What's your opinion on invading Iraq in the first place?

The U.S. has a significant interest now, by way of the contracts won by Exxon-Mobil to exploit the oil in the southern region of Iraq. 80% of the oil in the south is covered by the contracts with Exxon-Mobil.

Previously, the U.S. oil Corporations were shut out of Iraq, throughout the years from 1973 to 2003.
So they have done quite well out of the mass murdering antics of the U.S. Administration, though not as well as they had hoped for.
The U.S. had hoped to steal most of the oil in Iraq.
It was hoped Iraq would privatise all its oil, and that U.S. Corporations would get all of it, but in the end the Iraqi Parliament is determined Iraq should hold on to its oil, and the contracts mean that any foreign Companies will have to buy the oil from Iraq,in order to be allowed to extract the oil and resell it.
Secondly, the Bush gang hadn't anticipated that Chinese, Russian, and other non-American Companies would win many of the contracts, which is what has happened.
So the U.S. agenda has been foiled, to a very large extent

On the point you raised that the U.S. receives little of its oil from Iraq, you are missing the point, which is that the U.S. oil Corporations sell oil all over the world, and not just in the U.S.A.
The market for oil is global. Americans are not the only people in the world who use oil, and any Corporation which can sell the black gold worldwide (and not just stateside) can get rich on it.
The U.S. stateside market is only part of the story.

 

I have just replied to your post, but my reply, too long to reproduce here, is on page 3.
I am new to this game of blogging.

 

I have just replied to yr post, but my reply appears on page 3 ; --near the bottom of page 3.
I am new to this blogging.

 

You make it seem like it was crony capitalism in action with our exorbitantly expensive superpower and the Peoples' money.

 

Wow. You sure know how to read minds huh? You know exactly the motivations of all these high level people, you must've been in the room with them then huh?

Bush attacked Saddam Hussien out of purely ideological reasons and a way to finally end the decade long brushfire war and no-fly zones once and for all.

Over reach? Absolutely. Mistake? Yes.

But to say that we engaged in that war for petty reasons like oil is ridiculous.

You don't know (*)(*)(*)(*) about what "Bush and his Gang" were thinking. Because I've read all 3 of Bob Woodward's "Bush at War" books and he WAS in the rooms with those people and at no time was any of your wild conspiracy theories mentioned.

Go read some real (*)(*)(*)(*)ing journalism.

 

It isnt hard to ascertain after reading their manifestos, speeches, gaffs and of course, scholarly material with which to analyze it.

Indeed and these ideological reasons included US imperialism/hegemony.

Not at all. In fact it makes far more sense than anything else.

 

Go read Bob Woodward's books. They are the definitive account. Everything else is BULL(*)(*)(*)(*).

and stop calling everything we do "Imperialism"

We build the god (*)(*)(*)(*) globalized economy YOU rely on for your very existence.

We bult the world economy. The entire thing from the ground up, we financed it, we protected it, we stabalized it and we own it. It was OUR PC's, OUR internet, OUR Carriers that defend the shipping lanes and our corporations who laid all the groundwork and infrastructure that today is known as the Global Economy.

We did that. Your little (*)(*)(*)(*) ant country did NOTHING. You should be thanking us.

 

LOL What does Woodward say? I'm sorry but there is NEVER one "definitive account" of anything historical.

 

Here's from the leftist rag Slate magazine's Readers Guide to State of Denial which is the Book regarding Iraq Invasion.

There was not a single shred of proof from the very people who were in on the planning regarding War for Oil. It was based on a foolish and naive notion that Saddam Hussein would fall easily, the Americans would be seen as liberators and heroes and we could build a new democracy in Iraq to act as a better counter balance to Iranian regional hegemony. It was a foolish and naive MISTAKE. There was no ulterior motives or other conspiracy theory. It was stupidity and incompentence, which plenty of people on the right wing, including myself, give Bush full credit for being. An incompetent fool. But an imperialistic conqueror bent on stealing Iraq's oil? Not at all.

Iraq was the "Road to Hell paved with Good intentions"


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/juicy_bits/2006/10/woodward_and_you.4.html

I really don't understand this constant insistence of the worst motives on the part of the USA. We screwed up, but we wanted the best for Iraq and the Middle East in general.

 

LOL I didnt call EVERYTHING the US does imperialism - I said the Iraq war was.

Well no - everyone did. Besides, Australia was doing quite well before the US was even a world power.

1. Calm down.
2. Doesn't change the fact the US's foreign policy is imperialistic
3. Iraq was part of that imperialistic mentality.

 

LOL Total nonsense. The US didnt want to "liberate" Iraq, it wanted to reassert control over it. Oil is a major reason behind such activity. Resource control is ingrained in US foreign policy - has been since the first world war.

What I am voicing is not a conspiracy theory. There certainly were ulterior motives, hence the entire deception the war was based on.

There's more to it than that. OPil is but one part of the equation. You may not think so, but it was and is.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). You might as well say the same thing about Nazi concentration camps if that's what you think.

Um... because its friking obviously the case the US is acting entirely to exploit others and has been since the Monroe Doctrine.

Total bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

REPLY TO SILICON MAGICIAN, post no.30, page 3.

What was this decade long brushfire war which you mention ? A decade is 10 years. If I recall correctly,the 1st Gulf War ended in early 1992, and there was no further war with Iraq until the U.S. invasion more than 10 years later.

As for the no-fly zone, that had been imposed on Iraq. It was not something started by Iraq.

Oil is not a 'petty' reason for going to war. It is the overriding reason America started the wars in Iraq.
Mind you, there were 2 or 3 other reasons for starting the 2nd war with Iraq, which were as follows:--

1. To open up commercial opportunities for America in Iraq. There were reconstruction contracts to rebuild those parts of Iraq detroyed by the U.S. military during the war. These contracts were awarded to Halliburton, the U.S. Corporation of which Dick Cheney had been Chief Executive until shortly before the invasion.
It has been reported that he still retained huge financial interests in Halliburton, such as shares and share options.

2. To establish a U.S.military base, or bases. The bases were built, and their infrastructure remains there, available for future use.

3. To try to set up a compliant Iraqi Government
By compliant, I mean compliant to U.S. requirements and sympathetic to U.S. interests.

This 'room' where you state that Bob Woodward was present, listening to Bush and his gang.Are you talking about the Oval Office ? Do you really believe that whenever there were any high-level discussions, either in the White House or anywhere else, Bush and his fellow rats would make sure that Woodward was present.
And of course, they must have ensured that Woodward could listen in to any telephone conversation ! Oh yes.

It is a shame that you seem to swallow all the official pronouncements, all the propaganda, fed to you by the U.S. Government .

 

See post no.37, page 4

 

We have had a "military position in the region" for over a decade prior to 2003. That is complete and utter nonsense.

 

Oh yes, this is the racist argument I always love to hear. "They are nothing but a bunch of Barbarians, who cares what happens to them! They get what they deserve!"

If this proof enough for you?











Yes, these are total fabrications, made up by MSM and the Government.

 

OK, and now for some truth in the matter.

For one, it is not "Exxon-Mobile", it is Shell Oil & Exxon-Mobile.

And second, this was not just handed to them. This was an open bid contract, and they were the highest bidder. To the tune of over $50 billion. The number 2 bidder was Russian owned Lukoil. Other bidders were BP and CNPC (the Chinese National oil company).

But this contract may still be cancelled, because Exxon-Mobile wants to also want to be able to start production in oil fields in Kurdish held territory. And they have been told in no uncertain terms that if they work for the Kurds, they can't work in Iraq. And if they build any facilities in the Kurdish region, Iraq will sieze them.

 

Sorry, but I gotta step in here.

Australia did send troops and support to help in Iraq. Including Frigates, a squadron of Hornets, transport and patrol aircraft, and a special forces task force.

So you might want to retrect that part. As for the rest, I have no complaint.

 

War is usually considered a last resort, not a potential for-profit, public sector venture.

 

But you would agree it is stupid to try and get rid of Saddam for being a tyrant when doing so would cost thousands of lives that would otherwise live peacefully - not to mention leave the country on the brink of civil war with an equally corrupt regime that could see the re-emergence of dictatorial leadership?

 

No, I would not.

No more then I think police should never try to capture an armed criminal because he might be shot.

If one thing is clear, is that far to many nations in the world still do not understand that Genocide is wrong. And we can destroy the nations or governments that do it, like Germany, Serbia and Iraq. But then we (and I am talking about the World "we" here) ignore others like Armenia and Darfur, and it sets it all back to square one.

After all, it was Hitler who told his SS to be as brutal as they could. "Go, kill without mercy. After all, who remembers the Armenians?"

I do not care if we loose 10,000 soldiers, we need to eliminate that kind of mindset so it does not fester into the minds of others.

And remember, I am one of those that is more then willing to place my own life on the line to make this happen. For you it is some kind of political thing, to me it is real life, my life. And the life of countless others that only have the misfortune of being born to the wrong group.

 

What if trying to capture an armed criminal results in five innocent deaths?

LOL that's another retarded argument since, in the case of Iraq, when Saddam was fighting Iranians and killing Kurds, your country and its allies were still funding him. So maybe you should start with correcting your own country eh?

Again, start with your own country before you go to others.

So you fought in Iraq? Otherwise, that's total nonsense.

Yeah, like being born in Iraq when a foreign power literally blew them up.

 

Globalization is drastically changing the World. Countries are being lifetd out of poverty and being integrated into the Capitalist system. Look at the United States’ role. Massive trade deficits, fiscal imbalances, and an Oil Addiction have been accepted. China refers to its “String of Pearls” Strategy in concert with a,”Malcca Dilemma”, both permeating on hydrocarbon concerns.

For East Asia’s development, look at China. The country has depleted Daqing Oil Field and after becoming a net importer of Petroleum in 1992, has since expanded its daily consumption to roughly 9 Million Barrels Per Day. To keep those factories humming, access to affordable oil is requisite. With 80% of their oil derived from the Middle East, they remain subservient to the controller of the region.

Do you enjoy saving money at Wal Mart? How many of your products are made in China? China’s has just underwent the fastest Industrial Revolution in History. China’s Guandong Province has become the Factory of the World. China requires access to U.S. consumer markets to be successful. Goods are produced and transitioned to the West Coast, in return China receives U.S. Dollars.

Serving as the Worlds reserve currency, 80% of commodities are purchased in dollar denominated figures. Saddam deviated from this accepted model, under the Oil for Food (OFF) Program. Sanctions since 1990 had not been effective, as Iraq initiated Import Substitute Industrialization (ISI) effectively. The sanctions acted as essentially tariffs for domestic development.

When Saddam was permitted to trade oil for Euros, Yuan, Ruppi or a basket of currencies, the U.S. Economic System was challenged. By linking oil purchase to the U.S. dollar, we have created a consistent market for our Treasury Bonds. Why does China own roughly $ 2 Trillion of that Paper? Because they do not want to allow the U.S. dollar to depreciate, which would drive up procurement costs.

Having expanded our monetary supply by roughly 40% since 2008, the repercussions should be OPEC likewise raising oil prices. In the 1970s, following Nixon removing the U.S. Dollar from the Gold Standard, the 1973 Oil Crisis occurred. While the Cartel’s embargo was attributed to the 8-Day War with Israel, it was more relative to the inflation being caused by Fiat Currency.

With China and Russia now possessing Veto Power in the U.N., the Iraq invasion was the last unilateral expedition. If U.N. Approval is not gleaned, unilateral action will delegitimize the UNs Charter altogether. For one last time, the Bush Administration chose to impose America’s will on an inferior power.

Rebuilding Iraq will catalyze when their oil fields start producing. Western Oil Companies, remember the Bush Boys are from Texas, obtained concessions in Iraq’s major oil fields. This effectively eliminated China from obtaining these deals. When China gets contracts, they do not intervene or inject opinion into the governments of the countries they do business. They will do business with the Devil, as they simply do not care about Human Rights. If Saddam has not been disposed, he would assuredly not have given Petroleum Development Rights to the Three Sisters. He would have sold those rights to China National Petroleum Corporation.

Controlling China through containment is the goal. While this strategy proved devastating throughout the Cold War, China’s Resource Dependency and lack of a Blue Water Naval Power allows the use of this approach. We already control Saudi Arabia, as the House of Saud requires a U.S. presence to assure civil unrest does not overwhelm their monarchy. Iraq’s oil fields will be online in 2015, and to our benefit. This is the Petrodollar Thesis.

 

I said from the beginning that it was TREASON. While the far right pretended that it was "patriotic" and the meek liberals fell into place behind their butts, it was clearly a war for oil. Every REAL American knows that our Founding Fathers demanded that we never get involved in foreign wars. But people today allow themselves to stupidly believe in the lies of the far right by pretending that these wars do us good. The result? Social discord, trillions added to the national deficit, and the needless loss of precious lives. In other words: TREASON brought to you by Bush and his cabal of far right traitors.

 

Look, enough with this childish "what if" and pontificating! It is freaking annoying as hell, and it really does mean nothing.

OK, what if it resulted in 5 innocent deaths, but the other 40 children who were held hostage escaped safely.

Look, I can play the "what if" game myself all day long, but I do not. Why? Because it is childish and insulting and a crock of coprolite.

Look, I got it. YOu do not care about anything but yourself. You have made many of your views plain here over and over through the years. Fine, enjoy yourself.

Oh, and I suggest you look back at many of my earliest posts I made in this forum. Which I made while I was deployed in the Middle East. I even got a lot of heat at the time, for daring to post and comment on things about the US Military, being as I was obviously some "*******".

 

haha, yeah say this after making your own little analogy Whatever, go on...

Nice to see you are that incompetent at debating you went straight to ad hominem. Yes, I will enjoy myself, thanks. Pathetic.

But did you fight in Iraq? If not then your comment before was bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Soldiers dont get some special permit to dictate morality just because they fight wars - quite the reverse. Most of the soldiers I've met, including you, have a distinct loyalty to the military, so they defend just about everything the military does. As far as I'm concerned, most are hindered by their military service, not empowered by it.