Author Topic: Iraq IS about the oil  (Read 993 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23002
  • Reputation: +20146/-243
  • Gender: Male
Iraq IS about the oil
« on: October 12, 2007, 03:44:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline Vandaler

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1659
    • Reputation: +29/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Iraq IS about the oil
    « Reply #1 on: October 13, 2007, 07:29:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well written article.

    However ChantCD, your excited title seem to forget the very last paragraph.

    Quote from: Jim Holt
    Still, there is reason to be sceptical of the picture I have drawn: it implies that a secret and highly ambitious plan turned out just the way its devisers foresaw, and that almost never happens.


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 23002
    • Reputation: +20146/-243
    • Gender: Male
    Iraq IS about the oil
    « Reply #2 on: October 13, 2007, 03:01:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, his little bit of "logic" at the end does NOT follow.

    He points to all kinds of evidence..and then says "But gee, do things ever work out the way you planned? Never do for me. Guhooh!"

    But guess what? Unlike some rubes in the Ozarks, there are some very crafty, talented, ambitious men that are willing to put time/effort in to make sure plans DO go the way they wanted.

    People bring plans and goals to fruition every day. So much for his musing! An awful general statement that it's easy to disprove.

    Anyhow, it fits right in with the truth of the Illuminati, Freemasons, etc. whose plans HAVE gone very well in the main over the past century or so. The Freemasons even have a Pope who thinks and teaches like them, without being one of them -- a goal they've been working on since the Alta Vendita of the 19th century (Google it).

    Besides, Vandaler, you should know such tricks of journalism. They ALWAYS show both sides, even if it's ridiculous to do so. I've seen many articles that are quite unidirectional, and then at the very end they vacate the whole thing by contradicting it. Just like this story.

    Matthew
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline Vandaler

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1659
    • Reputation: +29/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Iraq IS about the oil
    « Reply #3 on: October 13, 2007, 03:55:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: ChantCd
    No, his little bit of "logic" at the end does NOT follow.

    He points to all kinds of evidence..and then says "But gee, do things ever work out the way you planned? Never do for me. Guhooh!"

    But guess what? Unlike some rubes in the Ozarks, there are some very crafty, talented, ambitious men that are willing to put time/effort in to make sure plans DO go the way they wanted.

    People bring plans and goals to fruition every day. So much for his musing! An awful general statement that it's easy to disprove.


    That's because most - if not all - of what he wrote is circumstantial evidence and speculation.  You would be helpful for example, if you could demonstrate with certainty how building military bases is necessarily for the purpose of oil and not for other considerations.  It's a portrait of what may be, not a demonstration of what is. This is true not only with the conclusion, but throughout the text if you read it carefully.

    Quote from: ChantCD
    Anyhow, it fits right in with the truth of the Illuminati, Freemasons, etc. whose plans HAVE gone very well in the main over the past century or so. The Freemasons even have a Pope who thinks and teaches like them, without being one of them -- a goal they've been working on since the Alta Vendita of the 19th century (Google it).


    And that's why, likely, you're so quick at believing it in the way you do.  The above holds no sway on me.

    Quote
    Besides, Vandaler, you should know such tricks of journalism. They ALWAYS show both sides, even if it's ridiculous to do so. I've seen many articles that are quite unidirectional, and then at the very end they vacate the whole thing by contradicting it. Just like this story.


    Well then, write your own article.  You can't ride someone else's coat tail and pretend he meant what you think he should have wrote.

    Anyhow, thanks for sharing, it's a solid text and it will be in the back of mind for a while.     :idea:

    Offline dust-7

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 199
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Iraq IS about the oil
    « Reply #4 on: October 13, 2007, 08:20:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • Offline Vandaler

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1659
    • Reputation: +29/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Iraq IS about the oil
    « Reply #5 on: October 13, 2007, 08:56:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Good effort Dust-7.

    It's impossible to disassociate the importance of Oil in just about any topic covering the Middle-East. The question is not to ask whether it's about the Oil or not - as if there are only two possibilities -.  It's a matter of gradation.

    Turns out actually, that controlling the Oil does not affect prices all that much, and this will be the case for many more years to come making it all a moult point. This is why stating that everything is going as planned is cynical given the sacrifice both with the military families and treasury to date.

    The Middle-East is a powder keg, no-one is controlling it right now. I cannot be convinced of that.

    Offline dust-7

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 199
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Iraq IS about the oil
    « Reply #6 on: October 13, 2007, 10:25:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Vandaler

    It's impossible to disassociate the importance of Oil in just about any topic covering the Middle-East. The question is not to ask whether it's about the Oil or not - as if there are only two possibilities -.  It's a matter of gradation.


    Because it's not like other 'commodities'. It's more akin to the 'blood' of industrial civilization.

    That's why the Chicoms want so much, having become the new center of manufacture in the world.


    Quote from: Vandaler

    Turns out actually, that controlling the Oil does not affect prices all that much


    It might. But it's more the supply of oil, which is what Greenspan said might have been a worry. But the reason for concluding the war with the Ba'athists was the fear of an impending 'bomb' and their promised use of same on the Israelis. So it was a race against the clock, just as against Hitler and his getting the bomb, first. In both cases, the fear, while justified, turned out to be based on exaggerated assumptions. Neither were close to getting the bomb. Yet - we got the bomb because of it, and are now in Iraq for similar reasons.

    I do tend to believe the leftist establishment when it complains about reduced refining capacity. But they, through their enviro-nuts, are the very ones to keep new plants offline.

    But, that means I hardly trust government in these matters and expect that cronyism was somewhat involved. And it means I hardly trust global mega-corporations who try to 'get away' with things because they know they can, and are guided by no greater morality - at least not the general run of their 'executive decision' makers. I know it must sound cynical. But I believe gasoline should be at least a dollar less at the pump, than now. I think the extra dollar is tantamount to gouging, and is artificially high. Ultimately, it effects the entire economy. And that will be tested in the upcoming recession - for there will surely be.

    Quote from: Vandaler

    and this will be the case for many more years to come making it all a moult point. This is why stating that everything is going as planned is cynical given the sacrifice both with the military families and treasury to date.


    Everything did go as planned. But the question about what was to happen next didn't seem to concern certain people. And then the question of how to control the borders - well - we've got the same problem in this country. And then question over who to consult and bring into the government took on a UN mold instead of the one they are following, now, which is more effective and truer to the formation of Iraqi society. That's why the leftist establishment keeps desperately searching for stories of massive explosions and death and injury, and finds fewer and fewer. The local forces are beginning to take care of their own, and know where the terrorists are. With all the 'war colleges', and 'think tanks', and experience, and flat-out books on the subject of irregulars in combat and insurgencies, and recent experience even in Vietnam, how could the military or DoD have been so clueless?

    Of course, some might argue, then - wait, this isn't good! You don't want the 'colleges' and 'think tanks' to figure this out. You don't want the NWO to get better at stopping irregulars or local dissent. What happens when the new 'super-feds' and 'trade-groups' and whatever begin to turn the eye against faithful Catholics? I think the answer, there, is let them be as proficient as they like, in such a future tyrany, in stamping out such free speech, free exercise of religion and dissent against unAmerican tyrany. Providence. As God provides for those faithful Catholic families that you see at the SSPV and some independent chapels, and perhaps elsewhere, so God provides for His faithful in the face of martrydom, even to the point of allowing that martrydom as seen so often through every century for 2000 years. The NWO will not be stopped. The enlightenment, the 'new age', the 'masonry', the Protestantism, the heresies and heresiarchs, all move increasing in sync, together, against God and His Church and toward the new 'babel'. And then it will be over, and all eternal souls - for ALL of us, in that sense, will live forever - will see a new beginning. And it may be soon.

    Quote from: Vandaler

    The Middle-East is a powder keg, no-one is controlling it right now. I cannot be convinced of that.


    It's very much under control, compared to the alternative. But you can't control, as it were, a country which is supposed to follow the liberationist model begun in the early 20th century. Whatever control is that behind the scenes, as it's always been, and not because of armies massed on the border, as Turkey is doing, nor because of fortresses within the country. One can take some comfort from the discomfort felt by many Persians/Iranians with the current 'mullet' rule. Many would prefer this NWO 'open democracy', or at least something more akin to the assumptions of our founding. Because one might confuse memorials to Our Blessed Mother in Iran as indications of 'tolerance', when it is only because it conforms with Islam. And the mullahs are less tolerant than the former Shaw.

    Okay. But it's two severable matters - two different things. As suggested, just previously, peace for its own sake make not be just, but the desire for peace may be. One may support such measures to leave Iraq stable, built-up and able to defend itself, appropriately, while opposing the ultimate NWO motive. And such 'miracle of democracy' (which seems to barely just work even in this country, because of the inroads of the leftist establishment and which tends to promote the alternative of communist/socialist tyrany, materialism, ruthless exploitation and destruction under such nice sounding terms as 'environmentalism' and 'shared sacrifice') may not be the ultimate answer even in that country, though democracy equally as monarchy may serve as a just society, but under Christendom, under the rules of God and His Church. And God and His Church are precisely not the NWO. Anything that works in that situation, when transposed to the NWO, while it continues to look much the same (say with monarchy), becomes something - other. Stopping such violence is a goal. The freedom to live, where lawlessness otherwise reigns. But Christendom remains the ultimate answer. And the world, at this point, will not go willingly. But . . soon. The signs are pointing to . . soon. That doesn't mean that Catholics who support a just society should not support efforts to rebuild Iraq and stop the present violence, to build a nation capable of defending itself without wishing to invade other countries, in any form, and so on.

    But one knows this being done in behalf of an NWO. And that won't stand. One can call it a 'jewish NWO', or masonic, or both or neither, or whatever, on this forum; or as I just suggested, previously. Same difference. But to support one is not necessarily to support the larger goal. And as useless as it might seem to speak against the NWO as such an ultimate organization, while one is still allowed to publicly protest, and as we see it shape up even now, and in recent decades, it is still something to oppose because the new 'babel' opposes God and His Church - categorically, and specifically. So support for one is not necessarily support for the other. It's two different things.

    Offline Vandaler

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1659
    • Reputation: +29/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Iraq IS about the oil
    « Reply #7 on: October 13, 2007, 10:40:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I regret to say, that your post is somewhat over my head.  Sorry. My mind goes numb when I read certain words.

    My point distilled to the essential, is that the U.S. never really wanted to control the Oil in the M-E directly.  It's been content historically as long that supply was abundant and prices reasonable.

    I don't think the reason for Iraq, was a depart from that previous position,  and was rather motivated by other factors.


    Offline Vandaler

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1659
    • Reputation: +29/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Iraq IS about the oil
    « Reply #8 on: October 21, 2007, 03:12:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Further thoughts on the subject.  I can't direct link to this since it's subscription based with Stratfor, but still, here is a relevant extract.

    Quote
    ... But while important, oil is hardly the end all and be all of U.S. foreign policy. For example, much hay has been made of the connections of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to the oil industry, and many have argued that the invasion of Iraq was all about oil. Such assertions ultimately fall flat for two reasons.

    First, whatever they might have wanted as oilmen, Bush and Cheney as heads of state have grand geopolitical strategy on their minds. Before coming to power in 2000, Cheney served as CEO of the oil services firm Halliburton, where he regularly and actively lobbied for an end to sanctions on Iran so that U.S. firms could benefit from that country's oil boom. His advocacy for such a stance ended shortly after he took office -- now Cheney is among the most strident supporters of an Iranian containment strategy.

    Second, Iraq is a very odd country for the United States to invade for oil. (And despite being unable or unwilling to articulate them, the Bush administration had other reasons for invading.) Even in the most peaceful of times, Iraq has been a place where physical security is challenging to say the least -- attempting to govern it is not a task that one takes on lightly. It also happens to be on the wrong side of the planet to service U.S. energy needs. If the United States were to invade a country for oil, the logical choice would be Venezuela, not Iraq. Not only is Venezuela a short sail from the U.S. Gulf Coast, many U.S. refineries have been specifically geared to process its crude -- and some of these are owned by none other than the Venezuelan government....

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16