Iraqi oil: Once seen as U.S. boon, now it's mostly China's

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by SpeachM1litant
 





It was never "BS".


Yes it was, and still is Because the majority of Iraqi oil is going to China




the oil industry was substantially privatized with various US and British corporations taking advantage of the weakness of the Iraqi state to ensure concessions favorable to them.


Yeah right


American oil companies, in the meantime, are “barely active” in Iraq, said Robin Mills of Dubai-based Manaar Energy Consulting. There’s Exxon Mobil, which is locked in a dispute with the Iraqi government and is looking to sell at least some of its stake in the giant West Qurna-1 oil field, with the state-owned PetroChina discussed as likely buyer. The other U.S. firm operating in Iraq is Occidental Petroleum Corp., Mills said, a company that has just a minority, non-operating stake in the Zubair oil field



The most profitable places in the world to work as an oil company are the North American unconventional fields – such as shale deposits in the Eastern U.S. – and the deepwater fields in West Africa or the Gulf of Mexico, Houser said. China has limited opportunities in those places, he said, with the state-owned oil company PetroChina lacking the technological sophistication needed for deepwater production.



Western oil companies generally have more attractive global investment opportunities than Iraq, said Luft, who’s an adviser to the U.S. Energy Security Council,


My assertions?

Iraqi oil is mostly Chinas.




posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by SpeachM1litant
 





it's like beating a dead horse with you. He said it once already, it is not about which country receives the oil inflow, but rather which country's corporations profit from the privatisation of the oil fields.


Clearly it does over a decade of war for oil, and now China gets that oil.




The fact that Chinese firms are now securing lucrative contracts is irrelevant, th


Irrelevant !!!




Lastly, yes BP is British. That is the point. Do you remember which country sent the second largest troop contingent? The UK. They're entitled to their oil as well.


Oh then by that logic the Us would be "entitled" to Iraqi oil- No wait they aren't, and back to the title of the thread.

China gets the most oil from Iraq the US and Britian is not China.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 





All I have heard for a decade is "war for oil" of course I knew it was BS when it started from a political talking point, and it is still BS a decade later.


I guess you fail to see the big picture. It doesn't matter if the US is getting the oil, international corporations are selling it...



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 

Isn't it possible that the theater in Iraq was induced for geostrategically reasons as well as for the profit of the U.S. arms / oil industry?
All groups profited from this conflict.

Maybe the Neocons just messed up and didn't anticipate China would steal a big peace of their cake...
edit on 28-3-2013 by ColCurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 05:20 AM
link   
Well it's time for China to invade Iraq then.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 

Petrodollar, anyone?

It dosen't matter WHO buys Oil,

As long as they are buying it in Dollars, America always wins.

If you DON'T sell it in Dollars, you lose....

Like Sadaam...


In 2000, Iraq converted all its oil transactions under the Oil for Food program to euros. When U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, it returned oil sales from the euro to the USD.


Petrodollar warfare wiki



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 06:49 AM
link   
It was never a war about oil, but about Israel. All those who think it's about oil don't think for themselves, and instead believe a false conspiracy put out there by the media to hide the real one...
1. Israel has benefitted from loosing an enemy. This is why Tony Blair did not care about Saddam getting rid of his WMD's, he cared about the fact Saddam both hated Israel and could lead Iraq effectively.
2. Israel has gained access to Iraqi water, which had previously been damned by Saddam for Iraqi agriculture.

Regarding Oil...
The very fact Iraq is producing oil again lowers the price to the U.S consumer, and that Western companies can invest in Iraq again without violating sanctions is something over nothing. But it did not take a war to liberate Iraq's oil, merely the lifting of sanctions in exchange for Saddam doing what he did: Unilateral disarmament of his WMD's.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Once seen as U.S. boon, never seen as Iraqi property...



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Throwing salt in old wounds! We need to move on. Lets stop beating a dead horse. We all know something is rotten in Denmark and has been for quite awhile. I am glad its over, and if China wants the oil? More power to them. Heck, they funded it by purchasing all that debt during the Iraq War. Besides, Iraq is now a sovereign nation and beholden to none. If China offers a better bid than the US? Then, they have all the right in the world to sell it to them. It is just capitalism. In meantime, the US is poised to become the number one oil producer in the future. I am not worried about this at all.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Yep. I had posted a comment on some thread that I dont remember. They (china) also financed partial cost of the war as investment for the post war harvest
The deal it seems to me was brokered before the war.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by sonnny1

And, I still think that Saddam needed to go. Do you think Saddam would have went out peacefully? Tell me?

After Saddam had his Butt handed to him in desert Storm, he was complying with ALL the Sanctions Levied against him.

There were no WMD. You are telling us now it wasnt for Oil. So what was it then?

How is this such a Hard Question.


It wasnt about the US getting the oil?

How hard is that for you to understand?



It was about letting China and other Countries getting their hands on the oil, at that time. China would have owned the US if it had cheap oil, closer to home. Dude, Ive spelled it out posts ago...........Come on.


Yet everyone is getting price gouged throughout the world paying absurd amounts of dollars/euros to fill up their cars. It matters not one iota if chineese or american COMPANIES own the rights and produce the oil byproducts.

Nations don't win. Corporations do!

And china is communist in name ONLY! If they were still maoist controlled they would have given the middle finger to corporate america. Also there are MANY chineese firms trying to compete with american firms but keep getting badmouthed as knock-offs.
edit on 28/3/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: spelling!



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by neo96
 


I'm still stupefied that ANYONE can say "all the lives lost in the Iraqi War."

How many lives were lost under Saddam reign? How many would still be lost today, if he was still in power?

Granted, This was the biggest problem with the US, and its intrusiveness. Put a madman in control of a Country, expect madness.


If the american government doesn't give a rats ass about american citizens what makes you think they care more about iraqi citizens?? Come on man, sometimes you make good posts, but sometimes you can also be very gullible.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeatherNLace
reply to post by neo96
 





All I have heard for a decade is "war for oil" of course I knew it was BS when it started from a political talking point, and it is still BS a decade later.


Of course it's BS.

First it was a war to stop the proliferation of WMDs



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Of course the oil is going to China! After all, isn't that the same place our industry and jobs went? It only makes sense that the energy needed to fuel all those new slave camps, I mean factories, would also need to be re-directed there as well.

The sad part is, you'll soon be using this same quote;


Once seen as U.S. boon, now it's mostly China's ,


to describe the Keystone Pipeline.

Especially seeing how the CEO of the company extracting the tar-sands oil has already stated that; Not one drop of that oil will be destined for consumption in the U.S. because it had already been contractually sold to Chinese interest.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   
It's just amazing.

There really is a difference in the deals you can get when you actualy deal with poeple instead of trying to steal their natural resources.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   
First off, your link is broken.

Secondly if it wasn't a war for oil (which it certainly was an aspect) what was it for? It certainly wasn't because Saddam Hussain had weapons of mass destruction. That's been thoroughly discredited and we had that discussion in this thread.

In this article there is a quote regarding the Iraq War from the now U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel from 2007:


"People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs."


There is also a further quote from a book former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan wrote:


I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." What other evidence do deniers need before accepting this obvious reality?



There's also a video here with former U.S. Army General John Abizaid


Following the 2003 Iraq War and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, he assumed command of Central Command from General Tommy Franks.





edit on 28/3/13 by Kram09 because: fixing link
edit on 28/3/13 by Kram09 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Yeah that link www.mcclatchydc.com...

Meaning everything said after that has nothing to do with the op because "the link was broken" means someone didn't read it.

Of course that link is working perfectly.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SloAnPainful
 





Thanks for info. I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was just hoping you weren't going to play WMD card.


He tried playing that card in the past, but it was discredited so he's moved onto something else.

The weak argument about Saddam might possibly maybe support terrorists at some distant point in the future.

It's as ridiculous as the argument propounded at the time that Iraq had links to 9/11. That was nonsense then and it's nonsense now, yet there were some who still believed and still did several years after the fact!



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 





Meaning everything said after that has nothing to do with the op because "the link was broken" means someone didn't read it.


That's not what I said at all and quite obviously I couldn't read it as the link wasn't (and still isn't) working. I'm using Google Chrome, I'm trying to open the link and it won't work.

Edit: I'm now able to read a dodgy cached version, but I can now read it.


edit on 28/3/13 by Kram09 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   


The weak argument about Saddam might possibly maybe support terrorists at some distant point in the future


Really now?


In 1998, al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden declared that acquiring and using weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was his Islamic duty -- an integral part of his jihad. Systemically, over the course of decades, he dispatched his top lieutenants to attempt to purchase or develop nuclear and biochemical WMD. He has never given up the goal; indeed, in a 2007 video, he repeated his promise to use massive weapons to upend the global status quo, destroy the capitalist hegemony, and help create an Islamic caliphate


www.foreignpolicy.com...


In November 2003, a United Nations report said that Al-Qaida planned to use chemical and biological weapons in a future attack and the only thing that holding them back was “the technical complexity to operate them properly and effectively.”


factsanddetails.com...





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join