New Documents Reveal US Contingency Planning to Seize Middle East Oil in 1973

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Nice little slip of an editorial comment by the unbiased news source

The episode shows how the security of oil supplies is always at the forefront of governments' planning.
anyone that was alive during 1973 and remember care to comment on how fvcked up we were at the time? Thankfully we've diversified some since then...

It is made clear that the invasion would probably only be contemplated if the situation in the region deteriorated to such an extent that the oil embargo went on for a long time, threatening western economies. This is called "the dark scenario."
If we went say a year or so without oil, even Jimmy Carter would have been calling for an invasion. Plenty of wars started over economics.
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
The war in Iraq wasn't about oil (well, unless you were from France, in which case it was, "Please don't help the Iraqi's get out from under Saddam, we're making a killing off their suffering!) and those who think it was are too simple minded and unethical to care that millions suffered and died under a brutal dictator for more than 20 years.

Sickening.

Jason
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Presidents Reagan and Clinton said they would go to war to ensure the flow of cheap oil. Presidents Bush I and II have gone to war to ensure the flow of cheap oil.

Saddam could kill and maim Kurds, Iranians and Iraqi's all he wanted and nobody lifted a finger. But looked what happened to him when he went for Kuwait's oil.

"Following further high-level policy review, Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114, dated November 26, 1983, concerned specifically with U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The directive reflects the administration's priorities: it calls for heightened regional military cooperation to defend oil facilities, and measures to improve U.S. military capabilities in the Persian Gulf, and directs the secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take appropriate measures to respond to tensions in the area. It states, "Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic." It does not mention chemical weapons [Document 26]."

Those are Reagan's own words.

The main priority of the US has always been, and continues to be, to ensure the flow of cheap oil. To deny the importance of the oil factor in the occupation of Iraq is more than naive.



The National Security Archive
 

Bulk Beef

Diamond Member
Aug 14, 2001
5,466
0
76
You know there's probably a contingency plan for an alien (no, not the south-of-the-border kind) invasion too. No big.

tnit - shouldn't you be out manning a sobriety checkpoint right about now?
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
The war in Iraq wasn't about oil (well, unless you were from France, in which case it was, "Please don't help the Iraqi's get out from under Saddam, we're making a killing off their suffering!) and those who think it was are too simple minded and unethical to care that millions suffered and died under a brutal dictator for more than 20 years.

Sickening.

Jason

and now those Iraqi's want us to leave now so they can control their own future and not have it appointed or dictated by U.S. corp's or Bush and he's friends in the white house. We got Saddam and Bush's daddy has been avenge let's move on out and bring out troops home. Remember there are no WMD's so there is no reason to stay.
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
"Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic."
Forget that little word?

Certainly Bush I had at least a measure of the oil flow in mind during the Persian Gul war when Saddam invaded Kuwait and seized their country and oil reserves. Fair enough. But in case you didn't notice, that didn't happen this time. We went in not on any basis of oil but on the (potentially bogus, but who the hell knows for sure?) notion of WMD and the REAL notion of removing a brutal dictator from power, to the benefit of the Iraqi people and their children. THAT is the important issue at stake here. Why didn't we liberate them in 1991? Because the UN, so-called defender of "Human Rights" (whatever the hell they decide those are this week) told Bush I NOT to remove Saddam and the FOOL listened to them.

Jason
 

ReiAyanami

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2002
4,466
0
0
without oil, iraq would just be another somalia

this is why we haven't launched the beat down on kim jong, they gots no oil, which backfired on us cuz now he's blackmailing us all with his now not secret nukes. we give him $200 million in aid a year and his ppl suffer more and more under him, so serves us right for the "appeasement" strategy.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: sward666
You know there's probably a contingency plan for an alien (no, not the south-of-the-border kind) invasion too. No big.

tnit - shouldn't you be out manning a sobriety checkpoint right about now?
I don't do holiday task forces any more. I don't do much road at all these days since they discovered that I am very good at coming up with grant money and making pretty Powerpoint/GIS presentations.

Besides, I hate coming home at around 0600 smelling like flares, sweat, booze, and having to fill out tons of DUI paperwork. I don't need the money that bad.
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
without oil, iraq would just be another somalia

this is why we haven't launched the beat down on kim jong, they gots no oil, which backfired on us cuz now he's blackmailing us all with his now not secret nukes. we give him $200 million in aid a year and his ppl suffer more and more under him, so serves us right for the "appeasement" strategy.
Appeasement was never a good strategy. Kin Jong Il and his slave labor camps make me perhaps even more sick than Saddam, and I would stand 100% behind the decision to send in a strike force to wipe that c0cksucker out and free the people of North Korea.

The trouble we have in that region of the world, though, is China. As Vizzini says in "The Princess Bride," "Never get involved in a land-war in Asia!" China's tricky because they are brutal savages themselves (such is the nature of Communism...) and taking out their government would involve, more likely than not, the decimation of a sizeable portion of the civilian population as well. Then you have the problem of cultural change; the Chinese have *never* known freedom in all of recorded history, and it's not an easy change to make.

That's one of the reasons I don't rail against trade with China; in time we may infect them with enough of our ideology that they can overthrow their own government, or perhaps their government will change of its own accord in time. It's very hard to see what would be the right or best way to go with China. Dangerous territory.

Jason
 

Genesys

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2003
1,536
0
0
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
The war in Iraq wasn't about oil (well, unless you were from France, in which case it was, "Please don't help the Iraqi's get out from under Saddam, we're making a killing off their suffering!) and those who think it was are too simple minded and unethical to care that millions suffered and died under a brutal dictator for more than 20 years.

Sickening.

Jason

and now those Iraqi's want us to leave now so they can control their own future and not have it appointed or dictated by U.S. corp's or Bush and he's friends in the white house. We got Saddam and Bush's daddy has been avenge let's move on out and bring out troops home. Remember there are no WMD's so there is no reason to stay.

actually, my military buddies that are currently stationed in Iraq say the people there love them [especially the kids, because the troops share snickers candy bars with the kids]. quite a few of my friends that have already come back tell me stories about how the Iraqis thanked them profusely for their efforts and never expressed any anger, resesntment, or bitterness towords the soldiers or the administration.
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
The war in Iraq wasn't about oil (well, unless you were from France, in which case it was, "Please don't help the Iraqi's get out from under Saddam, we're making a killing off their suffering!) and those who think it was are too simple minded and unethical to care that millions suffered and died under a brutal dictator for more than 20 years.

Sickening.

Jason

and now those Iraqi's want us to leave now so they can control their own future and not have it appointed or dictated by U.S. corp's or Bush and he's friends in the white house. We got Saddam and Bush's daddy has been avenge let's move on out and bring out troops home. Remember there are no WMD's so there is no reason to stay.
There ARE good reasons for staying there. People --ALL people-- have a tendency to fall into familiar patterns rather than make meaningful change. It would be VERY easy for another Saddam-style dictator to get into power in Iraq, and that would be a bad thing. It is for the best that we stay awhile, help guide these people in setting up a government that respects the rights of ALL citizens and protects their right to certain basic freedoms such as Speech, trade, religion and so forth. The people of Iraq do not have a history of knowing these ideas, my friend; they NEED help to break their pattern whether they know it or not.

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Genesys, I have a few of those friends myself and have heard very similar stories.

Much different than what the media tells (because explosions get better ratings than children smiling or adults looking at their kids with a sense of hope...)

Jason
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
The war in Iraq wasn't about oil (well, unless you were from France, in which case it was, "Please don't help the Iraqi's get out from under Saddam, we're making a killing off their suffering!) and those who think it was are too simple minded and unethical to care that millions suffered and died under a brutal dictator for more than 20 years.

Sickening.

Jason

and now those Iraqi's want us to leave now so they can control their own future and not have it appointed or dictated by U.S. corp's or Bush and he's friends in the white house. We got Saddam and Bush's daddy has been avenge let's move on out and bring out troops home. Remember there are no WMD's so there is no reason to stay.
There ARE good reasons for staying there. People --ALL people-- have a tendency to fall into familiar patterns rather than make meaningful change. It would be VERY easy for another Saddam-style dictator to get into power in Iraq, and that would be a bad thing. It is for the best that we stay awhile, help guide these people in setting up a government that respects the rights of ALL citizens and protects their right to certain basic freedoms such as Speech, trade, religion and so forth. The people of Iraq do not have a history of knowing these ideas, my friend; they NEED help to break their pattern whether they know it or not.

Jason


Sorry but another Saddam-style dictator will not get into power in Iraq unless he/she has CIA and U.S. corp backing, finical, military aid like Saddam received. As far as guiding ( more like controlling ) these people so that they can setup their own government. What you really are saying is that you want to impose what you think is the correct form of government for them and not allow them to choose their own destiny. Rather then treating Iraqi's like adults and allowing them to create their own future and make their own mistakes. It would be better to treat them like children and control their future after we spilt their milk for them in the past.

This is almost the same mind-set with Affirmative Action liberal supporters you see displaying here in the States. You think you know what's best for everyone else but in reality it's just a form of control and a way of saying that these people are not A.) Smart enough, B.) Strong enough and C.) Brave enough to determine their own future.
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Sorry but another Saddam-style dictator will not get into power in Iraq unless he/she has CIA and U.S. corp backing, finical, military aid like Saddam received. As far as guiding ( more like controlling ) these people so that they can setup their own government. What you really are saying is that you want to impose what you think is the correct form of government for them and not allow them to choose their own destiny. Rather then treating Iraqi's like adults and allowing them to create their own future and make their own mistakes. It would be better to treat them like children and control their future after we spilt their milk for them in the past.

This is almost the same mind-set with Affirmative Action liberal supporters you see displaying here in the States. You think you know what's best for everyone else but in reality it's just a form of control and a way of saying that these people are not A.) Smart enough, B.) Strong enough and C.) Brave enough to determine their own future.

I'm afraid you are totally WRONG, dude. Look at the history of the region. The Middle East and its various countries have lived through dictator after dictator for THOUSANDS of years. It isn't just going to change all of a sudden because we took one more out of the picture. To say otherwise is to admit your ignorance of both history and human psychology.

I am NOT saying I want to impose anything on them; I am saying we need to make sure that their PRINCIPLES of government include *protecting* the rights of the people, and then let them decide what form their government should take in pursuing that goal. That is, however, the ONLY justification for the existence of a government: To secure the rights of the people. The people of Iraq are *plenty* smart enough, but they've got a lot of history and culture to escape from, and it isn't easy. We *genuinely* need to spend time there to, for lack of a better word, *infect* the people of that region with the ideas of Liberty and the notion that all men are created equal, that they have certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, and that no man has the right to rule the conscience of another.

It's an entirely different ballgame from controlling them, and your ignorance of the issues at stake will only doom another generation of Iraqi people and make meaningless the lives spent to bring liberty and democracy to the region.

Jason

Edit: A better analogy than Affirmative Action would be training wheels on a bicycle, and in this case the bicycle happens to be freedom, which most middle easterners have never had. In this case the idea is to be the training wheels so they don't fall over and get scraped up. Once they get the hang of riding the bicycle of freedom, though, you take the training wheels off and cut them loose to do what they will.

It's not *at all* like Affirmative Action, which is a racist doctrine that declares, "Because you are black or hispanic, you can't possibly do as well as your White or Asian counterparts, so we'll lower all the expectations to your level." Personally if I were black or hispanic in America, I'd be HUGELY offended by AA. The only thing more racist is Minimum Wage.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
"Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic."
Forget that little word?

Certainly Bush I had at least a measure of the oil flow in mind during the Persian Gul war when Saddam invaded Kuwait and seized their country and oil reserves. Fair enough. But in case you didn't notice, that didn't happen this time. We went in not on any basis of oil but on the (potentially bogus, but who the hell knows for sure?) notion of WMD and the REAL notion of removing a brutal dictator from power, to the benefit of the Iraqi people and their children. THAT is the important issue at stake here. Why didn't we liberate them in 1991? Because the UN, so-called defender of "Human Rights" (whatever the hell they decide those are this week) told Bush I NOT to remove Saddam and the FOOL listened to them.

Jason
International economic system = the international oil driven dollar economy i.e. the foundation of US economic might.

The US did not go in for WMD's. They knew there were no WMD's, Colin Powell even said so in 2001. The WMD's was the excuse and red herring for their neo-con agenda. As Wolfowitz said "For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," (Vanity Fair, July 2003).

The UN did not need to tell Bush I anything. Bush I was so terrified of what would happen if Saddam was toppled by the Shiite revolt (=US loss of control of Iraqi oil) that he helped Saddam defeat the uprising and stay in power. How cynical is it not to first encourage the Shia's to revolt against Saddam and then help the brutal dictator crush that revolt. Dictator schmucktator is not the basic issue, control of the "flow of oil" is the basic issue. The US does not care about dictators. The US cares about "Oil. Vital US interestest" to quote Jim Baker speaking about Gulf oil during the buildup to GWI.

 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Yep, next time its time to "fill her up" I'm bringing my shotgun :D
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Bigdude
All of you that don't want to fight for oil, quit driving you're cars!
Fight for oil? You mean having others fight so you can have cheap gas?
 

Crimson

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
3,809
0
0
Originally posted by: Genesys
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
The war in Iraq wasn't about oil (well, unless you were from France, in which case it was, "Please don't help the Iraqi's get out from under Saddam, we're making a killing off their suffering!) and those who think it was are too simple minded and unethical to care that millions suffered and died under a brutal dictator for more than 20 years.

Sickening.

Jason

and now those Iraqi's want us to leave now so they can control their own future and not have it appointed or dictated by U.S. corp's or Bush and he's friends in the white house. We got Saddam and Bush's daddy has been avenge let's move on out and bring out troops home. Remember there are no WMD's so there is no reason to stay.

actually, my military buddies that are currently stationed in Iraq say the people there love them [especially the kids, because the troops share snickers candy bars with the kids]. quite a few of my friends that have already come back tell me stories about how the Iraqis thanked them profusely for their efforts and never expressed any anger, resesntment, or bitterness towords the soldiers or the administration.

No! They are lying!! The troops are just tools of Bush! Tell your friends to stop accepting bribes from the Republican Party! All troops think this is an unjust war!
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Genesys
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
The war in Iraq wasn't about oil (well, unless you were from France, in which case it was, "Please don't help the Iraqi's get out from under Saddam, we're making a killing off their suffering!) and those who think it was are too simple minded and unethical to care that millions suffered and died under a brutal dictator for more than 20 years.

Sickening.

Jason

and now those Iraqi's want us to leave now so they can control their own future and not have it appointed or dictated by U.S. corp's or Bush and he's friends in the white house. We got Saddam and Bush's daddy has been avenge let's move on out and bring out troops home. Remember there are no WMD's so there is no reason to stay.
actually, my military buddies that are currently stationed in Iraq say the people there love them [especially the kids, because the troops share snickers candy bars with the kids]. quite a few of my friends that have already come back tell me stories about how the Iraqis thanked them profusely for their efforts and never expressed any anger, resesntment, or bitterness towords the soldiers or the administration.
The same bastards that were dancing in the streets after 9/11.



 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Genesys
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
The war in Iraq wasn't about oil (well, unless you were from France, in which case it was, "Please don't help the Iraqi's get out from under Saddam, we're making a killing off their suffering!) and those who think it was are too simple minded and unethical to care that millions suffered and died under a brutal dictator for more than 20 years.

Sickening.

Jason

and now those Iraqi's want us to leave now so they can control their own future and not have it appointed or dictated by U.S. corp's or Bush and he's friends in the white house. We got Saddam and Bush's daddy has been avenge let's move on out and bring out troops home. Remember there are no WMD's so there is no reason to stay.
actually, my military buddies that are currently stationed in Iraq say the people there love them [especially the kids, because the troops share snickers candy bars with the kids]. quite a few of my friends that have already come back tell me stories about how the Iraqis thanked them profusely for their efforts and never expressed any anger, resesntment, or bitterness towords the soldiers or the administration.
The same bastards that were dancing in the streets after 9/11.
It seems to me that its every arab is a "bastard that were dancing in the streets" :p I wonder who was really "dancing" in the street.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY