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 die_another_day
lol i don't want to get arrested and have a criminal record
i'm going for medical school XD.
Originally posted by ParkerCramer
Originally posted by Tecumte
The idea is to *control* oil, not make it more immediately available.
Often oil controlled at gunpoint is taken OFF the market and kept until the right timing, being used as an excuse and a way for artificial price support.
Need an excuse to jack up prices? A conventient 'bombing' of an oil pipeline by 'terrorists' is a mainstay
so, if you truly buy this idea, when will we see these benefits??
Or, could you possibly show me where this has been accomplished in say the last 20 years???
You know, invade a country, control the oil, and then after some time we are paying half the going rate for gasoline.
I'm not going to call you misinformed, maybe I just didn't notice this incredible downturn in gas prices, so I will let you enlighten me.
Thank You.
Parker
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Originally posted by Lazyninja
reply to post by star child
Oil has never been stolen from invaded countries to the best of my knowledge.
We invade, we install a sympathetic leader, then our oil companies go over and start buying up contracts which the previous leader refused to sell.
english.aljazeera.net...edit on 9-4-2011 by Lazyninja because: (no reason given)
Too bad we never got the oil contracts from Iraq. So I believe that our leaders sold us down the river on that one, letting China and Russia get the contracts. People need to stop with the hate-America balogna and get the real facts. Don't listen to the radical leftists anymore.
www.reuters.com...
Originally posted by Tecumte
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Originally posted by Lazyninja
reply to post by star child
Oil has never been stolen from invaded countries to the best of my knowledge.
We invade, we install a sympathetic leader, then our oil companies go over and start buying up contracts which the previous leader refused to sell.
english.aljazeera.net...edit on 9-4-2011 by Lazyninja because: (no reason given)
Too bad we never got the oil contracts from Iraq. So I believe that our leaders sold us down the river on that one, letting China and Russia get the contracts. People need to stop with the hate-America balogna and get the real facts. Don't listen to the radical leftists anymore.
www.reuters.com...
Hmmm. that Reuters article is interesting, this one in The Guardian claims U.S and U.K. companies got some of the first oil picks if I understand it right. Is the Reuters article referring to the second round of negotiations"? More research needed, but I have extreme doubts U.S. companies were shut out of Iraqi oil.
www.guardian.co.uk...
Originally posted by ziggy1706
reply to post by bsbray11
Yet we all dont defy atuhority
Originally posted by HarmonicNights
Originally posted by Lazyninja
I'm one of the people who believes that putting women (real women) in power would be better for the world. The problem is that it's the most ambitious and ruthless types of women like Rice and Clinton who would make it to the top. Those women are no different than men from a "defense" perspective.
This is one of the most asinine statements I've ever read on ATS. By your logic, a man in power who advocates for world peace is not a "real man"
There's no such thing as "real women". There's only women
Anyone who thinks the world would be this peaceful, orderly utopia if women were in power is extremely naive and would be in for a rude wake-up call if women really did take hold of governmental power. All you have to do is look at all women leaders of the past and your ridiculous notion will be quickly discredited.