Retired General John Abizaid admits that Iraq war is about oil

Retired General John Abizaid admits that Iraq war is about oil

daily.stanford.edu

Abizaid, who was formerly the Commander of the United States Central Command, quickly established a connection between the two topics.
“Of course it’s about oil, we can’t really deny that,” Abizaid said of the Iraq campaign early on in the talk.

“We’ve treated the Arab world as a collection of big gas stations,” Mr.Friedman said. “Our message to them is: Guys, keep your pumps open, prices low, be nice to the Israelis and you can do whatever you want out back.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
thinkprogress.org
www.huffingtonpost.com

Related Discussion Threads:
engforum.pravda.ru...

[edit on 16-10-2007 by manson_322]

Though Abizaid says that Bush’s Iraq policy seeks to keep oil “prices low,” the per-barrel cost of oil has risen dramatically since the U.S. first invaded. In March 2003, the price of oil was roughly US$35 a barrel. Today, prices reached “above $85 a barrel for the first time.”

finally, the truth of the war and lies of Bush adminstration are being exposed



daily.stanford.edu
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by manson_322


How is expensive oil evidence of Bush lying? If oil were cheap, that'd be evidence you'd use against him too, that all we care about is cheap gas, and screw the locals. There's a huge difference in securing a strategic resource, and having the sole motivation be oil company revenues. The fact that oil was a determining factor I don't think has ever been denied, but the assumption of the anti-war crowd was that it was only for oil executive/stockholder dividends.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by manson_322

 

How is expensive oil evidence of Bush lying? If oil were cheap, that'd be evidence you'd use against him too, that all we care about is cheap gas, and screw the locals. There's a huge difference in securing a strategic resource, and having the sole motivation be oil company revenues. The fact that oil was a determining factor I don't think has ever been denied, but the assumption of the anti-war crowd was that it was only for oil executive/stockholder dividends.

How do we knopw what to think?We have been lied to up and down,left and right.Ok,ok so it's for strategic reasons and to make bases right?

Well what the hell country did we plan on attacking after Iraq that we planned the war so we could throw up a base in Iraq?Either way,they lie lie lie and lie about lying...

Originally posted by Project_Silo



How do we knopw what to think?We have been lied to up and down,left and right.Ok,ok so it's for strategic reasons and to make bases right?

Well what the hell country did we plan on attacking after Iraq that we planned the war so we could throw up a base in Iraq?Either way,they lie lie lie and lie about lying...

What makes you think that once the job in Iraq is completed that the US military wants to stay there? Of course there are bases there- we're fighting right now, so there are bases to operate from.

[edit on 16-10-2007 by BlueRaja]

[edit on 16-10-2007 by BlueRaja]

[edit on 16-10-2007 by BlueRaja]

Originally posted by BlueRaja



What makes you think that once the job in Iraq is completed that the US military wants to stay there? Of course there are bases there- we're fighting right now, so there are bases to operate from.

Well BlueRaja, my question is; what is the job in Iraq and how will we know when it is completed. After all the lies about why we are in Iraq in the first place; how can we believe ANYTHING the war mongers say?

Maybe the job will be done when the American people say ENOUGH.

....OIL was the sole motivator the moment bush took office...how can we get into iraq ?......any base build will be permenent bases..how else can they protect the oil companys interests ?..install a puppet gov..make them sign away there oil rights to our companys...call it the war on ......fill in the blank............follow the money...this system we have at this moment is horse-pucky.

reply to post by mrmajestyk6309


How many US troops are in Saudi Arabia? There used to be over 500,000 in 1991. How many US troops are still at the bases we built in Bosnia?
Do you see the pattern- we go somewhere, and build bases to operate from, and then redeploy afterwards.

reply to post by mrmajestyk6309



an extremely correct statement , USA had 500000 troops in saudi arabia when it had loads of oil, but now , with peak oil coming , the US military wants to capture as much oil possible and Iraq has second largest reserves in world .... its logic that usa invaded iraq for oil and now even american general admits the facts

it is horribel that USa has become such a genocidal nation

[edit on 16-10-2007 by manson_322]

Invading Iraq for oil makes no sense. The U.S. is spending far more on the war effort then it ever would have on just buying the oil. Oil prices went up not down. We are still paying for the oil, and the military on top of that. It would have been far cheaper to just buy the oil without invading. Invading a country for the oil, then still paying market value for the oil makes no sense. We spent a dollar to make a nickle? This was not about the oil, we could have just bought it for a fraction of the price of the war. Oil prices went up, and we continue to pay the same per barrel as any other country. We did not secure the oil for the U.S. either. Iraq continues to sell oil to any country willing to pay for it. We are not the only customer. As much as it seems to be the case, we don't "own" Iraq (okay maybe a little). They can sell oil to whoever they want, the U.S. doesn't own the oil anymore now then we did before. So we spent billions and billions to invade Iraq just to pay more for oil? Does that make any sense?


[edit on 16-10-2007 by b309302]

Up to this point do we really even need to be told this? I mean seriously, the Lies to get into that country, our treatment of the country in which the majority of our attackers came from and still come from, and our treatment of similar regimes in other parts of the world who don't poses these reserves... shows the reasons we are there...

BushCo are monopolizing big oil, be it directly, or indirectly through friends....

It isn't just about money, but also control....

seize control of a needed asset and ensure your the only source for it, and you can put any price on it you want, you can also hurt enemies who depend on it.

and have massive effects on multiple things indirectly.

As far as owning it.. you don't need to own it to control it.

[edit on 16-10-2007 by C0le]

Point is... we didn't seize any oil. It still belongs to Iraq. We still have to pay for it. We don't even get a discount on the price. We pay the same per barrel as any other country. Do you think the amount of money spent on the war honestly is worth any gains we are getting out of this? I do not doubt oil played a part in this, don't get me wrong. But it could not have been the sole reason for going to war, we lost money on that deal then. Like I said if this was just about money and oil, we could have just bought it for a fraction of the price of the war. We have the oil in our control then, and would have spent a lot less. Bush does not own the oil rights in Iraq. Therefore he does not have control over it. If anything the war is tarnishing the United States reputation. This is straining our relations in the middle east, not helping secure the region.




[edit on 16-10-2007 by b309302]

What makes you think the oil is for you, the regular citizen? Here's a thought -- what ensures US supremacy? Tip -- it's got wings.


Aircraft. Air power. There is no substitute for fossil fuel when it comes to powering jets and bombers.

As stated you don't need to own it to control it, The worlds superpower set up shop in Iraq, do you honestly think anyone else is going to roll in the kick us out?

Do you really think the Iraqi Government controls anything?

The U.S government gives them just enough leeway to have a false sense of control, allowing them to influence certain things even though in the end this influence is of little importance, and has no real effect on the big picture.
At the end of the day, who do you think decides on what actually goes down?

the invasion wasn't to make oil cheaper or drive prices up, it had little to do with the price of it, but rather the control of it.

price doesn't matter to Government, whats a few extra 0's on a computer

Control...

Okay, I see your point... that actually makes sense. Guess I was stupid to assume the tax payers would actually get anything out of this, other then the bill. =)

***Correction: In this article, The Daily inaccurately attributed a comment equating countries in the Arab world to gas stations to retired Army General John Abizaid. The comment was actually made by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman.***

It seems he never made that comment.

reply to post by deltaboy


Deltaboy, now you're just trying to confuse them with the facts, and that'll never work with the philosophy of foregone conclusions.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
How many US troops are in Saudi Arabia? There used to be over 500,000 in 1991. How many US troops are still at the bases we built in Bosnia?
Do you see the pattern- we go somewhere, and build bases to operate from, and then redeploy afterwards.

You mean like in Korea, Philippines, Germany etc.

reply to post by whaaa


The point is that you're stating with certainty what the plan is in Iraq, post hostilities. There will always be some US Forces in that region, but to think that the plan is to keep large numbers of forces in permanent bases, just isn't realistic. The more likely plan is that there'd be forward deployed equipment in depots, that should some circumstance occur where military action is necessary, units could simply fly in the personnel to man the equipment. This was similar to what happened post-Desert Storm.

[edit on 16-10-2007 by BlueRaja]

reply to post by b309302


your right that the money wasted on the war will never cover the cost of any cheaper oil we could get----unless they all decided to cut off the oil we need in the west at the same time-----on the other hand all that oil war money would have now more than covered the cost to retrofit our cars to run on natural gas which we have an abundance of or some other fuel.for the amount of driving i do an electric car would be perfect that just plugs in to recharge and we better get going and switch to the modern type of nuke power reactors france is building which are efficient and safe-----they encapsulate the uranium/plutonium in a ceramic material----the pellets are virtually bomb proof the reactor can never run away or melt down----the design is intrinsically safe.