No War For Oil.

by Michael Tue Dec 07, 2004 12:52

RP, it's about ensuring control and access to Iraq's oil. Think geopolitics, not shopping.

by Joe Tue Dec 07, 2004 13:22

RP it would be interesting if you bothered to develop this article a little bit more. For instance its obviously based around a belief that many/most of the anti-war movement saw the war as being all about oil but you don't actually show this to be the case.

That aside.

--

As already pointed out the war is about the geopolitics of oil and other resources rather then 'cheap gas'. The occupation of Iraq gives the US a client regime in the region that has no clout in Washinton (unlike Israel). It also gives it pretty much unlimited military bases from where it can militarily dominate both the ME oil trade and the arkward states of Iran and Syria which it has less control of. Saudi is a client state of the US but is quite unstable but only a short hop from Iraq and of course across the northern border there is a lot more oil around Baku.

But this oil explanation is not the full story either. The war has fulfilled a useful purpose domestically in creating a sense of national unity. There is an anti-war movement in the US but it is very significant that the election was run with the war as the main issue between two candidates arguing over which of them could better prosecute the war. The illusion of Kerry being an anti-war candidate was an odd liberal illusion born I can only presume out of dispair.

Also of course the boom in the american economy of the last 20 years was very much driven by the repatriation of profits made outside of the country. Huge amounts of US investment are also made outside the US borders. This requires shaping both the local and world economies to US interests which is why as Sky News keeps telling us that 'the US spends more on its military then the next 20 countries combined'. In other words the message the war was intended to send out was do what your told or suffer the consequences and this has more to do with economic behaviour then the military.

Most importantly the basic logic of the cost of the war for the US with the value of oil coming from Iraq misses a key thing. That is the class nature of US society.

Basically when you say the US spends $87 Billion dollars In Iraq you mean that the US taxpayer spends this money. However it is quite clear that some US companies, Hallibruton being the most infamous, are the ones to whom this money is going to. So while American workers are financing the war because their tax dollars that could be spent on education or health are going to the war some American companies are making super profits out of the war. The links between these companies and those who make the decisions in the White House are to well known to be worth repeating.


You offer the alternative excuse that the stated reasons for going to war were the real reasons for going to war. Your problem of course is that in order to do so you have to shift the goal posts to even make the weak argument that you do. In advance of the war we were told Saddam had WMD and even that they could be deployed in 45 minutes. This was a lie. We were told that he was involved in 9-11. This was a lie. We were told that there Iraq was helping Islamist terrorists. This was a lie whose only pinch of truth was that in declaring both Islamists and Saddam enemies the US might have pushed them into co-operation.

Tony Blair of course before the war said it was not about regime change which now of course is the only 'success' of the war. Both how much of a regime change is it when a ex US backed Ba'athist dictatorship is replaced by a US backed ex-Ba'athist dictatorship. And the evidence suggests that an extra 8,000 - 198,000 Iraqs suffered violent deaths for this!

by redjade Tue Dec 07, 2004 13:40

'eliminating rogue dictatorships'

the key word here is 'rogue'

Saddam was not rogue when the US armed and assisted him. And the Saudis and the Pakistanis and the Egyptians and the 'friendly' 'Stans and not rogue today.

The attacks in Saudi yesterday made some short term profits for some.

War and fear = money & profits.

geopolitical hegemony is a regulation of the oil market - cheap oil was never the point, control was.

nothing new in this.

for example:
'A militant attack on the U.S. consulate in Saudi Arabia and unrest in Nigeria helped push crude prices upward Tuesday, as supply fears crept back into play and traders considered a potential production cut from oil cartel OPEC.'
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/041207/oil_prices_5.html

by stolenvotes Tue Dec 07, 2004 14:24

If you want to eliminate rogue dictatorships the best place to start would be with the biggist one of all, the one in Washington.

by Mike Novack Tue Dec 07, 2004 15:36

The problem with this analysis and conclusion "not worth it" is the treatment of the reality of a physically useful substance (oil) with a fictitiously useful substance "money".

Yes "international money" is real enough within the context of ongoing global trade in the context of ongoing industrial civilvization. So if your society spends too much money, lets that balance of trade got against it, fall deeply into debt, sooner of later it's economy will collapse compared to other places.

But suppose the above contains a false assumption? Suppose that it is true that the oil is running out. Then in the future there will be no ongoing trade, and the various industrial societies will collapse as their fuel stocks are exhausted. Get it? What counts then is whether one can keep one's society going longest, into the time period when there can be no long distance retaliation. What does it matter if the crushing debt burden means inability to trade effectivey if no such trade exists anymore? Only the various regional situations matter then, how relatively undtroyed the local environment, how relatively less dense the human population so that it might be maintained on a sustainable basis within local transportation means.

by Akrasia Tue Dec 07, 2004 16:18

The cost of the war is not that relevant to the amount of profits that are to be made from the oil and reconstruction contracts. Yje companies that are going to profit are not those who paid for the war, even more disturbingly, companies such as halliburton are on a massive gravy train, they are being paid during the destruction of Iraq so that they may be paid to rebuild it. It is a massive redistribution of wealth from the American tax payers, to the coffers of these companies and their executives.

by Fatima Whitbread - Elite Modelling Agency Tue Dec 07, 2004 17:42

The world is running out of Texas Tea and this is the first of a number of Oil Grabs that we wil see in the future by many car dependent nations. I wonder who is next?

by Brian Vernon Tue Dec 07, 2004 18:22

I totally agree with Michael when he says " RP, it's about ensuring control and access to Iraq's oil. Think geopolitics, not shopping."

I would just add -

You now have the biggest amercian military base in the world sitting on top of the biggest oilfield in the world.

When do you think the yanks will invade Sudan if it's about Islam and WMD? NO - OIL = They aint interested.

by Dorian Gray Tue Dec 07, 2004 18:49 DorianGray at hotmail dot com

To Mr. Righteous Pragmatist,

This is a common and indredibly naieve analysis of the Iraq invasion and the cost/benefit analysis. There is no one reason but a confluence of them , oil is a significant part

It is about the *control* of oil, not possesion. Having you hand on the pump gives you the power to affect the economies of China, Japan, Europe or whoever may poise a thereat to the US economy.

This is stated US policy by the way.

In addition securing military bases is a significant factor - Paul Wolfowitz said the WMD's were selected for "diplomatic reasons" in a Vanity Fair interview last year - the real reason he sai, was Iraq was "swimming on a sea of oil and we had to relocate out bases from Saudai Arabia to Iraq" - straight from the horses mouth.

Of course having a war for the sake of having a war benefits the "industrial-military" complex that Eisenhower warened about in the 1950's.

Another reason is that Bush would not have been elected this year (not re-elected!) but for the weapon of mass distraction, the war.

Bullying the world into submission is another factor - get in line or we will do to you what we did to Iraq.

Bowing to Likud pressure maybe another factor, not a significant one but Nethenyau wwas the first to exhort regime change with a document called " A Clean Break" in 1996.

There are a multiplicity of reasons but the officialy stated reasons - Links to A-Queada, WMD's, humanatarian reasons are demonstrably false.

Accept it - Western Democracies wage war and kill illegaly I am afraid .

by Sam Ryan Tue Dec 07, 2004 19:10

Mr. Righteous Pragmatist,

1. I also totally agree with Michael when he says "RP, it's about ensuring control and access to Iraq's oil. Think geopolitics, not shopping."

2. Also RP, you are inventing figures, which makes me think you are disingenuous with your facile analysis:
See the US's Energy Information Administration assessment November 2004:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html
http://money.cnn.com/markets/commodities/

Iraq production is now 2.2 million barrels a day, i.e. 803m barrels per year, i.e. at today's price $40 a barrel: B$32.12pa

The US thinks this could triple to 6 million barrels a day in 2006/7, i.e. B$87.6pa (hmm.. sounds familiar..)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-10-23-evans-iraq-oil_x.htm

3. The B$87 given to Bush will be paid for by the working American, not Bush, Kerry, or their rich sponsors. But the oil industry bosses will reap the super-profits from oil in the post-Saddam era, esp. with the preferential contracts doled out to US companies. The 100K+ troops will be there to make sure of it.. at least that's the dream..

It's robbing the average-American-and-Iraqi-in-the-street to feed the corporate elite that unites Bush's domestic and international strategy... he is prepared to kill to do it.

by redjade Tue Dec 07, 2004 21:48

Funny, since preventing Saddam from trading Oil with Euros was one of Bush's motivations for war - Bush may have made the 'Petro-Euro' inevitable by going to war.

--
Financial Times:
Oil exporters have sharply reduced their exposure to the US dollar over the past three years, according to data from the Bank for International Settlements. Members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries have cut the proportion of deposits held in dollars from 75 per cent in the third quarter of 2001 to 61.5 per cent.

Middle Eastern central banks have reportedly switched reserves from dollars to euros and sterling to avoid incurring losses as the dollar has fallen and prepare for a shift away from pricing oil exports in dollars alone.

Private Middle East investors are believed to be worried about the prospect of US-held assets being frozen as part of the war on terror, leading to accelerated dollar-selling after the re-election of President George W. Bush.

Financial Times
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/67f88f7c-47cb-11d9-a0fd-00000e2511c8.html

by righteous pragmatist Thu Dec 09, 2004 10:58

Listen don't take me for a fool.
The Anti-war movement consistently argues that America and the world is running out of oil. The theory they put forward was that the limited supplies that remain are being carved up between the superpowers and since the US is the hyperpower they are prepared to do anything to ensure their supply. So they dreamt up the war on terror by making a deal with Bin Laden to destroy the Twin Towers and give them an excuse to invade Iraq (essentially the gist of the theory Micheal Moore put forward in his 9/11 movie).
The occupation of Iraq is constantly compared to imperialism- a scramble for the Middle East if you will.
My point is that the amount of oil the Americans will get out of the ground does not even come close to balancing the amount of money they spent invading Iraq and maintaining the occupation.
Therefore the war could not have been about oil.
You mentioned how the US used Iraq as a proxy to fight Iran - that hardly made sense for American hunger for oil when the two biggest producers of oil in the middle east were at war and supply was disrupted fueling economic recession?
This war is what it says on the tin.
It is a fight to defeat the forces of Islamic and fascist totalitarianism in the middle east and to sow the seeds of democracy. You will see the results on January 30 when millions of Iraqis will go to the polls for the first time in history.
But I suppose you people will be cheerleading the guys who inevitably will bomb queues of people exercising their right to vote.

by Ali H. Thu Dec 09, 2004 11:38

If there were no economic interest and oil were such an abundant resource as you claim then why would the US bother propping up corrupt regiemes and supporting others in the Middle East since WWII expending massive resources fighting over worthless desert (if we accept your thesis that oil is a unlimited resource of little economic value)?

America's goal is not to control Iraq's oil. It is to control all oil in the middle east. Any regieme which has threatened America's control of that oil has been systematically undermined starting with the attack ostensibly by the British, French and Israelis on the Suez Canal in 1956 followed by a series of proxy wars against the Russians by way of the Israelis and Egyptians. They then moved on to popular revolution in Iran in 1979. When the indirect approach didn't succeed they moved on to use Iraq as a proxy to attack Iran. This of course worked in the short term in that it "contained" Iran, but in the long term simply built Saddam into a bigger threat. They then attempted the indirect approach of calling in their war debts in order to topple Saddam and when that didn't work they persuaded the Kuwaitis to steal Iraqi oil by drilling sideways under the Iraqi border. This provoked the invasion of Kuwait and allowed the US to install a military presence on the ground in Saudi Arabia with which to better enforce US control over the region by threat of force. They were content with the status quo until 2001 when Saudi nationals attacked and destroyed the twin towers in response to the American presence in Saudi Arabia. Feeling under threat in Saudi Arabia the Americans decided to widen their footprint and control of the region and its oil reserves by invading Iraq. Having toppled the Saddam regime and almost installed their puppet regieme in Iraq they are now ready to attack Iran again, first by CIA funded internal "student" dissent and military and economic pressure. The next step will be an invasion of Iran on some pretext or other probably following an attack by the Israeli's on Iran's infrastructure and a subsequent retalliation.

by SoverignIreland Thu Dec 09, 2004 13:14

People the reason for the Iraq war is to implement a New World Order. Whats that you may say? It is what Bush,Hitler,Stalin all wished to have.
It is a world in which the middle classes are eradicated and every aspect of free thought and human rights are eradicated.
Think 1984 only much scarier.
Everyone is about to get poor equally poorer except for the elites that is.

What are the prerequisites for this new world order/
1) Shape all terrorist/Rogue nations into our mould i.e. Iraq, Haiti, Bolivia, Russia, Ukraine
etc etc.
Check out the project for a new american century.
2) Implement a one world Monetary system based on the gold standard using institutions such as the IMF, World Bank.
3)Introduce a one world parlimentary system with supranational laws taking precedence over national laws
i.e. United Nations, European Union, Nafta,Mercosur, African Union.
4) Have a one world religon based on New Age beliefs.

In other words bit by bit implement a one world dictatorial government incrementaly , as envisaged by fabian socialism (Modern Day Labour party in the UK)
.

People should grow up here and realise that there is no right wing, no left wing no green party, they are all secretly funded by NGO's and private foundations.
Hitler, Stalin and Churchill were all funded by the same wallstreet bankers.
Wall street is in fact a proxy for British Finance based in the City of London.
People seem to think that socialism is anti-Capitalist this is ridiculous.
Socialism is the best form of government for monopolistic Capitalism in which elites own the only companies that are allowe to compete, under the facade of "Competition".

Solution to the problem?

The main pillar of this system is based on the Money system, the Debt based , speculative (Casino like ) system that we have today.
People should study how the banking system works against the people not for the citizens.People should demand that national governments take back the printing of money.
The ECB is a private bank not a European Institution, the ECB is owned by private elite european families.

Islam is a threat to the plans of this kabal that wish to implement the new world order because they are religously against Usury, that is the borrowing of money at interest.
How can on control a country if one cannot get them into debt! That is why we are promised that the middle east will be Re-Molded in the image of western Democracy.

You see the problem with Iraq is that they got their "son of a bitch" as they so interestingl called him to fight Iran, so as to try and ensure mutual destruction for the two Islamic states. How much easier it is to control countries when the have just come out of a ten year war.
But the problem with Sadam is that he was not playing ball!!
He actually started to build hospitals and educate the common Iraqi people from the oil wealth. So how dare he do that! It was decided to democratise the Iraqi's hence by bombing the shit out of them and flatenning there cities, just as "war criminal" Milosevic and Serbia.
Wake up people know the facts!!

by Simon willace Thu Dec 09, 2004 13:36

Oh please! This is a web page we can’t be printing such crap for the world to see, there is no substance for the War to have been motivated by oil, indeed?

People out there are reading this; they will think the Irish are fools.

Of corse the reason was not for oil it was because of the little weapons of mass destruction everyone know that!

It was!
And war prevented Saddam from playing the west off against China; he could have complete authority over OPEC if he had absorbed Kuwait as well as having access to the Saudi fields by directional drilling, like the Kuwaitis sucked his resources and therefore Saddam could have been sucking us all dry if America had not intervened.

And he was Israel’s enemy after all an anti Semite, a Persian Semite and if the mount in Jerusalem isn’t secure by the second coming there will be hell to pay…. just ask the Christian right.

Democracy is alive and equally robust in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Kuwaiti, America, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe and Indonesia, so why should anyone doubt the US good intentions?

Come on wake up, this war for resources and the continuing Christian crusades have been going on for a long time. Too long for no one to see parallel

once the Muslim Empire only had Gold and Spices, Then America Gave us everything we needed for four hundred years, until the oil ran dry and the crusades began again.

Am I right///or a bit left wing?

by redjade Thu Dec 09, 2004 13:59

RP: read the following.....


U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Gulf War

A Report of Chairman Donald W. Riegle, Jr. and Ranking Member Alfonse M. D'Amato of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with Respect to Export Administration

United States Senate, 103d Congress, 2d Session - May 25, 1994

http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/riegle1.html

by SoverignIreland Thu Dec 09, 2004 16:22

It has nothing to do with Oil, there is hydrogen engines that could eliminate the need for oil completely. There are Joe Cells etc etc. Technologies exist that we could probably never dream of, but they are suppressed why?
Alaska has more Oil than Iraq and Saudi Arabia combined.
The real reason as Brezinski says in "the grand chess game" is to control Central Euraisia, so it will be Afghanistan,Iraq then Iran.
Pity those tenacious russians and Arab freedom fighters are blocking the way to complete dominace of Euraisa from portugal to korea!!
Ah well Ukraine is almost "democratised" despite the fact yakunovich really did win the popular vote.
Want to know the real plans for the future?
Read the Economist through tinted glasses of prophetic vision!
Strange how the Economist predicted Ukraines plight before it happened, how they predicted violence in the Caucuses just before beslan.
Very Strange indeed!!

by Simon Willace Fri Dec 10, 2004 09:17

pm
It has nothing to do with Oil,
///////////////////////////////////////////////
It has everything to do with controlling oil, this act controls the flow, the more oil there is on the market trhe cheaper the product becomes. The price is a world price, to get the oil out of the ground it costs $3 a barrel to refine it add another 4-5, we are not talking about a lot of value but times that by the 85 billion barrels required and the enormity of the profits is uncovered.
Brent crude is a depleted resources, its down to less than 50% of production since 1996 when western controlled resources toppled Opecs control, but it only happened once
‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
There is hydrogen engines that could eliminate the need for oil completely.
Bullshit!!, Hydrogen is produced by burning fossil fuels to obtain just a fraction of energy that can be reclaimed by the electricity produced through hydrogen. It’s a technological non starter unless geothermal
‘Energy concerns Coal Gas Oil, can continue polluting the atmosphere and supporting wars.
‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
There are Joe Cells??? etc etc. Technologies exist that we could probably never dream of, but they are suppressed why?
Because most are science fiction or like bio diesel, a fantasy.
They represent greater harm because people in general believe really clever people are running the planet so they will not question the status quo, but will support any dumb idea that will provide a rich farmer another cash crop.
’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
Alaska has more Oil than Iraq and Saudi Arabia combined.
Bollocks and besides, the countries mentioned are deserts the Brent is in the sea but Alaska is not worth all the oil in Uzbekistan, and the fields are about equal.
‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
The real reason as Brezinski says in "the grand chess game" is to control Central Eurasia, so it will be Afghanistan, Iraq then Iran.
Pity those tenacious Russians and Arab freedom fighters are blocking the way to complete dominance of Eurasia from Portugal to Korea!!
Good thing too it will stop the war from escalation. The freedom fighters of Iraq are stalling the domination plan for the cost of a few bullets and ancient rockets, they need our support.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah well Ukraine is almost "democratized" despite the fact yakunovich really did win the popular vote.
Want to know the real plans for the future?

Protecting the 3 Pipelines that take oil to the west through the Ukraine?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the Economist through tinted glasses of prophetic vision!
Strange how the Economist predicted Ukraine’s plight before it happened, how they predicted violence in the Caucuses just before beslan.
Very Strange indeed!!

by Soverign Ireland Mon Dec 13, 2004 19:03

Look up your facts.
Actually do a bit of research for yourself and not conspiracy research but factual research.
Hydrogen is extracted from water and indeed energy is needed to extract this but it is cyclical much like a donimo effect , one small piece of energy can exponentialy create lots of energy. Same as one donimo can tumble millions of donimos from small input of energy.in nature non science fiction but fact!!
Joe Cell's are a fact to as is nuclear fussion that was discovered in the 1980's but was then supressed in the 1980's.
_____________
Bollocks to you, its your type that is living in your brainwashed fantasy land who does not bother to think for himself, who believes the crap that we are thought in schools and is then classified as being educated! I presume you accept without spiel the crap in the so called independent media.

______________

Fact 1) European Central Bank is a private bank with share-holders
Fact2) Federal Reserve is a private bank
Fact 3) Marxism, Nietchism, the Green Curtain are all inventions that were funded by london and wall street.
Fact 4) We are heading towards world government whether you like it or not, all the think tanks want it, its UN stated policy.

Now you research your facts, and learn how to think outside your narrow box.

Also look up "Hegelian Dialectic" then you'll know what its all about.

by Ali H. Tue Dec 14, 2004 09:41

Dominos are a bad analogy as in a chain of dominos tumbling the same energy (of one domino falling - friction) is transferred through the chain without any multiplication.

Your claims about energy chain-reactions based on hydrogen are false. The only energy chain reactions working today are those based on nuclear fission as nobody has yet managed to create a long-term self-sustaining nuclear fusion reaction based on hydrogen despite huge expense and over 50 years of research.

To claim that technology capable of providing unlimited clean energy is being deliberately hushed up is simply untrue as no matter what the vested interests others would commercialise the technology to free themselves from imports of fossil fuels relegating the middle east to the worthless desert it really is.

by Soverign Ireland Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:28

Can you please look at the following site and read some of the information on cold fusion etc etc.
http://www.infinite-energy.com/

I am no scientist but some of the technologies here seem very real indeed.
I may have used a bad analogy but that was my understanding from articles I read, however one thing i'm sure is that there is indeed almost infinite energy sources, they are bein suppressed.
Reason:
Control, the Arab countries can be manipulated and sold materialism through oil wealth, thus rejecting their islamic way of life.
If you create a commodity, and even a false demand for this uneccesary commodity then there are levers that can be pulled.
Its like getting the world hooked on heroin, if you control the heroin supply you dictate what that persons life can be like.
Alternative energies are a fact, even if you don't believe me i ask you to research it.
http://www.infinite-energy.com/resources/memotowhhouse.html

(Memo to the whitehouse)

Its all about control and implementation of the New World Order,
In islam i think you call it the great eye beast.

by Dave Suther Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:35

I am studying physics in Queens and I found that link very interesting particularily this quote and link.

"New Hydrogen Physics Energy
"Cold Fusion," or more generically Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), is the large, worldwide field of scientific investigation devoted to the work launched by Drs. Fleischmann and Pons with their announcement at the University of Utah on March 23, 1989. This area of New Energy is among the most widely explored and verified of the new energy sources. See, for example, the technical paper resources at: www.lenr-canr.org or at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html.

yours
Dave