![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
DanKeshet proposed on my talk page to name it differently. Sebastian 18:42 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)
A name that people might be able to recognize would be Operation Desert Storm (which is just a redirect at the moment). -- mav 20:29 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)
Removed the statement that the Republican Guard lay in tatters. The Republican Guard actually retreated in fairly good order.
I removed references to the two presidential speeches below, because I found it distracting to focus on George Bush' particular words, as opposed to what actually happened. I left in the reference to the first Presidential statement, because that sentence was about what the president said, not what happened.
[USPRES2]: Presidential statement, 1991-01-16
[USPRES3]: President Addresses the Nation, 1991-02-23
The USA was mindful of its cultural and moral duties: targets were allegedly selected and prioritized so as to minimize civilian ("collateral") casualties and minimize damage to culturally sensitive sites (such as Mosques).
I removed the above sentence, because it seems to be contradicted by the evidence presented re: destruction of water plants, etc. I do remember much hype re: the cultural sensitivity of the bombing. If somebody could find a cite indicating an actual policy, then we should put this back in.
Also 90% of the bombs dropped were good old dumb bombs... which aren't too culturally or morally sensitive... I don't konw where this absurdly low 100 civilian casualties comes from, that has to be propaganda from the US side.
I think it's valid that the US *tried* to limit the civilian casualties - it was a UN operation after all... however during the Afghan war they would have little compunction against destroying a hospital to get at one helicopter etc.
Here's another link http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/feb2003/nf2003026_0167_db052.htm There is always the problem of how you count these things, as excess deaths in consequence of war damage, or just persons killed by guns and bombs. M-Henry 12:00, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
Links for further research:
Critics have called it the First Oil War because of the central role oil exports and petroleum interests played in motivating, intervening, supporting, and ending the conflict.
Why isn't Operation Desert Storm mentioned in the article? - User:Olivier
Some added text that I have removed.
This is only true if you don't consider bombing "hostilities". This is highy misleading.
This is incorrect. The "hastily reached cease-fire settlement" did not have no-fly zones; they were added months later.
This is thrown-in analysis, and inappropriate for a Wikipedia article.
We already have a paragraph that's strikingly similar to these two, a few paragraphs down. It starts "The United States went through a number of different public justifications for their involvement in the conflict.". We should merge the information from the two added paragraphs into the already existing paragraph. DanKeshet
Regarding the debt figure to Kuwait: I have found a figure of $80B for total Iraqi indebtedness, period. This leads me to believe that it was in error, rather than disputed fact, that we had that figure for Iraqi indebtedness to Kuwait. In the Glaspie transcript, Hussein puts the total indebtedness figure at $40B, though he doesn't count debts to Arab countries, as he doesn't consider them debts, he considers them payments for services rendered.
Also, I am not opposed to using footnotes to further explain where we got the numbers from. The only reason I took the footnote out was because it seemed awkward once I removed the question about the $80B DanKeshet 16:57 Feb 4, 2003 (UTC)
Re: the air raid shelter attack: the fact that this was an air raid shelter is not in dispute. Everybody agrees this. The Pentagon claimed that, in addition to an air raid shelter, it was a military communications facility, although AFAIK, they have never offered any evidence for this assertion and nobody else has found evidence for it.
Re: the water supply: I removed the war crime bit (which I added to begin with), because AFAIK, it's only idle speculation and nobody has started procedures to indict the perpetrators. However, the fact that it was anticipated is extremely well-established and the fact that it was intended is broadly accepted. (The idea being that making the civilian population suffer would encourage people to overthrow Hussein.) DanKeshet 19:22 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)
The Hill & Knowlton "Babies thrown from incubators" fiasco now has it's own article,
Nurse Nayirah. The summary of it here should probably be summarized a bit more, and a link made to the new article. --
Khym Chanur 07:19, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)
The line "Ideologically the invasion of Kuwait was justified by Saddam truning the Arab nationalism" has been there since August 21. I'm not sure what the original contributor meant - I'm guessing 'tuning' as it seems to fit best, but it still doesn't seem right. Deadlock 12:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
34 nations (to agree with our own sources below; wonder what the discrepancy is))
Does Canada's involvement warrant such a large section, whereas no other non-US nation was cited? David.Monniaux
Here is the relevant text from the Wash Post, Aug 19, 1990:
Thank you, Lexis-Nexis. I hope this at least supports the authenticity of the account. Other references can be provided if necessary... Graft 22:29, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Dear anonymous person, can you at least lay out criteria that would establish William Blum as "credible"? At least then we might be able to do something towards satisfying you.
Graft
18:08, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Re: rv... can someone please lock this page so this puerile debate is forced to talk (Graft's edit summary)
I protected the page. Hopefully, the anon will join the discussion now. 172 19:47, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
A good start would be some evidence of his qualifications as either an historian or a journalist, rather than a politically motivated purveyor of unsubstantiated theories and, in this case, debunked forgeries. Including William Blum's views in a serious discussion of the history of the Gulf War is akin to including The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in entries dealing with anti-Semitism as if it were legitimate.
The fact that the page has been locked with the dubious portions retained rather than the other way around says a great deal about the intellectual honesty, or lack thereof, of those editing this document.
Graft, before making further requests and attempting to change the subject, perhaps you could provide some evidence re: the credibility of William Blum. And yes, the document Blum relies on is widely known to be a forgery.
The document is the "Brigadier Fahd Ahmed Al-Fahd memorandum" that supposedly caused the Kuwaiti foreign minister to faint. There's not much about it online unfortunately, but it is referenced by Todd Leventhal, the longtime expert on KGB disinformation, in a report from the US Government here:
[1] .
From that:
In an October 27 letter to UN Secretary General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah had said the document contained "falsehoods and groundless lies" and "linguistic expressions that have never been used in Kuwait...." He also noted that "its style differs from that used between Kuwaiti officials."
That the US and Kuwait call it a forgery should be expected whether or not it were a forgery; the article already indicates that. Also, I think it's a bit much to request Blum to respond to papers written four years after his book was published. Unfortunately, the Leventhal paper is not in any libraries I have access to and the think tank that sponsored it charges a fee to read it. Do you have an electronic copy? Could you upload the relevant chapter or send it to me via the e-mail this user feature? That would qualify as fair use so I don't think there's any copyright worries. DanKeshet 17:10, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
Which again goes back to Blum's credibility (or lack thereof.) The letter from the Kuwaiti foreign minister to the UN head was not published four years later. Furthermore, Blum is the one who should be checking his facts; it is not incumbent upon others to disprove Blum's claims, it is incumbent upon Blum to prove his - which he hasn't done. Consequently, including his charges without any supporting evidence offered is dishonest and does not contribute to the accuracy of this article.
He has a history of involvement in the world of foreign affairs, both as staff at the State Department and decades of experience regarding world affairs afterward. His voice is credible enough on the subject for my criteria.
He has not had a position in the government for nearly four decades. Since then he has been promoting the notion that the CIA has been at the root of every supposedly evil foreign policy action of the United States, without any regard for objective analysis. Put aside left-leaning progressive opinion journals such as ZMag and Counterpunch and Blum ceases to exist as a commentator on international affairs. If this meets your criteria, then perhaps your criteria need to be reevaluated.
Blum provides dozens of citations in the chapter re: evidence for pre-war collaboration.
He cites dozens of newspaper articles, including opinion pieces. There is no original research there. Furthermore, one can not objectively conclude anything about the veracity of any documents merely because the Kuwaiti foreign official fainted, even if one accepts the Washington Post's unnamed sources as reliable. In any event, it is the responsibility of Blum and those who support Blum as a serious source of history to provide evidence to support his claims, not the reverse.
Death Toll The death toll of Kuwaitis from the Iraqi invasion is not discussed. Between 600 and 1,000 Kuwaitis likely died from the invasion. No mention is made of the Emir fleeing to Saudi Arabia for the war.
I agree with you that any move we can make toward primary documents where they exist would be a plus, but unless we have them, it's better to rely on second- and third-hand sources than nothing.
Not if the third-hand sources are making unfounded conclusions, such as Blum's contention that the Kuwaiti foreign minister's supposed fainting is evidence that the "Brigadier Fahd Ahmed Al-Fahd memorandum" is legitimate.
I'm still unclear what the alleged forgeries you mentioned are.
Again, the "Brigadier Fahd Ahmed Al-Fahd memorandum".
I'd like to point out that NPOV policy does not let us "put aside left-leaning progressive opinion journals such as ZMag and Counterpunch", rather it suggests that, if they support a theory, we properly attribute it to them, while providing room for other opinions.
You are taking that statement out of context. Blum's legitimacy as a "scholar" as you described him has yet to be established. He is only cited by an expert by the above mentioned publications and not by any serious journal of either history, policy, or current events. Consequently, to include his opinions, which are based on his interpretation of newspaper articles and not any personal experience or original research, is in effect allowing Wikipedia entries to be polluted by anyone anywhere with an opinion about the issue at hand, regardless of whatever personal agenda they are attempting to promote - and without taking into account the quality of the information they provide.
In November 1999, CIA director William Webster met with the Kuwaiti head of security, Brigadier Fahd Ahmed Al-Fahd. Subsequent to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Iraq claimed to have found a memorandum pertaining to this conversation. The Washington Post reported that Kuwaiti's foreign minister fainted when confronted with this document at an Arab summit in August. Later, Iraq cited this memorandum as evidence of a CIA-Kuwaiti plot to destabilize Iraq economically and politically. The CIA and Kuwait have described the meeting as routine and the memorandum as a forgery. The document reads in part:
Left-wing journalist William Blum argues that Iraq was right about the CIA-Kuwait plot. The plot, Blum argues, was in response to increasing Iraqi warnings about American hegemony in the Gulf region, as well as to help stanch expected cuts in defense spending and boost President Bush's domestic popularity. (Blum, Ch. 52)
I think the fact that Blum talks about the "desert holocaust" when referencing U.S. aerial bombings and then talks about stuff like "we dropped atomic bombs on Japan...ATOMIC BOMBS" without, of course, mentioning the fact that we helped rebuild the country -- I think stuff like this would make people question his credibility. Aren't there any other sources for this supposed destabilization campaign? I mean other commentators that might find it credible BESIDES a guy of the Chomskian "Amerika bad no matter what" variety. Saying "Mr. Blum agrees with this" is like me saying that "David Horowitz agrees with the assessment of the Contras as starry-eyed freedom fighters." It doesn't add any credibility to the allegations.
Also, some of Blum's material gets into severe Michael Moore territory. This supposed memo might warrant questioning (remember though, that the government of Iraq wasn't exactly the most unbiased source of information) but I don't think him speculating about how Bush Sr. needed this war to boost his sagging popularity ratings is really relevant or necessary, particularly when the Security Council unanimously approved the action (so it was more than just a "hegemony-expanding," self-serving American plot.) Trey Stone 09:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't see what makes Blum any more reliable than people like Chomsky and Herman. He's a left-wing pundit who excoriates the U.S. for everything it does. It's like me including a JBS article in communism to prove why it doesn't work. J. Parker Stone 08:59, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I will try unprotecting this page, given this latest request. [2] I think that there is a chance that the edit war will resume, though. If so, I should restore the protection, or another admin should do so-- whichever comes first. 172 06:18, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
The opening paragraph of the article says Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1991. As the article makes clear this occurred in 1990.
This may have happened somewhere--I don't know--but it was not the norm. See [3] and [4] for some discussion of the protests. Also, I am going to remove "but never reached the size..." because it's misleading. Protests against the Gulf War were larger by many orders of magnitude than protests against the Vietnam War at comparable stages in the war. The Gulf War simply did not last as long. DanKeshet 19:23, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
DanKeshet proposed on my talk page to name it differently. Sebastian 18:42 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)
A name that people might be able to recognize would be Operation Desert Storm (which is just a redirect at the moment). -- mav 20:29 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)
Removed the statement that the Republican Guard lay in tatters. The Republican Guard actually retreated in fairly good order.
I removed references to the two presidential speeches below, because I found it distracting to focus on George Bush' particular words, as opposed to what actually happened. I left in the reference to the first Presidential statement, because that sentence was about what the president said, not what happened.
[USPRES2]: Presidential statement, 1991-01-16
[USPRES3]: President Addresses the Nation, 1991-02-23
The USA was mindful of its cultural and moral duties: targets were allegedly selected and prioritized so as to minimize civilian ("collateral") casualties and minimize damage to culturally sensitive sites (such as Mosques).
I removed the above sentence, because it seems to be contradicted by the evidence presented re: destruction of water plants, etc. I do remember much hype re: the cultural sensitivity of the bombing. If somebody could find a cite indicating an actual policy, then we should put this back in.
Also 90% of the bombs dropped were good old dumb bombs... which aren't too culturally or morally sensitive... I don't konw where this absurdly low 100 civilian casualties comes from, that has to be propaganda from the US side.
I think it's valid that the US *tried* to limit the civilian casualties - it was a UN operation after all... however during the Afghan war they would have little compunction against destroying a hospital to get at one helicopter etc.
Here's another link http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/feb2003/nf2003026_0167_db052.htm There is always the problem of how you count these things, as excess deaths in consequence of war damage, or just persons killed by guns and bombs. M-Henry 12:00, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
Links for further research:
Critics have called it the First Oil War because of the central role oil exports and petroleum interests played in motivating, intervening, supporting, and ending the conflict.
Why isn't Operation Desert Storm mentioned in the article? - User:Olivier
Some added text that I have removed.
This is only true if you don't consider bombing "hostilities". This is highy misleading.
This is incorrect. The "hastily reached cease-fire settlement" did not have no-fly zones; they were added months later.
This is thrown-in analysis, and inappropriate for a Wikipedia article.
We already have a paragraph that's strikingly similar to these two, a few paragraphs down. It starts "The United States went through a number of different public justifications for their involvement in the conflict.". We should merge the information from the two added paragraphs into the already existing paragraph. DanKeshet
Regarding the debt figure to Kuwait: I have found a figure of $80B for total Iraqi indebtedness, period. This leads me to believe that it was in error, rather than disputed fact, that we had that figure for Iraqi indebtedness to Kuwait. In the Glaspie transcript, Hussein puts the total indebtedness figure at $40B, though he doesn't count debts to Arab countries, as he doesn't consider them debts, he considers them payments for services rendered.
Also, I am not opposed to using footnotes to further explain where we got the numbers from. The only reason I took the footnote out was because it seemed awkward once I removed the question about the $80B DanKeshet 16:57 Feb 4, 2003 (UTC)
Re: the air raid shelter attack: the fact that this was an air raid shelter is not in dispute. Everybody agrees this. The Pentagon claimed that, in addition to an air raid shelter, it was a military communications facility, although AFAIK, they have never offered any evidence for this assertion and nobody else has found evidence for it.
Re: the water supply: I removed the war crime bit (which I added to begin with), because AFAIK, it's only idle speculation and nobody has started procedures to indict the perpetrators. However, the fact that it was anticipated is extremely well-established and the fact that it was intended is broadly accepted. (The idea being that making the civilian population suffer would encourage people to overthrow Hussein.) DanKeshet 19:22 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)
The Hill & Knowlton "Babies thrown from incubators" fiasco now has it's own article,
Nurse Nayirah. The summary of it here should probably be summarized a bit more, and a link made to the new article. --
Khym Chanur 07:19, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)
The line "Ideologically the invasion of Kuwait was justified by Saddam truning the Arab nationalism" has been there since August 21. I'm not sure what the original contributor meant - I'm guessing 'tuning' as it seems to fit best, but it still doesn't seem right. Deadlock 12:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
34 nations (to agree with our own sources below; wonder what the discrepancy is))
Does Canada's involvement warrant such a large section, whereas no other non-US nation was cited? David.Monniaux
Here is the relevant text from the Wash Post, Aug 19, 1990:
Thank you, Lexis-Nexis. I hope this at least supports the authenticity of the account. Other references can be provided if necessary... Graft 22:29, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Dear anonymous person, can you at least lay out criteria that would establish William Blum as "credible"? At least then we might be able to do something towards satisfying you.
Graft
18:08, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Re: rv... can someone please lock this page so this puerile debate is forced to talk (Graft's edit summary)
I protected the page. Hopefully, the anon will join the discussion now. 172 19:47, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
A good start would be some evidence of his qualifications as either an historian or a journalist, rather than a politically motivated purveyor of unsubstantiated theories and, in this case, debunked forgeries. Including William Blum's views in a serious discussion of the history of the Gulf War is akin to including The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in entries dealing with anti-Semitism as if it were legitimate.
The fact that the page has been locked with the dubious portions retained rather than the other way around says a great deal about the intellectual honesty, or lack thereof, of those editing this document.
Graft, before making further requests and attempting to change the subject, perhaps you could provide some evidence re: the credibility of William Blum. And yes, the document Blum relies on is widely known to be a forgery.
The document is the "Brigadier Fahd Ahmed Al-Fahd memorandum" that supposedly caused the Kuwaiti foreign minister to faint. There's not much about it online unfortunately, but it is referenced by Todd Leventhal, the longtime expert on KGB disinformation, in a report from the US Government here:
[1] .
From that:
In an October 27 letter to UN Secretary General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah had said the document contained "falsehoods and groundless lies" and "linguistic expressions that have never been used in Kuwait...." He also noted that "its style differs from that used between Kuwaiti officials."
That the US and Kuwait call it a forgery should be expected whether or not it were a forgery; the article already indicates that. Also, I think it's a bit much to request Blum to respond to papers written four years after his book was published. Unfortunately, the Leventhal paper is not in any libraries I have access to and the think tank that sponsored it charges a fee to read it. Do you have an electronic copy? Could you upload the relevant chapter or send it to me via the e-mail this user feature? That would qualify as fair use so I don't think there's any copyright worries. DanKeshet 17:10, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
Which again goes back to Blum's credibility (or lack thereof.) The letter from the Kuwaiti foreign minister to the UN head was not published four years later. Furthermore, Blum is the one who should be checking his facts; it is not incumbent upon others to disprove Blum's claims, it is incumbent upon Blum to prove his - which he hasn't done. Consequently, including his charges without any supporting evidence offered is dishonest and does not contribute to the accuracy of this article.
He has a history of involvement in the world of foreign affairs, both as staff at the State Department and decades of experience regarding world affairs afterward. His voice is credible enough on the subject for my criteria.
He has not had a position in the government for nearly four decades. Since then he has been promoting the notion that the CIA has been at the root of every supposedly evil foreign policy action of the United States, without any regard for objective analysis. Put aside left-leaning progressive opinion journals such as ZMag and Counterpunch and Blum ceases to exist as a commentator on international affairs. If this meets your criteria, then perhaps your criteria need to be reevaluated.
Blum provides dozens of citations in the chapter re: evidence for pre-war collaboration.
He cites dozens of newspaper articles, including opinion pieces. There is no original research there. Furthermore, one can not objectively conclude anything about the veracity of any documents merely because the Kuwaiti foreign official fainted, even if one accepts the Washington Post's unnamed sources as reliable. In any event, it is the responsibility of Blum and those who support Blum as a serious source of history to provide evidence to support his claims, not the reverse.
Death Toll The death toll of Kuwaitis from the Iraqi invasion is not discussed. Between 600 and 1,000 Kuwaitis likely died from the invasion. No mention is made of the Emir fleeing to Saudi Arabia for the war.
I agree with you that any move we can make toward primary documents where they exist would be a plus, but unless we have them, it's better to rely on second- and third-hand sources than nothing.
Not if the third-hand sources are making unfounded conclusions, such as Blum's contention that the Kuwaiti foreign minister's supposed fainting is evidence that the "Brigadier Fahd Ahmed Al-Fahd memorandum" is legitimate.
I'm still unclear what the alleged forgeries you mentioned are.
Again, the "Brigadier Fahd Ahmed Al-Fahd memorandum".
I'd like to point out that NPOV policy does not let us "put aside left-leaning progressive opinion journals such as ZMag and Counterpunch", rather it suggests that, if they support a theory, we properly attribute it to them, while providing room for other opinions.
You are taking that statement out of context. Blum's legitimacy as a "scholar" as you described him has yet to be established. He is only cited by an expert by the above mentioned publications and not by any serious journal of either history, policy, or current events. Consequently, to include his opinions, which are based on his interpretation of newspaper articles and not any personal experience or original research, is in effect allowing Wikipedia entries to be polluted by anyone anywhere with an opinion about the issue at hand, regardless of whatever personal agenda they are attempting to promote - and without taking into account the quality of the information they provide.
In November 1999, CIA director William Webster met with the Kuwaiti head of security, Brigadier Fahd Ahmed Al-Fahd. Subsequent to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Iraq claimed to have found a memorandum pertaining to this conversation. The Washington Post reported that Kuwaiti's foreign minister fainted when confronted with this document at an Arab summit in August. Later, Iraq cited this memorandum as evidence of a CIA-Kuwaiti plot to destabilize Iraq economically and politically. The CIA and Kuwait have described the meeting as routine and the memorandum as a forgery. The document reads in part:
Left-wing journalist William Blum argues that Iraq was right about the CIA-Kuwait plot. The plot, Blum argues, was in response to increasing Iraqi warnings about American hegemony in the Gulf region, as well as to help stanch expected cuts in defense spending and boost President Bush's domestic popularity. (Blum, Ch. 52)
I think the fact that Blum talks about the "desert holocaust" when referencing U.S. aerial bombings and then talks about stuff like "we dropped atomic bombs on Japan...ATOMIC BOMBS" without, of course, mentioning the fact that we helped rebuild the country -- I think stuff like this would make people question his credibility. Aren't there any other sources for this supposed destabilization campaign? I mean other commentators that might find it credible BESIDES a guy of the Chomskian "Amerika bad no matter what" variety. Saying "Mr. Blum agrees with this" is like me saying that "David Horowitz agrees with the assessment of the Contras as starry-eyed freedom fighters." It doesn't add any credibility to the allegations.
Also, some of Blum's material gets into severe Michael Moore territory. This supposed memo might warrant questioning (remember though, that the government of Iraq wasn't exactly the most unbiased source of information) but I don't think him speculating about how Bush Sr. needed this war to boost his sagging popularity ratings is really relevant or necessary, particularly when the Security Council unanimously approved the action (so it was more than just a "hegemony-expanding," self-serving American plot.) Trey Stone 09:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't see what makes Blum any more reliable than people like Chomsky and Herman. He's a left-wing pundit who excoriates the U.S. for everything it does. It's like me including a JBS article in communism to prove why it doesn't work. J. Parker Stone 08:59, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I will try unprotecting this page, given this latest request. [2] I think that there is a chance that the edit war will resume, though. If so, I should restore the protection, or another admin should do so-- whichever comes first. 172 06:18, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
The opening paragraph of the article says Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1991. As the article makes clear this occurred in 1990.
This may have happened somewhere--I don't know--but it was not the norm. See [3] and [4] for some discussion of the protests. Also, I am going to remove "but never reached the size..." because it's misleading. Protests against the Gulf War were larger by many orders of magnitude than protests against the Vietnam War at comparable stages in the war. The Gulf War simply did not last as long. DanKeshet 19:23, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)