Brace yourself ATS for the truth about Iraq (EXPOSED!)

Originally posted by uplander
Thanks for showing these pics. They are not surprising.
Let me get out my crystal ball and see if I can see your future........

You're about to be reassigned. You'll be reprimanded and possibly put up on charges for doing this. They will say you should know better. You may even be dishonorably discharged. Or you may just "get missing" or wake up dead.

Sounds honorable to me...NOT. What will it take for people to realize we now lve in a facist country, where TPTB are devoid of any morals what-so-ever? We send our young men off to fight and die to protect the CIA run poppy fields so we can keep the heroin flowing to the addicts in the USA. This provides huge profits for TPTB and finances the secret programs put in place to further enslave the US populace. Mothers don't let your babies grow up to be soldiers!

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
Any chance of pics of pipeline security?

@BritWarrior post: what a shameful post. You truly are an assimilated killing machine, well done

@johnny2127 post: please read this excellent post by Agit8dChop, explaining oil field contracts and tendered bids. You really think they aren't in Afghanistan & Iraq for oil & gas?!

Here's my thread about the real reasons they are in Afghanistan.

You missed what I was saying all together. Of course the US has oil and gas interest in addition to all other reason we are in the middle east. However, we do not own that oil. We were not protecting it because it was ours. We are protecting it because if it is destroyed or taken by a neighboring country, it further destabilizes Iraq and the region. So as bad as it is, it would be worse if they did not protect those pipelines. In fact, one of the biggest criticisms of the Bush Administration was that they did not protect Iraq's pipelines SOON ENOUGH. Don't any of you remember that?

Additionally I was trying to point out that this soldier exposed absolutely nothing. Zero. Zilch. Its public knowledge that the US is and was guarding Iraqi pipelines. Its public knowledge that since Iraq got its currency up again, we would convert US dollars to their currency to pay for things. Duh. How is any of that even controversial? I appreciate this soldier's service to his country, but he really isn't exposing anything that wasn't known before. If he was, I am sure he would be in a military prison as we speak. Instead, he wrote down some things he wrongly assumed most people did not know. And then he wrong assumed why the military was doing what they were without doing any research at all. He's an enlisted soldier, not a commanding officer. I do not say that to demean him, but just pointing out that the position he is in, they give him the assignment, and very little facts and thats it. He made up in his head why they were doing what they were ordered to do, and he was wrong.

The whole 21st century will be full of wars for resources. Of course this was a war for oil...and I feel bad for all those soldiers dieing just so we can drive our oversized SUVs.

Anyone who thinks that securing the resources in Iraq isn't the real reason why we are there should explain why it is that only US/British oil companies won access to the oil fields.

To the poster above me: Pls explain to me why letting Iraqi nationals having access to the oil would destabilize the region

[edit on 11-1-2010 by MrXYZ]

Originally posted by mtok7
The Iraq war is not about cheaper oil for the USA. It is about controlling the price of oil! Has the price at the pump got cheaper, no it has not and it will not be. The big corporations want oil prices high.

Agreed. Once peak oil was identified sometime ago, the United States has been protecting the interests of the corporations that have vested time and work into oil production. And lets not leave out China who now own us and our economy to a large degree. The minute that China decides to pull our cards and sell our stocks on the open market, its bye bye to America.

reply to post by thedude69


It is alot of money. But if you have ever been deployed anywhere with the military, there is alot of money around being guarded, both USD and the local money. The units deployed have there own "bank", known as dispersing. They have all the cash for those stationed there in both military and civilian billets. Where ever you are, people need to get paid!

reply to post by Stop-loss!



"We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."


"May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion."


"I think that people want peace so much that one of these days government had better get out of their way and let them have it."

~ALL quotes attributable to former President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Let Ike do the straight talking.

We need a man like this to be the next president, but I can't think of one like him now.

ThankYOU for the honest post.

Originally posted by johnny2127
We were not protecting it because it was ours. We are protecting it because if it is destroyed or taken by a neighboring country, it further destabilizes Iraq and the region.

Okay, there are several things that is just so wrong about that statement.

Its public knowledge that the US is and was guarding Iraqi pipelines. Its public knowledge that since Iraq got its currency up again, we would convert US dollars to their currency to pay for things. Duh. How is any of that even controversial?

So it's not about (US) oil, but it's about guarding (Iraqi) oil pipelines. I get it.
What else the Iraq war is about besides guarding pipelines? What about WMDs? What is the number one reason do you think, that the US waged war in Iraq?

Let's go back to previous post.

Of course we protect the oil, are you kidding? Oil is the life blood of Iraq, and if they don't have that cash flow then stability gets EVEN WORSE. More people lose jobs, less revenue, less taxes, etc. So as bad as it is and was, it would be even worse. The more unstable things are, the more troops get killed and the longer we have to have a large military force there.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Maybe you should start from the beginning, explain to me precisely what happened in Iraq before the war, hence the US needs to come to Iraq and wages a war with Saddam's army.

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

Originally posted by mtok7
The Iraq war is not about cheaper oil for the USA. It is about controlling the price of oil! Has the price at the pump got cheaper, no it has not and it will not be. The big corporations want oil prices high.

Agreed. Once peak oil was identified sometime ago, the United States has been protecting the interests of the corporations that have vested time and work into oil production. And lets not leave out China who now own us and our economy to a large degree. The minute that China decides to pull our cards and sell our stocks on the open market, its bye bye to America.

And therein lies the crux of the issue, Afghanistan is about a pipeline, (plus opium plus weapons) Trans-Afghanistan pipeline if it ever gets built, you may find this timeline very interesting.

www.ringnebula.com...

Originally posted by johnny2127

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
Any chance of pics of pipeline security?

@BritWarrior post: what a shameful post. You truly are an assimilated killing machine, well done

@johnny2127 post: please read this excellent post by Agit8dChop, explaining oil field contracts and tendered bids. You really think they aren't in Afghanistan & Iraq for oil & gas?!

Here's my thread about the real reasons they are in Afghanistan.

You missed what I was saying all together. Of course the US has oil and gas interest in addition to all other reason we are in the middle east. However, we do not own that oil. We were not protecting it because it was ours. We are protecting it because if it is destroyed or taken by a neighboring country, it further destabilizes Iraq and the region. So as bad as it is, it would be worse if they did not protect those pipelines. In fact, one of the biggest criticisms of the Bush Administration was that they did not protect Iraq's pipelines SOON ENOUGH. Don't any of you remember that?

Additionally I was trying to point out that this soldier exposed absolutely nothing. Zero. Zilch. Its public knowledge that the US is and was guarding Iraqi pipelines. Its public knowledge that since Iraq got its currency up again, we would convert US dollars to their currency to pay for things. Duh. How is any of that even controversial? I appreciate this soldier's service to his country, but he really isn't exposing anything that wasn't known before. If he was, I am sure he would be in a military prison as we speak. Instead, he wrote down some things he wrongly assumed most people did not know. And then he wrong assumed why the military was doing what they were without doing any research at all. He's an enlisted soldier, not a commanding officer. I do not say that to demean him, but just pointing out that the position he is in, they give him the assignment, and very little facts and thats it. He made up in his head why they were doing what they were ordered to do, and he was wrong.

I find this to be a very interesting post. You're claiming that this soldier STOP-LOSS knows nothing more than what has already been illuminated a million times over from public knowledge that has been READILY available. If this is the case, then why does the majority of the public still believe that we are currently in Iraq because of WMD??? In fact, even after the Bush administration admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 911, die hard neo conservatives still argue otherwise.

Okay, so now lets go with your theory. What makes you think that the information that you've received, or studied, is anymore valid than the information that stop-loss is currently providing to ATS? This would imply that you have access to VITAL information that is reserved for the political elite and corporations who create the current laws that allow the military access, control, and monitor the oil fields. With the propaganda machine spinning relentlessly, how can you be so sure that your information is accurate considering the many already stated false reasons that we are currently illegally occupying the sovereign nation of Iraq??? And yes...IT IS ILLEGAL TO OCCUPY A SOVEREIGN NATION NO MATTER WHAT EXCUSE THAT OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM PROVIDES. We are not there because of "terrorism," especially given the fact that Iraq has never attacked us for any reason.

Now, I will tell you this. I was given the opportunity to debate the former UN ambassador to Iraq because of the political science department at Indiana University. His name is Feisal Istrabadi and he was one of George Bush's closest advisers. According to Mr. Istrabadi, we are currently in Iraq protecting oil interests for America and China and that everything that we are doing in Iraq is for economic interests. Terrorism WAS NOT EVEN MENTIONED. This came straight out of Istrabadi's mouth to a student body of about 100. Now, I will tell you this, I am going to believe his explanation given his close connection to that region, his ties with the Bush Administration, and his former title over someone who is posting theories on ATS who probably receives much of their information from the MSM and is already slanted due to their previous political views. And, according to Istrabadi, there is not much difference politically between the democratic and republican parties. Its just a new face pasted on the same policy. If Istrabadi is wrong, then why has Obama helped to escalate the very same wars that he initially promised that he would end,... with the exception of Afghanistan???

Originally posted by Jazzyguy

Originally posted by johnny2127
We were not protecting it because it was ours. We are protecting it because if it is destroyed or taken by a neighboring country, it further destabilizes Iraq and the region.

Okay, there are several things that is just so wrong about that statement.

Can you really not understand how if those oil pipelines were not protected, it would even further destabilize Iraq and the region? So think of how bad things are now..... they would be worse. Oil is Iraq's economic lifeblood. If those northern pipelines are going, things get EVEN WORSE in Iraq. Less resources for both private citizens, companies and the Iraqi govt = even more reliance on the US = more troop deaths = more troops there = more Iraqi deaths...... and on and on.

I really cannot believe that you all read something sinister into protecting these pipelines. Its not what most or even a significant portion of troops are doing in Iraq. Its just one of the thousands of missions there. They must be protected. Its best for Iraq, its best for the US, its best for the region. Nothing good could come from not protecting those pipelines. Think and research before you speak people.

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

Originally posted by johnny2127

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
Any chance of pics of pipeline security?

@BritWarrior post: what a shameful post. You truly are an assimilated killing machine, well done

@johnny2127 post: please read this excellent post by Agit8dChop, explaining oil field contracts and tendered bids. You really think they aren't in Afghanistan & Iraq for oil & gas?!

Here's my thread about the real reasons they are in Afghanistan.

You missed what I was saying all together. Of course the US has oil and gas interest in addition to all other reason we are in the middle east. However, we do not own that oil. We were not protecting it because it was ours. We are protecting it because if it is destroyed or taken by a neighboring country, it further destabilizes Iraq and the region. So as bad as it is, it would be worse if they did not protect those pipelines. In fact, one of the biggest criticisms of the Bush Administration was that they did not protect Iraq's pipelines SOON ENOUGH. Don't any of you remember that?

Additionally I was trying to point out that this soldier exposed absolutely nothing. Zero. Zilch. Its public knowledge that the US is and was guarding Iraqi pipelines. Its public knowledge that since Iraq got its currency up again, we would convert US dollars to their currency to pay for things. Duh. How is any of that even controversial? I appreciate this soldier's service to his country, but he really isn't exposing anything that wasn't known before. If he was, I am sure he would be in a military prison as we speak. Instead, he wrote down some things he wrongly assumed most people did not know. And then he wrong assumed why the military was doing what they were without doing any research at all. He's an enlisted soldier, not a commanding officer. I do not say that to demean him, but just pointing out that the position he is in, they give him the assignment, and very little facts and thats it. He made up in his head why they were doing what they were ordered to do, and he was wrong.

I find this to be a very interesting post. You're claiming that this soldier STOP-LOSS knows nothing more than what has already been illuminated a million times over from public knowledge that has been READILY available. If this is the case, then why does the majority of the public still believe that we are currently in Iraq because of WMD??? In fact, even after the Bush administration admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 911, die hard neo conservatives still argue otherwise.

Okay, so now lets go with your theory. What makes you think that the information that you've received, or studied, is anymore valid than the information that stop-loss is currently providing to ATS? This would imply that you have access to VITAL information that is reserved for the political elite and corporations who create the current laws that allow the military access, control, and monitor the oil fields. With the propaganda machine spinning relentlessly, how can you be so sure that your information is accurate considering the many already stated false reasons that we are currently illegally occupying the sovereign nation of Iraq??? And yes...IT IS ILLEGAL TO OCCUPY A SOVEREIGN NATION NO MATTER WHAT EXCUSE THAT OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM PROVIDES. We are not there because of "terrorism," especially given the fact that Iraq has never attacked us for any reason.

Now, I will tell you this. I was given the opportunity to debate the former UN ambassador to Iraq because of the political science department at Indiana University. His name is Feisal Istrabadi and he was one of George Bush's closest advisers. According to Mr. Istrabadi, we are currently in Iraq protecting oil interests for America and China and that everything that we are doing in Iraq is for economic interests. Terrorism WAS NOT EVEN MENTIONED. This came straight out of Istrabadi's mouth to a student body of about 100. Now, I will tell you this, I am going to believe his explanation given his close connection to that region, his ties with the Bush Administration, and his former title over someone who is posting theories on ATS who probably receives much of their information from the MSM and is already slanted due to their previous political views. And, according to Istrabadi, there is not much difference politically between the democratic and republican parties. Its just a new face pasted on the same policy. If Istrabadi is wrong, then why has Obama helped to escalate the very same wars that he initially promised that he would end,... with the exception of Afghanistan???

Again, another person not getting the point of what I am trying to point out. You are correct that the average American thinks we are in Iraq because of WMD's. But the average American also doesn't do much research and doesn't pay attention on a continuing basis about what is going on over there. My point is not that I have special information, its that STOP-LOSS doesn't have any either, and he willfully didn't research the situation before posting. He just said something like 'then it dawned on me that we must own the oil' or some such BS. He didn't say he saw some top secret documents, or was briefed on anything sinister and special. He inferred things without facts, and then didn't research after the fact, and then naively thought he was telling us something that wasn't known or readily available. Just try googling it. Go ahead. Google 'US protecting Iraq pipelines'. Over 7.4 MILLION results pop up just from that query.

And like I said, many times; yes the US has oil interests in Iraq. Why shouldn't we? Liberals in Congress won't let the US drill for the oil on our own soil. Here is who controls most of the oil in the world: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Venezuela, Canada, Norway, and the UAE. Of those, we could easily see Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, Venezuela and the UAE cutting the US off from oil if there was a economic or military war. So like I have said time and again, in addition to the multiple reasons we are in the middle east, yes oil is one. And it should be. It is in our national interest to have oil interests. It is a matter of national security. Due to liberals in Congress we cannot even refine the little amount of oil we pump out of the ground in the US. And we can't even drill for the oil we do have here. So we have to secure oil resources. Its the law of unintended consequences. The US has been prevented from drilling and refining its own oil, so we have to secure oil resources elsewhere. Think of what would happen is Iran, Iraq, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and the UAE cut the US off from oil. Do you have any concept of how bad things would get here? You have any idea of the immediate system wide inflation that would occur?

So to summarize; the OP presented nothing new and made incorrect and naive conclusions, the US has to protect the oil pipelines both for Iraq and its mission there but also for its own national security. Its the sad reality of the world we live in and decades of energy mismanagement by the US govt.

if we are not napalming the poppy fields of afghanistan, which supplies 80% of the heroin for the world, we, the united states, are simply drug suppliers. alot of people are making money from the thousands of acres of protected poppy farming.

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

According to Mr. Istrabadi, we are currently in Iraq protecting oil interests for America and China and that everything that we are doing in Iraq is for economic interests.

(bold mine)

I found that "and China" part very interesting. You can't help but wonder if they aren't pulling America's strings a lot more than we realize.

Is the US doing China's bidding? Is it sacrificing its sons and daughters primarily for China's benefit? If the war is all about economics, then who is the economic leader today, if not China?

Originally posted by wayno
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

According to Mr. Istrabadi, we are currently in Iraq protecting oil interests for America and China and that everything that we are doing in Iraq is for economic interests.

(bold mine)

I found that "and China" part very interesting. You can't help but wonder if they aren't pulling America's strings a lot more than we realize.

Is the US doing China's bidding? Is it sacrificing its sons and daughters primarily for China's benefit? If the war is all about economics, then who is the economic leader today, if not China?

China OWNES the USA. Who do you think has been buying our worthless bonds to finance our debt for the last decade? Bow to the east and learn to speak your masters language, please.

Originally posted by johnny2127
They must be protected. Its best for Iraq, its best for the US, its best for the region. Nothing good could come from not protecting those pipelines. Think and research before you speak people.

It's called a resource war, all wars are fought over resources, biblical wars were fought for land, the Conquistador's for gold, War of the roses, etc. etc.
Check the wiki list of wars here
en.wikipedia.org...:Lists_of_wars_by_date

Peak oil is a fact, simple logic tells us that oil and gas is a finite product, here are the current lists for 2009 expressed in barrels per day

1 World 85.220.000
2 United States 20.680.000
3 European Union 14.380.000
4 China 7.880.000
5 Japan 5.007.000
6 India 2.722.000
7 Russia 2.699.000
8 Germany 2.456.000
9 Brazil 2.372.000
10 Canada 2.371.000
11 Mexico 2.119.000

source
www.photius.com...

You can see where the US with only 6% of the population consumes 25% of the worlds oil every day. Small wonder the US wish to control the source.

When I saw the headline, I thought to myself "I think I'm about to enter the HURR DUUUURRRR world". I wasn't (should have been?) dissapointed.
A big facepalm for OP. I mean, I was twelve at the time the US started the Iraq-Afghanistan war, and even I knew they were there for the oil. Or to make more money. That's what the americans are good for: making money (and I may sound like Chavez, but sadly that's the only impression I get from them).

reply to post by Acid_Burn2009


[Sorry for using my common sense, I mean no offense] Oh, don't be such a party-pooper, I'm sure this will be helpful to terrorists, because there must be a whole bunch of them browsing sites known for having interesting and accurate war-related info like this one.

Originally posted by johnny2127

And like I said, many times; yes the US has oil interests in Iraq. Why shouldn't we?

Because the theft of another's property is WRONG!

reply to post by Stop-loss!

Words seem somehow lacking in expressing our gratitude for your selfless sacrifice over there, so we may continue on, business as usual back here. It is a travesty that you have to be there in the first place, but I guess you knew what you were signing on for. It is a major disappointment that our elected leaders see this as necessary in the support of freedom, but since you are there anyway, know that you and all of your fellow mates are in our prayers and have our undying love and respect. Thank you for your sacrifice and bravery!

i am sorry to say but this is not news , maybe it is to american,s but not to the rest of the world.
america has not gone to war or invaded another counrty without a profit motive and it is the case here.
the troops out there are nothing but pawns in a comercial venture.
and i mean the troops of all nationalities not just americans.

Originally posted by prof-rabbit

Originally posted by johnny2127

And like I said, many times; yes the US has oil interests in Iraq. Why shouldn't we?

Because the theft of another's property is WRONG!

Yeah, but with "leaders" like we have in BigGov nothing is "WRONG" if it makes you money or promotes the NWO enslavement of the citizens.