# Russia Gave Intel To Saddam



## tomahawk6 (24 Mar 2006)

Could be disinformation. Anyway it didnt do old Saddam much good.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189050,00.html

Below is an article discussing the essence of a classified pentagon study.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060501faessay85301-p0/kevin-woods-james-lacey-williamson-murray/saddam-s-delusions-the-view-from-the-inside.html


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Mar 2006)

Iraqi documents captured by coalition forces.

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm


----------



## Gunnerlove (24 Mar 2006)

Hope these documents are better than the ones they had relating to Iraq's huge NBCW program.

Fox makes CNN seem like a reliable unbiased news source, and that is hard to do.


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Mar 2006)

CNN used to be called Clinton News Network.


----------



## derael (24 Mar 2006)

Sometimes I think there are people out there that wish to have the public scared of Russian aggression for whatever their reasons may be.
But then again maybe Putin is planning for a Russian "comeback", although I'm not sure how thats going to work...


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Mar 2006)

This isnt about Russian aggression, more like Russian duplicity.


----------



## derael (24 Mar 2006)

Agreed. Never said the actual action was aggression though. It just makes people think twice about the Russians....as in who knows what they have planned for the future. It incites that whole "lets get them before they get us" attitude. I'm not saying its at that level now but everything starts somewhere.


----------



## nULL (25 Mar 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> This isnt about Russian aggression, more like Russian duplicity.



Didn't know Russia was in the coalition of the willing...


----------



## FredDaHead (25 Mar 2006)

I read (I'll try to remember where and post the source) that in essence, the information given to the Iraqis by way of Russian "espionnage" was mostly wrong. From what I read, they were told the US wouldn't invade until the 10th Mountain, (IIRC) which was stuck in the Mediteranean after Turkey refused to get involved, was ready to deploy. The actual attack occured about a week before the planned date for that, though. I do remember they were mostly given three pieces of information, one of which turned out to be an actually useful piece of information.

Like I said, though, I'll look around my usual sources to find where I read this at, and edit this post.


----------



## bbbb (26 Mar 2006)

No wonder Russia kept pushing against invading Iraq. It may not have helped Saddam much but if the US dosen't fix the problems in Iraq soon it may have bigger problems in the future (ie civil war, Saddam breaks free and reasserts control in Iraq, etc).


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 Mar 2006)

bbbb, there is no civil war. Saddam isnt going to go anywhere but to the gallows. The Russian's knew before we did that Turkey wasnt going to allow the 4ID access which prevented us from having sizeable forces in northern Iraq and contributed to the problems we have seen since the invasion.

http://blogs.pajamasmedia.com/iraq_files/2006/03/document_cmpc2003001950.php


----------



## bbbb (26 Mar 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> bbbb, there is no civil war. Saddam isnt going to go anywhere but to the gallows. The Russian's knew before we did that Turkey wasnt going to allow the 4ID access which prevented us from having sizeable forces in northern Iraq and contributed to the problems we have seen since the invasion.
> 
> http://blogs.pajamasmedia.com/iraq_files/2006/03/document_cmpc2003001950.php



Not yet but the violence was said to be getting worse not better. If the US dosen't get a grip on what's going on in Iraq they will have an Iraqi civil war on their hands. If this is not the case then the media have been feeding us bad info.


----------



## Thompson_JM (26 Mar 2006)

bbbb said:
			
		

> Not yet but the violence was said to be getting worse not better. If the US dosen't get a grip on what's going on in Iraq they will have an Iraqi civil war on their hands. If this is not the case then the media have been feeding us bad info.



BBBB Stop.... just Stop.... until you can talk about how much time in you have without looking at your watch, stop feeding this rumour mill.....

the media are never to be trusted. they serve one purpose. sell stories.... anything they say is always going to have a certain spin on it.

I had the Aboslute pleasure of listening to several lectures on friday night at moss park armouries from four soldiers who have been to Iraq, or A-Stan or Both. (2 Amercian Army troops, a 1Lt and a Sgt Mgr, and 2 Cdns RCR Sgt and a 2 Svc EME) 
the 1lt who had driven all over Iraq stated that there was something like 16 provinces there, 12 that have almost no real threat, and 4 that are increadably dangerous.... the majority of the country is apparently not too bad off... but there are some increadably bad areas... the media is not giving the full story all the time. as is the norm really...

BBBB Take what the media says with a BIG grain of salt. Respect the Media. they are neither your enemy, nor are they your freind. 

cheers
    josh


----------



## bbbb (26 Mar 2006)

Good advice. I had no idea that most of the country was tame. The media should be ashamed of themselves for not giving the WHOLE STORY!!!!!!!!


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 Mar 2006)

Which is what Bush said in a speech this week.


----------



## FredDaHead (26 Mar 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Which is what Bush said in a speech this week.



Which would explain why the good people, brainwashed into thinking "Bushitler" never tells the truth, didn't listen to him.


----------



## Journeyman (26 Mar 2006)

bbbb said:
			
		

> Not yet but the violence *was said to be * getting worse not better.... If this is not the case then the *media have been feeding us * bad info.





			
				bbbb said:
			
		

> *I had no idea* that most of the country was tame. The *media should be ashamed of themselves * for not giving the WHOLE STORY!!!!!!!!


This response is intended as neither a personal attack against you (You claim to be 3rd Year history, but that is merely a claim, based upon what's been "published" here - - I have no handy evidence to confirm/deny whether you are providing the _whole story_).....or the educational standards of RMC.

Have there been no classes in your educational upbringing relating to historical methodology? Do you believe everything published to be of equal truth, balance, completeness? Does the _Toronto Star _ provides the same utility as a peer-reviewed academic study....or annotated satellite imagery, with accompanying corroborating details? 

You blame the media for "feeding" you stories that may not provide a balanced view. As has been noted above, the news media is a business. Treat it as such. In a recent _Atlantic_ article by Robert Kaplan, he points out that "other forms of insurgent activity dropped to the point where international journalists no longer considered Mosul to be an important part of the Iraq story."1 

Bad news sells, even without factoring possible anti-US media biases. However, now that people on this site have provided you with views contradicting the media sources you're now shaming, how has your opinion changed? On what basis have you judged their input? The people here, myelf included, could be just as full of crap as the _Toronto Star_.

I humbly suggest:
a) renting the video, _Good Will Hunting_, and play through the bar scene where Matt Damon's character tears a strip off a pompous Grad student (NOT a personal attack; merely a suggested reality check.....ok, maybe a tiny attack    )
b) review any notes you _may_ have taken on historical methodology
c) read more widely; ponder the various aspects of what you are reading; and before posting anything....think about it once more (content, context, utility, how will the words I've chosen be received).

You should never be passively "fed" your opinions; you should actively chew upon what you have been provided. If something is lacking, go back to the cupboard.
-------------
1 Robert Kaplan, "The Coming Normalcy?" _The Atlantic_, Vol. 297, No. 3 (April 2006): p. 73.


----------



## Torlyn (26 Mar 2006)

Well said.


----------



## Gayson (26 Mar 2006)

Umm, Cpl Thompson.

The 1Lt at Moss Park didn't serve in Iraq.

He served in Kandahar.

Maybe you shouldn't be jumping on others. . .


----------



## a_majoor (27 Mar 2006)

Despite the seeming lack of results due to the Russian assistance to Saddam Hussein, it is still a disturbing precedent. Russia, like most nations, works towards its own self interest, and events like this and its lack of assistance in defanging Iran's nuclear ambitions tells me their interests are not broadly aligned with the West.

My own inclination would be to start pulling back from Russia and turn our energies towards more helpful partners. Being gradually marginalized will certainly give them the message without being provocative. 

From David Frum:

http://frum.nationalreview.com/



> MAR. 24, 2006: OUR FRIENDS, THE RUSSIANS
> 
> If it's true that the Russian ambassador to Iraq presented Saddam Hussein with the US war plans for the invasion, I'm left with three* questions:
> 
> ...


----------

