Moyers: It IS! about Oil

[Oliver]

There you have it - now we can settle this topic once and for all - it's official: The War in Iraq is, besides the "Unfriendly Neighborhood Aspect for Israel", mostly about Oil:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06272008/watch3.html

Video: Moyers on Big Oil

"Remember, also, that soon after the invasion Donald Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, told the press that war was our only strategic choice. "We had virtually no economic options with Iraq," Wolfowitz said, "because the country floats on a sea of oil." *snip*

"No wonder American troops only guarded the Ministries of Oil and the Interior in Baghdad, even as looters pillaged museums of their priceless antiquities. Our soldiers were making sure no one could get at the oil except…guess who?" *snip*

"There you have it. After a long exile Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP are back in Iraq. And on the wings of no-bid contracts - that's right, sweetheart deals like those granted Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater. The kind of deals you get only if you have friends in high places. And these war profiteers have friends in very high places." *snip*

Full Video/Transcript:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06272008/watch3.html

Republican-minded attempts to attack the Messenger rather the facts and the Oil-Topic itself in ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ....

 

[Oliver]

And then there is the Albany Times Union:

The puppet government set up in Iraq by the Bush administration has just approved some no-bid contracts for some American oil companies to set up and start pumping.

*snip*

Halliburton was given no-bid contracts after our invasion of Iraq. The price of Halliburton's stock before the attack on a sovereign nation was about $18 a share. After the no-bid contracts for repairing the damage we inflicted, the price went to about $78 a share. I wonder how many stock options Cheney had in his blind trust? I suspect that they have been converted by now. Why Bush and Cheney both haven't been impeached makes one wonder what the next administration can get away with: $10-a-gallon of gas, anyone? *snip*


Full Source: Bush, Cheney pushed for Iraq war for the oil

Oh my: There is even more...

[SIZE=-1]Asia Times Online, HK: [/SIZE]No blood for ... er ... um ...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5856724.html[SIZE=-1]Rochester Democrat and Chronicle: [/SIZE]US should stay out of Iraq's oil deals

[SIZE=-1]Huffington Post: [/SIZE]How Bush Is Winning His Real Goals In Iraq

[SIZE=-1]Stamford Advocate, CT: [/SIZE]Big Oil gains

Houston Chronicle: All about oil

[SIZE=-1]AlterNet, CA: [/SIZE]Media Tell Us About Iraq War-Oil Connection Five Years After the Fact[SIZE=-1] [/SIZE]

 

[kallsop]

There you have it - now we can settle this topic once and for all - it's official: The War in Iraq is, besides the "Unfriendly Neighborhood Aspect for Israel", mostly about Oil:

I haven't heard the "war for cheap oil" story a lot since oil went over $75 a barrel. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[WildCat]

More mindless blather from Oliver.

Will you ever offer your evidence in your caucasian thread Oliver?

 

[fuelair]

More mindless blather from Oliver.

Will you ever offer your evidence in your caucasian thread Oliver?

Why wreck a good story with truth???

 

[Sefarst]

"Remember, also, that soon after the invasion Donald Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, told the press that war was our only strategic choice. "We had virtually no economic options with Iraq," Wolfowitz said, "because the country floats on a sea of oil."

In other words, we can't count on economic sanctions to work when Iraq has all kinds of oil it can just sell. Why is this controversial?

"No wonder American troops only guarded the Ministries of Oil and the Interior in Baghdad, even as looters pillaged museums of their priceless antiquities. Our soldiers were making sure no one could get at the oil except…guess who?"

If full-scale war were to break out in the US tomorrow, I would think it strategically silly to waste troops standing outside the Museum of Natural History rather than protecting institutions that are vital to the survival and operation of the country.

"There you have it. After a long exile Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP are back in Iraq. And on the wings of no-bid contracts - that's right, sweetheart deals like those granted Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater. The kind of deals you get only if you have friends in high places. And these war profiteers have friends in very high places."

The only real resource Iraq has to base an economy on is oil. Should I be surprised that oil companies are being brought in?

 

[Chaos]

Why wreck a good story with truth???

What does "good story" have to do with Oliver´s posts?

 

[moon1969]

Too bad you are right. The Americans claim that they want to spread democracy and freedom? LOL and still they let Robert Mugabe stay in power in Zimbabwe. They do nothing to stop Darfur. Well one thing they did. USA was the first country to call Darfur a genocide.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Too bad you are right. The Americans claim that they want to spread democracy and freedom? LOL and still they let Robert Mugabe stay in power in Zimbabwe. They do nothing to stop Darfur.

Bosnia?

Five years later, there still seems to be a signifigant lack of evidence for a 'war for oil'. Massive incompetence within the administration (for which there is plenty of evidence) isn't enough for much of the anti-war movement, sadly.

 

[IchabodPlain]

There you have it - now we can settle this topic once and for all - it's official: The War in Iraq is, besides the "Unfriendly Neighborhood Aspect for Israel", mostly about Oil:




Republican-minded attempts to attack the Messenger rather the facts and the Oil-Topic itself in ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ....

[URL="http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html"]Very little of US petroleum imports are from Iraq. If we only wanted the oil, the easiest solution was to do what France and the rest of Europe did: negotiate with Saddam.

 

[corplinx]

Dear Oliver,

Moyers is half shill and half hook. Don't put any weight in anything the man produces. The sad thing is american tax dollars fund some of his work.

 

[Texas]

And then there is the Albany Times Union:




Oh my: There is even more...

[SIZE=-1]Asia Times Online, HK: [/SIZE]No blood for ... er ... um ...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5856724.html[SIZE=-1]Rochester Democrat and Chronicle: [/SIZE]US should stay out of Iraq's oil deals

[SIZE=-1]Huffington Post: [/SIZE]How Bush Is Winning His Real Goals In Iraq

[SIZE=-1]Stamford Advocate, CT: [/SIZE]Big Oil gains

Houston Chronicle: All about oil

[SIZE=-1]AlterNet, CA: [/SIZE]Media Tell Us About Iraq War-Oil Connection Five Years After the Fact[SIZE=-1] [/SIZE]

Oliver there is only one American Oil company involved---Exxon, the other 3 are Dutch, French and British. I would think for your argument to hold water all would be US oil companies and why do you suppose Total is in there given the French resistance to the invasion?

The puppet government set up in Iraq by the Bush administration has just approved some no-bid contracts for some American oil companies to set up and start pumping.

 

[Travis]

Too bad you are right. The Americans claim that they want to spread democracy and freedom? LOL and still they let Robert Mugabe stay in power in Zimbabwe. They do nothing to stop Darfur. Well one thing they did. USA was the first country to call Darfur a genocide.

You've gone on this rant in about four threads now and it's starting to make me mad.

It would be great if America had a hundred Army divisions it could just use all over the world taking care of Darfur and Zimbabwe but at the moment America doesn't. America is bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment, got it? If you think the USA should invade Zimbabwe then with what troops is the US supposed to do this with? Huh?

Think it through. It's not like those soldiers are expendable.

 

[tanabear]

I believe former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern, summed it up best when he stated why we invaded, OIL.

O is for Oil
I is for Israel
L is for Logistics

In case you doubted why we invaded, here are some of the reasons listed by various neo-cons:

"Our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve US and Western access to the region’s oil..., deter further aggression in the region, foster regional stability, protect US nationals and property, and safeguard ... access to international air and seaways."
-This from the Defense Planning Guidance Document published in 1992. It was written by Wolfowitz and "Scooter" Libby.

"[W]e oftentimes find ourselves operating in some very difficult places. The good Lord didn’t see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is."
Dick Cheney, speaking to the Cato Institute in 1998.

"Its location on pathways between Asia and Europe, Africa and Asia, and Europe and Africa makes it an ideal route for armies, pipelines, and trade from both the eastern Mediterranean and Asia Minor to the Persian Gulf. Iraq also has large, proven oil reserves, water, and other important resources. Its geographic centrality and abundance of natural advantages alone make the country a regionally important center." "Tyranny’s Ally: America’s Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein" By David Wurmser pub. 1999

The neo-con desire to invade Iraq happened before 9/11. In a letter they sent to President Clinton in 1998 they advocate the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam. One of their reason was because Saddam was a hazard to "a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil."

So when critics say the war is about oil, it is not really that simple. It is about our military controlling countries with large energy reserves and assets so another competitor, like China or Russian, cannot have access to them. I guess democracy is a better selling point than oil though.

 

[Texas]

I believe former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern, summed it up best when he stated why we invaded, OIL.

O is for Oil
I is for Israel
L is for Logistics

In case you doubted why we invaded, here are some of the reasons listed by various neo-cons:

"Our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve US and Western access to the region’s oil..., deter further aggression in the region, foster regional stability, protect US nationals and property, and safeguard ... access to international air and seaways."
-This from the Defense Planning Guidance Document published in 1992. It was written by Wolfowitz and "Scooter" Libby.

"[W]e oftentimes find ourselves operating in some very difficult places. The good Lord didn’t see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is."
Dick Cheney, speaking to the Cato Institute in 1998.

"Its location on pathways between Asia and Europe, Africa and Asia, and Europe and Africa makes it an ideal route for armies, pipelines, and trade from both the eastern Mediterranean and Asia Minor to the Persian Gulf. Iraq also has large, proven oil reserves, water, and other important resources. Its geographic centrality and abundance of natural advantages alone make the country a regionally important center." "Tyranny’s Ally: America’s Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein" By David Wurmser pub. 1999

The neo-con desire to invade Iraq happened before 9/11. In a letter they sent to President Clinton in 1998 they advocate the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam. One of their reason was because Saddam was a hazard to "a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil."

So when critics say the war is about oil, it is not really that simple. It is about our military controlling countries with large energy reserves and assets so another competitor, like China or Russian, cannot have access to them. I guess democracy is a better selling point than oil though.

Yes and Ray McGovern thinks Bush did 911.

 

[IchabodPlain]

You've gone on this rant in about four threads now and it's starting to make me mad.

It would be great if America had a hundred Army divisions it could just use all over the world taking care of Darfur and Zimbabwe but at the moment America doesn't. America is bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment, got it? If you think the USA should invade Zimbabwe then with what troops is the US supposed to do this with? Huh?

Think it through. It's not like those soldiers are expendable.

The irony of it all is that the same people who ask "why doesn't America take out Mugabe?" are the exact same people who opposed the war in Iraq.

 

[Oliver]

The irony of it all is that the same people who ask "why doesn't America take out Mugabe?" are the exact same people who opposed the war in Iraq.

That's a quite distorted view. IF! Iraq would've been about a real threat for Israel and/or the US, then just the hardcore Peace-Hippies would be upset about it...

...Let me guess: In your opinion - that's nonsense, right?

 

[IchabodPlain]

That's a quite distorted view.

I don't at all think so. For example, I have, on this forum, heard both you and moon1969 ask "Why doesn't America take out Mugabe?", yet both of you are/were opposed to the war in Iraq. Last night on BBC, I heard Jeremy Paxman ask the exact same question on his show, though he has been critical of the war in Iraq.

I have come to the realization that you aren't seriously asking, rather you are being facetious knowing that the US can not and could not do anything. The irony is that people are being beaten and dying, and the best you can come up with is a smear against the US. Good work.

IF! Iraq would've been about a real threat for Israel and/or the US, then just the hardcore Peace-Hippies would be upset about it...

Why the non sequitur?

You don't think Saddam was on par with Mugabe in the crazy dictator department?

...Let me guess: In your opinion - that's nonsense, right?

No comment

 

[Oliver]

I don't at all think so. For example, I have, on this forum, heard both you and moon1969 ask "Why doesn't America take out Mugabe?", yet both of you are/were opposed to the war in Iraq. Last night on BBC, I heard Jeremy Paxman ask the exact same question on his show, though he has been critical of the war in Iraq.

I have come to the realization that you aren't seriously asking, rather you are being facetious knowing that the US can not and could not do anything. The irony is that people are being beaten and dying, and the best you can come up with is a smear against the US. Good work.

Why the non sequitur?

You don't think Saddam was on par with Mugabe in the crazy dictator department?

No comment

I didn't start the thread based on the assumption that there would be any intervention by the US - even if the Irony/Hypocrisy certainly is entertaining.

And while Saddam is dead - and it probably wouldn't need X,XXX,XXX or more casualties [embargo included] to kill one Iraqi Dictator, Saddam played a pretty small role anyway.

Will you ever get this straight?: Iraq mainly wasn't about it's Dictator - Zimbabwe is all about it's Dictator.

Anyway - while I hope that Mugabe will announce that they got oil and will destroy Israel - just to see the American Politicians go ape, this thread is about Iraq and the obvious Oil-Connections - and there are plenty of those.

So to avoid the "yellow-off-topic-card" to anyone, the Mugabe issue is being discussed here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/tags.php?tag=Mugabe+

 

[IchabodPlain]

I didn't start the thread based on the assumption that there would be any intervention by the US - even if the Irony/Hypocrisy certainly is entertaining.

No, but you did make the suggestion.

And while Saddam is dead - and it probably wouldn't need X,XXX,XXX or more casualties [embargo included] to kill one Iraqi Dictator, Saddam played a pretty small role anyway.

And you know this how exactly? Crystal ball?

Will you ever get this straight?: Iraq mainly wasn't about it's Dictator - Zimbabwe is all about it's Dictator.

Absolutely wrong. Iraq was all about it's dictator. More specifically, a dictator whose intentions about acquiring chemical/biological/nuclear weapons was clear, and who was also strangling his people economically and politically, while siphoning oil revenue for his personal ventures of funding suicide bombers and acquiring said arms.

You see, the difference is Mugabe is only a threat in Zimbabwe, whereas Saddam posed a threat to the entire region and beyond.

Anyway - while I hope that Mugabe will announce that they got oil and will destroy Israel - just to see the American Politicians go ape, this thread is about Iraq and the obvious Oil-Connections - and there are plenty of those.

Seriously Oliver, what is it with you and the Jews? You reference Israel in nearly every post.

So to avoid the "yellow-off-topic-card" to anyone, the Mugabe issue is being discussed here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/tags.php?tag=Mugabe+

[/QUOTE]

Bah! That's why they get paid the big bucks.