[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
hedo wrote:
The “War for Oil” conspiracy has been debunked over and over again. The middle east has strategic value for it’s oil reserves but nobody is stealing it, simply making sure a loony regime doesn’t restrict it.
Bill Whittle made an excellent tactical analysis of what a “war for oil” would have looked like. I’ve posted it below. See if you can tell the difference.
By the way what contract did Exxon/Mobil recieve from the Iraqi’s or the US Govt. to pump Iraqi oil? Seems like it would have been big news. Something you’d see in the annual report maybe? Or was it a secret contract.
"What would a real “war for oil” look like? Well, US troops would have sped to the oilfields with everything we had. Everything we had. Then, secure convoy routes would have been established to the nearest port ? probably Basra ? and the US Navy would essentially line the entire gulf with wall-to-wall warships in order to ensure the safe passage of US-flagged tankers into and out of the region.
There would have been no overland campaign ? what for? ? and no fight for Baghdad. Fallujah and Mosul and all those other trouble spots would never even see an American boot. Why? No oil there. The US Military would do what it is extraordinarily well-trained to do: take and hold a very limited area, and supply secure convoys to and from this limited area on an ongoing basis. Saddam could have stayed if he wanted: probably would have saved us a lot of trouble, and the whole thing would have become a sort of super no-fly zone over the oil fields, ports and convoy routes, and the devil take the rest of it. Sadr City IED deaths? Please. What the f**k does Sadr City have that we need?
That?s what a war for oil would look like. It?s entirely possible that such an operation could have been accomplished and maintained without a single American fatality.
We have lost thousands killed and wounded because they are being blown up as they continue to provide security, electrical and water services, schools and hospitals to a land ravaged by three decades of fear, torture and barbarism. It is the American presence in the cities, providing security and some semblance of order for Iraqi citizens, that has cost us so many lives. If we are going to be tarred and slandered and pay the public relations price for ?stealing Iraqi oil,? then the least we can do is go in and actually steal some of it, instead of dying to protect that resource for the use of the Iraqi people. Which is what is happening, because, as usual, there is not a shred of evidence to the contrary, no matter how many imbeciles hold up signs and dance around in giant papier?mache heads."
The “war for oil conspriacy” has been bebunked? By who? The state Department or people on their payroll? Or mabe it was the mass media?
We aren’t there to “steal” the oil but to control it. Something that has an entirely different effect and tactical purpose.
Bill Whittle’s analysis may have some truth to it but is completely juvenille. The U.S. could never outright state that they are invading Iraq to take over it’s oil as the American public wouldn’t approve. So many stories had to be conjured up in order to justify invasion and drum up public support. In more honest days it was called propaganda. This is an intregal part of America’s foreign policy. For this particular invasion the propaganda stories were WMD’s, Saddams connection to 9/11 and spreading democracy.
The resource we are dying to protect is not for the Iraq’s but for the U.S. geo-political ends and big oil![/quote]
Juvenille analysis? In what regard? Other then it disagrees with your narrow preconcieved beliefs. Please explain how it is juvenille or in what manner it is deficient. Seems to me to be a splendid strategy to sieze an oil region. How would you use sieze the oil fields based on your extensive military experience. You know as opposed to Mr. Whittle. Are we providing security, helping them form a government and rebuilding the infrastructure to hide our real objectives???
Haven’t you bought into the propoganda with no evidence to back it up? In all honesty only the far left and the conspiracy theorists believe it was a “war for oil”. It’s a campaign slogan that the naive have turned into an idealogy. But if you have this evidence please present it. I would love to be enlightened in the matter. The lame arguments used to claim a war for oil don’t stand up because they are based on opinion not fact…nothing more.
Can you cite the oil contracts awarded to Big Oil? They are a matter of public record under Sarbanes-Oxley aren’t they? Can you demonstrate with any facts that oil has been stolen or taken and not administered as public trust fot the Iraqi’s?
