 The Infowarrior says: As blogger Robert Weissman points out, the "legitimate aspirations" that Kissinger affords Iran later in the piece "do not include control over the oil that the United States and other industrial countries need." According to the CIA's world factbook, Iran has the world's second largest reserves of conventional crude oil at 133 gigabarrels. Adding non-conventional oil, Iran holds 10% of the global oil supply. Kissinger's admission that U.S. control of Iranian oil supplies is the real agenda behind hostility towards Iran would raise eyebrows and bring condemnation from many, but there are a hard core of Neo-Con cheerleaders who would support such an agenda even if it is openly accepted that nuclear proliferation is just a smokescreen for looting more middle east oil. "That is because they are still deluded into thinking that foreign wars of aggression to monopolize natural resources make America, and as a consequence make them, richer and more prosperous - when nothing could be further from the truth. The fact that the Iraq invasion was about oil is a familiar cliche that was even acknowledged by Alan Greenspan last week. "So what? We need that oil," the Neo-Cons sneer." Americans don't benefit from the Globalists' control of Iraqi oil because the agenda is to artificially restrict global oil supplies in order to jack up prices and reduce the living standards of industrial countries. The oil flowing out of Iraq has never recovered to pre-invasion lev... Well, if Iran is making nuclear weapons, I suppose we could just wait it out and hope they don't start World War 3. Obviously President Mahmoud "I'm-a-nut-job" is a stand up guy. Trustworthy and kind right? I mean, look what he did to his own people....just recently.... If we had invaded Iraq for their oil, we would be paying record prices for oil now. The "blood for oil" claim is ridiculous. If America wanted to use it's military might to seize Iraq's oil, we would have captured Iraq's oil fields and kept them with the half a million troops who were deployed during the Gulf War. The notion is ludicrous because all the evidence contradicts the claim. Anyone paying less than $2.50 a gallon at the pump? Uh, that's not cheap. If we had invaded Iraq for their oil, we would NOT be paying record prices......(I left out NOT in the comment above) Iran has 10% of the entire worlds oil supply under its soil. "it is openly accepted that nuclear proliferation is just a smokescreen for looting more middle east oil." If Nuclear weapons were really the issue here why are they not pressuring Israel? or any other nuke owning country, like Russia or Japan both of whom have huge nuclear arsenals. I'm not saying them having nukes is a good thing because it does not matter who owns the nukes, they will never be a good thing. All I'm saying is that there is obviously a lot more to this than is on the surface. We didn't need Old Kissmybutt to ADMIT that it is all about oil.......... It's always about OIL.............. |
View the Top Clips from August 16, 2009
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
||||||||||||||
