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.

 

Iraq is no War for Oil!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   
The war in Iraq has been tossed around by many as an American war for oil. How can this be, and why would we fight for oil there when there is oil in our own hemisphere. Why cross an ocean and occupy a country for something when the majority of our oil comes from the Americas.

The USA only recieves 14,635(in thousand barrels) weekly from Iraq, compared to our import from canada which is 42,367( in thousand barrels) and Mexico 41,668.
So why attack a country half way around the world for oil only. Come on people it is absurd to say this. There is no proof that this is the intention of the US gov.

Why not attack Mexico or Canada, we would get more oil this way if this was the truth. Yeah our demand has increased for oil but just that little bit we get from Iraq means were at war for it. It does not make sense.

We are at war against terrorism, and terrorism only not oil. We are fighting in Iraq to establish freedom there. A war is bloody and many civilians get killed,and many homes get destroyed but this is not for oil. We are not an enemy who wants their land, we are a friend who wants their alliance and the good people of Iraq to be free.

Oil is not the reason and i believe all that think it is are just looking for an easy answer to all the problems happening in the world today with this war.
I hope in the end everyone will understand that the USA has done this for freedom and to create a safer world.

If you dont believe the facts I stated about oil just visit



U.S. petroleum imports




posted on May, 13 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ncbrian211
I hope in the end everyone will understand that the USA has done this for freedom and to create a safer world.


No disrespect ncbrian211, but you have to be kidding.

Sanc'.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   
you've got a texas oil man, son of a texas oil man, as Pres, whose VP came from a company that specializes in rebuilding oil fields, there is a memo that show blair and bush knew (or ordered) the WMD intelligence was made up to get to war (they don't deny the memo's authenticity, btw) and you think its to fight terrorism ?

the big picture is we are trying to squeeze Russia and China in the race to control the resources of the middle east, which includes natural gas.


look into the pipeline W wants in uzbekistan...it will open your eyes.....

[edit on 13-5-2005 by syrinx high priest]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Read this and then tell me it wasnt for oil.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   
It's a war for oil, notably a failed one.

Certainly there were (many) other reasons, but if you don't think making sure a compliant regime was sitting on top of all that oil was #1, I think you're kidding yourself.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   
iraq is awar for oil. FUTURE oil.

it's fair enough to say america buys more oil from the americas. indeed, of the 84 million barrels per day the world uses, 50 million barrels come from non-opec countries. but thats just the point; the middle eastern countries are sitting on 70% or so of the reserves but they ain't turning on the taps.

bush (or whoever pulls his strings) needed to invade an opec country with large reserves to ensure opec don't put the price up when all the non-opec oil is used up. it also stops russia putting their prices up if someone else has a big reserve and is prepared to pump it and sell it faster.

i am sure you have all seen this before, but here it is anyways;

www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk...&%20CHARTS/CASPIAN-MIDDLE%20EAST_OIL%20&%20MILITARY%20PRESENCE.JPG



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Okay, First of all I don’t think you are thinking for the future that could be why you think the U.S. is not in Iraq for oil. If the U.S. is at war with terrorism then why did they attack Iraq? It is true that we get most of our oil from the western hemisphere BUT that oil is not going to last forever. SO to secure our future we must control the countries that will be giving us energy to prosper. Right now we have Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Canada and what ever other countries that supply us with oil as our Allies.


Now Iraq and Iran has allot of oil and China and India are growing fast as world powers maybe even super powers and they have good relations with Iran I don’t know about Iraq but they need energy to keep there economy’s running. Why would you let your country that is on top of the world right now loose its position and control of the world to China or India?

The U.S.'s next target is going to be Iran weather you like it or not. We already have bases in Iraq and Afghanistan and we are also training Iraqi forces and equipping them with modern weapons and newer tactics to help us when we invade Iran from 2 fronts. They will also be used to keep the Iraqi population stable and in check.


Bush keeps talking about developing newer and better means to provide energy to the U.S. and the rest of the world and maybe they are developing these resources. If we do get new sources of energy we will still need a whole hell of allot of oil to make it through the transition into using these newer energy sources.

I use to be all anti Bush and co. and calling him Hitler and what not and saying how greedy and full of hate they are and what not but I grew up in the west and English is my native tongue and I really don’t want to learn Chinese and serve under there government and there laws. It is true however that the U.S. right now is going to the dogs with the patriot acts and all of that crap but I still think English is easier than Chinese to learn and to speak.



[edit on 13-5-2005 by Killak420]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   
I see no facts behind any link I follow that says this war is about oil.
Cheneys old halibuton company big deal....Bush was part of an anergy company wow. So what, if this is so why dont the USA have more oil coming in from Iraq now. supposedly Iraq has this big reserve, so why is the USA not taking it.

Is money the answer, I could believe the war is about money before I believe it is about oil. Yeah oil produces money, but so do contracts for rebuilding countries. This is all just suspicions.... If the war is about anything more then the US gov says it is, it would be world domination.

C'mon think about it, oil is making money, but there is alot more for the Pres and Vice Pres to make money from this war. When I see some better facts that the gov is making some high dollar amount and putting it in there pocket than I will believe but not yet.


truth must be supported by facts not suspicion



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   
ncbrian211, great post, but you must understand that none of these people will allow your facts to get in the way of their bias and other preconceived notions.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ncbrian211



truth must be supported by facts not suspicion



Well then I suggest you get some facts to show this war was about spreading Democracy.

"But Iraq held elections"

Iraq held elections to pick a body of representatives to form THIER OWN government. As of now, it appears they are leaning towards a theocracy much like Iran. Some war for Democracy.

I am sorry if you cant read the links I gave, but the facts are there to support my opinion that this war is for oil. You however have only presented assumption and closed mindedness.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
ncbrian211, great post, but you must understand that none of these people will allow your facts to get in the way of their bias and other preconceived notions.


My god D.

I thought even you could recognize the difference between fact and opinion.

Guess I was wrong.


[edit on 5/13/05 by Kidfinger]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ncbrian211

truth must be supported by facts not suspicion



ok. you suspect this war is about freedom and democracy? post some facts..... and please reference any comments about saddam being a genocidal tyrant,etc with your knowledge of kim jung-il, who has no oil, to prevent the US being depicted as having double standards(if you can).



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Now I am not against this war and I do think of the future. I just cant stand hearing someone say bush is in it for the oil. And I know they are not thinking of the future they are thinking of how he is going to make money from this.

This is the basic concept with most people, they think that this war is lining Bush and Cheney's pockets, especially when they think of oil and Iraq.

Were in an energy crisis and it is going to get worse. Securing oil is not going to save us because others are going to want it just as bad. The president, congress and all of capitol hill know this but there is no way to secure the worlds oil in our favor.

So no this is not for oil if it was we would be doing a better job at taking it.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ncbrian211
Now I am not against this war and I do think of the future. I just cant stand hearing someone say bush is in it for the oil. And I know they are not thinking of the future they are thinking of how he is going to make money from this.

This is the basic concept with most people, they think that this war is lining Bush and Cheney's pockets, especially when they think of oil and Iraq.

Were in an energy crisis and it is going to get worse. Securing oil is not going to save us because others are going to want it just as bad. The president, congress and all of capitol hill know this but there is no way to secure the worlds oil in our favor.

So no this is not for oil if it was we would be doing a better job at taking it.


What the hell are you talking about, we ARE securing the worlds oil that’s why we INVADED IRAQ. The reason we are still in a energy crises is because we are at WAR. How do you think all the Abrams, Hummers, Apaches, F-16's and what ever else they use are being fueled with solar power?



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
ok, you asked for it.....


you've got a texas oil man,FACT son of a texas oil man, as Pres,FACT whose VP came from a company that specializes in rebuilding oil fields, FACT there is a memo that show blair and bush knew (or ordered) the WMD intelligence was made up to get to war (they don't deny the memo's authenticity, btw) FACT

www.whitehouse.gov...
After graduation Bush embarked on a career in the oil industry of West Texas.

www.americanpresident.org...
He wasn’t even the first to leave the East Coast for the West Texas oil fields; his own father had done that before him. And though Bush and his father liked to think of themselves as oilmen, the true family business was politics; four years after Bush became governor of Texas, his brother won the governorship of Florida.

money.cnn.com...
The first contracts for rebuilding post-war Iraq have been awarded, and Vice President Dick Cheney's old employer, Halliburton Co., is one of the early winners.


www.cnn.com...
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Eighty-nine Democratic members of the U.S. Congress last week sent President George W. Bush a letter asking for explanation of a secret British memo that said "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the Iraq war in mid-2002.

The timing of the memo was well before the president brought the issue to Congress for approval.

The Times of London newspaper published the memo -- actually minutes of a high-level meeting on Iraq held July 23, 2002 -- on May 1.

British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity, and Michael Boyce, then Britain's Chief of Defense Staff, told the paper that Britain had not then made a decision to follow the United States to war, but it would have been "irresponsible" not to prepare for the possibility.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ncbrian211


So no this is not for oil if it was we would be doing a better job at taking it.


So where is the undeniable facts in this? Opinionated? Yes. Factual? No.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   
If you want to understand why some think this is a war for oil just read Henry Kissinger's article from 1975 in which he recommended invading Saudi Arabia, which had not attacked the US.

Here's an excerpt:



www.harpers.org...

The goal is not just to seize some oil (say, in accessible Nigeria or Venezuela) but to break OPEC. Thus force must be used selectively to occupy large and concentrated oil reserves, which can be produced rapidly in order to end the artificial scarcity of oil and thus cut the price. Faced with armed consumers occupying vast oil fields whose full output can eventually bring the price down to 50 cents per barrel, most of the producers would see virtue in agreeing to a price four or five times as high, but still six times lower than present prices. This being the ultimate goal, there is only one feasible target: Saudi Arabia.

Oddly enough, some have suggested that Libya would make an ideal target. It is true that Libya is a good deal more open to attack, but in fact an invasion of Libya would be worse than useless. Far from having enough oil to make OPEC vulnerable to market pressures, Libya's oil would not even suffice to cover current needs. Hence the rest of OPEC could defeat any invasion of Libya by simply cutting off oil production for as long as it would take to force a withdrawal.

With roughly 200 billion barrels of published, proven reserves (they could be substantially higher), Saudi oil fields are now being worked at a rate of just over 8.5 million barrels a day, for an annual output of just over 3 billion barrels. In other words, at present rates of production Saudi oil would last for more than sixty years. By contrast, oil fields in most other parts of the world are developed much faster, with output/reserve ratios of 1: 10, or at most 1:20. Producing Saudi oil fields at Texan rates would mean producing almost 55 million barrels of oil a day, enough to supply current worldwide needs almost twice over. It would take huge investments and several years to install the required capacity, but in order to break OPEC we need not go to such heroic lengths. It would suffice to increase output by a little, and then by a little more, each time eroding the remaining market shares, until a compromise is reached. If none is forthcoming, then the time will have come for large output increases to flood the market.

In short, if the use of military force is to be limited and therefore efficient, the real leverage must come from market pressures, and only the Saudi oil fields can provide the means. Fortunately, those fields are not only prolific but are also concentrated in a small area, a fraction of Saudi territory. Even better, the areas involved are scarcely settled except for the oil workers, some 20,000 in all, American technicians included. If Vietnam was full of trees and brave men, and the national interest was almost invisible, here there are no trees, very few men, and a clear objective. There could be serious risks in the operation, but at least there would be no sense of futility with 200 billion barrels of oil underfoot—oil that would restore jobs to the unemployed and supply the wherewithal for a gradual program of substitution



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   


So no this is not for oil if it was we would be doing a better job at taking it.


Unfortunately, the fact that our leadership is evil does not necessarily mean they are competent. They are so hubris-afflicted that I think they really believed that the Iraqi people would be grateful for being bombed and invaded. I doubt any of them realized that two years later we would still be fighting a growing insurgency.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex



So no this is not for oil if it was we would be doing a better job at taking it.


Unfortunately, the fact that our leadership is evil does not necessarily mean they are competent. They are so hubris-afflicted that I think they really believed that the Iraqi people would be grateful for being bombed and invaded. I doubt any of them realized that two years later we would still be fighting a growing insurgency.



I heard it from a soldiers own mouth who was there for 6 months that 85% or the Iraqi's ARE very grateful, and the media never reports it.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Gee, what would you tell a guy with a M-16?
"I hate you, you napalmed my auntie, get the #@#$ out of my country?"

I don't think so. You'd tell the guy with the M-16 whatever you thought he wanted to hear.

To the extent that polling has been done, it has revealed that A) most Iraqis are glad to see Saddam gone and B) they'd be glad to see the US gone as well.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join