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.

 

True reason of iraq war?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 11:48 PM
link   
many here have voiced thier opposition to the war in iraq. We have discusses theory after theory and have come to inconclusion. Especially after the base closure thrusted by the bush government.

here

How can you fight an effective war if you close your bases down? If you are looking to win a war you don't contract your military power you expand. did you know that there are over 250,000 active military in the iraq region? out of 1.5 miliion capacity?
it is my speculation that the reason for massive deployment and base closure is to prevent a coup de tat(sp?) being secretly organized by top ranking generals.
Everybody knows that the iraq war is pointless, and there were no wnds found. Bush may have used the 9/11 tradegy to weaken the military reduce the numbers, so that our government can hand over national sovereignty on a silver platterin case of a real huge emergency like a earthquake or massive terrorist attack.
In the scenario that seems most likely, that some high ranking military feel that bush is becoming to much of a dictator so they secretly meet to plan a strategy. Maybe they plan to gather up a few airbornes or brigades to march into Washington DC and stop the UN from taking over this country. I see this as a very likely scenario. comments welcome.




posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Interesting. I'm not ready accept this as fact....yet, but it's a very interesting theory.

[edit on 30-9-2005 by Jaryn]



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   
It is not clear to me I'm sorry. Are you saying that the Iraq war was created to apease the warmongers from getting too bored and want to turn on the administration?



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 12:55 AM
link   
I am not claiming this as any kind of fact whatsoever. I am not that knowledgable about the details of the iraq war.

It is not clear to me I'm sorry. Are you saying that the Iraq war was created to apease the warmongers from getting too bored and want to turn on the administration?


My theory is that the iraq war was not created to appease the warmongers such as republicans. but a first step in reducing the number of troops here in the united states. There could be an interest in placing our government in the hands of the NWO, and that having a large excess of military would thwart that effort.
if you wanted to take over a country wouldn;t you want as few military as possible in the land? any kind of force that could be used to counter your plans, would be detrimental. So the leaders needed a legitimate reason for reducing the numbers of troops based in that country. I wish i had more facts to base this theory on. you have got to understand that there are alot of 4 star generals up in the pentagon who would love nothing more than raise an insurrection against a corrupt leadership.
remember this is pure speculation and you shouldn't base your political beliefs on what i have said.

[edited to change from 'code' to 'quote' to correct the page formatting -nygdan]

[edit on 1-10-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 01:13 AM
link   
every war since the last turn of the century

has lined pockets and changed policies [ result our wealth is stolen and are rights are forfeited ] pardon me, but I don't see the upside here !

same with this war

WAR IS A RACKET

and us suckers have to keep paying , unless we snap out of it, and vote out all the professionals, and put in normal people.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 08:22 AM
link   
I think your theory is bogus. I think a majority of the military still supports President Bush, and I think the polling conducted of the military members and their families before the election would prove my point. Furthermore, the military leadership also supports and likes President Bush. If they didn't, he would have gotten them out of there a long, long time ago. If there was ever a president in recent times who the military didn't respect and didn't like, then it was Clinton. Clinton purposely reduced the size and effectiveness of the military, something which we are still suffering as a result of today.

While we may not have a huge amount of troops here at home, we still have enough to defend the homeland (at least until overseas troops can be deployed here). You're also forgetting that the American people would not tolerate anykind of government takeover or invasion. We are armed and we are some tough S.O.B.'s when our families' wellbeing is threatened. No one in their right mind would attempt anykind of coup or government takeover and expect any level of success in todays climate. Maybe back in the 60's, but not today.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   
I think that you could be on to something. A military coup would be the only way to stop the Bushco machine. I would like to think that there are forces within our military that can see that the road that we are on will only lead to our own destruction and would work to return the govenment to the people and wrest it from the control of the giant corporations. We certainly can't count on the democrats, and our voting system is too compromised to be effective anyway. Another reason to withdraw NOW!!



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   
What are you talking about?

I fully support the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Venezuela, ... any war anywhere.

My defense and oil industry investments are doing quite well and I want them stay that way...



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   
the 60's was too late too.

the club was well in place by then ,ergo the removal of , jfk ,rfk and mlk.

[edit on 1-10-2005 by toasted]



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   

My theory is that the iraq war was not created to appease the warmongers such as republicans. but a first step in reducing the number of troops here in the united states. There could be an interest in placing our government in the hands of the NWO, and that having a large excess of military would thwart that effort.


That is very disturbing and I have the sense that this goes deeper than PNAC.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   
is that, by ejecting the arms inspectors during Clinton's 2nd term, Saddam voided the terms of surrender from Gulf War I.

The UN voted for the invasion, not because of WMD's, (although America's rivals portrayed it that way, as did the US press). The UN okayed the invasion because, when you abbrogate the terms of surrender, it puts you back into a state of war.

Which is why Clinton shot rockets at bagdad in 1998.

Why do you think Clinton did that? (answer: because he was afraid of US casaulties, and didn't want his popularity to plummet.)



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Coup D'etat? You've been reading too much Alexander III history perhaps.


Just before the invasion China was going to sell Iraq advanced radar and missile defense systems.

Big Shift in China's Oil Policy
Then the United States went to war in Iraq in 2003, wiping out China's stakes. The war and its aftermath have reshaped China's basic conception of the geopolitics of oil and added urgency to its mission to lessen dependence on Middle East supplies. It has reinforced China's fears that it is locked in a zero-sum contest for energy with the world's lone superpower, prompting Beijing to intensify its search for new sources, international relations and energy experts say.

Iraq halts Russian and Chinese oil deals
The US-run Iraqi administration has cancelled or suspended three oil contracts with Russian and Chinese firms signed by the ousted government of Saddam Hussein.

Iraq: the Struggle for Oil
In testimony to Congress in 1999, General Anthony C.Zinni, commander in chief of the US Central Command, testified that the Gulf Region, with its huge oil reserves, is a “vital interest” of “long standing” for the United States and that the US “must have free access to the region’s resources.”



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 11:54 PM
link   


In testimony to Congress in 1999, General Anthony C.Zinni, commander in chief of the US Central Command, testified that the Gulf Region, with its huge oil reserves, is a “vital interest” of “long standing” for the United States and that the US “must have free access to the region’s resources.”


That's nothing new, though. President Nixon had plans drawn up when he was in office for elite groups of Marines to invade Saudi Arabia and occupy their major oil fields in the event of an oil crisis, embargo, major Middle East conflict, etc. I believe they estimated that we would require at least a 12 year military presense guarding those oil fields.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 12:56 AM
link   
I seen a thread

where somebody had a link to all

the military bases that are closing in the usa

if I recall where, I'll u2u the info



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 11:06 PM
link   
I want to run down the reasons that I've heard, either on the news or in church (where I don't go...I'm probably persona non grata since I told the pastor Bush is evil)--

--We're there to hunt terrorists.

I call bull on that one. Do these people think Iraq is terrorist flypaper? What's to stop a terrorist from carrying out an attack here anyway?

--Saddam has WMDs

I'd sure like to know where.

--We're spreading democracy to Iraq

First off, nation-building is unconstitutional. Secondly, a DEMOCRACY is NOT a good form of government--it's mob rule. America, btw, is supposed to be a constitutional REPUBLIC.

If the Iraqis want to be rid of Hussein, then that's their job. They're not having a hard time killing off our troops--think they could have gotten rid of Saddam on their own? I think so.

--Saddam was in on 9/11

Yeah, and I'm the tooth fairy. From what I heard, he and bin Laden weren't exactly palsy-walsy.

--Saddam murdered his own people

Be that as it may, our track record over there isn't very impressive, with all the "collateral damage." Seems to me we're one-upping Saddam in that department. And don't get me started on Abu Ghraib. What moral high ground?



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 11:46 PM
link   
I want to keep this thread bounded by my first post. is there evidence that troops are being moved out lessen the possibility of a coup.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   
the true reason is so that Iraq can be used as a launching base for the Apocalypse.........



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by CindyfromFlorida
I think that you could be on to something. A military coup would be the only way to stop the Bushco machine. I would like to think that there are forces within our military that can see that the road that we are on will only lead to our own destruction and would work to return the govenment to the people and wrest it from the control of the giant corporations. We certainly can't count on the democrats, and our voting system is too compromised to be effective anyway. Another reason to withdraw NOW!!


If the leaders of the US use some phony pretext, lie, etc to get the US into a 3rd post 9/11 conflict...then we will truly see if the Americna public and the millitary will once again fall for it. They all know that going into Iran would just be a blood bath. North Korea would be a suicidal holocaust.

There is a reason James Baker's secretary tricked Saddam into invading Kuwait in 1990.

The powers that be wanted a pretext to invade Iraq, and then spent the next ten+ years weakening it for a relaitively(initilaly) easy victory in 2003.
Remember what Bush Sr said on September 11th, 1990.

Iraq isnt just Babylon, it's a very crucial element in their real life game of RISK.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

is that, by ejecting the arms inspectors during Clinton's 2nd term, Saddam voided the terms of surrender from Gulf War I.


You have been misinformed.

Saddam did not kick out the UN inspectors, Bill Klinton did.


The UN voted for the invasion, not because of WMD's, (although America's rivals portrayed it that way, as did the US press).


The UN did NOT vote for an invasion. If you think different please show the resolution that authorized it. It does not exist.


The UN okayed the invasion because, when you abbrogate the terms of surrender, it puts you back into a state of war.


There was no surrender, there was a ceasefire, and it was between the UN, and Iraq.

It was for the UN Security Council alone to decide if it had been violated, not America.


Which is why Clinton shot rockets at bagdad in 1998.

Why do you think Clinton did that? (answer: because he was afraid of US casaulties, and didn't want his popularity to plummet.)


He did it to anger Iraq so that they would not allow the inspectors back in.

The UN was ready to declare Iraq free of WMD, but America had already stated they would not end the sanctions as long as Saddam was in power.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Guys, don't go to the extreme to explain an otherwise very simple fact. The reasons for the Iraq war are:

1. renewal of military industry.
2. scaring of potential superpower wannabes.
3. big contracts for US companies.
4. testing of new weapons.
5. establishing a position between Iran, Pakistan and Russia.
6. access to oil reserves.
7. breaking of French contracts in the area.

Let's all be rational and avoid far-fetched scenarios like coups, alien devices and all that ballooney.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join