1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The true cost of oil

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by The Running Man, 4 Mar 2010.

  1. The Running Man

    Caporegime

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 35,989

    Location: block 16, cell 12


    erm, the US wanted the oil fields under western control. they cannot stop a russian company from out bidding a US or UK company if they have the finances to do so.

    the US couldnt go in to 'hijack' the oil. they went in to open up the industry to stop iraq from hoarding it and controlling the supply themselves, as they were choosing who got the quotas...

    whether its a russian company or a british, finnish or US company who has bought the rights, they will still sell to the main players whether they are US based or not.. which if left in Iraqi hands they might not have done. Hence why it was important to go there to stop this practice.

    IF as you say they went in for other reasons, why havent they used that as a precendent to simply invade any country they dont like the leader of? ill tell you, its because its not worth it to go to the other countries due to lack of resources. It is worthwhile in US interests to wage a small war and then monetize the nations assets to help expand the distribution of oil...

    would this have happened under Saddam? of course not. The US didnt go to stick their flags on the oil - but to open it up so that they could at least appear on a superficial level to be going in there for other reasons.

    i think you are looking very naively at the situation and given how we are currently sitting through tribunals about the validation for Iraq invasion - this to me flags up warnings. did we go in under the pretext of terrorism, security etc but the catalyst was the refusal of saddam to open up his oil reserves to the west?

    sure its speculation, but we dont have any proof that we went in for any reason to the contrary, just the usual lies and spin from the government.

    So you cannot disprove that the reason we went in was the Oil, but then i cant prove that the reason we did go in was the oil.

    But that is beside the point, and NOT the point for discussion, if you could possibly comprehend the initial post.

    The point was, we went in, are now - as a western block profiting from the opening up of Iraqi oil redistribution -

    yet why are we not compensating those injured and effected in the invasion?
     
  2. Gaidin109

    Mobster

    Joined: 12 Jul 2009

    Posts: 4,878

    I refuse to be drawn into a debate on various unfounded allegations and conspiracies so I will close by saying, the facts are plain to see. If you wish to think there is some underlying conspiracy to steal oil from Iraq then fine, I disagree.

    I will leave you to continue your conspiracy debate in peace...
     
  3. The Running Man

    Caporegime

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 35,989

    Location: block 16, cell 12

    its not to steal oil... we are paying for it ive already explained this - you seem to have the comprehension level of a 5 year old:/

    i believe there was a plan to open up the oil distribution paths to allow western access to it... and also to stop Russian Arms for Oil payments to Iraq...with a puppet iraqi government in place US can ensure the money is spent on re-building NOT re-arming or creating a nuclear program.

    btw - thanks you know where the door is.
     
  4. anything I don't mind

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 28 Dec 2009

    Posts: 13,054

    Location: london

    so true... many examples.

    i can't believe people are still convinced that usa and uk went to iraq for good reasons. completely insane.
     
    Last edited: 4 Mar 2010
  5. Gaidin109

    Mobster

    Joined: 12 Jul 2009

    Posts: 4,878


    One last point in my defence, I said this in a previous post:

    as for the rest it is just hypothesis, with no actual basis in fact. My comprehension is just fine thankyou. It is a shame that your hypothesis (which in the OP you put forward incorrectly as a fact) is so weak that you feel the need to resort to insulting those who disagree with you.

    If you really wanted to talk about the human cost of Oil, then other better examples are avaliable, especially in the Sudan and Nigeria. To use the example (erroneously in my opinion) in Iraq was misleading and seems to be an attempt to put forward a political argument against the US policy in Iraq, rather than the actual implications of oil production and western interests over-riding those of others in the pursuit of it.
     
    Last edited: 4 Mar 2010
  6. The Running Man

    Caporegime

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 35,989

    Location: block 16, cell 12

    i will only insult you when you are clearly skim readin the posts and answering 1 point out of 10 and even then the answer is askew.

    you could have come into the thread made that point that you think there should be an investigation into the weapons fall out - but that you didnt believe that the conquest was for the oil, i could have settled with that.

    i still remember back to that other thread - where you were adamant that it was paranoia that led to ill feeling towards those who were wearing a certain type of clothing.. but then point blank refused to state the reason as to why they were wearing the clothes to begin with... because you knew that it blew your argument out of the water anyway...

    it is this kind of selective reading and self serving dissemination of information which clearly hinders the ability to have a meaningful discussion with yourself.

    and btw as far as conspiracy theories go, the Iraq for Oil is probably one of the most soundly based. id go so far as to say that the majority of people out there believe that Oil was one of the primary reasons for the invasion. TO simply try to discredit the thread on this point alone to me shows a lack of understanding and naivety to the factors sourrounding the invasion of Iraq in the first place.
     
  7. Gaidin109

    Mobster

    Joined: 12 Jul 2009

    Posts: 4,878

    You were wrong on that other point also, I explained my position on that various ways, you just refused to accept my position, thats fine, so get over it.

    As for selective reading and answering questions, thats a little hypocritical considering you havent answered the ones I just put forward.


     
  8. Adrianr

    Soldato

    Joined: 3 Feb 2008

    Posts: 5,460

    Out of curiosity, was any talk of this at the time considering conspiracy theorising too?