Wants proof that OIL was a factor in Iraq

[labragg1]

I have a good friend that has kind of jumped on the Romney bandwagon lately.

Anyway we were discussing the war the other day and he said this:

"Oil, what has oil got to do with it. How has it helped us, oil hit $100/bl today. We have not taken a drop of oil from them. Tell me how oil is the reason we went in. Give me specifics, tell me who it has benefited and how."

I also mentioned that there was never a declaration of war--he said"

"We have not declared war in Iraq. We are not at war with a nation, we are at war with a group of people. There is a hugh difference. If we were at war with Iraq, we would destroy the country. We are at war with Al-Qaeda and the individuals that wish to destroy Israel and all Christian nations and Christians themselves. A big defference."

Any good input I could throw at him? We are best friends, so I have no worry about losing him as a friend--we like to discuss things--I just want to make sure I'm giving accurate information.

Thanks

 

[labragg1]

The question I did ask him was if we were not at war with Iraq, then why did we invade the country, de-throne Saddam, and have been occupying the country for the last few years?

 

[Chester Copperpot]

Yeah there was no Al-qaeda in Iraq before we invaded.. so we evidently didnt go in to stop THEM.

 

[murrayrothbard]

We are at war with Al-Qaeda and the individuals that wish to destroy Israel and all Christian nations and Christians themselves. A big defference."

That right there is friggin scary. I don't know what to say. Tell your friend to go suit up in his crusader outfit and go kick some ass. Then he can be just like those he is so afraid of, just on a different team.

 

[JeffersonReincarnate]

I have a good friend that has kind of jumped on the Romney bandwagon lately.

Anyway we were discussing the war the other day and he said this:

"Oil, what has oil got to do with it. How has it helped us, oil hit $100/bl today. We have not taken a drop of oil from them. Tell me how oil is the reason we went in. Give me specifics, tell me who it has benefited and how."

I also mentioned that there was never a declaration of war--he said"

"We have not declared war in Iraq. We are not at war with a nation, we are at war with a group of people. There is a hugh difference. If we were at war with Iraq, we would destroy the country. We are at war with Al-Qaeda and the individuals that wish to destroy Israel and all Christian nations and Christians themselves. A big defference."

Any good input I could throw at him? We are best friends, so I have no worry about losing him as a friend--we like to discuss things--I just want to make sure I'm giving accurate information.

Thanks

It has not helped us, per se, but keep in mind the location of Texas and the great deal of oil which is located there, and a certain president who has been known to own many oil companies down there. Also, think about a certain company called "Haliburton" which deals with a certain product called petroleum and is owned by a certain vice president.

Also, consider what is made of petroleum products in our country-nearly all plastics-not to mention the firearm and overall steel industry which gets a hell of a lot of money for the sake of producing. The steel company owners are not paying for firearms and Dick Cheney damn sure isn't paying for oil. They're just getting money from those who are.

Tell your friend that. While we have to pay more, those who control the country take the extra that we pay, slip it in their pockets and head off to. However, more importantly than us having to pay more is the fact that people are dying for this.

And that's why we're fighting, for big businessmen to make more money than they'll ever need.

 

[hard@work]

Show him Greenspan's book.

 

[sickmint79]

yah greenspan mentioned being there just for oil, surely many others have too...

there's a vid on the net of some guy talking about plans for going into iraq and meetings about it like days after bush got sworn in. they were just waiting for an excuse to go to iraq. iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no al qaeda, neither were listed as reasons to go in iirc too. check out the movie why we fight. get him that and the power of nightmares. have both at the link in my sig.

 

[Ready2Revolt]

I was listening to Democracy now a week or to ago and they were talking about pushing a measure through the Iraqi parliment that would sell off the corporations. American ones. I'm trying to find some documents online, so far here is all I can get.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

 

[Ready2Revolt]

Here is some more stuff

http://kidoaklandblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/michael-schwartz-on-oil-and-iraq.html

http://www.Iraqoillaw.com/

So it basically comes down to this. All of the oil in OPEC nations, with the exception of Venezuela, have been nationalized for decades. Venezuela has recently nationalized its oil. The American government is trying to push a law onto the Iraqi government while it is the weakest that would allow corporations to own the resource instead of the government. This means Oil companies would stand to benefit, and not the Iraqi government, and eventually the Iraqi people.

 

[Ready2Revolt]

One last thing, the search terms I used where

"Iraq Oil Parliament"
"Iraq Production Sharing Agreements"

Maybe you might have more luck.

As for the second part of your suggestion, try reading up on Ron Pauls and the 9/11 commisions theory in blowback.

 

[angelatc]

I have a good friend that has kind of jumped on the Romney bandwagon lately.

Anyway we were discussing the war the other day and he said this:

"Oil, what has oil got to do with it. How has it helped us, oil hit $100/bl today. We have not taken a drop of oil from them. Tell me how oil is the reason we went in. Give me specifics, tell me who it has benefited and how."

The agreement signed by the puppet government turned over a majority portion of Iraq's oil to American oil companies. Also read this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

I also mentioned that there was never a declaration of war--he said"

"We have not declared war in Iraq. We are not at war with a nation, we are at war with a group of people. There is a hugh difference. If we were at war with Iraq, we would destroy the country. We are at war with Al-Qaeda and the individuals that wish to destroy Israel and all Christian nations and Christians themselves. A big defference."

Any good input I could throw at him? We are best friends, so I have no worry about losing him as a friend--we like to discuss things--I just want to make sure I'm giving accurate information.

Thanks

There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded. Israel can defend herself. And that wishing to destrou all Christians thing is just war propoganda.

I had a soldier come up and talk to me today. He told me he turned into a Ron Paul fan when he found out that one of the private contractors that was working side-by-side with him in Iraq was making $1500 a day, while he makes $30,000 a year.

 

[labragg1]

now it's the Saddam badwagon

Thanks for all the input guys. I gave him some of the material about the "OIL" issue--so far he hasn't had a comeback.

Now he's on to the "Saddam was a tyrrant and murdered millions of people" and "the Iraqi people wanted us to liberate them"

This is what frustrates me about the whole Iraq war--and that's all the false premises we have.

If one premise doesn't pan out--then we move on and find another "reason" why we should have invaded them.

I agree that Saddam was a tyrrant and was a murderer, and I didn't shed a tear when they hung him, but if we look realistically at Iraq now--how has it improved???????
Now they have a civil war and even the Democrats are now saying we may be there until 2013!!!!!

 

[Johnnybags]

Here is the proof

I have a good friend that has kind of jumped on the Romney bandwagon lately.

Anyway we were discussing the war the other day and he said this:

"Oil, what has oil got to do with it. How has it helped us, oil hit $100/bl today. We have not taken a drop of oil from them. Tell me how oil is the reason we went in. Give me specifics, tell me who it has benefited and how."

I also mentioned that there was never a declaration of war--he said"

"We have not declared war in Iraq. We are not at war with a nation, we are at war with a group of people. There is a hugh difference. If we were at war with Iraq, we would destroy the country. We are at war with Al-Qaeda and the individuals that wish to destroy Israel and all Christian nations and Christians themselves. A big defference."

Any good input I could throw at him? We are best friends, so I have no worry about losing him as a friend--we like to discuss things--I just want to make sure I'm giving accurate information.

Thanks

Hunt oil from Texas(Bush cronies) have access to our foreign intelligence database, and have inked a deal with the Kurds against the Iraqi governments wishes to explore for oil. Iraq is going to be split in three eventually or they would not have done the deal. So much for revenue sharing. Until its finally split, Bush will do everything in his power to pad the military industrial complex because that and dollars is what we export. Thats what goes into political coffers and that is how Washington works. Its a farce. Tell your friend to look up Hunt Oil, follow the money.

 

[plopolp]

The question I did ask him was if we were not at war with Iraq, then why did we invade the country, de-throne Saddam, and have been occupying the country for the last few years?

For the security of Israel.

If oil had anything to do with the last 15 years of policy against Iraq, then it was in order to increase oil prices (war, boycott, another war, chaos). Maybe people with interest in oil companies proft from that. But I'd follow the big money instead, the trillions of tax and inflation money which the war cost didn't disappear, they went to some companies for supplying equipment for the military and for the "reconstruction". That's where the war motive is. Along with the US having to pay for the security of Israel with dollar and blood.

 

[Axiom]

Paul O'Neil

So you have 3 issues here,
1. War for oil
2. Iraq=Al Queda
3. America: World Police

War for Oil
Our nation has a history going back to 1953 of overthrowing middle eastern governments for private oil companies.

Iran, 1953, Democratically elected leader Moḥammad Moṣaddeq (known for his secularism and western views) was overthrown to secure control of the nation's oil for BP and replaced with tyrannical Shah of Iran who subjected the nation 20 years of brutal dictatorship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html


60 Minutes interview (Jan. 2004) with former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil reveals the secretive nature of the Bush White House, and the clear fact that Bush was determined to invade Iraq long before 9/11.
Good stuff starting @ 3:18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky2t_tDsZrk

Another video of the same 60 minutes interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inyCkCvqRO0

Iraq=Al Queda
It is clear now to all but the most heavily programmed in our nation that there were NO WMDs in Iraq, and as such, they posed absolutely ZERO threat to the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_wmd
Haans Blix reported that they were within a few months of completing their inspections for WMDs at the time the war began. http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

Most member governments of the United Nations Security Council made clear that after resolution 1441 there still was no authorization for the use of force.
The UN itself never had the chance to declare that Iraq had failed to take its "final opportunity" to comply as the US invasion made it a moot point. American President George W. Bush stated that Saddam Hussein had 48 hours to step down and leave Iraq.

Summary: No threat to the US, No UN Security Council authorization=illegal invasion.

America: World Police
Saddam was a brutal Dictator that needed to go for the good of the world. Sure, why not. But why us, and why just him?
The fast is that there are probably 20 more guys as bad or worse wreaking havok around the world at any time. Is it America's responsibility to sacrifice our most precious resource, young American lives, to cure the evils of the world?
If it is, we had better change our foreign policy, because it has actually been breeding this guys.

Iran: Arranging overthrow of Mossadegh (a very western minded and secular leader who would have taken the country into the modern world) ultimately led to the Iranian Revolution , the rise of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution and founder of the Islamic Republic and the current Iranian leadership.

Iraq: Oil monopoly maintained by western controlled Iraq Petroleum Company from 1928 through 1961. As VP in the 70s, Saddam spearheaded Iraq's nationalization of the oil, but we ultimately chose to support him as the lesser of 2 evils in the Iran Iraq war, supplying him with chemical and biological weapons to use against the Ayatollah (and later, on his own people).
These are some of the same weapons (which have a shelf life of about 3 to 5 years BTW) that we ultimately invaded in gulf war 2 to take back from him. After gulf war 1, we didn't privatize the oil, but we (through the UN) enforced sanctions only allowing him to trade oil for food. It wasn't until later that we locked down the oil as mentioned above. Greenspan's Book admits it.
Like Iran, we created this monster.

Osama Bin Ladin
Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden
Nuf said.

Ultimately, All candidates from both parties except Ron Paul are for the "long war" that will ultimately bankrupt this country just like the cold war bankrupted the USSR. We cannot afford this war.

 

[shadowhooch]

I have a good friend that has kind of jumped on the Romney bandwagon lately.

Anyway we were discussing the war the other day and he said this:

"Oil, what has oil got to do with it. How has it helped us, oil hit $100/bl today. We have not taken a drop of oil from them. Tell me how oil is the reason we went in. Give me specifics, tell me who it has benefited and how."

I also mentioned that there was never a declaration of war--he said"

"We have not declared war in Iraq. We are not at war with a nation, we are at war with a group of people. There is a hugh difference. If we were at war with Iraq, we would destroy the country. We are at war with Al-Qaeda and the individuals that wish to destroy Israel and all Christian nations and Christians themselves. A big defference."

Any good input I could throw at him? We are best friends, so I have no worry about losing him as a friend--we like to discuss things--I just want to make sure I'm giving accurate information.

Thanks

Just do as Ron does. Attack the War in Iraq from a fiscal point of view. We can't afford to fight an endless war. The value of our dollar is crumbling because we are printing money and borrowing money from China to fund all these wars. The Canadian dollar is even now worth more than the US dollar. It is time to focus on our own issues.

 

[lucius]

Iraqi oil fields in Cheney's Mar 2001 energy policy...

 

[Goldwater Conservative]

Well, the man who basically ran our economy for 19 years, Alan Greenspan, said just this. Interestingly, he's also chided Bush and Congress for their fiscally irresponsible domestic policies. Despite their history and (presumable) disagreement over the Federal Reserve, it'd be nice to see him endorse his fellow libertarian-conservative Ron Paul.

 

[michelleandjamonti]

First of all the Osama Bin Laden unit of the CIA was closed less than 8 months after 9-11 so what that tells me is that the real bombers may or may not have been from Al Q. Also, war no matter how small it is is still war...also ask him if it mattters to him why he would support the CFR and the NAU since Mitt Romney is a supporter of this. If you need more details on it please let me know I work with a ton of oppressed Mormon people that question nothing and vote for religious affiliation and nothing else. www.cfr.org

 

[sugaki]

Sorry, I think the "in Iraq for oil" argument is weak, and often backed by ignorance.

Iran produces more oil than Iraq, in BPM. Nigeria produces a lot of oil, and the Bush admin refuses to deal w/ them for humanitarian reasons. Iraq BPM saw a decline following the destabilization of infrastructure, and produces significantly less oil than the Saddan era of Food-for-Oil.

World-policing? Maybe. Oil? There's a lot more oil we missed out on in South America and Africa. Iraq is not the only place, nor is it the biggest place for oil.