It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by marg6043
I don't get US have his own intelligent and is supposed to be superior, so I believe that US knew from the beginning where and what it was going to get out of invading and attacking two countries.
It took the chance and it did it, now............let see if it goes for Iran next.
(CNN) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin said his country warned the United States several times that Saddam Hussein's regime was planning terror attacks on the United States and its overseas interests.
Putin's comments in Kazakhstan came amid a new debate in the United States about the extent of ties between Saddam and the al Qaeda terrorist network triggered by a preliminary report from the commission investigating the September 11 attacks.
"I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations," Putin said.
as posted by Muaddib
And again i ask....then why did president Putin and Russian intelligence officers told president Bush that they found evidence that Saddam wanted to make terrorist attacks in the United States?....
Russia has been luring the US, together with other countries by giving us evidence which they themselves planted and then hid, to then blame us for our actions....
Originally posted by Muaddib
Marg, the thing is that Russia , along with others, are using countries like Iraq against the US. Russia armed Saddam's army, with all sorts of weapons and including wmd, they left enough evidence to convice us that Iraq had such plans and they were ready to use these wmd, and when they realized we were going there, they sent their special forces to hide away or destroy the wmd as it is described in their Serindar plan, as it has been revealed to us by Russian military defectors.
Originally posted by Bout Time
A former head of Russian Intelligence has put it on the table: he states that the US has been using the War on Terror global initiative as a cover to seize the world's oil rich regions, and thus control the world's primary energy resource.
The matter-of-fact style in which the former spy chief makes supporting observations suggests that the counter planning is in the works.
Therefore, a potentially significant news development was reported in June 2004 announcing Iran’s intentions to create of an Iranian oil Bourse. (The word "bourse" refers to a stock exchange for securities trading, and is derived from the French stock exchange in Paris, the Federation Internationale des Bourses de Valeurs.) This announcement portended competition would arise between the Iranian oil bourse and London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), as well as the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). It should be noted that both the IPE and NYMEX are owned by U.S. corporations.
The macroeconomic implications of a successful Iranian Bourse are noteworthy. Considering that Iran has switched to the euro for its oil payments from E.U. and ACU customers, it would be logical to assume the proposed Iranian Bourse will usher in a fourth crude oil marker – denominated in the euro currency. Such a development would remove the main technical obstacle for a broad-based petroeuro system for international oil trades. From a purely economic and monetary perspective, a petroeuro system is a logical development given that the European Union imports more oil from OPEC producers than does the U.S., and the E.U. accounts for 45% of imports into the Middle East (2002 data).
Acknowledging that many of the oil contracts for Iran and Saudi Arabia are linked to the United Kingdom’s Brent crude marker, the Iranian bourse could create a significant shift in the flow of international commerce into the Middle East. If Iran’s bourse becomes a successful alternative for oil trades, it would challenge the hegemony currently enjoyed by the financial centers in both London (IPE) and New York (NYMEX),
Putin defends the Soviet-era intelligence service to this day. In recent comments to a writers' group in Moscow, he even seemed to excuse its role in dictator Joseph Stalin's brutal purges, saying it would be "insincere" for him to assail the agency where he worked for so many years. Fiercely patriotic, Putin once said he could not read a book by a Soviet defector because "I don't read books by people who have betrayed the Motherland."
Originally posted by Seekerof
Perhaps this is why, Muaddib?
From the same source as Bout Time used:
Russia Helped Al-Qaeda, Arming Iran — Intelligence Reports
More recently, Anatoliy Golitsyn, a Soviet defector of high status, has suggested that the Soviet Union is capable of disinformation on such a massive scale that even the Borkenau system is no longer viable.2 In a book first published in 1984, and of necessity written before then, Golitsyn argues that the leadership of the whole Communist bloc came to an agreement in 1958 in which it established a long range program, a master plan, which it would realize through a large scale deception of the West, a monumental scam.
Golitsyn maintains that the goals of the master plan were to provide a more profound political stabilization of individual communist regimes by developing wider mass support, the rectification of economic weakness of the bloc by increased international trade and the acquisition of credits and high technology from the West, the creation of a substructure for an eventual world federation of communist states, political isolation of the US from its allies, developing influence among socialists in Western Europe and Japan, the dissolution of NATO, and an alignment between the Soviet Union and a neutral, preferably socialist, Western Europe; concerted action with nationalist leaders in the Third World to eliminate Western influence as a preliminary to absorbing them in a communist federation, shifting the balance of power in favor of the Communist world, and the ideological disarmament of the West to create favorable conditions for convergence of East and West on communist terms.3
The final phase of the master plan, according to Golitsyn, is a disinformation and deception campaign of such magnitude that it would be "beyond the imagination of Marx, or the practical reach of Lenin, and unthinkable to Stalin. Among such previously unthinkable stratagems are the introduction of false liberalization in Eastern Europe and, probably, the Soviet Union, and the exhibition of spurious independence on the part of the regimes in Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Poland."7
Golitsyn predicted the "breakup" of the communist bloc in Eastern Europe as a technique to be used by the Soviet government to entice Europe to move more towards socialism and to align itself eventually with the USSR against the United States.8 The Third World would then join communist Russia and socialist Western Europe against the US and its allies. Then there would be a joint drive by the Soviet bloc and a socialist Europe to push the US out of Europe and into nuclear disarmament. A powerful world federation of communist states would emerge and the US would be induced to "converge" on communist terms.9
We should be aware, Golitsyn warns, that much of the information that is being served up in the Soviet Union and even in Eastern Europe is being prepared by the same cooks who fed the West lies in pre-glasnost and pre-perestroika times; hence the title of his book, New Lies for Old. Why should we, asks Golitsyn, believe that the same people who lied to us in the past are now telling us the truth? Is it not possible that glasnost is nothing more that a cover for a new set of lies, lies that the West wants to believe, the lies that Communism is dead and the USSR is mellowing? This information, which the Soviets themselves distribute, must be information that the Soviets want distributed. Is it not possible that perestroika is that limited restructuring described by Gorbachev in his book, Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World,10 and not the stampede to capitalism which American pundits think they are witnessing?
The West, seeking to preserve the "gains" of democracy and free enterprise, invests heavily in building a capital base in Eastern Europe. Once a sufficient capital base has been established, there are rigged strikes and demonstrations because of "social inequity" and a maldistribution of wealth, the fragile democratic regimes are toppled and "socialist" regimes, friendly to the Soviet Union are established. The wheel makes its full turn and there is a new Soviet bloc, but now one fully capitalized, out of debt, and with a large base of public support. The bloc joins the international communist federation and is on friendly terms with what is by now a demilitarized, socialist Western Europe which becomes aligned with the new bloc and the Third World against the West.
Internal to the Soviet Union, the scenario might go like this. A few of the Soviet union republics want real independence, the Soviet elite wants "liberalization" but not total fragmentation, the Soviet elite encourages other safe union republics to demand independence; with so many republics demanding independence, those which are serious get lost in the crowd; the government then draws up terms for a federation; the federation gives most powers to the federal government and leaves local republics with a vacuous freedom with heavy economic responsibilities; the new Soviet Federation now becomes a suitable structure for the attachment of the repentant East European states, and the first goal is reached.
Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Russia has made alot of money on inflated oil prices over the past couple of years but they also lost a very profitable contract with Iraq to develop oil fields. I do not think Russia wanted the US to attack Iraq and Afghanastan. The US has further tightened its grip around Russia after 9-11.
Undeclared War Between Russia and America
The cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy has been to encourage — under the disguise of "peace-keeping" and so-called "conflict resolution" — the formation of small pro-U.S. States which lie strategically at the hub of the Caspian Sea basin, which contains vast oil and gas reserves:
The U.S. must play an increasingly active role in conflict resolution in the region. The boundaries of the Soviet republics were intentionally drawn to prevent secession by the various national communities of the former USSR and not with an eye towards possible independence. … Neither Europe, nor our allies in East Asia, can defend our [U.S.] mutual interests in these regions. If we [the U.S.], fail to take the lead in heading off the kinds of conflicts and crises that are already looming there, that will eventually exacerbate our relations with Europe and possibly Northeast Asia. And it will encourage the worst kind of political developments in Russia. This linkage, or interconnectedness, gives the Transcaucasus and Central Asia a strategic importance to the United States and its allies that we overlook at huge risk. To put it another way, the fruits accruing from ending the Cold War are far from fully harvested. To ignore the Transcaucasus and Central Asia could mean that a large part of that harvest will never be gathered.37
Russia’s Military Industrial Complex
Alongside the articulation of Moscow’s National Security doctrine, the Russian State was planning to regain economic and financial control over key areas of Russia’s military industrial complex. For instance, the formation of "a single corporation of designers and manufacturers of all anti-aircraft complexes" was envisaged in cooperation with Russia’s defence contractors.38
This proposed ‘re-centralization’ of Russia’s defence industry in response to national security considerations, was also motivated by the merger of major Western competitors in the areas of military procurement. The development of new production and scientific capabilities was also contemplated, based on enhancing Russia’s military potential as well as its ability to compete with its Western rivals in the global weapons market.
The National Security Doctrine also "eases the criteria by which Russia could use nuclear weapons … which would be permissible if the country’s existence were threatened." 39
Russia reserves the right to use all forces and means at its disposal, including nuclear weapons, in case an armed aggression creates a threat to the very existence of the Russian Federation as an independent sovereign state. 40
In response to Washington’s "Star Wars" initiative, Moscow had developed "Russia’s Missile and Nuclear Shield". The Russian government announced in 1998, the development of a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles, known as Topol-M (SS-27). These new single-warhead missiles (based in the Saratov region) are currently in "full combat readiness", against a "pre-emptive first strike" from the U.S., which, (in the wake of September 11), constitutes the Pentagon’s main assumption in an eventual nuclear war. "The Topol M is lightweight and mobile, designed to be fired from a vehicle. Its mobility means it is better protected than a silo-based missile from a pre-emptive first strike."41
Following the adoption of the National Security Document (NSD), in 2000, the Kremlin confirmed that it would not exclude "a first-strike use" of nuclear warheads "if attacked even by purely conventional means." 42
Political ‘Turnaround’ under President Vladimir Putin
Since the very outset of his term in office, President Vladimir Putin — following in the footsteps of his predecessor Boris Yeltsin in the Kremlin — has contributed to reversing the National Security Doctrine. Its implementation at a policy level has also been stalled.
At the moment, the foreign policy directions of the Putin Administration are confused and unclear. There are significant divisions within both the political establishment and the Military. On the diplomatic front, the new President has sought [to establish] a ‘rapprochement’ with Washington and the Western Military Alliance in the so-called "war on terrorism." Yet, it would be premature to conclude that Putin’s diplomatic openings imply a permanent reversal of Russia’s 2000 National Security Doctrine.
In the wake of September 11, a significant turnaround in Russian foreign policy, largely orchestrated by President Putin, has nonetheless occurred. The Putin Administration, acting against the Russian Duma, has accepted the process of "NATO Enlargement" into the Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) implying the establishment of NATO military bases on Russia’s Western border. Meanwhile, Moscow’s military cooperation agreement signed with Beijing after the 1999 war in Yugoslavia is virtually on hold:
China is obviously watching with deep concern Russia surrendering these positions. China is also concerned by the presence of the U.S. Air Force close to its borders in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and the Kyrghyz Republic. … Everything that Mr. Putin has earned through the spectacular improvement of Russia’s relations with China, India, Vietnam, Cuba and some other countries, collapsed nearly overnight. What has surfaced is a primitive Gorbachev concept of ‘common human values’ — i.e. the subordination of Russia’s interests to those of the West.43
Ironically, the Russian President was supporting America’s "war on terrorism", which is ultimately directed against Moscow. Washington’s hidden agenda is to dismantle Russia’s strategic and economic interests in the Eurasian corridor, close down or take over its military facilities, while transforming the former Soviet republics (and eventually the Russian Federation) into American protectorates:
It becomes clear that the intention to join NATO expressed by Mr. Putin in an offhand manner last year , reflected a long matured idea of a far deeper (i.e. in relation to the positions previously taken by Gorbachev or Yeltsin) integration of the Russian Federation into the so-called "international community." In fact, the intention is to squeeze Russia into the Western economic, political and military system. Even as a junior partner. Even at the price of sacrificing an independent foreign policy.44/quote]
US DOE Iraq oil
In late July 2003, SOMO signed its first term contracts since the war, for Basra Light oil from Iraq's southern fields. Major purchasers included BP, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, ENI, ExxonMobil, Marathon Oil, Mitsubishi, Petrobras, Repsol, Shell, Sinochem, Total, and Vitol. As of July 2004, Basrah Light reportedly was being priced at around $5 per barrel below dated Brent and $7 per barrel below West Texas Intermediate. On March 8, 2004, SOMO issued a tender for Kirkuk oil via the Turkish port of Ceyhan, the first such sale from Iraq's northern oil fields in a year. The SOMO tender offers 6 million barrels of oil for March 12-19 delivery, to be sold in shipments of 1 or 2 million barrels. In late August 2004, SOMO signed an oil supply contract with Turkey's Tupras for deliveries from September through December, the first "term" deal for Kirkuk oil since March 2003. As of October 2004, Kirkuk was being priced at around $6-$7 per barrel below dated Brent
Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Muaddib, I am not sure. It seems counter productive to the Russians agenda, unless they thought that there would be such a world outcry over the Iraq war that it would have hurt America and its interests in a major way. Or maybe they did not think America had the balls to attack Iraq.
Here is something I have just read. Article
What do you think is behind Russias cooperation?
Russia-s Defence Minister, Sergei Ivanov, declared on Tuesday that Russia reserves the right to attack anywhere at any time to defend itself against international terrorism, including the right to attack any country which harbours terrorists who are preparing or have committed an act of violence against the Russian Federation.
MOSCOW (Agence France-Presse) — Russia reacted with fury yesterday to a U.S. decision granting political asylum to the self-declared foreign minister of separatist Chechnya who is viewed as a "terrorist" by Moscow.
Moscow accused Washington of setting double standards in its global war on terror, in a comment straining relations between two Cold War era foes that had warmed after the September 11 attacks on the United States but have had increasingly frequent chilly spells in recent months.
Originally posted by Gools
The counter planning? The counter moves are already being implemented and China is leading the way with the Russians on-side. See China a Leader in Scramble for Oil.
They are signing deals at breakneck speed and implementing a "string of perls" strategy for their energy supply.
I wonder how many people are aware of Iran's plan to set up a Euro based Oil exchange?
Referring to his meeting with an unnamed al-Qaeda expert at the Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research organization in the U.S., Shebarshin said: “We have agreed that [al-Qaeda] is not a group but a notion. The fight against that all-mighty ubiquitous myth deliberately linked to Islam is of great advantage for the Americans as it targets the oil-rich Muslim regions,” Shebarshin emphasized.
Iran is not out to restructure the whole world. Its leaders merely want to protect their country from external threats. As for supporting terrorists, that's just what the Americans were saying about Iraq only two years ago. They admit now that they were mistaken.
Question: What do you think of the rumors that Iran possesses nuclear weapons or is working on it?
Leonid Shebarshin: IAEA experts have said on more than one occasion that they do not have any complaints against Iran in this respect. Official Washington was annoyed to hear that, every time. The Americans want to prove the contrary, no matter what. I suspect that this pressure applied to Iran could push Iran into looking for means of defending itself or preventing American aggression. Work on nuclear weapons is not an impossibility.
Question: But the IAEA is sending signals nowadays that Tehran may be working on a secret nuclear program.
Leonid Shebarshin: Well, the position of this organization may be changing under pressure from the Americans.
Austrian doctors have confirmed that Ukraine's opposition presidential candidate Victor Yushchenko has been poisoned with dioxin. The highly toxic substance was ingested orally and was probably given to him by a "third party."