It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Provocateur State: Who's Really Behind the Insurgency?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
You still haven't addressed any of my questions....


I've stated my position. Go argue with the wall.


Translation: I can't




I'm a trillionaire.
I have no real evidence to support this, but my website propagandaintheformofanalternativenewsite.com says so. So you're going to have to believe me because I've stated my position and everything I say is the truth




posted on May, 25 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   
ECC,

Your implication (as I understand it) is that the current US administration is purposely creating an unstable security situation in Iraq, which would serve as a justification for long-term US military involvement in that country. Why? Well, you seem to imply that the US has ulterior motives beyond the installation of a stable Iraqi democracy, and that is obtaining exclusive control of Iraqi oil and natural gas.

Well, for those of us who conduct investigations for a living, one of the first things you learn is to look for a motive, and find evidence that supports that motive.

While the US certainly has need for a plentiful supply of oil and natural gas, the fact remains that the US obtains very little oil from Iraq, presently. Iraq has the third largest supply of oil reserves, which supports the US oil control theory. However, Saudi Arabia is ranked first, and Canada is ranked 2nd, and both of those countries readily export oil to us without any reservation, and our supply of oil is, and has been, fairly stable for decades. I seen no motive to support your claim.

The truth is that there are many other countries who have just as strong a desire (or even greater desire) to have access to Iraqi oil. Some of these countries are experiencing economic troubles, and some are experiencing shortages of energy to fuel their economies. Some are just plain greedy and seek to restore their international prominence. They include Russian, China, and France, amounst others. And yes, these are the same countries who lobbied against the original invasion (would screw up their oil supplies) and who are now actively negotiating with the Interim Iraqi government over new oil contracts. BTW, they are also the very same countries that provided Iraq with most of it's advanced weaponry and they were also the countries that imported Iraqi oil illegally during the UN embargo AND profited during the Oil-for-Food scandal. Russia is a huge culprit in this whole mess, as they are owed literally BILLIONS of dollars by the Iraqis for past arms deliveries, and the Russians being desperate for cash ATM will do whatever they can get away with to generate funds.

Very specific information regarding Iraqi oil exports and financial information can be found on this US DOE website: Iraqi Country Analysis Brief

The sad truth is that the investment in dollars (and blood) that the US has made in Iraq over the last decade and a half will probably never be realized in terms of oil imports from Iraq.

If you wish to argue that the purpose of the invasion was to prop up the US industrial-military complex, you will need to provide some proof. However, since this arguement has been going on since the days of Vietnam (without much success I might add) I don't expect much more than articles written by writers for left-wing newspapers and the like, which will hardly qualify.

[edit on 25-5-2005 by Pyros]



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB
If you have more proof, please show it..I would like to know.


Go to that site. Search it. It is one of the absolute most solid sources for research and analysis you're gonna find. Happy hunting.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
ECC,

Your implication (as I understand it) is that the current US administration is purposely creating an unstable security situation in Iraq, which would serve as a justification for long-term US military involvement in that country. Why?


Rumsfeld has clearly confirmed what I've posted.


originally posted by PyrosWell, for those of us who conduct investigations for a living, one of the first things you learn is to look for a motive, and find evidence that supports that motive.


Gee, do you have a crystal ball? You have no idea what I do for a living. Your misplaced condescention is humorous, though.


[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep
Oh , make no mistake, we don't need a civil war or any excuse for that matter to remian in Iraq. Thats what this whole thig is about. A stronghold in the middle east not controlled by the Saudis. Bases are already under construction. There will be a permanant US military presence in Iraq from this point forward.


When the US & UK public increasingly cry out for their soldiers to come home, the "we can't leave Iraq when there's a civil war on" excuse will be rolled out again and again and again.

If they're building bases already then what does that tell you? Iraq was planned to be permanently occupied.

[edit on 25-5-2005 by uknumpty]



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by uknumpty
If they're building bases already then what does that tell you? Iraq was planned to be permanently occupied.


True. However, those idiot NeoCons who dreamed this up (Clean Break Strategy, PNAC) didn't even begin to understand how violently their plans would backfire. If the people get fed up enough, I foresee one of two things happening. (A) Our force level in Iraq will shrink incredibly (to a pre-invasion Saudi level) or (B) another "terrorist attack" will happen to re-ignite America's anger and fear.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by uknumpty

When the US & UK public increasingly cry out for their soldiers to come home, the "we can't leave Iraq when there's a civil war on" excuse will be rolled out again and again and again.

If they're building bases already then what does that tell you? Iraq was planned to be permanently occupied.

[edit on 25-5-2005 by uknumpty]


Oh, there will be a withdrawel but it won't mean there won't be a base there. We also took troops out of Germany after WW2 but how long have we had a base there? How about Saudi Arabia. How long did we keep a base there before closing it because Iraq is much more ideal.

This whole thing happened because Saddam was in bed with the Saudis and other choice countries to put the squeeze on the Western World for oil. That was reason enough but add in the fact that Saddam repeatedly refused to comply with UN resolutions and aided terrorist organizations with funding and training and you have more than enough motive to just take Iraq out of play altogether or better yet, bring to your side.

No, all we need is a nice government hand picked by the powers that be which requests and agrees to allow a permanant US military presence in Iraq and presto! The US now has control of the prize of the middle east.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Here's the thing that everyone misses, thanks to the US mainstream media not understanding the issue: It was about keeping our boot on the neck of OPEC. In 2000, Saddam redenominated his oil currency to the euro. If OPEC followed, (which in light of current events re: Chavez, falling dollar value), it would be disasterous for the US economy.

Then there's the whole PNAC fantasy.... which dovetails.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Interesting


I like Global Research- I just don't buy their conclusion on a lot of things. They are too anti-American for that.

As to civil war in Iraq- maybe.

I have no doubt outside forces want Iraq to stay in chaos. For them to benefit though some stability around the oil fields has to exist. Now for this to happen Iraq has to fragment, not stay in an anarchial state. No one benefits from anarchy or civil war in Iraq.

The real jest of the article is:


The US "drug war" in Latin America also serves as a cover for ongoing counterinsurgency, employing terrorist methods to achieve two aims: one, actually combating genuine insurgency; two, the ratcheting up of a "strategy of tension," heightened social violence designed to induce fear among the citizenry and the subsequent call for greater "security."

Continual civil war in Iraq doesn't further this goal. Dividing Iraq and maintaining a war type footing in parts of it does. So perhaps a 'controlled civil war' but only in parts.

This provides cover for all kinds of money transfers and the building of a siege mentality within the U.S. through more terror attacks on the home front.

With the War on Drugs recently denounced (finally) as a failure something else has to exist to take its place. Afghanistan is too remote. Iraq is perfect. Distant and controllable. Whenever a new attack in the U.S. is needed the source of the attackers will not be subject to much scrutiny.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   
There's talk of partitioning the country. Here's an article on that from Knight-Ridder.



Proposal to divide Iraq into semi-autonomous states gains ground
NANCY A. YOUSSEF, Knight Ridder Newspapers


BAGHDAD, May 24, 2005 - (KRT) - As Iraq begins writing its new constitution, leaders in the country's southern regions are pushing aggressively to unite their three provinces into an oil-rich, semi-autonomous state, a plan that some worry could solidify Iraq's sectarian tensions, create fights over oil revenues and eventually split the nation.
www.uruknet.info...



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I just read an interesting piece from Global Research. It addresses who is most likely behind the Iraqi insurgency. I concur with the author in his assessment that it is most likely Rumsfeld and his Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG).


This statement, ECK, just proves the fact you do not understand how theaters of operations work under a USCINCSOC's command. There is no way logistics and CIA liasion could "hide" operations from JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) in the field, nor from USSOCOM.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by vincere7
This statement, ECK, just proves the fact you do not understand how theaters of operations work under a USCINCSOC's command. There is no way logistics and CIA liasion could "hide" operations from JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) in the field, nor from USSOCOM.


okydoky.


Impressive use of jargon, tho!



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
EKC- outstanding partition article

Do people forget the entire Gulf 1 excuse about keeping a strong Iraq?

Partition will work with my view very nicely.

Kurd- north

something- middle

Oil interests from south through the fields protected by U.S. Military and mercenaries.

Oil interests get rich. American taxpayers pay for the military and the mercenaries. America stays on medium alert for a decade as one threat after another gets dealt with. I like it- it'll work.

As in Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama and who knows how many other places the American military is prohibited from entering certain areas. The 'interests' (CIA or other) then have their own secure places for supplies and armed forces. No over-site, no control by the American congress or taxpayers. Probably no control by the President either for that matter.

Rumsfeld or not- interests are in motion at some high level to keep things going down some road we don't know about.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Here's the thing that everyone misses, thanks to the US mainstream media not understanding the issue: It was about keeping our boot on the neck of OPEC. In 2000, Saddam redenominated his oil currency to the euro. If OPEC followed, (which in light of current events re: Chavez, falling dollar value), it would be disasterous for the US economy.

Then there's the whole PNAC fantasy.... which dovetails.


I agree to a point although I don't think it was as much about keeping the foot on the neck of OPEC as keeping OPEC's hands from around the throat of the US. Saddam's decision to convert to the Euro was a danger to the economic stability of the US..and later would have had affects world wide.

As for who is behind the insurgency, I think you have just answered the question. Its likely being funded by those with the most to lose if the US occupies Iraq and controls its government.

Anytime you have the majority of the population which has been purposly prevented from obtaining education, it makes it much easier to control them. Its likely some of the insurgence (the few who are Iraqi) likely have no idea that life will get better once they begin selling oil to the US on a large scale. But, that money will come out of the pockects of Saudi Oil Sheiks who have grown accustomed to a life of riches and probably have the idea that they are entitled to it as many who are supported by others grow to be.

Its they who have the motive to ensure the US is portayed as an enemy of the people of Iraq and likely they who funnel the money into the insurgency as well as the many web-born campaigns we are bombarded with constantly.

No, the US would like nothing better to have an open arms welcome with everyone thanking and praising us so we could be seen as an friend who liberated Iraq. The people of the US will balk at the thought of us involved in resolving a civil war. We would however welcome friendly relations and regular troop rotations within Iraq. I think most if us have visions of Iraq returning to the jewel of the mid east as Bagdad once was called before Saddam and eventually being able to travel there again however the issue at hand, I'm afraid is oil. As bad as I hate to admit it, it was for the best for the world community because so many countries depend on the US economy.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by vincere7
This statement, ECK, just proves the fact you do not understand how theaters of operations work under a USCINCSOC's command. There is no way logistics and CIA liasion could "hide" operations from JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) in the field, nor from USSOCOM.


okydoky.


Impressive use of jargon, tho!


Okay, again, I will appear to be a shizophrenic, having to distinctly different personalities occupying one body.

It seems that there is a bit of conflict in reference to who are the insurgents. I certainly do not doubt that there are some domestic terrorists as there are certainly those who wish to bring back the brutality of Hussein-type dictatorship, especially with the minority Sunnis in power. There are also certainly those who agree with the neighboring Islamic-controlled nations in that there can be no democracy, no publicly elected government that answers to the people.
But it certainly seems that Iraqi president might have a clue when he declares that Syria needs to control the flood of terrorists that are pouring into his country.

Regardless of that, there is every way that the CIA could hide operations from JSOC. Heck, I could imagine not even the CIA knowing about the CIA operations!

Bozos. I love it when people believe that these guys are so on top of things, whether it be the CIA, JSOC or any otehr acronym. And, whatever you do, don't even mention CID as I have just finished breakfast and such hard laughter would make me upchuck!



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Your implication (as I understand it) is that the current US administration is purposely creating an unstable security situation in Iraq, which would serve as a justification for long-term US military involvement in that country. Why? Well, you seem to imply that the US has ulterior motives beyond the installation of a stable Iraqi democracy, and that is obtaining exclusive control of Iraqi oil and natural gas.
Well, for those of us who conduct investigations for a living, one of the first things you learn is to look for a motive, and find evidence that supports that motive.


Motives : Corruption, Theft, Oil, Hegemony, Elections, Israel, Islamophobia, Redneck Agenda

Proof :
- Corruption: Halliburton deals, American arms industry profits, Iraqi external debt increased by occupier, Bush campaign financing. All together the volume of corruption floats in the hundreds of billions.
-Theft: 8.8 bn in oil revenues went missing shortly after the invasion. Oil contracts passed by Bush without a democratic decision by a legitimate Iraqi authority
- Oil: Halliburton deals, Missing Oil scandal, refusal to pass sovereignty onto the Iraqis in Oil trade matters. The invading troops secured Oil pipelines as primary priority. Threats against Venezuela and Iran.
-Hegemony: this is being openly confirmed by US officials, we don't need extra proof.
-Elections: war polls favor existing administration
-Israel: Israeli pro-war propaganda in US, Mossad heavily involved in black Iraq operations.
-Islamophobia: Islam understands itself as a haven of justice, opposed to plutocratic US dominion. Systematic abuse of muslim prisoners.
-Redneck Agenda: Expansion of domestic police powers

need more ?


While the US certainly has need for a plentiful supply of oil and natural gas, the fact remains that the US obtains very little oil from Iraq, presently. Iraq has the third largest supply of oil reserves, which supports the US oil control theory. However, Saudi Arabia is ranked first, and Canada is ranked 2nd, and both of those countries readily export oil to us without any reservation, and our supply of oil is, and has been, fairly stable for decades. I seen no motive to support your claim.


Well Iraq was one of the most influential OPEC members, and also a proponent of changing the oil currency into euro, which would have barred the US to wash it's deficits on the energy market. Together with the fact that Germany joined the euro and hence stopped financing the US deficits, this brought the US into the immediate need of acquiring a new vassal state financing their fantasy economy (monetarism, rational choice, market theory).



The truth is that there are many other countries who have just as strong a desire (or even greater desire) to have access to Iraqi oil. Some of these countries are experiencing economic troubles, and some are experiencing shortages of energy to fuel their economies. Some are just plain greedy and seek to restore their international prominence. They include Russian, China, and France, amounst others.


This is just plainly wrong. These countries had access to the iraqi oil market before the sanctions, unlike the USA. Therefore, they had no extra need or greed to access it, unlike the USA.



And yes, these are the same countries who lobbied against the original invasion (would screw up their oil supplies) and who are now actively negotiating with the Interim Iraqi government over new oil contracts. BTW, they are also the very same countries that provided Iraq with most of it's advanced weaponry


Advanced weaponry ? Iraq ? Are you talking nineteen seventies ?


and they were also the countries that imported Iraqi oil illegally during the UN embargo AND profited during the Oil-for-Food scandal. Russia is a huge culprit in this whole mess, as they are owed literally BILLIONS of dollars by the Iraqis for past arms deliveries, and the Russians being desperate for cash ATM will do whatever they can get away with to generate funds.


This last chapter of yours is pure invention. Where did you get it from ?


Very specific information regarding Iraqi oil exports and financial information can be found on this US DOE website: Iraqi Country Analysis Brief


Governement sources ?



The sad truth is that the investment in dollars (and blood) that the US has made in Iraq over the last decade and a half will probably never be realized in terms of oil imports from Iraq.

If you wish to argue that the purpose of the invasion was to prop up the US industrial-military complex, you will need to provide some proof. However, since this arguement has been going on since the days of Vietnam (without much success I might add) I don't expect much more than articles written by writers for left-wing newspapers and the like, which will hardly qualify.

[edit on 25-5-2005 by Pyros]


hardly qualify for convincing you ? You just held a ridiculous expose where you have proven to know really nothing about iraqi oil, weaponry, strategical and financial setting. So you claim that there are publications that don't even qualify for you, can you give an example ?


[edit on 25-5-2005 by Moretti]



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by vincere7
This statement, ECK, just proves the fact you do not understand how theaters of operations work under a USCINCSOC's command. There is no way logistics and CIA liasion could "hide" operations from JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) in the field, nor from USSOCOM.


okydoky.


Impressive use of jargon, tho!


www.globalsecurity.org...
www.globalsecurity.org...

Heres your "jargon".. maybe you should research it a little before completely dismissing a post (much like you preach).



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep
Anytime you have the majority of the population which has been purposly prevented from obtaining education, it makes it much easier to control them.


True enough; however, that is not the case with Iraq. The majority of Iraqis are educated. The above statement would apply more to Saudi Arabia's general population.

The bottom line is this - as long as there is continuing strife in Iraq, BushCo. has a carte blanche there. And won't be going anywhere.



I think most if us have visions of Iraq returning to the jewel of the mid east


That foreign policy nickname (jewel of the mideast) actually referred to pre-revolutionary Iran (regarding on-the-ground intel & access).




posted on May, 25 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by vincere7
This statement, ECK, just proves the fact you do not understand how theaters of operations work under a USCINCSOC's command. There is no way logistics and CIA liasion could "hide" operations from JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) in the field, nor from USSOCOM.


okydoky.


Impressive use of jargon, tho!




Regardless of that, there is every way that the CIA could hide operations from JSOC. Heck, I could imagine not even the CIA knowing about the CIA operations!


Perzackly!



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by QuietSoul
Heres your "jargon".. maybe you should research it a little before completely dismissing a post (much like you preach).


ok.. seriously..

Refer to TC's post (a few back)...




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join