It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why Iraq instead of Iran or N Korea?

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 07:06 PM
Ive often sat in wonderment at the fact that we chose to go and take out Iraq's fomer leader S.Hussein when in fact what I feel was the more greater threats in N Korea and Iran. In N Koera they have obviously shown their nuclear capabilities and their leaders propensity for dramatics in the way they often will "test" long range missiles by firing them over Japan's airspace or their aggresivness on the Seas against S Korea. From what Ive read of Kim Jong Ill (sp?) hes a megalomaniac who forces his own people into worshiping him as a god. To think that someone with that mindset holding in his power the possibility of Nuclear conrontation is frightening to say the least. Then there is Iran...the current elected leader Mahmoud Amadinajad (sp?) has often reffered to the US as Devils..and apparently has the belief that the US is activly trying to prevent the rise of the 13th Imam in which all within the Muslim faith would rise up against the infidels and thrown down the great Satan and have peace on Earth after a Global armageddon. They contiuously thumb their nose at the sanctions the UN has levvied against them and are continuing to seek Nuclear capabilties for supposed peacefull purposes when in fact the amount of Uranium they have purchased is way more than is needed for nuclear power plants. The whole rhetoric of Iran is hostile and reckless in re to Nuclear ambitions. Then we had Iraq. Hussein was essentially contained. They had no stockpiles of WMD's ( and from what Ive heard there were NEVER any confirmed evidence to show such a claim) their airforce was essentially annhilated from the First war against Iraq with George Sr. The country was in a stable state with almost no internal conflict that we know of. There was no way he was going to be able to invade Kuwait again and in regards to terrorists, Afghanistan had already been tapped for the bases of Al Queda and other Terrorists Organisations. So why indeed did we bulldoze our way into Iraq..topple the government and thro the country into anarchy and unrest? was it really worth it? Wasnt Iran and N Korea a more obvious and serious threat? Im not sure but my gut instinct tells me that we made a mistake and should have left Iraq well enuff alone and gone after one of the other two instead. Any one have insights or thoughts?

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 07:43 PM
imo for oil and isreal

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 07:56 PM
Positioning the chess pieces - global domination is not an overnight game.

Also war is a great place to develop technology and tactics.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:42 PM
I think the invasion of Iraq was more "cosmic" in nature than it was about oil.

Ancient Sumeria and Babylon were located in present day Iraq. It is where humans first stepped foot on this Earth and where the Garden of Eden and race of Giants (Genesis Story) were believed to have been.

Think of the technological secrets and secrets to the human existance that could be still burried in the sands of Mesopotamia.

Sadaam himself was rebuilding the city of Babylon, and that is exactly where the US set up a military base shortly after the invasion as well as the ancient sumerian cities such as Eridu.

If you follow the "New World Order" at all, you will know that they are involved with Babylonian Sun worship and the Mystery Schools dating back to the time of Cush, Semiramis, Nimrod, and Tammuz... and later turned into Egyptian cult-ism with Seth, Nut, Osiris, Isis, Horus, etc.

Perhaps this region of Iraq holds special esoteric significance to them and they're up to something that they are hiding from the public.

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 09:14 PM
Silverstreak, you have a very interesting theory on the US interest in Iraq. I admit
I had never considered the "occult" importance of the area and its
Historical setting seems very relevant. What if the invasion was a cover for something more sinister such as obtaining some artifact or knowledge that would further the goals of a grand plot to fundamentally alter the balance of power in the world? Whew what an idea...

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:32 AM
Why Iraq and not North Korea? Both countries successfully kept out the forces of globalism (also known as neo-liberal capitalism), but North Korea actually has a powerful army that would clean house with invading US forces.

Iraq was just an easy target with little military recovery since the Gulf War. Even in terms of tactics, the US did most of the heavy fighting at night since they had NVGs/thermal optics while the only night-fight capable Iraqis were elite formations of the Revolutionary Guard. All of those pathetic T-72 copies that Iraq had could do little against "shock", and millions of displaced civilians in the ruins of Iraq could do nothing against the "awe" of the private corporate takeover of their country.

top topics

log in