Sunday, July 23, 2006

Reminder: Of course we are in Iraq for the oil.

Of course we are in Iraq for the oil.
You think we would go into a place that has 112 BILLION barrels of crude sweet enough to go straight into your crankcase for WMD??

It's all about the oil and control of the region.
And KEEPING that oil in the ground, carving up the fields and privatizing them so that the spigots are completely under control of those that are lapdogs for OPEC.
Quite simple.

In the years leading up to the 2nd Iraq war, Saddam wasn't living up to his agreements with the house of Saud and was fucking with the prices by putting oil on the market, driving the price down, taking it off and putting it back up. He needed to go.

The original PNAC idea was to get in there, grab the fields and get the infrastructure in place to pump it out.
The problem is that there are too many oil men in and around the Bush administration and they want that oil IN THE GROUND.

We will never leave that country until some sort of common ground between PNAC and the oil men can be found. Most likely something along the lines of keeping the oil firmly under control of private British and US companies.
Which, BTW, is why the Sunnis are so happy right now....
(Bushtards, that last statement is called sarcasm)

Further reading

9 comments:

Joy said...

Liquid gold. That's been the craze for over 300 years through the industrial revolution. And, it will be a driving force in the World economy till the supply runs out. And then, pandemonium. Does that scare people from buying and driving SUVs and hummers. No.

But, they will be sorry. They are creating hell for the next generation. And they are completely ignorant of that.

I can't blame any administration trying to secure oil resources. They have to keep their consumers happy lest there be a revolution, and an actual call for alternatives that aren't as easy. The government has become into a conglomerate.

Anonymous said...

Is it possible that you are so convinced that America is in Iraq for oil that no evidence to the contrary could ever persuade you otherwise?

If America took control of the oil fields and started selling Iraqi oil and putting the oil money in America's own pockets, you would say that it proved your point that the Iraq war was "all about oil." If America LEFT the oil fields in control of Iraq, you would still claim that that proved your point that the Iraq war is all about oil. That suggests to me that something is wrong with your argument or your proof.

There's another possibility you aparently haven't considered: America left the oil fields in control of the Iraqi people because IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. The oil fields belong to the Iraqi people, and they will need that income to rebuild their country.

And even though gas prices are killing Americans right now, we're going to CONTINUE leaving the oil fields in control of the Iraqis because IT'S STILL THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

Do you agree that it's the RIGHT THING TO DO?

If you agree, then you shouldn't be criticizing the Bush administration about this. You should be congratulating it for doing the right thing.

If you disagree, then explain to me why America should now take over the Iraq oil fields and pump out oil. And don't tell me about the high cost of filling your gas tank. That's not a moral argument. That's an argument about your convenience. America is a decent nation and we are not going to start stealing Iraqi oil so that we don't have to pay as much to drive. That would be immoral. And we are not going to do something immoral just because we feel like it or hate how much we have to pay for gas these days.

Besides, where is your evidence that "oil men" want to keep oil IN THE GROUND? Think about it. These same "oil men," and the White House, are trying to open up ANWAR in Alaska for drilling. They're asking for authority to drill offshore. If we were trying to keep oil in the ground, these efforts would not be going on.

So why did America go into Iraq, if it intended to leave the oil in Iraqi hands?

On 9/11, America was struck a very serious blow by terrorists who had every intention of destroying us. They struck our Pentagon. They apparently intended to strike our Capitol, or perhaps the White House, using Flight 93.

What is motivating terrorists? Do you not realize that we have a whole lot of countries in the Middle East in control of tyrants, who in turn try to deflect criticism from themselves by blaming America for all the troubles their people endure. That, in turn, has bred vicious terrorists with no regard for human life who are right now plotting how to kill as many Americans as possible.

Some serious housecleaning had to be done in the Middle East, and Iraq was as good a place as any to begin.

Iraq is not about oil and has never been about oil, and the fact that oil prices are high doesn't prove that it was. Oil prices are high for a lot of reasons, including increased demand from China and the turmoil in the Middle East, which Iran is working hard to foment.

You think the entire U.S. Congress -- including political enemies on the left and right -- approved the resolution authorizing the Iraq war based on a secret agenda of controlling oil? No. They authorized the war because Iraq defied one U.N. resolution after another, and yet the U.N. didn't have the backbone to back up its own resolutions. They authorized the war because Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons -- proof of which has recently come to light in batches of documents seized when Baghdad fell. Have you read any of those documents that were recently declassified and which are still being translated?

Congress also authorized the Iraq war because Saddam Hussein was exporting terror by paying $25,000 to the family of every suicide bomber who attacked Israel. (We now know that Saddam Hussein was also running terrorist training camps.) They authorized the war because Saddam Hussein was torturing and killing his own people without mercy.

One final request: Please don't use words like "neocons" or "oil men" or "Bushtards." That last one especially is really not right. Any term that is a hybrid of "retard" and any other word sounds wrong when you say it. I don't mean to hurt your feeling sbut I don't know how else to tell you this: Using words like "Bushtard" and implying that those you disagree with are stupid makes YOU sound a little bit uneducated, low class, or ungentlemanly, and I know you don't intend to come across that way.

But as a person who is quite intelligent, I fully realize that the world is filled with people who might not have the same I.Q. score as me or who might have struggled in school, but who have a ton of common sense -- sometimes more than I do -- and many talents that I couldn't even compete with.

Despite the length of this post, I'm going to remain anonymous. But I do want to mention that I don't even know you and I came to this blog by accident. Despite this long post I haven't even stopped to look up your name or the name of this blog, and I don't intend to. In a few seconds I'll be clicking my way to the next blog. I guess what I'm saying is that this is just today's reaction to your blog post, and tomorrow if you post something interesting I'll read it and support you, if you stay away from name calling and back up your points with evidence from reliable news sources.

Adam said...

I can't agree with you joy when you say "I can't blame any administration trying to secure oil resources. They have to keep their consumers happy lest there be a revolution, and an actual call for alternatives that aren't as easy." Let's go for those difficult alternatives!

Landcomm1 said...

Mike, I pondered your post for much of the day yesterday. I'm not sure I'm 100% for any argument that we went in for the oil and only the oil but I do seem to remember the Bush administration rambling about this oil helping to pay for our efforts to bring democracy to Iraq (it probably should have). I could of course be wrong. I should also say that to believe oil did not play any part in our efforts is pure folly, because I'm certain it did play some part in the great drama which includes the all-too familial relationship between the Bush and Saudi clans...

I agree with Adam, we need to press for the difficult alternatives. Now! Continued reliance upon petrol is killing the earth and economy. Light Rail. Better, more efficient busses. Trains. Alternative fuels...

As to Iraq and our rationale for invating and now getting our asses kicked: Bush failed miserably and seems intent on continuing to fail. Was bringing Saddam down necessary? Sure, he was an asshole-loser but we did not take the time to properly analyze our info, draw together the correct support or exercise the right options. We are losing more by the day and it seem likely there are few options which will keep the violence from worsening by the day. Simply put, G.W. Bush fucked the American and Iraqi people but good and for a variety of reasons, it seems likely he is a criminal who should be prosecuted. He is the worst president to lead our nation. Ever.

Adam said...

Now anonymous.....firstly I don't understand why you have chosen to be anonymous, doesn't make any sense to me. Why hide? I'm no expert in this field nor have I read or heard of anything to prove Mike V's comments one way or the other and I'm not convinced by his arguments.

I don't really know why America was so adamant about going into Iraq but it is clear to me that many now believe that it shouldn't have. I read recently that according to the latest CBS News/New York Times poll (and I'm sure that if you google you'll find it) 68% believe the United States is worse off today than it was before Bush became president. With the Iraq war, since last month Mr Bush's approval rating is now at 29%. Of concern is that only 30% of poll respondents said they have some degree of confidence Mr. Bush will be able to end the war successfully.

I agree that "the oil fields belong to the Iraqi people, and they will need that income to rebuild their country" but not sure that I agree that they should bare the cost of the rebuilding!

Yes I agree that "America is a decent nation" and don't believe that it would start stealing Iraqi oil (or any oil for that matter) so that you don't have to pay as much to drive. Yes that would certainly be immoral.

I agree that on 9/11, America was struck a very serious blow by terrorists. However, from everything that I've heard and read (from credible sources), there hasn't been any evidence at all linking this to Iraq!

I'm also disappointed when I read your comment that "Some serious housecleaning had to be done in the Middle East, and Iraq was as good a place as any to begin." I believe that this diluted many of the good points you made in your comment.

You said "Congress also authorized the Iraq war because Saddam Hussein was exporting terror by paying $25,000 to the family of every suicide bomber who attacked Israel. (We now know that Saddam Hussein was also running terrorist training camps.) They authorized the war because Saddam Hussein was torturing and killing his own people without mercy" but correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that WMD was the reason why America went into Iraq and I have vividly implanted in my mind your Colonel Powel presenting all that "evidence" about the WMD to the UN. Again I read somewhere that Colonel Powell now admits his U.N. speech is the most embarrassing moment in his career (I'm sorry you'll have to google for the source of that). On this point I have to say that I happen to believe that the most credible person on this issue was United Nations chief weapons inspector Hans Blix. Further, I believe that the big mistake that America and its allies made was that they didn't allow the UN weapons inspectors to complete their inspections before going to war. It's now all a big mess and I can see why only 30% of the latest CBS News/New York Times poll respondents said they have some degree of confidence Mr. Bush will be able to end the war successfully. I pray that they're wrong.

Regarding that latest CBS News/New York Times poll in which it was found that 68% believe the United States is worse off today than it was before Bush became president, I wonder how many people in the world would believe that the world is worse off today than it was before Bush became president. Of course what would be more interesting is to ask them to explain why!

Landcomm1 said...

Anonymity is okay as long as the thoughts provoke effective dialogue. I too am unconvinced of Mike’s arguments although I generally am in-step with much of what he says.

American was not so adamant about going into Iraq. Our irrational president, backed by a controlling majority of Republicans was. Did Democrats vote to support the war effort? Absolutely. Did they count on the level of imbecilic incompetence displayed by our Secretary of Defense? Hell no! We most certainly had the military expertise, which anticipated problems in Iraq and more than one General recommended much higher troop strength. Thanks in large degree to the Bush administration, we are on the cusp of being over-run in Iraq; there may be little which can be done without a force of international peace keepers…

These United States ARE worse off today than before the idiot stole the office of president. We are little safer than we were before, our states are out of money, the cost of living has gone up and wages are stagnant. The middle class are suffering—if not disappearing entirely—and the number of Americans living in poverty is higher than ever in the history of our nation. Dubya has pretty well screwed us and whilst doing so, has screwed up international relationships worse than any other mangled job he has held in the past.

Our president is at his core, immoral. He would sell your grandmother’s soul if it resulted in his retaining complete control over ever facet of our lives…

Saddam was and remains a madman but look at the loss of control we are experiencing in the states; look at the terrible loss of innocent life which has resulted thanks to our badly botched invasion; what Saddam did was bad but we long ago passed the number of lives he took. Lovely job we’ve done of bringing about democracy and a lasting peace for the Iraqi people…

Diluted is a nice word. Delusional may be better. Whilst Iraq was led by a nutter, women had rights, people generally lived in peace, technologically the country was quite advanced… All of this has been set back terribly as a result of our lovely job of house keeping!

Sadly, I am not among those who believe Mr. Bush is capable of stopping the atrocious civil war his incompetent administration has brought upon Iraq. We as a nation do not (likely) have the military might to do it alone and many of our one-time allies have fled the scene and justifiably so! The multi-nation insurgency has shredded any sense of stability in Baghdad and although reporting on the less populated parts of Iraq is less detailed, I don’t see of any reason why we shouldn’t assume that most of the country is overrun by religious militias, be they local or from lovely places like Iran.

Our nation is worse off as noted above and indeed, I think the world is worse off. We have failed to lead both nationally and internationally by (good) example in so many regards, it is impossible to list them all. We have regressed socio-economically by no less than 10 years thanks to George W. Bush; our jobs are being exported, our national debt is owed to Japan and China (among others); civil rights are now being violated with regularity as if we were living very much in our sordid past… Yup, we as a people are in tough shape!

Does Australia need a couple of American expats willing to work for beer? Actually, I'm not giving up yet. We can win back control of our country and maybe even participate in cleaning up some of the mess we helped create. Our first step is the November elections. We'll see where we stand then...

Mike V. said...

I am having a very busy week at work and don't have a lot of time.

I can suggest that you read this:

http://alternet.org/waroniraq/37371/

Landcomm1 said...

Wow. Touché. It would seem a well documented history and up-to-date details shine a light that I have prior to this, never seen. Mike rocks. Mike, why not update your post with this link? This is amazing information, I much appreciate!

Landcomm1 said...

I have again posted a link to your most excellent and educational site. I have also posted the link you shared. Wow.

I know you appreciate the occassional doubter, resultant dialogue and the end-results these sensible forays afford.

You've won me over again, sir!