TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Iraq
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

im going to do a little research about this when i get a little less lazy. i feel this excuse has been giving too much strength.

Few examples:
Iran
Afghanistan
Saudi Arabia (here US is only supportive, but it didn't help them get the power)

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Few examples: Iran Afghanistan Saudi Arabia (here US is only supportive, but it didn't help them get the power)

quick reply... thats exactly what im talking about
pure intervention in iran happened when the CIA in 1953 caused a change of power. that same government was then thrown out during the iran contra (late 70's early 80's). since then no american involvement has happened in iran... ok so that takes them out of the picture.

Afghanistan, americas involvement happened in the early 80's when they aided them agianst the russians. since then no intervention was taken until the recent change of the taliban regime

saudia, as you said only supportive power, ie diplomacy, there is a big difference between diplomacy and intervention. america has diplomatic relations with just about every country out there in the world.

also being diplomatic about oil for example is no excuse, in my point of view thats the same as any other economic diplomatic relations such as grain textile or other natural resources export/import.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy interesting, never heard of it, what happened? i'd like to see some of these "false" satellite pictures

A quick search led me to this exerpt. You can also find this in Kellners book "media culture" its meticulously described there.

"One of the main reasons for America�s going to war against Iraq in 1990 was because the White House declared that there were satellite photos showing Iraqi tanks and troops massing on the borders of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, threatening invasion of Saudi Arabia. . The reports fueled the war hysteria and frightened the Saudis, who then agreed to full cooperation with US military forces. They were a major reason used to convince the American people of the justification for war to protect and defend the oil supplies so vital to the West.

Yet the supposed aerial photos proving the accusation were never released. First the Pentagon said they had to remain secret because of the war effort. Then the White House kept hedging and finally the issue died down with the supposed photos still not released. Iraq all along denied that it had any intention of threatening Saudi Arabia and was only reunited itself with its (claimed) province of Kuwait. See link below about Russian satellite photos showing no large concentrations of troops.

On February 27, 1991, an article appeared in "IN THESE TIMES" telling how typical consumers of mainstream news were dazzled and deluded by the manipulators of images. The article, "Public Doesn't Get Picture with Gulf Satellite Photos," reported that when president George Bush began his massive deployment of American troops to the Gulf in August 1990, he claimed that Iraq, which had just entered Kuwait, had set its sights on Saudi Arabia. On September 11, 1990, Bush addressed a joint session of Congress, saying, "We gather tonight witness to events in the Gulf as significant as they are tragic. 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia".

On January 6, 1991, however, Jean Heller had reported in the ST. PETERSBURG (Fla.) TIMES that satellite photos taken the same day the president Bush addressed Congress failed to back up his claim of an imminent Iraqi threat. In fact, there was no sign of a massive Iraqi troops buildup in Kuwait.

Heller told IN THESE TIMES, "The troops that were said to be massing on the Saudi border and that constituted the possible threat to Saudi Arabia that justified the US sending of troops do not show up in these photographs. And when the Department of Defense was asked to provide evidence that would contradict our satellite evidence, it refused to do so".

But the national media has chosen to ignore Heller's story. ST. PETERSBURG TIMES� editors approached the Associated Press twice about running her story on the wire, but to no avail. Likewise, the Scripps-Howard news service, of which the ST. PETERSBURG TIMES is a member, chose not to distribute the story. "I think part of the reason the story was ignored was that it was published too close to the start of the war," says Heller. "Second, and more importantly, I do not think people wanted to hear that we might have been deceived. A lot of the reporters who have seen the story think it is dynamite, but the editors who have seen it seem to have the attitude. "At this point, who cares? If the war ends badly with a lot of casualties, more than the administration had led us to expect, you might hear of this story again".

Heller said in her story that Soviet satellite photos taken five weeks after August 2, 1990 suggest that the Bush administration might have exaggerated the scope of Iraq's military threat to Saudi Arabia at the time.

The photos are not conclusive proof that the administration overestimated Iraq's buildup along the Saudi border, a buildup that was cited as a justification for the deployment of US troops. But two American satellite imaging experts who examined the photos could find no evidence of a massive Iraqi presence in Kuwait in September 1990. "The Pentagon kept saying, the Iraqi troops were there, but we do not see anything to indicate an Iraqi force in Kuwait of even 20 per cent the size the administration claimed," said Peter Zimmerman, who served with the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency during the Reagan administration.

A Soviet commercial satellite took a photo of Saudi Arabia on September 11, 1990 and a photo of Kuwait on September 13. At the time, the Defense Department was estimating there were as many as 250.000 Iraqi troops and 1.500 tanks in Kuwait. The photos were obtained by the St. PETERSBURG TIMES in late December 1990.

The TIMES informed the Defense Department of the results of the photo analysis in early January, 1991, and asked to see evidence that would support the official US estimate of the Iraqi buildup. Spokesman Bob Hall turned down the request. "We have given conservative estimates of Iraqi numbers based on various intelligence resources, and those are the numbers we stand by," Hall said. The mystery surrounding the numbers of Iraqi troops first surfaced in November, 1990, after ABC NEWS purchased several Soviet satellite photos of Kuwait taken on September 13, 1990 and could find no evidence of large numbers of Iraqi troops. ABC officials decided not to air the photos because they did not include the strategically important area of southern Kuwait. Without seeing that territory, ABC officials said, they could draw on conclusions about what they were seeing - or not seeing. The TIMES bought the missing photos of Kuwait, as well as a photo of part of Saudi Arabia, from Soyuz-Karta, a Soviet commercial satellite agency that sells pictures worldwide for such purposes as geological studies and energy exploration. The cost was $1.500 a photo.

The TIMES retained two satellite image specialists to interpret the photos: Zimmerman, a nuclear physicist who now is a professor of engineering at George Washington University in Washington D.C, and a former image specialist for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) who asked not to be named because of the classified nature of his work.

While Iraqi troops cannot be seen, it is easy to spot the extensive American military presence at the Dhahran Airport in Saudi Arabia. "We could see five C-141s one C5A and four smaller transport aircraft, probably C-130s," said Zimmerman. "There is also a long line of fighters, F-111s or F-15s on the ground. In the middle of the airfield are what could be camouflaged staging areas. "We did not find anything of that sort anywhere in Kuwait. We do not see any tent cities, we do not see congregations of tanks, we do not see troops concentrations, and the main Kuwaiti air base appears deserted. It's five weeks after August 2, 1990, and what we can see, the Iraqi air force has not flown a single fighter to the most strategic air base in Kuwait. There is no infrastructure to support large numbers of (military) people. They have to use toilets, or the functional equivalent. They have to have food. They have to have water at the rate of several gallons per man per day. They have to have shelter. But where is it?".

The former DIN specialist agreed: "I simply did not see what I expected to see. There should be revetments - three sided berms with vehicles inside facing the anticipated direction of attack. There should be trenches. But they are not there". Both analysts say there are several possible explanations for the inability to spot Iraqi forces. The troops could have been so well camouflaged that they were hidden from the Soviet cameras. However, Zimmerman said that would be a departure from Iraq's strategy during its war with Iran in the 1980s when virtually no effort was made to hide military positions. Both analysts recall seeing Iraqi troops deployments during that war on poorer images from the French SPOT satellite. It's also possible that the troops were so widely dispersed that the satellite could not "See" them because its cameras could not resolve images smaller than five meters, or about 16 feet, across. Or it might be that glare from the sun on the Kuwaiti sand smudged out troops images, although images taken over Saudi Arabia appear unaffected by glare.

Another possibility is that the Soviets deliberately or accidentally produced a photo taken before August 2, that is before Iraqi troops entering Kuwait. "We have to take on faith that the image is what the Soviet say it is," Zimmerman said. "I think that is reasonable assumption, because they would not have a motive to misrepresent it, and if they did misrepresent it and the word got out, they would never sell another picture to anybody.

"We are willing to concede, at least for purposes of argument, that it is not impossible that all Iraqi activity is blow the level of resolution. But if there were tent cities, if there were bunkers, if these were staging, supply and maintenance areas, we find it really hard to believe that we missed them".

On September 18, 1990 only days after the Soviet photos were taken, the Pentagon said Iraqi forces in and around Kuwait had grown to 360.000 men and 2.800 tanks, a move of troops and equipment sizable enough to leave telltale marks on the landscape that should be visible by satellite.

In fact, the photo of southern Kuwait bought by The TIMES clearly shows the tracks left by vehicles that serviced a large oil field, but there are no indications of tank tracks. Moreover, both analysts said all Kuwaiti roads leading to the Saudi border were covered at intervals by deep deposits of windblown sand. The sand cover is very extensive," the former DIA analyst said. "In many places, it goes on for 30 meters (about 100 feet) and more." They would be passable by tank but not by personnel or supply vehicles," Zimmerman said. "Yet there's no sign that tanks have used those roads. And there is no evidence of new road being cut. By contrast, none of the roads we see in Saudi Arabia has any sand cover at all. They have been swept clear". A satellite photo of the same area of Kuwait on August 8, just a few days after Iraqi troops entered Kuwait, shows some sand cover on the roads, Zimmerman said, and the cover appeared to be less extensive, suggesting that it continued to build up over the next month.

"It certainly indicates that nobody's been driving over them and that the (Iraqi) military has not bothered to clear them for traffic, he said". Asked if the Defense Department officials could dispel the mystery created by the Soviet photos, Pentagon spokesman Hall replied: "There is no mystery as far as we are concerned. They (the Iraqi troops) are there. We would like it to remain a mystery what our intelligence capabilities are. We are not going to make our intelligence public".

Rep. Charles Bennett of Jacksonville, the No.2 Democrat on the House of Armed Services Committee, told the St. PETERSBURG TIMES: "We have had evidence in the sense that we have had testimony about what the situation was back in September, but I have seen no photographic evidence to back up the administration's claim".

The above news reports� questions have never been answered. Yet the claimed threat to Saudi Arabia, together with the "babies in incubators" story were a main reason for the U.S. going to war. It was about babies being thrown out of incubators in occupied Kuwait. The story was promoted in Congressional testimony by the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador, disguised and misrepresenting herself as an escapee from Kuwait. The Kuwaitis paid millions of dollars including contracting the giant public relations firm, Hill and Knowlton, to publicize their point of view. Lies, appealing to Americans' good nature, have often been used to get us to go to war, for example, see any history about getting us into World War I."

thanks for posting that, ill get back to you later... im off to go shopping

No prob.

the US is going to have a war with Iraq soon, we all know that. No matter what happens, that war will happen (end of February!!).

The ironic part is that Bush wants to attack Saddam because he has weapons of mass-destruction and has used those weapons before. I don't know if you people know this but America has a lot of weapons of mass-destruction (they probably have all the (bio-)chemical weapons there are in the whole world) and has used them last year.... remember the Daisy Cutter in Afghanistan.

When America attacks Iraq the world only has more problems, the economy will decrease, oil prices will go skyhigh (they are allready now). Not to mention the hatred towards the West from the Arab countries.

Our government supports the war with Iraq and I don't like it...

quote:

Hussein intentionally constructs military installments and weapons depots in areas of extreme population density

Somehow this makes sense. Imagine building a weapons depot underneath a shopping mall. This just made the US's job alot more difficult.

TP

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King LOOOOOOOOL....Do you recall the Icubater Baby incident concocted by the US government and the Kuwaiti embassodors daughter? Now that was a "Disgracefully effective propaganda engine" that helped the public support the invasion of iraq in 91. We also shouldnt forget the mis-inforamtion campaigns and the false satellite pictures the US mediated to instill anger in the American public and encourage a war.

I'm not denying that the United States government has been involved in a plethora of dubious activities in the past. But that has absolutely no relevance whatsoever regarding this issue. I apologize for my bluntness, but as far as I can tell you are merely inserting random, vaguely related, anti-American rhetoric in place of an argument, the most likely cause being that no valid argument exists to support your assertions.

quote:

I have seen arial footage of fighter jets that intentionally have bombed shelters filled with hundreds of families.... then claiming that they thought it was a bomb making facility....give me a FUCKING BREAK!!!!

Considering they would have no motive to do this, you'll have to understand my skepticism regarding the veracity of your claims.

quote:

I dont think you understand....the civilians of iraq do not choose to die.... so dont say thats a fact. They die because bombs are dropped on their heads as they sleep. And why is the US soooooo concerned with the liberty of Iraqi's.... many people are happy the way things are there.. yet many are not.. it doesnt mean you should invade that country. Also... lets not forget about the constant excuses that the US has being giving to go to war even though Hans Blix has acknowledged the co-operation of the Iraqi government. So far.. nothing has been found in Iraq indicating a nuclear weapons program.

They don't die because of their choice, but neither because of America's. They die because of the corruption and dishonor of their government, which abuses them as a cover for military operations.

It is the responsibility of any civilized and honorable person to do everything in their power to ensure the liberty of people around the globe to the greatest extent that is feasible. Regardless of the status of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, the consistent disregard for basic human rights by the Iraqi regime is a mandate for corrective action.

He who tolerates oppression is as bad as the oppressor himself.

quote:

Originally posted by fastmp3 arabs are too proud of themselves and they don't need the USA to remove the dictators from their place , the revolution will come one day and let it come alone

hehe. the Croats didnt need the USA to separate from the former states of Yugoslavia. but then again, if Reagan didnt do his stuff 15 years earlier, to SOviet BloK would be alive and kickin and communism in eastern countries (including former Yugo) would still be.

so maybe USA intervention in one way or another might be good.
>JM<

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King No prob.

I didn't read from all of the above post, because it is long boring, and conspiratorial.

Firstly, yes the baby incubator story is I believe false (or exagerated). Though it was not a scheme of US intent, if blame can be placed it must be only on the Kuwati's and their amabassador.

Second, the USA did not have to co-ax Saudia Arabia with fake picture. It is a matter of record that the USA went to Saudi officials and asked them to base large force before an invasion of Kuwait. They has showed them pictures and shared with them intelligence which they believed proved that Iraq was aimming at conquring Kuwait.

Without US forces in Saudia Arabia, the US simply told the Saudi's they could not garuntee their saftey if Iraq were to decide to then send his forces into Saudi Arabia. This was not good enough for the Saudi's however and they refused American forces in Saudia Arabia.

During the invasion of Kuwait, or little before, however, the Saudi's has a unique change of mind and invited the massing of US forces inside, and along it's borders. It would latter join the coalition that would be used to kick Saddam out of Kuwait.

After this war Saddam would sign treaties. It is these treaties he has violated, and it is for this reason that the new coalition is forming to replace Saddam's regiem.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.