TIME: U.S. Companies Shut Out as Iraq Auctions Its Oil Fields

[Hayabusa Rider]

Maybe its time to look at these again:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oilfield-pr.shtml
http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilMap.pdf
http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilFrgnSuitors.pdf
http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilGasProj.pdf

More information:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0317-23.htm
http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/aiWGqGCFcZg-iraq-war-is-largely-about.aspx
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2003/jul/13/oilandpetrol.iraq

I could keep finding more links but the point is: to say that oil was not a factor in the initial intention to go to Iraq is disingenuous at best. The fact that it didn't turn out that way and probably won't - as evidenced by recent auctions and Iraqi govt actions - does not make the smokescreen reasons more valid.

Some have argued that Bush believed Saddam was a bad person, but part of that belief came from his ideological position which is best described in PNAC documents. And American power, control and reliability of strategic resources had a lot to do with that belief.

The claim by many whacked people is that we went into Iraq to grab the oil, and that's wrong. Was oil a factor at all? If you are going to have a war in the Middle East it sure as hell is.

The problem is that simple minds don't really want to look at context and to see if what they claim makes sense.

The prime reason to go to war was to Get Saddam. Why? Because Bush and those who are on the "blood for oil" kick are pretty much the same. Don't bother to look, and for heaven's sake don't do anything to question the premise.

That said, Bush DID believe Saddam was evil. He had to have WMDs because his tiny worldview insisted he did. He had to be a terrorist supporter because he just had to be.

Consequently he and those around him decided to pull another Vietnam in that there were realities larger than facts.

Bush explained in agonizing detail why he wanted to go to war, and people being what they are insisted there was more. What else is in Iraq? Oil. It must be oil!

Curiously, some who detested Bush for what he is decided to make his arguments for him, or at least that's how I'm reading it.

Saddam was all about Saddam, and those types are godsends to those who engage in international intrigue. They don't operate under a philosophical mandate. It's about getting control over their environment and profiting from it. Saddam is like many people in that way, but he had a nasty habit of killing people to get what he wanted.

That last bit is important. Saddam didn't gain power to kill people, but he killed them to acquire and keep it.

The proper people could have had him dancing on his head thinking it was his idea.

So why didn't we do that? Because it wasn't about oil, it was about Satan himself inhabiting Saddam (yes that is hyperbole). From this basic concept everything else follows. Saddam was a threat to us, to the region, to apple pie, to oil, to Krispy Kreme donuts if it came to it. Note how oil falls into it? It's somewhere, but what it is not is a main reason to go to war in an attempt to secure Iraq as a oil supply for the US.

First, assign all the faults of humanity to Saddam, then the end justifies the means.

In that context virtually everything that happened falls out as a natural consequence.

Bush wasn't greedy. He wasn't even stupid. He was Ahab hunting Moby Dick, just as I said at the beginning of the war.

Sometimes things aren't all that complicated.

 

[Craig234]

Of course, and Obama was
born in Kenya.

Hayabusa, you are repeatedly commiting a logical fallacy known as 'false analogy' - here on Kenya, before on saying Bush and oil is like Obama and Muslim or something.

It's not an argument. I'll show you, I can play too.

"Obama IS NOT trying to help big pharma with the healthcare bill. Saying he is is like saying Bush was out to help the American communist party."

You see, that sort of wild hyperbole only has merit when the underlyinjg point is clearly proven enough that you can indulge in adding some spice to accent - not when the hyperbole is your whole argument.

In fact, the idea that the Bush policy on Iraq had something to do with oil is nothing like your ridiculous analogies, and you didnot prove a thing by making them.

There is massive evidence to the contrary that it was partly motivated by oil, which you have no answer for.

Edit:

Now, I saw your most recent post, and it has additional points to respond to.

We agree the war wasn't to 'go seize oil', and I stop just short of calling that a straw man because there probably were a few people who said it.

But you alllege with no evidence at all that the motive was all about Bush going on an Ahab crusade myopically after the evil Saddam. That's nonsense too.

I can't lay out the specific list of factors and their weight - I wonder if Bush could.

There were many factors, some of which were stronger than others, some even the other direction. We know many and can speculate reasonably.

I won't try to do justice to the complicated topic here - there are books you can read - but I'll mention a few to support my point.

Oil, we've covered and you agreed that oil was a factor.

Some combination of 'outdoing his father' and 'revenge for Saddam tryinhg to kill his father' - this is too speculative for me to say much about, but Bush listed the latter as a reason.

PNAC agenda - I think this was pretty central - you can read the PNAC leaders, who were also Bush's government, own arguments for why to attack Iraq for 'global power' reasons.

There was a role for Iraq as a staging platform for US forces in the middle east, and the US needed this because it was under pressure to get our forces out of Saudi Arabia.

(Recall among other things this was Osama bin Laden's leading rallying cry in the Muslim world against the US).

The whole economic program, not well known, I think was a real benefit, but not a primary motive.

It's easy to miss as well that the whole 'wartime president' thing was key to Bush's power, popularity, re-election. Get his ratings up, and he can pass his domestic agenda worth trillions to Republican interests. Low ratings, and he can't. I don't think that was lost on them, and the fact is, Bush's low, declining ratings early skyrockted to 90%+ with 9/11. Of course he'd seen his father's ratings skyrocket the first gulf war as well.

'Strategists', Neocons, felt the US needed to 'project force', and Saddam, as a greatly weakened target, who was easily demonized, was the clear easiest choice.

Your ahab theory is speculation that doesn't make much sense - Bush didn't run on a platform of 'getting Saddam', and even on the literal eve of war, he claimed not to be out to have war wih Saddam, promising not to invade if Saddam and his sons left power, not exactly an obsessive approach.

WMD - not onlyh is it my opinion that, while I suspect Bush believed they were there, could not have cared much less - as much was admitted by a central figure on the war policy.

They were critical for two things - selling the war, and a pretense for why we could justify the war as a signatory to the UN charter, by claiming it was 'defense from the WMD'.

Bush's 'demonizing' of Saddam wasn't Ahab, it was simply the politician selling the policy. It's pretty much always how war is done - even if we forget the stories of Noriega having ohmigosh porn and swastikas in his hideout, or the lies of Iraqi troops taking babies out of incubators to steal them.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hayabusa, you are repeatedly commiting a logical fallacy known as 'false analogy' - here on Kenya, before on saying Bush and oil is like Obama and Muslim or something.

It's not an argument. I'll show you, I can play too.

"Obama IS NOT trying to help big pharma with the healthcare bill. Saying he is is like saying Bush was out to help the American communist party."

You see, that sort of wild hyperbole only has merit when the underlyinjg point is clearly proven enough that you can indulge in adding some spice to accent - not when the hyperbole is your whole argument.

In fact, the idea that the Bush policy on Iraq had something to do with oil is nothing like your ridiculous analogies, and you didnot prove a thing by making them.

There is massive evidence to the contrary that it was partly motivated by oil, which you have no answer for.

I gave you an answer, in some detail. As the saying goes, I've found you an explanation but I'm not compelled to find you an understanding (I love Samuel Johnson).

Just as you claim that the Dems aren't monolithic, neither is the history of the war so simple as oil being a main motivation.

As far as my comment about Obama, that was me mocking the Reps as well, because I think their thought processes are worthy of my scorn as well.

Because I may not support your position does not mean I approve of what anyone else does. They stand or fall on their own merits.

 

[blackangst1]

Hayabusa, you are repeatedly commiting a logical fallacy known as 'false analogy' - here on Kenya, before on saying Bush and oil is like Obama and Muslim or something.

It's not an argument. I'll show you, I can play too.

"Obama IS NOT trying to help big pharma with the healthcare bill. Saying he is is like saying Bush was out to help the American communist party."

You see, that sort of wild hyperbole only has merit when the underlyinjg point is clearly proven enough that you can indulge in adding some spice to accent - not when the hyperbole is your whole argument.

In fact, the idea that the Bush policy on Iraq had something to do with oil is nothing like your ridiculous analogies, and you didnot prove a thing by making them.

There is massive evidence to the contrary that it was partly motivated by oil, which you have no answer for.

In the same way there is evidence Obama's motivation for Afghanastan is opium.

 

[Craig234]

Please don't confuse my use of the word "started" as some statement on the time frame involved in setting up the ability to burn the wells. But yes, you are correct, another example of Saddam's penchant for hostage taking. Initially he stated that Kuwait and it's resources were rightful property of Iraq, but after the opening of the war and some prolonged ass beating, it was thought that dense oil smoke would interfere with American infrared and night vision equipment. At that point in the war they had nothing to lose by trying.

I know there were claims of Kuwait doing that side-way drilling stuff into Iraqi fields, so I can kinda understand a mentality of "if i can't have my stuff back, no one gets to use it!" Not sure if those claims were true or not, but I don't think it would have mattered to Saddam either way.

Saddam's reasons for invading Kuwait included a historical argument (these things happen, China got back Hong Kong, Cuba would no doubt like Guantanamo, and there are a number of disputed lands); and the sideways drilling argument. But a little-known factor as well was that the US had promised him we'd 'let him' take Kuwait, if he took on Iran in war. He did. It was a long war in the 80's (perhaps the longest major war that century), with a million casualties. Late in the game the George Bush administration decided 'oh, ya, about that, we didn't expect to have to pay up, and no he can't have Kuwait after all', but didn't tell him.

In one of the most confusing mysteries of the period, the US Ambassador was asked by Saddam about that deal as he planned the invasion, and the ambassador told him that Iraq invading Kuwait was of no concern.

Green light. Incompetence? Setting Saddam up? I don't know.

In fact, as thing moved along closer to the invasion, the US realized the situation and corrected the message, but by this point Saddam decided for whatever reason - that he was entitled from the earlier promise, that the US was not really meaning what it said, who knows - to proceed, and the rest is history. Big US plan to set him up after his usefulness in attacking Iraq was done, to further weaken the Middle East for us and our allies like Saudi Arabia? Who knows.

 

[Craig234]

In the same way there is evidence Obama's motivation for Afghanastan is opium.

Read the definition of false analogy above. Your ignorance of the evidence appears to be the problem here.

 

[Craig234]

I gave you an answer, in some detail. As the saying goes, I've found you an explanation but I'm not compelled to find you an understanding (I love Samuel Johnson).

Just as you claim that the Dems aren't monolithic, neither is the history of the war so simple as oil being a main motivation.

As far as my comment about Obama, that was me mocking the Reps as well, because I think their thought processes are worthy of my scorn as well.

Because I may not support your position does not mean I approve of what anyone else does. They stand or fall on their own merits.

My first post was a response to your first post. You cited your later post, which I added an edit for that you should now read. You ignored the point of my first post on your false analogies in your response.

 

[heyheybooboo]

O'Neill: Iraq planning came before 9/11

Paul O'Neill, President Bush's Treasury secretary in the first two years of his presidency, says the Bush administration was planning to invade Iraq long before the Sept. 11 attacks and used questionable intelligence to justify the war....

O'Neill said Bush and a number of top advisers began planning to get rid of Saddam Hussein soon after the 2000 election. As early as January 2001, they began looking for ways to justify an invasion, O'Neill said....

Bush fired O'Neill in December 2002 after clashing with the Treasury secretary over economic issues, including Bush's $1.7 trillion in tax cuts. O'Neill is the principal source for a new book about the Bush administration, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind....

Suskind, also interviewed on 60 Minutes, said the Bush administration had already begun planning for an invasion of Iraq in January 2001 — eight months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington. The planning, Suskind said, involved discussions of war crimes tribunals, peacekeeping troops and questions about how to divide Iraq's oil wealth.

Let Operation NeanderCon Knee-Jerk & Revisionist History / Personal Attack commence ...



-

 

[kage69]

In the same way there is evidence Obama's motivation for Afghanastan is opium.

Congrats angst. That has to be one of the most ignorant, disingenuous replies I've seen on these forums in a long, long time.

Get well soon.

 

[soccerballtux]

Probably because it doesn't mean anything and it never did. Even Bush could grasp three letter words. When the entire economy of a nation is one product securing the building which controls that is just what you do.

One of the dangers of making a Batman type villain out of Presidents is that it leads down the road to nonsense. Bush being out for oil is like Obama being a secret Muslim bent on Stalinism. Right.

The hard part for many people to grasp was that Bush believed what he said. He believed that Saddam was a threat. He believed that he could make a democracy which would have a Domino effect. He was an idiot, but in this regard an honest one.

Bush didn't invade Iraq to take it's oil. That was never the intent.

Ultimately there were a number of reasons Iraq had to happen, but seizing oil wasn't one of them. It was more philosophy than petroleum.

Except we have videos where Obama says he's interested in what's fair not what's best for the country.

 

[Craig234]

Except we have videos where Obama says he's interested in what's fair not what's best for the country.

What's fair is for your next door neighbor not to steal your things. What's best for him is to do so.

Which do you want?

Don't bring up police and jail - when we're talking about US foreign policy there's rarely any 'police' to punish us.

 

[soccerballtux]

This message is hidden because Craig234 is on your ignore list.

 

[Sclamoz]

I'm aware that keeping infrastructure intact was in our interests, but the selectivity of that desire is suspicious at best.
Why? Iraq's oil profit would be key to their economy, it's pretty much the only thing going for them. It's really not hard to grasp.

Seeing as how at the time we had many suspicions about France, China and Russia circumventing UN trade restrictions with Iraq, jumping in before the Baathists could get the bonfires and shredders going would be a logical action. Course it also means you can control info about American companies doing the same, I do recall being set straight on these same forums over the number of American interests doing business with Saddam on the down low.

So what does this have to do with invading Iraq for oil? If we didn't invade we wouldn't have to worry about this in the first place. But your assumption that's why occupied that building is quite a leap, I mean that building

I didn't say it was the only reason we invaded. I do however consider it on of the more dominant reasons, and that it coincided with the desires of PNAC adherents who were in power. We needed the guise of WMD related threats to sell the war to the public. Lifting the embargo would still be leaving Iraq's reserves under the control of Saddam, and as I said earlier, despots who don't want to play ball are bad for business. Despots who express desire to move away from the dollar even more so.

Then what reasons did we invade?

So we knew Saddam had no WMDs and we made that up?

We left the Iraqi government in control of Iraq's oil. Hence why Russian and Chinese companies are developing their fields. Seems like a stretch that we would invade a country to take control of a resource and then give it straight back and do nothing while our main competitors get contracts to develop their oil fields doesn't it?

 

[Sclamoz]

Saddam's reasons for invading Kuwait included a historical argument (these things happen, China got back Hong Kong, Cuba would no doubt like Guantanamo, and there are a number of disputed lands); and the sideways drilling argument. But a little-known factor as well was that the US had promised him we'd 'let him' take Kuwait, if he took on Iran in war. He did. It was a long war in the 80's (perhaps the longest major war that century), with a million casualties. Late in the game the George Bush administration decided 'oh, ya, about that, we didn't expect to have to pay up, and no he can't have Kuwait after all', but didn't tell him.

In one of the most confusing mysteries of the period, the US Ambassador was asked by Saddam about that deal as he planned the invasion, and the ambassador told him that Iraq invading Kuwait was of no concern.

Green light. Incompetence? Setting Saddam up? I don't know.

In fact, as thing moved along closer to the invasion, the US realized the situation and corrected the message, but by this point Saddam decided for whatever reason - that he was entitled from the earlier promise, that the US was not really meaning what it said, who knows - to proceed, and the rest is history. Big US plan to set him up after his usefulness in attacking Iraq was done, to further weaken the Middle East for us and our allies like Saudi Arabia? Who knows.

Complete BS.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There is an old movie "The Producers", and it's a great one.

Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel hit on an idea where they take in more money than they need to sell a play. Everything hinges on the fact that if it's a flop, they won't be investigated because they won't be expected to repay the investors.

I think that in some way that WMDs were much like that. While we know that obviously there weren't WMDs "around Tikrit", I think the administration believed there to be some. So without knowing anything for sure, they were certain enough that some existed somewhere. Once Saddam was deposed, they'd find a cache somewhere and they would be vindicated. No one would ask "well can you prove you knew they were there first?"

Unfortunately for the producers of this war, it went completely south. The play was a hit, and they went to jail
The WMD claims was a bust and they were caught in a lie, but I doubt they will be held accountable.

 

[Jhhnn]

Oh, please. The desire to invade Iraq lingered from the first gulf war in the minds of the neocons- that's obvious. They urged Clinton to do so, repeatedly and unsuccessfully. They planned for it early in the Bush Admin, per O'Neill, and he has no reason to lie. Cheney's secret energy policy meetings clearly pertained at least in part to Iraqi oil- the maps of Iraqi oil fields were virtually the only things outside investigators ever got.

But they needed something more to get it rolling- and 9/11 was it. Rumsfeld wanted to bomb Iraq on 9/12, while anything and every thing imaginable was used in an attempt to link the Iraqi regime with Terrar! and Al Qaeda. In the agitprop fest leading up to the invasion, Osama/Saddam/Al Qaeda/Iraq/WMD's/Terrar! were terms not used except in conjunction with each other, at least not in Whitehouse rhetoric or by their supporters in the media.

They even went so far as to demand that the Iraqis prove a negative- "prove that there are no WMD's in Iraq" When UN inspectors nearly accomplished that, and said so, the Bush Admin demanded their withdrawal and attacked anyway. After 12 years of brutal sanctions, the made to seem dangerous Iraqi military was a ghost, conquest a matter of picking off low hanging fruit.

Anybody who thinks that the Admin went to all that effort because of ideological/philosophical reasons or because Saddam was a bad guy needs to have their apologist heads examined. It just didn't turn out the way they'd dreamed it would, that's all. I say "dreamed" because they still didn't have the answer GHWB wanted to invade as correllary to GW1- "What's the exit strategy?" They just made it up as they went along, getting it wrong, wrong, and wrong again...

 

[rockyct]

I believe the goal was to have a stable government in Iraq that would keep the oil flowing. Even if US companies don't have contracts, just the fact that Iraqi oil is in the market will help keep prices lower. With Saddam in power, there might be sanctions against oil or he might decide to stop export to pressure the West.

Exactly. Control of the oil doesn't mean nearly as much as a stable oil supply. Of course we weren't going to take their oil. They wanted a stable government in charge of that much oil and that did eventually happened.

I don't see how this proves that oil didn't have anything to do with the Iraq invasion.

 

[Sclamoz]

O'Neill: Iraq planning came before 9/11



Let Operation NeanderCon Knee-Jerk & Revisionist History / Personal Attack commence ...



-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

Why woudn't it? Our goal to remove Saddam has been official since 98, 9/11 wasn't the stated reason for the invasion it was to remove Saddam and any WMD.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Oh, please. The desire to invade Iraq lingered from the first gulf war in the minds of the neocons- that's obvious. They urged Clinton to do so, repeatedly and unsuccessfully. They planned for it early in the Bush Admin, per O'Neill, and he has no reason to lie. Cheney's secret energy policy meetings clearly pertained at least in part to Iraqi oil- the maps of Iraqi oil fields were virtually the only things outside investigators ever got.

But they needed something more to get it rolling- and 9/11 was it. Rumsfeld wanted to bomb Iraq on 9/12, while anything and every thing imaginable was used in an attempt to link the Iraqi regime with Terrar! and Al Qaeda. In the agitprop fest leading up to the invasion, Osama/Saddam/Al Qaeda/Iraq/WMD's/Terrar! were terms not used except in conjunction with each other, at least not in Whitehouse rhetoric or by their supporters in the media.

They even went so far as to demand that the Iraqis prove a negative- "prove that there are no WMD's in Iraq" When UN inspectors nearly accomplished that, and said so, the Bush Admin demanded their withdrawal and attacked anyway. After 12 years of brutal sanctions, the made to seem dangerous Iraqi military was a ghost, conquest a matter of picking off low hanging fruit.

Anybody who thinks that the Admin went to all that effort because of ideological/philosophical reasons or because Saddam was a bad guy needs to have their apologist heads examined. It just didn't turn out the way they'd dreamed it would, that's all. I say "dreamed" because they still didn't have the answer GHWB wanted to invade as correllary to GW1- "What's the exit strategy?" They just made it up as they went along, getting it wrong, wrong, and wrong again...

LOL at the apologist head thing. When Harvey, Moonbeam and myself were speaking out against the war before it happened, I don't remember you joining us. Apologizing perhaps?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Remember the only building the US had plans to secure after the invasion was the oil ministry, while everything else, museums included, was looted without interference.

Craig your so totally full of it....hahahahaaaaa

 

[Ozoned]

There is an old movie "The Producers", and it's a great one.

Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel hit on an idea where they take in more money than they need to sell a play. Everything hinges on the fact that if it's a flop, they won't be investigated because they won't be expected to repay the investors.

I think that in some way that WMDs were much like that. While we know that obviously there weren't WMDs "around Tikrit", I think the administration believed there to be some. So without knowing anything for sure, they were certain enough that some existed somewhere. Once Saddam was deposed, they'd find a cache somewhere and they would be vindicated. No one would ask "well can you prove you knew they were there first?"

Unfortunately for the producers of this war, it went completely south. The play was a hit, and they went to jail
The WMD claims was a bust and they were caught in a lie, but I doubt they will be held accountable.

It's really odd that scammers didn't find any WMD, even if there were none there.

 

[Jhhnn]

I joined you- you just don't remember.

I think it's important to realize that the neocon headset, American exceptionalism, is just another way to describe imperialism. They just don't call it "the white man's burden"- they say it's our duty and obligation to spread "Free! freedom! and liberty!" at gunpoint to the rest of the world. It's all about markets and resources- the rest is just putting it in a pretty dress.

If it were about philosophy rather than resources, they wouldn't have pushed afghanistan into the background, let it fester, neglected the obligation created when we invaded there. And they might have spoken out more forcefully wrt some of the rest of the despotic regimes worldwide, KSA among them.

 

[Ozoned]

I joined you- you just don't remember.

I think it's important to realize that the neocon headset, American exceptionalism, is just another way to describe imperialism. They just don't call it "the white man's burden"- they say it's our duty and obligation to spread "Free! freedom! and liberty!" at gunpoint to the rest of the world. It's all about markets and resources- the rest is just putting it in a pretty dress.

If it were about philosophy rather than resources, they wouldn't have pushed afghanistan into the background, let it fester, neglected the obligation created when we invaded there. And they might have spoken out more forcefully wrt some of the rest of the despotic regimes worldwide, KSA among them.

Quit providing resources for those under your wing, and watch how fast they turn on you.


The pretty dress is for those that don't have the backbone to accept what we are, and how we got here.

 

[Zebo]

Like it matters? Second we pull out place goes into serious retribution blood feud mode. None of you understand Islam nor tribal culture which basically looks at the world through a lens of victors and vanquished.

 

[werepossum]

In the same way there is evidence Obama's motivation for Afghanastan is opium.

LOL!

Why on Earth would any American oil company wish to be in Iraq? In general an American oil company is at more risk from the terrorists than are other nationalities' companies. Occidental might be able to buy a pass being a long-time Friend of Gore, but with the Democrats firmly in power and likely to remain so for quite some time, oil companies are front and center in their sights for punishment and probably outright destruction. Contracts in Iraq would just make the Democrats more eager to destroy that particular company first.