US planting car bombs in Iraq

[segovius]

Evidence is continuing to mount that the US are behind many of the car bombs that are increasingly claiming lives in Baghdad and the surrounding areas.

These car bombs are never suicide bombs - and strangely suicide bombing is the main MO of the alleged 'Zarqawi' group and other Islamist resistance cells. So there seem to be two differing phenomena at work: traditional jihadi martyr operations and an unknown group solely utilising remotely detonated car bombs.

Let's look at this second grouping's activities:

Report from Global Research

A few days ago, an American manned check point confiscated the driver license of a driver and told him to report to an American military camp near Baghdad airport for interrogation and in order to retrieve his license. The next day, the driver did visit the camp and he was allowed in the camp with his car. He was admitted to a room for an interrogation that lasted half an hour. At the end of the session, the American interrogator told him: ‘OK, there is nothing against you, but you do know that Iraq is now sovereign and is in charge of its own affairs. Hence, we have forwarded your papers and license to al-Kadhimia police station for processing. Therefore, go there with this clearance to reclaim your license. At the police station, ask for Lt. Hussain Mohammed who is waiting for you now. Go there now quickly, before he leaves his shift work”.

The driver did leave in a hurry, but was soon alarmed with a feeling that his car was driving as if carrying a heavy load, and he also became suspicious of a low flying helicopter that kept hovering overhead, as if trailing him. He stopped the car and inspected it carefully. He found nearly 100 kilograms of explosives hidden in the back seat and along the two back doors.

The only feasible explanation for this incidence is that the car was indeed booby trapped by the Americans and intended for the al-Khadimiya Shiite district of Baghdad. The helicopter was monitoring his movement and witnessing the anticipated “hideous attack by foreign elements”.

The same scenario was repeated in Mosul, in the north of Iraq. A car was confiscated along with the driver’s license. He did follow up on the matter and finally reclaimed his car but was told to go to a police station to reclaim his license. Fortunately for him, the car broke down on the way to the police station. The inspecting car mechanic discovered that the spare tire was fully laden with explosives."

This should not be surprising given what we know of he Strausscons preparedness to stop at nothing for their aims but in case it does occasion some surprise we have this revealing snippet from a document prepared for a Mr Donald Rumsfeld:

According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld by his Defense Science Board, the new organization--the "Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG)"--would actually carry out secret missions designed to provoke terrorist groups into committing violent acts. The P2OG, a 100-member, so-called "counter-terrorist" organization with a $100-million-a-year budget, would ostensibly target "terrorist leaders," but according to P2OG documents procured by Arkin, would in fact carry out missions designed to "stimulate reactions" among "terrorist groups"--which, according to the Defense Secretary's logic, would subsequently expose them to "counter-attack" by the good guys. In other words, the plan is to execute secret military operations (assassinations, sabotage, "deception") which would intentionally result in terrorist attacks on innocent people, including Americans--essentially, to "combat terrorism" by causing it!

But back to the fake terrorist car bombs - from Riverbend's post The Dead and the Undead:

The last two weeks have been violent. The number of explosions in Baghdad alone is frightening. There have also been several assassinations- bodies being found here and there. It's somewhat disturbing to know that corpses are turning up in the most unexpected places. Many people will tell you it's not wise to eat river fish anymore because they have been nourished on the human remains being dumped into the river. That thought alone has given me more than one sleepless night. It is almost as if Baghdad has turned into a giant graveyard.

The latest corpses were those of some Sunni and Shia clerics- several of them well-known. People are being patient and there is a general consensus that these killings are being done to provoke civil war. Also worrisome is the fact that we are hearing of people being rounded up by security forces (Iraqi) and then being found dead days later- apparently when the new Iraqi government recently decided to reinstate the death penalty, they had something else in mind.

But back to the explosions. One of the larger blasts was in an area called Ma'moun, which is a middle class area located in west Baghdad. It’s a relatively calm residential area with shops that provide the basics and a bit more. It happened in the morning, as the shops were opening up for their daily business and it occurred right in front of a butchers shop. Immediately after, we heard that a man living in a house in front of the blast site was hauled off by the Americans because it was said that after the bomb went off, he sniped an Iraqi National Guardsman.

I didn’t think much about the story- nothing about it stood out: an explosion and a sniper- hardly an anomaly. The interesting news started circulating a couple of days later. People from the area claim that the man was taken away not because he shot anyone, but because he knew too much about the bomb. Rumor has it that he saw an American patrol passing through the area and pausing at the bomb site minutes before the explosion. Soon after they drove away, the bomb went off and chaos ensued. He ran out of his house screaming to the neighbors and bystanders that the Americans had either planted the bomb or seen the bomb and done nothing about it. He was promptly taken away.

The bombs are mysterious. Some of them explode in the midst of National Guard and near American troops or Iraqi Police and others explode near mosques, churches, and shops or in the middle of sougs. One thing that surprises us about the news reports of these bombs is that they are inevitably linked to suicide bombers. The reality is that some of these bombs are not suicide bombs- they are car bombs that are either being remotely detonated or maybe time bombs. All we know is that the techniques differ and apparently so do the intentions. Some will tell you they are resistance. Some say Chalabi and his thugs are responsible for a number of them. Others blame Iran and the SCIRI militia Badir.

In any case, they are terrifying. If you're close enough, the first sound is a that of an earsplitting blast and the sounds that follow are of a rain of glass, shrapnel and other sharp things. Then the wails begin- the shrill mechanical wails of an occasional ambulance combined with the wail of car alarms from neighboring vehicles… and finally the wail of people trying to sort out their dead and dying from the debris.

And if that was not enough - there's more

On Friday [May 13, 2005], a 64 years old Iraqi farmer, Haj Haidar Abu Sijjad, took his tomato load in his pickup truck from Hilla to Baghdad, accompanied by Ali, his 11 years old grandson. They were stopped at an American check point and were asked to dismount. An American soldier climbed on the back of the pickup truck, followed by another a few minutes later, and thoroughly inspected the tomato filled plastic containers for about 10 minutes. Haj Haidar and his grandson were then allowed to proceed to Baghdad.A minute later, his grandson told him that he saw one of the American soldiers putting a grey melon size object in the back among the tomato containers. The Haj immediately slammed on the brakes and stopped the car at the side of the road, at a relatively far distance from the check point. He found a time bomb with the clock ticking tucked among his tomatoes. He immediately recognized it, as he was an ex-army soldier. Panicking, he grabbed his grandson and ran away from the car. Then, realizing that the car was his only means of work, he went back, took the bomb and carried it in fear. He threw it in a deep ditch by the side of the road that was dug by Iraqi soldiers in preparation for the war, two years ago.Upon returning from Baghdad, he found out that the bomb had indeed exploded, killing three sheep and injuring their sheppard in his head. He thanked God for giving him the courage to go back and remove the bomb, and for the luck in that the American soldiers did not notice his sudden stop at a distance and his getting rid of the bomb."They intended it to explode in Baghdad and claim that it is the work of the 'terrorists'

We need to take the lid of this - things are really starting to stink out there....

[MagicFingers]

I think the stink has been around since Jan 20th 2001....

[iPoster]

IMHO, it's highly unlikely that rank and file US troops are in on this, and I don't know anything about the credibility of your sources, good or bad. But assuming the stories are correct, I honestly wouldn't put it past the Admin to pull off something like that. Compared to 9/11 it would be small potatoes.

IF it is happening, it would most likely involve CIA or other 'spook' types posing as US military....

[BRussell]

That really makes no sense. Why would the US want to make things worse than they already are?

[sammi jo]

Not just car bombs, but weapons of mass destruction as well. This was to be expected, but the plan to plant WMDs in Iraq, so they could be uncovered later on and therefore "justify" the Bush war policy was bungled. I'm half surprised that it wasn't attempted again. Maybe it was because the source and age etc. of chemical and biological weapons can be easily traced and determined....and if any samples got into the hands of independent (ie non government allied analysts), this could have spelled huge problems for both the military and the administration.

http://www.trinicenter.com/oops/ciadod.html

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by BRussell
That really makes no sense. Why would the US want to make things worse than they already are?

\

The US military is never going to leave Iraq, while we have an administration dominated by the neocons. Already, 4 permanent bases have been built, and there are more to follow. Perhaps the 'false flag' attacks are to give the illusion that the insurgency is more powerful than it really is, and retain the 'justification' for retaining the military presence. Impossible scenario :If peace suddenly 'broke out' all over Iraq, the Iraqis started to successfully get into self government, thereby rendering the troops' presence as redundant, the American public would not be partial to keeping them there at astronomical public expense. That is the very last thing the neocons want...namely the widespread perception that the US presence over there is surplus to requirements.

[dmz]

It seemed like this thread was missing one critical component:



I was going to throw in some 'shrooms but the thought of a group of
conspiracy theorists at the 3 a.m. "reminiscent stage" seemed creepy.

[NaplesX]

I think that the DNC has more to gain from this kind of alleged activity that the Bush admin. Of course I jest, but can anyone explain why the admin would do this, and do you not read these things that are oozing off of your fingertips?

[MarcUK]

think China.

[Aries 1B]

Originally posted by MarcUK
think China.

Make your posts more cryptic.

V/R,

Aries 1B

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by MarcUK
think China.

think.

[johnq]

Right, it couldn't possibly be the 'Zarqawi' group and other Islamist resistance cells/traditional jihadi martyr operations suddenly realizing how fucking stupid suicide operations are and deciding to utilize remotely detonated car bombs when possible.

But, that said, I've also no doubt the U.S. government/military/neocons/BushCo would do that either.

It's in their interest to keep the various wars and terror going.

More attacks on our troops just translates into increased funding and more and more so-called moral authority to do whatever we want, wherever, and to whomever, like, oh, Israel does. Or Russia.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by johnq
But, that said, I've also no doubt the U.S. government/military/neocons/BushCo would do that either.

And this sureness is based on what?

[johnq]

Originally posted by NaplesX
And this sureness is based on what?

Oh, just a hunch really.

But I'm just a "silly conspiracy theorist".

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by NaplesX
think.

yes, im thinking......thinking........oooooohh, I have a thought.........

Hanic.

[segovius]

Originally posted by BRussell
That really makes no sense. Why would the US want to make things worse than they already are?

Back OT and to answer this.

The US has realised that is impossible to win in Iraq and the insurgents cannot be defeated - withdrawal is not an option for Bush and the Strausscons on their own ideological grounds so a solution needs to be found. And fast - there is a very small window (ie before July August) to start selling the Iran attack to the sheep - as it is now with the Iraq instabiliy they won't buy it, nor will the military.

So, that's point one: increased attacks reinforce the image of the 'demon Muslim' who must be opposed and plant this meme for the resistance in Iran which will surely take the same form.

This is minor though. The primary aim of these US attacks is to undermine Iraq to such an extent (nearly there but not quite yet) that a previously unacceptable solution becomes acceptable.

That solution is this: dividing the country into three mini-states based on ethnicity and religion - thus making the country governable which it is not, and cannot be, under the present circumstances. It is far easier to manage 3 sub-states.

So the aim is to foment civil was between the Kurds/Shi'i/Sunni and 'annex' them in 3 separate 'States' when the carnage is so bad a solution is demanded. These states will effectively ghettoise these ethnic groups and isolate the insurgents as well as preventing these groups from joining forces when the Iran strike comes or before.

As I said above - the backdrop and over-riding aim is the attack on Iran which WILL happen and is even now being planned. A quick look at the four massive military bases currently being constructed (as opposed to using existing ones as they used Abu Ghraib rather than build new) will show the strategic significance of these base's positions.

Basically the plan is Iran and Syria - always has been. The Iraq insurgents held this plan up and the Strausscons can't let that happen. This is their solution. They will try others of course and it may be they are even 'dummy runs' and one day soon we will see a massive car-bomb against a highly sensitive target causing immense casualties - an event that will be 'irrevocably and demonstrably proved to be the work of Iran'.

[NaplesX]

Talk about made up crap posted by segovius
Back OT and to answer this.

The US has realised that is impossible to win in Iraq and the insurgents cannot be defeated - withdrawal is not an option for Bush and the Strausscons on their own ideological grounds so a solution needs to be found. And fast - there is a very small window (ie before July August) to start selling the Iran attack to the sheep - as it is now with the Iraq instabiliy they won't buy it, nor will the military.

So, that's point one: increased attacks reinforce the image of the 'demon Muslim' who must be opposed and plant this meme for the resistance in Iran which will surely take the same form.

This is minor though. The primary aim of these US attacks is to undermine Iraq to such an extent (nearly there but not quite yet) that a previously unacceptable solution becomes acceptable.

That solution is this: dividing the country into three mini-states based on ethnicity and religion - thus making the country governable which it is not, and cannot be, under the present circumstances. It is far easier to manage 3 sub-states.

So the aim is to foment civil was between the Kurds/Shi'i/Sunni and 'annex' them in 3 separate 'States' when the carnage is so bad a solution is demanded. These states will effectively ghettoise these ethnic groups and isolate the insurgents as well as preventing these groups from joining forces when the Iran strike comes or before.

As I said above - the backdrop and over-riding aim is the attack on Iran which WILL happen and is even now being planned. A quick look at the four massive military bases currently being constructed (as opposed to using existing ones as they used Abu Ghraib rather than build new) will show the strategic significance of these base's positions.

Basically the plan is Iran and Syria - always has been. The Iraq insurgents held this plan up and the Strausscons can't let that happen. This is their solution. They will try others of course and it may be they are even 'dummy runs' and one day soon we will see a massive car-bomb against a highly sensitive target causing immense casualties - an event that will be 'irrevocably and demonstrably proved to be the work of Iran'.

This is based on what?

And even if what you say is true, so what? You really don't consider Iran and Syria a threat to the US or any country for that matter?

Edit: I wanted to make clear that I think you are insane. When I said "so what", I meant so what to the plan to take on Iran and Syria, not that the US is behind killing of it's own personnel, which is beyond ridiculous. That whole premise is just... well ludicrous. You have nothing to back up assertions like that.

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
This is based on what?

And even if what you say is true, so what? You really don't consider Iran and Syria a threat to the US or any country for that matter?

Edit: I wanted to make clear that I think you are insane. When I said "so what", I meant so what to the plan to take on Iran and Syria, not that the US is behind killing of it's own personnel, which is beyond ridiculous. That whole premise is just... well ludicrous. You have nothing to back up assertions like that.

Well, judged by your own opinion of yourself I am insane. Totally. I don't have a problem with that - let's move on to your other 'points'.

Actually, sorry, we can't - there aren't any

One thing though - if the US did invade Syria or Iran tomorrow and killed another 100,000 civilians or whatever you'd be here saying it's cool and a 'good thing' - so really, that's all we need to know.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
Well, judged by your own opinion of yourself I am insane. Totally. I don't have a problem with that - let's move on to your other 'points'.

Actually, sorry, we can't - there aren't any

One thing though - if the US did invade Syria or Iran tomorrow and killed another 100,000 civilians or whatever you'd be here saying it's cool and a 'good thing' - so really, that's all we need to know.

Once again you are totally wrong. I never said killing anyone is OK.

But life is full of these kinds of choices - Do we let Iran or Syria develop or acquire means to wipe out 100' of thousands or even millions of innocent lives. Innocent people are going to die, and you are going to blame the US no matter what.

History frowns on those that don't act to stop the aggression of tyrants and despots. France to name one will be remembered for such inaction that you seem to suggest. You would be the first to blame the US for not stopping some huge attack.

The US is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Once again you are totally wrong. I never said killing anyone is OK.

But life is full of these kinds of choices - Do we let Iran or Syria develop or acquire means to wipe out 100' of thousands or even millions of innocent lives. Innocent people are going to die, and you are going to blame the US no matter what.

History frowns on those that don't act to stop the aggression of tyrants and despots. France to name one will be remembered for such inaction that you seem to suggest. You would be the first to blame the US for not stopping some huge attack.

The US is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Do Syria or Iran let the US just wipe out 100' of thousands of their citizens ? Innocent people are going to die and you are going to blame Syria and Iran no matter what....

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
Do Syria or Iran let the US just wipe out 100' of thousands of their citizens ? Innocent people are going to die and you are going to blame Syria and Iran no matter what....

You see, here is where your line of thinking falls apart. Let me explain:

You contend that the US did not follow the suggestions of the international community (the UN), therefor what it is doing in Iraq/ME is unjustified. At the very same time the international community (the UN) has condemned the aggressive stance of Iran and Syria. Yet you reply to my comment as if Iran's/Syria's aggression is somehow justified.

Why not hold Syria and Iran the same standards that you profess to hold the US?

Pick a stance. Oh wait. you have - The US is always wrong.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You see, here is where your line of thinking falls apart. Let me explain:

You contend that the US did not follow the suggestions of the international community (the UN), therefor what it is doing in Iraq/ME is unjustified. At the very same time the international community (the UN) has condemned the aggressive stance of Iran and Syria. Yet you reply to my comment as if Iran's/Syria's aggression is somehow justified.

Why not hold Syria and Iran the same standards that you profess to hold the US?

Pick a stance. Oh wait. you have - The US is always wrong.

You see, here is where your line of thinking falls apart. Let me explain:

You contend that Iran/Syria did not follow the suggestions of the international community (the UN), therefor what it is doing in where exactly is unjustified. At the very same time the international community (the UN) has condemned the aggressive stance of the US/UK. Yet you reply to my comment as if US/UK aggression is somehow justified.

Why not hold the US to the same standards that you profess to hold the Syria and Iran?

Pick a stance. Oh wait. you have - The US is always right.

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Yet you reply to my comment as if Iran's/Syria's aggression is somehow justified.

What aggression ?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
What aggression ?

Oh come on now.

I have to go play a gig with my band. I will talk to you later.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Oh come on now.

I have to go play a gig with my band. I will talk to you later.

What band is that? The little-ladies-cussing-Iran-Syria band?

[Harald]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Oh come on now.

I have to go play a gig with my band. I will talk to you later.

Aggression is invading a sovereign country and killing up to 100,000 innocents.

What has Iran or Syria done that can match this?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by segovius
Back OT and to answer this...

The idea that the mess we're in now was actually part of the plan all along and that the insurgency isn't real but rather a US conspiracy is just silly. They fucked up, shouldn't have gone to war, when they did they should have done a better job at post-war planning, and they should have focused on winning hearts and minds rather than torturing innocent Iraqis.

It's their incompetence that led to where things are now, not their sophistication.

[segovius]

Originally posted by BRussell
The idea that the mess we're in now was actually part of the plan all along and that the insurgency isn't real but rather a US conspiracy is just silly. They fucked up, shouldn't have gone to war, when they did they should have done a better job at post-war planning, and they should have focused on winning hearts and minds rather than torturing innocent Iraqis.

It's their incompetence that led to where things are now, not their sophistication.

I didn't mean to suggest that the chaos was part of the plan but rather that the plan was initially Iraq-> Syria -> Iran in sequential stages.

When Iraq got Fubar the plan had to be abandoned or radically changed. The argument is that it got changed to escalating the chaos (possibly to implicate Iran at some point - certainly in the last few days nonsensical 'info' is leaking out that Zarqawi has fled there and is being shielded by the Iranians which fits right in) with the aim of posting an emergency solution (the three Statelets) which will then bring order of a sort (or at least be more manageable) and then it's hey-ho let's kill some Iranians which was the aim all along.

Iraq was just phase one.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
I didn't mean to suggest that the chaos was part of the plan but rather that the plan was initially Iraq-> Syria -> Iran in sequential stages.

When Iraq got Fubar the plan had to be abandoned or radically changed. The argument is that it got changed to escalating the chaos (possibly to implicate Iran at some point - certainly in the last few days nonsensical 'info' is leaking out that Zarqawi has fled there and is being shielded by the Iranians which fits right in) with the aim of posting an emergency solution (the three Statelets) which will then bring order of a sort (or at least be more manageable) and then it's hey-ho let's kill some Iranians which was the aim all along.

Iraq was just phase one.

Once again... based on?

[tonton]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Once again... based on?

I agree with Segovius, and our opinion is based on the pattern of propaganda release and media manipulation by the US.

It is abundantly clear that the US uses the media to villanize countries in the eyes of the American public in advance of an attack (they do so slightly less successfully with the international media, as internationally, anything the US says is now taken with a grain of salt due to the Iraq disaster). The villainization of Iran and Syria had been under way, especially in 2004, in such a way that it points to a US intent to attack those countries without UN approval. This has for the most part died down in 2005 because of all of the problems with Iraq and the US realization that they no longer have the resources and enough public trust to launch any action.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by tonton
I agree with Segovius, and our opinion is based on the pattern of propaganda release and media manipulation by the US.

It is abundantly clear that the US uses the media to villanize countries in the eyes of the American public in advance of an attack (they do so slightly less successfully with the international media, as internationally, anything the US says is now taken with a grain of salt due to the Iraq disaster). The villainization of Iran and Syria had been under way, especially in 2004, in such a way that it points to a US intent to attack those countries without UN approval. This has for the most part died down in 2005 because of all of the problems with Iraq and the US realization that they no longer have the resources and enough public trust to launch any action.

So let's say you are right.

I suppose the media and government in your country (and seg's) does any different?

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
So let's say you are right.

I suppose the media and government in your country (and seg's) does any different?

He did it first, no he did , no.......mummy, mummy waiillllllllllll

Addressing your point - the media in my native land is a sycophantic propaganda tool of Blair who is himself a mere toady of the US and has no discernible independent thought processes. That's why I left actually, well - one of the reasons - and in my current country of residence it is quite possible to pick up a newspaper from a news-stand and read objective facts. you have to get the right one of course - some are as under the cosh as those in the US/UK.

I was reading an interesting article only the other day about a death chamber being constructed at Gitmo. Interesting stuff.

Anyway, just read this and I thought of you as the person who might be able to answer this man's question. Here it is:

"I only want to put this question to you," said Sana Abdul-Kareem, a dentist with four children. "Why can't the US, with all its might and capabilities, impose security here? How come with all our oil they cannot provide us with electricity? My son was so happy when the American soldiers first came. But after two years of failure to make good on their promises, he abhors them."

Leaving aside the issue of whether the US is responsible for the escalation of the chaos, what would your answer be to Mr Abdul-Kareem ?

Why can the world's only superpower not provide stability, stop these bombs and provide electricity in two years ?

[Harald]

And another thing.

Do you suppose Tariq Aziz, in his comfy room at the Hilton Baghdad International Aiport has broadband? He must be visiting moveon.org or some other left-wing blogger.

You see, he just issued a couple of letters from there with some fairly exasperated exclamations, such as:

In a note scribbled on his lawyer's diary, Aziz says: 'I was asked if I had recommended giving money or oil to President Chirac [of France], or Petros Gali [former UN general secretary Boutros Boutros-Ghali], Ekius [UN weapons inspector Rolf Ekeus]. My answer is NO. The same to President Megawati [Sukarnoputri of Indonesia]. NO.'

It's really obvious that he's attempting to portray his questioners as having political motivation to smear France or the UN. So he must know that's a really hot issue right now.

We know that's a left-wing smokescreen don't we?


The Observer

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
Why can the world's only superpower not provide stability, stop these bombs and provide electricity in two years ?

The utilities in Iraq are mostly all above SH levels.

Your and his question tie into another question - why do people tolerate terrorism?

Whatever the answer to that question, it is why security in Iraq cannot be maintained. It has more to do with the indigenous population that with the US military. "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good men to do nothing."

Much like the decades before this war and now in Iraq among it's population.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
He did it first, no he did , no.......mummy, mummy waiillllllllllll

Addressing your point - the media in my native land is a sycophantic propaganda tool of Blair who is himself a mere toady of the US and has no discernible independent thought processes. That's why I left actually, well - one of the reasons - and in my current country of residence it is quite possible to pick up a newspaper from a news-stand and read objective facts. you have to get the right one of course - some are as under the cosh as those in the US/UK.

So. We seemed to have established that every government uses all resources to it's own advantage. This is not about justification based on other bad behavior. I am just trying to establish from where your utopian vantage point is based. It certainly is not based in the here and now.

[iPoster]

Step 1: Invade Iraq.

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Profit!

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by iPoster
Step 1: Invade Iraq.

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Profit!

No!

Step 1: Sugar.

Step 2: Power.

Step 3. Women.

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Whatever the answer to that question, it is why security in Iraq cannot be maintained.

No it's not.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
No it's not.

Is too.

[New]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Is too.

No way I saw that one comming...