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.


Failure is Relative

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 11:30 PM
I wanted to post this in the War on Terrorism section because I think it is a relevant facet of the war on terrorism. The White House would certainly contend that Iraq is part of the war on terrorism, so here goes.

It is my opinion that the war in Iraq is being "lost" for a reason. I say lost because every thing that we have learned from other wars has NOT been applied to the current theater in Iraq. I think this has been done for a reason.

Multiple TOP RANKING generals in the run up to the war drew up extensive plans that called for BARE MINIMUM 350,000 troops and particular attention to be paid to looting religious artifacts and quelling any insurgencies before that were able to gain ground. Because of a BLATANT disregard to those facts, we find ourselves in the mess we are in now.

So why? Is the US government THAT inept at planning? NO

They did it on purpose. Think about it.

I think it is pretty clear that we went to Iraq for oil, we even used oil as a means in which to pay for the war.

So the question becomes, is it easier to take power, money and resources from a government that is in chaos or one that is strong and can stand up for itself?

I think that as long as Iraq is fighting itself, they can't be focusing on the RECORD profits being driven in by oil companies involved in the region.

Do you really think those 190000 AK 47's that went "missing" was REALLY a mistake?

The fact is that if the Iraq government succeeded, our presence would no longer be needed and there would be no profit. If on the other hand there is a "war on terror to fight' it ensures our presence there indefinitely and guarantees us access to oil on the region. So as long as there is a war there will be big profits for big oil.

Just a thought...


log in