Bush(s) war oil and stuff

[revelarts]

Jim I know what i heard.

For more details Jim, the it was not an "official" statement it was a side comment after the official answer.

like
"Saddam is this and that , harboring .. terror... WMD... His own people ..U.N. ...congress... blah blah. you know what i mean -reporters name--
THEN
...besides, sure, we need the oil."

That's the Jist of what I heard. you don't have to believe me though Jim. I can't put my hands on the exact quote but I know what i saw/heard.

for a side door state of the same effect he mentioned several times thing LIKE. "we can't let the terrorist get the oil"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/04/AR2006110401025.html
He mention that at least once or twice in press conferences.
And often mentioned that "we are addicted to oil". however carefully not in the context of Iraq.


Now Bush Sr. was more direct
"We need the oil. It's nice to talk about standing up for freedom. But Kuwait and Saudi Arabia aren't exactly democracies."
TIME' magazine , August 20th , 1990

I've got nothing to add on that specific question you keep following me around from thread to thread on.

[logroller]

Nice find rev, but hardly illuminating. I mean, war has always (read:ALWAYS) been over resources. Would you say that Roosevelt went to war with japan over oil in western pacific? Cause he did (also: rubber and tin). As would a number of presidents go to war in korea and Vietnam. (And previously, with the civil war, 1812, mexican war, even our revokution: power to control resources is always the reason) The mechanism by which events inspire us to declare war justified, public-opinion wise, aren't nearly as nefarious as we might be led to believe. The short and skinny of it all is, do we want the communists, or whatever other political regime to have these resources and the power that such resources deliver? It's nice to believe that freedom, alone and on its own merits, will always prevail, but such is not only far from certain, but indeed unprecedented. No; like any idea, good or bad, it takes material support to advance. So I must ask, is a good idea not deserving on the forceful acquisition of the materials to secure it?

[revelarts]

Nice find rev, but hardly illuminating. I mean, war has always (read:ALWAYS) been over resources. Would you say that Roosevelt went to war with japan over oil in western pacific? Cause he did (also: rubber and tin). As would a number of presidents go to war in korea and Vietnam. (And previously, with the civil war, 1812, mexican war, even our revokution: power to control resources is always the reason) The mechanism by which events inspire us to declare war justified, public-opinion wise, aren't nearly as nefarious as we might be led to believe. The short and skinny of it all is, do we want the communists, or whatever other political regime to have these resources and the power that such resources deliver? It's nice to believe that freedom, alone and on its own merits, will always prevail, but such is not only far from certain, but indeed unprecedented. No; like any idea, good or bad, it takes material support to advance. So I must ask, is a good idea not deserving on the forceful acquisition of the materials to secure it?

well OK 1st Jim and others have tried to beat me around the head and neck with the noble and socalled completely justified REAL reasons why we went to war with Iraq. and NOTHING other than the purist of motives were EVER in the minds of the Bush Rummy the Neo-Cons or anyone. That's it's been only democratic Propaganda that has said otherwise. SO i've had to defend everyone of points with multiple congressional docs, video interviews and direct quotes from "approved" sources to get the slightest traction on the reality that you are now .. taking for granted.

You say more or less, ...Well Nice find but not very illuminating, Everyone knows the real reasons for war is really resources. And the public is lied to with nobler reasons in the forefront....

WHA?!?!
they Do know that? well you could have fooled me man. and saved me a lot of trouble.

But OK everyone knows.
Now we move on to your contention. The ends justifies the means.
No? OK not quite but a hairs breath away. Preemptive war to secure our resources to perpetuate the ideas of Justice and Truth and life and Freedom. That's the Neo-Cons Position to be sure. And some Socialists/communist views.
The bloody revolution is justified because the wonderland we're striving for/protecting is so good for the people.

'Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
uh. so what what if people lose some personal property. They didn't know how to use it best for the community ANYWAY.
So what if a few Middle easterners don't get the benefit of their own oil or lives.
Let them have freedom?... for real? We might lose our standing in the world and our lifestyle... can't have that.'

manifest destiny part II... or III ..... or?

[Drummond]

... NO.

I see nothing at all in what's been offered here which says the Iraq invasion was about oil-grabbing. Any argument saying that terrorists should not be able to get their hands on Iraqi oil, and use it as any kind of weapon .... this warned as being a possible outcome of the premature WITHDRAWAL of troops .... is nothing less than sheer commonsense at work.

To then pervert the meaning of this to suggest, or even hint, that it was the REASON for invasion is simply outrageous.

What we see here, folks, is another desperate attempt to make the old 'it was all about the oil' Leftie LIE stick. There have been attempts in the past to make that stick in peoples' minds, and I daresay there will be even more such attempts in the future.

But it's all a complete load of rubbish. Leftie propagandist rubbish.

So, Iraq has oil. So, America has a need for oil. Jumping to the conclusion that THIS was the REASON for the invasion is unsupportable rumour-mongering. Nothing more.

Did General Patton have a liking for foie gras ? Did he lead his troops into battle in France, during WWII ? Ah well, THAT explains Patton's being there, then ... he was in France to nab all the foie gras he could lay his hands on ... Hitler's Third Reich was an incidental detail, right ??

See if you can get a Leftie to make that case ! If you can, then It Must Be True ... !!!!!!

[revelarts]

...

But it's all a complete load of rubbish. Leftie propagandist rubbish.

...

Who's on 1st. third base

[jimnyc]

If what you say you heard were true, it would be easy to produce. Whatever though, I'll let it go, didn't figure it was forthcoming anyway. This is why I appreciate links from the get go when people give quotes, but my appreciation doesn't make it mandatory of course.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Nations fight wars over self interests. Nothing new about that. America has spent massive amounts of blood and treasure to promote liberty and free enslaved millions of people. History records that and its not really disputable. Iraq was not about our grabbing their oil. If it was why didn't we grab any? Rev you are off on this one IMHO. FOR WE NETHER GRABBED OIL OR TERRITORY THERE. We did stop a tyrant that had the entire region afraid of what he would do next, who he would attack.. -TYR

[logroller]

Nations fight wars over self interests. Nothing new about that. America has spent massive amounts of blood and treasure to promote liberty and free enslaved millions of people. History records that and its not really disputable. Iraq was not about our grabbing their oil. If it was why didn't we grab any? Rev you are off on this one IMHO. FOR WE NETHER GRABBED OIL OR TERRITORY THERE. We did stop a tyrant that had the entire region afraid of what he would do next, who he would attack.. -TYR
The plan all along was to destroy the Iraqi state oil industry and deliver those fields to foreign companies. You might not consider that an oil/land grab in the traditional imperial sense, but its not too unlike eminent domain-- like if someone came in a took our national forests and sold the logging privileges to the highest bidder (likely foreign). Of course, there's all kind of legal issues that stemmed from the Iraqi people not electing politicians that were friendly to this plan, refusing for years to pass an oil law that gave US industries an advantage (much to the chagrin of the Bush Admin); resulting in widespread violence and political turmoil that harbored little interest from foreign investment. Eventually that would change and US companies like the Occidental, Chevron and ExxonMobile have expansive interests in Iraq's oil fields, north and south. However, political turmoil and lack of security has led many US companies (as well as several other foreign companies: BP, Total, Shell) to divest their interests-- in most part due to the lesser profit expectations from having to negotiate with a fractured and questionably legitimate governments (ie Kurdish region vs central Baghdad), the highest bidder is rapidly becoming China, whose state-owned oil companies are more willing to take on such risks.
So in a way, you're right, we didn't get the oil...because the plan failed. Saddam's gone and thats good-- better late than never-- but I think it was also 'too little, too late'-- shoulda axed that bastard in 1991.

[aboutime]

Jim I know what i heard.

For more details Jim, the it was not an "official" statement it was a side comment after the official answer.

like
"Saddam is this and that , harboring .. terror... WMD... His own people ..U.N. ...congress... blah blah. you know what i mean -reporters name--
THEN
...besides, sure, we need the oil."

That's the Jist of what I heard. you don't have to believe me though Jim. I can't put my hands on the exact quote but I know what i saw/heard.

for a side door state of the same effect he mentioned several times thing LIKE. "we can't let the terrorist get the oil"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/04/AR2006110401025.html
He mention that at least once or twice in press conferences.
And often mentioned that "we are addicted to oil". however carefully not in the context of Iraq.


Now Bush Sr. was more direct
"We need the oil. It's nice to talk about standing up for freedom. But Kuwait and Saudi Arabia aren't exactly democracies."
TIME' magazine , August 20th , 1990

I've got nothing to add on that specific question you keep following me around from thread to thread on.



rev. Please let us all know when you catch up with the rest of the World, and finally enter the 21st century.

Are you old enough to remember the Old, 78 rpm records from the 40's, and 50's?

If not. Ask someone you know, with a brain. "What sounding like a Broken Record sounds like", which is what you are so effective at doing. Reaching back to 1990, and 1991, trying to find more JFK, MOON WALK conspiracies from the Bush I era, and Kuwait/Iraq, Saddam fond memories you dwell upon so well.

[Drummond]

The plan all along was to destroy the Iraqi state oil industry and deliver those fields to foreign companies. You might not consider that an oil/land grab in the traditional imperial sense, but its not too unlike eminent domain-- like if someone came in a took our national forests and sold the logging privileges to the highest bidder (likely foreign). Of course, there's all kind of legal issues that stemmed from the Iraqi people not electing politicians that were friendly to this plan, refusing for years to pass an oil law that gave US industries an advantage (much to the chagrin of the Bush Admin); resulting in widespread violence and political turmoil that harbored little interest from foreign investment. Eventually that would change and US companies like the Occidental, Chevron and ExxonMobile have expansive interests in Iraq's oil fields, north and south. However, political turmoil and lack of security has led many US companies (as well as several other foreign companies: BP, Total, Shell) to divest their interests-- in most part due to the lesser profit expectations from having to negotiate with a fractured and questionably legitimate governments (ie Kurdish region vs central Baghdad), the highest bidder is rapidly becoming China, whose state-owned oil companies are more willing to take on such risks.

So in a way, you're right, we didn't get the oil...because the plan failed. Saddam's gone and thats good-- better late than never-- but I think it was also 'too little, too late'-- shoulda axed that bastard in 1991.

Sorry to see you advance such a bog-standard (if also convoluted) Leftie argument. It's a favourite one for the Left to try and convince people of, that oil was an all-important factor.

Here's one flaw, though. When Saddam's forces had to quit Kuwait after having first invaded it, what were they instructed to do ? To set fire to oilfields, to try and ruin Kuwait's oil-producing capacity.

Now .. with that tactic established and recorded, WHY would an American force, going into Iraq, imagine that Saddam definitely WOULDN'T try to repeat that tactic ?? Because, if this Leftie fiction really had validity, America (or any other interested power) should've surely expected to lose out in any attempt at an oil-grab.

Yet, the 2003 invasion HAPPENED. What's wrong with this picture ?

I will agree with one part of your argument - American forces should've gone over the Iraqi border, out of Kuwait, and finished Saddam and his regime off once and for all.

... ah, but AGAIN, if that had, then 'as well', been about oil ... then, a much-aggravated Bush Snr should've wanted to push further and grab Iraqi oil as a compensation for ruined Kuwaiti fields .. YES ? So, WHY DIDN'T THAT HAPPEN, EITHER ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

.
So in a way, you're right, we didn't get the oil...because the plan failed. Saddam's gone and thats good-- better late than never-- but I think it was also 'too little, too late'-- shoulda axed that bastard in 1991. Yes, should have did him in the first go-round. A mighty costly mistake and we paid dearly for it too.-Tyr

[Kathianne]

The plan all along was to destroy the Iraqi state oil industry and deliver those fields to foreign companies. You might not consider that an oil/land grab in the traditional imperial sense, but its not too unlike eminent domain-- like if someone came in a took our national forests and sold the logging privileges to the highest bidder (likely foreign). Of course, there's all kind of legal issues that stemmed from the Iraqi people not electing politicians that were friendly to this plan, refusing for years to pass an oil law that gave US industries an advantage (much to the chagrin of the Bush Admin); resulting in widespread violence and political turmoil that harbored little interest from foreign investment. Eventually that would change and US companies like the Occidental, Chevron and ExxonMobile have expansive interests in Iraq's oil fields, north and south. However, political turmoil and lack of security has led many US companies (as well as several other foreign companies: BP, Total, Shell) to divest their interests-- in most part due to the lesser profit expectations from having to negotiate with a fractured and questionably legitimate governments (ie Kurdish region vs central Baghdad), the highest bidder is rapidly becoming China, whose state-owned oil companies are more willing to take on such risks.
So in a way, you're right, we didn't get the oil...because the plan failed. Saddam's gone and thats good-- better late than never-- but I think it was also 'too little, too late'-- shoulda axed that bastard in 1991.

On the first bolded, think you're off. The fear was that Saddam & Co., would fire the fields, as they attempted to do in the first war.

Which brings up the 2nds bolded. Bush I, really didn't want to be there. Seriously I think with all his foreign expertise, the Kuwait invasion caught him and his State Department by total surprise. Moreso, than 9/11 did his son, though of course the magnitude of the later was beyond comparison; not to mention on homeland. GW's problem was too little time, he'd been in office less than 9 months and due to the elections results and aftermath, the ability to build and cooperate were missing. Not excuse, reality that he had to live with. Make that, what the country had to live with.

Bush senior really believed in the coalition and its terms. Unlike the tax issues, he was going to keep his word and did.

[aboutime]

Yes, should have did him in the first go-round. A mighty costly mistake and we paid dearly for it too.-Tyr


Tyr. Agreed. Most of us who were there wanted Bush to keep going into Iraq, and get Saddam. But. Bush knew how fragile the alliance was with those part-time allies. After the Highway of Death that caught the Iraqi military running home...and they were slaughtered. Bush probably did the right thing...AT THE TIME.

Otherwise. Most of us felt...Since we're here. We should finish the job.

Unfortunately. History went the other way. Nothing anyone can do.

[Larrymc]

Jim I know what i heard.

For more details Jim, the it was not an "official" statement it was a side comment after the official answer.

like
"Saddam is this and that , harboring .. terror... WMD... His own people ..U.N. ...congress... blah blah. you know what i mean -reporters name--
THEN
...besides, sure, we need the oil."

That's the Jist of what I heard. you don't have to believe me though Jim. I can't put my hands on the exact quote but I know what i saw/heard.

for a side door state of the same effect he mentioned several times thing LIKE. "we can't let the terrorist get the oil"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/04/AR2006110401025.html
He mention that at least once or twice in press conferences.
And often mentioned that "we are addicted to oil". however carefully not in the context of Iraq.


Now Bush Sr. was more direct
"We need the oil. It's nice to talk about standing up for freedom. But Kuwait and Saudi Arabia aren't exactly democracies."
TIME' magazine , August 20th , 1990

I've got nothing to add on that specific question you keep following me around from thread to thread on.Was Saddam not already selling the US all we wanted? but either way it makes sense to keep it out of Terrorist hands right?

[logroller]

I watched a documentary and it said that Saddam had offered the US a bribe in 1991 for $10 oil, but I cant confirm it anywhere. Help please.

[revelarts]

AS far as Deals for Oil etc Go with Saddam I'm not familiar with any details there. I've read several reports and heard interviews with Diplomats and others that say that over the years there were several "deals" on a lot of different issues that went back and forth. some of it on intel Vital to the US. but bottom line Saddam didn't want to play the game he was told to play. world dictators should know by now that they can have almost anything they want as long as they do what the U.S. gov't and it's corporate partners want. The Suadis are known to support terror and bred and harbor terrorist But no drone strikes in Saudi Arbia. No hand wringing concerns that they might get a WMD ONE DAY. They are playing ball. Obama Bows to them and the Bushs Kiss them on the mouth. What war on terror? were'a doin business heree uknowwhatimean. And Yes, Log is Correct in that the Oil plan didn't go as they wanted. Please see the Post and interviews with the Former Head of the Oil company who SAW the written Iraqi NeoCon Bush admin Oil plan and rejected it because it was BAD for the Oil business. All of this , we went to war cause we had to stuff is ridiculous, folks sorry.
But IMO here's what we were going for and got out of Iraq again I don't think it worked out quite as well as hoped for but....
1. See the memo that surfaced about the oil companies all getting their cuts after the US UK invasion.
2 Saddam was threatening to begin selling oil in euros rather than dollars. killed. A Huge problem, BTW Kadafi made the same "threat".
3. We have multiple "enduring" military bases in Iraq now.
4. And an embassy "larger than the Vatican".
5. A militarily strategic local in the middle east.
6. the American Military industrial complex and friends of Cheney and crew have made BILLIONS/Trillions? from Iraq.
7. Saddam didn't make nice with Israel. killed.
8. the Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs thought it would be easy to rule the world. But they are still trying.

Was Saddam not already selling the US all we wanted? but either way it makes sense to keep it out of Terrorist hands right? If there were enough terrorist in Iraq to take the Oil maybe that'd be a problem but there weren't Both Saddam and Khadfi were alqeada terrorist haters and terrorist STOMPERS. Kadafi was at war with them. Saddam ratted on them. And they DID not have have Chance of Ousted Him or taking over any oil fields. the Kurds , even after years of sanctions couldn't get oil fields out of Saddams control.
On the first bolded, think you're off. The fear was that Saddam & Co., would fire the fields, as they attempted to do in the first war. Which brings up the 2nds bolded. Bush I, really didn't want to be there. Seriously I think with all his foreign expertise, the Kuwait invasion caught him and his State Department by total surprise. Moreso, than 9/11 did his son, though of course the magnitude of the later was beyond comparison; not to mention on homeland. GW's problem was too little time, he'd been in office less than 9 months and due to the elections results and aftermath, the ability to build and cooperate were missing. Not excuse, reality that he had to live with. Make that, what the country had to live with. Bush senior really believed in the coalition and its terms. Unlike the tax issues, he was going to keep his word and did. Bush Sr was Candid. we need the Oil, and we are not REALLY fighting for "freedom". the whole quote makes it even plainer. But if we don't believe it even when they confess it out right, i don't know what evidence it's going to take to prove it. But Again i refer you to the Oil company executive and the documents on the Bush Admin on the Oil. There was Nothing about the Iraq warranted an invasion. the given reasons were thin and untrue.

[revelarts]

the memo i reference above

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...q-2269610.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-memos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html)

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq
...The papers show that Lady Symons agreed to lobby the Bush administration on BP's behalf because the oil giant feared it was being "locked out" of deals that Washington was quietly striking with US, French and Russian governments and their energy firms.

Minutes of a meeting with BP, Shell and BG (formerly British Gas) on 31 October 2002 read: "Baroness Symons agreed that it would be difficult to justify British companies losing out in Iraq in that way if the UK had itself been a conspicuous supporter of the US government throughout the crisis."

The minister then promised to "report back to the companies before Christmas" on her lobbying efforts.

The Foreign Office invited BP in on 6 November 2002 to talk about opportunities in Iraq "post regime change". Its minutes state: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity."

After another meeting, this one in October 2002, the Foreign Office's Middle East director at the time, Edward Chaplin, noted: "Shell and BP could not afford not to have a stake in [Iraq] for the sake of their long-term future... We were determined to get a fair slice of the action for UK companies in a post-Saddam Iraq."

Whereas BP was insisting in public that it had "no strategic interest" in Iraq, in private it told the Foreign Office that Iraq was "more important than anything we've seen for a long time".

BP was concerned that if Washington allowed TotalFinaElf's existing contact with Saddam Hussein to stand after the invasion it would make the French conglomerate the world's leading oil company. BP told the Government it was willing to take "big risks" to get a share of the Iraqi reserves, the second largest in the world.

Over 1,000 documents were obtained under Freedom of Information over five years by the oil campaigner Greg Muttitt. They reveal that at least five meetings were held between civil servants, ministers and BP and Shell in late 2002.

The 20-year contracts signed in the wake of the invasion were the largest in the history of the oil industry. They covered half of Iraq's reserves – 60 billion barrels of oil, bought up by companies such as BP and CNPC (China National Petroleum Company), whose joint consortium alone stands to make £403m ($658m) profit per year from the Rumaila field in southern Iraq. ....


the timing puts the lie to the U.N. dancing going on then.
Congress gave Bush the go to use force in October 2002, seems that's when all the talk in Britain started.
War was an accomplished fact; a thing already done at that point it seems.
And it looks like there were already deals the US was making prior to that. Before (?!) the congress gave the go ahead there where Oil deals in the works.

Before Blixs Final report
Before Powells Speech to the U.N.

War was a done deal. Oil a strategic target.
the big Oil companies Jockeying into position to get their shares using the connections they had and what ever influence they could muster to get their cuts. the free market at work in the Oil Biz. Puts another face on Frances "principled" opposition to the war as well.

[aboutime]

rev. How do you spell "BROKEN RECORD"?

Or, better yet. Is this thread helping your need for that daily dose of "CONSPIRACY"?