It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:36 PM

THE US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

So it isn't okay for Saddam to use those chemical weapons, I know. Is it okay for the US to use depleted uranium in Iraq though?

The use of DU in munitions is controversial because of questions about potential long-term health effects.[4][5] Normal functioning of the kidney, brain, liver, heart, and numerous other systems can be affected by uranium exposure, because uranium is a toxic metal.[6] It is weakly radioactive and remains so because of its long physical half-life (4.468 billion years for uranium-238). The biological half-life (the average time it takes for the human body to eliminate half the amount in the body) for uranium is about 15 days.[7] The aerosol produced during impact and combustion of depleted uranium munitions can potentially contaminate wide areas around the impact sites leading to possible inhalation by human beings.[8] During a three week period of conflict in 2003 in Iraq, 1,000 to 2,000 tonnes of DU munitions were used

Many people come here and attack Saddam, which is fine because he was cruel. But people trot on here thinking the US has no blood on it's hands and the US just liberated a dictator regime. Those people should understand that the US has put damage to Iraq that is not reversible. Many kids will grow up deformed, which cancer, and there aren't many doctors in Iraq.

Cancer is spreading like wildfire in Iraq. Thousands of infants are being born with deformities. Doctors say they are struggling to cope with the rise of cancer and birth defects, especially in cities subjected to heavy American and British bombardment.

Dr Ahmad Hardan, who served as a special scientific adviser to the World Health Organization, the United Nations and the Iraqi Ministry of Health, says that there is scientific evidence linking depleted uranium to cancer and birth defects. He told Al Jazeera English [3], “Children with congenital anomalies are subjected to karyotyping and chromosomal studies with complete genetic back-grounding and clinical assessment. Family and obstetrical histories are taken too. These international studies have produced ample evidence to show that depleted uranium has disastrous consequences.”

Oh, but I suppose this was done innocently on the military's part...right?

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:37 PM
Here is an article from USAToday that is now 9 years old (give or take a few months) that discusses excatly what I have been saying. Which the news reported it based on a 1994 Senate Report which I am still having no luck finding. If anyone cares to help me out with tracking this report down, it would be greatly appreciated.

Iraq's bioweapons program that President Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq.

Source- USAToday

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:01 PM
reply to post by jaynkeel

Which he couldn't have done with the CIA's help in the first place.


It's another CIA plant for war.

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:01 PM
reply to post by MrWendal

there were the indian wars i admit thousands were killed....

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Jay-morris
No! many indians were killed on there own land. Why do some people refuse to believe that their governments do bad things, or have done bad things. People look at them as if they are some type of mini Gods

I dont think there is much of an argument as to whether or not Native Americans were killed, en masse at times, by the colonizing governements. Howevere the list of the culprits is not limited to the United States Government. The British government and colonies along with the othr European nations exploring and colonizing the New World hold as much of the blame.

Here is a partial list of some Native American Massacres occuring from European nations.

1539 de Soto's men killed 200 Timucuan warriors.
1540 de Soto's men killed 2,500 warriors ( The warriors attacked first)
1541 Coronado's men raped and pillaged the Tiguex, then killed 200 warriors
1598 Oriate killed 800 Acoma

The above list is all the responsibility of the Spanish Govt

1623 English killed approx 250 Powhatans by poison and by hand
1637 Massacre at Mystic, CT English John Mason with Native allies killed about 700 Pequots by burning them
1644 Dutch hired English merc John Underhill to again burn alive a sleeping village 500 dead

Now this is just a partial list of atrocities, however I would like to leave with one parting comment.
In America we are taught that Columbus landed in 1492m and then the history of European conquest on the New world is quote muddy until Jamestown in 1607, the above list is a little bit of fill in the gap history.

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:10 PM
reply to post by HomerinNC

I was not going to reply to some of these posts, because I find them to be absolutely ridiculous, but I will comment on this.

The Indians watched MILLIONS of their brothers die! Do a quick google search and you will see that anywhere from 10mil to 50mil indians died because of European and later American intervention. That's more than the holocaust even at its lowest estimate.

Can you find a way to justify that?

Take a look at this link? Intersting quick look at what's up. By the way, how can we put a value on life to say that 100 dead is ok, but a 100,000 is evil? One death is no more trivial than thousands. rica

edit on 3-1-2011 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:12 PM
Like other countries - both past , present and future.. Iraq had sought peaceful ways to resolve problems.. Only to get invaded and occupied by the u.s.. Saddam was a monster but he at least tried to make peace... Iraqis suffer just as much if not more under the occupation.. So who are the monsters ?

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:23 PM
reply to post by youdidntseeme

That is very true, and my own country were brtutal too, and not just in America. I don't believe in patriosm for your country, so i am not ainwashed like some of the people on this site. If a government is guilty of terrible crimes, then they should be punished for it. Patriosm for your country blinds you, but thats the way governments want it too be. They want you to think that they are fighting these wars for you and keeping you safe.

My government is guilty too when it comes to the Iraq war. The UK has a habbit of following America everywhere

But what frustrates me is the people who say America is a place for freedom. What i'm hearing about America lately is that freedom is slipping away, and this will happen to most countries.

The world is getting very desperate, and its all because of the people who love money,power and control.Some people might find it better i they coe their eyes and pretend this is not happening, but this is happening.

The next decade is going to be a huge test for us as a race, and i hope we can get through it. Not as a country, but as human beings.

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:51 PM

Originally posted by sheepslayer247

Very interesting cable from Wikileaks, released on New Years Day.

It shows an intelligent, "compassionate" side of Saddam and his desire for peace. He was willing to communicate and compromise, but not willing to cave in to political pressure.

Also interesting is the fact that Saddam knows a war with the US is downright suicide. But he is willing to take the blow if a diplomatic solution does not present a solution to his countries troubles.

There are many other interesting statements to be found in this cable. Regardless of your political position, this is worth a read. Was Saddam looking to find peace....or were his terms of compromise too far fetched for the international community?
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 2-1-2011 by sheepslayer247 because: Add text

I'm sorry, but this doesn't show a compassionate, soft side of Saddam Hussein, it shows a man who was getting his a$$ handed to him constantly by the US and knew that he would soon lose everything. It shows a desperate man reaching out to turn a president against his own government to sow seeds of divide and conquer. If he trulybwanted peace, ,he should have started with the humane treatment of his own people first. How can he want peace when he waged terroristic war on his own countrymen and women and children? He was a murderer, and a serial killer at best. All these pele want is to manipulate in their favor........not peace. Mere words. However, I do not agree with what the US has done after taking him out either. Both are horribly wrong.

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:10 PM
reply to post by Phenomium

You are trying to play off the US's part. You use many bad adjectives to describe Saddam and than throw a mere I also don't agree with what US did after.

I am sorry but I am angry that many kids are growing up deformed in my own country because the US thought that depleted uranium would be a good weapon to use. That in itself should be a big war crime. Generations will grow up with cancer, liver failure, kidney failure, and etc. and the best you could say is that you don't agree with what the US has done after taking him out? Really?

So you are totally okay with depleted uranium being used?

FYI, the nation is never going to be as stable as it was when Saddam was in power. Even though he was ruthless and cruel he kept everyone in line. And I mean Everyone! He wasn't just cruel to the Kurds, he was cruel to his own sons as well.

Many Americans fail to realize that not every country is destined to be a democratic nation, especially not Iraq. Look at the new "democratic" government coalition. In 5-10 there will be a civil war because the Sunni's and Shia's will both want to seek power.

There is another side of the story that is not being told by the MSM. The Christians in Iraq are always threatened with death if they celebrate their holidays or if they don't wear hijabs (head dresses). My parents recently talked to a priest who was scared for his life as well as the lives of his people. Muslims sent him a message showing that they knew everyone who attended the church, their addresses, names, ages, where they went to school, and etc. The only way to get that is through government officials.

How has the US done anything to protect the people of Iraq? Now that the US is leaving Iraq what have they accomplished other than give rise to certain peoples and oppress others?

It doesn't make sense that you think what the US did to that region is great. Especially since Iraq harbors terrorists funded by Iran and Iran hates Iraq.

So the US did nothing significant in that region, AT ALL.

List of US accomplishments in Iraq:

1) Remove Saddam
2) Install puppet government
3) Liberate the Kurds
4) Oppress the Christians even more
5) Gave money to big American Corporations for nothing
6) Gave Iran more power by allowing fleeing Iraqi's into their nation
7) Left a possibility of a major civil war between the Sunni's and Shia's
8) Left the land desolate with depleted uranium

Great accomplishment...don't you think?

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:12 PM
reply to post by Phenomium

Yes, both Saddam and other countries including the US have done some very bad things. We agree on that and its nice to see that you look at it from both sides.

I do disagree, however, on the compassion issue. I believe he showed just that in this part of the cable.


Why would a mass-murderer care about the welfare of orphans and widows? Why would his staff feel free to break out into tears in the same room occupied by government officials and the President of Iraq? Even Saddam clearly had to regain his composure due to the emotions of the issue.

This is not the Saddam I learned about from the media. The man I envisioned would be indifferent concerning the plight of women and children. Yet we see a different man in this cable. To me anyway.....

edit on 3-1-2011 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:14 PM
Seem's pretty cheesy to me, and this matters why?

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:24 PM
Saadam warned the rest of the Arab oil countries that the Americans "had a plan" which is sometimes called occupation of economic resources
Actually they are my words to describe what is all to obvious to an observer. This is an economic plan to control all the resources in the persian gulf, and it has been going on for a long time. To begin with, it required the real economic superpower, the USSR to be weakened or collapsed, that worked out rather well since it did collapse, otherwise the US military would have had trouble sniffing around the gulf. Saadam's fall began when he was suckered into the Iran-Iraq war (since the US's nose was put out of joint there) which left the country broke and in the meantime US political manuevres with the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar after that time kept oil prices down, destabilising Iraq even further. In other words they dumped on Iraq, Saadam knew what they were doing and told them so. The USSR was engaged in Afghanistan up to, and around the same time as the Iran-Iraq war, and it could just be that they too were suckered into Afghanistan as a distraction militarily and economically, and Leo Wanta was doing his stuff too in destabilising the Russian economy. It's a big story if someone gets all the bits together. In the meantime you will not see a withdrawal of US troops in Iraq. How much Saadam knew? probably too much. How much Assange knows? probably everything by now.

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:10 PM

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by skeptic_al

You bring up a separate issue. What America did or didn't do in the past (you brought up WWII) has nothing to do with the false statement that Saddam was 'compassionate' and cared. He was just a mass murdering tyrant and politician. Nothing more. And nothing that America did or didn't do changes that fact.

If the Theme was using WMD's, then USA is as guilty as all these Tin-Pot Leaders. And that is all I'm saying. One is Not better than another because they killed more or less, but one is as bad the other. And it's Okie Dokie for the US to use WMD's because they only their WMD's for peaceful purposes, and not for taking over the World.

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 06:31 PM

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
reply to post by Bunken Drum
Actually the part you've covered thus far reads as Adolph Hitlers greatest hits (lets call the Luftschlacht um England a draw)

You need to tell everyone the next part, starting with the Fuhrers refusal to allow Friedrich Paulus to withdraw from Stalingrad then on to Rommel's troubles at El Alamein.
Oh yeah! & lets note that Rommel's troubles were mainly supply related, until that genius pulled him out in an attempt to save his national hero's face when it all went tits up.

Still, they're the good album tracks...
What about the fillers? Like the parachute drop on Crete? The absolute cream that the Wehrmacht had to offer more than decimated, even tho they won, for what? The definition of a Pyrric (sp?) victory for a scruffy patch of turf that could only be used to launch aircraft to defend Greece. Like Greece was strategically important by that stage
! Every single time we know of that Hitler poked his nose into strategy, it went badly wrong. Myself, I believe the rumour that Hitler was taking a lot of Benzedrine (speed), b/c it makes you just the kind of paranoid megalomaniac that insists they're right even when everyone else can tell that you've lost the plot & then call your detractors traitors. Can anyone imagine what would have happened if those German paratroopers had been available @the Battle of the Bulge?

The Fuhrer looked billied off his face in a lot of the old newsreels to me. Trouble with that caper is that 3days is about anyone's limit before insanity starts to set in. I've met plenty of people that cant do 24hrs without losing it. Once you get to that stage, you've only 3 options:
1) Take a downer & crash long & deep to be fit when you wake.
2) Come down on the job & beware the paranoia.
3) Take more billy & beware the insanity.
Hmmm... There's also a 4) Ignore that you're nuts!
Saddam didn't strike me as nuts...

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 07:55 PM
reply to post by Alethea

You would be on the right track in regards to that. I've heard through members of the US Airforce that items being excavated from Eridu, have been passing through Talil Airbase. So there's no surprise there.

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 08:36 PM

Although this link does not relate to this thread, I think it serves of importance when you see that Wikileaks has been used in the past, around the ealrly 2000's as cannon fodder for our government and news media to serve their own purposes. I never trusted Wikileaks to be honest. I'm not saying all of Wikileak's cables is compromised but be wary of what you are reading.

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 08:52 PM

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

He [Hitler] was better than Saddam .

I believe the appropriate quote would be "amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics"
Yeah. I'd say they were about the same. Neither of them understood they were allowed into power for specific reasons. Hitler to stop communism spreading west & Hussein to stop Iran spreading islamic revolution. They both believed their own hype.
Hitler thought he was Billy Big Spuds in Europe: if he'd left Poland alone & gone after the Russian oil fields, the USA would have loved him, probably built him a navy to contain the goddamn commies in the Baltic. If Hussein had left Kuwait alone, instead of thinking his awesome nutsack was going to carry the day, & re-invaded Iran, he'd still be there now, getting support from the USA, battlefield testing weapons systems for them etc.

Mate, where did you learn your history? USA didn't do anything to Nazi Germany when they invaded Poland (not banging any drums here folds, just adding for accuracy)

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:01 PM
Two wrongs don't make a right folks.

Bush and his crimes don't excuse the ruthless dictator that Saddam was. That anyone would try to justify his acts blows my mind. It's a pity, because young Saddam actually showed a lot of promise as a leader, and for moving his country away from a lot of prejudices and gender inequalities. But power corrupts.

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:46 PM
The whole world is used as Toilet Paper for the Covert Government based in the USA, sadly a lot of countries end up with # on their hands.

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in