What's That About War For Oil??

jillian

Princess
Apr 4, 2006
85,728
18,111
2,220
The Other Side of Paradise
They say a gaffe in politics is when someone accidentally tells the truth:

At the conclusion of a town hall held this morning outside in Denver, McCain decided to toss in a plug for his upcoming energy policy rollout. But in the midst of decrying the dangers of Americans reliance on foreign oil, McCain seemed to suggest that this reliance caused the current struggle in Iraq.

"My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will -- that will then prevent us -- that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East,” McCain said.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/02/974014.aspx
 
Its not a gaffe, moron....its reality.....

Are you naive enough to think that if our enemies cut our oil supply it wouldn't cause a MAJOR conflict.... its akin to cutting off food imports if we absolutly required 50% food imports to survive...
Its one of the reasons the Japs attacked us in '44.....
they have NO OIL of their own and we threatened what imports they were getting....
To the US...OIL is our blood....without it we will cease to exist as we know it...
to us...the oil is about as important as food.....
thats why we have have our own supply
not rely of other counties....we must us our own resources....and screw the Dims and their eco-wackos...
 
So I guess when all the bush apologists and neo-cons said it WASN'T about oil, they were lying?

Oh wait... we knew that... but the apologists would have called this "lefty"...

There were only two credible reasons for invading Iraq: control over oil and preservation of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Yet the government has kept silent on these factors, instead treating us to the intriguing distractions of the Hutton and Butler reports.
Butler's overall finding of a "group think" failure was pure charity. Absurdities like the 45-minute claim were adopted by high-level officials and ministers because those concerned recognised the substantial reason for war - oil. WMD provided only the bureaucratic argument: the real reason was that Iraq was swimming in oil.

Some may still believe the eve-of-war contention by Donald Rumsfeld that "We won't take forces and go around the world and try to take other people's oil ... That's not how democracies operate." Maybe others will go along with Blair's post-war contention: "There is no way whatsoever, if oil were the issue, that it would not have been infinitely easier to cut a deal with Saddam."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jul/28/iraq.usa
 
ooh... lookie... lookie...

if it wasn't a gaffe, then why is mccain backtracking?

PHOENIX - Republican John McCain was forced to clarify his comments Friday suggesting the Iraq war involved U.S. reliance on foreign oil. He said he was talking about the first Gulf War and not the current conflict.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080502/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_iraq_5

Answer: Because it was a gaffe and he accidentally told the truth. Funny how he needs to "backtrack" from the truth.
 
So I guess when all the bush apologists and neo-cons said it WASN'T about oil, they were lying?

Oh wait... we knew that... but the apologists would have called this "lefty"...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jul/28/iraq.usa

The police have a saying, totality of the circumstances. There is no ONE reason for the war in Iraq, but a totality of circumstances that made it reasonable and prudent to go.
 
ooh... lookie... lookie...

if it wasn't a gaffe, then why is mccain backtracking?



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080502/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_iraq_5

Answer: Because it was a gaffe and he accidentally told the truth. Funny how he needs to "backtrack" from the truth.

MY opinion....

I'm not talking about McCain...I'm talking about reality....not lying to yourself, etc....all politicans talk crap....liberal, conservative, Dems and Repubs...

Many important political decisions in the past 60 years were made with oil and energy policy as the keystones of those decisions.....whether its publicly expressed or not....thats reality.....

Every developed country in the world recognizes that oil is THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT in their existence....without it ...they cease to develop.....a threat or even a perceived threat to a country's oil supply will cause conflict....that is a 100% accurate fact of life....

We both know that we are in the Middle East because of oil as sure as we know Clinton committed perjury.....to deny either is lying to yourself...
That doesn't mean our governments will shout it from the rooftops....but those of us that think.....know....
 
did anyone really think that iraq was NOT about oil at least on one level??

the only reason we've been meddling in the middle east for the past 6 decades IS oil. our policies in the middle east such and the disasters of the shah then Hussein are testimony to our diplomatic failings in the middle east.

I've said it before but I'll say it again, every attempt at diplomacy on the middle east that we are involved in will fail or at least be considered suspect because they know that we don't care about the region except to keep out oil interests in tact seriously democracy in the middle east is the least of our goals and we all know this but more importantly so do they
 
They say a gaffe in politics is when someone accidentally tells the truth:



http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/02/974014.aspx

What's that about misleading thread titles?:rolleyes:

I don't think anyone has EVER suggested that our involvement in the Middle East is not because of our dependence on Arab oil, and more than a passing interest in who controls it.

Which has nothing to do with the leftwingnut conspiracy theory accusation that the US invaded Iraq to steal it's oil.
 
It's about oil. All those lives were sacrificed for the oil companies. Does that make you feel good?

Jeez it took you lot long enough to work it out.

It's not so much that it took them so long to work it out as it is that it took them so long to admit it. They've gone from denying it was about oil to saying of course it was about oil.

I personally think that for Bush himself it was all about showing up his daddy by killing Saddam when his daddy couldn't.

But the neocons of course went along with it because for them it was about controlling oil.
 
a must see...

"why we fight"

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Fight-John-McCain/dp/B000FBH3W2/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1209828340&sr=8-1[/ame]
 
Careful Jill. The retired gunnery dude will be calling you a liar soon. It seems that is his mantra as of late.

Hint: don't tell lies and you don't get called a liar. The comment that the war is not about oil is in the context of responding to pundits accusing the Administration of invading Iraq to to specifically steal Iraq's oil. Which, is untrue.

That ae even give a shit about the Middle East at all and who is control of what is based solely on our interest in and dependence on Arab oil.

See how easy it is when you put things in correct context? I don't even see the point to posting this misleading crap. It was TOO easy to shoot down.
 

Forum List

Back
Top