NationStates Jolt Archive

Secret U.S. Plans For Iraq's Oil (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0317-23.htm)

Is there any doubts?

Yep!

Yep!
Someday, it might all sink and you will say...WOW....they were right. Either that, or you know the truth but don't want to admit it because it would reflect badly on Bush and his administration.

In the meantime, I will assume that you don't know what is going on and try and help you out:

Review policies toward Iraq with the aim to lowering anti-Americanism in the Middle East and elsewhere, and set the groundwork to eventually ease Iraqi oil-field investment restrictions. Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to U.S. allies in the Middle East, as well as to regional and global order, and to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a "Pan Arab" leader supporting the Palestinians against Israel, and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime.

This is only a small portion of the recommendations of the STRATEGIC ENERGY POLICY CHALLENGES FOR THE 21ST CENTURY (http://web.archive.org/web/20040212075216/http://bakerinstitute.org/Pubs/workingpapers/cfrbipp_energy/energytf.htm#5)
It is only 22 pages long, but it is a good read.

YEP, it is about oil.

...Did Germany get a 4th dictator and renamed it the 4th Reich? News to me!

Just wanted to point out here.... It was not called the third 'Reich' because it was the third German dictator. It was called the third 'Reich' because it was a German way of making them think they could become a new 'Roman Empire'.

At least... that's what I remember... I may remember wrong. :p

To be honest, who really gives a shit? Many Middle Eastern governments authorize their soldiers to do things way worse than any American interrogators do, and they use it as commonly accepted procedure. Captured women are raped and broken, men are tortured with red hot fire pokers, soldiers and civilians alike get their heads sawed - yes, sawed, not hacked, if you've seen the videos - off; I really can't bring myself to blame an American interrogator for anything they could possibly dream up, because it's not like their going to get worse than that. I'd torture the bastards for information, too - I'd be pissed about what they were doing to us, and I'd be more worried about our soldiers' lives than the comfort of our POW's.

To be honest, who really gives a shit? Many Middle Eastern governments authorize their soldiers to do things way worse than any American interrogators do, and they use it as commonly accepted procedure. Captured women are raped and broken, men are tortured with red hot fire pokers, soldiers and civilians alike get their heads sawed - yes, sawed, not hacked, if you've seen the videos - off; I really can't bring myself to blame an American interrogator for anything they could possibly dream up, because it's not like their going to get worse than that. I'd torture the bastards for information, too - I'd be pissed about what they were doing to us, and I'd be more worried about our soldiers' lives than the comfort of our POW's.

Umm... so we should sink closer to their level? That's not very justified. Besides, we have this little thing called the 'Geneva Convention' that we're supposed to follow.

And ya know, if we choose to ignore the Geneva Convention, EVERY other country in EVERY future war will have the right and excuse to do the same. In other words, you'd essentially be CONDONING torture. :rolleyes:

Just wanted to point out here.... It was not called the third 'Reich' because it was the third German dictator. It was called the third 'Reich' because it was a German way of making them think they could become a new 'Roman Empire'.

At least... that's what I remember... I may remember wrong. :p

Weather dude, I know this full! Your right in what you said. I was just having fun with an inept person who has no clue as to how the real world works. Thanks though :)

snip

YEP, it is about oil.

Care to prove it since I'm not seeing any proof whatsoever?

Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to U.S. allies in the Middle East, as well as to regional and global order, and to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets.

I find this really really funny for two reasons!

The first reason is that we were getting NO OIL from Iraq when we threw up an embargo on Iraqi Oil. So Saddam really couldn't hurt us through that. I don't know why they think it would but meh, I don't care since at least I know that we weren't getting oil from Iraq. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other M.E. nations yes. Iraq? No.

The second reason its funny is his ability to manipulate the oil market. Just how can he do that since he tried that once with a 30 day embargo to the US and such and no other nation joined him? Prices might've rose a cent or two but comeone. Nothing drastic happened.

You gotta do better than this CanuckHeaven.

Besides, we have this little thing called the 'Geneva Convention' that we're supposed to follow.

And ya know, if we choose to ignore the Geneva Convention, EVERY other country in EVERY future war will have the right and excuse to do the same. In other words, you'd essentially be CONDONING torture. :rolleyes:
No no no. It's been determined time and time again that terrorists are not protected under the Geneva Convention.

If anyone is interested in *not* sensationalizing current events, this is not the first "war for oil" as it were.

Hell, why do you think Japan took it up with the U.S. in WWII? It was because of oil.

Industrialized nations are built on it, from the ground up, and not as fuel - plastics, rubbers, tar, ANY moving metal parts that need lubrication (whole factories, anyone?), hell, just look at a roadsign sometime: The metal was mined by machines running on petroleum, lubricated by oil, formed and processed by machines that required the same, even the PAINT you see on [insert product here] is made up from oil.

Oil is "black gold" for a reason. But unlike gold, it isn't useless - its precious. Truly life as we know it would change for the worse without it - drastically.

No no no. It's been determined time and time again that terrorists are not protected under the Geneva Convention.

Correct Talondar.

They aren't protected and its been stated many times over. I'm sorry that people on here don't seem to get that through their thick skulls. They need to read up on what constitutes a prisoner of war and Terrorists don't fit that bill.

They aren't protected and its been stated many times over. I'm sorry that people on here don't seem to get that through their thick skulls. They need to read up on what constitutes a prisoner of war and Terrorists don't fit that bill.

Okay, so now why would someone intentionally declare war on a faction that has no protection under the Convention? Perevent all legal methods of dealing with their imprisonment, and instead create a new legal definition specifically for this faction? Then proceed to abuse them beyond any defintion of human rights without any concern for intelligence value?

What would be the motivation behind that? Why go through all the trouble of creating this mess? Some of these prisoners are worthless infantry that fought with the Taliban; why do this to them?

'cause both the international community and myself have a hard time understanding why these people are even being held, let alone why they are being held in this way. What motivation drive the administration to do these things to these people?

Because it sure as hell ain't good intelligence value.

Okay, so now why would someone intentionally declare war on a faction that has no protection under the Convention? Perevent all legal methods of dealing with their imprisonment, and instead create a new legal definition specifically for this faction? Then proceed to abuse them beyond any defintion of human rights without any concern for intelligence value?

Show me where we declared war on the terrorists? As far as I know, no war was declared by the United States. Only the terrorists have declared war on us and they did that under the Clinton Administration. Now here's the rub. They are not part of a national army nor are they wearing insignia denoting a militia. Since they are not either one of these things, they do not get the protection under the Geneva Conventions.

What would be the motivation behind that? Why go through all the trouble of creating this mess? Some of these prisoners are worthless infantry that fought with the Taliban; why do this to them?

Because they were on the wrong side of a conflict maybe? Could say the samething to all legal prisoners of war throughout all the wars through history. This is nothing new my friend. Nothing new whatsoever. The terrorists are lucky we're not executing them on the spot since that is also legal under the Rules of War dealing with illegal combatants.

'cause both the international community and myself have a hard time understanding why these people are even being held, let alone why they are being held in this way. What motivation drive the administration to do these things to these people?

Maybe because the world has never seen a massive world conflict in oh say, Sixty years? I'm talking war on a global Scale. Korea and Nam were massive but weren't really global. This is a global war and I have an annoying habit of calling it World War III!

Because it sure as hell ain't good intelligence value.

Again, its war.

Show me where we declared war on the terrorists? As far as I know, no war was declared by the United States. Only the terrorists have declared war on us and they did that under the Clinton Administration. Now here's the rub. They are not part of a national army nor are they wearing insignia denoting a militia. Since they are not either one of these things, they do not get the protection under the Geneva Conventions.

Maybe because the world has never seen a massive world conflict in oh say, Sixty years? I'm talking war on a global Scale. Korea and Nam were massive but weren't really global. This is a global war and I have an annoying habit of calling it World War III!

Again, its war.

You confuse me with your statements, I'm sorry but I simply can't understand fully what you're trying to say.

Its a war, but its not. They're not applicable to the rules of war, but they should be glad they are. We didn't declare war but there is a global war on, hell; perhaps even WW3! ...Which is it? I'm utterly unaware of such a distinction, where did this come from?

Did we (not) declare war on (non) combatants?

Your position is utterly nuanced, relying on a very involved understanding of just where SOMEONE drew the line between war and non-war, rules and non-rules, combatants and non-combatants. I fail to understand just where this line is drawn, because it shifts quite a bit every time I try to pin someone down on it.

You say they declared war on us, but they have no right to, and besides, who declared war on the terrorists? If the terrorists declared war on us, are they now a state entity? How do you have war against a non-state entity?

Your position is utterly nuanced, relying on a very involved understanding of just where SOMEONE drew the line between war and non-war, rules and non-rules, combatants and non-combatants. I fail to understand just where this line is drawn, because it shifts quite a bit every time I try to pin someone down on it.
You need to keep your head up around "shifty" people. Especially when the rules change on a daily basis or they come up with policies of convenience.

You say they declared war on us, but they have no right to, and besides, who declared war on the terrorists? If the terrorists declared war on us, are they now a state entity? How do you have war against a non-state entity?
You have raised an excellent point(s). I guess that would fit in with Bush's declaration:

"any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded as a hostile regime."

I guess that would open the door to every nation on the planet?

You confuse me with your statements, I'm sorry but I simply can't understand fully what you're trying to say.

Why not? its in plain simple english? Is that your first or second language?

Its a war, but its not. They're not applicable to the rules of war, but they should be glad they are. We didn't declare war but there is a global war on, hell; perhaps even WW3! ...Which is it? I'm utterly unaware of such a distinction, where did this come from?

They aren't protected by the Geneva Conventions. We could've executed them if we really wanted too since that's perfectly legal but we're not because we are a compassionate nation. As for war, we didn't declare it but the terrorists did. I guess you can say this puts us at a state of war though there isn't a single country to declare war on. Anyway, why should they be afforded Geneva Convention protection when they are not part of a national army nor are they wearing an insignia defining them as part of a militia force? They're not. Because they are not, they are not protected by the standard rules of war. As for World War III, since this is a truly global operation, it can be construed as such. So what I've said is true.

Did we (not) declare war on (non) combatants?

Nope.

Your position is utterly nuanced, relying on a very involved nderstanding of just where SOMEONE drew the line between war and non-war, rules and non-rules, combatants and non-combatants. I fail to understand just where this line is drawn, because it shifts quite a bit every time I try to pin someone down on it.

The line was drawn by the international community. We are following the lines they drew and yet we're still getting ripped upon. Interesting isn't it? Follow the rules and get ripped or not follow the rules and get ripped. Damned if we do and damned if we don't.

You say they declared war on us, but they have no right to, and besides, who declared war on the terrorists? If the terrorists declared war on us, are they now a state entity? How do you have war against a non-state entity?

Show me where I said they didn't have the right to do that? Just because they have no country doesn't mean they can't declare war on us. However, we'll go after any nation that isn't actively hunting these thugs and murders down. Hmmm... No wonder we're in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other nations hunting down the scum of the planet.

I guess that would open the door to every nation on the planet?

only the nations that won't cooperate with us in dealing with terrorism. We didn't go after Pakistan did we?

edit..
nations, not nation's