US Not Winning in Iraq?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]hedo wrote:
In all honesty only the far left and the conspiracy theorists believe it was a “war for oil”.
[/quote]
Also the President of the United States, who recently went on record as saying that a main reason we were in Iraq was to make sure nobody bad got control of the oil.

Hedo, you must be joking. Iraq sits on one of the greatest petroleum reserves on the planet, yet the one word one hardly hears in connection with our presence there is “oil.” That’s got to tell you something. Oil is seldom mentioned not because it’s not a factor. It’s seldom mentioned because talking about it is a political problem for the administration.

But finally, recently, Bush broke down and admitted it’s a biggie, this oil thing. From the horse’s mouth eh?

102

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:

From the horse’s mouth eh?[/quote]

And from Ann Coulter’s mouth as well:

“Why not go to war just for oil? We need oil. What do Hollywood celebrities imagine fuels their private jets? How do they think their cocaine is delivered to them?”

103

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
hedo wrote:
In all honesty only the far left and the conspiracy theorists believe it was a “war for oil”.

Also the President of the United States, who recently went on record as saying that a main reason we were in Iraq was to make sure nobody bad got control of the oil.

Hedo, you must be joking. Iraq sits on one of the greatest petroleum reserves on the planet, yet the one word one hardly hears in connection with our presence there is “oil.” That’s got to tell you something. Oil is seldom mentioned not because it’s not a factor. It’s seldom mentioned because talking about it is a political problem for the administration.

But finally, recently, Bush broke down and admitted it’s a biggie, this oil thing. From the horse’s mouth eh?[/quote]

Your picking and choosing. I didn’t say it wasn’t a war to keep the region from falling under the control of madmen and unfriendly nations. We want the right to buy oil just like anyone else. The world economy depends on a free market and access to oil, not demands and ultimatums from despots.

What we did not do was go to war to steal the oil from the Iraqi’s and too enrich the big oil companies. The US does not claim the oil reserves nor have we taken them as an imperial power would do.

It’s rather a stark contrast from fighting a war for oil. Campaign slogans rarely make good idealogy.

104

[quote]hedo wrote:
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!

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?

[/quote]

What is mr. whittle’s arguement based on? He didn’t cite facts only an explaination.

Do you really believe the U.S. gov. could just come right out and say we are invading to gain control of another soverign states resources? Do you really believe the public would be willing to send thier sons and daughters off to war for such an endevor? Certainly NOT! The planners have known this forever and this knowledge is the basis for the use of propaganda. The pretense of spreading democracy, Saddam’s connection to 9/11, WMD’s were the story lines given to the public so they would accept the invasion. History is repleat with propaganda, from the U.S. and other countries.

As I’ve said before the object isn’t to steal the oil but to get our hand on the spigot. It isn’t just for the cash profit but for geo-political positioning. It puts the U.S. in a supreme position of power. The government in Iraq boils down to U.S. puppetering. It hasn’t been the first and won’t be the last.

It doesn’t matter if Exxon/Mobile is on the contract as long as they are in a position of control. Placing U.S. oil corporations on contracts is too obvious…that is why!

105

[quote]hedo wrote:
We want the right to buy oil just like anyone else.
[/quote]
Now you’re being naive. No, what’s being angled for is a special kind of deal not usually handed out to OilCos. You need a puppet state or a very corrupt ruler to get this kind of arrangement, it’s distinctly to the economic disadvantage of the country.

Have you ever seen a large multinational petroleum corporation salivate?

106

People think Iraw is so complicated and how are we going to win. The answer is not as complex as imagined. First off the Iraqis are not fighting to win the war, they are fighting to make us leave. Better known as a War of Attrition, the same war we fought in vietnam and the same war we fought in the American Revoution except on the other end. The following are the steps to win in Iraq, these will seem harsh to an average person, but it is what we need to do to win. And no this is not a nuke Iraq post.

  1. Embargo all supplies coming into the country

  2. Place all civilians in prison camps. Release civilians at day to do work. If anyone in their family does not return shoot them on site.

  3. Anyone captured fighting will be placed in prison camps.

  4. Do not hesitate to kill civilians, it weakens morale and they do not wear uniforms anyway.

These are the steps to win in Iraw if anyone disagrees with me, you have all of history that oposes you.

107

[quote]blck3jack wrote:
People think Iraw is so complicated and how are we going to win. The answer is not as complex as imagined. First off the Iraqis are not fighting to win the war, they are fighting to make us leave.

[tedious nonsense deleted]
[/quote]
They’re fighting each other in order to get us to leave?

In any case, we don’t seem to have enough army for what you propose. Go join up why don’t you. This is your big chance to subjugate women and children.

108

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
hedo wrote:
We want the right to buy oil just like anyone else.

Now you’re being naive. No, what’s being angled for is a special kind of deal not usually handed out to OilCos. You need a puppet state or a very corrupt ruler to get this kind of arrangement, it’s distinctly to the economic disadvantage of the country.

Have you ever seen a large multinational petroleum corporation salivate?[/quote]

All impossible to prove but a grand conspiracy anyway. I’m being realistic, not naive. If you can prove it I’ll believe it.

109

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
hedo wrote:
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!

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?

What is mr. whittle’s arguement based on? He didn’t cite facts only an explaination.

Do you really believe the U.S. gov. could just come right out and say we are invading to gain control of another soverign states resources? Do you really believe the public would be willing to send thier sons and daughters off to war for such an endevor? Certainly NOT! The planners have known this forever and this knowledge is the basis for the use of propaganda. The pretense of spreading democracy, Saddam’s connection to 9/11, WMD’s were the story lines given to the public so they would accept the invasion. History is repleat with propaganda, from the U.S. and other countries.

As I’ve said before the object isn’t to steal the oil but to get our hand on the spigot. It isn’t just for the cash profit but for geo-political positioning. It puts the U.S. in a supreme position of power. The government in Iraq boils down to U.S. puppetering. It hasn’t been the first and won’t be the last.

It doesn’t matter if Exxon/Mobile is on the contract as long as they are in a position of control. Placing U.S. oil corporations on contracts is too obvious…that is why![/quote]

It’s actually a simple tactical explanation of what a war to control the oilfields would look like. If that’s all we wanted to do. So it’s hardly juvenille, unless kids have a knowledge of theatre level military operations.

I haven’t seen any facts presented that prove what you are saying…or even lead to a reasonable suspicion just speculation.

If we wanted to control oil why not Venezuela, Mexico, our own offshore fields?

110

[quote]hedo wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:

Have you ever seen a large multinational petroleum corporation salivate?

All impossible to prove but a grand conspiracy anyway. I’m being realistic, not naive. If you can prove it I’ll believe it.
[/quote]
Sure, I’ll prove it. Do you know what a PSA is? Production Service Agreement. Look it up. Then check the following quotes from http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43045/

BTW, this article is just whatever happened to come up on Google first, there is plenty else out there about this PSA thing going down in Iraq.

[quote]…
In February of 2001, just weeks after Bush was sworn in, the same energy executives that had been lobbying for Saddam’s ouster gathered at the White House to participate in Dick Cheney’s now infamous Energy Task Force. Although Cheney would go all the way to the Supreme Court to keep what happened at those meetings a secret, we do know a few things, thanks to documents obtained by the conservative legal group JudicialWatch. As Mark Levine wrote in The Nation($$):

? a map of Iraq and an accompanying list of "Iraq oil foreign suitors" were the center of discussion. The map erased all features of the country save the location of its main oil deposits, divided into nine exploration blocks. The accompanying list of suitors revealed that dozens of companies from 30 countries -- but not the United States -- were either in discussions over or in direct negotiations for rights to some of the best remaining oilfields on earth.

Levine wrote, “It’s not hard to surmise how the participants in these meetings felt about this situation.”
[/quote]
and also:

[quote]
PSAs, developed in the 1960s, are a tool of today’s kinder, gentler neocolonialism; they allow countries to retain technical ownership over energy reserves but, in actuality, lock in multinationals’ control and extremely high profit margins – up to 13 times oil companies’ minimum target, according to an analysis by the British-based oil watchdog Platform (PDF).

As Greg Muttit, an analyst with the group, notes:

Such contracts are often used in countries with small or difficult oilfields, or where high-risk exploration is required. They are not generally used in countries like Iraq, where there are large fields which are already known and which are cheap to extract. For example, they are not used in Iran, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, all of which maintain state control of oil.

In fact, Muttit adds, of the seven leading oil producing countries, only Russia has entered into PSAs, and those were signed during its own economic “shock therapy” in the early 1990s. A number of Iraq’s oil-rich neighbors have constitutions that specifically prohibit foreign control over their energy reserves.[/quote]

111

[quote]hedo wrote:
If we wanted to control oil why not Venezuela, Mexico, our own offshore fields?
[/quote]
In part because of the extremely low costs of production anticipated for the reserves already known, in part because of the vast size of the reserves and the prospects of even vaster discoveries, in part because the known reserves are a particularly high grade.

It really was a pity this stuff was kept off the market all these years.

112

[quote]hedo wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
hedo wrote:
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!

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?

What is mr. whittle’s arguement based on? He didn’t cite facts only an explaination.

Do you really believe the U.S. gov. could just come right out and say we are invading to gain control of another soverign states resources? Do you really believe the public would be willing to send thier sons and daughters off to war for such an endevor? Certainly NOT! The planners have known this forever and this knowledge is the basis for the use of propaganda. The pretense of spreading democracy, Saddam’s connection to 9/11, WMD’s were the story lines given to the public so they would accept the invasion. History is repleat with propaganda, from the U.S. and other countries.

As I’ve said before the object isn’t to steal the oil but to get our hand on the spigot. It isn’t just for the cash profit but for geo-political positioning. It puts the U.S. in a supreme position of power. The government in Iraq boils down to U.S. puppetering. It hasn’t been the first and won’t be the last.

It doesn’t matter if Exxon/Mobile is on the contract as long as they are in a position of control. Placing U.S. oil corporations on contracts is too obvious…that is why!

It’s actually a simple tactical explanation of what a war to control the oilfields would look like. If that’s all we wanted to do. So it’s hardly juvenille, unless kids have a knowledge of theatre level military operations.

I haven’t seen any facts presented that prove what you are saying…or even lead to a reasonable suspicion just speculation.

If we wanted to control oil why not Venezuela, Mexico, our own offshore fields?

[/quote]

Again the U.S. couldn’t come right out and annouce their intentions so propaganda had to be used. This is why Whittle’s scenario is sophomoric and bereft of validity.

You haven’t “seen” facts because the U.S. mass media won’t publish them.

Iraq’s oil fields are richer, more expansive and the oil is easier to access than those you’ve mentioned. Besides Iraq was completley defenseless so they assumed easy victory. Not to mention the geo-political location…big bonus!

113

So, Hedo, you were really right that this was not a war for oil in the ordinary sense. Not to take oil, no. Iraq had to be invaded in order to free its oil to reach the market: it was embargoed by the sanctions against Hussein’s regime. And freeing it is to the unmixed benefit of the world market.

But the hasty, unilateral approach Bush demanded, and the subsequent lengthy occupation by U.S. troops, were calculated to gain control of Iraqi oil for the benefit of the shareholders of certain corporations.

Those oil contract negotiations of Saddam’s were moving forward, and something had to be done. Any contracts that resulted would have remained valid under international law even today, despite regime change.

A rush to war without a plan, without adequate troops, without armor, without the correct training, without sufficient allies. And when Baghdad is invaded, the first place (and one of the few) to get a cordon of guards is where? The building of the Petroleum Ministry, with its records. The rest of the city is looted and nobody cares. Securing oil fields from sabotage was, by the way, a feature of our invasion plan. Don’t you recall?

Not a war for oil, no. A war for oil profits. Does that make you feel any better?

114

I guess we’ll be at war with iran soon. According the article we plan to build up our navy in the gulf in order to convince the Iranians to stop sending over weapons to Iraq.

It’s crazy because we supplied plenty of weapons to Iraq to fight Iran. Now we’re pissed because they’re doing the same thing we did. I guess the difference is that we can do something about it and they could not.

maybe we should just put the majority of our troops on the Iran/Iraq border and seal it.

We should just suck the oil dry and then leave. problem solved!

115

Subjugating women and children doesn’t sound so bad when they aid to the enemy and strap bombs to themselves does it? Convienent of you to only cherry pick part of my post to critique and deeem the rest tedious nonsense. What I speak is true and you nor anyone here can deny it.

116

[quote]blck3jack wrote:
Subjugating women and children doesn’t sound so bad when they aid to the enemy and strap bombs to themselves does it? Convienent of you to only cherry pick part of my post to critique and deeem the rest tedious nonsense. What I speak is true and you nor anyone here can deny it. [/quote]

I can and I do, so there. When you find yourself up against women and children, best take another look at what you’re trying to accomplish.

117

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
So, Hedo, you were really right that this was not a war for oil in the ordinary sense. Not to take oil, no. Iraq had to be invaded in order to free its oil to reach the market: it was embargoed by the sanctions against Hussein’s regime. And freeing it is to the unmixed benefit of the world market.

But the hasty, unilateral approach Bush demanded, and the subsequent lengthy occupation by U.S. troops, were calculated to gain control of Iraqi oil for the benefit of the shareholders of certain corporations.

Those oil contract negotiations of Saddam’s were moving forward, and something had to be done. Any contracts that resulted would have remained valid under international law even today, despite regime change.

A rush to war without a plan, without adequate troops, without armor, without the correct training, without sufficient allies. And when Baghdad is invaded, the first place (and one of the few) to get a cordon of guards is where? The building of the Petroleum Ministry, with its records. The rest of the city is looted and nobody cares. Securing oil fields from sabotage was, by the way, a feature of our invasion plan. Don’t you recall?

Not a war for oil, no. A war for oil profits. Does that make you feel any better?[/quote]

No plan…without armor. Come on that’s just more campaign retoric. An M-1 is a rather heavily armored piece of equipment if I recall. Humvee’s are not armored vehicles. Soldiers adapted. They do in every war.

War for profits. It’s pointless to convince a person who is a believer in conspiracies that they are wrong.

118

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
hedo wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:

Have you ever seen a large multinational petroleum corporation salivate?

All impossible to prove but a grand conspiracy anyway. I’m being realistic, not naive. If you can prove it I’ll believe it.

Sure, I’ll prove it. Do you know what a PSA is? Production Service Agreement. Look it up. Then check the following quotes from http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43045/

BTW, this article is just whatever happened to come up on Google first, there is plenty else out there about this PSA thing going down in Iraq.

…
In February of 2001, just weeks after Bush was sworn in, the same energy executives that had been lobbying for Saddam’s ouster gathered at the White House to participate in Dick Cheney’s now infamous Energy Task Force. Although Cheney would go all the way to the Supreme Court to keep what happened at those meetings a secret, we do know a few things, thanks to documents obtained by the conservative legal group JudicialWatch. As Mark Levine wrote in The Nation($$):

? a map of Iraq and an accompanying list of "Iraq oil foreign suitors" were the center of discussion. The map erased all features of the country save the location of its main oil deposits, divided into nine exploration blocks. The accompanying list of suitors revealed that dozens of companies from 30 countries -- but not the United States -- were either in discussions over or in direct negotiations for rights to some of the best remaining oilfields on earth.

Levine wrote, “It’s not hard to surmise how the participants in these meetings felt about this situation.”

and also:

PSAs, developed in the 1960s, are a tool of today’s kinder, gentler neocolonialism; they allow countries to retain technical ownership over energy reserves but, in actuality, lock in multinationals’ control and extremely high profit margins – up to 13 times oil companies’ minimum target, according to an analysis by the British-based oil watchdog Platform (PDF).

As Greg Muttit, an analyst with the group, notes:

Such contracts are often used in countries with small or difficult oilfields, or where high-risk exploration is required. They are not generally used in countries like Iraq, where there are large fields which are already known and which are cheap to extract. For example, they are not used in Iran, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, all of which maintain state control of oil.

In fact, Muttit adds, of the seven leading oil producing countries, only Russia has entered into PSAs, and those were signed during its own economic “shock therapy” in the early 1990s. A number of Iraq’s oil-rich neighbors have constitutions that specifically prohibit foreign control over their energy reserves.[/quote]

Holy Shit if it’s posted on Alternet is has to be true!!!

From their website:
“AlterNet’s aim is to inspire citizen action and advocacy on the environment, human rights and civil liberties, social justice, media, and health care issues. Our editorial mix underscores a commitment to fairness, equity and global stewardship”

They go on to tell how they aim to counter the vast right wind media conspiracy.

It’s another conspiracy theory for crying out loud. At least laugh with the rest of us instead of falling for this crap over and over again.

119

[quote]hedo wrote:
Holy Shit if it’s posted on Alternet is has to be true!!!
[/quote]
No, what I said was Google it yourself it’s all over the place. The quote in the alternet piece actually came from Nation, and the evidence came from a conservative group. From Cheney’s task force. Via a federal court house.

Do you think alternet invented PSAs?

I’m not sure you can call it a conspiracy when the entire oil industry is in on the gag, large campaign contributions change hands, long-established personal ties to the oil business, etc. It’s really just the way the world works. Unless you’re very naive. Then I suppose it looks like a conspiracy.

120

[quote]hedo wrote:
An M-1 is a rather heavily armored piece of equipment if I recall.
[/quote]
They don’t see much use in central Baghdad.