So Where's the Oil?

[Blender Head]

The OP here to which I was replying was about how 9/11 was to get the oil in Iraq.

Hence my reply to you focusing on how 9/11 had nothing to do with the iraq war.

Then you should reply to someone who thinks 9/11 was planned by some cabal to invade Iraq, or reply to what I actually said.

Thanks.

 

[TruthersLie]

"AW. I think this needed to be bolded for those twoofs with piss poor reading comprehension skills"

Once again falling back onto insults.


From Time Magazine

"Rather than giving foreign oil companies control over Iraqi reserves, as the U.S. had hoped to do with the Oil Law it failed to get the Iraqi parliament to pass, the oil companies were awarded service contracts lasting 20 years for seven of the 10 oil fields on offer — the oil will remain the property of the Iraqi state, and the foreign companies will pump it for a fixed price per barrel"

It seems the Iraqi's were cleverer than was thought..

Incidentally Exxon and Shell were awarded the West Qurna-1 Oil Field, one of Iraq's largest Oil Fields, in November.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html?xid=rss-topstories#ixzz0cK70m4Q4"

From your same article... your lack of reading comprehension is staggering.

Those who claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get control of the country's giant oil reserves will be left scratching their heads by the results of last weekend's auction of Iraqi oil contracts: Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades. Two of the most lucrative of the multi-billion-dollar oil contracts went to two countries which bitterly opposed the U.S. invasion — Russia and China — while even Total Oil of France, which led the charge to deny international approval for the war at the U.N. Security Council in 2003, won a bigger stake than the Americans in the most recent auction. "[The distribution of oil contracts] certainly answers the theory that the war was for the benefit of big U.S. oil interests," says Alex Munton, Middle East oil analyst for the energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie, whose clients include major U.S. companies. "That has not been demonstrated by what has happened this week."

What? The US didn't get any control of the iraqi oil? How could that be? The masterminds who managed to destroy 2 of the tallest buildings in the world, but couldn't rig it to get their money?

 

[JihadJane]

The lunatics who took over the asylum had much bigger ambitions than just Iraq. They wanted to dominate the entire region and hence the entire world! They haven't given up yet...

 

[TruthersLie]

Then you should reply to someone who thinks 9/11 was planned by some cabal to invade Iraq, or reply to what I actually said.

Thanks.

I was. Go back and look at it. I was replying to fourbrick. You then jumped in and changed the topic.

I tried to keep it on topic by replying to you and trying to keep with the OP. You then jumped right back into it.

I'm glad we agree that there wasn't some super sekret konspiracy to knock over the towers and murder 3,000 people for oil.

 

[JihadJane]

I was. Go back and look at it. I was replying to fourbrick. You then jumped in and changed the topic.

I tried to keep it on topic by replying to you and trying to keep with the OP. You then jumped right back into it.

I'm glad we agree that there wasn't some super sekret konspiracy to knock over the towers and murder 3,000 people for oil.

What difference does it make who knocked over the towers? The lies have flowed forth thick and fast ever since, regardless.

 

[Meed]

Again and again you demonstrate a lack of reading for comprehension and critical thinking skills.

No no no. Stay on topic. If the US government can create a massive conspiracy in the thousands with operational security so tight NO ONE HAS EVER TALKED ABOUT IT. If they can subvert numerous government agencies to set up the largest most complex false flag terrorists attack EVER, one would think they wouldn't screw it up so badly.

They must be the perfect mixture of the A team and Rainman.

Again and again. The conspiracy is so good they can fool most of the world (except for scooby and the gang), but they can't plant wmd's in Iraq? Really? I can make anthrax and Ricin in my bathroom. Yet they can't fabricate a single WMD plant? Absolutely ****ing amazing.

As twoofs love to try to point out... if 9/11 was about the invading iraq (which they never can show), then
1. why did they use saudi, UAE, and other arabs, when not one was from iraq?
2. Why didn't they set up fake wmds in the iraqi desert (childs play if they used ninjaneers to bring down the towers with super duper nanothermite)
3. Why didn't they make sure they would get that oil?

it absolutely boggles the mind the convoluted mental gymnastics twoofs must employ...

It's you who is having reading comprehension problems. Fourbrick never said 9/11 was a false flag/inside job.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

They wanted to dominate the entire region and hence the entire world! They haven't given up yet...

Wow... just... wow.

 

[JihadJane]

Wow... just... wow.

Didn't you realize?

 

[Blender Head]

I was. Go back and look at it. I was replying to fourbrick. You then jumped in and changed the topic.

I tried to keep it on topic by replying to you and trying to keep with the OP. You then jumped right back into it.

I'm glad we agree that there wasn't some super sekret konspiracy to knock over the towers and murder 3,000 people for oil.

I stayed on topic, actually, and focused on a specific claim you made which you have yet to substaniate (that we 'let' the Iraqi gov't do what they did).

To say otherwise is revisionism.

ETA: Love the use of the phrase 'jumped in' as if only you and fourbrick may speak. Stay classy.

 

[JihadJane]

“The National Security Strategy of the United States of America

The great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom—and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise.

...

Today, the United States enjoys a position of unparalleled military strength and great economic and political influence ...


...


... the United States will use this moment of opportunity to extend the benefits of freedom across the globe.We will actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the world.


...


Free trade and free markets have proven their ability to lift whole societies out of poverty—so the United States will work with individual nations, entire regions, and the entire global trading community to build a world that trades in freedom and therefore grows in prosperity.

...

For freedom to thrive, accountability must be expected and required.


George W. Bush
THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 17, 2002”

 

[Pardalis]

What's wrong with freedom, democracy and free enterprise? You prefer dictatorial rule?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Didn't you realize?

The depth of your paranoia? Until just now, no.

 

[Mr.D]

From the OP (bolding mine)

I have heard it mentioned on many an occasion that one of the reasons the US/UK went into Iraq (especially) and Afghanistan was natural resources - mainly oil in the case of Iraq. Some CTs claim that this is the main reason that the US Government allowed/engineered the Sep 11 attacks.

This is the 9/11 subforum of the Conspiracy Theory forum, and the OP was about 9/11 being some sort of "false flag" attack to create a reason for invading Iraq for oil.

If you're not arguing the "false flag" CT, then the Politics forum is <---- thataway.

 

[Pinch]

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0829-22.htm Try to avoid attacking the messenger, please, as I know you ('you' in the general sense) will probably attempt to do.

Commondreams? Come on...couldn't you find a more biased website to quote from?

 

[TruthersLie]

It's you who is having reading comprehension problems. Fourbrick never said 9/11 was a false flag/inside job.

What was the OP about? Huh? Fourbrick is replying to the OP. I am pointing out how he is IGNORING the OP.

So who has the reading comprehension issues? The person ADDRESSING THE OP? Or the person who is throwing a derail, and dodging the OP?

I have tried to get him BACK ON TOPIC.

 

[Orphia Nay]

The lunatics who took over the asylum had much bigger ambitions than just Iraq. They wanted to dominate the entire region and hence the entire world! They haven't given up yet...

Ah, the Inflationary Model of Conspiracy Theory again. Speculation built on speculation. Castles built in the air. How nebulous.

 

[Orphia Nay]

How do we invade a country for their oil, only to allow them to sell at the global price to ANYONE they wish? doh.

Why do you suppose we 'let' them? Are you asserting the U.S. did not attempt to lobby their parliament to favor U.S. companies? You could be right, I'd just like to see what you're basing it on.

If only Cheney's Energy Task Force was transparent and open to the public we'd know what documents such as "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts" were really about. Instead, we're led to speculate as to why the U.S. played favorites and secured only the oil fields and not any of the other Iraqi ministries (cultural, scientific, etc.)

Just sayin....

Oil played a role, but was not the only reason for invasion, in my mind.

I stayed on topic, actually, and focused on a specific claim you made which you have yet to substaniate (that we 'let' the Iraqi gov't do what they did).

I think you two both agree.

TL did not say the US "let" Iraq sell to whomever they wished. It was a hypothethical, two part question.

How do we invade a country for their oil, only to allow them to sell at the global price to ANYONE they wish? doh.

I think you both agree that it would be ridiculous to assert that the US attacked Iraq for the oil without having any means of controlling the oil.

 

[Meed]

TruthersLie,

The OP addressed two claims (actually more, but let's ignore Afghanistan for the sake of this post, as it's essentially parallel to the Iraq argument).

1. That the US invaded Iraq for the sake of oil interests.
2. That 9/11 was orchestrated by the US gov. in order to attack Iraq for the sake of oil interests.

Claim #2 requires #1 to be true. The content of the OP was to argue against #1.

Of course it is possible to disagree with the argument made against claim #1 without believing claim #2. And it's not off topic at all.

What was the OP about? Huh? Fourbrick is replying to the OP. I am pointing out how he is IGNORING the OP.

So who has the reading comprehension issues? The person ADDRESSING THE OP? Or the person who is throwing a derail, and dodging the OP?

I have tried to get him BACK ON TOPIC.

No, you assumed he was defending the inside job theory and now you're trying to backtrack.

Then you should reply to someone who thinks 9/11 was planned by some cabal to invade Iraq, or reply to what I actually said.

Thanks. I was. Go back and look at it. I was replying to fourbrick.

 

[JihadJane]

The depth of your paranoia? Until just now, no.

Do you think US megalomaniacs are going to let the US lose its position as the dominant world power without a fight?

What's wrong with freedom, democracy and free enterprise? You prefer dictatorial rule?

Spreading "Free enterprise" is code for "Open up your markets or suffer the consequences." The only freedom involved is is freedom to exploit.

Nor is the free enterprise model looking too hot at the moment:

Ah, the Inflationary Model of Conspiracy Theory again. Speculation built on speculation. Castles built in the air. How nebulous.

It's not speculation. It's explicitly stated in US policy documents, e.g:

"The Cold War world was a bipolar world; the 21st century world is – for the moment, at least – decidedly unipolar, with America as the world's 'sole superpower.' America's strategic goal used to be containment of the Soviet Union; today the task is to preserve an international security environment conducive to American interests and ideals. The military's job during the Cold War was to deter Soviet expansionism. Today its task is to secure and expand the 'zones of democratic peace;' to deter the rise of a new great-power competitor; defend key regions of Europe, East Asia and the Middle East; and to preserve American preeminence through the coming transformation of war made possible by new technologies"

('Rebuilding America's Defenses' page 2).


The US already dominates the globe and is merely keen to hang on to it's privileged 25% share of oil consumption. Having become an economic disaster zone, military power and (temporary) dollar hegemony are now its only strengths.

 

[commandlinegamer]

Nor is the free enterprise model looking too hot at the moment:

And I thought I was sick.