Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

NEWS: Iraq Invasion Was to Protect Israel

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 01:22 PM
link   
"It's the threat against Israel". These were the words of Philip Zelikow given in 2002 when he was asked why the U.S. was planning on attacking Iraq. Zelikow is the executive director of the 9/11 Commission and a former member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB). Zelikow suggest that one of the prime reasons for the invasion was to protect the ally Israel, and not because Iraq was a threat to the U.S.
 

Asia Times online
WASHINGTON - Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States, but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.

Inter Press Service uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the US in September 2001 - the 9/11 commission - in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch US ally in the Middle East.

Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of US President George W Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of Saddam and its concern for Israel's security.


Philip Zelikow believes that there is ample evidence that Iraq was preparing for a nuclear exchange with Israel. Iraq was spending millions in protecting their communication from electromagnetic pulses, which is a side effect of nuclear war. Iraqi officials had to know that a nuclear exchange with the U.S. was impossible. They did not even have missiles that would reach the United States. Iraq also was known to have close ties to Hamas. Washington feared that Hamas could obtain chemical weapons from Iraq to use against the Israelis.

What is clearly obvious is the U.S. had made up its mind on invading Iraq, and it was looking for a valid reason to give to the public. Hopefully the 9/11 Commission will bring into the public light, what the real reason for invasion was. If it comes out that protection of Israel was the real reason for invasion, the Arab world will lose what little trust they have for the U.S

Related Articles:
Philip D. Zelikow - Executive Director, 9/11 Commission

Related ATS Discussions:
What was the real reason for the war in iraq?
US calls off search for WMD !!!



[Edited on 31-3-2004 by dbates]




posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I read a similar article and it does make you wonder....especially with all these negatives around the Bush administration and the Iraq War...I personally had felt that Bush Jr, was on a personal vendetta for his daddy...but now i am not so sure.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 01:58 PM
link   
all these different reasons and scenarios as for the reason of invading Iraq... I have no idea what to believe and don't know if I want to take the time to form an opinion of my own...



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Nothing else really makes sense. We had all ready invaded Afganistan, which was the home of the Taliban and al Qaeda. This was the real threat to the U.S. Iraq does not have the capability to strike the United States. Invading has not given the U.S. a more stable flow of oil. Where is the benifit? The answer is that the benifit is not here, its in Israel.
Watch for similar efforts in Iran, if this is true. Iran has the long-range missiles, and is working on nuclear weapons.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 02:02 PM
link   
DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

It was all about Israel, well most of it.

It had nothing to do with the WMD's.

It's all about Israel. America is basically a slave for Israel. Whatever Israel says America does because of the "oh so poor Jews being terrorized in Israel."

"The Jews control America and the Americans know it." -Ariel Sharon



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 02:04 PM
link   
well we have two fronts right now, mideast and korea/taiwan.

we need isreal for the mideast for the oil. so while the EU is pushing against us through that region we have china and using economy and koreas/taiwan to push against us while we are weak and spread.

internally we have the new civil war of the dem /republican.

so it looks like a good start for socialists this year



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 02:05 PM
link   
I think all these "single issue" explanations for invading Iraq are more a political tool for advancing one's beliefs as much as fact.

How much indication was ever found that Iraq actually had Nucleur weapons that they would have used on Israel?

None...

Could they have been hardening their own bases to protect themselves from further American attacks? or other nations?

Probably likely.

Still there will be a hard core of anti israel / "Jews rule the world" / "White supremasist" fanatics who will gnash their teeth, and agree with everything written.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 02:11 PM
link   
After seeing what Pakistan did for nuclear poliferation, you could just assume that they would have given Iraq nuclear technology for a small price. Israel bombed Iraq's nucelar facilities in the 80's so developing the weapons in country probably wasn't an option.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Good point DB, I'd accept that, the technology does seem to be floating around quite freely, just look how close Libya was at developing a bomb.

Based then on the following:
  • the need to protect Israel,
  • the need to secure oil resources,
  • the need to be able to create an oil pipline through afghanastan and neighbouring coutries,
  • the need to remove a proven unstable leader,
  • The need to take the battle against Islamic extremists out of America to a 3rd country,
  • The need (possibly) to help oppressed minorities in Iraq (not that they ever cared before or in other countries like Zimbabwe)
  • etc etc
then there are PLENTY of reasons for having invaded Iraq, it DOES start to seem like a good idea...

[Edited on 30-3-2004 by Netchicken]



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 02:31 PM
link   
so if the invasion was all about protecting Israel, which is right, just and Godly for America to do....well, then where are the WMD? What about the rumours that Saddam moved his WMD and missels to Syria?

That there aren't any WMD in Iraq is the most suspicious of all to me. He had plenty of time to ship
his booty to his neighbors. I just don't trust the fact that nothing has been found.

Its somewhere. Otherwise why in the world would Saddam have played the hide and seek, take me to the brink diplomacy that he did for so long?

As for protecting Israel, the day we stop protecting that country will signal the end of America. First of all, it's too Biblical not result in our utter ruin. Secondly,
Israel is the only scrap of land in the entire middle east that is based solely on Democracy.

If the first reason doesn't get your support, then the second should automatically if you're an American.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Oh gee, I thought it was all about OIL!!! I wish these people would make up their minds.

Quote from article: "one of the prime reasons..."

Hmmm, what were the other "prime reasons"? How many of these prime reasons were there? 5, 10 100?

Look for more of this crap as the election draws closer. The Dems are desparate, because their internal polls show that they are in big trouble. Iraq will be the only straw left soon, as the economy and employment continue to improve into the election season.

When all your issues are losers, attack the person, and ignore the only real issue which is:

We lost one million jobs within 3 weeks of 9-11. Terrorists are the real threat to our economy, not job outsourcing, which is 200 years old. Al Qaida sleeper cells are in America now, planning attacks. Some of them are American citizens, and they can vote. Who do you think they will be voting for?



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 03:11 PM
link   
about this israel thing...i've been reading quite a few articles in which American Jews are against support of Israel and zionism. The orthodox jews are totally against zionism and most jews seem to want to separate themselves from the Israeli jews.

now i don't know if this is the majority opinion of the American jews..any additional info would be helpful...i just found it curious to find so many American Jews condemning Sharon and the idea of zionism.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 03:50 PM
link   
As for how much indication there was that Iraq actually had nuclear weapons, i guess everyone has forgotten that Saddam was not letting the international inspectors check all the factories that they had and in a recent posting I gave a link to a 1998 "Executive summary of the report of the commission to assess
the ballistic missile threath to the United States." Here is what the 1998 report had to say about Iraq.

"c. Iraq

Iraq has maintained the skills and industrial capabilities needed to reconstitute its long range ballistic missile program. Its plant and equipment are less developed than those of North Korea or Iran as a result of actions forced by UN Resolutions and monitoring. However, Iraq has actively continued work on the short range (under 150 km) liquid- and solid-fueled missile programs that are allowed by the Resolutions. Once UN-imposed controls are lifted, Iraq could mount a determined effort to acquire needed plant and equipment, whether directly or indirectly. Such an effort would allow Iraq to pose an ICBM threat to the United States within 10 years. Iraq could develop a shorter range, covert, ship-launched missile threat that could threaten the United States in a very short time."

Excerpt taken from.
www.house.gov...

If you scroll down in this link you will find more information and links to other papers.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You also have to ask yourselves, if any country around the world decides to use nuclear weapons in anger against what they call " their enemies" do you think the use of such nuclear weapons will "only" affect those two countries that began the conflict?

One thing is to have nuclear tests (which i don't agree with in the first place) which are done with certain restrictions and with some safety to the populace, but nuclear weapons used in anger and hate to deal with another country will affect not only those two countries but neighbooring countries as well, and if these nuclear explosions are done in certain parts of the world the winds can carry nuclear fallout all the way to the States.

This is one of the reasons why the United States stopped conducting above-ground and atmospheric tests in 1963, the French continued such testings until 1974.

"One of the world's biggest exports is invisible, generates absolutely no economic gain and is moved around the globe, continent to continent, by the tons. It's a commodity that's tiny and foreign -- in fact you might be breathing some right now.

It's plain old dust, and enough of it crosses the Atlantic Ocean from Africa to America to eclipse federal government limits in Florida. In a recent storm it was spotted wafting from China to North America, clear across the Pacific."

Excerpt taken from.

www.space.com...



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Were there other reasons to go after Saddam? sure there were, but the threat was there and he had shown in the past no regard even to his own people, killing them in the thousands.

Could he had done the same to other countries? well, he tried with Kuwait, he has shown that he would do such attacks to other countries. North Korea, Iran and Syria have nuclear capabilities too, but they recently have not tried what Saddam did in 1991, invade other countries. Mostly, for now, those other countries have only bluffed and made some tests in their own turf.

[Edited on 30-3-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Darn, I did not see this topic and started a completely different one on basically the same subject, but tying in Siebel Edmonds.

Here's a link

This is all clicking back into place, from talks I had with people shortly after the 9/11 attacks. The Israelis had been one of the first stories.. but then they morphed into Palestinians, with the stock footage.

In anycase, this is big. I wonder how high this will go.

www.haaretzdaily.com...

How much was Moussad involved? What is Clean Break? Lotsa questions...



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 11:56 PM
link   
IMHO, I would say that the issue of Israel was a consideration, but was not a determining factor.



seekerof



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
about this israel thing...i've been reading quite a few articles in which American Jews are against support of Israel and zionism. The orthodox jews are totally against zionism and most jews seem to want to separate themselves from the Israeli jews.

now i don't know if this is the majority opinion of the American jews..any additional info would be helpful...i just found it curious to find so many American Jews condemning Sharon and the idea of zionism.


I would think that is probably true. Just like everything else, things aren't usually found in terms of "This or That" or "Black or White" but some shade of Grey. Being a Jew doesn't automatically make someone into a supporter of Isreal, a Zionist, a Rich Banker, Jewl Merchant, or any other Stereotypical version that is commonly thrown around. Same goes for all other cultures and races as well, which should be obvious unless one is completely brainwashed with 'Racist and/or Prejeduce' intollerance.


by kricket
Oh gee, I thought it was all about OIL!!! I wish these people would make up their minds.


I hear what you're saying, but I don't see how this has changed anything really. The Oil connection is, has and will always remain in the picture, simply because of the fact that "Oil" is "Money" and "Money" is 'Power". I don't know if anyone will ever figure out exactly what the percentages are of each and every "Reason To Start War." Personally, I don't need that close of an investigation 'at this point' to know who 'some' of the serious enemies are either. Like the saying goes, "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck & quacks like a duck. It's a duck." a DNA test or Congressional Investigative Team isn't required.

What I am trying to say is that there isn't going to be any ONE simple answer for this stuff, there never is, and EVERYONE needs to start understanding this. Was it the Oil? Yah, that's 'a' reason, but not 'the' reason. Isreali support? Yah, probably since our Government has ALWAYS been in bed with Zionists Isreali Elitists anyway. Was it done as another step toward NWO Control? Yah, that is surely in the mix as well, and is probably getting much closer to 'The Answer' at that point too. Such events have Many Sources tied to them not to mention Many False Decoys thrown out there to try and confuse those who look for the truth. Just look at JFK, and the confusion behind that. Even now nobody knows EXACTLY everyone involved or who may have been the 'Top' of those involved. So while everyone spends time weeding through the clues, the criminals continue business as usual.

I think the REAL POINT that people should be looking at, is that any way you look at it:
~WE ARE BEING TOLD LIES AS IF THEY WERE TRUTH.
~THE LIES ARE BEING TOLD TO US BY OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.
~THE LIES WERE USED TO REMOVE EVEN MORE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. (Which BTW isn't supposed to even be possible.)
~THE LIES WERE USED TO START A WAR, ON "TERROR", WHICH HAS BEEN DEFINED AS AN "SECRETIVE ENEMY OF UNKNOWN SIZE OR LOCATION, HIDING BOTH HOME AND ABROAD." (This makes Every Person Worldwide into a potential Terrorist in other words!!!)
~THE WAR, STARTED BY LIES, HAS COST THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT LIVES, INVOLVED THE "INVASION" OF ANOTHER COUNTRY, CAUSED HUGE ECONOMIC TROUBLE AT HOME & CONTINUES WITH NO KNOWN DATE OF EVEN A PAUSE, LET ALONE AN END.

That being said, IMO, "Some" but perhaps not "All" enemy groups and/or dangerous individuals have been identified. Once again we have what obviously "Looks, Walks & Talks" like a Duck. Wait until "All" the ducks are in One pond is waiting for Death, as it's never gonna happen. We need to take them as we get them, so to speak.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 04:27 AM
link   
Who ever swallows this story deserves to be slapped.

TO DEFEND ISRAEL?

Look, the only reason that the Palestinians are still there is because Israel doesn't want to nuke themselves. If they so decided, Israel could turn iraq into one big mirror.

Israel needed to be defended from iraq about as much as I need to be defended from sadistic mushroom people that are after my brain



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loki
Who ever swallows this story deserves to be slapped.

TO DEFEND ISRAEL?

Look, the only reason that the Palestinians are still there is because Israel doesn't want to nuke themselves. If they so decided, Israel could turn iraq into one big mirror.

Israel needed to be defended from iraq about as much as I need to be defended from sadistic mushroom people that are after my brain


I just realized by reading Loki's comment that different interpretations come from reading this article. I'm going to explain that by quoting the article followed by how 'I' understood what was being said when 'I' read it. I'm curious as to who saw it both similar and different than how I saw did.



Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States, but it did to Israel,...

True, there was no threat to the U.S. However, they were a 'Threat' to the 'Successful Invasion by the Isreali Zionist Elite' who does in fact have Plenty (WMD's) but did not want to use that kind of force in thier takeover.


...Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the US in September 2001 - the 9/11 commission - in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch US ally in the Middle East.

Philip Z, who is now the Appointed B.S. Frontman for BushCo.'s 9/11 Cover-up commission - suggests yet another 'Partially True Reason' as to why BushCo. & Allies(of BushCo.) decided WAR was needed.


"And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell," said Zelikow.

"And Countries run by other Corrupt Systems of Leadership don't care unless it can benefit them. BushCo. didn't mention it because he new it wouldn't be enough to rally support like a 'WAR on TERROR' and it might bring even more attention to the U.S./Isreal Partnership of World Conquest.


...is currently fighting an extensive campaign to ward off accusations that it derailed the "war on terrorism" it launched after September 11 by taking a detour to Iraq,

...is currently fighting to hide their True Plans of Creating and Manufacturing 'The War on Terror' and thier plans of Controlling the rest of the World while waving a flag of Democracy and Liberty for All.


Israel is Washington's biggest ally in the Middle East, receiving annual direct aid of US$3-4 billion.

Israel & Washington are both 'Owned' and due the bidding of the same 'Group or Groups' and share each others Economic Resources to accomplish various objectives under similar Mysterious Conditions which are hidden from the 'Common' people for reasons of so called 'National Security'.


Even though members of the 16-person PFIAB come from outside government, they enjoy the confidence of the president and have access to all information related to foreign intelligence that they need to play their vital advisory role.

Those who do have access to all the information are also puppets of the Ruling Elite who have sold out the People of this country as well as others for 'Certain Luxuries' and Future Positions of Power.

I would continue but I'm sure you get the flow of what I was talking about by now. Am I the only one who read it like that??

The whole point is that Loki's reason for saying it's Not True, IMO are the same as to why it IS True. The Truth I'm seeing is found 'between' the lines however and not exactly the same as what is Literally being said in the article itself.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 08:06 AM
link   
I thought it had already been determined that Iraq had no nuclear capability by the intelligence agencies even before the war, not to mention all other forms of WMD. As a result, I'm sure this explanation is not the real, or at least central point for the invasion/occupation.

The money issue (regarding Iraqi oil pricing) still is the theory that holds the most water that I have read.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join