It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How U.S. Fell Under the Spell of 'Curveball'

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
Was this part of the war in Iraq faked? Did President George W. Bush fabricate the invasion of Kuwait? Funny that no one likes to talk about this point anymore. On January 12, 1991 after approval from Congress, the United States along with several UN allies, invades Iraq and retakes Kuwiat. Critics stomp their feet in disgust when President Bush leaves Saddam in power in Iraq. Some of the same critics who are today criticizing our removal of Saddam from Iraq.

How Nice that You mentioned Kuwait.

Remember how Taliban were fighting side by side with Americans in Afganistan? Wa both agreed on that. But do you also remember when the Iraq-Iran War broke out, and the US Supported Iraq VERY MUCH, so that they could win against Iran, which is much bigger and had better Chances of Winning. IF the US would not Help Iraq, Iran would prevail in the Middle East, and that SURE was not fitting the American Plans in this Area. Imagine that Afganistan would be occupied by Russians and Iran had won the war with Iraq? That sure would bring a much different picture of Middle East Today. Anyway at that time Saddam has proved to be a Full Time ALLY of the United States and they sold him Weapons and Technology.



Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam on 19 December–20, 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984; the same day the UN released a report that Iraq had used mustard and Tabun nerve gas against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name." NSA Archive Source
en.wikipedia.org...

BUT then the Soviet Union Collapsed and the Soviet Threat in the Middle East was gone. Iraq had won the War with Iran and there was no more threat from the Sunni led Iranian Threat. And everything that happened after that was TAILOR MADE for the Foreign Policy of United States in the Middle East and its Imperialistic Wishes here.

Kuwait was always part of Iraq - actually part of Province of Basra - not until, ofcourse, the British Empire created their Protectorate in 1899. But only in 1946 when enormous Oil reserves were discovered Kuwait gained the Strategic and Economic Location in the Middle East and was ALWAYS protected by the Greedy West, who wanted their Influence first and ofcourse OIL. Saddam bursted that Bubble of Western Infulence by Invading Kuwait. The small oil-rich country quickly became the Tool of US led Campaign to Weaken Iraq and create a US Military Foothold in Middle East once and for all.




Iraq also complained that the Kuwaitis were stealing Iraqi oil by using slant drilling technology into the gigantic Rumaila oil field, most of which is inside Iraq. Kuwait also refused to work out arrangements that would allow Iraq access to the Persian Gulf. In May of 1990 at an Arab League meeting, Saddam Hussein bitterly complained about Kuwait's policy of "economic warfare" against Iraq and hinted that if Kuwait's over-production didn't change Iraq would take military action. Yet the Emir of Kuwait refused to budge. Why would an OPEC country want to drive down the price of oil? In retrospect, it is inconceivable that this tiny, undemocratic little sheikdom, whose ruling family is subject to so much hostility from the Arab masses, would have dared to remain so defiant against Iraq (a country ten times larger than Kuwait) unless Kuwait was assured in advance of protection from an even greater power - namely the United States.

deoxy.org...

The rest was not the War to Liberate Kuwait, but the War to DESTROY IRAQI REGIONAL POWER and a War to start perament US Military presence close to the Oil Rich Reserves of Middle East. Bush Senior REALLY wanted this War to begin, so he again, LIED to the World:



The Bush administration lied when it stated on August 8, 1990, that the purpose of the U.S. troop deployment was "strictly defensive" and necessary to protect Saudi Arabia from an imminent Iraqi invasion. King Hussein of Jordan reports that U.S. troops were actually being deployed to Saudi Arabia in the days before Saudi Arabia "invited" U.S. intervention. Hussein says that in the first days of the crisis Saudi King Fahd expressed Support for an Arab diplomatic solution. King Fahd also told King Hussein that there was no evidence of a hostile Iraqi build-up on the Saudi border, and that despite American assertions, there was no truth to reports that Iraq planned to invade Saudi Arabia.

On September 11, 1990, Bush also told a joint session of Congress that "following negotiations and promises by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein not to use force, a powerful army invaded its trusting and much weaker neighbor, Kuwait. Within three days, 120,000 troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. It was then I decided to act to check that aggression." However, according to Jean Heller of the St. Petersburg Times (of Florida), the facts just weren't as Bush claimed. Satellite photographs taken by the Soviet Union on the precise day Bush addressed Congress failed to show any evidence of Iraqi troops in Kuwait or massing along the Kuwait-Saudi Arabian border. While the Pentagon was claiming as many as 250,000 Iraqi troops in Kuwait, it refused to provide evidence that would contradict the Soviet satellite photos. U.S. forces, encampments, aircraft, camouflaged equipment dumps, staging areas and tracks across the desert can easily be seen. But as Peter Zimmerman, formerly of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in the Reagan Administration, and a former image specialist for the Defense Intelligence Agency, who analyzed the photographs for the St. Petersburg Times said:

We didn't find anything of that sort [i.e. comparable to the U.S. buildup] anywhere in Kuwait. We don't see any tent cities, we don't see congregations of tanks, we can't see troop concentrations, and the main Kuwaiti air base appears deserted. It's five weeks after the invasion, and from what we can see, the Iraqi air force hasn't flown a single fighter to the most strategic air base in Kuwait. There is no infrastructure to support large numbers of people. They have to use toilets, or the functional equivalent. They have to have food.... But where is it?

deoxy.org...

It was never about any Liberation in first or second Gulf War - it was ALWAYS about Regional Power and the US Military Influence in Middle East. Bush Senior and Bush Junior both wanted Iraq for themselves and they both had Plans to do that long time, before any of the so-called "Reasons for War" became public.

Always remember, that EVERYTHING in Politics is FILTHY and ROTTEN to the Core. There is nothing Noble or Chivalrous. There is just GREED for Power and for Money. Nothing More. Nothing Less.

Like Father - Like Son.

[edit on 23/11/05 by Souljah]




posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 08:12 AM
link   
I love that picture.
I'm not arguing those points. The whole make-up of the middle east is a result of British and American influence. I have no doubt that oil plays a major role either. The U.S. doesn't send troops to Sudan even though it has lots of terrorist and mass genocide is taking place there. There's just not enough oil or profit there.

My point was that Saddam could have avoided this mess if he would only have allowed the weapons inspectors to do their job. I know it would be a hard pill to swallow, but a much less painful bit of medicine than where he is now.


You should read "The Hight Cost of Peace" by Yossef Bodansky. It's a bit tiresome in the details but very interesting.

[edit on 23-11-2005 by dbates]



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by NothingMakesSense
Dude, he was making an allusion to current events. Just because you don't understand what he was saying doesn't mean there's nothing there.

Personally, I thought it was very well done.

NMS


I concur. Well done. Souljah's just a little too uptight.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
I love that picture.
I'm not arguing those points. The whole make-up of the middle east is a result of British and American influence. I have no doubt that oil plays a major role either. The U.S. doesn't send troops to Sudan even though it has lots of terrorist and mass genocide is taking place there. There's just not enough oil or profit there.

I am glad we Agree here!



The British did control the Middle East before the WW1 and they meddled with affairs long, long time before any 9-11. The US were involved in Bloody coups in Iran and Iran, they founded both sides in their Long Year Bloody War just to use them as Pawns on the ChessBoard.

There are Terrorists all over the World, Mate - you better be scared of the Terrorists in Million Dollar 3-Piece-Suits then those with Scarfs around their Heads...



My point was that Saddam could have avoided this mess if he would only have allowed the weapons inspectors to do their job. I know it would be a hard pill to swallow, but a much less painful bit of medicine than where he is now.

I don't think Saddam could have AVOID anything - this all was carefully Planned by very SMART men, that did not want him to get away with anything. I think that Saddam's Conviction was signed and approved the Moment that the Iron Curtain Fell and when the US started to seek Reasons for Regional Wars in Middle East in order to maintain the Military Superiority and the status of the ONLY Worldd Superpower.



You should read "The Hight Cost of Peace" by Yossef Bodansky. It's a bit tiresome in the details but very interesting.

I will try to find it in my Library. Thanks for the Tip!




posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman
Link


Mustard gas and cyanide have been found in river water in the Iraqi city of Nasiriyah, coalition forces said yesterday.

The poisonous substances are believed to have been dumped in the Euphrates either by Iraqi soldiers fleeing from American troops or local factories that produced weapons of mass destruction.


How come you are so forgetful, souljah?

[Mod Edit - Please format you links so they do not stretch across the page. There is even a botton to help ]

[edit on 22/11/05 by JAK]


That is no justification for the war at all, those chemicals could of been from US use, or factories could of been producing legit goods with those chemicals... Even if the US did find anything bad in Iraq that would not justify them lying and decieving the world numerous times to get what they want would it?

Or is it ok for the US to lie when it feels its in the right?



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by HiddenReality

That is no justification for the war at all, those chemicals could of been from US use, or factories could of been producing legit goods with those chemicals...


LOL, what legit use does Mustard Gas have ?
I'm dying to know.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL, what legit use does Mustard Gas have ?
I'm dying to know.


It goes good on sushi if you run out of wasabi. Burns like hell, but what flavor!

I am sorry, but I could not resist such an open invitaion.


Seriously though:
I don't live too far from a location where mustard gas is stored. I can tell you that even old stockpiles don't breakdown very well. A lot of the stuff has seeped into the ground polluting the water supply at the location. There is an unusally high occurance of cancer at that facility. Anyone who drank the water while working there has a higher risk. It is stored there because they cannot find a cheap way to destroy it or move it. Considering that bit of information, there is no legit use of mustard agent.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Ahmed Abdel Hadi Chalabi1 (Arabic: احمد الجلبي) (born October 30, 1944) is a deputy prime minister in Iraq, and formerly interim oil minister [1]. Once dubbed the "George Washington of Iraq" by American Neoconservatives, he has since fallen out of favor and is currently under investigation by several government sources



Chalabi is a highly controversial figure for many reasons. In the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, under his guidance the INC provided a major portion of the information on which U.S. Intelligence based its condemnation of Saddam Hussein, including reports of weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to al-Qaeda. Much of this information has turned out to be false, and led to a recent falling out between him and the United States. Initially, Chalabi enjoyed a cozy political and business relationships with some members of the U.S. government, including some prominent neoconservatives within the Pentagon. Chalabi is said to have had political contacts within the Project for the New American Century, most notably with Paul Wolfowitz, a student of nuclear strategist Albert Wohlstetter and Richard Perle who was introduced to Chalabi by Wohlstetter in 1985. He also enjoyed considerable support among politicians and political pundits in the United States, most notably Jim Hoagland of The Washington Post, who held him up as a notable force for democracy in Iraq. Chalabi's opponents, on the other hand see him as a charlatan of questionable allegiance, out of touch with Iraq and with no effective power base there, and an escrow.

From Wikipedia

Some More Stuff on mister CurveBall:
How Ahmed Chalabi conned the neocons
Ahmed Chalabi's List of Suckers
BBC: Chalabi US trip stirs controversy
Rumsfeld's personal spy ring
US Paid $1m for 'Useless Intelligence' from Chalabi
Iraq judge orders Chalabi's arrest
The Truth About Ahmed Chalabi
Chalabi aide reportedly wanted for spying
The LIE Factory: Inside Bush Disinformation
Profile: Ahmed Chalabi
Chalabi stands by faulty intelligence that toppled Saddam's regime
Ahmad Chalabi's House of Games

Enjoy!



[edit on 25/11/05 by Souljah]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   
It looks like the "Curveball" saga is coming to light again as Newsnight, a BBC mainstream political news, review and debate programme, is asking Why?

Newsnight Homepage

I anticipate the programme being available to view on BBCi sometime in the next few days.

Ironic as tonight there was a vote in the House of Commons on having a full inquiry into the Iraqi war which was defeated, apparently its not the right time.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Koka
I anticipate the programme being available to view on BBCi sometime in the next few days.


Related BBC Newsplayer (available to all) Curveball

Not the full show, but the main piece from it.

Now then - with regards to the "Saddam didn't cooperate with the weapons inspectors" and "selective memory arguments", it seems that there is also some selective memory at play by those claiming them.

Remember how much time and effort was put in by the Bush administration to actively discredit the UN and its weapons inspectors at the time? I do. I distinctly remember some very very pointed remarks about how useless Hans Blix was

As arms inspectors arrive, row erupts over US smears

Chief UN chemical weapons inspector hits back at U.S. criticism

Former weapons inspector: Iraq not a threat

The Bush administration wanted a war in Iraq. Plain and simple. The plans were laid down as soon as Bush came into office. It wasn't a question of compliance, it was just a question of when and 9/11 - a totally unreleated incident - gave the perfect excuse for it.

The Iraqi's were not to be believed, and neither was the UN. If you watch the "Curveball" article I posted above the whole thing was based off a single source who had left Iraq 5 years earlier.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join