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.

 

Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbert81
reply to post by 5aret
 


Uggggh, just because we here don't have "proof" about the NWO doesn't mean it should be dismissed. If the only thing you look at is "proof", then you're missing out on a lot of knowledge. The problem with skeptics, you know, is that unless there is "proof", they won't even LOOK or consider the possibility of something else. Remember, O.J. got off.

Needless to say, if proof is the only thing your interested in, you might want to open your mind a bit and realize that maybe we don't know as much as we should.


The "NWO" are the scared children I refer to. Proof is all over the place, from the word, to the bullets, to the broken lives in the name of american greed.

I am ashamed of these men, but I forgive them. In truth, they don't deserve any pity, but given their mindset and obvious lack of humanity through their choices shows they deserve nothing less than pity.

Anyway, back on-topic and away from the shadowz, I think that greenspan is a hero for being honest.

[edit on 16-9-2007 by Knightshadowz]




posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Sanity Lost
 


surely if greenspan was right about saying it was for iraq's oil that we are there he would have more to worry about than losing his job for saying this?surely someone with the power had an inkling of what would be in his book before it got this far?



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Knightshadowz
 


I honestly don't know how to really "prove" the NWO. George Bush could come out and just plain admit it, and there would still be a large number of people saying it's not "proof".

I do definitely agree that very strong, credible evidence is everywhere. You could even call it a series of successful tests that all things happening right now are pointing more and more to a NWO, therefore making it at the very least, a theory on the par with the Drake Equation, or black holes.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Just seems a little strange to me that they move nukes to Louisiana,(unknowingly) uh-huh, yeah right, then Bush gives a speech to the nation as well as to our armed forces. Now some say Bin Laden uses speeches to encode messages to sleeper groups. Does anyone else here believe that GWB is not up to the same tricks? My birthday is in 6 days. What a present it would be if they "LOST" all 6 nukes (plus how many more) on that rathole country we call Iran (at least for now).



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   

The Bush Administration did exagerate on certain points to invade Iraq. If they hadn't, then most likely they would have not been able to invade Iraq. However, sometimes exagerating on certain points is required if you wish to preserve the security of the nation. There was reasonable evidence that Saddam was possible testing with chemical and nuclear weapons. He kicked out UN Weapons Inspectors and acted as if he had something to hide. In a post 9/11 world, the Bush Administration could not risk having a 2nd terrorist attack just because they were once again to blind to see the signs.


How was Iraq a threat to the United States? Had they threatened us? Did we know of an imminent terrorist attack? Of course not.

Saddam Hussein threw the weapons inspectors out (and for the record, he didn't actually throw them out, he just ceased to cooperate with them) in 1998 because he had been cooperating with them for seven years and they still wouldn't certify Iraq WMD-free even though there was no credible reason not to. He deduced, correctly, that the west was simply keeping the sanctions in place in the hopes that conditions would become so unbearable that there would be a coup. After all, our stated foreign policy with Iraq was to push for regime change. We were playing games.

And you also ignore the fact that Hussein let the inspectors back in after the UN resolution in 2002. It was the Bush Administration who pulled them out. Even when Hans Blix said he only needed 30 more days to finish his inspection!! They obviously didn't want them to finish the inspection. They were quite concerned that Blix might certify Iraq WMD-free and then they wouldn't get to have their war. And they WANTED THAT WAR!!

They even knew the President was lying about the yellowcake from Africa and they tried to scare the American people anyway.

Now, closing in on five years later, we are in a quagmire that has seen nearly 4 thousand Americans lose their lives; ten thousand plus have serious, life-changing injuries. Ten's of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, the infrastructure is almost non-existent and over two million people have left the country!! That's almost ten percent of the population. Can you imagine what conditions would have to be like in America for thirty million people to leave?

And we have spent almost half a trillion dollars on this war.

What has it gotten us? The best recruitment situation and training ground that Al Qaida could possibly ask for. A huge loss of prestige worldwide. An exhausted military. And a situation that cannot possibly end well.

The Iraq war is the worst foreign policy disaster in the history of the country. We started this despicable war, and now we can't figure out how get ourselves out of it.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   
oh, really?
it was for oil, now i see, yeah.
i thought it was for weapons of mass destruction, but which ones?
ah no, i thought it was for liberating the iraqi people, but how?
through killing them with the us-army (new age nazi force)? hey, great idea, lets just label every arab person a terrorist. it worked with the jews, too!
no no no, i forgot! it was for democracy, yeah now i know for sure.
democracy, its so good, everybody should have it.
the templar knights from america shall bring it in every country and if
the people dont want it, we just kill them.
so cool, so easy.

and now everybody is so happy in iraq!
the oil supplies are so good now everywhere, oil has become so cheap.
yeah.

err, no no no. it was for security!
now i cant # my pants withouth security.

doom the the western world!
METROPOLIS COMING TRUE.

old fat ugly men from the industry are killing the planet.
send people in vehicles of steel to maul themselves apart.
the sword is too slow, kill yourselves, quick!
the industry will always win. its the war machine.
its a monster, it likes our flesh.
old fat ugly men eating us.

[edit on 16/9/07 by cometa]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by 5aret
 


5aret: you believe in God, you believe the official story about JFK and you believe the official story about 9/11. You are of course entitled to your beliefs, but the beliefs you have suggests to me that no amount of evidence will convince you of anything you don't want to believe. So I don't think I'll even try, if that's ok with you.

There is a lot of evidence of US/UK false flag attacks on a daily basis in Iraq. Instead of asking me to prove it to you, you could try researching it; but you won't - you'll wait for the mainstream media to present it to you and if they don't (as they won't) you will assume anything to the contrary is BS. There is ample evidence that the Bush Administration knew in advance there were no WMD in Iraq, again you could try doing a little research; but you won't, you'll wait for others (the mainstream media, no doubt) to do it for you. There is a MASSIVE amount of evidence that the official story of 9/11 is a lie of massive proportions; I won't even go there! There is also a massive amount of evidence that the official story about JFK is almost comically misleading. There is evidence on every dollar bill that the Illuminati (NWO) are real, coupled with the historical evidence that the Illuminati DID exist and that their plans involved the eventual formation of a world government, the plans for which are well advanced if your own North American Union plans are anything to go by, coupled with the words of leading lights of American politics throughout the years, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abe Lincoln.

There is no evidence at all for the existence of God. But you apparently believe in him/her/it.

So I'm not going to waste my time trying to provide proof to someone who will only believe the reams of evidence in front of his eyes if his President gets off his throne and tells him it is ok to believe it.



[edit on 16-9-2007 by franzbeckenbauer]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbert81
I honestly don't know how to really "prove" the NWO. George Bush could come out and just plain admit it, and there would still be a large number of people saying it's not "proof".


The fact that there is a lot of historical writing describing the actions of the NWO bankers, coupled with the words of plenty of notables in history, including George HW Bush and Adolf Hitler, who both talked publically about the creation of a New World Order, whilst not proof, should be enough to make people sit up and take notice. That you can't prove something does NOT exist seems to escape some people. If I ask you to prove that little green men from Mars do not exist, you will find it impossible. The same applies to everything; you CANNOT prove something DOES NOT exist. That is not to say that by extension, not being able to prove something does not exist proves that it DOES exist. It does not.

But what we can say is, based upon the balance of available evidence, coupled with the number of references to a New World Order by leading statesmen and politicians, coupled with what we know from our history about how the bankers now run the world from behind the scenes, coupled with what we know of those suspected of being the leading drivers of the NWO and what they have said about the whole idea, we can infer at the very least that the NWO DOES exist. And if there is the slightest suspicion that a group of people are planning on setting up a World Government, one of whose first priorities is mass depopulation of the planet (by around 4 billion), would it not behoove us to take such theories a little more seriously than we actually do? Or should we just deny all knowledge, turn the TV back on and pretend none of it exists? After all, we personally might get lucky, we might not be one of the 4 billion who one way or another are slated to die.

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the NY Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But now the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards world government. The supra national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." - David Rockefeller, at the 1991 Bilderbergers meeting, Baden-Baden, Germany.

"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only questions is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent." - Paul Warburg (architect of the Federal Reserve System), to the US Senate, 1950

"The truth is well known among our principal men now engaged in forming an imperialism of capital to govern the world. While they are doing this the people must be kept in a condition of antagonism. By thus dividing the voters we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to lead the common herd. Thus by discreet actions we can secure all that has been so generously planned and successfully accomplished." - The Bankers’ Magazine, USA, 1892



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by franzbeckenbauer


Nothing of insignificance to add...Just wanted to give my appreciation to a excellent thread..A wonderful read. Thanks.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   
If what Greenspan says is true, I would imagine that someone who would willingly participate in killing hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians, profit from the act, and lie about the motives for his actions, must have very, very low self-esteem.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by franzbeckenbauer
 


Good post. And just to make things clear, I was responding to the people who dismiss the idea of a NWO because their perceived lack of credible proof. I for one DO believe that there certainly is a NWO and people trying to make it happen.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


Thanks mate, and yeah, I realised that. The thrust of my point was mainly directed at others...



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   
We have come so far down the line now, that NWO representatives can come out and "admit" their secrets. Bush will do the same. It is too late to do anything anyway. Laws have been made, and people have been brainwashed enough to lock us all up. They have made sure they own every inch of our lives, try and break free and you will be convicted a terrorist or non-patriot. Sheesh


I'm going to enjoy my beer and cigarettes now, before it is considered a terrorist threat too.

[edit on 16/9/07 by JoeSignal]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by windwaker
If what Greenspan says is true, I would imagine that someone who would willingly participate in killing hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians, profit from the act, and lie about the motives for his actions, must have very, very low self-esteem.


Either that, or live by very different standards to we "ordinary folk". I personally believe this to be the case. These people, the "power elite", have no concept of humanity - they themselves are so far removed from the consequences of their actions that they have forgotten what it means (if they ever knew) and have grown so arrogant and, well, INHUMAN that they wouldn't care even if you could make them see the consequences of their actions. If you got George Bush, Alan Greenspan and, say, the Pope, to sit down and browse through a load of photos of Iraqi kids with brains growing outside their skulls as a result of depleted uranium poisoning, you wouldn't see a flicker of emotion. They'd look at the pictures, then look at you blankly - and without saying a word you'd see in their eyes the unspoken response: "So what?"

It is my firm belief that we are nothing more than cattle to these "people"; a huge herd of money-generating cattle. There are 6.5 billion of us on this planet, and the powers-that-be don't care about a single one of us - they know that they could kill (literally) hundreds of millions of us, and the orderly running of their wealth generation machine wouldn't be affected one iota. That's why war means nothing. Suffering means nothing. No amount of death and destruction will ever mean anything to these people.

The end justifies the means, and might is right, those are two of the main axioms to which they adhere their whole lives.

These people are inhuman - the word "satanic" springs to mind. Not satanic in some weird, cultish, blood-ritual and naked virgins being sacrificed kind of way. But satanic as in, totally cold blooded, uncaring, empty, totally devoid of compassion or empathy. Reptilian. And it is even more distressing to know there are plenty sheeple out there who will applaud Greenspan (and others of his ilk, as they have done throughout history) and agree with the mainstream media that he is and was highly respected and to be commended for everything he has ever done. Don't make me puke!!!

Gah, someone stop the world, I wanna get off!!!



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by franzbeckenbauer
 


Yes, they do seem inhuman, don't they? But there's just one thing that I cannot reconcile: The fact that George W Bush is amongst them.

I know this may sound weird to some, but I never believed that President Bush knew all of the facts about what's really going on. In my gut I always felt as if he were a victim. He is a patsy, a very loyal, and naive person who, to a fault, trusts his friends without question.

Bush really does believe we are fighting to protect our freedoms. I remember seeing him and his wife on Larry King Live a few years back. When Larry King asked Bush about the war against terror, bush was almost in tears. He had to hold back his emotions, and it was very hard to watch, because you do not want to see your leader react that way. But he was clearly sincere about his wishes to "eradicate evil."

It's the people who are or were around Bush (Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld) who are the real criminals. I really feel that somehow Bush got pulled into their schemes and is being used as a puppet. And then I think, what if there is mind control going on here?

Is Bush the victim of mind control? Like The Manchurian Candidate?

What will happen to Bush if this is true, and he starts to learn about what's really going on? I worry about his mental health. He's our leader. Is anyone worried about him? About what all of this is doing to his psyche?

I don't think Bush is smart enough to fool people into thinking he is something that he is not. From all accounts, George W. Bush is one of the nicest people you could ever meet, and everyone says it's hard not to like him after meeting him.

I believe Greenspan, and I believe tomorrow Hell will break loose over his comments. But I do not believe that Bush has it in him to be so dastardly as to agree to the murder of thousands of innocent people.

I am hoping that some miracle happens, and the puppet releases himself from his strings.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   
To be honest it wouldnt suprise me if it was all about oil. No better way of getting what you want then killing most of the people in the country who have the resource you want !

I've always wondered about Bush, I dont live in the US but he still has something about him, somthing that i dont think you can trust.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by windwaker
 


Wow, you seem to have much more faith in President Bush than most. I hope it's not mostly due to his appearance which could have been acted. One of the biggest indicators though, is our loss of freedom and Constitutional rights enacted by the Bush admin.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Bush has probably been controlled from day one, as the next president also will be. That said, he still has information that the average joe doesn't. He loves his country and he loves his freedom like the next american, but let's face it, he is a member of one of the richest families in the world. He is not walking without a torch, that is certain.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by windwaker
 


I agree about Bush up to a point. I remember watching him on 9/11, sitting there looking idiotic, and the first thought that came into my . about what it looked like he was thinking was "my God, they went a. and did it after all!" Subjective, I know, but it fits in with what you're saying.

But remember, into the ranks of any secret society they will always recruit dupes as well as adepts. You don't have to look very far at all to see that without doubt Laughing Boy was BORN a dupe! Talk about useful idiots; he must rank amongst the most useful idiots of all time!!!


Yeah, he's a puppet. A drone. A dupe. A useful idiot. A tool, to be used and then cast aside. I hope he realises it himself. Somehow, I doubt it...!


But I disagree totally that he doesn't have it within him to sit idly while the murder of innocents unfolds. The proof is in the pudding; that's exactly what he did. And it is impossible (IMPOSSIBLE) for him NOT to have known. He knew. And he did nothing to prevent it. The man is as inhuman as the rest of them. And naturally I use the word "man" in the widest possible interpretation of the word; as far as I'm concerned not a single one of them are real men. Real men are human and have compassion and empathy. "They" don't.

Incidentally, the fact that he's (apparently) likeable has no bearing on the matter. The point is the fact that those people are removed from the consequences of their actions - which they never get to see. If something happened right in front of them, say a mugging or suchlike I'm sure they'd react like ordinary people. It's the fact that they can make life or death decisions which affect innocent people they cannot see, have never met and have conditioned themselves not to care about without batting an eyelid that makes them inhuman.

[edit on 16-9-2007 by franzbeckenbauer]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


I know. It's weird. He's the absolute worst president in US history, but for some reason I don't feel angry toward him...Because I know it's not him.

He's being controlled. I'm sure of it.

Watch how he acts in public. He can barely memorize his speeches. He speaks on a very down to earth level, and is constantly smiling and reaching out to people, begging to be liked. He speaks like an idealist and seems very naive in his way of thinking. I think he's the "Don't worry, be happy" type. And he's ignoring everything that's going on around him.

If George W. Bush were to read the posts on this site, it would give him nightmares. Outwardly, he seems incapable of understanding the darker motives of mankind that are revealed through conspiracy investigation.

But Bush Sr., on the other hand, was a very smart and shrewd man. Didn't he . the CIA in the 70s?

George Bush Sr. is nothing like George Bush Jr. I would attribute the actions of this administration more to George Sr. It's his style after all.

I believe that secretly George W. Bush must feel awful about himself.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join