You hear democrats talking about wheater or not this war is about the oil... I mean i catch myself watching CNN and going to CNN.com for the latest updatres. And to me it seems like they are not talking about oil but bombing presidental palaces and military installations. And i saw this lovely picture where they were tearing down saddam face and an Iraqi hit the face with his shoe. But i dont see too much talking about "oil" and the military still has alotof ground to cover but it is possible to take over the oil fields, through paratroopers. Do you think this war is REALLY about oil?

what news are you watching? bush on monday in his "48 hour" speech told the Iraqis what not to do. first on his list: don't destroy the oil wells, this was more important than not using WMDs. watching MSNBC I heard in one hour mention of the burning oil wells in southern Iraq at least ten times (AT LEAST) this morning (mar. 22) I heard on them talking about explosives found at oil wells. marines have died fighting for the rumaliyah oil fields. they are trying to get mosul and tikrit (two oil cities) in northern Iraq under their control. all of bushs cabinet keeps telling them not to destroy the wells. they news channels made a huge deal when Iraq dumbed and lit oil i southern Iraq. and this is all I can think of at the moment.

Eh, we're bombing palaces right and left in the city of Baghdad but the ground forces are currently doing nothing but gaining control over smaller towns and oil refineries. While the pictures might be nothing much but the bombings replayed over and over and over again, I've heard the newscasters talk about oil at least once almost every 10 or 15 minutes.

In either case, this would serve neither as evidence for or to the contrary of this war being about oil. I'm not sure this thread really deserves serious debate. How much the news speaks about the oil in Iraq is not in any way an accurate barometer of whether oil is as large a factor as many believe.

Since Saddam has burned oil fields before and is burning them again, it makes perfect sense to secure the oil fields. Burning oil fields disturb visibility and expose our soldiers to a health hazard. Also oil is important for Iraq to be a prosperous nation in the post-Saddam era. This war is about removing a threat to the American populace.

It's hard to tell. Blair has gone on record to say that he thinks the Iraqi oil revenues should be put into a UN-administrered trust fund to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq.

While it's kind of him to offer to allow the Iraq people to pay for the destruction caused by 12 years of sanctions and bombings, coupled with the new rubble caused by this war, but this idea at least indicates that the revenues will still belong to Iraq, even if held in trust.

The US administration has been noticeably quiet on the subject of actual physical reconstruction - most of the commentary I've heard from Washington concerns itself on the requirement to keep troops stationed in Iraq after this war finishes, and the potential cost to American taxpayers of doing so.

This relative silence does seem a little odd to me, given that the most recent line of argument justifying war (before it began) was that Saddam was a tyrant and that the people of Iraq deserved better.

Is America assuming that once Saddam is gone, the 'pacifist' French, Russians and Germans will be going in to oversee the reconstruction, shamed by their lack of support for the US before war began? (If so, I wouldn't hold your national breath - they are more likely to see it as a mess of US & UK making, especially the French.)

Some countries are definitely going to benefit from this war because of oil. While this war is not only about oil (revenge for assassination attempt on GHWB, driving Hussein from power, removing WMDs from Iraq, setting up democratic experiment in Iraq, scouring the country for connections to 9-11 type terror support), oil plays a big part.

You will see a host of countries positioning themselves in the post-war period to gain access to oil revenues.
Russia will try to protect its contracts as will France and they both will probably volunteer to help with reconstruction.

Turkey is making a bid to help with humanitarian efforts to stifle the growth of Kurdistan and to help with reconstruction.

The United States and GB and their corporation will try to play a major role in the reconstruction efforts. Although the profits will end up going through to the Iraqi people, the trustees and reconstructees will be getting revenues from the stream in the amount of billions of dollars.

So the war is about oil. That is why we moved so quickly to control the oil fields. The war is multi-faceted.

Some of the motives in making this war about oil are not crass and designed for profit. But the oil is there and it is of tremendous importance.

I read an interesting editorial in a Pakistani online paper (I can't seem to find a link right now). The author proposed an alternative spin on this debate question.

Basically, the editorial stated that we are in Iraq to secure the oil, but not for the sole reason most think (to establish true American hegemony because we would be in control of such a vast resource of oil). An additional reason we are REALLY going for Iraq's oil is so that we can have a stable resource for when we go after our TRUE enemy - Saudi Arabia.

The article said the true enemy of the US is Saudi Arabia; primarily due to the fact that fifteen out of nineteen 9/11 hijackers had Saudi citizenship. However, we can not go after such a rich and powerful nation until we have a sound resource of oil. Iraq's oil was the easiest to go after and thus, that was the route we chose.

Now, I'm not saying I'm buying what this Pakistani editorial is selling, but it is an interesting spin on why we may REALLY be fighting in Iraq right now.

I'd buy that Jaime - interesting slant. Though I wouldn't say the "enemy" thing has much to do with the nationalities of the hijackers - the Bush administration doesn't seem to give a damn about the hijackers (or bin Laden or al-Qaeda - or combatting terror at all, for that matter). While it could look good in the media, the White House may already have missed its chance to play the hijacker card against the Saudis. I imagine the excuse they'll use for this one is that the House of Saud wants the US military off their turf once the Bush regime is done with Iraq.

But even if having a stable resource while waging war against Saudi Arabia is a factor, that doesn't mean that this "war" is not also about establishing American hegemony. Becoming "a Middle Eastern power" - the PNAC/Bush-Cheney agenda - would ultimately involve controlling not only Iraqi oil fields, but also Saudi oil fields. And, obviously, taking out Syria, Iran, and Sudan, as well (and - why not? - probably Libya as well). Becoming a Middle Eastern power necessarily entails not only making the world safe for Israel, but also securing the petro-dollar against the petro-euro and funnelling the flow of the world's fossil fuels through American corporations (a.k.a. Friends of Bush).

So: the war is about oil - quite possibly for the reasons that Jaime cites as well as the larger, hegemonic reasons. Oil is obviously not the ultimate goal here, though, just a stepping stone to world domination.

Interesting except for the fact that Saudi's army is about a tenth the size of Iraq's. AND we have troops there already. The problem with Saudi Arabia is the political one, since we have been "allies" for awhile now. Also because Saudi Arabia is home to most of the holy places of Islam. I think we would really have a jihad result from invading there.



You contradict yourself Wertz, then you state a goal that is already a reality (at least militarily and economically, if not politically).

Oil is the ONLY resource the Iraqis will have post-war. We are protecting their infrastructure, why not their resources. It boggles my mind the twisted reasons and behind the scenes motivations that people attribute to our government. Did it ever strike anyone on the left that GWB wants to do the RIGHT thing?

Don't get too frustrated AM. The majority of people in the US understand and support what we are trying to do. They recognize the dangers in today's world and realize that we must do things differently than we have in the past.

Most of those people are not on sites like this, nor in the streets. They are going about their daily lives knowing they have the leadership in place to do what needs to be done. They are silently nodding their heads in agreement each and every day.

I have to disagree with you, considering U.S. and Pakistani forces recently caught Khaleed Sheik Mohammed, who is widely considered to be Bin Laden's # 3 guy. Capture of Mohammed We are also garnering a lot of info from him and the things we found in his house. I think that is a big win in the war on terror.

Also, at the same time we started the air campaign in Bagdhad, the US launched a raid on Al Qaeda camps all over Afghanistan with about 1000 troops.
Raid
Raids
To say the Bush admin. cares nothing about catching Al Qaeda is not true. Considering how spread out these guys are, I think the US is doing a great job.

AM, although I do not swing as far out as Wertz in base motives that I aspire for this war, I do in fact worry that Bush thinks this is the right thing to do and the right way to go about it.

Conceding that he thinks the war is the right thing to do, I think it is naive to think that he is not going to try to extract some benefits for America beyond the perceived gains in the War on Terror.

Tell me honestly that you think the cabinet of CEOs in Washington is not going to aid Haliburton in securing contracts in Iraq post-war.

I'm not sure where you're finding a contradiction. Oil is the goal in Iraq, but not the ultimate goal in the region. And which goal is already a reality - that we already control Iraq's oil fields or that our hegemony has already made us "a Middle eastern power"?

I can't speak for everyone on the left, but no: not me. It has never occurred to me for an instant that GWB would ever want to do the RIGHT thing for anyone but himself, his family, and his cabal of corporate sponsors. I'm afraid I'm just way too educated about George W Bush, the rest of the depraved Bush dynasty, and their scurrilous history to entertain such a ludicrous notion for one single second - and oil has played at least a supporting role in their machinations for generations.



This is not a Casual Conversation thread, MftM. You have absolutely no foundation whatsoever for this rather maudlin sentiment. I could just as easily state that, while those who support the "war" number about as many as those who don't among the people I know (and I know a lot of people - from all walks of life and of every political stripe), a good 75% of them deeply mistrust our leadership - and that number is growing rather than diminishing. The fact that I can make such a statement - and be telling the truth - similarly means absolutely nothing (though at least I'm speaking from real experience). Not to mention the fact that the "we are not worthy of this god-like leadership" rubber-stamp which you seem to be applying to every one of your postings these days isn't even remotely related to the topic - not that that's ever bothered you.



While this kinda links to why one might argue that the "war" is not about oil, to fully respond would take me too far off topic. Feel free to take this up with me in another thread, though.

The foundation you seek is found in virtually every poll taken in the past week. The majority of Americans support the war.

The rest of your post directed at me is a personal attack.

Your claim was that "a majority" has some sort of faith in our "leadership" - and, while you seem to place far more stock in polls than I do, that hypothesis has not been born out in any poll I've seen - ever. I still fail to see what this has to do with whether the Iraqi campaign has anything to do with oil or not. An observation of fact, btw, can hardly be construed as a personal attack.

Now: Would anyone mind if we actually got back to the topic here? Or are we just going to allow Musing from the Middle to derail yet another thread?

People will think what they want to think but considering all the talk of American companies, and Halliburton in general, this seems to fuel the controversy over what role the Iraqi oil fields play in the war. The government is certainly not wasting any time in spreading around the new wealth from a war not yet won...

Halliburton: to the winner goes the spoils...

The relationship between polling American support for this war and whether it is about oil is apparent. Especially in response to a post that raised the issue of ulterior motives being attributed to the President.

Every current poll shows Americans to be in support of this war. While I don't care much for polling data either, you asked for a 'foundation' and you got it.

GET THIS BACK ON TOPIC NOW OR STRIKES WILL BE ISSUED.

Question to debate: Is this war REALLY about oil?

Halliburton will be one of the companies to reconstruct Iraqi oil wells. This is different from having rights to the oil itself.

This war isn't about oil, but it makes for a good, mindless talking point. If President Bush wanted to make a bundle of dough for his evil oil cronies (Dick Cheney, Montgomery Burns, the guy on the Monopoly Box, etc.), he could have simply lifted the sanctions and increased oil imports from Iraq.

Halliburton will benefit much more directly from the contracts it secures as a result of the war than it would have under French or Russian contracts for the production of Iraqi oil.

Companies bid on rebuilding Iraq Halliburton, Bechtel benefit from experience and political ties

This USA Today article shows that the spoils process has already begun.
I guess this is a mindless talking point article.

As the article documents, these companies $3 million dollars in campaign comtributions since 1998 seem to be paying off wonderfully.

It is about the oil... but oil isn't just about stock holdings and profit. It's also about power.

The 30-Year Itch: American strategy and oil


It's a well researched and well written article. There is much more than what I have quoted... so, if it at all interests you, I highly recommend reading the article in its entirity.

Just to play devil's advocate here, the author predicts "its [the Persian Gulf's] strategic importance is likely to grow exponentially in the next 20 years." It seems the author presumes there will be no advances on the alternative fuel front, which I find hard to believe, since we're already seeing new hybrid vehicle designs, ideas for vehicles powered by hydrogen, even compressed air. It seems shortsighted to me to make such a sweeping remark when we have two decades of automotive technology advances between then and now. The author also (apparently) presumes to know where all the oil in the world is located, when in fact, new oil supplies are being located all the time (assuming we choose to access them). An interesting read, but I wouldn't be too quick to accept it as gospel.

New oil deposits are expensive to prospect and extract, especially in regions like the Hibernia Oil Field. It takes hundreds of millions of dollars in investment and years in capital development.

As for alternative fuel development... I fail to see how we will make great progress in twenty years when there has been almost no progress in the last 50.

I believe it is about oil.

Ultimate Joe,



The potential of replacing oil with hydrogen is strong. The trick is figuring out how best to crack hydrogen from some type of H molecule. Natural gas is being looked at as a source, but eventually it will be water, I do believe, with the electricity for the cracking operation coming from geothermal sources.

So we take the oil drilling tech, apply it to geothermal, generate yodawatts of juice, crack a bunch of sea water, extract minerals from the salts, zoom about in our monster SUVs made out of the minerals and running 80 mph on hydrogen, and crank up Green Green by the New Christy Minstrels (yeah, I know, who are they?) on the stereo.

It is too bad that US industry hasn't been more enthusiastic about alternative fuels, but this is slowly changing. Perhaps this war will accelerate the process.

As far as alternative fuel sources go, how many nations are there capable of pursuing them? And how many would actually have the technology and resources to produce these alternatives if they did have the knowledge of how to do so...?

Until there is an alternative fuel source, America and every other nation is still dependant on oil. And while America and some other fully industrialized nations might be capable of pursuing alternative sources, there is still a vast majority that cannot. Perhaps America will free itself from its need for oil in the next 20 years, but that doesn't help the other nations. If we can control the oil, we'll have the power. Not much has ever stopped the dealer from keeping his or her clients addicted, right...?

As the article pointed out, most of the oil in the region is nationalized. An outside power (such as the U.S.) can't control the oil without control of the country if it's nationalized; it needs privatization. And while it hasn't been stated officially, the push seems to be to privatize the oil in Iraq once this "war" is finished.

If the United States were to gain a stronger foothold in the Middle East, with an especially strong influence in both Iraq and Saudi Arabia, the United States then has that much more influence over most other nations in the world. We'll have improved our military positioning throughout the world and have an almost direct impact on the economic futures of other nations. It would be in the best interest of everybody to align themselves with the United States or at least refrain from openly opposing us -- in anything.

Another bit from the article:
Bold type added for emphasis

There arealternative fuel sources right now, nuclear,coal,natural gas, hydrogen, wind, solar, ethanol, water, etc., they just are not as efficient as oil at this time.

Alternative yes... but clearly not yet viable. And there are still many nations unable to implement any of those forms in even the most remedial fashion. For the next couple of decades, at least, control over oil is going to result in extended international power -- both economically and militarily.

We've been going off into this tangential area of alternative fuels, but so far it's been somewhat insular. If the US stopped using oil tomorrow it would still be one of the single most powerful resources to control - along with water. The developing world is not going to be "off" oil for a long time to come, barring someone coming up with something unforeseeably revolutionary. From an economic standpoint, controlling a resource like oil would be beneficial to the US even if, as I said, we ourselves used none of it.

And let's not forget water, particularly in the Middle East. The Tigris and the Euphrates are very important water sources, not just for Iraq, but for the whole region. And lest we think the Palestinians are really going to get a fair shake at nation-building, remember that the aquifer which supplies Israel with half of its fresh water lies under the West Bank...

I have a suggestion which should keep the topic on track and make it easier to reach a conclusion.

Since oil is not the stated objective of the countries involved in the war, it seems to me the burden of proof is on those who believe the war is for oil. My main problem is that I have not yet seen anyone actually lay out the case for this theory. That would be very helpful, in my opinion.

turnea,

Gee, I was thinking the same thing from the other point of view. Nobody has come up with convincing arguments that oil is not the prime motivation.

True, the stated objectives are not about oil. So we are to trust what our politicians say now? Why?

I think the evidence is so obvious that little needs to be put forward. However, I can pose this question: Why would we be interested in Iraq if it had no oil? Arguments about 9/11 and terrorism have been tried, but the US has been interested in Iraq for decades.

Why?

It's been a while since I've argued about the structure of a debate but...


The side arguing that the war is about oil, by definition introduces the theory that "the war is about oil." Since the opposing side does not introduce a theory of it's own about the causes of the war, it seems to me that it is up to the side which introduces a theory to support it, not up to the side which disagrees with a theory to disprove it seeing as the "proof" the theory has not yet been laid out.

Also, I believe it is important to keep in mind the question posed in the topic post of this thread. That is what must be answered.

I hope that run-on sentence makes some sense

The notion that we would even consider going to war "for oil" is ridiculous and based purely on emotion.

To this point, I haven't seen any proof of any sort in this thread that even resembles a strong case for those who believe that this war is for oil. I have, however, seen quite a bit of unfounded emotions, and quite a bit of superfluous, exorbitant, profuse, supererogatory adjectives.

Neal Boortz brought up a great point in the few moments I caught his show the other day.

If we really wanted to go to war for oil, why would we go to Iraq? There are many negatives about attacking Iraq for oil, the largest of which involves getting the billions of Arabic people mad at us. Logistics dictate that, were we to attack for oil, we would want to attack the closest supplier, thereby making it much easier to transport the oil to the states.

If we were in fact going to war "for oil", we would be attacking Venezuala.

Venezuela is populated by Hispanics, who typically have a bit less hatred for America than Arabs, and our president speaks their language fluently.

Logistically, it is much easier to transport oil from Venezuela to the US.

Venezuela recently underwent multiple coup attempts against President Hugo Chavez. If America's true interest was in oil, would we not have sent the military down there to quash the coups and protect our interests?

It is interesting to me that the folks who are vocally insisting this war is about oil are the same folks who, prior to the war, were already completely against anything Bush proposed. Maybe they should change their mantra to "No war under Bush" instead of "No war for oil".

Let's at least be honest.

Mike

Okay, I'll bite.

In the red corner we have "War is about oil"
...and in the blue corner we have ties to Al-Qaida, violations of human rights, a threat to American interests and (almost the same as previous) the threat of WMDs.

So far the CIA hasn't understood the stance that there are ties to Al-Qaida. Even more telling -- considering this is from the CIA -- they haven't even tried to make something up yet.

The violations of human rights certainly aren't anything new. I believe there have been photos recently pulled from the archive where Rumsfeld (who today calls for Iraqi liberation mind you) is shaking the hand of Saddam Hussein at a time when the use of gas/chemical warfare was a daily occurrence in the country.

I suppose we could try the threat to American interests, but what makes Iraq more of a threat than North Korea? We know North Korea has the nukes and are making more. We've even caught North Korea selling Scuds within the last year or so. They've threatened to attack us and insist on test firing missiles that we believe can reach the West Coast. But, somehow, Iraq is a bigger threat necessitating the use of some 300,000+ troops.

And then there are the WMDs (aka: weapons of mass distraction). So far they're as suspect as 3/4 of our "Coalition of the Willing." We say they have them; they say they don't. It's playground politics and all we're doing is fighting with a bigger stick. This is about the only argument the administration can hope to rely on and it's still up in the air. (let's not forget we had to fib and fudge just to even create resolution 1441...)

It seems to me that the administration has put forth a number of other reasons, none of which seem to hold up. The case for oil being a prime motive doesn't necessarily have solid evidence either, but it hasn't collapsed and seems strengthened daily. We're already putting in motion the necessary actions to try privatizing the oil industry in Iraq once the war is over. I've posted an article on page 2 of this forum thread towards the end if you'd like to read a more comprehensive idea on the war for oil stance.

Remember, it isn't about oil for our SUVs and such. It's also about having more control on the international stage with a better grip on one of the most precious resources. The article sums it up well, in my opinion anyway...

Still no concrete proof this war is for oil, huh?

Five paragraphs addressing why it isn't for reasons other than oil, and then one stating, "Read some other stuff to find out what I'm talking about", none of which contain concrete reasons for why this war is "for oil". Heck, one of the sources is an organization who claims to have a "commitment to social justice", but fail to mention the 600,000+ kids who have died in Iraq in the past four thousand three hundred and some odd days. Yeah, that seems like a legitimate source to me.

If this was truly a war "for oil", the reasons would be concrete and tangible. Unfortunately for the "no war for oil" crowd, these reasons are not concrete or tangible.

...and, again, if we were interested in fighting a war "for oil", we'd probably pick an easier target, and certainly not one that may create a holy war with opposition in the billions of people.

Let's face it-- anyone who is saying this war is for oil is merely speculating, and nothing more.

Mike

1. I'll agree with you there, so why believe it?

2. Let's not forget that this is what this thread is about...


How could it collapse? The case was never made to begin with.
"Strengthened daily" eh? Repeated mention of the same rebuilding contracts isn't exactly a daily strengthening.


Evidence?

I feel like I am beating a dead horse having to constantly refer back to the same websites that I've cited in numerous other posts that I'm sure regular contributors have seen... so, once again, I refer you to the article from the Project for a New American Century: Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century (September 2000) document. This particular think-tank has direct ties to minor role players in our foreign policy and national defense like Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, his secretary Paul Wolfowitz and some chap by the name of Dick Cheney. The document mentioned also played a key role in our National Security Strategy for the Bush administration.

If you don't feel up to downloading the document (.pdf format) there is an article about the document HERE.

Now previously I referred to the article The 30-year Itch (offering reasons why we would choose Iraq over Venezuela, as Mike suggests), which has been labeled as mere speculation. Clearly since the author doesn't have direct access to the minds and motives of our top officials, a degree of speculation is to be expected. Given the PNAC document, however, I'm not sure how it can be said the speculation isn't justified.

We have military strategists and other officials of power outlining how we need a bigger role in the Gulf in order to maintain U.S. pre-eminence and then the speculation of journalists that control over Iraqi oil (easily obtainable oil in the country holding the second largest proven oil reserves) would lead to better control of the international community. Apparently somebody feels we need a bigger role in the Middle East for our "pre-eminence" and it "transcends the regime of Saddam Hussein." Gotta admit though, he makes a good scape goat.

We already have bases in the Middle East, though. Why do we need a bigger role in the Middle East to maintain our pre-eminence? The article from Mr. Dreyfuss (The 30-year Itch) suggests it's about oil to hold more influence over the international community. It isn't about lowering gas prices here and making America happy, but controlling those nations who might attempt to rival America economically or challenge us militarily.

Of course there has to be some speculation. And yes, I said there wasn't any concrete evidence. That isn't to say there isn't evidence supporting this position. I'm sure there are other documents like the PNAC article out there. What's that other think-tank where some of the other administration advisers came from? American Enterprise Institute? I've heard they have similar documents which get fed directly into the White House (as with PNAC). If I find more, I'll be sure to direct them here for review. But as long as there are documents like that, and the arguments being put forth via the media are crumbling or never substantiated in the first place, the "war for oil" argument can't (IMO) be dismissed as easily as many may like -- if at all.

Good post Abs. Looks like clear and convincing evidence that oil has something to do with this war. Iraq is an important nation in that is has a large amount of oil and that it possesses weapons that can threaten the region in which much of the world's oil exists.

Oil is the most important natural resource in the world right now. The thought that this war doesn't have anything to do with oil seems pretty commonsensical to me and I have seen repeated posts referring to proof that present members of our administration and advisors to our administration believe that it is in the United States best interest to play a more dominant role in the region. Alternative fuel is not here yet and it is not on the immediate horizon. Oil = power today.

This war is not only about oil as I had posted earlier, but oil plays a major factor. It does become more obvious as we watch the progress of the war. Why would securing the Iraqi oil-fields have been one of the first objectives of the war? Why are we maneuvering the reconstruction to have American for-profit companies dominating the contract system?

Just as an update...


Halliburton misses $600m Iraq contract

A helpful update.
If I might, I'd like to draw attention to other parts of the article that weren't quoted:



So we want the UN to deal with humanitarian aid and the costs that go with it. But we want American companies -- largely compaign contributors -- to profit from the rebuilding of Iraqi industry. That works our rather nicely. I know some people have shorter memories than others, but I do believe there was mention of American interest in privatization earlier in this thread.
[Edited] We don't have to "colonize" Iraq to get control over their resources and strengthen our position in international affairs. All we have to do is privatize the industry and ensure contracts for American corporations. If any nationalistic fervor stands in the way, we can just send military forces to secure corporate interests (as we helped Occidental Petroleum in Columbia), rather than national security.

Posted on Mar 31 2003, 02:14 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Oh no, blows the Halliburton conspiracy theory up...

The PNAC argument...it has merits, as a matter of policy. It states, very clearly, the goals and methods proposed for acheiving them. However, it sucks as a conspiracy theory. It's out there in the public. Anyone can read it, without even having to search hard.

From the Mother Jones article...

I would submit that if oil were really SO important to America's global dominance, we would be opening up the ANWR oil exploration. Becoming less dependant on others is more of a goal than controlling the global oil supply.

Another quote


1st question...why Gulf oil? Because it is abundant? Controlling Iraq (if that's what we're up to) would help us somewhat, but would certainly not give us any kind of strangle hold on a world economy that functions perfectly well without much Iraqi oil. The articles seems to equate controlling Iraqi oil with controlling all the Gulf's oil.

2nd question...why not just conquer all opposing nations? If hegemony is the goal, why not create situations where we could lawfully conquer and annex other countries? It could be done by such a cabal, certainly (tongue in cheek here).



I guess honored statesman Jimmy Carter is a member of the cabal...

I will admit that developments have happened in the Gulf over the last 30 years. But they have happened elsewhere as well, such as Eastern Europe. Oil IS important to US interests, but the article points out...


Its about controlling others..

Call me a skeptic, but I just don't buy it.

EDIT to reply to Abs...



I guess PR is worth billions and billions these days...



Gotta check which administration members have ties to Stevedoring....

When I posted the CNN/MONEY link regarding the Halliburton contract (which they did get), I wasn't establishing a scenario soley around Halliburton. I do believe I referred to "American companies":


And, lemme see here, part of the link provided by Turnea which is viewed to "blow up" my "conspiracy theory" (again, not limited to Halliburton had my post been read closely) goes on to say:

Bold, italicized text edited for emphasis

[Edited for further reply to Amlord below]

To Question #1:

Bold, italicized text again edited for emphasis
And to Question #2: This strategy is in effect a conquering of other nations. Why do it with military force though if you can simply control their supply routes and direct them economically? Random military attempts at conquer throughout the world would provoke international reaction. It's much easier to attack a single nation and strengthen our hold through control of essential resources -- resources which will increase in importance over the next couple of decades.

Another situation is starting to bubble and may help illuminate the issue. A group of Iraqi people who are pro-democracy and were kicked out of the country by Saddam wants to run the rebuilding of Iraq.

Will the Bush administration resist this situation? I sense great debates to come.

I think it is good news that Halliburton did not win these contracts. I am not at all saddened that this company with too close of a relationship with our administration did not get the bid in this situation. I'll take this momentary good news and not harp about anything negative.

"Clear and convincing"

What we have are documents suggesting that figures connected with the administration (or rather PNAC) feel than Iraq's oil is important to US hegemony (all while conspicuously skipping over the Clinton administration's policy on Iraq) and this is clear and convincing evidence that the war in Iraq's primary goal in control over Iraqi oil?

Even disregarding the apparent bias does not change the fact that this argument is speculation (the administration officials feels US control of Iraqi is vital to US hegemony) upon speculation (they would risk their own political careers and the favor of their unconvinced oil-company sponsors just for the knowledge that they were aiding US preeminence).

That, in my opinion, is a long way away from clear and convincing evidence.

[Bold, italics edited]

Perhaps there hasn't been discussion over the Clinton administration in this regard because the PNAC document was drafted in September, 2000, by people connected with the Bush administration. It's this document that paints the picture of Iraq being necessary for "American pre-eminence" and which is being carried out by the Bush administration -- not Clinton's. Just a thought.

My problem with that is the articles discussing the PNAC document do not merely deal with the current administration. One of them (The 30-Year Itch) Goes into a review of past US policy in Iraq (Reagan, Bush Sr.) while completely skipping over the Clinton administration, as if they hadn't launched strikes against Iraq.

Where are it's ideologues? Who in the Clinton administration felt Iraq was important to US preeminence? Why would the article not mention Clinton's policy at all?

Important questions which need to be addressed in order to evaluate the credibility of the article.

The Clinton administration is dealt with in The 30-year Itch.

In "Step Three" of the article:


The decade after the war belonged to the Clinton administration... and then-Defense Secretary William Cohen was part of the Clinton administration in 1995, correct?

Abs Like Jesus:
I see...

Replace "ignores Clinton administration" with "possibly vaguely refers to Clinton administration and ignores Desert Fox" in my argument and this still raises question of bias.