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.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Crude oil conspiracy theories could be right, study shows

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in

+12 more 
posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 06:32 AM

Researchers have for the first time provided strong evidence for what conspiracy theorists have long thought - oil is often the reason for interfering in another country's war.

Throughout recent history, countries which need oil have found reasons to interfere in countries with a good supply of it and, the researchers argue, this could help explain the US interest in ISIS in northern Iraq.

Researchers from the Universities of Portsmouth, Warwick and Essex modelled the decision-making process of third-party countries in interfering in civil wars and examined their economic motives.

They found that the decision to interfere was dominated by the interveners' need for oil over and above historical, geographical or ethnic ties.

Dr Bove said: "Before the ISIS forces approached the oil-rich Kurdish north of Iraq, ISIS was barely mentioned in the news. But once ISIS got near oil fields, the siege of Kobani in Syria became a headline and the US sent drones to strike ISIS targets.

"We don't claim that our findings can be applied to every decision made on whether to intervene in another country's war, but the results clearly demonstrate supply of and demand for oil motivates a significant number of decisions taken to intervene in civil wars in the post-World War II period.

Full story:

It was common knowledge from the start the resources/oil is the main reasons behind most wars. Even when thinking from economic perspective, war is expensive for any nation and without a chance of somehow covering the costs, why risk bankrupting your nation for the sake of another? I personally love seeing different stats in numbers, thus despite it being a common knowledge already, I am happy such a study was done despite the predictable outcomes.
edit on 28-1-2015 by Cabin because: (no reason given)

+9 more 
posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 06:38 AM
I don't know which is more scary - that they're just now figuring this out or they're finally admitting it. It's satisfying and annoying to see something you've known for years, confirmed by the media. It's gotten so obvious even they have to see it.

posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 06:40 AM
a reply to: Cabin

And the IgNoble Prize for the least necessary academic research goes to....

posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 06:45 AM
a reply to: DAVID64

They aren't admitting it, they were 'outed'. Any government asked would deny oil as any motivating factor, instead citing ethics.

posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 06:50 AM
"We liberated them for their freedoms..." versus "We invaded to protect our oil field ($$$) assets..." (or "We invaded another country because our economy was flagging...")

yep, didn't need a study to tell me that, but still, nice to have some research to back up common knowledge.

posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 07:07 AM
I hear they are doing a study next week to find out if water is wet.

posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 07:45 AM
They'd be right. Oil isn't the #1 driving factor.
Now add installing a central bank, gold/silver, any other minerals or resource that can be used. Opium for example.

posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 07:55 AM
When I saw the title I 'ran' over to see if it was updated information about crude oil not being a fossil fuel, but a resource which is replenished from deeper pools of naturally occurring oil. That's a topic which really churns the butter.

As for ownership of oil being the cause of wars, what an ongoing massacre that dark slippery demon has caused.
edit on 28-1-2015 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 08:11 AM
a reply to: Cabin

Well... no crap.

I don't think you need a degree to know that.

posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 08:44 AM

originally posted by: DAVID64
I don't know which is more scary - that they're just now figuring this out or they're finally admitting it. It's satisfying and annoying to see something you've known for years, confirmed by the media. It's gotten so obvious even they have to see it.

This is not media though, it's research and presumably approved by those Universities. At least they are saying that their research correlates with interventionism in the past, and recent past, and so goes beyond what we might think, or are convinced of by suspicion alone. So at the very least, they have started the ball rolling.
edit on 28-1-2015 by smurfy because: Text.

posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 09:12 AM
a reply to: Cabin

Oh jeez. Whomsoever is surprised by this "spoiler alert" genuinely hasn't been paying any attention for their whole life. The campaign to invade countries to strip them of natural and specifically energy resources has been thinly veiled at best. Good post, but "duh", right?

posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 12:15 PM
When is the research that determines that a state of endless warfare equals endless military expenses going to come out?

But yes, a mildly vindicating announcement.

posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 03:37 PM
I wonder how much people were charged for a study of which the people were aware of in the first place? Well, most people anyways.

And yet even those that needed a study in order to convince them of what many know, they will still deny because they believe that the US only goes into other Countries with the noblest of intentions.

Sad reality is that so many don't actually care why the US does what they do as long as they gt sold a bill of goods of how it benefits them in the long run. They should understand that the elite can't get their wealth without the people buying their products and services in the first place.

How do you topple the elite? Stop paying them.


posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 03:53 PM
Does nobody remember Chomsky anymore? He's been saying this, and much more for at least a couple of decades.

What I find most disturbing is that it takes a study coming out of an institution within the establishment for the majority to find it credible and legitimate. Two words that only strengthen the status quo, imo.

It seems to be the case that by the time something is accepted in the mainstream, it's already irrelevant. The game has progressed further along, and focus should be elsewhere.
edit on 28-1-2015 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:03 PM
the US has surpassed the mid east in oil production so why are we still there certainly it is not for the oil.
a reply to: Cabin

posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:06 PM

originally posted by: guitarplayer
the US has surpassed the mid east in oil production so why are we still there certainly it is not for the oil.
a reply to: Cabin

That makes little since, guy.

If we cut off our supply from the middle east, we would not only be lacking, but these energies could be used elsewhere... by our adversaries.

posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:17 PM
And if you all think the US is only great power with its finger in the oil pot ... Please. Every country with an interest in oil has a finger in the game. You all know it. That's the main reason the ME belongs to an ostensibly hostile group of religious fanatics. All the great powers are reasonably certain no one else if gaining too great an advantage with them.

It's chess rather than Global Thermonuclear War.

posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:17 PM
The Bilderberg group, in their 1973 meeting planned to increase oil prices by %400.


May 11-13, 1973 – Saltsjobaden, Sweden

I. The possibilities of the development of a European energy policy, and the consequences of European-North American

II. Conflicting expectations concerning the European Security Conference.

public inteligence . net / Bilderberg Participants list 1973

Here is what history tells us
    In 1973 gas was 0.36 cents a gallon in the U.S.
    In 1975 gas reaches 0.57 cents
    In 1979 gas reaches 0.90 cents

And anyone alive in 1979 in the U.S. remembers what happened next.

Two hour gas lines across the country,
all blamed on President Carter.

wikipedia / 1979 energy crisis

Mike Grouchy

posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 05:13 PM
Don't forget that many if not all of these alleged "civil" and other wars in different countries owe their creation fully to the US State Department, the CIA and/or other intelligence agencies. Iraq from 1988 to 1990, pre-Gulf War, is an excellent example I use all the time. The US created the war using the CIA to "stroke" Saddam into believing it would be OK to take Kuwait. Then they offered him a billion dollars in weapons that were shipped from the US, through France and South Africa (G5 cannons added) with assistance from the Israelis.

Saddam fell for the ploy and the US got to create war (US-Iraq) by creating another war via proxy (Iraq-Kuwait), so the US could send in the corporations to take over and re-secure Iraq's resources. Not for the Iraqi's of course, but to the benefit of US interests.

This gambit plays out so often, one would think it's recognizable in the first 2 minutes of media airplay.

Cheers - Dave

posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 05:21 PM
bobs_uruncle has got it right on here!
This what I remember as well.

Iraq from 1988 to 1990, pre-Gulf War, is an excellent example I use all the time.

Even then, in the 90's one would be ridiculed just for mentioning the Bilderberg group.

For those of you who have not been a conspiracy theorist since the 70's,
and didn't experience the 40 years of ridicule and abuse heaped on us
when ever we mentioned the Bilderberg group, do a disservice to the
truth by saying things like "Captain Obvious."

While I enjoyed the picture.
For forty years I remember no one believing that the Bilderbergers even existed. Let alone that they would meet in Europe to break so many American laws. Colluding to fix prices. Secret agreements within one industry. Monopolistic practices. And that's just some of the white collar crimes.

Important people from all over the world attend.

Sure, they are not hiding now... in the post internet era ... they can't. But in the information age to think they are just going to say "you were right" and walk away ... is the worst kind of self delusion on their part.

Mike Grouchy

edit on 28-1-2015 by mikegrouchy because: format

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in