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.

 

Russia warned U.S. - now I'm confused

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:13 AM
link   
MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.

The war in Iraq, & the reasons for it, now have me totally confused. First it was WMD's, then allegations it's been about oil, & now this - possible terrorist attacks from Iraq. I'm not a US citizen or resident, but Australia's in Iraq too, although with far less forces than America. So can someone tell me which of these is the real reason?

www.cnn.com...




posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:14 AM
link   
why cant you have more than one reason?

[edit on 18-6-2004 by TurtleTrooper]



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Overt reasons:

1) threat of using WMD.
Reality: Iraq was too screwed up to successfully carry it out, or shut down until the end of U.N. sanctions. The facts don't really support either side. Saddam didn't have large stockpiles of WMD, but Saddam may have actually thought he did. The generals all thoguht it was the "other one" which was the chemical-equipped division.

However, for the hawks, it was clear that Saddam had every intention of starting again as soon as U.N. sanctions were lifted, which was the direction things were going previous to now. The character of his "agreement" with the U.N. was totally different from when South Africa and Ukraine, and now even Libya voluntarily disarmed of their WMD.

2) Saddam's historical mischief. Putin's warning is an example.

Covert reasons:

3) worry about Saudi Arabia having an Islamic revolution---with the Ayatollahs in Iran, Saddam and Bin Laden controlling most of the gulf's oil, the prospects would be dire. In such an eventuality, the small gulf kingdoms would be toast.

There is no military option in Saudi Arabia, but there is one in Iraq, and the prospect of developing a peaceful democratic regime as an example for Arabian reformers instead of radical fundamentalism as the "reform" model.

4) economy sucked and Bush wanted a war boost.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Sorry, I don't quite follow you. Are you saying - "why, you can have more than one meaning?"

[this was addressed to Turtle Trooper]

[edit on 18/6/04 by Bastet]



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I think they are searching. They are digging desperately for a match. Eventually a blind squirrel will find a nut. Its like pulling you over in your car and searching it in hopes of finding drugs.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:31 AM
link   
This seems a bit to convienent for me. Why wouldn't Bush have told us that Putin said this earlier? Personally it would have added more credibility to it had this been told to us, well even 6 months ago instead of waiting until polls show Americans do not believe it or the commision report says the links to terror did not exsist



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:34 AM
link   
They really are searching hard. Why do you think that in Bush's message to the nation to justify war that it was "British intelligence" that had wmd evidence instead of just "intelligence"? Because he knew it was BS and wanted to make sure it was the British that took the blame when none were found. IF by some stretch some were found he could just say "see I was right". The very fact that he shifted his evidence away from the US tells me was telling a lie.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Well, I can understand the WMD reason would have been the most sure way for Bush to get the rest of the world to support a war on Iraq, although it didn't quite pan out that way.

What I don't understand is why he didn't announce this "Saddam terrorist attack threat" as well. That doesn't make sense to me, seeing as he was allegedly told about this is 2001.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:44 AM
link   
This news isn't positive for the current administration. From what I gather after reading it is that Russia either duped the U.S. or was duped right along with the U.S. Either way, the outcome is the same. The U.S. looks very foolish.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Now I'm even more confused!

At EXACTLY the same time as I posted this topic, it was also posted as a news item by dbates. And the replies ober there seem to be mostly saying that this Russia warning has come as a boon for the Bush Administration.

www.atsnn.com...

I guess I'll never understand US politics, particularly in an election year.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Most likely supporters of the current U.S. administration are looking for any positive news and even a not-so-good report about Russia backing the proven wrong U.S. intelligence on Iraq is seen in a good light to them. Apparently external validation of proven illogical beliefs works for some.

Sorta like flat-earth believers getting told the earth is flat by the manager of an IHOP restaurant.

[edit on 18-6-2004 by heelstone]



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 08:26 PM
link   
IF this is true!! Why didn't Putin reveal this information before. Something smells in Denmark!!



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

Overt reasons:

1) threat of using WMD.
Reality: Iraq was too screwed up to successfully carry it out, or shut down until the end of U.N. sanctions. The facts don't really support either side.


You completly ignored the fact that now the UN have proof that Saddam did have WMD and was moving them before, during and right after the war.

The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.

The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program.

The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



This link is to the original source.
www.worldtribune.com...

I posted this in ATSNN in this link.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Come on guys. You ask all the right questions, but you fail to see the deception going on right in front of you. A big YES that this is really wierd!!
Why would Putin (ex-KGB) who has enlisted all his KGB buddies, want to give credit to the reason we went to war. Revenge dont come easy, and there are a lot of people who wouldn't mind seeing the USA go down. Putin is acting as the puppet master and we took the bait. This whole war on terrorism is being orchestrated like a bad play. Add it up.



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 11:07 PM
link   
I appreciate your input here, Muaddib, and I read your post & those of others, in the 2nd link you provided. You obviously have a far better grasp of the situation than I seem likely to achieve.

Maybe I'm trying to hard to find a quick & easy way to unravel all the complexities present in the "war on terrorism". Supporters and detractors of the Bush administration both seem to have their separate barrows to push and there are so many arguments on both sides, that frankly, I get lost amid all the sophistry.

In trying to reconcile all that has been said in this topic, I now find another headache arising for me in the report issued by the investigative hearing into the September 11 attacks. I'm ready to admit defeat in trying to make some sense out of this morass.

At times, the American population is vilified as being no better than sheep. They have my sympathy - I'm on the point of saying "tell me what to think".



posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 11:24 AM
link   
POPEYE...I think you hit the proverbial nail square on the head!!



posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   
You people can chat among yourselves about this
till the cows come home but the concensus among
political writers seems to be that this announcement
comes as a gift to Bush in an election year.



posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 12:16 PM
link   
It is all about MONEY......what is now being debated is who
gets how much from Afganistan, Iraq and possibly Iran and
Syria. Don't forget Saudia Arabia.

The more contracts they get (Foriegn Nations), the more support they
give politically. Its an age old tactic. The U.S. had to make major financial concessions on Iraq to get a U.N. resolution for legitimacy. If war breaks
out over Irans nuclear policy, you can bet your bottom dollar Nato will
be involved which means sharing the booty of war.

Any large WMD attack in Europe or the U.S. and allies could be a
pretext for an all out Nato assault on Iran. The problems now are
how will the North Koreans, Chinese and Indians react when the U.S.
is overstretched fudementally weakening Nato? China could make a
grab for Taiwan and North Korea could decide the time is right to
take South Korea. What would India do? Any takers?



posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soul Reaper
It is all about MONEY......what is now being debated is who
gets how much from Afganistan, Iraq and possibly Iran and
Syria. Don't forget Saudia Arabia.


Here's the thing: when the U.S. invaded Iraq and denied France and Germany new oil contracts, we stole literally tens (if not hundreds) of millions of Euros from both countries. Then people wonder why Europe is pissed at us.

The more contracts they get (Foriegn Nations), the more support they give politically. Its an age old tactic. The U.S. had to make major financial concessions on Iraq to get a U.N. resolution for legitimacy. If war breaks out over Irans nuclear policy, you can bet your bottom dollar Nato will be involved which means sharing the booty of war.


Well, NATO won't share in much booty, more likely the U.N. will take those oil contracts from the U.S. and give them to the Iraqi people completely, not the way it is currently being done, with certain companies saying they are taking portions of the profits since they will act as "consultants".


Any large WMD attack in Europe or the U.S. and allies could be a
pretext for an all out Nato assault on Iran. The problems now are
how will the North Koreans, Chinese and Indians react when the U.S.
is overstretched fudementally weakening Nato? China could make a
grab for Taiwan and North Korea could decide the time is right to
take South Korea. What would India do? Any takers?


I don'[t mean any of this as a flame, I hope you don't take it that way. But there are deeper aspects to this entire situation that you most likely don't know about, and that's fine, we're all here to find things out, right? If I seem a little hardened during this post, it's not because of anything you wrote, it's just the situation itself that gets under my skin. Bear with me.

Iran is a powderkeg. Accept this fact. They will develop nuclear weapons. Not because of the U.S. directly, but because of Israel. Anytime you want to find the root of ANYTHING in the Middle East, look to Israel. Realize this: the Hebrew/Jewish/Israeli people have been enslaved, tortured, killed, thrown out of countries for the last 6,000 or more years. And the people who did it are now Saudi/Iraqi/Jordanian/Libyan/etc. Israel not only has nuclear capabilities, they have one of the best trained, largest, most sophisticated militaries in the world. And they should. We trained them, we gave them weapons, and we give them money. We even told the world that the land they are on was theirs, and everyone else would have to deal with it, or sit and rotate.

Israel is like a giant, rabid dog. But, right now, they are caged up nice and tight, and Uncle Sam is the one with the key. If America ever falls, Israel jumps out of it's cage, and then the Middle East WILL become a parking lot. Israel will not send in troops, they will absolutely obliterate anyone in the region who they think might be a terrorist. There would be no cave searching, and no bunker busters. Only bright flashes, and deserts of glass, my friends.

Here's the flaw in your theory, and again, I am not trying to flame, only show you the other side of things: North Korea is not a threat. NK will fall apart when their current leader dies, maybe send a few non-nuclear missiles into South Korea, and then NATO will probably intervene and sit around till everything calms down.

China won't move on Taiwan. If China moves on Taiwan, they piss off the American people, and they wouldn't cut their own feet off like that. Almost 40% of the good produced in China are sold at our Wal-Marts. If you don't believe me, look around your immediate seating area for anything you bought in America that was made in America. Then you understand China.

India and Pakistan have been fighting as long as there have been people living there. P.J. O'Rourke once said something to the effect of "Someday, a million years after the nuclear holocaust, there will be bacteria in India and Pakistan still trying to kill each other." The only people, besides each other, they are a threat to, is Israel. Israel would turn them both into sparklers without a second thought.

The only people America are truly in danger from right now are Islamic Fundamentalists. And the funny thing is, our closest ally in all this, Israel, is being held back by America because if they don't, Israel will put a parking lot in on top of all the oil.

I hope this helps you see some stuff a little better.



posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 03:54 PM
link   
One other thing: this whoe "russia" thing is only a way to increase votes in an election year. Don't look any deeper than that to find the answers.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join