TRU?quote:Op donderdag 9 maart 2006 14:35 schreef Tup het volgende:
Het zou mooi zijn als een goede discussie wordt opgestart, eerdere topics op dit vlak eindigden echter in TRU.
Ongelofelijk wat een bedrag...quote:Prescott Bush received $750,000 for his share of Union Banking Corporation, a princely sum in 1951
Dan interesseert het me nog geen biet. Half Nederland heeft zaken gedaan met de Nazi's; zullen we hun kleinkinderen en achterkleinkinderen daar ook lastig mee blijven vallen?quote:Op donderdag 9 maart 2006 14:48 schreef Frank-NL het volgende:
[..]
Wat begrijp je niet precies aan 1951 en inflatie in het algemeen?
Nou... Ik vind het bijvoorbeeld ongeloofelijk raar dat deze mensen er NIET mee lastig gevallen worden en dat geld gewoon mogen gebruiken om hun zaakjes van destijds nu in deze tijd nog eens voort te zetten.quote:Op donderdag 9 maart 2006 14:50 schreef klez het volgende:
Dan interesseert het me nog geen biet. Half Nederland heeft zaken gedaan met de Nazi's; zullen we hun kleinkinderen en achterkleinkinderen daar ook lastig mee blijven vallen?
Wat een gelul. Het begint er al mee dat Saddam niet door de VS aan de macht is geholpen.quote:Op donderdag 9 maart 2006 15:38 schreef RetepV het volgende:
[..]
Nou... Ik vind het bijvoorbeeld ongeloofelijk raar dat deze mensen er NIET mee lastig gevallen worden en dat geld gewoon mogen gebruiken om hun zaakjes van destijds nu in deze tijd nog eens voort te zetten.
Kijk. Die Prescott Bush heeft met dat geld onder andere een heleboel oliebronnen gefinancierd in Koeweit. En de eerste Bush stond daarom natuurlijk flink te springen om er voor te zorgen dat Koeweit de hulp van de VS in zou roepen. Want daarmee kon hij zijn eigen oliebronnen redden. Saddam Hoessein viel Koeweit aan vanwege die oliebronnen, daar was Hoessein duidelijk in. Maar Saddam Hoessein had ook ooit de kans gekregen om in Irak aan de macht te komen DOOR de VS.
De VS was echter achteraf niet zo blij met Saddam Hoessein en zijn hem afgevallen. Saddam, op zijn beurt, vond dat ook niet leuk.
Nou ga ik speculeren... Saddam is een wraakzuchtig mannetje, en hij was boos op de VS. Hoe kun je beter wraak op de VS nemen dan de persoonlijke oliebronnen van de president van de VS te stelen? Dan raak je hem in zijn portemonnaie, de zwakste plek van een kapitalist.
En zo schildert zich het beeld af van een persoonlijke vete tussen George S. Bush en Saddam Hussein.
Nou is George W. Bush een heel ander soort persoon dan zijn pa. Gezien zijn manier van doen, gaat het hem voornamelijk om populariteit. Wat W. Bush's motieven zijn, weet ik niet, maar ik denk dat hij echt gelooft dat hij wat goeds doet voor de wereld. Niet omdat hij zich schaamt voor zijn voorouders, maar vanwege eerzucht.
Ik denk dus dat dat gedoe rond die olievelden in Koeweit van de familie Bush amper speelt bij de huidige Bush.
Onzin. Saddam was in die tijd de grote tegenpool tegen het communisme in Irak en werd wel degelijk door de VS flink ondersteunt:quote:Op donderdag 9 maart 2006 15:50 schreef klez het volgende:
[..]
Wat een gelul. Het begint er al mee dat Saddam niet door de VS aan de macht is geholpen.
Saddam heeft zich in Irak naar de top gemoord in de jaren '70, een periode waarin de VS geen contacten in Irak hadden en de Soviet Unie de belangrijkste externe machtsfactor was in Irak.
quote:In 1976, Saddam rose to the position of general in the Iraqi armed forces. He rapidly became the strongman of the government. The US government, through CIA agents, assisted Saddam with taking over the day to day operations of running Iraq. At the time Saddam was considered an enemy of communism and radical islamism, and at one point Donald Rumsfeld, special envoy of President Ronald Reagan at the time, met with him. Saddam was integral to US policy in the region which tried to weaken the influence of Iran and the Soviet Union. As Iraq's weak and elderly President Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr became increasingly unable to execute the duties of his office, Saddam began to take an increasingly prominent role as the face of the Iraqi government, both internally and externally. He soon became the architect of Iraq's foreign policy and represented the nation in all diplomatic situations. He was the de facto ruler of Iraq some years before he formally came to power in 1979. He slowly began to consolidate his power over Iraq's government and the Ba'ath party. Relationships with fellow party members were carefully cultivated, and Saddam soon gained a powerful circle of support within the party.
Klopt niks van. Daanspeak ofzo zekerquote:Op donderdag 9 maart 2006 16:06 schreef Vhiper het volgende:
[..]
Onzin. Saddam was in die tijd de grote tegenpool tegen het communisme in Irak en werd wel degelijk door de VS flink ondersteunt:
[..]
The Truth is in Here...quote:Op donderdag 9 maart 2006 14:35 schreef Tup het volgende:
Het zou mooi zijn als een goede discussie wordt opgestart, eerdere topics op dit vlak eindigden echter in TRU.
Waarom TRU?quote:Op donderdag 9 maart 2006 20:47 schreef Sidekick het volgende:
Ja, het lijkt mij ook eerder een TRU-topic. *schop*
Saddam kwam dan ook met Amerikaanse hulp aan de macht in 1979, zoals mijn bron al vermelde en kegelde dat regime van de jaren 60 en 70 eruitquote:Op donderdag 9 maart 2006 16:11 schreef klez het volgende:
[..]
Klopt niks van. Daanspeak ofzo zeker![]()
Jeb Sharp: US policymakers put their strategic goals for the Persian Gulf down on paper decades ago: ensuring access to oil, defending Israel and preventing any one power from dominating the region. After War World Two, America's energy demands began to outstrip its supply. It turned to the Middle East to quench its thirst. The security of the Gulf became a priority. In the 1950s as the Cold War set in, Washington cultivated allies there to stave off the Soviets. One of those allies was Iraq. But not for long. In 1958 a revolution overthrew the pro-Western monarchy. Baghdad turned toward Moscow. US distaste for Iraq only deepened through the 1960s and 70's. It wasn't just that Iraq's new leaders leaned toward the Soviets. Iraq was also aggressively anti-Israel. Washington put it in the category of radical Arab states that deserved pariah status. Meanwhile US officials made friends with other countries in the Gulf, notably Saudi Arabia and Iran. These two became the so-called "twin pillars" of US support in the region. Then came the Iranian revolution.
Ken Pollack: In 1979 when the Islamic revolution sweeps Iran there is a tremendous fear that the Islamic revolution is going to catch fire throughout the Middle East.
En zoals mijn bron met link vermeldde is dat niet het geval. Mag ik jou bron nog even zien om de geloofwaardigheid te checken?quote:Op vrijdag 10 maart 2006 06:12 schreef Vhiper het volgende:
[..]
Saddam kwam dan ook met Amerikaanse hulp aan de macht in 1979, zoals mijn bron al vermelde en kegelde dat regime van de jaren 60 en 70 eruit![]()
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/p(...)erviews/aburish.htmlquote:However, the communists are hardly thrown out and not long after, they turn to Saddam, and he personally leads a delegation to Moscow, and there's a development of a relationship between the two. What game was he playing?
Well, alliances of convenience don't last very long. The Ba'ath Party was committed to certain things which American foreign policy could not tolerate. In this particular case it lasted a very short time, really a matter of two weeks. And Saddam got rid of all of the pro-American elements in the government and he asserted his authority on the country. He was not the president. He was the second man, after a relation of his from Tikrit, President Ahmed Bakr. But what happened immediately after that is the things they needed, they couldn't get from the United States anymore. They needed help economically. They needed arms. And the United States were not in the business of openly supplying arms to Arab countries to re-equip themselves for another round of fighting. That was the major issue between the two sides. Saddam knew he could get the arms from Russia and he journeyed to Russia -- this was his first trip outside Iraq, outside of exile of course -- and he got what he wanted. And the alliance of convenience disintegrated as they always do.
So, there was a new alliance, this time with the Soviets.
In 1972, Iraq and the Soviet Union signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation. They wanted to seal the cooperation taking place between them in a formal alliance. The reason Saddam signed that treaty of friendship and cooperation was because that obligated the local communist party, which was very strong, to cooperate with the Ba'ath Party, which was not so strong at that time.
Of course the Russians loved an opportunity to have a hold on Iraq and they signed the treaty and told the local communist party to join the Iraqi government. That alliance internally did not last very long. But the external one was on and off for a very long time. And the Soviet Union at one point thought Iraq was a more important ally than Egypt. Its army always acquitted itself better than the Egyptian army. It was a wealthy country that didn't need a lot of aid, like Egypt. And it was the gateway to the Gulf, to oil. It represented a more immediate threat to the West's lifeline than Egypt did.
Er zijn zo een stuk of duizend bronnen te vinden die je tegenspreken, ik noem maar even deze, uit een interview met iemand die Saddam van dichtbij heeft meegemaakt in die tijden:quote:Op vrijdag 10 maart 2006 10:29 schreef klez het volgende:
[..]
En zoals mijn bron met link vermeldde is dat niet het geval. Mag ik jou bron nog even zien om de geloofwaardigheid te checken?
Er zijn zo een stuk of duizend bronnen te vinden die kunnen bevestigen dat de VS pas na 1979 enige interesse in Irak toonden. Gedurende de jaren '70 heeft men Irak en Saddam volledig links laten liggen. Saddam heeft zelf de macht gegrepen en heeft de Baath partij niet afgezet maar gewoon gebruikt door mensen tegen elkaar uit te spelen en tegenstanders te liquideren.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/p(...)erviews/aburish.htmlquote:While he was in Cairo, there's some belief that he may have had contact with Americans, with the CIA. What can you tell us about that?
There is very good reason to believe that Saddam Hussein was in contact with the American embassy in Cairo when he was in exile. This is not strange, because alliances of convenience were taking place every day, and the United States was afraid that Iraq, under Kassem, might be going communist. So was the Ba'ath Party. So they had a common enemy, a common target -- the possibility of a communist take-over of Iraq.
So there is a record of Saddam visiting the American embassy frequently, and there is a record of the Egyptian security people telling him not to do that. However, one must remember that at that time, Saddam was a minor official of the Ba'ath Party. He was not terribly important. And he was really following in the footsteps of other people who are much more important.
And what would be the idea behind all this?
The visits to the American embassy by Saddam Hussein and other members of the Ba'ath Party had one purpose, and one purpose only: to cooperate with the Americans towards the overthrow of General Kassem in Iraq. Kassem was slightly pro-communist and the Americans wanted to get rid of that danger. Allen Dulles described Iraq as the most dangerous part of the earth in front of a congressional committee. The Ba'ath thought Kassem was their enemy, so there was a mutuality there. And whether a conspiracy transpired or not, the evidence is actually in favor of it having taken place. But the conspiracy was for the duration of getting rid of Kassem. It was not an alliance of permanent nature.
There was a coup in Iraq in 1963. What do we know about the U.S. involvement in that coup?
The U.S. involvement in the coup against Kassem in Iraq in 1963 was substantial. There is evidence that CIA agents were in touch with army officers who were involved in the coup. There is evidence that an electronic command center was set up in Kuwait to guide the forces who were fighting Kassem. There is evidence that they supplied the conspirators with lists of people who had to be eliminated immediately in order to ensure success. The relationship between the Americans and the Ba'ath Party at that moment in time was very close indeed. And that continued for some time after the coup. And there was an exchange of information between the two sides. For example it was one of the first times that the United States was able to get certain models of Mig fighters and certain tanks made in the Soviet Union. That was the bribe. That was what the Ba'ath had to offer the United States in return for their help in eliminating Kassem.
Do we know to what extent Saddam Hussein was involved in the killings when he came back from Cairo?
I have documented over 700 people who were eliminated, mostly on an individual basis, after the 1963 coup. And they were eliminated based on lists supplied by the CIA to the Ba'ath Party. So the CIA and the Ba'ath were in the business of eliminating communists and leftists who were dangerous to the Ba'ath's takeover.
The coup took place in April, Saddam Hussein did not return to Iraq until May. But he went to work immediately. He became an interrogator in the Fellaheen and Muthaqafeen detention camps. They are camps where they kept communists and fellow travellers, after they took power. And in interrogating people in those camps, he used torture, and undoubtedly like everybody else involved in this activity, eliminated people. In 1963 he was still one of the party's toughs, one of the party's thugs, if you wish.
Jumping forward a few years to 1967 and the Arab-Israeli conflict, we've heard that the Soviets then looked to Baghdad in terms of gaining influence in the Middle East. And the Ba'ath Party also wants to get back into power. Describe in the run-up to the 1968 coup, the Cold War dynamics of what was going on in the Middle East, and in particular Iraq, and how the Ba'ath Party was able to use those dynamics to help them get back into power.
In 1968, Iraq had a weak president who was beholden to Nasser, a follower of Nasser. But the defeat of [the Arabs by Israel] in 1967 meant that whatever government was in power when that defeat took place had to go. So the Ba'ath saw an opportunity in this and they thought the time has come for them to take over the country again. The background was extremely interesting. There were two things happening within Iraq at that time. They were developing their own oil and very close to giving the concessions for huge new oil fields, to the USSR and France. And the price of sulpher had shot up so greatly that they were about to mine the sulpher mines in the north and sell it in the world market.
The United States didn't want either to happen. The United States wanted the oil for American oil companies; they wanted the sulpher for themselves. They thought that if Iraq went to the Soviet Union or France, Iraq would be lost to them. In this they were joined by the Ba'ath Party. The Party used the concessions for oil and sulpher as a bargaining point to endear itself once again to America. And they arrived once again at some kind of an agreement of collaboration between the two sides. On the American side negotiating for both the oil and sulpher was a well-known personality, Robert Anderson, the former secretary of treasury under Eisenhower. He met secretly with the Ba'ath and they agreed that if they took over power these concessions will be given to the United States.
And so once again the United States was in the business of supporting the Ba'ath office for the government of Iraq. The Ba'ath was successful. This time Saddam Hussein played a key role. He was one of the people who donned a military uniform -- though he's not a military man -- and attacked the presidential palace and occupied it. The president, being weak, surrendered immediately. Two weeks after they took over power on the 17th of July 1968, there was what they call "the correction movement." That meant getting rid of the non-Ba'ath elements in the coup, and Saddam was prominent in that. As a matter of fact he held a gun to the head of the prime minister and said, "You're going with me to the airport because you're leaving this country." And the guy pleaded with him, said, "I have family, I have a wife and kids." And Saddam said, "Well as long as you behave, they'll be fine." He took him to the airport, he put him in a plane, he deported him, and of course years after, he assassinated him in front of the Intercontinental Hotel in London. The man couldn't escape him in the long run.
Hier staat toch echt niet dat de Amerikanen Saddam in de jaren '70, voorafgaand aan zijn machtsgreep in '79, hebben geholpen. Integendeel.quote:Op vrijdag 10 maart 2006 13:57 schreef Vhiper het volgende:
[..]
Er zijn zo een stuk of duizend bronnen te vinden die je tegenspreken, ik noem maar even deze, uit een interview met iemand die Saddam van dichtbij heeft meegemaakt in die tijden:
[..]
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/p(...)erviews/aburish.html
Nee. Onder historici is juist algemeen bekend dat de VS in de jaren '70, de periode dat Saddam de macht greep, persona non grata waren in Irak, sterker nog, door Saddam persoonlijk werden alle banden met de VS verbroken in de jaren '70, zoals deze link en vele andere laten zien.quote:Op zaterdag 11 maart 2006 08:59 schreef ChatChewbacca het volgende:
klez, wacko, leer eens bronnen selecteren. Het is algemeen bekend dat Saddam en Amerika via de CIA vriendjes waren.
Ja, die Russen waren ook eng. Meer dan 1 miljoen Afghanen hebben ze vermoord... Dus in dat licht bezien was het uitstekend dat men iemand die verzet voerde tegen de Russen steunde.quote:Is ook bekend van onze grote Al Qaida leider. Wel eens gehoord over afghanistan? De mujahadin werden betaald door de CIA om de ó zo enge russen buiten de deur te houden.
quote:Ook in 2002 gaf Hein Klemann met zijn "Nederland 1938 – 1948. Economie en samenleving in jaren van oorlog en bezetting" een beeld van de Nederlandse economie tijdens de oorlog. Hij rekent af met de traditionele voorstelling dat Nederland door de Duitse bezetter systematisch beroofd en steeds armer werd gemaakt. In de periode van mei 1940 tot najaar 1942 draaide het Nederlandse bedrijfsleven goed mee in de Duitse economie. De Nederlandse bedrijven werkten intenser mee dan de Belgische. Tot 1944 bleef de Nederlandse economie nog groeien, o.m. door handel met de Wehrmacht.
bronquote:In the last half of 1944 German truck production was attacked. Three plants produced most of Germany's truck supply. One of these, Opel at Brandenburg, was knocked out completely in one raid on August 6, 1944, and did not recover. Daimler Benz was similarly eliminated by attacks in September and October. Ford at Cologne, the third large producer, was not attacked but records show that production was sharply curtailed during the same period by destruction of component suppliers and the bombing of its power supply. By December of 1944, production of trucks was only about 35 percent of the average for the first half of 1944.
Voorlopig mag die nog niet zihc kandidaat stellen. Moet eerst de wet veranderd worden.quote:Op dinsdag 14 maart 2006 09:29 schreef RickySway het volgende:
Het enige waar we nu nog tegen kunnen vechten is het presidentschap van Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Inderdaad, oud nieuws snap ook niet dat dit hier op Fok! enkele keren per jaar weer als hot news gebracht wordt. De halve wereld deed zaken met de nazi's en was over het algemeen tot 1939 zeer te spreken over hoe de nazi's dat land weer op de rails kregen.quote:Op dinsdag 14 maart 2006 09:29 schreef RickySway het volgende:
none of this matters now.
Zoals?quote:Bush is al aan de macht en hij heeft zijn taken al flink uitgevoerd.
Nog niet nodig zolang de grondwet niet is aangepast. Maar waarom zouden we daar tegen willen vechten? Arnold is op veel punten een stuk liberaler dan Bush en zelfs dan Clinton.quote:Het enige waar we nu nog tegen kunnen vechten is het presidentschap van Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Ik denk dat dit topic hier prima thuishoort, de TT zegt namelijk al genoeg. Dit is namelijk geen feit, wel dat de familie Bush geld geinvesteerd heeft in Nazi Duitsland. Dat klinkt ernstig maar daar waren ze natuurlijk in die tijd lang niet alleen in.quote:Op maandag 20 maart 2006 21:50 schreef BaajGuardian het volgende:
als je de naam Bush in een TT hebt staan gaat het automatisch naar een Paranormaal forum
waarom?
als je politieke corruptie aankaart gaat het automatisch naar een paranormaal forum
waarom?
etc.
op die manier werkt Fok! mee aan corruptie, genocide en klimaat manipulatie van honderddruizenden mensen.
!!quote:Op donderdag 9 maart 2006 14:31 schreef mrdjey het volgende:
Ik was een beetje aan het inlezen over de invasie van Nederland door de Duitsers tijdens de 2e WO. En toen stuite ik op de volgende website.
http://www.bartcop.com/421102.htm
Hier las ik het volgende stukje:
Prescott Bush received $750,000 for his share of Union Banking Corporation, a princely sum in 1951, but nothing compared to the millions the Thyssen family got back. Prescott used some of this Nazi cash to bankroll his son George Herbert Walker Bush’s first business enterprise and to support his successful bid for Senate in 1952.
Vroeg me af of dit bekent is bij de meeste mensen.
|
Forum Opties | |
---|---|
Forumhop: | |
Hop naar: |