Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kikapu]

Kikapu, another little thing that I cannot get my head round is that the rationale for the second Gulf War was supposedly that Saddam was such an evil man that he had to be removed from power at all costs. However, at the end of the first Gulf War they had him whipped and could easily have marched in to Baghdad and hanged him then, if this was such a vital thing to do. But they didn't!

Tim, Bush senior had a little more foresight than his stupid son, he was aware of the consequences of occupying Iraq, Bush junior found out the hard way at the cost of tens (hundreds ?) of thousands of lives.

You are absolutely correct, Jerry, to answer Tim's question to me.

The USA got what it wanted, and that was to destroy Iraq's military might that they helped build during the 8 years Iraq-Iran war. The US could not afford to have Iraq with such military power in the region who was not Israel friendly as well as them sitting on the world's 3rd largest oil reserves. So, Kuwait was offered to Saddam to be invaded in order to coax them into the Kuwaiti trap, so that he can be labelled as the "Monster of Middle East", which he was, but as long as he was our "Monster" it was OK, but once the Iraq-Iran war was over, it was time to destroy the military machine we helped Saddam build. After a month long of "carpet-bombing" Iraq with B-52's, there wasn't much left for Saddam to fight with, as a result, the war was over in few days once the allies pushed into Kuwait. The final touch of humiliation for Saddam was the destruction of the Iraqi military on the last day as they were retreating back to Iraq where the US warplanes, the A-10's, destroyed everything in sight on the "Road of Death".! I use to watch these A-10's (tank killers) do practice runs in Death Valley, California before the Gulf war started. The A-10 is basically a Gatling gun with wings.!

[Jerry]

Kikapu, another little thing that I cannot get my head round is that the rationale for the second Gulf War was supposedly that Saddam was such an evil man that he had to be removed from power at all costs. However, at the end of the first Gulf War they had him whipped and could easily have marched in to Baghdad and hanged him then, if this was such a vital thing to do. But they didn't!

Tim, Bush senior had a little more foresight than his stupid son, he was aware of the consequences of occupying Iraq, Bush junior found out the hard way at the cost of tens (hundreds ?) of thousands of lives.

You don't think that perhaps the Americans still felt that they had a use for Saddam, do you?

Possibly but I recall seeing a discusion on Newsnight (I think) where so called experts agreed the view that Bush senior was aware of dire consequences if Iraq was occupied.

[Gasman]

Weren't there revealed CIA documents evidencing US knowledge of/connivance with the Turkish Invasion? The Helmut Sonnenfeldt SECRET/EYES ONLY one was widely reported in the 90s.

THE COUNSELOR

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

WASHINGTON

August 14, 1974

SECRET/EYES ONLY

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY

FROM: Helmut Sonnenfeldt

SUBJECT: Cyprus Actions

You wanted some brief ideas on what we do next.

Nothing I can think of will stop the Turks now from trying to secure by force what they demanded in their ultimata. In fact, as has always been true, the only coneivable modus vivendi will have to rest on a de facto division of the island, whatever the form.

If the Turks move fast and can then be gotten to stand down, it may pre-empt Greek counteraction and then give us a chance to try for a deal. (It may also save Karamanlis).

While the Soviets can serve as a bogey, we must keep them at arms length. They cannot become the arbiter between US allies. Their interests differ drastically from ours: we want a modus vivendi between Greece and Turkey, they want a non-aligned Cyprus, preferably with Greece or Turkey or both disaffected from NATO.

Thus, we should

- urgently try to contain Greek reaction; 24 hours at a time;

- bluntly tell the Turks they must stop, today, tomorrow at the latest;

- warn the Turks that Greece is rapidly moving leftward;

- send high-level US man to Athens to exert continuing direct influence on Karamanlis;

- assuming the Turks quickly take Famagusta, privately assure Turks we will get them solution involving one third of island, within some kind of federal arrangement;

- assure Greeks we will contain Turk demands and allow no additional enclaves, etc.

You should not get involved directly till the fighting stops; then you must since there is no alternative and only we have the clout.

I do not think Brussels/NATO is the place to use when the time comes. The Greeks are probably too sore at NATO and the vehicle of a ministerial meeting is awkward. Anyway, you need Ecevit and Karamanlis.

London may be unacceptable to the Turks because of Callaghan’s blast at them.

You should not shuttle.

This may mean Geneva. Washington, at the President’s initiative, would be all right but hard to get the parties to come to. Also provocative of the Russians. New York would make it difficult to keep the Russians away.

You could also try Rome.

[Tim Drayton]

Kikapu, another little thing that I cannot get my head round is that the rationale for the second Gulf War was supposedly that Saddam was such an evil man that he had to be removed from power at all costs. However, at the end of the first Gulf War they had him whipped and could easily have marched in to Baghdad and hanged him then, if this was such a vital thing to do. But they didn't!

Tim, Bush senior had a little more foresight than his stupid son, he was aware of the consequences of occupying Iraq, Bush junior found out the hard way at the cost of tens (hundreds ?) of thousands of lives.

You are absolutely correct, Jerry, to answer Tim's question to me.

The USA got what it wanted, and that was to destroy Iraq's military might that they helped build during the 8 years Iraq-Iran war. The US could not afford to have Iraq with such military power in the region who was not Israel friendly as well as them sitting on the world's 3rd largest oil reserves. So, Kuwait was offered to Saddam to be invaded in order to coax them into the Kuwaiti trap, so that he can be labelled as the "Monster of Middle East", which he was, but as long as he was our "Monster" it was OK, but once the Iraq-Iran war was over, it was time to destroy the military machine we helped Saddam build. After a month long of "carpet-bombing" Iraq with B-52's, there wasn't much left for Saddam to fight with, as a result, the war was over in few days once the allies pushed into Kuwait. The final touch of humiliation for Saddam was the destruction of the Iraqi military on the last day as they were retreating back to Iraq where the US warplanes, the A-10's, destroyed everything in sight on the "Road of Death".! I use to watch these A-10's (tank killers) do practice runs in Death Valley, California before the Gulf war started. The A-10 is basically a Gatling gun with wings.!

Thanks for the above, which makes perfect sense to me. My original question, as I am sure you have guessed, was asked with a certain amount of tongue in cheek. I am amazed at how easily a lot of people lap up the lies that the mass media feeds them with.

[Tim Drayton]

Weren't there revealed CIA documents evidencing US knowledge of/connivance with the Turkish Invasion? The Helmut Sonnenfeldt SECRET/EYES ONLY one was widely reported in the 90s.

THE COUNSELOR

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

WASHINGTON

August 14, 1974

SECRET/EYES ONLY

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY

FROM: Helmut Sonnenfeldt

SUBJECT: Cyprus Actions

You wanted some brief ideas on what we do next.

Nothing I can think of will stop the Turks now from trying to secure by force what they demanded in their ultimata. In fact, as has always been true, the only coneivable modus vivendi will have to rest on a de facto division of the island, whatever the form.

If the Turks move fast and can then be gotten to stand down, it may pre-empt Greek counteraction and then give us a chance to try for a deal. (It may also save Karamanlis).

While the Soviets can serve as a bogey, we must keep them at arms length. They cannot become the arbiter between US allies. Their interests differ drastically from ours: we want a modus vivendi between Greece and Turkey, they want a non-aligned Cyprus, preferably with Greece or Turkey or both disaffected from NATO.

Thus, we should

- urgently try to contain Greek reaction; 24 hours at a time;

- bluntly tell the Turks they must stop, today, tomorrow at the latest;

- warn the Turks that Greece is rapidly moving leftward;

- send high-level US man to Athens to exert continuing direct influence on Karamanlis;

- assuming the Turks quickly take Famagusta, privately assure Turks we will get them solution involving one third of island, within some kind of federal arrangement;

- assure Greeks we will contain Turk demands and allow no additional enclaves, etc.

You should not get involved directly till the fighting stops; then you must since there is no alternative and only we have the clout.

I do not think Brussels/NATO is the place to use when the time comes. The Greeks are probably too sore at NATO and the vehicle of a ministerial meeting is awkward. Anyway, you need Ecevit and Karamanlis.

London may be unacceptable to the Turks because of Callaghan’s blast at them.

You should not shuttle.

This may mean Geneva. Washington, at the President’s initiative, would be all right but hard to get the parties to come to. Also provocative of the Russians. New York would make it difficult to keep the Russians away.

You could also try Rome.

I think it is telling that although Turkey militarily was in a position to go on and conquer the whole of Cyprus, she mysteriously stopped when the amount of territory that she had taken stood at one-third of the island.

[Jerry]

I think it is telling that although Turkey militarily was in a position to go on and conquer the whole of Cyprus, she mysteriously stopped when the amount of territory that she had taken stood at one-third of the island.

[/quote]

Tim, the Atilla line was drawn up in the 1950s. Turkey knew how much the US would allow it to conquer and besides had they taken the whole island I think they would have been faced with the same problems the Americans have in Iraq - a guerilla war.

[Tim Drayton]

Our monster! Donald Rumsfeld, then US Special Envoy, shakes hands with Saddam Hussein on December 20 1983.

[observer]

Weren't there revealed CIA documents evidencing US knowledge of/connivance with the Turkish Invasion? The Helmut Sonnenfeldt SECRET/EYES ONLY one was widely reported in the 90s.

THE COUNSELOR

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

WASHINGTON

August 14, 1974

SECRET/EYES ONLY

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY

FROM: Helmut Sonnenfeldt

SUBJECT: Cyprus Actions

You wanted some brief ideas on what we do next.

Nothing I can think of will stop the Turks now from trying to secure by force what they demanded in their ultimata. In fact, as has always been true, the only coneivable modus vivendi will have to rest on a de facto division of the island, whatever the form.

If the Turks move fast and can then be gotten to stand down, it may pre-empt Greek counteraction and then give us a chance to try for a deal. (It may also save Karamanlis).

While the Soviets can serve as a bogey, we must keep them at arms length. They cannot become the arbiter between US allies. Their interests differ drastically from ours: we want a modus vivendi between Greece and Turkey, they want a non-aligned Cyprus, preferably with Greece or Turkey or both disaffected from NATO.

Thus, we should

- urgently try to contain Greek reaction; 24 hours at a time;

- bluntly tell the Turks they must stop, today, tomorrow at the latest;

- warn the Turks that Greece is rapidly moving leftward;

- send high-level US man to Athens to exert continuing direct influence on Karamanlis;

- assuming the Turks quickly take Famagusta, privately assure Turks we will get them solution involving one third of island, within some kind of federal arrangement;

- assure Greeks we will contain Turk demands and allow no additional enclaves, etc.

You should not get involved directly till the fighting stops; then you must since there is no alternative and only we have the clout.

I do not think Brussels/NATO is the place to use when the time comes. The Greeks are probably too sore at NATO and the vehicle of a ministerial meeting is awkward. Anyway, you need Ecevit and Karamanlis.

London may be unacceptable to the Turks because of Callaghan’s blast at them.

You should not shuttle.

This may mean Geneva. Washington, at the President’s initiative, would be all right but hard to get the parties to come to. Also provocative of the Russians. New York would make it difficult to keep the Russians away.

You could also try Rome.

To my eyes this reads more like an attempt to stop an existing bad situation getting worse rather than evidence of any prior connivance, or even knowledge.

[repulsewarrior]

hello meerkat, welcome to the forum.

if you would be so kind, please read my manifesto, i'd like your opinion on it.

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=16772

cheers!

[yialousa1971]

hello meerkat, welcome to the forum.

if you would be so kind, please read my manifesto, i'd like your opinion on it.

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=16772

cheers!

Can you send me a hard copy of your manifesto, it will come in handy next time I visit the loo!