John McCain admits that the iraq war is for oil

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on May, 15 2008 @ 07:48 AM
link   
hi i just finally signed up to this great site.
i came across at a youtube video of cnn news in witch John McCain said these exact words-

"which will eliminate our dependence of oil in the middle east that will then prevent us from having ever send our men and women into conflict again with the middle east"

hope you all find this interesting and here is the link to the video

www.youtube.com...




posted on May, 15 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   




Nice reading something into his words that was not there. I defy you to show where he said, "We are in Iraq for the oil". I mean there are some misinformed people around but doggone.......

We have had troops in the Middle East since World War II. Yes, we get a lot of oil from there...always have, even before we went into Iraq. But to say that is what he meant, is intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


I blame CNN for the misunderstanding. They were all too happy to jump on soundbyte idiot BS bandwagon that they completely missed the MEANING behind his words.

Clearly, the US does have military interests in the oil supply in the middle east. Only a fool would deny this. For this reason, as McCain indicates, the US will always have an interest in maintaining stability in the Middle East and that we will defend that interest if necessary, much like we did in 1991. And as he said, the only way that will ever stop is if we develop alternative fuel sources.

It was NOT specific to the Iraq War, but to the Middle East in general.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by madmax8
"which will eliminate our dependence of oil in the middle east that will then prevent us from having ever send our men and women into conflict again with the middle east"

hope you all find this interesting



Yes thanks for posting, I did find this interesting. Regardless of what he tried to explain he meant afterwards, I find these words very clear and concise.

He says that eliminating our dependance of oil in the middle east WILL prevent us from being in a conflict in the middle east again - I don't see how you can make it any plainer. Those words actually say that if we weren't dependant on oil in the Middle East we wouldn't be there - peroid. That is what it says. Did he mean it that way? Who knows, but the way it was said, nothing but our oil dependance is putting us there.

Very interesting. I really wish he hadn't backtracked on it afterwards trying to explain what he was refering to. I really wish someone would just admit it and stick to it. I just want the truth.

On the other hand, if that is not what he really meant, then his statement becomes entirely false because he is promising that we won't have to be there because he will make us no longer dependant on Mid-East oil.

No matter how you slice it we got a problem here. He should have just stuck to his guns, because the backtracking (saying the statement is false) makes the promise false.

So which is it? They can't both be true.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
if you check cnn today it shows mccain predicting that the troops will be out of iraq in 2013 after the 2012 in witch so many changes may come



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 11:20 PM
link   
it sounds like he was talking to his buddies, not citizens. maybe in his close friendly conversations its normal to talk like they all know we aint there for wmb's but really for oil and military real estate .
what are his open ended promises to get us off the black gold so we dont have to go to war in the middle east again?




new topics
top topics
 
1

log in

join