The above statement presupposes that oil was the deciding factor is going to war.

Which remains an assumption.


Not random, targeted counters to fallacious arguments.


I've noted this before but it seems some people have a very simplistic idea of the oil industry. Within the industry there are many services that an "oil company" can provide.

Halliburton (or rather the subsidiary in question Kellog, Brown & Root))

specializes in construction and engineering.

From their website.


So there contracts were for reconstruction of oil facilities, which given them no control over the oil themselves. They are (very specialized) fix-it men.



I am something of an information addict, consequently I was aware of both these stories already although I read them in other sources.

I love the Guardian, but they are certainly biased. The first quote you mentioned was taken straight form a letter from a democratic congressman who has a political interest in finding impropriety.

I would counter that is the Pentagon wanted to hid the evidence of kick-backs they wouldn't order an investigation. There have been several already and some are ongoing.

Either way, such chump change as that given to KBR is again not something to go to war over.

The $8.8bn number came from an investigation started by US officials again why would they investigate if they want to hide it?

The CPA audit is also in progress. Early in the war large amounts of money were spread out quickly to aid reconstruction. Accounting was clearly unsatisfactory.
Iraq agency 'run like Wild West'
The article also notes that even larger sums of money allocated remained unspent. That sounds less like corruption and more like confusion.

You will not that there is no indication that most of that $8.8bn went to US companies.


More....

Practically, about the same. AKA nil. There is not invasion of KSA or Iran forthcoming and they know it very well. Which is why they did raise prices for some time.
Lets get the assumption stuff over and done with.

I added the emphasis to note the irony. Bush would have had tons of money for the campaign without the war...

and he would have avoided the toughest campaign issue resulting in virtually guaranteed victory.

If Bush was trying to secure re-election he would not have invaded Iraq.


It sure is. Mrs. P has already pointed out that foreign companies have made even bigger gains over the course of the war. Care to place a ballpark figure for how much US companies that donated to Bush gained due to the war?

Companies that would have donated anyway (they have donated to Republican campaign for years).

I read all your reply, and i come out the other side still not seeing any undermining of the suggestion put forward that the companies now milking Iraq have directly benefited from the result of war. No counter to the corruption, nor to the billions of dollars being casually lost by companies directly involved in one form or other of contracts regarding Iraqs oil. I don't see Halliburton investigating the claims. There are necessarily groups that will investigate... don't kid me that its the people who take the money that are investigating themselves!

Since you won't actually offer more than one by one counter of one assertion (with evidence that you don't accept) with an unbased assertion of your own, please direct me your own well-supported theory. Or don't you have one after all? It is easy to pick holes in one or two points in an argument (not that it derails it) but offer one yourself... or direct a link to a previous (later than 2001) argument.

edited to add:

... and i'll read it tomorrow!

I do not argue that companies have not benefitted, clearly the fact that reconstruction projects are given is directly due to the war.

You know that this is a bit misleading. "involved with Iraq's oil" could mean hundreds of things. This does not mean they received any Iraqi oil money.

Nor have you posted evidence of companies casually losing "billions". You posted evidence of one country overcharging millions. Not that this is unimportant, just point that out.

As for the billions, these were supposedly misused by the CPA which is auditing itself. Does this sound like corruption, an organization which tells the world it mishandled billions of dollars?
Audit Website


So who's kidding?

My theory has nothing to do with an Oil war, wich is why I won't argue it here. I may start a topic on it soon (since the demand is so high). It is rather obvious since it is the story we have been given all along with a small twist.

I leave it the Bill Clinton to explain.

Genis....we've never denied that some US companies benefited from the war. What we're not seeing is that that's what drove it to happen. Especially not just for the oil companies...and ESPECIALLY not just for the oil service companies. KBR is the largest such service company on earth. They do multi-billion projects all the time. It's not like we needed to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to create a 'false' market for them, to garner a few projects. Would have been a lot easier to just have them construct some bases or something in the US, or elsewhere in the world, don't you think?

Well, the police and army have an arm that audits their actions. Doesn't stop members of the police and army from being corrupt. Will the people that pocketed money here and there be made personally to pay it back, or just the company as a whole?



You're right of course, i said billions rather than hundreds of millions. Typo. However, the existance of some seriously dodgy accounting (to assume innocence), and the other reported mass corruption of contract tending in Iraq, means that money could very easily have been the reason for war. Money, greed. What more likely reason? I wanted to believe that the reason was just to protect the world, but I don't believe it would have been enough to spend the millions / billions needed.

Thing is, who do these millions for going to war get paid to? Foreign countries, or domestic companies? The money just washes back around the system. In this case, more money has entered the system, and more millions flow to friendly domestic companies. These are millions that company directors make personally. They may have to resign if dubious accounting has played a part, but having made millions do they care (or pay the money back) or do they move on to another big pay packet elsewhere, or even into politics when they've made enough?

My premise has been the fact that the spending on war goes mostly to US companies. The proceeds of war will also go to further line these friendly pockets. Business and politics are happy bedfellows, and if politics will allow business to further its own ends regardless of environmental, health, or safety concerns, why should we doubt that, since war supports the US economy and thus the presidential position, that Oil war be so unreasonable. You can be sure that if it would have costed Bush position, or the country money, it would NOT have happened in so expensive a way. Kosovo springs to mind. No real monetary gains to be made, so virtually the entire US side was laser-guided bombs, not expensive ground troops.

My assertion is that although the overall reason for war was to secure position in the region and tackle terrorism, it would NOT have happened had the benefits of being the priority nation in the Oil refining process (from construction, to mining to refining) not been present. Thus, the Oil was the reason that war happened, it was the driving force.
Although it sounds like a college paper to say so , I believe my conclusion is supported by the facts.

N.B.
What was it, 10 new US bases in Iraq are going to be set up? And yet it has been said on this threat that the US has no intention of directing the Iraqi government at all; just as the bases in Germany were not to ensure that Germany kept to the rules? i.e. a threat in their back yard...

edited to add:
Turnea, had a quick look at the report you linked to; one of the first things it says is "therefore, this report does not address the CPA management or use of US appropriated funds... we limited the scope to review procedures and controls to only DFI funds provided to the interim Iraqi government..."
They're not really taking that close a look at their activities after all, just how well they implemented controls over DFI spending ("dispursements"). If anything this supports my earlier comments that the US had direct controls over the interim Iraqi government, regarding how much and to whom the contracts and spending went. All this report seems to be looking at is whether the controls were adequate, not why the money went to the parties it did.

Only if the new Iraq government permits it. The US currently has about 800 military installations in numerous foreign countries around the globe. Do we control the resources of those countries?

I'd imagine not, although the continuing need and purpose for these are increasingly questioned.

but clearly the US appointed interim authority HAS had control. The control passed (or is passing) over, but the control was under US jurisdiction.

I think you undervalue the effect of having foreign military bases dotted over your country; not going to go down that discussion line again {shudder} but i'd struggle to believe it would fail to have some political effects.

I'm not sure how misused funds will be reclaimed. That said the link I posted was mostly character evidence.

An organization supposedly intended to facilitate corruption likely would not have been required by its own internal rules to hunt said corruption down and seek recompense.

Then I will test that premise soon, meanwhile you may find it hard to believe that the war was not about money for US companies. I see the opposite, as Hobbes said if that was al it was about other projects could have been found for them, say in Afghanistan.

It would have avoided a political issue that may very well have cost Bush the election for all he knew, as well as a long diplomatic ordeal since it was pretty much agreed we were within our rights to invade Afghanistan.


Possibly because that was all it took. The Iraqi army was not going to dissolve purely in the face of bombings.

...and I think the bombs are actually more expensive than the ground troops though certainly not more valuable.


The report?

I linked to a page full of reports, you just referenced the first one. Some of the other reports do in fact show that the CPA did audit it's own activities.

..and yes the CPA did audit the funds that the US donated to to Interim government just to see if they were used properly. It doesn't mean we had control over them.

Why? We have examples of this currently world-wide. Military bases do not equate to political control.

If we go down that line you don't choose an obviously corrupt company to hide corruption. That would be a red flag. You choose one that seems to audit itself, yet what will happen to that 100 million (from that one example), i wonder. Will it be returned? Will it my posterior...


Why? are they going to get more deeply involved in Heroin rather than the easy option of oil? Of all the oil country options, Iraq was by far the easiest and cleanest to target.


Horse for courses... Its a reasonable argument up to a point, but the techology existed previously and wasn't used, and existed for more use this time too. There was a specific need to be clean with Kosovo - to go in with troops would have been the political suicide you think (i feel mistakenly) this invasion of Iraq was.

The US military is the most technologically advanced. There were no US deaths from the Kosovo blitz, and although laserbombs are sure to be expensive, the money goes straight to US companies, so its no real loss. The bombs already exist - they weren't commissioned specially.


Yes, it was a list. I took the first in the list, which was the most relevant to the current discussion, to the point being discussed. You want me to read a full page of reports?

http://www.cpa-ig.com/pdf/dfi_ministry_report.pdf



I know that you'll take this to say "there were no controls", but what it says was that there weren't enough controls. Since it has been reported that this money has been disbursed through critised and investigated poor process with regards to contract making and competition (going to US favoured companies), and that the Interim government were put in place by the US government, it seems amazingly coincident and good luck that no direct link will even be looked at in this audit report, upon which you put such faith, to the Coalition Provisional Authority (in power in June 28 2004).

Yet, this 8.8 billion dollars being looked at was supposedly spent only by the interim Iraqi Government? in just under 8 months? a billion a month, allowed to pass through without alarms or earlier investigation? And none of it was spent by the Coalition authority?


Then you wouldn't mind having some Russian and Chinese bases in the USA. Its about having a foot in the area, and enabling the threat that comes with it, not direct control. The presence of military forces influences political decisions, especially in a country with so week a government as Iraq.

edited to add a link.

There's a quid pro quo to having military bases within a country. US bases are installed at the behest of the host country, and enter into a joint treaty to ensure each party fulfills its obligation under that treaty (and to ensure the protection of military members as well). If they don't want us, we don't place our bases there. I don't think the US government is going to invite Russians or Chinese to place their bases in our country. If it does, I would place the blame and responsibility on our government. I wouldn't blame the Chinese or Russians.

Assumptions, Assumptions.

Actually I believe Afghanistan has natural gas. In any case it was just an example.

It would be impossible to prove that the war was not to benefit US companies(that said the burden of proof is on the affirmative), but the point is that the cost is much higher than the benefit for the adminstration.
Edited to Add:

Afghanistan Fact Sheet


The first was not the most relevant and I don't see how you came to that conclusion.
I posted that link in response to an article you quoted that claimed the CPA spent Iraqi oil money.

If that's your line then the report that have to do with the contracting process(it's there) or seized assets(there again) or Oil-for-Food funds.
, etc.

would all be more relevant than a repot on the spending of the Interim government.

I didn't expect you to read all the reports, just to interpret the title to realize that many of them did, in fact, refer to audit of the CPA on itself.


The Interim government was not put in place by the US government. In fact the US choices for leadership positions were rejected by the Iraqi Governing Council.



Again, not one report, many and more to come.


No, that number came from one of the reports on the CPA.

It was spent by the CPA and the CPA also admitted it was mismanaged.

Just screams corruption doesn't it?


Although I would not welcome foreign bases in the US (unless we were to need the help at some point like Iraq does) I would not jump to the conclusion that they exert political influence.

The presence of military forces does not influence decisions, we still have bases in Germany, one of our biggest critics.

then rather than just coming out with that non-argument and non-counter, offer me some facts if you have some... ARE they paying the money back? Or are they just being told off?


How many times must i say the same thing? The administration doesn't lose money... the military budget pays the military costs, the money goes back to US companies again in the costs of war, while the additional money goes to the businesses outlined ad nauseum. Before the invasion, due to US policy, these companies were getting nothing. Now they are getting billions (some of which is recouping the "charity" donations to the Iraqi fund). Show me something to undermine the obvious link.


Oh i'm sorry. I thought we had invaded Afghanistan too... I guess we'll just have left it completely alone and moved on, right? Leaving peace and a strong democratic government to its own devices... with no touching the reserves outlined above, and no different an availablility than existed with the Taliban in power.


How is a report on Oil for food more relevant than the spending of the Interim government. You suggested this as a support for their auditing. As i said, it is clear that its auditing is not as thorough as you'd suggest. I look at one report, the first, and the most recent and most obviously relevant to Iraq, and the width and depth of the audit objectives already undermines the grounds on which you claim their auditing to be so thorough. It had nothing to do with the CPA auditing itself regarding the actual spending of that money, just how well they controlled the Interim governments spending in the 6 months from 30th June 2004 up to the publishing date of January 2005. And they failed, badly. The checks were clearly very inadequate. Saying this of themselves, and failing to punish those involved doesn't change much. They're just being open about their failings both to manage and to respond to the problems. If I audited my taxes like that i'd be crucified.

Also, if one group, whom you claim to have so small a part in this discussion, Halliburton, overcharged by more than 100 million dollars, and that the CPA checks were convieniently inadequate during this time it is not unreasonable to wonder what other overcharging and dispersement of said funds went on. There have been numerous reports of corruption, of paying off high ranking military personel within the coalition, for contracts. And yet you'd continue to say that this has little to do with money, but only with peace and anti-terrorism?

The logic is clear. It is more than wild and unfounded assumption.

In addition, to further undermine the strength of these audits, the report published in October 2004 says how this same CPA felt that their measures were correct and adequate. And yet the measures when applied to the interim Iraqi Government failed? Why did the approach change so much?


http://www.cpa-ig.com/pdf/dfi_ministry_report.pdf
So, no punishment for allowing corruption to affect the spending of the money, but they should do better next time (disregarding that they already knew what to do to involve adequate checks, according to the November 2004 audit report).




http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/TAL.html
Yup, clearly the CPA had no affect on the outcome, and the US as we know had no role over the CPA.


Indeed, not just no link even looked at in the audit, but no punishment for the clear failings either. That's a tough self-assessment. I want the CPA as my line manager.


well, no it wasn't spent by the CPA. "The CPA provided less than adequate controls for approximately $8.8 billion in DFI funds provided to Iraqi ministries..." The funds were managed or controlled by them either, and nor was the documentation kept regarding the spending deemed adequate. Well, that's a shame. No paper chain to the people who received it... fancy that.


The bases in Germany are some of the ones under scrutiny as to their reason for continued existance. And the point referred to weak governments like the Iraqi one. I cannot believe you are stating the military might does not influence countries' political decisions! What does that mean for US foreign policy? Is the threat of invasion and "regime change" now a joke?

For anyone not convinced that oil played a key role in the U.S. decision to invade and in its occupation policy and the subsequent insurgency, this story uncovered by Greg Palast and reported by the BBC and Harpers should serve to end speculation. The complete story will appear in the next Harpers. Be sure to look at the link to the photo copy of the State Department memo.

Greg Palast Scoop

Once you have contemplated the above, reconsider that statement of the oil union workers and its bearing on the insurgency in the following:

Oil Workers' Statement

"One brief excerpt from the Palast report to peak your curiosity:

Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.

An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat.

Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration."

I've been too busy to to in-depth research, but I will certainly check into that this weekend (Oh! Blessed Weekend).


Didn't you just say that "before the war these companies were getting nothing?" If this were about kickbacks and project the opportunity was there before the Iraq war.


Because from August 2003 til its dissolution the CPA (rather than the interim government) directly handled Oil-for-Food funds.


"Most relevant to Iraq?"

They're all about Iraq.

It is first because it is most recent... but since we we're talking about the CPA auditing itself and since the CPA ceased to exist about a year ago.

Perhaps the most recent is not the most relevant.


If that was your concern then the report entitled: "Coalition Provisional Authority's Contracting Processes Leading Up to and Including Contract Award"

Might have been a good one to look over, this has been neither ignored nor swept under the rug.

I don't find it hard to believe that the CPA had better control over funds appropriated by Congress than funds handled by the Iraqi government.


What does "consultation" mean to you exactly?

The CPA made suggestions, I implied this was true when I informed you that their suggestions were rejected. Neither Iyad Allawi nor Ghazi Al-Yawer were US picks.


Inadequate does not mean non-existent.

..and if these were funds provided to Iraqi ministries how does this fit in with the theory that US companies got millions in kickbacks.



The "threat" can have an effect, the US will not (nor can it, politically) threaten the Iraqi government whose election they just lauded with armed conflict.

It would be political and military suicide.


An interesting article but hardly a slam dunk.

It is no secret the the removal of Saddam Hussein has been official US policy since Bill Clinton signed it it law with the "Iraq Liberation Act."

Planning what to do in the face of that eventuality several years after that laws passage is not particularly abnormal.

The article also stated that "Big Oil" opposed the privatization so certainly the administration would not be in bed with Oil execs if this were true.

The theme of the Palast article is that there was a policy struggle between the Neocons and the oil executives and big oil won. That conclusion is a late development but the fact that planning for how to manage Iraqi oil (our oil under their sand) began well before 9/11/01. Couple the evidence in this article with the fact that the military took care to protect oil facilities and the oil ministry during the invasion but little else and its pretty obvious what was going on.

Bremer and his wrecking crew privatized much of the rest of the Iraqi state sector of the economy in direct violation of the Geneva Convention rules governing occupation powers. This helped to promote the insurgency. They wanted to privatize the oil industry too but were blocked by big oil that preferred, as the always have, that the oil on the market be managed (in this case by OPEC) rather than be subject to the vagaries of a total free market. The fact that they won the insider debate doesn't lessen the obvious conclusion that oil was the decisive factor for the invasion.

If I had a loved one in Iraq, I would be furious that his or her life had been endangered by these maneuvers to privatize. The invasion was illegal and ill advised. However, that said, some good could have been salvaged from it if the U.S. had held early elections, kept its hands off the economy, and withdrawn at the earliest opportunity.

The timing aspect of the argument is decidedly lack luster.

Of course plans to manage Iraqi oil were in place before 9/11. You article speaks of plans to oust Saddam in a coup in early 2001.

Clinton had already voiced support for such a thing back in the late 90's and was actively pushing for support in the region to launch a coup.

So this was hardly some neo-con venture.


Your assumption as to why. The reason is likely because of the state of disrepair that Iraqi oil fields were in.


Then you can rest at ease, plans to overthrow Iraq predated this little discussion over privatization by several years.
Edited to Add:
Here's a link to the full text of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
Iraq Liberation Act(PDF)

Also a HTML link for those without Acrobat.
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

Per GenesisBlade's request for information as to what would be done about overcharges, this may well give an idea.


Halliburton exec on fraud charges

Again a federal audit (this time by the Defense Contract Auditing Agency

fighting corruption rather than engaging in it.

You could say it's all a smokescreen

...at which point it would be up to the accuser to prove such an allegation.

I wish i had more time to go through this, but alas i don't (shouldn't even be here)... however...

[quote=turnea]Didn't you just say that "before the war these companies were getting nothing?" If this were about kickbacks and project the opportunity was there before the Iraq war. [/quote]
huh? the opportunity wasn't there at all! there were no deals being done with US companies. Regarding Afghanistan i would expect to find many US companies vying with the Russian and Chinese companies enjoying the opportunies following the removal of the Taliban. Just as they are with the removal of Saddam.

[quote=turnea]
[quote=GenesisBlade] 
How is a report on Oil for food more relevant than the spending of the Interim government.[/quote]
Because from August 2003 til its dissolution the CPA (rather than the interim government) directly handled Oil-for-Food funds. [/quote]
thus, it is relevant to that, but not to the issues regarding contracts and war.


[quote=GenesisBlade]You suggested this as a support for their auditing. As i said, it is clear that its auditing is not as thorough as you'd suggest. I look at one report, the first, and the most recent and most obviously relevant to Iraq,[/quote]
"Most relevant to Iraq?"

They're all about Iraq.

It is first because it is most recent... but since we we're talking about the CPA auditing itself and since the CPA ceased to exist about a year ago.

Perhaps the most recent is not the most relevant. [/quote]
nope, it is still the most relevant to the point being discussed. I looked through a few, but that weak auditing in the first and most recent reports, said plenty in the time I have available.

The CPA ceased to be in power on 29th June 2004. Not quite a year. None the less it was their measures that were inadequate for checking the spending, it was their failures and their responsibility.

[quote=turnea]
[quote=GenesisBlade]Also, if one group, whom you claim to have so small a part in this discussion, Halliburton, overcharged by more than 100 million dollars, and that the CPA checks were convieniently inadequate during this time it is not unreasonable to wonder what other overcharging and dispersement of said funds went on.[/quote]
If that was your concern then the report entitled: "Coalition Provisional Authority's Contracting Processes Leading Up to and Including Contract Award"

Might have been a good one to look over, this has been neither ignored nor swept under the rug. [/quote]
since which time a sneak view into the width and depth of the corruption regarding said contracts, awards and checks have come to light (in their own audit as well as elsewhere), somewhat undermining the now out-of-date report, and raising questions again the value of their self-audit.

[quote=turnea]
I don't find it hard to believe that the CPA had better control over funds appropriated by Congress than funds handled by the Iraqi government. [/quote]
clearly, but since it was their role to set in place such checks, by a provisional government (with 8.8bn dollars of US money to spend), i DO find it hard to believe (but not suprising, however) that the control was inadequate.

[quote=GenesisBlade] 
Yup, clearly the CPA had no affect on the outcome, and the US as we know had no role over the CPA.[/quote]
What does "consultation" mean to you exactly? [/quote]
depends who you consult. If I consult the head of communications for my company, rather than a temp staff member, i don't imagine ignoring their suggestions completely will do me much good. They had a major effect on the outcome, not just offering advice.

[quote=GenesisBlade]
well, no it wasn't spent by the CPA. "The CPA provided less than adequate controls for approximately $8.8 billion in DFI funds provided to Iraqi ministries..." The funds were managed or controlled by them either, and nor was the documentation kept regarding the spending deemed adequate. Well, that's a shame. No paper chain to the people who received it... fancy that.[/quote]
Inadequate does not mean non-existent.

..and if these were funds provided to Iraqi ministries how does this fit in with the theory that US companies got millions in kickbacks. [/quote]
well, according to reports they did. It was money that was supposed to be controlled and spending checked by a US lead coalition authority. Much better to be seen to fail to do your job (with no personal recriminations) than be held accountable for such corruption. Who better to allow to make such decisions than a weak government with money to burn, and oil to mine.


[quote=turnea]
[quote=GenesisBlade] 
The bases in Germany are some of the ones under scrutiny as to their reason for continued existance. And the point referred to weak governments like the Iraqi one. I cannot believe you are stating the military might does not influence countries' political decisions! What does that mean for US foreign policy? Is the threat of invasion and "regime change" now a joke?   
 
[/quote]

The "threat" can have an effect, the US will not (nor can it, politically) threaten the Iraqi government whose election they just lauded with armed conflict.

It would be political and military suicide. [/quote]
assumptions! seriously though, i discussed before the idea of assasination as a threat, and low and behold assasination reared its head in practice in Iraq, against senior government members. Military suicide? er... by whom? who is going to beat up the US / coalition military? Political suicide? pah... there's no such thing any more, especially in the US.

last thing, turnea, can you edit your later post... it wasn't me you quoted as saying half those things... now, back to whats left of my weekend

Well any large amounts funds handled by the CPA seem to me to be relevant to a discussion of possible corruption.



Certainly, the report acknowledged the very same thing. But you cannot logically contend that a report on one aspect of CPA oversight can can substitute for all other aspects.

How do the latest revelations (themselves found and documented by the US government, not some third-party watchdog) contradict the CPA's report in any way?

The report noted problems with contracts, it didn't hide them.

How so? It was the governing council that chose and the people they chose were not the US picks.

So if they had overreaching influence on the choices, were are the results? Is Adnan Pachachi (one of the US picks) president of Iraq now?


Why assume there will be no repercussions. Halliburton is facing a federal fraud case, why would the CPA make and publish these audits if they plan to do nothing about it?



Yeah, sorry about that.

In noticed too late to edit.

Anywhoo the assassinations seem to be carried out by extremists groups who have claimed responsibility. Any evidence to the contrary is welcome.

The Assassination campaign has not seemed to have an effect on the direction of Iraq government policy that would indicate a US origin.

If you don't believe in political suicide in the US I would recommend a look over our contemporary history. George HW Bush and Newt Gingrich are some examples.

Military suicide, because the prominent Shia groups have millions of armed followers, numbers which dwarf Sadr's troops.

Intimidation of mainstream Shia movements is not feasible, their cooperation is necessary is the US is to get one dime in Iraq.

I've continued to search for the opinions of actual economists (as opposed to partisan "news" outfits) on the "Petro-Dollar" theory.

I'm not sure of the credentials of the "American Monetary Institute", but they make good points.

WAS THE IRAQI SHIFT TO EURO CURRENCY THE "REAL" REASON FOR WAR?
...as we've been saying all along the invasion of Iraq would have precious little appreciable effect on the world's reserve currency.

Iraq is a small fish in a big ocean when it comes to currency reserves.

I'm going to try the Reader's Digest version here:

Did the US government invade Iraq to control the oil?

Yes.


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

China was in Iraq helping them build up defenses against invasion.
Sanctions were close to ending, everyone argued Iraq had no WMD (except America, who argued it did).
The Bush administration bombed Iraqi emplacements on a Chinese holiday and announced it to the world (a quick warning to China?).
Saddam was mad at us over the last invasion. If sanctions had been dropped, he would have sold to everyone except for us.

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

Yes. Look at their top players. CIA contractors everywhere. Including Iraq's new President, Talabani.


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

I don't think it will. I think we're going to lose bigtime in Iraq.


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

Too much to list here, but I'll hit a highlight or two:

http://www.showmenews.com/2004/Oct/20041016News001.asp

America needs more oil, McGovern [ex-CIA agent] said, and instead of focusing on alternative energy, the administration chose to invade Iraq, which has the second-largest proven oil reserves in the world.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...4¬Found=true

"It's pretty straightforward," said former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Hussein from power. "France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them."


PNAC's plans:

http://www.bushpresident2004.com/pnac.htm

This draft called for the United States to use its unmatched military power to prohibit any other nation in the world from rivaling the power of the United States, the only remaining superpower after the fall of the Soviet Union, and to safeguard "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil." This recommendation included military intervention in Iraq to safeguard this "raw material." This document was not intended for public view and after it was leaked to the New York Times it caused alarm among U.S. allies and Congress. It was later revised.

From Cheney's own Commission Report:

http://www.sundayherald.com/print28285

The report, Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century, concludes: 'The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a de- stabilising influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/ diplomatic assessments.

What Iraq has in store for the future (that would have gone to China, France, and Russia, but now will go to American and American companies):

http://www.globalpolicy.org/securit...002/12heart.htm

“Iraq contains 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the second largest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia) along with roughly 220 billion barrels of probable and possible resources. Iraq’s true potential may be far greater than this, however, as the country is relatively unexplored due to years of war and sanctions. Deep oil-bearing formations located mainly in the vast Western Desert region, for instance, could yield large additional oil resources (possibly another 100 billion barrels), but have not been explored.” (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html)

If it's not for oil, how come officials and the CIA say that's what it's about?

How come we not only don't help the Haitians who are dying, we helped their killers overthrow their democratically elected President?

Why didn't we invade to stop the genocide in Darfur?



So much for the Reader's digest version.

Untrue on a number of points.

First sanctions were not about to be dropped and no one argued conclusively that Iraq didn't have WMD.

Second Saddam sold (illegally) to US companies during sanctions, why would he refuse to afterwards? He sold to whoever would cough up the cash.

False again. Talabani cooperated with the CIA like much of the Iraq resistance. He never took marching orders from the US and indeed argues with the US frequently.

Not to mention the presidency is largely symbolic in Iraq. The power is in the premiership.

A so called CIA whose supposed expertise is unknown.

Coupled with a broken link and a lot of contextual twisting.

Regardless of supposed master plans invading Iraq doesn't not give the US control over Iraq oil.

You say sanctions were not about to be dropped, yet there was talk of dropping them at least as early as 1998:

"Lifting sanctions is the only realistic way to end the human catastrophe in Iraq, rebuild the economy, get people back to work, and reestablish health care, education, electric power, clean water, sanitation, agriculture, oil production levels, and fix other sectors," says Denis Halliday, the first U.N. humanitarian coordinator for Iraq who resigned in protest in 1998.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/053000-103.htm


Pressure continued from France, Russia, and China (not surprisingly):

U.S. and British diplomats face formidable obstacles to gaining acceptance for this revamped "control regime", as they prefer to call it. And Baghdad’s opposition, regional political dynamics, and the divergent interests of Iraq’s neighbours and the Security Council permanent members, will greatly complicate, if not thwart, the implementation of these measures. Gaining and keeping regional and international support and ensuring that the re-focused sanctions work as intended will prove extremely difficult, for a variety of reasons: - Russia and France, with China following their lead, are likely to push to water down the restrictions on Iraq. They may try to gut the draft resolution if its most important parts. And they may press UNMOVIC — charged with monitoring the dual-use imports under the new system — to close its eyes to Iraqi evasion of the rules. There is no reason to believe that the adoption of new arrangements by the Security Council will halt efforts by Russia, France and China to further dilute sanctions, if not scrap them altogether. They want the sanctions lifted, not refined. It is for this reason that the U.S./U.K. draft resolution says nothing about putting restrictions on travel by those Iraqi officials blocking cooperation with UN resolutions, nor does it freeze the foreign bank accounts of top Iraqi officials. And there is no mention of war crimes tribunal to indict Saddam and his cronies.

http://www.aijac.org.au/updates/May-01/310501.html


From 2000:

A number of countries as well as members of
the U-S Congress have urged that economic sanctions on
Iraq be lifted. They argue that sanctions have not
weakened Saddam Hussein or changed his behavior, but
have brought great hardship to the Iraqi people. The
United States insists on maintaining the sanctions,
which were imposed by the United Nations, until the
Iraqi leader complies with U-N inspections of his
weapons of mass destruction. VOA's Ed Warner reports
the growing debate.

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/04/000412-iraq2.htm


The UN Security Council has been deadlocked around the attempt to establish a
new consensus for the continuation of the UN sanctions regime in Iraq. The US
has obstructed the UN 'Food-for-oil' program to pressure members to its
position. There is also talk of the distribution of future Iraqi oil
concessions (to Russia and France) as an inducement to their signing on to
the US proposals. The media is portraying this as a legitimate attempt to
lift the sanctions. Today's Philadelphia Inquirer front-page banner reads,
"Clinton to Try to Lift Iraqi Sanctions"! The antisanctions movement needs to
provide a clear answer to the latest effort of the US administration to
maintain what Assistant Secretary of State Rubin describes as "the strongest
sanctions regime that's ever existed"(11-16-99).

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/1999/msg00785.html



As for who Saddam sold to illegally: Until sanctions were lifted, his choices on who to sell to were limited. However, there is no reason to think he would have sold willingly to US companies or to anyone that would send the oil to the US if he could sell to China, Russia, and France.


I don't see why you say my calling Tallibani a CIA contractor is false, unless you won't accept the term contractor without a signed piece of paper. Allawi, Tallabani, and many others worked with the CIA and still do work with the CIA. These men are not independent of influence.


You comment on the CIA agent's veracity, but I'd hardly call former CIA director Woolsey an questionable source on this issue. If he could gain from lying by it, or cover up US misdeeds, I could see it, that's typical CIA behavior, but what does it gain the CIA, the administration, or Woolsey personally to say that the war in Iraq was for oil?


Care to remark on these two items? I fixed the links.


PNAC's plans:

http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm


http://www.princeton.edu/~ppn/docfiles/pentagon_1992.html

This draft called for the United States to use its unmatched military power to prohibit any other nation in the world from rivaling the power of the United States, the only remaining superpower after the fall of the Soviet Union, and to safeguard "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil." This recommendation included military intervention in Iraq to safeguard this "raw material." This document was not intended for public view and after it was leaked to the New York Times it caused alarm among U.S. allies and Congress. It was later revised.



From Cheney's own Commission Report:

http://www.sundayherald.com/28224

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3535.htm

The report, Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century, concludes: 'The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a de- stabilising influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/ diplomatic assessments.



Here is an even older one:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsd/nsd26.pdf


Then there's this one:

A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition.

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



More on how we control access to Iraq's oil:


Russia can forget about its oil interests in Iraq, Washington and London having decided to cut Moscow out of any postwar arrangements in restructuring Iraq's resources, the head of Russian state-run oil firm Zarubezhneft said in an interview yesterday.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/28/...l?oneclick=true

Oh, I'm well aware there was talk and even pressure however the momentum it would take to overcome the inevitable US and UK vetos was not present, especially after UNMOVIC could not establish Iraqi cooperation in disarmament.

The US could hold sanctions until Hussein decided to cooperate with inspectors (read until a very cold day in a very warm place).

Oh, but he could...

Tanker 'smuggling' Iraqi oil

Shell fined for breaking embargo

There were also incidents of oil revenues being traded for weapons in Eastern Europe and a German company sold equipment for a "supergun."
Germans guilty in Iraq supergun case

Saddam had plenty of choices, and yet still smuggled oil to the US.

Working with the CIA to overthrow Saddam does not mean they are somehow US employees. Bin Laden showed that very clearly.

..and of course, Talabani doesn't run Iraq. That would be Ibrahim Al-Jafaari. Talabani is is simply the new government's public face.

Where? I read through the document and then did a search for all instances of Iraq just in case. The document talked about military intervention in regards to Iraqi regional aggression but then that was standing US policy before Bush came to office, really a no-brainer.

Nothing to do with controlling oil however.








1. That has nothing to do with access to Iraq's oil. Reconstruction companies do not control oil sales.

2. The US had control over reconstruction contracts during the rule of the CPA dissolved almost a year ago.

Oh, I disagree. The fact that weapons weren't found and that he destroyed so many of them indicates he might well have cooperated with inspectors. Especially if there were verbal agreements between Iraq, Franch, and Russia on the matter, and since all three countries had oil deals with Iraq, it would be very strange if they did not.




Saddam probably sold oil to whomever he could, smuggled or aboveboard. That does not mean his oil sales weren't severely curtailed by sanctions (leading him to trade with nations he would rather not). In fact, the state of Iraq's infrastructure is evidence that Saddam and those in his government responsible for smuggling oil out to sell and selling oil lawfully were desperate to sell to whomever they could. In addition, Iraq showed it's hostility toward the US by switching currency to the Euro, refusing to accept dollars for oil. That was not long before the US attacked, and shows Iraq was not warming to America, regardless of who it was impelled to sell oil to.




Nitpicky distinction there, and doesn't in the least take away from the fact that Talabani has strong ties to the US, and Jafaari have strong ties to England. Besides, they'll do what the US wants, and so will the rest of the power structure (except those who think they have the will of the majority or the forces to thwart it), because if they don't toe the line, all the US has to do to topple them into the arms of a vengeaful mob is withdraw the troops. Many in the new government are not well-liked, and the continued occupation is not going to increase the fondness of the average Iraqi for any of them, even those who were popular before.