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.

 

US WARS: Get your facts straight

page: 5
56
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by works4dhs
1) the Saddam regime was known to posess and even use WsMD (on it's own citizens). it is theoretically possible that at the time of the 2nd Gulf War he had no major quantities, but there is no doubt he posessed them in the past, and had the resources to renew their production.


That's true, BECAUSE THE U.S. PROVIDED THEM TO HIM!

And yes it us true that Saddam used those weapons on his own people, but to look at it from another perspective, how many Iraqi's have the U.S now killed?


consider; we have had no fatal terror attacks in the US since 09/12/01. thanx to Pres Bush and all the uniformed folks keeping us safe.


Consider this: We have had no further attacks on the U.S. because Bush accomplished his goals of going to war and didn't need any further false flag operations.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by mark-in-dallas]




posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionHunterX

Originally posted by byteshertz
The Iraq war:
Initial reason for invasion: The United States and the United Kingdom claimed that Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed a threat to their security and that of their coalition/regional allies. After investigation following the invasion, the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its nuclear, chemical, and biological programs in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of the invasion.
Aim: stop Saddam Hussein from obtaining weapons of mass destruction


While I 'appreciate' your efforts in trying to rile the US of A and the United Kingdom, your analysis is skewered where you have mentioned that the reason for the invasion of Iraq was the destruction of WMDs that Iraq allegedly possessed.

Firstly, this reason as we all know now, is beyond belief and outrageous to say the least! Even if Iraq possessed WMDs, did they pose any threat to the US of A or Britain? NO! They are so far displaced in time and space that it would have taken Saddam at least another 50 years to have had an offensive capability to threaten mainland America/UK with state of the art delivery systems. I guess you are now aware of what they actually possessed when the US and UK went to war. Nix!

And then, do not be under the misplaced perception that this war was all about destruction of alleged WMDs ready to strike Western targets within an hour as Blair claimed and had repeatedly made when arguing the case for war. And then, just days before sending troops into action, Blair no longer believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction ready for firing within 45 minutes. So why did he opt to join the coalition to attack Iraq? What was the real reason for the war?

Therefore, this war was nothing about WMDs. It was about OIL. Period!


Bush decided to invade Iraq in April 2001, six months before September 11th, and the official reason was to improve Western access to Iraqi oil.

"President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains
a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets
from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to
the US 'military intervention' is necessary."


In other words, this war had nothing to do with 9/11, or terrorism, WMDs, human rights, or any of the factors that the US government would like you to believe are the true motives for war. It was all about oil.

I thought you knew?


More here if you’re interested.



[edit on 9-8-2010 by OrionHunterX]


OrionHunterX, excellent. I think the OP was laying out the OFFICIAL reasons for the wars. I understood oil was the real reason behind invading Iraq. When Saddam took control of Iraq, he kicked out all the US oil companies. After Saddam was toppled and they divided up the oil rights, reps from the major US oil companies showed up. There was also talk of re-opening the Haifa pipeline. Do you have more info on this?

SeaWind



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeaWind
Do you have more info on this?
SeaWind

Sure!



THE company once headed by US Vice-President Dick Cheney is set to be a big corporate winner in the event of a war with Iraq that ended in US victory. Experts estimate Iraq's existing fields could pump up to 12m barrels a day, a fivefold increase over current output and a potential gold mine for any multinational oil company involved in reconstruction.

www.thisislondon.co.uk...



Five companies have been invited to bid for contracts to put Iraq's infrastructure back together after a decade of sanctions and the expected US-led war.

Among the five is a subsidiary of Halliburton, the oil and construction giant run by US Vice President Dick Cheney for five years till 2000.

The US Agency for International Development (USAID) told the AFP news agency that the five were part of a "limited selection process" intended to speed up contracting given the "urgent nature or the unique nature of the work".

news.bbc.co.uk...


"limited selection process" intended to speed up contracting given the "urgent nature or the unique nature of the work"???

Bullcrap!
There was never a transparent process. The big ones landed the deals which were given on a platter. And the skunks laughed all the way to the bank! WMDs? Human rights? Al Qaeda? Geeez!

Check out this link...

www.thedebate.org...



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by byteshertz
 


That is your opinion and belief and I respect that. However, you are not an American, therfor, you will NEVER understand our perspective. I think I can speak on this without guilt or remorse for what I say, because I am from the South Bronx. Therfor, I feel confident when I say that all foreigners will never ever fully grasp the importance of this war in Afghanistan. The objective is to find Osama bin Laden. The war is to find him and eradicate any al-qaeda members and/or bring them to trial.

The MSM and PTB only give you one perspective of how Americans feel and it is always projected as to how THEY want you to feel. Their opinions and perspectives are not always representative of ALL of us Americans, only a SMALL percentage of us.

Furthermore, our war is not AGAINST Afghanistan, it's against a suspected ringleader for Islamic Terrorism, and an organization that obviously misrepresents an otherwise important religion. Get your facts straight.

Iraq was just turned over (command) 3 days ago. Anymore you would like to discuss about that is finito. Command of the country has been turned over to a much better Iraqi government.

While I respect foreigners' opinions, it really burns my *snip* when they love to tell us what we should or shouldn't do.

Who's the first country leaders around the world call when they are invaded by Islamic terrorist? America. Who do you call when your country is broke and has no money? Call America. Who do you call when you can't even feed your citizens? America. Yet, people of other nations tend to forget these things. I agree, we shouldn't be the world's police. I mean, why should we assist other countries when we get spit on by them? Why? We do it because we give a darn. Flip the script. Would other countries assist us if we experienced these things? NO. We couldn't even get BP (A British owned company; England being our biggest European ally) to clean up their mess in the Gulf of Mexico. We are a joke to the rest of the world, but we always seem to be the first that you all call in the time of need. I say call upon someone else, we are not the Ghostbusters.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Say_It_Already

Who's the first country leaders around the world call when they are invaded by Islamic terrorist? America.

Let's take the bull by its horns. India for example has been telling America to ask Pakistan cease exporting terror for the last almost two decades. But what has America done? ZILCH!

They can't. If you want to know why, then read this thread and you'll know what I'm talking about.

US Paying Pakistan To Kill American Troops! A Crime Of Mammoth Proportions!

Do you really think that a band of brigands in the form of the Afghan Taliban (Haqqani) could have taken on the ISAF with all its hi-tech weaponry for the last ten years on its own? These terrorists are being fully supported economically and militarily including logistics support and training by Pakistan's ISI.

The CIA knows this but cannot do anything about it as the ISI is a conduit and facilitator for CIA's narcotics trade with Afghanistan's war lords and terror groups like the Taliban. This drug money is being used by the CIA to fund those 'color revolutions' in the CIS republics and other top secret 'black projects' that are out of congressional oversight.

Read that thread I linked to and you'll realise what this Afghan war is all about.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionHunterX
 


I love it. All I hear on ATS is how this is or how that is and everyone takes it as fact. Do you work in the CIA? Do you work for the U.S Government? Do you work for any government? Until then, whatever you say is your OPINION. Mind you, I TOTALLY respect it and it's what makes you, you. I encourage it, frankly. However, just because you or others post links doesn't make it FACTUAL. All it does is expose me to yet another person's or more peoples' OPINION. As to how somehow if you post a link on ATS it's supposed to be taken as FACT!



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Say_It_Already
As to how somehow if you post a link on ATS it's supposed to be taken as FACT!

Unfortunately this is so!!!
If you don't post a link they think you're talking through yer hat!!
Even if it's the dumbest, most bizarre this side of the Suez! Damn! How does one get around this? Hmmm...Make your own web site and use that as a link! And presto, you'll be considered a MacArthur!!



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionHunterX
 


LOL!!! I love it! Good ol' ATS.
*line two



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   

War is a Racket



Categorically speaking, these are not legally Declared Wars in a technical sense.

That in itself is very much suspect. For we aren't fighting a declared war or a standing army as in WWII which were.

But we are sold on these wars just the same. because the elitist get their way and will have much to gain financially by us "winning" these wars.

Terrorist camps in Afghanistan and WMD's in Iraq.

All I can say is, yes they might have existed there but they also exist elsewhere as well.
WMD's such as nerve gas we provided to Saddam to defeat the Iranians...in their war.

But as for the real reason for going there and more importantly STAYING there is MONEY !
And lots of it !!!!!

The British Crown, for whom we are really fighting these wars, have had a foothold in the middle east for sometime now.

First it was India, where they cultivated their Opiates which were forced upon the Chinese under threat of war. to settle a trade deficit for years of importation of Tea from China.

Once ousted from India, they created Pakistan in which to continue their Opiate business, with the intent of taking Afghanistan for none other than their vast resources and fertile land to cultivate more opium.

The British Crown has been after Afghanistan AND Iraq for centuries and this is exactly why we are there fighting there now.

Remember the recent Pentagon report pertaining to the vast mineral resource wealth of Afghanistan, in the Trillions of Dollars ?

These wars are about resources and money and lots of it, plain and simple. In fact they are claiming that Afghanistan has such an abundance of Lithium alone, (used in modern batteries) that it could be considered the Saudi Arabia of Lithium!

Terrorist camps and WMD's ....that's to appease the sheep so they'll feel compelled to send their sons and daughters, who can't find jobs, to join the military to fight these wars for the elite.

War is a Racket....plain and simple.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by works4dhs
1) the Saddam regime was known to posess and even use WsMD (on it's own citizens). it is theoretically possible that at the time of the 2nd Gulf War he had no major quantities, but there is no doubt he posessed them in the past, and had the resources to renew their production. Every major intel operation in the world (CIA, Mi6, whatever they call the KGB now, Mossad) was convinced of their existence. At least one General in the Iraqi army was so sure he posessed them he was planning to deploy them!
and of course there are stories that the WsMD did exist and were hidden or secretly transported (to Syria).
there is a theory that Saddam disposed of all his WsMD and wanted the UN and the world to think he still posessed them. (remember, the UN & Hans Blix' job was to verify the disposal, and there was not sufficient evidence that they were disposed of).

2) the Taliban regime in Afghanistan openly allowed al-Qaeda to operate. without the Talis al-Qaeda, while still operating, is severely hampered. and many of the terrorists blowing up stuff in Afghanistan were planning on blowing stuff up in the US by now.

hindsight is 20/20.

consider; we have had no fatal terror attacks in the US since 09/12/01. thanx to Pres Bush and all the uniformed folks keeping us safe.


We did have fatal terror attacks after 9-12-2001: The anthrax murders were considered terror.

Over 5000 more americans died in Bush's stupid wars and close to 30,000 severely maimed. Not to mention all of the poor people who became collateral damage. I would guess that to you justice means killing innocent people. The wars (all wars) are stupid and have accomplished nothing but more destruction.

If bush and Cheney had been awake on 9-11 instead of being a couple of incompetent idiots there would never have been any reason to have the wars in the first place.

You disgust me and your thinking sucks.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Thanks OP (S&f) - why make things complicated when they are really simple.

The Elite-Masons brought all this down on us and now we have to swallow this increased terror threat. I actually sympathize with Iraq, Iran and all the other countries take hostage by the US and it's axis of Evil (UK, Germany, France, Pakistan...).

Well I guess it's all good for us and it's good business for 'themM'.
The good thing is that their souls or whatever might remain intact from themM will go straight to the eternal condemnation department and will be dipped into hot #!! Do they really believe they will live forever in love and harmony? Do they think they are better then the rest of us? It seems to me that they prefer to breath carbonmonoxide, drink corexit cocktails and eat nuclear waste. God is Great - Let's see the Change Barry Soerto was talking about



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


S+F Jam

Couldn't agree more.

Afghanistan...We gave the Taliban a choice BTW. Give up Osama or else. They said no. The goal at that point should have been topple Taliban, hunt Osama, worry about borders later. That should have been the plan.

NO NATION BUILDING...WE SUCK AT IT.

Iraq?...We should have dropped a grenade down the hole when we found Saddam and then simply packed up and left with our credibility intact. The message would have been that we can topple your government and hunt you down whatever hole you are hiding in and kill you, it would given the next dictator pause.

But again NO NATION BUILDING.

Also of note is that Saddam was not innocent in the WMD BS. He kept pretending he had the weapons so he could look tough in the Middle East.

We knew better and invaded anyways..plenty of blame to go around. I don't think we should have gone into Iraq, but I am glad Saddam is worm food, he was a horrific human being.

Let the local people sort out thier own governemnts. Dictators?...we should niether fund them or attack them...absent those two things dictatorships expire on thier own merits. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc..we should stop writing checks and giving them military security.

Otherwise what's next? If we accuse the Pakistani's of sheltering terrorists we would be correct. Should we topple thier government rather than giving them Billions? How about niether.

How about we just hunt terrorists with Spec Ops, elite units and drones, ignore borders and tell anyone that has a problem with us finding Osama Bin Laden to file a complaint, but stay the ef out of our way. If you want to help us all the better.

A lot less casualities, a lot less money, no nation building.

Just an idea.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
"I would like to add:

Where do you think the so called 'terrorists' are getting their weapons from? I mean these 'terrorists' are supposed to be a group of mismananged individuals fighting with a few guns. However, they seem to be doing a very good job in keeping the troops from doing anything.

ITS SIMPLE LET ME SPELL IT OUT - T.h.e s.a.m.e p.e.o.p.l.e w.h.o.m a.r.e p.r.o.f.i.t.i.n.g f.r.o.m t.h.e w.a.r a.r.e s.u.p.p.l.y.i.n.g t.h.e.m!

This is why I have no respect from anyone that grabs a gun in order to kill another human being, the dumbed down sheeple are being sold a dummy on a daily basis! "


I couldn't agree more. All governments are protection rackets. As Leo Tolstoy said, "where there is the law there is injustice".


[edit on 9-8-2010 by Deuteronomy 23:13]



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by byteshertz
 


i couldn't agree more.
i like most americans i meet but opposing opinions will always cloud the facts and there is nothing we can ever do about this.
i respect their patriotism to a point and that point is stupidity and the failure to admit when they're in the wrong.

it's a shame that the uk was so easy to be pulled into this.
lets hope cameron has more balls than blair did.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   
The reason for the US invading Afghanistion and Iraq are not the excuses given publicly.

Only the weak minded and gullible would ever believe such lies.

The only reason the US does anything is to futher its agenda of a New World Order.

The US will never leave these two countries now. Once our Military goes into a country we never leave

I maybe a citizen of the US, but I have not belived anything our government says in decades.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
The fact of war is that whomever has the biggest guns wins...

This is my rifle.
This is my gun.
One is for fighting.
The other is for Fun.

The debate goes on whether the U.S. Navy has the biggest guns in the supercarriers Reagan, Bush, etc.

While the Chinese are claiming they have a missile that is a supercarrier killer.

Who is telling the factual truth?

Whatever the facts, the fact remains about war is that whoever has the biggest rifle wins.

That's the fact, Jack, about warfare. The rest is hyperbole.


Chinese ready to kill U.S. Navy carriers?
www.wnd.com...



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionHunterX

Originally posted by SeaWind
Do you have more info on this?
SeaWind

Sure!



THE company once headed by US Vice-President Dick Cheney is set to be a big corporate winner in the event of a war with Iraq that ended in US victory. Experts estimate Iraq's existing fields could pump up to 12m barrels a day, a fivefold increase over current output and a potential gold mine for any multinational oil company involved in reconstruction.

www.thisislondon.co.uk...



Five companies have been invited to bid for contracts to put Iraq's infrastructure back together after a decade of sanctions and the expected US-led war.

Among the five is a subsidiary of Halliburton, the oil and construction giant run by US Vice President Dick Cheney for five years till 2000.

The US Agency for International Development (USAID) told the AFP news agency that the five were part of a "limited selection process" intended to speed up contracting given the "urgent nature or the unique nature of the work".

news.bbc.co.uk...


"limited selection process" intended to speed up contracting given the "urgent nature or the unique nature of the work"???

Bullcrap!
There was never a transparent process. The big ones landed the deals which were given on a platter. And the skunks laughed all the way to the bank! WMDs? Human rights? Al Qaeda? Geeez!

Check out this link...

www.thedebate.org...




Thank you, OrionHunterX, for the info & links!

SeaWind



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
War! Can't live with it! Can't live without it!

Bug war sure does pay good. One of the major manufacturing points that are still in the United States.

Make those bombs bigger. Those tanks thicker. Those jets faster.

It's a viable industry that when outsourced, some enemy is going to get blown to smithereens.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by earl call
The fact of war is that whomever has the biggest guns wins...



veitnam?
that mabye the only exeption to this though.

although during the falklands their shells could reach about 8 km and ours could reach about 15km, we parked our boats 9 km away and shelled the crap out of them.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by listerofsmeg
 


Oh, c'mon. An American can go to Vietnam or Thailand and buy a condo on the beach for under thirty thousand. A Russian housemaid goes for seven dollars a night.

You saying we didn't win that war?

Where can you get a condo on the beach and a Russian housemaid for seven dollars a night in America?



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join