Iraq war for oil? Question for Bush haters

by 5thGeneration 26 Replies latest jw friends

  • FlyingHighNow
    FlyingHighNow
    I'm just curious how all the Bush bashers who screamed for years that Iraq was 'all about the oil' justify their view now with oil prices hovering around $140/barrel?

    Bush knew the war in Iraq would drive the oil prices sky high. Cheney, Condi, Bush and others on Bush's cabinet were all involved in Big Oil before the White House. Now Bush is pushing to open up more off shore drilling, which isn't a bad idea. One wonders if this was mostly his purpose in going into Iraq, to drive up oil prices, make a whole lotta dough and then press to open more offshore drilling.

  • darth frosty
    darth frosty

    The argument that the oil would pay for the war, is what they used to sell the war to congress and the public. As stated earlier once they got it, the hedge fund mgr's took over and have been helping to drive the price up. Thru all of this Bush has been buying the maximum of barrels a day that he can to bolster the strategic oil reserves. In fact he already filled the original and has had new ones built.

  • stillajwexelder
    stillajwexelder

    I supported Bush.

    The war was about oil in part - at least 40% IMHO

  • Warlock
    Warlock

    Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, behind number one, Saudi Arabia.

    I think it's ALL about oil.

    Warlock

  • Gopher
    Gopher

    HS,

    Based on what is happening now, it seems that re-Americanizing the Iraqi oil industry was something the American leaders had as a target from the very beginning. Of course, that could just be my cynicism about America's current administration.

  • nvrgnbk
    nvrgnbk

    You've heard about the pipeline, right, 5th?

    <http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2008/06/22/pf-5953041.html>

    June 22, 2008

    These wars are about oil, not democracy

    By ERIC MARGOLIS

    PARIS -- The ugly truth behind the Iraq and Afghanistan wars finally has
    emerged.

    Four major western oil companies, Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP and Total are about
    to sign U.S.-brokered no-bid contracts to begin exploiting Iraq's oil
    fields. Saddam Hussein had kicked these firms out three decades ago when he
    nationalized Iraq's oil industry. The U.S.- installed Baghdad regime is
    welcoming them back.

    Iraq is getting back the same oil companies that used to exploit it when it
    was a British colony.

    As former fed chairman Alan Greenspan recently admitted, the Iraq war was
    all about oil. The invasion was about SUV's, not democracy.

    Afghanistan just signed a major deal to launch a long-planned, 1,680- km
    pipeline project expected to cost $8 billion. If completed, the
    Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline (TAPI) will export gas and
    later oil from the Caspian basin to Pakistan's coast where tankers will
    transport it to the West.

    The Caspian basin located under the Central Asian states of Turkmenistan,
    Uzbekistan and Kazakkstan, holds an estimated 300 trillion cubic feet of gas
    and 100-200 billion barrels of oil. Securing the world's last remaining
    known energy El Dorado is a strategic priority for the western powers.

    But there are only two practical ways to get gas and oil out of land- locked
    Central Asia to the sea: Through Iran, or through Afghanistan to Pakistan.
    Iran is taboo for Washington. That leaves Pakistan, but to get there, the
    planned pipeline must cross western Afghanistan, including the cities of
    Herat and Kandahar.

    PIPELINE DEAL

    In 1998, the Afghan anti-Communist movement Taliban and a western oil
    consortium led by the U.S. firm Unocal signed a major pipeline deal. Unocal
    lavished money and attention on the Taliban, flew a senior delegation to
    Texas, and hired a minor Afghan official, Hamid Karzai.

    Enter Osama bin Laden. He advised the unworldly Taliban leaders to reject
    the U.S. deal and got them to accept a better offer from an Argentine
    consortium. Washington was furious and, according to some accounts,
    threatened the Taliban with war.

    In early 2001, six or seven months before 9/11, Washington made the decision
    to invade Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and install a client regime
    that would build the energy pipelines. But Washington still kept sending
    money to the Taliban until four months before 9/11 in an effort to keep it
    "on side" for possible use in a war against China.

    The 9/11 attacks, about which the Taliban knew nothing, supplied the pretext
    to invade Afghanistan. The initial U.S. operation had the legitimate
    objective of wiping out Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida. But after its 300
    members fled to Pakistan, the U.S. stayed on, built bases -- which just
    happened to be adjacent to the planned pipeline route -- and installed
    former Unocal "consultant" Hamid Karzai as leader.

    Washington disguised its energy geopolitics by claiming the Afghan
    occupation was to fight "Islamic terrorism," liberate women, build schools
    and promote democracy. Ironically, the Soviets made exactly the same claims
    when they occupied Afghanistan from 1979-1989. The Iraq cover story was
    weapons of mass destruction and democracy.

    Work will begin on the TAPI once Taliban forces are cleared from the
    pipeline route by U.S., Canadian and NATO forces. As American analyst Kevin
    Phillips writes, the U.S. military and its allies have become an "energy
    protection force."

    ADDED BENEFIT

    From Washington's viewpoint, the TAPI deal has the added benefit of
    scuttling another proposed pipeline project that would have delivered
    Iranian gas and oil to Pakistan and India.

    India's energy needs are expected to triple over the next decade. Delhi,
    which has its own designs on Afghanistan, is cock-a-hoop over the new
    pipeline plan.

    Russia, by contrast, is grumpy, having hoped to monopolize Central Asian
    energy exports.

    Energy is more important than blood in our modern world. The U.S. is a great
    power with massive energy needs. Domination of oil is a pillar of America's
    world power. Let's be realistic. Afghanistan and Iraq are about oil, nothing
    else.

  • sammielee24
    sammielee24

    I'm just curious how all the Bush bashers who screamed for years that Iraq was 'all about the oil' justify their view now with oil prices hovering around $140/barrel?

    Well..Gopher's media copy beat me to it. The big oil companies have signed a deal with the Iraqi leaders for oil - beating out all the other guys in a no bid contract. This also rips apart the nationalization of the oil - which is what Bush wanted. Add in to the mix that Stein was heard passing the word in a conversation, that the oil companies are having a really good laugh on everyone - yep, laughing at the fact that they know and admit that speculation is the reason for the price jump and there isn't a thing that any government has the balls to do about it. Makes ya feel all warm and fuzzy for capitalism and the free market doesn't it? sammieswife.

  • sammielee24
    sammielee24

    I agree that we should not allow oil companies to drill in area's over and above what they already have leases for. Most of the land that they currently have in leases of federal land aren't even used and if you listen to a lot of people that have worked and/or working in the industry, they have said over and over again, that there are many, many wells already full but sealed off by the companies. If they aren't going to work the land then hand it back and this time make sure the American people get to vote on to whom and why their public lands are being sold off and/or leased. sammieswife.

    CONTACT: Allyson Groff or Blake Androff, 202-226-9019

    Washington, D.C.
    - In an effort to compel oil and gas companies to produce on the 68 million acres of federal lands, both onshore and offshore, that are leased but sitting idle, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall (D-WV) today introduced legislation that gives Big Oil one option - either "use it or lose it."

    "Big Oil, as many Americans already suspect, are perfectly fine with high gasoline prices at the pump while they hold back domestic production on federal leases and enjoy world record profits. I am calling them on the carpet. I am calling their bluff. We are not going to continue to allow them to speculate and profiteer with public resources to the detriment of the American people," Rahall said.

    The Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act of 2008 (H.R. 6251) is a direct response to the facts outlined in the recent House Natural Resources Committee Majority Staff report, "The Truth About America's Energy: Big Oil Stockpiles Supplies and Pockets Profits", that illustrate how energy companies are not using the federal lands and waters that are already open to drilling. The legislation is co-sponsored by Reps. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Ed Markey (D-MA), and John Yarmuth (D-KY).

    The 68 million acres of leased but inactive federal land have the potential to produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day. This would nearly double total U.S. oil production, and increase natural gas production by 75 percent. It would also cut U.S. oil imports by more than one-third, reducing America's dependency on foreign oil.

    The Rahall bill would force oil and gas companies to either produce or give up federal onshore and offshore leases they are stockpiling by barring the companies from obtaining any more leases unless they can demonstrate that they are producing oil and gas, or are diligently developing the leases they already hold, during the initial term of the leases.

    Coal companies, which are issued leases for 20-year terms, are required, as a result of the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 to show that they are diligently developing their leases during the initial lease term. The law was enacted in an effort to end rampant speculation on federal coal as a result of the energy crises of the 1970's.

    Oil and gas companies, however, are not required to demonstrate diligent development. Because of this, oil and gas companies have been allowed to stockpile leases in a non-producing status, while leaving millions of acres of leased land untouched. The Rahall legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to define what constitutes diligent development for oil and gas leases.

    Companies could avoid this new lease prohibition by relinquishing their non-producing leases, thus creating an opportunity for another company to explore for and perhaps produce oil and gas.

    "As long as oil companies hold oil hostage, they will continue to get away with charging high prices and demanding a greater share of the public's land. This bill forces their hand by compelling them to produce or hand the over their idle leases for someone who will," Rahall said.

  • Homerovah the Almighty
    Homerovah the Almighty

    First war for oil, and secure the region ( Bush's own words )

    second one for the security of the US and allies / a false one I might add

    Bush's family and political backing came from Corporate oil companies, thats why the strong interest in that part of the world

    from him

  • Homerovah the Almighty
    Homerovah the Almighty

    Here's a thought what if the US under the direction of the Bush administration has purposely turning down the oil taps in Iraq

    with the intension of making the price of oil rise, making oil people in Texas richer, including Bush..............ummmmmm

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit