US Started Iraq War ‘Just for Oil?’ Not really! Want Proof?

To this day, critics of the 2003 U. S. invasion of Iraq have based their positions on the American “thirst for oil.” Recent events have apparently proven such criticisms false.

Iraq has concluded the bidding for oil-development and production from its largest and most lucrative fields. American oil companies were absent from the field of winners, dominated by oil companies from China, Russia, Angola, Japan, France, Britain, the Netherlands and Malaysia.

Iraqi officials said this proved their independence from U.S. influence and that their two bidding rounds this year for deals to tap Iraq's vast oil reserves, the world's third largest, were free of foreign political interference.

The Oil Ministry on Saturday ended its second bidding round after awarding seven of the oilfields offered for development, adding to deals from a first auction in June that could together take Iraq up to a capacity to pump 12 million barrels per day.

No boon for U.S. firms in Iraq oil deal auction

Only one U.S. firm bid in the second round. Of the four fields bid on by U.S. firms in the first round, only Exxon Mobil won a major prize, as part of a group awarded a contract for the West Qurna Phase One field. U.S.-based Occidental was able to participate with a minor stake in a group that won a contract for the Zubair field.

"For us in Iraq, it shows the government is fully free from outside influence. Neither Russia nor America could put pressure on anyone in Iraq -- it is a pure commercial, transparent competition," said government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh. "No one, even the United States, can steal the oil, whatever people think."

"The results of the bid round should lay to rest the old canard that the U.S. intervened in Iraq to secure Iraqi oil for American companies," said Philip Frayne, a spokesman at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. The results run counter to predictions of some critics of the U.S.' 2003 Iraqi invasion, who envisaged domination of Iraqi oil by U.S. oil majors.
"We haven't really seen U.S. companies, and that is because of intense competition ... The issue is financial and technical and not at all political. This confirms Iraq can manage its oil policy and activities without politicization," said Thamir Ghadhban, a prime ministerial advisor and former oil minister.

While American companies continue to develop properties and rights in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and gas fields in Qatar, other nations have been touting their success in the bidding wars for Iraqi oil “Production Sharing Agreement” (PSA) rights, which allow foreigners to participate in development while retaining oil revenue for the Iraqi government and its citizens.

These include Russia:


“Lukoil-led group signs deal for prized Iraqi oilfield”

China and France:

Iraq initials deal for Halfaya oilfield

Malaysia and Japan:

Petronas group to invest up to $8bln in Iraq field

and the Dutch and Britain:

Iraq, Shell ink deal on supergiant Majnoon field


Can we expect retractions, corrections, apologies? No, the “believers” will ignore facts and continue to harp on the “American war for oil.”

Makes me wonder if some new technology is going to come out that makes oil obsolete.

Would make sense.

Yeah its obvious the US didnt invade becuase of oil
they are there for the WMD's only

reply to post by jdub297


Its still being sold in petro-dollars is it not ?

Did Saddam not threaten to use the Euro or another currency to sell oil internationally ?


------------------------------------------------
The U.S.A waged war to protect the dollar .

[edit on 29-12-2009 by UmbraSumus]

reply to post by jdub297


The main reason for iraq war was that iraq was babylon. If you do not think thats important. The main building in europe, is the tower of babel. Someone also stole all of iraqs artifacts.

1. We know GWB screwed up. Oil did not prove to be profitable in Iraq. Major oil companies were against it from the start. However, we've never had such a dangerously naive president, so oil could have been an obejctive that was never fulfilled.
2. Halliburton made obscene earnings, as did Blackwater though. So the war for profit scenario still holds. Gas was sold to the Army at obscene prices, and a lot of money is still missing.
3. There are obscure alternatives - among them the prime one is the Biblical madness of the ex-president to conquer the entire Middle East then convert all Jewry to his brand of Christianity - which is no better IMHO than the religion of the mullahs.
4. Geopolitical reasons - Israel playing its part too.
5. Possible storehouse of ancient and alien artifacts - there are other theories even more farfetched but still viable.
6. Testing new weaponry. Non-lethal stuff such as microwaves. Getting rid of hundreds of tons of DU.

Are these what you were thinking of?

In my opinion, one thing is sure: the war was never waged or started for the single reason touted to the media: the Islamic WMD. That one is certain - GWB acted in bad faith. IMHO he should be tried alonmg with Cheney and Rumsfeld for mass murder.

Why would a military regime, need, worry, or care who shows up for an auction/buying of these oil fields.....
It would be similar to, buying a condemed house or item that the outcome of said item has already been decided, by a higher force/power.
It does not matter who owns them, the U S not being there tells a different story altogether...like maybe they knew better than to buy/purchase rights to these, in a land that is as unstable, and undecided in its direction of rulers/laws, or even who will be the ruler in the end.

it wasnt just for oil, it was also to destroy historical landmarks and references to early cultures so that the people lose their sense of identity in the future and are thus easier to manage.

im sure bushs vendetta played a role in there as well.

whats interesting is why iraq wasnt allowed to sell their oil in euros until recently. saddam wanted to get out of the dollar.

edit - spelling

[edit on 29-12-2009 by BlesUTP]

reply to post by UmbraSumus

Its still being sold in petro-dollars is it not ?

Did Saddam not threaten to use the Euro or another currency to sell oil internationally ?

1. So what? Trade in commodities based in dollars does nothing for the US. Witness the rise in gold and the drop in the dollar. We get no "commission" for whatever currency it's traded in.

2. No. The UN embargoes essentially ended open-market sales of Iraqi oil. Most transactions were "black market," and thus exchangeable for whatever mattered most -- guns, people, food, Dinars, et c.

Again, so what?

jw

Originally posted by Kokatsi

In my opinion, one thing is sure: the war was never waged or started for the single reason touted to the media: the Islamic WMD. That one is certain - GWB acted in bad faith. IMHO he should be tried alonmg with Cheney and Rumsfeld for mass murder.

By that logic, everyone in Congress who voted FOR the war acted in bad faith as well. Blame one, blame them all. Bush was acting on the same intelligence data that Congress had.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by sos37]

Originally posted by jdub297


1. So what? Trade in commodities based in dollars does nothing for the US. Witness the rise in gold and the drop in the dollar. We get no "commission" for whatever currency it's traded in.

Wouldn`t a shift from petro-dollars force the U.S to operate a trade surplus to pay for its huge oil imports.

You don`t think if OPEC members shifted from the dollar to the Euro for e.g, would affect the American economy ?


This is not a subject i`m particularity competent with , but i thought this was an uncontentious point ...

reply to post by UmbraSumus

It would affect the price we paid depending on the unit of exchange. If it's euros, then we'd sell dollars to buy euros at the going rate. Our interests then would be best served by challenging the exchange rate by altering trade with the EU.

I don't see it as disruptive so much as inconvenient. Gasoline could go up quite a bit, but we could counter that by selling LNG at inflated prices to compensate.

It might even help force the long-overdue transition to natural gas from petroleum as a primary vehicle fuel. Already most coal-fired power plants operate in ever-increasing proportions on "alternate" boiler systems using gas to avoid coal price and supply fluctuations or to meet peak/excess demand.

Many mass-transit and long-haul carriers have made or are making the transition for economic, rather than environmental, reasons.

I see more pluses than minuses in your postulation.

jw



[edit on 29-12-2009 by jdub297]

reply to post by jdub297


Wasn't it Chuckie Schumer and cronies who torpedoed the USA's chances for an oil deal?

www.observer.com...

So Iraq said "Screw it" and made deals with other countries. Nice going, Democrats.

I wonder how much control over Reuters The US government have? the same as all other media perhaps? which would lead me to take what they say with a pinch of salt. In short I dont believe a word they say, this is just the US way of saying "there you go, it had nothing to do with the oil, Honest it didn't" so if you believe that crock, you watch to much TV and MSM crap.

One thing, at lease the OP, states theat the US started the Iraq war, but i wonder if anyone can tell the real reason for it? the were no WMD. there were no connections with A Q. and from what i am hearing here in the UK, the US and the UK government knew that. The war was illegal from the off, and the people who perpetrated it deserve nothing short of being arrested and charged with war crimes, and a fitting punishment administered.

The war was about oil as much as it was getting a foothold in the middle east, to help with the protection of Israel and disrupt the area so they can move in and take over, its all part of the one world government which The US and the UK are trying to put in to practice. Thing is one world government needs the entire world to be involved for hat to happen.

Its a sick and dangerous game they are playing with yours and our lives and billions of other people, where they have no right.

reply to post by neo5842

I wonder how much control over Reuters The US government have? the same as all other media perhaps? which would lead me to take what they say with a pinch of salt. In short I dont believe a word they say,

You don't believe who got the contracts, the PSAs? Then tell me who did.

You have nothing but suspicion -- a piss-poor substitute for knowledge.

Reuters is and always has been a Euro-based service. With the influence of the Thomson merger, it is now Euro-Canadian.

Regardless of your unfounded fears of the source, the substance remains the same: the US did not benefit from, and barely participated in, the Iraqi auctions.

The US primary interests in middle-east oil and gas production are in Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Much other is close offshore in the Gulf of Mexico.

Speculative or fearmongering posts have nothing of substance to offer.

jw

reply to post by jdub297


Jdub297, I don't think you understand what "war over oil" means. We don't have to use it, to control it.

Sine the invasion, the US has built enormous and permanent military bases in Iraq, which has the second largest reserves of oil in the world, and happens to sit in the middle of the biggest oil producing region in the world.

The war isn't about pumping oil from Iraq back to the USA, it's about having a strong military presence on top of the oil hub of the world.

It also gives us indirect (or direct) control over the second largest oil reserves in the world, which means if the SHTF, oil futures are protected.


If you think the war wasn't about oil, you're either very naive, or very uninformed.

"The war was about oil as much as it was getting a foothold in the middle east, to help with the protection of Israel and disrupt the area so they can move in and take over"

Exactly, you have to look at the bigger picture here. The main purpose was to destabilize the region, so it could be eventually taken over. Much easier to take control of an area where you have strife and civil war breaking out. As simple as divide and conquer.

Oil prices skyrocketed after invasion, so Big Oil made out just fine without having to invest money for drilling. Media is all about suckering the masses into trusting Government and Big Business. It's not what they tell you, it's about what they don't tell you.

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by Kokatsi

In my opinion, one thing is sure: the war was never waged or started for the single reason touted to the media: the Islamic WMD. That one is certain - GWB acted in bad faith. IMHO he should be tried alonmg with Cheney and Rumsfeld for mass murder.

By that logic, everyone in Congress who voted FOR the war acted in bad faith as well. Blame one, blame them all. Bush was acting on the same intelligence data that Congress had.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by sos37]

Yes, they voted wrongly, and in terms of international law, they voted for an illegal war. However, some or most of them were misinformed. Cheney and Rumsfeld were not. I would not drag members of congress to a tribunal but I would certainly take them to task about how misinformed they were at the time of voting or how much they represented outside interests (lobbies etc.) instead of their own people in various parts of America. This should be taken up at the next congress election. However, the president, etc. were members of the Executive brach of governments. Legislators have immunity - they should be well informed and represent their respective districts and not various power elites. There is a difference. The point is, some people should finally take responsibility for starting the war - and legally it should be the Executive branch, not the legislative one. Power comes with responsibility, they knew this when they ran for election. As soon as it turned out there are no WMD-s in Iraq, they should have stepped down. And we all know the executive branch was heavily trying to push legislators to accept the idea that America should attack Iraq. They were not simply passive, plus they screened information.

Congresspersons should face their own constituents and explain why they voted for an illegal war which brought riches to some and misery to millions. If those constituents think it is still OK, they are free to reelect them.

Well friend, for a hater of all things government you sure chose interesting things to defend and justify -

I am glad to hear that the only reason we went to Iraq is out of the goodness of our hearts and to spread freedom_ (plural) - If thats the case we should just absorb the place and build a Disney theme park or two

Im thinking IRAQIFORNIA or NEW IRAQ or IRAQXAS or IRAQLAHOMA

[edit on 30-12-2009 by Janky Red]

[edit on 30-12-2009 by Janky Red]

Originally posted by Kaytagg
reply to post by jdub297

 

The war isn't about pumping oil from Iraq back to the USA, it's about having a strong military presence on top of the oil hub of the world.

It also gives us indirect (or direct) control over the second largest oil reserves in the world, which means if the SHTF, oil futures are protected.

I suppose you mean that the US' permanent deployments in Egypt, Turkey, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, the UAE, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean Sea and Persian Gulf do not count?

Or are you just uninformed and naive?

jw