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.

 

Was the War in IRAQ all about Oil?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Full Story


WASHINGTON The controversial White House energy task force two years ago reviewed Iraqi oil-field maps and "foreign suitors for Iraqi oil-field contracts," reveal documents turned over under court order to a government watchdog group by a member of the task force.

Judicial Watch Inc. first requested the documents under the Freedom of Information Act in the spring of 2001, when Vice President Dick Cheney formed the secret task force. The public-interest law firm has battled the administration in federal court for the information ever since

I find it interesting that Cheney was looking at this in the spring of 2001
Makes you wonder




posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Yes and no.... It was really more about retaining the strength of the dollar vs. the euro, and to head off OPECs conversion to it, than the oil itself... That was simply a nice side effect....but a foreseen one. I don't think it was a big surprise in 2001 that an Iraqi war was inevitable.... After all, he'd (Saddam) been in violation of almost every UN mandate for 10 years by then....



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Indeed it was for econmic and political reasons, good and bad. There was a ligit reason for taking down Saddam which were that he violated 17 UN treaties (or what ever) and killed tens of thousands of political prisoners. However the other reasons were econmic, ie oil, euro v dollar ect. Another purpose was to have a stable, democratic, strong, westernized country; then there would be a domino effect which helped cause the down fall of the smaller Soviet-style 'republics'.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Yes and no.... It was really more about retaining the strength of the dollar vs. the euro, and to head off OPECs conversion to it, than the oil itself...


How come the dollar is still falling against the euro?



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 11:41 AM
link   
It was about oil and Israel.

If this war would have been about LIBERATION, don't you think the Pentagon would have had, oh I don't know, a POST WAR PLAN?!

"Gee fellas, if we're gonna go in there and liberate these poor Eye-Rackis from their terrible despot, shouldn't we plan on making sure that when Saddam is gone we can step in and ensure basic necessities like electricity and water and employment?"

That they didn't do this, that they ignored the widespread looting that went on in the days following the Invasion, shows that they don't give a rat's tookus about the people of Iraq, just their oil.

Things are STILL bad for average Iraqis, even after many many months. Had this been about saving Iraqis, there would have been a comprehensice post-war plan.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 11:42 AM
link   
By the way I do feel that Saddam needed to be ousted.
But, also thought this info was interesting none the less.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo

If this war would have been about LIBERATION, don't you think the Pentagon would have had, oh I don't know, a POST WAR PLAN?!




Well if it was about oil, don't you think that they would have had a POST WAR PLAN too?
There has to be stability for Iraq to be able to pump, refine and export it's oil.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 11:49 AM
link   
I belive the DOD, Bush and the other government guys had a post war plan, eather by (I hypothesize) letting the rampage of looting go on and then the rioting (not protests) would go down, or a real plan. I belive they had a real plan and the DoD was run by politicans, not the generals, and which let the # hit the fan.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 11:53 AM
link   
can you say caspian sea oil reserves...worth an estimated 4 to 7 trillion dollars, too bad russia slammed the door on the area.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Leveller: "Well if it was about oil, don't you think that they would have had a POST WAR PLAN too?
There has to be stability for Iraq to be able to pump, refine and export it's oil."


The only building that was protected during the invasion was theMinistry of Oil.

On CNN, they were announcing "The Southern Iraqi oilfields are secure!" even before Umm Qasr fell.

I'm sure most of the post-invasion oil plans went directly to corporations, with the help of all the oil people in the Bush Administration (from Cheney to Rice (who has an oil tanker named after her)).

They were even announcing they didn't want Saddam to burn his oil wells like last time, so they had to go in and SECURE oil wells before moving on.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 12:03 PM
link   
They secured the oil first so that Saddam didnt burn it, thereby distroying the enviroment, Iraq's economy ect.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 12:09 PM
link   
The US is currently not receiveing any oil from Iraq and those "oil fields". The oil pipe lines are being disrupted on an almost weekly basis.
If this war was about the oil, as many here deem it was, I would presume that those theories would be nullified by now with a few reasons:
* Russia has "clamped down" on the Caspian Sea route.
* The Afghanistan route is still under attack on an almost bi-weekly basis.
* The US is about to give control of Iraq back to its people and that includes the operations and productions fo those 'oil' fields back to Iraqi proposed state-oil companies and will be styled and run like those run and operated in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. In such, the Iraqis would be in control of their oil and not US oil compaines, etc.
* I would also imagine that with the current prices of oil, gas, and home heating oil currently in the US, that we must not have benefited CRAP from this "war for the OIL"!

Please....show me how the US has benefited from this "oil", that seemingly was the goal and purpose of this war......



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 16-1-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 12:12 PM
link   
I agree with Skeeerof. The war wasnt for oil, It may have been a factor back in the 1990s, and could be today but If that was so for the oil, we would be defending it better.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 12:35 PM
link   
taxman: Good one. Too bad the US gov doesn't give a crap about any environmental issues. Seeya Kyoto! Bye-bye Alaskan wildlife reserves!



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Its not the US soil through, thats why they did care.

However, the US does care about the enviroment, without the ozone, life would be intolerable, without the clean food sourse we couldnt leave.

Im curious why my second paragraph didnt come out in the first place.

[Edited on 16-1-2004 by Taxman]



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo

taxman: Good one. Too bad the US gov doesn't give a crap about any environmental issues. Seeya Kyoto! Bye-bye Alaskan wildlife reserves!





You working for an environmentalist group also Jak?

When it comes to the US, "everything" is just one big "condemnation" isn't it?


regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Seekerof: Nope. But in environmental issues, the US government is atrocious. The biggest polluter in the world.

That's not my opinion, it's fact.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Also the largest user of resources, also considered the most modern, also considered the greatest protector of Canadian sovereignty, also the greatest military power in the world, also the only superpower, also considered one of the most industrious....etc.
I also note that you have not mentioed Russia.



regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 01:05 PM
link   
One of the biggest reasons we went to war in Iraq was to keep OPEC in line. They are itching to switch their oil-trading currency to the EURO. If that happened, our economy would collapse. As long as we're sitting in the heart of OPEC, they will be hard-pressed to make that move.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 01:23 PM
link   
exactly how many reasons did the bush administration go through to justify this war? terrorism, wmd, iraqi freedom, blah blah blah.

the US has supported and continues to support regimes and countries that are just as bad as saddam.

and lets not forget all the shady business going on with halliburton, a company cheney used to run and still gets paid by...think it's a coincidence that they've contributed over 700,000 (95% to republicans) and now receive an open-ended contract to rebuild iraqi oil fields without a bidding process?

seems common sense isn't all that common.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join