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.

 

Ok there seems to be two possibilities.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 02:36 AM
link   
So here's my two questions.....

Did the US invade Iraq believing they could easily control the Middle East (and its oil) once it was secured and are just complete stuff ups?

or

Did they go in knowing it was never going to happen and just wanted to further destabilize the region and further the NWO agenda?

Much as I think there is a strong case for the later scenario, the fact that Bush and co are now making steps to reduce the US reliance on Middle Eastern Oil is really pointing to the first scenario being the case. It would seem the thieves that are the US Government got busted with their hand in the cookie jar and now they can't have a cookie they are going to have to eat what they are given.

Kind of a reverse conspiracy I guess.




posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by mustbebc
So here's my two questions.....

Did the US invade Iraq believing they could easily control the Middle East (and its oil) once it was secured and are just complete stuff ups?



I believe to control the oil. The US is the largest consumer of oil and need to protect supplies. What better way that to directly control one of the largest producers and by that action, influence the rest of the Middle East



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 06:33 AM
link   
First look at The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski. The last sentence in his introduction is


The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.[qoute]


Then do a google of the PNAC and read their manifesto and check out neocon as well. If I had to assess the situation I would say that because the US was the sole survivor of the 'cold war' some genius though we should be able to keep any other powers from challenging the power of the US and basically run the world. A great article to peruse as well is "The Global Dominance Group: 9/11 Pre-Warnings & Election Irregularities in Context" by Phillips, Thornton and Volger. More on that later.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by polanksi]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Bushco had Iraq invaded for the OIL mostly, also for a strategic point in the Middle East to launch a war against Iran and maybe Syria..

Lets not forget about Saddams dirty little secret, the CIA provided materials and logistics that lead to the many coup's and eventually to Saddam taking power..

Theres the Chemical Weapons he got from the U.S., UK, France, and Russia (Among others) that he used to kill upwards of a million Kurds and Iranians in the 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran war..

Theres all kinds of reasons for Bushco to want Saddam dead, and permanent millitary bases in the Middle East..

What was that quote by Dick Cheney
"This is a hundred year war that will span the generations for the last known oil reserves on the planet."



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   
These are all interesting replies. I guess the thought that fighting in the Middle East is to combat terrorism can be categorically dismissed then?



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   
but that would mean that the leaders of our country lied to us laugh

but is it that easy to laugh off

if they lied to us than who can we trust, and if we can't trust them, how safe do we feel.

ok better not dismiss the terrorist stuff jusy ( unless u are wiling to accept the effects of believing your nations leaders lie to you)



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I think most people with any sense of morality would have to question the US, AUS and British government's actions. So it isn't that far of a reach to believe they would lie to get us into war. Especially with the mountain of evidence to support such a theory. There is a good Australian doco called Truth, Lies and Intelligence worth watching on this subject.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Here is my take on the whole Iraq issue... There are basically two prominent countries in this world today, economically and militarily... Who are these two countries? United States and China.

Now, to me, this whole issue in Iraq is about oil. America and China, at least for the last 15 years have been playing who can beat who to the punch game. Well, America beat China to the punch as far as Iraq goes...

Think about it, can you imagine what it would be like if China got their hands on the oil reserves in Iraq? I serious ly doubt,I may be wrong, but I seriously doubt that would be a good thing.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Great White Cheney

Theres the Chemical Weapons he got from the U.S., UK, France, and Russia (Among others) that he used to kill upwards of a million Kurds and Iranians in the 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran war..



Your other points are right on the money IMO, but this one is interesting for one reason. US leaders dont really care about the citizens they kill through direct military intervention, proxy wars, or arms deals. If they did, they would not have an intervention policy thats as murderous as it is now...

I think they new how rough it would get, and they did it anyways.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Maybe a bit of both with some other stuff added to it.

Putting more troops overseas means these troops are not within their own country protecting it.

Keeping American citizens focused on the bad war over there keeps them distracted from focusing on things going on within their own country.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join