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.

 

Those who thought the Iraq war wasn't for OIL

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 11:35 PM
link   
I've always wondered, why not just send in a team of special ops slit the guys throat and bam... mission completed, Saddams outta there.

Look at all the resources and man power used to do what could of been done much simpler and cheaper, yeah I would say there is more to it than "Liberation fo the Iraqi people"




posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Lets all take a deep breathe for a second and look at this Iraq war. The US is currently in full control of Iraq as we speak. They must be thinking to themselves right now that nothing can stop them.........they our in control of everything in Iraq from government to oil. Its really mind boggling that the world has allowed this to happen! Its also a very scary thought knowing they realize they our unstoppable.

When Saddam invaded Kuwait for Oil, the world came together to stop the tyrant. The same procedure should of aroused when the United States invaded Iraq. I don't see any difference between terrorists and the American government. They both force their beliefs on citizens, and they both use violence to carry out their message.



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 12:19 PM
link   
why is everyone getting the knickers in a twist over the reasons for going to war? i dont think theres been a straight forward reason for going to war on any occasionin history, so why start now? i mean, whydid britain fight so hard to keep the Falkland islands? cos we need the wool from the sheep? no, it gives us a claim to the mineral deposites in the Antarctic! we didnt declare war on the nazis cos we liked the Polish so much did we?

i was part of the fight in Iraq, i was also employed on operations in the northern no fly zone before hand, and i didnt do it cos i believed we wanted the oil! it's not about oil. im not naive enough to belive it has no bearing whatsoever, but its not the main concern. iraq will be handed back, and the western countries who helped to liberate iraq will gain revenue from the oil, in return for services to the country. they will have state of the art commuinications, banking construction, everything a nation wants, and it will be payed for by the oil. but thats what its there for. britain produces things and sells to other countries for money, as does the US and every other country in the world. thats how it works! every other oil producing nation in the middle east does the same thing. they get western companies in to prvide them with support for their Millitaries, construction, legal, medical, aerospace etc and they pay them in oil. it will be no different in Iraq. the only contentious point is that the americans gain more from it than anyone else. well, so they should they are putting the most into it, they've lost the most, and i agree that no country outside of the coalition will be awarded contracts. the french can go an whistle for their money, they can just wait in line. they didnt help, so they can wait. everyone makes the US to be the bad guy when it comes to Arming Iraq. well, since 1990, the russians chinese and other russian equiment users, along with the FRENCH have been keeping them armed, not the Americans, so if you want a western country to blame for it, blame the French.

As for the plans of the US to invade the oil producing nations of the Middle East, there is no need for them to do that now. most of the countries are allies with the US so theres no need to sieze their oil, they give it to them anyway.



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 12:31 PM
link   
If this war was for oil.....please explain where the US and allies are currently benefiting from 'that' oil......?
I haven't seen a price in gas drop yet, nor have I seen a drop in home heating oil, etc.
Are many of you just indicating that the US and allies are just 'holding on' to the oil or Iraq just so it can be one huge oil reserve? Just what is the benefit of that....especially since the Iraqis will be gaining full control of thier country come summer of 2004.
Oil?
Even the NWO knows it not about oil......



regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Even the NWO knows it not about oil......



regards
seekerof


Yes the NWO isn't just about oil, but the NWO is about world domination. Now what is the natural resource that if you our in control of gives you extreme power and influence?

..........exactly



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Seekerof You really think the big oil companies will lower our gas prices? Maybe closer to November they will but not until then. If we the people actually benefited from the Iraq war it would be harder to be against it,



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Seeker's point was the NWO knows the WAR isn't about oil. I fear you misunderstood him to say the NWO wasn't just about oil.

I have to agree that there is ZERO genuine evidence that oil had anything to do with this war.

So far we have spent $85,000,000,000.00 on this war. With oil at $30.00 (+ or - a buck or two) a barrel we could have bought A WHOLE of oil from the Saudis without haveing a war.

To say that we "holding" the country until we can exploit the oil reserves doesn't add up either since we are handing it over to the Iraqis in the summer.

This sort of speculation has been bantied about since the first shot was fired last spring. To date ALL of the reality of the situation in Iraq points to the exact OPPOSITE being true.

PEACE...
m...



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
If this war was for oil.....please explain where the US and allies are currently benefiting from 'that' oil......?


"Iraq is important to world energy markets because it holds more than
112 billion barrels of oil - the world's second largest reserves. Iraq also
contains 110 trillion cubic feet of gas."
[ US Government's Country Analysis Brief on Iraq, December 1999. ]

www.thedebate.org...



The president, vice-president, commerce secretary and national security adviser all have strong ties to the oil industry.

Vice-President Dick Cheney amassed some 50m-$60m while he was chief executive of Haliburton oil company.

Commerce Secretary Donald Evans held stock valued between $5m and $25m in Tom Brown Inc, the oil and gas exploration company he headed



"What makes the new Bush administration different
from previous wealthy cabinets is that so many of
the officials have links to the same industry - oil."


news.bbc.co.uk...

With the worlds oil supplies running low I would have thought that America, and especially it's wealthy leaders, could benefit from incredible amount of oil in Iraq. Seeing as it is clear that there was no real threat posed by Saddam on an international scale, what else can you think of that would drive America to war? I sure as hell don't think Bush and his cronies were that bothered about the suffering of the Iraqi people under Saddam.

It was the same in the pervious gulf war


The conclusions of those proceedings in 1991 (in which the defendants were found "guilty") stated:

"We believe that the real goal of the United States war against Iraq is to return to the "good old days" when the US and some European countries totally plundered the resources of the Middle East.

"While the big oil companies have a going partnership with the feudal rulers of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates etc, they are relatively locked out of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Yemen and Algeria."



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   
the oil reserves of the world are not running out as quickly as you lot seem to think. when an oil field is tapped, only about 10% of the oil in the field is able to be extracted. once this is removed the well is capped. and later when the technology for removing the oil is improved the well will be reopened and the oil will be extracted untill they reach the limits of the technology again, at which point the procedure will happen again.



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 06:51 PM
link   
First of all let me quote that old saying,
"Wars are waged for two reasons, profit and religion."

How anyone could overlook not only the size of the oil companies but also our current Chief's ties as well as his squad mates ties to the oil industries. It would seem pretty obvious that Afghanistan and Iraq was all about oil, however I dont see a lot of profit coming from Iraq's oil yet.

Yes Halliburton is a major player over in Iraq right now which would lead me to be quite skeptical of our motives, but as stated above I havent seen them securing oil fields and selling said oil at their benefit. That's not to say that they won't, but we will just have to wait and see.

The thing that bothers me the most is even if they did start to build a pipeline or start procuring Iraq's oil for their own gain, would anyone care except for the few of us that have some sense? I have heard many people say that we should bomb entire towns for every few soldiers that are hit by a car bomb, isn't that genocide? And the scary part is, that's the majority of Americans who think this way.



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Grabbing Iraq or parts of the middle east is part of the peak oil problem. Obviously the world is quickly running out of the black stuff and well it would be silly to have whats left getting into the hands of ANYONE but yourselves. Think of the consequences of running a military for example, if you don`t have any fuel then they are pretty expensive and quite rubbish. Therefore if you want to keep on attacking people after the oil goes then it makes sense to have the country with the biggest amount sat under it. Saudi is a dicatorship but aslong as its US friendly then the US won`t complain.

The funny stuff would be working out what pretext they could come up with if god forbid they had elections in Saudi and voted for the non US backed side! there would be hell to pay!

Also, this is what I have wondered for a long time!

Why is it the american right to have cheap oil ? yeah great when it was coming out of Texas, all the oil you can dream off, but when your having to import the stuff like everyone else, why do the amerian people think its some sort of right? Think how many people will have to live in poverty, misery or have been killed by big oil just to get it the the american pumps cheap!

I live in the UK, which as most people should know has the highest fuel prices in europe, if not one of the higher in the world, so our great relationship with the USA hasn`t paid off that well for us, I`m not sure what exactly we get for our "special relationship" ( apart from early missle warning stations which don`t actually protect us from attack ! yeaaah! I like that one ).

"From the wilderness" has some excellent articles about Peak Oil, I suggest everyone read up on it, it bring in the war on terror and the invasion of oil important countries into context. They say that the value of control of the oil is worth $5 Trillion, so what they are spending in Iraq is justified in the minds of those in CONTROL. ( whoever they are ).

Just think what $90 billion could do for people in the US or the UK! We can`t even have a train service which works!




[Edited on 3-1-2004 by eRnie]



posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Since many that have responded to my comments have and do use this source, I will post the information that is given by that very same source:

" DEBUNKING THE MYTH THAT ILLUMINIST GOVERNMENTS OF THE WORLD ARE IN MIDDLE EAST NOW JUST BECAUSE OF "BIG OIL" INTERESTS"
"Subtitle: Many people who know that a conspiracy exists that is planning a global government, economy, and religion are nevertheless duped into thinking that Big Oil interests are driving the current action in the Mideast.

Link:
www.cuttingedge.org...


Might want to read it...enlightening though I am sure, that it will be dismissed because it is counter-productive to what you already believe is correct....



regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 02:04 PM
link   
i like this seekerof person! a voice of reason in an sea of decenters and and people who just can see past the end of their own noses!

keep up the good work seekerof, and i'll hope to get some back up from you in the future!



posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 02:26 PM
link   
I don't see how many of you don't understand. this How could this war not involve oil interests? The Bush administration is run and financed by people in the oil business. Iraq is the second biggest oil reserve in the world. There were no WMD's and no threat posed by Saddam, which the U.K and U.S knew, so why else? It was the oil ministry's that the American forces guarded first when they invaded.



posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 02:27 PM
link   
the war with iraq was not for oil, it was to disarm a insane dictaror who violates human rights and violates treaties. Ironicly there are gas sortages in baghdad.



posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Earthtone:
"It was the oil ministry's that the American forces guarded first when they invaded."

You are correct in one measure but I, in my honest opinion, and not trying to say that you are wrong, but you may be wrong in the other measure. I feel that such action was due to the major fact that just what 'exactly' would constitute the Iraqis ability to reconstruct themselves, and would be there future of main money revenue? The oil fields, etc.
Is it so far beyond anyone to think that the coalition knew this, planned for it, all for the future betterment of Iraq? Besides sand and dates, just what exactly is the major source of Iraqi revenue in this world of economics? Oil! What resource will carry the new Iraqi government and citizens into the future? Oil. What is the sustaining resource that the Iraqis rely to rebuild there nation and again, carry them into the future? Oil.



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 4-1-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Earthtone:
"It was the oil ministry's that the American forces guarded first when they invaded."

You are correct in one measure but I, in my honest opinion, and not trying to say that you are wrong, but you may be wrong in the other measure. I feel that such action was due to the major fact that just what 'exactly' would constitute the Iraqis ability to reconstruct themselves, and would be there future of main money revenue? The oil fields, etc.

[Edited on 4-1-2004 by Seekerof]


This is true, but why do you think that Bush and the administration gives a # about Iraq? Why are you being so naive. You may well be right as Iraq's oil will be a key part of it's reconstruction as has been seen with all the oil for food trading. I just don't see why, after it has been completely maintained that Iraw did not have a serious WMD program ,( which was the primary goal of the invasion of Iraq) an expensive invasion of Iraq would be a good idea. Especially with the economy and Americandebt situations. The only rational answer is oil.



posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Iraq is only a small part in the business of securing future oil interests. The idea in invading Iraq is not to directly control and profit from Iraqs oil, merely to create a stable and reliable supplier. The U.S is still quite prepared to pay for it. Also when the oil industry in Iraq is properly back up and running it will be running at a far higher rate of production than it ever was under Saddam.

I've said it before, but the main target of all of this is the Central Asian 'Stans and the Caspian sea. A global battle for control over its resources has been being fought for quite a while now, the main players being the U.S, Russia, and China. There are many others demanding a share, including Iran. Japan is also in there battling with China. Russia is in the driving seat having the main control over the regions and its a battle the U.S appears to be losing.

Part of the battle is the location and direction of supplying pipelines. Americas favoured route for it's pipeline is through Afghanistan, which they tried and failed to arrange with the Taliban which some say was the reason for it's invasion though they have had a lot of trouble getting it off the ground and have, probably meanwhile, gone with a different (or perhaps forced into) option of investing in Russia with the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, completed in 2001. Which could be looked at as investment, or Russia getting their own way.

The official U.S view of the Caspian and the pipeline route problems

Presidential quote on the completion of the CPC:



I congratulate Russia, Kazakhstan, and Oman, and their consortium partners, for the commissioning of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC). U.S. firms, notably ChevronTexaco and ExxonMobil, have played leading roles in this project. These facilities represent the culmination of years of effort. They are examples to the world that the United States, Russia, and Kazakhstan are cooperating to build prosperity and stability in this part of the world.

The CPC highlights the important progress by countries in the Caspian region in building a transparent and stable environment for international trade and investment. The CPC project also advances my Administrations National Energy Policy by developing a network of multiple Caspian pipelines that also includes the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan, Baku-Supsa, and Baku-Novorossiysk oil pipelines and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline. These projects will help diversify U.S. energy supply and enhance our energy security, while supporting global economic growth.

www.whitehouse.gov...


US Gov fact sheet on the CPC:



While in Russia in October of this year, U.S. Commerce Secretary Don Evans joined government and business leaders to welcome the announcement that the first tanker loaded with oil from the Caspian Pipeline Consortium departed the port of Novorossiysk. "It tells the world that the United States, Russia, and Central Asian states are cooperating to build prosperity and stability in this part of the world," Evans said.

The Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) is a $2.6 billion project consisting of a 935-mile crude oil pipeline that runs from the Tengiz oil field in Kazakhstan to the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiysk. Construction on the CPC pipeline began in 1999. It is a key East-West pipeline that will carry oil from the Caspian Sea region to international markets.

The CPC project is the largest, single United States investment in Russia. U.S. companies, including ChevronTexaco and ExxonMobil, have contributed nearly one-half of the $2.6 billion investment.

Initial capacity of the pipeline will be over 500,000 barrels per day, and is expected to reach to about 1.4 million barrels per day by 2015.

The CPC project advances the Administration's National Energy Policy by diversifying our States energy supply (thereby enhancing our energy security) and by supporting global economic growth. It also highlights the Caspian-region countries' progress towards establishing a transparent and stable environment for international trade and investment.

www.whitehouse.gov...

The amount the CPC project produces is small compared the Caspians full potential. The battle continues.

The area is equally important to China as the U.S, although China would appear to be a better position due to its relations with Russia. The importance of Central Asia to China

This is only a small part of what analysts have labelled the 'Great New Game'. Any search on the Caspian brings up headache inducing amounts of info on the workings of each of the players. This is a good small description of Americas part the 'Great New Game' taken from a book of the same name:
www.guardian.co.uk...

This is a thread of mine on the Stans and some of the other goings on there:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join