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.


this is not an oil war!

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 18 2003 @ 08:04 PM

Originally posted by Saphronia
USMC: don't joke too hard on SUV folk, after the winter we are having i understand the need (in some places at least) for 4 w/drive.

Perhaps you shouldn't come down *too* hard on him for that...After all, SUV's aren't the *only* 4WD vehicles available, no matter how much some special interest groups try to link them with supporting Sodamn Insane & Iraqi oil...

[Edited on 19-2-2003 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on Feb, 19 2003 @ 03:32 AM

Originally posted by Saphronia
come on people, no one knows the motives of our government. nothing they say is clear and everything they don't say is "classified". watching one of them get interviewed is like watching a lava lamp, it's only interesting if you're high.

Well if you pay good attention and know what and where to look for you can *see* the motives. Learning the truth is just like science, nothing happen by coincidence so you have to find out why something happened. Don't believe everything they say in official news.

You could have read all about the motives a while ago on the PNAC website. Unfortunately they have removed most of the pre 9/11 documents.

Read that page and then look at the date, and then hopefully you'll understand what the motives are. And why certain things are happening. Remember when Bush said "you are either with us or against us" That page explains all. Feel free to read more documents on that page.

posted on Feb, 19 2003 @ 03:49 AM
Iraq produce approx. 3% of the worlds oil.
Kuwait has vowed to compensate and raise production.
This war is certainly not for oil. Water maybe.

posted on Feb, 19 2003 @ 05:03 AM
Iraq is the second largest oil producing country in the world.
America is planning a two year ocupation of iraq after they dispose of saddam.

Should solve any shortages.

posted on Feb, 19 2003 @ 06:40 AM

Originally posted by barba007
Iraq produce approx. 3% of the worlds oil.
Kuwait has vowed to compensate and raise production.
This war is certainly not for oil. Water maybe.

I wonder if people read the posts before they reply. Like I said many times, it doesn't matter how much oil Iraq produces at the moment. And it doesn't matter where America's oil come from at this moment. It's about the long term situation !!

So please read my above link and then think about it again. Iraq is not the only one in trouble.

posted on Feb, 20 2003 @ 10:41 PM
The U.S.A. gets about 10% of its oil from Iraq.

That is easily supplanted from Russia, Venezuala or domestically. What is a fact however is thats Japan and Europe(including the frogs) get most of their oil from the Middle East.

A war for oil? Hardly. Were that it was so simple. It's stabilazation. It's also about trading oil for dollars. Much of opec is moving to Euros...which is fine, but Dollars will always be relevant when the world's top consumer uses them. Right, wrong or indifferent, the US is the rich guy on the block and screw with him, you lose. This war isn't about the us siezing iraqi assets..those will end up as payola for the people of that country, it's about making sure the big consumer isn't screwed.


posted on Feb, 21 2003 @ 03:35 AM
Hei kegs, were did you get that information from?
Iraq, the second largest producer of oil in the world?

posted on Feb, 21 2003 @ 03:24 PM
yeah yeah its not about oil. yeah i know, iraq is a threat to the us right? they are responsible for the wtc 9-11 attack right? iraq is responsible for the bombing of the us cole and bombing of us buildings in kenya right? sh*t to me it looks like we're going after the wrong dudes if this is about terrorism. but if it's about oil, then iraq is surley the right target.

posted on Feb, 21 2003 @ 03:46 PM
TigeriS: don't mistake my boredom/apathy for ignorance. i know all about the so called "Bush doctrine" which was created way before Dubya took oath of office. we are living in Paul Wolfawitz's world now, tragically.

we will be in that region much longer than two years...i don't know where you guys are getting this "two years" from. the administration hasn't even attempted to put a date on it...Zinni said the other day we are still fighting Gulf War 1, it's been twelve years. there are no easy outs when you are talking about nation building/regime change...same for afghanistan. hell, we're still in germany and south korea decades after the fact.

stop paying taxes and flush it down the toilet your- damn-self.

posted on Feb, 21 2003 @ 09:12 PM
Boy thank God Peru and Bolivia have not found it nessesary to come up with WMD. Then you would have a real point

posted on Feb, 22 2003 @ 11:36 PM
Okay, I read this this evening, and it pretty much agrees on where I stand with the Iraq situation:
Most of the article>>
It seems that we're going to blow up Iraq. Some folk will call it a war, but it'll be more like drowning a litter of puppies. Iraq is a primitive country and hasn't got a chance. That's convenient, and lots of fun, but it ain't war.
Now, understand: I'm patriotic, and believe in blowing up as many people as possible, wherever we can find them. Butwhy Iraq? It's mysterious. Sure, Hussein is a good, serviceable, every-day sort of monster and ought to be shot. So are about half the rulers in the world. Why this one? Bobby Mugabe needs it more, I reckon. Have we thought about Zaire?
Explain it to me. A ratpack of Saudis blew up New York, so we're going to wreck Iraq. We're going to do it because Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction, except that he doesn't, as far as anyone can tell. The more he doesn't have them, the more we want to blow him up because he does, or doesn't, or would if he did. Maybe.
I don't understand Weapons of Mass Destruction either. Actually, I do. They're a PR package, nice ribbon, pretty wrapping paper, but with nothing inside, to make it sound like we have a reason for attacking. Americans fortunately don't distinguish between a bumper sticker and a policy.
Now, if Iraq had nuclear weapons, blowing them up might be reasonable. But it doesn't. I don't care whether it has chemical weapons, and if it has smallpox, bombing won't help. So why do it? To grab the oil? Make the world safe for Israel? Historical codpiece for George? What's the scam, really?
It never stops. We're always bombing, invading, meddling, or embargoing. Nobody else does. Grenada, the Philippines, Panama, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan twice, Laos, Lebanon twice, Somalia, Sudan, Haiti, Iraq almost twice, Yemen, Angola, Kosovo, Cuba, Libya. We're maybe about to get into a war with North Korea. In fact we have troops there as a tripwire, to be sure we get involved. What could be a better plan?
Why? Why always us? Can't we just, you know, spend an occasional Saturday night at home? North Korea is South Korea's problem, not ours, and South Korea is an industrial power. If it wants to defend itself, fine. If it doesn't, I don't care. Is Japan upset about North Korea? Then let Japan do something about it. Why are we always the International Mother?
What possible reason did we have for bombing Yugoslavia? Last I heard, Yugoslavia was in Europe. Granted, I haven't looked for a while. Maybe it moved to Mississippi or the outskirts of Detroit. Continental drift is like that. But if it's in Europe, I say it's Europe's problem. Let them bomb Yugoslavia till it squeaks. Or not. Why do I care? It's time Europe learned to diaper itself.
For that matter, why do we have troops in Europe? I don't get it. NATO was supposed to fight the Soviet Union, I thought, which we don't have one of.
Could we stop meddling for even a week? We're in Colombia and Mexico and Peru and God knows where because these folk work in the drug trade, and we have A Drug Problem. We have a drug problem because Americans want drugs. It's not Colombia's problem. It's our problem. Why don't we leave Colombia the hell alone?
Think about it. Suppose a Colombian crept up to you in a raincoat, peering around furtively, and whispered, "Hey, Meester, wanna buy some really good polio virus? Great stuff. You'll never walk again. Iron lung, guaranteed. Five bucks."
You would probably indicate that you didn't really need any polio just now. The Colombian would run off and starve, or jump his visa and get a job in construction. You can't sell what people won't buy. It's an economic law. (Unless you're the federal government, which consists of the compulsory sale of unwanted services. But Colombia isn't.)
Americans love drugs. Middle-schoolers through assisted living, black, white, blue collar, guttural lawyers in pricey turtle-neck sweaters, funny-looking urbanites, suburbanites with the little bag in the closet, country boys cutting ditchweed, growing hydroponic, cooking that righteous crank.
It's one of the biggest businesses in America. We'll pay any price, risk jail, do anything for our drugs. The cartel is just a service industry. Half the country wants them, and the other half doesn't have to take them. Why do we expect other countries to let us bomb their peasants to solve our problem?
If we have to poke our nose everywhere, could we at least stop being the Moral Nanny? Somebody said (me, actually) that the Brits fight for empire, the French for la gloire de la France, the Russians to steal watches from the wounded, and the Americans for mommyish moral causes. Spare me.
It's embarrassing. Europe fought world wars to get the Germans off its back. We fought The War to End All War, and then to Make the World Safe for Democracy. The Soviet Union was the Evil Empire, and now Iraq and Korea are the Axes of Evil. (Whether this refers to malintentioned hatchets or indicates that the White House doesn't know that points can't be lines is unclear.) I don't want to be a Manichean baby-sitter.
Americans may need to get out more. I recently heard that ferret-like little man in the White House trying to give a speech about Iraq and how we're going to liberate Iraqis and it's for their own good and they ought to welcome us like rich relatives bringing free stuff. Any day now. Can't we put George back into his storage box in Roswell? Last time we were in Iraq, we killed 125,000 of their men, or some other wholesome number, wrecked the country, set up an embargo that starves 60,000 of their children to death a year, and established an aerial occupation of lots of their country.
But they're going to welcome us because George has good intentions. We're from the government, and we're here to help you.
Why are we embargoing Cuba? When the Soviets wanted to put runways and missiles there, it made sense. Now we're making life miserable for perfectly decent Cubans because we don't like that tiresome gas bag with the beard. Yes, I know. We're really doing it because Castro runs an oppressive communist tyranny. Like China, with whom we trade like starving encyclopedia salesmen. Consistency and churchy moralism go so well together.

posted on Feb, 24 2003 @ 06:02 AM

Once again I feel compelled to remind people of a few facts as opposed to the basic acusations the US and Britain are currently throwing Saddams way, and which people seem eager to lap up despite clear logical evidnce (or rather the lack of it)

Saddam ~might~ still be producing weapons of mass destruction. The Fact of the matter however is that despite the largest intelligence gathering exercise ever instigated by the largest intelligence gathering organisations in the world with the best technology on the planet, we haven't found any PROOF. None, nada, zilch.

This is an unavoidable fact which as actually been reiterated by both Bush, Blair, Rumsfield, and pretty much every "expert" analyst I've heard speaking on it.

I know saying that he has these weapons makes everyone feel better about the oncoming humanitarian disaster we're about to unleash on the middle east, and when we find some I'll be the first to whipe my brow and say "phew, he'd probably have used them as well, thank god we found them in time" But until we catually do find them, can we try and avoid justifying this war based on speculation.

we are about to kill a couple of hundred thousand people, I'd like to think that we were going to do it for better reasons than simply wanting to believe something that thus far doesn't seem to be true.

Lets remember that we're about to drop some nice big fat weapons of mass destruction of our own on Iraq. I'm pretty sure they exist because the government makes me pay for them, and I've watched them blow things up on BBC 24.

posted on Feb, 24 2003 @ 10:00 AM
" I don't understand Weapons of Mass Destruction either. Actually, I do. They're a PR package, nice ribbon, pretty wrapping paper, but with nothing inside, to make it sound like we have a reason for attacking. Americans fortunately don't distinguish between a bumper sticker and a policy. "

I agree. I mean, when you are the most popular kid in school (USA), everybody wants to be like you. Israel, Iraq, whomever. When you start talking about Weapons of Mass Destruction, we should be leading by example. Get rid of our own! It is completely hypocritical of the United States to hold countries up to some bull# "NO WMD" treaty and then we don't follow the same rules ourselves. Some may argue that Saddam Hussein is a crazy man. I disagree with that statement, but that's not important. What is important is LOOK WHO IS IN CHARGE OF OUR COUNTRY-- would you rather have a crazy man in charge or a stupid man in charge? I say both of them are equally as bad for the future advancement of our country.

Why don't people make comparisons between Saddam and Hirohoto, or Mussolini, or Sharon, or Arafat, or Bin Laden, rather than always bringing up the Hitler thing? The Hitler argument is really not convincing to me & just seems like a sensationalistic ploy to pull at the heartstrings of America by using the deaths of all those who died under Hitler's facist regime. Better yet, why not talk about the man himself, rather than making any comparisons?

My argument is that if it isn't Saddam, it is somebody else. Right now, I'm sure there are at least seven other countries developing WMD programs. US, Israel, China, North Korea, Japan, Pakistan, India and others I'm sure.

This business about Iraq being responsible for 9/11 is ridiculous. If you look at the person who has been alleged to organize the 9/11 tragedy, Mohammed Atta, according to a report on CNN the week after 9/11 happened, he was actually a Palestinian double-agent who was contracted by Israel back in the 1970's. This being the same country, Israel, that bombed our ship, the USS Liberty in 1968.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in