If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
The war for oil myth.
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/Sup_image_worldprod.htm
There's your link for stats. Iraq produces 2% of the world's oil supply...an amount more than being made up for by Nigeria.
This war is about a present danger not about who supported Saddam in the past, or oil. I trust Tony Blair and George Bush. And I really feel when we look back at this time in history, they will be seen as saving the civilized, evolved West from the animals of the Middle East.
There's your link for stats. Iraq produces 2% of the world's oil supply...an amount more than being made up for by Nigeria.
This war is about a present danger not about who supported Saddam in the past, or oil. I trust Tony Blair and George Bush. And I really feel when we look back at this time in history, they will be seen as saving the civilized, evolved West from the animals of the Middle East.
0
Comments
By gaining control of Iraq, the Bush admin and its big money backers would capitalise on the Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil production and obtain far greater leverage in manipulating the production outputs of surrounding OPEC nations.
You need to start looking beyond the surface analysis you are giving this whole situation and see the line of interest that ties Afghanistan and now Iraq together in Bushes crosshairs. It isnt terrorism no matter how much you want to convince yourself it is. The truth is far dirtier than that my friend. Your perceptions of this are clouded by your idealistic impression of our leaders.
Do you have any evidence which links Tony Blair to the oil conspiracy?
The backgrounds of our leaders and the interests that have funded their campaigns (and from whom they derive enormous personal wealth as Board members as well) are well documented however.
Ill let my British friends worry about the intentions and actions of the Blair government, I take greater issue with my own (although I wouldnt truly call it "mine" since I abhor everything Bush and his daddy's cronies stand for) since we are the ones acting as ringmaster.
Having said that though, it doesnt take too great a stretch to consider that UK oil producers would gain some valuable leverage in concert with their US counterparts as part of the team. The real issue is the political control that will be won and I doubt Tony is going to eschew greater regional influence for the UK gov as well, do you?
The war isn't about the oil itself. Certainly not in Iraq. As pnj correctly stated, Iraq only produces 2% of the oil.
Contrary to what Clandestine states, the USA doesn't intend to establish a colony (for want of a better word) in Iraq.
The bigger picture is regional stability. If people don't think that the region is stable, then perhaps it might cost more to insure oil tankers. Or it might cost more to insure drilling equipment. Or you'd have to pay your oil workers more. Hence, the cost per barrel rises, so that the producer does not shoulder the cost, but the consumer does.
Assuming that the other Arab nations can live in harmony, what you then have in the picture with Saddam is someone who is a destabilising force. He has limits to his power, and has generated a form of institutional paranoia that means he thinks the best form of defence is attack. He also has ambition and territorial conquest dreams. Hence the attack on Kuwait. It gave him added buffer room between him and Saudi, and also increased territory and oil control.
The USA is the world's largest consumer of oil. It is, therefore, in their economic interests above all else to stabilise the region and thereby concertedly try and reduce the per barrel cost of oil.
A war with Iraq would be costly, economically and diplomatically.
Not going to war with Iraq could destabilise the region for x number of years, plus whatever ruler may succeed Saddam. This could well be *more* costly in the long run for the US.
Clandestine, in particular. I have no reason to suspect that you are not what you say you are. Consequently, I trust your opinion and judgment on matters both economic and strategic; given your stated experience in these matters that I do not profess, and do not indeed, have. However, while pnj's idealism is perhaps a little naive, your cynicism in refusing to trust *anything* is, in my opinion, more worrying. No, of course we should not unquestioningly believe everything that the media and our governments tell us. But equally, somethings must be taken on faith, otherwise, you cannot trust anything or any one. And I fear that to be a far worse state of affairs.
I admit my cynicism is overt, I make no bones about that really. However, in the contest of an American administration with such deep rooted corruption as is represented by the likes of Bush (along with Bush Sr. of course), Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Condolizza Rice, I have every reason to be upset at how little my countrymen are bothering to scratch beneath the surface of what is being shoveled out on US airwaves and in the US press.
Whilst I agree that Saddam aint the most reliable character to be running such a house of cards as Iraq, I do nonetheless believe that American intervention and military assault to oust him will not only result in further degradation of an already bruised and battered civil society, but will only serve to fan the flames of hatred throughout the region and feed right into the progpaganda used by fanatical extremist groups to gain new converts to their "cause".
Its a matter of record that Iraq has historically been a cauldron of regional insecurity and expecially so when being invaded and controlled by foreign powers for their own self interest.
Mark my words, we have in this situation a strong potential for starting a domino effect of chaos and destabilisation that could dwarf the political nightmare caused by the Vietnam War. Do you think America (given its poor track record of cleaning up the messes it makes) will commit for the long haul of rebuilding Iraq both societally as well as materially? If so, think again.
Any regime imposed upon Iraq will end up with less chance of popular support than Saddam (and we all know how he obtains his support) simply because it is imposed by the US (or will be considered to be so by the grassroots throughout the region).
Beyond that, the fact that none of the supposed new leaders of Iraq (the "government in exile" if you will) have sufficient constituency support and cohesion of interests to form a stable government. Shiites hate Sunnis and Kurds are none too favoured either. So then how, without continued US military control of the country, can one presume to think a post Saddam regime would ensure stability let alone any modicum of security?
Apart from this I also take issue on moral and ethical grounds. The Bush administration has long and oft repeated the littany of Saddam's atrocities, but have not provided the historical context of the American support for those very acts (both in principle and in terms of finances and armaments). Since most Americans probably dont remember what we were doing in the region in the 80's, it's incumbent that those with such interest do what they can to remind the public that we ourselves (or more rightly our government at that time (which btw included Bush Sr. as VP)) are equally as guilty as accomplices. The UK government as well was selling military hardware to Saddam despite these acts which are so easily condemned now.
Moreover, we hear the rheotric about North Korea (as well as Saddam) not honouring nor respecting international agreements, whilst we have already seen from the Anthrax attacks in the US last year (for whom noone was ever arrsted and for which the White House stonewalled the FBI investigation (Curious eh?)) that we ourselves (the US) has failed to uphold the stipulations of the 1972 BWC (Bio-Weapons Convention) to which it is a signatory. When the BWC meeting in Geneva last year called for verified third party inspections upon signatory nations to verify compliance, the US delegate walked out.
Basically, what we have going on here is a situation of feints and U-turns designed to avoid our own ethical and moral obligations according to international law, whilst calling other nations the "axis of evil".
It just doesnt wash im afraid. Our national credibility is wearing dangerously thin.
Perhaps you need a better understanding of just how many power broakers there are in Washington, from the administration outwards. Then you might begin to grasp the fact that as much as Administrations themselves might come and go, there is always a continuity of control from the center.
And what proof would you have you me put that you yourself, if you had an ounce of critical interest, couldnt easily find by making some effort of your own rather than obviously believing whatever the evening news tells you is the whole truth and nothing but the truth (much like our little friend pnj who couldnt even seem to read the post Aladdin made before his)? lol.
If youd followed my comments so regularly (which i highly doubt) then youd know ive posted more substantive reports into the backgrounds of our dealings around the globe and many of the current actors in the game than any of my detractors have ever bothered to provide to back their own claims.
Im not about to rehash almost 8 months of commentary just for your sake. Go do wake up and look into our leaders and their corrupt backgrounds and the blatant historical-contextual links their dealings have had to events of this administration (even activities that might have begun under Daddy Bush (during his own and Regan's administrations).
Instead of railing against me why dont you show some concern for our nation and look at those whose long term agendas have been leading us down the wrong paths solely in the furtherance of their own and their cronies' self interest.
Look into some of the insiders like Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Bush's supposed poster child Condolizza Rice. Youll see a littany of oil and military industrial complex ties that should give you some starting point for reviewing all that has happened since Bush took office and how much can be tied together if one exerts the mental energy.
bush and blair are risking political ruin. The logical requests that Iraq need either show them where they destroyed their weapons the world knows they had in the early 90's...because their would be fragments...or allow scientists and their families to be interviewed outside Iraq are an easy way to prove Iraqi innocence and any sense of your dated argument circa 1968.
The war is hurting the America economy in general and super-rich, old monied families like Bush.
There's a threat and Bush and Blair know about it. They can't reveal it for some strategic reason.
Sorry to burst your bubble again, but wars bring huge increases in revenues to the companies that provide our government and those of our allies with so many nice weapons of destruction. And Where do you think such systems can be freely tested? Gee suppose that didnt cross that hugely intellectual and all knowing young mind of yours has it?
And as for oil, once the sources are under control of American and other Western oil refiners, the money will be there for the taking. Not every benefit in our governments agenda has to be immediate. Such is the nature of investment.
And dont begin to fool yourself into thinking that the Bush family fortune is doing anything but increasing. So too with Cheney et al.
Because you choose to reject much of what's really going on in the midst of all the power politics, you only end up sounding like the stereotypical inbred yokel who thinks America is always good and our government is there to protect us and cares so much about us. Life and time will snap you out of that fantasy.
1. Iraq is all about Bush's quest for control over oil. That a few members of his cabinet has links with oil companies proves this.
2. In 1991 the US controlled Iraqi oilfields. Under a Bush presidency. With many of the same cabinet members.
3. A major supporter of the war, the UK, has a Prime Minister with no known links to oil, or oil companies.
Im surprised that you of all people dont realise this MoK.
In spite of this we are willing to fight alongside them.
And as for joining what you wrongfully call "Eurotrash" (thus showing that you are more than likely the product of hyper conservative Republican parents), the UK did that long ago. It's called the EU nowadays. lol.
So what does he know about Iraq's capabilities?
If you were to have a careful look at Europe you will see that there is a fair amount of right wingers in here. Like Clandestine said New Labour is (in theory at least
Meanwhile in the Continent you have Spain and Italy currently run by rather sinister right-wing parties. Austria was until recently part-governed by neo-nazi scumbags. France nearly elected Hitler's lost brother as President last year, and Germany's social-democrat party just about managed to win the election against the right wing opposition. Not so leftist as you think, although I guess if you compare it with the Republican Party, social attitudes to sexual relations, drug and alcohol taking, religion and so on, we must all appear loony anarchists to the average American.
P.S. By the way, I find it really bizarre when I hear the term 'eurotrash'. I do not wish to enter a slagging match; the US has produced many great artists, film-makers, painters and so on. But not the US, not anybody else on earth comes close to Europe's cultural heritage, history, social freedom and general quality of life. That America often uses this expression to describe Europe is extremely puzzling, especially after caring to compare the two.
then this:
leads me to ask:
Am I the only one that can see the space between Euro and trash, that presumably denotes that pnj was talking about the €URO? No?
In any case, why call the Euro 'leftist'? A currency is not left or right wing inclined- it's just a currency.
I think you would find that the Chinese among others would disagree with you, and your last two points I'm sure you are measuring by eurocentric means.
I also don't like the currency Euro because I like the British pound. It...not defines the UK but to me symbolizes its independence.
The problem over here is that Trade Unions have enormous power and often exercise that power in protests that essentially shutdown society. Its political blackmail basically.
The trade unions in the US havent had that kind of power since the days of Jimmy Hoffa, but we have much more powerful interests that exert control over the direction of government policy and which use money as leverage rather than public protest. Id say our movers and shakers are far more insidious because what they are doing daily isnt reported like a general strike would be over here.
As I said I don't want to enter in slagging matches. The Chinese sure have an ancient civilization and history. Same could be said of the Egyptians and others.
As for the last two points, I guess that is a subjective view. I truly appreciate Europe's more liberal attitude towards sexuality and homosexuality, drugs, taxation, environment, crime and punishment, influence of religious groups, moral issues such euthanasia and abortion, and international awareness. From that point of view I believe Europe is without doubt the most advanced and privileged area in the world to live in. I presume many Americans will despise our way of life though, although their definition of what constitutes 'trash' is clearly different to ours.