IRAQ is NOT about Oil

Discussion in 'World Events' started by postoak, Jan 17, 2003.

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    It's about executive control of the oil. Even Afghanistan is about exerting influence over oil. See New Humanist for an article about that. Or this article from the]World Socialist Website[/url] and hosted by Centre for Research on Globalization. (Yes, both WSWS and CRG are somewhat leftist, but we might consider this 10.29.2001 editorial regarding Unocal and Afghanistan from the Oil and Gas International website. Or Unocal? (Note: Unocal would eventually withdraw from CENTGAS in 1998 for reasonable reasons.)

    As to Iraq--what would be better than not having to do a food-for-oil exchange? Perhaps having a puppet government in place to dictate the law American-style? With any luck we can appoint an Iraqi-American oil executive to be Maximum Proconsul. Or were we lucky to have an Afghani oil shill to appoint to the position?

    As an associate of mine noted of a recent John Le Carre editorial about the coming war, "Great. The oil connection. Thanks for trotting that one out for us again." Americans know this is about oil, that this is about being able to drive SUV's in cities, about style and not substance. We all know, but it's only a minority of us who wonder about it. Why is it, for instance, that the "nuclear" power we go after is the one with the oil, and not merely the one with a few million starving Koreans? One of my dark pleasures is the escalation of the Nepalese situation to include general threats toward Americans. Of course, we're now shipping weapons and offering other assistance to an atrocious monarchy against an atrocious insurgency, and this is a dubiously amusing development (I've been largely out of my news circles for about a month, and was surprised to see articles about shipments of M-16's to Nepal). I'm happy now in a perverse way; at least we're screwing up royally on the Nepalese front. Equal-opportunity botching, that's all I ask. See? I'm assuaging my own concerns about too much focus on petroleum.

    But when you take a look at American foreign policy in the Middle East, of course it's going to be about oil to some obnoxious degree. But think of it this way: hydrogen-driven automobiles have been whispered about for decades, and major automakers are showing their zero-emission vehicles at the major shows. With this technology drawing near, we're still sitting on American oil deposits because we want them for when everybody else is out of oil. Think about it--we're planning around the presupposition that we will still need that much petroleum in the future. I guess cars that run on a fraction of the gasoline (hydrogen fuel cells) and theoretically water don't need to be accounted for because there's more money in oil .... (yadda-yadda-yadda).

    Come on ... why not embrace alternative energy technologies, cut the petrol apron-strings altogether, and start dealing with the Middle East as a region filled with human beings instead of unfortunate obstacles to financial triumph?

    When you choose a paradigm that necessitates a "winner" and a "loser", conflict is the only guarantee.

    Think about it: In the United States, "Choose Life" is an anti-abortion slogan, and has nothing to do with choosing to find ways to get what we need without starving children to death.

    I reject that this war is in any way about Justice or the inhumanity of Saddam Hussein. After all, his butchery and imperial thirst were good enough for us when we forked over billions of dollars to support his little war with Iran. And why was it good enough then? Because Iran was run by a guy (Ayatollah Ruollah Khomeni) who overthrew the tyrant (Shah Reza Pahlavi) who built what was once the world's third-strongest army and also one of the most terrifying secret-police organizations (Savak) in the history of the world but would give Americans and Brits good prices on petroleum and wanted to blanch the cuture by "Westernizing". So Saddam's aggression and brutality was acceptable when it was intended to harass those who tampered with American petroleum dependence. Strangely, and just ask Don Rumsfeld, so also was the Taliban good enough when the US was recruiting Islamic militants to fight the Afghani war against the Soviet Union. In other words, repressive ideology and brutality were a good thing when aimed at the godless Communists.

    If Americans ever moved for just and proper cause, we would have stopped Pol Pot, would have conducted ourselves differently in Vietnam and Laos, would have acted against Balkan atrocities before we did, and sought before now a solution to the ongoing conflict 'twixt Israelis and Palestinians.

    If we acted with consistency, we would have bombed London by now for injustices in Ireland, and would be presently preparing invasions of North Korea, India, and Pakistan.

    If we acted with compassion, the Cold War would never have come about.

    And imagine that: a world in which Arab nations have not been undermined by the Cold War, in which Latin America was not a microdrama and, well ... I still don't know what to do about Africa. Sure there's my usual water and electricity pitch, but it's beside the point. But Americans, by supporting tyrants in Africa, have assisted in causing much human misery.

    If we acted with intelligence, we wouldn't be tied up in a holy war in which yer either wit' us or agin' us.

    This is a petrol and culture war. Or so says my two cents.

    That's the thing--most of us know it's about petroleum, but what I can't figure out for the life of me is why so few Americans care. It's literally as if Americans are saying, "It is our wish to bequeath to our children dirty air, poisonous water, and a world filled with hatred and violence." I can't figure the reason for it. I can't figure out what it is we gain this way.

    I thank you for a wonderful springboard, but since I've so hastily attached that to my soapbox, I'd best get off it before it collapses.

    Peace is within human capability. It just doesn't fit well on a ledger sheet when we presuppose the necessity of winners and losers.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. heflores Banned Banned

    You have knocked on many issues in your very insightfull message. The problem is that you just knocked, because knocking and entering are different beasts. I agree with the ideas and the passion, they are liberating, yet once you enter, you'll be bound by all kindda of conservatism, and the sad part is that conservatism is somewhat right too.

    One issue in specific that you raised is quite interesting. The environment, and whether America gives a shit about the next generations and how they'll be affected by our doings?

    Tiassa, with every human creation, development, natural resource usage, we're permanently erasing a blue print of our environment. The chair that you're sitting on right is situated in a building that replaced forest sand hydraulic patterns that we'll never see again. Fake environmental conservation policies on hand that is giving us the sense that we're mitigating our effects are false. We can not be mitigating permanent effects on our limited resources.. Globally, the picture is truly hopeless and sad, and thus it's unfair of us to side with the left because they complain about real issues, and ignore the right who is being a reality bulldozer and handling things with the only tools that they possess. We must come to the center to reach solutions and we must come with terms that those solutions are not perfect because time is not on humanity's side.

    I agree with everyone that Invading Iraq is partly about oil, but I refuse to admit that the United States is the total bully and Iraq is the lamb.

    I will share with you a story. Last night, I was scrolling through my Satelite TV channels, and on ART international channel, I saw a peace conference againest war that took place in an Arabic country, I can't remember the name of it. Anyways, The scene was very ugly, the European peace makers who went to help the arabs make their point against the war ended up fighting, literally, yelling, screaming, name calling, ect. with the arabs. One German guy who travelled that long to make a statement for piece said the wisest thing that I have heard till this day.

    "Until the Arabs wake up and revolt againest their own internal problems and fix them, they'll have centuries of Sadam and US bullying. US. will never and should never be expected to solve another country's inernal problems"

    So whether this is about oil or cotton candy, it doesn't matter....Because as long as US is the leader, it will get to decide the moves based on it's IMMEDIATE best interest needs that will serve the optimum benefit for it's governing political campaign.

    Sorry for spelling, grammer, ect.

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. thecurly1 Registered Senior Member

    If Iraq is about oil than WWI and WWII were started by wealthy Jewish international bankers that profited on global warfare by stoking their war machines with the dead of 50 million.

    Sorry, its not true. The "its about oil" is a weak, blanket excuse for any idiot that has no holding on history, in particular with Iraq since the Gulf War, and is too lazy to dig for the true facts.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. adj Registered Senior Member

    i liked your comments - on target. It's easy to look at the surface events (of any decade) and decide "what" the motivation is. That the US acts in its self interest is only natural, just as most individuals act in what they believe to be their self interests. And yes, oil does seem to be an interest, but what lies below the surface (not earth's surface) of motivation? It's really simple if you only consider it carefully -- what is the ultimate "destiny" of any "group" of people (nation)? It lies in the predominate "religious" belief system (some people's religion is the scientific laboratory and some believe in the gym . . .). Look, like it or not, the three religions that grew from Moses' teaching are at the core of motivation, conciously or not (ingrained from years of teaching - indoctrination) for their followers. In the Koran, Muslims are told that they are "God's chosen people" to inherit and rule the earth; the Jews have the same underlying teaching, as do the Christians. What greater motivation can there be but to be doing the work of your "God", your belief. And yes, it does get convoluted, especially in the US where all three beliefs are "followed", but consider what the core motivational center is. Think about it, see if what I write is true . . . .
  8. Microzoft Registered Senior Member

    Uncalled insults!

    What we mostly discuss in this forum, it isn’t so much judged as true or false, but in deed they are judged by individual reader’s vis-à-vis to their own competence in a given subject.

    I can understand that you disagree, and that you narrow it all down to a simple True or False, but that you air your “idiot” insults, it just a little too much!!!
  9. Virgin Banned Banned

    Hope you had a good Vacation! Say, if it isn’t about oil, among many other things, why don’t you exercise your 100 billion neuron, and tell as why exactly is our country driving towards a war with Iraq??

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  10. heflores Banned Banned

    I totally disagree with you. Religion is not the inspiration factor for the leader, it's merely a tool used by the leaders to pressure the masses to follow a political agenda inspired by material gains. Oil is a material gain, so political agendas can be based on that because it will balance the check books at the end of the day.
  11. thecurly1 Registered Senior Member

    Well a prospective war with Iraq isn't about creating the worlds largest, one-stop pumping station. That's for sure.

    The war is being procecuted for two main reasons:

    1) Iraq's defiance towards the UN in developing, stockpiling and lying about their weapons of mass destruction program. The world will be better off with out a expansionist and murderous dictator without bio, chemical weapons. Not to mention if Saddam isn't removed, it will be a rather short matter of time until he holds a nuclear weapon. Can you imagine a North Korea sitting above ther Persian Gulf, surrounded by a majority of the world's oil? I can't, I'm betting that no one else can either.

    2) The war is to destabilize the region. Yes, destabilize, but doing so that will foster democracy to the regimes all around. The terrorist problem, and terrorist hatred for the US spawns from the failure of Mideast ideologies and leadership by repressive autocratic regimes, i.e. Iran, Palestine, etc. By democratizing Iraq it is hoped that it will spread next door to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the other nations in the Muslim world.

    3) The Israel-Palestinian problem. This has less to do with why we're going to war, but when. As soon as the Iraq problem is resolved, the US and Western world will be freer to deal with a peacefull resolution to the Palestinian problem. We've had our hands tied for a year and a half, fearing that any mistep would derail our Iraq war build up.

    These are a few reasons, I would hope beyond those that I have stated people continue to dig around and discover the more complex reasons, other than "oil" why we're going to war.

    The President will make the case at the end of this month, and seal the deal in mid to late Feburary. The reason he hasn't explained the war yet, is because we're not ready to go for another month. Bush isn't going to give away the fact, no matter how obvious it is, that we're coming for Saddam a month before it happens.

    Belive me or not, that's your perrogative. I respect your views, but I don't agree with them.
  12. heflores Banned Banned

    I have been puzzling over the fact that many Iraqis in the US are for the war againest Iraq. It almost feel like they're working with the US already on setting up the new government.

    I heard Fidel Castro studied in the US, and even gave a speach to congress before he took over cuba. He promised US to be it's buddy in that speach. As soon as he took power, he turned againest us. Isn't there a lesson to be learned from Castro?
  13. thecurly1 Registered Senior Member

    No there is no lesson to be learned from Castro. He may have studied in the US, but he sure wasn't a tool of the US. Remember he was a communist, the Soviets aided him.

    Castro definatley never made a speech to Congress either.

    But you know that he tried out for as an outfielder for the NY Yankees? Hey if New York took him maybe I'd be spending spring break in Cuba, instead Florida.
  14. heflores Banned Banned

    You are right on Castro, My latino hubby gave the info over dinner, and I took it with a grain of salt.

    I agree, Cuba have a lot to offer to US, great people, music, food, cigars, basefall, ect....

    Back to Iraq and oil, what guarantees security of oil and general stability under a new government? What sort of government do we expect? Tiassa had some good ideas, she said:

    "puppet government in place to dictate the law American-style? With any luck we can appoint an Iraqi-American oil executive to be Maximum Proconsul. Or were we lucky to have an Afghani oil shill to appoint to the position?"

    Did that government take into account the sectorial divided Muslim groups in that area and how they would behave after freed from the leach of Saddam...We have sunni, Shia, and kurds...Turkey must be hating the situation for the war because Turkey have a great deal of kurds who wants to separate and thus might find this an opportunity to get together with the other kurds and form their own state. The Shia are also under great opression from the Sunni, so they might separate also and form another state with the Iran Shia border....
  15. Microzoft Registered Senior Member

    Are you missing Cuba “Cabron”??
  16. Microzoft Registered Senior Member

    Two main reasons??? Start counting!

    1) Iraq's defiance towards the UN in developing, stockpiling and lying ...

    Stockpiling and lying about their weapons of mass
    destruction program?. Innocent until proven guilty, we just
    have to wait for the tons and tons to be found.
    US has always lied about our own arsenal.
    Any country has the right to arm them selves.

    2) The war is to destabilize the region.

    Destabilizing the region will foster democracy???
    I thought common sense and fair foreign policy would do that.

    There has been no proving that Iraq was directly involved
    with 9/11, and neither with anthrax. On the other hand Syria
    and Iran have been supportive of Palestinian in words and in
    deeds. So where is the exact connection with Iraq.

    Democracy in Iraq may spread to the neighbors? That’s a
    shortsighted fantasy.

    3) The Israel-Palestinian problem..

    US under Bushi, has dissociated with the Palestine cause by
    taking sides with Israel. Under our current government, there
    no way for constructive work, UN and the international
    community continuously request Israel to obey pertinent UN
    resolution as a beginning. US don’t want to remain Israel of its
    obligation to international community.

    Check UN webpage and you’ll find why!!

    Yes of course, it is every body’s prerogative and you should refrain from insults.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  17. adj Registered Senior Member

    Quite right to have your own views, but just be careful who you choose to believe, and seek out evidence for what you believe. Don't listen to what they promise, but look at what they do/did. If you can find truth in what I have written, then it will have meaning for you, if not, that's OK too

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  18. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    I like this metaphor! I dunno, after reading everything here I still think oil is 99% the factor. The “many hundreds of billions of dollars” of expected oil revenue (from the article at the top of this thread) far outweighs every contrary reason given in this thread.

    In other words it’s about the oil.

    The U.S. hasn’t shown in a long time that it cares about fostering democracy. Half a million people can be hacked to death by machete in Africa and the U.S. won’t lift a finger.

    And the #1 reason it’s about oil... The U.S. will take Iraq no matter what Hussein does.
  19. ICARRYALOTOFBULLETS Quit smoking...:) Registered Senior Member

    Blood for oil? I just don't get it, we already get oil from Iraq, as much as we need.
  20. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    Sure, but the U.S. doesn’t own the resource. Why pay at the pump when you can own the reserve? Most wars trade blood for money.
  21. adj Registered Senior Member

    Quite right! Oil is a simple excuse presented on the surface by, and accepted by, those who look for an easy explanation or reason. The true reason lies in the past, present and future core motivational meaning and purpose to life, as intrepreted by the three different western beliefs. Even though many people don't like it and sincerely believe it is totally reprehensible, suicidal "terrorists" are only terrorists to those being "terrorized"; to those doing it, they are doing God's work in a manner that grants them immediate access to Heaven! Come on, think about it - its not too difficult to understand . . .

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Our own damn fault

    If there was no oil in Iraq, there wouldn't be a UN resolution to defy. Pol Pot, Auguste Pinochet, various Chinese leaders ....

    If there was no oil in Iraq, the United States would not have contributed billions to support Saddam Hussein.

    The defiance of the UN resolutions is symptomatic of the petroleum situation.
    Given that we don't go after such ugly regimes until they get in the way of our other ambitions, I don't buy it. Besides, don't you think the promise of a generation of instability in your nation would be enough to get many people into the streets? I saw the protests in Damascus on the news; it would seem that they're aware over there. But strangely, Americans generally avoid discussion of such issues because we are not supposed to act in that way; we are not an offensive military, and should not be forcing a new Imperium.
    Actually, it has a good deal to do with why we're going to war. After all, American support of Israeli atrocities against Palestinians was on bin Laden's alleged bitch list, and the Bush administration worked furiously last year to tie bin Laden to Hussein in order to justify the Iraq invasion via the "War on Terror". It's a nice card to play. After all, they're all Muslims, so that must make them one and the same. Or so the American people seem to think.
    In this case they all lead back to petroleum and money.
    To be specific, the President will make the case based on American terms and perceptions, not based on reality. Refer to my response to Iraq's defiance toward the UN.
    Nobody should expect detailed strategy. But we can expect better reasons why. And the Bush administration has chosen to stick with the dumbest possible deceptions. Before starting a war, doesn't it seem worthwhile to explain why people have to kill and die?
    Everybody already knows Bush is coming for Saddam. What, should we expect him to do like his father and send the press out to the landing site?
    That's fair. While I understand how one can come to believe what you're asserting, I have a hard time giving serious credibility to the reasons why. They seem slightly nearsighted, kind of like the bully whose excuse was, "But Billy hit me." Seems cut and dried, right? But why did Billy hit him? Because maybe he was stealing Billy's lunch money and pushing him in the mud every day?

    Remember the Charles Atlas ads? Ninety-pound weaklings can bulk up and then beat up the bully who stole their woman. It's part of our culture; why should we deny that to others? American interests have for so long abused Muslims that the current situation seems inevitable because of the choices we've made in our governance.

    When we go to war, we will have nobody to blame but ourselves.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  23. heflores Banned Banned

    Re: Our own damn fault

    So on the same token, why stop the analysis, shouldn't we ask ourselves why was the bully stealing the lunch everyday?? There's a further underlying reason.

Share This Page