It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Rand Paul: Dick Cheney used 9/11 as excuse to invade Iraq for the benefit of Halliburton

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 02:45 PM
reply to post by Riffrafter

It doesn't ?

Sure is the pot calling the kettle though.
edit on 7-4-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 02:50 PM
Duh, Rand.

And NORAD...right.

And he pretended to divest all his interests in and control of Halliburton too.

And Halliburton stayed in Iran totally disregarding sanctions and got a lil slap on the wrist too.

And so much more people just don't want to see.

Slimey no-hearted weasel.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

But, see, Paul and Ventura will never move forward because of their going on record about this. The dark forces run very deep. Rand probably regrets this video now that he's thinking bigger (the video was from 2009, right?)

One day though, everyone will know.

edit on 4/7/2014 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 02:55 PM
I'm not a religious person, but Cheney makes me want to believe there's a hell, because the notion of him burning in agony for eternity gives me some comfort.

I cannot describe the feeling I get when I think of the suffering this man has caused, it almost makes me want to weep.

edit: I should say "had a hand in causing", either way the man is a scumbag of the lowest order.

edit on 7-4-2014 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 03:00 PM
reply to post by neo96

More disinfo.

Exxon-Mobil owns the rights to the West Qurna oil fields. The Petronas group has yet to begin extracting oil from the later held auctions. (And it's a Malaysian consortium, not Chinese).

On top of all this, is the Iraqi regime that held the auction is a puppet regime of the USA, and it is obligated to repay the US government for the cost of the war we inflicted upon it, from the profits of the auctioning of it's oil fields.

Petronas has stated it sees little to no profit from the terms of the contract, and that was a general complaint of all the non-US oil companies submitting bids for the oil fields. The terms were too steep, and were not "sharing contracts", as often used in this type of development. Why? Because the Iraqi puppet regime needed maximum up-front money to repay the US. And US companies were not interested in getting in front of those deals. I believe the entire PR-stunt of "shutting out US oil companies" was done to mitigate criticism the invasion was designed for the benefit of US profiteers, but the US is getting rich off the oil field auctions just the same.

"Oh we were shut out, boo-hoo, this proves we didn't invade Iraq for it's oil..." Not buying it. More lies.

Some analysts have suggested that Western oil majors have not been active in Iraq because they aren't satisfied with the terms being offered. That is, foreign oil majors will be paid a fixed fee per barrel of oil produced, as opposed to sharing in the profits of the oil's sale. And that fee will only be paid when the operated field reaches a production quota set by the government. (source)

Ethnic feuds, political strife, underdeveloped infrastructure, and a lack of domestic support have left most Western oil majors "unimpressed" by the prospects awaiting them in Iraq, MEES said. (source)

Oil firms shun Iraq's 4th energy auction

And most importantly, those foreign oil companies that did win contracts are now sub-contracting to the very same American oil companies that didn't compete - on top of that, American companies did not need to win development rights to untapped fields (which is what was auctioned), as they already control rights to drill for oil. These are fields that are already producing oil, not development rights to fields that are a decade or more away from producing. Even then, there are profits, perhaps greater profits, for sub-contracting work rather than developing new fields:

In Rebuilding Iraq’s Oil Industry, U.S. Subcontractors Hold Sway

The auction’s outcome helped defuse criticism in the Arab world that the United States had invaded Iraq for its oil. “No one, even the United States, can steal the oil,” the Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said at the time.

But American companies can, apparently, drill for the oil.

In fact, American drilling companies stand to make tens of billions of dollars from the new petroleum activity in Iraq long before any of the oil producers start seeing any returns on their investments.

Lukoil and many of the other international oil companies that won fields in the auction are now subcontracting mostly with the four largely American oil services companies that are global leaders in their field: Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Weatherford International and Schlumberger. Those four have won the largest portion of the subcontracts to drill for oil, build wells and refurbish old equipment.

There's our old friend, Halliburton, still profiting no matter who won the oil field auctions. Halliburton is sub-contracting for Lukoil and Petronas.

Mr. Munton estimated that about half of the $150 billion the international majors are expected to invest at Iraqi oil fields over the next decade would go to drilling subcontractors — most of it to the big four operators, which all have ties to the Texas oil industry.

Read again, most of the $150 billion to be spent developing these fields will go to US sub-contractors.

United States officials have said that American experts who advised the Iraqi oil ministry about ways to restore and increase petroleum production did so without seeking any preferences for American companies.

Bull. Pure unadulterated propaganda.

And immediately after the 2009 auction round won by Lukoil, the United States Embassy spokesman in Baghdad, Philip Frayne, told Reuters that “the results of the bid round should lay to rest the old canard that the U.S. intervened in Iraq to secure Iraqi oil for American companies.”

Riiight. Yes, let us put to rest that "old canard" we invaded Iraq for profit. Only, Halliburton IS still profiting, to the tune of billions of dollars, no matter what who won what in any auctions. The foreign oil companies are still dealing with US control.

posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 03:05 PM
i bet rand gets a call from dick inviting him to go duck hunting.
so they can talk about that comment.

posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 03:41 PM

reply to post by buster2010

Yes it's the same old story Americans pay for the war Americans die fighting the war and another nation benefits from it. Isn't it nice of America to do that for the Chinese. -

It is the same old demagoguery because for what ever reason some people don't want to discuss the current administration.

So instead they recycle a decade old 'argument' ad inifnitum which is hardly 'breaking political news'.
edit on 7-4-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Please pay more attention to history. Obama didn't start the war in Iraq he ended it. Bush was the one who started it and it was his people that claimed the oil from Iraq would pay for the war.

posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 03:42 PM
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

I think most of us on ATS already knew that. Just saying.

posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 04:43 PM
Considering his membership with PNAC, the huge financial benefit he received from the war in Iraq, as well as his behavior on the morning of 9/11 according to Norman Mineta I'd venture to say that Cheney did more than used the war in Iraq, I'd say he was one of the orchestrators of 9/11.

posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 05:50 PM
Don't miss the "Halliburton Watch"-blog
Cheney/Halliburton Chronology
Halliburton Watch

posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 08:01 PM
He's simplfying it.

There are many levels to why the powers that be invaded Iraq and there was a lot more people involved in making that decision and benefiting from it. But yes, Dick definitely made a killing through haliburton in Iraq.

posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 08:48 PM
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

Cheney is Satan

posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 09:59 PM
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

It's more important than that.

1. Haliburton was formerly known as Dresser Industries.
2. Dresser Industries was a subsidiary of Brown Brothers Harriman
3. Prescott Bush was a partner in Brown Brothers Harriman
4. George HW Bush's first job out of Yale Univ. after WWII was at Dresser Industries

^That's more important to know. Because now you know who directly benefits.
edit on 7-4-2014 by WCmutant because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 10:00 PM
I have always thought this, although I also assumed it went deeper than that. What do we know? We know that Bush blatantly lied about WMD's in Iraq, which was the sole reason why we went there in the first place. What I want to know is how we impeached Clinton for what he did, but we don't impeach Bush when he lies to the nation to start a war with another nation...I cannot even begin to compute that. I mainly feel that the left did not push the issue like the right did with Clinton, which says a lot about the average character of the two sides, but I digress...

I think there were some of their cronies who also benefited greatly from this invasion. Bush's ties to Haliburton are no secret at all either. This is just a case of the person holding the highest office in the country, maybe the world, using their power for personal gain and for the personal gain of their friends and allies. Who got all of the government contracts that were issued because of the war in Iraq? The majority were somehow connected to Bush, often through those that owned the companies themselves, or who were some of the highest paid employees of those companies, whether they were on the board, or held some other position.

I do not think it is too late to prosecute those responsible. And we must ask ourselves what else Bush and his friends would be willing to do, if they were willing to take an entire nation to war solely for profit? I have often said that the large business-people have no moral compass, and that they do not attain their positions of power or their wealth from doing the right thing. They exploit anyone and everyone they can in the never-ending quest for increased revenues. So many of those who hold political office use it for their personal gain, and this is no secret, but rarely are they charged for it, and it is even rarer for them to be convicted or actually serve prison time. I think some of Bush's actions were traitorous to the USA, and he should be charged for them. And that is not even considering the possibility that he was complicit, or worse, on or leading up to 9/11. Don't want to derail the thread though, so I just mentioned it.

Edit to add: I just realized your title said 9/11, as I was thinking it was regarding the WMD's. 9/11 alone was not enough to justify the invasion of Iraq. Iraq had little to do with terrorism as compared to countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan, among others. So I suppose Bush needed something else to justify it, thus the whole WMD story. It is interesting to wonder though how 9/11 connects to all of this, because it really stinks of involvement somewhere on our side. Of all the strange things that occurred to allow 9/11 happen, and considering the benefits many corporations received as a direct result of the actions following 9/11, one cannot simply dismiss the theory that the event was perpetrated by, or allowed to happen by, actors within the US it the president himself, or an intelligence agency like the CIA, or a small contingent within that group, or a combination of all the above.
edit on 4/7/14 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 10:10 PM
The tragedy is that America has forever been changed by the greed of the neocons in the Republican party, who still control foreign policy (Obama "retained" Patreus and Gates, remember).

They say it is a sign of desperation when a country invades another under false pretenses, a desperate attempt by the invaders to keep the countries economy afloat. Germany did it in the '30's, America did it to Iraq, and Russia did it to Georgia and Ukraine. In every case it was a dying empire clinging to life.

I direct your attention to:

"Dying Empire: U.S. Imperialism and Global Resistance" by Francis Shor
(Google Books)

This book really lays bare what drove Cheney, Bush and Republicans to follow the Project for a New American Century doctrine.

...In calling for pre-emptive strikes and what the 2000 version of the Project for the New American Century called "full spectrum dominance," the Bush Administration has magnified the masculism endemic to empire-building. Eschewing any international constraints, Bush's drive for a renewed American empire incorporates past economic, geopolitical, and ideological positions into an aggressive posturing to make the world over in the image of a self-righteous hegemon.
The Bush National Defense Strategy makes clear the imperial geopolitical and gendered postures by maintaining the right to invade countries the "do not exercise their sovereignity responsibly" and to counter "those who employ as a strategy of the weak, using international fora and judicial processes."

It goes on about the "strategy of the weak," as that was GHW Bush's (Bush #1 for non-Americans) observed position, one that resulted in him being called a "wimp" on foreign policy. I believe that was why Cheney stayed in line with HW Bush's position when he refuted the notion of invading Iraq in the 90's, yet flipped around to the rest of the Republican neocon's position and PNAC's position in the 2000's, when Bush Sr. was out of the picture.

Really, the second Iraq war was a foregone conclusion, PNAC, neocon's, and a greedy Military-Industrial Complex needed that invasion to sustain an increasingly desperate dying empire. All they needed was an excuse and the lies to goad the country into war.

posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 10:11 PM
reply to post by neo96

Do you even listen to yourself? Are you honestly naive enough to believe this stuff? Are you so far right that you can't admit that haliburton made OBSCENE profits from the Iraq war? Even taking oil out of the equation, Haliburton was laughing all the way to the bank through the entire Iraq war because they got all the reconstruction contracts as well as contracts for setting up and maintaining U.S military bases in Iraq. Feeding troops, housing them, entertaining them, etc. All of that stuff is done through private contractors now, and haliburton made a killing (pardon the pun) from those very things via contracts with the U.S government.

While I agree it might be re-hashing 10 year old issues, It should be rehashed, because the bastards responsible for it were never held responsible. The world was lied to, and millions of people died or had their quality of life significantly reduced because of the Iraq war (not to mention the thousands of American lives it cost, or the people those losses effected in the U.S). The cost of the war in not only lives but in dollars was astronomical, and the human pieces of garbage who orchestrated it and profited from it live very comfortable lives today, free of any repercussions. So yes, it should be rehashed. Rehashed until people start asking themselves why corrupt politicians and presidents can exact such a terrible toll on not only the world but their own country and not have to face any consequences for their actions.

Dick Cheney should be in prison. That is where his fat ass belongs.
edit on 7-4-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 10:29 PM
reply to post by neo96

The biggest flaw in this post is that the OP was talking specifically about Cheney and Halliburton.

And even during the previous administration certain right-wing posters (not naming names) poo-pooed this claim, that war profiteers were earning vast amounts of money off a war that we were lied to in order to support.

But you are correct about China earning oil dollars in Iraq.

ETA: I know you are man who is clearly a patriotic American, so your lack of anger at the tens of thousands of American men and women wounded and killed in Iraq (again, in a war, we were lied into) is rather shocking.
edit on 7-4-2014 by InvisibleOwl because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 12:19 AM
Well, that knocks Rand Paul off my favorites for president list.

posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 12:37 AM

The biggest flaw in this so called argument. Is China is the biggest beneficiary of Iraq's oil

The oil is irrelevant- it's the government contracts they got rich off. The wars costed us something like 4 billion dollars a day. Who do you think that money was paid to???

posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 12:46 AM


The biggest flaw in this so called argument. Is China is the biggest beneficiary of Iraq's oil

The oil is irrelevant- it's the government contracts they got rich off. The wars costed us something like 4 billion dollars a day. Who do you think that money was paid to???


Maybe most of it to employees?

But I agree anyway.

posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 01:00 AM

the notion of him burning in agony for eternity gives me some comfort.


top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in