Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[T.A.M.]

Happy to be the main motivation behind such a successful and popular thread.



Have you at least noticed that I chilled out a bit?

I have. It is all about trying to maintain a subforum that is enjoyable for all. I hope I have not hampered your entertainment here by suggesting such things.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

jj:

You continue to mention my name in your posts, so I feel compelled to reply.

I think it is an extreme overstatement to say that me, this Nelson fellow, and a few others are the only ones who make the connection.

Most REASONABLE people will admit that OIL had something to do with the invasion of Iraq. Sure, you will still get dedicated BUSHites, and CHENEYites who disagree, but the vast majority of intelligent people, IMO, realize that the very limited world supply of oil, and the location of the majority of that, had SOMETHING to do with the invasion of IRAQ.

TAM

 

[JihadJane]

jj:

You continue to mention my name in your posts, so I feel compelled to reply.

Careful of those compulsions and don't call me jj. jj might not like it.

I think it is an extreme overstatement to say that me, this Nelson fellow, and a few others are the only ones who make the connection.

I didn't say anything about "a few others".

Most REASONABLE people will admit that OIL had something to do with the invasion of Iraq. Sure, you will still get dedicated BUSHites, and CHENEYites who disagree, but the vast majority of intelligent people, IMO, realize that the very limited world supply of oil, and the location of the majority of that, had SOMETHING to do with the invasion of IRAQ.

TAM

Maybe but intelligent people are as easily conned as anybody else. Do you think Madoff's dupes were unintelligent?

 

[dtugg]

I would say that the reason we care about the region so much is because of all the oil. I don't think that it was to steal oil or anything like that.

 

[JihadJane]

I would say that the reason we care about the region so much is because of all the oil. I don't think that it was to steal oil or anything like that.

No, nothing like that ...

 

[funk de fino]

So you say, quite frequently. Do you think there is no connection between the unprovoked invasion, occupation and destruction of Iraq and its large, high quality oil reserves?

Not unprovoked. And yes, no connection. There is a connection between the first war I served in and the most recent one though. Theres your answer as to why it happened.

I've tried and succeeded reading the two posts again and am still left wonderng about T.A.M.'s oil/Iraq moron score.

Try again. Don't just read it, understand it. Especially a couple of the words in my post.

 

[DGM]

Anyone who says iraq was all about oil is a moron who knows nothing about the oil industry.

JihadJane;
Oh, learn to read for comprehension. (see bold)

 

[T.A.M.]

Ok here is some clarification:

1. The Iraq War was multifactorial in its impetus.
2. AMONG the reasons, was the nation's geographical proximity to a large portion of the world's limited oil supply.
3. Also AMONG the reasons, was the support of the american government, all branches, based on false information that suggested Iraq had WMDs.
4. At the time of the war's initiation, support for it was popular.

So in a nutshell, I am not some one who thinks that the invasion of Iraq was ALL about oil, but rather, was about many things, INCLUDING oil.

TAM

 

[Smackety]

coconut oil.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

No, nothing like that ...

Yes, because spending 500 billion dollars on a war to steal some billions of dollars in oil makes so much more sense...

 

[JihadJane]

Not unprovoked. And yes, no connection. There is a connection between the first war I served in and the most recent one though. Theres your answer as to why it happened.

How was it provoked?

No connection whatsoever, huh? Can you be less mystical about the connection between the 1st and 2nd wars that answers the "Why?" question? Or is it all top secret?

What special insight does your job in the oil industry give you into the causes of the attack on Iraq?

Try again. Don't just read it, understand it. Especially a couple of the words in my post.

So it’s only total 100 percenters who are morons. Does that mean that Alan “largely” Greenspan is only large fraction of a moron or is he not a moron at all? ("I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." - Alan Greenspan)

Yes, because spending 500 billion dollars on a war to steal some billions of dollars in oil makes so much more sense...

The US probably didn't plan on taking five years to lose the war, though we were promised a multi-generational conflict by its instigators. The hollowed out US economy has been a war economy on the verge of collapse for many years. Desperate times call for desperate, criminal measures.

The "500 billion dollars" (an underestimate) is stolen money, "borrowed" from future generations, most of which has found its way into various US pockets of the present. War is a very profitable business enterprize for a select few.

Strategic policy-makers plan for the long term. Dominating the world's primary energy store will easily be worth trillions in the now dawning era of permanently declining oil production. Whoever controls the energy taps controls the world.

 

[dtugg]

Maybe the United States should invade Canada to steal all their oil. After all, they have much more than Iraq and will probably put up less of a fight than Saddam.

 

[JihadJane]

Maybe the United States should invade Canada to steal all their oil. After all, they have much more than Iraq and will probably put up less of a fight than Saddam.

Not all oil is equal.

Iraq is not the only oil-rich country in the region.

 

[funk de fino]

How was it provoked?

You know fine well. Saddam was poking the worlds eyes with sticks for years.

No fly zones.

No connection whatsoever, huh? Can you be less mystical about the connection between the 1st and 2nd wars that answers the "Why?" question? Or is it all top secret?

Bush Snr and Bush Jnr.

What special insight does your job in the oil industry give you into the causes of the attack on Iraq?

Because I know the oil industry inside out.

Give me the name of 1 american oil company who has made their fortune from Iraq.

Show us how much oil the US is getting from Iraq. Or any of the coalition countries for that matter.

So it’s only total 100 percenters who are morons. Does that mean that Alan “largely” Greenspan is only large fraction of a moron or is he not a moron at all? ("I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." - Alan Greenspan)

Again with the comprehension problems. Those blinkers are causing you reading problems, maybe you should take them off for a while.

The US probably didn't plan on taking five years to lose the war, though we were promised a multi-generational conflict by its instigators. The hollowed out US economy has been a war economy on the verge of collapse for many years. Desperate times call for desperate, criminal measures.

The "500 billion dollars" (an underestimate) is stolen money, "borrowed" from future generations, most of which has found its way into various US pockets of the present. War is a very profitable business enterprize for a select few.

Strategic policy-makers plan for the long term. Dominating the world's primary energy store will easily be worth trillions in the now dawning era of permanently declining oil production. Whoever controls the energy taps controls the world.

America do not control the taps in Iraq. Or iran. Or saudi. Or venezuela.

They do however have the companies who can get this oil out of the ground, especially in the mature fields. It does not just magically appear at the surface.

 

[funk de fino]

Not all oil is equal.

Iraq is not the only oil-rich country in the region.

Which shows your arguments to be flawed.

 

[Baylor]

How was it provoked?

No connection whatsoever, huh? Can you be less mystical about the connection between the 1st and 2nd wars that answers the "Why?" question? Or is it all top secret?

[The Security Council] demands that Iraq meet unconditionally all its obligations under the plans approved by present resolution and cooperate fully with the Special Commission and the Director General of the agency in carrying out the plans.

UN Security Council Resolution 715
11 October, 1991

 

[dtugg]

Not all oil is equal.

Iraq is not the only oil-rich country in the region.

Well the only one that is not already relatively friendly to the US besides Iraq is Iran. Do you think the plan is to next invade Iran? Is Obama a part of this? He must be since it would not be possible to invade Iran in the near future without him.

Also, I think that the United States should have invaded itself. The US probably has more fossil fuels than any country in the entire world.

 

[Baylor]

This wasn't a "neocon" PNAC idea either, regardless of what the history-inept twoofers say. Clinton tried to sack Saddam for breaking the UN Security Council Resolutions while he was in office.



Remember when Cheney said Saddam wasn't worth many American lives back in '94? What event do you think changed his mind?

 

[JihadJane]

Give me the name of 1 american oil company who has made their fortune from Iraq.

Controlling oil isn't about making a fortune. That's side effect for the lucky few. It is about access to energy. Without energy the US and UK economies (what's left of them!), any economy, cannot function.

A Ponzi, usury-based economy needs an ever-increasing energy supply, otherwise it collapses.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Which shows your arguments to be flawed.

How?

You know fine well. Saddam was poking the worlds eyes with sticks for years.

No fly zones.



Bush Snr and Bush Jnr.

I find it hard to accept that you actually believe these lame excuses and even harder to believe that you believe that I "know fine well" that these paltry reasons account for such an epic slaughter.

Again with the comprehension problems. Those blinkers are causing you reading problems, maybe you should take them off for a while.

I'm unclear why you are so attached to "all" when you have stated that there is no connection whatsoever between the assault on Iraq and oil.

UN Security Council Resolution 715
11 October, 1991

does not sanction an invasion.

Well the only one that is not already relatively friendly to the US besides Iraq is Iran. Do you think the plan is to next invade Iran? Is Obama a part of this? He must be since it would not be possible to invade Iran in the near future without him.

The US wants to control Iran by whatever means necessary. It will try covert means first. Obama is very definitely "part of this".

Also, I think that the United States should have invaded itself. The US probably has more fossil fuels than any country in the entire world.

The US has already invaded "itself".

Without a massive contraction of its economy it will never again have enough native fossil fuels to power itself.

 

[chillzero]

It seems to me that perhaps your continued discussion of why the war was started deserves a thread of it's own to discuss it in full, perhaps in Politics.