Remember when Iraq invaded Kuwait

Myself like many others thought Saddam had invaded Kuwait because he was a war mongering tyrant wanting to steal oil, but alas, there is more to that story than what myself and I assume others are unaware of. Saddam thought he had the green light from the US State Department....no kidding !
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: 727Sky


No one really knows why the USA did that. I was for it at the time. I believed them. I no longer do.

I suppose it could be any reason running from Saddam made the Bush clan mad by trying to assasinate GW senior to the outlandish idea there is a stargate, to and even more outlandish thought that they wanted to wake up demons shackled somehow there.

ANything is up for grabs.

Me, I think they just wanted and got control over resources to continue to enrich their coffers.

Been going on with us humans for eons.

And if you don't think they are doing the same thing with Iran you are a f'ing moron.


Watching Americans fall for this all over again is painful to watch.

a reply to: JAY1980

If so then they are taking their time doing it.
How many years since the Iraq wars?

And lets face it, they've had plenty of opportunities/excuses to invade Iran in the years since.
Yet still no actual sign of a real, military invasion of Iran.

Guess I must be a #ing moron?

On topic: I agreed with removing Saddam. He was a truly barbaric leader with no redeeming attributes at all.
Its what we did afterwards that #ed things up so badly.

a reply to: 727Sky

This is not a secret. It was known at the time.

The only people who made a fuss were the left, who saw Desert Shield / Desert Storm as the first post-Cold War pssing contest.

The Kuwaitis hired some some first class PR agencies and NATO kept quiet.

It's been turned around and discussed and explored quite a bit since then,like this...

The ending of that war is also interesting, with the wildly different ways the Highway of Death was reported in the US and elsewhere."The war photo no one would publish", for example, was on the front pages of pretty much every newspaper outside the US. Given it was the first war with "embedded" press coverage - with a few notable exceptions like Peter Arness and Alfonso Rojo - this division effectively signalled the end of operations.

a reply to: 727Sky

iraq was practically giving away gas to its citizens for
6 CENTS PER GALLON

we could have sold it for $2-$3 per gallon....
THATS LIKE THEFT!

so he had to go, now look its $3-4 a gallon
plus we steal most of it... sweet light crude oil
less processing needed

The United States, gave Saddam chemical weapons of mass destruction.

I know we did, because I was alive and watched the deal go down on TV. In fact most Americans who were alive back then did also, they just didn't pay attention to detail.

That, is how the US Intel knew Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, because it was our weapons we have to him.

I watched it live.
Now you too can see the deal, recorded for posterity;

Rumsfield & Saddam
youtu.be...

There has been dozens of discussion threads on this exact subject. It's in the past, it's done, we can't go back to undo it.

Today's collapse in the middle east, is the fault of corrupt career PARASITE politicans of America, who have been in politics since that era! Think about that, seriously think on it.

Stop voting for politicans who have been in office, longer than you've been alive. They are the establishment. Period.

originally posted by: JAY1980
And if you don't think they are doing the same thing with Iran you are a f'ing moron.

Watching Americans fall for this all over again is painful to watch.

Ignorance isn't bliss, especially for those who are not ignorant.

Let it be known, those who knew, tried ...

originally posted by: JAY1980
And if you don't think they are doing the same thing with Iran you are a f'ing moron.

Watching Americans fall for this all over again is painful to watch.

It was supposed to be Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, uh, I forget, Lebananon?

Basically it was 7 countries in 5 years. Supposedly that was the plan.

25 years ago. And people still believe this nonsense.

a reply to: 727Sky

I dunno if I'd call it a green light but they basically told him if he did it the US wouldn't respond with anything but maybe some sanctions.

And initially that was all we were gonna do.

What happened?

Margaret Thatcher happened. After she met with Bush, his attitude and responses about the entire situation changed overnight.

I suppose it could be any reason running from Saddam made the Bush clan mad by trying to assasinate GW senior to the outlandish idea there is a stargate, to and even more outlandish thought that they wanted to wake up demons shackled somehow there.

a reply to: berbofthegreen

I don't know, Tucker Carlson may have an opinion on the "wake up demons" part.
Tucker has a lot of credibility, I don't think he'd throw it away for a BS demon tail

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Tucker has a lot of credibility,......

Does he?

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

He does make a living creating media to a target audience…..

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Tucker has a lot of credibility,......

Does he?

Yes. He was fired from faux news for covering what was important in an honest way. Fox news got rid of him when he was their number 1 rated show because he wouldn't bend the knee to their censorship. That is how he earned his credibility.

originally posted by: Lazy88
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

He does make a living creating media to a target audience…..

What is his target audience? Paranormal? Religious demonic spiritual cultists? I have never seen Tucker cover demons and I would say that is not his target audience.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Neither does Shaun Ryan but he covers that very well recently with. Catholic exorcist guest. Supernatural is an aspect of our existence, denying that is denying oneself of even seeing the bigger picture.

People who can't see or refuse to see what's really going on, are going to be blind to the truth no matter what. Self induced ignorance is the incurable kind. We can't deny ignorance if we are not willing to do so. In turn, God can't help those who refuse to be helped let alone help them selves. Make sense?

originally posted by: ADVISOR
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Neither does Shaun Ryan but he covers that very well recently with. Catholic exorcist guest. Supernatural is an aspect of our existence, denying that is denying oneself of even seeing the bigger picture.

People who can't see or refuse to see what's really going on, are going to be blind to the truth no matter what. Self induced ignorance is the incurable kind. We can't deny ignorance if we are not willing to do so. In turn, God can't help those who refuse to be helped let alone help them selves. Make sense?

Ah, yea. I was replying to the suggestion that Tucker was pandering to a target audience. Follow?

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Oh, the irony…. Right here on ATS.

Tucker Carlson Shares Amazing Story: "I Was Mauled By a Demon"

www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1352466/pg1

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Do I have the right Tucker?


Still a media personality that uses sensationalism to manufacture product to a target audience.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Shrugs…

This post has a seed of truth to it: Fox News host Tucker Carlson was sued for slander in 2020 by Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model who sold the rights of the story of her affair with Donald Trump to the National Enquirer. Carlson claimed that McDougal attempted to extort money from Trump—though she never asked Trump for money or even approached him. McDougal sued, and in response Fox’s legal team argued that his comments “cannot reasonably be interpreted as facts .”

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil—district judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York—heard the case and agreed, finding that “given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statements he makes” and that “this overheated rhetoric is precisely the kind of pitched commentary that one expects when tuning in to talk shows like Tucker Carlson Tonight, with pundits debating the latest political controversies.”

“The Court concludes that the statements are rhetorical hyperbole and opinion commentary intended to frame a political debate, and, as such, are not actionable as defamation,” wrote Vyskocil in her ruling.

thedispatch.com...

Oh, the irony…. Right here on ATS.

Still a media personality that uses sensationalism to manufacture product to a target audience.

a reply to: Lazy88

I don't see what is ironic here but if you think that the legal case against Tucker was legit and that Tucker is pandering to a target audience then so be it. We disagree. I have made sure not to hitch myself to any media personality but to me Tucker is a solid guy and until proven otherwise I will believe Tucker vs. Fox news. Being sued, defamed and fired by Fox News doesn't hurt Tucker's street cred.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Did Tucker try to correct the Fox lawyers and their claim concerning himself?

Fox’s legal team argued that his comments “cannot reasonably be interpreted as facts