Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
I don't buy it.
Anyone smart enought to pull off something like this is likely smart enought to realize the poential gains to be had by stabalizing these countries. America is a net importer of oil so high oil prices do not help them. A much more advantageous situation is for America to stabalize the region, opening opportunites for companies like Haliburton to operate throughout the middle east without having to pay truck drivers $200k a year, and secure a cheap supply of oil.
|
so... the business interests behind the neo-con madmen must be john smith of aurora illinois and his work truck, eh?
oil companies get more money when the prices are higher.
OIL COMPANIES GET MORE MONEY WHEN THE PRICES ARE HIGHER.
OIL COMPANIES GET MORE MONEY WHEN THE PRICES ARE HIGHER.
as for halliburton, the contracts are no-bid and the higher their expenses, the higher their profit margin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
Wasn't that the original conspiracy theory? Go into Iraq under the guise of weapons of mass destruction, to secure cheap oil? But now it's become screw up Iraq, which destabalizes the supply of oil, and makes prices go through the roof?
|
ah. i got it. so some idiot, somewhere, accuses the US of trying to make oil cheaper, and now all evidence to the contrary is thrown out because someone somewhere said that. gotcha.
whew, am i glad i don't have to think because someone says that 'the original conspiracy theory' was something else.
what a relief!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
This is a war that was designed to stabalize the area and is now at a stage where it cannot be described without using the word "cluster".
|
when all the business interestes involved, including OPEC, benefit from instability, something tells me the point might be different.
so if this war is designed to increase stability, why have special forces been caught staging sectarian violence?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4264614.stm
Basra governor Mohammed al-Waili said the men - possibly working undercover - were arrested for allegedly shooting dead a policeman and wounding another.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...articleId=1090
Baghdad, 14 October: An Iraqi army officer has said that the British military personnel and security forces were involved in acts of terrorism in Iraq.
The Iraqi officer, introduced himself to the Islamic Republic News Agency [IRNA] as Fayyadh Mas'ud, and said: The evidences at our disposal cannot be denied.
He added: Investigations show that the British Army's explosives and equipment were used in several instances of bomb blasts in Baghdad.
Mas'ud said: In this connection, the Iraqi authorities have asked for explanations from the British officials, but so far they have not given any clear answer.
Terrorist operations in various districts of Baghdad and other regions have turned Iraq into an unsafe place and thousands of civilians have been killed so far. However, America and Britain repeatedly say that their forces will remain in Iraq until full establishment of security.
Political analysts believe that America and Britain are undermining security in Iraq in order to justify their own presence.
former CIA officers have been coming out aboot this stuff:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...quebombing.htm
Former CIA analyst a and presidential advisor Ray McGovern does not rule out Western involvement in this week's Askariya mosque bombing in light of previous false flag operations that have advanced hidden agendas of the ruling elite.
During the mid-eighties, McGovern was one of the senior analysts conducting early morning briefings of the PDB one-on-one with the Vice President, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.
you're never going to get a 'CIA man' to totally rat out his buddies, but what in the history of the CIA leads anyone to believe that these things are NOT happening?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB90/index.htm
One of the most infamous covert operations in the history of U.S. foreign policy was the coup d'état against Iran's Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq in August 1953. That the United States government, through the Central Intelligence Agency, played a role in this affair is not a matter of dispute, although the exact nature of its role remains subject to controversy (Note 29): indeed, the normalization of U.S-Iran relations may someday require Washington to elucidate its role in the 1953 coup.
no kidding.
the number of 'private contractors' operating in iraq is stunning, and they DO NOT answer to the US chain of command.
private networks, many of them owned by neo-con interests, who get richer by stoking the fires.
negroponte, for example, was involved with the 'college of the americas' training death squads in central america - he's the one cited by newsweek as 'looking in to solutions' for this mess - yeah, i wonder what he'll suggest.
in the first post i forgot to mention who craig murray is:
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/craig_murray.html
As Britain's outspoken Ambassador to the Central
Asian Republic of Uzbekistan, Craig Murray helped
expose vicious human rights abuses by the
US-funded regime of Islam Karimov. He is now
a prominent critic of Western policy in the region.
...
2002-2004 British Ambassador, Uzbekistan
Responsible for our relationship with Uzbekistan. He found Western support for the dictatorial Karimov regime unconscionable, as detailed in the rest of this website.
he might have a thing or two to say on the situation...