Why Are We In Iraq ?

[lemonjello]

You got that right. Since WWII it's all been about Israel and Oil. Oh, and Saddam allegedly made "hit attempt" on Daddy Bush which enraged Little King George.

American citizens are so brainwashed by the MSM at this point it's only possible to have a cogent discussion with a few.

Maybe it's just easier to not think and be a Faux News zombie.

Fun videos to watch -

Bush Oil

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_R_4JwEPyE

Israel Lobby

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2894821400057137878

al-Qaida should be a target of the CIA and Special Forces. Totally asymmetric warfare. They are an organized crime operation. That's it. Invading Afghanistan and Iraq because of al-Qaida was always a laugher. Iraq was about oil and Israel. That's it. Now we're stuck there spending $2B per week. Good for Halliburton, bad for America.

Read the EIA page re: Iraq. There used to be a whole lot more info on this page. It used to mention that only 25% of the country has been seismically surveyed. That Iraq has fewer oil wells than the state of Texas. The oil industry sees lots of green fields in Iraq. Low cost of extraction, too.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Iraq/Background.html

The oil industry is good at creating missions for the U.S. Dept of Defense.

[mrmarket]

Let's suppose you are correct: how do we do it? We had only 1 operative on the ground in Iraq. We have fought Gulf War I, and placed economic and military restrictions on the country. We have a hostile dictator who modeled his regime after Hitler's Germany. Are we able to sneak in there and get them?

We didn't need to...the economic sanctions would have worked. We would have starved out the country and they would have overthrown Saddam, he would have been killed, and Iraq would have gone into civil war and Iraq would have been split up into 3 factions.

Take a look now..the same thing is happening, except this time we'll end up spending a trillion dollars and lose 5,000 Americans.

True Halliburton's stock price went up and Cheney is grinning, which probably would not have happened in the first scenario.

[New-born baby]

NBB....You're right.

But why attack a country with an enormous mobilization effort, huge collateral damage and enormous cost in dollars and American lives, when you can quietly infiltrate, cherry pick and exterminate these bad guys one by one?

It seems to be you do a mass invasion when there is a uniformed enemy standing and waiting to fight you back. What we are doing in Iraq just isn't appropriate for the task at hand.

Now if 100's of planes were hijacked on 9/11, I would have been convinced that there were millions of people to worry about. In my mind, there are a few thugs out there who need to be selectively poisoned and exterminated. You don't tear down a house to kill a mouse.

Let's suppose you are correct: how do we do it? We had only 1 operative on the ground in Iraq. We have fought Gulf War I, and placed economic and military restrictions on the country. We have a hostile dictator who modeled his regime after Hitler's Germany. Are we able to sneak in there and get them?

[mrmarket]

They didn't hijack 100 planes at once for several reasons:
1. They first had to have 100 pilots to train to fly big jetliners. That was done right here in the USA. 100 pilot trainees would have attracted too much attention.
2. Suicidal manics--they've got plenty of them. But suicidal manics that speak English and can pass a background check, and have a reasonably legitimate reason for entering this country--that shrinks the field quite a bit.

If you want to see a few thousand suicidal terrorists in one place, just watch a video of a Hamas march in Israel. And don't forget there is a terrorist attack every single day in Israel. Don't forget that the Islamic terrorists are blowing up trains, subways and shopping malls in England, France, Spain and other countries, too. They haven't been sitting idly by doing nothing. But those targets are softer, and they don't have an army in their homelands who can easily and quickly take revenge.

You really ought to read a translation of a Osama bin Laden speech sometime.

NBB....You're right.

But why attack a country with an enormous mobilization effort, huge collateral damage and enormous cost in dollars and American lives, when you can quietly infiltrate, cherry pick and exterminate these bad guys one by one?

It seems to be you do a mass invasion when there is a uniformed enemy standing and waiting to fight you back. What we are doing in Iraq just isn't appropriate for the task at hand.

Now if 100's of planes were hijacked on 9/11, I would have been convinced that there were millions of people to worry about. In my mind, there are a few thugs out there who need to be selectively poisoned and exterminated. You don't tear down a house to kill a mouse.

al-Qaida should be a target of the CIA and Special Forces. Totally asymmetric warfare. They are an organized crime operation. That's it. Invading Afghanistan and Iraq because of al-Qaida was always a laugher. Invading Iraq was about oil and Israel. That's it. Now we're stuck there spending $2B per week. Good for Halliburton, bad for America.

Read the EIA page re: Iraq. There used to be a whole lot more info on this page. It used to mention that only 25% of the country has been seismically surveyed. That Iraq has fewer oil wells than the state of Texas. The oil industry sees lots of green fields in Iraq. Low cost of extraction, too.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Iraq/Background.html

The oil industry is good at creating missions for the U.S. Dept of Defense.

[New-born baby]

Does anyone ever wonder why on September 11th that 100 planes weren't hijacked? I mean it seemed like a very diabolical plan and that the only way to ever make it work would have been that one time.

If there are so many terrorists, how come they only took 4 planes? I'm not trying to minimize what happened, it just seems like if there were really a million terrorists, it probably would have been pretty easy to have hijacked 100 planes.

The other thing I also thought about was..remember how terrified everyone was when that idiot sniper was running loose in the Washington DC area for a month? I would think that would be something a terrorist could do fairly easily to wreak terror...yet that never happened either.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want bad things to happen to anyone, but it seems to me that if terrorists were so numerous and crawling around like cockroaches, it would be pretty easy for them to do evil things to people all the time.

They didn't hijack 100 planes at once for several reasons:
1. They first had to have 100 pilots to train to fly big jetliners. That was done right here in the USA. 100 pilot trainees would have attracted too much attention.
2. Suicidal manics--they've got plenty of them. But suicidal manics that speak English and can pass a background check, and have a reasonably legitimate reason for entering this country--that shrinks the field quite a bit.

If you want to see a few thousand suicidal terrorists in one place, just watch a video of a Hamas march in Israel. And don't forget there is a terrorist attack every single day in Israel. Don't forget that the Islamic terrorists are blowing up trains, subways and shopping malls in England, France, Spain and other countries, too. They haven't been sitting idly by doing nothing. But those targets are softer, and they don't have an army in their homelands who can easily and quickly take revenge.

You really ought to read a translation of a Osama bin Laden speech sometime.

[IIC]

That kind of segues into my next point...

If someone who doesn't speak my language came into my neighborhood and started blowing up my streets, schools and killing my neighbors, it wouldn't take long for me to want to start killing that person.

So.....first of all...who are we fighting in Iraq? And if we don't know this, are we doing exactly what I cited above?

I never worried about Iraq before....now I have to watch it on the news every day because we are over there making potholes in their countryside. Is it just a game of "whack a mole"? Kill one and create another one? Doesn't make sense to me.

Doesn't make much sense to me either...Reminds me of watching the Vietnam war on TV every night all thru JHS and HS

[billyjoe]

Remember in the 70's we had to kill all of the viet kong or we'd all be ruled by the communists when they took over the world . Somebody was wrong about that. The way I see it we've lost over 3600 troops to avenge 2762 deaths at the world trade center. We've probably killed 10's of thousands of "terrorists" yet they seem to be multiplying faster than we can wipe them out. There's no solution to the problem if you buy into Bush's paranoia. He probably wonders why we haven't been hit again, an act that would justify his "wipe 'em out" policy.

-----------billyjope

[mrmarket]

The thing is...There really are not that many terrorists who are martyrs...If there were... it would be all over.

As I've said before I will not post my ideas of how the food supply could be poisened because I don't know who the heck reads this forum...But I read some articles over the weekend about the possibility...It seems very easy for some whackos to pull off

That kind of segues into my next point...

If someone who doesn't speak my language came into my neighborhood and started blowing up my streets, schools and killing my neighbors, it wouldn't take long for me to want to start killing that person.

So.....first of all...who are we fighting in Iraq? And if we don't know this, are we doing exactly what I cited above?

I never worried about Iraq before....now I have to watch it on the news every day because we are over there making potholes in their countryside. Is it just a game of "whack a mole"? Kill one and create another one? Doesn't make sense to me.

[IIC]

Does anyone ever wonder why on September 11th that 100 planes weren't hijacked? I mean it seemed like a very diabolical plan and that the only way to ever make it work would have been that one time.

If there are so many terrorists, how come they only took 4 planes? I'm not trying to minimize what happened, it just seems like if there were really a million terrorists, it probably would have been pretty easy to have hijacked 100 planes.

The other thing I also thought about was..remember how terrified everyone was when that idiot sniper was running loose in the Washington DC area for a month? I would think that would be something a terrorist could do fairly easily to wreak terror...yet that never happened either.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want bad things to happen to anyone, but it seems to me that if terrorists were so numerous and crawling around like cockroaches, it would be pretty easy for them to do evil things to people all the time.

The thing is...There really are not that many terrorists who are martyrs...If there were... it would be all over.

As I've said before I will not post my ideas of how the food supply could be poisened because I don't know who the heck reads this forum...But I read some articles over the weekend about the possibility...It seems very easy for some whackos to pull off

[mrmarket]

Does anyone ever wonder why on September 11th that 100 planes weren't hijacked? I mean it seemed like a very diabolical plan and that the only way to ever make it work would have been that one time.

If there are so many terrorists, how come they only took 4 planes? I'm not trying to minimize what happened, it just seems like if there were really a million terrorists, it probably would have been pretty easy to have hijacked 100 planes.

The other thing I also thought about was..remember how terrified everyone was when that idiot sniper was running loose in the Washington DC area for a month? I would think that would be something a terrorist could do fairly easily to wreak terror...yet that never happened either.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want bad things to happen to anyone, but it seems to me that if terrorists were so numerous and crawling around like cockroaches, it would be pretty easy for them to do evil things to people all the time.

[Websman]

That alone explains why we are in Iraq. Fight them there and not here.

Kill them all and sort em out later..........

[Websman]

It looks like we'll have to kill everyone in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan and maybe anyone here that seems suspicious because you know if you leave one person and probably the one you'd suspect least, likely (they're so tricky) , they'd be the nuclear or biological weapons expert that will take us all out.

------------billyjoe

Not to worry...It's just a matter of time before the Extraterrestrial civilization, that created us, will intervene and bring us harmony and happiness. the Vulcans have declared this to be the truth.

Hang on a minute... I think I've had too much Goji....this is all making sense.

wow.....................

[New-born baby]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...425.shtml?s=lh

That alone explains why we are in Iraq. Fight them there and not here.

[billyjoe]

It looks like we'll have to kill everyone in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan and maybe anyone here that seems suspicious because you know if you leave one person and probably the one you'd suspect least, likely (they're so tricky) , they'd be the nuclear or biological weapons expert that will take us all out.

------------billyjoe