[Kaminyu]

Is Iraq Really A Failure:

Is Iraq really a failure? From the perspective of having the interests of the American people at hand or the people of Iraq then yes Iraq is a tremendous failure. From the perspective of the interest of the Neoconservatives, Iraq is exactly what they wanted. We know this because they wrote about it before they created the lies and false flag attack shamelessly connected to more of their lies, which brought us in there.

Israeli firster Douglas Feith who worked under Perle in the DOD devised a plan with Rumsfeld which was put into practice by our despot in Iraq, Paul Bremer. The Bremer plan (actually created by Feith) was a step by step path to ruin and chaos for Iraq. Keep in mind that the goal of the Neoconservatives was never to bring stability to Iraq, it was to privatize the assets, divide it up into 3 cantons and cause enough hell to warrant permanent military bases and constant war profiteering for Neocon firms in the MIC.

Feith and Bremer implemented the "de-baathificatoin" of Iraq. If you remember, the early rhetoric of the MSM on the war was that they would meet us in the streets with flowers and then they staged that silly statue toppling with Ahmad Chalabi personally caught in two photos. After that the resistance, "insurgency", was said to be "dead-enders" "Saddam loyalists" and "Baathists".

They tried to link the Iraqi resistance to Saddam when the Iraqi people had made it clear that it had nothing to do with Saddam, they didn't like him either. They fought the army because we destroyed their country physically, cut off power and water and murdered their children...

So what was the genius thing that Bremer did right from his start in Iraq? Order 1 was to fire thousands of teachers, nurses, doctors, and state workers simply for being of the wrong political persuasion. Next came the real whopper. Order 2 was to disband the Iraqi military! 400,000 military men were forcibly released without pensions onto the streets of Iraq. So hundreds of thousands of trained Iraqis were fired and left to the streets where, oh so conveniently, they had access to about a million tons of weapons in munitions located in unguarded depots around the country. Weapons and explosives were just"vanishing." And they continue to do so.

Going, Going, Gun

And as the Daily Show jokes, it is not just missing arms it is oil and money as well. Stewart jokes of "profound incompotence" but it is actually by design.

Throw on top of this the infamous stories about false flag operations in Iraq carried out by American, British, and Israeli forces to further aggravate violence between religious factions. British troops in Basra were caught wearing wigs and driving with explosives in their vehicle. When the Iraqi police arrested them the British army rammed down the wall of the police station to get them out. Must have been desperate to get them back.

The factual fighting was exacerbated by Bremer who did not allow direct elections. He creates an advisory council which he had total veto power over and allowed Iraqis to chose between previously approved candidates. All of that purple finger crap was a farce that the Iraqi people were voting between. In essence they could only choose between those already chosen. To make matters worse many Sunni groups were banned from participation and Shiite followers of Al-Sadar were also banned. When these groups were banned and the INC lackies elected by the default of there being no other options, the factions turned to violence. And of course groups fought it out in cycles of revenge we now know were encouraged, perhaps outright caused, by occupation forces doing things like shooting up weddings and bombing Mosques.

Skipping dow to Order number 39:

-p68 Blackwater

Iraq's assets were being thrown to the wolves and the oil industry went straight into "privatization" in about a fair a manner as the "privatization" of Russia. Order 40 allowed the Foreign banks in to gobble up what remained.

This disaster in Iraq is exactly what the Neocons planned for and wanted. Bush can take the heat because he is just a useful idiot who believes he is doing the work of god. This war was not about oil, that was a very small reason. The war is about control, over any and all economic and military rivals. The war was given to us by the MIC heads who are the same people who control the massive conflict generator and money maker for the arms industry; that is Likud Israel.

For a tiny fraction of the cost of the war we could have bought the oil. That's not the interest though. The war costs are tied up in the MIC. The military hardware the destruction of cities and the contracts to rebuild all that infrastructure, the military bases, the prisons, this is all money for them and it is a launching pad into their neighbors like Iran. This is about Greater Israel. Listen here and also here and here.

I am not the only one who has been saying this or realizing this. And if that is not enough go back and look at WHO lied us into war and Who wrote about it as well as alluding to a 911 like atack (Pearl Harbor like attack) and WHO sold shorts, WHO wrote the rest of PNAC, WHO leaked info to journalists. Please see this video from PBS and this paper from Ryan Dawson. 911, Iraq, PNAC, Where do all the Roads Lead?

[IbnMardhiyah]

Uh, its Paul Bremer, and not Paul Beamer.

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

Uh, its Paul Bremer, and not Paul Beamer.

Yeah, he mispelled his last name in that article. He knows how to spell it, as he's spelled it correctly before. I just fixed it in the post.

[MossadConspiracy]

another reason why that article is retarded (aside from the author constantly misspelling the name of the main actor in his conspiracy) is the fact that stability is much more conducive to foreign ownership, investment, high oil output, military investment, and privatization than is anarchy. This is actually on display in Iraq right now, with the differences between North and South.

ws

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

another reason why that article is retarded (aside from the author constantly misspelling the name of the main actor in his conspiracy) is the fact that stability is much more conducive to foreign ownership, investment, high oil output, military investment, and privatization than is anarchy. This is actually on display in Iraq right now, with the differences between North and South.

ws

With stability, the occupation forces would have to leave, and the war profiteers would lose. With instability, they have an excuse to stay, wasting more money on it and create more problems, in which case the war profiteers win. So, given that, how exactly would stability be more conducive to their interests? Remember, the main issue isn't oil output, investments, or privitization, it's about certain people making money off of perpetual war and chaos.

[Khairan]

Originally Posted by Kaminyu

With stability, the occupation forces would have to leave, and the war profiteers would lose. With instability, they have an excuse to stay, wasting more money on it and create more problems, in which case the war profiteers win. So, given that, how exactly would stability be more conducive to their interests? Remember, the main issue isn't oil output, investments, or privitization, it's about certain people making money off of perpetual war and chaos.

It's pretty clear that the U.S. as a whole is losing a great deal of money from this endeavour, and it's military entrenchment in Iraq is impeding it's ability to challenge Iran right now. It is simply not true that the U.S. is actively benefiting from what has been happening in Iraq -- the Bush administration and the GOP have suffered political backlash in the country, the nation has lost worldwide credibility, and Americans are mired in an expensive war which is sapping their resources and misdirecting their military power.

I'm not saying there hasn't been a great deal of corruption involved in the "rebuilding," and individual people have certainly profited from what has gone on there. However, the U.S. as a whole is not gaining anything through this -- there is no reason why Americans would want to perpetuate this mess indefinitely just for the sake of spiting muslims when they have far more opportunities to profit from a stable Iraq.

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by Kaminyu

With stability, the occupation forces would have to leave, and the war profiteers would lose. With instability, they have an excuse to stay, wasting more money on it and create more problems, in which case the war profiteers win. So, given that, how exactly would stability be more conducive to their interests? Remember, the main issue isn't oil output, investments, or privitization, it's about certain people making money off of perpetual war and chaos.

According to your article the reason that "Beamer" created the problems in Iraq (its a stretch to blame it all on Beamer or even on Bremer) is because the "MIC" would make alot of money from privatization, reconstruction contracts, oil, and the expenses of the US military adventure itself. Well, the first three things on that list generate alot more money than the fourth and they cant be done in a chaotic failed state. Notice how reconstruction contracts are no longer being renewed, no companies (MIC or otherwise) are interested in investing in southern or central Iraq or buying government assets there, and so on. While in the North, the Kurds are enjoying peace, stability, and all the foreign investment into the oil and services sectors that they want (by evil MIC corporations). Stability allows people to do business, anarchy prevents it

it could be that you disagree with the author and his conspiracy theories regarding Beamer and the MIC. It would seem so by your comment. In which case, you and I are on the same page about this

ws

[GOTFIVEONIT]

this is exactly what i have been saying for a long time. they want the violence and chaos in Iraq.

why? Because it suits zionist interests. they did this in lebanon when they sparked the 1975 civil war, and they are doing it again in Iraq. They were very happy to the watch the 8 year long Iran-Iraq war back in the 80's too. why? keep them fighting each other and they wont fight you. its classic colonial tactics of divide and rule. inspite of what nonsense mossad refuses to believe, the facts on the ground speak for themselves.

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by Khairan

It's pretty clear that the U.S. as a whole is losing a great deal of money from this endeavour, and it's military entrenchment in Iraq is impeding it's ability to challenge Iran right now. It is simply not true that the U.S. is actively benefiting from what has been happening in Iraq -- the Bush administration and the GOP have suffered political backlash in the country, the nation has lost worldwide credibility, and Americans are mired in an expensive war which is sapping their resources and misdirecting their military power.

I'm not saying there hasn't been a great deal of corruption involved in the "rebuilding," and individual people have certainly profited from what has gone on there. However, the U.S. as a whole is not gaining anything through this -- there is no reason why Americans would want to perpetuate this mess indefinitely just for the sake of spiting muslims when they have far more opportunities to profit from a stable Iraq.

Indeed. They have lost a great deal of taxpayer money, but who have they lost it too? The money they spend on the Iraq war is going into somebody's pocket. If the Neocons who started this war (and keep it going) work for these individuals, then wouldn't that benefit them?

Remember, this isn't about the interests of the United States, it's about the interests of the MIC and the international bankers, first and foremost.

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

According to your article the reason that "Beamer" created the problems in Iraq (its a stretch to blame it all on Beamer or even on Bremer) is because the "MIC" would make alot of money from privatization, reconstruction contracts, oil, and the expenses of the US military adventure itself. Well, the first three things on that list generate alot more money than the fourth and they cant be done in a chaotic failed state. Notice how reconstruction contracts are no longer being renewed, no companies (MIC or otherwise) are interested in investing in southern or central Iraq or buying government assets there, and so on. While in the North, the Kurds are enjoying peace, stability, and all the foreign investment into the oil and services sectors that they want (by evil MIC corporations). Stability allows people to do business, anarchy prevents it

First, I don't think the Kurds are enjoying peace, with their conflict with Turkey. Second, the one thing that all of the Iraqis agree on, is that the oil should not be privatized by foreign corporations. The occupiers are funnelling the oil into Israel, and if stability returns, the Iraqis regain control of their oil. The military corporations within the MIC make money by selling their military hardware. If there's no war, who's going to buy it?

There is virtually little-to-nothing gained by a united, stable Iraq, by the MIC and the IBs. Dividing Iraq into 3 cantons with permenant US military bases, and the money all going to the MIC, is what they really want. How can they justify dividing Iraq up into 3, if there's no internal conflict? How can they justify permenant military bases, if a lasting peace is achieved? How would the war profiteers profit, if there's no war to profit from?

it could be that you disagree with the author and his conspiracy theories regarding Beamer and the MIC. It would seem so by your comment. In which case, you and I are on the same page about this

I don't disagree with him. I just don't think you've read through it all to really understand what he's saying.

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by Kaminyu

First, I don't think the Kurds are enjoying peace, with their conflict with Turkey. Second, the one thing that all of the Iraqis agree on, is that the oil should not be privatized by foreign corporations. The occupiers are funnelling the oil into Israel, and if stability returns, the Iraqis regain control of their oil. The military corporations within the MIC make money by selling their military hardware. If there's no war, who's going to buy it?

The Iraqis already control their oil, they also have a permanent law in place for how it is to be sold and how the funds are to be divided. The only difference peace would make is that the amount of oil being produced and revenues from it would be much greater. I just dont think you read enough etc etc

Also, Kurdistan is indeed peaceful. It might not be the most peaceful place on earth, but its peaceful enough for reconstruction contracts to be given out and renewed regularly and for foreign companies and individuals to make investments. Unlike the rest of the country

Originally Posted by Kaminyu

There is virtually little-to-nothing gained by a united, stable Iraq, by the MIC and the IBs. Dividing Iraq into 3 cantons with permenant US military bases, and the money all going to the MIC, is what they really want. How can they justify dividing Iraq up into 3, if there's no internal conflict? How can they justify permenant military bases, if a lasting peace is achieved? How would the war profiteers profit, if there's no war to profit from?

The "War profiteers" are military companies that would refit the entire Iraqi military from scratch. They are also the oil companies that would buy plentiful cheap oil pumped out of Iraqi fields. They are also reconstruction and services firms that would rebuild the country. This is the argument that the "author" who doesnt know Bremer's name is putting forward. Yet, all of those goals are served by peace not anarchy. Again, this is being shown every single day as reconstruction projects in central and southern Iraq are cancelled while ones in the north are renewed and given added funding and northern utilities and services are privatized while the ones down south languish. Unless the Beamer theory can explain the reality that is taking place in Iraq right now then theres no point in considering it

If the author of that article had read a little bit more, like maybe a single article about Iraq in the years 2003 and 2004 and a wikipedia article or better yet a chapter from an economics textbook about privatization and oil production, then he probably would have known the name of L Paul Bremer and the basics of post-war reconstruction

ws

[ChotooMotoo]

Is Iraq really a Failure...... Yes.

[GOTFIVEONIT]

If the author of that article had read a little bit more, like maybe a single article about Iraq in the years 2003 and 2004 and a wikipedia article or better yet a chapter from an economics textbook about privatization and oil production, then he probably would have known the name of L Paul Bremer and the basics of post-war reconstruction

and your still harping over a typo as a valid argument???

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by GOTFIVEONIT

and your still harping over a typo as a valid argument???

An author who doesnt know the name of the primary actor in the conspiracy theory that he is proposing is a sloppy idiot who cant do research. That is important because if someone is a sloppy idiot who cant do research then there is no point in taking the rest of their arguments seriously. However, I did consider them (see my posts) and they do not correspond with reality. Therefore not only is the author somebody who doesnt know the name of the main character in the story he's writing, but he is also someone who makes claims that run against reality

peace
ws