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.

 

Kucinich: 'We went to war for the oil companies'

page: 2
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Dan Tanna
 


You have a lot of "It depends" in your answer, Dan Tanna. Maybe because your own Depends are full of it?


I can sit and talk all day long about war. It's my right. So can an oil exec.

And btw, the name is jsobecky.




posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 


You can cry and moan about the cruelties of war all night long. You can gnash your teeth and tear your garments in outrage and despair. You can try to deflect the argument onto me all you want.

When you cannot accept a fact, when it tears your fragile little world down and makes you cry like a child, then I pity you.

Fact is, no laws were broken. Deal with it.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   
I've heard a few people say, "if we went to war for oil, then why is it so expensive?"

Well, as with all monopolies, if you corner the market, you dictate the prices.

Why would they drop the prices? They're making a mint off the high prices, and there's no-one in a position to compete against them.


What, you thought if they had full control, they'd save you money out of kindness? Pffft. You're living in a dream world.


I remember there being two options for pipelines to ensure easy access, one of the pipelines could run through Afghanistan... the other through Iran.

Afghanistan is conquered.
Iran is on the tables.
and the oil fields of Iraq are now under control as well.

I've never had any doubt the war was for oil. We've been saying this ever since the cards were on the table for the invasion of Iraq.

For some reason, people are shocked to hear it.


Your sons, daughters, friends, and loved ones all died, not so you could fill your tank... but so the oil companies could get more money while you do it.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by mental modulator
 


You can cry and moan about the cruelties of war all night long. You can gnash your teeth and tear your garments in outrage and despair. You can try to deflect the argument onto me all you want.

When you cannot accept a fact, when it tears your fragile little world down and makes you cry like a child, then I pity you.

Fact is, no laws were broken. Deal with it.


Im sure treason, bribery, or money laundering would be 3 laws I would try first. But because we will never get all the facts it would be near impossible to prosecute and made even harder because congress will not even investigate. Your right in the sense is a law will not be broken if the sain you havent broken a law if you have not been caught rule is in effect. The fact is with all the facts Im sure all of the above can and would be proved among much more.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by jhill76
 


Let's assume for a minute that what Kucinich says is true.

That a group of oil execs met with Cheney and discussed invading Iraq.

So what? What law was broken? It sounds like they were just exercising their First Amendment rights.

If "pushing war" is a crime, then why isn't "pushing for peace"?

Kucinich is a moonbat. He's tilting at windmills, as usual. He should go play with his BigWheels in the driveway.


It's quotes like this that solidify my belief that there should be two Americas.

I'm just saying...


AAC



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Jsobecky is right, no laws were broken. It is all speculative otherwise.

Iraq is their own sovereign nation now based on the US Constitution. The US can only provide influence, but Iraq is free to do as they please with their Oil and otherwise.

No pipelines are going or have gone down in Afghanistan in the last 5 years, that should answer your question.


Iraq could give all their Oil to Iran and there wouldn't be a thing the US could do about it. All the US can do is make favorable suggestions.

Saddam did have WMD and cleaned up with an Exit Strategy with Russia's help. Saddam had a year to do it and got it done before the US got there.




[edit on 29-6-2008 by jetxnet]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by jhill76
 


Let's assume for a minute that what Kucinich says is true.

That a group of oil execs met with Cheney and discussed invading Iraq.

So what? What law was broken? It sounds like they were just exercising their First Amendment rights.

If "pushing war" is a crime, then why isn't "pushing for peace"?

Kucinich is a moonbat. He's tilting at windmills, as usual. He should go play with his BigWheels in the driveway.


It's quotes like this that solidify my belief that there should be two Americas.

I'm just saying...


AAC


Look at it in terms of free speech and without emotion. Then it will make sense, unless you can't progress past emotion.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by mental modulator
 


You can cry and moan about the cruelties of war all night long. You can gnash your teeth and tear your garments in outrage and despair. You can try to deflect the argument onto me all you want.







When you cannot accept a fact, when it tears your fragile little world down and makes you cry like a child, then I pity you.

Fact is, no laws were broken. Deal with it.


Take your pity and offer it to a rock!

When we get Obama and the country swings wildy left you can thank yourself and your
attitude!


Deal with it.







[edit on 29-6-2008 by mental modulator]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 02:17 AM
link   
[edit on 29-6-2008 by mental modulator]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by jetxnet
Jsobecky is right, no laws were broken. It is all speculative otherwise.

Iraq is their own sovereign nation now based on the US Constitution. The US can only provide influence, but Iraq is free to do as they please with their Oil and otherwise.

No pipelines are going or have gone down in Afghanistan in the last 5 years, that should answer your question.


Iraq could give all their Oil to Iran and there wouldn't be a thing the US could do about it. All the US can do is make favorable suggestions.

Saddam did have WMD and cleaned up with an Exit Strategy with Russia's help. Saddam had a year to do it and got it done before the US got there.




[edit on 29-6-2008 by jetxnet]


iraq destroyed there wmd`s prior to 2001 - everyone told the US this , inc the IAEA and they still invaded and occupied.

seen this:



mr rumsfeld with his buddy saddam hussein

free to do with its own oil? ho ho ho - erm , no the oil fields are `guarded` by US troops - so if the orders were to stop the flow - gosh they would stop it.

iraq is there own sovereign nation? it was 5 years ago before Mr Bush et al decided to start another war and remove hussein from power - and throw the entire country into the mss it is today - well thats what you get for `learning` population control from israel.

have you noticed that the afghan conflict is hardly mentioned? its still going on and theres still fighting - but its not mainstream news.

and pipeline? its allready being built - 1100 miles from the north of afghanistan , through turkmenistan and finally to gwader in pakistan



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by jhill76
 


Finally, America is opening its eyes.

From the very beginning, French people like me saw the war as an opportunity to protect the last resources of oil for the Western Hemisphere. To secure them in case of blackmailing by the oil procuding countries.
My grandfather always said "don't focus on something, always look at the big picture". He was so right



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Look at it in terms of free speech and without emotion.


OK. Now it is just ignorant. Just because you speak cavalier concerning war doesn't make your words less idiotic. For that I will join which ever country you don't.

I would fear the country you would reside in however... I don't recognize fear. Also, ignorant people will erode a country from within first and foremost.




Then it will make sense, unless you can't progress past emotion.


Are you still talking?


AAC

[edit on 29-6-2008 by AnAbsoluteCreation]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


I love that video, those two crazy kids,,, the gear everyone is sporting.

Charlie Masons mansister is not here yet but shehe will love when it stumbles hither!



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   
We will have to see and analyse the minutes of the Energy Task Force meetings, to make any decision if laws were broken...
my guess is none were.

the VP Task force wasn't there to deliberate strategies of invasion,
the most likely discussions were most likely what the big oil knew about Iraq production, known reserves, long range infrastructure needs...

It was a seperate issue as to how America would try to negotiate any oil trade with Iran... with or without Saddam.
Because the big oil had sketchy information that Iran reserves and potential new fields would be likely in the 100-150 billion bbl,
It was then up to US policy and strategy of how to accomplish an avenue of access over the long term to these oil resources...so that the American way of life & industry could continue-> in the cheap & abundant energy paradigm



I reckon that Bush&Co decided to demonize Saddam and liberate the nation of Iraq, and become a partner/ favored nation with the new regime that took over after Saddams overthrow.
Now, Bush&Co, armed with the sparse facts & advice from big oil,
could very well have joined all the other EU countries with the 'under-the-table' Oil For Food proScam... err program.
but decided not to, instead offering no-bid contracts to NGOs like Haliburton, their 'security' subsidaries et al..,. to be troop support agents
so that things like laundry and food service would not take away troop manpower to secure the Iraqi countryside (Ha!) and act as a stabelizing police force for the new Iraqi 'democratic' government (double Ha!)




no, the motivating intent was to secure energy resources thats for sure,
but Bush&Co plans weren't for big oil to run the show, they were only to be the well paid lapdogs that were remodeled into paramilitary NGOs
as the liberation turned into an Invasion...
Cheney's Office of Special Plans , i feel, was the one's who made big oil into a component of the New slimmed down military...big oil had no intention of shaping the US foreign policy, they were seduced and cornered into this position....


Iraq has not voted Yes on giving drilling or exploration rights to any of the major oil corps... i think they just recently voted to give long term contracts for field support and advice..but the Iraqis will still keep their fields and keep the undeveloped tracts for themselves (at this moment,
but who knows what treacheries and intrigues will arise)


just a few thoughts.


[edit on 29-6-2008 by St Udio]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Big ouch jsobecky. I'd refer you to the white phosphorus and the living hell that is Iraq.
Take your F16 and go throw a puppy off the cliff.

You are the type of people that make me recoil in horror.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join