Why is it ?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I really love shutting down threads with facts. ..

Which facts? The fact that you linked to an article. The article doesn't present any "facts" that prove that Iraq was invaded to benefit Bush's oil buddies. It doesn't even imply it, but says that anti-war activists would try to make hay with the documents. Plus it's an old article that has been made pretty much moot with newer ones and with actual facts that imply the opposite of what you claim.

As you note, and didn't see coming, mostly other than American oil companies have been benefited. in the 2009 auction for contracts on oil extraction in Iraq, no U.S. based oil companies won a contract.

A Time Magazine article, 12/19/2009, stated "Those who claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get control of the country's giant oil reserves will be left scratching their heads by the results of last weekend's auction of Iraqi oil contracts: not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction . . ." It quotes Alex Munton, middle east oil analyst for the energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie: "[This] certainly answers the theory that the war was for the benefit of big U.S. oil interests. That has not been demonstrated by what happened this week."

A 1/18/2010 article in INVESTOPEDIA ends with "the perception that American oil companies would receive preferential treatment in a post war Iraq have been proven false so far, with only two U.S. based companies receiving contracts to develop iraqi oil fields, this is a sharp slap in the face to conspiracy theorists everwhere."

Andrei Kuzayev, president of Lukoil, one of the Russian oil companies that were awarded contracts in the 2009 auction said "The strategic interest of the U.S. is in new oil supplies arriving on the world market, to lower prices . . . it is not important that we did not take part in the coalition [to invade Iraq] . . .For America, the important thing is open access to reserves. And that is happening in Iraq." Mostly without access to oil by American companies.

Philip Frayne, U.S. Embassy Spokesman in Baghdad, said, after the 2009 auction round "The results of the bid round should lay to rest the old canard that the U.S. intervened in Iraq to secure oil for American companies." So far, I have not heard that Obama has had him removed.

The 2010 Wikileaks revealed a great deal of troublesome "facts" about U.S. government involvements, including the Iraq war, and the "secret" discussions by higherups regarding the reasons to go to war, but the leaks revealed NO plans to do so to profit Bush's "oil buddies."

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

As you note, and didn't see coming, mostly other than American oil companies have been benefited. in the 2009 auction for contracts on oil extraction in Iraq, no U.S. based oil companies won a contract.

A Time Magazine article, 12/19/2009, stated "Those who claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get control of the country's giant oil reserves will be left scratching their heads by the results of last weekend's auction of Iraqi oil contracts: not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction . . ." It quotes Alex Munton, middle east oil analyst for the energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie: "[This] certainly answers the theory that the war was for the benefit of big U.S. oil interests. That has not been demonstrated by what happened this week."

A 1/18/2010 article in INVESTOPEDIA ends with "the perception that American oil companies would receive preferential treatment in a post war Iraq have been proven false so far, with only two U.S. based companies receiving contracts to develop iraqi oil fields, this is a sharp slap in the face to conspiracy theorists everwhere."

So what? Most things didn't go as the administration planned. The fact that we didn't receive preferential treatment years later, doesn't mean that it wasn't what drove Cheney to push Dub to war. Maybe it was just a family grudge. 9/11 just gave him the politcal weight to do it.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

So what? Most things didn't go as the administration planned. The fact that we didn't receive preferential treatment years later, doesn't mean that it wasn't what drove Cheney to push Dub to war. Maybe it was just a family grudge. 9/11 just gave him the politcal weight to do it.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by scottw

That beard is way to nice for me. A good try, though

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

So what? Most things didn't go as the administration planned.

"So what?" is not a fact. I was responding to Nebe's "facts". And conspiracy theories are only facts in that they are conspiracy theories. Opinions are not facts. How do you know that things didn't go as the administration planned? You seem to think they lied about so much, maybe they lied about what they planned. Maybe they wanted things to happen just as they have. They were, aparently, smart enough to fool Congress (not that Congress is made of the sharpest tacks). Or is it that the Bush administration was sometimes cunningly devious and other times dumb as a rock.

The fact that we didn't receive preferential treatment years later, doesn't mean that it wasn't what drove Cheney to push Dub to war.

So what? That we didn't get what you say bush planned, doesn't actually mean he did plan it. Is there some hidden logic or "fact" in your assertion?

Maybe it was just a family grudge. 9/11 just gave him the politcal weight to do it.

Oh, so now we switch to another pseudo-fact, the family grudge thing. The factual substance to your opinions are astounding.

I notice you skipped the quote by Obama's Embassy Spokesman in Iraq. Maybe Obama is in cahoots with Bush's plan. He's certainly in step with most of his other plans. The circle of conspiracy widens. And I guess the quote by the pesident of one of the Russian companies is another "fact" that is of no interest.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The factual substance to your opinions are astounding.

there is so much irony there

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I think It is more likely that they pushed a war in Iraq to benefit their oil buddies.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by zimmy

So what? Most things didn't go as the administration planned. The fact that we didn't receive preferential treatment years later, doesn't mean that it wasn't what drove Cheney to push Dub to war. Maybe it was just a family grudge. 9/11 just gave him the politcal weight to do it.

Originally Posted by detbuch

Oh, so now we switch to another pseudo-fact, the family grudge thing. The factual substance to your opinions are astounding.

The only thing I said as fact was that US companies didn't get preferential treatment. Maybe one of the ways to keep these threads from going to the dogs is for everyone not to make up stuff and present it as what someone else said.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The only thing I said as fact was that US companies didn't get preferential treatment. Maybe one of the ways to keep these threads from going to the dogs is for everyone not to make up stuff .

great point......in terms of this thread.....you could begin with you

I think that when someone offers facts, which you so often demand and/or claim to be in command of, to you and you declare "so what" followed by a littany of wild speculation(which we know must surely be the result of learned analysis and meticulous research that "the masses" or most folks here aren't likely equipped to engage in or probably even understand) you are effectively illustrating one of the aspersions that you frequently cast at others from on high

waaaait......are you doing this on purpose?....you clever, clever guy

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Iraq oil map among U.S. energy task-force files - MarketWatch

And your point (still) is?

Originally Posted by Nebe

It doesnt take half a brain to read between the lines with what happened back then. The sheep fell for the WMD bait and and switch. What I didn't see coming was that China was awarded first dibs with Iraq's oil... Just one more reason why they own us.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Keep believing this Eben, sure it was a bait & switch.

Originally Posted by scottw

nice touch

If you are going to go low enough to (mildly) attack someone with the TinFoilHat, please have the decency to use JPG images to save people the trouble.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnR

If you are going to go low enough to (mildly) attack someone with the TinFoilHat, please have the decency to use JPG images to save people the trouble.

I apologize profusely, i was going to switch it up but thought the suspense of a couple of mouse clicks might be more exciting

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by scottw

great point......in terms of this thread.....you could begin with you

I think that when someone offers facts, which you so often demand and/or claim to be in command of, to you and you declare "so what" followed by a littany of wild speculation(which we know must surely be the result of learned analysis and meticulous research that "the masses" or most folks here aren't likely equipped to engage in or probably even understand) you are effectively illustrating one of the aspersions that you frequently cast at others from on high

waaaait......are you doing this on purpose?....you clever, clever guy

I will refrain from saying what you are. Maybe I should post a picture instead.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I will refrain from saying what you are. Maybe I should post a picture instead.

just make sure it's a .jpg and not a .bmp

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The only thing I said as fact was that US companies didn't get preferential treatment. Maybe one of the ways to keep these threads from going to the dogs is for everyone not to make up stuff and present it as what someone else said.

It s strange that in your complaint about everyone (me?) making up stuff and presenting it as what someone else said, you quote yourself in exactly the way I quoted you. I did quote, exactly your words, it is "more likely" in my first response to Nebe's claim that you were "100% correct." And pointed out that it was a relative term derived from a possibillity or maybe. How you get that I was saying you presented the possibility as a fact is puzzling--I was clearly saying the opposite.

And about the family grudge thing that you switched to, I said it was a PSEUDO-fact, not that you presented it as a fact. Again, quite the opposite, implied by my following ironic observation on the "factual" substance of your "opinions."

The whole "fact" stuff in my posts was ironical retort to Nebe's really loving shutting down threads with "facts," neither of which he nor you, as you admit, actually presented in support of your claim that the Iraq invasion was "more likely" that they pushed a war in Iraq to benefit oil buddies. On the other hand, "maybe" you consider the Chinese, Russian, French, et. al., as Bush's oil buddies.

At any rate, as you say, the only thing you "said as fact" that U.S. oil companies didn't get preferential treatment, contradicts your opinion that "maybe" the invasion was to benefit "oil buddies," not withstanding, as Scottw points out, that you responded to my list of "facts" with a "So what?" and a "littany of wild speculation."