Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Bush Admits That War In Iraq Is Over Oil?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   

So Now Iraq Is For Oil, Bush Admits
By Matthew Rothschild
October 12, 2006

For years, there was one word that would not pass the President’s lips in regards to Iraq, and that word is oil.

No, we couldn’t possibly be in Iraq for that, Bush and his flunkies told us. The U.S. motives were so much more noble than that.

Never mind that Iraq sits upon the second largest oil reserves in the world, and that Bush and Cheney are oil guys, and that Cheney himself had maps of Iraq’s oil fields prior to the invasion, and that our invading forces took over the oil fields first, and once our troops got to Baghdad they protected only the oil ministry.

At his press conference on Wednesday, he brought up the dirty little word three times as a reason for the United States now to stay in Iraq. Throughout the lead-up to the war and well past the fall of Baghdad, oil was the great unmentionable.

But now Bush himself is mentioning it.

At his press conference on Wednesday, he brought up the dirty little word three times as a reason for the United States now to stay in Iraq.

“We can’t tolerate a new terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East, with large oil reserves that could be used to fund its radical ambitions, or used to inflict economic damage on the West,” he said the first time.

Oil and Iraq

So, is this really an admittance or just an aspect of why we are in Iraq? He didn't clearly state that the war was over oil but rather that it was an aspect of keeping oil from the terrorists. I have said for quite some time that the real reason was an effort to beat China to the punch. I don't know. What do you all think?

[edit on 19-10-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]




posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   


So, is this really an admittance or just an aspect of why we are in Iraq? He didn't clearly state that the war was over oil but rather that it was an aspect of keeping oil from the terrorists. I have said for quite some time that the real reason was an effort to beat China to the punch. I don't know. What do you all think?


I think its an after thought......Im no fan of this war or of bush but if we left now I think there is no doubt that oil money from iraq would be used to fund terrorism.....Who knows the real reason why we went into Iraq to begin with but is it any coincidence that oil has gone up over 100% in price since we went into iraq in 2003. oil chart



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   
I think its about the oil but they will never come out and truely admit that its about oil (I believe it is. What else could it be about?)... They will say it will always be about something else. As far as his quote I don't think it's an admission but rather him stating the reasons why the oil fields need to be protected or guarded.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Mecheng,I tend to agree with your assessment. I have read the article a couple of times over, and I think he is referencing reasons to protect the reserves.

You know, to be honest, if it wasn't for this Iraq mess and the suspicions that most people,I am one of them, that the government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks, I am not too sure we could complain too much about Bush. The economy,at least by all reports, is doing well. We haven't been attacked since 9/11. I don't know. Although, I find much of his legislation draconian,so, I suppose we could complain about that.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
We haven't been attacked since 9/11. I don't know.

How do we know we were attacked on 9/11?
His legislation, the "war" in Iraq, all come from what happened on 9/11... It's all tied together.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
I think the war is down to:

1. Spread democracy (yes some people really want to)
2. Getting rid of Sadamn
4. Stop oil production switching to Euro
4. Get the Oil before China does
5. Establish a tactical base close to the emerging superpowers and hostiles (Iran, China, N Korea, Russia, Syria etc)

Why does it have to be one reason?

btw? Mathew Rothschild


[edit on 19-10-2006 by Peyres]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Peyres, that's a fairly decent summary. I'd say that at least three of your assumptions are correct,possibly all of them.






top topics



 
0

log in

join