No WMDs, just OIL

[Txgoodoldboy]

I wanted to post two links to articles about the real reason for death and destruction in Iraq. It's the oil. No surprise on this one, just bloody hands.

Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43045/
Even as Iraq verges on splintering into a sectarian civil war, four big oil companies are on the verge of locking up its massive, profitable reserves, known to everyone in the petroleum industry as "the prize."

The U.S. Takeover of Iraqi Oil
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43077/
The Bush administration has co-opted the compassionate language of debt relief to ensure that Big Oil gets its way in Iraq. (Part 2 of 2)

[hty2]

I wonder how many troops it will take to guard every inch of pipeline in Iraq as well as all the oil fields and the ports to make this so-called "conspiracy" work?

Anyone given any thought to that????? Why not simply invade Venezuela? It's closer and we already buy their oil. The old Amarada-Hess refinery on St. Croix, USVI, is owned by Venezuela. The gas was selling for $1.27 a gallon when I last visited there, the refinery was operating at full capacity and the place was guarded like a maximum security prison.

[Homoaffectional]

I wonder how many troops it will take to guard every inch of pipeline in Iraq as well as all the oil fields and the ports to make this so-called "conspiracy" work?

I wonder how many GOP partisans it will take to have the word 'conspiracy' (usually followed by theory) be used more than 1 million times on the JUB boards?

I think I know a 'How many GOP partisans does it take to change a light bulb' joke that might help answer that question... I'll see if I can dig it up a bit later.

[Toriko]

I wonder how many troops it will take to guard every inch of pipeline in Iraq as well as all the oil fields and the ports to make this so-called "conspiracy" work?

I wonder how many troops it will take to secure Iraq so we can return our focus to securing Afghanistan and ending either of these quagmires, and how many will have to die first before something proper is done about both wars.

[seapuppy]

I wonder how many troops it will take to secure Iraq so we can return our focus to securing Afghanistan and ending either of these quagmires, and how many will have to die first before something proper is done about both wars.

I have a hard time accepting the jist of this thread. The war in Iraq is lost. No expansion of the American effort there is going to happen, oil or not, and I don't believe it was ever really over oil, except in the abstract.

Our defeat there will lead to a massive emboldening of Taliban forces in Afghanistan and elsewere. The exitment of the defeat of the "Great Satan",
America will unleash Islamic militarism like we have not seen.

Afghanistan, and the downturn of our efforts there, will bring our relationship with Pakistan and Musharef into question.

Bush and the GOP deserve well placed blame for the disaster there.

[Toriko]

It's interesting at how our failing in Iraq has led to our failing in Afghanistan---makes you wonder if it doesn't have something to do with Ahmadinejad, what with Iran sharing borders with both countries with which we are at war. I don't see how Ahmadinejad, unlike Saddam whom shared no link, doesn't share interests with al Qaeda and doesn't have his eye on occupying Iraq.

As for Musharraf it comes as no surprise that our failing in Afghanistan means that either he has to soften his efforts (such as those criticized deals with the Taliban/al Qaeda-friendly in his country) or further guarantee his assassination---his death would mean we lose Pakistan as an ally completely. As it stands, failure in Iraq will further embolden those we are already losing the fight against in Afghanistan which will in turn betray our common efforts with Pakistan.

[Homoaffectional]

Bush and the GOP deserve well placed blame for the disaster there.

Let me guess... you're one of those 'Independent' GOPers, I take it...?

[naked gent]

^^ Maybe he's just one of those GOPers who can take responsibility as well as talk about it.

[seapuppy]

It's interesting at how our failing in Iraq has led to our failing in Afghanistan---makes you wonder if it doesn't have something to do with Ahmadinejad, what with Iran sharing borders with both countries with which we are at war. I don't see how Ahmadinejad, unlike Saddam whom shared no link, doesn't share interests with al Qaeda and doesn't have his eye on occupying Iraq.

As for Musharraf it comes as no surprise that our failing in Afghanistan means that either he has to soften his efforts (such as those criticized deals with the Taliban/al Qaeda-friendly in his country) or further guarantee his assassination---his death would mean we lose Pakistan as an ally completely. As it stands, failure in Iraq will further embolden those we are already losing the fight against in Afghanistan which will in turn betray our common efforts with Pakistan.

From what I read, I think there MAY be a link, but I think that one effect of our invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq has been to transform Al Qieda, which was an organization with a command system and structure and turned global militant terrorism into a phenomenon, not an organization.

Iran has always wanted to control the shia region of Iraq in one form or another. She now does to some extent.

I predict that defeat in Iraq for us will also spell the end of days for President Musharef. His continuation in power, indeed, his life, as you pointed out, is tied completely to American fortunes. He may be the only thing keeping that country from becoming a radical State.

As you can tell, I'm a pessimist.

[sparky95]

Just saw on the news that Bush has compared Iraq to Vietnam.........What more can you say!

[mega]

Just saw on the news that Bush has compared Iraq to Vietnam.........What more can you say!

He didn't?!? I'm sure he meant to say Iraq is not like Vietnam. It must be hard to keep track of so many lies...

[miatajeff]

He didn't?!? I'm sure he meant to say Iraq is not like Vietnam. It must be hard to keep track of so many lies...

Good point, I mean between all the lies and what the different advisors are telling you-how can a simple-minded president keep it all straight?
At least he remembered to keep his zipper up, because Americans can forgive alot of things (lies, deception, erosion of fundamental american values like seperation of church and state, 3000 dead americans the murder of 2.5% of the iraqi population) but they can't forgive a blow-job.

[levenshulme31]

I have a hard time accepting the jist of this thread. The war in Iraq is lost. No expansion of the American effort there is going to happen, oil or not, and I don't believe it was ever really over oil, except in the abstract.

http://getintheirface.blogspot.com/2...ry-of-oil.html

It was always about oil, as was Afghanistan.

The powers that be in American, and to a lesser extent here in Britain, don't give a hoot about democracy and human rights. Money and oil rule, depressing but sadly all too believable.

[mega]

I don't believe it was ever really over oil, except in the abstract.

The history of Iraq/Iran in the 20th century is oil. The countries were created by french and english oil interests at the end of WWI. Oil is the only thing they have.

[Ramindra]

As it is prone to do every now and again, my poor feeble mind has been wandering off on a tangent.......

OK, so the Big 4 want Iraq's oil. If that's what they want, give it to them. Just say, "Iraq is yours. You can have it. You can have the oil. Goodbye, we're going home. So are the Poms and the Aussies and everyone else. It's all yours. If your are looking for some leading oil guys to take charge, try 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. (Just ask for George and Dick) Take care and look after yourselves, y'hear. Goodluck!"