Who Has The Oil?

Kibitzing, rabble rousing, all-round generic conversation. Any and everything. You get it.

Who Has The Oil?

Front242
Advanced Member
Front242
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 27 2006, 02:02 PM

Dec 12 2007, 02:45 PM #1

Quote
Like
Share


Bruno
Advanced Member
Bruno
Advanced Member
Joined: Jul 5 2007, 07:23 PM

Dec 12 2007, 04:29 PM #3

miragememories @ Dec 12 2007, 10:43 AM wrote: Nah..they never invaded Iraq over oil ..it was to bring democracy right..
Saudi Arabia is number one on the list of world oil reserves. Most of the reported hijackers reportedly came from Saudi Arabia. We invaded Iraq.

Your logic is askew.
Quote
Like
Share

zombie bill hicks
Advanced Member
zombie bill hicks
Advanced Member
Joined: Jul 27 2007, 07:18 PM

Dec 12 2007, 04:52 PM #4

I do believe that Saudi Arabia is doing its best to conceal that its oil production has peaked.
And if memory serves, most of those hijackers were not Saudi Arabian, but had been issued visas from Saudi Arabia.

Invading Iraq (after Saddam switched to the Euro) has been very successful at artificially inflating the price of oil. Big Oil continues to reap huge monetary benefits from this situation.
As I have said repeatedly a LIHOP scenario is quite plausible to me.

-e^n
Hey e^n, LIHOP is still treason. That's why we demand a REAL 9/11 investigation. Now go Google Ptech/Indira Singh!

<a href="http://www.TeaParty07.com" target="_blank" border="0" alt="Ron Paul Tea Party 07"><img src="http://www.TeaParty07.com/images/Banner ... 468x69.jpg" /></a><br />



RONPAUL2008
Quote
Like
Share

miragememories
Advanced Member
miragememories
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 20 2006, 03:15 PM

Dec 12 2007, 04:56 PM #5

miragememories @ Dec 12 2007, 10:43 AM wrote: Nah..they never invaded Iraq over oil ..it was to bring democracy right..
Bruno @ Dec 12 2007, 12:29 PM wrote: Saudi Arabia is number one on the list of world oil reserves.&nbsp; Most of the reported hijackers reportedly came from Saudi Arabia.&nbsp; We invaded Iraq.&nbsp;

Your logic is askew.
By your logic Saudi Arabia should have been invaded!

MM
Quote
Like
Share

Bruno
Advanced Member
Bruno
Advanced Member
Joined: Jul 5 2007, 07:23 PM

Dec 12 2007, 05:00 PM #6

miragememories @ Dec 12 2007, 11:56 AM wrote: By your logic Saudi Arabia should have been invaded!

MM
Applying your logic that Iraq was invaded merely because of its oil, yes, Saudi Arabia should have been invaded. They have the most oil and America had a strong reason to invade. But they didn't invade. That was the whole point of my post.
Quote
Like
Share

Roxdog
Advanced Member
Roxdog
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 18 2006, 06:13 PM

Dec 12 2007, 05:09 PM #7

zombie bill hicks @ Dec 12 2007, 10:52 AM wrote: I do believe that Saudi Arabia is doing its best to conceal that its oil production has peaked.
And if memory serves, most of those hijackers were not Saudi Arabian, but had been issued visas from Saudi Arabia.

Invading Iraq (after Saddam switched to the Euro) has been very successful at artificially inflating the price of oil. Big Oil continues to reap huge monetary benefits from this situation.
Peak Oil=Hoax.

Call Revere Radio: 1-(877)- REVERE-0 (Click To Listen Live!!!)

"There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution."
-Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group, California Medical School, 1961


"Stay on your toes. We don't know how many other Brett Darrows there are out there..."
Quote
Like
Share

blackcat
Advanced Member
blackcat
Advanced Member
Joined: Nov 10 2006, 09:56 AM

Dec 12 2007, 05:19 PM #8

zombie bill hicks @ Dec 12 2007, 05:52 PM wrote: And if memory serves, most of those hijackers were not Saudi Arabian, but had been issued visas from Saudi Arabia.
Your memory fails to serve. Most were Saudi nationals.
Quote
Like
Share

alexvegas
Advanced Member
alexvegas
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 18 2006, 10:42 PM

Dec 12 2007, 05:20 PM #9

blackcat @ Dec 12 2007, 05:19 PM wrote:
zombie bill hicks @ Dec 12 2007, 05:52 PM wrote: And if memory serves, most of those hijackers were not Saudi Arabian, but had been issued visas from Saudi Arabia.&nbsp;
Your memory fails to serve. Most were Saudi nationals.
You sure served him! :D
Quote
Like
Share

zombie bill hicks
Advanced Member
zombie bill hicks
Advanced Member
Joined: Jul 27 2007, 07:18 PM

Dec 12 2007, 05:29 PM #10

oh yea :P

Peak Oil is a hoax Rox? Im sure Im setting myself up for some of your classic verbal abuse, but I still think its debatable.

FromTheWilderness.com was my gateway to 9/11 Truth though.

Off topic: Is this forum pretty much dead? I havent seen a lot of activity recently..
As I have said repeatedly a LIHOP scenario is quite plausible to me.

-e^n
Hey e^n, LIHOP is still treason. That's why we demand a REAL 9/11 investigation. Now go Google Ptech/Indira Singh!

<a href="http://www.TeaParty07.com" target="_blank" border="0" alt="Ron Paul Tea Party 07"><img src="http://www.TeaParty07.com/images/Banner ... 468x69.jpg" /></a><br />



RONPAUL2008
Quote
Like
Share

kissing blarney
Advanced Member
kissing blarney
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 9 2007, 11:04 PM

Dec 12 2007, 06:20 PM #11

Bruno @ Dec 12 2007, 12:00 PM wrote:
miragememories @ Dec 12 2007, 11:56 AM wrote: By your logic Saudi Arabia should have been invaded!

MM
Applying your logic that Iraq was invaded merely because of its oil, yes, Saudi Arabia should have been invaded. They have the most oil and America had a strong reason to invade. But they didn't invade. That was the whole point of my post.
Firstly...MM's original post made absolutely no assertions about the hijackers or Saudi Arabia. That leap of logic was entirely yours and is, as far as l can tell, the antithesis of logic. Secondly...and l know this may come as a surprise to you, Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US. Or should l more accurately say, a protected member of the gangster capitalist crime family that is attempting to subvert morality and justice in this world.
Experience is what you get when you're expecting something else.
Quote
Like
Share

Bruno
Advanced Member
Bruno
Advanced Member
Joined: Jul 5 2007, 07:23 PM

Dec 12 2007, 06:36 PM #12

kissing blarney @ Dec 12 2007, 01:20 PM wrote: Firstly...MM's original post made absolutely no assertions about the hijackers or Saudi Arabia.  That leap of logic was entirely yours and is, as far as l can tell, the antithesis of logic.  Secondly...and l know this may come as a surprise to you, Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US.  Or should l more accurately say, a protected member of the gangster capitalist crime family that is attempting to subvert morality and justice in this world.
Of course not, but if you understood his post, he implied we attacked Iraq only because they had oil. So my post, which you've seem to not have understood, was to ask, if we attacked Iraq for their oil, why we did not attack Saudi Arabia for their oil, when they have more and we had more incentive to attack them.

Sheesh!

As far as being allies, that's irrelevant because, as Mirage says, it's only about the oil, nothing else.
Quote
Like
Share

look-up
Advanced Member
look-up
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 25 2006, 02:29 PM

Dec 12 2007, 06:45 PM #13

Bruno @ Dec 12 2007, 04:29 PM wrote:
miragememories @ Dec 12 2007, 10:43 AM wrote: Nah..they never invaded Iraq over oil ..it was to bring democracy right..
Saudi Arabia is number one on the list of world oil reserves. Most of the reported hijackers reportedly came from Saudi Arabia. We invaded Iraq.

Your logic is askew.
duh... because we didn't need to INVADE Saudi Arabia in order to get them to comply!!!

they are already our best buds!
-------------------------------------------------------
Come pull the sheet over my eyes
so I can sleep tonight
despite what I have seen today
I've found you guilty of a crime
of sleeping at a time
when you should have been wide awake

WIDE AWAKE!!!!!!!
by Audioslave
Quote
Like
Share

Roxdog
Advanced Member
Roxdog
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 18 2006, 06:13 PM

Dec 12 2007, 06:49 PM #14

zombie bill hicks @ Dec 12 2007, 11:29 AM wrote: oh yea :P

Peak Oil is a hoax Rox? Im sure Im setting myself up for some of your classic verbal abuse, but I still think its debatable.

FromTheWilderness.com was my gateway to 9/11 Truth though.
That's why FTW sucked and is no longer around. 90% truth and 10% bullsh^t. Its a hoax. There is more than enough oil to meet demand for a very, very long time. We're running out of oil like De Beers is running out of diamonds.

Call Revere Radio: 1-(877)- REVERE-0 (Click To Listen Live!!!)

"There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution."
-Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group, California Medical School, 1961


"Stay on your toes. We don't know how many other Brett Darrows there are out there..."
Quote
Like
Share

Bruno
Advanced Member
Bruno
Advanced Member
Joined: Jul 5 2007, 07:23 PM

Dec 12 2007, 06:50 PM #15

look&#045;up @ Dec 12 2007, 01:45 PM wrote:
Bruno @ Dec 12 2007, 04:29 PM wrote:
miragememories @ Dec 12 2007, 10:43 AM wrote: Nah..they never invaded Iraq over oil ..it was to bring democracy right..
Saudi Arabia is number one on the list of world oil reserves. Most of the reported hijackers reportedly came from Saudi Arabia. We invaded Iraq.

Your logic is askew.
duh... because we didn't need to INVADE Saudi Arabia in order to get them to comply!!!

they are already our best buds!
Even if they were our "best buds" (as you say), we still don't control their oil. So I ask again: if we invade Iraq merely to control their oil, why have we not invaded Saudi Arabia when they have more oil (that we do not control) and we had more incentive to invade them?

As far as Saudi Arabia being our "best bud", that is largely untrue. They do not agree with much of our foreign policy and even forced our armed forces from the country a few years ago (Prince Sultan Air Base). They are hardly our "best buds".
Quote
Like
Share

look-up
Advanced Member
look-up
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 25 2006, 02:29 PM

Dec 12 2007, 06:54 PM #16

Bruno @ Dec 12 2007, 06:50 PM wrote:
look&#045;up @ Dec 12 2007, 01:45 PM wrote:
Bruno @ Dec 12 2007, 04:29 PM wrote:
miragememories @ Dec 12 2007, 10:43 AM wrote: Nah..they never invaded Iraq over oil ..it was to bring democracy right..
Saudi Arabia is number one on the list of world oil reserves. Most of the reported hijackers reportedly came from Saudi Arabia. We invaded Iraq.

Your logic is askew.
duh... because we didn't need to INVADE Saudi Arabia in order to get them to comply!!!

they are already our best buds!
Even if they were our "best buds" (as you say), we still don't control their oil. So I ask again: if we invade Iraq merely to control their oil, why have we not invaded Saudi Arabia when they have more oil (that we do not control) and we had more incentive to invade them?

As far as Saudi Arabia being our "best bud", that is largely untrue. They do not agree with much of our foreign policy and even forced our armed forces from the country a few years ago (Prince Sultan Air Base). They are hardly our "best buds".
tell that to Bush...

tell that to the elite who are permenently moving to Saudi Arabia and Qatar...

so tell me, why ARE the bases being built?

I am not saying that the US government as a whole cooperates wholly with Saudi Arabian objectives... but that the interest group currently in control of our policies, is certainly very close to them.

We don't need to control oil fields militarily to still have the people who do control them, in our pockets.
-------------------------------------------------------
Come pull the sheet over my eyes
so I can sleep tonight
despite what I have seen today
I've found you guilty of a crime
of sleeping at a time
when you should have been wide awake

WIDE AWAKE!!!!!!!
by Audioslave
Quote
Like
Share

kissing blarney
Advanced Member
kissing blarney
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 9 2007, 11:04 PM

Dec 12 2007, 07:32 PM #17

Bruno @ Dec 12 2007, 01:36 PM wrote:
kissing blarney @ Dec 12 2007, 01:20 PM wrote: Firstly...MM's original post made absolutely no assertions about the hijackers or Saudi Arabia.  That leap of logic was entirely yours and is, as far as l can tell, the antithesis of logic.  Secondly...and l know this may come as a surprise to you, Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US.  Or should l more accurately say, a protected member of the gangster capitalist crime family that is attempting to subvert morality and justice in this world.
Of course not, but if you understood his post, he implied we attacked Iraq only because they had oil. So my post, which you've seem to not have understood, was to ask, if we attacked Iraq for their oil, why we did not attack Saudi Arabia for their oil, when they have more and we had more incentive to attack them.

Sheesh!

As far as being allies, that's irrelevant because, as Mirage says, it's only about the oil, nothing else.
Which part of "Nah..they never invaded Iraq over oil ..it was to bring democracy right.." are you assuming l don't understand? The sarcasm part? lraq was a sitting duck and the invasion was planned before 9/11 even happened. Which part of your post are assuming l don't understand? The blustering windbag part?

While l wouldn't characterize our relationship as best buds, the deal Nixon made with them back in '73 pretty much sealed the Saudi's fate. From that day forward their oil has been traded in US 'petrodollars'. l would put forth the proposition that if that deal is reneged on, they'll be lraq'd as soon as whatever administration in power at the time can demonize them sufficiently. Like look-up insinuates, it's not so much who controls the oil while it's in the ground, but who controls it when goes to market.

Oh...l almost forgot...do you believe Alan Greenspan's reason for the invasion of lraq as stated in his latest book?
Experience is what you get when you're expecting something else.
Quote
Like
Share

miragememories
Advanced Member
miragememories
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 20 2006, 03:15 PM

Dec 12 2007, 11:19 PM #18

kissing blarney @ Dec 12 2007, 01:20 PM wrote: Firstly...MM's original post made absolutely no assertions about the hijackers or Saudi Arabia.&nbsp; That leap of logic was entirely yours and is, as far as l can tell, the antithesis of logic.&nbsp; Secondly...and l know this may come as a surprise to you, Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US.&nbsp; Or should l more accurately say, a protected member of the gangster capitalist crime family that is attempting to subvert morality and justice in this world.
Bruno @ Dec 12 2007, 02:36 PM wrote: Of course not, but if you understood his post, he implied we attacked Iraq only because they had oil.&nbsp; So my post, which you've seem to not have understood, was to ask, if we attacked Iraq for their oil, why we did not attack Saudi Arabia for their oil, when they have more and we had more incentive to attack them.

Sheesh!

As far as being allies, that's irrelevant because, as Mirage says, it's only about the oil, nothing else.
It's all about control of the oil.

The Saudi's were/are a secure source of contracted oil supply for the U.S. They also have major military-industrial interests with the U.S. which makes their loyalty fairly stable.

Iraq on the other hand has major untapped reserves and was believed to be on the verge of entering into long term oil contracts with China and possibly India. The U.S. had to act before that relationship became established.

Also, Iraq was very vulnerable to U.S. imperialism whereas Saudi Arabia presented immense problems, not the least of which being home to Mecca. An invasion of Saudi Arabia risked an uprising in the whole Arab/Muslim world.

Saudi Arabia has a very modern up to date military that would not have been as easy to take down as Iraq's rather anemic armed forces.
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country_ ... ntry_id=11

MM
Quote
Like
Share

8bitagent
Advanced Member
8bitagent
Advanced Member
Joined: Feb 23 2007, 09:47 PM

Dec 13 2007, 01:09 AM #19

Bruno @ Dec 12 2007, 04:29 PM wrote:
miragememories @ Dec 12 2007, 10:43 AM wrote: Nah..they never invaded Iraq over oil ..it was to bring democracy right..
Saudi Arabia is number one on the list of world oil reserves. Most of the reported hijackers reportedly came from Saudi Arabia. We invaded Iraq.

Your logic is askew.
Most of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia? Its deeper than that.

The damn government and intelligence of Saudi Arabia, along with Pakistan, is so deep inside the 9/11 operation it's a wonder more people don't talk about it.

It's probably the real reason the CIA torture tapes were destroyed.
Fighting the new world order, one waffle at a time

Quote
Like
Share

8bitagent
Advanced Member
8bitagent
Advanced Member
Joined: Feb 23 2007, 09:47 PM

Dec 13 2007, 01:12 AM #20

miragememories @ Dec 12 2007, 04:56 PM wrote:
miragememories @ Dec 12 2007, 10:43 AM wrote: Nah..they never invaded Iraq over oil ..it was to bring democracy right..
Bruno @ Dec 12 2007, 12:29 PM wrote: Saudi Arabia is number one on the list of world oil reserves.&nbsp; Most of the reported hijackers reportedly came from Saudi Arabia.&nbsp; We invaded Iraq.&nbsp;

Your logic is askew.
By your logic Saudi Arabia should have been invaded!

MM
Well we know Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were balls deep in 9/11

We know Sudan was behind the USS Cole attacks and helps al Qaeda, as well as
is behind the Darfur genocide

And we know Rudy's business buddies the Qatari elite were also in on 9/11 as well as the leaders of Dubai...

Thats how these things work.

The truthers think Arabs are falsely blamed, the mainstream public thinks 9/11 was all Arabs, when the reality shows both the US and Arab elite are in bed and puppeteering the Islamic terrorism.

I do not support any war, because wars are based on lies and hidden agendas. If the US was to invade Sudan, it wouldnt be to help em, but get their share of the oil
Fighting the new world order, one waffle at a time

Quote
Like
Share


Confirmation of reply: