|
Pond Scum
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: April 18, 2008, 07:54:12 PM » |
|
Iraq is about securing a future source of oil that can be protected. With peak oil looming and huge worldwide increases in the demand for oil, it is COMMON SENSE that the US needs to have access to a large quantity of oil which can be protected. Our economy is totally dependent on oil. We need to know that no country can cut off our supply to oil in the future.
I am truly amazed how people try to claim the war in Iraq is not about oil because we haven't just stolen the oil. It is not about stealing oil, it is about ASSURING A FUTURE SUPPLY OF OIL UNDER OUR PROTECTION.
None of this has any meaning when you realize the US isn't determining what happens to Iraq's oil. The only way for any of yours and others opinions here to have any validity is if the US was filling tankers with Iraqi oil and dictating what happens to their oil exports. We know, and have known for some time, the US isn't doing that. The fact that the Iraqi's are making those decisions completely destroys the "War For Oil" lies Democrats, liberals and the authors of your links have been telling for the last five years. It's time to fess up and admit that. Closed minded people are the reason why our government has gotten away with committing attrocities for years. Closed minded people are why the two ruling parties are able to stay in power, even though it is obvious to all thinking people that BOTH parties have sold out the people. People like you, unwilling to admit when you are wrong, or even that you "might" be wrong, are the reason why this country is being destroyed from within. Why our border security is a joke, why our public education system is a joke, why our jobs are leaving this country by the millions, why our government wastes billions a year, why we continue to fund a failed war on drugs, etc, etc., People like you will continue to believe whatever you want to believe and you're not going to let any amount of information, or facts change your mind. People like you can have the truth presented to you, yet you are not capable of recognizing the truth when you see it. Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287.htmlSo, according to Greenspan, it wasn't the administrations motive but all thinking people know it was the motive for the people who CONTROL THE ADMINISTRATION. Let's look at the exact quote from Greenspan shall we? "“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” What EVERYONE KNOWS? He should have said ........."What ALL THINKING PEOPLE KNOW." Luckily, there are quite a few thinking people at this forum. Just wish there were more. Remember how the CIA helped install the Shah of Iran back in 1953? Now why did they do that? Was it communist expansion, or was it because Mossadegh wanted to nationalize oil? Thinking people know the answer. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FreeinTX
|
|
« Reply #32 on: April 18, 2008, 08:34:23 PM » |
|
Your right, not chair, he was on the board; Like Obama's wife, Michelle. Brzezinski on CFR, Bilderberg, and Trilateral Commission http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOk6ENxyAh0He also co-directed as study on US policy toward Iran with Robert Gates our current Sec. Def. CHEERS FreeinTX |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Mars
|
|
« Reply #33 on: April 19, 2008, 02:58:19 AM » |
|
Closed minded people ..... Where are the tankers loading up PS? Where is the US control of Iraq's oil fields? It was all a lie and has now been exposed. Just like the dozens of lies told about Bush that I'm sure you believed. The Texas ANG hoax, the "outing of a covert CIA agent", firing US attorneys, "stolen" elections etc etc...... You still don't get it. History has proved you wrong again and you call me closed minded. What a hoot!! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.
|
|
|
|
Pond Scum
|
|
« Reply #34 on: April 19, 2008, 08:49:07 AM » |
|
Closed minded people ..... Where are the tankers loading up PS? Where is the US control of Iraq's oil fields? It was all a lie and has now been exposed. Just like the dozens of lies told about Bush that I'm sure you believed. The Texas ANG hoax, the "outing of a covert CIA agent", firing US attorneys, "stolen" elections etc etc...... You still don't get it. History has proved you wrong again and you call me closed minded. What a hoot!! So, you are calling Alan Greenspan a liar? Why would he lie? What does he have to gain? So he can sell more books? Jeesh. What have the profits been for the oil companies lately? Aren't they having RECORD PROFITS? Exxon posts quarterly, annual profit records - Feb. 1, 2008 Feb 1, 2008 ... Exxon Mobil made history on Friday by reporting the highest quarterly and annual profits ever for a US company, boosted in large part by ... money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news/companies/exxon_earnings/ - 49k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this Exxon sets annual profit record of $39.5B on high oil prices - Feb ... Feb 1, 2007 ... Exxon Mobil Corp. Thursday reported the biggest annual profit on record for a US corporation - earning more than $75000 every minute of 2006 ... money.cnn.com/2007/02/01/news/companies/exxon/index.htm - 39k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this ABC News: Record Prices Mean Record Profits for Oil Companies Aug 11, 2005 ... Record Prices Mean Record Profits for Oil Companies. abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1029991 - Similar pages - Note this baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
freethinker
|
|
« Reply #35 on: April 19, 2008, 11:14:01 AM » |
|
Closed minded people ..... Where are the tankers loading up PS? Where is the US control of Iraq's oil fields? It was all a lie and has now been exposed. Just like the dozens of lies told about Bush that I'm sure you believed. The Texas ANG hoax, the "outing of a covert CIA agent", firing US attorneys, "stolen" elections etc etc...... You still don't get it. History has proved you wrong again and you call me closed minded. What a hoot!! Ron Mars ,You are so full of crap that you are a perpetual serial joke. Your tin foil whack job hat is at least ten gallons. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
NO Third Term For Bush
|
|
|
|
Ron Mars
|
|
« Reply #36 on: April 19, 2008, 01:48:24 PM » |
|
Ron Mars ,You are so full of crap that you are a perpetual serial joke. Your tin foil whack job hat is at least ten gallons.
Just the location where only American and British tankers are filling up on "petro-dollar" Iraqi oil without Iraqi Government approval will do. Just the facts on US oil companies taking over Iraq's oil production facilities without Iraqi Government approval will be fine. Anything that demonstrates the Bush Administration is directing what happens to Iraq's oil industry without Iraqi Government approval will suffice. The Iraqi Government isn't even saying these things WJ. They are very touchy about their oil revenues as we have seen. If we were doing any of this it would not be possible to hide it. Iraq's oil production between 2003 and 2007 barely changed. That oil production would have skyrocketed and the oil sent to America on petro-dollar contracts. That has not happened and would be impossible to hide. We aren't telling the Iraqi's what to do with their oil industry and therein lies the exposure of the hoax. That hoax has just been obliterated. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.
|
|
|
|
Irwin
|
|
« Reply #37 on: April 19, 2008, 04:16:35 PM » |
|
Ron Mars ,You are so full of crap that you are a perpetual serial joke. Your tin foil whack job hat is at least ten gallons.
Just the location where only American and British tankers are filling up on "petro-dollar" Iraqi oil without Iraqi Government approval will do. Just the facts on US oil companies taking over Iraq's oil production facilities without Iraqi Government approval will be fine. Anything that demonstrates the Bush Administration is directing what happens to Iraq's oil industry without Iraqi Government approval will suffice. The Iraqi Government isn't even saying these things WJ. They are very touchy about their oil revenues as we have seen. If we were doing any of this it would not be possible to hide it. Iraq's oil production between 2003 and 2007 barely changed. That oil production would have skyrocketed and the oil sent to America on petro-dollar contracts. That has not happened and would be impossible to hide. We aren't telling the Iraqi's what to do with their oil industry and therein lies the exposure of the hoax. That hoax has just been obliterated. Aw, look at the little guy. Making fake arguments and then expecting folks to answer them or be "proven wrong." Since it is 2003 over there, you might be seeing the stories about how the war will "pay for itself" because of oil revenues. And since you still argue with the neo-con bullshit techniques, I'm going to take apart that, because your argument is pure hogwash. See, you are saying that because, Iraq at least visibly controls its oil, NOW, in 2008 (your future), then there was no intent to go to war for their oil. In reality, according to Cheney, Iraq's oil was supposed to be used to pay for the war and it was supposed to be plentiful. Originally, the oil companies were eager to get in and start pumping crude. But Iraq went to hell, they couldn't get the system up and running, the oil companies saw the enormous security risk and gave up. A classic fake argument, you have. They wanted the oil but they so badly underestimated the problems and were so incompetent that it was no longer worth getting. And your conclusion? That they never wanted it in the first place. Yeah, like the kid who fell off his bike, Bush meant to do that...sure. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
freethinker
|
|
« Reply #38 on: April 19, 2008, 07:59:18 PM » |
|
I like it Irwin. Ron Mars; whack job Mr 2003. I have concluded that the poor boy has been somehow brain damaged and can no longer reason. A sad little man with no one to listen to his hysterical blathering about what a great, honest and noble plan the invasion of Iraq was.
I have explained over and over about the difference between controlling the oil and stealing the oil but alas, Ron from Mars incapable of grasping this concept or the reality of the situation in general.
Only Neue ever gave Mars an ounce of credibility here. But all new rule really cares about is that someone gets tortured for revenge and that his capital gains tax stays low.
Lies, smoke and straw man arguments defending lies and more lies from a failed administration. This guy is a whack job of the highest order. I have already wasted far too much time on him and his vast left wing media conspiracy theories.
Time to put on your foil hat with the Bush/Cheney bumper sticker on it, lock the wayback machine's control to 2003, kiss your autographed photo of junior and crawl back under the covers Ron.
The rest of us are about to elect a leader who will try to fix some this fucked up mess your hero created.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
NO Third Term For Bush
|
|
|
|
Retro Fit
|
|
« Reply #39 on: April 19, 2008, 09:23:26 PM » |
|
Nice try though. The only thing full of crap is your argument we went into Iraq for their oil. Nothing we have done even suggests that. Providing security and ensuring Saddam didn't blow up oil well heads early on in OIF in no way suggests we are controlling Iraq's oil or ever had any intention of doing so. What nonsense!! Actually, Ron, I think half the reason we went was to insure dollar hegemony by making sure Iraqi oil sold for U.S. dollars. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pond Scum
|
|
« Reply #40 on: April 19, 2008, 11:54:19 PM » |
|
I like it Irwin. Ron Mars; whack job Mr 2003. I have concluded that the poor boy has been somehow brain damaged and can no longer reason. A sad little man with no one to listen to his hysterical blathering about what a great, honest and noble plan the invasion of Iraq was.
I have explained over and over about the difference between controlling the oil and stealing the oil but alas, Ron from Mars incapable of grasping this concept or the reality of the situation in general.
Only Neue ever gave Mars an ounce of credibility here. But all new rule really cares about is that someone gets tortured for revenge and that his capital gains tax stays low.
Lies, smoke and straw man arguments defending lies and more lies from a failed administration. This guy is a whack job of the highest order. I have already wasted far too much time on him and his vast left wing media conspiracy theories.
Time to put on your foil hat with the Bush/Cheney bumper sticker on it, lock the wayback machine's control to 2003, kiss your autographed photo of junior and crawl back under the covers Ron.
The rest of us are about to elect a leader who will try to fix some this fucked up mess your hero created.
There was only one presidential candidate who is not part of the "establishment" and that was Ron Paul. The rest are all lackeys. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Mars
|
|
« Reply #41 on: April 20, 2008, 08:00:22 AM » |
|
Aw, look at the little guy. Making fake arguments and then expecting folks to answer them or be "proven wrong." Since it is 2003 over there, you might be seeing the stories about how the war will "pay for itself" because of oil revenues. And since you still argue with the neo-con bullshit techniques, I'm going to take apart that, because your argument is pure hogwash.
See, you are saying that because, Iraq at least visibly controls its oil, NOW, in 2008 (your future), then there was no intent to go to war for their oil.
In reality, according to Cheney, Iraq's oil was supposed to be used to pay for the war and it was supposed to be plentiful. Originally, the oil companies were eager to get in and start pumping crude. But Iraq went to hell, they couldn't get the system up and running, the oil companies saw the enormous security risk and gave up.
A classic fake argument, you have. They wanted the oil but they so badly underestimated the problems and were so incompetent that it was no longer worth getting. And your conclusion? That they never wanted it in the first place.
Yeah, like the kid who fell off his bike, Bush meant to do that...sure.
Have you really no idea how transparently false these beliefs are? We see no evidence of what you claim is happening. Nothing. If we wanted Iraq's oil fields we would have secured them ourselves and started pumping the oil out without the consent of the Iraqi Government or people. We would not have spent years in the center and west of Iraq chasing al-Qaeda and other "insurgents". We would have secured the oil rich sectors of Iraq and stayed there pumping oil. And yes I already know. None of these facts make the slightest bit of difference to you. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.
|
|
|
|
Pond Scum
|
|
« Reply #42 on: April 20, 2008, 08:16:36 AM » |
|
Aw, look at the little guy. Making fake arguments and then expecting folks to answer them or be "proven wrong." Since it is 2003 over there, you might be seeing the stories about how the war will "pay for itself" because of oil revenues. And since you still argue with the neo-con bullshit techniques, I'm going to take apart that, because your argument is pure hogwash.
See, you are saying that because, Iraq at least visibly controls its oil, NOW, in 2008 (your future), then there was no intent to go to war for their oil.
In reality, according to Cheney, Iraq's oil was supposed to be used to pay for the war and it was supposed to be plentiful. Originally, the oil companies were eager to get in and start pumping crude. But Iraq went to hell, they couldn't get the system up and running, the oil companies saw the enormous security risk and gave up.
A classic fake argument, you have. They wanted the oil but they so badly underestimated the problems and were so incompetent that it was no longer worth getting. And your conclusion? That they never wanted it in the first place.
Yeah, like the kid who fell off his bike, Bush meant to do that...sure.
Have you really no idea how transparently false these beliefs are? We see no evidence of what you claim is happening. Nothing. If we wanted Iraq's oil fields we would have secured them ourselves and started pumping the oil out without the consent of the Iraqi Government or people. We would not have spent years in the center and west of Iraq chasing al-Qaeda and other "insurgents". We would have secured the oil rich sectors of Iraq and stayed there pumping oil. And yes I already know. None of these facts make the slightest bit of difference to you. FACTS? You are truly delusional. Do we steal oil from Venezuela? No? Then I guess we don't really want their oil. I love how you define war for oil according to your own terms. So closed minded it's almost funny. I was wondering if you could do me a little favor.......... If I ever reply to one of your posts again, could you please slap me silly? That way we will be on the same page. thanks |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 20, 2008, 08:45:11 AM by Pond Scum »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Irwin
|
|
« Reply #43 on: April 20, 2008, 08:33:59 AM » |
|
Aw, look at the little guy. Making fake arguments and then expecting folks to answer them or be "proven wrong." Since it is 2003 over there, you might be seeing the stories about how the war will "pay for itself" because of oil revenues. And since you still argue with the neo-con bullshit techniques, I'm going to take apart that, because your argument is pure hogwash.
See, you are saying that because, Iraq at least visibly controls its oil, NOW, in 2008 (your future), then there was no intent to go to war for their oil.
In reality, according to Cheney, Iraq's oil was supposed to be used to pay for the war and it was supposed to be plentiful. Originally, the oil companies were eager to get in and start pumping crude. But Iraq went to hell, they couldn't get the system up and running, the oil companies saw the enormous security risk and gave up.
A classic fake argument, you have. They wanted the oil but they so badly underestimated the problems and were so incompetent that it was no longer worth getting. And your conclusion? That they never wanted it in the first place.
Yeah, like the kid who fell off his bike, Bush meant to do that...sure.
Have you really no idea how transparently false these beliefs are? We see no evidence of what you claim is happening. Nothing. If we wanted Iraq's oil fields we would have secured them ourselves and started pumping the oil out without the consent of the Iraqi Government or people. We would not have spent years in the center and west of Iraq chasing al-Qaeda and other "insurgents". We would have secured the oil rich sectors of Iraq and stayed there pumping oil. And yes I already know. None of these facts make the slightest bit of difference to you. Facts are not false because you say so. This is old news by 2008. Maybe if the year ever changes from 2003 in your head, it will be clear to you. See, in 2008, all you have to do is google, Douglas Feith, Cheney and "war will pay for itself" and you'll get millions of hits. Normally, I would be responsible for providing his proof, but when an issue is long dead and folks keep pretending it isn't: THEY must take responsibility for their own ignorance. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Mars
|
|
« Reply #44 on: April 20, 2008, 01:32:08 PM » |
|
Is the Colorado Industrial Construction Services Co. part of the Bush plan? How about the Iraqi Oil Ministry, the Russians, Iranians and Chinese? Are they involved in taking over Iraq's oil industry to bolster the US petro-dollar along with the Colorado Industrial Construction Services Co.? None of what's linked below would be happening if the Bush Administration dictated Iraqi oil policies. BAGHDAD: Iraq's Oil Ministry has signed a contract with the Colorado Industrial Construction Services Co. to help expand a refinery in Najaf, south of Baghdad, an official said Wednesday. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/19/business/ME-FIN-Iraq-Oil-Refinery.php International oil majors would be willing to settle for service contracts in known oil fields in Iraq, the chairman of the advisory committee to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Thursday. Speaking in an interview with Arab Oil and Gas Magazine, Thamir Abbas Ghadhban, who is a former oil minister, said he was certain international oil companies would accept service contracts…for already discovered oil fields ” in view of their geological characteristics, their very great potential, their low production costs and the current and future level of oil prices.” While production-sharing contracts, or PSCs, wouldn’t be considered an option by anyone “of sane mind,” for these oil fields, the government would have to decide if they were appropriate in areas under explorations — including the Western Desert region, Ghadhban said. http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/03/14/rigzonecom-iraq-pm-advisor-majors-will-accept-service-contracts/(MENAFN) The Iraqi Oil Ministry plans to carry out a revision for contracts signed with a Russian oil company during the rule of the defunct regime, Al-Sabah paper reported. According to the contract, the Lukoil Oil Company was scheduled to invest in several oil wells in the southern region of Iraq, an official source from the Oil Ministry said. The Iraqi Oil Ministry announced, a few days ago, it will revise a contract signed with a Chinese company to develop an oil well in Wasit province. Moreover the oil ministry set a plan to construct two pipelines, one for exporting crude oil from Basra to Iran and the other for importing oil derivatives from the Iranian Abadan refinery. Iran promised to perform a large part of the project in coordination with the Iraqi Oil Ministry and to buy Iraqi crude according to world prices, while Iraq will buy oil derivatives from Iran in accordance with world prices. http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?storyid=1093127688Four Chinese oil companies were among 35 companies that qualified to participate in Iraq's coming licensing round for oil and gas contracts, the Iraqi Oil Ministry said on Tuesday. http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/29945 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.
|
|
|
|
