Full Version: Oil and Iraq Invasion and Occupation
From the beginning war protestors have carried banners declaring, "NO BLOOD FOR OIL." In the intervening years numerous articles and books have been written describing the oil industry connections of various players, key discussions that took place even before 9/11, the continuing pressure on sucessive Iraqi officials to adopt a law governing oil development complient with US Administration wishes, the key geographical place Iraq has in the "Oil Patch," and various other aspects of the role oil may have played to the invasion and occupation. Recently this article was posted that summarizes some of this material. (Anyone who reads this article may also want to consider some of the issues it raise in the context of the Venzuelan nationalization thread).
Was oil a major motivation for the invasion and, if so, what role did it play?
Does oil continue to play a major role in occupation policy and the continuation of the occupation?
If control of oil was an important motivation, what does the Bush Administration's failure to discuss it openly say about democracy in these United States?
Was oil a major motivation for the invasion and, if so, what role did it play?
Does oil continue to play a major role in occupation policy and the continuation of the occupation?
If control of oil was an important motivation, what does the Bush Administration's failure to discuss it openly say about democracy in these United States?
Was oil a major motivation for the invasion and, if so, what role did it play?
Some folks maintained we went in to
Own” their oil which is not the case. But safeguarding the “oil region” from a lose cannon like Saddam WAS a major factor esp. after given the invasion of Kuwait and the use of WMD numerous times in the area.
Does oil continue to play a major role in occupation policy and the continuation of the occupation?
No doubt. Our 12 Trillion $$$ economy runs on oil and if the market” is interrupted we could see a depression al la 1929.
If control of oil was an important motivation, what does the Bush Administration's failure to discuss it openly say about democracy in these United States?
IMO no politician gives the public all the reasons for any policy. To imagine that we were not interested in this region above just about anywhere else because of our dependence on oil is ridiculous. Maybe they don’t want to bring it up because of the abject failure of the government to get this country free of its dependence on foreign oil – decades of talking about it and doing little if anything.
Some folks maintained we went in to
Own” their oil which is not the case. But safeguarding the “oil region” from a lose cannon like Saddam WAS a major factor esp. after given the invasion of Kuwait and the use of WMD numerous times in the area.
Does oil continue to play a major role in occupation policy and the continuation of the occupation?
No doubt. Our 12 Trillion $$$ economy runs on oil and if the market” is interrupted we could see a depression al la 1929.
If control of oil was an important motivation, what does the Bush Administration's failure to discuss it openly say about democracy in these United States?
IMO no politician gives the public all the reasons for any policy. To imagine that we were not interested in this region above just about anywhere else because of our dependence on oil is ridiculous. Maybe they don’t want to bring it up because of the abject failure of the government to get this country free of its dependence on foreign oil – decades of talking about it and doing little if anything.
Been a while since I posted, but this subject intrigues me.
Was oil a major motivation for the invasion and, if so, what role did it play?
It was the primary motivation, and as such played a large role. Of course a lot of people thought the US wanted to "steal" the oil, which is ludicrous.
It would have been much cheaper to buy the oil from Saddam than steal it by means of this drawn out war. The motivation was rather to ensure the flow of oil, and in the meantime take out an cruel dictator.
I didn't support the war on principle, but it could be argued it was a justified war in many regards. More on that later.
Does oil continue to play a major role in occupation policy and the continuation of the occupation?
Of course. The US, like most of the developed world, needs a steady oil supply to maintain stability. While I hope we in the near future can move away from oil as the major energy source, there is just no alternative now, and I for one do not think the world would be better of going cold turkey on oil. So the stability of the middle east and Iraq is very important. Sadly I don't think that stability is forth coming anytime soon.
If control of oil was an important motivation, what does the Bush Administration's failure to discuss it openly say about democracy in these United States?
It just underscores the one fundamental truth there is: never trust a politician. Democracy and inalienable rights are wonderful ideas - politicians do everything they can to undermine them at every turn, most often deliberately. So it doesn't say anything specific about the US. The governments in Europe that went to war alongside the US told the same thing. Yet it could of course still be said, that in the US at least, power is too consolidated in a single branch of government, ie. the president. Compared to leaders in most European countries, he has many powers that can only be described as dictatorial and immoral.
The reason I didn't support a Iraq war was exactly this kind of deception. If the Bush administration and other governments had told me this war was about securing a steady oil supply, I would perhaps have supported a war. I think securing a steady oil supply is a noble goal in an economy that is sadly dependent on the stuff, and is the kind of thing are governments should do. I also wouldn't have a problem with western governments going around removing dictators for the sole purpose of liberating people, but the cost-benefit ratio usually doesn't support that idea, or so the powers-that-be seem to think, and a lot of people aren't ready for that freedom anyway, as evidenced somewhat in Iraq.
Was oil a major motivation for the invasion and, if so, what role did it play?
It was the primary motivation, and as such played a large role. Of course a lot of people thought the US wanted to "steal" the oil, which is ludicrous.
It would have been much cheaper to buy the oil from Saddam than steal it by means of this drawn out war. The motivation was rather to ensure the flow of oil, and in the meantime take out an cruel dictator.
I didn't support the war on principle, but it could be argued it was a justified war in many regards. More on that later.
Does oil continue to play a major role in occupation policy and the continuation of the occupation?
Of course. The US, like most of the developed world, needs a steady oil supply to maintain stability. While I hope we in the near future can move away from oil as the major energy source, there is just no alternative now, and I for one do not think the world would be better of going cold turkey on oil. So the stability of the middle east and Iraq is very important. Sadly I don't think that stability is forth coming anytime soon.
If control of oil was an important motivation, what does the Bush Administration's failure to discuss it openly say about democracy in these United States?
It just underscores the one fundamental truth there is: never trust a politician. Democracy and inalienable rights are wonderful ideas - politicians do everything they can to undermine them at every turn, most often deliberately. So it doesn't say anything specific about the US. The governments in Europe that went to war alongside the US told the same thing. Yet it could of course still be said, that in the US at least, power is too consolidated in a single branch of government, ie. the president. Compared to leaders in most European countries, he has many powers that can only be described as dictatorial and immoral.
The reason I didn't support a Iraq war was exactly this kind of deception. If the Bush administration and other governments had told me this war was about securing a steady oil supply, I would perhaps have supported a war. I think securing a steady oil supply is a noble goal in an economy that is sadly dependent on the stuff, and is the kind of thing are governments should do. I also wouldn't have a problem with western governments going around removing dictators for the sole purpose of liberating people, but the cost-benefit ratio usually doesn't support that idea, or so the powers-that-be seem to think, and a lot of people aren't ready for that freedom anyway, as evidenced somewhat in Iraq.
Was oil a major motivation for the invasion and, if so, what role did it play?
Oil, and its subsequent "theft" from Iraq, was a major part of the decision to invade. The "theft" in question, did not occur as most people mockingly portray it; soldiers sneaking in the dead of night, raiding oil fields, and slinking off to their fortified bases. Instead, typical to the capitalist nature of this country, our profit margin is manifested not in oil aquisition from new sources, but from oil acquisition from the smae sources, at much lower prices. So long as the economy of Iraq remains a bloody mess, we can gorge on their oil, and the best part is, the extraction, the transportaion, and the painstaking mining thereof, is done for us.
Does oil continue to play a major role in occupation policy and the continuation of the occupation?
Like I said in the above, we get their oil, cheap, so long as they keep running around like ants from am overturned anthill.
If control of oil was an important motivation, what does the Bush Administration's failure to discuss it openly say about democracy in these United States?
Well, in a country so proud of its high moral standard, you can't go around slinging words like "immoral invasion" or "inhumane atrocity for profit", can you? So long as the american public believes we are in this war for the right reasons, we are. If, on the other hand, the president publicly condones the notion that we entered this war out of pure materialistic greed, (albeit with the tiniest spark of naive altruism), then the war out there is going to end, faster than you can blink. Iraq will fall into a general preiod of decay, and disrepair, but eventually, like all countries do, will regain its previous stability.
And as a moral, philanthropic society of bloody minded warmongerers, we just can't let that happen, can we?
Oil, and its subsequent "theft" from Iraq, was a major part of the decision to invade. The "theft" in question, did not occur as most people mockingly portray it; soldiers sneaking in the dead of night, raiding oil fields, and slinking off to their fortified bases. Instead, typical to the capitalist nature of this country, our profit margin is manifested not in oil aquisition from new sources, but from oil acquisition from the smae sources, at much lower prices. So long as the economy of Iraq remains a bloody mess, we can gorge on their oil, and the best part is, the extraction, the transportaion, and the painstaking mining thereof, is done for us.
Does oil continue to play a major role in occupation policy and the continuation of the occupation?
Like I said in the above, we get their oil, cheap, so long as they keep running around like ants from am overturned anthill.
If control of oil was an important motivation, what does the Bush Administration's failure to discuss it openly say about democracy in these United States?
Well, in a country so proud of its high moral standard, you can't go around slinging words like "immoral invasion" or "inhumane atrocity for profit", can you? So long as the american public believes we are in this war for the right reasons, we are. If, on the other hand, the president publicly condones the notion that we entered this war out of pure materialistic greed, (albeit with the tiniest spark of naive altruism), then the war out there is going to end, faster than you can blink. Iraq will fall into a general preiod of decay, and disrepair, but eventually, like all countries do, will regain its previous stability.
And as a moral, philanthropic society of bloody minded warmongerers, we just can't let that happen, can we?
QUOTE(akalae @ May 7 2007, 06:53 PM) 
Was oil a major motivation for the invasion and, if so, what role did it play?
Oil, and its subsequent "theft" from Iraq, was a major part of the decision to invade. ...So long as the economy of Iraq remains a bloody mess, we can gorge on their oil, and the best part is, the extraction, the transportaion, and the painstaking mining thereof, is done for us.
....
Like I said in the above, we get their oil, cheap, so long as they keep running around like ants from am overturned anthill.
Oil, and its subsequent "theft" from Iraq, was a major part of the decision to invade. ...So long as the economy of Iraq remains a bloody mess, we can gorge on their oil, and the best part is, the extraction, the transportaion, and the painstaking mining thereof, is done for us.
....
Like I said in the above, we get their oil, cheap, so long as they keep running around like ants from am overturned anthill.
Except that that isn't what is happening at all. Iraqi oil exports are down, and falling. About 1/3 of the oil that is produced is used by Iraq itself, and rest is exported. Proceeds go to the government, which is why the declining revenue directly detracts from the Iraqi government's ability to function effectively. I'm really baffled how this argument persists so much today, when there isn't the slightest shred of evidence supporting it, and mounds of evidence directly contradicting it. Where do we get our oil from? 2007 U.S. Oil Imports I guess we must have invaded Canada & Mexico without anyone knowing.
) This chart shows that we are importing 325,000 bbl/day from Iraq. What was it before? In April 2003, US imports of Iraqi oil totaled at least 18.8 million barrels. So, we are stealing negative 18.5 mbbl/day, at a cost of some $500 billion. Not exactly good business sense, is it.
QUOTE(akalae @ May 7 2007, 07:53 PM)
Was oil a major motivation for the invasion and, if so, what role did it play?
Oil, and its subsequent "theft" from Iraq, was a major part of the decision to invade. The "theft" in question, did not occur as most people mockingly portray it; soldiers sneaking in the dead of night, raiding oil fields, and slinking off to their fortified bases. Instead, typical to the capitalist nature of this country, our profit margin is manifested not in oil aquisition from new sources, but from oil acquisition from the smae sources, at much lower prices. So long as the economy of Iraq remains a bloody mess, we can gorge on their oil, and the best part is, the extraction, the transportaion, and the painstaking mining thereof, is done for us.
Oil, and its subsequent "theft" from Iraq, was a major part of the decision to invade. The "theft" in question, did not occur as most people mockingly portray it; soldiers sneaking in the dead of night, raiding oil fields, and slinking off to their fortified bases. Instead, typical to the capitalist nature of this country, our profit margin is manifested not in oil aquisition from new sources, but from oil acquisition from the smae sources, at much lower prices. So long as the economy of Iraq remains a bloody mess, we can gorge on their oil, and the best part is, the extraction, the transportaion, and the painstaking mining thereof, is done for us.
Yes, Indeed. Isn't it great how cheap oil has become? We win!
TedN5, The 'no blood for oil' signs abounded right before the first Gulf war. It's an old slogan. Of course at that time, the price of oil went down and was the ostensible "reason we went in". This time, low oil price was the "reason" until the price of oil went up, and then it became "oil profits". Arguments seem tailoredto fit a preconceived paradigm.
We went in to Iraq to secure the area and ensure the free flow of oil...not to "control" the oil, ergo I could not vote in the poll because each choice began with 'contol the oil'. It was dangerous to buy oil from Iraq while Saddam was in charge and creating WMD from the profits (or so we thought). In the big picture, a pro-American (non-WMD wielding) government that permitted US bases to sit right in the middle of the Middle East was likely the ultimate goal. It collapsed due to egregious management and poor planning.
QUOTE(akalae @ May 7 2007, 07:53 PM)
Was oil a major motivation for the invasion and, if so, what role did it play?
Oil, and its subsequent "theft" from Iraq, was a major part of the decision to invade. The "theft" in question, did not occur as most people mockingly portray it; soldiers sneaking in the dead of night, raiding oil fields, and slinking off to their fortified bases. Instead, typical to the capitalist nature of this country, our profit margin is manifested not in oil aquisition from new sources, but from oil acquisition from the smae sources, at much lower prices. So long as the economy of Iraq remains a bloody mess, we can gorge on their oil, and the best part is, the extraction, the transportaion, and the painstaking mining thereof, is done for us.
***
Like I said in the above, we get their oil, cheap, so long as they keep running around like ants from am overturned anthill.
Oil, and its subsequent "theft" from Iraq, was a major part of the decision to invade. The "theft" in question, did not occur as most people mockingly portray it; soldiers sneaking in the dead of night, raiding oil fields, and slinking off to their fortified bases. Instead, typical to the capitalist nature of this country, our profit margin is manifested not in oil aquisition from new sources, but from oil acquisition from the smae sources, at much lower prices. So long as the economy of Iraq remains a bloody mess, we can gorge on their oil, and the best part is, the extraction, the transportaion, and the painstaking mining thereof, is done for us.
***
Like I said in the above, we get their oil, cheap, so long as they keep running around like ants from am overturned anthill.
uhhh... oil is much more expensive now... like 10-15USD per barrel. So I guess Bushco really screwed up on this, huh?
I might remind you that the US (and US companies) set up a lot of the infrastructure that gets the oil from the ground in places like Iraq. So really... if we wanted to pull a power play we really wouldn't need to send a single US Solider to do so... we could simply take our "Oil Producing Toys" and leave. And why not attack a bigger producer?
Mrs Pigpen has it nailed squarely. We went to Iraq to have 100000+ US Soldiers in the dead center of the Middle East. (this ends what Mrs Pigpen said and now my rant begins) Some one needs to calm those people down. The folks of the Middle East need to start acting responsibly. There's enough wealth there to have a decent, modern society that is a good neighbor on this planet. A small group of them want to party like it's 99. This lifestyle is incompatible to civilization.
BA
No, what Mrs P did is double talk, at least, IMO.
Mrs P
huh?!?!?!
Let's get this straight....
We want to:
-secure the area
-Ensure the the free flow
-build military bases on foreign soil
and
-create a "pro american" government (who really cares about the populace right??)
oh and let's not forget to keep middle eastern nations as harmless as possible....
But.... we don't want to control
That is just uncanny
So what would we do if we had our military bases in the middle east, and nations decided to put a hold of the oil pumps in THEIR lands??
Oil is the only motivation. Yes many companies lent their support to this cause due to thoughts of profits, but I'm not sure that was the reason we went, in fact I doubt it.
The problem is we have a lot of "yes-men" or should I call them "right-men"
in the US. They don't want tranparency in our government so that leaves us to speculate. Is it corporate profits, is it petro-dollar, is it about controling the pump to hinder China from becoming a superpower. There are all kinds of theories out there. Many of them have valid points. they could all partly touch on the truth... but for now, it's CLASSIFIED
We do know however, that we DID not go in due to WMD's nor did we go in Because Saddam was a bad man. SO we know the reason given by the administration are steeped in falsehoods.
That leaves oil.
Does oil continue to play a major role in occupation policy and the continuation of the occupation?
No we actually care about the suffering of non-american humans who are shooting at us *sarcasm ends* again control of the oil is the only motivation.
If control of oil was an important motivation, what does the Bush Administration's failure to discuss it openly say about democracy in these United States?
ummmm.. that we are not a democracy. We are a plutocracy and our government system is a democratic republic (notice which one is merely an adjective). we are ruled by the elite. That whole for the people by the people was merely a saying on some chinese fortune cookie. You could start a whole debate on this question alone.
QUOTE
Mrs Pigpen has it nailed squarely. We went to Iraq to have 100000+ US Soldiers in the dead center of the Middle East. (this ends what Mrs Pigpen said and now my rant begins) Some one needs to calm those people down. The folks of the Middle East need to start acting responsibly. There's enough wealth there to have a decent, modern society that is a good neighbor on this planet. A small group of them want to party like it's 99. This lifestyle is incompatible to civilization.
No, what Mrs P did is double talk, at least, IMO.
Mrs P
QUOTE
We went in to Iraq to secure the area and ensure the free flow of oil...not to "control" the oil, ergo I could not vote in the poll because each choice began with 'contol the oil'.
-snip-
In the big picture, a pro-American (non-WMD wielding) government that permitted US bases to sit right in the middle of the Middle East was likely the ultimate goal. It collapsed due to egregious management and poor planning.
-snip-
In the big picture, a pro-American (non-WMD wielding) government that permitted US bases to sit right in the middle of the Middle East was likely the ultimate goal. It collapsed due to egregious management and poor planning.
huh?!?!?!
Let's get this straight....
We want to:
-secure the area
-Ensure the the free flow
-build military bases on foreign soil
and
-create a "pro american" government (who really cares about the populace right??)
oh and let's not forget to keep middle eastern nations as harmless as possible....
But.... we don't want to control
That is just uncanny
So what would we do if we had our military bases in the middle east, and nations decided to put a hold of the oil pumps in THEIR lands??
QUOTE
Was oil a major motivation for the invasion and, if so, what role did it play?
Oil is the only motivation. Yes many companies lent their support to this cause due to thoughts of profits, but I'm not sure that was the reason we went, in fact I doubt it.
The problem is we have a lot of "yes-men" or should I call them "right-men"
in the US. They don't want tranparency in our government so that leaves us to speculate. Is it corporate profits, is it petro-dollar, is it about controling the pump to hinder China from becoming a superpower. There are all kinds of theories out there. Many of them have valid points. they could all partly touch on the truth... but for now, it's CLASSIFIEDWe do know however, that we DID not go in due to WMD's nor did we go in Because Saddam was a bad man. SO we know the reason given by the administration are steeped in falsehoods.
That leaves oil.
Does oil continue to play a major role in occupation policy and the continuation of the occupation?
No we actually care about the suffering of non-american humans who are shooting at us *sarcasm ends* again control of the oil is the only motivation.
If control of oil was an important motivation, what does the Bush Administration's failure to discuss it openly say about democracy in these United States?
ummmm.. that we are not a democracy. We are a plutocracy and our government system is a democratic republic (notice which one is merely an adjective). we are ruled by the elite. That whole for the people by the people was merely a saying on some chinese fortune cookie. You could start a whole debate on this question alone.
QUOTE(droop224 @ May 8 2007, 11:28 AM)
BA
No, what Mrs P did is double talk, at least, IMO.
Mrs P
huh?!?!?!
Let's get this straight....
We want to:
-secure the area
-Ensure the the free flow
-build military bases on foreign soil
and
-create a "pro american" government (who really cares about the populace right??)
oh and let's not forget to keep middle eastern nations as harmless as possible....
But.... we don't want to control
That is just uncanny
So what would we do if we had our military bases in the middle east, and nations decided to put a hold of the oil pumps in THEIR lands??
QUOTE
Mrs Pigpen has it nailed squarely. We went to Iraq to have 100000+ US Soldiers in the dead center of the Middle East. (this ends what Mrs Pigpen said and now my rant begins) Some one needs to calm those people down. The folks of the Middle East need to start acting responsibly. There's enough wealth there to have a decent, modern society that is a good neighbor on this planet. A small group of them want to party like it's 99. This lifestyle is incompatible to civilization.
No, what Mrs P did is double talk, at least, IMO.
Mrs P
QUOTE
We went in to Iraq to secure the area and ensure the free flow of oil...not to "control" the oil, ergo I could not vote in the poll because each choice began with 'contol the oil'.
-snip-
In the big picture, a pro-American (non-WMD wielding) government that permitted US bases to sit right in the middle of the Middle East was likely the ultimate goal. It collapsed due to egregious management and poor planning.
-snip-
In the big picture, a pro-American (non-WMD wielding) government that permitted US bases to sit right in the middle of the Middle East was likely the ultimate goal. It collapsed due to egregious management and poor planning.
huh?!?!?!
Let's get this straight....
We want to:
-secure the area
-Ensure the the free flow
-build military bases on foreign soil
and
-create a "pro american" government (who really cares about the populace right??)
oh and let's not forget to keep middle eastern nations as harmless as possible....
But.... we don't want to control
That is just uncanny
So what would we do if we had our military bases in the middle east, and nations decided to put a hold of the oil pumps in THEIR lands??
Well, we actually do have military bases in the middle east, Droop. We have them in Qatar, the UAE, and Kuwait. Up until recently we had them in Saudi as well. Do we control the oil of those countries? We've been giving Turkey billions of dollars through the years for that strategic location as well. Do we control Turkey or the Turkish government? Considering they made us relocate our war stuff to Qatar rather than permitting us to use their country to launch attacks againt Iraq I'd say the answer is demonstrably no.
We would have liked to have bases in Iraq for the exact same reason that we wanted them in Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, Turkey and Saudi. Consolidation in a pro-western Iraq would have been better than spread out in other places throughout the ME. That isn't the reason we invaded (that was to oust Saddam, who could buy more weapons with the oil money, or so we thought as I stated above). Nor, for that matter, would such an eventuality have indicated that we then "controlled" either Iraq or its oil. It was a very likely longterm goal. This isn't rocket science.
QUOTE
Well, we actually do have military bases in the middle east, Droop. We have them in Qatar, the UAE, and Kuwait. Up until recently we had them in Saudi as well. Do we control the oil of those countries? We've been giving Turkey billions of dollars through the years for that strategic location as well. Do we control Turkey or the Turkish government? Considering they made us relocate our war stuff to Qatar rather than permitting us to use their country to launch attacks againt Iraq I'd say the answer is demonstrably no.
We would have liked to have bases in Iraq for the exact same reason that we wanted them in Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, Turkey and Saudi. Consolidation in a pro-western Iraq would have been better than spread out in other places throughout the ME. That isn't the reason we invaded (that was to oust Saddam, who could buy more weapons with the oil money, or so we thought as I stated above). Nor, for that matter, would such an eventuality have indicated that we then "controlled" either Iraq or its oil. It was a very likely longterm goal. This isn't rocket science.
We would have liked to have bases in Iraq for the exact same reason that we wanted them in Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, Turkey and Saudi. Consolidation in a pro-western Iraq would have been better than spread out in other places throughout the ME. That isn't the reason we invaded (that was to oust Saddam, who could buy more weapons with the oil money, or so we thought as I stated above). Nor, for that matter, would such an eventuality have indicated that we then "controlled" either Iraq or its oil. It was a very likely longterm goal. This isn't rocket science.
No it's not rocket science.... Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, Turkey and Saudi were not invaded by the US. Iraq was.
QUOTE
That isn't the reason we invaded (that was to oust Saddam, who could buy more weapons with the oil money, or so we thought as I stated above).
again, huh?!?!!?!?!?
If the reason we invaded was to oust Saddam, then why do we need bases since that job is already complete. That job was complete with in the first month wasn't it??
Let me guess coincedence...
Or is it like one of those things where we you go... "Since I'm down here, might as well... build a base or two.... or six!!" QUOTE(droop224)
No it's not rocket science.... Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, Turkey and Saudi were not invaded by the US. Iraq was.
The point being what?
Should I also list all of the countries in the ME where we don't have bases and haven't invaded? We don't control their oil either. While we're always very happy to hold bases in the ME, we do so only if the governments permit it. Before the Iraq war, those in charge believed that the Iraqis would greet us with open arms and cheers for ousting their dictator. They probably believed as well that the new democratically elected Iraqi government would offer us a place to park and stay. They were wrong. QUOTE
If the reason we invaded was to oust Saddam, then why do we need bases since that job is already complete. That job was complete with in the first month wasn't it??
Let me guess coincedence... Or is it like one of those things where we you go... "Since I'm down here, might as well... build a base or two.... or six!!"
Let me guess coincedence...
Or is it like one of those things where we you go... "Since I'm down here, might as well... build a base or two.... or six!!"Iraq isn't the only reason we have forces in the ME.
Edited to add:Link I just looked up after reading Titus' post. I'd forgotten that one.
MRS P
Mrs P whether we control the oil or the government that controls the oil it does not matter. As long as our military has the presencein that country that further our foreign agenda.
Reasons our military would be overseas:
Either A we asked to be there so that we could make strategic military strikes against a target
B. We are there so that we may prop up a government or serve as protection
C. We want to be subdue the populace.
What are we doing in Iraq Mrs P.
Subduing the populace. We are exerting what over the people?? Control. How are we doing it?? By military force?? How do we hope to do it in the future. Through proxy government, which will need an american military presence in order to subdue the people.
Why would a sovereign country allow another military on their soil with out pressure?? Do we allow foreign bases on our soil?? Is there a military exchange program I don't know about? Power, influence, control.
Again... it's not rocket science right??
And Mrs P at what point does one finally come to the conclusion... "I was lied to, deceived, betrayed, led astray, hoodwinked, bamboozled, run a muck???"
You are correct... oil is the only reason we are there. now if we could have a transparent government we might have a clue as to what the overall plan is...
QUOTE
The point being what? Should I also list all of the countries in the ME where we don't have bases and haven't invaded? We don't control their oil either. While we're always very happy to hold bases in the ME, we do so only if the governments permit it. Before the Iraq war, those in charge believed that the Iraqis would greet us with open arms and cheers for ousting their dictator. They probably believed as well that the new democratically elected Iraqi government would offer us a place to park and stay. They were wrong.
Mrs P whether we control the oil or the government that controls the oil it does not matter. As long as our military has the presencein that country that further our foreign agenda.
Reasons our military would be overseas:
Either A we asked to be there so that we could make strategic military strikes against a target
B. We are there so that we may prop up a government or serve as protection
C. We want to be subdue the populace.
What are we doing in Iraq Mrs P.
Subduing the populace. We are exerting what over the people?? Control. How are we doing it?? By military force?? How do we hope to do it in the future. Through proxy government, which will need an american military presence in order to subdue the people.
Why would a sovereign country allow another military on their soil with out pressure?? Do we allow foreign bases on our soil?? Is there a military exchange program I don't know about? Power, influence, control.
Again... it's not rocket science right??
And Mrs P at what point does one finally come to the conclusion... "I was lied to, deceived, betrayed, led astray, hoodwinked, bamboozled, run a muck???"
QUOTE
Iraq isn't the only reason we have forces in the ME.
You are correct... oil is the only reason we are there. now if we could have a transparent government we might have a clue as to what the overall plan is...
QUOTE
You are correct... oil is the only reason we are there. now if we could have a transparent government we might have a clue as to what the overall plan is.
Well maybe not the only reason. Was the first gulf war right or wrong in your opinion???
Certainly it was about foreign aggression in the ME and OIL. In this case the oil fields of Kuwait Saddam needed to pay for his WMD development.
And why would the “job be done” with Saddam out of power. Could we have just left after that happened??? Would Iraq not have quickly erected another Saddam??
QUOTE(Ted @ May 8 2007, 02:41 PM)
QUOTE
You are correct... oil is the only reason we are there. now if we could have a transparent government we might have a clue as to what the overall plan is.
Well maybe not the only reason. Was the first gulf war right or wrong in your opinion???
Certainly it was about foreign aggression in the ME and OIL. In this case the oil fields of Kuwait Saddam needed to pay for his WMD development.
And why would the “job be done” with Saddam out of power. Could we have just left after that happened??? Would Iraq not have quickly erected another Saddam??
The first gulf war was a set up in my opinion and it was wrong. In that war we dealt with the same thing, a lot of propaganda and a lot of lies.
Remember the Babies that were being dashed unto the floor. The massive iraqi troop build up on Saudi Border. Let's not forget our government greenlighted Saddam to invade Iraq through Ambassador April Gilipsie.
Oh and of course you had Kuwait slant drilling into Iraq and dropping oil prices to antagonize Iraq.... but Ted... so we don't take this topic way off topic, You can start a debate on it.
Also Ted, why would we punish Saddam for the development of WMD when we were on board him having it as he raged against Iran.
Lastly, if Mrs P says we went to war to oust Saddam then the war is over once that happens. Saddam was but a small speed bump on long term goals, which were are currently putting in place. Mainly a stronghold in the Middle east.
Yes we could have left, we can leave now, what's stopping us?? So is that why we are still there to ensure that another Saddam isn't raised to power. You know what that is called... it is called.... duhn dun DUUHHNN..... Control!!
QUOTE
Also Ted, why would we punish Saddam for the development of WMD when we were on board him having it as he raged against Iran.
Lastly, if Mrs P says we went to war to oust Saddam then the war is over once that happens. Saddam was but a small speed bump on long term goals, which were are currently putting in place. Mainly a stronghold in the Middle east.
Yes we could have left, we can leave now, what's stopping us?? So is that why we are still there to ensure that another Saddam isn't raised to power. You know what that is called... it is called.... duhn dun DUUHHNN..... Control!!
Lastly, if Mrs P says we went to war to oust Saddam then the war is over once that happens. Saddam was but a small speed bump on long term goals, which were are currently putting in place. Mainly a stronghold in the Middle east.
Yes we could have left, we can leave now, what's stopping us?? So is that why we are still there to ensure that another Saddam isn't raised to power. You know what that is called... it is called.... duhn dun DUUHHNN..... Control!!
Yes lets not waste time discussing Gulf War I which you seem to blame on us?? LOL.
Iraq was not given WMD by the US although we did not try to stop him from killing Iranians (and Kurds) with them. He became a danger to our security IMO after 9/11 when it became clear he would never allow inspectors in and would never give up the WMD he spent billions creating.
To think Iraq would not (give/sell) WMD to terrorists just because he didn’t love them is IMO ludicrous. In 1991 he was a threat to the region and we (with the UN) removed him from Kuwait. The UN clearly failed to finish the job. We IMO made the mistake of believing we could easily finish the job.
Finally I don’t think control is the right word – maybe predictability is better. Saddam was a wild card in the middle of a lot of oil – which we are addicted to.
What Saddam wanted was to make his nation the most culturally westernized nation in the middle east. Healthcare, free education, Eminem.
Saddam would not have given the terrorist weapons becuase he was fighting their fundamentalism. Which is why the Shiites rejoiced at his departure. Hew had terrorism and guerilla fighting from the north with the Kurds and he had to deal with "terrorist" attacks against the Shi'ites.
Point no.2
Did you know bio/chemical weapons have shelf lives?? Saddam had no factories to produce weapons.. So even if he had a stockpile... they were spoiled and impotent.
Point No.3
Since 1991 Saddam had be sanction and crippled by both republican and democratic presidents. We starved his people and put a strnglehold on his economy. Our military went through the Iraq military like a hot butter knife through butter. Yuu honestly believed he was a threat??
Finally,
You achieve predictability through control an influence.
Saddam would not have given the terrorist weapons becuase he was fighting their fundamentalism. Which is why the Shiites rejoiced at his departure. Hew had terrorism and guerilla fighting from the north with the Kurds and he had to deal with "terrorist" attacks against the Shi'ites.
Point no.2
Did you know bio/chemical weapons have shelf lives?? Saddam had no factories to produce weapons.. So even if he had a stockpile... they were spoiled and impotent.
Point No.3
Since 1991 Saddam had be sanction and crippled by both republican and democratic presidents. We starved his people and put a strnglehold on his economy. Our military went through the Iraq military like a hot butter knife through butter. Yuu honestly believed he was a threat??
Finally,
You achieve predictability through control an influence.
QUOTE
Yes lets not waste time discussing Gulf War I which you seem to blame on us?? LOL
I won't spend too much time here, cause I don't have the adaquate time to start dismantling this thread like I did 4 years ago on the same subject. But....
QUOTE(droop224 @ May 8 2007, 02:48 PM)
What Saddam wanted was to make his nation the most culturally westernized nation in the middle east. Healthcare, free education, Eminem.
Saddam would not have given the terrorist weapons becuase he was fighting their fundamentalism. Which is why the Shiites rejoiced at his departure. Hew had terrorism and guerilla fighting from the north with the Kurds and he had to deal with "terrorist" attacks against the Shi'ites.
Point no.2
Did you know bio/chemical weapons have shelf lives?? Saddam had no factories to produce weapons.. So even if he had a stockpile... they were spoiled and impotent.
Point No.3
Since 1991 Saddam had be sanction and crippled by both republican and democratic presidents. We starved his people and put a strnglehold on his economy. Our military went through the Iraq military like a hot butter knife through butter. Yuu honestly believed he was a threat??
Finally,
You achieve predictability through control an influence.
Saddam would not have given the terrorist weapons becuase he was fighting their fundamentalism. Which is why the Shiites rejoiced at his departure. Hew had terrorism and guerilla fighting from the north with the Kurds and he had to deal with "terrorist" attacks against the Shi'ites.
Point no.2
Did you know bio/chemical weapons have shelf lives?? Saddam had no factories to produce weapons.. So even if he had a stockpile... they were spoiled and impotent.
Point No.3
Since 1991 Saddam had be sanction and crippled by both republican and democratic presidents. We starved his people and put a strnglehold on his economy. Our military went through the Iraq military like a hot butter knife through butter. Yuu honestly believed he was a threat??
Finally,
You achieve predictability through control an influence.
QUOTE
Yes lets not waste time discussing Gulf War I which you seem to blame on us?? LOL
Just the kind of thread to have me come back for a special appearance.
The points made here are quite wrong. Or at the vey least, misleading. First off, Saddam was not as secular as you think. Whether it was based out of a new found personal motivation or appealing to his people and other anti-American elements in the Mid East, Saddam in his later years was making inroads with fundamentalism.
Granted this link is old, but it details the kind of effort Saddam was making at the time.
Saddam's Great Mosque
QUOTE
From the Link
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) Saddam Hussein has approved the design for what he calls the world's largest mosque, a domed hall capable of holding 30,000 worshipers alongside a huge artificial lake shaped like a map of the Arab world.
Iraqi newspapers carried a picture today of the Iraqi leader and his Cabinet examining plans for the Baghdad mosque to be called the Saddam Grand Mosque.
Saddam proposed the mosque two years ago, when the state-controlled media billed it as the biggest in history.
The largest existing mosque is the King Hassan mosque in Morocco, with a capacity for 18,000 people. However, the holiest Muslim shrine, the Kaaba in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, can hold up to 1 million people in open and enclosed areas.
Plans for Saddam's mosque call for building a large dome for the main area of prayer enough for 30,000 worshipers decorated with four minarets and an artificial lake, said al-Thawra, newspaper of the ruling Baath party.
It said Saddam had inspected several designs for the mosque before settling on one with a lake shaped like a map of the Arab world.
Iraqi newspapers did not say how much the Saddam Grand Mosque would cost or when construction would start. The plan has been slow to take off because of Iraq's huge financial problems.
The U.N. trade sanctions imposed on Iraq for invading Kuwait in 1990, leading to the Gulf War, have almost ruined the country's economy. Iraq's currency, the dinar, was worth $3 prior to sanctions but nose-dived to about 3,000 to the dollar in 1996.
Iraq's oil-for-food deal with the United Nations and the government's austerity measures to squeeze public spending helped boost the currency, which is now trading at about 1,500 to the dollar.
The mosque will be built on the site of the former al-Muthana Airport, which was bombed heavily by U.S.-allied forces during the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War, al-Thawra and other newspapers said.
Besides the Saddam Grand Mosque, the Iraqi leader has decreed that a grand mosque bearing his name be built in each of Iraq's 18 provinces.
Al-Thawra said the mosques were part of a campaign of faith, Saddam initiated three years ago requiring universities, institutes and schools to devote part of their curriculum to teaching the Islamic religion.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) Saddam Hussein has approved the design for what he calls the world's largest mosque, a domed hall capable of holding 30,000 worshipers alongside a huge artificial lake shaped like a map of the Arab world.
Iraqi newspapers carried a picture today of the Iraqi leader and his Cabinet examining plans for the Baghdad mosque to be called the Saddam Grand Mosque.
Saddam proposed the mosque two years ago, when the state-controlled media billed it as the biggest in history.
The largest existing mosque is the King Hassan mosque in Morocco, with a capacity for 18,000 people. However, the holiest Muslim shrine, the Kaaba in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, can hold up to 1 million people in open and enclosed areas.
Plans for Saddam's mosque call for building a large dome for the main area of prayer enough for 30,000 worshipers decorated with four minarets and an artificial lake, said al-Thawra, newspaper of the ruling Baath party.
It said Saddam had inspected several designs for the mosque before settling on one with a lake shaped like a map of the Arab world.
Iraqi newspapers did not say how much the Saddam Grand Mosque would cost or when construction would start. The plan has been slow to take off because of Iraq's huge financial problems.
The U.N. trade sanctions imposed on Iraq for invading Kuwait in 1990, leading to the Gulf War, have almost ruined the country's economy. Iraq's currency, the dinar, was worth $3 prior to sanctions but nose-dived to about 3,000 to the dollar in 1996.
Iraq's oil-for-food deal with the United Nations and the government's austerity measures to squeeze public spending helped boost the currency, which is now trading at about 1,500 to the dollar.
The mosque will be built on the site of the former al-Muthana Airport, which was bombed heavily by U.S.-allied forces during the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War, al-Thawra and other newspapers said.
Besides the Saddam Grand Mosque, the Iraqi leader has decreed that a grand mosque bearing his name be built in each of Iraq's 18 provinces.
Al-Thawra said the mosques were part of a campaign of faith, Saddam initiated three years ago requiring universities, institutes and schools to devote part of their curriculum to teaching the Islamic religion.
You know the real reason why the Shi'ites danced at the news of his downfall was because of the fact that the Shi'te majority in Iraq was being oppressed by Saddam and the Sunni minority. Not hard to figure that out.
Also, we didn't starve anyone. If a dictator wants to misbehave, I'm not responsible for the repercussions. The U.N. set rules. Saddam broke them. Plain and simple. And Saddam was a threat. A threat to his people and a threat to his neighbors. Whether he could back them up to the level he claimed is irrelevant. When a jerk of a neighbor starts making threats against you and others on the block, are you gonna ignore him or call the cops?
If you can find the topics on the "No Blood for Oil" arguement in the archives, you'll find all the research I did on why it made no sense to use oil as an excuse for going to war when we had teh Saudis backing our play regarding "petroldollars".
Back to lurking for now...lol..
QUOTE
Just the kind of thread to have me come back for a special appearance.
The points made here are quite wrong. Or at the vey least, misleading. First off, Saddam was not as secular as you think. Whether it was based out of a new found personal motivation or appealing to his people and other anti-American elements in the Mid East, Saddam in his later years was making inroads with fundamentalism.
Granted this link is old, but it details the kind of effort Saddam was making at the time.
Saddam's Great Mosque
The points made here are quite wrong. Or at the vey least, misleading. First off, Saddam was not as secular as you think. Whether it was based out of a new found personal motivation or appealing to his people and other anti-American elements in the Mid East, Saddam in his later years was making inroads with fundamentalism.
Granted this link is old, but it details the kind of effort Saddam was making at the time.
Saddam's Great Mosque
I don't get it... he wasn't secular because.... he built churches... Did he make in roads for women rights?? Did he make reforms in the education system and health care that benefitted the people. Compare Saddam of 70's and compare the other nations in the middle east. Who else were making these changes??
And yes you called it... any slides toward fundamentalism can be laid at our feet. We pushed Castro to Socialism with our foreign policies, and we pushed Saddam to making concessions towards the mor fundamentalist party's in his government to shore up alliances.
QUOTE
You know the real reason why the Shi'ites danced at the news of his downfall was because of the fact that the Shi'te majority in Iraq was being oppressed by Saddam and the Sunni minority. Not hard to figure that out.
And be honest... don't you think they are fully aware of that saying... "Be careful what you wish for cause you might just get it all, and some you don't want"
Now we can demonize Saddam all day, because he committed many MANY atrocities. But, we now are doing the same thing to establish peace and order. When you make borders around three distinctly different groups and say you are now a country, with a minority ruling... that is instant conflict. However, this goes back to our own Christian right. Sometimes you have to oppress the oppressors right to oppress you... does that make sense. It's kind of like being intolerant of intolerance. And between the Shi'ites and Sunnis who have the more oppressive views?? Who are more fundamental in their religious beliefs?
QUOTE
Also, we didn't starve anyone. If a dictator wants to misbehave, I'm not responsible for the repercussions. The U.N. set rules. Saddam broke them. Plain and simple. And Saddam was a threat. A threat to his people and a threat to his neighbors. Whether he could back them up to the level he claimed is irrelevant. When a jerk of a neighbor starts making threats against you and others on the block, are you gonna ignore him or call the cops?
First point
If my kids misbehave anf I discipline them so harsh that I were to break a bone... am I responsible or is my kid. We PUSHED the UN for the sanctions. It was at our behest, because we want to make Iraq intolerable for the people in hopes that they would revolt. And when that didn't happen we hoped that we could invade and be greeted with smiles and flowers. We starved them for political reasons and you say... "that's not our fault" Another person with uncanny abilities...
Second Point
If my neighbor was making threats I wouldn't tell him "I have no opinion on what goes on between you and the jones" and then be the first to want him arrested when he beats up Mr. Jones on his front lawn. And that is exactly what we did.... did you happen to research that in all the research you did??
QUOTE
If you can find the topics on the "No Blood for Oil" arguement in the archives, you'll find all the research I did on why it made no sense to use oil as an excuse for going to war when we had teh Saudis backing our play regarding "petroldollars".
Do you see us in the middle of Africa as they invade and commit genocide back and forth?? Why not?? There is no interest for us there. So why are we in the middle east if not oil?? Why?
QUOTE
Back to lurking for now...lol..
psst... Snake Eyes... come out I'm just starting to have fun!! QUOTE
Saddam would not have given the terrorist weapons becuase he was fighting their fundamentalism. Which is why the Shiites rejoiced at his departure. Hew had terrorism and guerilla fighting from the north with the Kurds and he had to deal with "terrorist" attacks against the Shi'ites.
Nonsense IMO. The man hated the US for taking Kuwait back from him. It would not have happened without us and regardless of his dislike for “fundamentalist” regimes he would have worked with anyone to hurt us. Was there any chance a ‘fundamentalist” movement could survive in Iraq- of course not. He butchered over 100,000 Shea in 1991 and the UN and US did nothing but watch.
QUOTE
Point no.2
Did you know bio/chemical weapons have shelf lives?? Saddam had no factories to produce weapons.. So even if he had a stockpile... they were spoiled and impotent.
Did you know bio/chemical weapons have shelf lives?? Saddam had no factories to produce weapons.. So even if he had a stockpile... they were spoiled and impotent.
I posted to this. Many of the WMD had shelf lives of decades and VX is a binary weapon and not subject to this issue. He also had the capability to just produce more. The programs and facilities were still there for the most part. If you read Blix you see tons of VX and thousands of liters of anthrax were UN accounted for in Iraq as well as other things.
Here is head inspector Butler in 1998:
Butler also put UNSCOM's work in historical perspective, stressing
that the issue is disarmament and the desire of the majority of the
countries around the world to end the arms race as they enter the 21st
century.
"As you listen to Iraq's propaganda keep your eye on the ball: what is
at issue here is disarmament," he said.
"The fact is that Iraq created a quantity and quality of weapons of
mass destruction that, when one thinks of the size of the industrial
base, etc., was virtually unique, breathtaking in its scope and its
danger to its region and population beyond," Butler said.
"The Security Council was right in recognizing that fact and setting
up a mechanism to deal with that problem," said Butler, who is an
Australian disarmament expert.
QUOTE
Point No.3
Since 1991 Saddam had be sanction and crippled by both republican and democratic presidents. We starved his people and put a strnglehold on his economy. Our military went through the Iraq military like a hot butter knife through butter. Yuu honestly believed he was a threat??
Since 1991 Saddam had be sanction and crippled by both republican and democratic presidents. We starved his people and put a strnglehold on his economy. Our military went through the Iraq military like a hot butter knife through butter. Yuu honestly believed he was a threat??
If you read the weapons inspector’s testimony in 1998 you know differently. And then read the Dems statements. We did not starve his people – he did and was skimming billions from the OFF program which he used to subvert the UN. As the original ISG report said he was sitting back waiting for the end of sanctions to go back into full WMD production including nuclear weapons. And countries like France and Russia were lobbying for sanctions to end.
I should have posted my own answers to the questions I posed some time ago. The publication of an open letter from the head of the Iraqi Oil Union gives me added reason to do so now.
Was oil a major motivation for the invasion and, if so, what role did it play?
Yes it was a major motivation. I have argued elsewhere that the administration's interest in oil was primarily geo-political in nature and not limited to Iraqi oil alone. However, as the occupation has collapsed upon itself the interest in maintaining some control of Iraqi oil per se has become more important. This is probably a reflection of the administration's desire to do the biding of its key backers in the oil industry. (However, these are hard to separate from some of the main players within the administration). There were other equally important motivations besides oil, however. These included the hope of clearly demonstrating to the entire world that the US was militarily supreme and beyond challenge. (That has failed even more miserably than controlling ME and Caspian oil). They also included the desire to promote the interests of the Likud government of Israel. (Israel's strategic interests have been severely damaged not enhanced - another failure).
Does oil continue to play a major role in occupation policy and the continuation of the occupation?
The article linked in my original post made it abundantly clear that oil continues to play a significant role in the occupation policies. Now Hassan Juma'a Awwad, Head of the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions, has published an open letter that sheds addition light on this subject and the generalized Iraqi opposition to Production Sharing agreements that the US and other Western parties are seeking to impose while carrying on a propaganda campaign suggesting the Iraqi Oil Law has to be accepted by the Iraqi Parliament to reduce sectarian violence.
If control of oil was an important motivation, what does the Bush Administration's failure to discuss it openly say about democracy in these United States?
The answer to this one goes without saying. Not only has Bush failed to engage the public in democratic debate about his real goals but he has dramatically weakened democracy within the US through fear mongering, voter suppression, questionably conducted elections, and the weakening of civil rights generally. It is a travesty for this administration to claim that extending democracy to the Middle East was one of its motivations.
Was oil a major motivation for the invasion and, if so, what role did it play?
Yes it was a major motivation. I have argued elsewhere that the administration's interest in oil was primarily geo-political in nature and not limited to Iraqi oil alone. However, as the occupation has collapsed upon itself the interest in maintaining some control of Iraqi oil per se has become more important. This is probably a reflection of the administration's desire to do the biding of its key backers in the oil industry. (However, these are hard to separate from some of the main players within the administration). There were other equally important motivations besides oil, however. These included the hope of clearly demonstrating to the entire world that the US was militarily supreme and beyond challenge. (That has failed even more miserably than controlling ME and Caspian oil). They also included the desire to promote the interests of the Likud government of Israel. (Israel's strategic interests have been severely damaged not enhanced - another failure).
Does oil continue to play a major role in occupation policy and the continuation of the occupation?
The article linked in my original post made it abundantly clear that oil continues to play a significant role in the occupation policies. Now Hassan Juma'a Awwad, Head of the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions, has published an open letter that sheds addition light on this subject and the generalized Iraqi opposition to Production Sharing agreements that the US and other Western parties are seeking to impose while carrying on a propaganda campaign suggesting the Iraqi Oil Law has to be accepted by the Iraqi Parliament to reduce sectarian violence.
QUOTE
We wish to clarify certain matters relating to events in Iraq for our friends among the members of the U.S. Congress. It is common knowledge that the occupation spared neither the old nor the young, and that Iraq is passing through the most difficult of times because all and sundry are hounding it and covet a share of its riches. We see no good reason for linking the passing of the feeble Iraqi oil law to the withdrawal of the occupation troops from Iraq.
Everyone knows that the oil law does not serve the Iraqi people, and that it serves Bush, his supporters, and the foreign companies at the expense of the Iraqi people who have been wronged and deprived of their right to their oil despite enduring all difficulties.
We ask our friends not to link withdrawal with the oil law, especially since the USA claimed that it came to Iraq as a liberator and not in order to control Iraq's resources.
See The Full Letter and Background.Everyone knows that the oil law does not serve the Iraqi people, and that it serves Bush, his supporters, and the foreign companies at the expense of the Iraqi people who have been wronged and deprived of their right to their oil despite enduring all difficulties.
We ask our friends not to link withdrawal with the oil law, especially since the USA claimed that it came to Iraq as a liberator and not in order to control Iraq's resources.
If control of oil was an important motivation, what does the Bush Administration's failure to discuss it openly say about democracy in these United States?
The answer to this one goes without saying. Not only has Bush failed to engage the public in democratic debate about his real goals but he has dramatically weakened democracy within the US through fear mongering, voter suppression, questionably conducted elections, and the weakening of civil rights generally. It is a travesty for this administration to claim that extending democracy to the Middle East was one of its motivations.
I was more of the mind that it was straight up for Haliburton's no bid contracts- after all, that is where Cheney worked, massive wrongdoing has been done by that company, and it's license to do biz should be yanked and the company disbanded.
However, recent events in Alaska make me believe more and more that pretty much any one that votes for anything pro-oil is probably in the pocket, literally, of the oil companies, or, as Bill Allen of Veco said "we own your *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***"
http://www.adn.com/money/industries/oil/st...p-8777179c.html
The above is the ongoing big news out of AK, and it turns out, pretty much every person that called themselves "pro-developement conservatives" have been arrrested, or are under a cloud of investigation, most knowing that more indictments are coming.
It is interesting- after years of hard right conservative mismanagement of, well, everything, a bi-partison coalition of "liberal democrats" and "conservative/libertarian leaning republicans" excluded all the others that ended up being indicted. In fact, those arrested complained publically that the coaltion was 'too liberal" and they had to stay out for "thier conscious objection to the liberal politics aligned to closely with enviro whackos"
And now, they are going to jail
One of the only sitting lawmakers in Alaskan history to be arrested I know personally, and have met many times. the right worshiped him, and I despised him- anyone that complains that much about Clinton I know are either raping thier kids or on the take themselves- it is called "transferance"
Between BP, Veco, Conoco Phillips, Exxon, etc, and thier so dirty behavior- I would say- you bet, the currect admin is completly on the payroll of big oil. It is just so pervasive, as the FBI found out!
However, recent events in Alaska make me believe more and more that pretty much any one that votes for anything pro-oil is probably in the pocket, literally, of the oil companies, or, as Bill Allen of Veco said "we own your *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***"
http://www.adn.com/money/industries/oil/st...p-8777179c.html
The above is the ongoing big news out of AK, and it turns out, pretty much every person that called themselves "pro-developement conservatives" have been arrrested, or are under a cloud of investigation, most knowing that more indictments are coming.
It is interesting- after years of hard right conservative mismanagement of, well, everything, a bi-partison coalition of "liberal democrats" and "conservative/libertarian leaning republicans" excluded all the others that ended up being indicted. In fact, those arrested complained publically that the coaltion was 'too liberal" and they had to stay out for "thier conscious objection to the liberal politics aligned to closely with enviro whackos"
And now, they are going to jail
One of the only sitting lawmakers in Alaskan history to be arrested I know personally, and have met many times. the right worshiped him, and I despised him- anyone that complains that much about Clinton I know are either raping thier kids or on the take themselves- it is called "transferance"
Between BP, Veco, Conoco Phillips, Exxon, etc, and thier so dirty behavior- I would say- you bet, the currect admin is completly on the payroll of big oil. It is just so pervasive, as the FBI found out!
It would take a great philosopher to know all the causes of the Iraq war, suffice it to say that President George W. Bush accused Iraq of having weapons of mass destruction - some of which were sold to Iraq by George H.W. Bush when he was President - that Saddam Hussein denied having and the United Nations weapons inspectors could not find, but that President Bush insisted Iraq had, or was in the process of acquiring for imminent use against the United States; and that when this was shown to be based on false intelligence, the invasion and occupation was then justified as a war against terrorism, to liberate Iraq from a oppressive regime, and spread democracy throughout the Middle East; for which thousands of American soldiers were killed and wounded, and untold numbers of Iraqi citizens lost their lives, were maimed, imprisoned, tortured, humiliated, and made to be enemies of the United States and its allies, and fermenting civil war. No doubt there are many interests, both foreign and domestic, that have sought to take advantage of these circumstances, whether or not they were motivating factors; and, in the course of human events, shall continue to do so. It is, sadly, the way of the world.
QUOTE
Nemo
It would take a great philosopher to know all the causes of the Iraq war, suffice it to say that President George W. Bush accused Iraq of having weapons of mass destruction - some of which were sold to Iraq by George H.W. Bush when he was President - that Saddam Hussein denied having and the United Nations weapons inspectors could not find, but that President Bush insisted Iraq had
It would take a great philosopher to know all the causes of the Iraq war, suffice it to say that President George W. Bush accused Iraq of having weapons of mass destruction - some of which were sold to Iraq by George H.W. Bush when he was President - that Saddam Hussein denied having and the United Nations weapons inspectors could not find, but that President Bush insisted Iraq had
Actually you could not have it more wrong here. We never sold Iraq WMD – ever AND Iraq admitted to the UN he had produced the WMDs we were looking for in 2002 and 1998. In fact this was the very subject of UN 1441 that was the trigger for the war.
I am constantly shocked by how little many people know of the facts here.
As for oil – well we can be certain that the ME is a key area for the US because of oil and our dependence on its un interrupted supply.
QUOTE(Nemo @ May 17 2007, 10:57 AM)
I have read this speculation before. Allowing a country to buy chemicals that “could” be used for bio or chemical weapons is a far cry from selling them the weapons and/or suggesting they use them in war.
It is well known that Iraq had a massive “dual-use” industrial base designed to procure and then shield the production of just such activities.
http://www.wisconsinproject.org/pubs/testi...000/5-26-00.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...ey-findings.htm
And the anthrax statement tells you the dope who wrote the article knows squat about bio weapons. The anthrax strain bought by Iraq was for “agricultural use” and many countries sold same to Iraq. To make this generic anthrax “weaponized” for use as a weapon is not trivial and only a few countries in the world could do it.
And again Iraq admitted to the UN after 1991 that they had in fact produced tons of VX nerve agent – (the deadliest chemical in the world), as well as “weaponized” anthrax (8,500 liters) – enough to kill every person on the planet numerous times.
To suggest that we were “responsible” for this is ludicrous.
This thread is going in all directions and becoming unconstructive. Please stick to the topic questions:
Was oil a major motivation for the invasion and, if so, what role did it play?
Does oil continue to play a major role in occupation policy and the continuation of the occupation?
If control of oil was an important motivation, what does the Bush Administration's failure to discuss it openly say about democracy in these United States?
Was oil a major motivation for the invasion and, if so, what role did it play?
Does oil continue to play a major role in occupation policy and the continuation of the occupation?
If control of oil was an important motivation, what does the Bush Administration's failure to discuss it openly say about democracy in these United States?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.