Talk:April Glaspie

message: It doesn't look like Ms. Glaspie is actually IN the photograph.  Did anyone else notice that?
Ken Burch 10:51 1 July 2009 (UTC)
:she's on the left.  but i agree that is a [deleted adj.] photo.  a very quick image search found others that are much better.  but i don't know how to add pics here, or, more of an issue, how to make sure WP has a right to use them.Colbey84 (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The photo 

message: what are all of these 'cables' in the article,its not a wire,like speaker cables right?  ive never heard anybody calling anything 'cables' except 'cables'. #4TILDES,10/12/7_10:44AM
:Cable is "State Department speak" for telegrams.  You can replace most any US diplomatic article using cable with telegram if the context appears right. Mikebar 16:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does cable mean? 

message: When Secy. of State Geo. Schultz testified before the Iran-Contra committee back in 1987, he singled out Ms. Glaspie for heroics during the arms-for-hostages debacle; but I don't recall what those heroics were, what her position was then, or what her connection to Iraq or Iran was in the early to mid-80s. Anyone? BubbleDine (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree.  this would be good to have out here, if it can be properly sourced.  i mean, the woman had a twenty-plus career and all this WP page contains is stuff about one, admittedly important, issue.Colbey84 (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glaspie's pre-Kuwait caper contributions 

message: In another PBS interview of Tariq Aziz, broadcast on January 25, 2000, Aziz is even more dismissive of the idea that Glaspie's words were of any consequence or that the U.S. sent mixed signals.
:Q: Could you elaborate on the point about mixed signals sent by the U.S. during the run-up to the invasion of Kuwait? How did those influence your government's decision?
:A: There were no mixed signals. We should not forget that the whole period before August 2 witnessed a negative American policy towards Iraq. So it would be quite foolish to think that, if we go to Kuwait, then America would like that. Because the American tendency . . . was to untie Iraq. So how could we imagine that such a step was going to be appreciated by the Americans? It looks foolish, you see, this is fiction. About the meeting with April Glaspie--it was a routine meeting. There was nothing extraordinary in it. She didn't say anything extraordinary beyond what any professional diplomat would say without previous instructions from his government. She did not ask for an audience with the president. She was summoned by the president. He telephoned me and said, "Bring the American ambassador. I want to see her." She was not prepared, because it was not morning in Washington. People in Washington were asleep, so she needed a half-hour to contact anybody in Washington and seek instructions. So, what she said were routine, classical comments on what the president was asking her to convey to President Bush. He wanted her to carry a message to George Bush--not to receive a message through her from Washington.
--Niku 15:31, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
I think this PBS interview with Aziz destroys the US "green light" or "lack of red light" theory completely, in fact it makes the page look wrongly focused - why is a theory discussed in such detail, at such length, when it is completely contradicted by Aziz? At this point the only interesting aspect of this theory is how widely believed it is, even though the regime's own representatives have explicitly rejected it. Pepik70 (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another more explicit Tariq Aziz interview on PBS 

message: Quot the article:
It was in this context that Glaspie had her first meeting with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz on July 25, 1990.
This seems to imply that this was her first meeting w/Saddam ever, or at least her first as ambassador to Iraq.  Since she had been appointed ambassador to Iraq in 1989 (presumably early in the year, as one of H.W. Bush's beginning-of-the-term ambassadorial appointment), it seems odd that she wouldn't have met the president until mid-1990.  Since he was head of state, wouldn't she have had to have at least some kind of formal meeting to be officially accredited? --Jfruh (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: @IP. that would be an argument (that i don't think would work) for wikimedia commons, where the picture is hosted, not here. -Shootbamboo (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "First meeting?" 

message: The Saddam Hussein page (which is protected), states "The transcript, however, does not show any explicit statement of approval of, acceptance of, or foreknowledge of the invasion." I know this is a controversial point, yet the protected page is clearly at odds with this article, which says, "she told the Iraqi dictator that the US official policy was not to get involved in Iraq's dispute with Kuwait" and cites Edward Mortimer in the New York Review of Books, November 1990. These two statements conflict. This article cites sources, the Saddam article does not cite any source for the quoted statement.
Can somehow with rights to edit a protected page take a look at writing a more accurate, less NPOV, and source-cited way of editing the Saddam page? According to this article, "If there is a full transcript of the meeting in existence, or if the State Department declassified Glaspie's cables about the meeting, history might reach a different verdict on her performance." Yet those who edited the protected Saddam article somehow know the unreleased full transcript shows no "explicit statement of, approval of, acceptance of, or foreknowledge of the invasion." This page cites its sources and points out no one has access to the full, declassified transcripts. The protected Saddam article unequivocally contradicts source-cited info in this article on the basis of uncited, unreleased, classified documents that cannot be verified. 66.17.118.195 15:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict with Saddam Article 

message: Thousands of web pages make claims that an ambassador named "April Gillespie" gave Saddam the greenlight to invade, a name that a Wikipedia search has no results for.
Would it make sense to mhave such a common mis-spelling somehow link to the correct page? It isn't exactly a disabiguation issue.
Guymacon 16:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  April Glaspie confused with April Gillespie 

message: Many of the world's problems, ranging from marital disharmony to nuclear war, result from poor communication. I feel that this article would benefit from some discussion of the general problem of miscommunication in history and diplomacy. Perhaps someone could create a Wikipedia entry on this general issue, to which the Glaspie article could refer.Paulhummerman (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on April Glaspie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110107203728/http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/1990/07/90BAGHDAD4237.html to http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/1990/07/90BAGHDAD4237.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified