History Will Show US Lusted After Oil

[G_j]

History Will Show US Lusted After Oil (December 26, 2004)

In this Toronto Star article, Linda McQuaig counters critics who dismiss the argument that oil served as the main motivation to go to war in Iraq. Well aware of their dependence on foreign resources, US policymakers have wanted control of Middle Eastern oilfields for decades. According to McQuaig, mainstream media allow politicians to "disguise what they're really up to" and ten years from now "it will all probably seem fairly obvious."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2004/1226lust.htm

[bahrbearian]

1. "fairly obvious" ? I think its damn obvious.

[Peak_Oil]

6. No doubt.

Once the whole post-peak world really gets into your head, this whole Iraq war is a no-brainer. We need that oil like a junkie needs a fix. And look at how hard it is to even get people to understand that oil production WILL PEAK at some point. They just don't want to believe that it's going to happen.

It's so much simpler now.

We need that stuff really really bad, and Russia has a LOT more under their land than we do under ours. They are going to kick our asses. It's not going to be pretty. They're going to march right over the Middle East at some point and cut us off, and then we're going to be really fucked. Well, that would be nuclear war, so let's hope that doesn't happen.

We're not leaving Iraq any time soon, people. Democrat, Republican, whatever. That is not going to be done or we will see another President get assassinated.

Can you imagine how much smarter it would have been to take the friggin 120 billion or whatever and just use it to put up some friggin SOLAR PANELS or wind farms or some shit like that? I mean, this is such a loser of a proposition... I can't understand what they were thinking.

Is it that they think we'll have oil forever? We're just never going to run out? How stupid! It's a finite resource! Can't they find somebody who can just do the math and add up what there was, what we've used, and how much is left? It's not that difficult.

We should never have constructed our entire society to run on a substance that we knew wasn't going to be around forever. Really, astoundingly bad planning.

[bryant69]

2. Simplistic in a way

There seem to be the two types of arguments about oil. One is Bush and his cronies as sort of old man moneybags rubbing their hands together saying "Oil Oil Oil, soon we'll be rich." I think that argument is not accurate.

It's fairer to say we need stability in the world oil markets, and we therefore need stability in the middle east, and the Bush Administration is arrogant and stupid enough to think they can manufacture stability in the middle east by invading.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[DireStrike]

4. So which of these arguments does the Reserve Currency conflict fit into?

We don't just need stability, we need some degree of control as well...

PNAC is a pretty clear guideline, similar to Cheney's Defense Planning Guidance document of '92. Influencing or controlling the the flow of oil reserves would be a major goal for such an agenda. Stability is only the broadest means of controlling the flow - you assure that there will BE a flow.

[G_j]

5. one has to wonder though,

do they REALLY want stability? It appears just the opposite has been the results so far.

[Malikshah]

3. It already has

1973 we were within a hair's breadth of taking over the oil fields.

Recently declassified docs showed it-- showed up quite a while back in the LBN forum.