It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Profit-Driven War
More than two years later, many people still ask, "Why did the US invade Iraq?" Some people answer, "For oil." Others say, "To remove a dangerous dictator," or, "To liberate Iraqis," or, "To spread democracy." There are other possible answers as well: To project American power in the strategic and volatile Middle East. To spread democracy. To help Israel. The question lingers because the initial reasons that our government gave, that Iraq had WMD and planned to use them against the US, or that Iraq was allied with Al Qaeda, have been disproved.
Here's another answer to the question: We invaded Iraq to invade Iraq.
That's right, it's a circular answer. It might not be the only answer, it might not be provable, but let's consider it: We invaded Iraq to have a war. We had a war because there are powerful interests in our country that are geared toward making money from war. How? Let us count the ways. There are companies that help break things, by making the tools for violence and destruction, such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. There are companies that fix what gets broken, such as Bechtel and Halliburton. There are companies that protect people as they break things and as they fix what's broken, such as Blackwater and Vinnell Corp. There are companies that want our government to smash across borders so they may bring new products and infrastructure, companies that we will see set up shop in that country. There are companies that want our government to smash across other countries' borders so they may suck the resources out from underneath the people there, such as the big oil companies. There are companies that like the US to attack other countries so they may have something entertaining to tell their audiences in the time between commercials: ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
If there was a real and pressing danger of attack from external terrorist groups, funding to protect the citizens from such attacks would be appropriately distributed to the areas containing likely targets. Instead, anti-terrorism funding is being broadly distributed to build the "police state" infrastructure throughout the land. This, more than any other action by the U.S. federal government, is your "smoking gun" that the war on terrorism is nothing but an elaborate ploy.
House GOP Blocks Funding for N.Y., D.C.
House Republicans blocked a vote Tuesday on restoring millions of dollars in counterterror funds to big-city targets, refusing to bust budget targets over slashed grants to emergency first responders.
New York City-area Democrats pleaded to add $750 million to spending plans to fund the Homeland Security Department in the 2007 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. But Republicans rejected the measure even as they vowed anew to investigate how Homeland Security could justify cutting funding to New York and Washington -- the two targets of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- by 40 percent.
The House approved the overall $32 billion spending blueprint, 389-9, shortly afterward.