They lied...

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Bullypulpit, Mar 18, 2005.

  1. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    <center><h1><font color=red>And they said the war wasn't about oil...</font></h1></center>

    Before Dubbyuh started his little adventure in Iraq, a number of folks were saying that the war was about oil. Now, it appears they were right, and that the plans were being laid as early as the spring of 2001. BBC "<i>Newsnight</i>", in co-operation with "<i>Harper's Magazine</i>" have unearthed evidence which was presented in a broadcast on 3/17/05.

    The <a href=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm>story</a> points to a conflict between the neocons in Dubbyuh's administration, and "Big Oil" interests in league with the state department. This was essentially a conflict between the dogmatic neocons and the pragmatists in the oil industry and state. The neocons were pushing to "privatize" Iraq's oil fields in an attempt to break OPEC's back by flooding the market with oil and driving the prices down to a point that the cartel could not tolerate. This plan was given the go ahead even as Bagdhad fell. This plan helped fuel the insurgency by giving them a cause to rally supporters. "Look," they would say, "We're losing our country...our wealth...to foreigners who care nothing about what happens to us!"

    This plan, however, was blocked by the oil industry which feared that the privatization of Iraq's oil fields would echo that of the Russian oil fields. In this process of privatization, US oil companies were not permitted to bid in the reserves. Instead a plan was put forth to set up an Iraqi state oil company in order to give US, and other companies access to Iraq's oil fields.

    We have been lied to in every manner imaginable by the Bush administration in order to justify the war in Iraq. This should be the final nail in the coffin of this Administration and its policies. There are more than sufficient grounds for the impeachment of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the Bush cabinet. It's time to clean house.

    For the full text of the story, goto:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm
     
  2. sagegirl
    Offline

    sagegirl Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Messages:
    515
    Thanks Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +42
    I have maintained an opinion all along that this war is about oil....plain and simple. If we really wanted to do so much good and righteous deeds as freeing people from cruel dictators and "making the world a better place" we would have been there in many other situations....but we simply turned our faces.....The reason we are involved in Iraq is for corporative greed, the money/oil and the proposed pipelines that are being planned in the region. All the other stuff is a smokescreen.
     
  3. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    The story isn't being covered here in the US for the same reason the issue of no WMD's hasn't been pursued...It isn't being covered for the same reason single source, unbid contracts to Haliburton aren't being covered...It isn't being covered for the smae reason $8.8 billion in tax-payer dollars gone missing in Iraq isn't being covered...It isn't being covered for the same reason war profiteering isn't being covered. The US media is largely in the hands of corporate interest supportive of the Bush administraion, not to mentionthat most US journalists are a pack of cowed and lazy cravens.
     
  4. Trigg
    Offline

    Trigg Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
    Messages:
    774
    Thanks Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    midwest
    Ratings:
    +69
    I have to say that this is an interesting story!! However and I must add however the primary source for the information is a little suspect!!

    I mean after all he is "An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury". I am sorry but this is like Hillary Clinton saying she doesnt know anything about Vince Foster!! In other words I feel not a very reliable source...

    This may be why we havent seen anything in any other press! Nothing is verifiable. Does Mr Aljibury have plane ticket information to back up when he was in California? Or for that matter any cooberating information??

    If we were really going just for the Oil wouldnt we be seeing some of it by now? At the very least we wouldnt be paying $3.00 a gallon in California right now....

    Of course this is just my opinion on the primary source.....
     
  5. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    When you are willing to do without petroleum products I may listen to you.
     
  6. OCA
    Offline

    OCA Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    7,014
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    Ratings:
    +223
    Looks like we are headed to 3.00 a gallon gas this summer.....kind of shoots the war for oil conspiracy theory right in the ass.

    Next try tinfoil hat wearers?
     
  7. sagegirl
    Offline

    sagegirl Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Messages:
    515
    Thanks Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +42
    There are way to many applications for petroleum based products to ignore them or do without them....in some instances they are absolutely the best product to use. But to burn them up in gas guzzling suv's isnt the best useage.
     
  8. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,548
    Thanks Received:
    8,163
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,163
    So its not being covered here for the same reason the issue of no WMD's isnt being covered? So i guess that mean its false. That explains alot. I mean that is the reason the issue of no WMD's is not being covered.
     
  9. KarlMarx
    Offline

    KarlMarx Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,231
    Thanks Received:
    490
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    ...
    Ratings:
    +490
    Yep, the Republicans invaded Iraq over oil (which would have increased supply), but then they conspired to jack the price of oil up, so that it would ruin the economy, so that the Republicans could get blamed for the downturn in the economy, and thus lead to their defeat in 2008.....

    Yep, that's a well thought out conspiracy! :)
     
  10. KarlMarx
    Offline

    KarlMarx Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,231
    Thanks Received:
    490
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    ...
    Ratings:
    +490
    Single source, no compete contracts for Haliburton happened under the Clinton administration, too. The reason for the no bid contracts is that they cover a lot of small potatoes kind of work, so rather than bid for each, the DoD puts out a competition for a sole source contract on this type of work. Haliburton just happened to win and in fact, won under the Clinton administration.

    So, if we didn't invade Iraq and they did have WMDs and they were used against us, Bully and his buddies would be screaming that Bush "should have done something" about it.

    Just like they say that Bush "should have done something" to prevent 9/11.... oh, you mean like "should have PRE-EMPTED the 9/11 attacks"? Isn't that what he's trying to do here, folks?

    Ya know what? If the Left doesn't have something to bitch and complain about, they just aren't happy!
     

Share This Page