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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 02:51 PM
link   
These are interesting quotes if they are correct. But I'm not sure how to interpret them. I doubt they were the prime reason for the war though.




posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Maybe I will try to think of a David Letterman sort of list for going to war, let's see
1. Bush really really doesn't like Sadam, in fact Sadam tried to kill his father after the Persian Gulf War by sending assasins to the US.

2. Sadam constantly thumbed his nose at the US by firing missiles at our aircraft in violation of cease fire agreements after the Persian Gulf War.

3. If Saudi Arabia fell to civil war or unfriendlies, then Middle East oil could be cut off from the West and the Western economies would suffer greatly. Oil/gas shortages, sky high prices, and trouble moving our military in time to act.

4. Sanctions weren't working. Other nations were pressuring the US to let them drop. If we didn't act now then we probably wouldn't act later after Sadam showed up with nukes ready to launch on neigbors.

5. After Iraq was sanction free and an enemy of the US, Sadam could build up a massive military to conquer the Middle East and more with all that Iraqi oil - biggest reserve in the planet I believe.

6. He and his sons were just plain evil and he had WMD
official story

7. Sadam really did support terrorists and everyone against the US. It was admitted that Iraq/Sadam was paying each palistenian suicide bomber's family at least 20,000 dollars which in terms of the US way of life probably would be closer to 100,000 dollars -cost of living guesstimate.

8. The US was really ticked off by 9-11 and we finished off Afganhistan a little bit too fast to just stop there.

9. One of Sadam's son was really the anti-christ and we wanted to get him before he started WWIII - just a possible joke here

10. The US just wanted to finish the job we started during the Persian Gulf War.

I'm only half serious about some of the above. Trying to make a David Letterman sort of list.



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Here is the real reason the us went to IRAQ.




27 year old samil.
Iraqi taxi driver.

He wrote President bush and requested that they come in an liberate Iraq because of the horrid traffick in baghdad.

now after all is said and done, he can drive in peace with out the influence of saddam and his cronies.
yay freedom!



oops, forgot that html tag was on.
my bad.
/end sarcasim


ET3

posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Some may find it interesting that the “old families” started selling off all their oil stocks and holdings back in the 50’s. Seems some Russian scientist discovered what really causes the formation of oil in our earth. Also that far larger oil deposits have now been discovered in other parts of the world. When we do switch to a different source for energy from oil those "old families” won’t be effected. Oil would seem to be the reason for being in Iraq but the common knowledge is that oil is so limited and that is not the true case.



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 06:36 PM
link   
The oil people seem to run this planet. In fact even when the US starts converting to hydrogen, it is already planned out to have the oil companies heavily involved in the creation of the hydrogen. Maybe that's why they say politicians have to oil the wheels.
I suppose wars could be fought over who controls the oil too. If oil was plentiful and no longer controlled by a few that would change things. Greenhouse people would go crazy though



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 07:21 PM
link   
The reason we went to war was because of the PNAC. Most of the top officials in the administration, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Richard Perle are apart of the group. In 1998, they planned the war, and tried to convince Clinton to carry out their plans (newamericancentury.org...). The Bush Administration lied to us about Sadam having weapons of mass destruction, and now they blame everything on an "Intelligence Failure".



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 11:15 PM
link   
The Third Crusade ...



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Slayer, they may not have lied about the WMD, they just don't know exactly what to look for at least not conventional weaponry.

Isn’t possible that Bush has read Revelations and the reason the USA troops are in Iraq is because some WMD is going to be unleashed somewhere along the Euphrates Rivers. This weapon of some sorts is going to be 200 million strong and kill one third of mankind. The Euphrates River is long stretching from the headwater in Armenia and eastern Turkey to the Persian Gulf so the reason for being in Iraq wouldn’t that be to just have a foot hold in the vicinity? With this entire scheme starting back with Bush’s father?



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Dude, Slayer rocks!!! I have everyone of their CD's. Even the new one, God Hates Us All. That is the hardest CD I've heard in a while. I highly recommend buying it.

As far as the whole prophecies are concerned, I personally don't believe in those things, so I couldn't even say...


Mr. M



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 07:06 AM
link   
This is what I don't get for Non-Bush supporters.

-If we didn't go to war with Iraq, or Afganistan, and an attack took place anywhere in the world, you would all blame Bush.
-Why? Because he didn't do his action in the Middle East.
-Imagine Saddam with nukes? Imagine his sons with nukes?
-Give the guy a break
-He freaking is doing a good job.
-He is himself
-And last of all, how are you going to take a threat from a terrorist group if you were threathed to be nuked? sit back and wait? No, you attack.
-Just like in the game "Command And Conquer: Zero Hour" I am Always America Air Force, facing the GLA(Terrorist Group).
-Raptor's got the air, Commanche's got the ground. EMP patriots got the base defence, and Aurora, F117 and B2 bomb there buildings.
-Why don't they attack me? Because I keep bombing there supply lines, take out black market, destroy there training camps. Why do I lose no buildings? Because I attack. Not defend.
-Like the ever so pouplar saying. "A good defence is a good offence"

## Don't whine about Bush, If you voted for him ##


[Edited on 12-3-2004 by Laxpla]



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 07:23 AM
link   
testing out new weapons in combat situations. look at what kind of new gadgets are heading to iraq and afghanistan. and have a look which weapon systems and platform have taken part of this police force.
even we don;t know every thing which has been taken in to action. if you've got prototype weapons you have to test them really in a war situation. oil is old one because bush just signed a bill a year ago to invest in new energy ways as hydrogen and fusion.



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 08:55 AM
link   
You all are right -Us is looking to fleece other countrys and keep things disorginized in the middle east because we a so parinode If other countrys would unite then the us would have thier heads handed to them. WE are not a bad country but we need to take out the captiolistic terrorist and practice what we preach .WE are not free we live in a country with not just 1 dictator but 52 little dictators"govenors" and a 1st class citizans that think they have a right to fleece the rest of us and send us 2nd class out to do their dirty work--:
I need a new home!!!!!!!!



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Okay I will bite, answers/opinions below


Originally posted by Laxpla
This is what I don't get for Non-Bush supporters.

-If we didn't go to war with Iraq, or Afganistan, and an attack took place anywhere in the world, you would all blame Bush.
Afganistan is okay, they were involved in the attack on the US. Iraq had nothing to do with it, Sadam was bad just not the one who attacked us
-Why? Because he didn't do his action in the Middle East.
You are being way to general, this is a terrorist issue not a middle east issue
-Imagine Saddam with nukes? Imagine his sons with nukes?
Imagine all you want, they did not have them and Bush knew that, if they did it would be a different story
-Give the guy a break
Why? What has he done for me? Did he give the average american a break, no he allowed our jobs to leave our schools to fail and our states to go broke all for oil and special interest
-He freaking is doing a good job.
By whos standards is this a good job? His intelligence is out of control, he has not helped the economy except where he changes the rules about how the numbers are reported, he uses God as an excuse and does not care about our image in the rest of the world, I thought this was supposed to be a more united world, it was before Bush
-He is himself
Okay you win that, I lived in Texas during his reign there and you are right, he is no different. Still a spoiled little rich boy with very very grand plans and opinions of himself.
-And last of all, how are you going to take a threat from a terrorist group if you were threathed to be nuked? sit back and wait? No, you attack.
Yep you are right, no aurguments here. But Iraq did not have nukes and did not threaten us.
-Just like in the game "Command And Conquer: Zero Hour" I am Always America Air Force, facing the GLA(Terrorist Group).
Um okay, video games are like real life how???
-Raptor's got the air, Commanche's got the ground. EMP patriots got the base defence, and Aurora, F117 and B2 bomb there buildings.
-Why don't they attack me? Because I keep bombing there supply lines, take out black market, destroy there training camps. Why do I lose no buildings? Because I attack. Not defend.
Again, life is like a video game how? Keep in mind you kill CGI characters, we bombed real people
-Like the ever so pouplar saying. "A good defence is a good offence"
Absolutely, Afghanistan proved that we are willing to take care of problems, Iran and N. Korea are far more threats to us then Iraq, they have the bomb, they are as radical or more so then the Iraqi regime. Why not them?

## Don't whine about Bush, If you voted for him ##
Did not then, will not now. I actually had some hope for him in the begining. Compassionate conservative sounded good, republicans are good at keeping government small, etc. He is radical and history will prove it


[Edited on 12-3-2004 by Laxpla]



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 09:38 AM
link   
The 4 angels are still chillin' up in heaven
That time has not yet come cause alot of stuff would have preceeded that and been really hard to miss.

In anycase, I think that we are in Iraq for a multitude of reasons.

1. We need a bigger foothold in the middle east. Israel's the hot spot for most of the armeggedonists. And we are building up to wage war with Iran, Syria... and eventually Saudi.

2. It suits our oil needs. We are running out of oil, there is no contingency plan because the people in charge think that the point will be moot soon anyway.


oba

posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 10:09 AM
link   
check out who makes up the personnel of the carlyle group. past defence secretaries, republican cronies (yep, there's jim baker the 3rd right there whoopee) not to mention the bush (bosch) family of course.

they make armored personnel carriers and other stuff.
both ends of the trough.

it's a huge holding company. yeah. vast

they had a recent meeting in portugal with the Saudi Binladen corporation.
oh shoot. I shouldn't say that, they're supposed to be looking for them ...

anyways. taking over a small country is a very complex thing. many factors involved. notice how quickly those no bid contracts went out.

am I saying too much?
I guess I'll find out won't I .. heh heh (when I hear the knocking ...) heh heh ...

GULP screech.


[Edited on 12-3-2004 by oba]


oba

posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
testing out new weapons in combat situations. look at what kind of new gadgets are heading to iraq and afghanistan. and have a look which weapon systems and platform have taken part of this police force.
even we don;t know every thing which has been taken in to action. if you've got prototype weapons you have to test them really in a war situation. oil is old one because bush just signed a bill a year ago to invest in new energy ways as hydrogen and fusion.


don't forget testing out james baker's ABT (advance bribe technology)

worked incredibly well.
all the top iraqi military brass shuffled off to secret locations with new passports & suitcases full of cash --
INCREDIBLE.

actually - brilliant. probably saved countless lives.

(fighting combat is so wasteful)

Baker was brilliant in this case, just as he was in getting the florida vote for georgie. )

HA HA

brilliant minds there ...
twisted yes, but brilliant.



[Edited on 12-3-2004 by oba]



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Actually GanjaGoddess, most of those trumpets have been done. In working backwards through the list of the 7 trumpets, this releasing of the 4 angels bound in the or by the Euphrates River is the 6th trumpet. We know the 5th trumpet has been blow because of the mentioning of the star fall from heaven and “one woe is past”.
Sometimes working backwards from our present through history makes it easier to understand just where we are on the timeline.



The 4 angels are still chillin' up in heaven

Those angels being still in heaven, GanjaGoddess, it says they are bound in or by the Euphrates River not in heaven.

Personally, what I did to help get a better perspective of the Seals, Trumpets and Vials, in Microsoft Word, a table with 3 columns I listed out all the seals in one column with the trumpets in the next and the vials in the third column. From studying this way I could see that the seals, trumpets and vials were going on or happening simultaneously but just at differencing times.

This was why I had originally opened this thread in the Conspiracies in Religion & Spiritualism section; there are the reasons as listed so far for the USA going to Iraq. They tend to elicit a lot of emotion and supporters but conspiracies tend to hide in the less readily available information and hide in very suttle twists in facts or information.



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 08:46 AM
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.


The fileds were taken as quicky as possible so that they could not be set ablaze again, causing another environmental disaster and wasting the Iraqi peoples' natural resource.
You are paying a fuel price because OPEC sets the price and the production amount, not the U.S. As you can, or should, see, there is no valid argument to the war-for-oil position, other than to say that a stable Middle East means stable oil supply.



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 08:48 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?


Do you forget that days after the alleged looting it was found out that the artifacts had been relocated by the museum folks?



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slayer
The reason we went to war was because of the PNAC. Most of the top officials in the administration, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Richard Perle are apart of the group. In 1998, they planned the war, and tried to convince Clinton to carry out their plans (newamericancentury.org...). The Bush Administration lied to us about Sadam having weapons of mass destruction, and now they blame everything on an "Intelligence Failure".


May I remind you that if that is so, then it was not just the Bush administration, but most of the leading democrats, such as Clinton and Kerry? Maddy Albright, heck, even H. Clinton jumped on the bandwagon, didn't she? Seems what they said is easily forgotten.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join