Author Topic: Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil  (Read 4099 times)

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Re: Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
« Reply #50 on: March 19, 2013, 03:02:54 PM »
what ever dude.   ::)

We are still left with you posting poltical blabber and avoiding the basic of question of Iraq's oil.

I agree with the article, i am asking to for actual debate of the facts starting with whether or not iraq's oil was nationalized before 2003 and dominated by foriegn companies after wards.  You have only answered 50% of the question and REFUSE to back up the other half.

GO BACK TO THE START OF THE THREAD AND READ YOUR DODGING.

FACT:  WMD's were a lie.

FACT:  we are profiting big time from Iraq's oil.

FACT:  the war cost the tax payers big time

go ahead and post something clinton now, or talk about the largest CT in history.   ::)

In the mean time bend over and get it again while you cheer it on watchign the news.   

you're talking in circles becasue you don;t know what you're talking about.  you asked to answer your questions.  i did.  then you wouldn't answer mine.  your reposne to that is to say that i didn't answer your qeuesitons.  which i did.  you're trying to confuse the issue because you're majking ridiculous assumptions and not backing htem up.

like i said.  you say the WMD's were a lie.  was Clinton lying?  what was his angle for lying about that?  he didn't invade Iraq.  why would he have dont that?  or did everyone actually think there were WMD's in Iraq and you're just using the benefit of hindsight to claim that it was a lie?  you still haven't answered these quesitons.  yet you still claim that i am dodging yours.  which i didn't i answere them.

again.  you're an amateur.

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Re: Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
« Reply #51 on: March 19, 2013, 03:13:11 PM »
Ten years after the American invasion, Iraq turned into an important energy / trade partner for China. Indeed, the trade between Iraq and China doubled almost 34 times. The volume of bilateral trade between the two states soared to $17.5 billion by end-2012 from small amount of $ 517 million in 2002. In the same period, the trade between Iraq and the U.S. increased only 5.6 times. The bilateral trade between both countries rose to $ 21.6 billion by end-2012 from $ 3.8 billion in 2002. Last year, China was both the second-largest purchaser of Iraqi exports, $ 12.6bn, (after the U.S. $ 19.6bn) and the second-largest supplier of imports, $ 4.9bn, (after Turkey $ 10.8 bn), according to latest data from the U.N. Comtrade data. The United States still Iraq’s largest trade partners, however the current trends suggest that China will soon overtake America to become Baghdad’s top trade partner.

Ironically, three important points emerged after a decade of the American occupation of Baghdad. (a) The U.S. imports from Iraq of crude oil in 2012 were less in volume in comparison before the invasion. For example in the 2002, the United States imported from Iraq 485 thousand barrels of crude oil per day (bpd), while the figure from China was almost zero. However, in 2012, America imported 473 bpd of crude oil; in comparison the volume of China’s total imports from Iraq hit about 315 bpd. (b) The first oil license awarded by Iraq’s government after the U.S.-led invasion was to state-run China National Petroleum Corp. (CNPC) who won a US $ 3.5 billion development contract for Iraqi oil field Al-Ahdab in November 2008. And (c) Beijing and Baghdad recently consolidated their trade ties with the two countries signing of a cooperation deal on economic and technology and an exchange of notes on personnel training; during the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki visit to China in July 2011, which was also the first visit by Iraqi prime minister to China in the over 50 years of history of diplomatic relations.

Within this context, IHS Global Insight argue that Iraq is extremely important for Chinese companies’ growth strategy, especially given that Iran is likely to face much of a standstill for years if not decades. Iraq’s production increases have matched the relative production decreases in Iran. As a result of Iranian oil production declines, Iraq became the second largest OPEC producer (after Saudi Arabia) in late 2012. Indeed, in a stunning turnaround, Iraq recently stabilized and increased its oil production, whereby at the end of 2012, it reached nearly 3 million barrel a day (mb / d) for the first time since 1990, and it can undoubtedly produce more according the International Energy Agency (IEA). Iraqi government is planning to increase production to 3.7 million barrels per day mb/d in 2013. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) believes the figures provided by the Iraqi government are very realistic. According to the latest data provided by the IMF, Iraq’s oil production will reach 3.6 mb/d by the end-2013, while the exports will rise to 2.8 mb/d in the same year, from 2.3 mb/d in 2012.


The Big Bet
Iraq is already the world’s third-largest oil exporter (after Saudi Arabia and Russia) and has the resources and plans to increase rapidly its oil and natural gas production as it recovers from three decades punctuated by conflict and instability. Iraq is estimated to have the fifth largest proven oil reserves (143.1 billion barrels) and the 12th-largest proven gas reserves in the world, as well as vast potential for further discoveries, according BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2012.

Beijing is betting big in Iraq. The view from Beijing is that a stable Iraq is good for the region and for China’s core economic interests.


Dr. Naser Al-Tamimi


Beijing is betting big in Iraq. The view from Beijing is that a stable Iraq is good for the region and for China’s core economic interests. According to business Monitor International, (BMI), in November 2008, China and Iraq finalised a $ 3bn oil service contract for the development of the Ahdab oil field. The State-run Chinese National Petroleum Co. (CNPC) originally signed a Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) for the field in 1997. This is the first deal from the Saddam Hussein era to be honoured by the new Iraqi regime. While in November 2009, CNPC won a large stake in a $ 15 billion deal to develop the Rumaila oil field in southern Iraq, thought to be the second largest in the world. In December 2009, CNPC was awarded a 50% stake in the development of the Halfaya oilfield located southern Iraq. Halfaya is proven to hold 4.1 billion barrels of recoverable reserve and has production potential of 200 thousand to half million bpd. In February 2010, Beijing cancelled 80% of Iraq’s $8.5 billion debt to China, a move designed to further Chinese business interests in the country. In June 2012, CNPC finished the first phase of the Halfaya and increased production from 3,000 bpd to 100,000 bpd, 15 months ahead of schedule.

CNPC currently holds a 37.5% stake in the Halfaya field, a 75% stake in the al-Ahdab field and a 37% stake in the Rumaila field. Wang Dongjin, vice president of CNPC, estimates that Chinese state companies are currently helping in the production of some 1.6 million barrels a day in Iraq, more than half that country’s total output. Chinese companies are also producing 120,000 barrels a day from Halfayia and some 140,000 barrels a day from Ahdab. China’s initial success in Iraq also extends to the Kurdish Autonomous Region. In August 2009, the state-run, China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation (Sinopec) agreed to acquire Swiss energy company “Addax” in a $ 7.2bn deal. The deal has been approved by the Chinese government and it became effective on October 5, 2009. Subsequently, Sinopec gained access to two oil fields in northern Iraq; as Addax has a 30% stake in PSA for the Taq field ‘and’ a 26.67% working interest in the Sangaw North PSC oil field in Kurdistan. Additionally, there are also speculations (NASDAQ news) that China’s largest oil and gas producer - PetroChina - is interested in joining Texas-based ExxonMobil Corporation, for the development of West Qurna oilfield in southern Iraq. Both parties are yet to finalize on the size of stakes to be shared.


The Coming ‘Oil Superpower’
As for the future, in the IEA’s Central Scenario, that reflects its judgement about a reasonable trajectory for Iraq’s development, based on an assessment of current and announced policies and projects, Iraq’s oil production rises to 4.2 mb/d in 2015, more than doubles to 6.1 mb / d by 2020, jumps to 7 mb/d by 2025, and reaches 8.3 mb / d in 2035. The increase in Iraq’s oil production in the IEA’s Central Scenario of more than five mb/d over the period to 2035; makes Iraq by far the largest contributor to global supply growth. Over the current decade, Iraq accounts for around 45% of the anticipated growth in global output.

Iraq’s exports rise to 4.4 mb / d in 2020 and 5.2 mb / d in 2025, finishing the projection period at 6.3 mb / d. The IEA predicts that by 2020, Iraq will export 80% to Asia (3.5-4 m / bd) most of it will go to China. The IEA also predicts that China will become the main customer for Iraqi oil by the 2030s, with Baghdad overtaking Russia to become the world’s second-largest oil exporter by then. The IEA’s chief economist, Fatih Birol, recently said that: “Iraq will emerge as a major new oil producer by the 2030s. Its main customer will be China, and half of Iraqi oil production will go to China.”

Indeed, Iraq’s oil production potential is immense, but exploiting it depends on consolidating the progress made in peace and stability in the country and the need for infrastructure investments. In a high-case scenario, if all the various moving parts are aligned perfectly, the IEA forecasts that Iraq could crank up production to 9.1 mb/d by the end of this decade. It becomes the second-largest global exporter after Saudi Arabia and a key supplier to fast-growing markets in Asia. In a delayed case - which also is unlikely but could occur if the regional environment deteriorates and Iraq is engulfed in a larger regional conflict or oil prices crash - would see production rise marginally to 4 mb/d by 2020.


Difficult Road Ahead
To put Iraq’s potential in context, Baghdad in 2012 ranked sixth (after Saudi Arabia, Angola, Russia, Iran and Oman), in the list of key crude oil suppliers to China, where the ratio of imports to about 5.8% (about 315 thousand bpd) of China’s total imports. As by comparison, China imported over a million barrel per day (mb/d) from Saudi Arabia in 2012 (20% of China’s total crude oil imports), while Angola provided around 806 thousand bpd or 15% of total imports, nearly 9% or 489 thousand bpd came from Russia and around 442 thousand bpd or over 8% imported from Iran. But Iraq could jump to the third or the second largest supplier of oil to China over the next few years. However, the security situation and political developments in Iraq still a source of concern to Beijing.

Although the security situation has improved markedly over the past five years, Iraq is still far from stable. For China, the surge in imports of Iraqi crude oil carries risks because of the danger that deteriorating security, sectarian tensions, complex legal framework, endemic corruption, and lack of infrastructure could delay the increase in Iraq’s forecasted oil production forcing Beijing to look for alternative suppliers. The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) expects the political situation in Iraq to remain unstable, while the Global Insight argues that “Iraq’s delicate security condition poses the greatest downside risks to economic growth in the short term, as it could severely undermine development plans, cause a political gridlock, and erode consumer demand.” More worryingly, the increasingly civil war in Syria could spill over into Iraq creating dangerous sectarian conflict.

However, the EIU does not expect a repeat of the sectarian conflict that engulfed Iraq in 2006-07. Indeed, despite the gloomy political outlook, the IMF projects that Iraq to register the highest economic growth rates in the world, where the GDP is expected to expand rapidly in 2013 by more than 14% and Iraq’s economy to grow by a robust 10-11% on average during 2013-2017, driven primarily by rising oil production. This provides enormous opportunities for Chinese companies to expand in Iraq’s markets.

here are some facts for you fucking idiots.  now tell me how this was part of our plan to take Iraq's oil?  you probably won't read it so if you want me to give you the short version i will.

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Re: Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
« Reply #52 on: March 19, 2013, 03:14:34 PM »
basically what Ozmo is saying is that we dumped billions of dollars into the war in Iraq so that we could make Iraq a leading exporter of oil and make the Chinese rich off of it.  good plan.  LOL!  fucking dumbasses!

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Re: Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
« Reply #53 on: March 19, 2013, 03:17:15 PM »
oh yeah and that article was written by someone who doesn't host a website called "thebushagenda.com".  you think she has an agenda OZ?

blacken700

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11873
  • Getbig!
Re: Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
« Reply #54 on: March 19, 2013, 03:22:48 PM »
Iraq's oil production has increased by more than 40% in the past five years to 3 million barrels of oil a day (still below the 1979 high of 3.5 million set by Iraq's state-owned companies), but a full 80% of this is being exported out of the country while Iraqis struggle to meet basic energy consumption needs. GDP per capita has increased significantly yet remains among the lowest in the world and well below some of Iraq's other oil-rich neighbors. Basic services such as water and electricity remain luxuries, while 25% of the population lives in poverty.

this is a copy and paste, just so skippy knows  :D

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
« Reply #55 on: March 19, 2013, 05:06:41 PM »
you're talking in circles becasue you don;t know what you're talking about.  you asked to answer your questions.  i did.  then you wouldn't answer mine.  your reposne to that is to say that i didn't answer your qeuesitons.  which i did.  you're trying to confuse the issue because you're majking ridiculous assumptions and not backing htem up.

like i said.  you say the WMD's were a lie.  was Clinton lying?  what was his angle for lying about that?  he didn't invade Iraq.  why would he have dont that?  or did everyone actually think there were WMD's in Iraq and you're just using the benefit of hindsight to claim that it was a lie?  you still haven't answered these quesitons.  yet you still claim that i am dodging yours.  which i didn't i answere them.

again.  you're an amateur.

You didn't answer my question.  Stop lying to yourself.

I already told you what i think of Clinton's statement.  Do you have a reading problem?

I guess so, becuase you are down to calling me an amatuer.   ::)

YOU have been dodging from post #1.

Either show where the article is FALSE, or keep exposing your self for what youare. 

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
« Reply #56 on: March 19, 2013, 05:12:33 PM »

Getbiggers in 2005:  "We are here to spread DEMOCRACY!  We're here to help people!  IT has NOTHING to do with oil!  That's CT talk!"


Ahem {cough} As I recall, there was at least one Canadian Getbigger who kept insisting that it was about OIL,
...but she kept getting shouted down by the trolls, ...and the mods would delete her posts... They still do.
w

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
« Reply #57 on: March 19, 2013, 05:16:42 PM »
I dont think this has to do anything with repub/dem.  Oz didn't mention politics.

The war was about oil.  Some getbiggers beleived it.  Others did not.   Now we know the truth - it was about oil.  it might have taken 10 years for everyone to figure it out....

{yawn} It took some of us all but 5 minutes to figure it out, and that was before a single shot was fired ...just sayin'
w

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
« Reply #58 on: March 19, 2013, 05:33:00 PM »
There was no way, the USA was going to permit Saddam Hussein to sell his oil in Euro.
It was about controlling Iraqi oil, ...and maintaining the Petro dollar using WMDs as justification,

The USA is on the verge of trying to repeat the same BS with Iran, claiming it to have nuclear weapons, when in reality, the USA shot itself in the foot by removing Iran from the International SWIFT settlement system, forcing them to sell their oil in exchange for GOLD.
w

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
« Reply #59 on: March 19, 2013, 05:42:01 PM »
Ahem {cough} As I recall, there was at least one Canadian Getbigger who kept insisting that it was about OIL,
...but she kept getting shouted down by the trolls, ...and the mods would delete her posts... They still do.

Incorrect, stop playing the victim.  No one deleted your posts unless they were vile personal attacks or loony moon bot style CTs

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
« Reply #60 on: March 19, 2013, 05:42:28 PM »
There was no way, the USA was going to permit Saddam Hussein to sell his oil in Euro.
It was about controlling Iraqi oil, ...and maintaining the Petro dollar using WMDs as justification,

The USA is on the verge of trying to repeat the same BS with Iran, claiming it to have nuclear weapons, when in reality, the USA shot itself in the foot by removing Iran from the International SWIFT settlement system, forcing them to sell their oil in exchange for GOLD.

Oh look you brought up gold.  Imagine that. 

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
« Reply #61 on: March 19, 2013, 07:10:07 PM »
we could have killed saddam left.   we could have killed sadaam and then trained their guys, killed bad guys and left.

splitting up the oil fields was done BEFORE the invasion.  ANyone who doesn't know that, well, i dunno what to say.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
« Reply #62 on: March 19, 2013, 07:38:27 PM »
we could have killed saddam left.   we could have killed sadaam and then trained their guys, killed bad guys and left.

splitting up the oil fields was done BEFORE the invasion.  ANyone who doesn't know that, well, i dunno what to say.

What cracks me up more than anything else is the immidiate dismissal based on lib vs. con  and then citing statments from dems supporting the war.  What the fuck does that have to do with anything?  Then as a debate tactic putting the burden on the poster to prove its a conspiracy.  Its not a conspiracy.  Its an article arguing WITH FACTS that the war was about oil.  There were many things to gain from many different poeple and companies.

The main reason cited for going to war was the threat of WMD's.  It was a sales pitch fit for SUCKERS and then it even turned out to be a lie!  Yet we still have lapdogs defending it, whille we profit heavily from their oil.

Amazing. 

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
« Reply #63 on: March 19, 2013, 09:18:55 PM »
Incorrect, stop playing the victim.  No one deleted your posts unless they were vile personal attacks or loony moon bot style CTs

No OzmO, they were quietly deleted off the General Board, as were ALOT of posts the didn't cheer on the war.
This was prior to the creation of the Politics board.
w

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
« Reply #64 on: March 19, 2013, 09:20:29 PM »
Oh look you brought up gold.  Imagine that.  

No, I brought up US bullying backfiring on them. I have no control over what Iran chooses to accept in exchange for oil, ...and apparently neither did Iran. They were left with absolutely no choice.
w

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
« Reply #65 on: March 19, 2013, 09:21:58 PM »
Which getbiggers will admit they initially believed OIL had nothing to do with it, but now they realize yeahhhh oil played a role?

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
« Reply #66 on: March 19, 2013, 09:29:56 PM »
What cracks me up more than anything else is the immidiate dismissal based on lib vs. con  and then citing statments from dems supporting the war.  What the fuck does that have to do with anything?  Then as a debate tactic putting the burden on the poster to prove its a conspiracy.  Its not a conspiracy.  Its an article arguing WITH FACTS that the war was about oil.  There were many things to gain from many different poeple and companies.

The main reason cited for going to war was the threat of WMD's.  It was a sales pitch fit for SUCKERS and then it even turned out to be a lie!  Yet we still have lapdogs defending it, whille we profit heavily from their oil.

Amazing. 


It's not just AMAZING, ...it freaking disgusting the way many Americans nonchalantly don't give a poop about what has been done, and are ready to move. It truly makes me fear for America, ...'cause karma is a BIYATCH!

'United States of Amnesia': Iraq death toll mounts 10 years on

w

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
« Reply #67 on: March 19, 2013, 09:35:26 PM »
Which getbiggers will admit they initially believed OIL had nothing to do with it, but now they realize yeahhhh oil played a role?

I NEVER believed it was about anything other than OIL.

Just look at the name they chose for it. Operation Iraqi Liberation. Could they be any more blatant?
Gimme a break. You'd have to be a moron, a liar, or in a mind-controlled trance not to see it wasn't about OIL.
w

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
« Reply #68 on: March 20, 2013, 08:34:20 AM »
No OzmO, they were quietly deleted off the General Board, as were ALOT of posts the didn't cheer on the war.
This was prior to the creation of the Politics board.

Sounds like a conspracy............... .........

whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
Re: Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
« Reply #69 on: March 20, 2013, 08:55:38 AM »
Which getbiggers will admit they initially believed OIL had nothing to do with it, but now they realize yeahhhh oil played a role?

I thought Bush was a nice guy who just wanted to help the poor people in Iraq.

Kind of weird because he veto'd a proposal to give health care to american children, but i thought Bush might have muslim ancestors or something. He hated americans but loved muslims.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63839
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
« Reply #70 on: March 20, 2013, 12:11:54 PM »
But, but, but no.......  its was for Iraqi freedom, for WMD's and they got to keep their oil!  ::)
________________________ _______________

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Editor's note: Ten years ago the war in Iraq began. This week we focus on the people involved in the war, and the lives that changed forever. Antonia Juhasz, an oil industry analyst, is author of several books, including "The Bush Agenda" and "The Tyranny of Oil."

(CNN) -- Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with winners: Big Oil.

It has been 10 years since Operation Iraqi Freedom's bombs first landed in Baghdad. And while most of the U.S.-led coalition forces have long since gone, Western oil companies are only getting started.

Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.

From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.

The war is the one and only reason for this long sought and newly acquired access.


Oil was not the only goal of the Iraq War, but it was certainly the central one, as top U.S. military and political figures have attested to in the years following the invasion.

"Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that," said General John Abizaid in 2007, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq. Former Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Senator and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."


For the first time in about 30 years, Western oil companies are exploring for and producing oil in Iraq from some of the world's largest oil fields and reaping enormous profit. And while the U.S. has also maintained a fairly consistent level of Iraq oil imports since the invasion, the benefits are not finding their way through Iraq's economy or society.

These outcomes were by design, the result of a decade of U.S. government and oil company pressure. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then CEO of Chevron, said, "Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas-reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." Today it does.



In 2000, Big Oil, including Exxon, Chevron, BP, and Shell, spent more money to get fellow oilmen George W. Bush and Dick Cheney into office than they had spent on any previous election. Just over a week into Bush's first term, their efforts paid off when the National Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by Dick Cheney, was formed, bringing the administration and the oil companies together to plot our collective energy future. In March, the task force reviewed lists and maps outlining Iraq's entire oil productive capacity.

Planning for a military invasion was soon underway. Bush's first Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, said in 2004: "Already by February [2001], the talk was mostly about logistics. Not the why [to invade Iraq], but the how and how quickly."

In its final report in May 2001, the task force argued that Middle Eastern countries should be urged "to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment." This is precisely what has been achieved in Iraq.

Here's how they did it.

The State Department Future of Iraq Project's Oil and Energy Working Group met from February 2002 to April 2003 and agreed that Iraq "should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war."



The list of the group's members was not made public, but Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum -- who was appointed Iraq's oil minister by the U.S. occupation government in September 2003 -- was part of the group, according to Greg Muttitt, the journalist and author of "Fuel on the Fire: Oil and Politics in Occupied Iraq". Bahr al-Uloum promptly set about trying to implement the group's objectives.

At the same time, representatives from ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Halliburton, among others, met with Cheney's staff in January 2003, to discuss plans for Iraq's postwar industry. For the next decade, former and current executives of western oil companies acted first as administrators of Iraq's oil ministry, and then as "advisers" to the Iraqi government.
People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are.
Then-U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel in 2007

Before the invasion, there were just two things standing in the way of western oil companies operating in Iraq: Saddam Hussein and the nation's legal system. The invasion dealt handily with Hussein. To address the latter problem, some both in and outside of the Bush administration argued that it should simply change Iraq's oil laws through the U.S.-led coalition government of Iraq which ran the country from April 2003 to June 2004. Instead the White House waited, choosing to pressure the newly-elected Iraqi government to pass new oil legislation itself.



This Iraq Hydrocarbons Law, partially drafted by the western oil industry, would lock the nation into private foreign investment under the most corporate-friendly terms. The Bush administration pushed the Iraqi government both publicly and privately to pass the law. And in January 2007, as the ''surge" of 20,000 additional American troops was being finalized, the president set specific benchmarks for the Iraqi government, including the passage of new oil legislation to "promote investment, national unity, and reconciliation."

But due to enormous public opposition and a recalcitrant parliament, the central Iraqi government has failed to pass the Hydrocarbons Law. Usama al-Nujeyfi, a member of the parliamentary energy committee, even quit in protest over the law, saying it would cede too much control to global companies and "ruin the country's future."

In 2008, with the likelihood of the law's passage and the prospect of continued foreign military occupation dimming as elections loomed in the U.S. and Iraq, the oil companies settled on a different track.


Bypassing parliament, the firms started signing contracts that provide all of the access and most of the favorable treatment the Hydrocarbons Law would provide - and the Bush administration helped draft the model contracts.



Upon leaving office, Bush and Obama administration officials have even worked for oil companies as advisers on their Iraq endeavors. For example, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad's company, CMX-Gryphon, "provides international oil companies and multinationals with unparalleled access, insight and knowledge on Iraq."

The new contracts lack the security a new legal structure would grant, and Iraqi lawmakers have argued that they run contrary to existing law, which requires government control, operation, and ownership of Iraq's oil sector.

But the contracts do achieve the key goal of the Cheney energy task force: all-but-privatizing the Iraqi oil sector and opening it to private foreign companies.

They also provide exceptionally long contract terms, high ownership stakes, and eliminate requirements that Iraq's oil stay in Iraq, that companies invest earnings in the local economy, or hire a majority of local workers.

Iraq's oil production has increased by more than 40% in the last five years to 3 million barrels of oil a day (still below the 1979 high of 3.5 million set by Iraq's state-owned companies), but a full 80% of this is being exported out of the country while Iraqis struggle to meet basic energy consumption needs. GDP per capita has increased significantly, yet remains among the lowest in the world and well below some of Iraq's other oil-rich neighbors. Basic services such as water and electricity remain luxuries, while 25% of the population lives in poverty.

MORE: Share your story of the Iraq War

The promise of new energy-related jobs across the country has yet to materialize. The oil and gas sectors today account directly for less than 2% of total employment as foreign companies rely instead on imported labor.

In just the last few weeks, more than 1,000 people have protested at ExxonMobil and Russia Lukoil's super-giant West Qurna oil field, demanding jobs and payment for private land that has been lost or damaged by oil operations. The Iraqi military was called in to respond.

Fed up with the firms, a leading coalition of Iraqi civil society groups and trade unions, including oil workers, declared on February 15 that international oil companies have "taken the place of foreign troops in compromising Iraqi sovereignty" and should "set a timetable for withdrawal."

Closer to home, at a protest at Chevron's Houston headquarters in 2010, former U.S. Army Military Intelligence officer Thomas Buonomo, member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, held up a sign which read, "Dear Chevron: Thank you for dishonoring our service."

Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with losers: the Iraqi people, and all those who spilled and lost blood so that Big Oil could come out ahead.

Not a lot of substance here in support of a "war for oil" theory.  Assuming the statement is true that Iraq is now dominated by foreign oil companies, what is the take of U.S. companies and how has that take made it into the government coffers? 

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
Re: Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
« Reply #71 on: March 20, 2013, 12:22:30 PM »
funny no mention of how Pelosi, Reid, Biden, Kerry, Hillary Clinton, all voted in favor of this war.  i accept the fact that there could possibly have been a conspiracy, but for that to be true, a lot of people from both sides would have had to have been complicit.  Guarantee this guy doesn't mention that fact at all.  Why?  Because he's pandering for book sales. 

based on information... albeit false... it was still based on information that was given...was there motive behind the information? ...maybe

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39577
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
« Reply #72 on: March 20, 2013, 12:32:12 PM »
based on information... albeit false... it was still based on information that was given...was there motive behind the information? ...maybe


Bill clinton , hillary, kerry, blair, the UN all thought he had them too. 

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
« Reply #73 on: March 20, 2013, 06:49:54 PM »

Bill clinton , hillary, kerry, blair, the UN all thought he had them too. 

Oh Puleaze!!! They NEVER thought he had them. Infact both Condileeza Rice AND General Colin Powell were on record in July 2001 as saying Saddam Hussein was NOT a threat, and was INCAPABLE of being a threat. He had been neutralized.

One injured vet who is dying blames the two OILmen in office for the war.

[ Invalid YouTube link ]
w

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Re: Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
« Reply #74 on: March 21, 2013, 07:42:18 AM »
What cracks me up more than anything else is the immidiate dismissal based on lib vs. con  and then citing statments from dems supporting the war.  What the fuck does that have to do with anything?  Then as a debate tactic putting the burden on the poster to prove its a conspiracy.  Its not a conspiracy.  Its an article arguing WITH FACTS that the war was about oil.  There were many things to gain from many different poeple and companies.

The main reason cited for going to war was the threat of WMD's.  It was a sales pitch fit for SUCKERS and then it even turned out to be a lie!  Yet we still have lapdogs defending it, whille we profit heavily from their oil.

Amazing. 

the only reason its brought up is that for this author's statement to be true there had to be a conspiracy.  i don't understand your response to the quotes by the Clinton administration. 

The Clinton administration time and time again warned of the danger of Sadaam Hussein. So why did he say those things?  I guess i just don't see the angle he was taking. 

Look I have to understand why.  I'm more than willing to accept that we went to war based on the desire for Iraq's oil.  That makes sense to me.  What doesn't make sense to me is the fact that you're saying that the search for WMD's was simply a bold faced lie given to us by 4 consecutive administrations over the span of 20 years.

So my question becomes, "were they all in on it?" "who started lying about it and when?" Thats a question that you have not answered.  I'm trying to be open minded in this.  So i'm asking quesitons.  And you're gettign mad that i'm asking those questions.  And you'd have to be either a complete idiot or a person with a political angle NOT to ask those questions.