It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Who stands to gain from Iraq in civil war?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 04:01 AM
With recent events creating a massive increase in violence between Shiite's and Sunni's, Iraq is piosed on the brink of civil war..

Someone is obviosly stoking the fire and encouraging this sectarian violence...but who and why?

Who stands to gain from an Iraq in turmoil?

posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 06:37 AM
Democrats, Osama and Iran.

posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 07:31 AM
BASED ON THE BBC: Some anti-war bloggers in Europe and North America seem gleeful about the way things are going in Iraq. It’s as though the important thing is that Geo W and Tony Blair should be humiliated, and the violence in Iraq is the method by which this can be accomplished. It is hard to argue that both of them do not deserve every thing they get. But that is a self defeating project. We have no right to punish Iraq for the faults of American and UK’s elected leaders.

MORE BBC: What we are watching TODAY is the life and death struggle of a nation, and the efforts of its democratically elected politicians to sort things out. How the politicians came to be elected scarcely matters any more; the fact is, if they fail in the face of all this violence, Iraq itself will be appallingly damaged. Perhaps irretrievably so.

Paul Bremer, the US proconsul who brought all this about, has been accused of all sorts of failings, only some of which were his fault. Even the abolition of the Iraqi army should not be blamed on him alone. Faulty American pre-war intelligence and its unmerited reliance on Ahmad Chalabi who spoon fed the cause for War only to turn out to have been entirely self serving. Chalabi imagined himself the successor of Saddam.
Sort of a 21st century version of the last Shah of Iran. Installed by the CIA. Bolstered by the US Army.

Yet all this is history now. Just as the rights and wrongs of the original decision to invade Iraq are no longer open to debate. 1) The non-existence of the weapons of mass destruction, coupled with the fact 2) there never were enough American troops to do the job properly, and all the rest of it. Reminds me of the quote, “What Hath God Wrought?” the first telegraph message in 1844, paraphrasing the Book of Proverbs.

The most immediate danger Iraq faces now is its duly elected government will fail. If that happens, and the violence gets worse, it would be very hard to continue denying that a state of civil war in the full sense of the term, going on here. And a sad day for 25 million Iraqis. And Geo W will have his legacy!

posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 07:37 AM
I would have to go with Iran. They have already shown they are not beyond attacking Iraqis.

The US forces could not handle a full scale civil war they simple dont have the numbers to do it. Full scale civil war could cause a US Vietnam withdraw.

Then bye, bye US created Democracy on Iran's Door step. Which just about everyone can agree Iran is not thrilled about and its got two forming on either side of it at present. Iraq would be in Choas and with the US gone who could possibily in that region come in and clean up the mess? Iran of course would have the power and even a legitimate looking reason to get involved since the Iraq Chaos could spread to its own borders.

Iran could come in as the Muslim heros cleaning up the Infidels mess. Then they could flex overt or covert control over Iraq and in essence be incharge of the largest oil reserve on the planet.

posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 07:45 AM

Originally posted by kojac
Iraq is piosed on the brink of civil war..

Well .. finally ...

I have seen too many people saying that the uptick
in violence is a full fledged civil war. I am VERY happy
to see someone who understands that this is NOT a
civil war, not yet. It could happen. But at this time
it has not.

Answer to your question - IRAN has the most to gain.
Definately. Those in charge of Iran are VERY nervous
that freedom is on their right and on their left. They'd
loooooooooove to see it fail so they could hold on to
their power in Iran longer.

The youth and young adults in Iran are watching Iraq
very closely. If they see freedom hold there, they will
go for it in their own country. Those in charge of Iran
know this .. and they are afraid.

posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 08:16 AM

The short answer is CLEARLY Iran (and Syria). But China and Russia have a stake too. If the government stands the USA gains as it was set up by the US and its interests will be represented. But if it fails and civil war breaks out, Russia or China could parlay that into something that may benefit them instead of the USA. But I really don’t feel that Russia or China is fueling the fire here, its most certainly Iran and Syria.

posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 11:56 PM

Answer to your question - IRAN has the most to gain.

Surely Iran would be happy with a majority shia government. Would Iran go to the trouble of blowing up the roof of one of their own holiest sites? Remember Iran is an Islamic republic....They are deeple religous.

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 05:17 AM
do you want to know who is behind the attack, Read this:

The Askariya Mosque job and the coming war on Iran
So who really did have a motive for the very professional demolition job on Samarra’s Golden Dome Mosque?

Many analysts have pointed to the general advantages that flow to the imperialist occupation from fostering sectarian divisions – the traditional divide-and-rule strategy – but I think we can be a lot more specific. I believe we can reliably point to the United States as the real culprit and see a clear motive in the geo-strategic nightmare created by Washington’s determination to wage war on Iran.


I highly doubt iranians are behind the attack. I mean iranian leader will not order to bomb the tomb of the father of the hidden Imam so that he could be part of hidden Imam's army.


posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 06:22 AM
Strangely the US of A AND most definately Halliburton

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 10:33 AM

Originally posted by kojac
Would Iran go to the trouble of blowing up the roof of one of their own holiest sites? Remember Iran is an Islamic republic....They are deeple religous.

If it was that or a US created Democracy I would say yes. Iran has already proved they have no problem killing loads of Iraqi muslims both sunni and shiite. It didnt stop Iran from blowing up targets all along the border in Iraq before the Offical start of the Iran-Iraq war.

It wasnt really until the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power that Arabs generally became aware of the Shiite-Sunni Muslim conflict. Forces within the Gulf have used the schism between the two sects as a vehicle to further their political and economic efforts for years.

[edit on 2-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 07:45 PM

Iran has already proved they have no problem killing loads of Iraqi muslims both sunni and shiite.

I must of missed something.....When have they killed loads of Iraqi muslims?

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 11:05 PM
Currently we are seeing the birth or destruction of a nation.
Who would benfits from the turmoil ?
Iran leaders , saddam loyalists and other political leaders in the region. For some reason a democratic Iraq is viewed as a greater threate then Saddam ever was.

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 11:27 PM
I don't see how Iran has anything to gain by a civil war in Iraq.

Seems to me that the U.S. is the country with the most to gain. If civil war does break out, it gives the U.S both a reason to stay, and a reason to leave, depending on what spin you want to put on it. Something tells me we wont be leaving anytime soon though. We didn't pull that cordon around Iran for nothing, and something tells me we didn't build all those bases in Iraq for nothing either.

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 11:56 PM

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
I don't see how Iran has anything to gain by a civil war in Iraq.

The people of Iran dont gain anything , however the government of is able to maintain its grip on the population. A democratic Iraq would be much like western Europe was in the cold war in other words despite government propganda the demand for freedom would increase.

[edit on 3-3-2006 by xpert11]

posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 12:52 AM

[edit on 3-3-2006 by Endsoftheworld]

[edit on 3-3-2006 by Endsoftheworld]

posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 12:54 AM
I honestly think Osama is trying hard to get Iraq to hate us with a passion.
You get the whole middle east hating us and its Bombs away with the nukes.

posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 01:07 AM
Why are so many seemly abrasive factions condensed into the nation of Iraq?

Who designed the modern borders of Iraq?

I'll give you a clue. It wasn't the Iraqis.

[edit on 3-3-2006 by kegs]

posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 01:35 AM
kegs you need to elabrate a bit more. Most people are aware that the British created Iraq during the back stabing after WW1. Political boundries were drawn up rather tribal ones the same thing happend in Africa post WW2.
Which tribal factions do you think will benfit from the current turmoil ?

posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 01:58 AM
Oil companies, defense contractors, bankers ... but I don't think Iran would benefit too much, I mean, the Shiia majority is Iran-friendly.

posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 10:09 AM
And have a look at this one I picked up from ALjazeerah. worth checking out

Concealed History: The Next War on Iran and Syria

This will be one of many" false flag operations" carried out by elements within the U.S. government , and also the governments of Britain, and Israel , like the Askariya Shrine bombing in Samarra, Iraq on 2 -22 . Bombs planted in a Mosque in a city that was under 24 hour curfew, and heavily patrolled by the Coalition Iraqi National Guard.

This is text book "black operations" used throughout history by all of the war-makers who gain power and wealth from large-scale ritual human sacrifices, and insight groups to react violently to other groups. ia%20By%20Tony%20Soldo.htm


new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in