dahunan
Lifer
- Jan 10, 2002
- 18,191
- 3
- 0
This is what people forget
http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilMap.pdf
Cheney tried to HIDE that..
WHY?
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Yawn, you are just full of empty rhetoric.
National Security Decision Directive (NSDD 114) from Ronald W. Reagan. "U.S. Policy toward the Iran-Iraq War", November 26, 1983
National Security Decision Dir...ar", November 26, 1983
National Security Decision Directive (NSDD 114) from Ronald W. Reagan. "U.S. Policy toward the Iran-Iraq War," November 26, 1983.
President Ronald Reagan directs that consultations begin with regional states willing to cooperate with the U.S. on measures to protect Persian Gulf oil production and its transshipment infrastructure. The U.S. will give the highest priority to the establishment of military facilities allowing for the positioning of rapid deployment forces in the region to guard oil facilities
National Security Decision Dir...ar", November 26, 1983
The Bush administrations top priority during the invasion of Iraq was "to guard oil facilities" and that's a fact. Keep in mind that Bush I, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, etc. etc. all were part of the Reagan administration.
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
"becoming"?
Anyway - I have no problem with POLICY papers mentioning oil or other things such as have been derided here. A strategic outlook on energy is the right thing to have when you seek the office of such a magnitude, same with other areas. I think people are trying find things of the past to prop up their tin-foil conspiracies of today. I'm sorry but Saddam was an stabilizing factor in the middle east which provides energy for not only us but many others in the world, so I don't think people thinking about energy policy could have NOT looked to Saddam as an uncertainty or whatever. However - making the leap from identifying the unstable force within the energy realm to it being a big planned conspiracy thing is more than a tad over the top.
I'm glad we have leaders who think about energy policy and other things so that when they enter office they already have a focus. Again though, making the conspiracy leap requires more tin-foil than the stores stock.
CsG
I can't tell from your post CAD, are you of the opinion that oil wasn't a factor when the suits were debating whether or not to go to war with Iraq?
GrGr Responds with the....drum roll...GulfInvestigations.net!!! (which language did you choose - French or English?)
OMG - they invaded a country and tried to keep the only source of income - oil infrastructure - intact!!! THOSE EVAL BASTARDS!
Edit: who is gulfinvestigations.net maintained by? These guys - another bunch of objective journalists
Link
I don't speak french - but I do notice the links to the "Regime Bush" cards and something "Le Cartel Bush"...lol
Originally posted by: alchemize
GrGr Responds with the....drum roll...GulfInvestigations.net!!! (which language did you choose - French or English?)
OMG - they invaded a country and tried to keep the only source of income - oil infrastructure - intact!!! THOSE EVAL BASTARDS!
Edit: who is gulfinvestigations.net maintained by? These guys - another bunch of objective journalists
Link
I don't speak french - but I do notice the links to the "Regime Bush" cards and something "Le Cartel Bush"...lol
No you neocon numbnut, I responded with Ronald Reagan's own words (read the link):
"It is the present United States policy to undertake whatever measures may be necessary to keep the Strait of Hormoz open to international shipping. Accordingly, U.S. military forces will attempt to deter and, if that fails, to defeat any hostile efforts to close the Strait to international shipping. Because of the real and psychological impact of the curtailment of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international [Read: Dollar] economic system we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic."
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
"becoming"?
Anyway - I have no problem with POLICY papers mentioning oil or other things such as have been derided here. A strategic outlook on energy is the right thing to have when you seek the office of such a magnitude, same with other areas. I think people are trying find things of the past to prop up their tin-foil conspiracies of today. I'm sorry but Saddam was an stabilizing factor in the middle east which provides energy for not only us but many others in the world, so I don't think people thinking about energy policy could have NOT looked to Saddam as an uncertainty or whatever. However - making the leap from identifying the unstable force within the energy realm to it being a big planned conspiracy thing is more than a tad over the top.
I'm glad we have leaders who think about energy policy and other things so that when they enter office they already have a focus. Again though, making the conspiracy leap requires more tin-foil than the stores stock.
CsG
I can't tell from your post CAD, are you of the opinion that oil wasn't a factor when the suits were debating whether or not to go to war with Iraq?
I have no doubt that Bush's energy policy folks looked into OIL - it would be stupid for them not to. Now if you are trying to claim we went to war in Iraq because of some energy policy...well...you better start shipping some foil
I'm sure oil was part of what was factored in though since you can't remove oil from any equation with Iraq and the region. But again, to claim the war was for oil requires more tin-foil than the stores have in stock.Lets try this on for size though since you guys love to ask this type of question when the humanitarian reason for ridding Iraq of Saddam gets brought up.(why don't we go to X because of X)
If we were after oil - why don't we just take over the oil fields in Russia? Why don't we just take over Venezuela? Hey - I hear Mexico just found a big stash of oil - are they next?
The "war for oil" conspiracy BS is just that - BS. Yes, you can't take oil out of the equation but it doesn't mean it was some big conspiracy plan to take their oil
CsG
I haven't seen any evidence that oil was the main reason for this war. On the other hand, if one were to ridicule another for having the opinion that oil played a part in the decision making process, imo, the ridiculer would be the one wearing the tinfoil.
Russia has nukes. Venezuela and Mexico have democratically elected governments. Saddam was a genuine badguy that the neocons could accuse of terrorism, wmd's and whatnot while he just happened to sit on the second (or so) largest oil supply in the world in a strategically important part of the world (not in the least if your aim is to support Israel and project power towards the Caspian). Hence fourteen permanent military bases. Oil was not the sole reason for the invasion but it was a deciding factor. What happens to the US economy when and if the price of oil doubles or tripples? What happens to the US military when that happens? What happens to the world economy and the dollar? Those arguments are far more convincing than the US paying hundreds of billions of dollars and plenty of US military blood because "Saddam is evil".
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: alchemize
GrGr Responds with the....drum roll...GulfInvestigations.net!!! (which language did you choose - French or English?)
OMG - they invaded a country and tried to keep the only source of income - oil infrastructure - intact!!! THOSE EVAL BASTARDS!
Edit: who is gulfinvestigations.net maintained by? These guys - another bunch of objective journalists
Link
I don't speak french - but I do notice the links to the "Regime Bush" cards and something "Le Cartel Bush"...lol
No you neocon numbnut, I responded with Ronald Reagan's own words (read the link):
"It is the present United States policy to undertake whatever measures may be necessary to keep the Strait of Hormoz open to international shipping. Accordingly, U.S. military forces will attempt to deter and, if that fails, to defeat any hostile efforts to close the Strait to international shipping. Because of the real and psychological impact of the curtailment of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international [Read: Dollar] economic system we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic."
Well you tinfoil testicle, same policy every president has carried forward, including clinton.
Although I'm not gonna say that we invaded Iraq for the oil, per se, it certainly made the decision a lot easier to make, I'm sure. With that being said, I'd like to say that (and I'm being dead, DEAD serious here), that we better get off the oil tit or this country is going to be in deep, DEEP trouble. What are the people and the businesses of this country going to do if gas prices rise to $5-$6 per gallon in the next few years? If you don't think it'll happen, you're fooling yourself. Oil is a finite resource and once it's gone, it's gone.
It stands to reason that this country would have to get a hold of more oil resources as soon as possible. Whether or not that was the President's main agenda in invading Iraq when and how it did I cannot say. But one thing I CAN say with 100% certainty is that we didn't invade Iraq with only the best of intentions. But like Bush says about Kerry, "Intentions don't always translate into results." Bush's intentions may or may not have been personally benign, but I can say again with 100% certainty that some members of his administration had intentions of malice and certainly steered the President toward that path.
Now, with that, I think of a few things and ask myself a few questions....
1) Were there WMD's? No.
2) Did the President KNOW that there were no WMD's? Maybe, maybe not. Nobody can really know for sure right now.
3) With Cheney's direct involvement with Halliburton, did that play a role in it? I'm almost certain it did to some degree.
4) With Iraq having vast oil fields, did the U.S. stand to gain from taking them over? Of course, yes.
5) Was Saddam a convenient target, due to his past actions? Of course, yes.
6) Has any good come out of Iraq? Yes, Saddam is gone. That is more of a benefit to the Iraqi people at this point, than to us.
7) What have been the pitfalls of the Iraqi invasion? Lots of servicemen dead, injured or called up. The Iraqi people have not greeted the Americans with as much reference as the Administration expected. The aftermath of the war has been greatly more intense as the actual war engagement itself.
8) Was the intelligence provided to President Bush, Congress and the American people offbase? Completely.
9) Do we have the duty to remain in Iraq until it stabilizes? Oh hell yeah, we broke it, we bought it.
10) Could $200 billion been better spent? We could've secured our borders, airports and water ports for decades.
11) If something happens elsewhere in the world, could we respond with any sort of effectiveness? No.
12) Is Bush evil for invading Iraq? No, but at the worst, he's very aggressive. At best, he's misguided. (Edit: Let me clarify a bit more here. I think we needed to get rid of Saddam eventually, but had many other obligations in Afghanistan to finish and as we can see now, we needed the support of the international community).
13) Why have we stopped looking for Bin Laden? Honestly, I have no answer for that.
14) Why did we leave Afghanistan so soon? Honestly, I have no idea what possessed us to do that.
15) What's next? I hope we can send our troops home as soon as possible.
Now you may want to flame me, but I tried to be as honest as possible. I tried to not bring forth a conspiracist attitude, but I wanted to show that I'm not turning a blind eye either.
Personally, I feel if Bush had more honest people around him, he'd be a much better President. He seems to have either surrounded himself with militant-like people or yes-people. That's a dangerous combination.
It stands to reason that this country would have to get a hold of more oil resources as soon as possible. Whether or not that was the President's main agenda in invading Iraq when and how it did I cannot say. But one thing I CAN say with 100% certainty is that we didn't invade Iraq with only the best of intentions. But like Bush says about Kerry, "Intentions don't always translate into results." Bush's intentions may or may not have been personally benign, but I can say again with 100% certainty that some members of his administration had intentions of malice and certainly steered the President toward that path.
Now, with that, I think of a few things and ask myself a few questions....
1) Were there WMD's? No.
2) Did the President KNOW that there were no WMD's? Maybe, maybe not. Nobody can really know for sure right now.
3) With Cheney's direct involvement with Halliburton, did that play a role in it? I'm almost certain it did to some degree.
4) With Iraq having vast oil fields, did the U.S. stand to gain from taking them over? Of course, yes.
5) Was Saddam a convenient target, due to his past actions? Of course, yes.
6) Has any good come out of Iraq? Yes, Saddam is gone. That is more of a benefit to the Iraqi people at this point, than to us.
7) What have been the pitfalls of the Iraqi invasion? Lots of servicemen dead, injured or called up. The Iraqi people have not greeted the Americans with as much reference as the Administration expected. The aftermath of the war has been greatly more intense as the actual war engagement itself.
8) Was the intelligence provided to President Bush, Congress and the American people offbase? Completely.
9) Do we have the duty to remain in Iraq until it stabilizes? Oh hell yeah, we broke it, we bought it.
10) Could $200 billion been better spent? We could've secured our borders, airports and water ports for decades.
11) If something happens elsewhere in the world, could we respond with any sort of effectiveness? No.
12) Is Bush evil for invading Iraq? No, but at the worst, he's very aggressive. At best, he's misguided. (Edit: Let me clarify a bit more here. I think we needed to get rid of Saddam eventually, but had many other obligations in Afghanistan to finish and as we can see now, we needed the support of the international community).
13) Why have we stopped looking for Bin Laden? Honestly, I have no answer for that.
14) Why did we leave Afghanistan so soon? Honestly, I have no idea what possessed us to do that.
15) What's next? I hope we can send our troops home as soon as possible.
Now you may want to flame me, but I tried to be as honest as possible. I tried to not bring forth a conspiracist attitude, but I wanted to show that I'm not turning a blind eye either.
Personally, I feel if Bush had more honest people around him, he'd be a much better President. He seems to have either surrounded himself with militant-like people or yes-people. That's a dangerous combination.
I don't think you can truthfully same it is the same policy.
No other President, including Bush Sr., ever did a "pre-emptive strike". That is new ground. Especially when it turned out to be based on "bad intelligence" that they knew was bad, but didn't want to hear it.
The war is about oil, but more so about the power that comes to whoever controls it.
Does anyone have any info on what type of oil interests Bush and Cheney maintain? I'd be interested in reading up if they're available. I was about to argue that there is no way Bush or Cheney could possibly make a profit off of the war, but they actually might. Now's the chance for all you Bush-haters to feed me some info that might actually help your cause.
That's a joke. The language in the article is hardly unbiased.
Sure, it's biased, but doesn't most smear campaigns begin in the biased sector and move into the mainstream media?
MidasKnight
Diamond Member
- Apr 24, 2004
- 3,288
- 0
- 76
I went out and bought the book "The Politics of Truth" by Joseph Wilson. I'm very interested in seeing what he has to say, especially since the book was on sale.Originally posted by: Infohawk
Yeah, unless you don't mind being lied to. Remember the WMDs? Turns out it wasn't about that.
Seriously, does anyone have any info on Bush/Cheney holdings in the oil market?
shiner
Lifer
- Jul 18, 2000
- 17,112
- 1
- 0
Yes....yes....I'm soooooo afraid....that's why I haven't been here. No....wait....the reason I haven't been on here arguing with you obviously brain dead liberal trolls....yes you are the ones who in fact are trolling....is because I was out with my wife.....you know.....a female human. You see on weekends we like to do things besides sit in front of the computer and masturbate to twisted liberal threads that link to every half ass web site they can find as long as they contain some sort of anti-Bush hoo haa...... The only reason I'm on the computer now is because I decided to check my email before going to bed. So....goodbye for now you lonely pathetic hate filled leftist whack jobs. I'm going to go have sex with my beautiful wife. You guys have fun playing your little hate fueled games. Nighty night....make sure and pull the covers up over your head....wouldn't want the big bad Republican boogey man to get you.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter