Was Iraq about oil?

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If Iraq was about oil then the US wouldn't have given control of it back to the Iraqis.

Why?

We'd have to own/control the oil to make use of it? Seems obvious enough...

No, your logic is off again. There are lots of things to do with oil besides use it right now.

One other is, as Greg Palast reports, to keep the oil largely off the market for the benefit of certain groups.

Another is the simple fact that now the oil is much more available for American oil companies to profit from than it was, with the contracts with China, France, etc. voided.

It's not done the same way anymore where the US invades and puts in a ruler for decades and simply seizes the oil - that's politically (and probably militarily) not too feasible now.

Contacts with China and France were voided? Hmmm. Weren't they two of the countries opposed to the invasion? Didn't Russia have contracts too? So three of the four major countries opposed to the invasion had oil contracts with Saddam?

What an amazing coincidence.

Thanks for proving my point. The war was effective in its increasing US control of the oil at the expense of those economic competitors.

And remember, the original US planners had grand ideas, with their puppet Chalabi taking control and far greater control of the oil. The military disaster prevented that.

I'm not surpirsed my comment passed you right by.

Talk all the drivel you want about the US going into Iraq for oil. The simple fact remains that the Iraqi Ministry of Oil controls their oil and has for some time. The fact also remains that the Ministry of Oil has already been handing out contracts for some time and hasn't shown any particilar favoritism towards the US or US companies. All these "what if" scenarios are just more of the same FUD and fearmongering we've been hearing about Iraq's oil since we invaded. The claims keep falling on their face so I'm not sure why people feel the need to continue repeating them or manufacturing new ones. At the very least you should wait until you have something a bit more solid than paranoid speculation to fan your fever.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If Iraq was about oil then the US wouldn't have given control of it back to the Iraqis.

Why?

We'd have to own/control the oil to make use of it? Seems obvious enough...

No, your logic is off again. There are lots of things to do with oil besides use it right now.

One other is, as Greg Palast reports, to keep the oil largely off the market for the benefit of certain groups.

Another is the simple fact that now the oil is much more available for American oil companies to profit from than it was, with the contracts with China, France, etc. voided.

It's not done the same way anymore where the US invades and puts in a ruler for decades and simply seizes the oil - that's politically (and probably militarily) not too feasible now.

Contacts with China and France were voided? Hmmm. Weren't they two of the countries opposed to the invasion? Didn't Russia have contracts too? So three of the four major countries opposed to the invasion had oil contracts with Saddam?

What an amazing coincidence.

Thanks for proving my point. The war was effective in its increasing US control of the oil at the expense of those economic competitors.

And remember, the original US planners had grand ideas, with their puppet Chalabi taking control and far greater control of the oil. The military disaster prevented that.

I'm not surpirsed my comment passed you right by.

Talk all the drivel you want about the US going into Iraq for oil. The simple fact remains that the Iraqi Ministry of Oil controls their oil and has for some time. The fact also remains that the Ministry of Oil has already been handing out contracts for some time and hasn't shown any particilar favoritism towards the US or US companies. All these "what if" scenarios are just more of the same FUD and fearmongering we've been hearing about Iraq's oil since we invaded. The claims keep falling on their face so I'm not sure why people feel the need to continue repeating them or manufacturing new ones. At the very least you should wait until you have something a bit more solid than paranoid speculation to fan your fever.

I'm not surprised you respond to comments passing you right by with that rude and embarrassing, when it's you missing it, phrase.

Let me make it very, very simple for you. How much access did US corporations have to Iraqi oil before the invasion under Saddam, compared to how much they expected to have?

Ready for another? Same question, but compared to how much they have now.

And one more: I can't ask you to actually read a book, I'd bet, but can you be bothered to read one short 2005 article with a click?

How have oil company profits changed since the invasion of Iraq?

 

[ProfJohn]

Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security

Greenspan is clarifying the comments he made about the Iraq war and oil.
Time for all the lefties to end their celebration.
Sorry he did not mean what you thought he meant.

Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy.

"I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."

He said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, "I have never heard them basically say, 'We've got to protect the oil supplies of the world,' but that would have been my motive." Greenspan said that he made his economic argument to White House officials and that one lower-level official, whom he declined to identify, told him, "Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil." Asked if he had made his point to Cheney specifically, Greenspan said yes, then added, "I talked to everybody about that."

So oil was Greenspan's motive, not the White House. I wonder if the people who were celebrating Greenspan on page 2 will now cast him out as a warmonger.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'm not surprised you respond to comments passing you right by with that rude and embarrassing, when it's you missing it, phrase.

Let me make it very, very simple for you. How much access did US corporations have to Iraqi oil before the invasion under Saddam, compared to how much they expected to have?

Ready for another? Same question, but compared to how much they have now.

And one more: I can't ask you to actually read a book, I'd bet, but can you be bothered to read one short 2005 article with a click?

How have oil company profits changed since the invasion of Iraq?

Let me see. It's you who somehow insists an article from 2005 from Palast has any truth to it when his "privitzation" FUD about Iraq didn't pan out. Palast has a history of making false claims and promoting poorly thought out arguments bordering on fearmongering, and which are based primarily on his anti-US stance and his absolute hatred of anything Bush or corporate. It's as if he's stuck in some sophomoric mindset and never went beyong that phase in his life.

Let me ask you a simple question. How many oil contracts, prior to the invasion, were awarded based on an open-bid process?

As far as oil company profits, how about you do some research on oil company boom and bust cycles? How do oil company profits over, say, the last 10 years compare to their expenditures for R&D and new development? How have the economic booms in China and India affected profits and supply, therefore affecting prices?

Your narrow focus does you no favors whatsoever. It's why it's so hard to take you seriously at all. Your simplistic thinking about Iraq and its oil, which is shaped by your blatantly obvious 'They are out to get us.' paranoia, is laughable. You come off as yet another looney conspriacy theorist that doesn't look at the entire picture but only views what they want to see to the exclusion of all else.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This whole ?it?s about oil? BS is pathetic.

We could have just bought their oil for far less money, time and effort. (Comment added by Fern -"and we still will be buying their oil".)

And what exactly is it about the oil that we are trying to accomplish? What did we do via invasion that we could not have done without invading? Are we currently stealing their oil and sending it back to the states cheap?

Some far left crazies will tell you that Afghanistan was about oil as well.

As for the Greenspan comments: he is an economist, not a member of Bush?s foreign relations council nor does he have any special training in foreign policy nor has he ever been apart of the decision making policy on Iraq. And the idea that he is some ?high ranking Republican? is pathetic. He is the chairman of an independent commission. He does not go to cabinet meetings to discuss policy with the President; I doubt he has much contact with the President at all.

Again: if it was about the oil then why didn?t we just loosen up the sanctions and buy the oil like everyone else was doing?

QFT

 

[Gaard]

Could Saddam have pulled a Soupnazi? "No oil for you!"
You being us.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'm not surprised you respond to comments passing you right by with that rude and embarrassing, when it's you missing it, phrase.

Let me make it very, very simple for you. How much access did US corporations have to Iraqi oil before the invasion under Saddam, compared to how much they expected to have?

Ready for another? Same question, but compared to how much they have now.

And one more: I can't ask you to actually read a book, I'd bet, but can you be bothered to read one short 2005 article with a click?

How have oil company profits changed since the invasion of Iraq?

Let me see. It's you who somehow insists an article from 2005 from Palast has any truth to it when his "privitzation" FUD about Iraq didn't pan out.

Apparently it's beyond you to understand that the reporting can be accurate on the plans, even if the plans don't work out.

According to your logic, if Palast reported that Squeaky Frohm had a plan to assassinate President Ford, you would say his report doesn't have any truth because it didn't pan out.

Oh, and thanks for the chuckly on your recent attempt to lecture on 'logic', as you continue to illustrate how silly the idea was.

Palast has a history of making false claims and promoting poorly thought out arguments bordering on fearmongering, and which are based primarily on his anti-US stance and his absolute hatred of anything Bush or corporate. It's as if he's stuck in some sophomoric mindset and never went beyong that phase in his life.

Why, I didn't realize you read his books (you have, right?) Palast has a history of some of the best investigate reporting in the world on US politics - he's made amazing contributions - even if his delivery can seem a bit hysterical, and some of his points sometimes made in a bit of a disengenuous manner. Of course, his relatively minor flaws among great reporting are a far cry from your nonsensical, hysterical, blind attack on him as, predictably, 'hating America'. Don't you right wing cultists every get fresh material?

The same could be said of arguably the nation's most celebrated investigative reporter, Pulitzer-Prize winner Seymour Hersh - I've had the pleasure of speaking with both men, and Hersh comes across as far more wild-eyed and fanatical in person, and has made the dubious claim that it's ok to have a lesser standard for accuracy and truth in his spoken comments than his written ones; he's also had some big misses in his predictions. And yet, he's also nonetheless made great contributions with his investigative reporting.

Flaws don't invalidate their reporting. I could easily list 20 big stories Palast has uncovered, all right on; you are the one who misses the 'big picture' with your little sniping.

Let me ask you a simple question. How many oil contracts, prior to the invasion, were awarded based on an open-bid process?

Let me ask you to answer my questions first - no, you won't. How much better do US companies do under the open-bid process than under Saddam? Hmm...

...Your simplistic thinking about Iraq and its oil, which is shaped by your blatantly obvious 'They are out to get us.' paranoia, is laughable. You come off as yet another looney conspriacy theorist that doesn't look at the entire picture but only views what they want to see to the exclusion of all else.[/quote]

And you come off as a brain-damaged ranter who can't make the thinnest of connections between the names you throw out as attacks and what I actually say.

It's ironic you call my attempts to simplify the issue when you show you are unable to handle the complexity as simplistic, while you show in the same post you can't understand the idea that the administration was guilty of having certain plans it wanted to implement that it was unable to do so, instead claiming that their not implementing them proves they never wanted to.

You can't begin to back up your absurd attack - what's this 'big picture' you attack about but fail to substantiate?

Shoo.

 

[Arkaign]

Craig, you forgot to ask how wonderful the higher gas prices are working out for the US consumers We loooove sending record money into the pockets of billionaires and foreign despots. Yay!

<-- Palast reader btw, and I believe that it's almost painfully obvious (from the State Department's own documents, no less) that suppression of oil was the true key and reason to the destabilization/destruction of Iraq. Big oil won during the contest with the original PNAC manifesto of cheap oil.

 

[Fern]

I think Krugman reads an AWFUL lot into that one business deal. I mean, he really fabricated a whole huge story with one factoid. As far as I can tell, he doesn't even know the Texas oil guy. How the fsck does he know what the guy's thinking? Geesh.

Since it's the Sunni's who are the hold outs, Krugman seems to postilate that they are driving force behind a split up in Iraq. How much friggin sense does that make? Why would the Sunni's want that, they got no oil? Makes no sense whatsoever.

So, the Kurds aren't gonna wait on the central government and wanna go ahead and start with some economic development. Who can blame them? Oil is at an all time record high, what should they do, wait until it drops? And Krugman sees this as damning evidence of a balkanized Iraq. Fsck, IMO that's a helluva stretch.

While it may be legally dubious, much like an unauthorized partner selling a piece of real estate on behalf of the partnership, is it a decent deal for (Iraq) Kurds? If it's a decent deal I'd expect the central gov to stick with it once they get their act together.

Might this *encourage* the completion of an oil revenue sharing agreement? I think so. While it'll likely be a while before any revenues are generated, what's the effect on the Suni's (who are the hold outs)?

I'm guessing it's gonna motivate them to come to the table. So much for the "no deal is better than a bad deal" thingy. The Sunni's are the one's with NO oil. What are they gonna do if the Shia's and Kurds press ahead with oil deals? Sit on the sidelines and watch the others get money? I doubt it.

Contrary to Krugman, I think it's possibly a great business play by the Kurds to get the ball rolling.

Fern

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Topic Title: Was Iraq about oil?

Alan Greenspan said so in his new book out Friday.

I said so before the War started.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security

Greenspan is clarifying the comments he made about the Iraq war and oil.
Time for all the lefties to end their celebration.
Sorry he did not mean what you thought he meant.

Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy.

"I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."

He said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, "I have never heard them basically say, 'We've got to protect the oil supplies of the world,' but that would have been my motive." Greenspan said that he made his economic argument to White House officials and that one lower-level official, whom he declined to identify, told him, "Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil." Asked if he had made his point to Cheney specifically, Greenspan said yes, then added, "I talked to everybody about that."

So oil was Greenspan's motive, not the White House. I wonder if the people who were celebrating Greenspan on page 2 will now cast him out as a warmonger.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'm not surprised you respond to comments passing you right by with that rude and embarrassing, when it's you missing it, phrase.

Let me make it very, very simple for you. How much access did US corporations have to Iraqi oil before the invasion under Saddam, compared to how much they expected to have?

Ready for another? Same question, but compared to how much they have now.

And one more: I can't ask you to actually read a book, I'd bet, but can you be bothered to read one short 2005 article with a click?

How have oil company profits changed since the invasion of Iraq?

Let me see. It's you who somehow insists an article from 2005 from Palast has any truth to it when his "privitzation" FUD about Iraq didn't pan out.

Apparently it's beyond you to understand that the reporting can be accurate on the plans, even if the plans don't work out.

Erm, yeah. Fake but accurate? Where have we seen that before? :roll:

According to your logic, if Palast reported that Squeaky Frohm had a plan to assassinate President Ford, you would say his report doesn't have any truth because it didn't pan out.

Oh, and thanks for the chuckly on your recent attempt to lecture on 'logic', as you continue to illustrate how silly the idea was.

Glad you can laugh about something instead of being laughed at, though the latter really hasn't ceased. You just apparently aren't aware of that fact.

Palast has a history of making false claims and promoting poorly thought out arguments bordering on fearmongering, and which are based primarily on his anti-US stance and his absolute hatred of anything Bush or corporate. It's as if he's stuck in some sophomoric mindset and never went beyong that phase in his life.

Why, I didn't realize you read his books (you have, right?) Palast has a history of some of the best investigate reporting in the world on US politics - he's made amazing contributions - even if his delivery can seem a bit hysterical, and some of his points sometimes made in a bit of a disengenuous manner. Of course, his relatively minor flaws among great reporting are a far cry from your nonsensical, hysterical, blind attack on him as, predictably, 'hating America'. Don't you right wing cultists every get fresh material?

Minor flaws? Is that what you call them? lol. How many times has he revised his peak oil argument now?

No doubt you didn't realize that I've read some of his books. I'm a writer. I read copiously. I write constantly. I seek out information incessantly. It's what I do and I have no doubt whatsoever that I'm far more well-read on a vast number of subjects than you are.

btw, I'm not a right-winger, but like Palast you toss a label on something and assume it's correct simply because you decreed it. Forget actually looking into the issue to gather facts first. Just make assumptions

The same could be said of arguably the nation's most celebrated investigative reporter, Pulitzer-Prize winner Seymour Hersh - I've had the pleasure of speaking with both men, and Hersh comes across as far more wild-eyed and fanatical in person, and has made the dubious claim that it's ok to have a lesser standard for accuracy and truth in his spoken comments than his written ones; he's also had some big misses in his predictions. And yet, he's also nonetheless made great contributions with his investigative reporting.

Flaws don't invalidate their reporting. I could easily list 20 big stories Palast has uncovered, all right on; you are the one who misses the 'big picture' with your little sniping.

Palast's errors in his reporting don't speak very well for his due diligence. As you may well know, "One awe shit ruins a thousand atta boys." and Palast has more than just one "Awe shit." in his dossier. His unfortunate tendency to have an anti-corporate, anti-US media, anti-US bias often prompts him to become non-objective and see bogey-men where there are none.

Let me ask you a simple question. How many oil contracts, prior to the invasion, were awarded based on an open-bid process?

Let me ask you to answer my questions first - no, you won't. How much better do US companies do under the open-bid process than under Saddam? Hmm...

No doubt they'll have a better chance at securing a contract. If you can prove any US oil contracts with Iraq were procured illegally there would be an issue, but you can't. So what's your point? More speculation. More paranoid ranting on the issue?

You still haven't addressed the fact that Iraq controls their oil. All we get from you is a bunch of handwaving and conjecture about that.

...Your simplistic thinking about Iraq and its oil, which is shaped by your blatantly obvious 'They are out to get us.' paranoia, is laughable. You come off as yet another looney conspriacy theorist that doesn't look at the entire picture but only views what they want to see to the exclusion of all else.

And you come off as a brain-damaged ranter who can't make the thinnest of connections between the names you throw out as attacks and what I actually say.

I'm not brain damaged. It's just that my statements probably have a difficult time penetrating your tin-foil body armor.

It's ironic you call my attempts to simplify the issue when you show you are unable to handle the complexity as simplistic, while you show in the same post you can't understand the idea that the administration was guilty of having certain plans it wanted to implement that it was unable to do so, instead claiming that their not implementing them proves they never wanted to.

You can't begin to back up your absurd attack - what's this 'big picture' you attack about but fail to substantiate?

Shoo.

Simplicity is not your major problem, your niavety is. Though your obvious lack of comprehending complexity drags you down into the depths of conspiracy. Hopefully you'll grow out of that once you exit puberty.

 

[db]

Let's ask who's winning, money-wise....

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: db
Let's ask who's winning, money-wise....

Bill Gates?

 

[Lemon law]

The fact that a compelling case can be made that Iraq is all about the oil is one thing, proving what is really going on in the mind of GWB is quite another. Maybe one day the minutes of Cheney secret energy task force will surface, but by in large, GWB&co. are very good about not leaving documents behind and at keeping insiders from talking.

But bottom line, a bunch of commercial interests have made a bundle off the Iraq war, and did not even have to invest anything because the US military did all their heavy lifting on the taxpayer's money and blood. And even if the GWB greeted with flowers and candy is a totally busted play, they find wondrous ways to keep on making bundles of money off an Iraq in anarchy.

Will we ever know the truth is a I doubt it in my opinion. But we might get some lucky breaks.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Fern said:

Contrary to Krugman, I think it's possibly a great business play by the Kurds to get the ball rolling.

Your "rosey" outlook aside, consider the possible consequence. Keep Your Eye on The Prize!

I guess I'm reading the Hunt Oil deal with the Kurds as confirmation that all faith in the emergence of a strong central government is lost. If the private sector moves with complete disregard to the progress made by the Iraq central government on the distribution and sharing of oil revenues, what else are we to conclude?

The announcement of the deal was buried under Petraeus' appearance before congress, and came within hours of Bush's address to the nation where he touted the above mentioned progress the central government was making regarding oil revenues.

Given the close relationship between Ray Hunt and Bush, the deal is truly breathtaking in audacity - but, nothing new there.

I also considered the Peshmurga and thought that their protection of any deals the central government considers illegal would make civil war obvious, would it not?

I suspect what is going on here is that the central Iraqi government, such as it is, has just pulled the rug out from under Hunt Oil and the Kurds. Texas-based Hunt Oil signed a contract with the Kurds to explore for oil in northern Iraq. The Iraq central government responded by declaring the contract illegal.

While there is little violence in the Kurdish region, its remains a risky proposition for private companies to operate in Iraq without the protection of a company like Blackwater. With Blackwater banned from operating within Iraq, there will either be another "security" firm hired to replace Blackwater, or Blackwater will change their name, or private firms may determine the risk outweighs the reward.

I can only guess how many jihadis were inspired by the actions of Blackwater. I wonder how many of them were protecting Hunt Oil when his people were there cracking that oil deal with the Kurds?


Even without mercanaries, they've got the Peshmurga. Between those guys, and their desire for independence and oil wealth, they'll do whatever they must to keep the oil flowing. Still, they may lose to sabotage or the Shia, Sunni or angry Turks, or who the hell knows what else in Bush's Grand Folly.

I would suggest that al-Maliki just tack a "signing statement" onto the next piece of paper that crosses his desk stating that CPA orders that conflict with his interpretation of the powers given to the Prime Minister's office under the Iraqi constitution are null and void. It works in the US, why not Iraq?