Lime-Light Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 I read an article a while back, but for the life of me I cant find it. Either way, its irrelevant, what it displayed through common and obvious evidence was the real reason Bush wants war. Oil. The US has the largest trade debt in the world. US citizens arent buying. The US economy is swaying precariously (sp?) on the sale of oil, and its starting to tip over. For some time, the currency of oil has been the US dollar, because its more stable than the currency of most oil exporting countries, and its common. Iraq just recently (some time last year) switched to the Euro for its sale of oil, and that has jeopardized the US economy. The Euro is steadily gaining worth (and more importantly, use) while the US dollar drops. The US government can make no changes at home that will stabilize the coming fall, so they look outward. They aim to invade Iraq, and gain control of its government so it can switch them back to US currency for oil. Now, invading a country to steal its resources is not something that will make you popular, and especially with those (like Euro-users, perhaps) who stand to get ass-****ed if you do. What to do? Simply invent a threat. Bring them on your side so you can ass-**** them quietly while they cower in fear of some evil threat. Protect them with your big army, and fund it by stealing from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Behind every war there's an underlying, shady motive of profitting from it in some way, even if it's just to secure stability in the region that one's country can take advantage from. While oil certainly plays a role, I don't think the 'mericans are only in it for that. They genuinely believe in what they do (at least Bush does), and see themselves as great presevers of freedom. I'll let them have that, as Saddam clearly is a mad, unreliable leader (though it's been hyped to huge, unreasonable heights). I just wish they'd care to look at the consequences of USA stepping on more arab toes down there. They're going to ignite the smoldering hatred for America, and I could easily imagine retaliations on Israel or Kuwait. My advice is to save those resources, and pour them on the solving the Palestine-Israel conflict, or perhaps to do something about Pakistan or N. Korea if you're so hell-bent on getting rid of nukes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munik Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 I'm pretty sure that everyone said we were doing it for oil the last time we fought Iraq. We really must have done a good job, considering the price of gasoline doubled in 10 years. I wonder what kind of spoils of war we're gonna get this time. A kick in the nuts maybe? I wouldn't have any problem if the U.S. went in and occupied the mid-east for the sole purpose of oil. Maybe make another territory or something. Hell, if it was up to me, I would have done it about 30 years ago, when there was a fuel crisis. If another country has got you by the balls in a situation such as this, why not just invade and occupy, especially if you are well capable of doing so? Sadly, I doubt the U.S. will gain anything in the form of cheaper oil. Maybe this war is solely based on political gain, as are most conflicts by the U.S. Apparently, if you do well, it is a surefire way to get re-elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obi Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 We're going to get their weapons, their oil, and their little dog, too! eeeee hehehehehehe! Despite what the war is about, it will happen. I hate to sound like the pessamist, but that's how I feel. No matter how many people protest, no matter what the cause, it will happen. No way to prevent it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Originally posted by obi-wan13 We're going to get their weapons, their oil, and their little dog, too! eeeee hehehehehehe! you stole my saying. grrrr.... oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Yes as Obi has said. This war will happen, whether we want it or not. And after Iraq is taken, Bush will reveal his true intentions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark jedi 8 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 i didn't think he was smart enough to have intentions, its probably for the oil, could be wrong though, just a guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Originally posted by Lime-Light I read an article a while back, but for the life of me I cant find it. Either way, its irrelevant, what it displayed through common and obvious evidence was the real reason Bush wants war. Oil. The US has the largest trade debt in the world. US citizens arent buying. The US economy is swaying precariously (sp?) on the sale of oil, and its starting to tip over. For some time, the currency of oil has been the US dollar, because its more stable than the currency of most oil exporting countries, and its common. Iraq just recently (some time last year) switched to the Euro for its sale of oil, and that has jeopardized the US economy. The Euro is steadily gaining worth (and more importantly, use) while the US dollar drops. The US government can make no changes at home that will stabilize the coming fall, so they look outward. They aim to invade Iraq, and gain control of its government so it can switch them back to US currency for oil. Now, invading a country to steal its resources is not something that will make you popular, and especially with those (like Euro-users, perhaps) who stand to get ass-****ed if you do. What to do? Simply invent a threat. Bring them on your side so you can ass-**** them quietly while they cower in fear of some evil threat. Protect them with your big army, and fund it by stealing from them. What? This war is about OIL?!?!?! That's AMAZING!!! How did you come up with this theory? [/immense sarcasm] Though i agree with C'jais, that it's not JUST about oil. That's an added bonus for doing something that we probably would have done anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lime-Light Posted February 26, 2003 Author Share Posted February 26, 2003 Originally posted by ET Warrior What? This war is about OIL?!?!?! That's AMAZING!!! How did you come up with this theory? [/immense sarcasm] Though i agree with C'jais, that it's not JUST about oil. That's an added bonus for doing something that we probably would have done anyways. Um, maybe you didnt read the rest of what I said, or just pretended to read it, but I know oil is the obvious reason. What I was talking about was the economic reasoning behind it, and the real reason Iraq is considered a "threat". And about political gains, yes I forgot to mention that even if the US falls into depression, St. Idiot Bush will be seen as a patriotic hero for squashing this "threat". But hopefuly some poeple will realize that for a recognized nation and its government to attack the US is suicide, and that no matter how nuts Saddam is, he's not stupid, just nuts. One thing I dislike about the US is the knee-jerk reaction for war. Nobody is really going to attack us in a conventional manner, so fighting it in a conventional matter is stupid, and it makes us even more unpopular. I think the root of this whole terror thing is hippocrisy. The terrorists hate us for war mongering and wealth, while they steal and kill poeple. The US is afriad of attack from terrorists, so they kill poeple for wealth. What really needs to happen, as with all conflicts, is compromise. How do you compromise with lunatics and zealots? I dont know, but somebody better ****ing figure it out. (four to go, wooooooo) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Originally posted by Lime-Light Um, maybe you didnt read the rest of what I said, or just pretended to read it, but I know oil is the obvious reason. Bush hasnt announced it because it would take away any reason for a war because the UN wouldnt allow it. So you ASSUME, not KNOW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lime-Light Posted February 26, 2003 Author Share Posted February 26, 2003 Originally posted by Reborn Outcast ...you ASSUME, not KNOW. Ok, its PROBABLE. I dont KNOW that if I eat a razor blade it'll kill me, but its PROBABLE. Does anyone have something to say about the topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 no comments, we already knew all of this, and it's been discussed already..........a LOT but I know oil is the obvious reason Yes.....so do I....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lime-Light Posted February 27, 2003 Author Share Posted February 27, 2003 Hey....uh...I mean, you guys are mean. I've presented some logical evidence as to the reason for the war. You already assumed it was oil, and so when I presented some actual evidence to support that, you consider it old news. Anyone can assume or form an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 Lime no offense but just because you don't get 100 replies for a topic that has actually already been discussed before doesn't make us mean. And yes, I agree that everything you said is probably a factor. So do most of the other people who replied it seems. Only when I see something that I don't agree with or I know otherwise will I form an opinion. But why post a whole thing just rewording what you said and call i tmy opinion. I agree with your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 Actually, oil was the assumption that I rejected for a long time as reason for war with Iraq. I just couldn't see how it factored in: 1) When Saddam is conquered and Iraq is "freed" from his oppression, they won't just give us the oil. We'll still have to pay for it. 2) In paying for the oil (that we already were able to, since Iraq has been exporting it to us), it is unlikely that the price will be advantageous because a) OPEC will still have say so in the price and b) a lowered price with increased production would threaten other, friendly oil-producing nations like Venezuela. 3) It's likely that aggression toward Iraq will result in Saddam sabotaging the oil fields as he did in Kuwait (it was effective... I coughed up black sh*t for weeks). But then I read this essay, which highlights the idea that war with Iraq will prevent OPEC from continuing to move toward the Euro as an oil transaction currency rather than the dollar. It's an interesting read. I haven't fully bought it yet, as I am still reading the essay. But I did skim it fairly well and the essay's references seem to be legitimate at first glance. It is possible that this is a biased essay, designed to create dissention and that the references are biased as well. But is equally possible that the essay is reporting an opinion based upon the author's interpretation of what he's gleaned from his listed sources. Either way.... I'm of the opinion that oil sucks. Can't live with it, can't live without. Not in today's consumer oriented culuture. SkinWalker BTW, LimeLight... this may be the story/article you referred to originally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Follow the money... Although completely suppressed by the U.S. media and government, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking Statements like this one always make me frown slightly. But maybe it's just because I have seen too many lame creationist conspiracy hypothesises starting with that phrase. BTW: Iran has publicly kicked out the UN weapons inspectors from their nuclear program, and all the while they admit that they have been mining and refining Uranium... Methinks the US should talk with their insane Priest-rulers before 'negotiating' with Hussein. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Have any of you heard the news about the two Taleban prisoners getting tortured to death in a prison camp during interrogations, while the guv'mint covered it up as suicide? If true, it speaks volumes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obi Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais Have any of you heard the news about the two Taleban prisoners getting tortured to death in a prison camp during interrogations, while the guv'mint covered it up as suicide? I haven't heard of it, got a link? If this is true, however, then the people doing the torturing are going against what America was supposed to fight for in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Originally posted by obi-wan13 I haven't heard of it, got a link? Sorry, I read it in a Danish newspaper. Although I could find the newspaper's website, I somehow doubt you'd be interested in reading gibberish (: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Originally posted by obi-wan13 I haven't heard of it, got a link? If this is true, however, then the people doing the torturing are going against what America was supposed to fight for in the first place. Try this link. There was NOTHING in the US Press that I could locate. Interesting indeed. SkinWalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Originally posted by SkinWalker Try this link. There was NOTHING in the US Press that I could locate. Interesting indeed. SkinWalker Holy ****. I seriously thought it was just a rumour blown to epic proportions by that (dubious, I might add) newspaper. However, they were a bit far off in their conclusions, if this was what they based the article on. They also wrote that US interrogators use such "stress and pressure" tactics, such as not treating their wounds, subjecting them to bright light and loud noises, and making them stand up blinded for several hours (as noted in the link). Thanks Skin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 oh i choose choice 4: bush must be smokin some varnish soaked weed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Well regardless of all the stuff written above here is the truth of the matter. Being the history guy that I am I can recall a similar situation. There was once this country that was defeated in a war and it was forbidden to have weapons or a military of any kind. along comes this guy and takes over. He starts building up the countries military again. All the countries around it don't want to enforce the treaty that was imposed on the country because nobody wants another terrible war. The U.S. not wanting to get involved this time tries to encourage the countries around them to do something about the treaty breaking. They don't so the upstart country starts making pease treaties with the countries around them. Saying there not going to go to war with them. At the same time invading other countries one after another. Tell they get to the countries they made treaties with a bomb them to hell.... It may sound slightly similar. Not totally because Iraq hasn't been given the opportunity, but it's Germany 1940's and Hitler is in power. I agree with most people lets not go to war and leave Iraq alone. Let him have his anthrax, let him have his Nukes who cares as long as he doesn't bother us right. Let him kill his own people and invade other countries when he feels like it. Hell I say we pull all are troops from all the countries of the world and cut of all diplomatic funding to 3rd world starving countries. Let the rest of the world handle there own problems after all Europe could have handled Hitler without us right lol History will never repeat itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Originally posted by Cosmos Jack There was once this country that was defeated in a war and it was forbidden to have weapons or a military of any kind..... ...History will never repeat itself. Gosh! I don't think I've seen Saddam compared to Hitler before... since you put it that way... perhaps I was wrong about the whole situation. Perhaps the United Nations Security Council (which didn't exist in 1940) is, actually, incapable of monitoring and inspecting (which was not done in 1940 Germany). Perhaps world pressure isn't enough to keep a lone dictator in check (Quadaffi and Castro are flukes). Perhaps the military forces of today's nations cannot react quickly (in 1940, the jet engine did not exist). Perhaps it would be difficult to know what's going on behind the Iraqi border (can you imagine U-2 surveillance and sat photos in 1940?). Man, I'm glad I read your analogy! I'd have never looked at it from that perspective..... SkinWalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Originally posted by Cosmos Jack It may sound slightly similar. Not totally because Iraq hasn't been given the opportunity, but it's Germany 1940's and Hitler is in power. Hussein is no Hitler. You can't make a case on comparing him to another tyrant. While he does have the capability, he doesn't have the intent. In fact, apart from recently, Iraq has had their state and church seperated far more the US. That he's cooperating with the fundamentalist Al queda is ridiculous - it should be obivous that they hate each other's guts from this. Iraq has no nukes. Israel has a running nuclear program and nuclear armaments. Washington sought to protect Israel from a resolution condemning Israel for one of its attacks on its neighbors. Since then, the United has cast its veto a total of 38 times to shield Israel from Council draft resolutions that condemned, deplored, denounced, affirmed, endorsed, called upon and urged Israel to obey the world body. 38 times, ladies and gentlemen. And USA has the guts to call France traitors. Hell I say we pull all are troops from all the countries of the world and cut of all diplomatic funding to 3rd world starving countries. Oh, you refer to peace keeping missions? USA does nothing of the sort compared to the rest of the UN. As witnessed in Afghanistan, the US is way more into arse-kicking, than arse-building... errr.... but you get my point, I hope. What do you expect will happen once Hussein is out of power? He's the only leader capable of keeping the country together. There is no "Iraqi people" to speak of - only Kurds, Sunnis, Shi'ites and Saudis who all want a slice of the oil cake once this war is over. Do you expect democracy can be forced at gunpoint just like that? That there will somehow be less terrorist actions after that little incident? Let the rest of the world handle there own problems after all Europe could have handled Hitler without us right lol Wow, that's a good point. If it wasn't for Europe, you wouldn't even exist today, for better or worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.