It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Do you have the answer?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil

Thats it. OIL!!!

Oil = money. Dont be simple minded enough to think of oil as just fuel. Platsics come from oil. PLASTICS!!!!! Tell me what your day would be like without plastic. Find me just one instance of your existence that isnt dependant on plastic. There is nothing that we use or touch today that wasnt at the very least associated with plastic at one point or another, if not outright made of the stuff.

Please, we all know Oil isnt the furture of any society. But for sure it is all thats going on today.

Its all about the Oil. The more oil we have, the longer we can drive our SUV's, run our tanks and war planes, make the kiddies happy with thier toys. Its all about today.

You try to make your life petroleum free. Go ahead and try it. You wouldnt last one second today.

Dont tell me this war isnt about oil...we are the worlds #1 consumer and that isnt going to change tomorrow or the next day.

OIL!!!!

[edit on 29-11-2004 by skippytjc]




posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Dont tell me this war isnt about oil...we are the worlds #1 consumer and that isnt going to change tomorrow or the next day.


It will change we the worlds oil reserves will be expunged from the planet. The scheduled date is somewhere around 2050.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simulacra

This may be just a 'bonus' of the war, but I find it very hard to believe that we would go to war on an 'injustice cause' (as seen by pretty much the rest of the world) and cripple our socio-political ties with the rest of the world just because we want fuel out F-150 pickup trucks down to Wal-Mart. This is a short term solution.


come on look in history
most wars were fought for assets example
when japan attacked the US ( was over oil )

as countries advance even more the need for oil rises , example china ( now the secound largest consumer )

and the US econemy relies on the price of oil to stay low
so its in the best intrest for their nation to get a foothold
even if it means making fairy tales up to cover their tracks



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Terms of surrender. When we defeated Suddam the first time around, there were terms to his surrender that meant he had to change his ways. Which meant not killing your own people and stop making WMDs. Well, he didn't comply because in 98 it was determined beyond a resonable doubt that he still had WMDs thus he has remained hostile towards the terms of surrender. Around 2000, he claims all his WMDs have now been destroyed. Come 01 and 02 he becomes increasingly non complient and hostile towards UN inspectors. So the decision was made by Bush based on Saddam's incapablitity to comply factored in with previous history and intel claiming he was still in position of WMDs. Simply as that.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
when japan attacked the US ( was over oil )


The US wanted to get involved in the war. On June 23nd 1941 advisor of FDR Harold Ickes wrote a memo to the president explaining exactly how we could get involved in the war. And as we all know, this method was to cut off the oil to Japan thus creating a dire need for it.
www.geocities.com...

Why would we want an attack on America? So we can become a global superpower. It's funny, how the history mimics the present. Or the other way around.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
So the decision was made by Bush based on Saddam's incapablitity to comply factored in with previous history and intel claiming he was still in position of WMDs. Simply as that.


But correct me if I'm wrong but they found no weapons of mass destruction.



The Bush administration has admitted that Saddam Hussein probably had no weapons of mass destruction.
www.sundayherald.com...



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Sorry for the triple post but I can't let this get buried in the ATS archives. My curiousity is killing me, literally, I'm not getting dinner until I get an answer.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, which translates literally into English as "Plurality should not be posited without necessity".

Thus, considering:

(1) Saddam H. = Deposed, imprisoned.
(2) WMD = None Found.
(3) Western Democracy = Islam prevents this concept.
(4) Beating Terrorists = We will never defeat them globally, and as long as we continue killing innocents in Iraq, more moderates will convert to radicalism and we will continue to fight an unending stream of 'insurgents'

We have left: OIL.


[Background]

Occam's Razor (also Ockham's Razor or any of several other spellings), is a principle attributed to the 14th century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham that forms the basis of methodological reductionism, also called the principle of parsimony.

In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should not make more assumptions than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. A charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Sim: Dubya wanted to invade Iraq before 911. Its NOT terorism. Its all about big business, money and a personal agenda. Or simply oil.

I understand that in the future, near or far, oil needs to be replaced. But today there is not one nation on this planet that can function without oil for just part of one day, let alone entirely.

Whoever has the oil has the control. Period. Heck, its IMPOSSIBLE to develop new non-oil based technologies without oil!!!

I have an idea though!! If we could harness the oil in pre adolescant teen acne we would have a never ending supply!!!

I can see it now: New!!! By Oxy!!! Teen Oil buring SUV's. Just put this special face mask over your pre teen and go!!



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   
This war has been about OIL. oops did i say OIL and not terrorism?

Forgive me, i was going to go on with some other meaningful theories, but i seem to end up at the same answer, OIL.

OIL is , and always has been the liquid gold that we all need. To control this gives the holder control of the rest of the world..

sounds cynical, but think about it.........



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by NextLevel
Thus, considering:
(1) Saddam H. = Deposed, imprisoned.
(2) WMD = None Found.
(3) Western Democracy = Islam prevents this concept.
(4) Beating Terrorists = We will never defeat them globally, and as long as we continue killing innocents in Iraq, more moderates will convert to radicalism and we will continue to fight an unending stream of 'insurgents'

We have left: OIL.

Occam's Razor


If Occam's Razor is applied to the US invading Iraq and occupying it. Then the simpliest and most rational explanation would be we are waging a war on Iraq to take it over.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Hey Simulacra, just look at your avatar. Yes I know. Oil, Oil, Oil. But to go through all these hellish years for Oil?

That's like someone paying for a chinese buffet when the restaurant closes in two minutes.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Hey!! With all the OIL we didnt use as Jet Fuel for GWB during his Air National Guard days I thought we would be OK.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simulacra
No. A war didnt put an end to terrorism because we are still fighting against it

And in the middle of the war of the barbary coast it wasn't over either. Also, terrorism, being a wider problem than piracy, should by necessity take more war to destroy.

Long Term stability does not usually occur in war torn countries

You mean like japan china germany italy and france?

There was no distinct superpower at that time.

What difference does that make? I think that the point is that europe went thru a series of devastating wars in which the old powers and monarchs and authorities were eventually defeated and enlighed liberal democratic power structures more or less replaced them. The 'greater goal' for the mid east is the same. Similar to what the French were during by bringing their revolution abroad. And hand in hand is this fight against terror groups.


bodrul
when japan attacked the US ( was over oil )

But japan didn't invade eastern asia over oil. Germany was a resource strapped country tho, and in general wars are often fought over strategic resources. But oil exists in lots of places besides iraq and the whole middle east. If one wanted to control it, it would be better to threaten and control OPEC from behind the scenes, rather than have some highly dangerous war in which your own powerstructures might get toppled.

sim
Why would we want an attack on America? So we can become a global superpower

FDR and his people didn't want the US to become a superpower, they saw that Japan and the US were eventually going to clash, that its imperialistic ambitions weren't limited to china and that neither were nazi germany's.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simulacra

'Why is America fighting with Iraq'
Because in all honesty, I have no clue



I think your avatar says it all, Simulacra. Oil is Jesus!



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 02:37 PM
link   
When one is deciding why we are still fighting in Iraq, one must not assume the reason we are still there has anything to do with the reason we started the war, regardless of why the US went there initially.

Simply, we are still there to assure that an Iraqi government is stable enough to sustain itself.

Edit: the word democratic should be in there somewhere.


[edit on 29-11-2004 by Raphael_UO]



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   


But why go through the strenous expense of a war to secure the remaining foss fuel reserves that will only sustain the entire world for only the next 50 years?


because that is all the time we need to prop up the entire culmination of structured police initiative mono american world government rule.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Back in 1991, after the first Iraq war, Saddam was put on sanctions by the U.N. In the following years, Sadam continued to agree with the U.N. about inspections (among other things), but then would balk and not let them in. The U.N. continued to "talk" and nothing was accomplished in 12 years. President Bush put his foot down and said, "comply or you're getting spanked". BUSH GAVE SADAM 1 LAST CHANCE (this is very important, as people seem to forget this part). Once again, Sadam thumbed his nose at us AND the U.N. , however, the U.N. wasn't doing anything about it. Now, here's most important point of all: Intelligence reports from the CIA told Bush that they had WMD's. Even John Kerry himself said it was a sure bet that Sadam had WMD's. With the info Bush was given, we attacked. Bush also had overwhelming support from the government to do so, republicans and democrats alike. At that point in time, it was a "sure bet" we were doing the right thing. In retrospect, we all know that not to be the case, but they didn't know that at the time. SO, we go into Iraq, we blow them to kingdom come, and we remove Sadam. This should have been done years ago by the U.N., but all they want to do is talk. At any rate, we all know the world did not view us attacking as such a good thing, so how do you think the world would feel if we went in there, blew the hell out of them, and then left? So your answer is: We are there to help rebuild a newly freed country because we blew the hell out of it to make it free.

People never see the GOOD things we're doing there, rebuilding hospitals, getting clean water flowing, getting electricity back online, etc...these are not newsworthy to our media. All the general public sees is the killing, the bombing, the rebellion...that's what gets ratings over here. You never hear about the people who are actually HAPPY that we've done what we've done, and are HAPPY that we're there, trying to keep them safe while the country is rebuilt.

Another thing I'm tired of hearing is: Why aren't we going after Bin Laden?
Short answer: WE ARE!!!

Think of it this way: How many people does it take to screw in a light bulb? Just 1. you don't need to put 10 people on a job to screw in a light bulb. We have allocated what we need to afghanastan. If you put any more people there, it's overkill...a waste of resources. The hunt for Osama continues WHILE we rebuild Iraq. Yes, it's true, we can do 2 things at once!

*takes a deep breath*
Ok, I'll get off my soap box now.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jaruseleh
Back in 1991, after the first Iraq war, Saddam was put on sanctions by the U.N. In the following years, Sadam continued to agree with the U.N. about inspections (among other things), but then would balk and not let them in. The U.N. continued to "talk" and nothing was accomplished in 12 years. President Bush put his foot down and said, "comply or you're getting spanked". BUSH GAVE SADAM 1 LAST CHANCE (this is very important, as people seem to forget this part). Once again, Sadam thumbed his nose at us AND the U.N. , however, the U.N. wasn't doing anything about it. Now, here's most important point of all: Intelligence reports from the CIA told Bush that they had WMD's. Even John Kerry himself said it was a sure bet that Sadam had WMD's. With the info Bush was given, we attacked. Bush also had overwhelming support from the government to do so, republicans and democrats alike. At that point in time, it was a "sure bet" we were doing the right thing. In retrospect, we all know that not to be the case, but they didn't know that at the time. SO, we go into Iraq, we blow them to kingdom come, and we remove Sadam. This should have been done years ago by the U.N., but all they want to do is talk. At any rate, we all know the world did not view us attacking as such a good thing, so how do you think the world would feel if we went in there, blew the hell out of them, and then left? So your answer is: We are there to help rebuild a newly freed country because we blew the hell out of it to make it free.

actually the evidence was twisted by the CIA and MI6/5 to make them invade.
if they didnt make a screw up then why did america and britians cheifs of intel say they screwed up?
also they would be happy if you left now and gave them money or asked the UN for help.


People never see the GOOD things we're doing there, rebuilding hospitals, getting clean water flowing, getting electricity back online, etc...these are not newsworthy to our media. All the general public sees is the killing, the bombing, the rebellion...that's what gets ratings over here. You never hear about the people who are actually HAPPY that we've done what we've done, and are HAPPY that we're there, trying to keep them safe while the country is rebuilt.

thier country isnt safe while there are people there pointing guns at them,yeah the hospitals you destroyed and the general services YOU destroyed. its no wonder they are angry at you.


Another thing I'm tired of hearing is: Why aren't we going after Bin Laden?
Short answer: WE ARE!!!

so thats why you invaded iraq? your entire intel is focussed on iraq not OSB


Think of it this way: How many people does it take to screw in a light bulb? Just 1. you don't need to put 10 people on a job to screw in a light bulb. We have allocated what we need to afghanastan. If you put any more people there, it's overkill...a waste of resources. The hunt for Osama continues WHILE we rebuild Iraq. Yes, it's true, we can do 2 things at once!

actually i think you have more than that yet you still havent got him. you have not tried to get other countries to help. though i doubt anywould considering recent actions.

***sits with hands clasped in front of face**** "your move"



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Jaruseleh
Back in 1991, after the first Iraq war, Saddam was put on sanctions by the U.N. In the following years, Sadam continued to agree with the U.N. about inspections (among other things), but then would balk and not let them in. The U.N. continued to "talk" and nothing was accomplished in 12 years. President Bush put his foot down and said, "comply or you're getting spanked". BUSH GAVE SADAM 1 LAST CHANCE (this is very important, as people seem to forget this part). Once again, Sadam thumbed his nose at us AND the U.N. , however, the U.N. wasn't doing anything about it. Now, here's most important point of all: Intelligence reports from the CIA told Bush that they had WMD's. Even John Kerry himself said it was a sure bet that Sadam had WMD's. With the info Bush was given, we attacked. Bush also had overwhelming support from the government to do so, republicans and democrats alike. At that point in time, it was a "sure bet" we were doing the right thing. In retrospect, we all know that not to be the case, but they didn't know that at the time. SO, we go into Iraq, we blow them to kingdom come, and we remove Sadam. This should have been done years ago by the U.N., but all they want to do is talk. At any rate, we all know the world did not view us attacking as such a good thing, so how do you think the world would feel if we went in there, blew the hell out of them, and then left? So your answer is: We are there to help rebuild a newly freed country because we blew the hell out of it to make it free.

actually the evidence was twisted by the CIA and MI6/5 to make them invade.
if they didnt make a screw up then why did america and britians cheifs of intel say they screwed up?
also they would be happy if you left now and gave them money or asked the UN for help.


Hindsight is 20/20 my friend. the intellegence wasn't twisted, it was wrong. There's a difference. Also, don't forget that the head of CIA at the time was appointed by Bill Clinton. Why would he want us to go to war with Iraq?




People never see the GOOD things we're doing there, rebuilding hospitals, getting clean water flowing, getting electricity back online, etc...these are not newsworthy to our media. All the general public sees is the killing, the bombing, the rebellion...that's what gets ratings over here. You never hear about the people who are actually HAPPY that we've done what we've done, and are HAPPY that we're there, trying to keep them safe while the country is rebuilt.

thier country isnt safe while there are people there pointing guns at them,yeah the hospitals you destroyed and the general services YOU destroyed. its no wonder they are angry at you.


You think the country would be safer if we left? Let me ask you this? Do you think it was safer there before we did what we did? Because if we were to leave, it would go right back to where it was. A terrorist leader butchering millions of people just because he can.




Another thing I'm tired of hearing is: Why aren't we going after Bin Laden?
Short answer: WE ARE!!!

so thats why you invaded iraq? your entire intel is focussed on iraq not OSB


No, read above why we invaded Iraq. All I'm saying here is that the hunt for Osama is still on, and has been the whole time.




Think of it this way: How many people does it take to screw in a light bulb? Just 1. you don't need to put 10 people on a job to screw in a light bulb. We have allocated what we need to afghanastan. If you put any more people there, it's overkill...a waste of resources. The hunt for Osama continues WHILE we rebuild Iraq. Yes, it's true, we can do 2 things at once!

actually i think you have more than that yet you still havent got him. you have not tried to get other countries to help. though i doubt anywould considering recent actions.


Do you think other countries WOULD help? Although I do agree, we could definately use the help of other countries, but I don't think there are any countries that WILL help. I believe we have a little help from the British, but that's about it. I just don't think anyone out there cares that much anymore since so much focus has been put on Iraq.


***sits with hands clasped in front of face**** "your move"


Are we playing chess? lol



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join