208 Kuwait and Saddam

This blog:  http://tinyurl.com/8xghdj5 






In august 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait.

There was a border dispute, and Saddam was unable to solve it with diplomacy.

Then the world learned that Saddam"s soldiers behaved in a very barbaric way and the US decided to drive the Iraqi's out of Kuweit.

Saddam was the bad guy. America ( we) were the good guys.


And now the truth: 


1. In Victor Ostrovsky's 1990 book," By way of deception," about the Mossad way of doing things,   we read this passage:

 Ostrovsky,  ex Mossad agent, on page 117 :

 "After the bombing of Libya, our friend Qadhafi is sure to stay out of the picture for some time.

Iraq and Saddam Hussein are the next target. 


We're starting now to build him up as the big villain. 


It will take some time, but in the end, there's no doubt it'll work." ( quote) 


( Ostrovsky citeert zijn directe baas bij de Mossad, en omdat Ostrovsky al in 1986 de Mossad verliet, is deze uitspraak dus al 4 jaar vòòr  Saddam's inval in Iraq gedaan.)

2. Around 1989 the Emir of Kuwait started to act strange: he sold this oil below the Opec-agreed price.  Saddam tried to bring him to reason, but the Emir defied Saddam. 

As Kuwait historically was a part of Iraq,  Iraq always had felt they had the right top annex Kuwait. 

3. Saddam chequed with the US ambassador, April Glaspie, what Amnerica's reaction would possibly be if Iraq would annex Kuwait.

There are several version of her answer, but it is generally accepted, and also confirmed by a Wiki Leak (*) , that she answered:  'It is not our bussiness." ( Glaspie) 

In other words: Saddam got the green light. 

4. What happened next was typical for Israel's 'By way of deception."

They started a rumor about atrocities, done by Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait. 

They produced Kuweiti witnesses before Congress and the UN. 

The result was perfect:  The US went to war and damaged Israel's potential enemy in a terrible way. 

It was all organised by 'jewish interests' in the US, as we can see in this video: ( Human Rights Caucus) 

Summary of the video, in Dutch: 

Tom Lantos, joods Congres lid, ooit in Auschwitz, en in Spielbergs film ‘The Last Days”.

Heeft met zijn “Mensenrechten  onderzoek  door het Congres “ een  aantal valse getuigenissen in de Media gebracht, waardoor de VS besloot om Kuweit te bevrijden van Saddam’s leger.

Het geheel is uitgevoerd door Hill and Knowlton, een bedrijf in Public Relations dat in hetzelfde gebouw zit als Tom Lantos’s  mensen rechten organisatie.

De valse getuigenissen kwamen van:

1.           De ambassadeur.

Over Torture. Rape on an indiscriminate and massive scale.

Brutal torture of men, woman and children. Electric shocks on private parts.   Extractions of finger nails etc.

2.         Citizins for a free Kuwait.: various Kuweiti give a testimony:

-          Een huilende vrouw die een zieke baby in haar handen heeft. 

-          Twee volwassen vrouwen die Saddamn met Hitler vergelijken.

-          Een jong meisje, huilend: vrijwilliger in hospitaal:  saddams soldiers took babies out of incubators and left the children to die on cold floor.

Verhaal over vrienjde die nu oude man leek.  Fingernails extracted .

Dan komt Tom Lantos met zalvende woorden, die het meisje prijst.

Hij vergelijkt het ongeloof over Hitler, destijds,  met het ongeloof over Saddam's barbaarsheid nu....  ‘This new Hitler”

De Kuweiti wilden hun land bevrijd zien en betaalden 10 miljoen $ aan America’s grootste public Relations company: Hill and Knowlton, Washington.

Zelfs in de UN komt een getuigenis van een man die zegt dat hij 14 pasgeboren babies heeft begraven die gestorven waren omdat  Saddam’s soldaten de couveuses hadden gestolen en mee namen naar Baghdad.

Twee dagen later keurt de UN het gebruik van geweld tegen Irakese bezetters  goed.

Amnestie International beweert dat er 312 babies zijn gedood en zegt dat tegen Het Congres.

Toen Iraakse soldaten hoorden van de beschuldiging, nodigden ze journalisten uit om te kijken in de Kuweitse ziekenhuizen.

Dat hielp  het gerucht niet de wereld uit.

Later kwamen onafhankelijke onderzoekers. Die gingen alle ziekenhuizen langs en concludeerden dat er geen couveuses weg waren !

Het aantal dode babies begon te dalen:  van 312 naar 70 naar 30 naar 11.

Het jonge meisje dat huilend getuigde, bleek de dochter van de Kuweitse  ambassadeur.

Tom Lantos wist tevoren dat het meisje een valse getuigenis aflegde.

Ook de andere getuigenissen waren bedrog. 

Maar:  Irak, dat met rechte, en met America's instemming  de oude Iraakse provincie inlijfde, zonder gruwelijkheden te plegen,  werd kapot gemaakt. 

5.  What else is new? 

Not so much. Paul Wolfowitz, who had pleaded for an attack on Iraq for many years, was not satisfied: he had wished Saddam to be taken out.  ( This was also noted in a litterary work by 

another member of the Leo Strauss fanclub: .... ) 

Later he and Perle and other wrote 'A Clean Break' in which they again pleaded for removing Saddam. 

Wolfowitz was obsessed by the strategic idea of Pearl Harbor. 

The 2003 war on Iraq had nothing to do with WMD, Al Qaida, uranium, London or Prague meetings.  And nothing with democracy.  It even had nothing to do with oil, as also James Petras has written.  It had everything to do with 'making the world safe for Israel.'(as even Philip Zelikow said in a speech at a university: (**)

6.  Eleven dead babies, is that all ? 

Not quite. 

After the Gulf War Saddam was accused of having Weapons of Mass Destruction. And to force Iraq to comply with 'the civilised world' this 'civilised world' put sanctions in place. 

Five years later studies of the UN showed that these sanctions caused the death of 500.000 babies and children to die in the first 5 years.. plus another 500.000 grown up people. 

Well, couln't you consider this 1 million dead Iraqi's to be caused by Saddam? 

No, not really. We now know that Saddam did not have the WMD's in those years, and ... we knew it all along !!

This was revealed in a John Pilger documentary: 'The war you don't see.'  In that video a Brittish diplomat, Carne Ross, states that he had to go to New York to talk about the sanctions, and he went to a Brittish department to find out how many WMD's Saddam still had. 

The answer  was: We think Iraq has no WMD's.  

So,  we went to war with Iraq because we believed unproven rumors that there were  312 babies killed. 
Then we put in place sanctions for a false reason. 
These sanctions killed 1 million people. 
And yet we think WE are the good guys, and the arabs are the BAD guys!

All these atrocities, all these innocent deaths, isn't that a high price for giving Israel full liberty to mistreat the Palestinians?  

No, says Madeleine Albright,  " The price is worth it'"    

 price= 1 million death. 

 it=  to give Israel complete freedom to do what it wants to do without having to worry about arab retributions.  

7. Could this happen again? 


It is happening again.   Now the sanctions are put on Iran. 
For what ?  For possibly preparing to be able to make a nuclear bomb in the future. 
But such a bomb could be dangerous for Israel. 
Yes, as well as Israels 300 atomic bombs are dangerous for the rest of the world. 
Why does Israel want to bomb Iran? 
Just to stay in absolute power in the Middle East: see Danielle Pletka, AEI.   

(*) Wikileaks:   The leaked memo reveals that indeed,Hussein expressed grave concerns and reservations about invading Kuwait over long-standing border disputes, angular gas drilling, and the low price of crude oil that was negatively impacting Iraq's economy and debt. The memo shows that Glaspie assured Hussein of then-PresidentGeorge Bush, Sr.'s continued friendship and support, and that she explicitly stated the United States took no position over Iraqi and Kuwaiti disagreements. 

(**) Here are Zelikow's own words during a September 10, 2002 speech at the University of Virginia: 

"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell."[ii]