Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Biology / Biology / April 2005



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

The Iraq Conspiracy

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Raktizer Omheit - 21 Apr 2005 01:49 GMT
President George Bush junior throughout 2002 and up until early April 2003
used to say that Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq possessed weapons of mass
destruction, that is, nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. After the
failure to find these banned weapons in Iraq after the U.S. invasion of that
country in 2003, President George Bush junior alleged that perhaps these
banned weapons had been smuggled into Syria and Iran, nations that happen to
be Iraq's traditional enemies. Nevertheless, the embarrassing question for
the U.S.A. still remains, why are the Sunni Arab Iraqi guerrillas today not
using nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons against the American troops
in Iraq, by firing these weapons out of rocket-propelled grenades, mortars,
bazookas, and remote-controlled time bombs, human suicide bombers, and car
bombs. There are more than enough would-be suicide attack death squads among
the anti-American forces in Iraq. Was President George Bush genuinely duped
into believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, despite all the
espionage resources of the U.S. National Security Agency, Central Security
Service, Defense Intelligence Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation? Or perhaps George Bush junior knew all
along that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and only pretended to be
shocked and surprised when no such weapons were found? Perhaps this feigned
shock and surprise was a Machiavellian means to an end, that is, an attempt
by The United States of America to seize control of the petroleum reserves
of the mostly Muslim Middle East? If the latter is true, then President
George Bush junior, the evangelical Christian, would be disqualified because
of St. Paul's teaching in I Corinthians 9:24-27. Jesus Christ would not use
the method of lying to achieve a good motive, even though President George
Bush junior in invading Iraq in 2003 might not have a good motive. Jesus
Christ said in Matthew 5:48 the following:

"Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."

Consider these following statistics from Iraq : Why Did The USA Want "Regime
Change"?, by
KryssTal, in "http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa_iraq.html"

The Real Reasons?

Oil and Economic Control

The USA relies on oil to supply about 40% of its energy requirements, more
than any other source. Of this, 55% is imported oil. This percentage is
expected to rise to 65% in 2020 and to keep increasing. Much of the USA's
oil comes from the Gulf region. This region also supplies oil to most of the
world.

According to Michael T. Klare writing for the Interhemispheric Resource
Center: "This dependency is [a weakness] for American power: unless Persian
Gulf oil can be kept under American control, our ability to remain the
dominant world power would be put into question." Additionally, "Whoever
controls the Gulf automatically maintains a stranglehold on the global
economy."

Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the Middle East. It has been
estimated that the Iraqi oil reserves amount to $ 1,100,000 million's worth
and can last for 130 years.

The table below from British Petroleum (BP) shows the estimated time that
various countries' oil fields are expected to last (as of 2002).

     Country
    Years

    Country
    Years

     Iraq
    128.98

    Romania
    16.01

     Kuwait
    127.70

    Trinidad and Tobago
    15.34

     United Arab Emirates
    114.81

    Other Asia Pacific
    15.13

     Saudi Arabia
    85.13

    Oman
    14.77

     Iran
    67.25

    Republic of Congo
     (Brazaville)
    14.34

     Azerbaijan
    67.02

    Ecuador
    14.18

     Venezuela
    63.58

    Thailand
    14.17

     Qatar
    55.57

    Uzbekistan
    13.77

     Other South and
     Central America
    41.21

    Australia
    12.56

     Nigeria
    30.41

    Turkmenistan
    12.47

     Kazakhstan
    27.71

    Denmark
    11.81

     Cameroon
    24.69

    Malaysia
    11.40

     Italy
    24.42

    Syria
    10.99

     Yemen
    23.08

    Egypt
    10.72

     Mexico
    21.52

    USA
    10.52

     Brunei
    21.05

    Indonesia
    10.21

     Gabon
    19.97

    Argentina
    9.85

     Angola
    19.44

    Norway
    8.02

     Russian Federation
    19.25

    Colombia
    6.44

     Algeria
    18.25

    Canada
    6.20

     Brazil
    18.09

    United Kingdom
    5.94

     Other Former
     Soviet Union
    16.05

    Vietnam
    5.85

The table below shows the major fields in Iraq.

     Oil Field
    Contract Value
     ($ millions)
    Daily production
     (Barrels)

     Al-Ahdab
    700
    90,000

     Amara
    300
    80,000

     West Qurna Phase I
    380
    200,000

     West Qurna DS
    190
    65,000

     North Rumaila Mishrif
    160
    250,000

     Khurmala
    1,300
    200,000,000

     Suba-Luhais
    200
    100,000

     Hemrin
    1,300
    200,000,000

     Zubair Mishrif
    150
    60,000

The reason France and Russia were wary of military action is that they fear
losing out on the post-Saddam oil bonanza.

A new regime would allow USA and UK oil companies concessions. James
Woolsey, a former CIA director told the USA newspaper, the Washington Post:
"It's pretty straight forward. France and Russia have oil companies and
interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in
moving Iraq toward decent government we'll do the best we can to ensure the
new government and American companies work closely with them".

Note the assumptions that American influence will be strong enough to decide
these matters, not the Iraqi government or people. The phrase "decent"
government means "compliant" government.

Grant Aldonas told a business forum that a war in Iraq "would open up this
spigot on Iraqi oil, which certainly would have a profound effect in terms
of the performance of the world economy for those countries that are
manufacturers and oil consumers".

The Americans use the nuclear-armed state of Israel in order to have a
relatively reliable ally to watch over the petroleum reserves of the mainly
Muslim Middle East, and the strategically important Suez Canal which gives
access to those oil fields. The American use of Israel reminds me of what is
said in Daniel 11:34:

"While the killing is going on, God's people will receive a little help,
even though many who join them will do so for selfish reasons."
shevek4@yahoo.com - 22 Apr 2005 01:16 GMT
> [...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Oil and Economic Control

BS!  The war in Iraq has done nothing but raise the cost of oil and
force the US to burn way more of it.  If they just wanted oil, why
would they occupy Fallujah, etc.?
The real reasons are so a few people can rob US citizens (billions have
gone missing), and because a few other people "like to shoot some
people".
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.