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.

 

War for oil.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Lets stop the dabating right here. Bush is in the oil buisness. It would be no different if Ford invaded Chevrolet for the buisness. Simple as that. Except the rules don't apply when it is for the sake of conter-defense, gimme a break, where's Bin Laden? Exactly.




posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 11:53 PM
link   
I am just going to bolster your point Klevers, if anyone attempts to pull the moral obligation we had to invade Iraq, spare me. The US is actually not allowed legally to invade another country unless it serves US national interest. Which means, in the absence of WMDs the invasion was ILLEGAL as per PDD25 (Presidential Decision Directive 25) which Clinton signed into law as an executive order. Unless national security is directly threatened, we can take ZERO MILITARY ACTION to stop international terrorism, genocide, or other forms of violence.

If we love to help people so much, why didn't we invade to stop the Rwandan genocide (MUCH larger than Saddam's violence against the Kurds) and why aren't we doing more to stop the atrocities in the Darfur region of Sudan. Where were we in East Timor? Why didn't we stop Turkey from killing Armenians years ago? WHY the sudden sea change in our committment to preventing human rights abuses when our prison system itself is a prime example of human rights abuse?

If we are so committed to human rights, why not become party to the ICC? Why not pressure China more about Tibet? Human rights as our motivation for action...riiiiiiiight.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kleversdad
Lets stop the dabating right here. Bush is in the oil buisness. It would be no different if Ford invaded Chevrolet for the buisness. Simple as that. Except the rules don't apply when it is for the sake of conter-defense, gimme a break, where's Bin Laden? Exactly.


LOL. I'm sorry, it sounds like you just got out of a Michael Moore film festival.


Alight, so what is it you want? To know where Bin Laden is? Well if he were the only person responsible for the terrorist attacks then that question would hold a lot more weight. Here, I'll try to explain it to you in your terms:

If Ford burned down a Chevrolet car plant, should Chevrolet only go for the CEO? No, they would have to dismantle Ford piece by piece and eventually the CEO would get caught.

So, you see, Bin Laden is still a very wanted man, and we will get him. But try to look at the bigger picture. Capturing one man in a worldwide organization isn't going to "put them out of business".


p.s. let me know if you want, and I'll explain it in terms of neighborhood ice cream men.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainJailew
The US is actually not allowed legally to invade another country unless it serves US national interest. Which means, in the absence of WMDs the invasion was ILLEGAL as per PDD25 (Presidential Decision Directive 25) which Clinton signed into law as an executive order. Unless national security is directly threatened, we can take ZERO MILITARY ACTION to stop international terrorism, genocide, or other forms of violence.






Is this the same guy you are talking about?


On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed public law 105-235, "Iraqi Breach of International Obligations," which had passed the Senate unanimously and by a vote of 407-6 in the House.34 Among the law's findings: "Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threaten vital United States interests and international peace and security." It concluded:

"Resolved ... [t]hat the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations."35



Maybe aliens?...under Bush's control?


On October 31, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM.37 The same day President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, which declared that "t should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."38 In signing the Act, the President stated that the U.S. "looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life."39



Bush and oil, huh?
www.newamericancentury.org...



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality
Bush and oil, huh?
www.newamericancentury.org...



HAHA, yeah the PNAC, what a top source for validating this (or any) administration.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 01:18 AM
link   
The site is irrelevant. It is providing an account of laws given the presidental seal, under Bill Clinton. It is not an Op-Ed piece.


The site carrying the information does not change the content of the laws.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Well, nearly three weeks has past and not 1 reply. That's hard to believe, seeing as how everyone on this thread had it all figured out. Perhaps you weren't aware of the fact that this whole Iraq deal was put into motion by not the stupid, incompetent Bush; but in fact it was your beloved peacekeeper Bill Clinton.

Well, thanks for playing. We'll go ahead and chalk this one up to "Ignorance Denied".



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 12:02 AM
link   
I'm not sure if it's just war for oil - perhaps war for mid-east territory; to be present in the oil areas. Certainly not egyptian treasures..

Dallas



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 12:33 AM
link   
LOL! I love the opening post of the thread!
Let's stop debating here, Bush is an oil man, therefore the war was about oil! The ultimate proof of this is the fact that it loosely resembles Ford Motor Company invading General Motors, except that it is completely different!

There's no debate here. Trust me. It's not because you demand that it not happen, either!



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality
Perhaps you weren't aware of the fact that this whole Iraq deal was put into motion by not the stupid, incompetent Bush; but in fact it was your beloved peacekeeper Bill Clinton.




you have to be kidding me right? Bill Clinton signed that bill because Saddam was a hinderence to Isreali Peace Process... Which Clinton was banking his entire presidency on.

You can make a case that this current Iraq war is a continuation of BUSH SR's was in the first place.

Then you can go back even further...wasn't it Reagan that Trained Saddam and provides weapons to his army to fight IRAN for us?

Lets NOT point fingers... the fact of the matter is, we are at war, and it IS about OIL but BIGGER PICTURE it is about Economic Stability.


Bottom Line. Red State or Blue State, it doesn't matter ... no president is going to sit by as America falls from grace (reserve currency), and Do NOTHING!



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 03:55 AM
link   

I am just going to bolster your point Klevers, if anyone attempts to pull the moral obligation we had to invade Iraq, spare me. The US is actually not allowed legally to invade another country unless it serves US national interest. Which means, in the absence of WMDs the invasion was ILLEGAL as per PDD25 (Presidential Decision Directive 25) which Clinton signed into law as an executive order. Unless national security is directly threatened, we can take ZERO MILITARY ACTION to stop international terrorism, genocide, or other forms of violence.


Umm... I'm sorry but I believe there is a little thing called the U.S. Constitution that grants the executive branch of government the power to ask for a declaration of war, and it gives the legislative branch the power to declare war. The constitution says nothing about not taking military action against terrorists or genocide.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Where2Hide2006
you have to be kidding me right? Bill Clinton signed that bill because Saddam was a hinderence to Isreali Peace Process... Which Clinton was banking his entire presidency on.

Since he was still in power and still in control, I guess that means that Saddam was still a hinderence when Bush attacked.


You can make a case that this current Iraq war is a continuation of BUSH SR's was in the first place.

You mean the UN's and yeah, they stopped us from finishing the job 10+ years ago, and we have attacked them since. Including all the Clinton years.


Then you can go back even further...wasn't it Reagan that Trained Saddam and provides weapons to his army to fight IRAN for us?

No.
We supported Iraq. But no we didn't train him.


Lets NOT point fingers... the fact of the matter is, we are at war, and it IS about OIL but BIGGER PICTURE it is about Economic Stability.

Let's say you're right....
Is economic stability a bad thing?



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Let's say you're right....
Is economic stability a bad thing?



At what expense?
Let us not forget there are people dieing, and not just the terrorists, but innocent iraqis, and your soldiers. Your government is funneling billions upon billions into this 'war' deepening your national debt, yet there are homeless, working poor, disenfrachized, and poverty stricken people in your own backyard. I cannot see how ecomnomic stability can be reached through war on terrorism, and/or the accuasition of oil reserves from forign nations. How about funneling billions into job creation FOR US CITIZENS, and stopping the 'outsourceing' for cheap labor.
Other than creating revinue for large weapons manufacturors and oil companies (which suprise, suprise, the rich and powerfull have thers hands elbow deep in) I do not see the economic benifit.

The reasons for this war have changed countless times;
WMD's and 'national security' (oh there are none, shoot)
Saddam is Bad (which no doubt he is, still not a 'legal' excuse)
spreading democracy (I'm choking on the BS)
and now;


"We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens," Bush said in his weekly radio address.

source
what a minute? so the trade center is attacked by Saudi's, you blame Afganistan, and go to war on Iraq.... OH I see the connection, they are all Islamic, that must mean they are on the same team....


this war is about 1 thing.... POWER.
Oil, money, and fearmongering your own populice into beliving they are somehow in more danger now then ever before, will all give you power. Power to enact laws that enfring upon the rights your nation is built upon,(patriot act). Power to carry out a war against a idea, so it is NEVER ending. Power to rig elections. POWER,POWER,POWER.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   
It's not all about oil but oil is part of the big ego for bush to invade, many of bush's corportate buddies are gaining much from the war either from military weapons, or rebuilding iraq... the company are gaining mad money from this war that is not worth the cost and the lives lost.

[edit on 20-6-2005 by ulshadow]



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone
I cannot see how ecomnomic stability can be reached through war on terrorism, and/or the accuasition of oil reserves from forign nations.

Well then take this up with Where2hide.
I didn't say all that and I don't agree with what he said.


Your government is funneling billions upon billions into this 'war' deepening your national debt, yet there are homeless, working poor, disenfrachized, and poverty stricken people in your own backyard.

Yeah it's too bad a simple solution has been in place for thousands of years, and has spread throughout the world but the US is the only country left that hasn't realized it...


The reasons for this war have changed countless times;
WMD's and 'national security' (oh there are none, shoot)
Saddam is Bad (which no doubt he is, still not a 'legal' excuse)
spreading democracy (I'm choking on the BS)
and now;


"We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens," Bush said in his weekly radio address.

Countless = 4?

WMD and national security is why we have had actions against Saddam for over 10 years. Hardly something W. Bush has come up with.

Saddam is bad - - -

Got any links showing that we went to war because Saddam is bad?

Spreading democracy, like the WMD and national security issues are nothing new.
1998:
Iraqi liberation act

We did go to war because we were attacked. People always seem to forget we're still fighting in Afghanistan....



what a minute? so the trade center is attacked by Saudi's, you blame Afganistan, and go to war on Iraq.... OH I see the connection, they are all Islamic, that must mean they are on the same team....

We went to war against the terrorists in Afghanistan, and only blamed the government for supporting them.
Iraq was a different story, we probably would have attacked them whether 9/11 happened or not.


this war is about 1 thing.... POWER.
Oil, money, and fearmongering your own populice into beliving they are somehow in more danger now then ever before, will all give you power. Power to enact laws that enfring upon the rights your nation is built upon,(patriot act). Power to carry out a war against a idea, so it is NEVER ending. Power to rig elections. POWER,POWER,POWER.

Ok, so besides none, what power has Bush and people gained that they'll keep 3 years from now?



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Well then take this up with Where2hide.
I didn't say all that and I don't agree with what he said..

not entirly directed at you... sorry for the confusion.


Yeah it's too bad a simple solution has been in place for thousands of years, and has spread throughout the world but the US is the only country left that hasn't realized it... .

which is?? I think I know but I'm curious as to what you mean?


WMD and national security is why we have had actions against Saddam for over 10 years. Hardly something W. Bush has come up with.

Saddam is bad - - -

Got any links showing that we went to war because Saddam is bad?

and.... all of a sudden it's war time? And I never said these were GW's reasons. Just the justification that spouts from thouse that back this war(both on this site and in real life debate)
GW did say this though...


Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised

source



"There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a gathering threat to America and others. That's what we know," he said

source
edit: this is in responce to not finding WMD's
hmmm sounds like "Saddam was a bad guy, that's what we know"


Spreading democracy, like the WMD and national security issues are nothing new.
1998:
Iraqi liberation act

Not quite a declaration of war... never even mentioned by Bush.


We went to war against the terrorists in Afghanistan, and only blamed the government for supporting them.
Iraq was a different story, we probably would have attacked them whether 9/11 happened or not.

But they didn't support them, show me proof of a connection.
"whether 9/11 happened or not." so you admit it WASN'T because you were attacked. Then why is bush now saying "We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens,"


Ok, so besides none, what power has Bush and people gained that they'll keep 3 years from now?

CIA breifings.
millions of dollars and friends in high places , what more does anyone need.
You do not need to be 'in power' to have power. You just have to know which strings to pull.

[edit on 20-6-2005 by Halfofone]



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone
.....

GW did say this though...


Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised

source



"There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a gathering threat to America and others. That's what we know," he said

source
edit: this is in responce to not finding WMD's
hmmm sounds like "Saddam was a bad guy, that's what we know"


Spreading democracy, like the WMD and national security issues are nothing new.
1998:
Iraqi liberation act

Not quite a declaration of war... never even mentioned by Bush.

I'm not disputing Bush didn't say all that. I'm asking, why is it all lies now when his last two predecessors said and attacked for the same reasons?
Why was it not lies then?


But they didn't support them, show me proof of a connection.

By support I mean house, allow to train, etc.
Proof? Well I don't think the soldiers are allowed to bring the hundreds of dead terrorists bodies with them when they come home so I'm a little short on tangible evidence right now. Just know they're not shooting and killing themselves out there. It's been known for years that terrorists were training in Afghanistan. Why do you think we attacked them after the embassy bombings?




"whether 9/11 happened or not." so you admit it WASN'T because you were attacked.


I never said it was in the first place....
That gave us the oppurtunity however.


Then why is bush now saying "We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens,"

Because we did.
About a month after we were attacked, we went to war. We're still at war. Just in 2 places now. What is so hard to understand?



CIA breifings.
millions of dollars and friends in high places , what more does anyone need.
You do not need to be 'in power' to have power. You just have to know which strings to pull.

CIA briefings? That doesn't answer my question.
How does that translate to power 3 years from now?

He had millions and friends in high places before we went to war. That doesn't answer my question either.

[edit on 20-6-2005 by ThatsJustWeird]



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Despite the generally wackiness surrounding this topic, let me just put something out there.

Of course there was / is / will be war for oil.

People will always go to war over a valuable finite commodity. There was / is / will be wars for land, food, water and anything else.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Why was it not lies then?

It was... Bush is just the latest in a string of liers.
I'm trying to see through it. If you say that the war is for reason 'x' it better be for reason 'x'. How can you put so much trust into these people?
Don't you ever question the "official version"?
See. you think I'm biased or something, I hate the Bleedingheart lib. garbage just as much as the Hard liner garbage. Hell Clinton signed the lib act, That don't make it a good thing.

About a month after we were attacked, we went to war. We're still at war. Just in 2 places now. What is so hard to understand?

I understand my friend. It is you that is not understanding. The war is on terrorism, and idea, intangable. If, as you seem to be suggesting, that the attack of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and thus is seprate from this "war on terror". Then what is your justification?
A threat? OK I'll buy it, but PROOF is missing
. There were no WMD's, and without 9/11, what is the motivation for the timeing of the attack? And I know what you ment about support... but there is no proof tying anything back to Saddam or his government at the time. (if there is then show me)
To carry out the liberation act? Ok i'll buy that, but Bush never mentiond it prior to the attack. In fact there was no "postwar" plan for Iraq when they went in!!

So what is the justification! What is the reason for the timing?
coincidence? We were gonna try to do it anyway and so we'll just do it while everyone is affraid, docile, and open to suggestion?



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I have to say that no matter who is the President republican, democrat, white, blue, back red or green they will always use military force when our oil supply is threatened. It’s the same thing as if our water supply was in Iraq and Saddam threatened to cut it off.




top topics



 
0

log in

join