It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
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.


You are so sadly misinformed or so intent on disinformation that this is laughable.

Iraqi production had been embargoed well before 2003. It was OPEC's abandonment of its price band in 2005 that caused prices to escalate.

"Media and trusting government" have nothing to do with the award of PSAs. Those are facts.

Sometimes, the market controls outcomes despite media and government efforts otherwise.

Deny ignorance.

jw




posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


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


I am not a "hater of all things government." Prove it. I despise outright lies that go unchallenged.



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


Your willingness and ability to completely misrepresent facts are matched only by your refusal to defend your position when challenged.

1. What did I "defend and justify" in the OP? I only averred that critics who say oil was the prime motivation for the Iraq invasion "appear" to have been proven wrong by facts.
(have a grown-up read you the story and explain the big words)

2. What "reason we went to Iraq" have I even suggested?

Your presumptions are neither reasonable nor defensinble. I dare you. (once again)

Deny ignorance!

jw


[edit on 30-12-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kokatsi

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.


So you're implying that Cheney and Rumsfeld knew the WMD claim was bogus at the time Congress voted to go to war. That's a pretty serious charge. Where's your evidence for that allegation?



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Cheney planned to invade Iraq already in 2001.
In a 2003 interview he pointed to oil.
www.mtholyoke.edu...
www.larouchepub.com...

However, the Iraq conquest is all in the PNAC plan published even prior to the Bush presidency, this you can find on their web site.

I will look up other proofs, but when a report slightly before the war came out from US intelligence containing WMD's not likely, he sent it back (or was it Bush?) - these potatoes are not hot.
Then there was the Niger yellowcake scandal - again trying to cook upo evidence.
Now the same thing is being investigated in Britain.

I think it is consensus now among politicians of the whole world - except for some paid shills and fanatics - that the WMD issue was only repeated as a mantra before the attack and then died out fast since other arguments were substituted. "Regime change" being one of them.

The funny thing regime change et al. were not legit reasons for war. No one in the MSM was clamoring in the first months of the war: Show me the WMD's. They shifted the attention of the public quickly and efficiently from the supposed "main focus of the war". That shows how much partisan politics was ruling the coutnry.

Imagine Roosevelt declaring that we have to get the evil Japanese fascists and Hitler out of their various conquests, and after a few months of war the main ojective would somehow change to clean Indonesian pollution and establish a new baance of power in Europe... I think peope would have gotten suspicious.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
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.

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

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...


According to high flying, oil insider Falah Al Jibury, the Bush administration began making plans for Iraq's oil industry "within weeks" of Bush taking office in January 2001. In an interview with the BBC's Newsnight program, which aired on March 17, 2005, he referred to his participation in secret meetings in California, Washington, and the Middle East, where, among other things, he interviewed possible successors to Saddam Hussein.

By January 2003, a plan for Iraqi oil crafted by the State Department and oil majors emerged under the guidance of Amy Myers Jaffe of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. It recommended maintaining the state-owned Iraq National Oil Company, whose origins dated back to 1961 -- but open it up to foreign investment after an initial period in which U.S.-approved Iraqi managers would supervise the rehabilitation of the war-damaged oil infrastructure. The existence of this group would come to light in a report by the Wall Street Journal on March 3, 2003. Unknown to the architects of this scheme, according to the same BBC Newsnight report, the Pentagon's planners, apparently influenced by powerful neocons in and out of the administration, had devised their own super-secret plan. It involved the sale of all Iraqi oil fields to private companies with a view to increasing output well above the quota set by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) for Iraq in order to weaken, and then destroy, OPEC.


That's an interesting article, have a look.

There is also the contracts that where to be awarded back in June of '08 that where put a stop to by the Iraqi oil Minister because they really short changed Iraq on a piece of the pie.

online.wsj.com...


Thirty-five companies qualified to bid, including Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Italy's Eni SpA, Russia's Lukoil and China Petroleum & Chemical Corp., or Sinopec. The six oil fields at stake are believed to hold reserves of more than 43 billion barrels. Foreigners won't get the most prized piece of the action -- ownership stakes in the reserves -- but will be paid fees for ramping up output.



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.

Was the War just for oil? No. But to deny it played a part doesn't agree with the facts.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   

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]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
There is no such thing as an "American Oil Company". All of the Big Oil Companies are international in scope, and a relatively small group of people control most of them.

The main thrust of our presence in the Middle East is to protect and control the oil reserves for the benefit of the Anglo-American Establishment, and to keep that control out of Russian or Chinese hands.

Also, in the event that the US dollar tanks, which is a foregone conclusion, the only thing that will be of real value will be usuable commodities (hence, oil).

Even if the US loses its economic dominance, it will still have the potential to maintain its military dominance (at least for a while) if it has control over Saudi and Iraqi oil. Iran is being targeted for exactly the same reasons--for its extensive oil reserves.

Wars are almost invariably fought over resources (or land), and the ideological/political cover is almost always a scam to get the public to go along with it. Dont be naive. The truth is quite simple.

[edit on 2-1-2010 by Angiras]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


You need to come our from under you couch and see the world for what it really is, you say i have a poor knowledge, have a good look at your own, and wake up.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angiras
There is no such thing as an "American Oil Company". All of the Big Oil Companies are international in scope, and a relatively small group of people control most of them.


Pure sophistry. Given that markets are global, that flawed logic makes EVERY business "international," as much as my backyard garden "affects" Interstate commerce. "International in scope" is essentially meaningless in this context. (In case you didn't know it, most oil companies are state-owned. Ever hear of Russia's Gazprom, Statoil, Lukoil; Saudi Aramco, China's CNPC, Malaysia's Petronas, Mexico's PEMEX, Iran's NIOC, or Brazil's Petrobras?)
You have no idea what you are talking about.


The main thrust of our presence in the Middle East is to protect and control the oil reserves for the benefit of the Anglo-American Establishment, and to keep that control out of Russian or Chinese hands.


Did you even read the areticles or the OP?
The biggest winners in the PSA auctions were CHINA and RUSSIA! Has a grownup explained how this works, or do you just make up something and run with it regardless of facts?


Also, in the event that the US dollar tanks, which is a foregone conclusion, the only thing that will be of real value will be usuable commodities (hence, oil).


And? As things stand today, ALL currencies are fiat and only have value relative to the commodities or servoces for which they may be exchanged.

So? And?


Even if the US loses its economic dominance, it will still have the potential to maintain its military dominance (at least for a while) if it has control over Saudi and Iraqi oil. Iran is being targeted for exactly the same reasons--for its extensive oil reserves.


How does the US control Saudi oil?
The US had no control over Saddam's oil production (outside of UN sanctions), yet it still has military control of Iraq. This last statement is completely meaningless.

As for Iran's reserves, again, China and Russia already have extensive commitments in the area. Do you think they'll let ANYONE interfere with their rights?


Wars are almost invariably fought over resources (or land), and the ideological/political cover is almost always a scam to get the public to go along with it.


Really? What land or resources of ours do Islamic terrorists want? What lad or resources have we secured for our separate enjoyment as a result of the displacement of Saddam Hussein?


Don't be naive. The truth is quite simple.


Don't be ignorant. You have no idea what the truth is.

Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 2-1-2010 by jdub297]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"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.


Your close the move was done to stabilize the region not destabilize. Saddam was a wild card he had attacked everyone of his neighbors. He continually made nations around him fear his military. He became so unstable towards the end that he was playing games with UN weapons inspectors still threatening to bring war to the middle east. That one was my favorite he actually threatened to ignite the middle east in war. All ready attempted previously to that statement.

No body including the UN cared if he had WMDs all everyone did agree on is his time was up. The WMDs was a mistake by Bush to try to get the American people to support the war. In truth they were sure he still had some he was using them for 20 yrs prior but truth is thats not why they attacked. He created instabilities with the world oil supplies every time hed make a threat oil prices would jump.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 01:40 AM
link   
It's a charade man. Everyone always thought it was for the oil...and now that it's failing...even more are angry. Meanwhile...gas is 2.64 in a supposed deflationary period. All that oil and our gas is far more than it was before the Iraq war. Too bad it's going to get worse. This crap has to end. We are losing lives because of this.

Bring our young men/women home!

It seems like everyone is just accepting war as "the norm." We've been doing it so long it just seems to be a part of all our lives as normal.

It's not normal. The US citizens, as a whole, have lost their way.

It's time for us to start doing the right things instead of the wrong things



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Posted this in another thread....but I thought I would share it here as well.



Saudi Prince 2005...holding hands. What's cheney doing back there? Kissing someone's ass?

I hate this war.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 




I didn't notice the dynamics of that hand hold until now...


I do hope the prince offered a cocktail or a PBR at least.

OP, business's are not the same as the government in legal terms, REMEMBER, we are not a socialist nation our STATE does not officially participate in oil production. So I can agree not just for oil, I would say we went to war to create a well of profits for Elite transnational business men. (and maybe to fulfill a couple of GI JOE fantasies)



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


"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."

And you actually believe this? So US has spent 100's Billions of your hard earned labour and has decided to not bid (may be if they already own it they don't need to bid - Doh)? Hmmmmmm so the US just went there to get them some IRABS and a huge building contract? But if the Iraqi officials say so hehehheeeee



[edit on 3-1-2010 by mlmijyd]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
1. Look back at the OP. I never said anywhere that concern about oilfields and production and prices was NOT a factor.


So you're saying this concern IS a factor, but this kind of concern is not a "thirst for oil".

How much do you think this is about oil and how much do you think is not about oil? So what is it all about... mostly?



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 

Stability. You can't do "business" with a mad man. Commercial, diplomatic, political. We carried on "business" with the USSR, PRC, Saudi Arabia and many dictatorships regardless of the political structure or the presence (or absence) of oil in the picture.

Saddam earned the enmity of the world by disregarding such simple basics a sanctity of contract and respect for human rights.

Of course oil, their largest commodity, was involved, but Saddam quit being a major exporter a decade before the invasion and had next to no influence on global markets.

Iraqi freedom has at least approached a pre-Saddam status quo and would be farther along but for the insurgency and tribal conflicts.

jw



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   


sorry i had to add this says it all really


the thing is what the US and the UK did to Iraq was nothing less than an act of war, and Iraq were well within their rights to attack the UK, and the US as soon as we entered their soil, and started killing their people, thing is both the US and the UK knew because of inelegance that Iraq couldn't do that because they didn't have the means to do that. So we have changed the meaning of Act of war, to the rules are made up by the most powerful and largest army. We should think ourselves very lucky they didn't have such weapons hidden away somewhere, because one of us would have surely got it, but as it was all about the oil in the first place, we won didnt we?

[edit on 1,6,2010 by neo5842]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Wanted to share my thoughts. First off, just because it went down the way it did does not invalidate the idea that the US went to war for oil...it just means we did not get what we wanted. We originally tried to push the hydrocarbon law, but our puppet in iraq rebelled, and we got shafted out. A good thing, i think, and initially it was often stated by our leaders that "their oil will pay the cost of the war" Right up there with "the war will only cost 60 billion or so" and "it will all be over in 3 months". Common rhetoric from the going in, even if you guys dont remember it.

Secondly, while these corporations might be "multinational", they are american in that their lobbyist bribes greatly determine the direction that american politics take, and further lets not forget the fact that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Condoleeza were all significantly involved with Unocal, and that the Bush family has large oil ties as well. They are not alone in the halls of power with connections to oil, so its safe to assume that many decisions in washington are based off of oil profit rather than representing the will of the people.

Lastly, wars ARE about land grabbing and resource nabbing....for one side. Usually the initiator. When you fascetiously ask what the muslims and arabs are getting for their war its important to remember that 1) they didnt initiate it, and 2) they are fighting for their own land, for their freedom, and for self determination. Let us not forget that seeing your family killed in front of you is also often an excellent motivator for violence, so lets throw revenge in there as well.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   
As to What we want from our war? Obviously as many stated, we want control of oil. NOT ownership of oil, but control of the flow. Prior to the war, Saddam threatened to start giving lots of cheap oil away, and this would have disrupted profits worldwide, which is one of the reasons we went in. With a firm military presence there we can prevent any others from doing this as well. This is also a followup to the oil crisis that the Saudi's imposed in the 70's where they cut us off from oil to strangle our economy in retaliation. We are doing our best now to make sure that no one can sanction us in this way ever again....even though we regularly sanction others similarly.

Further, and not inconsiderable is the fact that iraq stands astride the two great rivers that are the primary water source for much of the middle east, and in the current massive droughts effecting the region this is an important consideration.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by pexx421]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   
It is about oil, just not the acquisition of it. We're protecting the oil companies interests in the middle east. Russia is about to start exporting oil which = competition which = bad for the Oil Corp. that has our government in a stranglehold. Being in Afg. keeps Russia from trying to gain control over the pipeline (they tried years ago) and if push comes to shove our forces are already entrenched on Russia's doorstep. The oil companies do not need more oil if they are allowed to continue their monopoly.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join