Airing Date Oct.22, 2011
" The critical oil and natural gas producing region that we fought so many wars to try and protect our economy from the adverse impact of losing that supply or having it available only at very high prices "
Did John Bolton Just Admit All These Wars Are For Oil?
Once again, the White House is beating war drums, but finding little support at home or abroad for attacking Syria. This blog has posted numerous articles and videos which demonstrate that it was the rebels, not Assad's army, who were the perpetrators of using chemical weapons; a debate that will continue until the United States Navy shoots off their first missiles towards Syria.
So, the question is, "Does anyone actually care which side used weapons of mass destruction?" And, here are a few more questions:
Would it matter if the UN inspectors announced their findings, proving that the rebel terrorists and not President Assad's military used chemical weapons? Where is the proof that chemical weapons were used, and by which group?How does Syria's civil war cause an imminent threat against the United States?Isn't it past time that the Arabs/Muslims fight their own wars; some which have been going on for over 1400 years! If the Saudis are insisting that "something be done about Assad", why aren't they using their own military? Why does one more American troop have to die for the cause of Islam?The United States is bankrupt, partly due to the expenses of this War on Terror. Isn't it time for America to begin thinking of rebuilding here at home, rather than continuing to lose the lives of our men and women in wars between Muslim countries? Let the Muslims sort it out; Washington has not convinced Americans attacking Syria is in the best interest of our national security/interests.
Few will deny that the United States has the resources to be energy efficient and that brings me back to John Bolton's comments made in October, 2011, as we discuss the purpose of sending our Navy to the coasts of Syria. The argument can no longer be made that we're fighting for the "defense of our nation"; Syria has nothing to do with 9/11 and many doubt it has something to do with chemical weapons. With the questions I've raised, here's an article that may shed some light into the "real" reasons for the "Geopolitical Battle":
A Primer On the REAL Global Geopolitical Battle
Are the Wars in the Middle East and North Africa Really About Oil?
Dick Cheney made Iraqi’s oil fields a national security priority
before 9/11.
Five months before September 11, the US advocated using force against Iraq … to secure control of its oil.
The Afghanistan war was planned before 9/11 (see
this and
this). According to French intelligence officers, the U.S. wanted to run an oil pipeline through Afghanistan to transport Central Asian oil more easily and cheaply. And so the U.S. told the Taliban shortly before 9/11 that they would either get “a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs”, the former if they greenlighted the pipeline, the second if they didn’t. See
this,
this and
this.
Congressman Ed Markey
said:
Well, we’re in Libya because of oil.
It’s a War for GAS
But it’s about gas as much as oil …
As key war architect John Bolton said last year:
The critical oil and natural gas producing region that we fought so many wars to try and protect our economy from the adverse impact of losing that supply or having it available only at very high prices.
For example, the pipeline which the U.S. wanted to run through Afghanistan prior to 9/11 was to transport
gas as much as oil.
The proposed $7.6 billion, 1,040 mile-long TAPI [Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India ... admittedly a mouthful, but you'll be hearing a lot about it in the coming months] natural gas pipeline has a long regional history, having first been proposed even before the Taliban captured Kabul, as in 1995 Turkmenistan and Pakistan initialed a memorandum of understanding. TAPI, with a carrying capacity of 33 billion cubic meters of Turkmen natural gas a year, was projected to run from Turkmenistan’s Dauletabad gas field across Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate at the northwestern Indian town of Fazilka.
TAPI would have required the assent of the Taliban, and two years after the MoU was signed the Central Asia Gas Pipeline Ltd. consortium, led by U.S. company Unocal, flew a Taliban delegation to Unocal headquarters in Houston, where the Taliban signed off on the project.
CONTINUE HERE ....
In closing, I want to state that I am not one of those 9/11 "truthers". I do believe America was attacked on 9/11 by Islamic terrorists. I have debated with others for years that the war in Afghanistan and Iraq was not about "oil". I also have deep respect for the opinions and views of former Ambassador Bolton. However, there had to be a reason for Bolton to make the statements he made during that interview (video) and it raises questions as to why our troops are in just about every country throughout the Middle East and Africa.
President Obama states the "War on Terror" is over. Really? Then why is it we continue to have our military in just about every Islamic-run country. al-Qaeda is just one of many terrorists organizations and they are all out to rule the world. The more extreme, the worse it is for all of us. The United States cannot let its guard down for an instant!
Are our troops in Africa because of the use of "chemical" weapons? Libya? Yemen?
The United States should learn that Islam has been fighting among themselves for over 1400 years and we need to begin allowing Islamic countries to defend themselves and fight for their "freedoms", which is actually something none of them have had under Dictators and Sharia laws.
Until Islam changes its teachings and learns to live in modern day society, there will always be wars among the different Islamic sects.
