Iraq: Decade of Hell

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 5 2013 @ 05:09 AM
link   
I'm not going to lie, I am terrified by things likes this. Firstly because I remember watching the build up and beginning of this War and buying it all without question and not stopping to question the media spin on it. Now looking back on it, the statistics speak for themselves:

www.youtube.com...

And secondly it terrifies me that despite the truth coming to the surface people still ferociously defend it. With people still able to defend these atrocities and fall blindly for the garbage the media sells, are we still ripe for more of these wars?
edit on 5-5-2013 by upsidedownforklift because: Putting in the vid
edit on 5-5-2013 by upsidedownforklift because: video link




posted on May, 5 2013 @ 05:13 AM
link   
Yes, a travesty. But there were many against the war in Iraq, our voices were just muffled.

There were millions in the street, we didn't get any press.

I don't think this country is gonna fall for it again, at least I hope not.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Simply put..

USA is boiling over into Iraq, among many others!

A threat the the world & humanity.




posted on May, 5 2013 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by upsidedownforklift
 


The Bush administration purposely fabricated evidence, to bomb Iraq, change it's regime just for the main prize to privatize it's oil. He killed innocent Iraqis and sent many of our young men and women to an early grave. All in the name of big oil. With all the evidence that has come to light, Bush and his cronies are still walking free! Any other government leader and their administration would have been put on trial for war crimes.

It's also a slap in the face of every American, when our own congress refused to press for an investigation into the Bush administration for possible war crimes. Maybe they were afraid of being implemented into charges of war crimes too? Every American should now question any conflict or war we engage in. If our own representatives can't protect us from criminal activities conducted by our own government, who will?



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by upsidedownforklift
 


God knows best.

IMO , it depends on how much lies govt feed people with. How much people buy it , and how much pressure those lies accomplish to produce.

But being aware and getting patience from god , is one of the keys to stand during these strong and rapid storm of lies.

Otherwise , comes delusion and doubt and more deep routed ignorance.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by WeRpeons
reply to post by upsidedownforklift
 


The Bush administration purposely fabricated evidence, to bomb Iraq, change it's regime just for the main prize to privatize it's oil. He killed innocent Iraqis and sent many of our young men and women to an early grave. All in the name of big oil. With all the evidence that has come to light, Bush and his cronies are still walking free! Any other government leader and their administration would have been put on trial for war crimes.

It's also a slap in the face of every American, when our own congress refused to press for an investigation into the Bush administration for possible war crimes. Maybe they were afraid of being implemented into charges of war crimes too? Every American should now question any conflict or war we engage in. If our own representatives can't protect us from criminal activities conducted by our own government, who will?


I love uninformed posts like this.

Exactly how much oil are we getting from Iraq? You might be surprised.

And if that was our purpose why not invade a country that has more? Iraq is one of the lowest producers in the region of oil, especially compared to Saudi Arabia or Iran.

And Bush was going off of faulty information but it was looked at by the Congress and other nations and believed to be reliable so how do you blame him for making it up?

We also gave Saddam plenty of time to fall in line with UN demands which he refused. He could still be in power today if he had wanted to. And people forget that he did use chemical weapons and invade 2 other nearby countries while subjecting his people to all sorts of horrendous crimes.

I didn't like the war simply because of the cost but you can certainly find justification for it if you want.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Again. Once again you fail.

Iraq had been devastated by years of sanctions.

They had dick.

It was a smash and grab.

I used to think it was all about oil but now that the Chinese have a bunch of the oil contracts it makes me wonder.

I am starting to think it was all about destabilizing the region. Iraq is a mess. We never did anything to help them rebuild the infrastructure we destroyed.

You need to get down on your freakin knees and beg for forgiveness.

So many lives destroyed. Oh you live over here in your freaking glass cage. You don't know what it is like to live in a war zone.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Again. Once again you fail.

Iraq had been devastated by years of sanctions.

They had dick.

It was a smash and grab.

I used to think it was all about oil but now that the Chinese have a bunch of the oil contracts it makes me wonder.

I am starting to think it was all about destabilizing the region. Iraq is a mess. We never did anything to help them rebuild the infrastructure we destroyed.

You need to get down on your freakin knees and beg for forgiveness.

So many lives destroyed. Oh you live over here in your freaking glass cage. You don't know what it is like to live in a war zone.


And why were those sanctions in place? Because Saddam and his regime were such noble people or is it because of things he was doing that the world found bad?

And what exactly did we snatch and grab other than a large debt?

Yes we don't know the true motives of the Bush administration but it could be as simple as him wanting to leave a legacy of dictator toppling or it could be more personal. Maybe he actually did think he was doing a good thing or maybe he was having a macho moment.

He did have almost unanimous support however so these people claiming that he should be held for war crimes are going to have to hold quite a few countries and democrats responsible also. Even most of the nation agreed we should do it. Very few people such as myself thought it was a waste and there wasn't much holding him back.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


You probably weren't even born yet but sanctions were implemented in 1990. It had to do with slant drilling and crossing their borders into Kuwait. In fact our CIA darling Saddam, even asked George Bush if it was alright. He gave him a green light and then back stabbed him.

You need to read a book.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by Hopechest
 


You probably weren't even born yet but sanctions were implemented in 1990. It had to do with slant drilling and crossing their borders into Kuwait. In fact our CIA darling Saddam, even asked George Bush if it was alright. He gave him a green light and then back stabbed him.

You need to read a book.


Bush was trying to deal with a collapsing Soviet Union and making sure the world did not explode into war in the vaccum being left, and he did a fairly decent job at minimalizing the fallout from that. Its not surprising he changed views multiple times with different countries with how quickly everything was happening.

Just because the CIA supports a person or a group for a certain event does not mean that you have a pass to remain in our good graces forever you know.

That's another problem many people have, "but we created them and were friends with them, then we backstabbed them!"

Yep, that would be international politics.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Remember now, you are talking about George Herbert Walker Bush. You know the ex director of the CIA. The one that rode shotgun while Reagan drooled on himself. He served 12 years as our president.

I just don't get what the cold war or the soviets have to do with this discussion.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 07:46 AM
link   
A decade of Hell?

Try Centuries of hell.

Do you know how brutal of a thug Saddam was? What fiends his sons were?

While the motives of the GW admin were not pure, people shouldn't bury the truth about how brutal and cruel Saddam and his sons were. And Saddam was not a CIA puppet, he spent some time working for the CIA, but that does not make the CIA responsible for everything evil the man did.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

A decade of Hell?

Try Centuries of hell.

Do you know how brutal of a thug Saddam was? What fiends his sons were?

While the motives of the GW admin were not pure, people shouldn't bury the truth about how brutal and cruel Saddam and his sons were. And Saddam was not a CIA puppet, he spent some time working for the CIA, but that does not make the CIA responsible for everything evil the man did.


What were the reasons for the assault?



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by upsidedownforklift
 


I responded to the title of the thread, which completely misleading.

Staying on topic.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Uninformed?
You better do your research on the subject dear, because you're in the minority believing the government invaded Iraq because of Sadam's implication in 9/11 and his possession of WMD's.



Exactly how much oil are we getting from Iraq? You might be surprised.


It's not how much oil it's the profit being made from privatizing it. Iraq doesn't even control their own oil!!


Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms. Antonia Juhasz From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000. The war is the one and only reason for this long sought and newly acquired access. Full coverage: The Iraq War, 10 years on Oil was not the only goal of the Iraq War, but it was certainly the central one, as top U.S. military and political figures have attested to in the years following the invasion. "Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."


Source



And if that was our purpose why not invade a country that has more? Iraq is one of the lowest producers in the region of oil, especially compared to Saudi Arabia or Iran.


And if it wasn't the purpose why did the U.S. privatize it? Why invest money to upgrade their refineries, and distribution network, if it wasn't going to be beneficial to the U.S.? Why was Halliburton involved? The company that Dick Cheney was once the executive CEO. It's funny how that would be considered a conflict of interest in any local or state government, yet it was ignored at the federal level.



And Bush was going off of faulty information but it was looked at by the Congress and other nations and believed to be reliable so how do you blame him for making it up?



On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.



On April 23, 2006, CBS’s “60 Minutes” interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam’s foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. “We continued to validate him the whole way through,” said Drumheller. “The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy.”


Source



And people forget that he did use chemical weapons and invade 2 other nearby countries while subjecting his people to all sorts of horrendous crimes.


The U.S. was a long time supporter of Sadam. They even supported him during the war with Iran. There's a lot of other countries who have subjected their people to horrendous crimes (North Korea, China, Syria to name a few). Than according to your beliefs we should be invading them too! Lasting change in ideology only happens when the people themselves overthrow their own governments. We have no business interjecting our belief system nor using force on another country. (Ever heard of the war in Vietnam?)



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by WeRpeons
 


All of that privatization could easily have happened as a consequence of the war with out being the determining factor that started it.

Point is that we do not know the reasons but more than likely everything was discussed and taken into consideration before the decision was made. Did they discuss the oil?

Probably.

Was it the main reason for going to war? Neither you or I can do anymore than guess at it. As for invading other countries who have human rights violations that can only be determined by looking at all the issues.

Are they a security risk?
Do we have any stake in their country or the region?
Can we win?

The list is almost endless. And as for supporting Saddam during the war with Iran I have to say....so what?

Does that mean we now must be loyal to him forever? Doesn't work that way.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by WeRpeons
 


Iraq's oil was nationalized?

Well, it was owned and controlled by Iraq's military dictator, Saddam Hussain, who owned and controlled the entire country which he ruled ruthlessly.

The US supported Sadam for a brief period of time when he was at war with Iran, because he was at war with Iran, and only for that purpose.

I don't see how corporate ownership of Iraq's oil is worse than a ruthless military dictator.

I agree, the invasion of Iraq was mostly about the oil, and Cheney's association with the oil industry was criminal, but I think Iraq is better off without Saddam.

edit on 5-5-2013 by poet1b because: Add missed point



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 





I agree, the invasion of Iraq was mostly about the oil, and Cheney's association with the oil industry was criminal, but I think Iraq is better off without Saddam.



I would really question whether Iraq is better off without Saddam...


Today, however, Iraq’s Shiite Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, heads what looks more like an authoritarian regime, propped up by a coercive secret service.

Toby Dodge, an analyst at U.K.-based think tank Chatham House, claimed Iraq had morphed into a pro-Iran police state, where Sunni gunmen and al Qaeda’s suicide bombers seem to strike at will, killing hundreds each week.

His conclusion: 10 years after regime change in Iraq, little has changed.


Source


Another question, was killing Saddam Hussein worth it for America, and for what?

-Almost 4,500 troops killed.

-More than 32,000 were wounded, including thousands with critical brain and spinal injuries.

-It cost us 3 trillion dollars and at the same time helped drive down our economy.

-Thousands of grieving families who lost their sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands and fathers.


Let's not mention the 100,000 - 600,000 Iraqi's who lost their lives due to "the war on WMD's." Remember the cocky joke Bush recited at a dinner, "no WMD's here, oh, there's no WMD's there..."

Killing 100,000-600,000 Iraqis and sending 4,500 or young men and women to their death and being maimed for life is no laughing matter. It's in poor taste, and shows no remorse for the lies he perpetuated on the American people that caused so many deaths and heart aches.



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

Decade of hell..YES!

Yeah Saddam was a real jewel..but look at the place now.. falling into civil war; and most likely will remain that way until another ruthless SOB like Saddam can take over.. and the USA will do its best to make sure he is the USA's SOB. Kinda like Karzai of Afghanistan.

I am wondering if it is Hopechests job to try and derail any thread posted by someone that might cast dispersions on any USA acts in the past? Or is Hopechest really that much of a uninformed individual? I know I get tired of Hopechests input that is not very well thought out or researched.

Whatever "justification" the lying elite came up with at the time has since proven out to be total BS. And Granted Bail is 100% CORRECT... USA gave Saddam the "green light" and then used it against him.

Everyone is forgetting the PNAC documents...and the goals of said think tank. It is not a left-right thing, or Repub or Democrat thing, it is the elite thing! PNAC think tank got dissolved in 2006 because it was no longer needed. All of their goals were going forward...and still ARE going forward..and will continue to go forward by the next puppet in the White House. Maybe Hillary...(puke) or Bush 3, (puke again)..or maybe Obama will still be in office under some sort of national emergency BS. IN FACT, the USA is starting to remind me of a nation in deep need of liberation from a totalitarian government! HA! But oh well... that is why I left the cesspool. People keep electing some elitist idiot to office. And all them bullets bought by the DHS will be used on Democrats and Republicans BOTH without giving a damn what party affiliation the victims belong to. Good luck on sorting it all out USA, I refused to participate in the whole mess it has become.

I can't blame GrantedBail for wanting to take on Hopechest..lol... in a debate of sorts. But Hopechest sort of derails the thread by the OP. And it would be nice if Hopechest would refrain from doing it all the time.

Iraq has become the classic example of what happens when there is no clear ambition or exit strategy. Maybe that was the plan? Total anarchy of sorts? Destabilization of the whole dang region? It will continue to be the theme in the region...next comes Syria, and anarchy reigning supreme there too.

WeR Peons is spot on as well with his? responses.

And to Mideast... Don't know if God has much to do with the hell being unleashed upon the earth these days!! All I know is that it isn't right at all! And it just a handful of evil people managing to do it all too. They pull the strings.

Propaganda is a fine art these days, they got it down to a science really. Add fluoride to the water.. provide bread and circuses... the sheep follow.. very sad situation. Hopefully you aren't located where you could become a innocent victim of this world craziness going on.

upsidedownforklift, THANK you for posting this reminder on just how awful wars almost always are! I am a pretty conservative person, was in the military, all that rot.. but what is going on all over the world aint right at all. Not in the least. Nobody should be bombing or killing unless they are ATTACKED first..I mean REALLY attacked not some false flag BS..

Someday all this karma will hopefully come home to roost in the right places; and those really responsible will pay for their crimes. Where is Judge Dredd when you need him?? LOL

Pravdaseeker



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   
The problem here is simple. People who post this stuff just don't have the education to understand the powers granted to the President, as Commander in Chief of our armed forces, by the constitution.

The President can, declare Martial law, dissolve the legislative and judicial branches of government, force their members to report for military duty, bind the states under his military jurisdiction and basically take over as dictator.

His direct orders to the JCOS will be carried out without question and he can attack any country anywhere in the world he wants. Since the Congress has been dissolved the war powers act is invalid.

That is exactly what Abraham Lincoln did and he forced his foes in the Senate to fill sand bags in front of the Whitehouse as he watched from the Oval Office.

That is why people who post stuff like "Bush went into Iraq for oil" or some false flag nonsense to escalate some war are laughed at.

The President of the United States can destroy the entire world anytime he wants-his orders WILL be carried out as commander in chief of the armed forces and not one single person in the military chain of command will question them.




new topics
top topics
 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join