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.

 

The real reasons for no backing in Iraq.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Turkey is not a member of the EU nor is it a small nation.

So what if EU members also oppose the war. Your point. You seem to believe that the ordinary Turk is likely to care what the EU will think when forming an opinion on the Invasion of Iraq. The ordinary European see's the war for what it is, an imperialistic grab.




posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Listen, if the US could have negotitated a deal with Iraq for the oil fields development, trust me, there would have been no war. After all, they just about had a backdoor deal with Afghanistan for a pipeline there. I have said it before to those who echo the propaganda from Rove when it comes to France and Russia's oil contracts with Iraq, first, those contracts were not kept from the UN or the US, and secondly, the US could not accept the control of the second largest reserves in the hands of EU nations, especially with the threat to change OPEC trade into the Euro. The only choice Bush saw to have it all, cheaply (or so he thought) from France and Russia's legal claim, was to take it by force, under the trumped up charge that Hussein's 700km range missiles were a threat to the United States of America.

I know it is difficult for some to think that their leaders do not walk on water, and would never engage in underhanded tactics, since only the "enemy" of the day does, but history proves those believers to be wrong, for corruption runs rampant in American political leaders as they try to line their own pockets. These believers remind me of those in the days of the Iran-Contra affair who levied all blame at the foreign parties involved, refusing to believe their president was nothing but a crook.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Volkgeister
Turkey is not a member of the EU nor is it a small nation.

So what if EU members also oppose the war. Your point. You seem to believe that the ordinary Turk is likely to care what the EU will think when forming an opinion on the Invasion of Iraq. The ordinary European see's the war for what it is, an imperialistic grab.



It was my understanding they made it this year , and that they were trying to make it last year but didnt get done with EU requirements.....
Turkey as relation to most EU countries and the US is small , but since obviously your tone seems to be antagonistic , I won't even get into an arguement over the last point due to promise to MODs not to get into heated cituations cause of temperment lately...I will say that however the so what, the Turkey statement falls in line with the original theme of the thread and explains their reluctence to allow the US to launch from there.



[edit on 6/11/2004 by drbryankkruta]



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Let's lose the oil dependance and go alternative.

It would solve alot of problems in a new york minute!

We have the ability to change that now(and have for years).

oil is so old school and is obviously proven to be a harm to our enviroment so? let's freakin lead the world again and say f u to it.

E



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 10:15 AM
link   

.Somewhereinbetween

I know it is difficult for some to think that their leaders do not walk on water, and would never engage in underhanded tactics, since only the "enemy" of the day does, but history proves those believers to be wrong, for corruption runs rampant in American political leaders as they try to line their own pockets. These believers remind me of those in the days of the Iran-Contra affair who levied all blame at the foreign parties involved, refusing to believe their president was nothing but a crook.


In the same way it is possible that Bush is being true to his words and that people just cannot except that the truth is being told.You are not prevy to the information and the reason for this war just cos the media is reporting no WMD cosn`t mean there arn`t any.Conspirices and lyes are not just reserved for the exclusive use of politicians.
What is Bush getting out of this exactly.When he leaves office the amount of Security it will take to protect him and his family will nolonger be at the level it is now this will leave him vunerable to assasination by Al queda.

[edit on 7-11-2004 by weirdo]



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by drbryankkruta

Originally posted by Volkgeister
Turkey is not a member of the EU nor is it a small nation.

It was my understanding they made it this year , and that they were trying to make it last year but didnt get done with EU requirements.....


They were recently accepted to begin the membership negotiations. If they'll become members it'll be around 2015. 2010 earliest.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by vibetic
They were recently accepted to begin the membership negotiations. If they'll become members it'll be around 2015. 2010 earliest.


Thank you, for your input I went to check back and have not found this info , where did you get it so I can read it.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by drbryankkruta

Originally posted by vibetic
They were recently accepted to begin the membership negotiations. If they'll become members it'll be around 2015. 2010 earliest.


Thank you, for your input I went to check back and have not found this info , where did you get it so I can read it.


Some articles of the subject:
www.phillyburbs.com...
www.signonsandiego.com...



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by vibetic
Some articles of the subject:
www.phillyburbs.com...
www.signonsandiego.com...



This is an excellent start thank you, if you find more then let us know.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 04:31 PM
link   
First of all what was eating US with the iraqi nation was, that none of the oil base companies in US were allowed to get their greedy hands into the oil in iraq, now thanks to the "liberation" of the oil in iraq by the US, because is not for the people but the oil, US american base oil companies can divide the spoils.

Privatization of the natural resources of that country is top priority of the US government, and guess who is going to be the winner.

Not the Iraqi people.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by weirdo
In the same way it is possible that Bush is being true to his words and that people just cannot except that the truth is being told.You are not prevy to the information and the reason for this war just cos the media is reporting no WMD cosn`t mean there arn`t any.Conspirices and lyes are not just reserved for the exclusive use of politicians.
What is Bush getting out of this exactly.When he leaves office the amount of Security it will take to protect him and his family will nolonger be at the level it is now this will leave him vunerable to assasination by Al queda.


It is possible, but not probable. The released documents of past presidents including the Reagan documents, paint a different picture however, one where the purpose is strictly for their benefit first, and the public last. I am reminded that George W. Bush, is a liar, despite his haoled pictures and his claims to faith. Why? Because the man said that he saw the first plane hit the tower and thought it was pilot error...an outright lie unless he saw something we did not. He claimed that God told him to take out the Taliban and Hussein, and unless the evangelicals plan on cannonizing him or making him a messiah, he has lied. He also claimed that Hussein refused to allow the inspectors back into Iraq. This is but a few lies, never mind the manipulation, or scrubbing of archives, or silencing of damaging claims, which goes to how far his administration has gone to protect themselves. While I like you, am not privy to the truth, I am privy to his words and actions, and they just reek of self-serving interests. But I heard your cry 22 months before, and even then I stated that the facts as painted, are abject nonsense. Seems, I was not wrong.

As for the media reporting no WMD, they may have switched gears to do so now but in fact, I did avail myself of all the known information I could find on Iraq's WMD, back in 2001 when Bush started pushing for attacks on Iraq, and my findings were that Hussein had none. My findings now are that the US media was all too willing to hype a war, rally behind the commander-in-chief at the onset, then face the inevitable lack of evidence later, and portray a lacklustre positin of surprise. Suffice it to say, that I pride myself in having helped bring the sordid and hidden details behind Iraq's WMD, Wolfowitz's push to invade Iraq, Powell's two-step, and the PNAC doctrine to the masses, prior to the start of the war.



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 04:24 PM
link   



It is possible, but not probable. The released documents of past presidents including the Reagan documents, paint a different picture however, one where the purpose is strictly for their benefit first, and the public last.


Whilst not a fan of Reagan he did abolish communism from the east.For all there faults they have the previlage of being damned for every action they take.The truth is not always so straight forward as some political groups would like us to believe.


I am reminded that George W. Bush, is a liar


To no the lie you must know the truth.That is the problem people are not informed of the real truth as the enemy have CNN.You have to decieve people in order to gain the edge.You cannot tell the drug dealers were the DEA are steaking out.Crap anallergy but there you go


He also claimed that Hussein refused to allow the inspectors back into Iraq. This is but a few lies, never mind the manipulation, or scrubbing of archives, or silencing of damaging claims, which goes to how far his administration has gone to protect themselves
.

The weapons inspectors openly agree that there efforts to inspect site were always being hampered.The administration got fustrated and as intelligance on Terrorist groups were showing that a group were prepaired to go further than any other and take there fight to the west mainly at that time America.Saddam was illegally selling oil to member states to fund the development of WMD.Iraq was possing a threat by its actions that intelligence on the ground were beginning to uncover.The UN resoultions were being ignored and there threats were empty.In the Intelligance community the pressure to act before the worst case scenario became a reality grew.Evidence could not be taken to the UN as big news flash there are spies in the UN and could not be trusted to reveal sources of sensitive material on intelligance gathering of Iraq.Arab countries employ Secret Services as well as the west.So the US took the chance to secure oil reservse and improve the future stability of the middle east.If this makes Bush look like are stupid manipulated or manuiplative individual or redneck fine but he is just the figure head of the most powerful nation in the world he did not make that nation and once he leaves the first thing that happens when the new guy takes office is he or she
is led into an office and explained exactly what he/she can and can`t do when it comes to matters of security and defence and the future remit



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by weirdo
The weapons inspectors openly agree that there efforts to inspect site were always being hampered.
Not quite. From January of 2003 up until they pulled out, the inspectors stated they had unhindered inspections.


The administration got fustrated and as intelligance on Terrorist groups were showing that a group were prepaired to go further than any other and take there fight to the west mainly at that time America.
That is their story, I don't buy it. Blix specifically spelled out in his February and March reports to the security council that he was convinvced all he needed was a few more months to be able to make a proclaimation on wmd, one way or the other. His reported information thus far was proving damaging to US claims, and thus, the US interceded to carry out the invasion, knowing full well that had Blix come back and declared that Hussein did not have weapons, their game plan was off.



Saddam was illegally selling oil to member states to fund the development of WMD.
Yes, including American companies. That does not make his doing so any more moral, but I can surely say that his plan is reminiscent of the Iran-Contra affair.


Iraq was possing a threat by its actions that intelligence on the ground were beginning to uncover.The UN resoultions were being ignored and there threats were empty.In the Intelligance community the pressure to act before the worst case scenario became a reality grew.
Iraq was posing no threat. It was a trumped up charge that went form a grave danger, to continuing his wmd proliferation, to being a tyrant who killed his own people, to continuing with wmd related programs, to thinking about restarting his wmd programs sometime in the undisclosed future. It was all a lot of bullpuckey, and despite the truths having been uncovered, those who only envision the US president of choice being infallible in decision, fall for that nonsense. Since when is having a thought of doing something illegal now, and deserving of invasion?


Evidence could not be taken to the UN as big news flash there are spies in the UN and could not be trusted to reveal sources of sensitive material on intelligance gathering of Iraq.Arab countries employ Secret Services as well as the west.So the US took the chance to secure oil reservse and improve the future stability of the middle east.If this makes Bush look like are stupid manipulated or manuiplative individual or redneck fine but he is just the figure head of the most powerful nation in the world he did not make that nation and once he leaves the first thing that happens when the new guy takes office is he or she
is led into an office and explained exactly what he/she can and can`t do when it comes to matters of security and defence and the future remit
More bafflegarb spit out by the administration and swallowed whole by the gullible.The U.S took the oil because they did not want any other country to have it. It's that simple. and yes, it makes him look like a simpleton redneck at the helm of the country presently occupying the most powerful seat in the world. They all fall due to greed, corruption, intolerance, beligerence, hate and poor leadership. I place no importance on such hegemonial positions, whether they belong to one ego or a circle of egos occupying a clump of land.



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 05:47 PM
link   
.

Not quite. From January of 2003 up until they pulled out, the inspectors stated they had unhindered inspections.


The Iraq leadership had time to build or remove any evidence.The fact they were cooperating more strengthens the arguement for this.


That is their story, I don't buy it. Blix specifically spelled out in his February and March reports to the security council that he was convinvced all he needed was a few more months to be able to make a proclaimation on wmd, one way or the other. His reported information thus far was proving damaging to US claims, and thus, the US interceded to carry out the invasion, knowing full well that had Blix come back and declared that Hussein did not have weapons, their game plan was off.


The intelligence community were aware that any WMD evidence was not going to be put into Mr Blixs lap.If he was allowed to prove that Iraq didn`t pose a threat on that issue the job of removing Saddam would have been even greater and support would not have been given by the few nations that were willing to support America.If America was such a liar they would have made sure the CIA planted WMD evidance to support there case a few days after the invasion.



Yes, including American companies. That does not make his doing so any more moral, but I can surely say that his plan is reminiscent of the Iran-Contra affair.


Sting operation you gather info that way



Iraq was posing no threat. It was a trumped up charge that went form a grave danger, to continuing his wmd proliferation, to being a tyrant who killed his own people, to continuing with wmd related programs, to thinking about restarting his wmd programs sometime in the undisclosed future. It was all a lot of bullpuckey, and despite the truths having been uncovered, those who only envision the US president of choice being infallible in decision, fall for that nonsense. Since when is having a thought of doing something illegal now, and deserving of invasion?


Iraq was meeting with members of organisations including OBL people.His sons were particularly interested in stricking America on there own turf.The current situation in Iraq is no supprise as connections and support were in place with members of saddams govt and people loyal to them.Insurgents are in Iraq are being supported by people that have worked with them in the past.


More bafflegarb spit out by the administration and swallowed whole by the gullible.The U.S took the oil because they did not want any other country to have it. It's that simple. and yes, it makes him look like a simpleton redneck at the helm of the country presently occupying the most powerful seat in the world. They all fall due to greed, corruption, intolerance, beligerence, hate and poor leadership. I place no importance on such hegemonial positions, whether they belong to one ego or a circle of egos occupying a clump of land.


The US hasn`t taken any Oil out of Iraq and when it does it will pay the market rate as everybody else will.Sure they may get a discount from the Iraqi owmers who were worse of before America allowed them free trade but thats how businesses operate by scratching each others backs.
For all your misinfo and false assumptions you don`t get to be the leader of the most powerful nation without having a brain.People who hate him and America are just as guilty of misinformation and lie spreading as the people they condem but does that make them right or a you being mislead



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by weirdo
The Iraq leadership had time to build or remove any evidence.The fact they were cooperating more strengthens the arguement for this.
Yes, I heard this excuse as it began to surface once it became evident he had no WMD. Well where is it then if it was moved, and why have they not attacked the safekeeping country? It is truly amazing how the lies are piled one on the other and they are bought. Now, I have stated this several times in the past, as have others all over the net, so it should not be news, yet the same arguments keep being brought forward by those like you, because you realise you cannot support the obvious, such that: Powell stood before the UN with slides of satellite photos, but it seems that the cameras must have malfunctioned when it came to taking pictures of the wmd being moved prior to and after the invasion. Rumsfeld AFTER the search had begun claimed to KNOW where the WMD were, now he claims he misspoke. Imagine that! After that wonderful imagery and claims of hundreds of tons of WMD, and claims of knowing where they are, the best excuse now is that he moved them. I won't accept your excuse either that they have images of trucks crossing into Syria, countries have trade agreements and for all you know those trucks are carrying date flavoured gummi bears. Why can I say that? Because if Canada has infrared imaging that can see behind structures, so does the US.

Have you ever once stopped to consider that you have either been had, you are willing to be lied to, they didn't know then and they don't know now, and since they were so wrong then, why do you swallow the nonsense now?

The intelligence community were aware that any WMD evidence was not going to be put into Mr Blixs lap.If he was allowed to prove that Iraq didn`t pose a threat on that issue the job of removing Saddam would have been even greater and support would not have been given by the few nations that were willing to support America.If America was such a liar they would have made sure the CIA planted WMD evidance to support there case a few days after the invasion.Hmm, that is an interesting twist. Is this detour from the WH or the DoD? The intelligence community had no intelligence, period! They had no viable assets on the ground in Iraq, they relied on ex-pats, and worse! The intelligence the WH acted on was provided by one Ahmed Chalabi and his band of thieves. You remember him don't you? He is the same fellow the CIA cautioned against, and the same fellow now accused of double dealing with Iran.




Yes, including American companies. That does not make his doing so any more moral, but I can surely say that his plan is reminiscent of the Iran-Contra affair.


Sting operation you gather info that way
Surely you jest and just waste my time if you dismiss the Iran-Contra affair as a sting operation. There are only three reasons you would do so; out of blind obedience to republican presidents; a lack of knowledge on the issue; a dishonest attempt to not acknowledge truth and obfuscate your truth through this and waste my time. After reading your posts, I credit you for all three, and therefore conclude you have no interest in seeking or acknowledging truth, and prefer to continue on your way with head buried firmly in the sand. Therefore I have no interest in furthering discourse with dishonest posters.



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Surely you jest and just waste my time if you dismiss the Iran-Contra affair as a sting operation. There are only three reasons you would do so; out of blind obedience to republican presidents; a lack of knowledge on the issue; a dishonest attempt to not acknowledge truth and obfuscate your truth through this and waste my time. After reading your posts, I credit you for all three, and therefore conclude you have no interest in seeking or acknowledging truth, and prefer to continue on your way with head buried firmly in the sand. Therefore I have no interest in furthering discourse with dishonest posters.




And the child throws its toys from the cot and refuses to play anymore till it gets its own way.


The truth you are seeking will not be found on the net.Too sensitive for people to stick there heads to far above the wall.Sure believe what you want dosn`t make you correct though.Dismiss what l`ve said don`t give two cents this is a discussion site walking away from a thread proves your arguement has flaws and walking saves the embaressment



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 03:28 AM
link   
walking away doesnt always mean that weirdo.
you really do like insulting people? trying to get a response mabye? a tinge of anger for them to make a mistake?
also since when did iraq have the capabilities to hit america? you'd need an ICBM and iraq didnt have any. they had a ton of radioactive ore.



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by drbryankkruta

Originally posted by Volkgeister
Turkey is not a member of the EU nor is it a small nation.

So what if EU members also oppose the war. Your point. You seem to believe that the ordinary Turk is likely to care what the EU will think when forming an opinion on the Invasion of Iraq. The ordinary European see's the war for what it is, an imperialistic grab.



It was my understanding they made it this year , and that they were trying to make it last year but didnt get done with EU requirements.....
Turkey as relation to most EU countries and the US is small , but since obviously your tone seems to be antagonistic , I won't even get into an arguement over the last point due to promise to MODs not to get into heated cituations cause of temperment lately...I will say that however the so what, the Turkey statement falls in line with the original theme of the thread and explains their reluctence to allow the US to launch from there.



[edit on 6/11/2004 by drbryankkruta]


Or could it be that 80% of Turks were against the war. By the way it wasn't the government of Turkey that decided against letting US use it's soil and airspace, in fact they wanted it, it was the Turkish parliament.


Do I sound antagonistic?



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
walking away doesnt always mean that weirdo.
you really do like insulting people? trying to get a response mabye? a tinge of anger for them to make a mistake?
also since when did iraq have the capabilities to hit america? you'd need an ICBM and iraq didnt have any. they had a ton of radioactive ore.



Walking away is one thing refusing to carry on a discussion and insulting my logic is another.
The sting l was refuring to was concerning Iraq not the subject that they are so obsessed with.
Trust me that doesn`t come close to insulting


To Somewhereinbetween l was enjoying your points of view just a pity you are like others on hear that prefer to make a few intellectual comments that they probably took from an interview and walk away rather than enter meaningful debate


Devilwasp what l do to rattle your cage l`m not on hear to prove people wrong or cause them to make mistakes


Healthy debate is good even if to sides disagree as long as insults are kept away.Just a pity there wasn`t more people on this site that wasn`t so TOUCHY TOUCHY


Of course Iraq didn`t have the capabilites to hit America with coventional weapons but they had money,training facilites and influence in the middle east.



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by weirdo
To Somewhereinbetween l was enjoying your points of view just a pity you are like others on hear that prefer to make a few intellectual comments that they probably took from an interview and walk away rather than enter meaningful debate
There comes a point in time where, one decides that the person whom they debate is sorely lacking in information, behind the times, wilfully intent on either dismissing the facts previously laid out before them or not interested in seeking same. at one time, I would have spent days, weeks, months, educating those lacking foresight and knowledge in that which is widely known from sources. I no longer do that as I have come to understand the psyche of those who just do not wish to advance their knowledge beyond that which they wish to believe.

Call it what you will, but the fact that I have had to advise you of the contents in Blix's reports, the same being at a minimum 18 months old, tells me that you have not availed yourself of such information. Whether by design or incapability, I care not, for along with that, goes a one-track mind and a propensity to forget that which you do not want to know. Hence I have no interest in repetition, particularly with the advent of infomation at the fingertips and the mass attraction educational program that is the internet.

As with those who stood steadfast with Nixon in Watergate, Oliver North in Iran-contra, your truth is years away when the issue will be cold, and the secrecy act comes head to head with the statute of limitations. By then who will really care, or admit they were taken in by rhetoric? History teaches us one thing; when a nation or world is divided so on an issue, the side opposing the direction taken, was indeed correct.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join