socially conscious news and video shared and rated by the community

It Was Oil, All Along

US Politics & Gov't (tags: cheney, bush, corruption, crime, lies, war )

Melva
- 69 days ago - smirkingchimp.com

Oh, no, they told us, Iraq isn't a war about oil. That's cynical and simplistic, they said. It's about terror and al Qaeda and toppling a dictator and spreading democracy and protecting ourselves from weapons of mass destruction. But one by one, these con

add a comment | visit site | problem?



Comments

Kim Moore (56)

Saturday June 28, 2008, 4:08 pm
NOTED AND THANK YOU MELVA!
THERE'S TOO MUCH EVIDENCE THAT PROVES THE REAL REASON THAT WE HAVE DONE AND ARE STILL DOING WHAT WE DO, THAT YOU HAVE TO WONDER WHY NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE?

Kay S. (256)

Saturday June 28, 2008, 4:30 pm
Noted..Thanks Melva.. I heard through the grapevine it was about something all together different..but I also believe it had alot to do with the oil. I heard it was because Sadom Husein had tried to have our presidents father assinated.Mind you now this is only hearsay! It was a personal vendetta plus..yeah you know he is a OIL MAN right?

Steve Dale (432)

Saturday June 28, 2008, 5:13 pm
BRITAIN ADMITTED IT WAS ALL FOR OIL WHEN THEY PULLED THERE TROOPS OUT AND LOADED THERE SHIPS WITH OIL FOR THE TRIP HOME,AND WE HAVE ALL KNOWN THAT THIS WAS THE ONLY REASON THE COALITION WENT TO WAR WITH IRAQ.

walkadelic f. (0)

Sunday June 29, 2008, 3:12 pm
it is also very likely to be about establishing a permanent presence in the middle east to compliment our US/Isreal presence. It is a good front on the edge of Asia, as we begin to re-establish a shakey relationship with China. It is also a clean-up job for the mess created by western interests (US/CIA/ENGLAnD/BritishPetroleum) over the past 50 years of intervention. the media never give the simple background info about British Petroleums meddling in Iranian politics after world war 2 that has been directly connected to every 'problem' that erupted there since. Dont forget saddam was a paid US stooge until he was 'disposed of'.

Alexis Manning (3)

Sunday June 29, 2008, 3:31 pm
I figured it was all about oil from the start (well, that and a personal vendetta on the part of the Bush family for the reason Kay mentioned above, DESPITE the fact that our own government put Saddam there after the Iran-Iraq War). I mean, why, months after Saddam was taken out, virtually no progress had been made in rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure? And why, as the authors of the article pointed out, were things like museums of priceless artifacts and documents allowed to be looted and robbed? Because, as the aforementioned authors said, most of the guards were posted at oil fields and the bureaucratic centers of the country!

I learned an additional piece of incriminating evidence a couple of years or so ago. According to the authors of a book outlining the grounds for impeaching the current administration, the original name of this campaign was "Operation Iraqi Liberation". What does the acronym for it spell? O.I.L.- Bingo! So, its name was changed to "Operation Iraqi FREEDOM". Unbelievable B[!

Marian E. (140)

Sunday June 29, 2008, 10:58 pm

Oil is the simplistic reason. It actually is about our U.S. economy.

Saddam refused to agree that nothing but the U.S. dollar could be used
as payment for Iraqi oil. (This is the agreement we have with the Saudis
and was done to keep the dollar strong in a global economy. By demanding the dollar as payment for oil, the rest of the world has to trade with us, at our prices, in order to get dollars that can be used for oil.)

When Saddam refused the agreement, it "forced" the U.S. to take action to gain control of the Iraqi Oil. Until that control is firmly established, we will remain there.

Iran is accepting the Euro for payment of oil and will not take the
American dollar. Guess what?

Kathy C. (206)

Monday June 30, 2008, 12:15 am
Noted with thanks Melva
PLATFORM Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq's Oil Wealth
http://www.carbonweb.org/crudedesigns.htm

Rooibos Bird (98)

Monday June 30, 2008, 9:54 am
Of course it was. Osama bin-Laden was hiding in Afghanistan. Let me repeat that: AFGHANISTAN. He took credit for the act of terrorism on 9/11/01, and he should've been pursued until found. End of story.

But no...no no.

A war was started in another nation which had no real weapons and posed no threat to the US whatsoever (whereas North Korea actually did, but what was up there to take, their kim-chee?).

And so, many of us, as soon as all of this began to brew, listened to our inner voice and used our perceptions and read and studied and watched and concluded that the war in Iraq was a sham and a cover for something else. And lo, we were right.