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.

 

The wars overseas weren't for oil.

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...

The U.S. economy was about to be crushed by the ".com bubble". The wars were for our economy. I want this to be revisited again and again, just like the G.W. Bush Kentucky winnings. "I am not Dem btw nor Rep".




posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ventian
 


I do not get your point on this, nor do I agree with your statement. Sorry, but I am a history buff and believe you should look closer or show us some proof.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   
The wars aren't about oil. They are about capitalism.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 01:45 AM
link   
securing the oil there was more likely part of a larger picture, probably a necessity for operations.
if anything they reap more benefits from the re-construction contracts and mineral deposits they found which the corporations will come flocking into export it out eventually once the regional governments get their acts together.

IMO.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 01:47 AM
link   
The united states is sitting on billions of barrels of oil, we just want it cheap, and now.

If you were a leading country of the world why would you use your own reserves when you can buy it from another country with monopoly money for almost nothing.

They know it, we know it.

Which is why we need wars to put them in their place.

(I do not agree with it, but its the truth)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   
almost all wars are the consequence of a twisted mind or minds. Its mainy because of the insecure mind in search of power over others, this in turn polarises other minds and at the same time one has to defend their space. In the end the enemy makes you become like him/her. thats about it really. Any talk about materials are secondary at that point.
inflamed minds full of pain hidding behind gain.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   
The concept of .com hadn't even been invented as a public concept when Saddam Hussein crossed the Kuwaiti border in 1990 as a result of mixed messages and possible leading by the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. All that has followed started right there. Much came before....of course, but the modern issues have their roots back to that fateful meeting, the crossing of the border and all afterward, IMHO.


I'm sorry.. .com was very much a thing we all worked with. I'd forgotten...it's been awhile. It was what was created by compiling Pascal code.
I don't think we see wars over places like Zimbabwe, Rwanda or Burma (Myanmar..whatever) because they don't have a strategic resource of global interest like oil. If they did, they'd get our special attention too.

edit on 23-12-2011 by Wrabbit2000 because: Correction



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Personally I think the wars where about control just as the cold war was about control when they contained the USSR.

I see no reason why they would elevate control over one resource when the end game would logically be the control of all the resources while at the same time mitigating the threat of losing that control to another party.

And I don't think the other side/sides would play that game any differently.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 03:53 AM
link   
A) The United States uses oil
B) Iraq has a lot of oil
C) Bush & Cheney are former oilmen

...



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   
It was about oil. Though not in the way you think.
If you control the oil then you control the infrastructure of a country.
China is very dependent on foreign oil. They may have a larger army but it is meaningless if it can't go anywhere.
The same goes for other countries. Which is why nukes in the middle east are such a big deal.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   
The wars have also been part of a twisted neo liberal mindset that believes we can deliver democracy to other countries down the barrel of a gun. Once these countries have had their democracies installed, they will then want to buy more of our products and be part of the western happy family of consumers.

Oh yeah not to forget those weapons of mass destruction.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 04:25 AM
link   
While I agree that resources are a main reason for war.....I do think that most modern wars are to enforce and maintain power in our spheres of influence......if there was no threat of war other leaders would not be so quick to bow to american/ nato demands.......but yes resources are a big part of it...
edit on 23-12-2011 by newyorkee because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 04:25 AM
link   
To say America invasions of the Middle East and Central Asia is purely for oil is a bit like saying the First World War was about Archduke Franz Ferdinand being assassinated or that our cars run on dinosaurs.

Although it most certainly is one of the contributing factors, the enormity of reasons is simply too great to attribute to any one single thing.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Samuelis
A) The United States uses oil
B) Iraq has a lot of oil
C) Bush & Cheney are former oilmen

...


Didn't Cheney say something like, it was our oil, just under their sand.




top topics



 
3

log in

join