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.

 

ATS: Pentagon Report: Russian Pre-War Intelligence Given to Saddam

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Hum. . . military. . . high ranking. . . for some reason Rumsfeld comes to mind, I don't know why and it kind of sounds ridiculous, but you never know if the information was allowed to be leaked in purpose or not.



Marg you can take off your tinfoil hat it isn't working.

Members of the senate tried for months to get this released, which is proof it was not released on purpose.

Also spying is and has been used for ages. China Spies on Canada, Canada spies on US as do the British and vice versa. Germany spied on Saddam for us. We spied on Argentina for the British back during the Falkland Island invasion. Hell the whole world is exchanging what ever intelligence they get about Osma and da terrorists right now.




posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Given that the initial Iraq campaign went so well for the US, isn't it possible that US Intelligence in Qatar was "feeding" disinformation about US plans to the Russians?

I understand that US military capabilities were light-years beyond what the Iraqi's had, but it seems to me that if Saddam's military were getting accurate info they would have been able to respond more effectively.

Was this a matter of Saddam taking the "Hitler" approach and refusing to listen to his military planners?

Or, was it simply the fact that American military supremacy made any attempts at utilizing Russian supplied info null and void?

Or, was it disinfo to begin with?

Or any combination of the above?



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   
According to the news on Yahoo this morning the Russians are denying giving Iraq intelligence.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   
I was just going to post what apocalypticon did.

Iraq may have been given bad information from the Russians who were actually helping us. Maybe they knew they had they Iraqi ear and passed this false info on while knowing so. I would like this to be true cause it means the Russians may be more friendly than we think. I doubt this to be the case though.

I would tend to think, like apocalypticon, that we gave the Russians bad information because we actually knew the Russians were giving info to the Iraqi military. We may have been the ones who played them and maybe we really are on top of the intel game. Maybe we know all about some of the people who are inside our military and we use it against them.

These are the two most likely scenarios.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Marg you can take off your tinfoil hat it isn't working.



I tell you what I do not trust the reason why this information is coming out now.

I will echo what my husband said when he heard the news on this one.

"Kind of late now after 3 years to bring this up"

I think that is just another propaganda tool and also I believe that the information given by Russians to Iraq was planned.

You know why?

Because it did nothing to stop the US invasion after all.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liquidus
First off, I think your claims that Russia sold Iraq WMD's as well as transported them back out of the country are quite ignorant. Such a feat could but never would be pulled off with all the political implications that could result.


Just like France didn't sell them weapon's either. Oh please, come on all the Post-Gulf War weapons that were found were either Russian or France. I'm not pro-war, I just accepted long ago Saddam was on the fiddle like most political students. Especailly those from Russia, like myself. :-)

Also, what implications? French missiles were found, as were parts in 2004 and what happend to France? Nothing.The veto in the U.N. makes sure nothing can happen to the Big 5 and Russia know this, they also know that the gains from this war are worth the risk.


Originally posted by Liquidus
In fact, before you say that "the U.S. got played" you should understand that the U.S. didn't play anyone but themselves. They should have goten all their facts straight before they went in. You simply can't pin this whole war on Russia because each country that is part of the "Coalition" in Iraq is there for some personal benefit.


Nor do I point it all on Russia, I was just pointing out some rather important informationg on where the W.M.D. came from, and the gains from it. Just like Muaddib has done. What more do you need? The Russian Government and Military Officals, have said this allowed them to judge the U.S. and then you have the Tri-Alliance that Russia are making, along with their Middle Eastern friendship and training with China. It's all a blatent front to the United State's and this allainces, along with a way of making them weak. France as a great example of this, who are now more linked with the Middle East and less with America, weakening the U.S. if worst comes to worst.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Because it did nothing to stop the US invasion after all.


Kind of hard for the information to have stopped the US invasion when it was in the hands of the Iraqis wouldn't you say?

Also how can it be propaganda when several members (both Dems and Reps) did not want the information released? Common sense dictates that at least the Democrats wold have wanted it released just for the sake of being able to point possible faults within the current administration, but then unlike you, I am not wearing my tin foil hat



Keep in mind there are still several million documents and hundreds if not thousands of tapes too sort through before this is all over and it will take years to sift through all of it, so it would behoove us all to be very patient before jumping and making allegations.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackhumvee113
How do we know this is actually true, number one like almost everyone has said, why didnt the iraqi military put up more of a fight, number two, why isnt russia doing anything, if it was true im sure theyd be denying everything left and right.


Well there are a great many sources ( including some Russian intelligence agencies ) that suggest that the US has suffered 10 000 or more dead and with a great many more wounded. There is certainly some evidence to suggest that 2300 number is nowhere near the truth but i can't say i believe the much higher claim either. Whatever the truth of the matter the Russians ( going by what they say) might think the US is losing fast enough going by that logic.


AND if it is true, why isnt the U.S. doing anything about it, wouldnt you expect Bush to go to Russia to talk about it with Russian leaders?


Because there is nothing the US has that threatens Russia in any serious way. Bush can not really fly to Russia as that never looks good in the long run.



As for the newer weapons *not wmds*but like night vision goggles and that sort, thats the first im hearing about that.


Not sure where your going but therea are far more dangerous weapons being used than night vision equipment.


And not to go off subject but what ever happened to everything going on in afganistan, you dont hear about troops dying over there or anything about bin laden, when hes the whole reason why we are fighting in afganistan and iraq......thats just my question and sorry if this leads off topic


Well American and allied troops are still dying in both countries and according to Russian sources their dying much faster than publicly admitted. There really is nothing good to say about either wars so the American media will try to distract people as much as possible. Bin laden was never the reason for the invasion of Afghanistan as there were other ways of getting him out. There was a deal where the Taliban offered to send him to Pakistan but this was turned down by the US administration without even bothering to explore it.

Stellar

[edit on 25-3-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Just like France didn't sell them weapon's either. Oh please, come on all the Post-Gulf War weapons that were found were either Russian or France. I'm not pro-war, I just accepted long ago Saddam was on the fiddle like most political students. Especailly those from Russia, like myself. :-)

Also, what implications? French missiles were found, as were parts in 2004 and what happend to France? Nothing.The veto in the U.N. makes sure nothing can happen to the Big 5 and Russia know this, they also know that the gains from this war are worth the risk.


Well your argument is fair game, but the Gulf War was different, Russia backed Saddam during the Gulf War and yes they did provide millitary training and weaponry. But back then it was the USSR helping Iraq and putting pressure on the U.S. and they knew the invasion was iminent. Today it is quite a different story. If WMD were indeed found then they are nowhere near recent and probably date back to the first Gulf War.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
shots

No information is going to take away the fact that US invaded Iraq, that Iraq is a mess and still the MWDs were never found.

The government can release anything they want and still the issue will remain the same.

Saddam is out, Russia is still Russia and Al-qaida is still live enough to make treats anytime they feel like it.

What have change? nothing have change but a deficit in our country that no even our great grand children will be able to fix.

Now tell me what is US going to do to Russia for what they did?

No a thing.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   
why didn't the Iraqi military put up more of a fight?

After 10 years of crippling sanctions they didn't have all that much to fight with. Also consider
if you had the most powerful military in the world bearing down on you, standing and fighting isn't a practial option, better to fade away and wage a gurrilla war. Guess what's happening? Beisdes all this, what better proof that the Bush administration hyped Saddam's "threat" to us than the paltry showing of his military, in both gulf wars? I know Muaddib will haul out all his "facts" (selectively chosen) to prove that other countries thought he was a threat too...but ya know, few if any of them had informants on the ground AND it highlights a general fallacy of the so called 'information age" that information is knowledge, and it isn't, information is what you get from a book or report or assets on the ground etc, knowledge coming from doing, from learning, from getting your hands dirty.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover

if you had the most powerful military in the world bearing down on you, standing and fighting isn't a practial option, better to fade away and wage a gurrilla war. Guess what's happening?


If you read the article it also pointed out that there is no direct link between Saddam's pre war planning and the insurgency. That is to say that Saddam didn't stockpile weapons for a guerilla war but rather the insurgency is just the result of ethnic strife.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   
the insurgency started out AGAINST the American occupation and has only developed as an ethnic conflict with the formation of an Iraqi (puppet) government.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
the insurgency started out AGAINST the American occupation and has only developed as an ethnic conflict with the formation of an Iraqi (puppet) government.


And by labeling it a puppet government are you saying that there would be less ethnic strife without one, just let all the iraqis shoot each other to death and howevers left cant make the rules?



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Actually is not real government in Iraq as now, the country is in a very precarious situation because of the problems with the sectarian violence.

The last elections were to elect the people to form the government until elections would be held in the near future.

Right now any time that they get together to discuss how to form their government more violence brakes out.

Also most of the people elected for the organization of the government are under attacks too.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47

Originally posted by grover
the insurgency started out AGAINST the American occupation and has only developed as an ethnic conflict with the formation of an Iraqi (puppet) government.


And by labeling it a puppet government are you saying that there would be less ethnic strife without one, just let all the iraqis shoot each other to death and howevers left cant make the rules?


Is that what I said? NO!!! I didn't. I said exactly what i intended to say so stop reading things I didn't state or imply, into it. What government is in Iraq is propped up by us, without whom, it would fall (and still might); we have the might and we call the shots...what else would you call it?



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Is that what I said? NO!!! I didn't. I said exactly what i intended to say so stop reading things I didn't state or imply, into it. What government is in Iraq is propped up by us, without whom, it would fall (and still might); we have the might and we call the shots...what else would you call it?


Seems like that hit a nerve?

I would call it what it is, a transitional government in a country crawling out from 30 years of dictatorship.

A puppet government is the type of thing the USSR would put up in places like the Czech republic.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   
what if the U.S. gave russia fake info to see if theyd go on and give it to the iraqis, maybe it was like a little test to see if they can be trusted


or like someone said above*sorry i cant remember your name* maybe the us told russia some fake info and wanted the russians to work with the US and give the iraqis fake info so when theyd be expecting to get attacked from a certain place the army and marines could have attacked them from a different angle or even from behind



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
...................
I know Muaddib will haul out all his "facts" (selectively chosen) to prove that other countries thought he was a threat too...\
....................


I don bring out "my facts" grover.... I bring out, "the facts", there is a difference.... And where are your facts? if you believe these are only my facts?

All I have ever seen you do,"ever", is write your biased opinion without backing anything you say.

Nice try anyways.

[edit on 25-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Newsweek is going with the idea that the intel, at least, was bad. Here's the link:

msnbc.msn.com...

This is essentially what I had heard earlier on CNN. Whether or not the Russians were conscious that the intel was bad is another thing (if it turns out to be true).

So, it could still have been an MI disinformation thing.

It could, as CNN opined earlier, also account for Saddam's refusal to follow his field commander's advice and destroy bridges south of Baghdad because he believed he would need them for a counterstrike against an expected Shia uprising in the south.

[edit on 3/26/2006 by apocalypticon]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join