USA Secretly Attempts to Undermine Syrian Government

Originally posted by intelgurl
Korea - UN Action
Vietnam - UN Action / after France brought the conflict up at the UN

So the Gulf of Tonkin had nothing to do with it? I remember it as being pretty much exclusively an American action. God knows Ann Coulter tried to make out that Canadians were involved too, but they did no fighting. And Harold Wilson, unlike Bliar, kept the UK out of the war. I don't accept that as being a UN action, I'm afraid.

Cambodia - Bombing & black ops / spillover from Vietnam war
Laos - Bombing & black ops / spillover from Vietnam war

And does that make it somehow magically all right? Is that some sort of excuse?

Panama - Unilateral Action
Grenada - Unilateral Action / was not even a blip on the radar until it was determined that US citizens (medical personnel and students) were very much in danger

No, they weren't. It was just Reagan doing a bit of pointless sabre-rattling. No-one was in danger.

Yugoslavia - another UN action

I think you'll find it was NATO, led front and centre by Clinton. And when you look into it, you also find that it was the result of US policies designed to destabilise the last remaining Communist state in Europe.

Sudan - UN action?

No. Clinton - at the same time as the Lewinsky hearings - had a bombing raid done on what he described as a "chemical weapons factory". It was in fact a pharmaceutical factory, the only one in the country making vital medicines.

Iraq - Gulf War 1, UN action

Ever read the transcript of the meeting between April Glaspie and Saddam two weeks before he invaded Kuwait? She pretty much tells him to go ahead, the US won't interfere. She makes it very plain that this is a message from James Baker, then US secretary of state: the US has no interest in Kuwait.

She hasn't given an interview ever since. Funny that. They say there's a gag order on her. I wonder why?

Iraq - Gulf War 2, stupid Unilateral action
Tell me if this list looks correct to you as I don't have time to look anything up...
So when you add up the non-UN invasions that leaves?

Ok, give you the Korean war. Didn't know much about it and it seems the NKs invaded the south. I'm not buying Vietnam as a UN action, no way. The Gulf of Tonkin incident is known to be a manufactured event; the US was spoiling for a fight. Somewhere over four million people died in Indochina in the ensuing ruckus. Cambodia and Laos were war crimes: there was no declaration of war against them but the US waged secret (because Nixon knew they were illegal) bombing campaigns, and then, when the Vietnamese (having kicked out the US successfully) invaded Cambodia and deposed Pol Pot, ending the "Year Zero" nightmare, the US supported Pol Pot against them!

As for Gulf War I, having read the Glaspie/Hussein transcript, I'm now inclined to believe that it was either the most monumentally stupid piece of diplomacy since Chamberlain's "peace in our times" nonsense, or it was givng Saddam a sneaky green light to sort out his problems with Kuwait. That invasion didn't come out of the blue, you know. Hussein had grievances, to do with Kuwaiti drilling into his oil fields and overproducing on their quotas which destabilised his economy. They may not seem like much, but the US has invaded countries for far flimsier reasons.

And the US went from no.4 supplier of arms in the region before the war... to no.1 after the war. Funny that.

Originally posted by rich23Even the Soviet Union only managed Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, and they were invited into Afghanistan...

You may want to add Hungary (1956) and in the post Soviet years, Chechnya.

Yup, forgot about Hungary. It still doesn't begin to equal the number of countries the US has invaded, though, does it?

Originally posted by rich23Let alone the numerous countries whose democratic regimes the US has subverted, Iran and Iraq being two pertinent cases.

Saddam's Iraq? Democratic? Just because elections are "held" does not make it a democracy. That's a stretch for an educated person such as yourself.

Oh dear... actually, the "democracy" thing was a bit of a slip, but not the way you think. In the fifties, a guy called Mossadegh was democratically elected President of Iran. He decided to kick out the multinationals and get a nationalised company to exploit the oil reserves of his country. The British wanted him removed immediately, but it took a change of president in the US (Eisenhower) for the UK and US to embark on a joint venture to overthrow Mossadegh. Kermit Roosevelt (who I think was Teddy's grandson) ran the operation, and the Shah was installed. The US trained and equipped one of the most vicious secret police services on the planet, SAVAK, who disappeared and tortured with gay abandon until the Shah's overthrow. Iran was a thriving democracy until the US got involved; afterwards, in a classic case of "blowback", it became a theocracy. They used to call the US embassy "the nest of spies". Ever wonder why Iranians call the US "the Great Satan"? It's because they remember the torture and murder of SAVAK, and they know who was responsible.

The Iraq thing was not a reference to Saddam. It was actually a reference to a guy called Qasim, who took power (though not democratically, hence the slip) but at least peacefully, around the same time, and with the same policies, as Mossadegh.

The US hired a thug called Saddam Hussein to assassinate Qasim. He failed, but the US backed Saddam's party (the Ba'athists) and Hussein eventually fought his way to the top. The US then backed Iran and Iraq in their war. There was something about Kissinger saying something like "the more Arabs kill each other, the better".

I also find it interesting that you do not pull the Soviet Union/Russia comparison into this statement since you felt it necessary to draw a similar comparison when bringing up military invasions.

I was just trying to find an example of one other country in the world that had thrown its weight about. I'd forgotten about Hungary... but I think that my point is still pretty much made.

Originally posted by Muaddib
and he was not voted in office in 2005 by the Iraqi people...which clearly demonstrate the Iraqi people can vote now, something they were never able to do under Saddam's regime....

BTW...how convinient that once again when talking about what is happening in Syria some people want to derail the topic because they apparently can't deny the facts.

The Syrian regime supports and funds violent jihad abroad yet you don't say anything about that... the U.S. supports the oposition, which the article clearly mentions is not violent, and the U.S. is the bad guy......

No Chalabi wasn't but why should he need office when he and his cohorts absconded with millions and who knows maybe more...hundreds of millions are missing from Iraq. Someone snagged it.

I have never heard or read about Assad himself calling for any Jihads against America so anything is heresay. Just because people in his country call for it doesn't mean they speak on his behalf. In Olmerts government you have Avigdor Lieberman as a government representative and he called for the bombing of the Aswan Dam to kill millions of people , yet Olmert says its not his own feelings. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Many Americans call for the entire Middle east to be made into a "parking lot" or a "sheet of glass" so should we claim Bush calls for Crusade upon not only Muslims but Christians, Druze, Protestant, Baptists and whatever else is in the Middle East. Come on! You needed me to reply to this?

Pie

Originally posted by yanchek

That is simply not true.

From OP's article
.............
So US is supporting a militant islamic organization with a long history of violence and all of the sudden they are peaceful and democratic. As I understand militant radical Islam and peace, freedom and democracy don't mix.
..........

I should have read the whole article, i only read half of it, and in the beginning it does say those who the U.S. are supporting want to have "meetings and use propaganda" to influence the elections there, but i guess the old saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" still stands to this day, and it is used when enemies are fought.... i guess that means the U.S. is evil...

Lets see some of the things Syria has done...shall we?...

Although Syria has not been involved direclty in terrorism since 1986, that we know of, the world knows that Syria has supported, funded and aided indirectly terrorism abroad.

Does Syria sponsor terrorism?
Yes. Syria, a secular dictatorship with one of the world’s worst human rights records, has been on the State Department list of countries sponsoring terrorism since the list’s inception in 1979. However, Syria has not been directly involved in terrorist operations since 1986, according to the State Department, and it bars Syria-based groups from launching attacks from Syria or targeting Westerners. Some experts characterize Syria’s involvement in terrorism as “passive support.” But Syria has been involved in numerous past terrorist acts and still supports several terrorist groups.

What terrorist groups has Syria supported?
Syria—along with Iran—gives the Lebanese militia Hezbollah "substantial amounts of financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic, and organizational aid," according to the State Department. Iranian arms bound for Hezbollah regularly pass through Syria, experts say. Syria, which has effectively occupied and controlled neighboring Lebanon since 1990, has also let Hezbollah operate in Lebanon and attack Israel, often ratcheting up regional tensions.

www.cfr.org...

Nov. 8, 2004 issue - Ali's sense of outrage moved him to sign up. The thought of U.S. troops around the holy shrines of Karbala and Najaf "made me sick," says the 25-year-old Lebanese Shiite. So a few months ago he joined a group of 50 or so men from the town of Baalbek, in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, who had decided to fight in the Iraqi resistance. They traveled to the battlefield by way of Damascus.

Ali rode in the back of a pickup from the Syrian capital across the Iraqi border with five other enlistees, all of them carrying false Iraqi IDs issued to them in Syria.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Oh, and btw, since you mentioned the Muslim brotherhood, lets see some more information on what happened on one of the uprisings that they had in 1982 in Syria and some of the beef they have with the Syrian regime.

Also, experts say, Syria, which is ruled mostly by Alawites, an often marginalized Shiite sect, is more broadly concerned that Islamists could rally the country’s Sunni majority against the regime. So in the past, the dictatorial Baath Party has dealt harshly with domestic Islamists. In 1982, Assad quashed an uprising organized by the Muslim Brotherhood, a Sunni group, in the central Syrian city of Hama, bulldozing neighborhoods and killing an estimated 10,000 people. The brutal response to the Hama uprising deterred further Islamist activism in Syria, experts say.

www.cfr.org...



[edit on 22-12-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by rich23

Why does it come as no surprise to me that you would have supported the Nazi government of Germany over a newspaper editor who wanted to expose its aggression?
.................

Actually, that is what we can say about you... You are trying to defend the regime of Syria, a regime which is run by a minority group, the Alawite, and they rule against the majority of people in Syria which are 74% of the country which are Sunnis. The Alawites represent less than 16% of the population of Syria.

The ethnic term Syrian includes all Arabic speaking Sunni Muslim, and Greek and Roman Christian Fellahin within the Levant (Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and the Palestinian Territories). Syria's population is 90% Muslim—74% Sunni, and 16% other Muslim groups, including the Alawi, Shi'a, and Druze—and 10% Christian. There also is a small (4,500) Syrian Jewish community.

en.wikipedia.org...


Oh, and lets not forget...

October 21, 2005

Likening the leadership in Damascus to The Sopranos, Steven A. Cook, an Arab affairs expert at the Council, says the UN report on the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri is clear in holding high-level Syrian and Lebanese security and intelligence officials responsible.

www.cfr.org...

But i guess the regime of Syria does not get involved in other countries and helps fund terrorist groups against an ally of the United States?...or even funds terrorists that are fighting the coalition, including the U.S. in Iraq....

[edit on 22-12-2006 by Muaddib]

I hate to derail more the topic of this thread...but i have to respond to some of the claims made in this thread...

Originally posted by rich23
...........
So the Gulf of Tonkin had nothing to do with it? I remember it as being pretty much exclusively an American action. God knows Ann Coulter tried to make out that Canadians were involved too, but they did no fighting. And Harold Wilson, unlike Bliar, kept the UK out of the war. I don't accept that as being a UN action, I'm afraid.

Pfft...then your memory does not serve you well.... There were several wars fought in Vietnam, sometimes the Vietnamese fought against each other without the presence of military forces from other countries, Vietnamese Communists against Vietnamese non-communists, sometimes against other nations such as France which was the first one to get involved... The united States was involved in "one" of the many wars fought in Vietnamese soil. .... Yet you want to claim "it was pretty much exclusively an American action"?.... Are you trying to change the facts of history again rich?....

Originally posted by rich23
Ever read the transcript of the meeting between April Glaspie and Saddam two weeks before he invaded Kuwait? She pretty much tells him to go ahead, the US won't interfere. She makes it very plain that this is a message from James Baker, then US secretary of state: the US has no interest in Kuwait.

So claim some people who want to read what they want to read.... i once heard a member in these same forums claim that Condolezza Rice wanted to start WWIII in a statement she made, after posting the statement it was clear that nowhere was Rice saying anything about wanting to start WWIII...but some people just want to believe what they want to believe....

Originally posted by rich23Even the Soviet Union only managed Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, and they were invited into Afghanistan...

You may want to add Hungary (1956) and in the post Soviet years, Chechnya.

Yeah.. i guess the Russians were invited and welcomed so much that they helped themselves and planted mines all over Afghanistan with the help of the pro-soviet Afghan government forces from 1972 till 1992.

At least 724 million square meters of land in Afghanistan are mined, and this includes rural areas, cities, agricultural land etc. Afghanistan has 29 provinces, of those 29 it is believed that only 2 are free of landmines, a gift from your friendly Soviet forces..... mines which the U.S. Army is clearing out in some areas.... But again this is something you don't hear about from people like rich....he would then have to say something nice about the United States......

Originally posted by rich23
The US hired a thug called Saddam Hussein to assassinate Qasim. He failed, but the US backed Saddam's party (the Ba'athists) and Hussein eventually fought his way to the top. The US then backed Iran and Iraq in their war. There was something about Kissinger saying something like "the more Arabs kill each other, the better".

Let's see again how this claim came about....and what is there to back up this claim..

CIA Suspected

An April 10, 2003, UPI story by Richard Sale, citing anonymous U.S. intelligence sources, claimed that Saddam Hussein, while working as an agent of the CIA, took part in the failed assassination attempt of October 7, 1959. The article cites only anonymous sources, yet its claims have been repeated in dozens of news articles, by The BBC, The Telegraph, CBS, The Boston Globe, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Asia Times, Counterpunch, Z Magazine, Democracy Now, and many others.

www.icdc.com...


That particular claim was made from unidentified sources which have never come up...i wonder why?....and the claim surfaced in 2003.....

But thankfully we actually have reports from the government of Abd al-Karim Qasim, and from the U.S as well as reports in Iraqi newspapers from back then including the findings of the Iraqi police...which of course some people could not provide such evidence because these reports do not back these claims....

Those reports give information such as... (These are some of the photocopies of the reports from back in 1959.)

www.icdc.com

www.icdc.com

www.icdc.com...

The reports from the government of Qasim blamed Communists and some other groups such as anti-Communist Palestinians for the attempted murder, but nowhere do they say anything about the U.S. or the CIA being behind the assassination attempt...but again the truth doesn't seem to sit well with some around here....

Oh... and who is to forget...the Baath party is so "democratic and Capitalistic"...... after all, it is a "Socialist party with Marxist ideas".....

BTW....here is a link to the events surrounding Saddam's rise to power...from China's Daily.

www.chinadaily.com.cn...

Originally posted by rich23
I was just trying to find an example of one other country in the world that had thrown its weight about. I'd forgotten about Hungary... but I think that my point is still pretty much made.

Really?....says who? you?....

I guess in "rich's world" China is not throwing it''s weight and trying to force Taiwan to unify with China with threats to start a war if any attempt is made to write a Constitution...

I guess Russia is not throwing it's weight around still against Chechnya and waging a war against them...

I guess in the eyes of some, the actions made by other governments cease to exist, some people have a vendetta against the United States for whatever reason, and nomatter what they will see to it that history is changed to reflect their claims.

[edit on 22-12-2006 by Muaddib]



Mod Edit: Link format edited. Please review this post.

[edit on 24-12-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Actually, that is what we can say about you... You are trying to defend the regime of Syria,

Incorrect assumption. Wrong, so very wrong. Try to think of it like this. Is going up to people and hitting them wrong? Of course it is. How about if you go and hit a bad guy? Still wrong. If they hit you, then you can hit back. Until then... you leave it alone.

I'm not defending Syria, I'm saying that interfering in other countries' internal affairs is not a sensible or moral thing to do. Whether it's Syria or anybody else, up to and including North Korea.

Do you want me to say it again? I'm NOT DEFENDING SYRIA.

I trust that makes my position clear.

So, I really don't care what you have to say about Syria. It's not relevant.

@ rich23

Riiight... and Syria has not supported terrorists directly against Israel and indireclty against U.S. forces in Iraq?.....

Syria was not getting involved in the politics and armwrestling the Lebanese government and people?.....

If anyone is wrong it is your rich.

[edit on 22-12-2006 by Muaddib]


Mod Note: Trim Those Quotes - Please Review this link



[edit on 24-12-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Riiight... and Syria has not supported terrorists directly against Israel and indireclty against U.S. forces in Iraq?.....

That's Israel's problem: and the US shouldn't be in Iraq, so they deserve whatever they get. Nice and simple.

And Syria shouldn't be in Lebanon either.

Originally posted by rich23

That's Israel's problem: and the US shouldn't be in Iraq, so they deserve whatever they get. Nice and simple.

And Syria shouldn't be in Lebanon either.

Humm...we keep derailing the topic of the thread...

Anyways, first....there is such a thing as allies, but I guess the meaning of that word escapes someone like yourself. I guess you would never help a friend of yours when he/she is in need, even one which you don't always agree with...

Second, if anyone "deserves to be put in their place" it is obvious to be you, again trying to spread propaganda and distorting facts for your personal vendetta, although you are not the only one around here with such an agenda for whatever motives, or maybe you are not well informed and think you are.

Third, even the Russian government gave evidence that Saddam was planning on making terrorist attacks in U.S. soil....and despite President Putin's claim to the world that even that was no excuse for being in Iraq, the fact is if the Russian government, who was always in front of the world claiming the U.S. shouldn't go to war with Iraq, was providing evidence that Saddam was making plans for acts of terrorism in the U.S. So, either they lied, or they used this knowledge to their advantage and to change world opinion against the U.S.

"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.

www.cnn.com...

Did Russian Ambassador Give Saddam the U.S. War Plan?

March 23, 2006 — Following are the ABC News Investigative Unit's summaries of seven documents from Saddam Hussein's government, which the U.S. government has released.

The documents discuss Osama bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda and more.

The full documents can be found on the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office Web site: fmso.leavenworth.army.mil...

abcnews.go.com...


As to the reason/reasons why the Russian government would provide evidence to the U.S. that Saddam was planning terrorist attacks in U.S. soil and U.S. interests abroad, and at the same time providing intelligence to the Iraqi regime of what U.S. forces were doing... we have the fact that Russia and China have called for a new economic system, a "new world economy" and imagine who would be rewarded by such move among a few other countries?

A corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and member of the State Duma (parliament), Glazyev has a decade-long record of opposition to the destructive policies of the existing international financial institutions and the private interests behind them. His 1998 book on the implementation of liberal economics in Russia is titled Genocide. It was Glazyev, who in June 2001 invited Lyndon LaRouche as the keynote witness at special State Duma hearings on the topic of protecting national economies under conditions of global economic breakdown. On several occasions, Glazyev has been summoned, together with a group of senior members of the Academy of Sciences, to brief President Vladimir Putin on ways in which Russian economic policy could be changed in the national interest.

....Glazyev continues to receive major attention from the Russian media, as the Communist Party—on whose slate he runs, although he is not a member—is polling 31% in surveys of popular support, as against 21% for United Russia ("Yedro"), the so-called "party of power." Parliamentary elections are coming up in December.

Asked if Russia should dump the dollar, Glazyev replied that Russia's gold and currency reserves, albeit substantial and growing, "are insufficient to shake the unjust architecture of the world financial system." There are, however, steps to take. He proposed that Russia "meet Europe half way," by shifting from the dollar into euros and rubles; Russia's trade with Europe, at least, need not be denominated in dollars. Also, Russia could agree with other Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) members, and with China and India, to denominate their trade in national currencies, instead of the dollar.

www.larouchepub.com...

Now, to some people around here the above might sound as a good idea, but it wasn't that long ago that a great man, Anatoli Golitsin and many others after him, who defected from Russia spoke of such a plan as described above, to change not only world opinion of the U.S. but to change the balance of power in favour of the Communist agenda desguised as a "socialist" uprising.

Do note that Glazyev runs as a candidate for the Communist Party in Russia, although supposedly he is not a member...how convinient...

Then again for those who want to keep claiming there is no conspiracy in what i am mentioning, the actions made by the Shangai Cooperation Organization tell another story. This organization, which was started by Russia and China, "supposedly to fight terrorism", has some of the member states of the organization such as Iran, known to any other country around the world as a major supporter of terrorism, and one of the last statements from this group is that they are oposing NATO and the U.S.

Some people around here might think that is a good idea...but then again you start looking at some of the things China and Russia have been doing recently to their own people and then perhaps some will understand that such a group being in control of world economics would not be a good idea at all.

World opinion is being changed and controlled to be against the United States, and a lot of people are falling for it.

[edit on 23-12-2006 by Muaddib]



Mod Note: Trim Those Quotes - Please Review this link



[edit on 24-12-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Muaddib
Those Hussein documents as well as audio tapes he liked to make of all his coversations totally proved that Hussein had nothing to do with Al-queda, nothing to do with WMD's and nothing to do with training camps.

As far as Russia tricking us so they could put us into a negative light, thats either a load of horse pucky or well deserved because we had AMERICANS telling us exactly the opposite and saying there was no connection and Bush either chose to ignore it or purposefully accepted the Russians word because it fit his agenda.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Humm...we keep derailing the topic of the thread...

That is hilarious. You say this "we", nice way to spread the blame, but look at your post. It's enormous, and all off-topic. So then we have some little personal digs that you can't resist:

Anyways, first....there is such a thing as allies, but I guess the meaning of that word escapes someone like yourself. I guess you would never help a friend of yours when he/she is in need, even one which you don't always agree with...

Second, if anyone "deserves to be put in their place" it is obvious to be you, again trying to spread propaganda and distorting facts for your personal vendetta, although you are not the only one around here with such an agenda for whatever motives, or maybe you are not well informed and think you are.

Third, even the Russian government gave evidence that Saddam was planning on making terrorist attacks in U.S. soil....

And we're off on a wild goose chase. Or you are, because I switch off at this point in your rant. In fact, I switched off at the point you became patronising and personal.

And I'm loyal to my friends, but I wouldn't do something that was illegal for them. You might, I don't know, but I wouldn't. I would interfere if a friend got into trouble, but I also choose my friends carefully, and I just wouldn't have a friend that behave the way Israel behaves. I don't have that kind of vicious mentality, and I won't tolerate it in my friends, so the situation doesn't arise.

Thanks for the insults. It's alwasy a good sign when someone resorts to personalities and irrelevancy, it shows they know their argument's weak.

[edit on 23-12-2006 by rich23]

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by ThePieMaN

And BTW...read the report, it says the U.S. is supporting meetings of these people who oppose that regime...wow.... The U.S. supports people who are against certain regime and suddenly some want to claim this is bad... I wonder what these same people have to say about such regimes sponsoring people in the U.S. to incite violence and jihad......

Anyone???......

[edit on 21-12-2006 by Muaddib]

Thing is....if it came out the Assiad government was attempting to facilate a coup in the United States, we would be screaming bloody murder. Muaddib is right (hate admitting that) this type of thing is done all the time in the world of real politik but Pieman's point is still valid, it is a double standard in play here. We reserve the right to meddle in others internal affairs but God help the one's who try and meddle in ours. Also it is this very type of thing that the west (primarily Britain and the United States, but others as well) has done so often in the Middle East that fosters such a deep and abiding hatred of them.


mod edit to fix quote tags

[edit on 24-12-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Muaddib
Those Hussein documents as well as audio tapes he liked to make of all his coversations totally proved that Hussein had nothing to do with Al-queda, nothing to do with WMD's and nothing to do with training camps.

Excuse me?... What is it with people wanting to change the facts around here?... Is it en vogue these days to twist the truth and come up with something entirely different than what the evidence shows?

On February 15, ABC investigative reporter Brian Ross delivered an exclusive report on World News Tonight and Nightline that purported to be a bombshell. ABC had obtained tape-recorded conversations from mid-1995 that seemed to show that Iraq had been concealing its weapons of mass destruction program. The tapes, according to Ross, "will only serve to fuel the continuing debate about Saddam's true intentions and whether he, in fact, did hide weapons of mass destruction." But ABC viewers were left in the dark about information that would undermine the tape's most important revelations.

Audiotapes of Saddam Hussein and his aides underscore the Bush administration's argument that Baghdad was determined to rebuild its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction once the international community had tired of inspections and left the Iraqi dictator alone.
In addition to the captured tapes, U.S. officials are analyzing thousands of pages of newly translated Iraqi documents that tell of Saddam seeking uranium from Africa in the mid-1990s.
The documents also speak of burying prohibited missiles, according to a government official familiar with the declassification process.
.........
Mr. Tierney said that the quote from the Saddam aide, and scores of others, show Saddam was rebuilding his once-ample weapons stocks.
"The tapes show that Saddam rebuilt his program and successfully prevented the U.N. from finding out about it," he said.
There also exists a quote from the dictator himself, who ordered the tapings to keep a record of his inner-sanctum discussions, that Mr. Tierney thinks shows Saddam planned to use a proxy to attack the United States.
"Terrorism is coming ... with the Americans," Saddam said. "With the Americans, two years ago, not a long while ago, with the English I believe, there was a campaign ... with one of them, that in the future there would be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction."

www.washingtontimes.com...

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
As far as Russia tricking us so they could put us into a negative light, thats either a load of horse pucky or well deserved because we had AMERICANS telling us exactly the opposite and saying there was no connection and Bush either chose to ignore it or purposefully accepted the Russians word because it fit his agenda.

There were also people in U.S. intelligence who said Saddam was seeking to acquire these weapons... Not all "AMERICANS" working in intelligence said what you claim they were saying...

This is another topic, but I will continue to show information to the contrary of what some people are claiming around here even if it derails the topic.

[edit on 24-12-2006 by Muaddib]

You have voted rich23 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

spot on the money rich.
We have no right to be in Iraq.
Anything said in defense of that is VOID.
We have no right to be mingling in another countries leadership race, we can barely hold a fair and legitimate one ourselves, so obviously what ever we are doing to 'other' governments elections isnt legitimate.

there is good reason why the world considers the US very GUN HO and being run by its military-industrial concepts.

It always 'ends up' involved one way or another, maniuplating or directing a countries demise through military force, or direct intervention. Some times the people find a way to fix the problem before it gets totally out of control, sometimes they dont.

Unfortunately for you, and I... it seems the US has bitten of a little to much this time.
Its a shame the people cant see it.

[edit on 24-12-2006 by Agit8dChop]

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Time Magazine reported that secret documents have been uncovered that show The Bush Administration has been covertly attempting to influence the outcome of the upcoming Syrian presidential election.

Please Stay on Topic

Originally posted by rich23
......................
Thanks for the insults. It's alwasy a good sign when someone resorts to personalities and irrelevancy, it shows they know their argument's weak.

Insults?.... You claim and respond saying "U.S. deserves whatever they get" among some other things and then cry when your claims and distortions of the truth are shown to be wrong?... nice try...

[edit on 24-12-2006 by Muaddib]

did Iraq deserve what they are enduring?
The US got hit, so they felt compelled and justified in retaliating against that crime by attacking Iraq.
Isnt it fair that Iraq should also then be justified in retaliating for the crime committed agasinst them?

Or atleast, when Iraqi's defend themselves against an agressor, and the neighbours help.. isnt the agressor who is committing the illegial act deserviing of being retaliated against?

Or are you saying the US should be able to invade and occupy, and label anyone who defends themselves terrorists?

You cant have it both ways.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop


Or are you saying the US should be able to invade and occupy, and label anyone who defends themselves terrorists?

You cant have it both ways.

I think they expect people to just sit back and take it. Just look at the palestinians and your question should already be answered. Of course they expect to be able to kick people squarley in the testicles and they should just lie there in pain and accept it.

and who is bringing most of the suffering to the Iraqi people?... It is the same people some around here claim "are fighting for the Iraqis". More Iraqis have died by insurgents hands, than coalition forces have been killed by the same insurgents some in here keep claiming have the say of all the Iraqi people.

[edit on 24-12-2006 by Muaddib]

I think its a mixture of American actions, and internal factions.
But be honest, had the US never of committed this illegial act, the sectarian strife wouldnt be occuring... correct?

So isnt the killings being committed a direct result from US intervention?