Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: OzmO on March 19, 2013, 09:46:00 AM
-
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 (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.
-
But, but, but no....... its was for Iraqi freedom, for WMD's and they got to keep their 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."
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!"
-
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.
-
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.
This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
-
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
-
"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003
-
"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
-
Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed into law by President Clinton, states:
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998
-
"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan Resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he's used them in the past, and that he's doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability.
Democracy will not spring up by itself overnight in a multi-ethnic, complicated society that's suffered under one repressive regime after another for generations. The Iraqi people deserve and need our help to rebuild their lives and to create a prosperous, thriving, open society. All Iraqis, including Sunnis, Shia and Kurds, deserve to be represented. This is not just a moral imperative. It's a security imperative. It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner, and such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world."
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
Speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies
October 7, 2002
-
"Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
-
"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."
President Clinton
National Address from the Oval Office
December 16, 1998
-
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....
-
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....
LOL! Now we know the truth??? what? because some guy is writing a book? he is telling you what you want to hear. thats why you believe it.
all i'm saying is i'm fine with the conspiracy theory. just don't pick and choose who you villify based upon whats convenient for you to believe. if his assertion that the war was all about oil to be true the presidential administrations from Bush Sr., Clinton, and GWB all would have had to have been complicit. And you don't want to believe that. You just want to believe that GWB is the bad guy. All the incontrovertible facts that i posted above you aren't interested in.
-
LOL! Now we know the truth??? what? because some guy is writing a book? he is telling you what you want to hear. thats why you believe it.
all i'm saying is i'm fine with the conspiracy theory. just don't pick and choose who you villify based upon whats convenient for you to believe. if his assertion that the war was all about oil to be true the presidential administrations from Bush Sr., Clinton, and GWB all would have had to have been complicit. And you don't want to believe that. You just want to believe that GWB is the bad guy. All the incontrovertible facts that i posted above you aren't interested in.
Ding, ding, ding!!!! EXACTLY!
-
LOL! Now we know the truth??? what? because some guy is writing a book? he is telling you what you want to hear. thats why you believe it.
all i'm saying is i'm fine with the conspiracy theory. just don't pick and choose who you villify based upon whats convenient for you to believe. if his assertion that the war was all about oil to be true the presidential administrations from Bush Sr., Clinton, and GWB all would have had to have been complicit. And you don't want to believe that. You just want to believe that GWB is the bad guy. All the incontrovertible facts that i posted above you aren't interested in.
we know the truth because the architcts of the war admit it. because the exact thing that CTers predicted - Iraq's oil industry being largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.
It's tough to argue that the CTers were wrong... cause they were right. Oz didn't mention politics nor Bush. Neither did I. That was introduced later in this thread. I dont think anyone with 90 IQ or better still believes every single politician in DC isn't bought and owned by big industry like oil. hilary = obama = bush, but that's not what OZ started this thread to show.
he started it to show that ever getbigger scremaing "War about oil? That's a conspiracy theory" in 2004/2005 was wrong.
-
we know the truth because the architcts of the war admit it. because the exact thing that CTers predicted - Iraq's oil industry being largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.
It's tough to argue that the CTers were wrong... cause they were right. Oz didn't mention politics nor Bush. Neither did I. That was introduced later in this thread. I dont think anyone with 90 IQ or better still believes every single politician in DC isn't bought and owned by big industry like oil. hilary = obama = bush, but that's not what OZ started this thread to show.
he started it to show that ever getbigger scremaing "War about oil? That's a conspiracy theory" in 2004/2005 was wrong.
No he's drawing conclusions based upon random facts that he puts together like a puzzle and gives you the story the way he knows you want to hear it. and you believe him because you want to. i'm sorry. but thats the truth.
if he can go back and present evidence of how Clinton and Bush Sr. started this conspiracy I would be a little bit more receptive. trust me he'll never touch that part of the story. thats not what his fans want to hear. no one is interested in buying that book. because Obama hired a bunch of the conspirators.
-
we know the truth because the architcts of the war admit it. because the exact thing that CTers predicted - Iraq's oil industry being largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.
It's tough to argue that the CTers were wrong... cause they were right. Oz didn't mention politics nor Bush. Neither did I. That was introduced later in this thread. I dont think anyone with 90 IQ or better still believes every single politician in DC isn't bought and owned by big industry like oil. hilary = obama = bush, but that's not what OZ started this thread to show.
he started it to show that ever getbigger scremaing "War about oil? That's a conspiracy theory" in 2004/2005 was wrong.
oh and find me a popular conspiracy theorist that implicates Bill Clinton in this "war for oil". show me that the conspiracy theorists don't have political motives and are simply seeking the truth.
you won't find any. trust me. because they're all full of shit.
-
first off, its funny how everytime the Iraq debate come up the first thing conservatives do is site the Dems voting for it.
Let me make this clear:
THIS IS NOT ABOUT LIB vs. CON!
As a foot note to this: its importnat the understand that we had war fever at that time, voting agsint it would have been poltical suicide, ANDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD campaign funding suicide lol.
Now to the charges of a CT.
One fact or myth:
If Iraqi's oil nationalized or dominated by foriegn companies?
Feel free to back your claims with actual facts.
(I'd like to know) ;)
-
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 (http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/index.html?hpt=hp_c2)
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.
Pretty simple really..... is this true or not?
-
first off, its funny how everytime the Iraq debate come up the first thing conservatives do is site the Dems voting for it.
Let me make this clear:
THIS IS NOT ABOUT LIB vs. CON!
As a foot note to this: its importnat the understand that we had war fever at that time, voting agsint it would have been poltical suicide, ANDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD campaign funding suicide lol.
Now to the charges of a CT.
One fact or myth:
If Iraqi's oil nationalized or dominated by foriegn companies?
Feel free to back your claims with actual facts.
(I'd like to know) ;)
it is about LIB vs CON if the author of that book doesn't examine the fact that every president since Ronald Reagan said that Sadaam is a nuclear threat. but they were ALL lying becasue it all part and parcel of this huge conspiracy. I didn't read his book. I guarantee he doesn't do that. I guarantee he doesn't mention ANYTHING about the CLinton administration role in the conspiracy. only GWB's. Prove me wrong. post the excerpt of the book where he addresses that.
-
Pretty simple really..... is this true or not?
and that is THE ONLY fact that you need? sounds like you're gathering ammunition to support your foregoned conclusion, not gathering information in order to make an informed decision. One could say the same thing about the US textile, energy, and manufacturing industries. They change over time. You're seriously basing your opinion on the largest and most complex conspiracy theory in the history of the world on this one fact? wow. you don't need much. if i didn't knwo any etter i would say you had an agenda. hmm.
-
it is about LIB vs CON if the author of that book doesn't examine the fact that every president since Ronald Reagan said that Sadaam is a nuclear threat. but they were ALL lying becasue it all part and parcel of this huge conspiracy. I didn't read his book. I guarantee he doesn't do that. I guarantee he doesn't mention ANYTHING about the CLinton administration role in the conspiracy. only GWB's. Prove me wrong. post the excerpt of the book where he addresses that.
Why are you holding on to that?
Is that only way you can avoid the truth?
Are you so subject to politcal blabber that now you see it as absolute truth? anything any president said is absolute truth? Seriously?
Or is it that you cant stand that a president from the party you support might have lied so now you are trying to throw other poeple from the otehr side to minimize it?
it boils down to this:
If Iraqi's oil nationalized or dominated by foriegn companies?
Feel free to back your claims with actual facts.
PS: don't do the cowardly thing by trying to deflect this in the direction of having me prove something else.
HAVE SOME BALLS.
STOP HIDING.
-
and that is THE ONLY fact that you need? sounds like you're gathering ammunition to support your foregoned conclusion, not gathering information in order to make an informed decision. One could say the same thing about the US textile, energy, and manufacturing industries. They change over time. You're seriously basing your opinion on the largest and most complex conspiracy theory in the history of the world on this one fact? wow. you don't need much. if i didn't knwo any etter i would say you had an agenda. hmm.
can you answer the quesiton of not?
Or will you continue to squirm?
-
Why are you holding on to that?
Is that only way you can avoid the truth?
Are you so subject to politcal blabber that now you see it as absolute truth? anything any president said is absolute truth? Seriously?
Or is it that you cant stand that a president from the party you support might have lied so now you are trying to throw other poeple from the otehr side to minimize it?
it boils down to this:
If Iraqi's oil nationalized or dominated by foriegn companies?
Feel free to back your claims with actual facts.
PS: don't do the cowardly thing by trying to deflect this in the direction of having me prove something else.
HAVE SOME BALLS.
STOP HIDING.
Iraq's oil is dominated by foreign companies.
-
Iraq's oil is dominated by foreign companies.
was it nationalized before 2003?
-
was it nationalized before 2003?
no
-
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
answer mine now. was he lying?
-
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!"
haha... Bunch of dumbfucks
Beach Bum was leading the charge! ;D
-
Re: Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
« Reply #3 on: Today at 11:23:11 AM » Quote Modify Remove
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.
This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
was she complicit in the conspiracy?
-
"Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."
State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois)
Speech at Federal Plaza, Chicago, Illinois
October 2, 2002
what about him? complicit? yes? no?
-
no
it wasn't?
so the authors assertion (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.) is only half true?
squirm squirm squirm
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
answer mine now. was he lying?
He was incorrect. AND it was political blabber designed for the ignorant. I said it back then, I said often after the 2003 invasion.
those with common sense could see that Iraq was only a regional threat up until the 1st gulf war, after that, any aggression outside his borders would lead to his removal from power; something he would never risk.
-
Bears, add the same response to all those others and then lets get back to talking about the REAL ISSUE!
Was Iraqi oil nationalized or not before 2003?
-
Bears, add the same response to all those others and then lets get back to talking about the REAL ISSUE!
Was Iraqi oil nationalized or not before 2003?
you're leaving gaps i could drive a truck through in your theory. and not answering basic questions that any rational person would want answered. and anyone with half a brain can see that you're reaching.
-
you're leaving gaps i could drive a truck through in your theory. and not answering basic questions that any rational person would want answered. and anyone with half a brain can see that you're reaching.
Reaching what?
The guys article can't go on without establishing those facts.
So i ask you again, are they true or not?
Or at the very least, drive some gaps through his theory or opinion. Or keep squirming.
So far all you have done is avoid and run.
Do you know the difference between rhetoric and results?
You are posting rhetoric, this is about the results.
actions speak louder than words...etc.
-
Reaching what?
The guys article can't go on without establishing those facts.
So i ask you again, are they true or not?
Or at the very least, drive some gaps through his theory or opinion. Or keep squirming.
So far all you have done is avoid and run.
Do you know the difference between rhetoric and results?
You are posting rhetoric, this is about the results.
actions speak louder than words...etc.
its funny you say that since you've doged both my quesitons. so i'll ask you again. who were the major players in the conspiracy? it has obviously been going on since the late 80's. quit dodging my questions and spewing your rhetoric. give ME results. when did this conspiracy begin? and with who?
-
THIS IS NOT ABOUT LIB vs. CON!
it's a lot easier to make it that way, so there's a "side". In this case, the only "side" is fact or fiction. Iraqi oil is managed by foriegn companies now. fact.
-
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.
Do you work for the GOP ber ???
-
Do you work for the GOP ber ???
the adults are talking whork. go play.
-
Do you work for the GOP ber ???
i dont seee this about the GOP or DNC or anyone else. they're on the same side when it comes to milking iraq for oil. I'm not saying it's morally right, but it works out well for americans, keeping the oil sold in USD using our own companies. It sure helps us out.
the parties argue about wedge issues like abortion or gay marriage, but they'reunited in global conquest for natural resources.
-
i dont seee this about the GOP or DNC or anyone else. they're on the same side when it comes to milking iraq for oil. I'm not saying it's morally right, but it works out well for americans, keeping the oil sold in USD using our own companies. It sure helps us out.
the parties argue about wedge issues like abortion or gay marriage, but they'reunited in global conquest for natural resources.
all i'm asking for is an explanation as to who were the major players of the largest conspiracy in world history. and no one wants to answer the question.
-
well it would have to start at the top,right
-
all OZMO is doing is making a claim that Iraq's oil industry being denationalized was a conspiracy by the US. MY PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT'S ALL HE'S SAYING!!!!!!! like you said ozmo, actions speak louder than words. tell me who started it.
-
the adults are talking whork. go play.
I can see that.
You are a useful adult sheep bear.
Or
You work for the GOP.
At least that way you get paid.
-
well it would have to start at the top,right
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."
President Clinton
Oval Office Address to the American People
December 16, 1998
so was he lying when he said this? i do not believe he was. which is why i don't know why whork is asking me if i work for the GOP? whork you know Clinton was a democrat right?
-
all OZMO is doing is making a claim that Iraq's oil industry being denationalized was a conspiracy by the US. MY PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT'S ALL HE'S SAYING!!!!!!! like you said ozmo, actions speak louder than words. tell me who started it.
yeah..... crickets
-
its funny you say that since you've doged both my quesitons. so i'll ask you again. who were the major players in the conspiracy? it has obviously been going on since the late 80's. quit dodging my questions and spewing your rhetoric. give ME results. when did this conspiracy begin? and with who?
????
first off, i haven't charged this as a conspiracy, you have. Secondly, your intial argument is based on political babble which i put in its place.
third, you still won't address whether or not Iraqs oil or was not nationalized in prior to 2003. why not? at the very least back it up with some facts.
forth, i am the one who is askign about results. so we will start at the beginning, and if you can't keep up, don't bother. You are starting to get tedious.
________________________ ________________
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.
speaking of results, is this true or not?
cause we already know how the WMD's were, don't we?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
BTW, i think its important you know. I don't think this was a CT. This is how we do things. Have for decades. I just think 3000 american lives aren't worth it this time.
all i'm asking for is an explanation as to who were the major players of the largest conspiracy in world history. and no one wants to answer the question.
and again, quit it with the largest CT in history. ::)
Is calling it a CT the only way you can defend it?
squirm squirm squirm
-
all OZMO is doing is making a claim that Iraq's oil industry being denationalized was a conspiracy by the US. MY PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT'S ALL HE'S SAYING!!!!!!! like you said ozmo, actions speak louder than words. tell me who started it.
first of all i didn't make the claim. The author did. I have been asking you to disprove it.
squirm squirm squirm
-
????
first off, i haven't charged this as a conspiracy, you have. Secondly, your intial argument is based on political babble which i put in its place.
third, you still won't address whether or not Iraqs oil or was not nationalized in prior to 2003. why not? at the very least back it up with some facts.
forth, i am the one who is askign about results. so we will start at the beginning, and if you can't keep up, don't bother. You are starting to get tedious.
________________________ ________________
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.
speaking of results, is this true or not?
cause we already know how the WMD's were, don't we?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
BTW, i think its important you know. I don't think this was a CT. This is how we do things. Have for decades. I just think 3000 american lives aren't worth it this time.
and again, quit it with the largest CT in history. ::)
Is calling it a CT the only way you can defend it?
squirm squirm squirm
if we told the american public we were invading Iraq because we thought they had weapons of mass destruction when it was really only part of a larger plan to denatioalize Iraq's oil industry, thats a conspiracy theory. you're ducking and dodging and not answerign my questions. the same thing you're accusing me of.
-
first of all i didn't make the claim. The author did. I have been asking you to disprove it.
squirm squirm squirm
and you posted it because you don;t agree with it right? duck. dodge. duck dodge. you're an amateur
-
if we told the american public we were invading Iraq because we thought they had weapons of mass destruction when it was really only part of a larger plan to denatioalize Iraq's oil industry, thats a conspiracy theory. you're ducking and dodging and not answerign my questions. the same thing you're accusing me of.
and you posted it because you don;t agree with it right? duck. dodge. duck dodge. you're an amateur
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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'
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Which getbiggers will admit they initially believed OIL had nothing to do with it, but now they realize yeahhhh oil played a role?
-
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
-
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.
-
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............... .........
-
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.
-
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 (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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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 ]
-
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.
-
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 ]
you know they are quoted saying that they thought he had them. so i'll ask you. Were they lying? I'm not saying they were or weren't. I was simply asking the question. And then everyone gets mad that i'm asking.
-
based on information... albeit false... it was still based on information that was given...was there motive behind the information? ...maybe
right they were all tricked. so ok by whom exactly?
-
right they were all tricked. so ok by whom exactly?
Who ever was over military intelligence i guess... who the fuck else?
-
Who ever was over military intelligence i guess... who the fuck else?
you do understand that this lie was perpetuated over 4 adminsitrations over 20 years right? i'm just saying that the implications of what the author of this article is saying extend all the way back to the Reagan administration right? All im saying is that the author doesn't address that the 3 administrations before GWB were warning of the nuclear threat of Sadaam. So all i'm asking is when did these warnings become lies? And Ozmo and everyone else is seriously pissed off that I want to know this. I don't understand why. I suppose it's because he wants us to believe him and ask no questions. And he won't answer questions that I have. His only answer is "when was Iraq's oil industry nationalized?"
sorry but thats not good enough for me.
-
also just to be clear. anyone who believes this author and Ozmo and still votes either Democrat or Republican........may quite possibly be the stupidest person ever. you're KNOWINGLY voting to put into power murderers and liars. so if you're siding with Ozmo on this and you voted for either Obama OR Romney, you're an idiot.
If this is proven to be true in the future and people still vote for the Democratic or Republican machines, you're a village idiot.
-
this isn't about politics. as a whole, the US govt - prez and congress - created and implemented a plan to pre-emptively invade iraq for the oil drilling.
doesn't matter which party is in office. bush was in back then, but obama didn't change a thing.
so please, let's not make this about "but but but the senator (D) said this..."
let's make this about so many govt officials admitting it was about oil, the result of the way being privitization of the oil by foreign firms, and the people on getbig who truly believed in their hearts that oil had nothing to do with our invasion.
-
this isn't about politics. as a whole, the US govt - prez and congress - created and implemented a plan to pre-emptively invade iraq for the oil drilling.
doesn't matter which party is in office. bush was in back then, but obama didn't change a thing.
so please, let's not make this about "but but but the senator (D) said this..."
let's make this about so many govt officials admitting it was about oil, the result of the way being privitization of the oil by foreign firms, and the people on getbig who truly believed in their hearts that oil had nothing to do with our invasion.
sorry but you're basically saying, "let's not ask any quesitons. let's just assume that the war was based on a lie because a few people said that it was and now the Iraqi oil industry is held by private corporations" and when i ask you to show me proof about who started the lies your reponse is, "Let's not turn this into something political".
I'm sorry but you don't see a problem with that? seriously?
-
sorry but you're basically saying, "let's not ask any quesitons. let's just assume that the war was based on a lie because a few people said that it was and now the Iraqi oil industry is held by private corporations" and when i ask you to show me proof about who started the lies your reponse is, "Let's not turn this into something political".
I'm sorry but you don't see a problem with that? seriously?
There is no need to 'ask questions'. As you've shown, politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle endorsed a pre-emptive war for national resources under a pre-tense.
There is no need to argue something that I accept. Moot point. Oz started this thread to show certain getbiggers who, in 2005, mocked those who said oil drilling played a part in the invasion. They seriously believed "spreading freedom" and other vague phrases. We now have top govt officials admitting this is bullshit. Oz pointed it out so that these getbiggers could say "Oh wow, interested, thanks oz, I missed that one..."
Both parties wanted to get their greedy fingers on that oil, to privatize it, to keep it in US dollars. It's a good goal in terms of our standard of living... things get expensive fast when iran, iraq, etc drop the dollar. worked out for us. But it's not a political discussion - both sides wanted it.
-
There is no need to 'ask questions'. As you've shown, politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle endorsed a pre-emptive war for national resources under a pre-tense.
There is no need to argue something that I accept. Moot point. Oz started this thread to show certain getbiggers who, in 2005, mocked those who said oil drilling played a part in the invasion. They seriously believed "spreading freedom" and other vague phrases. We now have top govt officials admitting this is bullshit. Oz pointed it out so that these getbiggers could say "Oh wow, interested, thanks oz, I missed that one..."
Both parties wanted to get their greedy fingers on that oil, to privatize it, to keep it in US dollars. It's a good goal in terms of our standard of living... things get expensive fast when iran, iraq, etc drop the dollar. worked out for us. But it's not a political discussion - both sides wanted it.
NOW THATS AN ACCEPTABLE OPINION!!! i can agree with you on this. not certain if i do yet but this is the first post so far that makes any sense to me.
you do know that the author of the original article is not with you on this though right? she places blame on the GWB administration and no one else.
-
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.
I am not a CT'er. If you won't take my word for it read the guidelines on the CT board and read many of my posts there. I don'y know that this was a conspircay to begin with and don't think a conspiracy could ever be legitimately proven. to say:
the only reason its brought up is that for this author's statement to be true there had to be a conspiracy.
Incorrect! There doesn't have to be a conspiracy for the author's opinon to be true. For example: Bush could have had serious war fever and wanted revenge for Saddam's attempted assasination attempt and in roder to get support he needed to make promises to certian entities to get that support as to who benefits in the aftermath. Or it could have any other number of scenarios that don't invovled a group of power brokers in a room with bush and cheney saying let's get their oil and here's how we will do it and lie to the American poeple about it.
But RESULTS speak far louder than the talk here. We are benefiting off that nations oil and we traded 4400 US lives for it, 8 years of war, no WMD's, 100,000 Iraqi lives for it, Trillions of debt, and IRAN becoming the regional power there. If you knew the results before the invasion would have supported it? Can we at least agree that it wasn't about spreading democracy and the threat of WMD's?
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.
You cannot take what polticians say for face value. NEVER! A good example: Michelle Bachman's various blabber about over spending yet she voted for the addtional 190 billion in Bailout monies. A power Acknowledging a threat makes people feel safer. What if Clinton stated Saddam is not a threat? How does he justify to the world the "no fly zone" there? How does he justify the costs? But not to be able to have our thumb on Saddam might encourage him to push the limits as we would be able to remove as quickly. Hence the presnece there is needed and we needed to say publically he was a threat.
Common sense dictates that Saddam knows he loses his position of power and likely gets executed if he does anything act of aggression outside his borders. Even if he had WMD's its still not neccesarily a immitent danger.
What makes me also luagh is if the "intel" was so good how is it that they found ZERO WMD's? What was their intel based on RUMOR? They were cherry picking it. Plain and simple and any poltician at that time risks poltical suicide challanging it.
So hopefully you see that i have answered your quesitons.
-
Yet you take Obama's BC at face value. ::) ::)
I am not a CT'er. If you won't take my word for it read the guidelines on the CT board and read many of my posts there. I don'y know that this was a conspircay to begin with and don't think a conspiracy could ever be legitimately proven. to say:
Incorrect! There doesn't have to be a conspiracy for the author's opinon to be true. For example: Bush could have had serious war fever and wanted revenge for Saddam's attempted assasination attempt and in roder to get support he needed to make promises to certian entities to get that support as to who benefits in the aftermath. Or it could have any other number of scenarios that don't invovled a group of power brokers in a room with bush and cheney saying let's get their oil and here's how we will do it and lie to the American poeple about it.
But RESULTS speak far louder than the talk here. We are benefiting off that nations oil and we traded 4400 US lives for it, 8 years of war, no WMD's, 100,000 Iraqi lives for it, Trillions of debt, and IRAN becoming the regional power there. If you knew the results before the invasion would have supported it? Can we at least agree that it wasn't about spreading democracy and the threat of WMD's?
You cannot take what polticians say for face value. NEVER! A good example: Michelle Bachman's various blabber about over spending yet she voted for the addtional 190 billion in Bailout monies. A power Acknowledging a threat makes people feel safer. What if Clinton stated Saddam is not a threat? How does he justify to the world the "no fly zone" there? How does he justify the costs? But not to be able to have our thumb on Saddam might encourage him to push the limits as we would be able to remove as quickly. Hence the presnece there is needed and we needed to say publically he was a threat.
Common sense dictates that Saddam knows he loses his position of power and likely gets executed if he does anything act of aggression outside his borders. Even if he had WMD's its still not neccesarily a immitent danger.
What makes me also luagh is if the "intel" was so good how is it that they found ZERO WMD's? What was their intel based on RUMOR? They were cherry picking it. Plain and simple and any poltician at that time risks poltical suicide challanging it.
So hopefully you see that i have answered your quesitons.
-
Yet you take Obama's BC at face value. ::) ::)
No,
I take the evidence and the statements of it's authenticity from credible sources.
You take yours from HATE and the ring leader of retards: Sherrif Joe and his posee of idiots. And you largely live in a fantasy world.
Still waiting for the big reveal........HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAAHHAHAAHAHAH
-
Yet you take Obama's BC at face value. ::) ::)
33,
what is your position? Was the iraqi war partially about oil? Or was it all about "freedom" and had "nothing to do with oil" as some foolish getbiggers claimed?
-
I am not a CT'er. If you won't take my word for it read the guidelines on the CT board and read many of my posts there. I don'y know that this was a conspircay to begin with and don't think a conspiracy could ever be legitimately proven. to say:
Incorrect! There doesn't have to be a conspiracy for the author's opinon to be true. For example: Bush could have had serious war fever and wanted revenge for Saddam's attempted assasination attempt and in roder to get support he needed to make promises to certian entities to get that support as to who benefits in the aftermath. Or it could have any other number of scenarios that don't invovled a group of power brokers in a room with bush and cheney saying let's get their oil and here's how we will do it and lie to the American poeple about it.
But RESULTS speak far louder than the talk here. We are benefiting off that nations oil and we traded 4400 US lives for it, 8 years of war, no WMD's, 100,000 Iraqi lives for it, Trillions of debt, and IRAN becoming the regional power there. If you knew the results before the invasion would have supported it? Can we at least agree that it wasn't about spreading democracy and the threat of WMD's?
You cannot take what polticians say for face value. NEVER! A good example: Michelle Bachman's various blabber about over spending yet she voted for the addtional 190 billion in Bailout monies. A power Acknowledging a threat makes people feel safer. What if Clinton stated Saddam is not a threat? How does he justify to the world the "no fly zone" there? How does he justify the costs? But not to be able to have our thumb on Saddam might encourage him to push the limits as we would be able to remove as quickly. Hence the presnece there is needed and we needed to say publically he was a threat.
Common sense dictates that Saddam knows he loses his position of power and likely gets executed if he does anything act of aggression outside his borders. Even if he had WMD's its still not neccesarily a immitent danger.
What makes me also luagh is if the "intel" was so good how is it that they found ZERO WMD's? What was their intel based on RUMOR? They were cherry picking it. Plain and simple and any poltician at that time risks poltical suicide challanging it.
So hopefully you see that i have answered your quesitons.
1. i believe Bill Clinton was being forthright in his concerns over Sadaam. maybe he was worng. maybe not.
2. The US has spent far more $$ on the Iraq war then it has reaped through the monetary benefits of the Iraqi oil industry being privatized. THATS SIMPLY A FACT.
3. the countries that have benefitted the most from the Iraqi oil industry since 2003 are China and Russia. The Iraqi oil fields were auctioned offon the free market and China and Russia receievd the lion's share of it. They contributed NOTHING to the Iraqi war effort. If the USA's plan was to reap a shit ton of $$ from this plan, they failed.....miserably.
4. Iraqi's oil industry being privatized is not concrete evidence of the US "plannig to steal it". Like i said before, the UNited States has industries that have become almost completely dominated by companies in foreign countries. They produce more efficiently.....They win. Why aren't you conjuring up conspiracies about China coming in and "stealing" our manufacturing and electronic industries? Is it simply because you want to believe that the US are the "bad guys"? And every other country is a victim?
So now I guess your response will be something like "just because they didn't succeed doesn't mean thats not what they tried to do" And I just am not buying that shit....yet. Like i said, I keep an open mind to this kind of shit but you have to present your evidence far better than you are in this thread. I'm simply being honest. And whether or not you know it, you're obviously cherry picking what you believe are "credible sources" or not "credible sources". You simply believe that anyone who spreads information that you agree with is a credible source. Everyone else is not.
-
1. i believe Bill Clinton was being forthright in his concerns over Sadaam. maybe he was worng. maybe not.
2. The US has spent far more $$ on the Iraq war then it has reaped through the monetary benefits of the Iraqi oil industry being privatized. THATS SIMPLY A FACT.
3. the countries that have benefitted the most from the Iraqi oil industry since 2003 are China and Russia. The Iraqi oil fields were auctioned offon the free market and China and Russia receievd the lion's share of it. They contributed NOTHING to the Iraqi war effort. If the USA's plan was to reap a shit ton of $$ from this plan, they failed.....miserably.
What have i cherry picked? I posted an article with facts yet to be disputed.
Has the US spent more on Iraq than they have reaped? Consider this:
1. We are paying about 3.75/gal nationwide. How much was gas pre 2003?
2. Who is profiting where they weren't prior to 2003?
3. Was there a major false assumption regarding how long the war and aftermath was going to last?
How was Bill Clinton forright in his concerns for Iraq? How so?
You bring up a good point though: What is the break down and revenue of the foriegn companies who are profiting from Iraq's oil? I would like to know what it is exactly.
4. Iraqi's oil industry being privatized is not concrete evidence of the US "plannig to steal it". Like i said before, the UNited States has industries that have become almost completely dominated by companies in foreign countries. They produce more efficiently.....They win. Why aren't you conjuring up conspiracies about China coming in and "stealing" our manufacturing and electronic industries? Is it simply because you want to believe that the US are the "bad guys"? And every other country is a victim?
So now I guess your response will be something like "just because they didn't succeed doesn't mean thats not what they tried to do" And I just am not buying that shit....yet. Like i said, I keep an open mind to this kind of shit but you have to present your evidence far better than you are in this thread. I'm simply being honest. And whether or not you know it, you're obviously cherry picking what you believe are "credible sources" or not "credible sources". You simply believe that anyone who spreads information that you agree with is a credible source. Everyone else is not.
You make a ton of assumptions about what i think. (mostly incorrect). I thought i was pretty clear in my explanation.
-
you know they are quoted saying that they thought he had them. so i'll ask you. Were they lying? I'm not saying they were or weren't. I was simply asking the question. And then everyone gets mad that i'm asking.
If you're talking about the Bush / Cheney admin and their minions... yes I believe they were lying.
Not only do I believe they were lying, but that they committed numerous acts of treason, and intimidation to bring others on board with their lies... yellowcake from guy, the exposure of Valerie Pflame, the piece of bad theatre before the UN with the little vial of white powder etc., etc., ... In my opinion, all a charade.
-
If you're talking about the Bush / Cheney admin and their minions... yes I believe they were lying.
Not only do I believe they were lying, but that they committed numerous acts of treason, and intimidation to bring others on board with their lies... yellowcake from guy, the exposure of Valerie Pflame, the piece of bad theatre before the UN with the little vial of white powder etc., etc., ... In my opinion, all a charade.
so bush cheney were flat out lying. i can accept that.
what about the clinton administration? were they lying about the danger? why didn't Clinton go to war with Sadaam? why would HE lie about WMD's to the American people if he had ZERO intention of going to war? whats his angle? what;s his upside to making people believe Sadaam had WMD's?
what about Bush Sr.? was he lying? was his war based on lies as well?
-
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html
this article basically says everything that i was saying as to who benfitted the most from the privatization of the Iraqi oil supply. i'm sure you'll find a reason not to believe it.
-
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html
this article basically says everything that i was saying as to who benfitted the most from the privatization of the Iraqi oil supply. i'm sure you'll find a reason not to believe it.
Again you assume alot, mostly incorrect which seems to be habit with you.
It doesn't answer this question:
What is the break down and revenue of the foriegn companies who are profiting from Iraq's oil? I would like to know what it is exactly.
To say "Iraqi oil fields were sold in auction to Russia and China" doesn't take into account how many oil fields there are to begin with and who (how its divided up) controls and profits from all of them. And in the article they were talking about difficult profit margins which brings up the quesiton of whether or not poeple are profiting in other layers of the production process.
I don't disbelieve the article, but anyone with any sense can see its only a fraction of the whole picture.
-
Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html#ixzz2OHpKKyd1
you're choosing to ignore facts. period.
i'm sorry but anyone with any sense can see that you're argument is not holding water. how is your assertion that the US planned to invade Iraq so that we could get their oil fall in line with the fact that "Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts"? It doesn't.
-
That might have been the thinking of U.S. oil giants, which largely stayed away from last week's bidding, and which have failed to negotiate oil deals with Iraq's government outside of the public auction process. Iraqi officials say they are not awarding contracts based on political considerations, but simply a straight comparison of prices and production targets. "The bidding was extremely tough," said one official in Baghdad, in an email. "My guess is that [the U.S. companies] could not match the offers from others." In Iraq, at least, the victor has no special claim on the spoils of war.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html#ixzz2OHv3tm6F
we invaded. then we couldn't afford the product that they were selling. so they sold it to someone who could. period. THESE ARE FACTS. that are in stark contrast to what you claim.
-
Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html#ixzz2OHpKKyd1
you're choosing to ignore facts. period.
i'm sorry but anyone with any sense can see that you're argument is not holding water. how is your assertion that the US planned to invade Iraq so that we could get their oil fall in line with the fact that "Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts"? It doesn't.
Good find. The "war for oil"argument really isn't supported by the facts. If we went to war so private American oil companies could profit, we failed miserably. If we went to war to have American governmental control of Iraq's oil, we failed spectacularly.
What's left?
-
That might have been the thinking of U.S. oil giants, which largely stayed away from last week's bidding, and which have failed to negotiate oil deals with Iraq's government outside of the public auction process. Iraqi officials say they are not awarding contracts based on political considerations, but simply a straight comparison of prices and production targets. "The bidding was extremely tough," said one official in Baghdad, in an email. "My guess is that [the U.S. companies] could not match the offers from others." In Iraq, at least, the victor has no special claim on the spoils of war.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html#ixzz2OHv3tm6F
we invaded. then we couldn't afford the product that they were selling. so they sold it to someone who could. period. THESE ARE FACTS. that are in stark contrast to what you claim.
You don't get fine points very well do you? You seem to be easily convinced without really looking closely.
Was this auction of ALL their oils fields in Iraq?
What is the break down of revenue exactly?
You may be 100% right, but that article doesn't prove anything regarding the questions I am asking.
-
You don't get fine points very well do you? You seem to be easily convinced without really looking closely.
Was this auction of ALL their oils fields in Iraq?
What is the break down of revenue exactly?
You may be 100% right, but that article doesn't prove anything regarding the questions I am asking.
I don't get fine points very well? really? really? what is THE EXACT BREAKDOWN? i don't know. the bottom line is that the lion's share of the Iraqi oil is controlled by countries other than the US. Why? Because they were offered on the free market under the protection of the United States after we occupied Iraq.
US corps were allowed bid on the oil fields just like evertone else and they LOST. fair and square. because China and Russia outbid them. you're trying to paint a picture of the US bullying their way into control of Iraqi oil and your argument simply fails on every level. just stop. you're WRONG on this one OK? i'm sure you can go back to the drawing board and find 1,000 other reasons to hate the US.
-
I don't get fine points very well? really? really? what is THE EXACT BREAKDOWN? i don't know. the bottom line is that the lion's share of the Iraqi oil is controlled by countries other than the US. Why? Because they were offered on the free market under the protection of the United States after we occupied Iraq.
US corps were allowed bid on the oil fields just like evertone else and they LOST. fair and square. because China and Russia outbid them. you're trying to paint a picture of the US bullying their way into control of Iraqi oil and your argument simply fails on every level. just stop. you're WRONG on this one OK? i'm sure you can go back to the drawing board and find 1,000 other reasons to hate the US.
Ok, the lion's share of Iraqis oil reserves a coontrolled by others countries..... Show me the break down exactly including any layers.
If it turns out what you say is true, then fine I am wrong.
And again your post is filled wi incorrect assumptions about my opinions showing your extreme ignorance and tendency to label and stereotype.
-
Ok, the lion's share of Iraqis oil reserves a coontrolled by others countries..... Show me the break down exactly including any layers.
If it turns out what you say is true, then fine I am wrong.
And again your post is filled wi incorrect assumptions about my opinions showing your extreme ignorance and tendency to label and stereotype.
fuck that shit. you're the one who posted an article written by a liberal asshat pandering to her lemmings looking for ammunition who quite obviously don't care about getting facts straight. you show me the breakdown
-
fuck that shit. you're the one who posted an article written by a liberal asshat pandering to her lemmings looking for ammunition who quite obviously don't care about getting facts straight. you show me the breakdown
oh ok I get it, you can label and stereo type all day long, but when you make an assertion that the majority of revenue is gobbled up by other countries and you post an article that doesn't say that as your proof and you are exempt from having to actually back your claim up with facts. So basically you just live in the: if its news form a conservative source you will believe it and not actually use you head and find out if its fact and ifs its news from a non-conservative source then they are liberal ass hats.
Got it. ::)
In the end YOU STILL HAVEN'T showed where his claims aren't factual.
PS: Stay in your tool shed, you won't have to deal with the reality that your government, your conservative elected representatives are fucking you day in day out hand in hand with the liberal ass hats all the while manipulating your commonsense with the us vs them BS.
WMD's Iraqi freedom!!!!!!!
-
oh ok I get it, you can label and stereo type all day long, but when you make an assertion that the majority of revenue is gobbled up by other countries and you post an article that doesn't say that as your proof and you are exempt from having to actually back your claim up with facts. So basically you just live in the: if its news form a conservative source you will believe it and not actually use you head and find out if its fact and ifs its news from a non-conservative source then they are liberal ass hats.
Got it. ::)
In the end YOU STILL HAVEN'T showed where his claims aren't factual.
PS: Stay in your tool shed, you won't have to deal with the reality that your government, your conservative elected representatives are fucking you day in day out hand in hand with the liberal ass hats all the while manipulating your commonsense with the us vs them BS.
WMD's Iraqi freedom!!!!!!!
yeah yeah yeah. all of your smart ass rhetoric doesn't change the fact that this thread blew up in your face because you didn't have your facts straight before you start ranting. and anyone reading the last 2 pages of this thread is thoroughly aware that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. that fact alone is good enough for me.
-
yeah yeah yeah. all of your smart ass rhetoric doesn't change the fact that this thread blew up in your face because you didn't have your facts straight before you start ranting. and anyone reading the last 2 pages of this thread is thoroughly aware that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. that fact alone is good enough for me.
What rhetoric?
You mean like how you posted an article about Russia and China winning an auction for oil fields all the while not taking into consideration what they bought versus the total oil in Iraq?
How stupid is that?
You haven't substantiated anything you have said.
I bet their oil contract they won is only about 10% of the total oil in Iraq NOT including the undeveloped fields.... hmm i wonder who gets the drilling rights to those?
Layers my dear young man, layers.
-
::)
Oz-- hypothetical question for you.
In your "noble" struggle to save America from money, have you considered the fact that government is to blame?
Why not ban lobbyists from Washington entirely?
Wouldn't that solve the problem?
Why not pass laws to that effect?
-
::)
Oz-- hypothetical question for you.
In your "noble" struggle to save America from money, have you considered the fact that government is to blame?
Why not ban lobbyists from Washington entirely?
Wouldn't that solve the problem?
Why not pass laws to that effect?
The problem with that is the overwhelming majority of lobbying is done to prevent a bill from being passed. Most lobbying focuses on stopping legislation, rather than creating it. And where would we be without the NRA getting the in the way of the libtards.
I could only imagine the shear volume of legislation being passed if lobbyists did not actively work to block it.
-
::)
Oz-- hypothetical question for you.
In your "noble" struggle to save America from money, have you considered the fact that government is to blame?
Why not ban lobbyists from Washington entirely?
Wouldn't that solve the problem?
Why not pass laws to that effect?
What he said.
And in your heroic quest to stem off the Liberal Disease can you seriously say we are a still representative government?
-
What rhetoric?
You mean like how you posted an article about Russia and China winning an auction for oil fields all the while not taking into consideration what they bought versus the total oil in Iraq?
How stupid is that?
You haven't substantiated anything you have said.
I bet their oil contract they won is only about 10% of the total oil in Iraq NOT including the undeveloped fields.... hmm i wonder who gets the drilling rights to those?
Layers my dear young man, layers.
yawn. you haven't substantiated anything you've said either. all you did was post an article written by a woman who hosts a website called "thebushagenda.com" and you take it as scripture. because you know, she doesn't have a political agenda right?
so now i ask you. "how fucking stupid is that?"
-
yawn. you haven't substantiated anything you've said either. all you did was post an article written by a woman who hosts a website called "thebushagenda.com" and you take it as scripture. because you know, she doesn't have a political agenda right?
so now i ask you. "how fucking stupid is that?"
And the first thing i pointed out was the validity or invalidity of one of her first assertions...something you dodged for a bit and then later posted some SPUN article for retards about how some oil fields where auctioned off and therefore America wasn't in it for the oil. But all the while you never seemed to ask the question as to how much of the total oils fields does that auction represent or the other factors (layers) that companies can make money on.
You just figured you found some article that debunked that woman's assertions with out reading between the lines. Maybe this is why Conservatives are sometimes stereotyped as stupid. (don't worry, if you read my other posts, plenty of Libs are stupid too, especially Canadian ones on this board)
Did you ever read between the lines Bears? ::) (oh yeah you said "fuck that". Was it because you didn't want your illusion to fade away?)
Is this why your default tactic is to make everything about "us vs them"? Is it because you cant stand the truth?
You were lied to. 4400 Americans died as a result. We are Trillions in debt. 100,000+ Iraqs died (not that you care), Iran is now regional power there who will eventually have nukes.
But hey, Bush didn't lie, he was a good president and this country would be much better off if there were no Liberals right?
::)
-
And the first thing i pointed out was the validity or invalidity of one of her first assertions...something you dodged for a bit and then later posted some SPUN article for retards about how some oil fields where auctioned off and therefore America wasn't in it for the oil. But all the while you never seemed to ask the question as to how much of the total oils fields does that auction represent or the other factors (layers) that companies can make money on.
You just figured you found some article that debunked that woman's assertions with out reading between the lines. Maybe this is why Conservatives are sometimes stereotyped as stupid. (don't worry, if you read my other posts, plenty of Libs are stupid too, especially Canadian ones on this board)
Did you ever read between the lines Bears? ::) (oh yeah you said "fuck that". Was it because you didn't want your illusion to fade away?)
Is this why your default tactic is to make everything about "us vs them"? Is it because you cant stand the truth?
You were lied to. 4400 Americans died as a result. We are Trillions in debt. 100,000+ Iraqs died (not that you care), Iran is now regional power there who will eventually have nukes.
But hey, Bush didn't lie, he was a good president and this country would be much better off if there were no Liberals right?
::)
first off EVERYTHING you've accused me of you've done yourself. you're guessing and claiming it to be fact. i'm simply calling you on it. you started this thread because you saw some article that said what you wanted to hear. and you didn't do your homeowrk as far as ican tell. because you left a bunch of questions unanswered. and instead of answering them you get mad and start calling people names.
second i'm not a conservative republican. i simply hate the run of the mill lemming liberal democrats that my country's colleges are churning out by the thousands every day more than i hate the run of the mill conservative republican. It used to be a close race but liberals have taken a huge lead in the past 10 years.
i am open minded to the fact that Bush and Cheney may have lied to make us enter the war. but unlike you, i don't have a political parties testicles in my mouth and am able to think for myself, like an adult. so it at least has to make sense to me. i will be the first to admit that i don't know all the facts. what i do know is neither do you. so before i start playing armchair quarterback about shit i don't know about i want to get all the facts.
you on the other hand WANT this shit that you spew to be true because you've chosen up sides and haven't looked back. you and other voters like you are why i won't vote in the next elexction. you and other voters like you are why journalism is dead. authors like the one in your original post are paid to spoonfeed people like you what you WANT to hear. period. and you don't know that. i can't help you. sorry.
-
first off EVERYTHING you've accused me of you've done yourself. you're guessing and claiming it to be fact. i'm simply calling you on it. you started this thread because you saw some article that said what you wanted to hear. and you didn't do your homeowrk as far as ican tell. because you left a bunch of questions unanswered. and instead of answering them you get mad and start calling people names.
second i'm not a conservative republican. i simply hate the run of the mill lemming liberal democrats that my country's colleges are churning out by the thousands every day more than i hate the run of the mill conservative republican. It used to be a close race but liberals have taken a huge lead in the past 10 years.
i am open minded to the fact that Bush and Cheney may have lied to make us enter the war. but unlike you, i don't have a political parties testicles in my mouth and am able to think for myself, like an adult. so it at least has to make sense to me. i will be the first to admit that i don't know all the facts. what i do know is neither do you. so before i start playing armchair quarterback about shit i don't know about i want to get all the facts.
you on the other hand WANT this shit that you spew to be true because you've chosen up sides and haven't looked back. you and other voters like you are why i won't vote in the next elexction. you and other voters like you are why journalism is dead. authors like the one in your original post are paid to spoonfeed people like you what you WANT to hear. period. and you don't know that. i can't help you. sorry.
And what have you been able to call me on? The part about auctioning off oils fields as counter argument to the fact hat we have profited and are profiting big off their oil?
Or are you talking about the questions you were asking about what this Democrat voted for or what this Democrat said desperately trying to turn this into some dem vs repub thing when your questions and assertions HAVE NOTHING to do with the issue of us being lied to and us getting taken advantage of at the expense of 4400 dead Americans.
So now you are calling article a lie? Not believing it? Just like you accused me of doing when i never did with yours. I just read between the lines. You should do the same.
So no, i have not done everything i have accused you of. I have not posted some dumb ass article that didn't prove my point.
I have however, claimed that those auctioned oil fields do not represent a large part of the total oil fields in Iraq nor do they paint a accurate picture of the other layers of money being made. Which makes your article moot.
Do you dare to dispute it?
I can prove it to you just like you tried to prove your point to me or i can actually back it up. :D
PS: all the arguing aside...
second i'm not a conservative republican. i simply hate the run of the mill lemming liberal democrats that my country's colleges are churning out by the thousands every day more than i hate the run of the mill conservative republican. It used to be a close race but liberals have taken a huge lead in the past 10 years.
I agree with this. Blame the GOP. They did more in the last 5 years to set them back than OB ever could.
But com on, man. We only got to 1 assertion in the article and you jumped all over it labeling it. Is that really being objective? I read yours and saw holes in logic and reason. Break her article down and show me hers then. I promise i will look at your arguments open minded. (playing the lib vs con card isn't being objective)
-
Iraqi ex-spy: 'US manipulated public opinion before Iraq war'
-
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!"
You forgot, "You disagree with Bush? Why do you hate America?"