"If we had instead met them at the door with pokers, pitchforks, and hatchets, they'd eventually run out of agents to come and take us out of our homes and take us to the gulag archipelago."
So, we have assumed that our government played no small role in the events that changed us as a nation forever. There are no good and bad decisions, made morally, made with all hopes that in the end, there will be goodwill for Man. There are only decisions made based on hard math, bottom lines. Since we have established that blame lies with those that lie with us, we must prosecute to the fullest extent of our powers, our Law. So to do that, we must establish: Where were those decisions made, and to what end?
--- INVASION OF IRAQ
The main point of invading Iraq supposedly was that they had weapons of mass destruction... But as Michael Rivero reminds us: "...We were told that we attacked Iraq because they have nuclear bombs. But you have to look at the [fact that the] U.S. paid for a tremendous nuclear deterent system. Trillions spent. For the president to say that Iraq, Iran, North Korea is going to attack us with a nuclear weapon means that that nuclear deterrent that we spent trillions of dollars on doesn't work. So we have to look at what exactly they tell us, there's a disconnect. Why did we spend that much for a program that doesnt work?"
--- (Bill Gertz - alluding to some kind of spectacular weapons capabilities these small nations have) - of course there's the problem of new forms of tech development. asymmetrical tech advanced warfare. but still, the planet can be turned into burnt toast, which is the ultimate deterent.
Faces of the Lost in Iraq
THE LIE OF THE CENTURY -The Downing Street Memo ***8***is only the beginning of the proof we were all lied to. - Michael Rivero
- "All war is based on deception." -- Sun Tzu, The Art of War
- "There is nothing new in a government lying to their people to start a war. Indeed because most people prefer living in peace to bloody and horrific death in war, any government that desires to initiate a war usually lies to their people to create the illusion that support for the war is the only possible choice they can make. "
----President McKinley told the American people that the USS Maine had been sunk in Havana Harbor by a Spanish mine. The American people, outraged by this apparent unprovoked attack, supported the Spanish American War. The Captain of the USS Maine had insisted the ship was sunk by a coal bin explosion, investigations after the war proved that such had indeed been the case. There had been no mine.
----Hitler used this principle of lying to his own people to initiate an invasion. He told the people of Germany that Poland had attacked first and staged fake attacks against German targets. The Germans, convinced they were being threatened, followed Hitler into Poland and into World War 2.
---FDR claimed Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack. It wasn't. The United States saw war with Japan as the means to get into war with Germany, which Americans opposed. So Roosevelt needed Japan to appear to strike first. Following an 8-step plan devised by the Office of Naval Intelligence, Roosevelt intentionally provoked Japan into the attack. Contrary to the official story, the fleet did not maintain radio silence, but sent messages intercepted and decoded by US intercept stations. Tricked by the lie of a surprise attack, Americans marched off to war.
---President Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin to send Americans off to fight in Vietnam. There were no torpedoes in the water in the Gulf. LBJ took advantage of an inexperienced sonar man's report to goad Congress into escalating the Vietnam War
---It is inescapable historical reality that leaders of nations will lie to their people to trick them into wars they otherwise would have refused. It is not "conspiracy theory" to suggest that leaders of nations lie to trick their people into wars. It is undeniable fact.
This brings us to the present case.
Did the government of the United States lie to the American people, more to the point, did President Bush and his Neocon associates lie to Congress, to initiate a war of conquest in Iraq?
This question has been given currency by a memo leaked from inside the British Government which clearly indicates a decision to go to war followed by the "fixing" of information around that policy. This is, as they say, a smoking gun.
But the fact is that long before this memo surfaced, it had become obvious that the US Government, aided by that of Great Britain, was lying to create the public support for a war in Iraq.
---- First off is Tony Blair's "Dodgy Dossier", a document released by the Prime Minister that made many of the claims used to support the push for war. The dossier soon collapsed when it was revealed that much of it had been plagiarized from a student thesis paper that was 12 years old!
The contents of the dossier, however much they seemed to create a good case for invasion, were obsolete and outdated.
This use of material that could not possibly be relevant at the time is clear proof of a deliberate attempt to deceive.
-----Then there was the claim about the "Mobile biological weapons laboratories". Proffered in the absence of any real laboratories in the wake of the invasion, photos of these trailers were shown on all the US Mainstream Media, with the claim they while seeming to lack anything suggesting biological processing, these were part of a much larger assembly of multiple trailers that churned out biological weapons of mass destruction
---The chief proponent of this hoax was Colin Powell, who presented illustrations such as this one to the United Nations on February 5th, 2003.
This claim fell apart when it was revealed that these trailers were nothing more than hydrogen gas generators used to inflate weather balloons. This fact was already known to both the US and UK, as a British company manufactured the units and sold them to Iraq.
----Colin Powell's speech to the UN was itself one misstatement after another. Powell claimed that Iraq had purchased special aluminum tubes whose only possible use was in uranium enrichment centrifuges. Both CIA and Powell's own State Department confirmed that the tubes were parts for missiles Saddam was legally allowed to have. Following the invasion, no centrifuges, aluminum or otherwise were found.
SO -- what they're claiming is that they had legitemate evidence...
Then people would point out that the evidence was false, then, you have the pentagon come back and say, yes, our evidence was legitemate, we've definitely found wmd's, even though they were the ones we gave to them, we found em.
--- Here's their new stance...
Pentagon: Pre-war intelligence was legit - By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer - WASHINGTON
- Some of the Top of Form 1
- Bottom of Form 1
Pentagon's prewar intelligence work, including a contention that the -Top of Form 2
Bottom of Form 2
CIA underplayed the likelihood of al-Qaida connections to -Top of Form 3
Bottom of Form 3
Saddam Hussein, was inappropriate but not illegal, a Defense Department investigation has concluded. - In a report to be presented to Congress on Friday, the department's inspector general clears former Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith of allegations by some Democrats of illegal activities — specifically that he misled Congress about the basis of the administration's assertions on the threat posed by Top of Form 1
Bottom of Form 1
Two people familiar with the findings discussed the main points and some details Thursday on condition they not be identified.-The Top of Form 2
Bottom of Form 2
Senate Armed Services Committee has scheduled a hearing Friday to receive the findings by Thomas F. Gimble, the Pentagon's acting inspector general. The committee's chairman, Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., has been a leading critic of Feith's role in prewar intelligence activities and has accused him of deceiving Congress.
Levin has asserted that Top of Form 3
Bottom of Form 3
President Bush took the country to war in Iraq based in part on intelligence assessments — some shaped by Feith's office — that were off base and did not fully reflect the views of the intelligence community.
The 2004 report from the Sept. 11 Commission found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Top of Form 4
Bottom of Form 4
Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terror organization before the U.S. invasion.
Asked to comment on the IG's findings, Feith said in a telephone interview that he had not seen the report but was pleased to hear that it concluded his office's activities were neither illegal nor unauthorized. He took strong issue, however, with the IG's finding that some activities had been "inappropriate."
"The policy office has been smeared for years by allegations that its pre-Iraq-war work was somehow `unlawful' or `unauthorized' and that some information it gave to congressional committees was deceptive or misleading," Feith said.
Feith called "bizarre" the inspector general's conclusion that some intelligence activities by the Office of Special Plans, which was created while Feith served as the undersecretary of defense for policy — the top policy position under Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld — were inappropriate but not unauthorized.
"Clearly, the inspector general's office was willing to challenge the policy office and even stretch some points to be able to criticize it," Feith said, adding that he felt this amounted to subjective "quibbling" by the IG.
--------The Gulf War
Why did Iraq invade Kuwait?
It is possible to identify a number of Iraqi greivances against Kuwait during the increasingly tense period prior to the onset of the Gulf War. In Iraq's view: economic war was being waged by Kuwait and other Gulf states, with the encouragment of Washington, against Iraq; Kuwait, originally part of the Ottoman vilayet of Basra, was now properly regarded as part of Iraq; Kuwait had systematically encroached on Iraqi territory over a period, and deliberatly stolen Iraqi oil from the Rumeila oil field; Kuwait, despite Iraq's horrendous losses in the Iran-Iraq war, was refusing to pay off debts incurred in the defense of the Arab nation; Kuwait, in refusing to negotiate over the Warbah and Bubiyan islands, was insensitive to Iraq's deep-water needs; and in general Kuwait, in its arrogant and uncompromising attitude to negotiations, seemed more interested in following the hidden agenda of its Western backers than in seeking harmonious relations with its neighbors.
A listing of Iraqi greivances is not intended to argue for the legitimacy of the subsequent Iraqi actions. Iraq had clear obligations under the UN charter (which other nations disregard), under its membership with the Arab league, and following the 1963 Iraqi recognition of Kuwaiti independence. However, it is useful to remember the grievances, submerged as they usually are under the predictable tide of Western propaganda.
It should also be remembered that Saddam Hussein had little reason to believe that the US, despite some unsympathetic words and actions, would take action following an Iraqi move against Kuwait: this American "green light" can be viewed as a well organised set up of Iraq.
Simons, Geoff. Iraq From Sumer to Saddam St. Martin Press, NY 1994
Persian Gulf War
Set up of Iraq (see articles)
There were many ways in which the US government and other US institutions aided Saddam Hussein up to the point of the invasion of Kuwait. The support of US business interests over many years for Saddam Hussein is well documented, part of the general Western support for the Iraqi regime.
On April 12th, 1990 Saddam met with 5 US senators. Robert Dole, Alan Simpson, Howard Metzenbaum, James McClure and Frank Murkowski; the US ambassador, soon to be famous for her own 'green light' to Saddam, was also present. The US senators criticised the American press in their attempts to propitiate Saddam, emphasising that there was a difference between the attitudes of the US government and those of journalists. Senator Dole commented:
Please allow me to say that only twelve hours earlier President Bush had assured me that he wants better relations, and that the US government wants better relations with Iraq... I assume that President Bush will oppose sanctions, and he might veto them, unless something provocative were to happen...
It was clear that Iraq's war on Iran, its human record, and its increasingly bellicose efforts to impose its will on the Gulf region were not judged to be sufficiently 'provocative'. Ambassador Glaspie then chipped in to affirm that she was certain 'that this is the policy of the US'(that is, that Presidnet Bush saw nothing about Iraq that would impede the development of good relations).
Senator Howard Metzenbaum ('I am a jew and a staunch supporter of Israel') payed Saddam a compliment: '... I have been sitting here listening to you for about an hour, and I am now aware that you are a strong and intelligent man and that you want peace.. if.. you were to focus on the value of the peace that we greatly need to achieve in the Middle East then there would not be a leader to compare with you in the Middle East..'
On July 25 1990, a day after 2 Iraqi armoured divisions moved from their bases to take up positions on the Kuwaiti border, Saddam Hussein summoned US Ambassador April Glaspie to his office. Even at this late statge , with an obviosly deteriorating situation in the Gulf, Glaspie still made efforts to placate Saddam Hussein. She emphasised that President Bush had rejected the ideaof trade sanctions against Iraq, to which Saddam replied:
There is nothing left for us to buy from America except wheat. Every time we want to buy something, they say it is forbidden. I am afraid that one day you will say, "You are going to make gunpowder out of wheat."
Glapsie was quick to reassure to Saddam: "I have direct instruction from the President to seek better relations with Iraq." She then went to say her much-quoted comment that was perhaps the biggest 'green light' of all:
I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country.But we have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait
In short, the US ambassador to Baghdad was here telling Saddam Hussein that he had a legitimate case against Kuwait and that the matter was no business of the United States.
On July 31 (2 days before the invasion of Kuwait), the US Assistant Secretary of state John Kelly testified on Capitol Hill before the Middle East subcommittee of the House of Representatives. Aimed at clarifying the attitude of the Bush administration to the escalating crisis in the Gulf:
Representative Hamilton: Defense Secretary Richard Cheney has been quoted in the press as saying that the United States was commited to going to the defese of Kuwait if she were attacked. Is that exactly what was said? Could Mr Kelly clarify this? Assistant Secretary Kelly: .. We have no defense treaty relationship with any Gulf country... Hamilton: Do we have a commitment to our friends in the Gulf in the event that they are engaged in oil or territorial disputes with their neighbors? Kelly: As I said, Mr Chairman, we have no defense treaty relationships with any of the countries. We have historically avoided taking a position on border disputes or on internal OPEC deliberations... Hamilton: If Iraq, for example, charged across the border into Kuwait, for whatever reason, what would be our position with regard to the use of US forces? Kelly: That, Mr Chairman, is a hypothetical or a contingency, the kind of which I can't get into. Suffice it to say that we would be extremely concerned, but I cannot get into the realm of "what if" answers. Hamilton: In that circumstance, is it correct to say, however, that we do not have a treaty commitment which would obligate us to engage US forces? Kelly: That is correct. Hamilton: That is correct, is it not? Kelly: That is correct, sir.
These statements broadcast on the World Service of the BBC, were heard in Baghdad. At a crucial momment, a senior offical of the Bush administration had sent Saddam Hussein a signal that the US would not intervene. The American setup for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait had been complete.
Simons, Geoff. Iraq From Sumer to Saddam St. Martin Press, NY 1994
Was Gulf War A Set up for Iraq? by Karen Nakamura (The Coastal Post 6/98)
Excerpts from 3rd 1992 presidential debate (10/19/92)
US conspiracy to Initiate the War Against Iraq by Brian Becker (1992)
The CIA and Gulf War by John Stockwell (2/20/91)
Who lost Kuwait? by Murray Waas (San Francisco Bay Guardian 1/30/91)
Meeting between Saddam and US Ambassador (7/25/90)
Back to Why Iraq invaded Kuwait
THE CASE FOR IRAN! -
It seems that the U.S is coming close to being ready to engage Iran.
Gates Says U.S. Can Prove Iran's Role in Iraq - By LOLITA C. BALDOR - AP - Updated:2007-02-09 10:57:03
SEVILLE, Spain (Feb. 9) - Serial numbers and markings on explosives used in Iraq provide "pretty good" evidence that Iran is providing either weapons or technology for militants there, Defense Secretary Robert Gates asserted Friday
Offering some of the first public details of evidence the military has collected, Gates said, "I think there's some serial numbers, there may be some markings on some of the projectile fragments that we found," that point to Iran. At the same time, however, he said he was somewhat surprised that recent raids by coalition and Iraqi forces in Iraq swept up some Iranians. Just last week, Gates said that U.S. military officers in Baghdad were planning to brief reporters on what is known about Iranian involvement in Iraq but that he and other senior administration officials had intervened to delay the briefing in order to assure that the information provided was accurate. Speaking to reporters at a defense ministers conference here, Gates said Friday, "I don't think there was surprise that the Iranians were actually involved, I think there was surprise we actually picked up some." He and other U.S. officials have said for some time that Iranians, and possibly the government of Iran, have been providing weapons technology, and possibly some explosives to Iraqi insurgents.
- About Ahmenidijad,by not so credible sources -
[Jack Sarfatti <firstname.lastname@example.org>, opines about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's fate]: "Special psychotronic weapons are focused on him and his key associates. Don't be surprised if there is a rapid deterioration in his health (bone cancer etc) same as Jean Nadal & Harold Chipman. He has been exposed to radioactivity and other stuff that none of them are aware of - or so I am told from a 'reliable source.' He has been betrayed by some of his closest associates including the military in order to avoid Iran being nuked by Israel. Not everyone in Teheran is crazy like he is." -- Dr. Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D. San Francisco [8 May 2006] sarfatti(at)pacbell.net http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Sarfatti http://mathforum.org/kb/plaintext.jspa?messageID=5497113 Jack Sarfatti