The War on Terror is a War for Oil in Disguise

[Paul Revere]

This 8:28 video lays it out in an easy to follow time line.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...+Terror:+The+Greatest+Hoax+Of+All+Time?&hl=en

It is time for all of us to take a stand against the fraud. The elite New World Order Globalists are using our military for their personal gain.

 

[boedicca]

Just out of curiosity: do you own a car; and if so, how big is the gas tank and how often do you fill it up?

 

[90K]

Just out of curiosity: do you own a car; and if so, how big is the gas tank and how often do you fill it up?

Good point but for many that very queston doesn't matter, like the principle really. This is alot more than just oil but also respect from the world regarding a people who have been used for the very thing that made them important, thus a war from every direction and it is beyond the highest bidder!

 

[CTRLALTDEL]

Just out of curiosity: do you own a car; and if so, how big is the gas tank and how often do you fill it up?

And so our NEED FOR GASOLINE JUSTIFIES GENOCIDE right??

 

[Paul Revere]

Just out of curiosity: do you own a car; and if so, how big is the gas tank and how often do you fill it up?

I own a bicylcle and a motorcycle. I also walk alot.
How about You?

 

[Annie]

I own a bicylcle and a motorcycle. I also walk alot.
How about You?

I live 25 miles from my place of employment, I do not own a motorcycle. There is no public trans from here to there, and if there were, I'd probably not want to take that bus.

 

[roadhouse158]

And so our NEED FOR GASOLINE JUSTIFIES GENOCIDE right??

I agree...Why are all those Muslims killing other Muslims? I could be wrong, but it appears your saying America is committing genocide to get oil. I believe most the murders going on are being committed by Muslims on Muslims. Not Americans killing Muslims. We are not over there shooting people up. We are basically a police force right now. We are just making sure the Iraqi Government isn't overthrown. If we were there to commit genocide, then this operation would have been completed one year after it started.

 

[Gunny]

And so our NEED FOR GASOLINE JUSTIFIES GENOCIDE right??

What, pray tell, genocide would that be? Let's be real. If the US was willing to go to any means -- including genocide -- to take another nation's oil, we'd already have easily done so.

 

[Gunny]

I agree...Why are all those Muslims killing other Muslims? I could be wrong, but it appears your saying America is committing genocide to get oil. I believe most the murders going on are being committed by Muslims on Muslims. Not Americans killing Muslims. We are not over there shooting people up. We are basically a police force right now. We are just making sure the Iraqi Government isn't overthrown. If we were there to commit genocide, then this operation would have been completed one year after it started.

Wouldn't have taken THAT long. Six months, tops. No Nation on Earth could stand up to the US military completely unleashed.

 

[CTRLALTDEL]

What, pray tell, genocide would that be? Let's be real. If the US was willing to go to any means -- including genocide -- to take another nation's oil, we'd already have easily done so.

SHOCK & AWE come to mind.......ohhhh right.....we were only targeting military targets. LOL!!!!

After "mission accomplished" we draft IRAQI laws that would effectively PRIVITIZE IRAQ'S oil (which does not belong to the US). Pretty slick if you ask me. Stealing without making it look like stealing.

 

[CTRLALTDEL]

I agree...Why are all those Muslims killing other Muslims? I could be wrong, but it appears your saying America is committing genocide to get oil. I believe most the murders going on are being committed by Muslims on Muslims. Not Americans killing Muslims. We are not over there shooting people up. We are basically a police force right now. We are just making sure the Iraqi Government isn't overthrown. If we were there to commit genocide, then this operation would have been completed one year after it started.

Which coincidentally started after we removed the one TYRANT that had the ability to stop these SECTARIAN KILLINGS.

 

[Gunny]

SHOCK & AWE come to mind.......ohhhh right.....we were only targeting military targets. LOL!!!!

After "mission accomplished" we draft IRAQI laws that would effectively PRIVITIZE IRAQ'S oil (which does not belong to the US). Pretty slick if you ask me. Stealing without making it look like stealing.

Really? Please post any evidence you have that the US is involved in privatizing Iraq's oil and we're somehow making a profit. Last time I looked, I"m still paying over $2.00 a gallon, and I've heard it's a lot worse on the coasts.

 

[roadhouse158]

Which coincidentally started after we removed the one TYRANT that had the ability to stop these SECTARIAN KILLINGS.

He was responsible for a lot of killing while in power. The difference now is that payback is happening. If Sunnis kill Shiites, then Shiities in return kill Sunnis. That's not America's fault. It comes from decades of that tyrant doing as he pleased.

 

[red states rule]

I wish the troops would stop hiding the oil in their tents and ship it at once to the nearest refinary

 

[GeeWhiz]

Really? Please post any evidence you have that the US is involved in privatizing Iraq's oil and we're somehow making a profit.

The following link should give you a start.

http://dotcommonsense.blog-city.com/americans_with_ties_to_bush_administration_helped_write_iraq.htm

The hydrocarbon law

The early draft of the law was prepared by BearingPoint American consultants, hired by the Bush administration, and sent to the White House and major Western petroleum corporations in July, and then to the International Monetary Fund two months later, while most Iraqi legislators and the public remained in the dark.

The article in the UK Independent on this subject said that 20% is twice as much as is commonly allowed.

Documents obtained in a 2002 Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the conservative legal group Judicial Watch found Vice President Dick Cheney's secret Energy Task Force included maps and charts of Iraq's oil infrastructure and projects as well as a list of "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts."

A pre-war oil and energy working group of the U.S. State Department's Future of Iraq project also focused on Iraq's oil sector.

The U.S. Agency for International Development in 2004 announced an Iraq contract with McLean, Va.-based consultant BearingPoint for "broad economic reform," BearingPoint spokesman Steve Lunceford told UPI Oct. 18.

He said it included "privatization of the oil industry

"The Bush administration has consistently placed enormous pressure on the al-Maliki government to pass an oil law that would open Iraq from a nationalized oil system to one that would transform to allow private foreign investment and the only thing being debated at this point is the extent private companies would have access to the Iraqi oil market," said Antonia Juhasz, visiting scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington and author of "The Bush Agenda."

"One could argue if the war was [not] waged for that purpose. It certainly seems clear that it's being maintained for that purpose."

The Independent, a British newspaper, obtained a leaked copy of the draft law and reported that its provisions would lock Iraqi oil into 30-year Production Sharing Agreements with private oil corporations on what are absolute beggar's terms.

The PSAs would divert up to 70 percent of the oil profits to private companies while they are developing new oil fields, and 20 percent of the profits thereafter. PSAs are not a common arrangement

 

[eots]

Wouldn't have taken THAT long. Six months, tops. No Nation on Earth could stand up to the US military completely unleashed.

unless it is carpet bombing the entire muslim nation and killing every man woman and child it is a war you will never win. as soon as you put boots on the ground americain soliders will continue to die the battle will rage on, a war without end

 

[Semper Fi]

unless it is carpet bombing the entire muslim nation and killing every man woman and child it is a war you will never win. as soon as you put boots on the ground americain soliders will continue to die the battle will rage on, a war without end

Right, and the Cold War would never end, and democracy would never work in post WWII Japan...
Either way, a war without end is a grand alternative to living my life on my knees under a forced religion, I would rather fight a "war without end" to ensure the safety of the lives of the Free World, than cry 'peace,' and lose my freedom to live.

 

[red states rule]

Right, and the Cold War would never end, and democracy would never work in post WWII Japan...
Either way, a war without end is a grand alternative to living my life on my knees under a forced religion, I would rather fight a "war without end" to ensure the safety of the lives of the Free World, than cry 'peace,' and lose my freedom to live.

Dems have not changed since the Cival War


Copperheads, Then and Now
The Democratic legacy of undermining war efforts.

By Mackubin Thomas Owens

While recovering from surgery recently, I had the good fortune to read a fine new book about political dissent in the North during the Civil War. The book, Copperheads: The Rise an Fall of Lincoln’s Opponents in the North, by journalist-turned-academic-historian Jennifer Weber, shines the spotlight on the “Peace Democrats,” who did everything they could to obstruct the Union war effort during the Rebellion. In so doing, she corrects a number of claims that have become part of the conventional wisdom. The historical record aside, what struck me the most were the similarities between the rhetoric and actions of the Copperheads a century and a half ago and Democratic opponents of the Iraq war today.

In contradistinction to the claims of many earlier historians, Weber argues persuasively that the Northern anti-war movement was far from a peripheral phenomenon. Disaffection with the war in the North was widespread and the influence of the Peace Democrats on the Democratic party was substantial. During the election of 1864, the Copperheads wrote the platform of the Democratic party, and one of their own, Rep. George H. Pendleton of Ohio, was the party’s candidate for vice president. Until Farragut’s victory at Mobile Bay, Sherman’s capture of Atlanta, and Sheridan’s success in driving the Confederates from the Shenandoah Valley in the late summer and fall of 1864, hostility toward the war was so profound in the North that Lincoln believed he would lose the election.

Weber demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that the actions of the Copperheads materially damaged the ability of the Lincoln administration to prosecute the war. Weber persuasively refutes the view of earlier historians such as the late Frank Klement, who argued that what Lincoln called the Copperhead “fire in the rear” was mostly “a fairy tale,” a “figment of Republican imagination,” made up of “lies, conjecture and political malignancy.” The fact is that Peace Democrats actively interfered with recruiting and encouraged desertion. Indeed, they generated so much opposition to conscription that the Army was forced to divert resources from the battlefield to the hotbeds of Copperhead activity in order to maintain order. Many Copperheads actively supported the Confederate cause, materially as well as rhetorically.

In the long run, the Democratic party was badly hurt by the Copperheads. Their actions radically politicized Union soldiers, turning into stalwart Republicans many who had strongly supported the Democratic party’s opposition to emancipation as a goal of the war. As the Democrats were reminded for many years after the war, the Copperheads had made a powerful enemy of the Union veterans.

The fact is that many Union soldiers came to despise the Copperheads more than they disdained the Rebels. In the words of an assistant surgeon of an Iowa regiment, “it is a common saying here that if we are whipped, it will be by Northern votes, not by Southern bullets. The army regard the result of the late [fall 1862] elections as at least prolonging the war.”

Weber quotes the response of a group of Indiana soldiers to letters from Copperhead “friends” back home:

Your letter shows you to be a cowardly traitor. No traitor can be my friend; if you cannot renounce your allegiance to the Copperhead scoundrels and own your allegiance to the Government which has always protected you, you are my enemy, and I wish you were in the ranks of my open, avowed, and manly enemies, that I might put a ball through your black heart, and send your soul to the Arch Rebel himself.

It is certain that the Union soldiers tired of hearing from the Copperheads that the Rebels could not be defeated. They surely tired of being described by the Copperheads as instruments of a tyrannical administration trampling the legitimate rights of the Southern states. The soldiers seemed to understand fairly quickly that the Copperheads preferred Lincoln’s failure to the country’s success. They also recognized that the Copperheads offered no viable alternative to Lincoln’s policy except to stop the war. Does any of this sound familiar?

Today, Democratic opponents of the Iraq war echo the rhetoric of the Copperheads. As Lincoln was a bloodthirsty tyrant, trampling the rights of Southerners and Northerners alike, President Bush is the world’s worst terrorist, comparable to Hitler.

These words of the La Crosse Democrat responding to Lincoln’s re-nomination could just as easily have been written about Bush: “May God Almighty forbid that we are to have two terms of the rottenest, most stinking, ruin working smallpox ever conceived by fiends or mortals…” The recent lament of left-wing bloggers that Vice President Dick Cheney was not killed in a suicide bombing attempt in Pakistan echoes the incendiary language of Copperhead editorialist Brick Pomeroy who hoped that if Lincoln were re-elected, “some bold hand will pierce his heart with dagger point for the public good.”

Antiwar Democrats make a big deal of “supporting the troops.” But such expressions ring hollow in light of Democratic efforts to hamstring the ability of the United States to achieve its objectives in Iraq. And all too often, the mask of the antiwar politician or activist slips, revealing what opponents of the war really think about the American soldier.

For instance, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Rep. Charles Rangel have suggested that soldiers fighting in Iraq are there because they are not smart enough to do anything else. Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois has suggested a similarity between the conduct of U.S. troops in Iraq and that of Nazi soldiers in World War II. His Illinois colleagues, Sen. Barack Obama, claimed that the lives of soldiers lost in Iraq were “wasted.” And recently William Arkin, a military analyst writing online for the Washington Post, said of American soldiers that they are “mercenaries” who had little business taking critics of the war to task.

The Copperheads often abandoned all decency in their pursuit of American defeat in the Civil War. One Connecticut Copperhead told his neighbors that he hoped that all the men who went to fight for the Union cause would “leave their Bones to Bleach on the soil” of the South. The heirs of the Copperheads in today’s Democratic party are animated by the same perverted spirit with regard to the war in Iraq. Nothing captures the essence of today’s depraved Copperhead perspective better than the following e-mail, which unfortunately is only one example of the sort of communication I have received all too often in response to articles of mine over the past few months.

Dear Mr. Owens

You write, "It is hard to conduct military operations when a chorus of eunuchs is describing every action we take as a violation of everything that America stands for, a quagmire in which we are doomed to failure, and a waste of American lives."

But Mr. Owens, I believe that those three beliefs are true. On what grounds can I be barred from speaking them in public? Because speaking them will undermine American goals in Iraq? Bless you, sir, that's what I want to do in the first place. I am confident that U.S. forces will be driven from Iraq, and for that reason I am rather enjoying the war.

But doesn't hoping that American forces are driven from Iraq necessarily mean hoping that Americans soldiers will be killed there? Yes it does. Your soldiers are just a bunch of poor, dumb suckers that have been swindled out of their right to choose between good and evil. Quite a few of them are or will be swindled out of their eyes, legs, arms and lives. I didn't swindle them. President Bush did. If you're going to blame me for cheering their misery, what must you do to President Bush, whose policies are the cause of that misery?

Union soldiers voted overwhelmingly for Lincoln in 1864, abandoning the once-beloved George McClellan because of the perception that he had become a tool of the Copperheads. After Vietnam, veterans left the Democratic party in droves. I was one of them. The Democratic party seems poised to repeat its experience in both the Civil War and Vietnam.

The Democrats seem to believe that they are tapping into growing anti-Iraq War sentiment in the military. They might cite evidence of military antipathy towards the war reflected in, for example, the recent CBS Sixty Minutes segment entitled “Dissension in the Ranks.” But the Democrats are whistling past the graveyard. The Sixty Minutes segment was predicated on an unscientific Army Times poll, orchestrated by activists who now oppose the war. The fact remains that most active duty and National Guard personnel still support American objectives in Iraq. They may be frustrated by the perceived incompetence of higher-ups and disturbed by a lack of progress in the war, but it has always been thus among soldiers. The word “snafu” began as a World War II vintage acronym: “situation normal, all f****d up.”

Union soldiers could support the goals of the war and criticize the incompetence of their leaders in the same breath. But today’s soldiers, like their Union counterparts a century and a half ago, are tired of hearing that everything is the fault of their own government from people who invoke Gitmo and Abu Ghraib but rarely censure the enemy, and who certainly offer no constructive alternative to the current course of action.

The late nineteenth century Democratic party paid a high price for the influence of the Copperheads during the Civil War, permitting Republicans to “wave the bloody shirt” of rebellion and to vilify the party with the charge of disunion and treason. If its leaders are not careful, today’s Democratic party may well pay the same sort of price for the actions of its antiwar base, which is doing its best to continue the Copperhead legacy.

— Mackubin Thomas Owens is an associate dean of academics and a professor of national-security affairs at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. He is writing a history of U.S. civil-military relations.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjAxOWZhOWQ1YWMwNDEwMDIyYmQ0MjQwZjgyOGFkZTU=

 

[eots]

Right, and the Cold War would never end, and democracy would never work in post WWII Japan...
Either way, a war without end is a grand alternative to living my life on my knees under a forced religion, I would rather fight a "war without end" to ensure the safety of the lives of the Free World, than cry 'peace,' and lose my freedom to live.

what makes you think the cold war ended ?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

hey, that kiss is turning me on j/k.

I do not believe the war is for oil, because if it was, why arent we using iraqs oil to pay for the war, instead of our own money

just a thought?