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.

 

What is the real reason the USA went to Iraq?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ET3
Seems some Russian scientist discovered what really causes the formation of oil in our earth. Also that far larger oil deposits have now been discovered in other parts of the world. When we do switch to a different source for energy from oil those "old families wont be effected. Oil would seem to be the reason for being in Iraq but the common knowledge is that oil is so limited and that is not the true case.

I have heard that they have found a way to make oil renewable, maybe this is what the Russians have come up with.

Oil is just the sheeple reason.
We need a better foothold in the MIddle East. Saudi Arabia is not controllable.
And, civilization seems to have originate in Babylon, which is now Iraq? Those who rule want control of that area. The US would be taking control of this area in Their name.




posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Thomas Crowne
Yes, Thomas I do remember one of the museum employees saying some pieces were taken home, also a few pieces secured in a bank. CNN covered that same bank that was mentioned, the bank was broken into even the vault was smashed. The employee, I remember the employee saying on CNN that these few pieces from the museum were such a small fraction of what was there. The employee was distraught about the armed forces not protecting what was in the museum and it was all gone. This was also covered in a news article online that I read.



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Here's why:

"Thicker than Oil"
www.nationalreview.com...

Enjoy.

"Real" good read!


regards
seekerof



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 04:18 PM
link   
War On Terrorism:
What is the real reason the USA went to Iraq? 666 42

Thats the reason, 666. ^


No, honestly, its because of oil, oil, and more oil! Money and power is everything in this world! Well, at least to them it is.



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Why would war profiteers desire continuous war? I just can't figure it out.



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 04:30 PM
link   
The victors always get the spoils of war.



posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Of course that's the reason, hydrocarbons are poised to be the most valuable commodity ever. Though rarely reported, the peak of petroleum production was in 2000. Alternatively, the most liberal estimates place the peak in 2008. While demand grows unabated, the quantity of oil that CAN be extracted is now decreasing more rapidly than ever. And there is no surprise actually, total reserves started dropping in 1859 when the first well was completed. Finally in 1965, new discoveries of potential reserves peaked. Since then due to crises, conservation efforts barely slowed exponential demand increases. Now that supply is ever-decreasing, those who control it are poised to make many billions, perhaps trillions. Is there any way that the US would let itself be left out of the game of the millenium?

Petroleum is absolutely not renewable unless you count a pitifully tiny fraction of biodiesel. And huge resources could be obtained if oil sands and shales could be exploited. But in that form, it takes more energy to extract than can be generated. Similarly, ethanol also consumes more energy per gallon to produce than it can generate. The only reason that it is an additive at present is due to huge, Republican farm subsidies.

A cursory search of "peak oil" produces manifold confirmation of these assertions from credible sources. Here's a few:

www.petroleumworld.com...

www.peakoil.net...

www.mbendi.co.za...

www.oilempire.us...

www.users.bigpond.com...

www.peakoil.net...



posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 01:11 AM
link   
I know I use this argument frequently, but the truth can be applied anywhere. We went in to destroy the WMD but unfortunately they ended up here.


Where are Iraq's WMD you ask?

The answer is not "Iraq's WMD program ceased to exist after the Gulf War",no the answer is "Iraq's WMD has been moved to Syria."

Now it would be easy to write off this thread as another attack on a "radical islamic state", but the facts speak for themselves.

Why did we catch Uday and Qusay? Because they were expelled from Syria back into Iraq

If Syria is willing to transport human cargo out of Iraq what would stop them from taking on the WMD of the former regime.

This is not a crackpot theory but a well documented event.



Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf), a Syrian journalist who recently defected from Syria to Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the Syrian regime, said in a letter Monday, January 5, to Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf, that he knows the three sites where Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are kept. The storage places are:

1- Tunnels dug under the town of al-Baida near the city of Hama in northern Syria. These tunnels are an integral part of an underground factory, built by the North Koreans, for producing Syrian Scud missiles. Iraqi chemical weapons and long-range missiles are stored in these tunnels.

-2- The village of Tal Snan, north of the town of Salamija, where there is a big Syrian air force camp. Vital parts of Iraq's WMD are stored there.

-3-. The city of Sjinsjar on the Syrian border with the Lebanon, south of Homs city.








Nayouf writes that the transfer of Iraqi WMD to Syria was organized by the commanders of Saddam Hussein's Special Republican Guard, including General Shalish, with the help of Assif Shoakat , Bashar Assad's cousin. Shoakat is the CEO of Bhaha, an import/export company owned by the Assad family.

In February 2003, a month before America's invasion in Iraq, very few are aware about the efforts to bring the Weapons of Mass Destruction from Iraq to Syria, and the personal involvement of Bashar Assad and his family in the operation.
Nayouf, who has won prizes for journalistic integrity, says he wrote his letter because he has terminal cancer.





Now I am not advocating nation building in Syria

I have made this thread to defend the reasons we have deposed a despot capable of not only killing millions of his own people but who has endangered and destroyed the lives of Iranians, Israelis, Kuwaitis and Saudis. There is no question that Iraq is better without Saddam and that Asnar al Islam has been disrupted without a terror friendly base. The WMD existed before and after our invasion and not an overblown threat.

Whether you find yourself a Republican, Democrat, or Independent you must realize that the war in Iraq has clear purpose and justifaction and it is wrong to condemn it as "Haliburtons Escapade".


Oh and heres the source of my truth.

Syria-Iraq WMD The Connection



posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 01:13 AM
link   
That "song and dance" OIL theory went something like this maybe?






regards
seekerof

[Edited on 14-3-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Very nice.


Even if I argue WMD exists you cant write off all these corporate winnings from the war.



posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Now, will someone finally read this article I have posted numerous times? Its an article in Wired from Issue 8.07 July 2000.

www.wired.com...

Its about one of the greatest minds of the 20th century, Thomas Gold, and his pursuit of truth against geologist and the oil companies. This man has rarely been wrong in his theories. Whats even more funny is that this man's theories usually end up being true (he also proves his theories, time and time again with credible science and proof).

The government tries to silence what he has to say, so you rarely ever hear what he has to say, why would the government do such a thing? Well, we all know it's because of the government being run by a bunch of oil barons and has been that way for decades.

Thomas Gold also wrote a book on his theories about "fossil fuels", where they actually come from, and how much we really have. This man is very credible, do a little research on him. I recommend the book, it makes total sense: The Deep Hot Biosphere.

Please someone, read the damn article, and discuss it, lol.

Anyways, here are some excerpts from the article (for those I know who won't read it and probably won't read my post for that matter: ):


Fuel's Paradise


World-class contrarian Thomas Gold has a theory about life on the planet: It's pumping out of the Earth's crust - and it's swimming in oil.

By Oliver Morton

Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA, helping to crack the genetic code; since then he has worked on biological problems from the nature of consciousness to the function of dreams to the origin of life. And through it all Crick, now 84, has been known to friends as a particularly gifted thrower of parties. Back in 1947, amid the privations of postwar Cambridge, England, two students walked into one of these parties, held in Crick's flat on Trumpington Street, and paused to scan the crowd. Crick was holding court in the middle of the room, surrounded by young women; other great-minds-in-formation were located around. In the far corner stood a clear-faced, rather stern-looking man. "That's Gold of Gold and Pumphrey," said one of the students, referring to the team then doing groundbreaking research on the workings of the ear. "No, no," his companion replied, "that's Gold of Bondi and Gold," the brilliant pair of mathematicians then rewriting the rules of cosmology. The stern face across the room, picking up on their confusion through a trick in the apartment's acoustics, broke into a smile.

The eavesdropper, and the Gold on both scientific teams, was the same man: Thomas Gold, a physicist who has enjoyed a career broad enough in its enthusiasms to make even Francis Crick look narrow. Gold has worked in the highest reaches of Big Science - overseeing the construction and operation of the world's largest radio telescope, in Arecibo, Puerto Rico - while also excelling at the sort of research that requires nothing more than a pencil, paper, and an idea. He has reimagined the whisperings inside the ear, the universe as a whole, and, most recently, the ground beneath your feet. And he's done so with a profound indifference to the opinions of others. Gold is not just wide-ranging: He's a world-class contrarian. Very few people agree with him on everything, which suggests he's sometimes wrong. But he's also sometimes right. And he's always either interesting or infuriating, depending on where you're coming from.

In his nineties, Gold is championing the idea that the creatures living on or near the surface of the Earth - plants, people, possums, porpoises, pneumonia bacilli - are just part of the biological story. In the depths of the Earth's crust, he believes, is a second realm, a bacterial "deep hot biosphere" that is greater in mass than all the creatures living on land and swimming in the seas. Most biologists will tell you that life is something that happens on the Earth's surface, powered by sunlight. Gold counters that most living beings reside deep in the Earth's crust at temperatures well above 100 degrees Celsius, living off methane and other hydrocarbons.

Presented in full in his 1999 book, The Deep Hot Biosphere, Gold's theory of life below the Earth's surface is an outgrowth of his heretical theories about the origins of oil, coal, and natural gas. In the traditional view, of course, these substances are the residues of dead creatures. When organic matter from swamps and seafloors gets buried deep enough in the crust, it goes through chemical changes that distill it into hydrocarbons we can then dig up and burn. Gold believes none of this. He's convinced that the hydrocarbons we use come from chemical stocks that were incorporated into the Earth at its creation.





[Edited on 3-14-2004 by EmbryonicEssence]



posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 02:06 AM
link   
I also posted this info a while back:


The US has vast quantities of something called Oil Shale - a claylike rock soacked through with fossil fuel. In fact, at least 1 trillion bbl. of it, or four times Saudi Arabia's oil reserves, is locked up in the mountains 200 miles west of Denver.
We had and still have the opportunity to mine the stuff. We invested a lot of money in it and for a time we were pumping some out. But then they just quit after oil prices stabled in the 80's. It was estimated we would have been producing 2 million bbl. a day from shale - enough to slice U.S. imports by 20% (of course we could produce more than that, that isn't the only oil "stockpile" that we have - we just want to use up other people's oil first, although as you'll find, it actually isn't going away, its coming back).

Anyways, we gave it up purposely. The Canadians stuck with it and have perfected the process of extracting oil from something similar to the shale called Oil Sand. America has more oil then any other country in the world - even more so than what's locked up in the Colorado rockies. Oil wells are actually refilling - which isn't common knowledge because no one wants to look at the truth, oil prices would fall flat if everyone knew that (people walk right passed the truth when it stares them in the face, so maybe it wouldn't matter).

I've already posted this a link to this great article about Thomas Gold's geological research of the earth's oil "reserves" and his theories on how oil isn't actually caused by the dead remains of creatures (among other things). Read it: www.wired.com...

Incidently, the info about Colorado's oil shale and Canada's oil stone I got from a great time article called Asleep at the Switch - October 13, 2003 issue of time. Also, its strange that no one wrote any letters to time in regards to it, nor the synfuels article that was before it. Usually people would write in for something like this to be shown in the issue after next. Censorship? Maybe a mishap? They weren't supposed to print the issue?

This information has never been mentioned again. I thought it would have been big news, but I guess not. I just don't get it. And of course I don't have a link to the Time article because you have to pay for a Time account to read back issues/articles on their website. I do have the original issue to reference though!
And a family member to back me up on Time's article as well as Thomas Gold's and some other things that most people don't know, for he worked for one of the oil companies (can't remember which).



posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Meet the Carlyle group
www.hereinreality.com...

How will President George W. Bush personally make millions (if not billions) from the War on Terror and Iraq?



posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 08:40 AM
link   
This is really very informative but what I dont understand is the push for oil as a reason since it was stated by three others that the process that forms oil deposits has been discovered making oil renewable.



ET3
Seems some Russian scientist discovered what really causes the formation of oil in our earth. Also that far larger oil deposits have now been discovered in other parts of the world. When we do switch to a different source for energy from oil those "old families" won't be effected. Oil would seem to be the reason for being in Iraq but the common knowledge is that oil is so limited and that is not the true case.

and



DontTreadOnMe
I have heard that they have found a way to make oil renewable, maybe this is what the Russians have come up with.

and



EmbryonicEssence
The US has vast quantities of something called Oil Shale - a claylike rock soacked through with fossil fuel.
The Canadians stuck with it and have perfected the process of extracting oil from something similar to the shale called Oil Sand.


These reasons also moot the oil for war proposition.

Why keep looking at oil as the main reason?


[Edited on 21-3-2004 by FieryIce1]



posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by blade-of-vengence
hahahahahahahaha, that is the most mislead opinion i have ever heard. what it boils down to is Bush wants to be re-elected and war has always been the way to do this.


didnt work for george senior now did it?



posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 02:48 PM
link   
I really think there is something to this



Rev 9:16 And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them.


There is nothing in history to compare to this, one third of mankind killed. I think it should be scrutinized and examined closer.



posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 07:05 PM
link   
If you look at the globe, you will see one of the best strategic locations for placing a democracy there. You have a piece of land right in the middle of the east(hehe) You have Saudi, Turkey, Iran, Russia, right past afghanistan you have china. China-Russia (the bear and the boar) Not to far you have a nuclear capable country(india). So you now have a location south of Russia and then our locations in europe.



posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Embryo:

Mr. Gold may indeed be quite intelligent with a number of credentials, but that is hardly qualification to merely gesture away many decades of literally rock-solid petrology. Moreover, it is highly dubious that he ever studied core samples, wireline logs or any of the manifold accouterments of exploration petroleum geology. While he might be a hit at cocktail parties for graduate students, he would do better to consult with geophysicists and petroleum engineers. Especially so, prior to positing a panacea to petroleum problems vis-a-vis pencil and paper hypotheses.

Oil shales and sands, which I mentioned a few posts prior to yours, could be a boon. Unfortunately, as I pointed out, it takes more energy to extract the petroleum than the energy value contained within it. Get it? And even if an efficient method was found, such reserves would be very expensive to extract. Hence, high-priced petroleum, much more so than today. One can not "pump" oil shale, despite your assertion to the contrary.

Mr. Gold's ruminations about bacteria in subsurface formations is hardly ground-breaking, so to speak. Geologists have known about chemo- petro- and olio- trophs for decades. The latter type, as the name implies, exist in oil reserves, "eating" the hydrocarbons rather than producing them. And even if the proposed oil-producing mechanism did exist, would it be sufficient to maintain the overwhelming extraction rate?

Salon.com, where you read of Mr. Gold, is interesting, but is an unlikely source for reputable, hard science. Unfortunately, we all soon will feel the deep pinch of decreasing hydrocarbon reserves. Because we did not pursue alternative fuels after the stunning wake-up calls in the early 1970's, the party is almost over now. Mr. Gold will soon be nursing a nasty hang-over.



posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Erratum -

Salon, to which I referred in my previous post, is not the publication of concern, rather Wired.

Indeed my contentions remain unmitigated, for substituting "Wired" for "Salon" detracts nothing.



posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Valnrick
Iraq is not prime real estate, mostly desert. Northern Iraq has some grassy hills but still not the greatest place to be. Wouldn't there be better places in the East to get a foothold?
Where is the Mother Of All Bombs (MOAB), it was placed in the Iraq desert somewhere west of Baghdad at the first of the war?


[Edited on 15-3-2004 by FieryIce1]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join