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.

 

If Bush Cared About Oil

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 10:24 PM
link   
A number of people today believe that Bush, while not a saint, is merely performing a necessary evil in the middle east to secure the oil which Americans find so vital to our livelihood and economy.


If Bush was worried about the security of the oil that America depends on so much, let's think about the amount of money that has been spent on attempting to make it secure:

$500 Billion so far in Iraq. And those are just the direct costs. Many people are estimating that it will cost several trillion in the long run indirectly.

Would most Americans say that our oil supplies are any more secure 5 years after the start of the Iraq war? Are our gas prices still low enough for Americans to afford them?


Another option might have been considered:

The money could be used to install 500,000 wind turbines generating 1 megawatt each all over the United States.

The electricity generated by this wind power alone could save 7.8 billion barrels of oil per year. The US imports 20.7 million barrels per day, so a whole year of imports would equal 7.5 billion barrels.


In other words, the cost of the war in Iraq has already exceeded the cost of providing enough clean, renewable electricity to the United States to reduce our oil imports DOWN TO ZERO!


Surely this option must have been considered by our government, and yet they chose war. So what is really motivating these guys?




posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 10:39 PM
link   
its my opinion that its all about money. true, the amount of money spent far exceeds any amount of money gained, but the money theyre spending is all TAXPAYER money, while the money being gained is all going to him and his friends in the industry. he doesnt care even a little for the american people and their well being or livelihood, only for lining his and his friends pockets.

of course, i think there are also political/power factors at play here, too, but i dont understand them well enough to comment.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 11:24 PM
link   




Surely this option must have been considered by our government, and yet they chose war. So what is really motivating these guys?


No-bid contracts to their buddies.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 12:04 AM
link   
I think it's less about US consumers having access to oil than it is about the price of oil on the futures market. Why would right-wing choirboy Pat Robertson threaten Hugo Chavez if Venezuela is the fourth-largest supplier of oil to the United States?

After all, internal combusion engines are only 30% efficient at best, meaning, 70% of the energy you buy as gasoline is wasted. If "our leaders" were really interested in securing America's energy needs, they'd be investing a whole lot more of our resources investigating engine designs that give consumers more bang for the buck.


[edit on 19-11-2007 by America Jones]



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 12:32 AM
link   
I think you're missing the whole point.

It's not about having access to affordable oil, it's about having access to it period. Fact is, if it weren't America it would be China. I'll tell you this, if China had beat the U.S to the punch, I think we all would be in trouble.



[edit on 19-11-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
I think you're missing the whole point.

It's not about having access to affordable oil, it's about having access to it period. Fact is, if it weren't America it would be China. I'll tell you this, if China had beat the U.S to the punch, I think we all would be in trouble.



[edit on 19-11-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]


China does not have the logistical ability to invade Iraq.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 12:39 AM
link   
As someone who has actually been to China, I can tell you that they are not what most think they are. They're not some third world country...



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth
 


i agree.. it's about "getting there first", landing the troops and then defending it when China comes for it... imagine if China controled the American energy supply as well as the economy! America better hope that Walmart stays in business or the US is in big trouble...

it's also about protecting Israel...



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
As someone who has actually been to China, I can tell you that they are not what most think they are. They're not some third world country...


I never said they were. What I said is, they don't have the logistical capability to invade Iraq. The rail lines both inside and outside of their nation don't run the right way for it, nor do they have the necessary escorts for their merchant-marine, if they wanted to do it that way.

Logistics has ALWAYS been the bogeyman of the Chinese military, because their leadership tries to replace infrastructure with "fighting spirit", which is - of course - bull#.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by never_tell
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth
 


i agree.. it's about "getting there first", landing the troops and then defending it when China comes for it... imagine if China controled the American energy supply as well as the economy! America better hope that Walmart stays in business or the US is in big trouble...

it's also about protecting Israel...


I wouldn't be surprised if they renamed "Walmart" to "Chinamart", lol.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   
The most brutal conflicts in the near future are going to be motivated not by access to energy, but to physical materials. Think water and copper. The Earth is constantly being bombarded with energy from the sun, but we have a fixed quantity of stuff. If we didn't rely on inefficient internal combustion engines and had an effective system of mass transit, there'd be plenty of oil to go around. Because the internal combustion engine is only 30% efficient, 70% of the energy bought in the form of gasoline is wasted. Americans don't have to drive as much. You ever notice during rush hour, when cars are stopped up on the freeway, how many people are sitting alone in their SUV during their two-hour commute? It's wastefulness piled upon wastefulness.

A lot of social Darwinists like to talk about things in terms of competition, but they don't often talk about cooperation. Survival of the fittest doesn't always mean competition, sometimes it means symbiosis.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   
I think it has more to do with having access to the oil. The government doesn't care about average Joe American, and what he is paying for gas. Solar and wind power is not going to fuel the fighter planes and tanks. Oil is the best way to make jet fuel after all. What's a few more dollars out of the tax payers pockets to ensure they can continue to fuel the war machine. The oil isn't for you, it's for them, and they don't care how much it costs, were the ones paying for it.

[edit on 19-11-2007 by b309302]



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by dionysius9
 


What you've outlined is true, but you've missed the most important point of economic imperalism. A Capitalist state will spend any ammount of public funds in order to secure private wealth

It may cost the public treasury hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars to wage this war, but the benefits, the financial returns goes right into the pockets of private corporations and bankers. Its a complete upwards redistribution of wealth, one of the biggest rip offs since the Savings and Loan scandals of George Sr's day.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by InSpiteOf
 




You've got that right.

Are the rest of us fed up yet?



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by dionysius9
 


heh, im not even a US citizen (im Canadian) and I want change!

I cant speak for everyone else on this thread, but im pretty sure speaker of truth wants change...mind you, he and I disagree on what that change should be, but thats not important.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 03:28 AM
link   
If there was no oil in Iraq we wouldnt be there.....



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Okay, you've throw the for oil theory aside for yourself.

'Training' military forces - Why are the Americans considered the most powerful nation? They project ALOT of power and have just as much experiance!

Research & testing technology for the modern requirements of urban & land warfare. Quite handy if you plan on becomming a 'police state'


New tactics - Yes, new scenarios are happening in Iraq and Afghanistan that can further improve the future effectiveness of military options and or martial law/NWO scenarios.



Culling 'Islamic-ness', Training your forces, Getting new technology and holding natural resources?

PRICELESS



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sentinel 1
If there was no oil in Iraq we wouldnt be there.....


There are only a few logical options without going into the conspiracy side of it all.

1. Bush and Co. is actually there in the interest of the Iraq people and to help secure the Middle East (and the oil fields) as they feel is the best way.

2. Bush and Co. see democracy in Iraq as the true fight against terrorism by going after it at its heart and changing this very impeded ideology at the root of it all.

3. Totally orchestrated this war with a pure profit interest with no regards to anyone or anything but the bottom line of making a buck.

That is about it. We could go into NWO etc, but at this time that is not a really worthwhile choice. The big thing here is if Bush was only worried about the price of oil it would had been much better to make a deal with Saddam to get our oil cheap and we would look the other way.

In this case there would be zero money spent and we would have oil still at 25 bucks a barrel. I personally feel he is on a higher cause than making money because most politicians and other world leaders see money as not their motivation in life, but power is. Even Saddam had the chance to leave in the first 48 hours and live a life that was powerless but with most likely billions and he choose power over that.


[edit on 22-11-2007 by Xtrozero]



new topics




 
2

log in

join