And who didnt think it was about Oil

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2002 @ 05:53 PM
link   
To all who read this with a closed mind, ready to label me
as a left winger or conspiracy geek I say to you in the most intellegent
way possible..... i could give a f*ck less what u think.

ok


Now, anyone who has the ####### amount of common sense should be able to see that this whole Iraqi game, when stipped of all of its captian save the world
, rid the world of terrorism ########.... it's all a game about money(oil).
Yeah go ahead and run your mouth in disapproval,all of you who look at Bush when he speaks and deny the voice in your head that tells you something is not right about this dude.
But enough of my ramblings. Lets get to the facts.

a. Sadaam Insane says the U.S. "wants to destroy Iraq in order to control the Middle East oil". Hmmmmm..... I wonder why he would say that? Lets see.... Maybe it's because Iraq has 112 BILLION
barrels of proven reserves, more oil than any nation except Saudi Arabia (who just might be next).
Most of Iraq's fields are untapped, and older fields are overworked with f*cked up technology that leaves more than 80% of the oil behind. But no.... Mr. Bush and his right hand man Cheyneh who
both have backgrounds in the oil game just want to rid the world of WMD and all that biologocal # that Sadaam has stored somewhere. Right? Yeah right.

b. You've got people like John Lichtblau (chairman/CE of Petroleum Research Foundation)saying oil companies were only staying quiet about Iraq's oil because expression of interest would inflame the political situation.
Quote "If the US in some way controls Iraq, there's no question US companies would be allowed to go in there.
Not to drive out the others,because there is room for all of them- U.S., Russia, France.."
Which brings me to the next point. Why were the Russians and French people so hesitant on agreeing on the U.N. resolution that they just recently signed to? After Bush Challanged the UN to act against Iraq, Sadaam offered non-US companies lucrative oil deals. Oil firms from Italy, France, Spain and Turkey signed agreements to market or explore for Iraqi oil. We're talking about like lets see .... #### about 40 billion worth of oil concessions for Russia alone after exploration began. With all of this to loose if the US invaded Iraq, increased oil production which would drive down world oil prices and cripple Russias economy, why would Russia and other countrys suddenly be okay with recent
UN resolution? Because the Russians got a promise from the US that this would not happen according to Sen. Dick Lugar, R-IND who has talked repeatedly with C. Powell about these negotiations.


So now not only does Bush have his eyes set on the prize of the Oil game in Iraq... but he's even worked out a deal with the rest of these pitifull nations to have them join his side. But I tell
you all that Bush is really ###### up the future of this country. US INVASION=SADAAM BY BY=REGEME CHANGE=CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ?+RUSSIA, FRANCE, CHINA, ETC WANTING SOME SENSE OF CONTROL OVER OIL RESERVES THEY'VE INVESTED IN=A POWER STRUGGLE=A MONEY STRUGGLE Which at that point will mean the whole middle east will be screwed, the US will have enemys from every approchable angle..... and the rest, well u figure it out.



And if i spelled something wrong.... o well....####it.

[Edited on 9-11-2002 by Thomas Crowne]




posted on Nov, 8 2002 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnderGround
To all who read this with a closed mind, ready to label me
as a left winger or conspiracy geek I say to you in the most intellegent
way possible..... i could give a f*ck less what u think.

ok


You better care what we admins and mods think. Clean up your act.



posted on Nov, 8 2002 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Russia and France have their reasons.
Russia is owed a ton of money from Hussein, and if we oust him, there goes their money.

France has been violating the sanctions for years and is getting a good deal on oil.

Of course these two are leary.

As far as the rest of your rant, it is just that - a rant.



posted on Nov, 8 2002 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Eh...we all know we're going to profit from the oil...but it still isn't "about" it...but hey? What's the harm in prospering from a "bad" man's loss?

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Nov, 8 2002 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Well, here's my thing. The Iraqi citizens have suffered enough under Hussein's rule, what with wars with Iran, gassing the Kurds and starving the people to keep an army the last decade. Whatever the case is, as long as the citizens of Iraq get to eat their fill, I haven't a problem with cheaper gas. But first things first.
Call me a bleeding heart or whatever. I just feel for those people.



posted on Nov, 8 2002 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Yeah we'll feed them with all the Oil we buy at cheap prices.....selling in volume out weighs high pricing



posted on Nov, 8 2002 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Well spoken, sir, well spoken.

However, we Americans love shiny things like cars and other toys, if we had cheap fuel, don't you think we'd burn their oil a little too fast?



posted on Nov, 8 2002 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Yeah well that's when the arabs somehow get the Hydrogen Fuel Cell patent by the balls and become the worlds leading producers of that


Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Nov, 8 2002 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Seeing as we have the tech to establish alternate non-oil energy resources AND corner the global market on it, why do we continue to support the global old money families oil cabal?




posted on Nov, 8 2002 @ 07:16 PM
link   
That's a good question.

The only thing I can think of is so that every last cent can be squeezed out of one energy source before we move on to the next.



posted on Nov, 8 2002 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Hmm but what are the consequences of sucking the world dry of its second most abundant liquid? And converting it to a compound fairly harmful to the environment in many ways?

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Nov, 8 2002 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
Seeing as we have the tech to establish alternate non-oil energy resources AND corner the global market on it, why do we continue to support the global old money families oil cabal?


Excuse my skepticsm (I am the skeptic overlord), but what magic tech is this you speek of?



posted on Nov, 8 2002 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Hydrogen Fuel cells...there are already some prototypes and the best so far are of Japanese manufacture, simply because of the methods of operation they chose vs. Ford.

They are fast...about 70 + miles an hour so far tested...they don't have good range though yet...about 150 miles...however that is what they are finishing up on, is improving the range.

In Japan some places are already opening up Hydrogen fuel depots...for the anticipation of some commercial use of Hydrogen fuel celled vehicles.

The way it works is you have water...and through electrolysis you break the hydrogen bonds from the oxygens, pass both through this "filter" and as they pass through the Hydrogen is stripped of an electron, or maybe the electron just changes a quantum level, but either way some energy is produced and the H2 is recombined with the O so that the only exhaust is a small trickle of water.

I have heard of these many places but didn't know how far they were till I picked up a Discover (maybe National Geographic, but probably discover) magazine and read an article about a test drive around a track with 3 prototypes by 2 Japanese companies and Ford. I think one company was Honda and it was the best out there...best excelleration and such.

We could have had this technology MUCH earlier if the government would have granted money for it, but instead we had to let the measily individual corprorate budgets research it out...consequently slower.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Nov, 9 2002 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I dont think it is just about oil any more.
Other countries are just say they are with us but in fact they are not. Country depends on the poeple...TONY BLAIR can suk Bushs arse a thousand times but the people of England will still hate him..
People hate us for a reason..we, living in the US for so long are blinded by these phony Utopia the govt has made up for us..this system in which we are machines going about our daily lives...

Our foreign policy has ALWAYS SUKED..does anyone realize that...people should research on it more..

What we do to people when we go into their land and intervene is bad...i mean do we know what really goes on there?? Afghans will hate us for years to come..but is now controlled by us??
Can we not expect a uprising..we would but uh we killed so many of them that they submissed a long time ago.

Do you guys really remmeber the reason for bombing Afghanistan?? Was it a good enough reason..did we really AVOID civilian casualities.....???????????

OrionSirius



posted on Nov, 9 2002 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Orion while you are right about the foriegn policy being bad....I only agree because of what GW said...."Foriegn policy will be the death of this nation"
It does suck people should deal with it...and limit it, HOWEVER!

The Taliban deserved more than what it got, we should take those bastards at camp X and execute them like they executed their "prisoners" most of which political and theological prisoners.

But we couldn't do that, because it would be so public, and everyone would think us worse than hitler, but hey...we are only doing to them what they did to their subjugated nation.

Almost no one in afghanistan actually is a Taliban member, the Taliban is comprised almost entirely of foriegners.

It is like China destroying our government, and then chinese imigrants come to the nation where they are the military, the government, the school teachers...and if they had a religion, they would be the popes and bishops and clergy too...

The only reason we should not get involved over there is because it's going to go on and on. I said it once and I'll say it again.

As soon as we were attacked, we should have said, "It is obvious the world does not want us to police them. That is why we have decided to remove all troops from "hot" areas. Instead, we shall do something that the world can not refute...no one shall beable to say that WE are not just, that WE are not riteous. WE shall follow and LEAD our destiny, and the destiny of the world. WE shall go to Mars...blah blah". Good speech no? I just pulled that outta my arse, I'll have to work on it make it really good.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by William
Excuse my skepticsm (I am the skeptic overlord), but what magic tech is this you speek of?


Hey, a fellow New Yorker can ask me anything! Solar power can be used directly for heating and producing electricity or indirectly via biomass, wind, ocean thermal, and hydroelectric power. Energy from the gravititational field can be harnessed by tidal power; and the internal heat of the Earth can be tapped geothermally.
The ability to move beyond the combustion engine has been there for some time. These technologies are no long in their-calculator-as-big-as-a-living-room stage anymore, they are applicable.
Our energy consumption is an intentional carry over from the British Empire days, when these old money families which ALL oil companies can be traced back to, were established. The push back against adoption of innovation is solely due to the fact that they have tremendous influence ( they own our president!) and the money channels are worn as deep as cart tracks to Rome.
Once they can own the innovation, then we'll see movement......granted we'd be living in dome cities with air scrubbers, but hey, we'll bless them for their kindness!

'Traditional' Alternatives
Solar
Wind
Hydroelectric
Geothermal
Fuel Cells

Non Traditional
Cold Fusion
Magnetic

Speaking as a filthy capitalist, we would rule the world....in a good way!
But truth be told, I'm more concerned about the future of our water supply....we can wear breathing filters, but can't do without water.



posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 09:34 PM
link   
...and all the alternative energy sources mentioned above, combined, cannot replace oil at this time.

Solar energy is inefficient and unreliable, as is wind, unless you live in just the right place. Have you ever seen those massive wind mills in CA? I used to drive past them quite often - more of them than I can count, yet CA had an energy problem not too long ago, remember?

I've known people to use solar, and it isn't the peach of a deal my crystal-gazing Mary Moon-like 7th grade science teacher tried to make it sound.

I do agree with you on that water thing, B-T. It is a serious concern. Not only the streams, but the oceans. They are the world's sewr plants, they go bad and the worldly toilet backs up all over the place!



posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Hmm...solar energy can be much more effective than you give credit. Solar Ponds will work as long as it is not in a frozen waste land, using salt in water to create an effective heat sink, allowing the water at the bottom of the pool to become very hot, which can then be used to boil water in pipes to power turbines.

Oh and TC remember that Energy problem? Don't you remember, it was caused by Enron, basically Enron among other companies established a deal where Enron bought all of California's power, and then sold it back to them at a higher price, and diverted the rest as they wanted, all because of deregulation.

A windmill will rotate even in the slightest breeze, especially the newer ones that look like a big version of those little vertical pinweel toys.

Hmm are you sure that the people you know using solar, is solar POWER? I've not really known of many if anyone using solar power for their house...only solar panels to heat water for heating and hot water.

And back to solar, I'm sure with enough research we can find or make a material that can produce more energy than we currently have.

And tidal energy is nothing to sneeze at...that can really help replace oil.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Nov, 13 2002 @ 08:26 AM
link   
...like you can't step into a Feudal Shiekdom and implant Western Democracy & expect it to take root over night, so too do all those methods fail the immediate switch test. But given that our current energy policy was written void of input from experts in those fields, and that funding for government development of those technologies was cut under this administration, how will they come close to on par footing with ancient oil/combustion engine standards? The California energy shortage was the result of illegal price fixing.
The repeal/relaxing of corporate pollution regulations, coupled with an atmospheric 'drying out' is putting DRINKING water in scarce supply.
The President of the World Bank: "If the wars of this century were fought over oil, the wars of the next century will be fought over water."





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join