Iraq: U.S. definitely was NOT out for oil.

Why? Well American companies just got spanked by Russia and China for the rights to suck out some oil from Iraq. I just find it sad and really demoralizing that two nations that were strictly opposed to the war in Iraq now control Iraq's oil output for the next 2 decades.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/2009121...08599194878700

U.S. government is still providing security for Iraq. Not only are America's competitors being protected by American armed forces, but they are being given a hand up and will inevitable gain all the profits. Unbelievable!

I share your gloomy assessment. :(

Think about it. We send our young to fight in a foreign land, our global competitors reap the spoils, and he or she returns home to find a nation trillions of dollars in debt and stripped bare of maufacturing jobs .

This thread will die fast because the vast majority of people here don't want to believe that the USA and her allies went to war to remove a dangerous dictator from power and to give the population a legitimate shot at democratic self rule under a code of laws.

Unfortunately, it would appear that not too much research was done on how well the Iraqi population would behave itself without a strong, central figure threatening them. It seems similar to giving a whole bunch of guns to a whole bunch of chimps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gloomyDAY

Why? Well American companies just got spanked by Russia and China for the rights to suck out some oil from Iraq. I just find it sad and really demoralizing that two nations that were strictly opposed to the war in Iraq now control Iraq's oil output for the next 2 decades.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/2009121...08599194878700

U.S. government is still providing security for Iraq. Not only are America's competitors being protected by American armed forces, but they are being given a hand up and will inevitable gain all the profits. Unbelievable!

---

Clearly you never read Joseph Heller's amazing book of WWII wheeling and dealing "Catch 22".
Do it.

All I know is when the war was "Bush wants Cheap oil", the price spiked. When the war was to feed profits to the oil companies, the price then was going down. Now it is apparent that the oil companies based in the US are not going to be the winners. So Bush's little adventure there now appears to be what he claimed it was: A fight to rid the world of a threat (even if you and I may disagree on that) and someone who was flaunting and ignoring UN sanctions and dictates as the conditions for ending the first Gulf War. What is more, the US fought to give Iraq a chance to chart a new course, and it appears it isn't a US puppet. I guess the critics will have a heck of a time with this one....

Its not that simple, the war has been going on for years now, and Iraq has been exporting oil all the time, one condition UN did have to get involved in Iraq was that the oil export figures (amount and prices) and to where, was to be published every year, sofar no such figures has been published, for some reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

This thread will die fast because the vast majority of people here don't want to believe that the USA and her allies went to war to remove a dangerous dictator from power and to give the population a legitimate shot at democratic self rule under a code of laws.

Unfortunately, it would appear that not too much research was done on how well the Iraqi population would behave itself without a strong, central figure threatening them. It seems similar to giving a whole bunch of guns to a whole bunch of chimps.

---

I am inclined to agree with you. I get the impression that forcing democracy in places like Iraq is akin to trying to make a square peg fit a round hole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janvanvurpa

Clearly you never read Joseph Heller's amazing book of WWII wheeling and dealing "Catch 22".
Do it.

---

You realize that Catch 22 is FICTION don't you?

WTF

Our guys die so fing russkies and chinese can get fing rich and control more world supply

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theugsquirrel

I am inclined to agree with you. I get the impression that forcing democracy in places like Iraq is akin to trying to make a square peg fit a round hole.

---

At least now that is their choice. It was offered to them, and last I looked, they have had two elections, and their President is still elected. What is more, most observers said it was a fair election. It is a smug western idea to think they are not sophisticated enough Islamic countries to accept elections and democracy. What they still have now beats the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

You realize that Catch 22 is FICTION don't you?

---

Of course the STORY was fiction but most semi-literate people understand the idea that truth can be presented in fictional settings in order to explore ideas to people who might otherwise, either by inclination, persuation or congenital deficiencies, but unable or unwilling to image concepts different than what they were used to.

Catch-22 was a brilliant examination of the logic of "the Organisational Man" and the rationalisations used to justify anything, as long as there is a profit to be made.

Obviously, you've never read it, or if you did, failed utterly in understanding the main idea.

So the cry for so many years was that Bush did it all for the oil and that the US was going to occupy Iraq as some sort of colonial conquest. Now that that has been show to not be the case, the cry becomes what did fight and die for. How much longer will it take for you all to realize that the war was fought for rhe Exact reasons layed out buy Bush; to rid Iraq of a dictator who would do anything (including gassing his own people, ignoring UN sanctions, and God knows what else) just to stay in power?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

How much longer will it take for you all to realize that the war was fought for rhe Exact reasons layed out buy Bush; to rid Iraq of a dictator who would do anything (including gassing his own people, ignoring UN sanctions, and God knows what else) just to stay in power?

---

I thought the war was about getting rid of Iraq's WMDs. No, wait, it was about "freedom". Oh, that's not it, the war was about....Dick and Bush never gave us a clear cut answer to that mind boggling question of 'why we fight?'.

Fact: American soldiers died in the Iraq war so China and Russia can reap the spoils. :rolleyes:

You must be the antonym of smart to think there isn't anything wrong with that fact.

whatever----But that is hardly gratitude by the worthless slugs of chinese, ruskies and iraqies, who all have profited at the cost of american lives, and whose contribution was not worth even noting to getting rid of him---or worse, were actively in opposition.

So the price of oil will continue to go up, with this development.

Dumbuts in the US news services are pretty much ignoring this news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gloomyDAY

I thought the war was about getting rid of Iraq's WMDs. No, wait, it was about "freedom". Oh, that's not it, the war was about....Dick and Bush never gave us a clear cut answer to that mind boggling question of 'why we fight?'.

Fact: American soldiers died in the Iraq war so China and Russia can reap the spoils. :rolleyes:

You must be the antonym of smart to think there isn't anything wrong with that fact.

---

The Russian and Chinese oil companies are reaping the rewards because the US oil industry wasn't willing to pay the Iraqi government what they wanted in a fair bid process. It is the right of Iraqi's to determine their future at this point....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gloomyDAY

I thought the war was about getting rid of Iraq's WMDs. No, wait, it was about "freedom". Oh, that's not it, the war was about....Dick and Bush never gave us a clear cut answer to that mind boggling question of 'why we fight?'.

Fact: American soldiers died in the Iraq war so China and Russia can reap the spoils. :rolleyes:

You must be the antonym of smart to think there isn't anything wrong with that fact.

---

If the fact that some people will risk their lives to help the lives of others bothers you so much, just make sure you don't join the people in such diplomatic and military efforts.

Though I tend to think there was little if any risk of that based on your following the money attitude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

The Russian and Chinese oil companies are reaping the rewards because the US oil industry wasn't willing to pay the Iraqi government what they wanted in a fair bid process. It is the right of Iraqi's to determine their future at this point....

---

This is what is so confusing. I'm not sure if the United States is trying to play some kind of game because American oil companies have the money to outbid their rivals. The idea of Iraq pursuing their own future is fine by me, but shouldn't America reap some of the benefits? I mean, the U.S. only fought a war!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

If the fact that some people will risk their lives to help the lives of others bothers you so much, just make sure you don't join the people in such diplomatic and military efforts.

Though I tend to think there was little if any risk of that based on your following the money attitude.

---

Oh, please! Let's not go down that route. Johnny got his leg blown off in Iraq to see his Iraqi compatriot have a fruitful and happy life. Yeah, sure buddy.

If you want to help people, join the Peace Corps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gloomyDAY

This is what is so confusing. I'm not sure if the United States is trying to play some kind of game because American oil companies have the money to outbid their rivals. The idea of Iraq pursuing their own future is fine by me, but shouldn't America reap some of the benefits? I mean, the U.S. only fought a war!

Oh, please! Let's not go down that route. Johnny got his leg blown off in Iraq to see his Iraqi compatriot have a fruitful and happy life. Yeah, sure buddy.

If you want to help people, join the Peace Corps.

---

That's capitalism man. Maybe the Russky and Chinese oil companies are being subsidized so both countries can have access to that oil? You have to know Obama would NEVER subsidize the US oil industry, nor should he. They made a business decision to NOT over bid for that oil. Simple as that.

Who here is truly prepared to venture forth into political Not Fly Zones to order to seek out these elusive answers for questions of how and why we fight?

Ah, the good ol' US of A,
Land beholded to Military-Industrial Complex
and a corrupt two-party system
a society in decay
drowning in debt
lead in proxy by
special interest
foreign interest,
and global financial interest.

War is her #1 export
And it has to be.

Why?

Because people half a world away hate us for our our freedoms.

Or so the story goes.







http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yd53Xs6hyM

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...ticle/ShowFull

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SportscarBruce

Who here is truly prepared to venture forth into political Not Fly Zones to order to seek out these elusive answers for questions of how and why we fight?

Ah, the good ol' US of A,
Land beholded to Military-Industrial Complex
and a corrupt two-party system
a society in decay
drowning in debt
lead in proxy by
special interest
foreign interest,
and global financial interest.

War is her #1 export
And it has to be.

Why?

Because people half a world away hate us for our our freedoms.

Or so the story goes.







http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yd53Xs6hyM

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...ticle/ShowFull

---

Actually, they do hate you for your freedom. Not to mention most western nations for their freedoms. Just look at Bin Laden's words on the topic...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

That's capitalism man. Maybe the Russky and Chinese oil companies are being subsidized so both countries can have access to that oil? You have to know Obama would NEVER subsidize the US oil industry, nor should he. They made a business decision to NOT over bid for that oil. Simple as that.

---

China's oil company is subsidized. I'm not sure about Russia's.

Any other angles as to why American companies let this one go? Margin of profit? Even the French have a bigger stake in Iraqi oil than America. I know the asking price way high but there has to be some other explanation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gloomyDAY

China's oil company is subsidized. I'm not sure about Russia's.

Any other angles as to why American companies let this one go? Margin of profit? Even the French have a bigger stake in Iraqi oil than America. I know the asking price way high but there has to be some other explanation.

---

Likely they can get what they need from other sources. Saudi Arabia might be one, although many Americans keep forgetting they don't import that much oil from the Middle East. Most actually comes from this hemisphere from Canada and Mexico. It is WHY Canada has been so reluctant not to sign on to any climate change treaties for CO2 output that don't mirror the Americans, because the petrochemical industry of both nations are pretty much symbiotic, at least from our side of the border.

Most of the Middle East oil goes to Europe or Asia...and THAT is why those oil companies would have a bigger incentive to bid on that Iraqi oil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Actually, they do hate you for your freedom. Not to mention most western nations for their freedoms. Just look at Bin Laden's words on the topic...

---

What we've accomplished is akin to invading Italy and Sicily all in order to eliminate the mod.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SportscarBruce

What we've accomplished is akin to invading Italy and Sicily all in order to eliminate the mod.

---

Ummmmm no. While I am not sure invading Iraq was a good idea now, at the time, there was some rationale that more than just Dubya was buying. One thing was for sure, it wasn't about the oil so much as making sure someone with oil money didn't buy stuff that was going to make trouble later on. Weak? Ya...maybe in retrospect it is. Not the smartest war ever fought, but much of what has gone on since isn't the fault of you Yanks so much as it is the sectarian stupidity that Iraqi's of all stripes seem bent on carrying out. You cant blame the US for the violent anti-tolerant tendencies of the natives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Not the smartest war ever fought, but much of what has gone on since isn't the fault of you Yanks so much as it is the sectarian stupidity that Iraqi's of all stripes seem bent on carrying out. You cant blame the US for the violent anti-tolerant tendencies of the natives.

---

So you think it was the Iraqis them self who made the power vacuum in their country?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gloomyDAY

I thought the war was about getting rid of Iraq's WMDs. No, wait, it was about "freedom". Oh, that's not it, the war was about....Dick and Bush never gave us a clear cut answer to that mind boggling question of 'why we fight?'.

Fact: American soldiers died in the Iraq war so China and Russia can reap the spoils. :rolleyes:

You must be the antonym of smart to think there isn't anything wrong with that fact.

---

Wow good come back, so intelectual. For you to think that I'm saying there isn't anything wrong with the loss of even one soldier is the "antonym of smart". EVERY ONE of our losses (killed or wounded) is a tragedy. But they did die for a purpose, freedom for the Iraqis. What the hell is wrong with that? You seem to be suggesting that if they had died for profit that it would have been ok. Well my friend, THAT is the antonym of smart.

If you can't understand that the war was brought on by the fact that Saddam went around claiming that he had WMD, and wouldn't let the UN in to inspect (which was in clear violation of the treaty he himself had signed, and broken many times). That, again, is the antonym of smart. Then if you can't understand that by making Saddam face the music on his violations that would bring a nice little side effect called Iraqi Freedom, well then I'm not sure you know the definition of "antonym" or "smart"

Mark, Canada was actually one of the biggest evil doers according to Copenhagen. I'm not up on the technology but apparently Canada's tar sand petroleum production method generates heaps of CO2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

Mark, Canada was actually one of the biggest evil doers according to Copenhagen. I'm not up on the technology but apparently Canada's tar sand petroleum production method generates heaps of CO2.

---

OH I know. Macleans Magazine had for their December 18th edition the title "Why the World Hates Canada" on it and a big story on how we were being singled out. We produce 2% of the world's CO2, we are a large (REALLY LARGE) nation with sparse population, a cold cold climate in many areas, and a resource economy. We are one of the nations that would have to really cut our lifestyle and economy in knees to meet targets.

AS for the Oilsands? .5% of our total CO2. That means it is .00025% of the world's CO2 output. So we close the oilsands down completely. Boy that .00025% will make ALL the difference. Why we might have global cooling in no time. What a load of crap. Canada was ranked 12th cleanest on the planet by the UN, and we have stringent anti-pollution standards. We don't want global warming, and we dont' want pollution, but as a Canadian I will not be painted as a villan for this it is clear that the Chinese with 40% of the world's CO2 output will not even BE ASKED TO CHANGE. THAT WAS THE LIE OF KYOTO!!!

Assuming CO2 makes this planet warmer, as many of you do, the little nickel and dime measures such as picking on Canada for the oilsands means very little if you are not hitting everyone equally.

Back during the Bosnia-Kosovo thing, the USA told Milosovich he could leave on his own, or they would throw him out. To sweeten the deal, they offered to set him up with a nice place in Switzerland and a tidy chunk change to live on. He turned it down, got thrown out, and even got jacked on those silly war crimes trials. I like to think I learn from history. When I heard that Bush gave Saddam 24 hours to leave town or he was going to throw him out, I'd have made a deal for a place next to Schumachers and hauled ass. Saddam ended up on a rope.

I'd like to think that if Chavaz or some other fool becomes enough of an annoyance to act on, they'll do the smart thing and take the cash and the condo.

If it makes you feel better, I like Canada and Canadians!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

If it makes you feel better, I like Canada and Canadians!

---

I feel the love brother...I feel the love!!

We Canadians take such criticism too personally. For most our history, we have always tried to be in the middle and try to use diplomacy and consenses building in human affairs. We don't like being the bad guy or giving ultimatums. That is why many here took that Copenhagen condemnation and turned it on ourselves. There are politicians in this country that piled on that and condemned our Prime Minister for not being out in front of this and cutting our CO2 and being a good little boy. What they forget, and the activists wont care about is the livelihoods of those people in the oil patch. Not to mention the massive tax revenues and money that the industry generates.

All of this climate change political speak is not about the climate in the end, it is about the developed economies of the world feeling guilt and giving money to the poor to keep on polluting. That is what it is when you get down down to it. That and the creation of a world Carbon market where scum like Al Gore make money pretending to be helping the planet. The one company in the US that was so gung ho for a North American carbon market was Enron, and we know how pure their motives were now don't we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

But they did die for a purpose, freedom for the Iraqis.

---

How naive.

When was the last time anyone fought a war without a selfish reason?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gloomyDAY

How naive.

When was the last time anyone fought a war without a selfish reason?

---

Define Selfish?
Was it selfish to declare war on Japan after Pearl Harbor?

Was it Selfish for the US to go after Al-Quieda and their Taliban Supporters after 9/11?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gloomyDAY

How naive.

When was the last time anyone fought a war without a selfish reason?

---

Unless you fight a war after being directly attacked, any war could be seen as selfish by some. Heck, there are many in the American left who think Afghanistan is wrong because America deserved to be attacked. Utter nonsense but there you have it.

As long as the volunteer military grunts on the ground can believe in the mission, which pointy headed intellectuals can say it isn't worth it? It isn't their skin in the game now is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomi

So you think it was the Iraqis them self who made the power vacuum in their country?

---

Assume Saddam was allowed to continue to rule until he passed away. What happens then? You stupid or naive enough to think there will be an election? You going to assume there would be no violence? C' mon Tomi, quit looking at easy answers to tough questions.

Should the US have taken out Iraq's leader to create the "power vacuum?" IF they just had a hit man do the job, a civil war would have broken out in a heart beat. THe death toll there would be every bit as nasty likely as it was in the aftermath of the US invasion where Sunni's and Shiites still fought even tho the US Army was doing their level best to keep the peace. Of course, the US Army and Her Majesty's Army in the south were still targeted openly, but it has been documented by many that Iran had a hand in some of that unrest in arming groups interested in keeping the mayhem going.

To blame the US for Iraq's inherit ethnic and religious strife is nonsense. It is like blaming a woman for wearing a short skirt for her being raped. She may have been targeted and involved but the perpetrator is the cause.

Before this thread gets muddled any further I'm just trying to find out the flip side of this story. Something is going on behind closed doors to where the United States stands idly by and allows rival countries to take control of Iraq's oil for the next two decades. 'What's up?' is my question.

Just want some input if you have any ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Define Selfish?
Was it selfish to declare war on Japan after Pearl Harbor?

Was it Selfish for the US to go after Al-Quieda and their Taliban Supporters after 9/11?

---

Okay, let's try to define selfish.

America gets attacked at Pearl Harbor, then the Japanese are defeated. Seems pretty straightforward until you dig deeper and start realizing that after the war, Japan was used as a foothold in the Pacific. In fact, my friend just got stationed in Okinawa. That's selfish.

9/11 happens and then America goes to war in Afghanistan. Then the PATRIOT Act gets ratified and American's civil rights get abused in the fight against terrorism. Warrant-less search and seizures is a selfish act on behalf of the U.S. government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Heck, there are many in the American left who think Afghanistan is wrong because America deserved to be attacked. Utter nonsense but there you have it.

---

:crazy:

Bonkers, and no, I don't think that way!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gloomyDAY

America gets attacked at Pearl Harbor, then the Japanese are defeated. Seems pretty straightforward until you dig deeper and start realizing that after the war, Japan was used as a foothold in the Pacific. In fact, my friend just got stationed in Okinawa. That's selfish.!

---

The US kept troops over there mainly through the Cold War as a deterrent. They are still there today for that reason, and because the Japanese government WANTS them there. If they didn't, they wouldn't BE there. The presence of a US miltary base of that size in that area says to possible foes such as China or North Korea that Japan is a valuable ally of the US and the US is prepared to defend that ally. The cost of American isolationism is higher than having bases around the world. Ignoring potential enemies with a hate America agenda has never worked in the history of the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gloomyDAY

9/11 happens and then America goes to war in Afghanistan. Then the PATRIOT Act gets ratified and American's civil rights get abused in the fight against terrorism. Warrant-less search and seizures is a selfish act on behalf of the U.S. government.

---

The Patriot Act was passed by both parties in Congress and was used to track potential threats in cyberspace communication and hopefully stem any attacks by sleeper cells on US soil. 9/11 wouldn't have happened if the FBI and CIA had the power to co-ordinate data and information of threats in and out of the country and their communication to the "head office" in Afghanistan. So the Patriot Act was born. It had to be repassed every year, so the politicians always knew that they had to justify it's existance as an emergency measure. As for the civil rights being abused, in theory yes. Name me one person tho you have met who had their mail read? Name me someone who had their phones tapped? You cannot. We may never know how much was monitored, but the way elint is gathered, the reality is other spy agencies such as SDECE, and MI5, not to mention Canada's CSIS can do covert spying and mail reading of American communications leaving the country to other nations on the CIA's behalf and then warn the CIA covertly of the threat. There are many ways that even without the Patriot Act the US Government can be informed of threats against the USA. The Patriot act was more public relations than people realize.

US citizens still have more civil rights to free speech and unflitered communications than almost any other soceity. The Patriot act didn't do much more than threaten it more in theory than in reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Assume Saddam was allowed to continue to rule until he passed away. What happens then? You stupid or naive enough to think there will be an election? You going to assume there would be no violence? C' mon Tomi, quit looking at easy answers to tough questions.

Should the US have taken out Iraq's leader to create the "power vacuum?" IF they just had a hit man do the job, a civil war would have broken out in a heart beat. THe death toll there would be every bit as nasty likely as it was in the aftermath of the US invasion where Sunni's and Shiites still fought even tho the US Army was doing their level best to keep the peace. Of course, the US Army and Her Majesty's Army in the south were still targeted openly, but it has been documented by many that Iran had a hand in some of that unrest in arming groups interested in keeping the mayhem going.

To blame the US for Iraq's inherit ethnic and religious strife is nonsense. It is like blaming a woman for wearing a short skirt for her being raped. She may have been targeted and involved but the perpetrator is the cause.

---

What im saying is that, the iraqies is fighting eachothers because there is a power vacum in their country, like in what ever civil war different groups try to get in power, but the Iraqies did not create the vacum them self.
Talking about short skirts is a bit absurd when 1000 and 1000 iraqies has died of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomi

What im saying is that, the iraqies is fighting eachothers because there is a power vacum in their country, like in what ever civil war different groups try to get in power, but the Iraqies did not create the vacum them self.
Talking about short skirts is a bit absurd when 1000 and 1000 iraqies has died of this.

---

The analogy is what Iam speaking of Tomi. Blaming the US for the fact Iraqi's are willing to kill each other unless a brutal dictator is running the country is just silly. The US may have removed the force that was stopping the sectarian strife, but that force (Hussein) was killing 25000 people a year according to many UN and Amnesty International reports. So to say no one was being killed in Iraq before the Americans is just silly.

The US just changed how people were dying really, not the fact they were dying unpleasant deaths. IN time, and you can see it now, that for the most part the three groups that comprise Iraq are starting to work together. In time, Iraq is going to be better off, but it will take some time. If Hussein was left in power 8 years ago, he likely still would be now, or a full blown civil war would be underway. Tell me how THAT is better?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

So to say no one was being killed in Iraq before the Americans is just silly.

Yes it would, who has said like that?

The US just changed how people were dying really, not the fact they were dying unpleasant deaths. IN time, and you can see it now, that for the most part the three groups that comprise Iraq are starting to work together. In time, Iraq is going to be better off, but it will take some time. If Hussein was left in power 8 years ago, he likely still would be now, or a full blown civil war would be underway. Tell me how THAT is better?

---

This last is nothing but speculation, better wait and see, but I belive that there will be some group who feels that they have been unfair treated so the violence will last for long time.