Views on 9-11

[SkyRock]

Just saying, prove it.  Show us the record where this was documented. 

If you can, great.  If you can't, my opinion of your posts will be lower than Bush's approval rating.

It is not very hard for you to do.  If you really don't believe it, then just google it.  It was talked about, in memo's even.  Some were "secret" and others were openly discussed even down to who would get oil exploration contracts in IRAQ afterwards, this was in Feb. '01.

[1pLUs44]

Funny thing is, china has the big drilling thing now... Yea, the US totally were after oil.

[Motherland]

Looks like ink took his ball and went home.... 

[scot12b]

[Speed55]

Views on 9-11

From the window of a technical school that i was attending in manhattan as i watched the 2nd plane hit.

From the ground walking towards the  subway when the 1st tower collapsed.

 

[CptTrips]

Appearently ink poisoning can cause brain damage.

 ,
Wab

[1pLUs44]

IIRC, someone posted this one before, but it certainly bears repeating.

http://www.thehowdydoodyuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

Interesting read. I call, owned.

[Hangtime]

Must be the same liberal progressives who believe the government wants to steal all their guns so that their government can round them all up to be stuck in a socialist state ...or communist... nuts that is what they are... dammmm those liberal progressives

Like Doctor Theodore John "Ted" Kaczynski, aka the Unibomber?

[Rich46yo]

didn't we put him there to begine with
?

Yeah, thats another good one. "America made Saddam" I bet that rumor is believed by billions in this world but not a one of them can say how we "made him".

Because the truth is Saddam's vehicle to power was the emerging Pro-Soviet/Anti-American Pan-Arab BAATH party movement that swept the Arab world in the '60s and '70s. Along with this vehicle was his own personal brutality and ruthlessness in a military dictatorship that was always hostile to America and was a Soviet client state. Remember up to the 1973 Yom Kipurr war the entire Arab world was hostile to America, most of all Iraq. Also the entire Arab world was basically a client state of the Soviet Union. It wasn't until after the '67 war, which crushed Nasser's hopes of one socialist Pan Arab state, and the 1973 war, which crushed Arab hopes of murdering every Jew in the MidEast, that Arab states, some of them, figured they had  made a mistake siding with the Soviets.

But Saddam was never one of them. The Soviets and the French "made Saddam" far, far more then we did. And they were also his main weapons suppliers. But the truth is its truly underestimates Saddam Hussein to say anyone "made him". He murdered his way to power. He "made" himself.

Its true that during his war again Iran, remember?, the US did supply him with some unarmed helicopters and trucks, as well as some Intel on the disposition of Iranian forces. But compared to the support and arms he got from the Soviets, from France, and from his Arab brothers, the US assistance was a drop in the bucket.

But its sounds good doesn't it? "The US made Saddam"? It gives this moronic world another thing to blames us for and it gives Americans another reason to feel all guilty and responsible.

But its nonsense. Its total nonsense.

[FrodeMk3]

Yeah, thats another good one. "America made Saddam" I bet that rumor is believed by billions in this world but not a one of them can say how we "made him".

Because the truth is Saddam's vehicle to power was the emerging Pro-Soviet/Anti-American Pan-Arab BAATH party movement that swept the Arab world in the '60s and '70s. Along with this vehicle was his own personal brutality and ruthlessness in a military dictatorship that was always hostile to America and was a Soviet client state. Remember up to the 1973 Yom Kipurr war the entire Arab world was hostile to America, most of all Iraq. Also the entire Arab world was basically a client state of the Soviet Union. It wasn't until after the '67 war, which crushed Nasser's hopes of one socialist Pan Arab state, and the 1973 war, which crushed Arab hopes of murdering every Jew in the MidEast, that Arab states, some of them, figured they had  made a mistake siding with the Soviets.

But Saddam was never one of them. The Soviets and the French "made Saddam" far, far more then we did. And they were also his main weapons suppliers. But the truth is its truly underestimates Saddam Hussein to say anyone "made him". He murdered his way to power. He "made" himself.

Its true that during his war again Iran, remember?, the US did supply him with some unarmed helicopters and trucks, as well as some Intel on the disposition of Iranian forces. But compared to the support and arms he got from the Soviets, from France, and from his Arab brothers, the US assistance was a drop in the bucket.

But its sounds good doesn't it? "The US made Saddam"? It gives this moronic world another thing to blames us for and it gives Americans another reason to feel all guilty and responsible.

But its nonsense. Its total nonsense.

I was reading a little about this the other day, happened to have this bookmarked:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

Here's one passage I found interesting.

Rise to power
 
Saddam Hussein after the successful 1963 Ba'ath party coup
Saddam Hussein in Cairo after fleeing there following the failed assassination attempt against QassimArmy officers with ties to the Ba'ath Party overthrew Qassim in a coup in 1963. Ba'athist leaders were appointed to the cabinet and Abdul Salam Arif became president. Arif dismissed and arrested the Ba'athist leaders later that year. Saddam returned to Iraq, but was imprisoned in 1964. Just prior to his imprisonment and until 1968, Saddam held the position of Ba'ath party secretary.[14] He escaped prison in 1967 and quickly became a leading member of the party. In 1968, Saddam participated in a bloodless coup led by Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr that overthrew Abdul Rahman Arif. Al-Bakr was named president and Saddam was named his deputy, and deputy chairman of the Baathist Revolutionary Command Council. According to biographers, Saddam never forgot the tensions within the first Ba'athist government, which formed the basis for his measures to promote Ba'ath party unity as well as his resolve to maintain power and programs to ensure social stability.

Various U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials have asserted that Saddam was strongly linked with the CIA, and that U.S. intelligence, under President John F. Kennedy, helped Saddam's party seize power for the first time in 1963. [15] [16]

Saddam Hussein in the past was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a bulwark of anti-communism in the 1960s and 1970s.[16] His first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with ousting then Iraqi Prime Minister Abdul Karim Qassim.[17]

Although Saddam was al-Bakr's deputy, he was a strong behind-the-scenes party politician. Al-Bakr was the older and more prestigious of the two, but by 1969 Saddam Hussein clearly had become the moving force behind the party.

I just started some reading on this one, too, and it looked interesting, as well.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

[CAP1]

Yeah, thats another good one. "America made Saddam" I bet that rumor is believed by billions in this world but not a one of them can say how we "made him".

Because the truth is Saddam's vehicle to power was the emerging Pro-Soviet/Anti-American Pan-Arab BAATH party movement that swept the Arab world in the '60s and '70s. Along with this vehicle was his own personal brutality and ruthlessness in a military dictatorship that was always hostile to America and was a Soviet client state. Remember up to the 1973 Yom Kipurr war the entire Arab world was hostile to America, most of all Iraq. Also the entire Arab world was basically a client state of the Soviet Union. It wasn't until after the '67 war, which crushed Nasser's hopes of one socialist Pan Arab state, and the 1973 war, which crushed Arab hopes of murdering every Jew in the MidEast, that Arab states, some of them, figured they had  made a mistake siding with the Soviets.

But Saddam was never one of them. The Soviets and the French "made Saddam" far, far more then we did. And they were also his main weapons suppliers. But the truth is its truly underestimates Saddam Hussein to say anyone "made him". He murdered his way to power. He "made" himself.

Its true that during his war again Iran, remember?, the US did supply him with some unarmed helicopters and trucks, as well as some Intel on the disposition of Iranian forces. But compared to the support and arms he got from the Soviets, from France, and from his Arab brothers, the US assistance was a drop in the bucket.

But its sounds good doesn't it? "The US made Saddam"? It gives this moronic world another thing to blames us for and it gives Americans another reason to feel all guilty and responsible.

But its nonsense. Its total nonsense.

wel, first off.....you DID notice the question mark, right? it was a QUESTION.

now that said, what you've typed above.....well, that does sound like we had a hand in his rise to power. it doesn't matter a little or a lot, if we helped put him there we helped put him there.

 i just don't knpw enough to argue till i get more info.

[FrodeMk3]

wel, first off.....you DID notice the question mark, right? it was a QUESTION.

now that said, what you've typed above.....well, that does sound like we had a hand in his rise to power. it doesn't matter a little or a lot, if we helped put him there we helped put him there.

 i just don't knpw enough to argue till i get more info.

Check out some of this:

The Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) was one of a series of crises during an era of upheaval in the Middle East: revolution in Iran, occupation of the U.S. embassy in Tehran by militant students, invasion of the Great Mosque in Mecca by anti-royalist Islamicists, the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan, and internecine fighting among Syrians, Israelis, and Palestinians in Lebanon. The war followed months of rising tension between the Iranian Islamic republic and secular nationalist Iraq. In mid-September 1980 Iraq attacked, in the mistaken belief that Iranian political disarray would guarantee a quick victory.

The international community responded with U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire and for all member states to refrain from actions contributing in any way to the conflict's continuation. The Soviets, opposing the war, cut off arms exports to Iran and to Iraq, its ally under a 1972 treaty (arms deliveries resumed in 1982). The U.S. had already ended, when the shah fell, previously massive military sales to Iran. In 1980 the U.S. broke off diplomatic relations with Iran because of the Tehran embassy hostage crisis; Iraq had broken off ties with the U.S. during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

The U.S. was officially neutral regarding the Iran-Iraq war, and claimed that it armed neither side. Iran depended on U.S.-origin weapons, however, and sought them from Israel, Europe, Asia, and South America. Iraq started the war with a large Soviet-supplied arsenal, but needed additional weaponry as the conflict wore on.

Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda. Activism by Iraq's main Shiite Islamicist opposition group, al-Dawa, was a major factor precipitating the war -- stirred by Iran's Islamic revolution, its endeavors included the attempted assassination of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.)

Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.

The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.

One of these directives from Reagan, National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 99, signed on July 12, 1983, is available only in a highly redacted version [Document 21]. It reviews U.S. regional interests in the Middle East and South Asia, and U.S. objectives, including peace between Israel and the Arabs, resolution of other regional conflicts, and economic and military improvements, "to strengthen regional stability." It deals with threats to the U.S., strategic planning, cooperation with other countries, including the Arab states, and plans for action. An interdepartmental review of the implications of shifting policy in favor of Iraq was conducted following promulgation of the directive.

By the summer of 1983 Iran had been reporting Iraqi use of using chemical weapons for some time. The Geneva protocol requires that the international community respond to chemical warfare, but a diplomatically isolated Iran received only a muted response to its complaints [Note 1]. It intensified its accusations in October 1983, however, and in November asked for a United Nations Security Council investigation.

The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [Document 25].

What was the Reagan administration's response? A State Department account indicates that the administration had decided to limit its "efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality in the Gulf war, the sensitivity of sources, and the low probability of achieving desired results." But the department noted in late November 1983 that "with the essential assistance of foreign firms, Iraq ha[d] become able to deploy and use CW and probably has built up large reserves of CW for further use. Given its desperation to end the war, Iraq may again use lethal or incapacitating CW, particularly if Iran threatens to break through Iraqi lines in a large-scale attack" [Document 25]. The State Department argued that the U.S. needed to respond in some way to maintain the credibility of its official opposition to chemical warfare, and recommended that the National Security Council discuss the issue.

Here's the linky, there's a lot more to read on it.http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

[CAP1]

Check out some of this:
Here's the linky, there's a lot more to read on it.http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

thanks dude........


something useful....will be a good read.

<<S>>

[FrodeMk3]

thanks dude........


something useful....will be a good read.

<<S>>

No prob, but it is a lot of material to digest; However, it really does show a lot of Pro-Saddam U.S. involvment.

[Rich46yo]

wel, first off.....you DID notice the question mark, right? it was a QUESTION.

now that said, what you've typed above.....well, that does sound like we had a hand in his rise to power. it doesn't matter a little or a lot, if we helped put him there we helped put him there.

 i just don't knpw enough to argue till i get more info.

Yeah I saw it was a question. And how did we help him rise to power? Tell me what I wrote that suggested that.