George Bush nearly pelted with shoes

[Kirkland Laing]

The Iraq war may have been about oil but it also may have been just to get a new leader in there that will at least for some time have to recognize that the US keeps him in power and therefore we both have the same goals.

Such a sensative culture though holy crap...."You just want our oil", "You just want access to the Suez Canal", "Nobody likes us"......waaaaah waaaaah waaaah. Join the rest of the world and stop suicide bombing people.

If you're going to continue arguing from a position of supreme ignorance there's no point replying.

[Trainer Monkey]

Like or not,Iraq is all about the crude.
We got in to it in 91 over crude.
Kuwait started slant drilling in to Iraqi territory,Iraq told them to knock it off. They laughed, Iraq invaded. We said we didnt care right up until the King Appointed By God (thats what emir means) threatened to pull a few billion out of the world banks. And suddenly we had to save those poor Kuwaiti's

[Kirkland Laing]

By prop up, you mean support? Alliance? Well guess what, lots of countries support other countries. But I want to stay focused on the point of my involvement in this part of the thread.

By "in furtherance of" I assume you mean "intended to"? "reason for"?

The issue is whether or not Iraq war is about control of oil. Initially you were the one who said it was. I disagreed. The old knee jerk oil thing I think I called it. You tried to provide evidence that it was the reason, I wasn't the least bit convinced by your "evidence". I even think you took a couple of tries.

But OK. What exactly does the words "control their oil" mean to you in this context?

OK, let's limit this to whether the Iraq war was about oil. I'm telling you it is. There's no other reason for us to be interested in the region otherwise. We have a century of documented history of an Anglo/US effort to control the region and its oil, and at a time when oil has never been more important to the world then countries like Iraq have never been more critical for us to control. Iraq may well have the world's highest oil reserves of any country, but more importantly it's the only country in the world at a time when oil supply is struggling to keep up with demand that can significantly increase its oil output. Iraq is the world's most valuable real estate, economically and strategically speaking. Controlling who it sells its oil to and what currency it sells it in (and to a lesser extent which companies produce the oil) is absolutely critical to the US continuing to remain the world's preeminent power/economy.

It isn't "knee-jerk" at all, after a century of our invading/overthrowing/manipulating Arab governments to control their oil, you're going to have to come up with a good reason other than oil why our latest venture there happened. Iraq contains oil, sand and camels. Sand can be found all around the coastline of the continental United States and in numerous quarries therein. The amount of freight carried by camels in the United States has declined significantly over the last century to the point where the internal combustion engine has almost driven US camel hauliers out of business and camels are now a bear market. That only leaves oil.

You've given some pretty good reasons why a country might want to control Iraq, but that don't make it so. You say maintaining it's position as the world's pre-eminent econmy is a prime motivator, but let's just call it maintaining enough oil supply to keep things running.

I find it hard to argue againt your position. And you should find it hard to argue for it. It's not like we have proof of US/Britain motives for the invasion. You have taken a bunch of facts and built a somewhat logical argument. But I don't see a whole lot of evidence or proof. I'll give you credit for at least coming up with some kind of analysis, which is better than the knee jerk crowd who cry out "oil control" without much in the way of critical thought.

As I understand it the Iraq war has cost the US a couple trillion dollars so far. That kind of negates the economic benefit gained from this supposed control or Iraq oil, wouldn't you say? And then there is the human and political costs of the war. Sorry, but I'm sure even George W. Bush can see that this war is costing him, and the US, dearly.

OK, ostensibly Iraq was about the WMD thing, and maybe there was some issues about support of terrorism. Let's not get into whether or not there is any justification for terrorism. And let's assume without arguing that if Iraq has nukes, then the US has reason to be concerned. I do not think the US lied outright to the UN, as well as it's closest allies, about Iraq developing nukes. As I recall there was evidence that Iraq was trying to acquire technology to develop nuclear weapons. As it turned out, no physical evidence of this activity found. Myself, I consider it entirely possible that Hussein has stashed whatever he had in Syria. Why do you suppose Hussein put the UN and the Atomic Energy Commission off for so long? And I don't know about you, but with all due respect, to suggest as some have that Hussein would cease and desist from anything just because the UN told him to is kind of naive. I am quite sure that Hussein would try to develop or acquire wmds if it was within his power to do so.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a supporter of the Iraq war. I myself sided with the UN position on the issue, as did the Canadian government, against our closest ally and friend, the USA. I just think the USA deserves a little more credit than saying, they just want to control Iraq's natural resources (oil).

It's nothing to do with maintaining any supply. Since oil was discovered in the region we've manipulated the supply of oil to suit our needs. When oil was first discovered in Iraq the quantities involved were so huge that putting it on the market would have caused a collapse in the price of oil so the wells were capped and not tapped for a couple of decades. We've kept the supply of oil moving in the Middle East in the same way that the Mafia have kept the construction industry in New York working smoothly without disruptions. Similarly our security agreements with the dictatorships running oil-rich countries in the region have guaranteed their security and freedom to do business in much the same way that five Sicilian immigrant families have guaranteed the security and freedom to operate of New York's shopowners and businesses.

There is a great deal of proof. Bush's Secretary to the Treasury, a man obviously handpicked by Bush and famous for getting a tax rebate on his corporation's $1 billion yearly profit was a member of Bush's national security cabinet, and he tells us that the first item on the agenda of the first US national security cabinet meeting Bush held after taking office -- eight months before 9/11 -- was the invasion of Iraq :

Advocating "going after Saddam" during the January 30 meeting, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, according to O'Neill, "Imagine what the region would look like without Saddam and with a regime that's aligned with U.S. interests. It would change everything in the region and beyond. It would demonstrate what U.S. policy is all about." He then discussed post-Saddam Iraq -- the Kurds in the north, the oil fields, and the reconstruction of the country's economy. (Suskind, p. 85)
Among the relevant documents later sent to NSC members, including O'Neill, was one prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). It had already mapped Iraq's oil fields and exploration areas, and listed American corporations likely to be interested in participating in Iraq's petroleum industry.
Another DIA document in the package, entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," listed companies from 30 countries -- France, Germany, Russia, and Britain, among others -- their specialties and bidding histories. The attached maps pinpointed "super-giant oil field," "other oil field," and "earmarked for production sharing," and divided the basically undeveloped but oil-rich southwest of Iraq into nine blocks, indicating promising areas for future exploration. (Suskind., p. 96)



The second meeting was devoted exclusively to Iraq.




Iraq contains somewhere in the region of five hundred trillion dollars of oil, or about 300x US GDP. A couple of trillion to get at it is an investment any bunch of war criminals running a country would be happy to make. And don't forget they thought they were just going to swan in there and put their handpicked guys in charge of everything and that Iraq would then pay them back for the cost of the invasion. Human costs historically are never a calculation in these things, the politicians always claim that they'll do everything for the men and women there to "protect" us but there are plenty of homelesss Iraq vets right now and they're cutting Veterans' healthcare.


Before the war Bush's limited "evidence" was almost all exposed as bs by the only US media organisation who bothered to investigate it, Knight Ridder. Bush now claims that Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in and that everybody thought he had weapons but this was all more lies. Saddam did let the inspectors in and France, Russia etc. all claimed they'd seen nothing that persuaded them Saddam had any weapons. Even people like Colin Powell, Condy Rice had said Iraq was no threat.


After the war Bush sent his handpicked weapons inspectors into Iraq and they confirmed that Saddam had stopped all WMD programs and destroyed all his equipment in 1991. The Syria thing is the last desperate claim by fring rightwing loonies with no basis in fact -- Iraq didn't have any weapons to export, Syria have their own "WMD" and would never have let anything dangerous over the border as it would have given the US a chance to bomb/invade them too. Even Bush admits there weren't any WMDs now. When Iraq did have "WMD" capability it was just battlefield munitions that could fire chemical weapons (made in factories we built for him), not missiles which could travel even 100 miles.

[Kirkland Laing]

Report on Iraq Contradicts Bush Administration Claims

By Dana Priest and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, October 7, 2004; Page A01

The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.
Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."




The findings were similar on biological and chemical weapons. While Hussein had long dreamed of developing an arsenal of biological agents, his stockpiles had been destroyed and research stopped years before the United States led the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Duelfer said Hussein hoped someday to resume a chemical weapons effort after U.N. sanctions ended, but had no stocks and had not researched making the weapons for a dozen years.
Duelfer's report, delivered yesterday to two congressional committees, represents the government's most definitive accounting of Hussein's weapons programs, the assumed strength of which the Bush administration presented as a central reason for the war. While previous reports have drawn similar conclusions, Duelfer's assessment went beyond them in depth, detail and level of certainty.

[Kirkland Laing]

[El Kabong]

...did Saddam ever think that posturing vs the people who put him in power was a bad idea?

[CGM]

OK, let's limit this to whether the Iraq war was about oil. I'm telling you it is. There's no other reason for us to be interested in the region otherwise. We have a century of documented history of an Anglo/US effort to control the region and its oil, and at a time when oil has never been more important to the world then countries like Iraq have never been more critical for us to control. Iraq may well have the world's highest oil reserves of any country, but more importantly it's the only country in the world at a time when oil supply is struggling to keep up with demand that can significantly increase its oil output. Iraq is the world's most valuable real estate, economically and strategically speaking. Controlling who it sells its oil to and what currency it sells it in (and to a lesser extent which companies produce the oil) is absolutely critical to the US continuing to remain the world's preeminent power/economy.

It isn't "knee-jerk" at all, after a century of our invading/overthrowing/manipulating Arab governments to control their oil, you're going to have to come up with a good reason other than oil why our latest venture there happened. Iraq contains oil, sand and camels. Sand can be found all around the coastline of the continental United States and in numerous quarries therein. The amount of freight carried by camels in the United States has declined significantly over the last century to the point where the internal combustion engine has almost driven US camel hauliers out of business and camels are now a bear market. That only leaves oil.

You've given some pretty good reasons why a country might want to control Iraq, but that don't make it so. You say maintaining it's position as the world's pre-eminent econmy is a prime motivator, but let's just call it maintaining enough oil supply to keep things running.

I find it hard to argue againt your position. And you should find it hard to argue for it. It's not like we have proof of US/Britain motives for the invasion. You have taken a bunch of facts and built a somewhat logical argument. But I don't see a whole lot of evidence or proof. I'll give you credit for at least coming up with some kind of analysis, which is better than the knee jerk crowd who cry out "oil control" without much in the way of critical thought.

As I understand it the Iraq war has cost the US a couple trillion dollars so far. That kind of negates the economic benefit gained from this supposed control or Iraq oil, wouldn't you say? And then there is the human and political costs of the war. Sorry, but I'm sure even George W. Bush can see that this war is costing him, and the US, dearly.

OK, ostensibly Iraq was about the WMD thing, and maybe there was some issues about support of terrorism. Let's not get into whether or not there is any justification for terrorism. And let's assume without arguing that if Iraq has nukes, then the US has reason to be concerned. I do not think the US lied outright to the UN, as well as it's closest allies, about Iraq developing nukes. As I recall there was evidence that Iraq was trying to acquire technology to develop nuclear weapons. As it turned out, no physical evidence of this activity found. Myself, I consider it entirely possible that Hussein has stashed whatever he had in Syria. Why do you suppose Hussein put the UN and the Atomic Energy Commission off for so long? And I don't know about you, but with all due respect, to suggest as some have that Hussein would cease and desist from anything just because the UN told him to is kind of naive. I am quite sure that Hussein would try to develop or acquire wmds if it was within his power to do so.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a supporter of the Iraq war. I myself sided with the UN position on the issue, as did the Canadian government, against our closest ally and friend, the USA. I just think the USA deserves a little more credit than saying, they just want to control Iraq's natural resources (oil).

It's nothing to do with maintaining any supply. Since oil was discovered in the region we've manipulated the supply of oil to suit our needs. When oil was first discovered in Iraq the quantities involved were so huge that putting it on the market would have caused a collapse in the price of oil so the wells were capped and not tapped for a couple of decades. We've kept the supply of oil moving in the Middle East in the same way that the Mafia have kept the construction industry in New York working smoothly without disruptions. Similarly our security agreements with the dictatorships running oil-rich countries in the region have guaranteed their security and freedom to do business in much the same way that five Sicilian immigrant families have guaranteed the security and freedom to operate of New York's shopowners and businesses.

There is a great deal of proof. Bush's Secretary to the Treasury, a man obviously handpicked by Bush and famous for getting a tax rebate on his corporation's $1 billion yearly profit was a member of Bush's national security cabinet, and he tells us that the first item on the agenda of the first US national security cabinet meeting Bush held after taking office -- eight months before 9/11 -- was the invasion of Iraq :

Advocating "going after Saddam" during the January 30 meeting, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, according to O'Neill, "Imagine what the region would look like without Saddam and with a regime that's aligned with U.S. interests. It would change everything in the region and beyond. It would demonstrate what U.S. policy is all about." He then discussed post-Saddam Iraq -- the Kurds in the north, the oil fields, and the reconstruction of the country's economy. (Suskind, p. 85)
Among the relevant documents later sent to NSC members, including O'Neill, was one prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). It had already mapped Iraq's oil fields and exploration areas, and listed American corporations likely to be interested in participating in Iraq's petroleum industry.
Another DIA document in the package, entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," listed companies from 30 countries -- France, Germany, Russia, and Britain, among others -- their specialties and bidding histories. The attached maps pinpointed "super-giant oil field," "other oil field," and "earmarked for production sharing," and divided the basically undeveloped but oil-rich southwest of Iraq into nine blocks, indicating promising areas for future exploration. (Suskind., p. 96)



The second meeting was devoted exclusively to Iraq.




Iraq contains somewhere in the region of five hundred trillion dollars of oil, or about 300x US GDP. A couple of trillion to get at it is an investment any bunch of war criminals running a country would be happy to make. And don't forget they thought they were just going to swan in there and put their handpicked guys in charge of everything and that Iraq would then pay them back for the cost of the invasion. Human costs historically are never a calculation in these things, the politicians always claim that they'll do everything for the men and women there to "protect" us but there are plenty of homelesss Iraq vets right now and they're cutting Veterans' healthcare.


Before the war Bush's limited "evidence" was almost all exposed as bs by the only US media organisation who bothered to investigate it, Knight Ridder. Bush now claims that Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in and that everybody thought he had weapons but this was all more lies. Saddam did let the inspectors in and France, Russia etc. all claimed they'd seen nothing that persuaded them Saddam had any weapons. Even people like Colin Powell, Condy Rice had said Iraq was no threat.


After the war Bush sent his handpicked weapons inspectors into Iraq and they confirmed that Saddam had stopped all WMD programs and destroyed all his equipment in 1991. The Syria thing is the last desperate claim by fring rightwing loonies with no basis in fact -- Iraq didn't have any weapons to export, Syria have their own "WMD" and would never have let anything dangerous over the border as it would have given the US a chance to bomb/invade them too. Even Bush admits there weren't any WMDs now. When Iraq did have "WMD" capability it was just battlefield munitions that could fire chemical weapons (made in factories we built for him), not missiles which could travel even 100 miles.

Ok, for now let's focus on just how much oil we are talking about.

You have claimed Iraq oil reserves estimated at 500 trillion dollars, or 300 times US GDP.

My source, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iraq/Oil.html puts recoverable Iraq oil reserves somewhere around 200 billion barrels, and that is one of the more optimistic estimates. That is an estimate of proven and unproven reserves.

Right now oil is priced at about $47/barrel on world markets. Last year it was at an all time high of about $140. Lets pick a price somewhere in the middle of $100 barrel. That makes a total value of Iraq oil reserves of 20 trillion dollars, not 500 trillion dollars.

I also have US GDP at about 14 trillion dollars according to U.S. Gross Domestic Product GDP Forecast That means that the total value of Iraq oil reserves would be about 1.5x US GDP, not 300x US GDP.

Any comment? Does this have any effect on your claims of economic motivation for war?

[Gandalf]

...did Saddam ever think that posturing vs the people who put him in power was a bad idea?

Do you seriously believe half the rubbish you spout, or is it just that your mind is saturated to the core by the god awful propaganda that passes for mass media in your country?

Part of me thinks you say these things just to get a rise, but the other part isnt so sure.

[El Kabong]

OK miles perhaps you thought it was smart for Saddam to act as he did

[Trainer Monkey]

...did Saddam ever think that posturing vs the people who put him in power was a bad idea?

No,because it was just about the only thing keeping the Iranians from rolling over his eastern border.
It was the only cards he was holding in that game of poker

[Gandalf]

OK miles perhaps you thought it was smart for Saddam to act as he did

Not the best quote of yours to pick actually, I guess I was thinking more of the Palestine thread when I posted that earlier.

[El Kabong]

No,because it was just about the only thing keeping the Iranians from rolling over his eastern border.
It was the only cards he was holding in that game of poker

So if Iran rolled into Iraq we wouldn't help?


OK miles, many people thought I was fair in my view of the situation.

#1 We (the US and England and our Allies) begged for democratic elections and we got them but our buddies didn't win.

#2 Hamas won the election meaning we SHOULD recognize them as democratically elected BUT Hamas also needs to recognize Israel and be prepared to "play ball" in politics and not support terrorist actions such as lobbing missles into Israel and suicide bombings.

....same deal goes for Hezbollah, they were elected but they are not going to make any headway by continuing to act as militant organizations. And of course Israel needs to ease back on the way they act but if people were suicide bombing where you live I would bet the security would be just a tad harsher but then again that kind of action does tend to be returned to you....golden rule and all

[Trainer Monkey]

No,because it was just about the only thing keeping the Iranians from rolling over his eastern border.
It was the only cards he was holding in that game of poker

So if Iran rolled into Iraq we wouldn't help?


OK miles, many people thought I was fair in my view of the situation.

#1 We (the US and England and our Allies) begged for democratic elections and we got them but our buddies didn't win.

#2 Hamas won the election meaning we SHOULD recognize them as democratically elected BUT Hamas also needs to recognize Israel and be prepared to "play ball" in politics and not support terrorist actions such as lobbing missles into Israel and suicide bombings.

....same deal goes for Hezbollah, they were elected but they are not going to make any headway by continuing to act as militant organizations. And of course Israel needs to ease back on the way they act but if people were suicide bombing where you live I would bet the security would be just a tad harsher but then again that kind of action does tend to be returned to you....golden rule and all

Considering we spent all of the 80's playing on both sides of that fence,I doubt we would have done much. We were giving the Iraqi's chemical weapons,and charging the Iranians for conventional launching systems

[El Kabong]

The US supporting Iraq and Iran during the Cold War is different.

[Trainer Monkey]

The US supporting Iraq and Iran during the Cold War is different.

Not really,we'd have let Iran run right over them after Gulf War 1,it would be better on a public relations front