Sponsored Links

[turnea]

Ridiculous and tiresomely naive. The puppet government theory is the only theory, because we did not go into Iraq for Freedom and Democracy, which is LAME and too expensive for the desired outcome, nor WMD as we well know. It is a resource war. Its really time people get this understood because its not the last one, nor has it been the first, but will only escalate from now.
If people choose to have their heads in the sand and think of ' the goodness', 'of sweet americans', who want to 'rain down on oppressed nations the freedoms and democracy they enjoy, like butterflys on a field of wildflowers', they are out of their minds.
This is oil. No freaking butterfly matter, and dont think we would have ever invaded any Discombobuludistan for human rights abuses, torture and killings or Freedom like we did Iraq, we never did. Get real and smart.

A common theory on the motivation for the Iraq war but I've noticed most who back it don't have a clear picture on the logistics of such a war.

Questions For Debate:

Did the US government invade Iraq to control the oil?

If so, how will the gain more control over the oil than they had will previous dealings under Saddam?

Is the US government setting up a puppet government in Iraq?

If so, again, how will this be managed and maintained?

Proponents of the "Oil for War" theory, what evidence do you have that the US
is attempting such a thing?

[Ol Sarge]

Questions For Debate:

Did the US government invade Iraq to control the oil?

If so, how will the gain more control over the oil than they had will previous dealings under Saddam?

Is the US government setting up a puppet government in Iraq?

If so, again, how will this be managed and maintained?

Proponents of the "Oil for War" theory, what evidence do you have that the US
is attempting such a thing?

Did the US…According to which invasion you speak of? The Gulf War was entered into by the US because Sadam had invaded Kuwait. This invasion, I believe was for the purpose for Sadam to dominate control of the entire mid-east oil supply. Under this theory we did join in to expel him from Kuwait so Sadam couldn’t control the bid oil price worldwide as a manner of Iraqi foreign policy.

During the current engagement of hostilities my theory is that nothing had changed since the first Gulf War; Sadam still had the will to control his neighbors and given the chance by the UN for sanctions to be lifted he would have pursued weapons necessary without embargo or legal constraints to do just that. Was the objective on the US’s part wider? Only history will tell.

If so, how…A possibility of a “protectorate through resources investment” could be established like Great Britain has in Kuwait where British Petroleum has large investments that GB will always come to the aid of.

Is the US Government…I don’t think so because a parliament is being freely elected without US control with the International Oversight welcome. This Parliament will establish a constitution and then a Prime Minister be voted for nationwide.

[phaedrus]

Did the US government invade Iraq to control the oil?

It's hard to rule that out as an ulterior motive but the expressed reason was WMD programs and a lack of conformity to International Law. I don't see any way we would be there had there been vast oil reserves. Oil could not have been the whole problem though and I think that would be a gross oversimplification of a much larger and more complex political situation.

If so, how will the gain more control over the oil than they had will previous dealings under Saddam?

The key word here would have to be stability. Have we forgotten that Saddam went into Kawait over the oil fields swearing that he would control them or burn them and made good on his threat. I also found this and was wondering if it might help to spark this debate a little.

The Middle East currently accounts for about 30% of global oil production and more than 40% of oil exports. With about 65% of the planet’s known reserves, it is the only region able to satisfy the substantial rise in world oil demand predicted by the Bush administration.4 The Cheney report projects that Persian Gulf producers alone will supply 54-67% of world oil exports in 2020. Foreign Policy in Focus

Is the US government setting up a puppet government in Iraq?

No, we are trying with every resource available to set up some kind of a representative demoncracy. Stability is the key to the whole political solution and it is far from certain whether or not it will become a reality. One thing is for sure, a puppet government would be the worst thing we could end up with. We have tried to do that in other countries and it never works, remember the Shaw of Iran? That ended very badly for American interests in the Middle East.

Proponents of the "Oil for War" theory, what evidence do you have that the US
is attempting such a thing?

I cannot say that there are direct motives that involve securing our oil interests in the Middle East but it is hard to rule out. All war is over money, Plato said, and the biggest money maker in the modern world of the 20th century was oil.

Three great themes underlie the story of oil. The first is the rise and development of capitalism and modern business. Oil is the world's biggest and most pervasive business, the greatest of the great industries that arose in the last decades of the nineteenth century.... The second theme is that of oil as commodity intimately intertwined with national strategies and global politics and power.... A third theme in the history of oil illuminates how ours has become a "Hydrocarbon Society," and we, in the language of  Anthropologists, "Hydrocarbon Man."The Prize

We should not underestimate the allure, power and wealth that is generated by oil in the modern world. That makes an intoxicating inducement for ulterior motives to fabricate reasons for war. There may not be a smoking gun here but there is a money trail, if you follow it far enough, you will find oil interests at the end of it.

[fairplay-PA]

Questions For Debate:

Did the US government invade Iraq to control the oil?

If so, how will the gain more control over the oil than they had will previous dealings under Saddam?

Is the US government setting up a puppet government in Iraq?

If so, again, how will this be managed and maintained?

Proponents of the "Oil for War" theory, what evidence do you have that the US
is attempting such a thing?

The US government chose to invade Iraq for one reason, though it isn't one of the three they gave. Let us first review the alternative explanations the administration gave for the war.

{A} Saddam posed an imminent threat to the US.

{B} Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

{C} It was time to free the Iraqi people
(...like the wonderful, happy, great international do-gooders we are.)

We know the first two reasons were either grave miscalculations, or, more likely, complete lies. We also know that there is no way on earth we spent this much money just to free the Iraqi people. We did go to war for the oil, mostly because it's the only feasible explanation. We have put in place an interim PM, in Allawi, who is starkly pro-America, and actually worked with the CIA in the mid 1990's. There was actually speculation in The Washington Times that the Bush Administration drafted the Iraqi leader's speech before Congress in September. We will gain greater access to the oil by offering the new Iraqi government little choice but to embrace America's presence in their land. When you impose a government on a nation, it kind of sends a message as to who's in charge. As far as setting up a puppet government, do you think we spent this many lives, this much money, and this much breath to allow the new government to choose what they want? What if they choose someone that doesn't like us? Are we going to re-invade, and re-impose a government until the election works out right? I know the Commander-in-Chief is a master of rigging elections to fit his liking, but working for a pro-America democracy in a region of the world that strongly dislikes both America and democracy seems like a tall order. If this is not about controlling oil, and extending the reach of our resource-hungry empire, then what is it about? Sand?

This post has been edited by fairplay-PA: Jan 25 2005, 03:54 PM

[Dontreadonme]

The problem I have with your assumption fairplay-PA, and others who demagogue about 'war for oil' is this: where is the proof that we are reaping the benefits of the Iraqi oil. Right now, as we speak. It's easy to speculate that since a)we have not found any WMD's and b)Iraq has oil..........that we must have invaded for oil and oil alone. Even though common sense tells us that simply buying the oil from Saddam would gave been far cheaper monetarily, diplomatically and physically.
I have seen documents from anti-war folks such as Greg Palast that certainly advance the theory that we had a plan or at least coveted the oil reserves. But where is that oil now? Is it being funneled to the US? Are gas prices dropping dramatically? Are the pockets of oil execs being lined with this enormous influx of cheap oil? Where is the proof???

Your post implies many things that remain unproven to the extent that they cannot (as yet) be fact, by definition. Aside from your spurious claims of rigged elections, puppet governments and lies, your 'feasible explanation' falls well short of provable truth.

[Ptarmigan]

Questions For Debate:

Did the US government invade Iraq to control the oil?

If so, how will the gain more control over the oil than they had will previous dealings under Saddam?

Is the US government setting up a puppet government in Iraq?

If so, again, how will this be managed and maintained?

Proponents of the "Oil for War" theory, what evidence do you have that the US
is attempting such a thing?



Broadly, any interest the US (or Western countries) take in the Middle East is about oil on one level or another. There isn't much else there that would justify the amount of time and energy Western governments put into the place.

'Control' the oil? No - how could such a thing be achieved? The US & UK imposed a pro-Western shah on Iran in the 1950s - and look how well that turned out! The only other alternative to setting up a dictator is setting up a proper democracy and hoping that the Iraqi people vote for a pro-US government. They may well decide not to and vote for a government that joins OPEC at the first available oportunity.

I doubt anyone is trying to set up 'puppet' governments. It's been tried before and it doesn't work.

However, in an ideal world, the Middle East would be composed of peaceful democracies that sold oil at market value and built up economies that weren't entirely reliant on one product. Whether they liked America or not would broadly be irrelevant - it is still in countries interest to trade with each other - and it is generally in everyone's interest to trade with America (excepting the occasional bout of protectionism). The price of oil goes down and there is less chance of economic collapse in the Middle East if it does.

So how do you achieve that? Resolving the Israel / Palestine in a peaceful manner is one of the first steps. Saddam was a big supporter of Palestinian terrorists organisations. He also had a history of being aggressive towards his neighbours. And if you can make Iraq into a working liberal democracy with a working market economy and show how it benefits Iraqis, then that is a powerful argument to the rest of the Middle East to adopt reforms.

I think broadly - yes, it is about oil - but nothing so crude or thuggish as to set up a puppet government. This is enlightened self -interest on the US's part - it is in their interest to remove Saddam - but it is in everyone else's interest too.

It's just a shame that the rebuilding / occupation was very badly planned.

[Ol Sarge]

Even though common sense tells us that simply buying the oil from Saddam would gave been far cheaper monetarily, diplomatically and physically.

Here is where I have insert the contention what you say is incorrect if you look at facts. There is ample oil in Iraq to support the entire population of Iraq along with other rich natural resources it has. Sadam invaded Kuwait a very oil rich nation to do what? I beg all reading to stop and open an encyclopedia to Kuwait and read about how filthy rich they are. Look at a map of the area and consider how oil is transported to the outside world. Imagine had Sadam not been challenged when he attacked and held Kuwait what he would have been able to accomplish with both nations resources and the strategic real estate. What was the reason for ceasefire? Disarm right? Why did option exist to disarm? If you remove his claws the entire world thought he had he wouldn’t scare the crap out of his neighbors and he could just continue being a harmless oil rich dictator. Now be honest with yourselves in answering the following question, Did Sadam show with sincerity he willingly wanted to disarm to remove the fear to his neighbors even up to the moment the hostilities were restarted? You have to answer no if you are honest. He played the UN inspection team like a drum dictating when you can go to a facility after X number of hours and so on. He kicked the inspector out, a base conditions of ceasefire, he wanted to reserve the right to be the neighborhood bully and for the world to prove a negative verses inviting a positive and open hand.

Applied logic dictates Sadam was challenged in the Gulf War because of oil and his desire to steal it from Kuwait. He was a bully that would probably do the same to Iran and Saudi Arabia with his newly acquired wealth, he would control ALL of the mid east oil left unchecked. So if Sadam controlled all the oil could the oil be purchased at less expense, I think not. He may just buy a nuke and blow Israel off the map and stop production for a couple months. Would we make him glow in the dark?

The current hostilities are for those very same reasons because nothing had changed. WMD’s the reason because they were the reason for ceasefire at the end of the Gulf War and Sadam had not been helpful. With Sadam out we must install a new clawless government to maintain gulf oil status quo. So the war was for oil stability and mid east stability because Sadam just refused having his claws cut publicly. I think if you look in the public record 48 hours before the restarting of hostilities Bush offered Sadam one last chance to have his claws removed in public to prevent the war.

[Leonard]

I have always said there were four reasons the U.S. wanted to invade Iraq. Five if you count an easy win as one of them.

The U.S. needed Iraqi land for military bases. This is true particularly since Osama bin Laden’s main raison e’dêtre in blasting the House of Saud was for allowing U.S. troops to be stationed on Holy Land.

Early last year, Reuters reported that the U.S. had planned to build 14 all-weather bases for its military in Iraq.

As far as I am concerned, the plan was always to invade Iraq…and never leave.

Israel was fearful of Iraq. Ever since Hussein let it be known he wanted to be a major Mideast player, Israel wished for Iraq to be declawed.

And Israel’s supporters in the U.S. got America to do its heavy lifting. But this war is going to cost the U.S., Israel and Britain big time once the Shi’ites eventually gain control of Iraq. Because they will join with their Shi’ite brothers to the east in Iran. We might end up with a dual Arab power, folks.

Oil You cannot discount this. Iraq sits on the world’s second largest reserves of oil. And Iraq’s oil is the easiest and the cheapest to refine. With that resource, the U.S. could tell OPEC and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez where to stick it.

Hero worship The Bushies hoped the world would look admiringly on them as heroes for deposing Saddam. Since no one in his right mind could appreciably defend the dictator, they figured the world would be aglow in grateful appreciation, while forgetting that close to 35,000 Iraqis would die in this little adventure.

I predicted that no WMD’s would ever be found. I predicted that no ties between Baghdad and al Qaeda would ever be made because of the philosophical differences between Saddam Hussein’s phony brand of Sunni belief and the strict, no-nonsense dictates of Osama’s Wahabi sect.

I was against the war from the outset because the reasons for justifying it were patently false.

Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Nothing was farther than the truth. Israel destroyed the only atomic reactor that Iraq ever tried to build. The facility, being built with aid from France, was going to generate electricity with non-weapons grade uranium.

Other than that, the only weapons Iraq had were chemical bombs, given to them by France, Germany and the United States. In fact, it was the U.S. that helped Iraq target its artillery to use those bombs against the Iranians.

Despite half of year of searching by 400 highly trained technicians using the most sophisticated gear known to man, no WMD’s were ever found. Not even trace elements of biological contaminants. If there were any biologicals, trace elements should have been found. But none were.

Iraq posed an imminent threat against the U.S. With what, a giant slingshot? Iraq had no weapons that could reach downtown St. Louis. It didn’t even have an army capable of invading Tahiti. It had invaded no one in 12 years.

Its available airspace had shrunk by two thirds. Its troops were dispirited and fearful and rode in outdated armor that was 12 years old.

Iraq posed a threat to no one.

This post has been edited by Leonard: Jan 25 2005, 08:33 PM

[Dontreadonme]

The U.S. needed Iraqi land for military bases. This is true particularly since Osama bin Laden’s main raison e’dêtre in blasting the House of Saud was for allowing U.S. troops to be stationed on Holy Land.  
  
Early last year, Reuters reported that the U.S. had planned to build 14 all-weather bases for its military in Iraq.  
  
As far as I am concerned, the plan was always to invade Iraq…and never leave.

I disagree completely with this assertion. Its essentially the policy of the DoD to maintain strike power in the region. We do that by keeping carriers, an MEF (Marine Expeditionary Force) and a SEAL Platoon on station; CENTCOM East in Qatar; Fifth Fleet HQ in Bahrain; pre-positioned ships in the region with a Brigade plus worth of vehicles and equipment on board; A Brigade plus of the same at Camp Doha, Kuwait and strike aircraft at strategic locations (Diego Garcia, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman).
The policy is not, nor ever has been to keep large concentrations of conventional forces on the ground in Saudi Arabia or Iraq for that matter.

The article on '14 bases' that has been going around for a year and a half now, is utter bunk. Nowhere aside from that one article is there any proof or statements to that fact. Aside from the fact that it doesn't pass the smell test to man '14 bases' in Iraq. We're not vacating those bases anytime soon, and we can't man an additional commitment of the same size and scope in Iraq.

I wouldn't be so rash to discount the pre-war Iraqi Army. They were not the same 4th largest army in the world as they were in 1990, but they had enough forces to certainly invade Tahiti. My current boss was a participant in the 'Thunder Run' in Baghdad and the taking of objectives Moe, Larry and Curley during the invasion, and I know for a fact he would disagree with you.

It had invaded no one in 12 years.

North Korea has invaded no one in over 50 years......do you contend they they also pose no threat whatsoever?

If we were moving troops out of SA to Iraq, as an overture to OBL, then how does that jive with us attacking Afghanistan?

I realize this was as far as you're concerned, but can you provide any other factual evidence for the above?

You're predictions aside.......you really list hero worship as a reason to invade? Please walk me through the thought process on that one........

This post has been edited by Dontreadonme: Jan 25 2005, 09:25 PM

[Leonard]

The United States did maintain bases in Saudi Arabia against the wishes of not just Osama bin Laden, but many of that country’s elite Muslim Imams.

This is one reason so many prominent Islamic clerics in Saudi Arabia have called for a continuing Jihad in Iraq against U.S. troops.

I am well aware that the U.S. keeps aircraft carriers in the Middle East. However, ever since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the Pentagon felt a keen need to maintain a sizeable ground force on the Arabian peninsula.

The United States desperately needs the House of Saud. It needs the semblance of a regime in Riyahd that is friendly so it can maintain its close financial ties to one of the world’s richest counties, per capita.

The Reuters article on the 14 bases the Pentagon wanted to build was not so much debunked as it was underreported.

Much like the fact that although some journalists were threatened with jail for refusing to reveal their sources for their stories on the war, very little was made of Bob Novak not suffering at all for printing the name of an on-the-job CIA covert operative.

Just because the media chooses to ignore a story does not mean it is not true. It is simply underreported.

The United States is still very much interested in permanent bases in Iraq. Follow-up story on bases

Iraq’s army in 2003 was a shell of itself. It does not matter how many men it supposedly had under arms. It also does not matter how many rifles, trucks, bombs or tank shells it could have made use of.

An army is little but a collection of men and their commanders. And Iraq’s commanders were not only sub-par, they were fearful.

Those old enough to remember recalled their comrades buried alive screaming as bulldozers operated by the U.S. Army simply rolled over their dug-in positions during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Conscripts no doubt looked back in fear at the utter devastation to Baghdad’s city center in that conflict. Very few of them wanted a war with the United States.

Which accounts for the ease in which U.S. troops raced north through the country to take Baghdad. Most Iraqi troops simply melted away from their hastily formed battle lines.

A few did fight, and courageously, but no modern army can carry the day on the field without adequate air cover. The Iraqis had none.

Could Iraq have invaded another country? No. The nation was effectively partitioned. Iraqi aircraft were prohibited from flying in two thirds of the country. What areas remained in control by Saddam were under constant aerial and satellite surveillance.

Iraq couldn’t invade anyone because any build-up of men and trucks and tanks would have been noticed.

Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia are completely different animals. Afghanistan does not contain Mecca, the center of Muslim worship. Few Islamic clerics see property in Afghanistan as holy land.

That is why there was no outcry over the fall of the Taliban. Not all Muslims are terrorists. And not all hate the United States.

So when the U.S. roared into Kabul, there were few honest-hearted Muslims who took issue with it. Like most in the world, they accepted the notion of the U.S. taking a just revenge for the 9-11 attacks.

Factual proof of Osama bin Laden threatening the House of Saud for allowing the U.S. to station troops in Saudi Arabia has been printed and broadcast since 1992. I really do not believe that I need to offer any. Osama has always taken the rulers in Riyahd to task for that.

I am aware that North Korea has not invaded anyone for 50 years. But there is a huge difference between North Korea and Iraq. North Korea has 50,000 soldiers specifically trained to fight behind enemy lines, according to World Factbook assessment. It is believed to have nuclear weapons. It has developed a missile that can strike Japan. It has an airforce. It has ships and it has submarines.

Iraq had no nukes. It had no appreciable navy or airforce. I saw the planes buried in the sand, too. But it would have taken a miracle to get them into flying condition.

Iraq also had only a few missiles, because most had been dismantled as ordered by the U.N. And unlike North Korea, Iraq’s equipment was mostly 12 years old and it could not count on any other Arab country coming to its said.

North Korea can still count on The People’s Republic of China.

Hero worship? That is kinda easy.

How many times have you read that George W. Bush is such a great man because he has won two wars?

This post has been edited by Leonard: Jan 25 2005, 10:18 PM

[Darenas]

Did the US government invade Iraq to control the oil?

Oil is certainly a big possibility for America to invade Iraq, but it is not the only possible reason as well. There is of course that we wanted to help the Iraqi people out, but also war is economically beneficial to already "rich" class of people, lets say that 2% that control most of U.S' money. Just making weapons alone for the cause of war is a great profit to Bush's class and other influencial people who have control over big enterprises to help out the war effort. Money is always the reason for war in some form, weather it is oil or other goods to supply for the conflict. Since America is great on patriotism, it is not that hard to sway the American people into the position for the support of the war for a "greater cause", even if most people's wallets go empty.

[fairplay-PA]

The problem I have with your assumption fairplay-PA, and others who demagogue about 'war for oil' is this: where is the proof that we are reaping the benefits of the Iraqi oil. Right now, as we speak. It's easy to speculate that since a)we have not found any WMD's and b)Iraq has oil..........that we must have invaded for oil and oil alone. Even though common sense tells us that simply buying the oil from Saddam would gave been far cheaper monetarily, diplomatically and physically. ...
 
..Your post implies many things that remain unproven to the extent that they cannot (as yet) be fact, by definition. Aside from your spurious claims of rigged elections, puppet governments and lies, your 'feasible explanation' falls well short of provable truth.

While I will readily admit that my comment on the rigged elections was little more than a defiant charge in the face of the horrendous loss that the was the 2004 election, there are two things I said that do carry some merit. First of all, I believe that, while there is little evidence of it yet, I have put forth sound reasoning on the likelihood of Iraq's new government being a puppet of sorts.

Perhaps the only reason there is little evidence is that the new government hasn't been formed yet. Allawi worked with the CIA, as I mentioned, and The Washington Post and BBC reported that as early as in 2002, American Oil Companies had "begun maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil." (links at end) Perhaps this wasn't as much about having the oil for ourselves as it was about having stakes for our companies. I hear this administration has some oil ties, but perhaps that isn't solid enough for you either, so here are a few examples. Condi Rice, our Senate's newest subject of debate, was a former member of the board of directors of Chevron, and Chevron even named a tanker after her (which I find kinda scary). Dick Cheney headed Halliburton for several years, but I suppose I needn't go on. The American oil companies stood to gain from this in any scenario. Can you say "vested interest"?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...4¬Found=true

[Cube Jockey]

I'll take a stab at this, but I have to say up front that my comments will be largely editorial because if there was any proof then you can be certain that the "liberal" media would be blasting the air waves. I also think this discussion is framed in the "my mind is already closed but I'll ask the question anyway" fashion Turnea out of a response to a comment by Artemise which probably should have been addressed in the original thread.

Did the US government invade Iraq to control the oil?
Was that their primary motivation? I don't think so. But, I don't think the reason we invaded Iraq has anything to do with the many stated reasons by the government (i.e. Iraq had WMD, Iraq sponsored terrorists, Saddam was a bad man, we wanted to free the Iraqi people). What it does have a whole lot to do with is exerting control over the region, and oil is a nice side benefit.

My opinion is that the planners in the Bush administration cooked up all of the stories and spin about going to war with the explicit purpose of installing a US friendly Arab government in the region. For a multitude of reasons Saddam made an easy target because of past history and how spun up people were and still are about terrorism.

My reasoning for that is as follows:
1) This administration believes that Democracy defeats terrorism.
2) This administration wants to move toward US dominance of the region because of their belief in number 1, because they believe we are a moral authority to the world, and to control a valuable resource (oil) which is vital to the world.
3) Invading Iraq removes an important enemy of Israel in the region.

If so, how will the gain more control over the oil than they had will previous dealings under Saddam?
Um, what control? We had Saddam under embargo for over a decade and weren't buying oil from Iraq. Saddam still sold oil to other countries which didn't participate and exchanged it for food through the oil for food program. So I don't know how you can make a case that we had any control over the oil that Saddam was producing.

In fact I don't know how you can make a case that we have any kind of control over any Middle Eastern oil period. Part of the reason the area presents such a difficult political situation is because we depend on a resource that we do not produce in great quantities and exert little to no control over. If OPEC decided tomorrow that they wanted to raise the price of oil to $100 a barrel or cut production they could do it and there wouldn't be much we could do about it. It'd destroy the world economy, but they have that power.

So, by invading Iraq (regardless of the government they end up with) we have not only gained control of some of the oil, but we are also the ones responsible for rebuilding their infrastructure thus providing all kinds of work, opportunity and profits for US companies. At first it was just Halliburton but now I have more than a few friends that are heading over to Iraq for a few months to work on various projects such as telecommunications, finance, IT, etc which are completely unrelated to oil. In my opinion, the oil is actually a minor accomplishment compared to the dominance of American corporations in the region. The international community is raising a little bit of a stink about that as well.

You are not going to see gas prices falling soon, because right now the price has little to do with supply and much more to do with perceived threat to the supply. You might have noticed oil prices skyrocketed when things like Fallujah were on the news every day even though we probably aren't getting a drop of oil out of Iraq yet. Now that has all but disappeared from the media (even if it isn't over) prices have come down significantly in the last month or so - again with little to no change in supply.

Is the US government setting up a puppet government in Iraq?
No, it will not be a puppet government. However, it will be a very US friendly government. Anyone who can't see that is either blind or is just ignoring the truth. The people leading the country at the moment were installed by the United States and they know full well that without their support they will not remain in power. If we pulled out today they'd get assassinated and the insurgents would take control.

I don't think they'll take orders from the US and after elections are held the country will (hopefully) start developing on its own, but I can guarantee you the US will remain a strong ally of that government, a stick when necessary and that government will rely heavily on our counsel.

Proponents of the "Oil for War" theory, what evidence do you have that the US
is attempting such a thing?

As I said in my opening statement, if there was hard proof in the form of some memo or other documentation that is all you'd be hearing about in the media. So the short answer is no. However, if you open your eyes and look around and see that every single reason the administration gave is bogus, look at who is benefiting from it all, and look at how things are shaping up it is possible to draw the conclusion that oil did in fact figure into the equation, but not as the primary factor. My answer to the second question covers that in more detail.

[Artemise]

Iraq's oil has been fought over since the discovery of oil in Iran in 1908. (thats not a typo nor a mistake) From ground conditions it was assumed that Iraq probably had oil as well.

Lord Curzon in 1920-1? argued that the policy of His Majesty’s Government on Mosul was not in any way related to oil, that instead it was guided by the desire to protect interests of Iraqi people consistent with its mandatory obligations, that he had never spoken to an oil magnate or an oil concessionaire regarding Mosul oil, but that a company called TPC (Turkish Petrol co.) had obtained a concession from the Ottoman government [in June 1914] before the war that his government had concluded was valid, that his government and TPC had no monopolistic designs on Iraqi oil, and that the Iraqis would be the chief beneficiaries of oil exploitation in Iraq. He added that Turkey would benefit as well.
Lord Curzon also misled and appeased a war-weary British public by making similar statements in British press. The British public was longing for peace and did not want a new military conflict for the sake of oil. (The Brits lost 2500 in the uprising of 1920, the TCP concession was judged by the British as invalid in order to open Mosul to European/American oil companies and Lord Curzon was lying or by todays standards, spinning the truth. He had aways been informed of exactly what was going on. See links.)

This was seven years before oil was officially discovered in Iraq in 1927. They were ready to fight for it even before they even had solid confirmation there was any substantial quanity.

For a good part of the last century, interests of national governments were closely linked with the interests of oil companies, so much so that oil companies were de facto extensions of foreign-office establishments of the governments. The latter actively lobbied on behalf of the oil companies owned by their respective nationals. The oil companies, in return, would guarantee oil supply to respective governments – preferably at a substantial discount.

The US , French and British (and Danish) have fought tooth and nail over Iraqs oil, had great portions of it locked up between themselves, relatively free of charge in the beginning, but they screwed it up by infighting and political power plays, and lost it all through the eventual nationalization of Iraqi oil somewhere around 1946, which was not a dictatorial coup, but a legitimate buy out. This today is just a resurgence of that old fight, with a much higher value and not long after.

Before this debate goes on it might be of interest to read the history of the discovery and coveting of Iraqi oil, and how the value and ownership of Iraq's oil was wasted at the time by power plays and by the discovery of oil in Kuwait and Saudi ... then we can have a discussion on the matter with less abject speculation. This information is really necessary to understand what is going on now. It's too information rich to snip out:
Its a concise, perhaps lengthy- 2 pages- but not a waste of time by any means.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2...25byzantine.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2...26byzantine.htm

Id love to resume once we are all on the same page in history, with the future...China, Peak oil and cost evaluation, strategic vision and the US as Superpower, but I think that practically says it all with some simple deductions.

This post has been edited by Artemise: Jan 26 2005, 01:17 PM

[turnea]

I'll take a stab at this, but I have to say up front that my comments will be largely editorial because if there was any proof then you can be certain that the "liberal" media would be blasting the air waves.  I also think this discussion is framed in the "my mind is already closed but I'll ask the question anyway" fashion Turnea out of a response to a comment by Artemise which probably should have been addressed in the original thread.

1. If my mind was closed then I wouldn't ask the question, certainly I have my own ideas on the situation but a good argument complete with some evidence could change them as I'm not particularly attached.

I'm hardly some rabid Bush supporter, don't blame me, I voted for Kerry

2. I think addressing these questions in the original thread would have thrown it off topic. I also believe they are substantive enough to deserve a thread of their own

Um, what control?  We had Saddam under embargo for over a decade and weren't buying oil from Iraq.  Saddam still sold oil to other countries which didn't participate and exchanged it for food through the oil for food program.  So I don't know how you can make a case that we had any control over the oil that Saddam was producing.

Well there were the illegal sales to the US, but that wasn't what I was talking about.

I should have been more specific, I meant our control (due to our commercial dominance) pre-embargo. After all it would have been relatively easy to get the sanctions dropped as France and Russia already wanted this.

In fact I don't know how you can make a case that we have any kind of control over any Middle Eastern oil period.  Part of the reason the area presents such a difficult political situation is because we depend on a resource that we do not produce in great quantities and exert little to no control over.  If OPEC decided tomorrow that they wanted to raise the price of oil to $100 a barrel or cut production they could do it and there wouldn't be much we could do about it.  It'd destroy the world economy, but they have that power.

Good Point, however we must remember that Iraq is still a member of OPEC.

So under your reasoning that means we would exert no control over Iraqi oil regardless of the invasion.

No, it will not be a puppet government.  However, it will be a very US friendly government.  Anyone who can't see that is either blind or is just ignoring the truth.  The people leading the country at the moment were installed by the United States and they know full well that without their support they will not remain in power.  If we pulled out today they'd get assassinated and the insurgents would take control.

The people in power now are temporary by definition (Interim government). US support will not (indeed cannot) keep them in office under Iraqi democracy. Note that the most popular ticket in the country is not Allawi's but one that has the quiet backing of Ayatollah Sistani.

As I said in my opening statement, if there was hard proof in the form of some memo or other documentation that is all you'd be hearing about in the media.  So the short answer is no.  However, if you open your eyes and look around and see that every single reason the administration gave is bogus, look at who is benefiting from it all, and look at how things are shaping up it is possible to draw the conclusion that oil did in fact figure into the equation, but not as the primary factor

Possible, but not necessarily logical. The process of elimination approach seems misguided to me. We would have to count our every other likely reason before it could work. I don't think that has been accomplished seeing as the "Oil War" theory itself is not particularly likely.

Iraq's oil  has been fought over since the discovery of oil in Iran in 1908. (thats not a typo nor a mistake) From ground conditions it was assumed that Iraq probably had oil as well.

Possibly, but that really lends little credence to the idea that that is what we are fighting over now. Britain fought with China over opium. Is that why we are in Afghanistan?

I will, of course, read the articles but it will take a lot more than historical precedent to back the case against the administration on this one.

Like a plausible theory, things don't quite work the way they used to, democracies are more difficult to puppet particularly when the populace doesn't like the puppeteer very much.

This post has been edited by turnea: Jan 26 2005, 11:00 PM

[cgorham]

Did the US government invade Iraq to control the oil?

If so, how will the gain more control over the oil than they had will previous dealings under Saddam?

Is the US government setting up a puppet government in Iraq?

If so, again, how will this be managed and maintained?

Proponents of the "Oil for War" theory, what evidence do you have that the US
is attempting such a thing?

Here is the proof: http://theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=287

More proof: http://theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=356

If you still are an unbeliever: http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060503A.shtml

Wolfowitz said this statement himself :

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

I mean, how much evidence do we need? This administration could care less about the freedom of the Iraqi people. if they did, how about telling them how many casualties they have suffered since and during the War. I'm sorry, our caring government doesn't report such non-sense.

Why defend the indefensible (the Bush administration motives)???

[Cube Jockey]

Good Point, however we must remember that Iraq is still a member of OPEC.

So under your reasoning that means we would exert no control over Iraqi oil regardless of the invasion.  

Touche. I'll clarify what I meant. I don't think we went over there with the intention of shipping a whole lot of oil back home. You are right, the purchases will still go through OPEC, but depending on who comes to power after the election we might have a more friendly face in the room. I think you'd have to agree with me about the advantages of that situation.

But, we are certainly in a position of dominance and influence in Iraq at the moment from an infrastructure perspective and it is American corporations of all kinds (not just Halliburton anymore) that are rebuilding the country. That means that we'll have the knowledge and we'll already be entrenched when the newly elected government brings the country under control. Somehow I doubt they are just going to boot us out the door and wish us well. I think that is what the administration was counting on as one part of their dominance motivation and it is certainly what these companies were banking on by taking a risk to be over there - they certainly weren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. So it allows the United States to have financial dominance in the country as well as giving a nice financial kickback to some of the loyal supporters back home.

[Mrs. Pigpen]

Here is the proof:  http://theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=287

More proof: http://theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=356

If you still are an unbeliever: http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060503A.shtml

Wolfowitz said this statement himself :

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

I mean, how much evidence do we need? This administration could care less about the freedom of the Iraqi people. if they did, how about telling them how many casualties they have suffered since and during the War. I'm sorry, our caring government doesn't report such non-sense.

Why defend the indefensible (the Bush administration motives)???

You've lost me with your three rungs of "proof". Yes, if bananas were the main source of income for Iraq, we likely wouldn't be there. Oil is important. Turnea's questions pertaining to this were: Did the US government invade Iraq to control the oil?, and If so, how would they gain more control over the oil than they had with previous dealings under Saddam?

Saddam would have sold us the oil. In point of fact, we were buying as much from him by the year 2000 as we had prior to the first Gulf War (approximately 5 percent of our overall supply..the majority of which comes from Canada and South America). The problems associated with this were: 1)He was selling the oil cheaply through the black market channels and not using the money to feed his people, and 2)We believed he was buying weapons with the underground oil money. Actually, he DID advance his anti-aircraft capabilities substantially in spite of the sanctions. Patrolling those no-fly ones was becoming an increasingly dangerous proposition.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Jan 26 2005, 07:08 PM

[cgorham]

You've lost me with your three rungs of "proof". Yes, if bananas were the main source of income for Iraq, we likely wouldn't be there. Oil is important. Turnea's questions pertaining to this were: Did the US government invade Iraq to control the oil?, and If so, how would they gain more control over the oil than they had with previous dealings under Saddam?

Saddam would have sold us the oil. In point of fact, we were buying as much from him by the year 2000 as we had prior to the first Gulf War (approximately 5 percent of our overall supply..the majority of which comes from Canada and South America). The problems associated with this were: 1)He was selling the oil cheaply through the black market channels and not using the money to feed his people, and 2)We believed he was buying weapons with the underground oil money. Actually, he DID advance his anti-aircraft capabilities substantially in spite of the sanctions. Patrolling those no-fly ones was becoming an increasingly dangerous proposition.

If you're lost on the statements about why we attacked Iraq by our lovely Deputy Defense Secretary, then I won't be able to find you. How more direct can he be about the administration motives??

Let's look at his statements again more closely:

Why did the US invade Iraq as opposed to North Korea ?

The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

Could you PLEASE explain to me what else could he be possibly talk about??

[Mrs. Pigpen]

The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

Could you PLEASE explain to me what else could he be possibly talk about??

Turnea's question isn't "Is oil a factor in our invasion?" Obviously, we wouldn't concern ourselves if they only sold carpets and bananas. We wouldn't have even intervened when they invaded Kuwait if they had only carpets, too. For that matter, Iraq would have never invaded Kuwait if not over an oil dispute. We have economic interests in that region, along with much of the world. Was our invasion to control the oil? No.

I'm curious how you rationalize Wolfowitz's being so forethcoming if it was simply our intent to steal Iraq's oil supply. Why not just buy it (and save a bunch of money)? This is costing us 4+ billion a month.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Jan 27 2005, 03:31 AM