zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.

Learn More · Register Now
Welcome to Loose Change Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


Pages: (2) [1] 2  ( Go to first unread post )

 Who Has The Oil?
Front242
Posted: Dec 12 2007, 09:45 AM


Advanced Mem


Group: Members
Posts: 282
Member No.: 734
Joined: 27-October 06



Top
miragememories
Posted: Dec 12 2007, 10:43 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,333
Member No.: 364
Joined: 20-October 06



Top
Bruno
Posted: Dec 12 2007, 11:29 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 322
Member No.: 5,589
Joined: 5-July 07



QUOTE (miragememories @ Dec 12 2007, 10:43 AM)
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.
Top
zombie bill hicks
Posted: Dec 12 2007, 11:52 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 301
Member No.: 5,984
Joined: 27-July 07



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.
Top
miragememories
Posted: Dec 12 2007, 11:56 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,333
Member No.: 364
Joined: 20-October 06



QUOTE (miragememories @ Dec 12 2007, 10:43 AM)
Nah..they never invaded Iraq over oil ..it was to bring democracy right..


QUOTE (Bruno @ Dec 12 2007, 12:29 PM)

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.


By your logic Saudi Arabia should have been invaded!

MM
Top
Bruno
Posted: Dec 12 2007, 12:00 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 322
Member No.: 5,589
Joined: 5-July 07



QUOTE (miragememories @ Dec 12 2007, 11:56 AM)
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.
Top
Roxdog
Posted: Dec 12 2007, 12:09 PM


Why is Al Gore's House Bigger Than Everyone Else's?


Group: Members
Posts: 5,428
Member No.: 34
Joined: 18-October 06



QUOTE (zombie bill hicks @ Dec 12 2007, 10:52 AM)
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.
Top
blackcat
Posted: Dec 12 2007, 12:19 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 92
Member No.: 903
Joined: 10-November 06



QUOTE (zombie bill hicks @ Dec 12 2007, 05:52 PM)
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.
Top
alexvegas
Posted: Dec 12 2007, 12:20 PM


alex25smash


Group: Members
Posts: 1,576
Member No.: 97
Joined: 18-October 06



QUOTE (blackcat @ Dec 12 2007, 05:19 PM)
QUOTE (zombie bill hicks @ Dec 12 2007, 05:52 PM)
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.

You sure served him! :D
Top
zombie bill hicks
Posted: Dec 12 2007, 12:29 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 301
Member No.: 5,984
Joined: 27-July 07



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..
Top
kissing blarney
Posted: Dec 12 2007, 01:20 PM


make something idiot proof...they'll make a better idiot


Group: Members
Posts: 551
Member No.: 7,595
Joined: 9-October 07



QUOTE (Bruno @ Dec 12 2007, 12:00 PM)
QUOTE (miragememories @ Dec 12 2007, 11:56 AM)
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.
Top
Bruno
Posted: Dec 12 2007, 01:36 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 322
Member No.: 5,589
Joined: 5-July 07



QUOTE (kissing blarney @ Dec 12 2007, 01:20 PM)
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.
Top
look-up
Posted: Dec 12 2007, 01:45 PM


A WTC 7 No-Planer


Group: Members
Posts: 5,768
Member No.: 654
Joined: 25-October 06



QUOTE (Bruno @ Dec 12 2007, 04:29 PM)
QUOTE (miragememories @ Dec 12 2007, 10:43 AM)
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!
Top
Roxdog
Posted: Dec 12 2007, 01:49 PM


Why is Al Gore's House Bigger Than Everyone Else's?


Group: Members
Posts: 5,428
Member No.: 34
Joined: 18-October 06



QUOTE (zombie bill hicks @ Dec 12 2007, 11:29 AM)
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.
Top
Bruno
Posted: Dec 12 2007, 01:50 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 322
Member No.: 5,589
Joined: 5-July 07



QUOTE (look-up @ Dec 12 2007, 01:45 PM)
QUOTE (Bruno @ Dec 12 2007, 04:29 PM)
QUOTE (miragememories @ Dec 12 2007, 10:43 AM)
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".
Top
look-up
Posted: Dec 12 2007, 01:54 PM


A WTC 7 No-Planer


Group: Members
Posts: 5,768
Member No.: 654
Joined: 25-October 06



QUOTE (Bruno @ Dec 12 2007, 06:50 PM)
QUOTE (look-up @ Dec 12 2007, 01:45 PM)
QUOTE (Bruno @ Dec 12 2007, 04:29 PM)
QUOTE (miragememories @ Dec 12 2007, 10:43 AM)
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.
Top
kissing blarney
Posted: Dec 12 2007, 02:32 PM


make something idiot proof...they'll make a better idiot


Group: Members
Posts: 551
Member No.: 7,595
Joined: 9-October 07



QUOTE (Bruno @ Dec 12 2007, 01:36 PM)
QUOTE (kissing blarney @ Dec 12 2007, 01:20 PM)
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?
Top
miragememories
Posted: Dec 12 2007, 06:19 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,333
Member No.: 364
Joined: 20-October 06



QUOTE (kissing blarney @ Dec 12 2007, 01:20 PM)
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.


QUOTE (Bruno @ Dec 12 2007, 02:36 PM)

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.


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_det...p?country_id=11

MM
Top
8bitagent
Posted: Dec 12 2007, 08:09 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,509
Member No.: 2,541
Joined: 23-February 07



QUOTE (Bruno @ Dec 12 2007, 04:29 PM)
QUOTE (miragememories @ Dec 12 2007, 10:43 AM)
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.
Top
8bitagent
Posted: Dec 12 2007, 08:12 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,509
Member No.: 2,541
Joined: 23-February 07



QUOTE (miragememories @ Dec 12 2007, 04:56 PM)
QUOTE (miragememories @ Dec 12 2007, 10:43 AM)
Nah..they never invaded Iraq over oil ..it was to bring democracy right..


QUOTE (Bruno @ Dec 12 2007, 12:29 PM)

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.


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
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | The Lounge | Next Newest »
zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Register Now

Topic OptionsPages: (2) [1] 2 



Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.0413 seconds · Archive