The Spoils of War

[Tikker]

To deny that oil had any impact on the decision to attack in Iraq would be foolish and blind.

but that's what you and all the other right wing wingnuts have been doing for the last couple of years

Show me where I said oil had NOTHING to do with it. Granted I've probably stated as I just have that I don't think it's the only or the primary reason, and that it is definetly not what I base my personal support for, but that is far from denial that it is a factor.

Others may have agrued it was a complete not factor, but I don't recall myself ever having argued that, nor even having that opinion.

Oil is the reason the US went to iraq. period

saddam was just the excuse to hide the real intent
You've got to admit by now, that if you applied the "logic" used for going to Iraq, the US should have went to Somalia, Rwanda, etc

The reasons given, that you and every other right winger here has defended for the past couple years were subterfuge and you have to know that by now, even if you won't admit it publicly

[Gaazy]

die it is. Hell, I'd keep driving my truck just to hear people like you bitch and cry about it if anything.

[Tuggan]

You actually use your truck though. It's folks like my dad that are annoying, big fuckin F-250 v10 that gets like 12mpg and doesnt do shit but drive to work with it.

[Gaazy]

Yeah I can agree with that I guess, but then again, to each his own. My cousin is like that, he has a big F-350 and that truck has probably never even been loaded up or towed a tenth of what it is capable of.

[kinghooter00]

seriously tho

do you still honestly think that oil was just a nice benefit to going into Iraq?

Oil was the primary reason~

Lets get that oil, thats what i say.

[Tikker]

at least saying you conquered iraq for the oil is somewhat honest

[kinghooter00]

if we told the people that we wanted to go to Iraq to take over oil, would you guys of voted yes to that??? I would have.

[Tuggan]

I think a better investment would have probably been to invest that 80+ billion into discovering realistic alternative fuels.

[Lueyen]

Oil is the reason the US went to iraq. period

saddam was just the excuse to hide the real intent
You've got to admit by now, that if you applied the "logic" used for going to Iraq, the US should have went to Somalia, Rwanda, etc

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/08/world/main2335451.shtml

You were saying?

Oh yea Rwanda, of course it wasn't a right winger in the executive branch at the time. Note that I'm not trying to bash the left for the way Rwanda was handeled, it was a tragedy on an international scale, no one helped all should have. But if your going to accuse the right of being hypocritical in the logic used to determine where to take military action you might want to make sure it's a right winger calling the shots during the incidents you site.


If we take your logic for going to Iraq then the US should have invaded the majority of the middle east by now.

[Tikker]

Oil is the reason the US went to iraq. period

saddam was just the excuse to hide the real intent
You've got to admit by now, that if you applied the "logic" used for going to Iraq, the US should have went to Somalia, Rwanda, etc

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/08/world/main2335451.shtml

You were saying?

Oh yea Rwanda, of course it wasn't a right winger in the executive branch at the time. Note that I'm not trying to bash the left for the way Rwanda was handeled, it was a tragedy on an international scale, no one helped all should have. But if your going to accuse the right of being hypocritical in the logic used to determine where to take military action you might want to make sure it's a right winger calling the shots during the incidents you site.


If we take your logic for going to Iraq then the US should have invaded the majority of the middle east by now.

No, I said right wing wingnuts were denying they went to iraq for oil

And you are about 8 years late getting to somalia

and I"m accusing americans in general of being hypocrital, not just right wingers

[Scatillac]

If we take your logic for going to Iraq then the US should have invaded the majority of the middle east by now.

we did. in one form or another.

[Lueyen]

No, I said right wing wingnuts were denying they went to iraq for oil

And you are about 8 years late getting to somalia

Ah then like Rawanda you are refering to incidents that took place during a leftist presidency. So again you refer to actions and policies taken by the Clinton administration saying they should have been different if the same mode of thought were applied.. yet there are radically different modes of thought between the two.

and I"m accusing americans in general of being hypocrital, not just right wingers

Eh given the situations you sight and the comparisons I think you'd realize pretty quickly that there is little to no hypocricy, just two distinctly different mindsets that for the most part do not change, and that what changes is who is running the show if you will.

[Arlos]

The Iraqi government, no matter how "elected" is, in all practical terms, a puppet government of the US. It would collapse rapidly if not for US support, and their senior leadership takes orders directly from the white house. The people in government aren't stupid, do you honestly think they'd accept a deal with terms twice as poor as normal if they weren't doing so under direct pressure and orders from the US government? Get real.

Lueyen, apparently you've missed the constantly changing publicly given reason for going to Iraq in the first place. Before it happened, it was 95% about "WMD! WMD!", with short shrift given to any other ideas. Of course, once we got there and found that not only didn't they have any, they weren't TRYING to make any, we needed another reason in a hurry. So, it became "Overthrowing Saddam!" When that paled in popularity, suddenly it was "Seeding Democracy in the Middle East!", as if you could force real representative democracy on people with the barrel of a gun. Riiiiight.

Hell, people in the middle east can see first hand this administration's devotion to Democracy. Hamas, legally and democratically elected. We don't happen to like them, so boom, no more money, and we support abrogating their constitution to get them out of power, like Abbas was suggesting. Lebanon, who we helped get into power, was SCREAMING at us to step in and stop Israel from blowing their entire country into the stone age, and we sat back and watched. Now, next election, I bet you anything Hezbollah will be democratically elected into power, and again, boom, no more money. Oh yes, the people there see quite well our devotion to "Democracy". It's been self-serving self-interest based, tied solely to groups we like, and completely independant of actual democratic principles.

So, with those false reasons out of the way, what are we left with: Oil. Lets see, which groups of companies did Bush and Cheney have the closest ties to before the Iraq war: Oil companies and Halliburton. Gee, which companies have made record profits as a result of the Iraq war, funny, it's Halliburton and the Oil companies. Yes, I know oil companies are technically selling oil at market value, but guess what: the war in Iraq DROVE UP THAT MARKET VALUE. By a factor of 2, at least, because it contributed to instability in the region, which causes investor fears, which raises prices. Meanwhile, despite making record profits, the oil companies fail to do maintanence work they are legally required to do, and we get things like the recent pipe failures and large oil spills in the north slope/prudhoe bay area. Suuuure they could drill in ANWR with no environmental impact. Riiiiight. Bullshit.

In any case, no matter how you look at it, this has been the single most mis-managed war in US history. McClellan, Pope, Burnside or Hooker would have done better jobs, I swear, and they're KNOWN for their laughably bad generalship. (look up some facts on the Civil War, if you have no idea who I'm referring to.) Hell, remember when Wolfowitz went before Congress and said that the war wouldn't cost US taxpayers a dime? He's been wrong to the tune of what, going on 1 trillion dollars at this point? A TRILLION FUCKING DOLLARS. How can anyone be so incompetant as to be THAT wrong and hold a post higher than 3rd assistant Janitor somewhere? At least Enron only defrauded people of 60 billion or so...

-Arlos

[Tikker]

you forgot about how it was originally Saddam financed the WTC bombings, then it was WMD, then it was pre-emptive strike against an enemy of the USA, then finally they come out and admit "ok it was for the oil all along"

[Arlos]

Oh yes, I forgot the "Saddam has links to Al Qaida" and "Saddam has links to the 9/11 bombers" that Cheney especially kept spouting. (then later denied spouting once it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that no such links ever existed)

I wish, OH how I wish that those that led us into this war, and so bungled the planning and so poorly anticipated the realities of what would happen would end up in jail, preferably supermax, for the rest of their natural lives. Instead, they will all most likely end up living in the lap of luxury and become washington lobbyists. I hope the deaths of hundreds of thousands, when you count in Iraqi civilian casualties lies heavily on their consciences at least. Oh wait, what am I saying. They don't have consciences.

-Arlos

[Menlaan]

I'm a little torn on all this. In some sense, it seems like using oil to finance the costs of continuing to keep our military in Iraq might not be such a bad idea. Obviously it is our fault that we're there and that Iraq is as fucked up as it is, but at least having income coming from there might mitigate the calls to withdraw. Withdrawing would undoubtedly leave Iraq in civil war and would likely cause a regional war which will not benefit Iraqi citizens.

On the other hand, I would rather the proceeds go to the US government and NOT to oil companies. I'm all for capitalism, but this reeks of a subsidy, not a privately negotiated contract. US companies should be paid whatever MIGA (a part of the World Bank which provides emerging markets political risk insurance) would charge them for insurance for doing business in Iraq and no more than a normal oil contract. The rest could go to finance our protection of Iraq (or at least prevention of an all-out catastrophe).

[Tikker]

out of curiosity, why should american companies be making anything out of the iraq oil, rather than the iraq companies ?

[Arlos]

No US company or governmental body should receive 1 cent from any Iraqi oil. Period. Every last drop should go to charging up the Iraqi economy, giving jobs to those who need it, and rebuilding their infrastructure. No western oil company should reap *ANY* profit WHATSOEVER from that oil.

If they do, it is just proof of the naked imperialistic profit-mongering intent behind the war, without even the veneer of "spreading democracy" that they are currently operating under. What RIGHT do we have to that oil, beyond the right of naked conquest? (and it seems to me, the FIRST gulf war was fought because we were OPPOSED to someone siezing oil rights by naked conquest....)

-Arlos

[Lueyen]

The Iraqi government, no matter how "elected" is, in all practical terms, a puppet government of the US. It would collapse rapidly if not for US support, and their senior leadership takes orders directly from the white house. The people in government aren't stupid, do you honestly think they'd accept a deal with terms twice as poor as normal if they weren't doing so under direct pressure and orders from the US government? Get real.

First of all they have not accepted the deal, you speak as if it is certain that they will. The situation is pretty dynamic, it is in everyones best interest for Iraq to get it's oil production online. This can either happen with aid which will expedite the process or without, which will likely be incredibly slow. Iraq has a huge bargaining chip if you will in that while they need the help to expedite production, if they choose to hold out we will offer a better deal, because in the end we want their production back online just as much as they do. Again what has yet to be proven is if what has been offered is really twice as poor as normal in the long run. Faced with a balance between getting aid to get things going and getting profit in the short term it may very well be in Iraq's best interest to allow for some short term poorer deal if it garners faster initialization. What will be better, more of a percentage for the short term with slower development (and consequently less revenue), or a worse percentage for a time with faster rebuild possibly generating more revenue to offset the worse then average deal. Again as I have stated if the 20 percent is double the average then I have an issue with it, if the double the average is only in the 75 percent then it may very well be beneficial to both sides.

Lueyen, apparently you've missed the constantly changing publicly given reason for going to Iraq in the first place. Before it happened, it was 95% about "WMD! WMD!", with short shrift given to any other ideas. Of course, once we got there and found that not only didn't they have any, they weren't TRYING to make any, we needed another reason in a hurry. So, it became "Overthrowing Saddam!" When that paled in popularity, suddenly it was "Seeding Democracy in the Middle East!", as if you could force real representative democracy on people with the barrel of a gun. Riiiiight.

For the part of our society that is based in ignorant 20 second news blips who care little about anything beyond that which directly and immediately threatens to affect them your statement is true. For those of us that realize complex situations and events can't always be boiled down to a 20 second sound bite the things you state are not due to finding new reasons, but are milestones of progression.[/quote]

Hell, people in the middle east can see first hand this administration's devotion to Democracy. Hamas, legally and democratically elected. We don't happen to like them, so boom, no more money, and we support abrogating their constitution to get them out of power, like Abbas was suggesting. Lebanon, who we helped get into power, was SCREAMING at us to step in and stop Israel from blowing their entire country into the stone age, and we sat back and watched. Now, next election, I bet you anything Hezbollah will be democratically elected into power, and again, boom, no more money. Oh yes, the people there see quite well our devotion to "Democracy". It's been self-serving self-interest based, tied solely to groups we like, and completely independant of actual democratic principles.

Oh that's rich. I guess you think we should cozy up with a terrorist organization because they managed to be democratically elected? Support of a democratic process does not mandate support of a hostile government. Israel did not blow their entire country to the stone age, the majority of attacks by Israel were surgical with definitive targets, that is not to say there wasn't collateral damage, but by in large the attacks were not indiscriminate, in contrast to Hezbollah which was just trying to dump as many rockets as they could into Israel with no regard as to what they hit.... of course lets not forget what started the whole incident, Hezboallah could have stopped attacks at any time without our aid.

So, with those false reasons out of the way, what are we left with: Oil. Lets see, which groups of companies did Bush and Cheney have the closest ties to before the Iraq war: Oil companies and Halliburton. Gee, which companies have made record profits as a result of the Iraq war, funny, it's Halliburton and the Oil companies. Yes, I know oil companies are technically selling oil at market value, but guess what: the war in Iraq DROVE UP THAT MARKET VALUE. By a factor of 2, at least, because it contributed to instability in the region, which causes investor fears, which raises prices. Meanwhile, despite making record profits, the oil companies fail to do maintanence work they are legally required to do, and we get things like the recent pipe failures and large oil spills in the north slope/prudhoe bay area. Suuuure they could drill in ANWR with no environmental impact. Riiiiight. Bullshit.

Accidents do happen in any manufacturing environment. With the scale and scope of what petroleum companies do, if your specific incident was an indicator of the norm, the accidents would be a whole hell of a lot more numerous. I know for a fact that in most cases petroleum countries do not merely meet government standards for safety, but exceed them on their own volition. Not only do they not want the political ramifications of accidents but they also don't want the expense of clean up, and the loss of profits due to downtime.

In any case, no matter how you look at it, this has been the single most mis-managed war in US history. McClellan, Pope, Burnside or Hooker would have done better jobs, I swear, and they're KNOWN for their laughably bad generalship. (look up some facts on the Civil War, if you have no idea who I'm referring to.) Hell, remember when Wolfowitz went before Congress and said that the war wouldn't cost US taxpayers a dime? He's been wrong to the tune of what, going on 1 trillion dollars at this point? A TRILLION FUCKING DOLLARS. How can anyone be so incompetant as to be THAT wrong and hold a post higher than 3rd assistant Janitor somewhere? At least Enron only defrauded people of 60 billion or so...

-Arlos

As far as how the war has been managed you are welcome to your opinions /shurg. What I look at is what has been accomplished, and the milestones you look at as changing rational. As far as Wolfowitz, telling congress it wouldn't cost a dime, you are wrong. One of the things opponents were raising hell about was the lack of concrete estimates of the cost of military operations. Interestingly enough at the time the reasons given for lack of concrete estimates centered around the the unknowns that we have run into, things like ethic tensions ect. I believe what you are referring to is comments that he made about the reconstruction of Iraq being funded by Iraqi oil production. Reconstruction and the cost of war time operations are two different things.

No US company or governmental body should receive 1 cent from any Iraqi oil. Period. Every last drop should go to charging up the Iraqi economy, giving jobs to those who need it, and rebuilding their infrastructure. No western oil company should reap *ANY* profit WHATSOEVER from that oil.

If they do, it is just proof of the naked imperialistic profit-mongering intent behind the war, without even the veneer of "spreading democracy" that they are currently operating under. What RIGHT do we have to that oil, beyond the right of naked conquest? (and it seems to me, the FIRST gulf war was fought because we were OPPOSED to someone siezing oil rights by naked conquest....)

-Arlos

It would not be realistic to expect any company to help in the reconstruction and rebuilding in Iraq for zero profit. You are being idealistic, not realistic. What would you have done Arlos? Without an incentive of profit, you will not get any company to help rebuild. Would you rather see Iraq go at it alone, at a drastically slower pace? In the end it's not as if any companies making profits from the reconstruction efforts should be of any real surprise, that is what was stated pre-war, that the cost of reconstruction could be financed by Iraq's oil production. Did you really think that the "bill" for reconstruction would be at cost?

[Arlos]

You want a record of what the Republicans and administration members said about the cost of the war before it happened? Go here: http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm

For the part of our society that is based in ignorant 20 second news blips who care little about anything beyond that which directly and immediately threatens to affect them your statement is true. For those of us that realize complex situations and events can't always be boiled down to a 20 second sound bite the things you state are not due to finding new reasons, but are milestones of progression.

Oh please. I think you can guess I am about as far as you can get from someone who just listens to soundbites and does no independent thinking and evaluation. I watched what they said publicly, I watched teh speeches, I watched the synchronized public statements by frequently up to a dozen different administration talking heads, all spouting the same messages. It's very easy to go back and read the public statements from various times before the war, immediately after, etc.

Oh that's rich. I guess you think we should cozy up with a terrorist organization because they managed to be democratically elected? Support of a democratic process does not mandate support of a hostile government. Israel did not blow their entire country to the stone age, the majority of attacks by Israel were surgical with definitive targets, that is not to say there wasn't collateral damage, but by in large the attacks were not indiscriminate, in contrast to Hezbollah which was just trying to dump as many rockets as they could into Israel with no regard as to what they hit.... of course lets not forget what started the whole incident, Hezboallah could have stopped attacks at any time without our aid.

Gee, and I thought part of Democracy was giving the PEOPLE a voice in government, and putting up with results that some segments might not like, because it represented the will of the people. What, are we for Democracy only for groups who kowtow to the US now? Or are we for ACTUAL democracy? I'm not advocating funding terror groups, but it still shows that we talk otu our ass and hold serious double standards. ESPECIALLY when we never hold Israel responsible for the heinous acts IT commits.

As for the Israel war on Hezbollah, etc. as I posted at the time, it was a staggeringly poor decision on their part to do. It accomplished them nothing, and damaged the situation severely. Remember before it happened, Abbas was within a week of holding a public referendum that, had it passed, would have forced Hamas to recognized Israel's right to exist? You seen any hint of any such thing since? Oh, and yes, Israel blew the fuck out of Lebanon, all the way up to the capital. They even managed to slaughter, publicly, women & children as well, and did very little appreciable damage to Hezbollah in the process.

So, lets review, shall we? They crushed nascent peace movements that were progressing in Palestinian territory, they made themselves look like butchers by killing large numbers of civilians, they raised Hezbollah and their leader's status in the arab world by not even coming close to wiping them out, they destroyed the infrastructure of a nation that was at least nominally a US ally while the US sat back and ate popcorn while it watched the pretty BOOMs, thus greatly increasing the likelyhood of an anti-US government coming into power. And for what, did they get even 1 of the kidnapped soldiers back? Did they gain any advantage whatsoever? No. Idiots.

Accidents do happen in any manufacturing environment.

Actually, look into the details of this particular spill. It was proved to have happened because the oil companies were neligent in performing legally required maintenance. They simply didn't do it, because it would have forced them to marginally cut into those record profits. As a result, equipment decayed, there was a large spill, and they had to COMPLETELY shut things down.

Now, as for the oil... Obviously they were pumping oil for the last 40+ years SOMEHOW, yes? There are Iraqi oil companies of SOME variety, yes? Why aren't THEY involved in this process? If the US has to be supplying the Iraqi government with hundreds of billions in reconstruction aid, why is some of it not being used to rebuild those industries instead of just signing away their rights to western corporations? Hell, even if it *IS* necessary to barter away some of their oil rights to outside oil companies to get the industry moving again, aren't there arabic oil companies that could do it? That would certainly give a much more positive perception than signing them away to western companies.

-Arlos

[Menlaan]

No US company or governmental body should receive 1 cent from any Iraqi oil. Period. Every last drop should go to charging up the Iraqi economy, giving jobs to those who need it, and rebuilding their infrastructure. No western oil company should reap *ANY* profit WHATSOEVER from that oil.

If they do, it is just proof of the naked imperialistic profit-mongering intent behind the war, without even the veneer of "spreading democracy" that they are currently operating under. What RIGHT do we have to that oil, beyond the right of naked conquest? (and it seems to me, the FIRST gulf war was fought because we were OPPOSED to someone siezing oil rights by naked conquest....)

-Arlos

Then why would any US company go over there and work? They will need more profits than they can make somewhere else that's not so damn dangerous. That's why they should make normal profits + the cost of insuring against political risk (which may be uninsurable b/c it's so likely the entire country is going to collapse).

EDIT: Since you probably think that no US company should be there at all, would you agree that you would have to give above average profits for any foreign (arab or not) company to work in Iraq given the conditions there?

[Tikker]

The situation is pretty dynamic, it is in everyones best interest for Iraq to get it's oil production online. This can either happen with aid which will expedite the process or without, which will likely be incredibly slow. Iraq has a huge bargaining chip if you will in that while they need the help to expedite production, if they choose to hold out we will offer a better deal, because in the end we want their production back online just as much as they do.

the US gets 85% of their oil from canada
the only reason the US wants iraq to get their production back online is so that they can rape the profits

[Lueyen]

the US gets 85% of their oil from canada
the only reason the US wants iraq to get their production back online is so that they can rape the profits

85 percent hmm? What's your source? Although Canada is the largest source of oil imports for the US it's no where near 85 percent.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

Edit: oh and note that even with the decreased oil production due to the events in Iraq it's still in the top ten.

[Tikker]

maybe I'm remembering the numbers backwards and 85% of canadian exports go to the US, jeje

[Narrock]

I just got pwned by Lueyen, jeje