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.

 

The only reason is oil

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Well people i know that this is mostly opinion and that is all opinions are (just view points). If there was no oil in iraq there would have been know action taken... it is not about freedom mr. Bush. it is not about saving theese people from husseins tyranny.... it certainly is not about weapons of mass destruction...only weapon of mass destruction in reality is long range icbm's
if there was no oil there .. no war would have happened
i can stomach us going to war a lot easier if the truth be told and not all this flag waving garbage propaganda that the administration wants to shove down the americans throats... please tell the truth......




posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Such is the fact of life money, oil, and global power corrupt our officials. this will never change.



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 03:06 PM
link   
It was always about the oil....if it wasn't then why would there even be a war? It wasn't about freeing the people it was about freeing the oil. I mean, because this really popped out of nowhere, I mean it was like Osama this, Osama that, we will find Osama! then it changed to Saddam this, Saddam that, we will catch Saddam! I don't know why but it just seems that way.

When they finly "cought" him, the war should have been over then and there if it was to free the people. But it still is carying on out there. And Bush will keep sending more and more troops out there even though the only thing they are going out there for is to kill inocent people, find non-exsistant WMDs and the oil. It's sad really....

[Edited on 17-2-2004 by Curiosity]



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I disagree. While I also believe that the war was not fought for the freedom of Iraq and it's people, I think the main reason was that Saddam tried to kill the other George Bush, W's father, while he was president. So this is sort of like a family feud.



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 03:08 PM
link   
...sadly enough I believe that to be the case



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 03:12 PM
link   
*Pretends to be on Family Feud*

Q. What was the reasoning behind the Iraq invasion?

A. Ummmm.... Oil currency!

Lets see if you got it right...survey says!

*#1 category flips over and reveals "oil currency"*

You did it! You won! Wooo!

www.ratical.org...


(Had this been an actual Family Feud, the survey would have been polled by standard morons who would have said WMD, terrorism, and removing Saddam because he was a bad man.)

[Edited on 17-2-2004 by heelstone]



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curiosity
When they finly "cought" him [Saddam], the war should have been over then and there if it was to free the people. But it still is carying on out there.

unfortunately, that it how things work. u cannot just pull out of a place, and leave everything there to its own accord. in doing so, all u achieve is setting a country further back, and taking out a guy who was getting old. someone else will step in.
as for the war itself, i think there were a number of factors. oil was one of them. so was freeing people, so was sending a message, so was the image, so was the vendeta, and so was actually getting smart. whatever you say, u must admit that this war improved the lives of the iraqi people, and it is for that reason that it was a success.
if we complain that he traded their 'democratic' gains for our economic collapse, well, thats even greedier than fighting for oil. i wud think that above all, saving and improving lives wud come before buying a second or third pair of shoes.



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Can you tell me who gave the auto industry its largest grant ever to create fuel cells by 2010? Can you tell me what happens when fuel cells become reliable and can you tell me why oil would be so importaint after fuel cells have been created?



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 03:31 PM
link   
I agree, we had no interest in the entire region until oil was discovered and commercially produced after wwII. Now in order to maintain your fine(mine too) lifestyle it is strategically vital that the region be brought under control directly or indirectly.
Lamenting the fact we are over there is extremely hypocritical by anyone in the western hemisphere enjoying the fruits of this policy.
The reason that politicians come up with any other excuse besides "we are after the oil" is the simple fact that the "public" can not handle the truth.



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Pheonix, ever think the reason we became allies after WWII with so many middle eastern countries is because they allowed us a beneficial location in protecting democracy from being overtaken by the Big Red machine and the communism that swept across Eastern Europe? Remember the Iron curtain, the point were we wouldnt let communism cross....It was in our strategic and national interest to stop the spread of communism and keep the western portion of Europe safe. And this was done by alliances with countries in the region.

[Edited on 17-2-2004 by Dreamz]



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dreamz
Can you tell me who gave the auto industry its largest grant ever to create fuel cells by 2010? Can you tell me what happens when fuel cells become reliable and can you tell me why oil would be so importaint after fuel cells have been created?


I can - Plastic, synthetic rubber, medicines, heating oil, lubrication, chemical production, paints, glue and myriad other manufactured products.



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by BangorangRufio
I disagree. While I also believe that the war was not fought for the freedom of Iraq and it's people, I think the main reason was that Saddam tried to kill the other George Bush, W's father, while he was president. So this is sort of like a family feud.


I can believe that the war was about monkey feces mroe than I can beleive that. Sure, it may have been in the back of his mind, but I doubt he'd go to war over a pretty crappy attempt on his father's life.



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Blaming the U.S. constituency over something that the oil companies have forced us into accepting as our requirements for fuel for our daily lives isn't correct. Time and again, new oil alternatives have been found and time and again they have been bought by big oil and suppressed. If this wasn't the case, we would have had competing fuel alternatives and vehicles that accepted it for a while now.

Fact is that oil currency was the reason. Our nation and others have regrettably based their currency pricing for a large part on the oil market, and if the U.S. dollar slips from being the #1 used currency for this trade, we would be in very big trouble economically. Its already getting that way anyway. The Iraq invasion simply staved it off a bit longer.

[Edited on 17-2-2004 by heelstone]



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Bush 1.7 billion with aims at 2020, GM on hand has turned around and said they will have 1 million hybrid cars done by 2007 and hopes to have full implementation of fuel cells by 2010, 2015 at the latest.



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Heelstone nailed it, totally with the oil currency bit. He's right, if the countries of the world convert their OPEC oil reserve currency into euro's from the American dollar, the American economy will collapse. Saddam "sealed his fate" when (in 2000 I think) converted his oil reserve fund of 10 billion dollars into Euro's. After that slap in the face, Bush was gonna kick some ass... He just needed Thee Perfect Reason to start up the whole war machine and go set an example to any other oil rich countries who might think of converting their reserve funds from dollars to euro's. The "key to the ignition" so to speak occured in fall 2001...



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dreamz
Pheonix, ever think the reason we became allies after WWII with so many middle eastern countries is because they allowed us a beneficial location in protecting democracy from being overtaken by the Big Red machine and the communism that swept across Eastern Europe? Remember the Iron curtain, the point were we wouldnt let communism cross....It was in our strategic and national interest to stop the spread of communism and keep the western portion of Europe safe. And this was done by alliances with countries in the region.

[Edited on 17-2-2004 by Dreamz]


Yes, Turkey was a frontline allie more or less without oil, but all the rest of the middle eastern countries were oil producers and it would have been disasterous to not have prevented the Big Red Machine from taking control of that oil.
As far as western europe is concerned a face to face military stand-off backed up by nuclear weapons was what prevented that region from being taken over, sure you can't completly de-couple both areas all-together because of resource and manpower drain - at the same time one can't say a policy of making allies in the middle east to protect our oil interest prevented the invasion of western europe.



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 04:19 PM
link   
I've noticed that many here believe that fuel cells or the release of hidden tech by the oil companies is the majic bullet thats going to cure all of our problems including the oil currency issue, but I beg to differ.

Some questions need to answered before I can say problem solved.
1. how much oil is used in the manufacturing sector vs. tranportation.
2. Even if fuel cell or other means of energy is available - how long would conversion take and what would it cost. Answer to this question is important because we may have to maintain current policy for decades no matter how unpalatible it is politically.
3. If more or less renewable (or free) energy is available would the ensuing availability of funds dramatically increase the non-tranportation (manufacting sector) use's of petroleum to feed the consumer demand for new products.

I'm gonna try to find the answers, but if any of you do first I'd like to know.



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Once again Dreamz you have demonstrated just how dumb you are.

I think you should read what Heelstone wrote again, take notes.



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by heelstone
Blaming the U.S. constituency over something that the oil companies have forced us into accepting as our requirements for fuel for our daily lives isn't correct. Time and again, new oil alternatives have been found and time and again they have been bought by big oil and suppressed. If this wasn't the case, we would have had competing fuel alternatives and vehicles that accepted it for a while now.

Fact is that oil currency was the reason. Our nation and others have regrettably based their currency pricing for a large part on the oil market, and if the U.S. dollar slips from being the #1 used currency for this trade, we would be in very big trouble economically. Its already getting that way anyway. The Iraq invasion simply staved it off a bit longer.

[Edited on 17-2-2004 by heelstone]


Thank you Heelstone. In fact, I want to add this note again. The truth is we have the techonology to rid the world of fossil fuels. The reason the U.S. government is demanding the oil over there is to make sure the people of the world don't know that they have alternate energy source.

www.seaspower.com...

So the fact that we're over there fighting for oil is pointless. We don't need oil. Yet, innocent people are dying because of it. How rediculous. The U.S. government doesn't care. There only concern is to make sure the world doesn't know they have a means to get rid of fossil fuels. Why?

1. Money
2. Power
3. Greed



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeHeadR
Once again Dreamz you have demonstrated just how dumb you are.

I think you should read what Heelstone wrote again, take notes.


Im dumb because I dont believe it was about oil?? Ever think of adding discussion to a thread instead of trying to bash someone when you put a two line sentence referring someone elses knowledge?

Sorry I dont believe anyone is hiding anything about alternative fuel sources, the fact is it will cost a arm and a leg and take years to implement. If anyone thinks it will happen overnight you are fooling yourselves. Factories, planes, cars, trains, stoves and just about a million other products will all have to be redesigned. Steps are being taken as we speak to implement these very ideas.

If you want to call me dumb because I dont believe in the conspiracy of it being about oil, then fine.....so be it. But your ignorant comments arent very productive to adding anything worthwhile to the topic.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join