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.

 

What is the real reason the USA went to Iraq?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 07:57 AM
link   
The reason given from the USA for invading and occupying Iraq was conventional WMD and the threat of terrorist actions.

Isnt the real reason the USA is in Iraq because of the release of 4 angels/messengers, 200 million strong somewhere about the Euphrates River; that were prepared to kill one third of mankind?

What I am referring to is:


Rev 9:14 Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates.

Rev 9:15 And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.

Rev 9:18 By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.


That would be a heck of a WMD.




posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 08:16 AM
link   
I think there are definately other reasons for going to Iraq that arent made readily available to the public.
Although I seriously doubt that we would base military action on ancient superstitions, nothing would surprise me.



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 08:27 AM
link   
These men in power are trying to fulfill prophecy. If they can perform rituals with dead Native Americans bones then I'm pretty sure that they will try to conjure up some angles in the Euphrates. Have you ever heard that if you believe in something strong enough it will come true. Will this is what is happening. I think that those verse are metaphors for something else. Of course revelations will come true. People have been trying to fulfill that last books of the bible for about 2000 years now. And they will stop at nothing until it is fulfilled.



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 08:35 AM
link   
We went back to Iraq for the oil. Isn't it obvious? The oil fields were the first to be siezed. The oil fields were the first to be repaired. And the oil fields were then taken over by private and commercial civilian groups with ties to the White House.

Oddly enough, I'm still paying $1.80 a gallon. Sucks when you drive 40 miles one way to work every day.



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Yeah, I agree with oil. Funny how the first thing that happens when these oil tycoons (and subsequently, their children) get into power, the first thing they do is start up # in petrolium-rich countries.

Its just convenient that 'prophecies' predict that these regions will play an important part in the 'end times'. Gives them more of a reason probably to persue whatever they want.

......lots of itchy trigger fingers wishing to be the loyal servant of the lord.

The foolishness of it all is hilarious, but thats just me. Im not gonna bash somebody for being religious, but when their ideas start to make the rest of us suffer, thats when it gets to me.



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 08:42 AM
link   
2 Reasons Oil and to bring democracy to the middle east so that the United States can have some new friends.



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 09:48 AM
link   
It is what is not done that I find very interesting. The museum was not protected but was emptied; the damaged artifacts were the replica artifacts not the originals so someone knew what they were doing when sacking the museum.
Isnt the whole oil issue a distraction?



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by FieryIce1
It is what is not done that I find very interesting. The museum was not protected but was emptied; the damaged artifacts were the replica artifacts not the originals so someone knew what they were doing when sacking the museum.
Isn?t the whole oil issue a distraction?


.......what museum are you talking about? You lost me.



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 10:51 AM
link   
The major museum in Baghdad, The National Museum of Baghdad.
In pictures: Baghdad museum looted, BBC News



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 10:54 AM
link   
hahahahahahahaha, that is the most mislead opinion i have ever heard. what it boils down to is Bush wants to be re-elected and war has always been the way to do this.



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 10:56 AM
link   
ITS OBVIOUS.

BECAUSE IRAQ WOULDNT GIVE BUSH HIS OIL, SPOILED LIL' GORGEY PORGIE THREW A FIT AND GOT HIS FREINDS TO GO BEAT EM UP FOR HIS OIL.

I geuss there WAS some good in ridding them of Saddam.

But , from what I understand, the US left iraq in ruins.

on the news, a whole lot of people were left with no electrcity and water, because It seems the US trashed the place.

CATFISH



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 11:02 AM
link   
When researching, it is not always the obvious that gets to the real reason. Oil would be the obvious and so would re-election, so the reason would have to be something else.



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Like maybe it was the right thing to do? Could that be the reason that is not so obvious in this case?

www.wildjew.com...

Might want to read the whole article and sources before commenting.

[Edited on 10/3/04 by COOL HAND]



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Cool Hand, or WildJew, that is a well written research work and does raise some very good reasons but I think there is a less obvious agenda.



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 12:25 PM
link   
History shows that whenever a President is dipping in the polls, a good old fashioned war helps boost things up.

Not so in this case, huh?



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 12:49 PM
link   
I think oil plays a major part with our presence in the Middle East. But having a foothold likely plays just as big a part. We dont want Israel to be the only democratic country there. Our main goal is to spread democracy throughout the world and its easier to do that if you have a presence in the area you wish to convert.



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 02:24 PM
link   
The USA political administration claims the reason is WMD and the terrorist threat.
I suspect the entire concept of WMD goes far beyond just what is covered in the news or press conferences.



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by FieryIce1
The USA political administration claims the reason is WMD and the terrorist threat.
I suspect the entire concept of WMD goes far beyond just what is covered in the news or press conferences.


I have to disagree. I dont think we invaded Iraq because we were searching for firespitting apocalyptic angels.




posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by blade-of-vengence
hahahahahahahaha, that is the most mislead opinion i have ever heard. what it boils down to is Bush wants to be re-elected and war has always been the way to do this.


Yeah, because it woked so well for his Daddy...



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by soothsayer
We went back to Iraq for the oil. Isn't it obvious? The oil fields were the first to be siezed. The oil fields were the first to be repaired. And the oil fields were then taken over by private and commercial civilian groups with ties to the White House.

Oddly enough, I'm still paying $1.80 a gallon. Sucks when you drive 40 miles one way to work every day.


i know the feeling all too well, but it's 40 miles to school one way for me. personally, i don't think we went there for the oil. they were only siezed to keep people from setting them on fire like they did in the first war.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join