Monday, March 26, 2012

The White Rose Third Leaflet Munich, 1942 70th Anniversary

I saw this via Information Clearing House.
I became aware of The White Rose

Message flagged Monday, 26 March 2012, 20:46:16
The Two Saddest Words In Any Language Are 'If Only...'

In Honor of the 70th Anniversary of the Munich Students Movement - 3rd Leaflet

The White Rose
Third Leaflet
Munich, 1942

Salus publica suprema lex
The good of the people is the law of the land.

All ideal forms of government are, of course, utopias.

But a state cannot be constructed on a pure ideal, a theoretical basis; rather, it must grow and ripen in the way an individual human being matures. But we must not forget that at the starting point of every civilization the state was already there in rudimentary form. The family is as old as man himself, and out of this initial bond mankind, endowed with reason, created for himself a state founded on justice, whose highest law was the common good.

The state should exist as a parallel to the divine order, and the highest of all utopias, the civitas dei, is the model which in the end it should approximate. Here we will not pass judgment on the many possible forms of the state - democracy, constitutional monarchy, and so on.

But one matter needs to be brought out clearly and unambiguously. Every individual human being has a claim to a useful and just state, a state which secures freedom of the individual as well as the good of the whole. For, according to God's will, man is intended to pursue his natural goal, his earthly happiness, in self-reliance and self-chosen activity, freely and independently within the community of life and work of the nation.

But our present "state" is the dictatorship of evil. "Oh, we've known that for a long time," I hear you object, "and it isn't necessary to bring that to our attention again." But, I ask you, if you know that, why do you not act, why do you allow these men who are in power to rob you step by step, openly and in secret, of one set of your rights after another, until one day nothing, nothing at all will be left but a mechanized state system presided over by criminals and fools?

Is your spirit already so crushed by abuse that you forget it is your right - or rather, your moral duty - to change this system? But if a man no longer can summon the strength to demand his rights, then it is absolutely certain that he will perish. We would deserve to be dispersed through the earth like dust before the wind if we do not muster our powers at this late hour and finally find the courage which, up to now, we have lacked. Do not hide your cowardice behind a cloak of expediency, for with every new day that you hesitate, failing to oppose this offspring of Hell, your guilt, as in a parabolic curve, grows higher and higher.

Many, perhaps most, of the readers of these leaflets do not see clearly how they can practice an effective opposition. They do not see any avenues open to them. We want to try to show them that everyone is in a position to contribute to changing this system. It is not possible through solitary withdrawal, in the manner of embittered hermits, to prepare the ground for the overturn of this "government" or bring about the revolution at the earliest possible moment. No, it can be done only by the cooperation of many convinced, energetic people - people who are agreed as to the means they must use to attain their goal. We have no great number of choices as to these means. The only one available is passive resistance.

The meaning and the goal of passive resistance is to topple National Socialism, and in this struggle we must not recoil from any course, any action, whatever its nature. At all points we must oppose National Socialism, wherever it is open to attack. We must soon bring this monster of a state to an end. A victory of fascist Germany in this war would have immeasurable, frightful consequences. The military victory over Bolshevism dare not become the primary concern of the Germans. The defeat of the Nazis must unconditionally be the first order of business, the greater necessity of this latter requirement will be discussed in one of our forthcoming leaflets.

And now every convinced opponent of National Socialism must ask himself how he can fight against the present "state" in the most effective way, how he can strike it the most telling blows. Through passive resistance, without a doubt. We cannot provide each man with the blueprint for his acts, we can only suggest them in general terms, and he alone will find the way of achieving this end...

Please distribute this as widely as possible.

Friday, March 16, 2012

March 16th: 1 Murder and 1 Massacre and Two Courageous Individuals

March 16th

1 Murder and 1 Massacre and Two Courageous Individuals

Two horrible incidents happened on March 16th separated by thirty-five (35) years. At the core of both incidents were two courageous individuals, or persons who showed great courage to help others. They are Rachel Corrie and Hugh Thompson Jr.

The murder was of Rachel Corrie on March 16th, 2003, who died at 23 attempting to stop another Zionist destruction of a Palestinian house and home as she stood down the whole Zionist Apartheid State known as Israel. And, know matter what the Apartheid State may say, Rachel Corrie was knowingly and wilfully murdered.

Rachel stood in the way of a bulldozer (JCB) attempting to demolish another Palestinian house and home of the indigenous peoples of Palestine: the Palestinians. And, there is no doubt that the bulldozer driver (who said he didn´t see Rachel) did see and had to see Rachel because she was speaking to him over a bullhorn!

I say that the Palestinian people are the indigenous people of Palestine because Abraham came from Ur in the land we now call Iraq. The United States has made Ur and the area surrounding it the ´Land of Depleted Uranium´ (DU).

Isaac and Jacob were what we would today call second and third generation immigrants to the land of Palestine.

No matter what the Zionist Apartheid State of Israel may say Rachel was murdered in cold-blood in the eyes of God who sees, hears and knows all. And on the Judgement Day there will be no denying that fact.

On that day if not before (if someone privy to the information comes forward and reveals the truth we will know if the Israeli officials had taken a decision to squash the defiance of people like Rachel Corrie who would journey to Palestine and make common cause with the victims of the ´Most Moral Army in the World´ and stand in the way of its continual ethnic cleansing. That is, to make an example.

Rachel Corrie may well have known that she might, or would die, but that did not stop her from standing tall. Rachel Corrie was a modern day David who stood up to the Zionist Goliath.

For her, what mattered was to act in the most ethical, principled and moral way.

Just as her being completely innocent, unarmed and defenceless did not stop the driver of that bulldozer from acting in the most criminal of ways, and driving right over her body...crushing the life out of her, and then backing up and riding over her a second time..

Nor did the obvious murder stop the Apartheid State of Israel from denying any culpability or wrongdoing in all its cover ups of her murder. Those cover ups themselves are a criminal act.

But, I state that the Apartheid State of Israel is a criminal regime. For any government that owes its very existence to the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous peoples, and their continual oppression, killing, and the brutal repression of the slightest signs of not that a criminal regime, or a criminal enterprise?

It was born of a criminal conspiracy to ethnically cleanse the land of the indigenous peoples.

Robert F. Kennedy, in a speech to South African students on their Day of Affirmation Address at Cape Town University delivered 6 June 1966, Cape Town , South Africa, said “Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change the world -- which yields most painfully to change.”

Rachel Corrie had tons of moral courage in every bond, muscle, cell and fibre of her body. Her moral courage and bravery is a message to us all in a time when certain governments seek to kill at will and wage wars for world domination. It is a time to stand and be counted, and not be afraid. This is what Rachel Corrie did.

I went to Vietnam twice at 18, and though I went through and survived a place of terror I don´t think that I have half the type of courage that Rachel had. I had a gun and went into combat armed. Rachel stood up to armed oppression. She is a hero and a heroine to us all.

Rachel is an example of the best of the human race, and where we must go…to disarm completely, to make amends and atone to those we have hurt, and to treat each other as brothers and sisters and to settle conflicts peacefully.

Rachel Corrie shall never be forgotten for she lives in the heart of everyone urging us one to our highest and best self. From the beginning of her life she was truly a ´light unto this world.´

The Massacre, My Lai, Vietnam, March 16th, 1968

Hugh Thompson
Was flying his Scout helicopter low…above tree tops providing reconnaissance for the ground troops in the My Lai operation (My Lai 4). As he said his “job was to recon out in front of the friendly forces and draw fire, tell them where the enemy was, and let them take care of it.”

In his statement he said that it wasn´t too long before they (his three man crew) noticed a “large number of bodies everywhere. Everywhere we'd look, we'd see bodies. These were infants, two-, three-, four-, five-year-olds, women, very old men, no draft-age people whatsoever. That's what you look for, draft-age people.” He was trying to think of what could cause the deaths, such as stray artillery fire, but it didn´t seem to make sense…that many bodies of women, children and very old men.

Then they saw a wounded woman, and they called for help for her and marked the area near “her with smoke. A few minutes later up walks a captain, steps up to her, nudges her with his foot, steps back and blows her away.” Larry Colburn, and Glenn Andreotta (who died weeks later) were the crew members.

It was seeing Captain Medina do that; he was later cleared by a Court Martial, that left no doubt in Thompson´s mind and that of his two crew members. At one point Thompson lowered the helicopter so it was between the other American troops shooting and killing the Vietnamese peasants and got out of his craft. He told his door gunner that if they did not stop shooting the people, then to open up on their own troops.

He called in a friend to help ferry the people out. And, he said that after going over all the scenarios of how the people may have been killed….artillary fire etc…“something just sunk into me that these people were marched into that ditch and murdered. That was the only explanation that I could come up with.” And he, by his actions and with the help of his crew and the other copter stopped the killing and began ferrying people to hospitals.

Hugh told his crew members, “I'm going to go over to the bunker myself and get these people out. If they fire on these people, or fire on me while I'm doing that, shoot 'em!" He meant the American soldiers, and he did the right thing.

When he got back to the base and rumour spread about what he did he was ostracized. If he went into the club where people drank after hours, or into the mess hall everyone left, and he received death threats throughout his life, and dead or mutilated animals on his porch. Since he died on January 6th 2006, Larry Colburn his door gunner that day has received death threats.

Hugh Thompson, Jr. had this to say of My Lai “My Lai ...was no accident whatsoever. Pure, premeditated murder. ...Are we too big to apologize?”

But were it not for his actions many more would have died. He exemplified the quality of doing what is right, not what you´re told to do, and in military organizations obedience is expected, and no questioning.

The army initially reported that 20 civilians were “inadvertently killed”, and 128 of the enemy killed in combat. The truth is that over 500 mostly women, children and old men were gunned down in cold blood, or had a hand grenade thrown at them, and about 14 rapes occurred.

Haditha? Fallujah? Afghanistan? My Lai was the killing field, and not the only massacre. But, there was a man with a conscience: Hugh Thompson Jr. He is a kindred soul to Rachel Corrie. May they both rest in peace

Monday, March 12, 2012

The Silent Epidemic 8,000 Afghan and Iraq veterans commit suicide each year

The Silent Epidemic

It´s not actually silent; it´s usually violent. A hanging here, a shotgun blast to the head there, or cut arteries, overdoses and more. But, in almost all cases alcohol is involved.

War veterans take their own lives because the emotional pain of living
with what they did, saw and experienced in war is so great that they cannot
see or bear to live with it. Or, feel that they cannot, and all are alone in their pain. And, so they take an act to end their inner torment forever.

I am talking about the epidemic (what else can you call it?) of suicides among American veterans who have returned home from Afghanistan and Iraq. It´s received scant attention in the nations media. Not anywhere near that received by the fake dangers to America that our leaders use to scare people.

8,000. That´s roughly how many veterans of these wars commit suicide each year.Eight thousand! 8,000!! A year. That´s 21 a day, or one veteran suicide every 68 minutes or so.

Do you remember how for years at the beginning of these wars media
coverage of body bags and caskets being unloaded on US soil was strictly forbidden?

Give us your child for our wars, but PSST we don´t want to broadcast photos of them coming back in caskets being off loaded from airplanes.

Nor, do we want funeral coverage (yes, this was barred too.) to be on TV. Our leaders learned from Vietnam that allowing coverage tends to be accumulative emotionally in the nation´s psyche. And well that´s ´a bummer´ for our leaders.

No suicide is silent. There are screams and wails expressed by the loved ones who meet one of the worst tragedies; the death of a son or daughter, husband or wife, mother or father, brother or sister, nephew or niece, or uncle or aunt, or friends.

That pain will be with them forever, and while I can imagine if from personal experience each situation is different. The joy, happiness, humour, love and the special things the deceased veteran meant to someone…family and friends will be no more. Just memories. And, to any family members or friends who come by this I say hold onto those good memories dearly.

I said that veterans take their lives to end the emotional pain that they live with. I know that, and even for myself that pain is greater at the very end of each November and worsens as Christmas approaches…each day before Christmas…because Christmas
Day 1968 was my first day in the Vietnam War. I wrote about that in this article, ´The Girl I Met On Christmas Day 1968- DaNang´

There have been Christmases where I didn´t know how or if I would make it through till Christmas (1970 when I got out of the Marines to 1972), and also the Christmases after my marital separation 2002, 2003, and 2008, 2009 and 2010.

For me, it revolves around certain incidents. The worst was a night on a jungle ridge (Fire Support Base FSB Cunningham). My fire team leader, Chief and I had the bunker on the extreme flank of the ridge. One night the darkness was pierced by the screams of the two men from the next bunker. They came running towards us screaming hysterically ‘The gooks are all around us ...we’re gonna get killed.’

Chief ran out of the bunker with me behind him. We each grabbed one, and covered their mouths. I put the flat handle of my K-Bar against the back of the neck of my man so he couldn't move. Then I put my K-Bar to his throat. In his eyes I saw sheer terror that I remember to this day. I kept looking over my man's shoulder, and all around me…360 degrees while Chief whispered 'Shut the fuck up. Get back into your hole. Keep your head down, and your eyes and ears open.' And, for good measure, Chief added 'and don't bring them over here.'

When I had my knife against my man's throat I gave him a look that was meant to scare the shit out of him as much as what had just terrorized him. It wasn´t that I had no fear, but that panic is deadly. I learned to control my fear on that hill.

They ran back to their bunkers. We evacuated our bunker; everyone knew it by then, and Chief said our rifles were useless because the flash of a rifle would give our position away. We survived that night with knives and hand grenades. We went up a hill behind our bunker and I hid behind a massive tree and we had bush protection.

After a few minutes a sapper made it into their bunker and began knifing them to keep them there until his satchel detonated. We listened to them scream and scream in terror and agony of their last seconds (6-7) of their lives…They were fifty feet away…begging. One cried aloud ‘Oh God’ just before the explosion. I could say it was awful, but somehow it doesn´t even touch how bad it was the searing emotional pain I was in. And, also worried that a sapper maybe nearby.

A single teardrop ran down from my left eye, and I shut down inside. I got over their deaths in a snap of my fingers. I was worried that the sounds might mask someone approaching us. I was 110% adrenalin. All they had to do was get within hand grenade range.

Later that morning my platoon Sgt. brought me to the bunker and said ‘we got two new men coming in on the copter, and we don’t want them seeing it (the bunker) like that. I nodded and took the rags, and went in to clean it up. My training hadn't taught me how to clean up the exploded remains of marines (and the brave sapper a North Vietnamese regular) was all blood, bits of flesh, bone and whatever. I almost cracked. It was horrible.

Most of all, God, I didn’t want another Marine to see me crying…so I stuffed it. At one point I said to myself 'You can't do this. You can't do this´(cry). So, I stuffed it way down, and came back home that way, but have cried many times since leaving that hill.

I have since felt that on the Judgement Day even if Allah-God himself, and those two men come over to me and smile and say it's okay now...I will always feel like shit for eternity for what happened that night. And I know that we had no other choice.

The medivac copter that took me out set down at another firebase for 10 minutes...and in an 'Irish mist' I sat there counting body bags stacked like cordwood on the tarmac. I stopped at 240.

The screams of those two men, friends, the dead, wounded, maimed and the terror and pain are with me every day. So, I understand about those veterans who take their own lives. But, I have made it to 61. These young men won´t be with their families for Thanksgiving, or Christmas or Birthdays…

Before I finish this I must say that in each and ever suicide the veteran had a silent partner. His killer. I speak of the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the President, Goldman Sachs and a cast of thousands who wish not to be named

Sunday, March 11, 2012

I´m back and regular

I apologize to anyone who follows (well not the
fecking terrorist of the CIA and FBI)me for missing
time writing on this blog. Personal things got in
the way and also I´ve been writing something separate.
But, I plan to write daily

April Glaspie-Saddam Hussein


Excerpts From Iraqi Document on Meeting with U.S. Envoy

Special to The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Sept. 22 -- On July 25,President Saddam Hussein of Iraq summoned the United States Ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, to his office in the last high-level contact between the two Governments before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on Aug. 2. Here are excerpts from a document described by Iraqi Government officials as a transcript of the meeting, which also included the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz. A copy was provided to The New York Times by ABC News, which translated from the Arabic. The State Department has declined to comment on its accuracy.

SADDAM HUSSEIN: I have summoned you today to hold comprehensive political discussions with you. This is a message to President Bush. You know that we did not have relations with the U.S. until 1984 and you know the circumstances and reasons which caused them to be severed. The decision to establish relations with the U.S. were taken in 1980 during the two months prior to the war between us and Iran.

When the war started, and to avoid misinterpretation, we postponed the establishment of relations hoping that the war would end soon.

But because the war lasted for a long time, and to emphasize the fact that we are a non-aligned country, it was important to re-establish relations with the U.S. And we choose to do this in 1984.

It is natural to say that the U.S. is not like Britain, for example, with the latter's historic relations with Middle Eastern countries, including Iraq. In addition, there were no relations between Iraq and the U.S. between 1967 and 1984. One can conclude it would be difficult for the U.S. to have a full understanding of many matters in Iraq. When relations were re-established we hoped for a better understanding and for better cooperation because we too do not understand the background of many American decisions. We dealt with each other during the war and we had dealings on various levels. The most important of those levels were with the foreign ministers.

U.S.-Iraq Rifts

We had hoped for a better common understanding and a better chance of cooperation to benefit both our peoples and the rest of the Arab nations.

But these better relations have suffered from various rifts. The worst of these was in 1986, only two years after establishing relations, with what was known as Irangate, which happened during the year that Iran occupied the Fao peninsula.

It was natural then to say that old relations and complexity of interests could absorb many mistakes. But when interests are limited and relations are not that old, then there isn't a deep understanding and mistakes could have a negative effect. Sometimes the effect of an error can be larger than the error itself.

Despite all of that, we accepted the apology, via his envoy, of the American President regarding Irangate, and we wiped the slate clean. And we shouldn't unearth the past except when new events remind us that old mistakes were not just a matter of coincidence.

Our suspicions increased after we liberated the Fao peninsula. The media began to involve itself in our politics. And our suspicions began to surface anew, because we began to question whether the U.S. felt uneasy with the outcome of the war when we liberated our land.

It was clear to us that certain parties in the United States -- and I don't say the President himself -- but certain parties who had links with the intelligence community and with the State Department -- and I don't say the Secretary of State himself -- I say that these parties did not like the fact that we liberated our land. Some parties began to prepare studies entitles: "Who will succeed Saddam Hussein?" They began to contact gulf states to make them fear Iraq, to persuade them not to give Iraq economic aid. And we have evidence of these activities.

Iraqi Policy on Oil

Iraq came out of the war burdened with $40 billion debts, excluding the aid given by Arab states, some of whom consider that too to be a debt although they knew -- and you knew too -- that without Iraq they would not have had these sums and the future of the region would have been entirely different.

We began to face the policy of the drop in the price of oil. Then we saw the United States, which always talks of democracy but which has no time for the other point of view. Then the media campaign against Saddam Hussein was started by the official American media. The United States thought that the situation in Iraq was like Poland, Romania or Czechoslovakia. We were disturbed by this campaign but we were not disturbed too much because we had hoped that, in a few months, those who are decision makers in America would have a chance to find the facts and see whether this media campaign had had any effect on the lives of Iraqis. We had hoped that soon the American authorities would make the correct decision regarding their relations with Iraq. Those with good relations can sometimes afford to disagree.

But when planned and deliberate policy forces the price of oil down without good commercial reasons, then that means another war against Iraq. Because military war kills people by bleeding them, and economic war kills their humanity by depriving them of their chance to have a good standard of living. As you know, we gave rivers of blood in a war that lasted eight years, but we did not lose our humanity. Iraqis have a right to live proudly. We do not accept that anyone could injure Iraqi pride or the Iraqi right to have high standards of living.

Kuwait and the U.A.E. were at the front of this policy aimed at lowering Iraq's position and depriving its people of higher economic standards. And you know that our relations with the Emirates and Kuwait had been good. On top of all that, while we were busy at war, the state of Kuwait began to expand at the expense of our territory.

You may say this is propaganda, but I would direct you to one document, the Military Patrol Line, which is the borderline endorsed by the Arab League in 1961 for military patrols not to cross the Iraq-Kuwait border.

But go and look for yourselves. You will see the Kuwaiti border patrols, the Kuwaiti farms, the Kuwaiti oil installations -- all built as closely as possible to this line to establish that land as Kuwaiti territory.

Conflicting Interests

Since then, the Kuwaiti Government has been stable while the Iraqi Government has undergone many changes. Even after 1968 and for 10 years afterwards, we were too busy with our own problems. First in the north then the 1973 war, and other problems. Then came the war with Iran which started 10 years ago.

We believe that the United States must understand that people who live in luxury and economic security can each an understanding with the United States on what are legitimate joint interests. But the starved and the economically deprived cannot reach the same understanding.

We do not accept threats from anyone because we do not threaten anyone. But we say clearly that we hope that the U.S. will not entertain too many illusions and will seek new friends rather than increase the number of its enemies.

I have read the American statements speaking of friends in the area. Of course, it is the right of everyone to choose their friends. We can have no objections. But you know you are not the ones who protected your friends during the war with Iran. I assure you, had the Iranians overrun the region, the American troops would not have stopped them, except by the use of nuclear weapons.

I do not belittle you. But I hold this view by looking at the geography and nature of American society into account. Yours is a society which cannot accept 10,000 dead in one battle.

You know that Iran agreed to the cease-fire not because the United States had bombed one of the oil platforms after the liberation of the Fao. Is this Iraq's reward for its role in securing the stability of the region and for protecting it from an unknown flood?

Protecting the Oil Flow

So what can it mean when America says it will now protect its friends? It can only mean prejudice against Iraq. This stance plus maneuvers and statements which have been made has encouraged the U.A.E. and Kuwait to disregard Iraqi rights.

I say to you clearly that Iraq's rights, which are mentioned in the memorandum, we will take one by one. That might not happen now or after a month or after one year, but we will take it all. We are not the kind of people who will relinquish their rights. There is no historic right, or legitimacy, or need, for the U.A.E. and Kuwait to deprive us of our rights. If they are needy, we too are needy.

The United States must have a better understanding of the situation and declare who it wants to have relations with and who its enemies are. But it should not make enemies simply because others have different points of view regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict.

We clearly understand America's statement that it wants an easy flow of oil. We understanding American staying that it seeks friendship with the states in the region, and to encourage their joint interests. But we cannot understand the attempt to encourage some parties to hard Iraq's interests.

The United States wants to secure the flow of oil. This understandable and known. But it must not deploy methods which the United States says it disapproves of -- flexing muscles and pressure.

If you use pressure, we will deploy pressure and force. We know that you can harm us although we do not threaten you. But we too can harm you. Everyone can cause harm according to their ability and their size. We cannot come all the way to you in the United States, but individual Arabs may reach you.

War and Friendship

You can come to Iraq with aircraft and missiles but do not push us to the point where we cease to care. And when we feel that you want to injure our pride and take away the Iraqis' chance of a high standard of living, then we will cease to care and death will be the choice for us. Then we would not care if you fired 100missiles for each missile we fired. Because without pride life would have no value.

It is not reasonable to ask our people to bleed rivers of blood for eight years then to tell them, "Now you have to accept aggression from Kuwait, the U.A.E., or from the U.S. or from Israel."

We do not put all these countries in the same boat. First, we are hurt and upset that such disagreement is taking place between us and Kuwait and the U.A.E. The solution must be found within an Arab framework and through direct bilateral relations. We do not place America among the enemies. We pace it where we want our friends to be and we try to be friends. But repeated American statements last year make it apparent that America did not regard us as friends. Well the Americans are free.

When we seek friendship we want pride, liberty and our right to choose.

We want to deal according to our status as we deal with the others according to their statuses.

We consider the others' interests while we look after our own. And we expect the others to consider our interests while they are dealing with their own. What does it mean when the Zionist war minister is summoned to the United States now? What do they mean, these fiery statements coming out of Israel during the past few days and the talk of war being expected now more than at any other time?

* * *

I do not believe that anyone would lose by making friends with Iraq. In my opinion, the American President has not made mistakes regarding the Arabs, although his decision to freeze dialogue with the P.L.O. was wrong. But it appears that this decision was made to appease the Zionist lobby or as a piece of strategy to cool the Zionist anger, before trying again. I hope that our latter conclusion is the correct one. But we will carry on saying it was the wrong decision.

You are appeasing the usurper in so many ways -- economically, politically and militarily as well as in the media. When will the time come when, for every three appeasements to the usurper, you praise the Arabs just once?

APRIL GLASPIE: I thank you, Mr. President, and it is a great pleasure for a diplomat to meet and talk directly with the President. I clearly understand your message. We studied history at school That taught us to say freedom or death. I think you know well that we as a people have our experience with the colonialists.

Mr. President, you mentioned many things during this meeting which I cannot comment on on behalf of my Government. But with your permission, I will comment on two points. You spoke of friendship and I believe it was clear from the letters sent by our President to you on the occasion of your National Day that he emphasizes --

HUSSEIN: He was kind and his expressions met with our regard and respect.

Directive on Relations

GLASPIE: As you know, he directed the United States Administration to reject the suggestion of implementing trade sanctions.

HUSSEIN: There is nothing left for us to buy from America. Only wheat. Because every time we want to buy something, they say it is forbidden. I am afraid that one day you will say, "You are going to make gunpowder out of wheat."

GLASPIE: I have a direct instruction from the President to seek better relations with Iraq.

HUSSEIN: But how? We too have this desire. But matters are running contrary to this desire.

GLASPIE: This is less likely to happen the more we talk. For example, you mentioned the issue of the article published by the American Information Agency and that was sad. And a formal apology was presented.

HUSSEIN: Your stance is generous. We are Arabs. It is enough for us that someone says, "I am sorry. I made a mistake." Then we carry on. But the media campaign continued. And it is full of stories. If the stories were true, no one would get upset. But we understand from its continuation that there is a determination.

GLASPIE: I saw the Diane Sawyer program on ABC. And what happened in that program was cheap and unjust. And this is a real picture of what happens in the American media -- even to American politicians themselves. These are the methods the Western media employs. I am pleased that you add your voice to the diplomats who stand up to the media. Because your appearance in the media, even for five minutes, would help us to make the American people understand Iraq. This would increase mutual understanding. If they American President had control of the media, his job would be much easier.

Mr. President, not only do I want to say that President Bush wanted better and deeper relations with Iraq, but he also wants an Iraqi contribution to peace and prosperity in the Middle East. President Bush is an intelligent man. He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq.

You are right. It is true what you say that we do not want higher prices for oil. But I would ask you to examine the possibility of not charging too high a price for oil.

HUSSEIN: We do not want too high prices for oil. And I remind you that in 1974 I gave Tariq Aziz the idea for an article he wrote which criticized the policy of keeping oil prices high. It was the first Arab article which expressed this view.

Shifting Price of Oil

TARIQ AZIZ: Our policy in OPEC opposes sudden jumps in oil prices.

HUSSEIN: Twenty-five dollars a barrel is not a high price.

GLASPIE: We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above $25 because they come from oil-producing states.

HUSSEIN: The price at one stage had dropped to $12 a barrel and a reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of $6 billion to $7 billion is a disaster.

GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?

My assessment after 25 years' service in this area is that your objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and painful war. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship -- not in the spirit of confrontation -- regarding your intentions.

I simply describe the position of my Government. And I do not mean that the situation is a simple situation. But our concern is a simple one.

HUSSEIN: We do not ask people not to be concerned when peace is at issue. This is a noble human feeling which we all feel. It is natural for you as a superpower to be concerned. But what we ask is not to express your concern in a way that would make an aggressor believe that he is getting support for his aggression.

We want to find a just solution which will give us our rights but not deprive others of their rights. But at the same time, we want the others to know that our patience is running out regarding their action, which is harming even the milk our children drink, and the pensions of the widow who lost her husband during the war, and the pensions of the orphans who lost their parents.

As a country, we have the right to prosper. We lost so many opportunities, and the others should value the Iraqi role in their protection. Even this Iraqi [the President points to their interpreter] feels bitter like all other Iraqis. We are not aggressors but we do not accept aggression either. We sent them envoys and handwritten letters. We tried everything. We asked the Servant of the Two Shrines -- King Fahd -- to hold a four-member summit, but he suggested a meeting between the Oil Ministers. We agreed. And as you know, the meeting took place in Jidda. They reached an agreement which did not express what we wanted, but we agreed.

Only two days after the meeting, the Kuwaiti Oil Minister made a statement that contradicted the agreement. We also discussed the issue during the Baghdad summit. I told the Arab Kings and Presidents that some brothers are fighting an economic war against us. And that not all wars use weapons and we regard this kind of war as a military action against us. Because if the capability of our army is lowered then, if Iran renewed the war, it could achieve goals which it could not achieve before. And if we lowered the standard of our defenses, then this could encourage Israel to attack us. I said that before the Arab Kings and Presidents. Only I did not mention Kuwait and U.A.E. by name, because they were my guests.

Before this, I had sent them envoys reminding them that our war had included their defense. Therefore the aid they gave us should not be regarded as a debt. We did not more than the United States would have done against someone who attacked its interests.

I talked about the same thing with a number of other Arab states. I explained the situation t brother King Fahd a few times, by sending envoys and on the telephone. I talked with brother King Hussein and with Sheik Zaid after the conclusion of the summit. I walked with the Sheik to the plane when he was leaving Mosul. He told me, "Just wait until I get home." But after he had reached his destination, the statements that came from there were very bad -- not from him, but from his Minister of Oil.

And after the Jidda agreement, we received some intelligence that they were talking of sticking to the agreement for two months only. Then they would change their policy. Now tell us, if the American President found himself in this situation, what would he do? I said it was very difficult for me to talk about these issues in public. But we must tell the Iraqi people who face economic difficulties who was responsible for that.

Talks with Mubarak

GLASPIE: I spent four beautiful years in Egypt.

HUSSEIN: The Egyptian people are kind and good and ancient. The oil people are supposed to help the Egyptian people, but they are mean beyond belief. It is painful to admit it, but some of them are disliked by Arabs because of their greed.

GLASPIE: Mr. President, it would be helpful if you could give us an assessment of the effort made by your Arab brothers and whether they have achieved anything.

HUSSEIN: On this subject, we agreed with President Mubarak that the Prime Minister of Kuwait would meet with the deputy chairman of the Revolution Command Council in Saudi Arabia, because the Saudis initiated contact with us, aided by President Mubarak's efforts. He just telephoned me a short while ago to say the Kuwaitis have agreed to that suggestion.

GLASPIE: Congratulations.

HUSSEIN: A protocol meeting will be held in Saudi Arabia. Then the meeting will be transferred to Baghdad for deeper discussion directly between Kuwait and Iraq. We hope we will reach some result. We hope that the long-term view and the real interests will overcome Kuwaiti greed.

GLASPIE: May I ask you when you expect Sheik Saad to come to Baghdad?

HUSSEIN: I suppose it would be on Saturday or Monday at the latest. I told brother Mubarak that the agreement should be in Baghdad Saturday or Sunday. You know that brother Mubarak's visits have always been a good omen.

GLASPIE: This is good news. Congratulations.

HUSSEIN: Brother President Mubarak told me they were scared. They said troops were only 20 kilometers north of the Arab League line. I said to him that regardless of what is there, whether they are police, border guards or army, and regardless of how many are there, and what they are doing, assure the Kuwaitis and give them our word that we are not going to do anything until we meet with them. When we meet and when we see that there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death, even though wisdom is above everything else. There you have good news.

AZIZ: This is a journalistic exclusive.

GLASPIE: I am planning to go to the United States next Monday. I hope I will meet with President Bush in Washington next week. I thought to postpone my trip because of the difficulties we are facing. But now I will fly on Monday.

This is from

Yes, remember April Glaspie and her amazing stint at Middle East diplomacy?
Saddam-Glaspie meeting

Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. - July 25, 1990 (Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait)
July 25, 1990 - Presidential Palace - Baghdad
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?
Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptab le?
Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)
On August 2, 1990, Saddam's massed troops invade and occupy Kuwait. _____
Baghdad, September 2, 1990, U.S. Embassy
One month later, British journalists obtain the the above tape and transcript of the Saddam - Glaspie meeting of July 29, 1990. Astounded, they confront Ms. Glaspie as she leaves the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
Journalist 1 - Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador?(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond)
Journalist 2 - You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait ) but you didn't warn him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite - that America was not associated with Kuwait.
Journalist 1 - You encouraged this aggression - his invasi on. What were you thinking?
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.

Journalist 1 - You thought he was just going to take some of it? But, how could you? Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed , he would give up his Iran (Shatt al Arab waterway) goal for the Whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be. You know that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as an historic part of their country!
Journalist 1 - American green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signaling Saddam that some aggression was okay - that the U.S. would not oppose a grab of the al-Rumeilah oil field, the disputed border strip and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan) - the territories claimed by Iraq?
(Ambassador Glaspie says nothing as a limousine door closed behind her and the car drives off.)
To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed. Information last updated on: 02/09/96