Hmmm This Seems to be a Poor Way to Steal Oil

I have little reply to this other than how funny the last line is. Ha Ha!

I wish I had a butthelmet.

-suspeckted

I think the answer is obvious. Bush has implanted his own mind into the bodies of Iraqi leaders, so in actuality, he still has total control. His evil genius ways know no bounds!

Speaking of which, Bush is such an unintelligent doofus!

Seriously though, kudos to America for proving the conspiracy theorists wrong again and doing something good for the Iraqis!

lmao. Then explain why Halliburton trucks are shipping gasoline into Iraq for its sake to Iraqis for 5 cents per gallon.

IT'S A TRICK I TELL YOU, IT'S A TRICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've been saying all along that oil had nothing to do with this. I have a few friends that now owe me a beer or twelve. I made a bet with them that the Iraqis would have control over their oil resources before the end of summer. SUCKERS!

It won't change any minds.

The people who complained that it was "all about oil" will argue that since the US controls the Iraqi government, and the Iraqi government controls the oil, then really, the US controls the oil.

(Let me emphasize that I do not agree with this people.)

since the US controls the Iraqi government, and the Iraqi government controls the oil, then really, the US controls the oil.

That's supposed to be a secret. shhhhhhhhh

shouldn't joke Mason.

No?????

I don't think there is a person alive that believes there is 100% control . The entire rig appartratus fell apart after Saddie weathered 11 years of sanctions. There are two ways to look at oil production. Proven reserves where we can see X many supertankers line up daily and take out a consistant amount of oil. The other way is to estimate how much oil is still remaining in the ground. Iraq has alot of oil, but very little pumping ability anymore.

Moreover, I am confident enough to stick my neck out and say there is as much oil sitting in the ground as what is left in ALL of Saudi if not more. But say for the sake of arguement the rigs never get fixed and production never takes off. One still needs the real estate to build a pipeline long enough to get the oil out of the Caspean Sea and into a middle east docking port. Draw a line, and you will see that it is necessary run a pipeline through Iraq to get it out to sea.

Now it is one thing to rely on some Saudi promises on increased production but do you really think the increase will see the light of day with the attacks on the pipeline? The situation is not in the control of the americans. They can neither monitor nor enforce safety measures because they are not there! This is the reasoning for occupation. To have a military presence on large untapped fields.

If Saudi starts drying up for whatever reason, it will become critical to find another supply. Iran sell to China not to the US. South america sales have been on the decline. Canada's athabaska sand basin requires additional refining and is unprofitable under 30 bucks a barrel. That leaves the caspian sea where both China and India are competing for the same oil. Domestically we are consuming right now from 3 sources: texas crude/gulf of mexico/and the Canada's sand basin. That's it.

Being in Iraq is a necessity for a continued american economy - without cheap transports things fail miserably.

Then explain why Halliburton trucks are shipping gasoline into Iraq for its sake to Iraqis for 5 cents per gallon.

Because there are hardly any if any refineries in Iraq.

George Bush was so evil, he got KBR contracts with the army before he was even born.

Oh, haven't you heard the newest reports? Bush is an complete idiot and fiscally irresponsible.....he hasn't figured out how to pay for this *outlandish* war. I kid you not, "Maybe he should have looked to the oil..." They seem to have a very short term memory when they are wrong.

Then explain why Halliburton trucks are shipping gasoline into Iraq for its sake to Iraqis for 5 cents per gallon.

Refineries. Remove tinfoil hats and discuss. Enjoy.

Remove tinfoil hats

NEVER!!!!!!

Greywar,

To say that we fought this war to "Steal Oil" is obviously a gross oversimplification, just as saying we did it to "protect america" is an overstatement. That does not mean that it had nothing to do with oil. All of our middle east foreign policies are at least partially designed to maintain our access to both the supply of oil and the equipment and services markets served by our oil companies.

That is to say, we didn't invade Iraq to take it's oil, we invaded Iraq to regain favorable market position to purchase Iraqi oil, and to ensure access to the sizable market for our oil industry service companies.

If you look at the major oil producing countries in the region, and split them up into those countries we have allied ourselves with, and those we have traditionally taken a more beligerent stance towards, you'd come up with these two groups:

Countries We Like:
Saudi Arabia
Kuwait
UAE
Oman
Egypt

Countries we don't like:
Iraq (pre-invasion)
Iran
Syria
Lybia

What do the first group of countries have that the second group does not? They are certainly no more democratic, Egypt is in theory, but is really an autocracy. They are no more "free", the range of personal freedoms enjoyed in Syrai and Iran are certainly greater than those in Saudi Arabia. They are not any less supportive of terrorism, for that matter. So, why do we like the first group, and not the second group?

The one common denominator, is the openess of each countries' oil industry to investment (control) from US companies, and the favorable export arrangements that our "friends" give us when selling us crude.

So, while it is incorrect to say that we invaded Iraq to steal their oil, there is no doubt that one of the major reasons we did invade was to force open their oil industry to American companies and consumers.

favorable market position to purchase Iraqi oil,

We were in the perfect market position to but oil from Iraq pre-ar. In fact we held all the keys to allowing Iraq to sell oil *at all*. There was no need to "force" their oil market open as you say because *we* were the ones keeping them from selling any! While I apreciate your comment the logic simply holds no water.

As always, Imajinit your imagery says it all:)

Greywar,

No, although the American consumer was buying oil from Iraq through the oil for food program (at an inflated price), American oil companies were completely shut out of the process. Look at who had the oil contracts and who supported or opposed the war:

US - Oil companies were shut out by Saddam regime - Supported invasion
Britain - Oil companies were shut out by Saddam regime - Supported invasion

China - Companies had contracts and were actively involved in Iraqi Oil Industry - Opposed Invasion
Russia - Companies had contracts and were actively involved in Iraqi Oil Industry - Opposed Invasion
France - Companies had contracts and were actively involved in Iraqi Oil Industry - Opposed Invasion
Germany - Companies had contracts and were actively involved in Iraqi Oil Industry - Opposed Invasion

Have you spotted the pattern yet?

More to the point, what would you suggest was the real reason for the invasion, if not oil? The reason given was Imminent Threat, through some nebulous WMD/Terrorist connection.

1) If we wanted to attack a dictatorship that is proliferating nuclear technology, we would have attacked Pakistan. Let's not forget that they were a democracy 5 years ago, now we send billions of dollars in aid and weapons to a military dictatorship that is THE WORST proliferator in the world.

2) If we wanted to attack an oppressive government that hosts the financial and political supporters of terrorism, we would have attacked Saudi Arabia, or at least brought some pressure on them to reform.

The only reason left that makes any sense is the expansion of our access to and control of the regions oil industry.

The other option was that our top minds really did believe the false intelligence that the Iranian secret police fed us through Ahmad Chalabi. That we really did think we were going to find huge stockpiles of illicit weapons and that the Iraqi people would greet us as liberators. Oops.

     Benny - All we had to do to get our hands on Iraqi oil was agree to lift the sanctions involved witht he oil for food program. Check over the UN issues that were debated between the wars. Saddam was so desparate for more money his government had proposed this very solution several times. If we wanted cheap-ass oil all we had to do was agree... Additionally the very topic of the article lays this argument to rest before it can begin. If we wanted the soddig oil we would have *taken* it. After all everyone in the world already thought we had despite having no proof of it so seizing the oil for the USA would have caused no additional stir. You argument also holds no water but thanks for playing along

Greywar,

You are repeating yourself.

Lifting the sanctions would not have convinced Saddam to allow US companies to make investments in Iraqi oil infrastructure, it simply would have accelerated the rate at which he was awarding those contracts to companies owned by other countries. The only way to allow our companies greater access to the oil sector in Iraq was to shake up the government.

Additionally, you didn't answer the question. Give me another justification for the war that makes more sense. There is none.

I like your catch phrase, "holds no water". That's nice.

Why didn't the U.S. simply take the oil then rather than place it in the hands of people who may or may not give it to us at prices we can accept?

As for another justification for the war... Saddam being a threat, supposedly having WMDs, and all those other ones they had.

Yes, Robot, all of which reasons were completely made up to manipulate the American People into supporting a war of conquest.

Saiyan,

Even the current administration could not get away with openly stealing oil. However, there is a belief among neo-conservative academics that entrenching us business interests into the gulf region oil industry is the next best thing.

Pertaining to your alternate justifications:
1) There were no WMDs. The UN weapons inspectors seemed to know that, funny that the CIA couldn't figure it out.
2) How was Saddam a threat to America? Did he support Al-Qaeda (no). Was he in a position to invade America or one of our regional allies (no).
3) Other reasons? Those seem to keep changing.

The real issue, now is, will this plan work? The most likely result of next year's popular elections will be the rise of an islamic leaning shiite-sunni party that is allied with Iran. The fact that Iran fed us false intelligence about the WMDs seems to indicate that they have the same assumption. The most powerful and popular figures in today's Iraq are Shiite clerics. They have espoused all sorts of different views about the current political process, but none of them are exceptionally supportive of a continued US precense. Since it is very unlikely that we will be able to significantly reduce troop levels there for several years, the stage seems to be set for increasing Iraqi antipathy towards the US. Since no Iraqi leader will realistically be able to ask the US military to leave, they will be placed in the position of needing to take some public stands against the US, but not being able to do it on the military level. The result, I think, is that they are going to be very reluctant to allow much US coporate control of the Iraqi oil fields.

all of which reasons were completely made up to manipulate the American People into supporting a war of conquest.

Man they are really cranking out those tinfoil hats! Welcome to the discussion.

1. Actually hans blix's own reports stated that there were WMD's but that they couldn't be located currently and that no proof of their destruction could be produced. Go read em. Additionally withing the last 3 days they have been finding parts smuggled out of contry into Jordan from Saddams WMD program.

2. We have found several Al-quaeda training facilities inside Iraq. Zarqawi was and is operating in baghdad. what do you want? Photos of Saddam sucking off Bin Laden?