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.

 

Wikileaks: "Saddam's Message Of Friendship To President Bush"

page: 3
57
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   
I like Saddam, he had character. Was a stand up guy.

He was also thought to be the reincarnated King Nebuchadnezzar. Gotta give him props for that and whatever occult secrets he guarded. There's always more to the story than you will ever know.

Thinking your a righteous American who helped put a criminal in his place is stupid...

Believing he was a total pawn for the TPTB is a bit naive...
edit on 2-1-2011 by Mayura because: grammar




posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Redevilfan09
reply to post by thecinic
 


What do you mean the epic "got you now moment"? Was this the final and most important leak or something? There is plenty more where that came from.



Exactly what it says is what I mean.....


Well when the world changing information shows up, how bout ya let me know?

I am still waiting.....

Facts remain the same..

This cable is more rubbish from wikileaks.

Saddam is long gone and hung now what does this leak show?

NOTHING!!!!



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by thecinic
 


Actually cinic, the cable says exactly what it says. This cable shows something that you probably didn't know, and it seems like you want to attack every piece of information wikileaks has released as a result. If someone would have told you last week Saddam extended an offer of friendship and felt there were certain "circles" in intelligence and gov't that may be slanting or working against him, would you have believed it? Or would you have just immediately thought Saddam was lying? This cable challenges your preexisting belief, so you dismiss it and all wikileaks info as rubbish. This was info you didn't know. That's knowledge ... not rubbish.

And "world changing"? What does that even mean? Is anything world changing? Some people will never change their belief system no matter what information is presented to them, I believe most of those people probably refer to new information that can expand their understanding as "rubbish" as well. Don't resist or fight it cinic, it's just information that can help all of us get a better understanding for what our and other elected leaders do in our name. It's not terrorism ... it's information.
edit on 3-1-2011 by RomanMaroni because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by thecinic


Assange follows in Saddam's footsteps on the scale of global terror..


I'm sorry, but that is such a fallacy that I must call you on that. Your toxicity towards openness and freedom are evident.
edit on 3-1-2011 by aorAki because: speeling misteak



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by thecinic


Assange follows in Saddam's footsteps on the scale of global terror..


I'm sorry, but that is such a fallacy that I must call you on that. Your toxicity towards openness and freedom are evident.
edit on 3-1-2011 by aorAki because: speeling misteak


He seems like the type of person who is more interested in country progression, then world progression. Sad fact is there are many brainwashed people like this on the planet. REason wht there will always be war,hateviolence etc



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Just to add a bit of reality to this conversation. Why wouldn't Saddam send a message of friendship to Bush? He knew the US military would roll over the Iraq military in a matter of days (which it did). Saddam also knew that his method of ruling was not acceptable with the people (they hung him). Saddam had the intelligence to write message for his enemies in a time of need. Did you guys know that Hitler was a great military strategist? Intelligent people take advantage of less knowledgeable people everyday. That doesn't mean that they are right or "good".

Is weakleaks attempting to take the lead in gossip from the tabloids?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Poor ole Saddam was an innocent man hung for nothing.

We had just created the new oil cross drilling technology and were drilling into Iraq's oil fields from Kuwait....stealing his oil.

Muslims don't like thieves...and he reacted just as everyone expected. He invaded Kuwait. He was right about Kuwait, they were "dogs" stealing his oil. We just played him to keep getting energy for nothing.


Oh poor Sadam killed a couple Kurds....WE've killed more Kurds than Sadam ever dreamed of and have Turkey the green light to annihilate all the Kurd's in northern Iraq with air strikes. We've killed +million Iraqi's. We're getting a pretty good deal right now only having to pay $2,000 if we kill an innocent iraqi civilian.

It's cheaper to kill an Iraqi than go elk/buffalo hunting in America. That's sad isn't it?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
Poor ole Saddam was an innocent man hung for nothing.

Yes, because if your the underdog your are always in the right...



Oh poor Sadam killed a couple Kurds....WE've killed more Kurds than Sadam ever dreamed of and have Turkey the green light to annihilate all the Kurd's in northern Iraq with air strikes. We've killed +million Iraqi's.


In a war people die. Saddam was executing a specific portion of his population. How dare you to write off what Saddam was doing as alright.

/quote]
edit on 3-1-2011 by Styki because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by jaynkeel
Doesn't matter how "kind" he seemed, the man was responsible for many deaths and in my book that is one too many to disregard. I certainly hope people are not out trying to turn him into some kind of saint, because when you are in a position of power and people die under your watch no matter what country your in or ruling YOUR at fault and he got what was coming to him it's called karma.


and the u.s. isn't responsible for any deaths. the u.s. and coalition forces have killed more innocent civilians in iraq that saddam has ever had.

what does that make the united states. i'm sure if you have a poll to see if iraqis prefer a puppet government, civil wars, murders, bombings or the old iraq under saddam hussein, i'm pretty sure the old, safe iraq would win.

saddam was tough, fair, leader to his people. unfortunately most americans have been brainwashed by the media and their government with propaganda.

google u.s. led forces hit pregant woman and rape iraqi girl. just google rape, u.s. forces, iraq and girls and you'll get more hits than ats.

you know what saddam would do to a rapist. that guy will wish he was never born.

that's what the united states has brought to iraq: al qaeda, rape, theft, murder, suicide bombings, death, corruption, fraud, civil war, beheadings, mass executions and death squads.

at least george bush, cheney and rumsfield can now collect their billions in royality fees now that they are out of the public spotlight and above the law and investigation. they probably don't even need to hide it.


edit on 3-1-2011 by randomname because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by jaynkeel
Doesn't matter how "kind" he seemed, the man was responsible for many deaths and in my book that is one too many to disregard. I certainly hope people are not out trying to turn him into some kind of saint, because when you are in a position of power and people die under your watch no matter what country your in or ruling YOUR at fault and he got what was coming to him it's called karma.

And for Cheney and the rest..?

Over a MILLION innocents dead and for what?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   
There is nothing new here at all.

It was widely reported by the MSM in late 1990 during the military buildup to Desert Storm that both Tariq Aziz (Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq) and Saddam Hussein approached April Glaspie (former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq) prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, airing their grievances and asking what the U.S. position would be regarding military intervention by Iraq to settle an Iraqi/Kuwaiti economic dispute .

To this the american diplomat famously responded with some variation of "The United States has no opinion of inter-Arabic matters..." which set in motion the chain of events that would ultimately see Saddam hung from an Iraqi gallows.



When these purported transcripts were made public, Glaspie was accused of having given tacit approval for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which took place on August 2, 1990. It was argued that Glaspie's statements that "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts" and that "the Kuwait issue is not associated with America" were interpreted by Saddam as giving free rein to handle his disputes with Kuwait as he saw fit. It was also argued that Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait had he been given an explicit warning that such an invasion would be met with force by the United States...

....In September 1990, a pair of British journalists confronted Glaspie with the transcript of her meeting with Saddam Hussein, to which she replied that "Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.".


April Glaspie



Anyone that this is news to would be better served by picking up an extra political science class or in the least spending some time on google searching out modern Arabic history. The implications behind April Glaspie's comment to the Iraqi government regarding the position of the U.S. being contradicted by the subsequent military intervention of Bush '41 carried much darker implications of conspiracy than what the wikileaks content would suggest (Saddam was just looking out for the veterans and war orphans of Iraq when the Iraqi army invaded Kuwait in 1990).

Wikileaks has yet to produce anything more than low level information that is already public knowledge. The reason the raw content of these types of communications are classified is exactly the reason given by the current administration. That is the information needs to be filtered prior to public dissemination , some of the specifics such as names and places are sensitive.

Regardless, there have been no earth shattering revelations or nefarious wrongdoings exposed by any of the document releases. Everything so far has done nothing but confirm that U.S. foreign policy is exactly what the government says it is doing, a fact which seems to have disappointed some and been totally lost on others.

Surely none are insinuating that beyond outlining general national policy, a truly transparent government would be expected to release specifics like the identities of friendly intelligence assets?

I think that wikileaks supporters, especially those from the states of voting age whose choices at the poles shapes U.S. policy, would do well to question wikileaks motives. My impressions are that contrary to protests by some folks, wikileaks are clearly profiteering (as evidenced by the fiasco following the refusal of the major e-commerce networks to service wikileaks) and very possibly a conduit for one or a number of foreign interest.

I am also suspect that the much hyped "insurance" file poison pill contains nothing more than similar documents to what has already been seen referencing specific assets that if made public might be operationally compromised.

Wikileaks has said that they were examining the documents and redacting information which would compromise the wellbeing of persons cooperating with the U.S. (such as the identity of CIA informants).

Where would the information go? Perhaps into an insurance file? If the motivation behind wikileaks is the transparency of government isn't withholding an insurance file whose implied content is the really bad stuff contradictory?

The criteria behind the anonymous censorship process that wikileaks applies is anybody's guess and the antithesis of the stated mission behind the organization. Anyone critical of government spin and disinformation who is comfortable with the anonymous wikileaks staff spoon feeding their own version of the facts contained in the leaked diplomatic cables are willingly falling victim to the same hypocrisy they are railing against.

My personal opinion is that anyone truly interested in constructive goals beyond tarnishing the reputation of the United States, goals such as improving the system to better reflect the will of the people, would do well to reconsider their support as well as question if wikileaks is the proper tool to further promote the idea of open government by the people and for the people.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


Wow Saddam loved Bush and Baker even though they don't like him! Thats just soooo wrong.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by jaynkeel
Doesn't matter how "kind" he seemed, the man was responsible for many deaths and in my book that is one too many to disregard. I certainly hope people are not out trying to turn him into some kind of saint, because when you are in a position of power and people die under your watch no matter what country your in or ruling YOUR at fault and he got what was coming to him it's called karma.


OK - Then hang all world leaders under whose watch people died!
Start with North Korean, Chinese, Russian and USA elite and government.

Because I doubt Saddam deserved death by hanging more than Bush or some other people.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Styki
 

Just to add a bit of reality to this conversation...

Did you guys know that Hitler was a great military strategist?
If we're talking reality, Hitler was actually useless as a military strategist. He was in fact a clever politician who used his charisma & the force of his personality to gain control & through inspiration, conviction or cajolery, brought competent strategists to his cause. What is a military strategist?
A person who can marry tactics with resources to get a job done. The Germans came up with Blitzkreig! We're taught this involves a massive delivery of firepower to overwhelm a target, which is true on a tactical level, but whats left out is that strategically, it depends primarily on 1 thing alone: fuel. The attackers must penetrate prepared defences quickly & deeply enough to create a "salient", into which reserve troops can be moved quickly to defend the supply chain to the new "front line" (see "Shock & Awe").
This gives the defenders on either flank of the salient 2 options:
1) Weaken their defensive positions by using forces to attack the flanks of the salient, exposing themselves to being caught on the march by an ordinary artillary/infantry attack overwhelming their previous positions, or
2) Retreat to a point behind the new front line, for fear of having their own supply lines cut by the attackers.

Hitler didn't invent this. It was the culmination of thinking of what had been the Prussian officer class that studied war, most significantly during USA vs Mexico & WW1 - ie mechanised warfare - the cavalry charge was dead, infantry positions could only be quickly overrun by a combination of aerial surveillance & attack, plus tanks that could cross trenches. Both needed fuel.
Hitler's brilliance was in employing diplomats that could convince the USA to let them, in violation of The Treaty Of Versailles, to which the USA was a signatory.

(TBC - I'm mobile)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by jaynkeel
Doesn't matter how "kind" he seemed, the man was responsible for many deaths and in my book that is one too many to disregard. I certainly hope people are not out trying to turn him into some kind of saint, because when you are in a position of power and people die under your watch no matter what country your in or ruling YOUR at fault and he got what was coming to him it's called karma.


The only difference in saddam and bush is saddam murdered thousands of people in iraq. Bushes government murdered thousands of non American people. How would the americans feel if countries got together and decided to invade America for all the terrible things they done under bush?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Hi wanna be friends? nah i just wanna bomb you for ya oil
epic fail america



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by jaynkeel
Doesn't matter how "kind" he seemed, the man was responsible for many deaths and in my book that is one too many to disregard. I certainly hope people are not out trying to turn him into some kind of saint, because when you are in a position of power and people die under your watch no matter what country your in or ruling YOUR at fault and he got what was coming to him it's called karma.


Who killed more INNOCENT people Saddam or The Bush(s)?
When Iraqi's are asked (Not Americans) was life in Iraq worse under Saddam or after the Bush(s)?

In both questions, the answer is Bush(s)
The problem is US Media is only interested in asking other Americans their Opinion on how Iraqi's feel. And the Media is Owned by the Jews......So the News is always correct and NOT biased at all.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:41 AM
link   
saddam was sharing iraqs wealth with everybody
but
greedy america wanted ALL

+


reply to post by sheepslayer247
 



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by Styki
 

Just to add a bit of reality to this conversation...

Did you guys know that Hitler was a great military strategist?
If we're talking reality, Hitler was actually useless as a military strategist.


He was better than Saddam
.

I believe the appropriate quote would be "amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics"



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
It shows an intelligent, "compassionate" side of Saddam and his desire for peace.

Not at all. It just shows he's a typical politician. Does one thing .. says another.

If he was compassionate he wouldn't have mass murdered the Kurds.
If he was compassionate he wouldn't have mass murdered Iraqis and buried them in mass graves.
If he was compassionate he wouldn't have had the rape rooms or tortured olympians.
If he was compassionate he wouldn't have stolen 'Oil for Food' millions and built his palaces with it.
If he desired peace he wouldn't have gone to war against Kuwait and Iran.
If he was intelligent, he would not have lost wars and thus lost his life.

etc etc

edit on 1/3/2011 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join