuioned by you. This was a thing admitted by Kuwait, which was
prepared to pay compensations, less than what Iraq demanded. Nor did
you tell us, was Kuwait and the UAE really dumping oil or not?? You
also failed to mention the fact that Kuwait started to demand the money
it gave Iraq back as a repayment of loan, when Iraq believed that it
had sacrificed its youth and well being to defend the Guldf States.
You also say that the Iraqi military leadership "claims"*** an
excercise. Do you have proof that it was not an excercise? Since when
do states need permissions from neighbours when they move troops inside
their territory??

> 2) In June 1990, the summary of a meeting with Saddam Hussein and
> US ambassador April Glaspie states that "the USA has no say in
> Arab-Arab issues" in this region. UAE holds military exercises with US

> forces in the region. *******

> The GCC Governments urges the Iraqi regime to reconsider it's
attitude for more open dialogue.

So why did the UAE hold joint exercises with the US? Isn't that a
provocation and escalation? Why did the GCC not work to mediate,instead
of taking Kuwait's side and blaming everything on Iraq?

> 3) In July 1990, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak hosts with
> Saddam Hussein a meeting in which he is promised that Iraq has no
aggressive intentions towards Kuwait, only that it wishes to safeguard

Iraqi intersts in it's southern Oil fields.***

President Mubarak's statement was an excuse he used to switch sides,
having just received over 100 million USD from Saddam. Saddam told him
that Iraq has no aggressive intentions, IF KUWAIT ADDRESSES IRAQ'S
GRIEVANCES. We all know now that President Mubarak had 7 billion
reasons to change the content of what he heard...

> 4) On the first of August, a meeting between Tariq Aziz and Sheikh
> Sa'ad Al Sabah is arranged in Saudi Arabia under the partonage of the
Saudi King, which proved to be unfruitful in easing tensions. US
intelligence services advise the US president that Iraqi troop
formations do not conform with the said mission of protecting
interests. US forces in the region are alerted that an invasion is
imminent.

The Iraqi delegation was headed by Izzat al-Duri, who had good
relations with the Saudis, and not Tariq Azia. The meeting failed
because Kuwait refused even King Fahd's proposals for a compromise. You
fail to tell us what business is it of the US to alert its forces in
the area. The Us has a right to protecting its interests in Kuwait but
Iraq has no right to protect its interests in its own land??

> 5) On the second of August 1990, Kuwait is Invaded and Occupied by
> Iraqi forces claiming to be "invited" by a revolutionary militant
group in Kuwait asking for their help in overthrowing the Kuwaiti

Monarchy, led by a man called "Ala'a Hussein Ali".******* An

Iraqi-Backed Kuwaiti Provisional Government is set up in Kuwait, headed
by the revolution leader, Ala'a Hussein Ali, which later turns out to

be a hoax. *******

Did this Ala'a Hussein Ali exist or not? What happened to him and all
his Government's members? I understand that they are all living happily
in Kuwait, is that true or not??

> For a total of three consecutive days, not one Arab country answered
> Kuwaiti pleas for help until Lebanon, and later Egypt spoke, followed

by the Arab League,with the PLO, Jordan, Sudan and Yemen abstaining**
> orders.

That is not true. The Arab League voted on August 10th on a resolution
inviting foreign forces to the area.!2 states voted for the resolution
and 11 against. In reality, the adoption of the resolution is illegal,
because resolutions in the Arab League have to be taken by unanimous
vote and not majority.... So you see, the Arab League, led by Egypt,
violated its own Charter..

> 6) On the fourth day of the Invasion, the First wave of the US
> military and logistical support troops arrive in Saudi Arabia to set
up a foundation for the coming armies and navies of a 33-country

coalition. ***

The US military's reason to come was to protect Saudi Arabia against an
Iraqi invasion. The coalitions was not in sight yet...

> ***the UN Security council drafts resolution after
> resolution,calling for Iraq to withdraw or face grave consequences,
with little or no success. ****. A deadline is set on the 25th of

January for Iraq to "retreat" or face a military confrontation.

That is again not true. Iraq was ready to withdraw, but the arrival of
US forces stopped the effort. US leadership later confessed that an
Iraqi withdrawal was the Scenario of horror for them since it would
have prevented them from carrying out their goal of destroying Iraq,
which was the aim all the time. The deadline was 15th of January, and
the resolution DID NOT threaten with military force. Read resolution
678.

> 7) On the night of the 25th, the Air war begins in Baghdad and

> Kuwait. ****

The miltary operation (Desert Storm) starts on 17th of January Baghdad
time.

> 8) On the 27th of January 1991, Kuwait is liberated, Iraqi forces

> are routed and retreat to reinforce Baghdad. ****

The land attack ended on the 28th of FEBRUARY. The Iraqi army had
already retreated before that, only token forces and popular army units
were left.

> 9) On the 28th of January 1991, Coalition Supreme Commander Gen.
> Shwartzkopf comments that between his forces and Baghdad lies nothing
but desert. Us President Bush orders all US troops back into Kuwait and
set up a buffer zone. Iraq signs a ceasefire agreement and surrenders.

****

That is the John Waynish way of the American general. I suppose you
will not believe his story about General Prince Khalid Bin Sultan whom
he accused of being incompetent and did not do anything??? Or do you???

Iraq signed a cease fire agreement with the US, but DID NOT SURRENDER...

> 11) Present day, Iraq still defies UN Security Council resolutions,
> regardless of the fact that this step would bring about relief to
> the declining Iraqi situation to a great extent.

Which resoultions, may I ask, does Iraq defy? And what specific
articles of what resolution can you cite??

*It still uses misinformation, propaganda and truth-twisting to veer

off from it's responsibilities towards war reparations and other
outyling issues like POW's and missing people.

The UN does not recognise POWs, only MIA, of which there are over 1200
Iraqis. What is Kuwait doing to that issue?? Who is using
misinformation, and fabricating issues??

*US warplanes use bases in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to launch

attacks on military targets and impose the economic sanctions on Iraq,
while the Iraqi military command insists on retaliating with
anti-aircraft guns and provocative troop movements in and around
civilian areas.

This is not true. Most of the attacks have been on civilian targets.
This has been confirmed by international organisations.
But isn't the fact that Kuwait allows US planes to fly from Iraq an act
of war, especially since the UN has not authorised these attacks??

The bombing has nothing to do with imposing sanctions, and not even the
US has claimed that. You are now fabricating things (not that your
article has been anything but)..
And of course the Iraqis would retaliate, anybody would retaliate
against an attack by a foreign power. Wouldn't you??? No, of course
not... You would pay somebody to do the job for you...

> Regardless of smaller and/or trivial issues, these are the facts.
I feel for the Iraqis, so does all of Kuwait, government
> included. However, it is unfair to blame Kuwait for how the Iraqis
live today. Kuwait did not invade Iraq and did not starve it's people
by defying UN resolutions.

That has already been replied to. To believe that allowing US and
British planes to fly several sorties every day to bomb Iraq is not an
acto of aggression is to twist the facts.If you want to help the
Iraqis, stop the flight of planes from your bases...

*This is, in my opinion, the real issue we're trying to discuss here,

not individual behavior, not personal traits, and certainly not social
contrasts. Two people could point fingers of blame at each other and
insult each other for as long as there is time, and not find a single
solution to the problems at hand. It's not wrong to side with what's
right, and what's right today is to admit fault and strive to correct
it, not cast blame for "what might have been" had not this-and-that
happened. 605 is not a big number when compared to 18 million. But when
the issue is 'human beings',not cattle, just one life is valuable.

I agree. But, there are no POWs, jut MIA. And of the Iraqis there are
more unaccounted for. So what should we do???

****** Kuwait has no use for Iraqi Oil, nor Iraqi wealth, nor Iraqi

anything for that matter, except a return to the status quo and
neighbourly trust, but without the current regime in place. In return,
all Iraq gains in return is an honorable, healthy life once again, with
a fresh new leadership and a fresh new start...and that is the bottom
line.

I do not think that you have the right, as a person or as a state to
decide who rules what country. This is interfering in other countries'
affairs, and it is not a gesture of good will like you have been trying
to portray your action.

I have posted replies to you. Continue if you wish, but I hope that
people can keep the language civil and without personal attacks...

Abuhashim

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

Ishtar

unread,

Dec 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/20/99

The Aggressor <theagg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:83lajo$uv...@news.qualitynet.net...

> I feel for the Iraqis, so does all of Kuwait, government included.

***Then express these feelings by offering a gesture of peace. For a start,
you could remove US and UK troops you have stationed in Q8. Or at lease
push for a ceasation of the daily bombings. The fact is that Q8 will always
be next door to iraq and the US/UK troops won't always be there. You have to
learn to live in peace with your neighbours regardless of which government
is in power, Q8 doesn't have the right to dictate to Iraqis who should or
should not be in power in iraq.

However, it is unfair to blame Kuwait for how the Iraqis live today.

*** Try saying that to a young iraqi living in iraq today. I don't think
he/she'll see things your way, do you????

Kuwait did not invade Iraq and did not starve it's people by defying UN
> resolutions.

***Q8 may not have invaded iraq, but it sure did provoke iraq. Q8 sang to
america's tune and lured iraq into a trap. This makes Q8 as responsible for
the genocide currently taking place in iraq as we speak as the US/UK!!!!!

This is, in my opinion, the real issue we're trying to discuss here, not
individual behavior, not personal traits, and certainly not social
contrasts. Two people could point fingers of blame at each other and insult
each other for as long as there is time, and not find a single solution to
the problems at hand. It's not wrong to side with what's right, and what's
right today is to admit fault and strive to correct it, not cast blame for
"what might have been" had not this-and-that happened. 605 is not a big
number when compared to 18 million. But when the issue is 'human beings',not
cattle, just one life is valuable. Releasing information, correct
information, about the status of POW's held by Iraq is one of the few
resolutions that the UN security council calls for. Saddam Hussein does not
even admit that they exist, despite many Iraqi documents, eyewitnesses and
received letters by family members to the contrary.

***And how reliable are these sources?? DO YOU SERIOUSLY EXPECT US TO
BELIEVE THAT THESE PEOPLE DO EXIST?? I personally think that they were wiped
out on the Basra rd, if you want DNA evidence, then your government should
talk with its allies the US/UK troops who commited the atrocities and buried
the bits of bodies that littered the basra road; find out where the mass
graves are located and start excavating.

What most people do not realize is that all Kuwait wants is some
information, any information, any kind of tangible evidence, that the 605
POW's & Missing people merely WERE alive.

***Then talk to the troops you have stationed in Q8.

Kuwait has no use for Iraqi Oil, nor Iraqi wealth, nor Iraqi anything for
that matter, except a return to the status quo and neighbourly trust, but
without the current regime in place.

***Q8 does not have the right to dictate to iraq which regime should be in
place.

In return, all Iraq gains in return is an honorable, healthy life once
again, with a fresh new leadership and a fresh new start...and that is the
bottom line.

***Honourable??? what's honourable about iraq bowing its head in submission
to aggression/Q8?? The iraqi people are a very proud bunch. Did you know
that in the distant past, in yet another chapter of Britain trying its best
to control and subdue iraq, an iraqi Prime Minister killed himself rather
than surender to the British!!?? There is a statue of him in baghdad. The
more I read about iraq and the iraqi people, the more I realise that iraqis
are a unique breed in the mid east. They are currently living under the most
draconian sanctions regime ever placed on a nation -- every single
organisation, or person who ever goes to iraq comments on their pride and
their deep sense of honour -- which remains regardless of the insufferable
conditions they find themselves in.
This is one of many sad chapters in the history of iraq and the iraqi
people, but as long as they don't bow their heads in submission to
Q8/aggression I am sure that THEY WILL GET THROUGH THIS with their HONOUR
intact.
>
Thara
>

Abuhashim

unread,

Dec 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/20/99

Well said Thara,

I could tell you some of my personal experience regarding the pride and
honesty of Iraqis,. I visited Iraq recently. Despite the suffering and
hunger, I was met with generousity that I have not seen anywhere. When
people knew I came from outside Iraq, taxi drivers refused to take the
fare; shops refused to charge for goods, and people offered their
service free of charge. This happens at a time when the average salary
of an Iraqi is 3000 ID, equal to 1.5 USD....But I am afraid of the
wrath that is building up inside. I am afraid of the day the Iraqis
will revenge their suffering...

Those supporters of sanctions do not learn from the lessons of history.
There was once the Shah of Iran, the King of Kings, as he called
himself. He was the strongest ally of the US, and he depended on the US
to support him. But when the US found it had no use for him anymore,
they just turned their backs to him, and he died like an outcast in
Egypt, after being rejected by everybody. The Americans and British
have no friends, and their word can not be relied on.
If you look back to the beginning of this century, you will see how the
British promised Sharif Hussein freedom of the Arab world, but at the
same time agreed with the French behind his back, and promised
Palestine to the Zionists.. If tomorrow they find that their interests
are again with Saddam Hussein, they would not only lift the sanctions,
but they would bring forward historians who would present documents
proving that Kuwait is part of Iraq... You mark my word, and some day
you will say Abuhashim was right!!!

Salaam to you Thara.

tor...@nym.alias.net

unread,

Dec 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/20/99

The Aggressor has omitted certain facts, which I as a neutral Kuwaiti
will bring to the attention of the readers:

1. Iraq entered into a war with Iran in 1980 to protect itself and the Gulf
region from the Iranian revolution, which threatened Iraq as well as
Kuwait and other Gulf states.

2. During the war with Iran, Kuwait and other Gulf states over produced
oil pushing its price down to around $5 a barrel, which affected the Iraqi
economy very badly. To support its war efforts and shortage of cash
from low oil prices, Iraq was forced to take up loans from Kuwait and
other Gulf states.

3. After the war ended with Iran, Iraq asked the Gulf States to either
forgive its loans or to reschedule payment. All Gulf States except
Kuwait agreed to drop its loans. Kuwait on the other hand refused to
drop the loans or reschedule it. Instead Kuwait sold the loans to
international Banks.

4. King Fahad of Saudia Arabia tried to mediate between Iraq and Kuwait.
But Kuwait refused to give any concessions. The news of the Iraqi
forces massing on the border with Kuwait was known to Kuwaitis. In
the meeting that preceded the invasion, Sheikh Saad told King Fahad
that the US would defend Kuwait if invaded by Iraq.

5. King Fahad was upset by the Kuwaiti position, which provoked the
invasion. He wanted to let go Kuwait and not risk bringing in foreign
troops to Saudia. President Bush dispatched his defense minister to
Saudia who put pressure on them after showing them false pictures
claiming that Iraq was preparing for an invasion.

6. Efforts to solve the crises within the Arab League were blocked by the
Egyptian President. Which made many Arab countries upset to what
has become obvious that Egypt was paving the way for American
interference.

7. All Kuwaitis flee their country to the surrounding Gulf States and then
to Cairo and Europe, leaving behind their foreign workers. Second
degree Kuwaitis remained behind and put up resistance against Iraqi
efforts to establish a Kuwaiti government.

8. The war started on the 25th of January 1991 to end abruptly on orders
from President Bush. Saddam remains in power puts off the riots in
south Iraq without the interference of the allied forces.

9. Kuwait continue to accuse Iraq of holding 605 POWs but no evidence
is produced.

The Aggressor

unread,

Dec 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/21/99

"The Aggressor has omitted certain facts, which I as a neutral Kuwaiti
will bring to the attention of the readers:|

Mister, you are not a Kuwaiti to begin with! You were a Palestinian refugee
of a parasitic nature who was shunned by the Kuwaitis for his continuous
incompetence and limited intelligence. You then used your family's wealth to
buy a ticket to the USA where you revoked your former nationality and
embraced the american one, yet you leave much to be desired when questioned
about your allegiance to the USA from the way you word your views and
opinions.

The Aggressor

unread,

Dec 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/21/99

First of all, i would like to apologize for the erroneous dates, it was
a miscalculation on my part..please accept my apologies. As for the
questions Abulhashem pointed out;

"Why did you chose that name, when you call for peace??"

*I was asked this same question by Viki..the answer's the same..it's just a
nickname...no conspiracy theory to it!

"The fact that Kuwait was pumping oil from a field inside Iraq was not
mentuioned by you."

The Rumeila Oil field is not totally inside Iraq; The southern-most part
of it is inside the Kuwaiti borders, this could be checked by reading any
map, and it's basin is-naturally-slanted at a southern direction towards
Kuwait, allowing for the flow of oil to move the towards Kuwaiti side.
In order to pump oil efficiently, Iraq has to dig and pump more than
twice as much as Kuwait. So in theory, when the Iraqi end is almost empty,
the Kuwaiti end is virtually topped up. This, understandably, is a point of
trouble to the Iraqi oil production operations, which in turn poses a
similar economic burden to the Iraqi economy which must tie up more capital
to keep oil production operations in this oil field in sync with the rest of
the Iraqi Oil fields to meet the exact export demands.

"...was Kuwait and the UAE really dumping oil or not?? "
This was addressed by both countries, as was also addressed by Riyadh,
and other Arab countries, all of whom issued their own justifications and/or
denials. Kuwait was willing to compensate for it's part to the Iraqi
Government.

"....less than what Iraq demanded. "
Evidently it was not enough, and Iraq invades Kuwait as a result?? I do
not believe that this is the right way to deal with things between partners
on the eve of the 21st century?

"Kuwait started to demand the money it gave Iraq back as a repayment of
loan, when Iraq believed that it had sacrificed its youth and well being to
defend the Guldf States."

Defending the GCC with Iraqi youth never went unnoticed in any day. I
would never dare say this!! I did not wish to go into this detail in my post
because i would be forced to say the following;
1) Kuwait reserved four drydocks especially for Iraqi imports to help the
war effort.
2) Kuwait allowed Iraq to use the northen Kuwaiti islands of "Warbah" and
"Boubyan" in addition to it's own maritime territory, and offered logistical
support to fight for the successful reclamation of the Oil-rich "Faw"
peninsula which was occupied by Iran.
3) Kuwaiti families donated large sums of money to aid in the Iraqi effort
to keep up the fight.
3) Kuwait suffered assassination attempts on it's Emir "twice" for it's role
in aiding Iraq
4) The hijacking of the Kuwait Airways jumbo jet was to release members of
an Iranian-backed terrorist group that were apprehended earlier for their
role in the assasination attempts.
5) Relief organizations inside Kuwait had Iraq in the top position on it's
list for aid recepients, followed by the PLO and Lebanon, including food,
clothing, and livestock.
6) The Kuwaiti budget for Iraqi aid was in the form of an "open cheque" at
any given day of the 8-year war with Iran.
It is true that no Kuwaiti lives were lost, and that what was given to
Iraq was "what was expected" from a neighbouring Arab brother, yet it was
clear that it was not enough, and that the Iraqi regime wanted more than
just compensation. Or should we have repaid blood with blood?

"Do you have proof that it was not an excercise? "

The claims by the Iraqi regime about the troop movements being an
exercise were revoked when satellite analysis of their components and
build-up was made available to the US president, and later the Kuwaiti
defence minister, a few days earlier by the CIA, stating that their posture
was that of an "offensive" army, and not of one engaged in an exercise. Do I
have proof of that? No..CNN does.
In addition, they began rolling towards Kuwait, from a standstill
position of about 4 weeks. On the night of the 1st of August, Iraqi troops
mobilized from their holding positions, towards Kuwait. They were witnessed
by Kuwaiti observers and border guards along the Kuwaiti border. Among them
was the Kuwaiti Defence Minister who was asked, privately, by the Crown
Prince to verify the US claims.

"Since when do states need permissions from neighbours when they move troops
inside
their territory??"

Never. But how would you like it if i pointed all my guns at your side
window, and track you as you walk from your front door to your car every
day? Wouldn't you want to ask me why i'm doing what i'm doing?

"So why did the UAE hold joint exercises with the US? Isn't that a
provocation and escalation?"

The UAE held a joint exercise with US forces. That is a fact, and an
issue to bring up with the UAE's, i do not speak for them. It is a matter
for their concern. All i can give is my own speculation, and that is they
felt threatened by what Iraq was accusing them, so they felt it necessary to
back themselves up with a joint exercise. As for it being provocative, i
could say the same thing about Iraqi troop movements close to the
Kuwaiti-Iraqi border..what the UAE did was the same...only it was hundreds
of nautical miles away from Iraqi borders, not 75 Km from Kuwait's capital!

"Why did the GCC not work to mediate,instead of taking Kuwait's side and
blaming everything on Iraq?"

It did. It called for a summit to resolve the issue. in addition, it
took Kuwait's side because Kuwait is a member of the GCC, and if that wasn't
enough, i don't know what is!

"You fail to tell us what business is it of the US to alert its forces in
the area."

I suggest you take that up with the people comcerned. But it's my
feeling that they wanted to protect their soldiers from possible retaliatory
attacks, or just to keep them out of the way, or simply to observe. It makes
no sense when 2 parties are engaged in a brawl while a third party is lying
on the beache next to them sipping cool cocktails and sunbathing.

"The Us has a right to protecting its interests in Kuwait but Iraq has no
right to protect its interests in its own land??"

Do you think that Kuwait poses a military threat to anything in Iraq?
All Kuwait had was the equivalent of a medium-armed brigade and a squadron
of about 30 warplanes with limited resources! Plus it had more than half of
it's army officers and soldiers on leave!!

"Did this Ala'a Hussein Ali exist or not? "

He was a "stateless" soldier who was discharched from the Kuwaiti Army,
and recruited by the Iraqi intelligence in Kuwait. "Ala'a Hussein Ali" was
reported to have been executed a few weeks 'before' he was filmed greeting
Saddam Hussein, as were the members of his cabinet, as reported by the Iraqi
opposition groups based in London. His brother still lives in Kuwait in the
"Jahra" Area.

"So you see, the Arab League, led by Egypt, violated its own Charter"

I stand in conflict with your interpretation of the Arab League's
charter, the vote was to be a show of hands, and not unanimous...I would
imagine that's how a democratic organization would act anyway, I'm sure
that's how the UN woudl act!

"The coalitions was not in sight yet..."

Correct. However, military units from the US, UK, France and Egypt were
preparing for deployment in the region. I'd call that an allied coalition of
armies, albeit a small one.

"Iraqi withdrawal was the Scenario of horror for them since it would have
prevented them from carrying out their goal of destroying Iraq, which was
the aim all the time."

Do YOU have proof of this US goal? This is the first time i hear about
it.

"....only token forces and popular army units were left."
..which constitute the majority of the Occupational force reinforced in
Kuwait and along the Kuwaiti-Saudi border. You may recall that the
Revolutionary Guards units were garrisoned in Iraq, only a few units were
left in Kuwait. Those in turn were allowed to retreat without heavy
casualties

"That is the John Waynish way of the American general. "

..but a true statement nevertheless. He was shown on CNN and the BBC, in
front of a chart of maps during a debriefing to reporters, pointing to a
large area in the middle of the Iraqi map labelled "Baghdad", then a cluster
of blue and green boxes protraying Coalition armies just below that area
close to the current DMZ, then a big chunk of 'nothing' in between. I have
it from Kuwaiti conscripted soldiers assigned to US and British units
involved in the battles around the "Nasiriya" region in Iraq that
Shwartzkopf's statement was in fact true. One of them happens to be a
relative of mine. As for his opinion about the Saudi General's incompetence,
i admit that i have to agree with him :)

"Iraq signed a cease fire agreement with the US, but DID NOT SURRENDER..."

True. Legally, it signed a ceasefire agreement and revoked it's claims
to Kuwait, claims that were defended with words such as "We will never
surrender Kuwait", and "Kuwait will never be severed from us again". I
should have said "Revoked it's claims to Kuwait" and not "surrendered".

"Which resoultions, may I ask, does Iraq defy? And what specific articles of
what resolution can you cite??"

"The UN does not recognise POWs, only MIA, "

Please refer to the links above, then the following ones in this post. In
any case, your statement is invalid, since the Geneva Convention was drafted
particularly to include the treatment of POW's.

".....there are over 1200 Iraqis. What is Kuwait doing to that issue?? "
Kuwait is trying to find it's own missing people, as well as other
citizens held by the Iraqi regime. Anyway, do you honestly think that Kuwait
still holds Iraqi POW's or MIA's??

"Who is using misinformation, and fabricating issues??"

I'll leave that to a third part to answer, since it is a matter of
opinion. Mine is that of Iraqi attempts at misinformation, yours is clearly
otherwise.

"This is not true. Most of the attacks have been on civilian targets."

Correct. And such was admitted by the US. Civilian targets that have
been converted to accomodate military installations; Anti-aircraft guns on
top of apartment buildings and schools; civilian bomb shelters with command
and control antennas and transmitters sticking out of them; mobile radar
installations on top of water towers, etc...or is that a fabrication as
well? How about the "baby milk plant" that was hit, and showed on CNN during
the air war...would you have us believe that a building reduced to rubble
was what a handwritten sign with just a "Baby milk plant" phrase painted in
red, by hand, on white cardboard paper, says it is?

"But isn't the fact that Kuwait allows US planes to fly from Iraq an act of
war"

They also fly out of Bahrain, UAE, Turkey, I don't hear you complaining
about them, or is it just Kuwait the issue here? Having said that, it is an
act of war made by the countries who operate the warplanes..not the people
who facilitate them. In any case, technically, it's the US that's attacking
Iraqi targets through and through..since Kuwait has leased the airbase the
US uses anyway.

"...the UN has not authorised these attacks??"
The UN mandates that it's resolutions regarding disarmament are to be
implemented using all means necessary, and since Iraq does not comply with
UN resolutions, a military option is considered a "means" of implementation.
One cannot expect a civilian working for the UN to order an Iraqi officer to
open up his weapons storage facility for inspection and expect compliance.
Then again, i could be wrong.

"The bombing has nothing to do with imposing sanctions, and not even the US
has claimed that."

Correct. The bombing is part of the UN resolutions to destroy weapons of
mass destruction, to regulate their disarmament and safeguard the people
working to enforce all of the UN resolutions, which includes attacking
targets that track the planes that are patrolling the "no-fly" zones to the
north and the south of Iraq.

"You would pay somebody to do the job for you..."

Of course i would, with the little resources i have to protect myself, and
with my strongest ally whom i'd helped for 8 years turning against me, i
would pay anyone to defend me. It worked for 8 years, didn't it?

"I agree. But, there are no POWs, jut MIA. And of the Iraqis there are more
unaccounted for. So what should we do???"

Again, i stand in conflict with your statements. Please refer to the
following links for clarification;
http://www.pows.org.kw
http://www.undp.org/missions/usa/s1999100.htm
http://www.pray4pows.org/kuwait/kuwait_index.html
http://www.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/archive/1994/941024/941024.iraq.html
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/reports/1998/s1998889.htm
http://www.gsnonweb.com/gsnlib_a/GSNbase/98_11/981101/24446.html
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/980420/1998042026.html
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/990324/1999032410.html
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/990805/1999080522.html
gopher://gopher.undp.org/00/undocs/scd/scouncil/s91/3%09%09%2B
gopher://gopher.undp.org/00/undocs/scd/scouncil/s91/4%09%09%2B
gopher://gopher.undp.org/00/undocs/scd/scouncil/s90/21%09%09%2B
gopher://gopher.undp.org/00/undocs/scd/scouncil/s90/31%09%09%2B

As for what to do about the missing Iraqis, i would direct you to
inquire about them in any of the holding areas in Iraq, provided that you
reach them in the first place. After all, Iranian POW's and some Iranian
MIA's were released 2 years after the end of the Iraq-Iran war.

"I do not think that you have the right, as a person or as a state to decide
who rules what country. This is interfering in other countries' affairs"

I think i do. All opinions are mine, they portray my own views, I speak
for no one else. Therefore i retain the right to say what i see is fit for
my perception. It is my understanding that Saddam Hussein and his regime is
at fault, based on what i've seen, heard and experienced in light of what
had happened to Kuwait and Iraq during the period between August 1990 and
February 1991. Merely stating my views does not infringe the rights of any
country as i do not represent any sort of Government entity in Kuwait.
Are you, or are you not, in agreement with me, that the presently-ruling
regime in Iraq should be resolved, and that another regime, mindful of it's
subjects, should be in it's place? After all, all things considered, this
current regime does not exhibit a sound policy towards economic strategy,
political gains, social development, human rights, health care, education,
etc...need i reiterate?

"...and it is not a gesture of good will like you have been trying to
portray your action."
As for my gesture of goodwill, i would imagine that my statements in
favor of the Iraqi role during the Iran-Iraq war speak for themselves, as i
am sure they bear witness to my feelings towards the Iraqi people, as does
the fact that i have enaged in discussing this post in depth, without
insults or insolence. (On a personal note, my best friend till today happens
to be an Iraqi who has lived in Kuwait all his life.) By creating this
chain, and responding to inquiries about my views in the first post. All i
wanted was to have a clear understanding of things, I am sorry if this is
not enough.

"but I hope that people can keep the language civil and without personal
attacks..."

I hope so too..let's work together to make it happen.

The Aggressor

Abuhashim

unread,

Dec 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/21/99

I am glad that you decided to reply. This way we can continue the
discussion.

I still find that your reply was erroneous on many instances, sometimes
too general. I will try to elaborate:

> The Rumeila Oil field is not totally inside Iraq; The
> southern-most part
> of it is inside the Kuwaiti borders, this could be checked by
> reading any
> map, and it's basin is-naturally-slanted at a southern direction
> towards
> Kuwait, allowing for the flow of oil to move the towards Kuwaiti
> side.
> In order to pump oil efficiently, Iraq has to dig and pump
> more than
> twice as much as Kuwait. So in theory, when the Iraqi end is
> almost empty,
> the Kuwaiti end is virtually topped up. This, understandably, is a
> point of
> trouble to the Iraqi oil production operations, which in turn
> poses a
> similar economic burden to the Iraqi economy which must tie up
> more capital
> to keep oil production operations in this oil field in sync with
> the rest of
> the Iraqi Oil fields to meet the exact export demands.

First of all, the Iraq-Kuwait border line has been in dispute and a
major problem since 1921. No solution was found, and the Rumailah field
falls in the disputed area. Furthermore, you have not replied to the
question. Wasn't Kuwait, therefore, pumping more oil from that specific
field, knowing the sensitivity of the issue?

> This was addressed by both countries, as was also addressed by
> Riyadh,
> and other Arab countries, all of whom issued their own
> justifications and/or
> denials. Kuwait was willing to compensate for it's part to the
> Iraqi
> Government.
> "....less than what Iraq demanded. "
> Evidently it was not enough, and Iraq invades Kuwait as a
> result?? I do
> not believe that this is the right way to deal with things between
> partners
> on the eve of the 21st century?

This is simplifying the issue. Most wars in the history of mankind have
happened for economic reasons. Oil was dumped, pushing the price down
to 5 dollars, damaging Iraq's already weakened economy. No attempts
worked with Kuwait and the UAE, not even Saudi Arabia's. Saddam Hussein
did warn those two states in May 1990 about that issue.

You also confirmed what I said before about Kuwait's admission of oil
coming from Iraqi fields. But the sum of compensation was not the only
reason for the escalation of the issue.

> Defending the GCC with Iraqi youth never went unnoticed in any
> day. I
> would never dare say this!! I did not wish to go into this detail
> in my post
> because i would be forced to say the following;

> **********

> 6) The Kuwaiti budget for Iraqi aid was in the form of an "open
> cheque" at
> any given day of the 8-year war with Iran.
> It is true that no Kuwaiti lives were lost, and that what was
> given to
> Iraq was "what was expected" from a neighbouring Arab brother, yet
> it was
> clear that it was not enough, and that the Iraqi regime wanted
> more than
> just compensation. Or should we have repaid blood with blood?

That is evading the issue. This matter was discussed before on this
forum. The Kuwaiti budget was NOT open for Iraq. In fact, Iraq thought
that the money given was in the form of aid to be forgotten, especially
since Iraq was losing its youth as well as income from trade, indistry
and oil. Kuwait, as well as Jordan and Kuwait benefited from Iraqi
trade through charges on sea and land freight. When the Iran-Iraq war
ended, Kuwait sold the loans to foreign banks. Is that the gesture of a
"brotherly" act expected from a neighbour?? You can not claim you have
openly helped, when you eventually consider it a loan. Do you think
that when you gave Iraq money you were buying the the lives of its
youth??

> The claims by the Iraqi regime about the troop movements being
> an
> exercise were revoked when satellite analysis of their components
> and
> build-up was made available to the US president, and later the
> Kuwaiti
> defence minister, a few days earlier by the CIA, stating that
> their posture
> was that of an "offensive" army, and not of one engaged in an
> exercise. Do I
> have proof of that? No..CNN does.

Well, we all know now that the same parties showed King Fahd forged
satellite pictures of Iraq's attempts to attack Saudi Arabia, when the
Iraqi army was not even close to the border with Saudi. How come, then,
these same satellites did not see the women and children who entered
the Amiriya shelter when US planes dropped two special bombs
incinerating 1000 persons inside? CNN did report on that issue too,
showing us the bodies being taken out...

> In addition, they began rolling towards Kuwait, from a
> standstill
> position of about 4 weeks. On the night of the 1st of August,
> Iraqi troops
> mobilized from their holding positions, towards Kuwait. They were
> witnessed
> by Kuwaiti observers and border guards along the Kuwaiti border.
> Among them
> was the Kuwaiti Defence Minister who was asked, privately, by the
> Crown
> Prince to verify the US claims.

Nobody denies that. Iraq did eventually invade Kuwait.And the existence
of the army was to put pressure on Kuwait to agree to Iraq's
requirements, which include in addition to compensations, leasing two
islands in the Gulf to give Iraq maritime access.

> Never. But how would you like it if i pointed all my guns at
> your side
> window, and track you as you walk from your front door to your car
> every
> day? Wouldn't you want to ask me why i'm doing what i'm doing?

No, as long as you do it inside your land. I have no right to object to
Syrian or Jordanian army carrying out exercises, even on Iraq's border.
In fact, Iran has been doing that for two decades.

> The UAE held a joint exercise with US forces. That is a fact,
> and an
> issue to bring up with the UAE's, i do not speak for them. It is a
> matter
> for their concern. All i can give is my own speculation, and that
> is they
> felt threatened by what Iraq was accusing them, so they felt it
> necessary to
> back themselves up with a joint exercise. As for it being
> provocative, i
> could say the same thing about Iraqi troop movements close to the
> Kuwaiti-Iraqi border..what the UAE did was the same...only it was
> hundreds
> of nautical miles away from Iraqi borders, not 75 Km from Kuwait's
> capital!

You brought up the issue of UAE, and now you do not want to talk about
it!!! Anyway, how could Iraq be a threat to UAE? It is, as you said,
hunderds of nautical miles away...I was talking about UAE action being
provocative towards Iraq, so do not turn everything to Kuwait.
You also forget, that the existence of Iraqi army during its war with
Iran did not bother or annoy you, neither did the existence of Iran on
your borders. So why are these two things different??

> It did. It called for a summit to resolve the issue. in
> addition, it
> took Kuwait's side because Kuwait is a member of the GCC, and if
> that wasn't
> enough, i don't know what is!

The GCC did not call for a summit to resolve the issue. You know that
very well. US troops started arriving in Saudi on August 6th, before
any mediation efforts had any chance of showing concrete results,
rendering any summit obsolete.
And the GCC countries took Kuwait's side simply because it is a member
of the GCC, regardless of any other considerations? Is that a logical
and mature way of handling conflicts??... King Fahd believed aereal
photographs presented by the US Defence Minister without much thought,
even though the King knows nothing about interpreting aereal photos.
His adviser in this issue was Bandar Bin Sultan, who again knows
nothing about the issue. And given your admissions about the
incompetence of General Khalid, there is no need to say more....
Therefore, the outcome of any summit was determined in advance. That is
why the Tunisian President did not attend...
In addition to that, we know now how the Arab summit was directed and
how the resolution was typed ready before discussions began. For that,
we have the statements of many Arab leaders.

> I suggest you take that up with the people comcerned. But it's
> my
> feeling that they wanted to protect their soldiers from possible
> retaliatory
> attacks, or just to keep them out of the way, or simply to
> observe. It makes
> no sense when 2 parties are engaged in a brawl while a third party
> is lying
> on the beache next to them sipping cool cocktails and sunbathing.

Again you refuse to discuss a subject which you brought up. What were
the Americans doing there in the first place? And why would anybody
attack them if they do not interfere?

> Do you think that Kuwait poses a military threat to anything
> in Iraq?
> All Kuwait had was the equivalent of a medium-armed brigade and a
> squadron
> of about 30 warplanes with limited resources! Plus it had more
> than half of
> it's army officers and soldiers on leave!!

There is a contradiction here. Kuwait posed an economic threat to Iraq,
which as Professor George Lakoff said is tantamount to a declaration of
War (see Metaphor and war on the internet). The Kuwaiti regime's role
in creating problems in Iraq has been exposed in a document found by
the Iraqis in Kuwait. Kuwait, in addition to the oil issue, was
purchasing goods from Iraq, subsidised by the Iraqi government, and
taking them out. They were doing that by buying the weakened Iraqi
Dinar cheap,and purchasing with it in Iraq. This speculation weakened
the Iraqi currency. There have also talk of members of the Kuwaiti
regime involved in distributing forged Iraqi currency through such
purchases. I have no proof of that...

> He was a "stateless" soldier who was discharched from the
> Kuwaiti Army,
> and recruited by the Iraqi intelligence in Kuwait. "Ala'a Hussein
> Ali" was
> reported to have been executed a few weeks 'before' he was filmed
> greeting
> Saddam Hussein, as were the members of his cabinet, as reported by
> the Iraqi
> opposition groups based in London. His brother still lives in
> Kuwait in the
> "Jahra" Area.

This is not true. Ala'a Hussein Ali is not a stateless soldier, but a
Kuwaiti citizen. His story was published a couple of months ago by the
London based magazine Az-Zaman, which is owned by Iraqi opposition
(Barzani). Ala'a tells his story, and he is still alive. He has not
been executed, and he wishes to go back to Kuwait, like the other
members of his cabinet. Please check this...

> I stand in conflict with your interpretation of the Arab
> League's
> charter, the vote was to be a show of hands, and not unanimous...I
> would
> imagine that's how a democratic organization would act anyway, I'm
> sure
> that's how the UN woudl act!

Of course you would be in conflict. You would not admit that in calling
foreign forces to the Arab world, the Arab League violated its charter.
It is not my interpretaion of the Charter, for charters are not to be
interpreted. The Charter clearly specifies that decisions of the Arab
League are to be made by unanimous vote.
And it is misleading to say that the vote was a show of hands. It was
the most major decision in the history of the organization, and can not
be taken outside the articles of the charter just because almost half
the mebers were against it. If you have seen the secret recording of
the meeting, you will remember that Qaddafi, who condemned Iraq's
invasion, opposed the resolution on the grounds that it was not lega.
That is also the reason why the General Secretary of the Arab League,
Shadli Qleibi resigned.
And how come, all of a sudden, the Arab League decisons should be
democratic, on majority basis? Why does the Arab League not change its
Charter?
The case of the UN is not similar. You make a mistake when you consider
the UN/SC a democratic organization. It is anything but that. There are
five countries, who are super powers because they own WMD, who have
more rights than any other state in the world. One of those members can
stop the will of the whole world. We have seen that happen in the cas
of Israel.
I do not intend to discuss the Charter of the UN because it is quite
clearly written to eliminate any misinterpretation. I have posted it
before, and you can refer to my message about that issue.

> Correct. However, military units from the US, UK, France and
> Egypt were
> preparing for deployment in the region. I'd call that an allied
> coalition of
> armies, albeit a small one.

You are confirming what I said about the aims of the US even before the
summit was convened. You say that armies were preparing to deploy, an
allied coalition, before waiting for the implementation of resolution
660??? Isn't that a contradiction with the facts that the GCC tried to
mediate, and that Iraq did not want to withdraw??? The aim was,
therefore, to use military force, regardless of what Iraq did...

> Do YOU have proof of this US goal? This is the first time i
> hear about
> it.

One of those statement was by Margaret Thatcher, when she said that it
is not enough that Iraq withdraws because its army still poses a
threat. I will post later more about this.

> ..but a true statement nevertheless. He was shown on CNN and
> the BBC, in
> front of a chart of maps during a debriefing to reporters,
> pointing to a
> large area in the middle of the Iraqi map labelled "Baghdad", then
> a cluster
> of blue and green boxes protraying Coalition armies just below
> that area
> close to the current DMZ, then a big chunk of 'nothing' in
> between. I have
> it from Kuwaiti conscripted soldiers assigned to US and British
> units
> involved in the battles around the "Nasiriya" region in Iraq that
> Shwartzkopf's statement was in fact true. One of them happens to
> be a
> relative of mine. As for his opinion about the Saudi General's
> incompetence,
> i admit that i have to agree with him :)

Well, the Us general said many things, including lies. He claimed that
90% of the hits were "surgical" strikes done with smart bombs, and we
find out later that less than 30% of the alleged smart bombs hit the
right target. He claimed that Amiriya shelter was a military
headquarter, when it was later proven that there was NOT a single
military perosnnel in it. (I have visited the shelter, and can tell you
horror stories about it). He also lied about the road open to Baghdad.
We have reports that contradict the General's story. On the evening of
February 27th, The BBC announced that bad weather was hampering the
flight of helicopters, detrimental against tanks. The US and Iraq both
announced that the biggest tank war since Stalingrad was taking place
south of Nasiriya. Iraq claimed it was beginning to destroy US tanks.
The BBC reported a collonnade of British tanks seen returing to Kuwait
because the weather was bad. Then suddenly, George Bush announces the
end of military activities... Why???
The explanation given is that the Americans, without air cover, were
easy targets for entrenched Revolutionary Guards near Nasiriya. Loss of
tens of tanks would have meant that Iraq had won the war militarily.
That was a thing the US was not prepared to allow.Primakov was
instructed to tell the Iraqis that the US was prepared to use nuclear
bombs against Iraqi cities if it faced defeat....

I am sorry that you have again used the same tactic. Putting a list of
resolutions does not say anuthing. However, resolution 660 candemns the
invasions, and calls upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin negotiations
especially through the Arab League. We all know what happened after
this resolution, armies began being deployed and the fiasco at the Arab
League..
Resolution 661 imposes sanctions.
resolution664 deals with the departure of foreigners from Iraq and
Kuwait.
Resolution 670 confirms tha sanctions on air travel.
Resolution 674 condemns taking foreigners as hostages.
Resolution 678 calls for using all means to get Iraq out of Kuwait.
Resolutions 1115, 1134, 1137, 1194 and 1205 deal with Iraq's problems
with UNSCOM and its chairman. Knwoing the revelations about UNSCOM's
spying against Iraq, and the condemnation by Russia and China and
partly France of Butler's behaviour, there is no ground for any
refernec to these resolutions.

You miss a major issue. All resolutions before the commencement of
military activities have no meaning anymore, since Iraq was destroyed,
rendering any calls for negotiations meaningless.
Similarly, Operation Desert Fox of December 1998, ended UNSCOM, as its
inspectors themselves admitted.
I hoped you would point out to something that Iraq has failed to or
refused to ddo, but you just posted alsit. I am disappointed..

> Please refer to the links above, then the following ones in this
> post. In
> any case, your statement is invalid, since the Geneva Convention
> was drafted
> particularly to include the treatment of POW's.

That is not true. The Geneva Conventions are many, one of which deals
with tyhe Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War. There is one
which prohibits attacking any installations necessary for life, like
water plants, sewage plants, generation plants, hospitals, etc.. all of
which were attacked. The Conventions also prohibit the use of
radioactive materials, vacuum and cluster boms, all of which were also
used. You can not apply the Conventions to one side only, now can you??

> Kuwait is trying to find it's own missing people, as well as
> other
> citizens held by the Iraqi regime. Anyway, do you honestly think
> that Kuwait
> still holds Iraqi POW's or MIA's??

So is Iraq trying to find its missing people, as well as feed and find
medicine for 22 million people.
So, you have the right to believe that Iraq holds some Kuwaities and
third country nationals, but I do not have the right to enquire about
the fate of twice that number of Iraqis?? Are you now being logical??

> I'll leave that to a third part to answer, since it is a
> matter of
> opinion. Mine is that of Iraqi attempts at misinformation, yours
> is clearly
> otherwise.

I do not know what misinformation you are talking about. When I tell
you eye witness acoounts of what I saw, you consider that propaganda.
At the same time, we have to accept what you say as facts, even though
you have no source except CNN and sometimes the BBC..

> Correct. And such was admitted by the US. Civilian targets
> that have
> been converted to accomodate military installations; Anti-aircraft
> guns on
> top of apartment buildings and schools; civilian bomb shelters
> with command
> and control antennas and transmitters sticking out of them; mobile
> radar
> installations on top of water towers, etc...or is that a
> fabrication as
> well?

That is indded a fabrication by the US to justify its bombing raids.
There are European journalists who have witnessed bombings on sites
that have nothing resembling a dish close to them. The US pilots are so
scadred that any round dish is considered a target...

How about the "baby milk plant" that was hit, and showed on
> CNN during
> the air war...would you have us believe that a building reduced to
> rubble
> was what a handwritten sign with just a "Baby milk plant" phrase
> painted in
> red, by hand, on white cardboard paper, says it is?

There you make a grave mistake. Go back to the CNN and check the
report. You will see that Peter Arnett himself CONFIRMED that it was
making milk powder, he even tasted it. After that, there were calls in
the congress to try him for treason for undermining the US. Please
check your facts first before you post them. This is called
misinformation...

> They also fly out of Bahrain, UAE, Turkey, I don't hear you
> complaining
> about them, or is it just Kuwait the issue here? Having said that,
> it is an
> act of war made by the countries who operate the warplanes..not
> the people
> who facilitate them. In any case, technically, it's the US that's
> attacking
> Iraqi targets through and through..since Kuwait has leased the
> airbase the
> US uses anyway.

Yes, they are all to blame. And I believe Iraq has complained about
that. The only honest person was Qatar's Foreign Minister who admitted
that they can not say no to the US.
But, that makes all these countries accessories to illegal attacks, and
thus parties to war. According to international law, if you allow
someone to attack from your territory, then you must accept retaliation
against you too..

> The UN mandates that it's resolutions regarding disarmament
> are to be
> implemented using all means necessary, and since Iraq does not
> comply with
> UN resolutions, a military option is considered a "means" of
> implementation.
> One cannot expect a civilian working for the UN to order an Iraqi
> officer to
> open up his weapons storage facility for inspection and expect
> compliance.
> Then again, i could be wrong.

Yes, you are wrong. No resolution mandates the use of all means to
impose disarmament. France, Russia and China have stated more than once
thatr these attacks violate the UN Charter.

> Correct. The bombing is part of the UN resolutions to destroy
> weapons of
> mass destruction, to regulate their disarmament and safeguard the
> people
> working to enforce all of the UN resolutions, which includes
> attacking
> targets that track the planes that are patrolling the "no-fly"
> zones to the
> north and the south of Iraq.

Again this is misleading. No-fly zones were imposed unilaterally,
without mandate from the UN SC. No resolution exists permitting no-fly
zone. And no resolution prohibits Iraq, or any state, from using its
defence systems against an aggressive foreign force. Again, the
resolutions regarding disarmament do not include the provision of
imposing them by force...

> Of course i would, with the little resources i have to protect
> myself, and
> with my strongest ally whom i'd helped for 8 years turning against
> me, i
> would pay anyone to defend me. It worked for 8 years, didn't it?

I do not want to go into that. You never considered Iraq to be your
ally, just somebody who defended you. You thought you were buying the
lives of its youth, and Iraq thought it was defending a brother who is
supporting it financially. When the war ended, Iraq found out that that
"brother" turned its back to it, forgot all its sacrifices, started
stealing its oil and damaging its economy, and sold its loans to
outsiders. Who turned its ack on whom??

> Again, i stand in conflict with your statements. Please refer to
> the
> following links for clarification;
>

> As for what to do about the missing Iraqis, i would direct you
> to
> inquire about them in any of the holding areas in Iraq, provided
> that you
> reach them in the first place. After all, Iranian POW's and some
> Iranian
> MIA's were released 2 years after the end of the Iraq-Iran war.

I hope that you are joking, because that is the reply of someone who
can not answer. I referred you to international organizations, and you
refer me to a Kuwaiti organization, headed by the Deputy Prime Minsiter
and Defence Minister. Isn't that a biased stand really??

No, you need not reiterate. But you may not know that you have
exhibited double standards. This is what you said previously:

"Kuwait is not a US State, nor is it a member of the US Commonwealth,
nor is it a member of NATO, nor does it obey whatever the US says!
Kuwait is an independent sovereign country, with laws and regulations
set forth by Kuwaiti people and Kuwaiti legislative procedures. It does
not take kindly to outside intervention in it's internal affairs, nor
does it allow it".

So you refuse intervention in your country's affairs, but reserve the
right to dictate to other states what should happen inside their
borders...And only referring to the UN and its repiorts will tell you
that in 1989, Iraq enjoyed ahigher standard of living than the majority
of Arab States. Its internal economy now under the sanctions is
stronger than many countries in the world. If it is allowed to sell and
buy, it would pass any country in the area in a short time. I suggest
you refer to UN reports and studies.
As to education, then I would rather not comment...

All i
> wanted was to have a clear understanding of things, I am sorry if
> this is
> not enough.

Nobody said that it is not good enough. But you start a discussion with
abiased attitude, rejecting and refusing other opinions, and expect
others to accept your opinions. This is wrong. You have yourself
admitted in this message that you were wrong on several instances, and
that is how it should be. I also think that lacking first hand
information about the issue might confuse it.

The Aggressor

unread,

Dec 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/22/99

<First of all, the Iraq-Kuwait border line has been in dispute and a major

problem since 1921. No solution was found.>
This is not true. Let me explain;
a) With reference to UNSC resolution #687, an agreement between Iraq and
Kuwait was signed in Baghdad on 4th October, 1963, and it refers to a letter
sent to the Ruler of Kuwait on 21st July, 1932, affirming Kuwait's borders
and sovergnity. This letter was replied to by the Ruler of Kuwait, on 10th
August 1932, accepting the Iraqi Prime minister's letter. The agreement was
labelled "Agreed minutes between the state of Kuwait and the Republic of
Iraq regarding the restoration of friendly relations, recognition and
related matters".The UNSC resolution formally recognized the boundaries
between the 2 countries based on this agreement, which in turn is based on
the exchange of letters that took place in 1932, as well as the allocation
of the 2 disputed Islands, and registering them according to Article 102 of
the UN charter.
b) This same resolutions demands both countries to comply with the 1963
agreement, and assigns a comittee to demarcate the boundaries between them
for the first time, as well as creating a DMZ, demanding the compliance of
the destruction of mass destruction weapons and the return of all Kuwaiti
and 3rd party nationals and their remains to the IRCR wherever
located/detained.

< ...and the Rumailah field falls in the disputed area>
Again, you are mistaken. The following was taken from the EIA's website
(Energy Information Administration);
"Another Kuwaiti field -- Ratqa -- has been the subject of controversy. Once
thought to be an independent reservoir, Ratqa is actually a southern
extension of Iraq's super-giant Rumaila field. During the weeks preceding
Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Iraq had accused Kuwait of stealing
billions of dollars worth of Rumaila oil, and had refused to negotiate a
sharing or joint development arrangement for Ratqa and southern Rumaila. In
its 1994 recognition of Kuwait's border, Iraq acknowledged a 1,919-foot
extension of Ratqa further to the north."

<Wasn't Kuwait, therefore, pumping more oil from that specific field,
knowing the sensitivity of the issue?>

After reading the excerpt above, i would imagine that your previous
statements about Kuwait's illegal Oil pumping in this particular area are
invalid.

<...the existence of the army was to put pressure on Kuwait to agree to

Iraq's requirements, which include in addition to compensations, leasing two
islands in the Gulf to give Iraq maritime access.>

What, in your honest opinion, gives the Iraqi leadership the right to
use force to reclaim that which was agreed upon in 1932, and later in 1963,
that which is the property of Kuwait? If the issue was the 'alleged' sold
loans, why didn't the Iraqi regime produce their proof to the International
Court of Justice and left it up to them, just as Bahrain and Qatar did with
their disputes over the 'Howar' Islands? Having said that. why didn't the
Iraqi regime resort to the International Court of Justice over it's border
disputes with Kuwait in the first place?

That's true. However, when a military buildup is preceded by political
pressure, accusations and rhetoric, the situation would be different,
wouldn't it? That too is how wars start.

Yes, because it is not vital to the discussion at hand. Going into the
intentions of the UAE is what you were asking, and i am unable to do that
because it is not my place to speak for the UAE's intentions in this
discussion.

<Anyway, how could Iraq be a threat to UAE? It is, as you said, hunderds of
nautical miles away...I was talking about UAE action being provocative
towards Iraq>

That is my point. I could ask you the same about UAE's actions being
provocative towards Iraq. How could the US-UAE joint exercise be a
provocative one to Iraq when it's held hundreds of miles away?

<...the existence of Iraqi army during its war with Iran did not bother or
annoy you>
True. That was because it was not backed by threats to Kuwait's
sovereignty. in fact, it was welcomed with open arms.

<...neither did the existence of Iran on your borders.>
That is not true. Iraq was the balance of power in Iran's face for the
Other Arabian Gulf countries, and that is why the GCC was formed, and that
is why the GCC aided Iraq. So, by definition, Iran always was, and always
will be a threat to the region.

<..US troops started arriving in Saudi on August 6th, before any mediation

efforts had any chance of showing concrete results, rendering any summit
obsolete.>

You may recall the broadcasting of a phonecall between King Fahad and
the Qatari Emir, a few days after the Invasion. It was intercepted by Iraqi
Intelligence, and broadcasted on Iraqi Television. After the conversation,
the commentator stated that this was part of a plot to destabilize the Iraqi
homeland. This conversation, and others like it, were done in secret, from
the very first day of the invasion, by all members of the GCC countries.
Secrecy was the word of the day at that time because there was no
contingency plan within the GCC charter dealing with an unprecedented action
such as an 'Iraqi' invasion, and (i'm projecting my own interpretations
here) i assume they GCC leaders didn't want to look 'lost' in the face of
world opinion, which was futile, in retrospect!

Yes, for a number of reasons;
a) Kuwait has a long-standing relationship, descending to the social and
family level between it and the other 5 states, more so than with Iraq.
b) Kuwait always was the 'pearl of the Gulf' where other Gulf regions were
concerned, making it the 'favoured' state in the Gulf, as well as the most
ecomonically sound, since most Gulf countries tied up their investments in
Kuwaiti markets.
c) Kuwait is part of the defense agreement of the GCC, and the co-founder of
the 'Peninsula Shield' brigade.
d) The actions of the Iraqi regime were, in all frankness, blatantly wrong,
in all aspects of international law as well as human understanding. And this
is the focal point of the answer to your question.

Do you need a PhD in Military doctrine to realise that half a million
soldiers massing just off your borders are not just there to conduct
maneuvers? Do you think anyone with enough knowledge on how to salute would
not know that these troops are not there to pick daisies?

My reply to your last question leaves me nothing to add to this one.

<Therefore, the outcome of any summit was determined in advance.>

The outcome of the entire invasion was determined the moment those
troops crossed the border.

Refer to my previous statement. The invasion was not to be left
unchanged no matter what. Most allled Arab leaders were determined to issue
that statement condemning the invasion before they even left their countries
to attend the summit.

The Americans, i believe, were there initially to safeguard the shipping
lanes that were under constant attack Iran during the Iraq-Iran war, and
were left behind to safeguard their interests in the region. In addition,
they have a small military base in Saudi which supplies the AWACS planes
that patrol Saudi Airspace, In addition, they formed a platform for
protecting their interests in the Saudi ARAMCO Oil city in Khobar, Saudi
Arabia.

The US has always been a target for terrorist factions, and given their
record throughout history i would assume that they wanted to keep their
soldiers alert, even if they were not threatened directly. Hey, Kuwaiti
armed forces stood down after Hosni Mubarak said that there is no ill-intent
on part of the Iraqis, and look what happened.

You're missing the point. Is Kuwait a military threat to anything in
Iraq? Pure and simple. The answer, logic dictates, is No, and having
arriving at that answer, given the comparison between Kuwaiti and Iraqi
armed forces, it renders any 'economic' threat as insignificant, as it does
not have the power to back up economic threat with a military threat, like
Iraq did, like the US is doing today in fact. Therefore, with all do respect
to Prof. Lakoff, I believe that his statement is false, or arguably
theoretical at best.

I would very much like to see this document, do you know of a way to get
hold of it?

<...in addition to the oil issue, was purchasing goods from Iraq, subsidised

by the Iraqi government, and taking them out. They were doing that by buying
the weakened Iraqi
Dinar cheap,and purchasing with it in Iraq. This speculation weakened the
Iraqi currency.>

This is, as you say, a speculation. In any case, this issue could have
been taken up with the IMF, the International Comittee of Tariffs and Trade,
or even International Court of Justice, along with the Oil and Border issue.

If what you say is, in fact, true, what do you think would be the motive
of the Kuwaiti Regime for doing so to a trade partner? Especially one that
Kuwait relies on for it's defense against Iran? More importantly, one that
Kuwait has loaned money to?

<Ala'a Hussein Ali is not a stateless soldier, but a Kuwaiti citizen. His
story was published a couple of months ago by the London based magazine
Az-Zaman, which is owned by Iraqi opposition (Barzani). Ala'a tells his
story, and he is still alive. He has not been executed, and he wishes to go
back to Kuwait, like the other members of his cabinet. Please check this...>

If this was so, then your presumptions of his and his cabinet's
whereabouts in your first reply to my post of them living 'happily in
Kuwait' are false. I will, however, check this out, as it is vital to our
mutual understanding of who was instigating a propaganda campaign against
who.

Do you realize that the Arab league, in all it's capacity, could not
couterbalance Iraqi military might? Do you also realize that the Arab
League, again in it's capacity, can not really refuse anything the UNSC
resolves to? It is not the first time the Arab world had asked for foreign
intervention in disputes over land or resources, check the Region's history.
There is not one single country from the Mediterannean to the Indian Ocean
that was not a protectorate or a colony, or a governorate of either Britain,
France, Italy, Holland or Germany. Even if it did violate it's charter-a
point i am still in conflict with at this moment but would discuss it with
you anyway-I believe that it was for the good of the entire Arab world to do
so. How would you like it if, say, Iran invaded and occupied Iraq, for 6
days, and the Arab League was still brawling over the legitimacy and
validity of readily-available help from foreigners to oust the invaders?

You will also remember, that historcally, Qaddafi, like Castro, always
stood against anything the US comes up with, especially after they bombed
his capital!

Qlebi resigned-in my opinion-in protest to the Arab League's inability
to solve it's problems.

How else would you want the charter to be based on? The will of the
stronger like the UNSC?

I have no answer to this question, as i do not understand your motives
behind your asking it.

So very true. But i believe i was referring to the UN, not the UNSC.

You make it sound as a conspiracy. I do not see it that way, but rather
another way to speed the mobilization of forces needed to implement the UNSC
reolutions 'using all means necissary'. As i said, the invasion would not be
allowed to go unanswered, and since resolution# 660 'condems' the invasion
and demands immediate withdrawl, the outcome of non-compliance was
commensurate with the speeches and the claims of 'no-surrender' that the
Iraqi regime was blaring out of it's media and diplomatic missions from day
1. I think it's another matter of opinion based on how one perceives things.

I look forward to discussing this issue with you as well.

Excuse my asking so, but who's "we"?

..And in your perspective, is that why Iraq stopped pursuing the beaten
coalition tanks?

Okay, We'll analyze your comment using the resolutions and datelining
them. Let's take this slowly;
Iraq invades Kuwait on 2nd August, 1990....
660(2nd August, 1990):the condemnation and the demand for withdrawl
immediately and unconditionally.
661(6th August):Imposed sanctions on shipping to/from Iraq and Kuwait. Form
a comitee to examine request for help.
662(9th August):Annexation is null and void. Demand Iraq to rescind actions.
663(18th August):Iraq to permit foreigners to leave & offer protection for
them.
664(25th August):Authorize military blockade of shipping lanes using
'available assets' at that time.
666(13th September):Authorizes relief only for emergency cases.
667(16th September):Demand compliance of diplomatic responsibility
669(24th September):Authorizes comittee, formed in 661, to examine request
for assistance.
670(25th September):Sanctions applied on all means of transport.
674(29th October):Demands seccasion of hostage-taking of all nationalities,
in violations of multiple charters and international Law. Iraq responsible,
under Int' law, for death, damage or injury regarding Kuwaiti and 3rd part
nationals as a result of 'illegal occupation'.
677(28th November):Condemns demographic recomposition, entrusts the
population registry to the Sec-General.
678(29th November):Gives Iraq 'final oppertunity' to comply with all 12
resolutions. Authorizes member states to use 'all means necessary to ensure
compliance by Iraq of these reolutions, unless Iraq does so on, or before
15th January, 1991. All states are to provide support.

*At this time, (Nov. 29, 1990) there has been no military confrontation,
besides a buildup of forces. It has now been almost 4 months since 660, and
Iraq shows no signs of compliance. It is after this resolution that the war
begins
.....and Kuwait is liberated.

989:(2nd March 1991) All resolutions remain in effect. Demands acceptance by
Iraq of all 12 resolutions. Accepting liability for loss, damage or injury.
Under Int'l Law, releases all POW's &return the remains of those deceased
military personell from Kuwait and member states cooperating with Kuwait
detained by Iraq to ICRC. Return of all Kuwaiti property, cessation of
hostilities, start negotiations between Iraq & Kuwait. Assist in clearing of
mines. Paragraph 2 of 678 remains in place (all means necessary to ensure
compliance). Welcomes release of all Iraqi POW's by Kuwait and Member
states, as required by Int'l law and the 3rd Geneva Convention of 1949.

In short, the Iraqi regime had 5 months to comply with the very first
resolution that asks for it's withdrawl. One can also say that by neglecting
resolution 660, Day 1, the Iraqi regime invited more and more resolutions to
corner it into the deadline stated in 678, about 4 months after it's
invasion. There was no buildup of armies, navies or airforces for 3 days
from 2nd August. On the 6th of August, the fourth day, the US navy moved
into the area to implement resolution# 661. Are you referring to military
actions made AFTER resolution#678?

<Similarly, Operation Desert Fox of December 1998, ended UNSCOM, as its
inspectors themselves admitted.>

'Desert fox' was a totally failed operation, but not UNSCOM.

Please refer to the resolutions beginning from 660 and ending with 773.

I agree with you totally.

<So, you have the right to believe that Iraq holds some Kuwaities and third
country nationals, but I do not have the right to enquire about the fate of

twice that number of Iraqis??Are you now being logical?? >
I never said what you cite. Far from it, i merely pointed out that,
according to multiple resolutions asking for it, the Iraq regime must
facilitate the return of POW's, in addition to the organizations responsible
for finding them and returning them to Kuwait. I understand that a couple of
months ago Iraq released some 400+ Iranian POW's that were held during the
war with Iran. It is my belief, based on what i know, saw and heard, there
is still the question of Kuwaiti and other nationals still held as POW's in
Iraq. I firmly believe that i reserve the right to ask about their
whereabouts, as is also your right to ask about your own kinsmen. How
illogical is that?

I can easily believe that!

The fact that a small makeshift sign with 'Baby milk plant' scribbled on
it is a bit suspicious, don't you think? Having believing this to be true,
how remote is it to convert a milk plant into a bio/chemical production
facility?

Then what do the words 'all means necessary refer to?

I think you may find this to be incorrect. Since there exists a
resolution that creates 'safe havens' in the North and in the South.

<Again, the resolutions regarding disarmament do not include the provision
of imposing them by force...>

And again i inquire you about the meaning of the term 'all means
necissary'.

That is your opinion, and i respect it. I do not, however, agree because
personally, i alwyas believed Iraq to be my brother as well as my saviour,
and so do many people in Kuwait, especially the ones that still have blood
relatives there.

< You thought you were buying the lives of its youth, and Iraq thought it
was defending a brother who is supporting it financially.>

Again, this is your opinion. One that i am trying to convince you
otherwise of being so.

Again, opinionated, and misinterpreted.

I provided links to other sites where POW's are discussed, besides the
Comittee. I can post them again if you wish.

<But you may not know that you have exhibited double standards.....So you

refuse intervention in your country's affairs, but reserve the right to
dictate to other states what should happen inside their borders>

I nver said i refused intervention in my country's affairs. I reserve
the power, as a Kuwaiti citizen, to vote for who should represent me in my
country's National Assembly, which makes me eligible to speak freely about
what should and should not happen based on what i interpret and see fit. I
did not dictate to 'other states' what should happen inside their borders at
all. I am merely, yet again, speaking 'my own opinion' of the matters based
on the facts that are discussed. Therfore, i am not displaying a double
standard at all. If, at any stage, i seem to 'interfere' in Iraq's inside
affairs, it is because i believe that this is the opinion of the people with
whom i share some of my own views, like the many Iraqi opposition parties in
London for example.

<...1989, Iraq enjoyed ahigher standard of living than the majority of Arab
States.>
True. Hence the higher standard of education.

I beg to differ. The Iraqi economic infrastructure is suffering a
decline because of the sanctions, is it not?

The idea of an argument is 2 people starting of with a biased idea, from
the other person's point of view, and work their way towards a single
opinion, don't you think? In any case, i was stating facts, how can those be
biased? And i never expected you or any other person to accept my opinion at
face value anyway...i'll leave that to logic and understanding of factual
proof either of us present to each other.

Well then, i'll depend on you to keep me in line with current events :)

The
Aggressor

Abuhashim

unread,

Dec 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/25/99

Sorry for the delayed reply. I am on vacation, but I had to post my
reply before things get old..

<This is not true. Let me explain; a) With reference to UNSC resolution
#687, an agreement between Iraq and Kuwait was signed in Baghdad on 4th
October, 1963, and it refers to a letter sent to the Ruler of Kuwait on

21st July, 1932, affirming Kuwait's borders and sovereignty. This

letter was replied to by the Ruler of Kuwait, on 10th August 1932,
accepting the Iraqi Prime minister's letter. The agreement was labelled
"Agreed minutes between the state of Kuwait and the Republic of Iraq
regarding the restoration of friendly relations, recognition and

related matters". The UNSC resolution formally recognized the

boundaries between the 2 countries based on this agreement, which in
turn is based on the exchange of letters that took place in 1932, as
well as the allocation of the 2 disputed Islands, and registering them
according to Article 102 of the UN charter.
b) This same resolutions demands both countries to comply with the 1963
agreement, and assigns a comittee to demarcate the boundaries between
them for the first time, as well as creating a DMZ, demanding the
compliance of the destruction of mass destruction weapons and the
return of all Kuwaiti and 3rd party nationals and their remains to the
IRCR wherever located/detained.>

** I am talking about a dispute, which predates UNSC resolution 687 by
seventy years. The dispute existed when resolution 687 was adopted to
theoretically resolve it. The resolution proves my case, not yoursâ€¦
However, as you well know, agreements become legally accepted and
binding only after they ratified by the legislative body of any state.
This is a basic principle of international law. Without going into the
details of the 1963 "agreed minutes" which was not an agreement, we
should also note that the highest legislative body in Iraq at that
time, the Revolutionary Command Council, refused to ratify these agreed
minutes and considered them void. I do not know if the Kuwaiti
Parliament ratified that agreement or not. Because in agreements
related to border issues the parties themselves must agree, then that
means that any registration of borders with the UN by one side only is
not legally valid, having failed to fulfil that requirement. You may
disagree with that, and perhaps say that the 1963 minutes based on a
letter of 1932 (whose contents I do not know) are all binding, but that
is not the case with regards to international law. A very valid example
is the SALT treaties, which though signed, only become binding when
both the Congress and the DUMA ratify them.

Even if we arguably accept the assumption that the 1963 agreed minutes
were binding, then why did the SC assign a committee to demarcate the
boundaries "for the first time"? You said that the 1932 letter
recognised the borders, so which borders did it recognise?? Why didn't
the SC implement the agreed minutes instead of starting from scratch,
if the said minutes â€œ formally recognised the boundariesâ€ as you said?
Doesn't that prove the point that until 1991, the borders were not
agreed upon? In addition to that, the SC based its resolution of the
border issue on a map prepared by the UK in the 1980's, a map which
never existed previously, and which never was part of the 1932 and 1963
letters and minutes you referred to. That is another subject altogether.

Most important of all, which is also a basic point in international
law, is the fact that the UNSC DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO
DEMARCATE BORDERS AND BOUNDARIES BETWEEN STATES. The Charter of the UN
does not include such provisionsâ€¦ And since the SC draws its legitimacy
from the Charter, then any action, which violates the Charter, is thus
illegalâ€¦

< Again, you are mistaken. The following was taken from the EIA's
website (Energy Information Administration);
"Another Kuwaiti field -- Ratqa -- has been the subject of controversy.
Once thought to be an independent reservoir, Ratqa is actually a
southern extension of Iraq's super-giant Rumaila field. During the
weeks preceding Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Iraq had accused
Kuwait of stealing billions of dollars worth of Rumaila oil, and had
refused to negotiate a sharing or joint development arrangement for
Ratqa and southern Rumaila. In its 1994 recognition of Kuwait's border,
Iraq acknowledged a 1,919-foot extension of Ratqa further to the
north.">

** You again prove my point, not the opposite. Ratqa is actually a
southern extension of Iraq's super-giant Rumaila field. Iraq believed,
with justification perhaps, that Kuwait was pumping oil off a field
that belongs to it.

< After reading the excerpt above, i would imagine that your previous
statements about Kuwait's illegal Oil pumping in this particular area
are invalid.>

** No, you have actually proven their validity. Thank you. Ratqa is not
an independent reservoir, but an extension of Iraqâ€™s oil field, which
falls in the contested border area.

< What, in your honest opinion, gives the Iraqi leadership the right to
use force to reclaim that which was agreed upon in 1932, and later in
1963, that which is the property of Kuwait? If the issue was the
'alleged' sold loans, why didn't the Iraqi regime produce their proof
to the International Court of Justice and left it up to them, just as
Bahrain and Qatar did with their disputes over the 'Howar' Islands?
Having said that. why didn't the Iraqi regime resort to the
International Court of Justice over it's border disputes with Kuwait in
the first place?>

**We go again into the contradiction created by your previous replies.
THERE WAS NO LEGAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES. Iraq has never
recognised Kuwait as a state. The voting at the Arab League in 1961 to
accept Kuwait was done also in violation of the Charter, without a
unanimous decision, Iraq having left the meeting in protest. If there
was an agreement, why did the SC not implement it automatically? Why
did it have to go back and study the case again, using a previously
non-existing map? Why didn't Kuwait submit that map to the UN in 1963,
instead of the vague statements of Percy Cox, about south of that tree,
and a line close to this and that..?? We could argue that point
indefinitely. One thing is historically definite: Kuwait was part of
the Wilaya of Basrah long before as-Sabah family came from Najd to the
area...
You might want to refer to the agreement between the Sheikh of Kuwait
with Britain in 1897. That agreement was illegal because Kuwait was a
village (not even Qadhaâ€™) belonging to Wilayat al-Basrah. This is like
saying that the Emir of the Eastern Province in Saudi now makes an
agreement with any foreign state without the permission of the
government. Furthermore, the Sheikh went back and cancelled the
agreement, swearing allegiance to the Sublime Porte in Istanbul.
Britain , as an occupation force, had no right to cut part of a country
away.International law prohibits the changing of the nature of occupied
territories.. What is the difference between creating Israel by
Britain on land taken from Palestine and creating Kuwait on land taken
from Iraq?? In both cases, the rulers came from outside the area...

As to the International Court of Justice, then you know as well as I,
that it is a non-efficient body of the UN, whose decisions are not
binding. The US, who was twice ruled against by it, declared that it
would not recognise its jurisdiction anymore. Only a fool would go to
that Court... Did the Court's decision help Libya, or Nicaragua or
Iran?? Furthermore, the process takes years of litigation, a luxury
which Iraq, at that time, could not afford.. This is my analysis of the
case, and I do not know what the Iraqi leadership's reply would be..
And if I remember well, Bahrain did not want the case to be taken to
the International court of Justice. And I do not think that the case is
solved, or is it?? I remember accusations of forged documents and such
things...

One more question: Why doesn't any right-minded, justice-loving Arab
tell us why Egypt never took its conflict with Sudan to the same court,
but invaded Halaib in 1992, with the whole world watching and the Gulf
Arabs silent?? Isn't that a violation of international law, or is it a
case that does not touch you and you would refer not to talk about it?
Halaib is larger in area than Kuwait, inhabited by more people, who
were forced to change their identity to Egyptian, and is rich with
natural resourcesâ€¦

< That's true. However, when a military build-up is preceded by

political pressure, accusations and rhetoric, the situation would be
different, wouldn't it? That too is how wars start.>

***But you miss the point. Pressure did not start in a void. There were
causes for it, including the oil issue, the islands, and the
infringement of Kuwait into Iraqi territory during the Iran war
(another subject once again). This is like the Arabic saying: "he hit
me and complained, then started crying". A state can not pursue a
policy that serves ONLY its interests without paying attention to what
it may cause its neighbours, and then complain about the consequences.

< Yes, because it is not vital to the discussion at hand. Going into
the intentions of the UAE is what you were asking, and i am unable to
do that because it is not my place to speak for the UAE's intentions in
this discussion.>

**But the UAE's actions, joined with those of Kuwait, were seen by Iraq
as provocation and a declaration of economic war. Knowing the close
relations of the GCC ruling families, there is cause to suspect joint
and organised action. Happenings have strengthened these suspicions.

< That is my point. I could ask you the same about UAE's actions being
provocative towards Iraq. How could the US-UAE joint exercise be a
provocative one to Iraq when it's held hundreds of miles away? >

**Because again Iraq saw it, after the dumping of oil by Kuwait and the
UAE, as a message from the UAE that we are not afraid of any threats
and we have the US here to protect us. Exactly what the Kuwaiti Prime
Minister told King Fahd. Iraqâ€™s grievances were not to be addressed,
rather defied..

< True. That was because it was not backed by threats to Kuwait's
sovereignty. in fact, it was welcomed with open arms. >

**There were no threats to Kuwait's sovereignty. The threats were to
Kuwait's economic policy, which was damaging Iraqi economyâ€¦

< That is not true. Iraq was the balance of power in Iran's face for
the Other Arabian Gulf countries, and that is why the GCC was formed,
and that is why the GCC aided Iraq. So, by definition, Iran always was,
and always will be a threat to the region.>

**Not true. Check the recent developments in the GCC's relation with
Iran, and you will see that it is welcomed with open arms. Sheikh Zayed
boycotted the latest meeting of the GCC because of the GCC's stand from
Iran.

< You may recall the broadcasting of a phonecall between King Fahad and
the Qatari Emir, a few days after the Invasion. It was intercepted by
Iraqi Intelligence, and broadcasted on Iraqi Television. After the
conversation, the commentator stated that this was part of a plot to
destabilize the Iraqi homeland. This conversation, and others like it,
were done in secret, from the very first day of the invasion, by all
members of the GCC countries. Secrecy was the word of the day at that
time because there was no contingency plan within the GCC charter
dealing with an unprecedented action such as an 'Iraqi' invasion, and
(i'm projecting my own interpretations here) i assume they GCC leaders
didn't want to look 'lost' in the face of world opinion, which was
futile, in retrospect!>

**This is not the issue. The conversation proved Iraq's claims that
there WAS a plan to destabilise it, in which the GCC countries were
involved with the US. Adding to this the campaign instigated by Britain
and the US since 1988, no wonder Iraqâ€™s conspiracy suspicions
increased. And it seems Iraq was right. You said that the GCC called
for a summit, but they called troops to the area FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE
SCHEDULED SUMMIT. Is that the attitude of one who wants to solve the
problem, or someone who was bent on using force??
Please tell us what was said in the above phone conversation??

< Yes, for a number of reasons; a) Kuwait has a long-standing
relationship, descending to the social and family level between it and
the other 5 states, more so than with Iraq. b) Kuwait always was the
'pearl of the Gulf' where other Gulf regions were concerned, making it
the 'favoured' state in the Gulf, as well as the most ecomonically
sound, since most Gulf countries tied up their investments in Kuwaiti
markets.
c) Kuwait is part of the defense agreement of the GCC, and the
co-founder of the 'Peninsula Shield' brigade.
d) The actions of the Iraqi regime were, in all frankness, blatantly
wrong, in all aspects of international law as well as human
understanding. And this is the focal point of the answer to your
question.>

**So the reasons were first tribal, economical and what..??
When was "Peninsula Shield" established, and for what reasons?? Where
was that brigade during the invasion??

We do not want to talk about international law, since it is used only
selectively. Israel's violations of international law and its
occupation of Arab territory does not deserve that the GCC call foreign
forces to liberate those territories?? Or Egypt's occupation of Halaib?
Or Israel's attacks on Beirut, Baghdad and Tunis?
You will, of course, say that Kuwait condemned these actions, but what
PRACTICAL MOVES did it take? Did it pay billions to use force against
these violations of international law?
Yet when the UN General Assembly adopted in 1991, under US pressure, a
resolution cancelling its previous resolution which considered Zionism
a form of racism, wasn't the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia, the biggest
GCC member, the chairman of the session??

Human understanding requires that people living in your country be
granted equal rights. The application of different classifications, and
"stateless" persons is an insult to human understanding. As a human
being I have the right to make this statement, because it insults the
human rights of
250 000 such "stateless".. When these people are treated as equal
citizens, and when women are given their rights, then I would be
prepared to discuss matters related to human understanding.
If the US gives itself the right to attack Iraq to allegedly protect
the human rights of Kurds and Shiiâ€™s, does Iraq or any other state then
have the same right of attacking Kuwait to protect the human rights of
those stateless people??

**You may not need a PhD in military understanding, but you have to
understand how to interpret aerial photos. That the King did not know.
He did not even know if the photos were those of his country's borders.
You miss the issue again. THERE WERE NO IRAQI TROOPS ON SAUDI BORDERS.
Perhaps that was Iraq's mistake. Had it gone into Saudi, the situation
would have changed. But Iraq had no intentions in that direction.

**Thank you for your honesty. You have just told us that Saudi Arabia
intended to bring foreign forces at any cost. You have proven my case..

< Refer to my previous statement. The invasion was not to be left

unchanged no matter what. Most allied Arab leaders were determined to

issue that statement condemning the invasion before they even left
their countries to attend the summit.>

**Again I thank you for your honesty. Then all that talk about
international law and the like is meaningless, since the Arab leaders,
allied with the US (and of course Israel, since the destruction of Iraq
was meant to protect Israel) were prepared to do what they did at any
cost. Forget about the Charters of the Arab League and the UN. Billions
are more important. Egypt can get its debts cancelled, Syria will get
Lebanon, and the rest will get what they are worth. So it was not about
right and wrong anyway??
Kuwaitis intentionally avoid an embarrassing subject related to the
behaviour of the Government. The whole campaign against Iraq was based
on lies and fabrications and not truths. The story of Nayira as-Sabahâ€™s
false testimony in front of a congressional caucus is a clear example.
Is this in keeping with international law or with human understanding?
The campaign was not based on Iraqâ€™s violations of international law,
but on baseless accusations that the Iraqi army is committing
horrendous crimes against children. This is called disinformation...
This is lying...Is that what you meant with â€œno matter whatâ€ ??

<The Americans, i believe, were there initially to safeguard the
shipping lanes that were under constant attack Iran during the
Iraq-Iran war, and were left behind to safeguard their interests in the
region. In addition, they have a small military base in Saudi which
supplies the AWACS planes that patrol Saudi Airspace, In addition, they
formed a platform for protecting their interests in the Saudi ARAMCO
Oil city in Khobar, Saudi Arabia.

**What are the American interests in the region that need an army to
protect them? And what were the AWACS doing in Saudi?? The same AWACS
which did not notice the Israeli planes in 1981 when they flew over
Saudi to attack Baghdad, and return over Jordan? Do you still wonder,
after all the actions and secret phone conversations why Iraq believes
in a plan to destabilise it??
You are anyway admitting that the US is interested in protecting its
interestsâ€¦That's good.

**Terrorist factions???? Are you telling us that all those
Palestinians, Lebanese, Chileans, Saudis, Cubans, Vietnamese, Koreans,
etc.. who fought the oppression of the US and its imposed dictatorships
are terrorists?? Why are we wasting our time discussing here? So were
the Kuwaitis who fought the Iraqis also terrorists? Why would they be
different from the Lebanese who blew up the US Marine headquarter?? Or
the Israeli backed SLA?

< You're missing the point. Is Kuwait a military threat to anything in
Iraq? Pure and simple. The answer, logic dictates, is No, and having
arriving at that answer, given the comparison between Kuwaiti and Iraqi
armed forces, it renders any 'economic' threat as insignificant, as it
does not have the power to back up economic threat with a military
threat, like Iraq did, like the US is doing today in fact. Therefore,
with all do respect to Prof. Lakoff, I believe that his statement is
false, or arguably theoretical at best.>

**No, I have never said that Kuwait was a military threat to Iraq. That
has been established. What I have said is that Kuwait engaged in
activities that can be interpreted as equal to a declaration of war.
But that does not render the issue of threat insignificant, given the
agreements Kuwait had with the US and the assurances of protection. The
Palestinian Foreign Minister, Farouq Qaddoumi said that when he warned
his Kuwaiti counterpart about the dangers of provoking Iraq, the
Kuwaiti Minister told him, don't worry, if Iraq invades Kuwait, the US
will get him outâ€¦ So, if Qaddoumi knew it, then Iraq must have also
known it, given its contacts and ability to listen to secret
conversations. Kuwait, therefore, played its economic role in the US
plan and the US supplied the power..
I believe that Lakoff read the signals right, and argued the use of
metaphor in the propaganda war. You should read his article.

**It can be found, in Pierre Salinger's book "Secret Dossier",
published in 1991.
It is a top secret and private memo from Brigadier Fahd Ahmad Al Fahd
to Sheikh Salem Al Sabah. Article (2) states: We agreed with the United
States side that visits would be exchanged at all levels between the
State Security Department and the Central Intelligence Agency, and that
information would be exchanged about the armaments and social and
political structures of Iran and Iraq.
Article (5) stated: We agreed with the American side that it was
important to take advantage of the deteriorating economic situation in
Iraq in order to put pressure on that country's Government to delineate
our common border. The Central Intelligence Agency gave us its views of
appropriate means of pressure, saying that broad co-operation should be
initiated between us, on condition that such activities are
co-ordinated at a high level.

This gives you an idea about the conspiracy theory, and even gives
credibility to it. If you knew somebody was plotting against you like
this, what would you do?

If you carefully read article (5), you will also find that Kuwait
ADMITS that its borders with Iraq was an issue not solved, thus the use
of "economic pressure". This again goes to prove my point about the
border issue, and the proof this time comes from Kuwaitâ€¦

< This is, as you say, a speculation. In any case, this issue could
have been taken up with the IMF, the International Comittee of Tariffs
and Trade, or even International Court of Justice, along with the Oil
and Border issue. >

**This is not speculation. The Kuwaitis were speculating in the Iraqi
currency, and that weakened it. This is not the deed of someone who
cares for the well-being of his â€œbrotherlyâ€ neighbour..
Go to the IMF or the ICJ to complain about a plan of co-operation
between Kuwait and the CIA to weaken Iraq's economy?? Are you
serious????

< If what you say is, in fact, true, what do you think would be the
motive of the Kuwaiti Regime for doing so to a trade partner?
Especially one that Kuwait relies on for it's defense against Iran?
More importantly, one that Kuwait has loaned money to?>

**The previous answer covers that point too.

**No. I meant that his cabinet members are living happily in Kuwait. I
knew about Ala'a when I posted my reply. I was actually testing your
knowledge of these matters, and it came out that you replied without
knowing about the subject.

**So why did Kuwait and its allies go to the Arab League, if they knew
that it was a useless organisation that can not oppose Iraq nor the
SC?? Was a fig leaf needed??
And who said that the Arab League can not refuse what the SC resolves
to?? Of course they can defy the SC and force it to apply its
resolutions ON ALL COUNTRIES OF THE WORLDâ€¦.But that, of course,
presupposes the existence of the honest will to do so...
Please enlighten me about previous cases when the Arab world (not one
state) asked for foreign intervention. I do not seem to remember. I do
know, though, that no single country in the region chose to be a
protectorate or an occupied area..
I do not accept that, in order to punish someone who has violated the
Charter, you give yourself the right to violate the same Charter. How
different does that make you?? And because violating the Charter is
for the good of Kuwait, it is accepted and it is considered to be for
the good of the entire Arab World?? Isn't that the arrogant attitude
that created the conflict?? Why do Kuwaitis believe that they are
better than all other Arabs??
You also seem to forget that of 23 members of the Arab League, 11 voted
AGAINST calling foreign forces.. 12 out of 23 is hardly the "entire
Arab World". I don't think you want to tell us that what happened was
for the good of Kuwait, let alone the Arab World. I mean the whole Gulf
area is occupied, Iraqis are dying by the thousands, and a new
generation is growing up filled with anger at Kuwaitis, before anybody
elseâ€¦And we know how the US is the sole player in the area, telling
everybody what to do.
I suggest, based on your arguments, that you stop referring to
international law, because you apply it only selectively. Every time a
reference is made to violation of an agreement or Charter, your reply
is that the end justify the means. From now on, please refer only to
Kuwait's and the US interest, and leave international law to others who
believe in upkeeping its principles at any cause.

< You will also remember, that historcally, Qaddafi, like Castro,
always stood against anything the US comes up with, especially after
they bombed his capital!>

**Don't you agree with Qaddafis' hatred for the US, which bombed his
capital IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND HUMAN UNDERSTANDING??

< Qlebi resigned-in my opinion-in protest to the Arab League's
inability to solve it's problems.>

**Exactly my point. The Arab League violated its Charter, Qlebi knew
it, and couldn't do anything about it. I advise you to see the secret
recording of the Arab Summit to understand the poor man's situation.
How can he tell Mubarak that he was violating the Charter??

<How else would you want the charter to be based on? The will of the
stronger like the UNSC?

I have no answer to this question, as i do not understand your motives
behind your asking it.>

**My motives are simple. You said that it is good that the Arab League
is acting in a democratic way, as you supposed the UNSC is. My comment
is that the charter of the UN and AL is based on certain voting rules
that are NON DEMOCRATIC. Whether we like them or not is not the issue.
The issue is that these are the provisions of the Charters, which
should be respected. You can not decide whenever you like to work
outside the Charter because you can not get enough votes, and then tell
me that that is democratic. That is hypocrisy and double standards.
My other point is that NONE of the Arab states, members of the League,
is democratic, so how can the League be a democratic forum? Does
democracy in your opinion mean the right to vote and write a few
letters to the newspapers?
Democracy means applying the principles of democracy, and that did not
happen at the Summit. If you had seen the recording, you would know
that the way President Mubarak conducted the meeting was far from
democratic. He did not allow discussions, not addressed the calls for
order based on the illegality of the vote. He ignored all of these
voices, counted the votes, considered the motion accepted (in violation
of the Charter) and closed the session. Democratic!!??

**But you know that resolutions of the UN General Assembly are not
binding. So the only binding and enforceable decisions are made by the
SC, a non democratic organ.

< You make it sound as a conspiracy. I do not see it that way, but
rather another way to speed the mobilization of forces needed to
implement the UNSC reolutions 'using all means necissary'. As i said,
the invasion would not be allowed to go unanswered, and since
resolution# 660 'condems' the invasion and demands immediate withdrawl,
the outcome of non-compliance was commensurate with the speeches and
the claims of 'no-surrender' that the Iraqi regime was blaring out of
it's media and diplomatic missions from day 1. I think it's another
matter of opinion based on how one perceives things. >

**It is a conspiracy, and if what has been posted until now can not
convince you, then I do not know what.
You are contradicting yourself. The forces started arriving FIVE DAYS
after the invasion. There were no SC resolutions talking about "using
all means" yet. That came almost four months after the invasion.
Please, do not twist things around, as if resolution 678 existed when a
military force was first deployed. You said that armies were being
deployed, a form of coalition. Then it was planned beforehand, because
you can not deploy forces in five days, if you are really trying to
find a peaceful solution. And militarily, it is extremely difficult, if
not impossible, unless you were expecting it beforehand..

Resolution 660 was adopted early August 2nd NY time, evening of ME
time. Even if Iraq would withdraw, it would take a couple of days. As
mediation efforts were underway, and as Iraq accepted these efforts and
started withdrawing, the SC imposed sanctions on Iraq.. The US claimed
that it is not true. And since the US never lies, everybody believed
its story!!
Anyway, US forces started arriving in Saudi on August 6th, the day
after Iraq's beginning of withdrawal. There was no evidence of
"non-compliance" as you claim here, but rather of compliance.
The "No surrender" and speeches were not being "blared out" from day
one as you also claim, but was done after US forces started arriving.
Please check your facts. You can return to the media and check what I
have so far said. You can not go back and predate happenings and use
it, in retrospect, to justify things that happened before themâ€¦ When
forces started arriving, Iraq was complying and began withdrawing. It
stopped, when US army stood at its borders. Then Iraq understood the
full scale of the "conspiracy", which you refuse existed.
And it is not a matter of interpretation, but of seeing things in their
correct historical context, not putting the new before the old..

<..And in your perspective, is that why Iraq stopped pursuing the
beaten coalition tanks?>

**Yes, I believe so. I also believe that the Soviet envoy explained the
situation clearly to the Iraqi leadership, realising the seriousness of
the threats, and knowing that nothing would stop the US. Another
scenario, which the Americans considered, was blowing up dams and
flooding cities. The Americans have admitted that, estimating the human
losses to have been about one million.
Primakov also knew that the Congress Palace in Baghdad was bombed
because the US believed he was meeting with Saddam Hussein there.
Primakov was seemingly also expendable..

<Okay, We'll analyze your comment using the resolutions and datelining
them. Let's take this slowly;
Iraq invades Kuwait on 2nd August, 1990....

.... There was no buildup of armies, navies or airforces for 3 days

from 2nd August. On the 6th of August, the fourth day, the US navy
moved into the area to implement resolution# 661. Are you referring to
military actions made AFTER resolution#678? >

**Well, first you listed resolutions to explain that Iraq had not
complied with then. Then we found out that all these resolutions have
been complied with. Now you give us a chronology of resolutions. I KNOW
those resolutions.
I have previously argued what I called Iraqi compliance, so I need not
go into that again.
But, it is not correct to say that the US navy moved into the area to
implement resolution 661. The US navy WAS in the area, all over the
gulf. US army started arriving to Saudi to allegedly protect it from an
Iraqi invasion. You have then told us yourself that it was the
beginning of a coalition force against Iraq. I assume that the
intention to destroy Iraq existed from the beginning, and that was a
conspiracy.. This is my stand.
Military actions after 678 rendered all before it meaningless,
especially since 678 violated article 27 of the Charter. And please do
not tell me that this violation was for the good of the Arab World. It
was definitely for the good of Israel..

< 'Desert fox' was a totally failed operation, but not UNSCOM.>

**Three PERMANENT members of the SC have condemned UNSCOM. It was a
tool in the hand of the US in order to gain information about Iraq and
implement the Zionist plan of control of the Middle East.
Unfortunately, some Arab states assisted in that. I do not understand
what you mean by your saying. Do you mean that UNSCOM carried out its
work fully?? In that case Iraq had complied, and all allegations to the
contrary are false...

< Please refer to the resolutions beginning from 660 and ending with
773.

I agree with you totally. >

**My reply about those resolution remained the same. They have been
complied with. IF Butler refuses to admit that, then it is another
matter. He has been proven to be a liar by UNSCOMâ€™s inspectors
themselves..

< I never said what you cite. Far from it, i merely pointed out that,
according to multiple resolutions asking for it, the Iraq regime must
facilitate the return of POW's, in addition to the organizations
responsible for finding them and returning them to Kuwait. I understand
that a couple of months ago Iraq released some 400+ Iranian POW's that
were held during the war with Iran. It is my belief, based on what i
know, saw and heard, there is still the question of Kuwaiti and other
nationals still held as POW's in Iraq. I firmly believe that i reserve
the right to ask about their whereabouts, as is also your right to ask
about your own kinsmen. How illogical is that?

I can easily believe that! >

**First of all, until the last resolution there exists NO SINGLE
RESOLUTION that refers to POWs. You can easily check that. Iraq has
never denied the existence of Iranian POWs. In fact, the Red Crescent
listed them all and their whereabouts were known.
So, there is no grounds for connecting this to that.
Why does Iraq refuse to attend the meetings of the committee on the
fate of MIA? Because Iraq sees no reason for the existence of the US,
Britain and France in that Committee. If Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi wanted
to negotiate and discuss that matter that is logical. But should the
leaders of the military aggression against Iraq be present??

< The fact that a small makeshift sign with 'Baby milk plant' scribbled
on it is a bit suspicious, don't you think? Having believing this to be
true, how remote is it to convert a milk plant into a bio/chemical
production facility?>

**You have seemingly never been to Iraq, or you have not yourself seen
the CNN report about the Milk factory. Otherwise, you would never have
said this...I do believe that the sign was quite big, and the building
was in the west of Baghdad, clearly seen by everybody... You have
chosen a wrong example.
How remote is it to convert your bathroom into a bio/chemical
production facility? We could also speculate on that.
Then again, Iraq never used WPD against Kuwait. So why does Kuwait make
this an issue related to its missing people?

<Then what do the words 'all means necessary refer to?

**It means blockade, it means preventing its officials from travelling,
it means cutting its contacts with the outside world, it means
intensive negotiations with guarantees, it means a lot of things. I can
give you an example: The Ambassador of Finland, which was a member of
the SC at that time, stated later that Finlandâ€™s intention when voting
was not to authorise the use of force, but to pressure Iraq into
withdrawal. He further added that the vote by Finland was a mistake in
calculation since its intention was not to use force...Kuwaitâ€™s loan to
Finland, 30 million KD, was of course written off..
The Charter, once again, specifies the procedure for the use of force.
NONE OF THESE PROVISIONS were applied. Why Not? Shortage of time? No,
there was three months time.. Why then?
Because IT WAS NOT A WAR UNDER THE FLAG OF THE UN BUT UNDER THE US
FLAG. De Cuellar admitted that to a Spanish Newspaper then..

<I think you may find this to be incorrect. Since there exists a
resolution that creates 'safe havens' in the North and in the South.

**Sorry, my dear friend. You have just proven to me that you have not
read the relevant UN resolutions, but are repeating what the western
media usually writes.. This is unfortunate. THERE IS NO RESOLUTION FOR
CREATING SAFE HAVENS IN IRAQ, and I challenge anyone to produce one.
The whole idea came from John Major.... There is one resolution that
refers to human rights and the human situation, 688, but it was adopted
NOT under Chapter 7, but under article 2 of the Charter, which provides
for the non interference in the internal affairs of member statesâ€¦
Which also means that this resolution can not be implemented by
force...This is international law..

**Which resolution, related to disarmament uses the term "all means
necessary" please? Specify the exact article and paragraph and not only
a number of a resolution..

If, for the sake of argument, we accept your analysis, and refer to the
UN resolutions, you will find the same resolutions demanding making the
Middle East an area free of WMD. Would you then accept that Iran, for
example, implements these resolutions, and attacks US and British bases
in the Gulf where there are stocks of Depleted Uranium, Cluster and
Vacuum bombs, all internationally prohibited WMD?? Please answer me
with all honesty, not by denying the existence of such weapons in the
area...

<Again, opinionated, and misinterpreted.>

**So what happened? Didn't Kuwait, instead of rescheduling the loans,
sell these loans? You have, if I remember, elsewhere admitted that as
the right of a state. So all talk about assistance and help is
meaningless, since eventually you demanded that "assistance" to be
given back. What do you call that??

< I nver said i refused intervention in my country's affairs. I reserve
the power, as a Kuwaiti citizen, to vote for who should represent me in
my country's National Assembly, which makes me eligible to speak freely
about what should and should not happen based on what i interpret and
see fit. I did not dictate to 'other states' what should happen inside
their borders at all. I am merely, yet again, speaking 'my own opinion'
of the matters based on the facts that are discussed. Therfore, i am
not displaying a double standard at all. If, at any stage, i seem to
'interfere' in Iraq's inside affairs, it is because i believe that this
is the opinion of the people with whom i share some of my own views,
like the many Iraqi opposition parties in London for example.>

**I posted a message from you in which you refuse any interference in
Kuwait's affairs, and now you deny having said that. Well, it does not
matter..
The facts that are discussed have two sides to it. The Iraqi opposition
are a bunch of thieves (Chalabi), sectarians (Hakim, Allawi, etc..),
and previous members of the regime (Samarrai, Al-Ali, Khazraji, etc..).
They do not have much credibility, now do they? Didn't they say Ala'a
Hussein was executed in 1990, when he is still alive??

** Then the sanctions ARE damaging Iraqâ€™s economy?? Thank you again for
your honesty..

< The idea of an argument is 2 people starting of with a biased idea,
from the other person's point of view, and work their way towards a
single opinion, don't you think? In any case, i was stating facts, how
can those be biased? And i never expected you or any other person to
accept my opinion at face value anyway...i'll leave that to logic and
understanding of factual proof either of us present to each other.>

**There lies the problem. You were NOT stating facts. You started with
information that were gained from a secondary source, seemingly from
the US. You had the dates wrong, then you admitted having calculated
them wrong. Well, if you had first hand information, you would not need
to calculate..
Then you started listing resolutions that have all been complied with,
and that have no relevance to the continuation of the sanctions..
Then you refuse to abide by the letter of the Charters of the UN and
Arab League, and insist that violating them was a democratic deed..
Then again you cite resolutions about the application of force to
disarm Iraq, when no such provisions exist..
You further accept the continuous attack on Iraq, which you first
justified on one ground then changed the grounds, as being based on a
UN resolution, when no such resolution exists..
If you had started with facts, I would have not had grounds to accuse
you of bias. But you started out repeating US propaganda about things
that you have neither seen nor known first hand.

** I intend to..

The Aggressor

unread,

Dec 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/26/99

Welcome back...

Not true. Please refer to the functions and powers of the Un security
council. Refer to the UNSC's webpage, it clearly states the following;

Under the Charter, the functions and powers of the Security Council are:

*to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the
principles and purposes of the United Nations;
*to investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to international
friction; (!)
*to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement;
(!)
*to formulate plans for the establishment of a threat to peace or act of
aggression and to recommend what action should be taken;
*to call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not
involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression;
*to take military action against an aggressor; (!)
*to recommend the admission of new Members and the terms on which States may
become parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice;
*to exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations in "strategic
areas":
*to recommend to the General Assembly the appointment of the
Secretary-General and, together with the Assembly, to elect the Judges of
the International Court.

What was meant by the term "first time' was being the first time to
'technically' and 'physically' go out to the area in question, and
'demarcate' where borders are placed, and not decide on them while sitting
in conference.

Below are a couple of paragraphs i have copied from the Library of Congress
that may shed some light to your questions;
""As one pretext for his invasion of Kuwait in 1990, Saddam Husayn revived a
long-standing Iraqi claim to the whole of Kuwait based on Ottoman
boundaries. Ottoman Turkey exercised a tenuous sovereignty over Kuwait in
the late nineteenth century, but the area passed under British protection in
1899. In 1932 Iraq informally confirmed its border with Kuwait, which had
previously been demarcated by the British. In 1961, after Kuwait's
independence and the withdrawal of British troops, Iraq reasserted its claim
to the amirate based on the Ottomans' having attached it to Basra Province.
British troops and aircraft were rushed back to Kuwait. A Saudi-led force of
3,000 from the League of Arab States (Arab League) that supported Kuwait
against Iraqi pressure soon replaced them.
The boundary issue again arose when the Baath (Arab Socialist
Resurrection) Party came to power in Iraq after a 1963 revolution. The new
government officially recognized the independence of Kuwait and the
boundaries Iraq had accepted in 1932.(!) Iraq nevertheless reinstated its
claims to Bubiyan and Warbah in 1973, massing troops at the border. During
the 1980-88 war with Iran, Iraq pressed for a long-term lease to the islands
in order to improve its access to the gulf and its strategic position.
Although Kuwait rebuffed Iraq, relations continued to be strained by
boundary issues and inconclusive negotiations over the status of the
islands.""

It might be appropriate to note, here, that Kuwait also refused leasing
the two islands to the USA for a total of 99 years, fearing-in my
opinion-that this may further aggrevate it's neighbours (Iraq+Iran).
Although it allowed Iraq to use them as a staging area for the "Faw'
operations.

That, again, is incorrect. From a historic perspective as you say,
before the Al-Sabah of the Utub, the Bani-Khalid lived in that area, whose
borders extended from Qatar in the South to Basrah in the North. Citing from
the book "The Modern History of Kuwait" by Ahmed Mustafa Abu Hakima, in
which he writes;
"During that century, Eastern Arabia was part of the Ottoman Empire
which conquered Baghdad in 1534, Basrah in 1564 and Al-Hasa in 1555. The the
last conquest, the ottomans were helped by the Iraqi tribe of al-Muntafiq
who had settled in the neighbourhood of Basrah. The Bani Khalid had not
accepted the ottoman presence in al-hasa, and under Barrak, in 1670 they
successfully besieged the ottoman governor, Umar Pasha, who surrendered and
left his seat of government"
The Utub, the author states that with permission from the Bani Khalid
ruler, Sulaiman Bin Muhammad al-Hamid (in accordance to local tradition)
arrived in Kuwait, which at that time was called "Graine" as you may know,
from Qatar. After his death, rivalry among the factions of his tribe, and
the rising power of the Wahhabis-bitter enemies of the Bani-Khalid-left a
power vacume in Eastern Arabia, which the Al-Sabah filled in as
administrators of "Bani-Khalid" affairs. This consquently made them
self-sufficient in administering their own affairs in time, and becoming
gradually independant from the Bani-Khalid.

The author, later in the next chapers, states;
"Jahrah, and other villages south of Basrah were under the control of the
Bani-Khalid tribe in the first half of the 18th Century"

"The head of the English Factory at Basrah, Samuel Manesty, assisted by
Hartford Jones, selected Kuwait as a place of refuge from the Ottoman
conflict with their presence." he then says; "The selection of Kuwait as a
place of refuge from the Ottomans implies that it cannot have been in any
way an Ottoman dependancy." The author includes a footnote by Cf. Lorimer in
his book "Travels to Assyria", pp. 462-3, (1816) in which he writes; "The
next port above El Kateef of any note on this coast is that of Graine, as it
is called in our English charts, thought known among the Arabs by the name
of Koete only....It seems always to have preserved it's independance
too....and they still bear the reputation of being the freest and the
bravest people throughout the Gulf"

"In a report compiled by Mr Malcolm in 1800, Kuwait was referred to as a
head of the Utub with a thriving prosperity". Kuwait at that time was headed
by Abdulla bin Sabah.

"Earlier in the same year (1839-Aggressor) some of the most wanted men in
the Wahabi camp, such as Umar bin Ufaisan and al-Duwaish, sought refuge in
Kuwait. Political asylum in his (Jaber bin Abdulla ibn Sabah-Aggressor)
history was a policy that had been adopted by earler by Shaikh Abdulla bin
Sabah. This can, therefore, be looked upon as an indication of
self-confidence, an outcome of Kuwait's independance from foreign powers."

And finally, "In the political arena, Kuwait retained it's neutrality among
struggling forces in the Gulf, and in this manner continued to be an
independant country having no contractual agreements with either the
Ottomans or the British, or even the Su'udi sides"
Therefore, we can summise that due to it's proximity, the ottoman empire
had little to do with Kuwait's sovereignity, and that any claims that it was
part of Basrah are false, according to history. I hope this clarifies why i
stated you were wrong. By the way, this was part of the Iraqi regime's
propaganda tactics to use against it's own people, and try to influence
world opinion.

It is. The Court ruled in favour of the Bahraini argument, citing that
it was, in fact Bahraini territory, after it was realised that Qatar had
falsified it's documents. Today, there is a holiday resort built on the main
Island of the Howar group belonging to Bahrain.

<....or is it a case that does not touch you and you would refer not to talk
about it?>
Correct. My discussion with you is about Iraq and Kuwait, and the
relevant points, historical, economic or political. Israel, i agree, does
play a part in the overall progress of the US's interest in the region. But
Lebanon, Turkey, SALT treaties, Halaib or Nicaragua play no part-none that i
can see- in the situation between Iraq and Kuwait. You use them as points
for comparison, i understand,

The same could be said about Kuwait's actions in the area. A southern
extension does not, i believe, mean ownership and control of the area even
if part of it fell beyond another country's borders. We can go round and
round in this! In any case, so is the Wafra Oil field between Kuwait and
Saudi. And there is a joint venture for oil excavation in that area. There
was a territorial dispute, but the "Uqair" Agreement of 1922 laid
foundations to a better understanding of the need to end territorial
disputes between warring tribes located within the area between Najd and
Kuwait.

So why, in your opinion, did the Iraqi regime not take this into
consideration where Kuwait was concerned, given the facts i stated from the
Library of Congress's files?

Wouldn't you call an army massing along Kuwait's borders a threat of any
kind? And if you believe this was true, why do you still imply that Kuwait
is an extension of Iraq? isn't this a double-standard?

Recent developments, yes. I am referring to 1990, when Iran was still a
threat to some people in the Gulf.

I believe it was a discussion of the facts at hand. The actual phrases
were not clear, but i was able to determine some of what was said. Basically
they were discussing the situation between Iraq and Kuwait, suggesting some
way of having Iraq vent some steam over it's dispute with Kuwait without
making an international circus of the situation, and calling on Egypt to
intervene along with Saudi Arabia to resolve the issue.

So the reasons were first tribal, economical and what..?? When was
"Peninsula Shield" established, and for what reasons?? Where was that
brigade during the invasion??>

The brigade was established some time after the GCC defense ministers,
acting under the suggestions of Oman's Sultan Qaboos to create a unified
Gulf Army, as a step towards unified GCC policy and cooperation. That
particular brigade was the first to enter and liberate Kuwait City during
the land operations, to clear out any remaining Iraqi troops in the city.

Kuwait was responsible for financing many of the PLO's political
activities, including Media Coverage, as well as helping the Lebanese crisis
and assisting in financing it's redevelopment, as is any country in the
gulf. Pick up any back issue of MEED and you could see the many contracts
that Kuwait holds a stake Lebanon.

Well then, do not dictate to me the issues pertaining to international
law, since you do not want to discuss them.

<..because it insults the human rights of 250 000 such "stateless".. When

these people are treated as equal citizens, and when women are given their
rights, >

I agree with you 100%. and for your information i was among the many who
opposed the idea of "a multi-sectioned Kuwaiti nationality". In any case,
that number has decreased as a result of political pressure from the
National Assembly on the Kuwaiti Government. It is not an ignored issue in
Kuwait at all.

Come on now, be reasonable!

Where did they stop when they occupied Kuwait? Where did they dig in
when they confronted the coalition armies? Where did they come from when
they took over Khafji? Why are there minefields and dugout bunkers along the
'Mutla'a' and 'Wafrah' areas?

This is called fact! I lost my 2 day old premature cousin when they took
her out of the incubator and handed her to her mother. It was, as she
recalls, a military man wearing an Iraqi 'Baathist' uniform. Please do not
argue with what is fact.

Oil fields, stable friendly governments, American businessmen, to name a
few. Why are you asking a question that regulates a clear and agreed-upon
answer?

Neither i nor you could answer this question fairly. In any case, the
Saudis use these planes to patrol their borders in the Gulf. The areas you
referred to are in the north i believe, and Saudi lies to the south of Iraq.

Please do not put words in my mouth.

Thank you for saying so, but when did i ever deny it?

Again, please do not put words in my mouth. If you do not have a support
to your answers, don't generalize, and stick to the issue at hand. This idea
is subject to which side of the argument a person stands.

In the eyes of the Iraqi regime at that time, yes. Where the
Iraqi-backing countries at that time were concerned, yes. As i said,
depending on which side of the argument a person stands.

Agreed. But significant to a point of military conflict? There were no
Americans either in Kuwait or Saudi on 2nd August.

I wouldn't invade my neighbour, that's for sure. In any case, it has
been accepted that Iraq was to invade and occupy only the disputed Oilfield.
That was the idea that was circulating within the Kuwaiti community prior to
the Invasion.

Oh really?? Ok...what are we, children? This is no way to conduct a
discussion. If facts are wrongly-presented from either part, it is up to the
opposing party to outline the fault and present it's corrections, and not
attempt some sort of entrapment to inflect the other person's lack of
knowledge on the subject. I admitted that some of my facts were erroneous,
and thanked you for presenting me with the right facts. I expect no less
from you. Let's keep this friendly, shall we? I have no reason to make you
my enemy...

<..when the Arab world (not one state) asked for foreign intervention. >
Have you forgotten the British intervention in Iraq during the ottoman
days? Or the British, and later French intervention in Muscat earlier in
this century? or the British intervention in the Saudi war with the Ottomans
also earlier in this century? Is 'Lawrence of Arabia' merely a fable?

Whoever told you that?? I'm Kuwaiti and i don't believe so...neither
does anyone i know for that matter. This is typical of a stereotype that's
been circulating ever since Kuwait became wealthy. I agree that some
Kuwaitis have present a bad conduct when abroad, but is it fair to
generalize a whole population's attitude based on a few incidents made by
members of that population? Iraqi soldiers were eating body lotion with
bread in Kuwait, thinking it was 'imported cream'. Does that say that all
Iraqis are dumb? Palstinians collaberated with Iraqi forces and harmed a lot
of Kuwaitis, does that mean all Palestinians are traitors? It was a
Palestinian family that helped us move about during the occupation, and
freed my brother from prison. It was an Iraqi army that saved us from an
Iranian expansionist regime. But i'm sure you know that anyway.

Others like you, you mean? I do nothing but refer to Kuwait and US
interests in it! I'm not including Nicaragua or SALT treaties! and i never
said 'the ends justify the means'.

<Don't you agree with Qaddafis' hatred for the US, which bombed his capital
IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND HUMAN UNDERSTANDING??>

Oh i can't blame the man for feeling the way he does! But to clarify his
position, he was against Iraq's invasion, IN ADDITION to foreign presence in
the area. Why, have i said otherwise? Or are you about to make me say i said
otherwise?

I agree.

It had a couple of days..it had more than two of them! US soldiers came
to Saudi five day after the invasion as you said, check your posts. The
Iraqi regime had '5 months worth' of a couple of days.

Irrelevant. The mere fact of annexing a country gave the US a reason to
amplify the need for a stronger presence. Saddam Hussein should have
anticipated this and withdrew to the disputed area, and not annex Kuwait and
refuse to leave it no matter what. In fact, he should have never reached the
Kuwaiti Border with Saudi in the first place, but remained in the disputed
area. Had he kept his forces only in the disputed are, and demanded further
negotiations, he would have gained a lot of concessions from Kuwait, Saudi,
US, even Israel for that matter. Because in doing so, he would have shown
everyone that he does in fact seek justice, and that his accusations are
rightly-founded. In doing so, he would have uncovered any conspiracy
designed against him or Iraq to the entire world. In addition, he would
have portrayed himself as the true power in the area, and not Iran, and
would have made Iraq the focal point from which every GCC policy is
designed. He did not, and what has happened is a result of his
miscalculations. In my opinion, he practically, 'invited' US intervention.

Iraq was not withdrawing. It was taking Kuwaiti weapons as 'war booty'
from the 'G1' headquarters and 'Ali Al Salem' Airbase and moving it to
Basrah. I saw this 'with my own eyes'. This was before CNN was available to
the Kuwaiti resistance for broadcast in Kuwait!! In addition, the Iraqi
regime did, in fact, withdrew it's Republican Guards, and replaced them with
regular and 'Popular Army' elements. And it was those poor souls that took
the hardest beating when hostilities commenced.

<...intention to destroy Iraq existed from the beginning, and that was a

conspiracy.. This is my stand.>

..and i understand and respect why you believe this is so. But please
try to be malleable in order to accept other theories, and not be biased, as
you accuse me of being.

Please refer to resolution#674, where is says, in no uncertain terms;
"A.1) Demands that the Iraqi authorities and occupying forces immediately
cease and desist from taking third-party nationals hostage, mistreating and
oppressing Kuwaiti and third-party nationals, and any other actions such as
those reported to the council and described above that violate the decisions
of the council, the Charter of the United nations, the Geneva convention
relative to protection of civilian persons in time of war, of 12 August
1949, the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations fo 18 April, 1961, the
Vienna convention on consular relations of 24 April 1963 and international
law."
If you were referring to the term "POW's" actually been referred to in
this particular resolution, it is not mentioned. However, when you arrest a
soldier, and hold him in a cell against his will in time of war, he is
regarded as a 'Prisoner Of War'.When "the occupying force" takes a civilian,
and hold him against his will and away from his family in a time of war, he
has been 'mistreated' and 'harmed', and is regarded as 'a prisoner'. So
logically, the POW issue is addressed in this resolution, and all the ones
referring to it. If, on the other hand, you decide that this is not valid,
and that the actual phrase "POW" must be referred, i believe you are being
unreasonable, I'm sorry!

No. the POW's HAVE NOT BEEN RETURNED!.UNSCOM was not given COMPLETE
ACCESS.

<.....implement the Zionist plan of control of the Middle East.>
Whoah!! Big one!! What plans? I thought they already controlled the
Middle East when they occupied Palestine and the Golan heights, and produced
200+nuclear warheads in a time when all the Arabs had were souped-up
insecticides!! Try to be a little bit less melodramatic next time!

No. I mean that in operating the way it did and having spies in the
team, it violated it's charter and nullified it's effectiveness and
legality.

< If Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi wanted to negotiate and discuss that matter that
is logical. But should the leaders of the military aggression against Iraq
be present??>

Well, I'd assume that it would be logical to have them act as
'witnesses', given the fact that the Iraqi regime is famous for revoking and
anulling agreements ever since the Baath party took power. However i
understand how you feel. I wouldn't like it either if the bully that was
always giving me a bloody nose is standing with me when i'm trying to make
friends with my enemy, his friend. However, as a gesture of 'goodwill' it
could have 'humored' everyone and attended. The Iraqi regime declined even
to do that much to increase the chance of proving their case of the
illegitimacy of the sanctions.

<...or you have not yourself seen the CNN report about the Milk factory.>
For your information, when i heard that the milk plant was hit, i was
horrified. I was, however, laughing like crazy when i saw the CNN footage of
the plant, especially the sign! I remember saying to myself "Do they really
think people are gonna believe this? Even if it WAS a milk plant??" I have a
scanned copy of the plant, i could send it to you if you wish.

I was not discussing disarmament! In any case,i believe the phrase
'using all means necessary' was not referred to when adressing disarmament
in particular. You seem to be very picky in some points, and exremely
general in others. Please be logical.

You expected the Arab world to delay it's decision even more that it was
already delayed? I saw the meeting,I remember Yasser Arafat saying some
gibberish about Afghanistan as a point for comparison, and Qaddafi refusing
to get up and telling Mubarak "Imshi!", and the news conference that Mubarak
gave to the press and then to his own people. Here are the hilights as i saw
them;
*The decision was by a show of hands, which was later determined to be
unanimous to speed things up and not look dumber that the Arab league
already looked. In addition, Mubarak claimed that 'some countries' were
being provoked by the Iraqi delegation, as they were threatening to finance
the opposition movements within these countries, should a decision be taken
against Iraq. (You may want to refer to the acts performed by Egyptian
'Islamic revolutionaries' and Mubarak's assasination attempts, and Syria's
last crisis.)

*One leader proposed a delegations of 'four' heads of state, among them King
Hussein of Jordan, to go to Baghdad and negotiate with Saddam Hussein. This
decision was not accepted by any of the delegations.

*Another leader proposed a closed session, only two leaders agreed.

*Mubarak asked "Who wants to go to Iraq to negotiate?" No hands were raised.

*Mubarak therefore put the recommendation set forth by the Omani delegation,
which was received, by 'calling the countries' names and waiting for a "yes"
"no" or "abstain" answer, which was the only thing left to do to 'save the
face' of the arab world.

Mubarak also admitted that he was 'unable' to send half his troops to
deter any Iraqi invasion at that time, and expressed the right of a country
to defend herself, using any method. He also expressed that, under the
'Constantinople Accord', Egypt was not allowed to restrict access of the
Suez Canal to any country it was not at war with.
On another note, Mubarak told the press conference that BEFORE ALL THIS
HAPPENED, as a last-ditch action, he asked King Hussein to go to Baghdad and
meet with Saddam Hussein, and discuss the possibility of his attending an
'Arab summit' that adressed two issues,

1)Withdrawl.
2)Restoration of Legitimate government and the resumption of negotiations.

King Hussein did go, and returned, saying that Iraq is ready to accept
attending an 'arab summit', but that the 2 points are not to be addressed at
all. And that, according to him, is why the Arab League was late in
responding to the Iraqi Invasion.
If anything i said is wrong, please correct me.

Why? What would it gain? Iraq had Kuwait to gain, US had Oil to gain,
what would Iran gain by attacking everyone?? It's not a logical comparison
that you've just made.

On a personal level; when i loan you a sum of money to buy something you
really need, out of trust and neighbourliness, and you promise to pay me
back when you can, but you don't, and i see you spending lots of money on
things that you don't really have to spend, (rebuilding Palaces, birhtday
celebrations, etc..) wouldn't you think that i'd ask for my money back? If i
do, and you don't pay me back, what does that make you? How would you want
me to act? Just be quiet and forget you ever took my money? Go away and sulk
in my room? Or do i go and complain to the police, and have them demand my
money from you?
Think about it....

I refused to interfere in Kuwait's affairs?? Does that seem logical
here? when i'm trying to explain Kuwait's side of the story? I said that i
reflect MY OWN VIEWS, and not my government's. Please refrain from twisting
and changing what i say, and try not to get personal, I'm discussing, not
fighting!

<Didn't they say Ala'a Hussein was executed in 1990, when he is still
alive??>

That's how i understood the story to be, until you were kind enough to
correct me. I am currently reading about this particular contradiction, and
am more enlightened, thanks to you.

Did i ever, in any of my posts say anything else?

If i didn't need to calculare things, i wouldn't be endulging in a
discussion about the biggest miscalculation in the History of the Iraqi
Baathist regime!

Incorrect. Resolutions, i say again, call for unconditional compliance
of inspection. When the Iraqi regime refuses UNSCOM entry to a facility,
this is called 'non-compliance'. However, this is another argument
altogether.

My friend, I have lived under Iraqi occupation for 3 months. I have
seen, heard, experienced and felt atrocities that challenge human
conception. I have stood by, helpless, to see Iraqi security men rape my
neighbours' daughter in front of her parents and the entire neighbourhood. I
have seen my family members' faces when they buried their 3-day-old
premature daughter. Two of my friends are yet to be located, and are
presumed dead by their families. One of my friends still suffers from
Post-traumatic stress, cannot conceive because he had his testicles 'cut
off' during his interrigation while in prison, and cannot sleep in a dark
room till today because of his experiences 'as a military POW' ever since
the first day of the Invasion. Another one limps because the Iraqis drilled
his kneecaps. I saw first hand what Iraqi tactics were in terms of occupying
a town and combing it for resistance pockets.I even saw-first-hand-the
execution of 5 Kuwaiti men, similar to the one the resistance videotaped. I
do not wish to discuss my personal experiences of the Occupation in this
forum, as they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is the
political differences of opinion between you and me. I have not studies in
detail the political aspect of 'who's right and who'se wrong' till recently,
when certain individuals in this NG began spreading 'hearsay' and rumors
that hold little else but hot air.
Do not use my inaccuracies as a basis for your accusations of my being
biased and ignorant of facts, or double-standardized, as you yourself have
proven your contradictions with what you say on a few occasions. No one is
free from fault, certainly not me, I'm only human after all. And i say
again, do not turn this into a personal vendetta, i have no reason to be
your enemy...

Abuhashim

unread,

Dec 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/30/99

Aggressor,

I read your reply carefully. Before I post my reply, I have to make
basic things clear.

You started your post with a title â€ The Bottom Lineâ€ or the ultimate
result, which assumes you possess the whole truth. Your posting was
unfortunately full of mistakes and second hand information, far from
what the title suggested. The image conveyed by your posting was that
either you assume that the readers are a bunch of idiots or kids, or
that you had not well researched the issues.

When Tornimo posted his remarks, which were quite properly presented,
you replied with a personal attack, questioning his personal life and
intentions. His remarks you left unanswered. That was surprising for me.

I did my best to argue the points you raised, and brought examples to
substantiate these arguments. I also used the UN Charter, the Charter
of the Arab League and International Law as proof of my points. In
return, you have thrown at me accusations of being illogical, non
malleable, not reasonable, as well as biased and contradicting myself.
You did that, while evading answering the main issues, and pushing
aside anything that questioned the validity of your points.

Your basic argument has been that Kuwait, historically, was independent
of Basrah and thus Iraqâ€™s arguments are false. I have, using historical
documents in different postings, shown that this is not a correct
argument. As far as I am concerned, the issue of Kuwait belonging to
Basrah, and hence to Iraq, has been solved by historians, and by
British documents. It is up to you to accept the documented facts or
not. For me, the matter is crystal clear and settled..

I will, however, stick to the issues of UN resolutions , their
legality, UNSCOM, and Kuwait. Things that are not related to these,
such as overthrowing the regime, will not be addressed, as they are not
part of UN resolutions nor international law. They actually violate
international law.

If you think that the 400 + Kuwaitis are dear to you, you should also
think that the 1150 missing Iraqis are dear to their families and
country.. You do not have to show any concern for these missing, but
please do not revert to sarcasm by telling me to go look for them in an
Iraqi prison...

You can, of course, accuse members of this NG of spreading â€ hearsayâ€ ,
but I hope you remember that hearsay means unverified information
acquired from another. This, unfortunately, is what you have been
guilty of, having posted information gained from other sources;
information that have come out to be untrue. If you do not want others
to be personal, do not call what they post â€ rumours that hold little
else but hot airâ€ â€¦

I want to stress that I do not generalise. I am careful with details
and particulars of any issue, and hope that you will not use that
against me. It is a virtue, I suppose, not otherwise. I assure you that
I research the subject before I make my reply.
I will refrain in my postings from replying to your personal attacks at
me, and concentrate instead on arguing what you have posted.

Abuhashim
--------------------------------------------

<Not true. Please refer to the functions and powers of the Un security
council. Refer to the UNSC's webpage, it clearly states the

following;â€¦..>

** All these points are true, but they do not still give the SC the
right to demarcate borders. I fail to see how investigating disputes,
or recommending methods for settlement or the use of force against an
aggressor could be interpreted to mean forcing a state to re-draw its
border line with another state.

However, the UN Charter states that in discharging its duties "the SC
shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United
Nations". These are stated in the Charter as follows:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to
take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of
threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or
other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and
in conformity with the principles of justice and international law,
adjustment or settlement of international dis-putes or situations which
might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the
principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to
take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international
problems of an eco-nomic social, cultural, or humanitarian char-acter,
and in promoting and encouraging re-spect for human rights and for
fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex,
language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the
attainment of these common ends.

None of those, in my opinion, carry the alleged mandate for the SC to
force states to re-draw their boundaries.

You have left the matter of the 1963 agreement open. Do you agree with
me that, not having been ratified by the Iraqi legislative organ, it
was not legally binding? Do you then agree that registering an
agreement (or draft agreement) with the UN by one side is not
acceptable unless ratified??

** Fair enough, I'll buy that. I do not recognize the 1932 and 1963
â€ agreementsâ€ as legally validâ€¦However, in its actions, the committee
depended on a map that did not exist during the exchange of
correspondence of 1932 and 1963. Is that true or not? The committee,
therefore, did not work according to the agreement of 1963 upon which
resolution 687 was based, but RE-DREW the borders new. Is that, in your
opinion, a legal action according to the â€™factsâ€™ you presented?

<Below are a couple of paragraphs i have copied from the Library of

Congress that may shed some light to your questionsâ€¦..>

** Again, this is general history of the area. However, it does make
one fatal error. The area DID NOT PASS UNDER BRITISH PROTECTION IN
1899!! The agreement signed between the Sheikh and Britain was illegal,
since the Sheikh was an employee of the Wali of Basra, and the Sheikh
went back and revoked the agreement and swore allegiance to the Porte.
The Sheikh had before that killed his two brothers and usurped power
for himselfâ€¦.The Library's article does not refer to the agreement
signed between Britain and the Ottoman Empire in London on July
29,1913, which stated in article 6 the right of the Sheikh of Kuwait to
exercise the administrative authority invested in him as an Ottoman
district administrator subordinate to the Province of Basrah. This
proves that as late as 1913, Britain admits that Kuwait was NOT under
its protection.
The article, further still, confirms my claim that the boundary issue
and the status of the islands continued to strain relations, simply
because they were not resolved.

Another important point. The article states that in 1932, Iraq
"informally" confirmed its border with Kuwait. This too has to be
explained. The Iraqi Prime Minister, under pressure from Britain,
exchanged letters with the British Commissioner in Baghdad(seemingly
not the Sheikh of Kuwait), regarding the demarcation of the boundaries
on the basis of the draft agreement proposed between the Ottoman and
the British Governments of 1913. However, the Iraqi House of
Representatives, in its capacity as the country's legislative authority
in accordance with the constitution, refused to ratify the said letters.
Even if we are to accept the right of the SC to demarcate borders, for
the sake of this discussion, and because I try to oblige your wish not
to be enemies, then the basis for demarcation the borders collapses.
Both the 1932 letters and the 1963 draft agreement have not been
ratified, and resolution 687 has no basis, legally or historically for
its claim.

<That, again, is incorrect. From a historic perspective as you say,
before the Al-Sabah of the Utub, the Bani-Khalid lived in that area,
whose borders extended from Qatar in the South to Basrah in the North.
Citing from the book "The Modern History of Kuwait" by Ahmed Mustafa

Abu Hakima, in which he writesâ€¦.>

** I am not arguing the historical facts, even though I find the choice
of words like " Al-Sabah filled in as administrators of 'Bani-Khalid'
affairs" quite interesting. What does that mean? Did Bani-Khalid
authorise them to sit in for them, or did they just "usurp" power?
Didn't the Wilaya of Basrah include all the East Coast of Arabia until
Oman? How then can Bani-Khalid be rulers of that area? The book (or the
part that you have quoted) talks in vague terms and leaves more unsaid
than said. What happened to Bani-Khalid and to the land they "ruled" or
administered? Are they still in Qatar?? I have no idea about this
matter.

But again, that does not change the facts that were accepted by the
Sheikh of Kuwait in 1913, that he was an administrator on the area. The
claim that Kuwait was part of Basrah is historically right, not false,
and agreements prove it.

<Correct. My discussion with you is about Iraq and Kuwait, and the
relevant points, historical, economic or political. Israel, i agree,
does play a part in the overall progress of the US's interest in the
region. But Lebanon, Turkey, SALT treaties, Halaib or Nicaragua play no
part-none that i can see- in the situation between Iraq and Kuwait. You
use them as points for comparison, i understand,>

** I was only bringing similar cases to the issue to show objectivity.
Your choice is to talk only about Iraq and Kuwait. I will respect your
choice, even though I believe happenings in the area are connected to
each other in such a way as to make separating them impossible.
However, you brought up the subject of the ICJ, and when I gave
examples of its decisions, and the refusal of the US to respect them,
you are suddenly not interested. Do you seriously believe that the ICJ
or the IMF would have solved the problem, given the previous history of
the court??
I also referred to Egypt's occupation of Halaib, because it was also a
violation of international law that defies human understanding. It was
also an invasion by one state to its smaller neighbour. You want to
consider that the issue is not related to the Iraq-Kuwait issue. That
is your choice, but that is evasion.

** But that is the issue. The borders have NEVER been defined. I have
explained the legal grounds for that. I do understand your continuous
referral to the exchange of letters, but they are not legally binding
in international law. If the SC adopts a resolution that violates
international law, it does not mean that we all have to accept this
violation. SC resolutions are not divine scriptureâ€¦That oil field is
part of the contested border area.
The "Uqair" agreement and what went on there is another story. You may
remember that the Iraqis, Kuwaitis and Saudis were represented by
British Officers. This tells a lot about the comic situation, where the
British agreed among themselves on how to divide land that is not
theirs, and the people concerned were there to obey..

< So why, in your opinion, did the Iraqi regime not take this into
consideration where Kuwait was concerned, given the facts i stated from
the Library of Congress's files?

Wouldn't you call an army massing along Kuwait's borders a threat of
any kind? And if you believe this was true, why do you still imply that
Kuwait is an extension of Iraq? isn't this a double-standard? >

** The "facts" from the Library of Congress's files are erroneous, as I
have explained.
And no. It is not double standards to believe that Kuwait is part of
Iraq, historically and politically.

< Recent developments, yes. I am referring to 1990, when Iran was still
a threat to some people in the Gulf.>

** I made my remark, because you said that "Iran always was, and always
will be a threat to the region". Are you retracting that statement? My
argument is that the GCC countries, except the UAE, do not anymore
believe that Iran is a threat.

** Thank you. I have found the full text of the phone conversation, and
I shall try to post it. There is also more evidence to support the
conspiracy theory.

** I was not referring to financing the PLO's political activities or
Rafiq al-Hariri's construction projects. I was referring to funding the
international use of force to get the aggressor out of the area in
accordance with international law, as was done in the case of Kuwait.

** My, My. You do get angry when faced with factsâ€¦ Read the whole
discussion please. My argument has always been that resolutions in the
UN and the Arab League were in violation of their own Charters and thus
of international law. Your reply has been "I believe that it was for
the good of the Arab World to do so". One can only conclude that you
are more interested with results than with the issue of resolutions'
legitimacy . I did not twist your words, nor am I trying to dictate the
issues pertaining to international law. I am saying that you can not
punish a state for violating international law, and then apply
resolutions that violate international law. You either apply the law to
all, or leave your reference to it out of the discussion. I can not see
why that should anger you.

< I agree with you 100%. and for your information i was among the many
who opposed the idea of "a multi-sectioned Kuwaiti nationality". In any
case, that number has decreased as a result of political pressure from
the National Assembly on the Kuwaiti Government. It is not an ignored
issue in Kuwait at all.

Come on now, be reasonable! >

** Reasonable about what?? Protecting the stateless of Kuwait according
to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the Geneva Convention?
These are agreements binding to all states who have ratified them.
Where is the difference between the Shia of Iraq and the stateless of
Kuwait? Why should the Shia and Kurds of Iraq be protected by force,
and the same treatment not granted to the stateless of Kuwait?
And do you consider granting citizenship to 250 stateless a year a
solution, or a joke??

** I was talking about the 4th of August, when Dick Cheney showed King
Fahd the falsified aerial photos. You are changing the issue. THERE
WERE NO IRAQI TROOPS AMASSING ON THE SAUDI BORDERS on that day. The
troops were moved to the border after the arrival of US troops. After
that, it is public knowledge that the Iraqi army was on the Saudi
border.

** I am sorry for your loss. But it does not change the facts.
Fact, my friend, is that the whole issue of killing babies in the
incubators was a fabrication by the Sabah ruling family with the help
of an American consultancy company. I have posted the full story
before. For more information about the issue, please refer to the
following:
http://www.io.com/~patrik/gulfwar1.htm and
http://www.io.com/~patrik/gulfwar2.htm

These are only a sample of articles about the issue. If you are
interested, I can post more links.
I also remember an interview with a Kuwaiti doctor after the military
actions, in which he confirmed that no babies were taken out of
incubators, but that doctors and staff left their working stations and
went home. The babies remained without supervision, causing the death
of a number of them. I will try to find the TV interview and post the
doctorâ€™s name.

**My questions was aimed at finding out the justification for the
existence of US forces in the area, thousands of miles away from their
country, when the amassing or manoeuvres of Iraqi troops inside Iraq
are considered a threatâ€¦.

**Wrong. The Saudis do not use these planes. The American use them, and
give the Saudis what information they deem necessary.
Besides, the Israeli planes flew over Saudi airspace on their way to
Iraq, and returned over Jordan. These are the areas I referred to
exactly. Of course, the Saudis also explained that the AWACS were
watching the Yemeni bordersâ€¦

**I have not put words in your mouth. But what could one conclude when
you say that the outcome of the invasion was determined the moment
these troops crossed the border?? Or when you say that the invasion was
not to be left unchanged no matter what?? We were talking about the
speed with which Saudi called US troops, instead for opting for a
peaceful negotiated settlement; the readily typed resolution of the
Arab League; the campaign of lies, etcâ€¦

<Again, please do not put words in my mouth. If you do not have a
support to your answers, don't generalize, and stick to the issue at
hand. This idea is subject to which side of the argument a person
stands.

In the eyes of the Iraqi regime at that time, yes. Where the
Iraqi-backing countries at that time were concerned, yes. As i said,
depending on which side of the argument a person stands.>

** Again, I am not putting words in your mouth. When I asked what are
the US interests in the area that need an army to protect them, you
replied " The US has always been a target for terrorist factionsâ€¦". Am
I putting words in your mouth when I question calling Palestinians and
Lebanese in the area 'terrorist factions' ? Who else in the area has
fought the US with acts that you consider terrorist?

I have argued my claims depending on the Charters of the UN and the
Arab League, and on historical documents, and have posted an article
that shows, with British documents, the roots of the Kuwaiti claims. I
hope that you will read that article, and then accuse me of not having
support to my answersâ€¦

<Agreed. But significant to a point of military conflict? There were no
Americans either in Kuwait or Saudi on 2nd August.>

**Are we fooling ourselves? You have said before: â€ It makes no sense

when 2 parties are engaged in a brawl while a third party is lying on

the beach next to them sipping cool cocktails and sunbathingâ€ . The
Americans were all over the Gulf, and have had a presence in Saudi
since 1980's.

**That is a contradiction with previous statements that the invasion
was a surprise. If the idea of an Iraqi invasion of the â€ disputedâ€ oil
fields was accepted, then why the pretension of surprise??
Why did Kuwait then not give concessions when the invasion was accepted
and awaited, instead of the refusal to compromise? And are you now
admitting that the oil fields were disputed??

<Have you forgotten the British intervention in Iraq during the ottoman
days? Or the British, and later French intervention in Muscat earlier
in this century? or the British intervention in the Saudi war with the
Ottomans also earlier in this century? Is 'Lawrence of Arabia' merely a
fable?

**What did you mean by the British intervention in Iraq?
The Iraqis never called the British to protect them. If you are
referring to the revolt of the Sherif of Mecca, then you should know
that the British wanted his assistance in return for the rule of the
Arab world. The Iraqis rejected the British appointed king and revolted
against the British.

** Yes, others like me, since international law is only invoked when it
serves Kuwait's and US interests. When not, then it is for the good of
the Arab world. Right??
The reference to Nicaragua was to illuminate the fact that the ICJ
rulings are not binding. It seems you missed my point.
You also missed my point about the SALT treaty, which was to show that
treaties are only binding after they are ratified. I brought these
subjects up to argue a point which you brought up.
But, again to oblige you, I will use an example from Kuwait. The Emiri
Decree of the summer granting voting rights to women was rejected by
the Kuwaiti Parliament recently. That means that Kuwaiti women do not
have voting rights, because the decree was NOT RATIFIED. Is that a
viable example now??

You did not use the words ' the ends justify the means', but you didn't
have to. We are not involved in a game of semantics. Words like 'I
believe that (violating the Charter) was for the good of the entire
Arab World' , or ' that the invasion was not to be left unchanged no
matter what' can not, in my opinion, mean anything except ending the
invasion at any cost: bringing foreign forces (readily-available help
from foreigners !!), instigating a campaign of lies, buying off Arabic
and foreign states to secure support, and culminating in supporting the
continuation of sanctions and backing the Iraqi opposition. This, in my
opinion, is exactly what 'the ends justify the means' is all about..
Isn't supporting the Iraqi Shia opposition, which was involved in the
assassination attempt on the Emir in the 1980s, a strange turn of
events? Isn't Kuwait using al-Hakim as a means to an end??

**No, but when I mentioned his criticism of the conduct of the Arab
Summit, your reply was that "Qaddafi, like Castro, always stood against

anything the US comes up with, especially after they bombed his

capital!". Well, what are we supposed to understand from that; that his
opposition is only based on his hatred for the US? I got the impression
you were brushing off his opposition as being like that of a naughty
boy who always opposes, just like Castro...
Or did I miss something else? Did I also understand that the Arab
Summit was something the US came up with, hence Qaddafi's opposition??

**Here you lost me. I do not know what you are discussing here..Are you
talking about the US not waiting for the Iraqi withdrawal before
imposing sanctions? The US forces were on the move already on August
4th, if not earlier, when Cheney convinced King Fahd of the American
plan. The troops started arriving 4 days after the invasion. As I said,
after the arrival of those troops, the situation changed radically,
with Saudi Arabia becoming a party to the conflict.

<Irrelevant. The mere fact of annexing a country gave the US a reason

to amplify the need for a stronger presenceâ€¦â€¦ >

**It is very easy to speculate in retrospect. Here you also state that
the US was present, when in an earlier reply you deny the existence of
its troops in Saudi and Kuwait.
Then you speculate that Saddam would have gained concessions from
Kuwait, Saudi, US and even Israel. How does Israel come to the picture
all of sudden. We are supposed to be talking only about Iraq and
Kuwait. Does Israel have a role in the scenario?? Kuwait showed no
signs of any concessions during the whole time of the crisis, long
before the invasion.
I again repeat what has been before said: there were no Iraqi army
troops on Saudi's borders. Claims to the contrary were part of the US
plan of lies to convince Saudi that it was in danger and allow large
troops into its territory. The US successfully pre-empted all efforts
at finding a peaceful solution to the crisis. Any speculation remains
meaningless. There is enough proof to back this claim.
But I agree that Saddam did miscalculate. Instead of relying on the
imaginary good will of the Saudis to find a solution, Saddam should
have marched inside Saudi and occupied Dhahran, and then negotiated
with the Saudis from a different position. After all, Saddam knew, from
the phone conversation of King Fahd and the Qatari ruler in July that
Saudi was bent on a conspiracy to weaken Iraq.

<..and i understand and respect why you believe this is so. But please
try to be malleable in order to accept other theories, and not be
biased, as you accuse me of being.>

**I believe that, during this discussion, I have given enough proof
that the intention to destroy Iraq existed from the first day of the
invasion. In fact, as Salinger and others point out, the US was
prepared since 1989 for a similar scenario, and plans were ready for
attacks on Iraq. It would be naive, in my opinion, to think otherwise.
The fabricated aerial photos, the hiring of the consultancy company,
the fabrication of the lie campaign and the training of Nayira and the
choice of her father's clothes and his hair cut did not happen in two
or three days. It must have taken some time to prepareâ€¦.

The movement of US troops towards Saudi occurred within two days. The
speed with which resolutions were drafted and written in the SC was
amazing, to say the least. When US ambassador, Thomas Pickering was
asked by reporters what if the sanctions did not bring results, he
tapped on his briefcase and said, don't worry, there's more where that
came fromâ€¦ The resolution of the Arab Summit was readily printed in
English and Arabic even before the meeting startedâ€¦
Need I say more?

<Please refer to resolution#674, where is says, in no uncertain terms;
"A.1) Demands that the Iraqi authorities and occupying forces
immediately cease and desist from taking third-party nationals hostage,
mistreating and oppressing Kuwaiti and third-party nationals, and any
other actions such as those reported to the council and described above
that violate the decisions of the council, the Charter of the United
nations, the Geneva convention relative to protection of civilian
persons in time of war, of 12 August 1949, the Vienna Convention on

diplomatic relations of 18 April, 1961, the Vienna convention on

consular relations of 24 April 1963 and international law."

If you were referring to the term "POW's" actually been referred to in
this particular resolution, it is not mentioned. However, when you
arrest a soldier, and hold him in a cell against his will in time of

war, he is regarded as a 'Prisoner Of War'. When "the occupying force"

takes a civilian, and hold him against his will and away from his
family in a time of war, he has been 'mistreated' and 'harmed', and is
regarded as 'a prisoner'. So logically, the POW issue is addressed in
this resolution, and all the ones referring to it. If, on the other
hand, you decide that this is not valid, and that the actual phrase
"POW" must be referred, i believe you are being unreasonable, I'm
sorry!>

**The resolution you mentioned refers to foreigners whom Iraq
"interned" (in the same way his citizens were interned in the West), as
well as to members of diplomatic missions, as can be seen from the
references of the resolution.
POW refers to members of the military, as you well explain. However,
the resolution does not refer to them, but to civilians covered by the
Geneva convention of 12 August 1949. The resolution refers to â€ taking
third-party nationals hostageâ€ and â€ mistreating and oppressing Kuwait
and third-party nationalsâ€¦â€ . It differentiates between taking hostages
of foreigners and mistreating and oppressing Kuwaitis and foreigners.
These are two different terms. The drafters of the resolution could
have referred to the Convention that governs POWs, had they meant that.
And believe me, those drafters were very thorough..
More important, the latest resolution, 1284, which refers to â€ the
repatriation and return of all Kuwaiti and third country nationals or
their remains..â€ , does not refer to this resolution in its list of
previous resolutions on which it is based. That alone is clear evidence
that resolution 674 is not about POWs or missing Kuwaitis.

<No. the POW's HAVE NOT BEEN RETURNED!.UNSCOM was not given COMPLETE
ACCESS.>

**There, my friend, you are mistaken. Iraq has returned much more POWs
than Iran has, and negotiations to release more continue. Iran wants a
political price before releasing Iraqi POWs, and Iraq does not want to
release more Iranians before ensuring some agreement. This is quite
logical and legal, I believe.

UNSCOM has been given complete access. I am quoting from a letter sent
to the editor of NY Times, which deals with the issue. The full letter
can be found at: http://polyconomics.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=207

The letter states: â€ Every WMD that had been destroyed in that period
was as the result of UNSCOM being taken to a WMD site and shown the
stuff, either stuff that already had been destroyed, or stuff awaiting
destructionâ€¦. Jack Kemp had one of his Empower America empowerers spend
two days at the UN offices poring over UNSCOM records. It was only
then that Jack told me I appeared to be advocating an honest devil, as
there were no UNSCOM records showing WMD found without the help of
Baghdad, and none destroyed since November 1991.â€ .

<Whoah!! Big one!! What plans? I thought they already controlled the
Middle East when they occupied Palestine and the Golan heights, and
produced 200+nuclear warheads in a time when all the Arabs had were
souped-up insecticides!! Try to be a little bit less melodramatic next
time!>

**Melodramatic?? Do you find the Zionist plans amusing?
And if the position of Arabs on nuclear weapons saddens you so much,
why do you support stripping Iraq of its own weapons, while Israel is
allowed to keep hers?

< Well, I'd assume that it would be logical to have them act as
'witnesses', given the fact that the Iraqi regime is famous for
revoking and anulling agreements ever since the Baath party took power.

However i understand how you feel......>

**Talking of annulling agreements, I have to bring examples that you
would not like. We will start with Britain going back on its agreements
with the Sherif of Mecca regarding granting the Arabs independence in
return for their assistance against the Ottomans. At the same time,
Britain secretly agreed with France on the division of the Middle East.
At the same time, Britain was agreeing to the Zionist demands of
handing over Palestine to them.
In the Kuwait crisis, France promised Iraq that no military action will
be directed against Iraq if it released all the foreign "hostages".
France was among the first to attack, even though the hostages were
releasedâ€¦
The countries of the Damsacus Declaration promised Egypt and Syria 15
billion dollars in aid and investments. Not even 1 billion was givenâ€¦
Egypt's Mubarak had an agreement with Iraq, Jordan and Yemen in the
Arab Co-operation Council. Yet, in the first few days of the crisis, he
revoked all his commitments according to that council's charter and
allied with the US.

I know only of one agreement that Iraq had revoked, that signed with
the Shah over Shatt al-Arab. But it is hypocritical to criticise Iraq
for that now. If I remember well, Kuwait supported Iraq fully, and I
didn't hear criticism of Iraq's annulment of that agreement.

And again the fate of Kuwaitis and third country nationals are not
conditions for lifting the sanctions. Please read SC resolution 687,
which you have referred to, and you will see that the only condition is
disarming Iraq. MIA or POW do not enter as conditions, they are not
even mentioned... Of course, one condition is making the ME an area
empty of WMD. This is not being complied with by Kuwait and Saudi which
allow the US to stock these weapons on their territories..

I do not want to argue that matter further, but I have to come back to
a previous posting of yours. You gave a list of links which were to
clarify the POW issue. I want to clarify these links once and for all:
http://www.pows.org.kw/ : is the Kuwaiti organisation National
Campaign for Missing and POW.
This is like me referring you to the Iraqi News agencyâ€¦.

http://www.undp.org/missions/usa/s1999100.htm : That is not a SC
resolution, but a presidential statement, that is not binding.

http://www.pray4pows.org/kuwait/kuwait_index.html : The only
information this link gives is that the ICRC calls the 610 Kuwaitis and
Saudis MISSING..

http://www.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/archive/1994/941024/941024.iraq.html
: Time Magazine is an American magazine, of no objectivity in this
issue.

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/reports/1998/s1998889.htm : This is a report
of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait observation
mission, dated 24 September 1998. The report lists minor border
violations from both sides, but specifies the most serious violation as
that of 46 air violations by planes used by the coalition.

http://www.gsnonweb.com/gsnlib_a/GSNbase/98_11/981101/24446.html : This
a news report by Reuters.

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/980420/1998042026.html : This
is a news report about Kuwaiti refusal to discuss the issue of POW or
captives with Iraqâ€¦

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/990324/1999032410.html : This
is also a news report about a report in a Kuwaiti newspaper quoting
unconfirmed Egyptian sources that Iraq admitted to holding captivesâ€¦

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/990805/1999080522.html : This
is also a news report about Iraq denying holding prisoners..

None of the above links prove anythingâ€¦..

** You would laugh when you see a milk factory being destroyed?? Did
you also laugh when Peter Arnett confirmed that what was in those sacks
was really milk powder?

< I was not discussing disarmament! In any case,i believe the phrase
'using all means necessary' was not referred to when adressing
disarmament in particular. You seem to be very picky in some points,
and exremely general in others. Please be logical.

**We were specifically talking about disarmament. In your message of 21
December you stated: â€ The UN mandates that itâ€™s resolutions regarding
disarmament are to be implemented using all means necessary..â€ , and â€

The bombing is part of the UN resolutions to destroy weapons of mass

destruction, to regulate their disarmamentâ€¦.â€ . I need say no more..

<You expected the Arab world to delay it's decision even more that it
was already delayed? I saw the meeting,I remember Yasser Arafat saying
some gibberish about Afghanistan as a point for comparison, and Qaddafi
refusing to get up and telling Mubarak "Imshi!", and the news
conference that Mubarak gave to the press and then to his own people.

Here are the hilights as i saw themâ€¦>

**Yes, there were some mistakes. I think it is wrong to call what
Arafat said gibberish, just because the comparison would be embarrasing
to the USâ€¦Qaddafi said "imshi" to Qlebi. not to President Mubarak,
because Qlebi did not tell Mubarak that he was violating the Charterâ€¦.
He also had a shouting session with Egypt's Foreign Minister, who
insisted that decisions can be made by majority vote, when Qaddafi
argued that the Charter of the Arab League states unanimous vote.
Qaddafi kept saying "point of Order. This voting is illegal", but
President Mubarak dismissed him and kept calling names of states to see
who votes what, and ended the meeting by adopting a resolution that did
not fulfil the legal requirements of the Charter. We can argue that
indefinitely, but my starting point is that once you allow yourself to
violate the Charter, any Charter, you give the other the right to do
the sameâ€¦

There was no such thing as "later determined to be unanimous"!! This IS
a jokeâ€¦ Who later determined so? This is the first time I hear of such
thingâ€¦When the vote for a resolution is 12 against 11, 52% against 48%,
no one, but no one can call that unanimousâ€¦The UNSC did not state that
voting on resolution 1284 was unanimous, not even when 4 abstained,
including 3 permanent mebers, let alone when almost half objectâ€¦.

You have to read Salingerâ€™s book to understand what King Hussein had to
say. He was in Cairo discussing with Mubarak the Iraqi withdrawal, when
Mubarak received a phone call, after which he came back to announce
that no negotiations will be conducted with Iraqâ€¦ I will leave the
evaluation of Mubarakâ€™s words and deeds to the readers. I will, for the
sake of publishing facts, post some information related to mediation
efforts and Iraq's responses..

<Why? What would it gain? Iraq had Kuwait to gain, US had Oil to gain,
what would Iran gain by attacking everyone?? It's not a logical
comparison that you've just made.>

** Iran, as a member of the UN, has a duty to comply with SC
resolutions, as every member should. Therefore, Iran would be complying
with SC resolutions, which call for making the ME an area empty of WMD;
it would be protecting its interests against such weapons; it would
remove all threats to its existence; and it would expose the US as the
duplicitous state that it is.

< On a personal level; when i loan you a sum of money to buy something
you really need, out of trust and neighbourliness, and you promise to
pay me back when you can, but you don't, and i see you spending lots of
money on things that you don't really have to spend, (rebuilding
Palaces, birhtday celebrations, etc..) wouldn't you think that i'd ask
for my money back? If i do, and you don't pay me back, what does that
make you? How would you want me to act? Just be quiet and forget you
ever took my money? Go away and sulk in my room? Or do i go and
complain to the police, and have them demand my money from you?
Think about it....>

** But we are not talking about that. You have yourself admitted that
Iraq was sacrificing its youth and well-being defending the Gulf
countries, especially Kuwait. You also said that Kuwait assisted Iraq
financially. Yet, if you assist one who protects your existence and
does you a favour, you do not go and demand the assistance back once
the danger has disappeared. Other Gulf countries agreed to cancel the
loans. Only Kuwait refused. Kuwait was not in need of that money, while
Iraq was. The objective, one can conclude, was only to damage Iraq,
perhaps even provoke itâ€¦

** I understand your anger and sadness, but all that does not justify
the continuation of sanctions that are killing thousands every month.
You can not hold a nation of 22 million hostage because 400+ of your
people are unaccounted for, especially when you refuse to be held
responsible for three times that number of missing Iraqis. You have to
understand that your suffering pales in comparison with that of 22
million Iraqis for over 9 years now. The concept of proportionality
should also be part of any issue. I wish you would visit the Amiriya
shelter, and see the remains of burnt flesh on the walls, then you will
see what I mean.

And you do not mention the hundreds of Palestinians and other nationals
who were arrested, beaten, tortured, raped and killed by the Kuwaiti
army and militias. This issue has been exposed by human rights
organisations. I have personally seen TV reports about those issues
too, one even made by the BBC. And I have read reports, in Arabic
media, about the treatment of Palestinians.

As to torture centres and equipment, then I have not seen any documents
or proof to it, even though I live in Europe, which has done its best
to portray Iraq as a country of monsters. I would like to see
documented proof, not words of this and that. I have learned to doubt
all eye witnesses, especially after seeing and hearing the eye witness
account of the volunteer nurse, Nayira as-Sabahâ€¦

I wish you a Happy New Year.

The Aggressor

unread,

Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99

In case this gets in late, i wish you all a happy new year, and a fruitful
millenium.

<..which assumes you possess the whole truth.>
No. I do not possess the whole truth, and never assumed so either. There
are matters which i am unclear about, and welcome the input of othes to
clarify them. Your input was, to no extent, very helpful and insightful, and
i thank you for your indulgence.
The fact that i named this chain 'The bottom line' was not to imply that
i possess the truth. far from it. It was meant to do what's being done
now..to open an intelligent, respectful, factful and logical dialogue and
exchange of opinions between 2 members of opposite sides. Where Tornimo and
others like him are concerned, well..i'll leave that up to you to decide,
having read some of their other postings in this and other NG's. The fact
that i refused to reply is not 'running away' as some may assume, but to not
allow dignity of mind and thought to mix with insolence and disrespect,
based in some cases on sheer disregard for politeness.Although in some
cases, i just had to!! :)

In this point, it is clear that both of us have proof that contradicts
what both of us are saying. Just going around in circles of proofing and
counter-proofing will just waste both our time. So i'll conclude by
repeating what you said, "To me it is crystal clear".

To correct your figures, the're 605. Not only do i pray for our missing, but
also for all the loved ones' missing in the islamic world. I do that in all
my prayers. I wish to make this clear to you. I know what it feels to lose a
loved one, regardless of who that one may be. That is why i understand your
position in this matter.

<This, unfortunately, is what you have been guilty of, having posted
information gained from other sources;>

If this is your definition of 'hearsay', then i admit i am guilty.
However, hearsay is defined as 'rumors and gossip' by the Dictionary. That's
was what some people were posting. If not from word-of-mouth, then from
personal homepages whose authors were clearly biased and refer to other
rumors and gossip. In any case, i referred to sources like CNN, BBC Amnesty
International and Reuters, although you regarded them being all the same as
CNN, biased and incorrect.

Thank you. I appreciate you using details to support your claims, and
admire your virtue. Still, it's 605, not 400+ :)

Well, that's the charter.I guess it's a take-it-or-leave-it issue.

Ok. I'll respect you opinion. But what about this?;
(1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take

effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to
the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches
of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with
the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of
international dis-putes or situations which might lead to a breach of the

peace)
Having said that, the phrase 'peacful means' stands out as a violation
of UN actions in dealing with the Iraqi Invasion!! But when it is followed
by the phrase '..in conformity with the principles of justice and

international law, adjustment or settlement of international dis-putes or

situations which might lead to a breach of the peace',....having realised
that Kuwait is an independant state, with diplomatic representation
everywhere, including Iraq, the charter of the SC which states; "to take
military action against an aggressor" falls in correctness when any country
invades another and occupies everything withing it's borders, then claims
it's annexation, thereby authorizing any breach of boundaries by an
aggressor to be reversed. That is my interpretation. What do you see?

I agree with you 100%. That is how things should legally be processed.
However, i would like to refer you to a few points which i made earlier;

'Recapping, the following was taken from the Library of Congress'

*Although the Iraqi government, which had first asserted a claim to rule
Kuwait in 1938, recognized the borders with Kuwait in 1963 (based on
agreements made earlier in the century), it continued to press Kuwait for
control over Bubiyan and Warbah islands through the 1960s and 1970s.

*With reference to UNSC resolution #687, an agreement between Iraq and
Kuwait was signed in Baghdad on 4th October, 1963, and it refers to a letter

sent to the Ruler of Kuwait on 21st July, 1932, affirming Kuwait's borders

and sovergnity(!). This letter was replied to by the Ruler of Kuwait, on

10th August 1932, accepting the Iraqi Prime minister's letter. The agreement
was labelled "Agreed minutes between the state of Kuwait and the Republic of
Iraq regarding the restoration of friendly relations, recognition and

related matters".The UNSC resolution formally recognized the boundaries

between the 2 countries based on this agreement, which in turn is based on
the exchange of letters that took place in 1932, as well as the allocation
of the 2 disputed Islands, and registering them according to Article 102 of
the UN charter.

(Please note here that the original correspondences were made between an
Iraqi official and a Kuwaiti official, giving the actions 'official' status,
and without foreign intervention.)

This is from a historic perspective, although you stated that where
history is concerned, you still believe that Kuwait was part of Basrah.
Technically, you are correct. Kuwait was referred to as "nominally a
province of the Ottoman Empire", and i stress the relevancy of the word
'nominal'. But when you consider the events of 1899, 1932 and 1963, and then
later in 1994, you will clearly realise-i hope- that Kuwait, from 1899
onwards, no longer stands as a province of Basrah, and that any other claims
to the contrary is false.

That is your opinion, and i respect it. However, i have presented you
with proof that would otherwise revoke your decision.

<�¦However, in its actions, the committee depended on a map that did not

exist during the exchange of correspondence of 1932 and 1963. Is that true
or not?>

I'll have to get back to you on that one. However, i do not believe it
is a logical step on part of an Iraqi Minister back in 1932 to agree to
resolve a matter with the Ruler of Kuwait as delicate as a border dispute,
without actually having a physical representation of the borders at hand. If
you have proof that points to the opposite, please let me know.

Like i said, you opinion. Mine is to the contrary, based on what i
posted before, and above.

Informally, as in a direct correspondence between two officials?

The bani-Khaild, being attacked by the ottomans and later the Wahhabi's
, became weakened and unable to sustain control over their lands. The
Al-Sabah's influence began to grow from that moment over their lands in
Kuwait, acting as 'subjects' of the bani-Khalid, after receiving their
agreement to live on their lands in Graine, and protectorates of their lands
in Grane. Gradually, they lost control of their lands in Qatar, Najd, Hasa,
Basrah and Kuwait.

<Didn't the Wilaya of Basrah include all the East Coast of Arabia until
Oman? How then can Bani-Khalid be rulers of that area? >

They did not 'rule' that area. Where did i say that?? I said ; " ..the
Bani-Khalid lived in that area(!), whose borders extended from Qatar in the
South to Basrah in the North. That is to say, lived, as in 'roamed' their
land, as bedouins usually do, i thought it was obvious.
As for the rest of your questions, please refer to the excerpts in
detail. I stated the following;
"In the last conquest (al-Hasa, 1555) the Ottomans were helped by the Iraqi
tribe of the al-Muntafiq who had settled in the neighbourhood of Basrah. The
bani-Khalid had not accepted the Ottoman presence in al-Hasa, and under
Barrak, in 1670, they successfully besieged the Ottoman governor Umar Pasha,
who surrendered and left his seat of government."

Having read the points i made above, then referring to any map today,
you will find that the areas they lived in now belong to the monarchies that
govern them. In any case, the bani-Khalid, being a large tribe with many
branches, dissolved into smaller families,branches, like the 'Utub' being a
branch of the 'Aniza' tribe, mostly in northern and eastern Saudi Arabia,
and also in Kuwait, southern Iraq, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman. As for their
detailed settlement, i dont know. I'll have to check with the books that
refer to them, as well as their elders to find out. Tell me if you want the
details and i'll find out for you.

<..that he was an administrator on the area>
If you were referring to the 1913 agreement, then the 1932 exchange of
letters nullify any allegiance to the Ottoman rule. If you were referring to
the title of 'Qa'em maqam' which was given to the ruler of Kuwait, it was
not an administrative title, but an honorary one, given to him in
appreciation of his support to the Ottoman Expedition of 1871-1873 in
Eastern Arabia.

<..you brought up the subject of the ICJ, and when I gave examples of its

decisions, and the refusal of the US to respect them, you are suddenly not
interested.>

I thought i responded by stating the results of the ICJ in relation to
the Bahrain-Qatar dispute. How could i be not interested? In any case, i
stand corrected, The ICJ did not, in fact, rule in favor of Bahrain, or
Qatar, yet. It will, however review the case by May 2000. The latest visit
to Bahrain by the Qatari Emir proved that what i said earlier was not
correct. They did not, however, withdraw thir case from the ICJ. I apologise
for this error.

That is not evasion, that was besides the point. Halaib was not a
sovereign state, with diplomatic representation...Kuwait is. To mix Halaib
with the Kuwaiti situation is illogical, Egypt did not invade all of Sudan
and annexed it. So, i was not evading your question because it holds no
validity, and i wanted to stick to the points at hand.

That was the political situation at that time! The British and French
were the leaders in world while the arabs were carved up and lived under
their protection....comical, but true.

Again, this is your opinion, the basis of which i have presented you
with the facts that prove them otherwise.

Far from it, I'm sticking by it totally, as my follow-up will show you.

Based on what i hear and find from discussions with people, in Kuwait as
well as other GCC states i visited, this is not true. They still fear the
Iranian revolution, no matter what their government tells them. You keep
forgetting, i am portraying 'my own opinions' in this discussion, and not
those of any government. And it is my own opinion, once again, that Iran
poses a threat to the stability of the Gulf area, including Iraq for that
matter.

<I have found the full text of the phone conversation, and I shall try to
post it. There is also more evidence to support the conspiracy theory.

Is that the same one dated on 9/7/1990? I believe there were 2
interceptions?? One was broadcasted and one was referred to in a statement
by Iraqi TV. Could you please verify this also?

To this, i can only speculate that the millions Arafat was given were
used to finance his plight. As to funding an international force in
accordance with int'l law, i believe no instances has happened to do so for
Palestine, unfortunately i might add!

Please refer to my statements of Mubarak's briefing to the press, when i
talked of 'Iraqi threats' just before the commencement of the meeting, and
about 'manipulation by other states to forestall an agreement' then think
about the legitimacy, or lack of, the resolutions that the League passed. I
would like know what you think.

I agree.

No. Reasonable about what you said in referance to the Saudi King Please
get your facts right;
Abulhashem:<He did not even know if the photos were those of his country's
borders.>
The Aggressor: Come on now, be reasonable!

To get into this discussion, one must first explain what a 'stateless'
is in Kuwait, then explain where he/she comes from, and finally discuss the
small number of citizenship grants per year. I do not wish to go into the
first 2 points, they take too long, and are not directly related to this
particular discussion. I will say this, however; Because of the large number
of 'stateless' people in Kuwait, and because of the complicity of family
relations and lack of physical proof to back the many claims of 'rightful
citizenship', the Government, under pressure from the National Assembly,
formed a subcomittee to pursue a solution to this problem, the results of
which are being determined and implemented still. 250 out of a total of
thousands is, i agree, a pitiful number. But when one considers the facts, a
slow start is better than none at all, woulnd't you agree?

I must say that this is false. I asked you first of all, "Where did they
stop when they occupied Kuwait?". Remember that Iraq took 6 hours to occupy
Kuwait, and not 2 days. I was referring to the 2nd of August, when the US
and the world was still assessing the situation. Any day after that, logic
dictates, falls in the category of "Iraqi troops massed on the Kuwaiti-Saudi
border from day 1' of the argument, including 4th of August.

Correction. They were 'reinforced' and not moved.

<Fact, my friend, is that the whole issue of killing babies in the
incubators was a fabrication by the Sabah ruling family with the help of an
American consultancy company.>

On page 2 of the links you presented, it says "The Caucus also failed to
reveal that H&K vice-president Lauri Fitz-Pegado had coached Nayirah in what
even the Kuwaitis' own investigators later confirmed was false testimony."
Where i stand, that is false. Like i explained, i was among those who
were affected by this claim. Now, whether it was fabricated, exaggerated, or
otherwise manipulated to show something....i do not know. I only knew of
suspicions towards it's truthfulness when some people posted them on this
NG.
In any case, you present me with a link to a personal homepage that
refers to a plot that was mentioned in a propagandized book, a personal
homepage belonging to a person with a clear hatred of Kuwaitis and Iraqis
alike, when i bring you links to official organizations like Amnesty Int'l
and Reuters, whom you later challenge as being untruthful? I would like to
see something official that proves that 'Nayira's' story was proven to be
false in fact.

I do too, i also remember something about his background. Could you
please look into it for me?

<The Saudis do not use these planes. The American use them, and give the

Saudis what information they deem necessary. /// Of course, the Saudis also

explained that the AWACS were watching the Yemeni borders>

..Thank you, this further proves my point that the Saudi's have not
participated in any conspiracy, merely because they had no way of knowing
there would be an Israeli raid, and that the Americans helped the Israelis,
solely on their own. The fact that the AWACS, as you say, are controlled by
the US proves to us that the entire area is surveyed by the US, and any
information is scrutinized by the US. The 1981 attack was instigated by
Israel, with the aid of the US and no one could claim otherwise. I fail to
see, however, what this has to do with the issues at hand.
If this was your way of proving that there were no Iraqi troops after
the invasion, i replied to this earlier in the post.

I believe it's called 'Rapid Deployment'.As you know, the US has the
ability to mobilize it's forces to anywhere in the world within 48 hours. As
for opting for a peacful negotiated settlement, one would have materialized
if Iraq only occupied that which it claimed as it's own, the Oil field on
it's southern border, and not an entire country. The Saudis were scared of
an attack, and i remember an interview in which the National Security
Advisor to Bush said that one of the King's aids advised the King to wait
and negotiate. The King replied that Kuwait waited and negotiated and now
they're occupied.

As i said, opinions in this matter are subject to where a person stands
in the equation. The Palestinians and Lebanese who fought Israel consider
themselves as 'freedom fighters' while theis enemies considered them
'terrorists'. The Iraqi regime considered it's invasion as 'right and just'
while the world considered it as a 'blatant invasion'.

Correct..a presence which was to secure their interests. A presence that
the Iraqi regime never bothered to challenge, and utilized for it's war
against Iran until it's invasion.

It was a surprise. This proves my point. The 'regular' Kuwaiti thought
that if push came to shove, the Iraqi regime would invade and occupy the
area in dispute only, and not the entire country. It happened before during
Abdul Karim Qasem's era, so why wouldn't it happen again, right? But a total
occupation?? That was far beyond thought.Never in the History of the world
has an Arab country invaded and annexed another country, part of it, yes..as
you stated in the case of Halaib, but not a whole country.

Do you like being threatened into submission with a gun on your
forehead? As I said before, Kuwait, like any other sovereign country, does
not take kindly to threats. And that was it's downfall. I re-emphisize that
should Iraq have invaded "only" the disputed areas, the would situation
would be different, and negotiations would have been fruitful, and -i dare
to say- an Arab resolve to the situation would make all parites concerned
content.

No. The argument that their ownership is in dispute is-in my opinion-
practically solved. It is up to the reader to decide whether it is
outstanding or not. I use the word 'dispute' to quote you, nothing more.

The Iraqi's never had the chance to do so in that political frame. I'm
sure you know that after WWI, Iraq was controlled by Britain. Wouldn't you
call that 'intervention'?

As examples go, you certainly use very interesting ones, and i thank you
for your indulgence. However, in retrospect, i believe it was decided that
they would have that right by 2003. So the decree was ratified, and was made
into law. Please refer to this article;
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/990517/1999051707.html

You stated that you are 'careful with details and particulars of any
issue'. Semantics define the meaning of words in detail, and state their
meanings in particular.

Qaddafi, like Castro, refuse anything the US call for because for his
stance against what the US did to him, and not because he's a 'spoilt brat'
or anything. Where did you get your impressions from?

<<It had a couple of days..it had more than two of them! US soldiers came to
Saudi five day after the invasion as you said, check your posts. The Iraqi
regime had '5 months worth' of a couple of days.>
**Here you lost me. I do not know what you are discussing here.>

I was referring to what you said, "Even if Iraq would withdraw, it would

take a couple of days."

<It is very easy to speculate in retrospect. Here you also state that the US

was present, when in an earlier reply you deny the existence of its troops
in Saudi and Kuwait.>

Obviously, you misunderstood. US military presence was in the area ever
since the Iraq-Iran was started. It was reinforced when the 'tanker war'
started. From that time, the US had a military 'presence' that was
sufficient to maintain it's military, like the AEGIS cruiser that shot at
the Iranian airliner, the AWACS planes-that you yourself say are operated by
the US-and the marines that they use to guard their embassies and diplomatic
missions in the area, in addition to their 'advisors' to armies in the
region, including Iraq and Iran. In no instance did i say that their
presence was enough to invoke an aggressive military threat prior to the
invasion of Kuwait.

I was under the impression that Israel's occupation of the Palestinian
lands was the focal point of Saddam Hussein's condition for negotiations
after the Iraqi Regime's occupation of Kuwait, was it not? I make that
'clear excuse' to include Israel here. And since i'm only speculating here,
by occupying the disputed oilfield and forcing the concerned parties into
negotiations the Iraqi regime would have a card to play with Israel's
occupation. having said that, wasn't Israel attacked by Iraqi Missiles
during the war to liberate Kuwait? Shouldn't this suffice to include
Israel's role in this scenario?

A fast, swift response to a fast, illegal occupation, i would say.

<When US ambassador, Thomas Pickering was asked by reporters what if the
sanctions did not bring results, he tapped on his briefcase and said, don't
worry, there's more where that

came fromÃ>
Am i to understand, from this gesture, that the conspiracy theory fits,
and in his briefcase he holds the master plan to Iraq's downfall?

<The resolution of the Arab Summit was readily printed in English and Arabic

even before the meeting startedÃ>
Can you please provide the proof of this statement?

<The resolution refers to â€ taking third-party nationals hostageâ€

and â�‚ mistreating and oppressing Kuwait and third-party nationalsÃ>

Again, i ask you, wouldn't you consider taking a civilian Kuwaiti to
prison, against his will, away from his family, an act of oppression?

<...the latest resolution, 1284, which refers to â€ the repatriation and

return of all Kuwaiti and third country nationals or their remains..â€ ,
does not refer to this resolution in its list of previous resolutions on
which it is based. That alone is clear evidence that resolution 674 is not
about POWs or missing Kuwaitis.>

I was not referring to resolution 1284, but i will explain; Resolution
674, starts by recalling resolutions 660, 661,662,664, 666, 667 and 670.
Then mentions (A.1) that it demands Iraq to cease and desist from taking 3rd
state national hostage, mistreating and oppressing Kuwaiti and 3rd state
nationals, etc etc...Then, in (A.8) states that Iraq is responsible, under
international law, for death, damage or injury regarding Kuwaiti and 3rd
party nationals as a result of the 'illegal occupation'.
Having said that, then by definition, ANY Kuwaiti or 3rd state national,
military or civilian, is included in this resolution, as well as all the
ones mentioned.

<There, my friend, you are mistaken. Iraq has returned much more POWs than
Iran has, and negotiations to release more continue. Iran wants a political
price before releasing Iraqi POWs, and Iraq does not want to release more
Iranians before ensuring some agreement. This is quite logical and legal, I
believe.>

True. However i was referring to Kuwaiti and 3dr party nationals.
Obviously you misunderstood me here.

<..only then that Jack told me I appeared to be advocating an honest devil,

as there were no UNSCOM records showing WMD found without the help of
Baghdad, and none destroyed since November 1991>

What did he mean by the term 'honest devil'? Combining the meanings of
the two individual words, one would say Iraq was a 'fair and
just-mischeviously clever person'. All things considered, i believe that to
be true.

Stripping of 'offensive' weapons, namely WMD, but keep it's defensive
ones, yes. Having said that, Israel never used A-B-C weapons. Iraq did,
apparently. That doesn't allow the fact that i'm supposed to take sides
here. Believe me-and i express the opinion of everyone i know here-if the
Iraqi regime decided to marched north towards Israel, instead of south
towards Kuwait, the entire Arab world would be following in it's footsteps
with all our might, as was the case during Abdul Nasser's times.

France stated that not military action will be directed, unless Iraq
refused to release foreign hostages. The Iraqi regime portrayed the
foreigners on Iraq TV meeting with Saddam Hussein, surrounded by their
children, asking one of them-'Kevin' i think, from the British group- if he
has had his milk, praising his righteousness and showing their support for
him. It was later claimed that Saddam Hussein was using them as 'human
shields', and that was what made France change it's stance.

<France was among the first to attack, even though the hostages were

releasedÃ>
The first to attack were the US, British, Saudi and Kuwaiti warplanes.
The French joined in later, in a second raid, over Kuwait.

Could you please state the reasons?

WMD is Weapons of Mass Destruction. These refer to Atomic, Biological
and Chemical weapons, which none-to my knowledge- of the GCC countries
possess, and none that the US stocks up in the GCC. Do you know of any that
are possessed by the GCC or the US in the Gulf?

Ok..i'll buy that, yet you refer to a personal homepage, and vouch for
it's validity? At least Time proves, from time to time, that it does not
side with any government entity.

That's for the reader to decide, i guess. Smoke is not without fire.

I see. So you wouldn't object to Arafat when he talks about Afganistan
when the issue is Iraq and Kuwait, would you?

<..once you allow yourself to violate the Charter, any Charter, you give the
other the right to do the sameââ>
...and disregard the values which you based your own decision to sign
the charter on, just like that? Not deciding, instead, to act as a model for
legislative correctness, especially when you realize that the charter was
disregarded? Having said that, do you still think that the Arab world is
capable of governing itself under these circumstances, independant of
'foreign' intervention like you said?

Refer to Mubarak's briefing of the press, i didn't make this up :)

<When the vote for a resolution is 12 against 11, 52% against 48%, no one,

but no one can call that unanimousÃ>
All things considered, it was the 'ayes' that had the vote.

We weren't talking about Nicaragua or SALT treaties either, but you used
them as comparison to prove your points. I, like you, used a comparison,
albeit on a smaller scale, to show my point as well.

How did you come to that conclusion? Are you aware of the Financial
situation of Kuwait at that time? More to the point, it's a thing to
consider; Just because one has no need, that does not mean one could
disregard it altogether for no apparent reason. In any case, I believe
Kuwait wanted to resurface it's border issues with Iraq once and for all by
discussing the issue of war loans.

<The objective, one can conclude, was only to damage Iraq, perhaps even

provoke itÃ>
Provoke it, maybe. Damage it, i have yet to see any doubtless evidence
of this claim.

I was sure you did, and agree with you that this is definitely not the
way to find the missing people Kuwait is always pressing for.

So, the people Kuwait is trying to get back pales to insignificance?

I agree, but not when human lives are concerned, i assure you.

I know what you mean, i truly do. I also would like to visit the Amiriya
shelter.

...reports from the very same sources you accused of being untruthful
and imprecise. However, i will not deny this fact. There was a time when
Kuwait, after liberation, was under 'Martial Law', allowing all arms
carriers anywhere under this law to enforce the law in any way they deem
fit, including on-the-spot executions as well! In essence,unfortunately,
this gave the revenge-seekers in Kuwait a 'license to kill', to do what they
pleased under the umbrella of the martial laws that protect them from
prosecution due to their actions. But please bear in mind 2 things;
1) Some of the Palestinians and other nationals that were persecuted were
accused of collaberating with the Iraqi Regime during the Occupation, and
were, logically, the point of revenge for the Kuwaiti military and police
who were both inside and outside, and wanted a first chance at 'getting
back', under the protection of Martial Law. An eye for an eye, if you will.
There were, in fact, some sporadic abuses of Human rights in Kuwait after
the liberation.
2) When all things are said and done, would you blame them?? I mean, it's
easy to say that theoretically, one should stick to the principles of law
and human understanding, like i said in Qaddafi's case above. But when you
are finally faced with the element that was beneficial, to a large extent,
to the forces that occupied your land, enforced with the stories and
witnessess of rape, torture and killings, nothing would stop you from
'getting some back'. You become addicted to seeking revenge, and
generalizing and stereotyping to no extent, when attempting to distinguish
between who's to blame and who's not.

Well, i tried to show you some when i directed you to the POW's webpage
in Kuwait as well as the Amnesty Int'l reports and UNSC reports, but you
clearly rebuffed them as being untrue. I could refer you to some personal
homepages that display these tools and methods, but i would be contradicting
myself. I will, therefore, refer you to the same links you posted for my
benefit, for now. The first page speak of the tools and methods used in
torture when it discussed the H&K media tecniques;
" The techniques range from full-scale press conferences showing torture and
other abuses by the Iraqis..".
And by the way, please keep in mind that all my attempts at criticizing
anything in Iraq are restricted to the Iraqi Regime, and not the Iraqi
people. I believe this is the same in the European countries too? Iraq, in
my opinion, is not a country of monsters, just helpless people who
forcefully accept living under an oppressive regime. Don't you agree?

<I have learned to doubt all eye witnesses, especially after seeing and

hearing the eye witness account of the volunteer nurse, Nayira as-SabahÃ>
I can understand why, based on what you told me.

I wish you a Happy new year to you too, and I hope the new millenium is a
fruitful one for all.

tor...@nym.alias.net

unread,

Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99

In article <84ibbi$3p...@news.qualitynet.net>, "The Aggressor says...

>
>In case this gets in late, i wish you all a happy new year, and a fruitful
>millenium.

Happy new year to you too.

>. Where Tornimo and others like him are concerned, well..i'll leave that up to
>you to decide, having read some of their other postings in this and other
>NG's. The fact that i refused to reply is not 'running away' as some may
>assume, but to not allow dignity of mind and thought to mix with insolence
>and disrespect, based in some cases on sheer disregard for
>politeness.Although in some cases, i just had to!! :)

I am not into fighting mode... I am in holiday mode, just picked up a new
blonde and bought a whole case of red wine (!)

0 new messages