NationStates Jolt Archive

It has been just over 3 years since the Bush administration began it's large scale bombing of Afghanistan, kicking off the so-called war on terror. Osama bin Laden remains at large, tens of thousands of innocent civilians have been killed in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
More than 130,000 US troops are on the ground in Iraq and the body bags continue to come back to US soil. While the invasion and occupation of Iraq dominates the political discussions and debates ahead of the November 2 election, both major candidates have vowed to "win the war in Iraq."

Against the backdrop of the US election campaign, a new documentary has just been released that examines what many see as the key US motive for the war. That motive is oil.

The documentary is called "The Oil Factor: Behind the War on Terror." It examines the link between oil interests and current U.S. military interventions. It includes original footage shot over a four-month period in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as many interviews with a large array of personalities including Bush administration officials. The film was produced by Gerard Ungerman and Audrey Brohy of Free-Willy Productions.

www.democracynow.org

Why is this important? Democrat-socialsist seem to have an affinity for spewing out hundred of trash propaganda 'documentaries'. I will take the plunge, though, and say that Bush-worshippers make really cruddy counter-propaganda films...

Why is this important? Democrat-socialsist seem to have an affinity for spewing out hundred of trash propaganda 'documentaries'. I will take the plunge, though, and say that Bush-worshippers make really cruddy counter-propaganda films...
republicans are socialists for the rich

The reason this is important is that the neo-conservatives are too cowardly to admit that they fought a resource war, and have to resort to weak schoolboy excuses. Until they stop being so patronising, it's fair play to keep bashing them.

Why is this important? Democrat-socialsist seem to have an affinity for spewing out hundred of trash propaganda 'documentaries'. I will take the plunge, though, and say that Bush-worshippers make really cruddy counter-propaganda films...
It's a back and forth, back and forth...no escaping it.

There is nothing embarassing about fighting a resource war. Look back in history, and you will find that ALL wars have at root either a religious(crusades, etc.) or economic source(WWII...remember the Versailles Treaty?).

There is nothing embarassing about fighting a resource war. Look back in history, and you will find that ALL wars have at root either a religious(crusades, etc.) or economic source(WWII...remember the Versailles Treaty?).
then why does Bush to this day continue to lie about his real reasons?

I am comfortable in my assertions that Bush did not invade Iraq for any of the reason his administration has tried to use as a cover for what I only assume to be personal gain and political manuvering. However I find it unlikely that a documentary will "prove" any wrong doing. WOunds like it might be a good documentary for the anti-Bush people to check out but the claim that it will prove anything I think takes it a little to to far.

All politicians lie, or bend the truth. The oil needed protecting, but at the same time Saddam, was a bad guy, right? Bush does need to be a bit more truthful...but I could say the same for everybody else.

All politicians lie, or bend the truth. The oil needed protecting, but at the same time Saddam, was a bad guy, right? Bush does need to be a bit more truthful...but I could say the same for everybody else.

Exactly! I personally think it was because of the oil, and because saddam needed to be taken care of. Of course, Bush used the WMD excuse, because, for one no one likes the idea of going to war over natural resources (though that is one of the main reasons wars are started). And of course, no one will believe that maybe the fact that saddam needed to be removed for his peoples sake if nothing else.

Well personally, I think if someone who authorises war lies about the reasons, that's cowardice, pure and simple. Bush tried and miserably failed to mislead people because he was too scared to state the patently obvious. Imagine that, being too weak to say something that's obvious. :rolleyes:

Yes! Politicians have many reasons for doing things; many of the m are good, but wouldn't make sense to the average apathetic fool or rabid hippie. Then they wrap their decisions in meters of emotionally loaded terms, which turns off people like me.

Bush probably was scared to say the real reason. I still would support him if he told us the war was about economics, but not many people understand the necessities of politics. If he told the truth, though, EVERYBODY would be on him for being uncaring, insensitive, and the ammunition it would give the flamers...

In the end, people need to understand the the government doesnt do the fuzzy, good-feeling thing. They do what is best for the well-being of the country.

republicans are socialists for the rich

...and intellectuals are the shoeshine boys of the ruling elite. Your point being?

as the election approaches and things that SHOULD happen if bush is an evil mastermind DONT happen, im beginning to think that you are just WRONG about him MK

he may in fact just be a moron

if we invaded iraq for oil WHERE IS IT??

if he is soooo involved with the saudi royal family WHY HAVENT THEY INCREASED PRODUCTION SO OUR OIL PRICES DROP? even clinton got that.

where the F is the head of osama bin laden on a stick? for god's sake dont tell me he really just let him go!

i want the benefits of this evil man and his evil conspiracies, otherwise its just not worth it, is it?

Clearly, there are some facts which will always be unpopular with voters. But it is the job of a good leader (in a democracy) to argue the case. If the leader of a democratic country cannot, on the basis of the facts, persuade the electorate to follow him, and has to reach a compromise where some false but popularly acceptable reason is used out of political expediency, then it's obvious - such a leader is not worthy of the office, and is not worth following.

A democratically elected leader who can sell the electorate a resource war on a factual basis, now that would be impressive. Bush? Blair? Pfft.

as the election approaches and things that SHOULD happen if bush is an evil mastermind DONT happen, im beginning to think that you are just WRONG about him MK

he may in fact just be a moron

if we invaded iraq for oil WHERE IS IT??

if he is soooo involved with the saudi royal family WHY HAVENT THEY INCREASED PRODUCTION SO OUR OIL PRICES DROP? even clinton got that.

where the F is the head of osama bin laden on a stick? for god's sake dont tell me he really just let him go!

i want the benefits of this evil man and his evil conspiracies, otherwise its just not worth it, is it?


Perfectly stated. If this war was for economic purposes, where is the economic benefit? So either Bush is an incompetent liar or a foolhardy jingoist. Either way, he has to go.

...and intellectuals are the shoeshine boys of the ruling elite. Your point being?
thats my rebuttle to anyone who says democrat socialists

Bush probably was scared to say the real reason. I still would support him if he told us the war was about economics, but not many people understand the necessities of politics. If he told the truth, though, EVERYBODY would be on him for being uncaring, insensitive, and the ammunition it would give the flamers...

In the end, people need to understand the the government doesnt do the fuzzy, good-feeling thing. They do what is best for the well-being of the country.
or at lest halliburton

thats my rebuttle to anyone who says democrat socialists

Do you want to try writing that again with another verb?

as the election approaches and things that SHOULD happen if bush is an evil mastermind DONT happen, im beginning to think that you are just WRONG about him MK

he may in fact just be a moron

if we invaded iraq for oil WHERE IS IT??

if he is soooo involved with the saudi royal family WHY HAVENT THEY INCREASED PRODUCTION SO OUR OIL PRICES DROP? even clinton got that.

where the F is the head of osama bin laden on a stick? for god's sake dont tell me he really just let him go!

i want the benefits of this evil man and his evil conspiracies, otherwise its just not worth it, is it?
Billions of dollars of oil it being lost due to sabotage--the Saudis and Bushs love high oil prices cause its more money for them--and the elections not over yet so you may still get your head on a stick, that is unless Bush needs Osama to launch another attack so he can have an excuse to invade Iran

Perfectly stated. If this war was for economic purposes, where is the economic benefit? So either Bush is an incompetent liar or a foolhardy jingoist. Either way, he has to go.
the economic benefit is for all the politically connected corporations making a killing in Iraq--lets not forget the billions mysteriously missing as well

First of all, America only obtains less than 3% of all it's oil from the Middle East. And if it was, how the hell do you explain gas prices shooting up like crazy? Also, due to the fact that many people I know are U.S. Inventory Agents, they say no oil from the Middle East has touched our border for some time now. Also, the oil has been freed for Iraq itself. They're only paying 5 cents American for a gallon of gas. At that rate, 100% of it's oil is being used for the country's own purpose.

I think the problem is paying too much attention to media.

First of all, America only obtains less than 3% of all it's oil from the Middle East. And if it was, how the hell do you explain gas prices shooting up like crazy? Also, due to the fact that many people I know are U.S. Inventory Agents, they say no oil from the Middle East has touched our border for some time now. Also, the oil has been freed for Iraq itself. They're only paying 5 cents American for a gallon of gas. At that rate, 100% of it's oil is being used for the country's own purpose.

Exactly. How can anyone call this a war for oil when A) we have yet to take any oil from Iraq and B) our tax dollars are being used to keep oil prices ridiculously low for Iraqis?

Exactly. How can anyone call this a war for oil when A) we have yet to take any oil from Iraq and B) our tax dollars are being used to keep oil prices ridiculously low for Iraqis?

It's not about just having the oil, per se. It's about controlling the oil. The oil companies in bed with the US Admin. want to keep the oil off the market so that people pay more for oil. This way, when they do make the oil accessible, they sell it at a higher price. As to the claim that the Iraqi oil price is being subsidized by US taxes, I would ask, who is using this oil in Iraq? Considering the destruction of Iraqi infrastructure, I would hazard a guess that this oil can not possibly be for general consumption, but instead is going to the ones who are rebuilding the infrastructure, i.e. US-based multinational corporations such as Halliburton (sp?) and the Carlyle Group, and the military forces and their suppliers, i.e. US-based multinational corporations such as Halliburton (sp?) and the Carlyle Group.

The world makes much more sense when viewed through the eyes of realpolitik.

I could just see Dubya saying this, rather than what he actually said:

"My fellow Americans, America has decided that it is the best decision for us to invade Iraq, not because of WMD's, not because of Saddam, but because of oil. We need oil very badly, and have decided to invade a nation halfway across the world for it."

I'm sure America would love that. :p

I could just see Dubya saying this, rather than what he actually said:

"My fellow Americans, America has decided that it is the best decision for us to invade Iraq, not because of WMD's, not because of Saddam, but because of oil. We need oil very badly, and have decided to invade a nation halfway across the world for it."

I'm sure America would love that. :p

Most our oil comes from Venuzuela. But they get clues from Suadi how much they should give out. Thus Suadi is very important.and monopolizes everywhere.

And you know if Bush had sad that and not lied to me I'd look at him in a better light.

Most our oil comes from Venuzuela. But they get clues from Suadi how much they should give out. Thus Suadi is very important.and monopolizes everywhere.

And you know if Bush had sad that and not lied to me I'd look at him in a better light.

Same here. He continues to use other excuses as if they were still applicable. We went in to Iraq for WMD's... we take over Iraq, based of the fact that Saddam was a threat, and both were disproven. Their chemical programs were in shambles ever since the first invasion. If he would have told the truth in the beginning, I would have a little more respect for him. Venezuela is a completely different story that I'd rather not get into, hehe.

First of all, America only obtains less than 3% of all it's oil from the Middle East. And if it was, how the hell do you explain gas prices shooting up like crazy? Also, due to the fact that many people I know are U.S. Inventory Agents, they say no oil from the Middle East has touched our border for some time now. Also, the oil has been freed for Iraq itself. They're only paying 5 cents American for a gallon of gas. At that rate, 100% of it's oil is being used for the country's own purpose.
then why is it that immediately right after the invasion troops were dispatched solely to protect the nations oilwells while everything else was being looting and while a toxic nuclear reactor was left totally unguarded? If your invading Iraq to "fight terrorism" as Bush claims why not secure a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT???

I think the problem is paying too much attention to media.
the problem is the American media wont do its job

Most our oil comes from Venuzuela. But they get clues from Suadi how much they should give out. Thus Suadi is very important.and monopolizes everywhere.

And you know if Bush had sad that and not lied to me I'd look at him in a better light.
I agree--Id have alot more respect for Bush too if only he'd just admit what a total scumbag he truely is instead of trying to deceive people into believing hes doing something good and for their interest. ALso its interesting you should bring up Venezuela since Bush has been actively working to overthrow the democratically elected Chavez govt--I supposes its just another conicidence that Venezuela is another oil producing nation...

Bush didn't immediately act to secure teh oil pipelines. If Bush wanted the oil so badly, why did he have the US Army divert valuable military resources to defend an Iraqi museum instead?

We can play this game all day. Point was, it was the French and not the Americans who had their eyes on Iraqi oil:

The French oil giant TotalFinaElf has the largest position in Iraq, with exclusive negotiating rights to develop Majnoon, a field near the Iranian border with estimated reserves of 10 billion barrels. Moscow has a $3.5 billion, 23-year agreement for several huge Iraqi fields that gives a lead position to a Russian oil consortium led by LukOil.

While that may partly explain those countries' reluctance to sign on to the Bush administration's drive for a "regime change," some observers warn that such resistance could backfire.

Iraqi opposition leaders suggest that unless France, Russia and China support the U.S. line in the Security Council, their oil companies may find themselves blacklisted.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/09/29/MN116803.DTL

All of this has been pretty much common knowledge for people versed in international issues - as is the fact that Iraqi oiil goes to Europe, not the US (our overseas oil comes primarily from Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and - believe it or not - Canada).

The Left had a considerable interest in preserving a regime friendly to them, which is why they were so keen on defending the man they put into power in Iraq. The problem for them was that Saddam Hussein was extremely unpopular in the US, which is why they've been keen to pretend never to have had an involvement with the man.

Hmm afaik, the Baghdad National Museum was looted.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/12/sprj.irq.int.baghdad.museum.reut/

First of all, America only obtains less than 3% of all it's oil from the Middle East. And if it was, how the hell do you explain gas prices shooting up like crazy? Also, due to the fact that many people I know are U.S. Inventory Agents, they say no oil from the Middle East has touched our border for some time now. Also, the oil has been freed for Iraq itself. They're only paying 5 cents American for a gallon of gas. At that rate, 100% of it's oil is being used for the country's own purpose.

This is untrue. Top five oil exporters to the US May '03 (yes, '03 but it the proportions have not changed dramatically)

17.8% from Saudi Arabia
16.5% from Canada
12.8% from Venezuela
12.0% from Mexico
7.5% from Nigeria

If you want to see the current data go to
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/info_glance/overview.html

Persian gulf OPEC states figure quite prominently.

Iraq does export oil - without it it would have negilgible revenue given that it does not produce much else. The oil infrastructure is both damaged and antiquated so Iraq is not capable of exporting anywhere near its capacity and does not affect the the world market and price significantly. Iraq needs both repair and very significant overhaul of its oil production infrastructure to become a major player. This will take some time.

The notion that "no Middle Oil has touched US soil in some time" is absurd. Take a look at the DOE _weekly_ figures.

As to the war itself, given the above it's pretty hard to argue that the motivation for it had anything to do with oil, at least not in the near term. Removing or at least losening sanctions could have accomplished that (and was slowly happening anyway).

It's been fairly widely documented that the reasons for war largely ideological, advanced by administration neoconservatives - see Bob Woodward's _Plan of Attack_ and countless articles on the topic. Woordward's book is, in fact, not factually disputed by the Administration.

-pvg

Bush didn't immediately act to secure teh oil pipelines. If Bush wanted the oil so badly, why did he have the US Army divert valuable military resources to defend an Iraqi museum instead?

We can play this game all day. Point was, it was the French and not the Americans who had their eyes on Iraqi oil:

The French oil giant TotalFinaElf has the largest position in Iraq, with exclusive negotiating rights to develop Majnoon, a field near the Iranian border with estimated reserves of 10 billion barrels. Moscow has a $3.5 billion, 23-year agreement for several huge Iraqi fields that gives a lead position to a Russian oil consortium led by LukOil.

While that may partly explain those countries' reluctance to sign on to the Bush administration's drive for a "regime change," some observers warn that such resistance could backfire.

Iraqi opposition leaders suggest that unless France, Russia and China support the U.S. line in the Security Council, their oil companies may find themselves blacklisted.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/09/29/MN116803.DTL

All of this has been pretty much common knowledge for people versed in international issues - as is the fact that Iraqi oiil goes to Europe, not the US (our overseas oil comes primarily from Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and - believe it or not - Canada).

The Left had a considerable interest in preserving a regime friendly to them, which is why they were so keen on defending the man they put into power in Iraq. The problem for them was that Saddam Hussein was extremely unpopular in the US, which is why they've been keen to pretend never to have had an involvement with the man.
LOL actually the Iraqi museum was brazenly looted and I wish I can find that pic again of Rumsfeld hugging Saddam during the first Bush administration

then why is it that immediately right after the invasion troops were dispatched solely to protect the nations oilwells while everything else was being looting and while a toxic nuclear reactor was left totally unguarded? If your invading Iraq to "fight terrorism" as Bush claims why not secure a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT???

We sent troops to secure the Oil Wells so that we can protect them from Saddam Hussein who RIGGED THEM to blow. If we haven't done that, we would've had a repeat of what happened in Kuwait when the forces of Saddam Hussein lit the oil wells on fire and took six months to put out. Imagine what the Iraqi Oil Fields would be like if the same thing happened.

And Yes, Our forces also found explosives on the Iraqi Oil Wells.

And as for a Nuclear Power Plant, the only one that the Iraqis had, thanks to the French, was destroyed by the Israeli Air Force and thank God the Israelis did what they did.

The Left had a considerable interest in preserving a regime friendly to them, which is why they were so keen on defending the man they put into power in Iraq. The problem for them was that Saddam Hussein was extremely unpopular in the US, which is why they've been keen to pretend never to have had an involvement with the man.

I assume you mean the US Left - the notion that Saddam was somehow "friendly" to them (whoever "they" might specifically be) is absolutely absurd. There were certainly some leftists who implied in one way or another that Iraq would be better off as it was rather than under US occupation but this is a long way from "supporting" Saddam or his regime being "friendly" to them. As to involvement or putting him in power, the Reagan administration's significant role in supporting him and financing his war against Iran is well documented. Google up the famous picture of Rumsfeld, a man that can hardly be described as a leftie, shaking hands with Saddam.

-pvg

This is untrue. Top five oil exporters to the US May '03 (yes, '03 but it the proportions have not changed dramatically)

17.8% from Saudi Arabia
16.5% from Canada
12.8% from Venezuela
12.0% from Mexico
7.5% from Nigeria

If you want to see the current data go to
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/info_glance/overview.html

Persian gulf OPEC states figure quite prominently.

Iraq does export oil - without it it would have negilgible revenue given that it does not produce much else. The oil infrastructure is both damaged and antiquated so Iraq is not capable of exporting anywhere near its capacity and does not affect the the world market and price significantly. Iraq needs both repair and very significant overhaul of its oil production infrastructure to become a major player. This will take some time.

The notion that "no Middle Oil has touched US soil in some time" is absurd. Take a look at the DOE _weekly_ figures.

As to the war itself, given the above it's pretty hard to argue that the motivation for it had anything to do with oil, at least not in the near term. Removing or at least losening sanctions could have accomplished that (and was slowly happening anyway).

It's been fairly widely documented that the reasons for war largely ideological, advanced by administration neoconservatives - see Bob Woodward's _Plan of Attack_ and countless articles on the topic. Woordward's book is, in fact, not factually disputed by the Administration.

-pvg
Nope. The weekly figures are wrong, seeing as, at this moment, I am looking at a 1,034 page report showing that there has been no Iraqi oil shipped to the U.S. in some time now-not since before 9/11. It dwindled for a while, then was cut off completely.

Plus, I'd like to take this time to say, anyone who thinks it's for oil is a stupid dumbass who has too much free time on their hands and should get a job. That's just my two cents...I feel I had to get it off my chest.

Nope. The weekly figures are wrong, seeing as, at this moment, I am looking at a 1,034 page report showing that there has been no Iraqi oil shipped to the U.S. in some time now-not since before 9/11. It dwindled for a while, then was cut off completely.


Heh. No. The weekly figures are right, you are wrong. Perhaps you mistyped and then misread what I said on top of that. You didn't say imported into the US from Iraq and neither did I - it was Middle East. Take a look.

First of all, America only obtains less than 3% of all it's oil from the Middle East.

As I pointed out last time this is incorrect, it is a lot more than that, around 20%.

At that rate, 100% of it's oil is being used for the country's own purpose.

Also inaccurate, see my original reply.

On another quibble, yes the war had nothing to do with near term oil interests but obviously the US strategic and geopolitical interest in the region has a great deal to do with oil. The US is interested in having and maintaining friendly relations with significant oil-producing states and is perfectly willing to employ non-coercive and if necessary coercive mesures to obtain them. Obviously the US did not invade Iraq to steal oil but it is undeniable oil is one of the key factors that makes the region strategically important.

-pvg

-pvg

Nope. The weekly figures are wrong, seeing as, at this moment, I am looking at a 1,034 page report showing that there has been no Iraqi oil shipped to the U.S. in some time now-not since before 9/11. It dwindled for a while, then was cut off completely.

Plus, I'd like to take this time to say, anyone who thinks it's for oil is a stupid dumbass who has too much free time on their hands and should get a job. That's just my two cents...I feel I had to get it off my chest.
it wasnt invaded JUST for oil since war is good for Big Business all around (and Cheneys company Halliburton)--but you cant say oil wasnt a factor AT ALL either--if Bush was truely fighting a war against terrorism it woulda made far more sense for him to have invaded Sudan instead of Iraq

Oh god, it cant be that hard to see.

OPEC oil prices where usually the standard for global measurement for the value of it. The prices of the oil in all OPEC nations has skyrocketed. Why oil has a lot to do with the war? the US has been wanting the OPEC cartel to fall since as far as I can remember, and to achieve that they must place them in a situation where it's either free market determination of the prices or total collapse of those nation's economies.

So the US creates inestability in the Middle East where the most important nations of the OPEC are, wich causes the OPEC oil prices to rise, non-OPEC producers now are capable of joining the market by selling cheaper oil, since they are not attached to the obligations of the OPEC, undermining OPEC's control over the global market.

This explains why OPEC has been desperate to drop their prices lately, it's killing them in the open market, and if the crisis continues for too long it will mean the end of the OPEC monopoly.

Bush is stupid, but he wouldn't be THAT stupid to steal the Iraqi oil, he doesn't need it. The US does pretty well importing their own oil, they just need to take over control of the prices. And being able to sell their own oil at over 40 dollars a gallon and still be competitive, is just an added bonus.

I used to think that the oil rational was mindless, and the counter-arguments against it were pretty good.

However, now I think that Oil defidentally had a hand in it, if not the main reason.

Peak oil is coming. Its probably already started. Less and less oil, more dependancy. America is acting like a junkie. We still go to work, but we spend alot of time on our dependancy. We shield ourselves from the fact that we wont always have it, and that its hurting us, but we gotta face the music sometime.

If the US doesn't get off of its oil dependancy, it will face a massive depression, and possible third world status.

I used to think that the oil rational was mindless, and the counter-arguments against it were pretty good.

However, now I think that Oil defidentally had a hand in it, if not the main reason.

Peak oil is coming. Its probably already started. Less and less oil, more dependancy. America is acting like a junkie. We still go to work, but we spend alot of time on our dependancy. We shield ourselves from the fact that we wont always have it, and that its hurting us, but we gotta face the music sometime.

If the US doesn't get off of its oil dependancy, it will face a massive depression, and possible third world status.
I strongly agree

republicans are socialists for the rich


You mean fascists

If iraq had denominated its oil in the Euro, it would have been bad news for the US.

God only knows what horrible concessions the US gives to people like Osama Bin Laden and his friends in the Saudi government to bribe them against denominating their oil in euros.

Do you want to try writing that again with another verb?

Quotation marks would do it well, but an additional verb is unnecessary.