(CNN) -- the Iraq War was a war for oil

  • Thread starter Thread starter islamica
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 108
  • Views Views 14K
"Why does this guy never say anything that makes sense, just rhetoric and drivel." Uh...because he's a politician. The more he actually communicates a distinct, useful message, and the less he just speaks in empty buzzwords (specifically designed to have a strong psychological effect on large crowds or hyped up individuals) which convey little actual meaning, the more danger he'll be in of actually having to do something. Or making his true intentions clear if he is planning to do something, which usually means he's up to no good.
 
Karl said:
Why does this guy never say anything that makes sense, just rhetoric and drivel. His propaganda is painfully tedious. He should get some tips from Dubya and just say "Freedom and democracy" and try and hold back the laughs.
Click to expand...

He's trying to be JFK of the 21st century.........
 
IAmZamzam said:
"Why does this guy never say anything that makes sense, just rhetoric and drivel." Uh...because he's a politician. The more he actually communicates a distinct, useful message, and the less he just speaks in empty buzzwords (specifically designed to have a strong psychological effect on large crowds or hyped up individuals) which convey little actual meaning, the more danger he'll be in of actually having to do something. Or making his true intentions clear if he is planning to do something, which usually means he's up to no good.
Click to expand...

Yeah the guy is just a figure head puppet controlled and marketed by an oligarchy of Internationalist Zionist plutocrats. They got a halfcast black guy in with a Muslim name as part of their "win the hearts and minds" propaganda campaign. If a white guy blows up the Middle East that may be seen as racist and imperialist but if Barak Hussain Obama does it, it may be seen as ok, he's just one of the bros trying to fix things.
 
You really think for one moment that a high level American politician is going to be humble enough about his own powerful position to let other people control him, do you?

You people will just plain never get it, will you? These guys are not the puppets, they are the puppeteers. We're talking about a man who has the gall to be known as "the leader of the free world". That's what the president is traditionally called around here. I'm not kidding. The hubris is that far off the scale. I really wish I could get anyone to understand all this but conspiracy theorists are notoriously impossible to reason with.

P.S. White guys have been blowing up the Middle East since, like, the time of Eisenhower. Obama is the first black one to do it. Nothing has really changed.
 
IAmZamzam said:
You really think for one moment that a high level American politician is going to be humble enough about his own powerful position to let other people control him, do you?

You people will just plain never get it, will you? These guys are not the puppets, they are the puppeteers. We're talking about a man who has the gall to be known as "the leader of the free world". That's what the president is traditionally called around here. I'm not kidding. The hubris is that far off the scale. I really wish I could get anyone to understand all this but conspiracy theorists are notoriously impossible to reason with.

P.S. White guys have been blowing up the Middle East since, like, the time of Eisenhower. Obama is the first black one to do it. Nothing has really changed.
Click to expand...

The plutocrats make or break people. Make war for profit, control the "free world". The presidency and all the clowns in Washington and their so called democracy is just a dog and pony show.
The Democrat party was created by the Republican party. It's all a total farce. It is similar to the old Roman Republic where the patricians had all the candidates except the Tribune that represented the plebians but was always bribed to support the patricians interests. USA is so corrupt now that most people there have given up wasting their time voting.
 
You're close, friend. Very close. The meaning of the terms "Democrat" and "Republican" have a way of shifting over the ages. In fact when it was first founded the Republican Party was practically the opposite in some ways of what it is now. It was more about abolitionism at first anyway. That should tell you in how much flux these things have been in since the 1800's. And what pure semantics it all is ultimately. A lot of people now speak of the whole thing as just consisting of "Republicrats". Anyway the bribes are coming from major corporations. Local corporations. What'd I tell you about beaurocrats? This is fairly well known here. Big business wants its hands in everything, and mostly has it very much that way. The details of this law are complicated and confusing and kind of go over my head but it's essentially perfectly legal in America for lobbyists to bribe the politicians they're supporting in everything but name only. If you've seen the movie Clue then you've already heard people joke about this.

"Are you making moral judgments, Mrs. Peacock?! How then do you justify taking bribes??..."
"My husband is a paid consultant! There is nothing wrong with that!"
"Not if it's publically declared...perhaps...."
 
Well, I'm not particularly worried. That same plutocracy is what will make the USA decay, it already has happened to a large degree. US domestic politics is a contest between different plutocrats about who can loot the most government money. When everything has been looted, it will be unable to fulfil the basic functions of a state, which will bring down the economy with it.
 
Futuwwa said:
Well, I'm not particularly worried. That same plutocracy is what will make the USA decay, it already has happened to a large degree. US domestic politics is a contest between different plutocrats about who can loot the most government money. When everything has been looted, it will be unable to fulfil the basic functions of a state, which will bring down the economy with it.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting that the USA has the option to plunder the resources of another defenceless country.

Now that the USSR is no more the only way to keep the USA in check is for China, North Korea and India to flex their military muscle. But Alas India has been a poodle of the USA recently as it needs all the IT outsourcing it can get from the states.
 
And how did the last attempt to plunder the resources of another country work out for the USA? The Iraq War was enormously expensive for it, far more expensive than any economic benefit that could be gained from letting it access Iraq's oil, especially as most of Iraq's oil contracts have gone to China ;D
 
I doubt it. The military-industrial complex has nothing to complain about. Mission success or failure is less important for them than the fact that massive amounts of American taxpayers' money ended up as their profits ;D
 
Oil makes the region important where it wouldn't be otherwise. But that doesn't mean it's the whole story.

The primary reason for the second Gulf War was the first Gulf War. And the main reason for that was not access to iraq's oilfields but the seizure of Kuwait. Iraq itself was excluded from the UN objectives and they kept to that even when they had Saddam on his knees, a very unusual circumstance in military history.

Apart from Tibet (whose status was not fully recognised) Kuwait remains the only example of a sovereign state being entirely conquered since WW2 (Palestine is not fully occupied, and other attempts like Gaddafi's takeover of Chad failed). Almost all wars since 1945 have been civil wars (even though other countries may also get involved) which makes Kuwait very significant.

Not only did Saddam take the whole of Kuwait, he also made several incursions into Saudi. It was absolutely inevitable that this would draw a response. Expelling him from Kuwait was the right thing to do and had widespread Arab support too.

In the aftermath of the first Gulf War everyone assumed that Saddam would be deposed internally and this was thought to be better than an external invasion. Unfortunately that's not how it turned out and he crushed the Marsh Arabs, the Kurds and any other other opposing factions. Subsequently, Bush Junior saw himself as completing the job of Bush Senior and he would have taken any excuse for it - WMD or otherwise.
 
Independent said:
Subsequently, Bush Junior saw himself as completing the job of Bush Senior and he would have taken any excuse for it - WMD or otherwise.
Click to expand...

This I believe because straight after 9/11 he was talking about Al Qaeeda then all of a sudden he dropped Saddam Hussein into the mix. I for one thought what is he talking about? Now I know.
 
He has a point. Greed and arrogance weren't the only factors involved. I'm pretty sure that around that time Bush, Jr. actually made a public remark along the lines of, "Besides, [Saddam] is the guy who attacked my dad!" That's how petty this man, and his cronies, were. Andrew Motion perhaps summed up the situation best in "Causa Belli":

They read good books, and quote, but never learn
a language other than the scream of rocket-burn.
Our straighter talk is drowned but ironclad:
elections, money, empire, oil and Dad.
 
Abu Loren said:
Now that the USSR is no more the only way to keep the USA in check is for China, North Korea and India to flex their military muscle. But Alas India has been a poodle of the USA recently as it needs all the IT outsourcing it can get from the states.
Click to expand...

I doubt you done your research. US financed USSR and even China. US creates its own enemies.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wall-Street...=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1364050444&sr=1-2

^ You can read this book if you want.
 
Independent said:
The primary reason for the second Gulf War was the first Gulf War. And the main reason for that was not access to iraq's oilfields but the seizure of Kuwait. Iraq itself was excluded from the UN objectives and they kept to that even when they had Saddam on his knees, a very unusual circumstance in military history.
Click to expand...

Some speculate Saddam was encouraged to invade Kuwait.

Subsequently, Bush Junior saw himself as completing the job of Bush Senior and he would have taken any excuse for it - WMD or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Yes. Makes you wonder how far this was planned.
 
Abu Loren said:
So what you are saying old boy is that the USA is in total control of this world?
Click to expand...

No. =) Not at all.

Unlike most people, I read books from a variety of sources and try to gain as much knowledge as I can. Then I sit back and read members posts who make a fool of themselves by posting utter gibberish. ^_^

Try reading some books. It may help you but I doubt anything can penetrate your thick head.
 
Last edited:
GuestFellow said:
No. =) Not at all.

Unlike most people, I read books from a variety of sources and try to gain as much knowledge as I can. Then I sit back and read members posts who make a fool of themselves by posting utter gibberish. ^_^

Try reading some books. It may help you but I doubt anything can penetrate your thick head.
Click to expand...

Dont forget the nazi empire, most people today will see our posts as being paranoid, however WW2 was engineered to secure and create the state of 'israel' in its form. By playing the holocaust trick, the jews would find a reason to invade arab lands. The colonization of the british and french paved the way of this, also by creating rebellions commited by khawarijtes to destroy the ottoman caliphate.

There is a book how the zionists and wall street funded hitler and his allies:

http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/

After WW2 nazi scientists even the ones who worked on V2 rockets were shipped to the US by the CIA to work on their space program and other nasty experiments like MK-ultra. result: NASA was born and the TV was born.

US creates its enemies and indeed it does. However the USSR was never really a US-enemy, it only was concurrention in the search of resources but a WW3 was never on the card, it was only destined to divide and make people take sides. Most wars during that time were proxy-battles. Like the contras who killed, massacred civilians in nicaragua. Dont believe in the words of politicans, they're decievers and only want to bring destruction on this world. And the ones who wake up, get framed, get accused, get labeled as being the bad guy. Sure, most of those who wake up arent genuine either like Saddam hussein, but they will always hide their real objectives.

The proxy wars have never stopped though. Look at today.
 
Last edited:

Similar Threads

Back
Top