Up-to-Date Information on Iraq

I wanted to get the president's most recent outlook on Iraq, so I went to http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/ and it entails many questions the public may have on the war and why we just can't get out of it.

President Bush Discusses Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors, War on Terror at American Legion

"To succeed, Iraq's leaders also need the help of the international community. So the United States supports the Iraqi government as it pursues an international initiative to build diplomatic, economic, and security support for its young democracy. ... Diplomacy is going to play an important part of securing Iraq's future. Yet diplomacy will fail without a robust military strategy. The goal of the enemies in Iraq is power, and they're willing to kill themselves and innocent men, women, and children to achieve that goal. People like these can't be satisfied by negotiations or diplomatic concessions. Our strategy recognizes the hard truth. So we're going to continue to pursue our enemies in Iraq relentlessly, and at the same time, we'll work with moderate forces to achieve reconciliation between sectarian factions."

-- President George W. Bush

-- March 6, 2007

Why can't the U.S pull out of Iraq?

Now That The Battle For Baghdad Is Underway, Our Country Must Stand Behind Our Troops And Do Everything We Can To Aid Their Success. If American forces were to step back from Baghdad now, before it is more secure, the scale and scope of attacks would increase and intensify. Violence could spread across the entire country – and in time, the entire region. The enemy could emerge from the chaos emboldened – with new safe havens, new recruits, new resources, and an even greater determination to harm our Nation.

The New Strategy In Iraq Is Markedly Different From Previous Efforts.

Securing Baghdad is one of the top priorities and there are some tactics to this procedure.
President Bush is going to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq.

The vast majority will go to Baghdad, where they will help Iraqi forces to clear and secure neighborhoods, and partner with Iraqi Army units. With Iraqis in the lead, our forces will help secure the city by chasing down the terrorists, insurgents, and roaming death squads.

President Bush is also devising 40 "joint security stations" throughout Baghdad to have security.

In the past, our forces would help Iraqis clear out neighborhoods during the day, and then go back to their bases at night. This time, we will hold the neighborhoods we have cleared by establishing over 40 joint security stations throughout Baghdad. These will be neighborhood outposts where U.S. and Iraqi forces are jointly deployed 24 hours a day to secure the population, provide emergency aid to local communities, and gather information to root out extremist networks throughout the capital.

What do you think about some of the new found plans the president has derived?

Wondering how many civilians have died so far due to the War in Iraq?
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

A Good Conspiracy Theory...Debunked

As in many of my previous entries, there is the debate of 9/11 and if it was planned. Its a good conspiracy theory and it is very scary if ever proven true. To every argument however, there is a good counter argument. I found a website that refutes the conspiracies that I have brought upon you:

http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html#puffs

This website debunks all the myths and questions that were raised in the "Loosechange 9/11" video.

For example:

Big Plane, Small Holes

CLAIM:

Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."

The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile--part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."

FACT:

When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.

So now that these "myths" are somewhat debunked, you can be the judge. My opinion is that there are always two sides to a story and refutations to arguments. I'll be looking for a good refutation to that counter argument.

Comments on the War

I have been posting a lot of things about the controversies of 9/11 and the War on Iraq. I have never had a strong opinion of this until I came upon some of the I mentioned websites. There are two sides to every story though, so there could be refutes to this evidence that I have brought upon you.

I'd really like to know what people think about these findings of 9/11 and would enjoy some comments or if you find anything that refutes the evidence I have provided.

I would also enjoy comments on the War in Iraq and if our troops need to be over there. I don't think there is any need to endanger 20,000 more troops into Iraq. I don't personally like President Bush and think his motives are a bit shaky.

I would love to hear some of your comments.

What plane actually hit the South Tower?

As I mention previously, there is much evidence that tries to convince one that 9/11 may have been planned.

"Let's be clear about one thing. The plane which hit the south tower was not and could not possibly have been flight 175 piloted by Arab Islamist extremist terrorists. That's established fact, based on first hand, recorded in real time, physical reality. The plane that hit the south tower was not flight 175". - This was a quote taken off of the Loose Change Forum.


Referring to the plane scale up on the left- The nose section of a 200 series, A, is shorter than the wing assembly, B. Whereas for the 300 series A is longer than B. 767-200 => A:B = 190:200 = 0.95:1, i.e. A is less than B767-300 => A:B = 221:200 = 1.105:1, i.e. A is greater than BWhile the NIST frames give us A:B = 20.76:19.91 = 1.04:1(remember that these are Lower Limit Values, see Techie Notes), in other words, A is greater than B Therefore: This plane's fuselage is too long to be a Boeing 767-200. Ergo: The plane that hit the South Tower was not N612UA. It was not Flight 175!

It also states that there was no way that Arabs flew the planes into the towers. These are quotes taken from some instructors:


Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero."
Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't live up to our standards." Marwan Al-Shehhi: “He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls.” Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons.”
Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.”


There is much evidence to support that it was not possible that flight 175 flew into the South Tower on 9/11. It is also pretty remarkable if Arabs could have flown the planes into the towers.


The culprit that the loosechange forum depicts is a Boeing 767 tanker.

Here is how they describe it:

• The Boeing 767 tanker transport aircraft, designated KC-767 for the US Air Force, is a high performance version of the Boeing 767-200ER twin aisle jetliner equipped for fully integrated tanker operations. It is fitted with either boom and receptacle refuelling, hose and drogue refuelling or both. The commercial 767 first entered service in 1982 and more than 880 aircraft have been delivered. The cabin of the tanker can be configured for passenger transport, as a freighter, convertible (passenger or freighter) or Combi (passenger and freighter).

• DESIGN- The structure incorporates new materials such as improved aluminium alloys, graphite composites and hybrid Kevlar graphite composites, which give enhanced strength, durability and longevity.

• The configuration of a commercial 767 for the tanker transport role involves the installation of additional pumps and auxiliary fuel tanks together with the fuel distribution lines below the floor of the main cabin, leaving the main cabin free for cargo, passenger or both cargo and passenger transportation. The concept allows simultaneous refuelling and airlift operations or successive refuelling and airlift missions.

• In the cargo configuration, the aircraft can transport 19 standard military 463-L pallets; in the passenger configuration, 200 passengers can be accommodated; and in the Combi configuration ten cargo pallets and 100 passengers can be carried.

• COCKPIT- The 767 Tanker Transport aircraft has an advanced two person all-digital flight deck.

This is all the information I needed to come to the conclusion that 9/11 was not a terrorist act.

All of the information on this blog was taken from: <http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9781
For more information and pictures, go to this website.

Oil Controversy

Oil has been a major US concern about Iraq in internal and unpublicized documents, since the start of this Administration, and indeed earlier. As Michael Renner has written in Foreign Policy in Focus, February 14, 2003, "Washington's War on Iraq is the Lynchpin to Controlling Persian Gulf Oil."

But the need to dominate oil from Iraq is also deeply intertwined with the defense of the dollar. Its current strength is supported by OPEC's requirement (secured by a secret agreement between the US and Saudi Arabia) that all OPEC oil sales be denominated in dollars. This requirement is currently threatened by the desire of some OPEC countries to allow OPEC oil sales to be paid in euros.-These paragraphs were taken from http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html.

US control of Middle East oil was supposed to help fund the money spent on the war in Iraq, at least that is what we were told by President Bush. However, 5 years later our country is a half a trillion dollars in debt due to the war and the are no revenues from oil in sight that will pay for this debt. This debt will be the burden of our children and our grandchildren. This is just another issue that the President had mislead the public on to gain support for invading Iraq.

Conflict In Iraq

Many americans believe that the Iraqi government supports terror, but are unsure if they were involved in the attacks of 9/11. Many Americans are unsure about the War In Iraq. Iraqs possible link to terror and 9/11 play a minor role in justifying our military to go to war.
This is the publics opinion:

"If new evidence were established showing links between Iraq and terrorist groups, this would substantially increase support for military action. " - World Public Opinion.org.

"Majorities are fairly pessimistic about the demands and consequences of a war with Iraq. Majorities believe that a war would be long, weapons of mass destruction would be used against US troops, and that, after invading, US troops would have to remain in Iraq for an extended period. As a consequence of war, majorities believe there would be an economic recession, that oil prices would go up, that the threat of terrorism against Americans would increase, and that the Mideast would become more unstable." - World Public Opinion.org

The U.S is going to have to maintain troops in Iraq for the simple reason to maintain civility there (76% of Americans feel the same way).

9/11 Planned?

As I discussed before, I believe there are other motives for the invasion of Iraq and the events of 9/11. Browsing the internet, I came upon the documentary "Loose Change 911" and there is just too much evidence in this documentary that convinces one that 9/11 could actually have been planned. Or is this just a good conspiracy theory? It seems that there is no possible way the World Trade Centers could have crumbled down as they did without any explosive devices. In the documentary, it shows evidence of explosive devices going off in the building (flashes of light and exploding windows) and experts stating that there had to been explosives. Also, experts stated that it was almost impossible for jet fuel, at its highest temperature, to cause the towers to fall. Could a plane have really hit the Pentagon? There is no wreckage. What can explain this...? Even in the worst plane crashes , there is plane wreckage.

Interesting information:

• Why arent there any markings on the lawn of the Pentagon? There is no possible way the plane could have hit the Pentagon at the speed and angle it was traveling without hitting the lawn.
• Why is there only a 16 foot hole in the Pentagon when a plane is much larger than this and there are no markings from the wings or tailwing?
• Why was extra insurance taken out on the World Trade Center right before the attack?
• Why were there record high puts on the airline stocks DAYS before planes crashed?
• Why were video tapes of the "plane" hitting the pentagon confiscated right after the attack and NEVER released?
• It is proven impossible for cell phones to be in use on flight 93 at the altitude they were cruising, but somehow everyone used their cell phones to call home...?
• Why did flight 93 land at the Ohio airport and passengers evacuated and sent to NASA?
• Experts state it is absolutely impossible for a plane to crash in Sommerset, PA because there was no wreckage at all and not even a drop of blood.
• The planes that crashed werent even scheduled to fly that day.
• Over half of the terrorist claimed dead and responsible for the terrorist are actually alive today and were shocked to find their pictures on TV.
• They claim they havent found the black boxes from the planes because jet fuel demolished them, but somehow they found a passport of the terrorist (made of paper!) in the wreckage fully intact...?
• Why did we escort Osama Bin Laden's family out of the country right after the attacks?

There are many more answered questions in this documentary. You can be the judge.

Info on Loose Change:

The "Loose Change" documentary is lengthy, but very interesting and goes into depth and more of everything i have mentioned.

Go to http://www.loosechange911.com
Click on "films" in the left hand corner
Under it click on "Loose Change 2nd edition"
Click to watch