posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 08:30 AM
Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
Originally posted by johnny2127
Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
Any chance of pics of pipeline security?
@BritWarrior post: what a shameful post. You truly are an assimilated
killing machine, well done
@johnny2127 post: please read
this excellent post by Agit8dChop, explaining oil field contracts and
tendered bids. You really think they aren't in Afghanistan & Iraq for oil & gas?!
Here's my thread about the real reasons they are in Afghanistan.
You missed what I was saying all together. Of course the US has oil and gas interest in addition to all other reason we are in the middle east.
However, we do not own that oil. We were not protecting it because it was ours. We are protecting it because if it is destroyed or taken by a
neighboring country, it further destabilizes Iraq and the region. So as bad as it is, it would be worse if they did not protect those pipelines. In
fact, one of the biggest criticisms of the Bush Administration was that they did not protect Iraq's pipelines SOON ENOUGH. Don't any of you
Additionally I was trying to point out that this soldier exposed absolutely nothing. Zero. Zilch. Its public knowledge that the US is and was
guarding Iraqi pipelines. Its public knowledge that since Iraq got its currency up again, we would convert US dollars to their currency to pay for
things. Duh. How is any of that even controversial? I appreciate this soldier's service to his country, but he really isn't exposing anything
that wasn't known before. If he was, I am sure he would be in a military prison as we speak. Instead, he wrote down some things he wrongly assumed
most people did not know. And then he wrong assumed why the military was doing what they were without doing any research at all. He's an enlisted
soldier, not a commanding officer. I do not say that to demean him, but just pointing out that the position he is in, they give him the assignment,
and very little facts and thats it. He made up in his head why they were doing what they were ordered to do, and he was wrong.
I find this to be a very interesting post. You're claiming that this soldier STOP-LOSS knows nothing more than what has already been illuminated a
million times over from public knowledge that has been READILY available. If this is the case, then why does the majority of the public still believe
that we are currently in Iraq because of WMD??? In fact, even after the Bush administration admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 911, die hard
neo conservatives still argue otherwise.
Okay, so now lets go with your theory. What makes you think that the information that you've received, or studied, is anymore valid than the
information that stop-loss is currently providing to ATS? This would imply that you have access to VITAL information that is reserved for the
political elite and corporations who create the current laws that allow the military access, control, and monitor the oil fields. With the propaganda
machine spinning relentlessly, how can you be so sure that your information is accurate considering the many already stated false reasons that we are
currently illegally occupying the sovereign nation of Iraq??? And yes...IT IS ILLEGAL TO OCCUPY A SOVEREIGN NATION NO MATTER WHAT EXCUSE THAT OUR
POLITICAL SYSTEM PROVIDES. We are not there because of "terrorism," especially given the fact that Iraq has never attacked us for any reason.
Now, I will tell you this. I was given the opportunity to debate the former UN ambassador to Iraq because of the political science department at
Indiana University. His name is Feisal Istrabadi and he was one of George Bush's closest advisers. According to Mr. Istrabadi, we are currently in
Iraq protecting oil interests for America and China and that everything that we are doing in Iraq is for economic interests. Terrorism WAS NOT EVEN
MENTIONED. This came straight out of Istrabadi's mouth to a student body of about 100. Now, I will tell you this, I am going to believe his
explanation given his close connection to that region, his ties with the Bush Administration, and his former title over someone who is posting
theories on ATS who probably receives much of their information from the MSM and is already slanted due to their previous political views. And,
according to Istrabadi, there is not much difference politically between the democratic and republican parties. Its just a new face pasted on the
same policy. If Istrabadi is wrong, then why has Obama helped to escalate the very same wars that he initially promised that he would end,... with
the exception of Afghanistan???
Again, another person not getting the point of what I am trying to point out. You are correct that the average American thinks we are in Iraq because
of WMD's. But the average American also doesn't do much research and doesn't pay attention on a continuing basis about what is going on over
there. My point is not that I have special information, its that STOP-LOSS doesn't have any either, and he willfully didn't research the situation
before posting. He just said something like 'then it dawned on me that we must own the oil' or some such BS. He didn't say he saw some top
secret documents, or was briefed on anything sinister and special. He inferred things without facts, and then didn't research after the fact, and
then naively thought he was telling us something that wasn't known or readily available. Just try googling it. Go ahead. Google 'US protecting
Iraq pipelines'. Over 7.4 MILLION results pop up just from that query.
And like I said, many times; yes the US has oil interests in Iraq. Why shouldn't we? Liberals in Congress won't let the US drill for the oil on
our own soil. Here is who controls most of the oil in the world: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Venezuela, Canada, Norway, and the UAE. Of those,
we could easily see Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, Venezuela and the UAE cutting the US off from oil if there was a economic or military war. So like I
have said time and again, in addition to the multiple reasons we are in the middle east, yes oil is one. And it should be. It is in our national
interest to have oil interests. It is a matter of national security. Due to liberals in Congress we cannot even refine the little amount of oil we
pump out of the ground in the US. And we can't even drill for the oil we do have here. So we have to secure oil resources. Its the law of
unintended consequences. The US has been prevented from drilling and refining its own oil, so we have to secure oil resources elsewhere. Think of
what would happen is Iran, Iraq, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and the UAE cut the US off from oil. Do you have any concept of how bad things would
get here? You have any idea of the immediate system wide inflation that would occur?
So to summarize; the OP presented nothing new and made incorrect and naive conclusions, the US has to protect the oil pipelines both for Iraq and its
mission there but also for its own national security. Its the sad reality of the world we live in and decades of energy mismanagement by the US govt.