It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: devilmoon
a reply to: Gianfar
I don't really take sides. just cold hard cash
politicos and banksters are all the same no matter what country they originate from.
and it's not so much that the g7 are more greedy. and more that they have been so incompetent for so long they are now bankrupt and scrabbling for scraps of resources wherever they can get them while no one is willing to support then. at home or abroad.
originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: Gianfar
How come, then, that these "land grabs" ended up with the US withdrawing and having little influence in Iraq?
How come, then, that many of the Oil contracts dished out post invasion actually went to non US Oil firms? Only two contracts out of around 23 went to US firms, while 3 are Chinese firms and 2 are Russian firms? 4 contracts have been given to a Malaysian firm.
As for Afghanistan, China is their biggest investor after the invasion. They are opening up huge mines and other industrial projects across the country.
None of what you said makes any sense when you look at the facts on the ground.
originally posted by: devilmoon
a reply to: Gianfar
agree completely.
but in the post mass communications era. war and corruption no longer wins you friends. because there will always be someone who wasn't corrupted who knows what you did and can get the message out.
but don't get too misled.
it's not really about the oil.
The fighting is everything about sitting in the middle of every transaction and taking a cut. be that oil, gold, steel, concrete or Google ad words.
originally posted by: devilmoon
a reply to: Gianfar
for a little while.
then russia retaliated by funding the guys they agreed to fund during saddams days and it all started going downhill for them.
what the didn't win by contracting.
they now control by
america.aljazeera.com...
There's a long paper trail of evidence that oil firms and western governments discussed controlling and profiting from untapped oil reserves in both countries and large profits have been made by petro companies and others.
originally posted by: Gianfar
Your rambling might be able to create doubt in someone who hasn't done his homework, but not me. And please, don't ask for links. If you're smart enough to post on this website, you can do the research yourself.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Gianfar
There's a long paper trail of evidence that oil firms and western governments discussed controlling and profiting from untapped oil reserves in both countries and large profits have been made by petro companies and others.
But who is actually profiting? All you are doing is denying what has been said. You need to back it with facts, not rhetoric.
originally posted by: stumason
originally posted by: Gianfar
Your rambling might be able to create doubt in someone who hasn't done his homework, but not me. And please, don't ask for links. If you're smart enough to post on this website, you can do the research yourself.
Haha, right... You say there is a long paper trail, then you should produce it rather than trying to deflect.
As it stands, I've seen who controls what oil fields in Iraq and the US companies have only 2, while Russia and China control 5 between them. Angolan Oil companies control just as many as the US - is Angola now guilty of "land grabs"?
originally posted by: devilmoon
a reply to: stumason
he's right that there is a long paper trail of that being the intention.
haliburton did very very well out of the "reconstruction" contracts too. anyone with an interest in the topic should definately check their links with the bush administration.
it's just that "mission accomplished". as we all know. was a little on the premature side.
originally posted by: devilmoon
a reply to: MrSpad
not sure what you mean by lack of international support.
is anyone outside of the technically insolvent g7 economies agreeing to go along with anything those banksters propose willingly??
What's the point? Are you emphasizing details of the profiteering aspect or the global effects of a war that was purposed in corrupt agendas, now threatening world conflict?
As for the data concerning who profits, there are articles all over the net, as well as other media publications written by journalists. Google it and you'll get the idea.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ufoorbhunter
And yet Russia recognized Ukraine as a sovereign nation. The UN recognizes Ukraine as a sovereign nation.
The same can't be said for Russians invasion of Crimea.
Putin is destroying Russia and must be stopped.
originally posted by: mortex
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ufoorbhunter
And yet Russia recognized Ukraine as a sovereign nation. The UN recognizes Ukraine as a sovereign nation.
The same can't be said for Russians invasion of Crimea.
Putin is destroying Russia and must be stopped.
If nothing else people have to admire you enthuthiastic trolling on anything Russia related.
You are one of the most anti-Russia characters I've ever seen on the Internet, and yet you turn around willy nilly talking about potentially saving Russia from Putin.
Putin has done more good for Russia then he has bad. Why would Russian's want him gone? Because of the propaganda in the western media about him that people like you bandy about on Internet forums as if it is gospel?
originally posted by: dragonridr
originally posted by: mortex
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ufoorbhunter
And yet Russia recognized Ukraine as a sovereign nation. The UN recognizes Ukraine as a sovereign nation.
The same can't be said for Russians invasion of Crimea.
Putin is destroying Russia and must be stopped.
If nothing else people have to admire you enthuthiastic trolling on anything Russia related.
You are one of the most anti-Russia characters I've ever seen on the Internet, and yet you turn around willy nilly talking about potentially saving Russia from Putin.
Putin has done more good for Russia then he has bad. Why would Russian's want him gone? Because of the propaganda in the western media about him that people like you bandy about on Internet forums as if it is gospel?
Did he hurt your feelings and now you feel you somehow have to attack him instead if what he says? As for being good for Russia he was things change he's now taking over every aspect of their lives. He's destroyed their economy and has gone so a far as killing Russian families asleep in their beds in the moscow apartment bombings. And has had any people who oppose him killed or jailed. Power can change people and in his case I believe it has.