Top Secret US Iraq invasion plans leaked!

But we have also learned from history that withholding intervention things can actually get worse. We all sat back and didn't want to intervene with the problems of Europe. We watched as they didn't want to intervene with a mad man. Nobody intervened when Japan was taking over every island in the pacific, as well as running all over China.

Imagine the loss of life and property that could have been saved if we didn't feel like we had to crawl in a hole. As if the world could take care of itself.

The world has only gotten smaller and as the ONLY super power there is, we have an obligation to ourselves to help out the rest of the world.

It is a nasty thought, and one that causes much anger in parties both within and outside of this country. But who else is going to help? Who else is going to care?

The size, the wealth, the influence, and the freedom of this country does come at a price. While many are simply jealous of what we have and what we offer, many are scared of the potential loss of control they would have over the peoples(slaves) of their own countries.

I do not know if Saddam is any where near the level of Hitler. I do not know exactly what is going on. I do know that there are also vast political implications of action with Iraq, and close friends of all of us will be put in harms way if we choose to attack.

And don't forget, soccer fields are actually used for soccer now in Afganistan.

IMO, the real reason that the Arab nations don't want us to invade Iraq is this:

1. The invasion of Iraq and ouster of Saddam will be quick, faster than the operation in Afganistan.

2. The people of Iraq will with one voice gush forth with celebration and relief like never before at being out from under the oppression of this lunatic.

3. HERE'S THE UPSHOT: All the people of surrounding Arab countries (oppressive dictatorships all of them), will get a taste in their mouth for freedom like the Iraqis are experiencing.

The House of Saud, and all the sheiks, emirs and power holders in the status quo in Araby fear this more than they fear Saddam, which is considerable.

Hate to call any one out but...

editedbysoluwo said:

"The reasons they are giving for taking out Saddam are BS in my opinion. They are throwing up a huge smokescreen to hide their real reason for going after him, OIL. It's not like Saddam quit letting UN inspectors do their job just a week ago, it's been more than two years since he cooperated at all.

If our country was being run by a regime that wasn't 100% bought and paid for by the oil companies, maybe I'd feel better about going after Saddam. Or maybe if our government did something about all the corruption that is currently going on in corporate america, maybe then I'd support them."

I dont understand your logic here. You say the government is bought and paid for by big Oil companies(Im assuming you mean american..) yet you say the only reason we are going to war with Iraq is Oil?

Isnt it in the best interest of the BIG American Oil companies to keep gas prices high(profits?) by keeping supplies low(not trading with Iraq helps this), not open up Iraqs reserves for our usage?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Llanelli
Hate to call any one out but...

editedbysoluwo said:

"The reasons they are giving for taking out Saddam are BS in my opinion. They are throwing up a huge smokescreen to hide their real reason for going after him, OIL. It's not like Saddam quit letting UN inspectors do their job just a week ago, it's been more than two years since he cooperated at all.

If our country was being run by a regime that wasn't 100% bought and paid for by the oil companies, maybe I'd feel better about going after Saddam. Or maybe if our government did something about all the corruption that is currently going on in corporate america, maybe then I'd support them."

I dont understand your logic here. You say the government is bought and paid for by big Oil companies(Im assuming you mean american..) yet you say the only reason we are going to war with Iraq is Oil?

Isnt it in the best interest of the BIG American Oil companies to keep gas prices high(profits?) by keeping supplies low(not trading with Iraq helps this), not open up Iraqs reserves for our usage?

---

Notice that Dubbaya raised the most money ever when he was campaigning. Now everyone knows that politicians are just puppets who take kickbacks from different groups of people in order to get votes. The Democrats are backed by environmentalists and unions, republicans are backed by the oil companies.

Why do the oil companies give money to George? So that George perhaps could have some influence on keeping certain laws friendly to the oil companies. Remember that clean air treaty we signed many years ago? You know, the one that we are completely ignoring right now, while being the leading polluter in the world.

The reason we didn't intervene in world war II was because we had nothing financial to gain. Does anyone here honestly believe that George Bush gives a damn about the Iraqi people being oppressed by Saddam? He cares about them about as much as our forefathers cared about the indians and the african americans we drug over here to do our work for us.

The reason we are going after Saddam is because the oil companies have invested millions upon millions, if not billions, of dollars in middle eastern oil. Do you think the Iraqis made those oil wells themselves? Why would they, they didn't even have cars back then, and most of their population still doesn't today.

If we overthrow Saddam, a puppet leadership would be put in place. A puppet leadership that would listen to everything the US told them to do. That's how Saddam got power in the first place, we backed him in the Iraq-Iran war, but now he's gotten too big for his britches and doesn't think he has to listen to us anymore, so it's time for us to take him out and replace him with someone more easily influenced.

Anyone who thinks the US does anything out of goodness of their heart or for the greater good of mankind needs to pull their head out of their *ss and read a little history.

The time to remove Saddam was 10 years ago after he invaded Kuwait unprovoked. Why didn't we do it back then? Only George senior knows that one, but I'll bet the reason would be very interesting.

ps Flame away...I can handle it. :)

Why would I flame someone who has the truth?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Llanelli
Hate to call any one out but...

editedbysoluwo said:

"The reasons they are giving for taking out Saddam are BS in my opinion. They are throwing up a huge smokescreen to hide their real reason for going after him, OIL. It's not like Saddam quit letting UN inspectors do their job just a week ago, it's been more than two years since he cooperated at all.

If our country was being run by a regime that wasn't 100% bought and paid for by the oil companies, maybe I'd feel better about going after Saddam. Or maybe if our government did something about all the corruption that is currently going on in corporate america, maybe then I'd support them."

I dont understand your logic here. You say the government is bought and paid for by big Oil companies(Im assuming you mean american..) yet you say the only reason we are going to war with Iraq is Oil?

Isn’t it in the best interest of the BIG American Oil companies to keep gas prices high(profits?) by keeping supplies low(not trading with Iraq helps this), not open up Iraqs reserves for our usage?

---

Just FYI - OIL companies do not make $$$ when the price goes up - they make it from selling quantity. From what I have heard they actually loose money when the price goes up (thus them wanting the oil to flow freely). I get this from people who work for oil companies calling into talk radio (very enlightening speaker that day).

Now, I'm not gung ho on invading Middle Eastern countries but there is an article in the Wall Street Journal stating that there was a connection between Oklahoma City, 9 eleven and Iraq. I haven't read it though the Journal is a very reputable source (though conservatively biased). If this is true I would suspect the only alternative is to attack and remove the current governments of Iraq and then Iran and replace them with democracies.

There is also the current worry that Iraq is close to building a fission weapon (a nuke). Now, some worry that it will be used on the US but I suspect that Tel Aviv would be the 1st target and would be done away with quickly. Sadam is getting older, his administration is shaky at best and is maintained by terror alone and he may want to go out with a bang – no pun intended. Now, I have seen the BS about how Iraq could build a bomb in just a few months and all they would need was the fissionable material, but this is propaganda. My room mate could build a bomb in the kitchen (wouldn’t be reliable), the fissionable material is the whole thing. Now, Sadam has a nuclear reactor courtesy of the European community so the raw material is there. The hardest part is making the material useable in a bomb – enriching the material. Since the weapons inspectors have not been allowed in for so long it may be feasible that he has built a plant to do just this, but again this is just conjecture.

So the reasons are – to safeguard against Sadam getting a nuclear bomb, and to remove the backbone of terror training camps and supply. At least that is what we are being told in a round about manner. Personally I find it odd how tight lipped the Bush administration is being and wonder why. He sealed records from Regan to Clintons administration about this area and I wonder why.

Anyone know why they’re not talking? Something I missed? Kingofbleh- you heard anything?

I don't know if you could build a nuclear bomb in your kitchen. Besides all of the precautionary equipment, a nuclear reaction requires sdome fairly precise calculations and a perfect timed initial explosion to compress the fissionable material to the point where a reaction occurs. Then there is the need for Tritium, which is the secondary source of neutrons, I don't imagine that you can pick that up just anywhere. The equipment for some of this stuff is also pretty closely watched I would imagine, and if Saddam is willing to tip his hand for a couple of 10's of Kilo-tons fine.

As for the US invading Iraq, I don't know if it is all that necessary. Why do we need an invasion? If there is such a desire to get rid of Saddam, why not assassinate him? Blah, blah decoys. Blah, blah time. Blah, blah resources. Whatever. The same kind of operation was done for Marcos and Noreaga, and is is less intrusive than a war and no one has to know who did it. Sure they'll suspect the US, but done properly, there would be no hard evidence.

I think if Saddam is building nukes then we need to get in there, and get in there quick.

If some country starts a nuclear war, we are all toast. Saddam is not a great guy, and the fact he should have been dealt with before gives us all the more reason to go in and smoke him out now.

IMO, I think we need to concentrate on getting Osama before we consider attacking Iraq. Getting Osama would be more beneficial (and rewarding) than attacking Iraq and getting Sadaam.

But also, why let Sadaam have the first punch? If Sadaam nuked, gassed, or infected a bunch of US troops or Israel, then the outcry would be "Why wasn't this prevented?". Granted, we or Israel can retaliate, but why wait for him to act? If the US hesitates to act, it will be blamed when something happens.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kymera
I don't know if you could build a nuclear bomb in your kitchen. Besides all of the precautionary equipment, a nuclear reaction requires sdome fairly precise calculations and a perfect timed initial explosion to compress the fissionable material to the point where a reaction occurs. Then there is the need for Tritium, which is the secondary source of neutrons, I don't imagine that you can pick that up just anywhere. The equipment for some of this stuff is also pretty closely watched I would imagine, and if Saddam is willing to tip his hand for a couple of 10's of Kilo-tons fine.

As for the US invading Iraq, I don't know if it is all that necessary. Why do we need an invasion? If there is such a desire to get rid of Saddam, why not assassinate him? Blah, blah decoys. Blah, blah time. Blah, blah resources. Whatever. The same kind of operation was done for Marcos and Noreaga, and is is less intrusive than a war and no one has to know who did it. Sure they'll suspect the US, but done properly, there would be no hard evidence.

---

Bush had the CIA ready to wack him and it was spread all over the news - thus ruining any chance we had. And, no it's not that easy to make a bomb. I was just trying to point out that it's the casing that is easy and the actual fissionable material that is hard to get. And, since he has a reactor already it is within the realm of possibility. An operation like Marcos is out because he's not close like Panama, he knows whats going on so there is no surprise, we don't know where he is everyday (I suppose otherwise a big bomb would have been dropped on him).


I found the WSJ article too but I can't post it cause it's really long. Here's the link.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/...956835,00.html

Since we're posting conspiracy links, here's a good one:

http://brasscheck.com/OKBOMB/


Basically, the guy is saying that it's physically impossible for that Ryder truck to have done the damage it did to the Murrah building if it was parked outside of the building. He says that for that type of damage, either there was a huge bomb inside the building, or several small bombs on major support columns inside the building.

I also remember reading a ways back about how not one federal employee was killed in the Murrah building because they were told not to report to work that day. Anybody else ever read about that?

How long til there's a good conspiracy theory saying that our government was behind 9/11?

isn't it just for the oil??????

....forget oil, it isn't about that.

Think for a second....if a guy down the street was making a mortar: a full sized, military style, hell raising device -- and you KNEW he'd love to see you dead, wouldn't you have someone check it out?? If he rejected?.....I don't know about you, but I'd go kickin' some ***. Not because there's production thereof, but JUST BECAUSE it could be used against me. I'm not willing to take that risk.

Just FYI - OIL companies do not make $$$ when the price goes up - they make it from selling quantity. From what I have heard they actually loose money when the price goes up (thus them wanting the oil to flow freely). I get this from people who work for oil companies calling into talk radio (very enlightening speaker that day).

First law of debating -- Anecdotal evidence is not usable :)

Ok, perhaps I wasn't present the day they taught the specific economics of Oil, but I coulda sworn, when we learned about supply and demand that my assumptions in the earlier post were dead on. You see, oil companies are in the rare position that when they must raise prices, the consumer still has to buy their goods. Unlike many other business types where an increase in price means a decrease in demand, oil companies have the average consumer by the short and curlies. Now granted, we make take shorter vacations or carpool some more when oil prices go up, but on the average we just bite the bullet, pay the extra money, and drive our feul inefficient pollution-mobiles to work.

And if you actually think that Oil Companies are doing ANYTHING to lose money, you are greatly mistaken. On the one hand we say the finance and back our government with billions of dollars(which I totally agree with), but on the other hand we say they are involved in business practices which lose them money. Nope, not happening.

Now, please understand I am on your side. I know our government is corrupt, has been for a LONG time, always fueled and controlled by special interest groups. I just don't agree that the total reason we are going to war is Oil. Not that our reasons are pure and noble however. I believe that we are going to war for Israel. Israel obviously couldn't wage open war on Iraq -- for one thing they dont border each other, plus if they went to war I believe that the surrounding Arab nations would come a knocking on their door.

So, while Oil maybe a part of it, it is not the whole. Israel is our girlfriend, has been for a long time. And we are always willing to do what they ask in that region, that just the simple truth of it.

Flame away, I can handle it too...

In response to the comment about oil companies losing money when gasoline prices are high....

What you said is simply not true.

Oil companies make more money when OPEC raises its prices (ie, cuts supply). Its commonly referred to as "windfall profits". During the last decade the feds have, on occasion, implemented additional taxation on these windfall profits.

If you don't believe it, then surely you are aware of how oil company stock prices rise during times of high crude oil prices in anticipation of increased earnings.

While it would be true that under normal product pricing scenarios, higher prices correlate to lower consumption, for all practical purposes gasoline consumption remains nearly constant, regardless of price.

My best friend worked in marketing for Shell oil and was the Marketing manager for the Texaco Brand during the period when Shell "controlled" Texaco and together "co-owned" refineries under the "Aquilar" front company. But now since Chevron owns Texaco, I assume that marriage was dissolved. If it isnt, then Chevron, Texaco, and Shell are essentially 1 company. And since Amaco, BP, and Union 76 (Unocal) are 1 company...we don't have alot of choices.