Iraq? It's the Oil, Stupid!

[alpha 0]

We are looking like thugs and bullies right about now. Why do we have to alienate rest of the world (including most allies) by acting like this? We used to have a higher moral ground and a very positive outlook for most of recent history...

Would like to hear intelligent opinions!


-------------------------------------------------

Iraq? It's the Oil, Stupid!
by Robert Fisk • Sunday January 19, 2003 at 12:56 PM

I was sitting on the floor of an old concrete house in the suburbs of Amman this week, stuffing into my mouth vast heaps of lamb and boiled rice soaked in melted butter. The elderly, bearded, robed men from Maan – the most Islamist and disobedient city in Jordan – sat around me, plunging their hands into the meat and soaked rice, urging me to eat more and more of the great pile until I felt constrained to point out that we Brits had eaten so much of the Middle East these past 100 years that we were no longer hungry. There was a muttering of prayers until an old man replied. "The Americans eat us now," he said.

Through the open door, where rain splashed on the paving stones, a sharp east wind howled in from the east, from the Jordanian and Iraqi deserts. Every man in the room believed President Bush wanted Iraqi oil. Indeed, every Arab I've met in the past six months believes that this – and this alone – explains his enthusiasm for invading Iraq. Many Israelis think the same. So do I. Once an American regime is installed in Baghdad, our oil companies will have access to 112 billion barrels of oil. With unproven reserves, we might actually end up controlling almost a quarter of the world's total reserves. And this forthcoming war isn't about oil?

The US Department of Energy announced at the beginning of this month that by 2025, US oil imports will account for perhaps 70 per cent of total US domestic demand. (It was 55 per cent two years ago.) As Michael Renner of the Worldwatch Institute put it bleakly this week, "US oil deposits are increasingly depleted, and many other non-Opec fields are beginning to run dry. The bulk of future supplies will have to come from the Gulf region." No wonder the whole Bush energy policy is based on the increasing consumption of oil. Some 70 per cent of the world's proven oil reserves are in the Middle East. And this forthcoming war isn't about oil?

Take a look at the statistics on the ratio of reserve to oil production – the number of years that reserves of oil will last at current production rates – compiled by Jeremy Rifkin in Hydrogen Economy. In the US, where more than 60 per cent of the recoverable oil has already been produced, the ratio is just 10 years, as it is in Norway. In Canada, it is 8:1. In Iran, it is 53:1, in Saudi Arabia 55:1, in the United Arab Emirates 75:1. In Kuwait, it's 116:1. But in Iraq, it's 526:1. And this forthcoming war isn't about oil?

Even if Donald Rumsfeld's hearty handshake with Saddam Hussein in 1983 – just after the Great Father Figure had started using gas against his opponents – didn't show how little the present master of the Pentagon cares about human rights or crimes against humanity, along comes Joost Hilterman's analysis of what was really going on in the Pentagon back in the late 1980s.

Hilterman, who is preparing a devastating book on the US and Iraq, has dug through piles of declassified US government documents – only to discover that after Saddam gassed 6,800 Kurdish Iraqis at Halabja (that's well over twice the total of the World Trade Center dead of 11 September 2001) the Pentagon set out to defend Saddam by partially blaming Iran for the atrocity.

A newly declassified State Department document proves that the idea was dreamed up by the Pentagon – who had all along backed Saddam – and states that US diplomats received instructions to push the line of Iran's culpability, but not to discuss details. No details, of course, because the story was a lie. This, remember, followed five years after US National Security Decision Directive 114 – concluded in 1983, the same year as Rumsfeld's friendly visit to Baghdad – gave formal sanction to billions of dollars in loan guarantees and other credits to Baghdad. And this forthcoming war is about human rights?

Back in 1997, in the years of the Clinton administration, Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and a bunch of other right-wing men – most involved in the oil business – created the Project for the New American Century, a lobby group demanding "regime change" in Iraq. In a 1998 letter to President Clinton, they called for the removal of Saddam from power. In a letter to Newt Gingrich, who was then Speaker of the House, they wrote that "we should establish and maintain a strong US military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests [sic] in the Gulf – and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power".

The signatories of one or both letters included Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, now Rumsfeld's Pentagon deputy, John Bolton, now under-secretary of state for arms control, and Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's under-secretary at the State Department – who called last year for America to take up its "blood debt" with the Lebanese Hizbollah. They also included Richard Perle, a former assistant secretary of defense, currently chairman of the defense science board, and Zalmay Khalilzad, the former Unocal Corporation oil industry consultant who became US special envoy to Afghanistan – where Unocal tried to cut a deal with the Taliban for a gas pipeline across Afghan territory – and who now, miracle of miracles, has been appointed a special Bush official for – you guessed it – Iraq.

The signatories also included our old friend Elliott Abrams, one of the most pro-Sharon of pro-Israeli US officials, who was convicted for his part in the Iran-Contra scandal. Abrams it was who compared Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon – held "personally responsible" by an Israeli commission for the slaughter of 1,700 Palestinian civilians in the 1982 Sabra and Chatila massacre – to (wait for it) Winston Churchill. So this forthcoming war – the whole shooting match, along with that concern for "vital interests" (i.e. oil) in the Gulf – was concocted five years ago, by men like Cheney and Khalilzad who were oil men to their manicured fingertips.

In fact, I'm getting heartily sick of hearing the Second World War being dug up yet again to justify another killing field. It's not long ago that Bush was happy to be portrayed as Churchill standing up to the appeasement of the no-war-in Iraq brigade. In fact, Bush's whole strategy with the odious and Stalinist-style Korea regime – the "excellent" talks which US diplomats insist they are having with the Dear Leader's Korea which very definitely does have weapons of mass destruction – reeks of the worst kind of Chamberlain-like appeasement. Even though Saddam and Bush deserve each other, Saddam is not Hitler. And Bush is certainly no Churchill. But now we are told that the UN inspectors have found what might be the vital evidence to go to war: 11 empty chemical warheads that just may be 20 years old.

The world went to war 88 years ago because an archduke was assassinated in Sarajevo. The world went to war 63 years ago because a Nazi dictator invaded Poland. But for 11 empty warheads? Give me oil any day. Even the old men sitting around the feast of mutton and rice would agree with that.

[jaaska 0]

Well, during the last two weeks, the anti-war thinking has just boosted up in Europe - not that the war on Iraq ever had support on mainland Europe, but now even Brits are against it...

Like I posted earlier, at least Britain has announced the true reason for the war - "We need that oil!", said the secretary of defense of Britain a week ago or so... This BULLSHIT that Bush's administration is feeding the American public is almost funny. Human rights IN MY **S!

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Even if Donald Rumsfeld's hearty handshake with Saddam Hussein in 1983 – just after the Great Father Figure had started using gas against his opponents – didn't show how little the present master of the Pentagon cares about human rights or crimes against humanity, along comes Joost Hilterman's analysis of what was really going on in the Pentagon back in the late 1980s.

Well, in 1983 our main concern was Russia, Russia was at war with Afghanitan and Iraq was aiding the Afghan's cause against Russia. Of course the Penegon turned an unfortunate blind eye, they had a bigger bear to fry. That sucks, but that was also the Cold War and we were more worried about the Red Curtain and keeping the USSR at bay, away from the mythical red button of the ICBM holocost.

Quote

Saddam is not Hitler

Nope, especially since Hitler was killed a long time ago; however, Saddam does consider himself a modern Nebekanezer, to rule with a ruthless hand over all he sees fit. Read up on Nebekanezer, find out what he was like (more then the very narrow veiw the Bible gives us), then read about Saddam (factual historical stuff, NOT the liberal media based stuff) and draw your own conclusions.

Beyond that, it was a fairly enteraining piece, from a leftist's view point. Remember something, in 1939 the US was being critisized by the liberals (especially the liberal and very outspoken Hollywood types and liberal media) for supporting England in their stance on Hitler. From the early 1900's through his death, Lenin was strongly supported by the same group of people



After reading quite a few articles I found on the 'net written by Robert Fisk, I found a line that I thought was interesting:

Quote

The Arabs have adopted an almost equally absurd view of the US, believing its promises of "democracy" but failing to grasp the degree of anger many Americans still feel over the attacks.

I thought that was an interesting quote, even if I do think that Mr. Fisk is unwilling to give the US a fair chance in his opinion and very opinionated writting (from a *very* British and fairly anti-American viewpoint).

(Note: I'm not trying to say that a British viewpoint results in an anti-American stance, they're two seperate things)

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Faber 0]

Quote

Saddam does consider himself a modern Nebekanezer, to rule with a ruthless hand over all he sees fit.

You are so rigth...

But i dont think that a war will help at all..
Look at them,they have nothing.. We have this food for oil traed,but it still goes the wrong way around..the poors get more poor and Sadam just built more glamur to him self..
We dont need a war,we need that Sadam and his alied goes away..

I think a major thing for Europe,not to back this up are:
Why dont US comlpete one project before they make another?
Where did Bin Larden go?Werent it fun while hi still are running around down there..

Most people here love/like the things US do for the world,but some times they(US)forget to complete.
I dont mind if US should be "the world police",if they follow the world rules..and agt like Police..(there i mean pro.)

Nothing bad at US,just a way some people here think

Stay safe
Stefan Faber

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Dave, you need to get some sleep, I'm assuming you are talking about the King of Babylon...Nebuchadnezzar.....

"I'm not trying to say that a British viewpoint results in an anti-American stance, they're two seperate things"
Here here, considering we have just dispatched around 30,000 troops to the region. However support for this war, or the apparent reason for it, is in serious decline. Most people here don't believe that Saddam being a 'very bad person' is sufficient cause to risk the lives of our people for. I understand there are a lot of Americans who feel the same way.

And its not just about the oil itself, I suspect Saddam will exercise a scorched earth policy (if the war is really about oil, I would!), as he did in Kuwait. The rebuilding of the oil and gas infrastructure will provide a massive boost for companies both in the US and the UK. Which will be great for me, because this is what I do, but its a hell of a price to pay for a little overtime.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[hagar 0]

Quote

Beyond that, it was a fairly enteraining piece, from a leftist's view point. Remember something, in 1939 the US was being critisized by the liberals (especially the liberal and very outspoken Hollywood types and liberal media) for supporting England in their stance on Hitler. From the early 1900's through his death, Lenin was strongly supported by the same group of people

Wasn't isolationism traditionally a conservative/libretarian issue?

---
PCSS #10

[misskriss 0]

I support our president and support our military...bottom line.. Iraq supports terrorism...

[wmw999 2,117]

I was just talking to my father about this. He was 23 when WW2 broke out, so he has memories of this time. He said that there was some pretty vocal antiwar sentiment in the Chicago area, and that people who were strongly anti-Roosevelt were also more likely to be against the war.

Most anti-Roosevelt folks could not be considered liberal. He emphatically does not remember a big liberal or any other upswelling of antiwar feelings.

I didn't ask him specifically about Hollywood liberals; I know that most of Hollywood was very supportive of the war once it started. Of course not every person. But there are a lot of conservatives now who are against going to war in Iraq at this particular moment.

There are going to be people of all stripes who are just generally against any given war. You can't really generalize them to any particular group -- it's not fair either to the strength of their opinions, or to the group that you're wanting to either sully or honor by ascribing the individual's position to.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Faber 0]

Quote

I support our president and support our military...bottom line.. Iraq supports terrorism...

How can you tell?Us also support teroism,but its a kind of legal terro...
Before the inspection are finnised,US nearly have attaced Irak...What do you call that?
What kind of Terro is it to offer oil for food,and then say no to help thouse who need care at hopspitals.
Lets not be better than we are..
And i still dont like Sadam,but i dosnt like either that US want this just for the oil..
This is some of the things that can push the botton to a attac at US again,and then what... we are walking in cirkels..

Stay safe
Stefan Faber

[blueshrew 0]

I was in the Middle East around Christmas/New Years'. The common thought there was "those idiots are going to take us from bad to worse".
If the problem/goal was Saddam, there wouldn't be a war or an invasion. There are a lot of easier solutions for taking out a guy.
If it wasn't oil, why is North Korea among others off the hook? Here's something from one of Bush's people that made me laugh for days: "Because Iraq has a face (Saddam), if you put some N. Korean generals and civilians in a row, the American public wouldn't be able to tell them apart."
As the issue is not how the US president/pres. staff seem to see their public from this statement, I will not go into that.
And finally, wouldn't such a war do wonders for the US economy, which one couldn't really call great at the moment?

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"bottom line.. Iraq supports terrorism... "

Yeah, I hear you, but that isn't the given reason that both our leaders are sabre rattling right now....

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[wmw999 2,117]

Quote

And finally, wouldn't such a war do wonders for the US economy, which one couldn't really call great at the moment?

What I find depressing (besides the thought of war with Iraq because we feel like it -- that's depressing enough) is the talk about the economy. No, it's not great.

But it's good enough that I see lots and lots of new cars on the road; many of them SUVs that are expensive to own. Stores have lots of cars in front of them with people buying stuff. Lots of people are overweight; there's enough to eat. Private schools are having a resurgence.

There aren't large numbers of foreclosures; there aren't car corrals at every bank, full of repossessed cars.
These are not the signs of a generally poor economy all over. A correction, yes.

There are people hurting. Out of work, etc. Of course, those are the ones that won't be helped by the dividend tax cut, by the abolishment of inheritance tax, and by slashing tax on upper middle class folk. They would have been helped by extending unemployment benefits; that was opposed.

Going to war to boost the economy and because everyone likes a good ass-kickin is pitiful. I would like us to give the inspections a chance. A reasonable chance, and not this "OK, it's been enough time -- I said so bullshit.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[hagar 0]

What is the current reason for going to war?

---
PCSS #10

[nacmacfeegle 0]

I'm fucked if I know. So I wish someone would tell me.
Apparently it is because of alleged posession of weapons of mass destruction, which in my mind has not been (nor is it likely to be) proven.

It is officially NOT because Saddam is bad to the Kurds, supports terrorists, or sports an unfashionable moustache....

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[wmw999 2,117]

I live in the US; in Texas even, and I'm fucked if I know either. It seems to be a kind of parental thing:

"Why Dad?"

"Because I said so, I'm the father, and now you're grounded, young man."

We're not defending ourselves; this is a preemptive strike if I ever saw one. And against someone who is unlikely to strike against us.

The thing that gives me the most hope is that George Bush seems to be very capable of bluffing; I'm hoping that's the case here, where he's trying for a particular reaction.

It's not more attractive to know that he's bluffing in his self-appointed position as the world's policeman, but it's definitely nice to think that maybe just maybe it's not as imminent as he's making it seem.

at least that's what I'm praying for.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Wendy, I'm praying the guy will simply resign, or become the victim of some sort of coup, and save his, and our respective countries a whole heap of heartache.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[12bhi 0]

It doesnt matter what weapons we find over there.
They could be nuclear war heads or nothing but BB
guns and sling shots...We're going to war no matter
what the overall conclusion is.....
Bottom line OIL=$$$$$ and that makes uncle
George happy

[Zinger 0]

***What is the current reason for going to war?

[PhillyKev 0]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=3&cid=578&u=/nm/20030122/ts_nm/iraq_dc

RUSSIAN REPORT


Interfax news agency's specialist military news wire AVN quoted an unnamed high-ranking source in the Russian general staff as saying, however, that U.S.-led operations would be launched once an attacking force had been assembled in the Gulf.


"According to the information we have, the operation is planned for the second half of February. The decision to launch it has been taken but not yet been made public," the source told the agency, which has generally authoritative contacts in the Russian military and political establishment.


Interfax gave no indication how the military had obtained its information -- covertly by Russian intelligence services or by a tip-off from Washington, which would be keen to avoid any misunderstandings with Moscow if it does launch a war.


The source said the main aim of a strike was not so much to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) as to secure U.S. control over Iraqi oilfields. Russia has a major commercial interest in Iraqi oil and has made clear its eagerness to exploit Iraq's huge reserves once U.N. sanctions are lifted.


Oil prices eased Wednesday as dealers took profits from a two-month bull run sparked by the momentum for war, while gold, seen as a safe haven, hit its highest price in nearly six years.


"The war will be short, lasting about one month," the Russian source was quoted as saying.


U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage flew to Moscow to try to convince officials that diplomatic options were "just about exhausted."

[kallend 1,621]

"Follow the money."

It never fails.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gawain 0]

Stefan,

I can cite a couple of things which I take issue with on your post:

Quote

Us also support teroism,but its a kind of legal terro...

This is wholly incorrect, and I would like you to provide an example. The Gulf War was not "legal" terrorism. The US does not pay the families of homicide bombers sums of money for their "service". The US does not gas its own citizens.

Quote

What kind of Terro is it to offer oil for food...

That is a UN program, which, as it happens, is administered by Europe. The program doesn't work anyway.

Quote

Lets not be better than we are..
And i still dont like Sadam,but i dosnt like either that US want this just for the oil..

Again (now blue in the face), everyone knows that oil is a factor. Again (all together now), oil is not the only reason for this campaign.

---

Folks, yeah, it's about oil. Big fu*k*ng deal. You're just realizing this, and feel the need to trumpet it to the world? The Gulf War in 1991 was about oil too. It also happened to be about lancing a festering boil that is Iraq and getting its infection out of Kuwait (where the Kuwaitis were horribly tortured BTW). It was also about ensuring that there was stability in a region which the world economy can no longer afford the shenanigans of a civilization in decline (and yes, the Middle East, as a whole, is a civilization in declinen and has been for some 400 years). Sh*t Libya was named the head of the UNs Human Rights Commission, and you think the UN has relevance?

Yes, it's about oil. Yes, it is, in fact a good thing that the US continues to import oil without tapping into the strategic reserves (that's why they're called reserves) and yes, the world will be a better place without Saddam tinkering with WMD.

I believe that we didn't dispose of him in 1991 had to do more with Iran than with the UN resolution. Apparently there is thinking that a vacuum in the fertile crescent does not pose the threat that it once did.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[rhino 0]

Thugs and bullies???

Saddham finances and rewards suicidal bombings... Families of people that blow themselves up are paid by Saddham.

He is a known backer of terror groups. He has uses chemical weapons on his own people.

As much as it may be about oil it is also about preventative maintenance.

I for one SUPPORT our President.. He said that this was like a bad movie re-run and he isn't interested in watching it again.

Last year around 9/11 everyone was in support. Congress OVERWHELMINGLY passed a bill giving President Bush SOLE power to declare war on Iraq. Their are reasons for this.

I hope we do it right this time...

Rhino

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Last year around 9/11 everyone was in support. Congress OVERWHELMINGLY passed a bill giving President Bush SOLE power to declare war on Iraq. Their are reasons for this.

I hope we do it right this time...

Cool...did we find Bin Laden in Iraq? Other Al Queda operatives? Any evidence of connection to the 9/11 attacks and Iraq?

Oil is not the only reason for attacking Iraq. Another is to divert attention from our inability to achieve the goals that GW was charged with when givn those powers by congress.

[billvon 2,384]

>I support our president and support our military...

So do I. But if you have kids, you will realize that you can support them even when they do something stupid, and trying to change their minds about it does not mean you don't support them any more.

>bottom line.. Iraq supports terrorism...

So do we, except we put a thousand times the effort into it. We created Al Quaeda when we gave the Mujahidden billions in weapons to pull off terrorist attacks. Since those attacks were against people we didn't like (the USSR) we felt perfectly justified. We've bankrolled people who try to assassinate leaders of other countries. We used drug money to illegally finance the contra terrorists in Iraq. Heck, we've even dropped nuclear weapons on civilians and killed a third of a million of them.

So we do all the same things we accuse other people of doing. The difference is that we claim we're right. Which may be, but don't forget that they think they're right, too.

[12bhi 0]

Well his dad should have taken care of it the
first time there wouldnt have to be a re-run...Whos
running this country is it our president,or our
presidents father...Go son..fix daddys fuck ups...
make me proud