Is the US doing the terror in Iraq?

Just yesterday and today, suicide bombers hit pilgrims in Iraq as it was the quietest month since the invasion. It happens as the 16month withdrawal plan is gathering momentum.
I remember seeing in the nezs that british agents were arrested dressed in iraqi women and carrying explosives.
Todays bombings mention 3 woman bombers. Could be only disinfo, its easy for the military to plant bombs and blame it on extremists so they carry on their endless war.

Do you approve of all the actions of our soldiers in the war? I've seen some crazy videos that don't make me feel very proud, if you now what I mean. Like this picture on tbrnews. *Warning very disturbing*

www.tbrnews.org...

The mission is to keep Iraq under control-no oil to flow-
to help the oil companies gouge Americans.
The American soldiers are victims of this con game.
Iraq has so much oil that if oil was coming out of Iraq at
50 per cent of it's capacity then oil would be $60 a barrel. If oil flowed
out of Iraq at 100 per cent of capacity then oil would be $30 a barrel.
The major oil companies had Bush attack Iraq in the first place because
Saddam Hussein was going to flood the oil market and bring oil down to
$30 a barrel. So now the mission is simple-keep the infrastructure undeveloped-
keep the people in chaos and voila-gas at $4.00 a gallon.

There are so many things wrong with this war, nothing would surprise me.

Originally posted by Electricneo
The mission is to keep Iraq under control-no oil to flow-
to help the oil companies gouge Americans.
The American soldiers are victims of this con game.
Iraq has so much oil that if oil was coming out of Iraq at
50 per cent of it's capacity then oil would be $60 a barrel. If oil flowed
out of Iraq at 100 per cent of capacity then oil would be $30 a barrel.
The major oil companies had Bush attack Iraq in the first place because
Saddam Hussein was going to flood the oil market and bring oil down to
$30 a barrel. So now the mission is simple-keep the infrastructure undeveloped-
keep the people in chaos and voila-gas at $4.00 a gallon.

In Chaos....there is extra Profits....because everyone is just too busy watching at the diversion, instead of the real issue on hand. Focus and you shall Find !!!

America has lost the war by every measure and Americans are not stupid they know it has gone bad they know every time they fill up with 4$ gas.
They know they have lost freedoms not because their govt are keeping them safe they know thats not true every time they add another name to the list of 1 million Americans on the list of terrorists.

The grand Chess board was played America lost the Russians took all of the contracts that America did so many evil things to get at.
Oil pipe dreams ,Now Bush is frantic his legacy on the ropes ,he knows he has to escalate the war to try and change his destiny .

Who will be next I believe Israel will be next so peace can be secured
this his last chance to be looked upon semi favorably in the American History book of lies.


[edit on 3-8-2008 by solo1]

reply to post by solo1


Gas prices were going to rise anyway, the Iraq War was just part of the reason for that. With the trillions pumped into the war, all that could have been put into the country and we would have been a LOT closer to energy independence.

reply to post by TheOracle


In a word, YES. The US need to maintain a strategic military presence in the region, both as a deterrent for the need of but eventually to facilitate further operations.

Also, keeping a cap on Iraqi oil keeps prices high for Bush friends, but there is more. It also keeps that oil in the ground as a strategic reserve to fight not only the Iranians, but the Russians and the Chinese as well. (The Russians will turn to the West against the Chinese sometime during the war.)

Did the U.S start an unjust war, not called for? Yes! They are part of the Axis of evil....more so than any other country on that list I would say,

Blowing up innocent people? I'd call it terrorism.

Before soldier supporters beat me up for saying that, I do understand that this is Bush's oil war. Fooled ya.

reply to post by jackinthebox


Jackinthebox: May I ask during what war?

If it came down to things, for the trillion or two pumped into the Iraq War, we could have been researching alternative energy, and reform so that it could work with any new energy source. It would have been safer than invading a country and trying to keep tabs on its oil

reply to post by August Sonereal


The next war. Five to seven years away at most. Not enough time to convert all of our military systems over to new energy tech. It would be a massive undertaking that would require far more resources than the pittance, by comparison, that we have dumped into the Iraq war. Especially when you consider the more high-tech military systems. You're not going to get an F-22, or even the old SR-71 to run on pig #.

reply to post by jackinthebox


That's assuming there is such a war in 5-10 years. Who's the war between?

But if there is, and there was no Iraq, we could have at least got SOME of the military working with new energy tech, or at least, was more fuel efficient.

reply to post by August Sonereal

That's assuming there is such a war in 5-10 years. Who's the war between?

The biggest kids on the block of course. Title fight, East vs. West.

But if there is, and there was no Iraq, we could have at least got SOME of the military working with new energy tech, or at least, was more fuel efficient.

"Some" of anything isn't going to win a war. You must dominate. How effective do you think the Army would be if every group of soldiers carried a different rifle with different ammo? Not to mention the amount of testing that happens to meet rigorous requirements. We don't need to have a situation like when the M-16 was introduced, when the stakes are even much higher.