Those who thought the Iraq war wasn't for OIL

cnn.netscape.cnn.com.../ff/story/0001/20040101/105229511.htm&photoid=19720508NYET163



" British spy chiefs warned after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war that they believed the United States might invade Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi to seize their oil fields, according to records released Thursday.

A British intelligence committee report from December 1973 said America was so angry over Arab nations' earlier decision to cut oil production and impose an embargo on the United States that seizing oil-producing areas in the region was ``the possibility uppermost in American thinking.''

Details of the Joint Intelligence Committee report were released under rules requiring that some secret documents be made public after 30 years. The report suggested that then-President Nixon might risk such a drastic move if Arab-Israeli fighting reignited and the oil-producing nations imposed new restrictions."


I hope all them people who doubted that the US invaded Iraq for Oil, can read this article. If they had the intentions in 1973, I don't see any difference in 2004. Its so clear the real motives of the Iraq war.

Wars are for many things. Things that are obvious and things that are not.

Despite the articles assertions Saddam was a terrorist that was for the most part untouchable.

Originally posted by THENEO

Despite the articles assertions Saddam was a terrorist that was for the most part untouchable.

If you could prove that you could get yourself a good job working for the Bush administration. Maybe even minister of propaganda.

Okay we see the report from 1973 how the US had plans to invade Iraq for oil. They also state the many problems that would occur if the US were to undergoe an invasion. 7years later in 1980, the United States arms Iraq with WMDs and chemical weapons.

22 years later.........the US invades Iraq on justification that Iraq has WMDs and chemical weapons

It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out this mystery

Originally posted by Killuminati
Okay we see the report from 1973 how the US had plans to invade Iraq for oil. They also state the many problems that would occur if the US were to undergoe an invasion. 7years later in 1980, the United States arms Iraq with WMDs and chemical weapons.

22 years later.........the US invades Iraq on justification that Iraq has WMDs and chemical weapons

It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out this mystery

Well said but it might take a brain surgeon to get Bush supporters to realize it wasn't about terror.

[Edited on 1-1-2004 by DiRtYDeViL]

Originally posted by Killuminati
cnn.netscape.cnn.com.../ff/story/0001/20040101/105229511.htm&photoid=19720508NYET163



" British spy chiefs warned after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war that they believed the United States might invade Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi to seize their oil fields, according to records released Thursday.

A British intelligence committee report from December 1973 said America was so angry over Arab nations' earlier decision to cut oil production and impose an embargo on the United States that seizing oil-producing areas in the region was ``the possibility uppermost in American thinking.''

Details of the Joint Intelligence Committee report were released under rules requiring that some secret documents be made public after 30 years. The report suggested that then-President Nixon might risk such a drastic move if Arab-Israeli fighting reignited and the oil-producing nations imposed new restrictions."


I hope all them people who doubted that the US invaded Iraq for Oil, can read this article. If they had the intentions in 1973, I don't see any difference in 2004. Its so clear the real motives of the Iraq war.

actually that was reffering to incase israel and arab nations started a new war and cut oil supplies to us for supporting israel, that would ruin our economy and have left us vunerable to the USSR, it was a neccisary evil to plan to prevent such things even by war or using other nations for proxy wars and other things, you have to take things in the context of the time period, what we have done from 1990 to now are for totally different purposes and reasons than during the cold war.

I'd just like to direct you to ATSNN where this was posted some time ago.

abovetopsecret.com...

I'm not post crushing but its my duty to let you know it exists

It wouldn't take brain surgery, the search bar works for Bush supporters too. If you do a search on "Caspian Basin" and still claim that it is a war for "freedom" or against "terrorist", than you are either a bald face liar, or ignorant beyond hope.

Originally posted by Stirfry
It wouldn't take brain surgery, the search bar works for Bush supporters too. If you do a search on "Caspian Basin" and still claim that it is a war for "freedom" or against "terrorist", than you are either a bald face liar, or ignorant beyond hope.

who said it was for those reasons in this thread?

Right right right, could some of choo lot get some sense for a minute and look at some of the geography involved for starters the UK (North Sea) and the USA (Alaska) export oil to other countries so there is kind of a shortage but nothing major also everyone knows there will be no oil soon so making more renewable sorceses would be cheaper than going to war with the middle for 20 more years of oil. The only thing is the USA hasnt invested in renewable energy and wont agree to KYOTO agreement so soon the great most powerful country of the 21st century will soon be like Monseraat

great, it was for oil..... it was also to liberate the people of iraq and to get rid of saddam hussein.

Can you honestly say that 'b' would have happened without 'a', Genius Sage?

when did i say that?

what matters is the liberation of the people.

Originally posted by Bout Time
Can you honestly say that 'b' would have happened without 'a', Genius Sage?

Let me respond to Bout Time's question--Hell no!

Posted by some masked character in September:

********************************************

I have described the war in Iraq as being behind a series of smokescreens, or peeling the layers of an onion. Everything is a lie - but the actual BENEFITS along the way to the criminal gang in Washington D.C. are greater the more the layers are peeled.

1. Clear and present danger of WMDs capable of being mobilized in 40 minutes

2. WMD "programs" that had to be stopped because Saddam wasn't co-operating with UN inspections

3. Ousting a tyrannical dictator to "free" an oppressed people

4. Cementing US military position in the Middle East to stabilize, and leave Saudi Arabia (just a little closer to the truth)

5. Using oil proceeds to "rebuild" Iraq (ie stealing oil from Iraqis)

6. Completing the pipeline through Afghanistan

7. Saving the USD as the oil bartering currency from the perils of the Euro

8. (WTF??????) Gaining the Stargate technology and other suppressed ancient knowledge to save the world from those who could get their hands on it...

All lies, all mendacity of an increasing order. Yet this corrupt, useless administration continues to get away with it, and generally needs to operate only in layers 1 & 2!

What are the real, real reasons for invading Iraq?

********************************************

Well, more layers are in evidence and in open policy of the gang, but ther real reason is here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and it isn't an Oil Currency War.

In the end, everything US does in the M-E will be in favour of Israel. That is not so difficult to understand is it ? I've also stated before that the need to control Iraq was nothing new. They've been working on that for decades.

Do you really think they would "invest" such a huge amount of money just to liberate a population from a "cruel" leader ? No, Iraq was a multi purpose mission, that means there were many important reasons to take over control. And those reasons are the results of Iraqi oil fields. Seriously, if Iraq didn't have oil, it wouldn't have been so important to send 100's of tousands troops to fight a war. I mean after all they didn't invest so much cash to capture OBL, while they said he and his organistation are responsable for the 9/11 attacks right ?

Think about that all the time when you want to justify the war in Iraq. Think about what the US government did to capture OBL and fight AL Q. and compare that to what they did to get rid of Saddam. If for example OBL or AL Q. strike again like on 9/11 who will you blame ?

For me it doesn't make any sense, if I was a president and my country was attacked I'd first do everything I can to capture the attackers before going to fight anyone else that had in fact nothing to do with the actual attack.

Just like the terror alerts, that's all propaganda, I mean get real, if there is a real terror threat you don't go and spread that all in the news and other media, you'd take actions and try to capture the attackers before they can do anything. And after that you perhaps say you prevented an attack from taking place but not when you are suspecting something. Where is the logic ?

Yes, I have enough reasons to believe that we are being misleaded.

As posted on ATSNN thread detailing the same report:

posted on 2-1-2004 at 05:37 PM Post Number: 313538 edit quote

Here's what I find interesting.....
The British Government believed and reported that Saddam was trying to obtain uranium from Niger. In such, many, many here discounted those reports and YET will swallow, hook, line, and sinker, this report given by the very same British Government.....
Very interesting....isn't it?



regards
seekerof

By Seekerof
Here's what I find interesting.....
The British Government believed and reported that Saddam was trying to obtain uranium from Niger. In such, many, many here discounted those reports and YET will swallow, hook, line, and sinker, this report given by the very same British Government.....
Very interesting....isn't it?

Not really. The Niger thing was a single source product of cherry picking information during a propaganda field day of a desperate government, and this is a well documented file of communications between the U.S and U.K 30 years ago and the contingent plans that were set up as a result. There are plenty of ways that it could be verified, the first being you won't see the U.S or the U.K denying it.

Selective liberalism......



regards
seekerof

What�s selective about it? The Niger source that has been debunked by everybody including the U.S president or this report? Are you saying the U.K just made this report up? What would be the purpose to that, especially now?