| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pugwash
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 226
Location: Buckinghamshire
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:40 pm Post subject: Iraq now doing nicely out of invasion? |
 |
|
Until now, personally, the starting point of developing arguments against the official version of 911 events and from there to the events of 7/7 has been to link these events as an excuse to invade Iraq. And, the primary purpose of this, to gain control of oil revenues. This argument being generally accepted as being self-evident.
While I have no reason to chance my stance of this, I am at a loss to see why (apparently) the Iraq's are allowed to sell oil to the open market. I would therefore appreciate a credible take on this turn of events. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 8:17 pm Post subject: Re: At a Loss |
|
|
| Pugwash wrote: | Until now, personally, the starting point of developing arguments against the official version of 911 events and from there to the events of 7/7 has been to link these events as an excuse to invade Iraq. And, the primary purpose of this, to gain control of oil revenues. This argument being generally accepted as being self-evident.
While I have no reason to chance my stance of this, I am at a loss to see why (apparently) the Iraq's are allowed to sell oil to the open market. I would therefore appreciate a credible take on this turn of events. |
The financial benefits of an invasion may have helped convince a few important people that it had to happen. I don't believe this was a primary reason though and probably not even a secondary or tertiary reason.
Start from consideration of the invasion from a military point of view. What was the likely outcome? Total victory for the US and their allies given the huge disparity of firepower between the 2 sides. What would happen after military success? Breakdown of law and order, terrorism etc. And if the terrorism didn't happen as planned, it could easily be encouraged by playing one faction against another or just planting a few bombs around the place. However achieved, the outcome would be a large US fighting force positioned within Iraq. 6 years later, they are still there and no signs of them going anywhere.
So surely the major reason for the Iraq war was to have a large US force permanently stationed in Iraq? Any military tactition would have predicted that outcome. Yet this is the one reason nobody ever seems to mention in the MSM.
Why would they want a large fighting force in Iraq (and another in Afghanistan)? I think we will find this out in the near to mid-term. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pugwash
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 226
Location: Buckinghamshire
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Cheers KP50, your point is well taken. The fact remains that the occupation forces are a drain on US resources that need be redressed. It is recognised that established in the minds of US hawks that war, for wars sake has many benefits, however with the first priority of the Iraq invasion being to secure the oil fields, stripping the country of it's resources was not at the back of every bodies mind. World domination may well be the ultimate goal of those shadowy figures in power in the US, I would submit that they have a long way to go without reaping the rewards of their actions.
| Quote: | | Why would they want a large fighting force in Iraq (and another in Afghanistan)? I think we will find this out in the near to mid-term. |
Indeed, the US has no reason to be in Afghanistan, it doesn't want to destroy the Taliban and less Al Queda, it needs the Taliban to remain a viable force to justify it's actions. I think their mistake is thinking that as their bs can be fed to domestic audience, it is believed by countries outside of their media controlled empire.
Speculatively on your theme, are the Pakistani troops being sent to the Afghan border to prevent Taliban escaping or in preparation for combat with American troops as they start to invade? And should they successfully invade establishing a presence down to the coast? This will leave Iran with only a northern land route outside American control. The question, are Russia and China giving the US enough rope to hang themselves or at what point will they intervene.
That said, unfortunately I am left without a punchy start up, 'you know the US invaded Iraq for the oil'? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
