JimKelly12203
February 12th, 2008, 3:17:55 AM
Got a few days away from computer comming up. Haven't posted much here lately. So here it goes.
Rant on!
I didn't come up with the concept of "follow the money" but i do abide by it. And in this case the money doesn't lie. The following is absolutely 100% irrefutable truth. I haven't posted much lately on this forum, so do me this honor... Read this post and i encourage you to refute me wherever i've "gone too far". I am especially looking forward to my adopt a range member Uppy's reply. <3 you son!
1) On 9/11 we were attacked by 19 men, 15 of which were Saudis. None of which were Iraqis.
2) Oil is a fairly unique comodity in that it's supply will at best remain static, while it's demand will always increase with time. ALWAYS!
3) With that being the case, if you disrupt the supply of oil in the face of ever increasing demand, the price will NECISSARILY go up.
4) Iraq was a top 4 exporter of oil in the world.
5) Saudi Arabia is #1 (soon to be overthrown by the insurgent Venezuela).
6) Saudi Arabia has a close relationship with the united states, in particular with the Bush clan. Disputing this particular fact is akin to lunacy.
7) As the #1 exporter, SA was in a position to dictate OPEC policy. If you don't want to ship the ammount of oil they tell you to (and only the amount they tell you to)? Then fine. They open up their wells and start pumping at max capacity. The result? You lose money. They have the most oil. They can afford to suffer through a few months of low oil prices, you can't (even if you're #2,3 or 4). You lose tons of money at best and go bankrupt at worst, or you do as they tell you.
That's not even to mention the fact that Saudi Arabia's ally just happens to be the sole superpower on the planet and the country with the biggest thirst for oil on that planet.
8) Sadam defied Saudi Arabia. Initially, Sadam attempted to take out Kuwait. But the plan was far larger than that. Sadam had the 3rd largest land army in the world when he invaded Kuwait. He was clearly setting himslef up to attack neighboring SA. We stopped it, but SA was shitting itself to be sure. He wanted to be #1 in OPEC. He wanted to be the dude that told the other countries how much oil they can export. This desire was not unique to Sadam by any means. The difference was the other opec countries didn't have the army or the balls to try it.
Beyond that, we sort of betrayed Sadam. Look, i'm not saying the guy is a saint or that he even deserved to live. the bottom line is that he was given chemical weapons by the United States to use against Iran and the Curds. Again... this may not be convenient. But it's the truth.
Prior to Sadam's invasion of Kuwait, he notified Washington of his plans. in 1990 Jim baker (then secretary of state) replied; "We have no opinion on your border dissagreement with kuwait. The issue is not associated with America".
I swear on the soul's of my children i'm not making this up. The fact that you won't read it in a history text doesn't make it false. Baker said that in response to Sadam's warning that he was going into Kuwait... In many ways, this is an illustration of the quagmire our country finds itself in. We (the people) just aren't handed the information we need to make informed decisions. You have to dig. And when you do... you're considered a fringe "lunatic" because that information wasn't provided by the MSM.
Right before we invaded Iraq, you'll remember oil prices were in massive flux. One week it was 2.50/gal. The next week it was 1.85. The week after that, it was 2.60. Then it was 1.50.
Why? Because Sadam saw the writing on the wall. He knew (as did anyone paying attention at the time that Bush took office) that little bush was gunning for him. He tried to kill daddy, and besides, there was a lot of money to make. SO he flipped OPEC the bird and began a campaign of defying OPEC exporting laws. He just unloaded oil one week, then he shut his pumps off. Then he opened them up again. Then he shut them off again. The result was massively inconsistent oil prices.
9) we invade Iraq in the spring of 03 and the price of Oil jumps to 3.00+/gallon within a matter of 2 years. As a result, this is what happened to the stock of Saudi Arabia's oil company (Exxon/Mobil Corp). Please click the link.
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=XOM&sid=0&o_symb=XOM&freq=2&time=13&x=67&y=15
10) Dick Cheney refuses to release the details of the meetings that occured in his energy task force in 2000 and 2001. Even today, the meeting remains a mystery (though it's easy to immagine what was said in those meetings).
11) Our war with Iraq costs billions of dollars every month and yet it is waged amidst an era of corporate tax cuts (an unprecidented development in US history. War ALWAYS = more taxes). This begs the question... How are we affording this war?
12) The Hidden Tax. The US incurs massive debt as it is deeply entrenched in a costly war. We borrow the money to fight said war. Who picks up the tab? Saudi Arabia of course, but with an interest rate. To an equal extent, China buys up US debt at an unprecidented rate.
We're fighting our war on what ammounts to a war mortgage. I don't know about you, but my house (meager though it may be) cost a whopping 150k. We put 20 down and took out a loan for the difference on a 30 year mortgage. If we pay this thing off in 30 years, the total money we'll have given trustco bank = ~420k... That's the kind of deal Saudi Arabia and China are giving us to fund our war!
We're paying for this war. But we're not paying the IRS. We're paying at the pump... with an interest rate for our kids tacked on.
-------------------------
THis thing isn't about terrorism or nation building or WMD. It's about looting the wealthiest nation in the history of mankind.
We attacked Iraq with 0 provocation. Sadam was an *******, yes. So are many world leaders. The difference was, attacking Sadam would make a lot of money for those with the power to declare war. In contrast, attacking Kim Jong Il and his poorball POS nation was NOT profitable. Attacking China (the real "threat") is suicide.
It just so happens that the crooks who took advantage of these conditions resided in the Republican party. In a different place and time it just as easily could have been democrats who started the mess.
What's important to realize is that the real actors were not democrats or republicans. It was the international banking elite (who buy anyone they want) who lead the charge.
In the Bush clan, they found the perfect ally. People they didn't have to bully into doing things. The Bush clan (and their cronies) would make plenty of their own money throughout this endeavor. There was no need for strong arming or bribes. You don't need to assassinate anyone (JFK) or try to assassinate anyone (the gipper). The people "in charge" shared your view!
That's why George W. Bush was selected as the 43rd president of the USA in the first place. He was a stupid man that could be easily convinced that we're engaged in a war of cultures. The fact that his bank account (and those of his friends) were getting larger in the process was merely a convenient side effect.
Say what you will... It is VERY difficult (impossible in my view) to dispute these facts w/o citing Fox and Friends as your primary reference. That's the gag. That's where the joke's on us!
You're all smart people. All of you guys are.
So what's more likely? We had "intelligence errors" that drew us into a war that greatly benefited those who chose to start it? Or is it more likely that these dudes play dumb while being smart on a very sinister level?
What does the money trail say?
Rant off!
Rant on!
I didn't come up with the concept of "follow the money" but i do abide by it. And in this case the money doesn't lie. The following is absolutely 100% irrefutable truth. I haven't posted much lately on this forum, so do me this honor... Read this post and i encourage you to refute me wherever i've "gone too far". I am especially looking forward to my adopt a range member Uppy's reply. <3 you son!
1) On 9/11 we were attacked by 19 men, 15 of which were Saudis. None of which were Iraqis.
2) Oil is a fairly unique comodity in that it's supply will at best remain static, while it's demand will always increase with time. ALWAYS!
3) With that being the case, if you disrupt the supply of oil in the face of ever increasing demand, the price will NECISSARILY go up.
4) Iraq was a top 4 exporter of oil in the world.
5) Saudi Arabia is #1 (soon to be overthrown by the insurgent Venezuela).
6) Saudi Arabia has a close relationship with the united states, in particular with the Bush clan. Disputing this particular fact is akin to lunacy.
7) As the #1 exporter, SA was in a position to dictate OPEC policy. If you don't want to ship the ammount of oil they tell you to (and only the amount they tell you to)? Then fine. They open up their wells and start pumping at max capacity. The result? You lose money. They have the most oil. They can afford to suffer through a few months of low oil prices, you can't (even if you're #2,3 or 4). You lose tons of money at best and go bankrupt at worst, or you do as they tell you.
That's not even to mention the fact that Saudi Arabia's ally just happens to be the sole superpower on the planet and the country with the biggest thirst for oil on that planet.
8) Sadam defied Saudi Arabia. Initially, Sadam attempted to take out Kuwait. But the plan was far larger than that. Sadam had the 3rd largest land army in the world when he invaded Kuwait. He was clearly setting himslef up to attack neighboring SA. We stopped it, but SA was shitting itself to be sure. He wanted to be #1 in OPEC. He wanted to be the dude that told the other countries how much oil they can export. This desire was not unique to Sadam by any means. The difference was the other opec countries didn't have the army or the balls to try it.
Beyond that, we sort of betrayed Sadam. Look, i'm not saying the guy is a saint or that he even deserved to live. the bottom line is that he was given chemical weapons by the United States to use against Iran and the Curds. Again... this may not be convenient. But it's the truth.
Prior to Sadam's invasion of Kuwait, he notified Washington of his plans. in 1990 Jim baker (then secretary of state) replied; "We have no opinion on your border dissagreement with kuwait. The issue is not associated with America".
I swear on the soul's of my children i'm not making this up. The fact that you won't read it in a history text doesn't make it false. Baker said that in response to Sadam's warning that he was going into Kuwait... In many ways, this is an illustration of the quagmire our country finds itself in. We (the people) just aren't handed the information we need to make informed decisions. You have to dig. And when you do... you're considered a fringe "lunatic" because that information wasn't provided by the MSM.
Right before we invaded Iraq, you'll remember oil prices were in massive flux. One week it was 2.50/gal. The next week it was 1.85. The week after that, it was 2.60. Then it was 1.50.
Why? Because Sadam saw the writing on the wall. He knew (as did anyone paying attention at the time that Bush took office) that little bush was gunning for him. He tried to kill daddy, and besides, there was a lot of money to make. SO he flipped OPEC the bird and began a campaign of defying OPEC exporting laws. He just unloaded oil one week, then he shut his pumps off. Then he opened them up again. Then he shut them off again. The result was massively inconsistent oil prices.
9) we invade Iraq in the spring of 03 and the price of Oil jumps to 3.00+/gallon within a matter of 2 years. As a result, this is what happened to the stock of Saudi Arabia's oil company (Exxon/Mobil Corp). Please click the link.
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=XOM&sid=0&o_symb=XOM&freq=2&time=13&x=67&y=15
10) Dick Cheney refuses to release the details of the meetings that occured in his energy task force in 2000 and 2001. Even today, the meeting remains a mystery (though it's easy to immagine what was said in those meetings).
11) Our war with Iraq costs billions of dollars every month and yet it is waged amidst an era of corporate tax cuts (an unprecidented development in US history. War ALWAYS = more taxes). This begs the question... How are we affording this war?
12) The Hidden Tax. The US incurs massive debt as it is deeply entrenched in a costly war. We borrow the money to fight said war. Who picks up the tab? Saudi Arabia of course, but with an interest rate. To an equal extent, China buys up US debt at an unprecidented rate.
We're fighting our war on what ammounts to a war mortgage. I don't know about you, but my house (meager though it may be) cost a whopping 150k. We put 20 down and took out a loan for the difference on a 30 year mortgage. If we pay this thing off in 30 years, the total money we'll have given trustco bank = ~420k... That's the kind of deal Saudi Arabia and China are giving us to fund our war!
We're paying for this war. But we're not paying the IRS. We're paying at the pump... with an interest rate for our kids tacked on.
-------------------------
THis thing isn't about terrorism or nation building or WMD. It's about looting the wealthiest nation in the history of mankind.
We attacked Iraq with 0 provocation. Sadam was an *******, yes. So are many world leaders. The difference was, attacking Sadam would make a lot of money for those with the power to declare war. In contrast, attacking Kim Jong Il and his poorball POS nation was NOT profitable. Attacking China (the real "threat") is suicide.
It just so happens that the crooks who took advantage of these conditions resided in the Republican party. In a different place and time it just as easily could have been democrats who started the mess.
What's important to realize is that the real actors were not democrats or republicans. It was the international banking elite (who buy anyone they want) who lead the charge.
In the Bush clan, they found the perfect ally. People they didn't have to bully into doing things. The Bush clan (and their cronies) would make plenty of their own money throughout this endeavor. There was no need for strong arming or bribes. You don't need to assassinate anyone (JFK) or try to assassinate anyone (the gipper). The people "in charge" shared your view!
That's why George W. Bush was selected as the 43rd president of the USA in the first place. He was a stupid man that could be easily convinced that we're engaged in a war of cultures. The fact that his bank account (and those of his friends) were getting larger in the process was merely a convenient side effect.
Say what you will... It is VERY difficult (impossible in my view) to dispute these facts w/o citing Fox and Friends as your primary reference. That's the gag. That's where the joke's on us!
You're all smart people. All of you guys are.
So what's more likely? We had "intelligence errors" that drew us into a war that greatly benefited those who chose to start it? Or is it more likely that these dudes play dumb while being smart on a very sinister level?
What does the money trail say?
Rant off!