Did John Bolton Just Admit All These Wars Are For Oil?

[video=youtube;uFbpKKOEnAE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFbpKKOEnAE[/video]

Did John Bolton Just Admit All These Wars Are For Oil?


That he did....

"I've said all these years.."NO WAY are they over there for the oil"!. Bolton just changed my mind! And to think i have been wrong for AAAAAaaaaLLLLLL these years.! "

are you serious when you've said that there's no way that we are over there for oil or you just pulling our chain deprave??

That was a quote from the highest rated comment on that video, Ive known this for a long time.

deprave said:

That was a quote from the highest rated comment on that video, Ive known this for a long time.

Click to expand...

lol, ok, i was going to say, i've always admired your political awareness, and would have thought that you were smart enough to have known this, lol..

What was said is in the interest of national security wars have been fought to protect the supply of oil. That is not the same as some claimed when the U.S. entered Iraq and some said the U.S. would take over and steal the oil. It has been to keep stable, or as stable as possible, at least somewhat Western friendly governments in place in Middle Eastern nations, and oust one dick, but not to steal that nation's oil.

The sad part about it is the U.S. could be the largest producer and exporter of oil in the world if not for the strangling regulations that are in place. Wars are fought, members of the military die, citizens of other nations die and massive debt is run up to protect the national security when none of that would be needed if the asinine regulations would be removed. Not all of them, just the asinine ones. No one wants to tell the oil companies that they have a totally free hand. That would likely spell disaster after disaster. But when things like a three-toed pink gilled orange finned blue-eyed yellow-bellied mud skipper in a tiny pond is more important to people than national security we end up with regulations that force the nation into a position where it has to protect/secure oil in foreign nations. It forces the nation to accept wars like we have fought and all that goes with them.

What did you think the U.S. was fighting for? Truth, justice and the American way for foreigners? Or maybe iPod Shuffles for all?

We have more oil, we sell it to places like japan so maybe we could stop selling oil to japan idk....that would be a start..I'd agree regulations are a very serious problem but thats not the core issue. Research all of the oil we export and where it comes from, look up foreigners drilling for oil in America also.

The point about protecting the oil fields, we are going to set them up a dictator to take great care of our oil....I assure you of that...its all very shady..

deprave said:

The point about protecting the oil fields, we are going to set them up a dictator to take great care of our oil....I assure you of that...its all very shady..

Click to expand...

I would say, no, the U.S. will not set up a dictator in any Middle Eastern nation. Middle Easterners are a proud (and hardheaded) people who do not much care for being puppets and being ruled by Westerners. If a dictator were put in place the citizenry of the nation he ruled would not stand for it once they knew he was a puppet. The result would be very counterproductive for the U.S. All you have to do is look at the last puppet the U.S. had in the Middle East, the Shah of Iran, and what happened in Iran once the citizens had enough of being a Western puppet nation. The Shah was likely the last true puppet the U.S. will ever have in the Middle East. The U.S. would likely 'help' Western friendly leaders into positions of power in Middle Eastern nations, but that is about as far as it will go.

One reason why the U.S. would like to avoid as many wars and changing of governments in the Middle East is no Middle Eastern nation that had a change of government has to date ever returned to it's pre-governmental change level of oil production. Historically a Middle Eastern oil producing nation governmental change equates to reduced supply.

Brick Top said:

I would say, no, the U.S. will not set up a dictator in any Middle Eastern nation. Middle Easterners are a proud (and hardheaded) people who do not much care for being puppets and being ruled by Westerners. If a dictator were put in place the citizenry of the nation he ruled would not stand for it once they knew he was a puppet. The result would be very counterproductive for the U.S. All you have to do is look at the last puppet the U.S. had in the Middle East, the Shah of Iran, and what happened in Iran once the citizens had enough of being a Western puppet nation. The Shah was likely the last true puppet the U.S. will ever have in the Middle East. The U.S. would likely 'help' Western friendly leaders into positions of power in Middle Eastern nations, but that is about as far as it will go.

One reason why the U.S. would like to avoid as many wars and changing of governments in the Middle East is no Middle Eastern nation that had a change of government has to date ever returned to it's pre-governmental change level of oil production. Historically a Middle Eastern oil producing nation governmental change equates to reduced supply.

Click to expand...

You simply don't know that for certain, not that my opinion is anymore relevant but...

what do you call foreign aid and foreign banks that we give money to? looks an awful lot like propping up a dictator to me. The CIA has a long history of propping up dictators throughout the world. Look at all the money that was involved in this and every war.

[video=youtube;V_rX3X474gM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_rX3X474gM[/video]

deprave said:

You simply don't know that for certain, not that my opinion is anymore relevant but...

Click to expand...

Given the nation's reliance on foreign oil the risks associated with failure of a puppet are to high to take. If things went south the U.S. could end up with another Iran to deal with.

In the past things were different, the possible rewards were worth it. Not only did we get oil but we had a friendly nation that was a counter to the then Soviet aligned Middle Eastern Nations. We got a twofer. Well, actually it was more than that. We got a market for American goods and American military equipment too. At the time it was important for security reasons and we also received economic gains.

what do you call foreign aid and foreign banks that we give money to? looks an awful lot like propping up a dictator to me.

Click to expand...

A leader of a foreign nation doesn't have to be a puppet of the U.S., a U.S. installed dictator, to receive U.S. aid. As I said, it would be likely that the U.S. would help a Western friendly government gain control, and yes aid would be part of what keeps it friendly. But going much farther than that opens the door to great risks that at a time were not factors in such decisions.

The CIA has a long history of propping up dictators throughout the world. Look at all the money that was involved in this and every war.

Click to expand...

Again, propping up and giving aid does not make a foreign leader a U.S. puppet, a dictator controlled by the U.S. There is no doubt that at a time the U.S. did prop up puppet governments, dictators controlled by the U.S. But over time one by one they failed or became more and more independent and no longer were under full control of the U.S.

Friendly, but independent, governments tend to last longer and are more reliable in the long run with far less risk of major loss being involved.

As Bob Dylan sang ........ the times they are a-changin'.