Can we cut the BULLSHIT? - IT'S ABOUT THE OIL...

[Junkdrawer]

It's not about Terrorism.

It's not about insuring a stable Post-Saddam government in Iraq.

It's all about maintaining the major US/British Oil Company's (formerly known as The Seven Sisters) continuing control of oil supplies and pricing.

Now, perhaps there's some Realpolitik justification for this policy. Fine. Let's debate it openly as adults.

But I'm telling you that, until we confront the truth and have this debate, we'll continue to be humored with empty promises and we'll NEVER LEAVE IRAQ.

[LSK]

1. Maria Cantwell brought that up at around 2:30 am last night

[AntiFascist]

25. How convenient, I'm pretty sure they won't be playing that part....

of her speech on CNN.

[Supersedeas]

56. No, but it is documented on the floor of the U.S. Senate -- even if CNN ignores history

[satya]

35. I watched it & phoned her office this a.m. to let them know how proud I am of my Senator. nt

[radfringe]

2. no - it's about being able to buy rugs at a very good price...

[babylonsister]

3. The 'esteemed' McCain pretty much admitted to this yesterday on the

floor of the Senate. You're right, and we need to change that reality.

[jellybeancurse]

8. I caught that too

He basically said the Iraqi oil would be used for the betterment of the American people. I found that to be a telling statement on his part. It just goes without saying that other people's oil is essentially ours for the taking, its not a new policy, but the fact he just came out and said it on the Senate floor is incredible. I hope someone has a clip of that....

[AntiFascist]

29. Audaciously flinging about truth like that is horrifying...

it means many Republicans are now admitting the Imperial strategy of the war, and they're hoping the American people will finally buy into it. Of course, look at what has become of his campaign support.

[Junkdrawer]

10. As much as I despise McCain lately, I'm glad he dares to address me as an adult...

and give me the REAL reasons he supports a position.

It's a start.

[babylonsister]

12. "crickets" from everyone else; as I said yesterday, this is the

elephant in the room that needs to be discussed.

[blm]

19. Hard to deal with the realization that this has been the agenda for so many decades

and that it took powerful Democrats to use their offices to help every step of the way.

And THAT is why you get the silence from a significant contingent here whenever the government corruption involved with this issue is a subject of a DU thread.

[Junkdrawer]

22. "The US MUST control MidEast oil" is, most definitely, a bipartisan policy...

More Democrats (quietly) oppose the policy than Republicans, but opposition is still a minority position.

And the Gentleman's Agreement is to keep any discussion quiet.

Why?, you ask. Because if we ever need to go to war to enforce the policy, you don't want to ask parents to offer up their kids to fight and die for oil.

[blm]

32. Which explains why Kerry got NO BACKUP from bigname Dems on the issue and the media

followed suit. No back up from bigname Dems, no issue. That's how they play it.

How often did Kerry say No American soldier should have to die for oil and how many times did other Dems and the media take up that issue for him and for us?



Kerry Offers 10-Year Plan for US Energy Independence

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - With crude oil prices at a record high, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry last week offered a 10-year, $30 billion proposal to move the nation toward energy independence.

Under the measure, aides said, American companies and consumers would receive financial aid to develop and buy more fuel-efficient motor vehicles.

In addition, it would set twin goals to have, by the year 2020, an even 20 percent of the nation's motor fuel and electricity come from alternative sources such as solar, wind, ethanol and biodiesel fuel.

Kerry, on a cross-country campaign tour, arranged to formally announce the proposal during a visit to a family farm outside Kansas City.

The measure would provide $10 billion to help automakers retool plants to build high-technology, fuel-efficient vehicles, and give consumers a tax credit of up to $5,000 to buy them.

It would also earmark $5 billion for a research partnership between government and industry into fuels made from agricultural waste, and $10 billion to transform the current generation of coal-fired utility plants into cleaner and more efficient facilities.

The Massachusetts senator has made energy independence a centerpiece of his campaign for the White House and his proposal fleshed out earlier ones he has promoted on the campaign trail.

The cost of the measure would be partially offset by reinstatement of a tax on polluters, aides said.

Kerry has contended greater energy independence would create jobs, provide for a cleaner environment, bolster security and make sure American soldiers do not have to go to war over Middle East oil.
_______

[babylonsister]

45. Please go check out two political videos in the youtube group, about

the oil contracts, Delahunt and Ackerman; the word is trickling out.

[Junkdrawer]

60. Done. n/t

[shanti]

4. that's what many of us were saying

from the very beginning...:shrug:

[knowbody0]

5. Australia has admitted it

Of course it is about the oil. Nothing has changed, it's our history, it's Britain's legacy. Occupy the country with the resources until the resources change hands.

[Nite Owl]

6. That's why one of the

so-called benchmarks is to privitize most of the Iraqi oil and most of the Congress voted for this. This benchmark is never spoken of either except by Kucinich.

[Ian David]

7. No... the oil is just a cover. It's about Bush believing he's fulfilling biblical prophesy

See:

America's Roadmap to The Apocalypse: Bush's Plan to Immanentize The Eschaton
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2747646

[eridani]

52. I think you're getting who uses whom confused here

The Repub base has the corporate elite as its minority, and whackjob Rapture nuts as its majority. Bush is using the latter in the interests of the former, not the other way around.

[Ian David]

55. It's the corporate base that gives Bush his power. The religious nutjobs provide the direction.

Bush uses the corporate elite to fund and power his drive toward Armageddon.

[eridani]

61. I think he's using the Armageddon crowd to enrich his elite base

Remember Fahrenheit 911? "Some call you the elite. I call you my base." If he's really 'born again' then I'm Marie of Roumania. He doesn't even go to church.

[Ian David]

62. Who says Bush thinks he's working on behalf of Jesus?

Maybe he believes he's working for... you know... the OTHER team.

http://www.bushisantichrist.com/

[rainy]

9. I said that yesterday in a thread. I keep hearing that we will leave a few

troops there to protect our "assets" but they never say we're staying to control the oil.

[Virginia Dare]

20. I've heard them called "interests" a few times...n/t

[Double T]

11. Iraq is about the oil, but it is also about the military industrial complex..........

and for now, halliburton. Like it or NOT, it will be very difficult for the U.S. to leave Iraq for at least a couple decades. The oil fields throughout the ME can not fall into complete chaos. bushco has insured this giant mess will live on long after he and the other idiot are gone.

[Junkdrawer]

13. This what I mean about an honest debate. OK, how about a multilateral...

conference with all the players bringing their demands (and later, their Peace Keeping troops) to the table.

Securing the world's oil is (until alternatives are in place) a legitimate concern. But the US going it alone with bullshit cover stories is not.

[Double T]

38. As long as bushco is at the controls, diplomacy is out. Would YOU........

or anyone else ever trust ANYTHING HE or HIS administration might say or commit to....unlikely and more like absolutely NOT. Until the two idiots are removed from office, we're screwed.

[Junkdrawer]

40. True that...but OUR side should at least start the debate.

I sense there are many "Democrats" as well as Republicans who tell themselves that "The public can't handle the truth". A great rationalization for going along with the Big Oil/Big Money agenda.

[Double T]

43. The public and many here on DU will NOT be able accept the fact that we're NOT............

going to be able to leave Iraq militarily for at least a couple decades.

[AntiFascist]

31. Wasn't it Sen. Orrin Hatch who brought up the point...

of the necessity of maintaining the military bases in Iraq, especially when we need them to go after Iran - or rather the vast oil resources of Iran? In fact, he even pointed out that 'here is a nation of people (Iranians) awash in oil, yet most live in poverty, in fact recently there was rioting due to gas shortages.' - paraphrased. My apologies if this wasn't Hatch but some other bloviator.

[eridani]

53. Why would our military domination be necessary for that?

Japan had its arms twisted hard to participate in the first Oil War in 1992. An American diplomat used the argument that since Japan was completely dependent on outside energy sources for its existence as an industrial society, why weren't they concerned about the oil in Iraq being under the control of the madman Saddam? A Japanese diplomat replied something to the effect of "We feel that whoever owns the oil will realize that they have no choice but to sell it."

If the oil remains under Iraqi state ownership and we leave, they'll have their own motives for protecting their major asset, and no choice but to sell it.

[Swamp Rat]

14. Yep. At least someone was finally honest about it - McCain.

[Mandate My Ass]

15. What a craven, pathetic little man

It took someone who's hit rock bottom to finally admit, albeit for 11th hour justification, just what this debacle was all about from the beginning. :puke:

He should talk to Dennis Kucinich and maybe gain some humanity back.

[blm]

16. Bill Clinton disagrees with you, Junkdrawer, and here's his own words defending Bush's decision

to invade Iraq in June 2004. Lucky Bush to have such an eloquent, credible spokesperson in his corner promoting his integrity right before the election, eh?


http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/index.html



Clinton defends successor's push for war
Says Bush 'couldn't responsibly ignore' chance Iraq had WMDs

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 Posted: 7:55 AM EDT (1155 GMT)


(CNN) -- Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

____________

For the record, I agree with YOU Junkdrawer. Iraq is just another operation to add to IranContra, BCCI, Iraqgate, CIA drugrunning, and funding of global terror networks that BushInc has been dealing in for the last 4 decades.

[Junkdrawer]

17. There's a LONG history of lying about oil and foreign policy...

In the US, it goes back as far as FDR. In Britain, it predates WW I.

Jimmy Carter was the closest to speaking the truth when he talked about "vital national interests" (remember that?). Then the Reaganites stepped in with the Evil Empire talk and we were back to Kindergarten.

[Virginia Dare]

21. Jimmy Carter was the last President to be honest with the

American people about what our dependence on oil will bring us in the future. We simply didn't want to hear it.

[blm]

47. Look at every Dem who is held to ridicule in DC - it is always the truthtellers

and their orchestrated takedowns are done with the help of powerful members of our own party.

[Junkdrawer]

18. Once again, I recommend the following link for anyone who wants to seriously enter the debate:

It's a short-for-its-subject overview of the history of US/Major Oil Company involvement in controlling oil:

http://www-geology.ucdavis.edu/~cowen/~GEL115/115CH13oil.html

[leftchick]

23. no no! It is about protecting embassies!!!

:sarcasm:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1369861&mesg_id=1369861

[taterguy]

24. So perhaps people opposed to the war should cut back on their oil consumption

Just a thought

[smoogatz]

26. Of course it is.

Second largest proven reserves on the planet, virtually untouched since the early 90s--and that's not taking into account the fact that two thirds of the country is virtually unexplored. There's enough oil in Iraq to supply every drop of U.S. consumption for thirty years, minimum. At $70 per barrel, Iraq's oil is worth over $15 TRILLION, with a "t"--enough to make the half-trillion the war's cost so far look like chump change.

[AntiFascist]

33. Virtually untouched?!

I guess that means parts of Florida will be going underwater sooner than we think.

[smoogatz]

34. Yep--the UN sanctions regime prevented Iraq from developing

or even adequately maintaining their oilfields: production for export was basically cut off for nearly ten years, while the Saudi fields and others were peaking and beginning to decline. Iraq also had the lowest production costs on the planet, pre-war. Iraq is truly every oil-man's wet dream, now that Saudi Arabia is starting to tail off.

[Junkdrawer]

36. Since the 1930s...(From my cite in post #18):

...

Because the majors had potential production from so many Middle Eastern fields, they could in effect choose which fields they would exploit and which they would pump at low production levels. Where there were consortia, production levels were controlled by a specific formula. Since the four American companies in Aramco, and Gulf in Kuwait, were rich in crude oil, they had no real interest in major new production. Production from Iran and Saudi Arabia was held at much less than capacity. Partly because of US government wishes, however, these two countries increased production more than others, to keep the Shah and the King happy, and to allow them (especially the Shah) the money to outfit their armed forces with the newest American hardware. If the majors increased production in Iran and Saudi Arabia by 12% and 10% respectively, more than the 9.55% that global demand would stand at good prices, production had to be held back even more in other rich oil-producing areas. Kuwait and Iraq were usually chosen as the producers to have low production rates: from 1958-1972, their production increased 5.9% and 5.1% respectively. Discoveries in other nations (such as Oman) were simply not developed at all. This was the fatal flaw in the system: sooner or later, producer nations would realize the extent of the manipulation, and react to it.

For example, Iraq was manipulated by neglect. The partners in Iraq Petroleum discovered a great number of likely fields in the 1930s, but were slow to drill them. They already had access to enormous fields in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Kuwait, and Iraqi oil production was simply not needed (except possibly by the Iraqis!). Iraq Petroleum became notorious for this kind of tactic, which it also used in Qatar and Syria. Even today no-one has any clear idea just how large Iraq's oil reserves are, except that they are much greater than its current production implies.

...



http://www-geology.ucdavis.edu/~cowen/~GEL115/115CH13oil.html
The whole link is really well worth a read...

[smoogatz]

37. Interesting--thanks! n/t

[Junkdrawer]

39. I've read and re-read the lecture 4 times and I still find new nuggets...

every time I read it.

Very, very chewy. It's notes from a UC Davis lecture given in 2000 and, like any piece of well-researched writing, it stands the test of time.

[Gregorian]

27. Executive Order 13303

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13303



The primary effect of EO 13303 is the legal protection of US oil companies. EO 13303 is part of a broader endeavor by the Bush administration to exert control over Iraqi oil revenues. The plan centers on the Development Fund for Iraq, created by the United Nations and nominally controlled by the United States, with advise from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The second part of the plan is EO 13303, providing absolute legal protection for US interests in Iraqi oil.

[AntiFascist]

59. Meanwhile big oil and automakers continue to fight energy independence...

sorry if this is somewhat off-topic, but I just received a notice that Pelosi will be introducing a new energy bill to further decrease our dependence on fossil fuels and reduce global warming. The email claims that "big utilities and big automakers are already gearing up to oppose amendments that will add key provisions."

Exactly what kind of economic madness is driving our aggressive wars in Iraq and soon to be Iran?

[mmonk]

28. oil and economic dominance.

Don't forget thye pipeline through Afghanistan as well.

[blindpig]

30. Wes Clark agrees

The United States is today engaged in a four-fold struggle in the Middle East, and each of the struggles is interconnected with the others. At the most benign level, the US is in hot competition economically, to capture its share of oil exports and earnings, and to sell its share of goods and services. Our long term dependability has been a winning factor in building enduring US influence and commercial penetration in the region. Second, the US works to assure to security and safety of the state of Israel, within the broader interest of seeking to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and helping Israel assure its long term survival and success within the region. Third, the United States is engaged in a three-decades long struggle against Iranian extremism, which has manifested itself through terror bombing against US forces, harassment of oil shipping lanes, the pursuit of a long range, nuclear strike capability, Iranian interference in Lebanon, and, of course, assisted by our topping of Saddam Hussein, within Iraq itself. Finally, the US is caught up in the almost ten-year-old struggle against Al Qaeda.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3382045&mesg_id=3382045

That's imperialism, folks, plain and simple."Our" share of the oil? And we get to decide what our share is? How is this different than the neocons? Not meaning to bust Clark's chops in particular, but above he's articulated what any candidate acceptable to the ruling class must have as his/her policy.

[Disturbed]

41. It's about the flow of Natural Gas in Afghanistan.

In general it is about control of resources. Water flow is also a factor.

[Imagevision]

42. Oil? YES! - now can everyone understand why " they want the US. to leave the middle east and

are prepared to sacrifice whatever it takes to not allow Bush to stay and win? They lose 1000 times greater if the US. succeeds in; "bringing them freedom".

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

44. Oil,...and power. These effers want global domination. Rule the oil, rule the world.

Doncha' know.

eom

[blm]

48. And the last few years they've been lining up deeds and water rights.

And the Water wars will dwarf the oil wars soon. (Gorbachev)

[spanone]

46. it's ALWAYS been about the oil. why iraq? oil.

[Strelnikov_]

49. Yes, the 'War On Terror' is about oil, specifically Peak Oil

The purpose of the 'War On Terror' and all of its subsidiaries are related to Peak Oil as follows:

- By maintaining a constant state of tension, high petroleum prices can be explained away as a temporary spike due to politics. This way, the publics attention can kept from the accelerating supply problems worldwide, thus preventing them from starting to make other arrangements for a post-carbon world (they can't have the addicts kicking too soon).

- Whoever controls the remaining (cheap) petroleum reserves stands to make a fortune in the years immediately following the peak of production. Even the most optimistic scenarios indicate it would take twenty years to mitigate the loss of petroleum production following peak. During this period of transition, the 'addicts' will have no choice but to pay, and pay, and pay.

- Nearly 70% of the worlds remaining petroleum and 40% of natural gas reserves are located in the Middle East. If we throw in the Caspian Region, which is predominately Muslim, we probably approach 80%/60% of remaining reserves in predominately Muslim regions.

The demonization of Muslims to raise ‘fear of the other’ to a high state is needed to desensitize the public to the wars of aggression and carnage required to seize and/or maintain hegemony over these resources.

Cheney as much acknowledged that peak will occur in the latter part of this decade at a speech in 1999 when he was still an 'official' oilman. Yet the Reich-wing media and echo chamber spouts the party line that additional supplies will come on line. All one has to do is read about the wildly exaggerated EIA estimates to know that the facts are being covered up.

The peaking of worldwide conventional (high EROEI) petroleum is real, and will probably occur within the next few years. During the initial 10 yrs.+ following peak oil, petroleum will still be readily available. But with demand chronically outstripping supply, prices will go through the roof, and the profits for those selling the oil will be massive.

And if this bunch did not believe Peak Oil is looming, why are they throwing money at highly risky resources such as Russia (nationalization), Deep-Water and Artic (mother nature, limits of technology, limited net energy).


Consider the following statement:

From the standpoint of the oil industry obviously - and I'll talk a little later on about gas - for over a hundred years we as an industry have had to deal with the pesky problem that once you find oil and pump it out of the ground you've got to turn around and find more or go out of business. Producing oil is obviously a self-depleting activity. Every year you've got to find and develop reserves equal to your output just to stand still, just to stay even. This is as true for companies as well in the broader economic sense it is for the world. A new merged company like Exxon-Mobil will have to secure over a billion and a half barrels of new oil equivalent reserves every year just to replace existing production. It's like making one hundred per cent interest; discovering another major field of some five hundred million barrels equivalent every four months or finding two Hibernias a year. For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world often greet oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow..

- Cheney At London Institute of Petroleum, 1999

Puts a whole new spin on the Cheney 'Energy' task force, doesn't it.



Following is an article that sums up the peak oil/WOT link. I do not necessarily agree with all of the points, but I feel it provides a decent big picture view.

Energy Depletion And The US Descent Into Fascism
http://www.mountainsentinel.com/#energyfascism


Following is an older article that sums up the motives of ‘Big Oil’ and their Quislings in politics regarding the NOC’s.


Crude Dudes
The Toronto Star
Sep. 20, 2004

http://www.energybulletin.net/2156.html

. . .

Gheit just smiles at the notion that oil wasn't a factor in the U.S. invasion of Iraq. He compares Iraq to Russia, which also has large undeveloped oil reserves. But Russia has nuclear weapons. "We can't just go over and ... occupy (Russian) oil fields," says Gheit. "It's a different ballgame." Iraq, however, was defenceless, utterly lacking, ironically, in weapons of mass destruction. And its location, nestled in between Saudi Arabia and Iran, made it an ideal place for an ongoing military presence, from which the U.S. would be able to control the entire Gulf region. Gheit smiles again: "Think of Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath .... You can't ask for better than that."

. . .

One reason that regime change in Iraq was seen as offering significant benefits for Big Oil was that it promised to open up a treasure chest which had long been sealed — private ownership of Middle Eastern oil. A small group of major international oil companies once privately owned the oil industries of the Middle East. But that changed in the 1970s when most Middle Eastern countries (and some elsewhere) nationalized their oil industries. Today, state-owned companies control the vast majority of the world's oil resources. The major international oil companies control a mere 4 per cent.

The majors have clearly prospered in the new era, as developers rather than owners, but there's little doubt that they'd prefer to regain ownership of the oil world's Garden of Eden. "(O)ne of the goals of the oil companies and the Western powers is to weaken and/or privatize the world's state oil companies," observes New York-based economist Michael Tanzer, who advises Third World governments on energy issues.

. . .

[tyedyeto]

50. It's 2-fold... oil and showing daddy he's got more balls n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

51. IMO, Oil is a huge part of it, but I think Bush also sees it in a "White man's burden" view

Bush believes that we have an obligation to go over and Americanize the Arabs.

[blm]

57. white man burden or fascist delusion?

I think he's way more the delusional fascist. Unfortunately, those who agree with him have been pulling the global strings for the last 4 decades.

[philosophie_en_rose]

54. Exactly. If there was oil in Darfur, we'd intervene already.

Not that I'm endorsing an invasion of Sudan, but we could do more to assist refugees and curtail the Janjaweed. (sp).

[Initech]

58. Yup, we go after oil like Gollum from Lord Of The Rings goes after his "precious".

Forget separation of church and state, we NEED a separation of state and oil. NOW.