IT'S ALL ABOUT THE OIL (isn't it?)

Quote from hapaboy:

Here you are stating that seizing control of the oil supply is one of the motives for the administration. Please elaborate on that. What is the difference between that and stealing the oil? Do you mean to say that after invading Iraq and forcing a regime change, we are NOT going to relinquish the country's resources to its new government? :confused:
More...

no, I doubt any reasonable person thinks bush and cheney are going to plant a flag in the iraqi desert and claim it for Mother America. and I wouldn't be surprised if bush is doing this without regard to oil either way.

but bush can't act alone, on anything. he needs support and backers for this, and it's a game of favors and competing interests, no matter how many senators sing songs on the capitol steps and wrap themselves in the flag. those interests have to be balanced - and important contributors kept in mind. not just dollars, but contacts, political goodwill, media coverage and spin, legislative cooperation, etc. it's a very wide net.

stands to reason that some of these contributors are opportunists who jump on bandwagons when they see a profit opportunity, lending the support and influence of whatever part of the system they control in exchange for benefits - petrochemical trade and exploration, infrastructure construction, military sales, agricultural deals, pharmaceuticals, banking are a possible few... and they might benefit just as much if all current iraqi resources are immediately given to a new iraqi government. perhaps their support, and in turn the support of those they contribute to, will be ultimately beneficial in the long run. but it's naive to think everyone behind the movement is there for altruistic reasons.
 
Madison Sez "but Bush can't act alone, on anything"

Madison: Quit watching Liberal Pap on CNN, and MSNBC, ABC, and CBS

Madison, we have the option of acting alone, and President Bush does not need a single member of the UN Security Council on board!

The UN is running the risk here (of looking SILLY) by not enforcing their own resolutions, not the United States.

I know there must be some Europeans on this thread, under the illusion that the UN, France and Germany really matter.

Need I say, the UN has no teeth, without United States backing, the UN would be out of business without U.S. support.

The fact is the United States can act alone, although we have 8 countries in Europe that support the United States.

We have six Carrier Battle Groups,

the equivalent force of 6 moble Air Force Fighter Wings.

Britain is the next big contributor, they will have one maybe two carriers that fly Harrier Jump Jets, with limited Strike capability.

We have enough Ground Forces, Britain is supplying One Armored Division.

Then there is the Trident Submarines that keep the rest of the world in line while we are taking on IRAQ.

8 European Countries Support us, mainly the ones that just overcame the Communist Opression.

Fact is if the UN makes the mistake of not supporting the effort in IRAQ, with all the violations that IRAQ made since the last GULF WAR, then the UN will look weak, SILLY, and IRRELAVANT AFTER GULF WAR II and we have ON SITE evidence of WMD.

It's beyond imagination if this coming battle takes more than 3 to 4 days to produce total COLLAPSE of the IRAQI Government.

You got to ask yourself, why would an IRAQI General want to risk fighting for SADDAM?

So he can sit in the HAGUE in the Dock as a War Criminal?

It will be a short WAR, and no IRAQ General is going to set off any WMD, because that will be SUICIDE.

Sure they look like fanatics (on the Parade Grounds), but they have no reason to fight, they hate Saddam, more than we do.
 
occupation forces and natural resources

U.S. Probes Its Iraq-Oil Rights
Wall Street Journal, January 29, 2003, p. A16

"The Hague Convention of 1907 and subsequent regulations provide an occupying "belligerent" specific guidelines when it comes to administering natural resources like forests, mines, and oil fields. Such resources remain the property of the territory's people and should not be used in a manner that will permanently damage them, the Convention states. It is also widely interpreted to require that revenue from the resources should go toward occupation costs or otherwise benefit the territory's people."

Laws of War :
Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm

Control of Iraq could give the United States de facto control over the Persian Gulf area and two-thirds of the world's oil – an unrivaled prize in the historic human struggle for power and wealth.

We already have exclusive control of 50% neutral zone Kuwait-Saudi oil fields I think we got that back in the late 40's.

If interested, more info here http://home.austin.rr.com/anthonywier/meoil.htm

ALSO: eLibrary.com - Oil & Gas Interests 01-12-2001, 'MARKETS & POLICY: CAPITOL HILL'



Josh
 
Quote from Madison:

no, I doubt any reasonable person thinks bush and cheney are going to plant a flag in the iraqi desert and claim it for Mother America. and I wouldn't be surprised if bush is doing this without regard to oil either way.

but bush can't act alone, on anything. he needs support and backers for this, and it's a game of favors and competing interests, no matter how many senators sing songs on the capitol steps and wrap themselves in the flag. those interests have to be balanced - and important contributors kept in mind. not just dollars, but contacts, political goodwill, media coverage and spin, legislative cooperation, etc. it's a very wide net.

stands to reason that some of these contributors are opportunists who jump on bandwagons when they see a profit opportunity, lending the support and influence of whatever part of the system they control in exchange for benefits - petrochemical trade and exploration, infrastructure construction, military sales, agricultural deals, pharmaceuticals, banking are a possible few... and they might benefit just as much if all current iraqi resources are immediately given to a new iraqi government. perhaps their support, and in turn the support of those they contribute to, will be ultimately beneficial in the long run. but it's naive to think everyone behind the movement is there for altruistic reasons.
More...
Thanks for your post.

I agree with you that it is naive to think our government is acting for 100% altruistic reasons. Certainly every administration owes favors, has major contributors, etc, etc. Unfortunately, this is the way it has always been and the way it always will be. The essence of your argument, and I think this is the major difference of opinion that we have, correct me if I'm wrong, is that you believe that the Bush government is ultimately morally corrupt, and its actions are motivated primarily by Dubya and his top dogs wanting to line their pockets and pay off their favors. Also, on another thread (Candle's Iraq poll) you have expressed your disbelief that Bush has any desire of protecting the American people, that he in essence cares nothing for the welfare of us citizens.

I simply cannot believe that our president A) Doesn't give a hoot about his 300 million citizens, B) is willing to sacrifice possibly thousands of his soldiers/sailors/airmen, citizens all, in order to rake in a few Benjamins, C) is willing to risk reelection and his political career for the sake of a few more said Benjamins, and D) is acting without a genuine fear of far larger-scale attacks on our nation.

So that's that. Thanks again for your post. I'm sure we'll be disagreeing more down the road!

Now, if only we could get some (further?) comments from those who voted for US imperialism and controlling the world's oil.
 
Not to do too much of the anti-war coalition's work for it, but, from the point of view of its most virulently anti-US members, the first answer and the third (as well as the principal part of the fourth, of course) are the same: Ensuring stability of the world's oil supply is the same as achieving a critical US "imperial" objective, while acting in support of international capitalism - which is understood both to underpin and to be the real point of the US-led "empire." Who "owns" the oil fields, or even who profits from them directly, is from this perspective at most a secondary issue, and much less important than securing their current role in the international "system." It may be worth noting that the strongest proponents of an aggressive posture in the Persian Gulf tend to agree on these points, but don't see the idea of the US accepting imperial responsibilities and seeking the reinforcement and extenstion of democratic capitalism as bad things.

As for the issue of "preventing another terrorist attack," I think that puts the issue into too narrow a context. Operations in Iraq might or might not have a critical impact on the war on terror in the long term, but they seem rather unlikely to have any substantial near-term positive effect. On the other hand, though they might conceivably provide a "stage" for Al Qaeda or other bad actors, and might conceivably encourage new support and recruits, so might withdrawal, continued sanctions, extended inspections, or any of the other alternatives to early invasion.

The larger idea, as I understand it, and as Bush stated succinctly in his State of the Union speech, reflects both sides of the oil issue: Possession of vast oil reserves and proximity to a significant percentage of the world's oil resources puts Iraq in the position both to wreak havoc and to acquire effective means to do so - whether, as is more likely, through Saddam's more typical military patterns or, possibly, through supplying, cooperating with, and/or directing terrorists.
 
Quote from buzzy2:

If I were an oil producer, were the US dictator and wanted to become obscenely rich off my oil production, all I would have to do is to prohibit oil imports from the middle east. the resulting oil scarcity would push oil prices to the skies.
More...
Your plan as dictator sounds pretty enticing. Only downside would be your being "obscenely rich" would not make you very well loved in an economy that would make the Great Depression look like boom times. Which would be the result of "sky high" oil prices.

This would lead to you having to "out- Saddam, Saddam" as far as your own personal security. Lot's of people would be willing to assassinate a dictator that would cause the collapse of the economy leading to the starvation of their children.

Other than that, pretty good plan.

Peace,
:)Rs7
 
Quote from KymarFye:

Not to do too much of the anti-war coalition's work for it, but, from the point of view of its most virulently anti-US members, the first answer and the third (as well as the principal part of the fourth, of course) are the same: Ensuring stability of the world's oil supply is the same as achieving a critical US "imperial" objective, while acting in support of international capitalism - which is understood both to underpin and to be the real point of the US-led "empire." Who "owns" the oil fields, or even who profits from them directly, is from this perspective at most a secondary issue, and much less important than securing their current role in the international "system." It may be worth noting that the strongest proponents of an aggressive posture in the Persian Gulf tend to agree on these points, but don't see the idea of the US accepting imperial responsibilities and seeking the reinforcement and extenstion of democratic capitalism as bad things.

As for the issue of "preventing another terrorist attack," I think that puts the issue into too narrow a context. Operations in Iraq might or might not have a critical impact on the war on terror in the long term, but they seem rather unlikely to have any substantial near-term positive effect. On the other hand, though they might conceivably provide a "stage" for Al Qaeda or other bad actors, and might conceivably encourage new support and recruits, so might withdrawal, continued sanctions, extended inspections, or any of the other alternatives to early invasion.

The larger idea, as I understand it, and as Bush stated succinctly in his State of the Union speech, reflects both sides of the oil issue: Possession of vast oil reserves and proximity to a significant percentage of the world's oil resources puts Iraq in the position both to wreak havoc and to acquire effective means to do so - whether, as is more likely, through Saddam's more typical military patterns or, possibly, through supplying, cooperating with, and/or directing terrorists.
More...
Hard to squeeze all that detail in a poll....

Anyways, I'd like to ask what is imperialistic if the US ousts Saddam, helps stabilize the country, and then leaves (save for a few bases i.e. Saudi & Afghanistan)? Wouldn't extending our "empire" mean claiming Iraq as our own? Or is the mere presence of any amount of US troops qualify as empire-building?
 
Mandela got it right: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...iraq_mandela_dc

What a lot of crap ! Mandela got it wrong. In Africa as well as everywhere else people are insanely jealous of the US. Although Mandela takes a big line you must remember he is the son of a Xhosa king. They are tribal. It is very similar to Islam in as much that DEMOCRACY cannot exist under it. Mandela in his early years was not adverse to having people blown up to justify his cause. While what Afrikaaners did to the blacks was totally wrong, Africans suffer from the same disease as the Arabs. They always want handouts and expect everything given to them. Go to Africa and look. Africans will chop down a tree for firewood but they will never plant seeds for another tree. Another thing the ANC which is Mandela's party and governing party have let thousands and thousands of people die from aids but refuse to distibute medicines. Why ? Because they can wipe out the Zulu's and other tribes ( and maybe the whites too)
Mandela never mentioned sept 11. Everybody forgets that is what worries Bush. He doesn't need another terrorist attack. The terror has started against the US and soon will hit Europe. The Islamic Fundamentalists have made a pact and the world will learn that are not now dealing with a bunch of dummies which they dealt with in the 30's and 40's
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top