General Abizaid: "Of course the Iraq War is about Oil"

C

Cypress

Well-known member
Oops.

During a round table discussion on “the Fight for Oil, Water and a Healthy Planet” at Stanford University on Saturday, Gen. John Abizaid (Ret.), the former CENTCOM Commander, said that “of course” the Iraq war is “about oil“:

“Of course it’s about oil, we can’t really deny that,” Abizaid said of the Iraq campaign early on in the talk.

“We’ve treated the Arab world as a collection of big gas stations,” the retired general said. “Our message to them is: Guys, keep your pumps open, prices low, be nice to the Israelis and you can do whatever you want out back. Osama and 9/11 is the distilled essence that represents everything going on out back.”

http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2007/10/15/roundtableDebatesEnergyIssues
Click to expand...
 
It was about American influence in a very strategic area of the world. Yes Oil.

Germany and France were signing all future Iraq oil deals in Euro's. that was a bold step in the currency war hence there reaction to our invasion.
 
Chapdog said:
It was about American influence in a very strategic area of the world. Yes Oil.

Germany and France were signing all future Iraq oil deals in Euro's. that was a bold step in the currency war hence there reaction to our invasion.
Click to expand...
I remember lefties telling me that this was BS when I brought it up at invasion time. Weird.
 
well lefties dont want to admit that Germany or France dont give a shit about iraq and were only opposed because it was not in there strategic interest. As if a country as a whole operates with a conscious. LMAO
 
Huh ? I have always said it was about oil, and the righties slammed me for it.
Of course it was about muchroom clouds and WMD's and democracy.

This is a disgusting display of disingenuity by the righties.

this just backs up my prediction that by the 2012 election the righties will be saying see if we had not invaded Iraq for oil we would have none.
:D
 
Chapdog said:
well lefties dont want to admit that Germany or France dont give a shit about iraq and were only opposed because it was not in there strategic interest. As if a country as a whole operates with a conscious. LMAO
Click to expand...

Oh, no - it's the double standard police!

I wouldn't expect any less of a country. Why should France or Germany send their troops for an unnecessary war which would actually be counter-productive, and which wasn't in their strategic interest?
 
uscitizen said:
Huh ? I have always said it was about oil, and the righties slammed me for it.
Of course it was about muchroom clouds and WMD's and democracy.

This is a disgusting display of disingenuity by the righties.

this just backs up my prediction that by the 2012 election the righties will be saying see if we had not invaded Iraq for oil we would have none.
:D
Click to expand...

Hardcore bush supporters spent years denying it had anything to do with oil.
 
uscitizen said:
Just the song that those who supported Bush sings.
Also the reason I do not think Paul would pull the troops out. He is very pro business after all.
Click to expand...
Free Market is not necessarily pro-business. It is not part of the free market to invest the people's money directly into business. It would not be R. Paul's idea to bail out companies who created the mortgage issues currently facing us, it would not be his idea to continue a war because of business.
 
Umm our economy is based on cheap oil Damo, so goes the price / availibility of oil so goes our economy.
Not a good situation by any means, but the truth of the situation.
 
uscitizen said:
Umm our economy is based on cheap oil Damo, so goes the price / availibility of oil so goes our economy.
Not a good situation by any means, but the truth of the situation.
Click to expand...
So you believe that a man who says, "No undeclared wars" means whatever you want him to mean so you can convince yourself it is okay to vote for somebody that will not remove the troops and has stated they won't even promise to do it in over 4 years?

Convince yourself some more, you might feel better about it while the kids keep dying.

I will say it one more time, it is not "Free Market" to war on behalf of corporations.
 
you lost me on that last one Damo...
Maybe you are reading more into what I am saying than I am really saying.
 
uscitizen said:
you lost me on that last one Damo...
Maybe you are reading more into what I am saying than I am really saying.
Click to expand...
You are attempting to pre-excuse the continued war from the Democrats by saying, "Well, Ron Paul would do it too." I can't believe what I am seeing typed here.
 
Damocles said:
You are attempting to pre-excuse the continued war from the Democrats by saying, "Well, Ron Paul would do it too." I can't believe what I am seeing typed here.
Click to expand...

Wrong. I am only recognizing a tragic and inconvenient truth that our country is based on cheap oil and that we as a country will do anything to insure we keep getting oil.
Even to the point of most of most of us fooling ourselves into thinking it is for a more noble reason that we invade and occupy a country killing hundreds of thousands along the way.
while building up to attacking another oil country.
 
uscitizen said:
Wrong. I am only recognizing a tragic and inconvenient truth that our country is based on cheap oil and that we as a country will do anything to insure we keep getting oil.
Even to the point of most of most of us fooling ourselves into thinking it is for a more noble reason that we invade and occupy a country killing hundreds of thousands along the way.
while building up to attacking another oil country.
Click to expand...
It still doesn't change that if Ron Paul were elected he would withdraw the troops.

As a nation we will not vote for the two that would withdraw the troops, because of your reason above. But to project it onto a person who by their votes, and by their action have made it clear they will do what they have said on this particular issue is simple projection. If you believe that the troops should be withdrawn regardless of the effect to the economy you have two people to vote for, which will you select?

If Ron Paul is elected, the premise of your question in the thread, yes. He would withdraw the troops.
 
Damocles said:
It still doesn't change that if Ron Paul were elected he would withdraw the troops.

As a nation we will not vote for the two that would withdraw the troops, because of your reason above. But to project it onto a person who by their votes, and by their action have made it clear they will do what they have said on this particular issue is simple projection. If you believe that the troops should be withdrawn regardless of the effect to the economy you have two people to vote for, which will you select?

If Ron Paul is elected, the premise of the thread, yes. He would withdraw the troops.
Click to expand...

sure he would withdraw the troops, you must believe Ron Paul, must believe Ron Paul..
Like many believed Bush the first time, that he was not into nation building ?
 
LOL. I'm in the wrong thread!

Well, it doesn't change that R. Paul would withdraw the troops. And that this vote was misguided at best, truly detrimental at worst.
 
uscitizen said:
sure he would withdraw the troops, you must believe Ron Paul, must believe Ron Paul..
Like many believed Bush the first time, that he was not into nation building ?
Click to expand...
How much of a record did Bush have for votes in Congress to back up his position?

You keep projecting your excuse onto him. What do you think Kucinich would do?

You have two choices if you want the troops to withdraw immediately. Neither will be the nominee because the rest of the nation disagrees with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top