So war with Iraq is all about the oil

[jahawkin]

A 2001 report by the Council of Foreign Relations (of whom Dick Cheney is a member) titled "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century" basically outlines why and how our pending war with Iraq is all about the oil. Many people here discount this line of thinking, citing how we don't get all of our oil from the Middle East, but, as pointed out in the report,
"The global nature of oil trade and pricing means that it matters little if
Gulf oil flows to Asia or the United States. Middle East Gulf pricing and
supply trends will affect energy costs around the globe regardless. If
the United States wishes to change this reality, it must start now to
deploy new energy technologies that will lessen this dependence in the long run"

The report goes on to state how Iraq has a destabilizing influence on the region and world oil market, therefore we should review our policy towards Iraq, including military assessments.

Here's an article further exposing the report.

So, is our foreign policy driven by oil?? Will Iraq be all about the oil.....Looking at this report and the actions of the administration, I'd say yes.

 

[Evadman]

I am all for a war if it lowers gas prices. 7.1 MPG gets expensive.

<edit>
The above is Sarcasm. Aparently I have to say this because at least 2 people have broken or mis-configured detectors.

 

[Zenmervolt]

And the problem with this is? America's foreign policy should be in America's best interest. Let the other countries worry about what's in their best interest.

ZV

 

[n0cmonkey]

Every decision a politician makes is based on money. What, did you think this was about your best interrests?

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Well what else would it be about? Why would anyone have the slightest interest in that area of the world if it was not for the oil? It's a desert filled with camel and goat herders. Apparently Allah has not told anyone in the region that the 12th century ended about 800 years ago. Does the U.S (or anyone else for that matter) pay any attention to other 4th-world nations like Burkina Faso or Cameroon because we care about the plight of the local sheep population? It's impossible to keep Islamic nations stable, but we have to try to keep them functioning because that part of the world is just too damn important to ignore. Plunk a petty tyrant like Saddam down in central Africa where he did not threaten our oil supply or our safety with his oil-financed WMDs and do you think any civilized country would care?

 

[woodie1]

jahawkin-

This subject has been beat to death over and over on this Forum....where have you been?

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: Evadman
I am all for a war if it lowers gas prices. 7.1 MPG gets expensive.

If leveling New York City would entitle you to free gas for the next ten years, would you support that?

 

[darren]

no its not about the oil or the money or OUR interests.

our government genuinely cares about the welfare of the people of iraq. we want to help them. roll;

 

[CPA]

As Clinton's trade with China was to achieve kickbacks, Bush's anger with Iraq revolves around oil.

Actually, I find it interesting that Russia is so adament about not going to war with Iraq and at the same time has been signing millions and millions of dollars worth of oil contracts with Iraq. Now I ask you, would you rather have all that oil going to Russia or US?

 

[jahawkin]

I disagree about some of the sentiment in this thread. I think America's foreign policy should be about spreading justice and human rights across the globe, not doing something just because we profit from it. Why doesn't George Bush come out and say, "Iraq represents a great oppertunity for American corperations to make money from the vast oil reserves of the nation. That is why I'm asking your support, America, for sending your sons and daughters into war so some of my buddies can make more money"

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: woodie1
jahawkin-

This subject has been beat to death over and over on this Forum....where have you been?

Oh, I've been here, but whenever the subject of Iraq=oil comes up, people say bullsh!t, we get more oil from Canada than from the mid-east etc. etc.....

 

[FoBoT]

the last one was (gulf war in '91) , IMO

what's new?

 

[Bulk Beef]

Actually, it's all about the falafel, but "No Blood For Falafel!!" doesn't really roll off the tongue very well.

 

[Zenmervolt]

I think America's foreign policy should be about spreading justice and human rights across the globe, not doing something just because we profit from it.

Yup, and while we're doing this instead of looking out for ourselves, the other countries will look out for us instead because...oh...wait, that assumption is asinine.

ZV

EDIT: Spelling.

 

[Vic]

In the early conflicts leading to WWII, Japan invaded China in order to acquire steel. Their reasoning was that the US embargo of steel against Japan forced them to it.
Throughout our country's history, we have almost always held the moral high ground. With very few exceptions, we have never been the aggressor, we have never attacked first. In our greatest wars, in fact, we have fought to defend the freedoms of other countries halfway around the globe, in Europe and Asia.
Now, we are the aggressor, invading another country in order to gain access to resources and to increase our profits. Suddenly we are Hitler invading Poland "for breathing room" or Japan invading China in order to get a better price for steel.
But "War is good for the economy," people say. Bullsh!t. People with overly nostalgic attitudes and a lot of reckless stupidity look back on WWII and forget all about "A" cards or "Meatless Wednesdays" or the fact that not one single new car sold between 1942 and 1945 or the first imposition of payroll withholding for income taxes or the fact that US government got into such debt during that war that it still has not been paid off. All war does for an economy is increase government spending which over a short term may appear beneficial but if the war lasts too long, the bill comes due and hard.
I'm not opposed to getting better control of the situation in the Middle East. Action against Saddam has some merit and should be considered. But what I am opposed to is proving to the rest of the world that the "terrorists" were right about us after all, which is exactly what your reasoning would do, Evadman.

 

[m2kewl]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
...Why doesn't George Bush come out and say, "Iraq represents a great oppertunity for American corperations to make money from the vast oil reserves of the nation. That is why I'm asking your support, America, for sending your sons and daughters into war so some of my buddies can make more money"

remember in politics, honesty isn't the best policy which politician you know told the truth? quotes from the previous two presidents,

"i did not sexual relations with that woman"
"read my lips, no new taxes"

btw, most of the people in his administration know what it's really about...notice all those past Enron ties. Sure, it's about getting rid of the evil, stopping the production of nukes, etc...BUT are those the main goals?

 

[Kev]

Why can't we start a mass-conversion to hydrogen-powered cars? It would render the entire middle east utterly useless, since they have no education and no industry and nothing to offer the world other than their natural resources.

 

[m2kewl]

Originally posted by: maladroit
Why can't we start a mass-conversion to hydrogen-powered cars? It would render the entire middle east utterly useless, since they have no education and no industry and nothing to offer the world other than their natural resources.

b/c the oil industry would be pissed? plus the fact they have pull in DC?

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: m2kewl

Originally posted by: maladroit
Why can't we start a mass-conversion to hydrogen-powered cars? It would render the entire middle east utterly useless, since they have no education and no industry and nothing to offer the world other than their natural resources.

b/c the oil industry would be pissed? plus the fact they have pull in DC?

F the oil industry! F them in the A!

 

[olds]

So war with Iraq is all about the oil
Ya. So? What's your point?

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
And the problem with this is? America's foreign policy should be in America's best interest. Let the other countries worry about what's in their best interest.

ZV

Every nation's foreign policy is in its own best interest. The problem is that other countries percieve the US as an 800lb gorilla, and therefore believe the US must therefore act in their best interests. Hence, "multilateralism", and the calls for the US to act only through the UN.

 

[Geekbabe]

Why would that be a surprise, aren't most wars driven over money or property ?

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: darren
no its not about the oil or the money or OUR interests.

our government genuinely cares about the welfare of the people of iraq. we want to help them. roll;

i love when they try that line.

i guess crippling sanctions are in their best interests too.

 

[Moonbeam]

Carter put solar water heaters on the White House. Reagan tore them down.

Intelligence tells you what you need to do. Self interested greed tells you how to put yourself before the interests of the majority.

Everyone who thinks of himself first has as an instinctive certainty the notion that everybody else is just the same. This is why the world is run by pigs. Lust is unfailing in its motivation. Once there wore two pigs and they fought a war of values. One pig died and his replacement has not yet grown. The United States, temporarily, is in Hog Heaven.

 

[sandorski]

Babylon?