The AP says that Iraq and China have inked a $3 billion oil deal that had been negotiated five years ago then set aside right after the American invasion. If my wife is right, and this is all Cheney cares about, then how did Iraq cut such a deal? Huh? Answer that!
Thanks to Idrees Ahmad for the tip. Ahmad says: "Energy determinists also conveniently overlook the fact that already in 2006 Iraq was renegotiating Saddam-era oil deals with China."
Its another sign of the failure of the Bush administration, not an indicator of weight of motive.
Have you looked at Exxon-Mobil's financial statements since 2002?
You want to know who are the new aristocrats?
Are you aware of how thin your ideology gets when you fixate in this way?
There is not one iota of evidence that any
oil company executive lobbied for an invasion of Iraq. There is a small mountain
of evidence that Zionists and Israel-firsters lobbied energetically over many
years for the toppling of Sadam. When
people believe what they want to believe,
despite all evidence to the contrary, one
must conclude that their emotions trump
their ability to think.
Ray McGovern puts it best: a third for oil a third for Israel and a third for Empire for the sake of Empire. The best laid plans
of the oiligarch component along with the others were stymied by,among other things, an unanticipated resilient insurgency and Sistani's insistence on a fair(er) rather than Bush-contrived, puppet-implanting election.
Sorry but the "resilient" insurgency is largely a myth. They came from the smallest third of Iraqi society and could never gain the support of the two other thirds.
No, it was the opposition of the American people-and the British, and the Australian, etc.-that defeated the schemes of the Bush Administration and it's Likudnik alles. They refused to volunteer or be drafted, which left the occupying forces with too few troops available to suppress the revolt. This happened in Vietnam also.
I know that this might offend people who believe so much in the heroic Arab/Msulim peoples, how any criticism is automatically anti-Arab/Moslem bigotry, etc. But just because the Israelis are hateful does not mean that their opponents are any better.
60% for oil, 25% for vindication of Bush's father, 5% for pentagon/defense industry testing new weapons in the field, 10% for Israel in the context of geo-politics.
If that.
"No, it was the opposition of the American people-and the British, and the Australian, etc.-that defeated the schemes of the Bush Administration and it's Likudnik alles."
That comment even beats Richard Witty in its inanity. opposition of the American, Brits and Australians? Is this one of those post modernist things where watching American Idol is considered a form of resistence? Maybe a consumerist binge is equally subversive. The opposition must have been particularly subtle: most of us 'aren't any betters' missed it when Americans and Brits reelected Blair and Bush respectively. Or took their debbies and pauls to ball games while baghdad burned.
Or perhaps it was the once a year candle light vigils that shook the pillars in Washington?
Frankly, my dear, you are an arse.
"Have you looked at Exxon-Mobil's financial statements since 2002?"
Sure. They are outrageous.
Have you seen Iran and Venezuela's profits lately? $140 a barrel! Now you are not gonna argue that Bush invaded Iraq for Ahmadinejad and Chavez, are you?
Things didn't go the way the US or the oil companies hoped.
And, likely the oil companies themselves lied low about the invasion.
But Bush and Cheney acted for what they perceived was the oil companies interests, not America's, and very very secondarily for Israel's.
Its a fraud to state that the war was started for Israel. Phil is amateurish to headline his post, "the result was different, therefore the intention, the motivation wasn't for oil".
That is an intellectually amateurish conclusion, way beneath you.
You describe yourself as cutting through the smoke, not getting brainwashed by it.
Bush was reelected by a very narrow (and controversial, again)margin. He won solely because his opponent failed to mobilize the anti-war sentiment in the nation but, instead, took refuge in meagre "me-too" sentiments.
Apart from that, please answer the detail of the argument next time, instead of treating it cavalierly.
A war for Israel first and foremost as Dr. Stephen Sniegoski conveys in his 'The Transparent Cabal' book as well:
"The Transparent Cabal" Now Available:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=94794
http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.COM
He won solely because his opponent failed to mobilize the anti-war sentiment in the nation but, instead, took refuge in meagre "me-too" sentiments.
I agree. The Kerry campaign was painful to watch.
To make it a safe generalization, there is only one problem: the fate of Howard Dean, who clearly denounced the invasion of Iraq.
Weren't the media blows the campaign suffered helpful to bring the other candidates back onto the me-too track?
Richard, I am a bit puzzled by your 5% for pentagon/defense, admittedly.
I'd give them (the whole larger context)at least a basic 20% in any war. These "toys" aren't produced for military sales shows only. Wars are the best ways to create new demand, production, jobs … And jobs that are not yet outsourced to China, it seems.
So you consider the military complex in this scenario even slightly more benign than the Israelis? Interesting.
Richard, I am a bit puzzled by your 5% for pentagon/defense, admittedly.
I'd give them (the whole larger context)at least a basic 20% in any war. These "toys" aren't produced for military sales shows only. Wars are the best ways to create new demand, production, jobs … And jobs that are not yet outsourced to China, it seems.
So you consider the military complex in this scenario even slightly more benign than the Israelis? Interesting.
China getting Oil undisputably benefits China. Is it a state owned Chinese oil company? Or are the shareholders in Dubai or New York? As long as US troops are there surely the Iraqi Govt has limited scope for manouver, that is, could Maliki really offer this without the Neocons approval / instigation. The reality must be barter behind the scenes, it could only be enacted because it benefits the Neocons. Maybe lessens Chinese support for Iran or Russia.
When people believe what they want to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, one must conclude that their emotions trump
their ability to think.
Which is noticeably the case with Witty. Note that he doesn't even try to offer any evidence to support the "60% oil" thesis–he just feels it must be.
It is an article of faith for him that right-wing zionist Sheldon Adelson's money can only do great, wonderful things. Like get the competent Douglas Feith a top job at Defense.
And then he thinks he can describe Phil as "brainwashed" and be taken seriously! LOL
Leandor,
Your probably right about the relative importance of the defense industry in the mix, testing new equipment.
I was picked up hitchhiking in 1971 by a man that claimed to be a defense analyst during the early period of Vietnam. I'm sure he picked me up as a great curiosity, to see what crazy young hippies thought. (I looked older than my actual age of 17.)
He said that in the mid-sixties, the pentagon and defense industry did not consider Vietnam particularly important, except as a training ground and testing ground for new equipment. He said the ones that he worked for perceived the war as limited, and not to the extent of war but literally as police action.
That it was only after the backroom advocates convinced Johnson and then Nixon to escalate to the level of invested war. The manufacturers then made millions (not billions like now), in selling in volume materiel that they budgeted to sell 1/100th of the number of units, but at the same price.
For anyone out there with any business experience, a new model of anything has enormous front-end costs, fixed costs, that if they sell 50 units of, are very expensive per unit, but if they sell 10,000 units, the front-end unit costs become insignificant.
Thats how profits are made by war. Estimating fixed costs amortized over 100 units, charging the feds for that, then selling 1000 units.
The military industrial complex, at play.
There is no doubt that the war was for oil. It makes little sense without oil in the picture.
The oil contract to China is small compared to the big picture. Iraq needs the money so why not. Don't confuse unintended consequences with the initial motivations.
In any case, it won't be long before you see Exxon, Chevron, BP and company gleefully pumping the oil out to their heart's content.
There was a geopolitical, strategic motive as well. The U.S. is dependent on foreign oil, much of which comes from this region. Having an embassy and permanent troops on the ground may help stabilize the region and prevent future supply disruptions.
I'm not saying that it was a bad move. Countries, such as the U.S., always have to cloud reality with altruistic motivations. Unfortunately, it was at the cost of tens of thousands of Iraqi lives and thousands of U.S. lives.
We produce one third of our oil requirements and import the rest. Most of the imports comes from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and the rest of South America. Only 23% comes from the Middle East.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Richard, there are many direct statements and papers demonstrating the support for the war in Iraq had a substantial base in the desired to make the middle east safe for Israel. This includes the clean break paper and statements by neocons such as Philip Zelikow.
Also, we have this list of events from Israeli actors:
Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow, a former member of the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The ‘unstated threat’ was the ‘threat against Israel’, Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. ‘The American government,’ he added, ‘doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.’
On 16 August 2002, 11 days before Dick Cheney kicked off the campaign for war with a hardline speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Washington Post reported that ‘Israel is urging US officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.’ By this point, according to Sharon, strategic co-ordination between Israel and the US had reached ‘unprecedented dimensions’, and Israeli intelligence officials had given Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq’s WMD programmes. As one retired Israeli general later put it, ‘Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non-conventional capabilities.’
Israeli leaders were deeply distressed when Bush decided to seek Security Council authorisation for war, and even more worried when Saddam agreed to let UN inspectors back in. ‘The campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must,’ Shimon Peres told reporters in September 2002. ‘Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors.’
At the same time, Ehud Barak wrote a New York Times op-ed warning that ‘the greatest risk now lies in inaction.’ His predecessor as prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, published a similar piece in the Wall Street Journal, entitled: ‘The Case for Toppling Saddam’. ‘Today nothing less than dismantling his regime will do,’ he declared. ‘I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike against Saddam’s regime.’ Or as Ha’aretz reported in February 2003, ‘the military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq.’
This is a large body of evidence. What evidence do you have that the oil companies were involved?
Are the oil companies pushing for bombing/sanctions on Iran as well?
Israel was a side motivation.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld regarded the oil supply chain as non-compromisable.
For their cronies benefit, and for "national interest" (same as Walt/Mearsheimer).
Israel is an ally, and keeping Israel immune from being a hostage to Iraq's desparate vengeance, is a rational concern. In the first Iraq war, Iraq shelled Israeli civilian cities. There was great fear in Israel that it would happen again, reasonably.
Israel was divided on the attack of Iraq.
Oil is the link. Protecting Israel AS a rationale for invasion is a side show.
Oil is the link. Protecting Israel AS a rationale for invasion is a side show.
You provide zero evidence, while the evidence to the contrary is substantial.