Originally posted by GAOTU789
J, I always enjoy reading your posts. Some times I agree, others I don't, but ya always stir up interesting discussions. On this one though, I think
your wrong, in a way at least. Your country didn't start the war just for oil, but to deny it played a part in plans is naive man.
I, too, prefer informed discussions over flame-throwing rants; although I also find great joy in throwing out "hot potatoes" such as this to see who
responds and what is said.
While I respect your ability and level-headed argument, I have to disagree on several points.
1. Look back at the OP. I never said anywhere that concern about oilfields and production and prices was NOT a factor.
And I have to challenge you to show me anywhere that I "deny it played a part in plans." You cannot.
As such, your "naive man" is an unvarnished unwarranted childish insult. You have no credibility when your name-calling is based upon your own
presuppositions rather than facts.
How disappointing. You should (but won't be) ashamed of such shallow, fraudulent tactics.
First, there is Greenspan's infamous remarks.
“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,”
source
2. Taken completely out of context. Why don't you find and quote the entire occasion in which this statement was taken from.
I could take someone's conversation with their children, cut it to pieces, and then post that "so and so believes in Santa and fairies."
Adds nothing to your argument if you just provide snippets rather than the whole story.
Very effective. Not honest.
Sorry.
There is also a tonne of information out there about the subject. Not from blogs, or questionable sources but former members of the Bush White
House and others connected to it.
www.globalpolicy.org...
Jiminy. You didn't read GPF's position did you? GPF argues that the US and UK hated the Chinese, Russian and French footholds in Iraqi oil
production and envied their contracts.
So, who's the big winner now, after the invasion, according to the OP? China, Russia, France, et al.
GPF's bleeding-heart "justification" arguments do not pan out
if you read them AND think.
[edit to delete long external quote]
That's an interesting article, have a look.
I've seen it before. The author, Dilip Hiro, has peddled the story all over the place. Unfortunately, both its premise and its conclusion :
gaining privileged access to Iraqi oil for American companies was a primary objective of the Pentagon's invasion of Iraq.
are not borne-out by the facts here, are they?
Just as with the publishers you've cited/relied upon, GPF.
While he is an accomplished author ( I loved "Secrets and Lies: Operation Iraqi Freedom and the Collapse of American Power in the Middle East") his
article does not disprove
my premise: the people who say Iraqi Freedom was
just about oil are dead wrong, as proven by
the ultimate resolution of the oil production issue.
You see, the net result here is that oil production in Iraq, which was never a big play for the US, is essentially back to status quo pre-Saddam.
That is, those who contracted with the Republic of Iraq, as opposed to Saddam Hussein, are still under contract with the Republic of Iraq.
I'm right. You're wrong. Again.
And BP and RDS have agreements, both have ties to Britain, which was also a major player in the War, so the spoils are being spread
around.
So what if BP and RDS get contracts? THEY ALREADY HAD THEM!
They were among the same oil production players BEFORE the war, and most importantly, BEFORE Saddam!!!!
Was the War just for oil? No.
That's my point!
But to deny it played a part doesn't agree with the facts.
Again, show me where I "deny it played a part."
You cannot. And you should be ashamed for implying I did.
Deny ignorance.
jw
[edit on 30-12-2009 by jdub297]
