It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


It Was Oil, All Along

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:07 AM

It Was Oil, All Along

by: Bill Moyers and Michael Winship

Oh, no, they told us, Iraq isn't a war about oil. That's cynical and simplistic, they said. It's about terror and al-Qaeda and toppling a dictator and spreading democracy and protecting ourselves from weapons of mass destruction. But one by one, these concocted rationales went up in smoke, fire and ashes. And now the bottom line turns out to be ... the bottom line. It is about oil.

Alan Greenspan said so last fall. The former chairman of the Federal Reserve, safely out of office, confessed in his memoir, "Everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." He elaborated in an interview with The Washington Post's Bob Woodward, "If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands, our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first Gulf War."
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 29-6-2008 by grover]

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:07 AM
So basically we invaded a sovereign nation (with a jerk for a leader) on trumped up and false charges in order to pillage their resources.

And we call ourselves civilized and proclaim in our rhetoric how noble our ideals are and how we are not like other nations.

(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:16 AM
If there was any justice cheney, bush and company would be dragged before the Hague to be tried as war criminals.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:21 AM
I must say i'm not even shocked by this not one bit And i would say many people on here would have the same feelings

But we as the people don't have the balls to stop this kind of thing from going on in the world and we so need it We need to take back our controll if it's not to late

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:24 AM
If it was oil along...why don't we have the oil then? And pumping directly into gas stations via Iraq right now? I've always wondered why, when people claim we only went there for the oil, like the views in your article here, then WHERE is it?

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:31 AM

Originally posted by LateApexer313
If it was oil along...why don't we have the oil then? And pumping directly into gas stations via Iraq right now? I've always wondered why, when people claim we only went there for the oil, like the views in your article here, then WHERE is it?

It's still in Iraq. Over 70 International firms are bidding for oil contracts in Iraq. The Iraqi government NOT the USA is in control of this process.

Bush Derangement Syndrome makes people say and think weird things. It makes people bring up things that are patently false, and tries to rehash old lefty mantras in the guise of "breaking news." Really shameful if you ask me.

More than 70 international firms have registered to compete for tenders to help develop Iraq's oil reserves, seen as vital to providing the funds to rebuild the shattered country, Iraq's oil ministry said on Monday.

Iraq currently produces only a fraction of its vast reserves, the third-largest in the world and among the cheapest to produce, and international oil firms have been positioning for years to gain access.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:34 AM
reply to post by LateApexer313

You think they're going to share it??
It's for the big ole ships n tanks out there..the western war machine..A strategic supply for a long term plan.

They ain't solar powered.

Politicians are about them..not us..
Hell they don't even know how much it costs..does that not sound out of touch with normal petrol buying bill paying people.

Why would they share it with us peasants?

[edit on 29-6-2008 by AGENT_T]

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:35 AM
reply to post by duffster

I beg to differ.. at the outset of the second Iraq war, there were millions of people all over the world openly protesting and marching against this war...and for any war for that matter.

So why did the world leaders fail to listen to millions of people?

Mostly because of the oil... but also these were peaceful protests. They were of no threat to the governments. Now, if the protests had turned violent then it would have been extremely easy for martial law to have been passed and we'd all be in camps.

Imagine anti-war protesters going to war with their own governments to stop a war...don't make sense, yet looking back, that seems to have been the most simplistic and only language the governments would have listened to. At least we'd be at war with ourselves rather than sending innocent soldiers to murder innocent civilians under the mask and orders of a criminal regime.

Hundreds of thousands of innocent lives could have been saved if we had done more than just protest against the war... but the majority were not aware of all hat we know now.

Maybe, if an attack starts on Iran, the world leaders will finally realize they've bitten off more than they can chew. I'm sure there are millions of protesters who are now so angry with the governments that almost anything can happen.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:40 AM
I was one of those who stood in protest and recieved my share of insults, threats and eggs who think, if that's the word, that America can do no wrong.

They called us traitors... they called us cowards (like standing up against the current is cowardly) they called us every name in the book.

and still, the pro-war fanatics were wrong and we were right.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:43 AM
reply to post by LateApexer313
I agree!! Where is the Iraqi Oil??? it might be pumping into Europe with their overtaxed prices the citizens aren't reaping the benefits, but the Gov't coffers should be full. I never agreed with attacking Iraq even if they had wmd's, they are (or were)a soverign country, who were we to tell them they could or could not do.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:47 AM
Oil was obviously a factor, but don't overlook the bases that are currently being built. The US had to practically beg other countries for access to air bases prior to desert storm, now it has it's own and will have them for the forseeable future.

In my opinion, these are far more valuable to US interests than any amount of oil Iraq may have.

[edit on 29-6-2008 by SystemiK]

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:48 AM

Hasn't anyone been paying attention? Not only has most of Iraq been a dangerous bloody mess for the past 6 years and still is... after 10 years of crippling sanctions the Iraqi oil infrastructure was antiquated and falling apart and bombings by both us and insergents didn't help matters one iota.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:03 AM
reply to post by grover

You (and others) make it sound as if Iraq was not able to pump or sell any crude since desert storm, if that is so then how were they selling oil to France? what good was the Oil for food program. I remember complaints of european countries dealing with Iraq for oil against the world would that be if their infrastructure was decimated?
Yes I do agree that now "western" companies are going to enter the fields in Iraq but they have been pumping oil before and after we attacked.
I don't see any of our "interests" being worth what we have spent to have a foothold in this swirling vortex of hell. I am an isolationist for sure I admit, but I don't see regular people being the benefactor of the new socialist world economy enforced through the western militaries and my tax dollars.
Maybe we will see sooo much oil being pumped out of Iraq that gas will go back down to 1.80 a gallon. Yeah right! Even if it wasn't worth it!!!

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:07 AM
reply to post by RRconservative

Exactly RR!

I am so sick and tired of people saying that we "only went there for the oil." When it's quite obvious that if we had gone for the oil, we'd HAVE the oil flowing freely, into our country. Absolutely ludicrous for people to say that.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:41 AM
I think common sense always left the 'It's about the oil" question in a large majority of Americans. I feel that through the incredibly cunning use of the media by the savvy entrepreneurs, many relented on that sticking point, deferring instead to accept the patriotic 'movement' the Neocons promoted.

There are many who remain fixed in their acceptance of motivations expressed by the administration as the true aim of their strategy.

This 70 nation body of applicants for the rights to the extraction of the Iraqi resources will remain just that, a list. The administration made claims that their oil would pay for this war. If you consider the plummeting value of the US dollar, it's seems it is going to take A WHOLE LOT of oil to repay it it. Reason would dictate that whatever oil revenue is generated should be for said purpose before relinquishing it to unfocused commerce. Will that happen? It remains to be seen.

The Defense industry is of course, the beneficiary of yet more oversees profit as we have to support military presence in far away lands.

When they said "This oil is for us." they weren't lying. We simply assumed the "us" to which they were referring was the American people, when in actuality they meant the "us" to whom "they" belong, the corporate citizenship, and in particular the Energy industry from whence they and their plan was originally hatched.

America must come to terms with the ugliness of being used like an easy mark. We have exposed before us the architecture of abuse. Propaganda machines in place, entire corporate presence in government, military strategies based on hidden private commercial agendas, a 'culture' of elitism in leadership, and, sad to admit, even examples of criminal activity, some rising to the level of sedition and treason.

This trend cannot continue without further erosion of the voting process, further 'party' control of the government, and further acceptance of 'ideologically-based' leadership in civil service.

We as Americans must force a redefinition of what it means to 'serve'. our leaders have gotten it wrong. The party mentality has been usurped by the inevitable reliance on interfacing with a controlled media, and political landscape controlled by international and trans-national corporate interests

Does anyone disagree?

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:55 AM
It's definitely not ALL about oil, as anyone who has followed my threads knows where I stand on this issue.

There are at the bare MINIMUM 151 members of the house and senate directly tied into weapons industry corps and war supplies, so these are HUGE motivating factors to keep continual wars and invasions going. Hence why all of these greed mongers are currently frothing at the mouth and spinning in overtime to march us into Iran next. For the Congressmen, Mega-corps and Military Industrial Complex, this equals paydays beyond ones wildest dreams.

Problem is, they have gutted the nation financially, and are trying to continue squeezing blood from the proverbial turnip. But there's not much left, most of the tax-payer base that they are extorting from are now living in poverty.

As far as the oil side of things...There's no question that it played a PART of this illegal invasion. All one has to do is reverse back and examine what happened when we first hit the ground: One of the very first things we did was secure the oil fields and pipes. But then a very curious thing happened in the following months(not so curious when you learn how these criminals work): Production was slowed to a near halt.

So the key was not obtaining oil, it was controlling its production. By controlling the amount put out, TPTB were able to dramatically dictate the price, and it has been going up ever since. Now much of that in current times is FAR beyond Iraq, but initially, this is what shot prices from a little over a buck a gallon to over two.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 12:25 PM
reply to post by LateApexer313

You may be missing the point...We didn't get the oil for US. We got it for THEM, and we're paying $$$ for it at the pump--but that's capitalism. However, the larger issue is that it is Un-American to mislead honest, hardworking citizens into sending their sons and daughters off to war in the name of freedom and democracy. And it is also Un-American to USE America in a manner that would cause her to be despised.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 12:58 PM
grover, you mean it also wasn't about the "road to Palestine-Israel peace running through Baghdad"?

Wresting control of Iraq from Saddam was a geopolitical strategy. I remember a saying growing up, which said something like, he who controls the marbles controls the game.

What better to start a war with than the great firepower of the United States military?

But something went terribly wrong. It just didn't happen as the proposers thought it would. The hole was dug, and it kept having to be dug deeper and deeper.

As a new super power after WW2, America went into places the former colonialists/European powers withdrew from. Vietnam directly, for example, when the French pulled out. America took over covertly in Asia and the Middle East where others had left off. We had just played Saddam against Iran; now we could whack a former enemy of my enemy friend.

But something went terribly wrong. And unfortunately, once you hit water when digging a hole, you don't keep digging further to get rid of the water.

The price we paid so the 70+ corporations could divvy up the spoils of warfare is once again dead soldiers. Smedley Butler was right:

“War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe,
as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people.
Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted
for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses."

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 01:54 PM
reply to post by grover

9/11 inside job

war on terror= scam for gubaments to gain more control

Iraq=oil..rutual sacrifice..sumerian stuff

afghan=opium will the avergae human wake up?

Google Video Link

Google Video Link

Google Video Link

the evidence is sooooo abundant on the internet....i guess ignorance is bliss..cause nobody gives a #.

knowledge is devine

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 03:05 PM

Originally posted by RRconservative
It's still in Iraq. Over 70 International firms are bidding for oil contracts in Iraq. The Iraqi government NOT the USA is in control of this process.

Bush Derangement Syndrome makes people say and think weird things. It makes people bring up things that are patently false, and tries to rehash old lefty mantras in the guise of "breaking news." Really shameful if you ask me.

Maybe burocracy has been holding up the process, until just now.

Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq's Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq's largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.

Maybe part of the reason for the war was indeed about holding our economy together in the face of uncontrollable forces.

Some people say it's the environmentalists, while others say that it's an under the table agreement with oil producing nations, of which Iraq was not a part, which in turn was scapegoated onto environmentalists.

Google Video Link

I would love for someone to post the EXACT economic process that takes place between the drilling and the gas station.

I'm HOPING that the no bid contracts for Exxon Mobil to drill means that they don't have to pay speculators $142 a barrel for contracts on oil and they are only paying for the cost of getting it out of the ground, which is like $15.

My assumption is, and I could be wrong, that Exxon Mobil (and friends) will be doing the drilling. Now if they are doing the drilling AND they also have gas stations, there really should be a speculator in between that barrel of crude and that gallon of gas. Am I right here, or am I crazy to think that Exxon Mobil actually doesn't sell what they've just drilled and then buys it back for ten times the money.

This is what I'm seeing, so please, for the love of God, someone correct me...

1. Oil Drilling Company drills oil, it costs them $15 a barrel... yay.

2. Exxon Mobil sells contracts for $20

3. Exxon Mobil buys contracts before time to settle for $142.

4. Exxon Mobil accepts delivery of oil from Oil Drilling Company at refinery.

5. Due to Exxon Mobil having paid so much money for the oil that the speculators bought from Oil Drilling Company, gas prices are high... booo

Now, if Oil Drilling Company is replace by Exxon Mobil, steps 2 through 4 dissapear? Right? What am I missing? Why isn't this situation logical?
I cannot find the answer to this riddle on the internet. I want to deny my own ignorance, but I can't.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in