Why is it the obvious motive for Iraq - OIL - gets so little mention? It is the elephant in the room.
The Bush, Cheney, and Rice ties to the oil industry are fact. When our troops invaded, they secured the Oil Ministry and just about nothing else.
I encourage you to read up on the "Iraq hydrocarbon Law" which Wolfowitz had a hand in. We wrote it and handed it to the Iraqi puppet government - it had to be translated. It was expected to be passed long ago - but there are some Iraqis who actually want what's best for Iraq....
So when you hear a politician ranting about the Iraqis need to pass the oil law so revenue can get distributed, now you know. When they said the Iraq war would pay for itself from oil revenues... now you know.
Wonder why you hear nothing about Pakistan, who has nukes, and is probably harboring Bin Laden? They don't have OIL.
Why do you hear sword rattling about Iran, who is years away from nukes? They have OIL.
Why is the obvious motive not discussed? Is it okay with us as long as we get cheap gas?
I want to hear a candidate pushing for energy independence so that we don't ever again have more Americans killed for oil than were killed by Bin Laden.
Rant away. Grab your talking points and spin.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
About what?
Of course, oil is ONE of the reasons we went into Iraq. Buy it is not the ONLY reason as you keep trying to over-simplify it with your conspiracy theories.
If you want to do something about BiG Oil you should be supporting Casey "windfall profits tax" on them rather than simply continuing to rant about how Bush ginned up the war.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
And products made using petroleum...and products delivered using petroleum based fuels. Hmmm.
Please, click on www.america-21stcentury.com, yesterdays posting
The bottom line Quicksilver is it's not about Cheap Oil for Us : It's About Rouge Islamic Organizations ability to Control & Destroy The World's Economy AND The Community Of Nations' Opportunity For Peace & Progress and Prosperity !!
Last but not least - it's about the unckecked/unreasonable spread of hate for America, American's and everything we stand for !!
Yes, it is about OIL - as a weapon of mass destuction - of World Economies, and a tool to blackmail the West and the non Islamic world !!
Face it Quicksilver - this is not about cheap oil for anyone : this is about survival of individual rights and freedoms - for all humankind.
popo
Peter K.(Citizen)Evans of Boynton Beach, Florida
RAF World War 2 1941/1945
I would say we need to address the question then, "Why is America hated?" It wasn't always so. There was a time when America was admired and respected and loved by the rest of the world. I'm thinking right after the Second World War. Think Marshall Plan. Now a good number of the World's citizens shake their fists to the sky and chant "Death to America". Why?
We can not dispute the fact that many see America as a bully. Many see America as a threat to world peace. We can sit here at our kitchen tables and say "to hell with them then" but it doesnt change the perception, or help the matter.
Maybe being the World's only Super-Power (for the time being) has something to do with it? At least the Soviet Union took some of the heat off us. When there is only one top-dog, all the anger is directed at it.
Or maybe our insatiable appetite for the planets resources? And think about this.... if oil drives "our" economies, and "they" have it, is it a leverage tool or blackmail on "their" part? Guess it depends on who you're talking to?
Yes, JustJoe.
After WWII we were admired. Much of the world was behind us going into Afghanistan, but in Iraq we basically have only Britain.
We are the world's bully. Remember how we scorned France because they weren't behind us invading Iraq? Boy, I bet they're sorry they didn't join in with us.
A poll taken in western Europe showed most people feel the biggest threat to world peace is the US!!!
Sad.
Our moral compass has been ignored. I'd like to see us get back on the right course. Lead the world by example, like we used to.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
Alex de Toqueville said "America is Great because it is Good. When it stops being Good, it stops being Great."
George Bush looked the world in the eyes and said "You are with us or against us."
I prefer the America of de Toqueville's quote.
Yes Quick, we have lost our moral compass. And we need to find it soon, my friend, soon.
I agree Quicksilver and Justjoe, I want to hear candidates pushing for energy independence. It's time we become energy independent.
Upon requesting that I be removed from Unity08's delegate rolls and have my commentary removed so as tofully remove my support for this organization I received the following email from the Moderator. That it is impossible to remove oneself from this organization is a significant breach of internet etiquette which, sadly I cannot allow to continue.
--------
John,
It was your choice to post on the site. It is not our burden to tidy up after you.
Steve
On 4/30/07, John Kacmarowski wrote:
Unity08,
You haven't completed this task nor complied with my wishes as of this writing. Please do so immediately. I do not want for my name to be associated with the devolving discussions on these pages.
You attention to this matter will be appreciated.
Kind regards,
John E. Kaczmarowski
web@unity08.com wrote:
> From: web@unity08.com
> Subject: Thank you for contacting Unity08
>
> Thank you for contacting Unity08! We look forward to answering your email. With our recently launched Delegate Drive, we are receiving a high volume of email. We're doing our best to respond within 24-48 hours. We apologize for the delay, but please know that your email is important to us.
>
> Thank you for your patience and understanding.
>
> - U08 Web Team
> -------- Original Message --------
>
>
>> Web team,
>>
>> Please remove my account from your site. Also, remove all posts,
>> responses and comments attributed to me from your site.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> John E. Kaczmarowski
>>
>>
>>
>
It has come to my attention that most people, given enough of an opportunity, will prove the fools that they are. That's all that needs to be said.
-- Doug Bailey
Unity08 Founder
I'll take up the slack from that KrisW ranter on the oil question Quick. I admit I do not know the details of the hydrocarbon law there but of course its all about Oil and access to oil. That Is a no brainer. We do not need to do the scatology on Cheney and Wolfie to discern that. The relevant question is So What! The Europeans for years were trying to do the same thing with Saddam and get the inroads in tapping the new wells and boosting the old. ALL (in-area and out) realized the incredible strategic value of the oil from the Iranians to the Europeans and of course to us. All realized too that even with the best most wonderful energy independence programs around that the World and the US will be very dependent on the black gold stuff for many decades to come. Wish it weren’t so but that is the way it is and will be for the near medium time frame.
Whether it was Saddam in control or Maliki or (fill in the blank) on those reserves, they would need some sort of expertise to get the stuff out of the ground. Foreign companies/countries will not invest on their own good will but do require some return on investment. That is just basic business/economics. The nefarious motive you mention would be for anyone trying to invest in finding the reserves and pumping the stuff. The Iraqis are not able to do that. The Europeans and others were licking their chops at having that opportunity (see Oil for Food underhanded deals that would make the Hydrocarbon Law pale in comparison I’d bet dollars to donuts). For the Iraqis to get some of the benefit they are going to have to incentivize to those who know how to get the stuff. Simple business economics rules in a world where it is harder and harder and costlier to get the stuff we all will be dependent on for a long, long time.
What I would like the politicians to do is something more immediate and maybe more politically risky and in need of some stomach and political courage - Raise the gas tax gradually and substantially (1 to 2 dollars) over the next 5 years and put the money in energy independence research fun. That would have the double benefit of putting it to the Oil dictators and reducing demand and incentivizing the American public to conserve – that is where you will get your oil demand cut back – thru pricing. Necessity is the mother of invention and pricing creates some necessity. All it takes is some political courage and not wheel-spinning speculation on oil industry conspiracy theories.
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
If you want to do something about Oil, support Bob Casey's plan for a "windfall profits tax" on oil companies, and quite ranting about how the war is ONLY about oil.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
So far no one has argued against - even arguments justifying it! Incredible.
No wonder America's reputation is in the dirt.
Thousands killed for oil, and that's okay?
Watch out, Iran. Watch out Venezuela.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
I simply ignore wild conspiracy theroies from left-wing nut-jobs.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
So you have a sense of humor? YOU talking about conspiracy? YOU who feel the world is out to get you? THAT is funny.
Your tossing out labels doesn't bother me - I consider the source.
Cheney would be proud of you - you're following the approved tactic - when you can't argue facts against an issue, hurl personal attacks.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
Please state ANY "conspiracy theory" I've posted on here, other than that their are agent provocatuers with trying to kill this movement (Tee Barkdull was CLEAR evidence of that)
And so is Quicksilver, regardless of how many "people" seem to alweays agree with him.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
These guys are the ones who are gonna invite Chavez and Ahmadinejad in for dinner and watch them kill Americans.
They dont understand why people keep saying Ahmadinejad and Bin Laden are bad guys.
The ticket to bring the gov't back under the control of the People is obvious. It is Ron Paul and Mike Gravel. I would vote for either one for President. A return to Constitutional gov't and enforcement of the rule of law is our only hope, not that i have much hope of this happening. Before the Bush Clinton crime cartel would let this happen they would create another "terrorist attack", suspend the constitution, declare marshall law, stop the election and install a dictator. I told my dad the day after Clinton was elected to his second term that George Bush Jr. would be the next President. He told me i had no way of knowing that. I told him as long as i was predicting that i would make another prediction, that Jr. would be our last President. I hope i am wrong but I get the eerie feeling i am right.
Ron Paul: "Ron Paul is a strict Constitutionalist who supports American independence and sovereignty, border security, privacy and personal liberty.
He advocates a strict non-interventionist foreign policy as supported by his vote against the Iraq War in 2024 and his continued opposition of it. He is the only Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War. Paul's desire to secure U.S. borders remains a key topic in his 2024 presidential campaign. Thus, he opposes the North American Union proposition and its proposed integration of Mexico, the United States of America, and Canada."
And, he voted against the Give Up Your Rights Act (Patriot Act).
I like all of those positions.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
I believe we will see, in the not too distant future, scenarios we never thought we would witness in America. (Of course, who thought we would see fellow citizens clinging to roof-tops as flood waters swirled?) Martial Law....? Do you think it can not happen here? Think again.
Joe,
Please tell me you are not blaming the Bush administration for Hurricane Katrina!
As long as you don't let them take away our guns, we will be able to stop them.
I was making the point that many folks were aghast at the scenes we witnessed in New Orleans and I heard the comment from many friends and co-workers, that they never thought they would have seen those sights coming from America. Having said that, I was just putting out the notion that in regards to martial law, perhaps we will be seeing sights none of us imagined we would ever see.
I do believe that it all began to unravel for the bush administration tho, post-Katrina. For a President and a Party that campaigned on keeping us safe from the terrorists, Mother Nature showed us that she was a force to be reckoned with. The Katrina rescue and relief efforts by both Federal and State govts, pretty much made "Homeland Security" a misnomer.
I do not wish to take anyone's guns away from them but I would like to see the gun laws on the books enforced.
On both points sir. On the other hand, it sure showed us what private citizens and businesses were capable of when they stepped in by the thousands to help in any way they could.
Thank goodness for the private efforts. Wal-Mart was ready with trucks, supplies and people before the Hurricane even hit. But our leaders implied they could "protect us" through the mis-named agency of Homeland Security. "Heckuva job" huh?
I agree also. Katrina, like 9/11, showed what America is about - people helped each other, and still do. A local boy who grew up with my youngest daughter stopped by just the other day - he'd taken time off and went down to New Orleans to help rebuild. I told him how proud I was of him.
Watching TV the week of Katrina, however, I kept feeling I was watching something in a third world country - it was nearly a full week before significant help arrived. Much of New Orleans is still in dismal shape.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
I find it amazing that a President and, more importantly, a Party that says Big Government should stay out of citizen's lives, can't get it straight. The Republican Party shamelessly intruded itself in to the Terry Schaivo affair (one family's personal agony) and then allowed New Orleans to drown for a week. Do you recall anyone rushing down to New Orleans the way they rushed backed to Washington and then to Terry Schaivo's hospital?
A Republican President and a Republican-controlled Congress created "Homeland Security" (I chuckle every time I use that term) then gutted FEMA and placed it under HS's authority. We saw the sad result of that.
Cmon now, which way is it? Govt helps? Govt stays out of our lives? Or is it more about political gain? We know the answer, dont we?
Sorry to have gotten off topic. I was making the point about martial law and began to get side-tracked. I will try to pay more attention.
Hey, if you're into predictions, contact Kris - he's into that.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
Another personal attack by Quicksilver.
Not that whoever Unity08 pays to moderate this site does anything about it.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
it was not so much a prdiction as a conclusion, the Bushes and Clintons had to have someone in the Presidency who would keep the lid on all their treasonous crimes, little Georgie was the obvious choice. They still have to have someone to do the same again, ie. either Hillary or Rudy will work nicely for them.
About predictions - it was an attempt at a joke.
Sorta agree with your thoughts - I don't want Rudy or Hillary. Partisan politics of the filthy kind. Had enough of that.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
Quick,
Once again I have looked into the Iraqi Hydrocarbon Law and found none of the conspiracy. This is a law that will work out the way the different areas of Iraq will share in the oil revenues. As for Exon, Mobil and Haliburton, it will be Asian countries who get the first contracts. Please read this article explaining why:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm
In a nutshell, these Asian countries have already started dealings and are seen as less controversial than American companies. But don't fear, American companies should also get a share because, and this is an exerpt from the article speaking of Western oil companies;
First, their technical prowess is world renowned.
"I have not heard anything from any Iraqi ministers against U.S. oil companies," said Aljibury. "In fact, I have heard the opposite. They are the best in field exploration and development. They want them."
This is what I am finding, not your statement of "The numbers vary a bit, because estimates of reserves aren't precise, but it ranges from 20% to 1/3 - would belong to Iraq - they rest would flow to Texcaco, Exxon-Mobil,... and Halliburton"
All seem to agree that the reserves are the third largest in the world. What a position from which to deal!
You don't wonder-
"I have not heard anything from any Iraqi ministers against U.S. oil companies," said Aljibury. "In fact, I have heard the opposite. They are the best in field exploration and development. They want them."
Exploration? They KNOW where the fields are. Development? Iraqi oil is among the easiest in the world to pump.
You didn't search enough - if you want, I'll find links.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
Please do post some links, maybe I'm not finding enough to read. What I get out of it, like many other industries, is that the U.S. has the best in the field!
Just Google and keep going beyond the first page of results...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/opinion/13juhasz.html?ex=1331438400&en=8289271df648123e&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36754
http://www.thebushagenda.net/article.html?id=363
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=32130
http://searchingforthetruth.typepad.com/searching_for_the_truth/2007/01/petrodollars_al.html
http://www.iraqslogger.com//post/2347
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/30/201/
http://www.al-ghad.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/iraqi_oil_law.pdf
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/032907Hussain.shtml
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=43956
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
From the NYT link:
"Iraq’s neighbors Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia maintain nationalized oil systems and have outlawed foreign control over oil development. They all hire international oil companies as contractors to provide specific services as needed, for a limited duration, and without giving the foreign company any direct interest in the oil produced."
You forget one thing Quick - the Iraq neighbors are starting from a well developed base that was nationalized AFTER the foreign companies developed a good solid base. That is what Venezuela is doing. The Iraq base is decrepit now and needs a total infrastructure makeover of the base that only foreign invenstment and expertise of some sort can supply. It is very hard for any country to do such on their own in creating and expanding that base without some sort of substantial foreign investment much less a shattered Iraq - didn't happen that way with the Saudis, Kuwaitis or the Iranians or most other oil countries.
You need that initial up front investment and incentives thereof to attract. Can the Iraqis bargain to make their cut better - for sure they should. But it IS a balancing act and they must make sure the expertise is attracted and the infrastructure built - that does not happen by magic you know.
And once again - OF COURSE IT IS ABOUT OIL!! - see
http://unity08.com/node/1230#comment-19501
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
You said - "You need that initial up front investment and incentives thereof to attract. Can the Iraqis bargain to make their cut better - for sure they should."
But the law is explicit - ANY new well is for foreign profit, and the length of contracts stipulated at 30 years...
Some revenue sharing - 50-50, say - with foreign companies and the Iraqi government would strike me as enough incentive to get companies in - and it wouldn't have to be for 30 years.........
Who are WE to dictate to the Iraqis what to do with THEIR oil??? Even with the revenue of wells in production, they would have enough money to contract to have new wells drilled - but we (Exxon, etc) don't want that, that's why we handed them a law.
Prove me wrong, please....
it disgusts me think that what I see to be true is really true...we've allowed 3,350+ US soldiers and who knows how many American contractors, and who knows how many Iraqis to die because of oil greed.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
In the Real World nothing is permanent permanent. Even the Companies are realistic about that. Things do change and can change down the line (heck look at Chavez and Venezuela today as an example). But right now the Iraqis are faced with a stark ends-means reality that only the Foreign investments might bridge. Maybe 10 to 15 years they could pull a Chavez who knows. It's posssible but they need the infrastructure and investment and expertise and quick to get to that fine state.
Remember above all 2 lessons of History: 1) Nothing is inevitable until it Happens; and 2) Nothing is Permanent (not even a Hydrocarbon Law esp in the Mid-East). And don't forget what TR said - "do what you can, with what you have, where you are". The Iraqis in the Hydrocarbon thing are doing that. It's easy for us to sit back in our nice safe warm/cold homes and all and tell the Iraqis, Israelis or whoever over there to do this and that, but folks they have to live with the consequences!
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Other than the NYT Opinion piece, everything points to the discusion of wheather or not to allow international investment and how to split up the proceeds. This article,
http://www.thebushagenda.net/article.html?id=363
counters your point that they know where the oil is. The last paragraph of the article;
"In the latest draft copy of the law, seen by Dow Jones Newswires, the
law lists 51 oil fields in various parts of Iraq that are ready for
development, and 65 exploration blocks."
More exploration blocks than the current number of oil fields ready for development.
Ladies and gentlemen I'vebit my tongue so long it hurts. I can't tell you why President Bush or anyone else decided to go into Iraq, but I can tell you why I supported it. If I had been looking for WMDs I would have gone to China or Russia, I supported going into Iraq because after the first gulf war Saddam was put on probation and he not only did not obey the turms of porbation but he was shooting at planes enforcing the no fly zone. we went in with three objectives,1. to remove Saddam from power. 2. to install a democratic government 3. to help stabblise that government. We accomplished the first mission with little porblem. We have have made fair porgress on the second, and so far we have failed miserably on the third.I still believe we were right. I will support leaving when we have completed the mission,or when the duly elected government ask us to leave, or when the duly elected government starts making policies I don't think we should condone.
You are entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't wash. Yes, he was off and on with the UN inspectors. As to democratic government, a puppet democratic government - sure the Iraqis got to vote, but how were the candidates selected? Isn't it amazing how the top Iraqis in the government speak perfect English?
If that were our motive, that he was a bad guy, we'd be in Sudan and stopping the genocide in Darfur.
As to going in with those 3 objectives - that's not what we heard in the run-up to the war - that came later as absolutely no WMDs were found. OIL, that's why we're there.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
I believe we have reached another milestone today, with the news that the head of al-Qaeda in Iraq has been killed! Best of all, by the Iraqi people, not the police or the army, but tribal groups that are sick of the insurgents killing! This is exactly what is needed for the "stabilization"! The people have been helping the authorities find many insurgents, but now the head! This is great news!
Or another "Mission Accomplished". Unfortunately life and war is not that simple Auto. It may be a bare start but just that! Use the locals to get these thugs but we will be there for a long long time in some capacity - remember Korea!!
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
John,
A milestone is in no way a mission accomplished. What it is, is a great step above the citizens pointing out insurgents for Iraqi and coalition troups to deal with. Where the citizens doing this is a great start and help, now we have tribal groups that are also taking the fight to the insurgents. This, at least to me, shows the growing thought on the part of the Iraqi citizens that they are fed up and not willing to sit back and take it anymore. A start? Yes! And a damn good one in my humble opinion!
I do agree Auto. Just didn't want us to get to cocky though - again. I feel we do need to get Congress to get behind the surge and get Bush to put more geostrategic context to this surge and the Iraq stabilization. To that end I thought Marine Owen West had a good article in the NYT today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/opinion/01west.html?_r=1&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
some excerpts:
"Today the civil-military relationship has righted itself, yet soldiers like me who believe that Iraq can be stabilized face a bitter irony. On one hand, the military is finally making meaningful adjustments to the complex fight. On the other, the politicians are finally asserting themselves. The tragedy is that the two groups are going in opposite directions.
Most Americans who have served side by side with Iraqi units, especially those of us who have been advisers to Iraqi companies and battalions, believe that significant numbers of our soldiers will be needed in Iraq for another decade. This timeline is about average for a classic insurgency, and optimistic for one so muddied by tribal feuds and religious hatred."
The two Congressional votes last week establishing timelines for withdrawing American troops completely undermined such assurances. The confusion stems from an inherent contradiction in our politics: Though the burden of war is shouldered by few, the majority of Americans want to vacate Iraq, and the percentages are increasing. Something has to give.
We’re four years into a global conflict that will span generations, fighting virulent ideologues obsessed with expansion. It’s time for those who are against the war in Iraq to consider the probable military consequences of withdrawal. But it is also time for supporters of the war to step back back and recognize that public opinion in great part dictates our martial options."
It will take political courage for these politicians to agree to the needed advisory forces. But it is the only way the Iraqis themselves will ever be able to make their country secure. And that is the one goal on which all Americans, those who support the war and those who “support the troops,” should be able to agree."
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
An excellent op-ed piece, thanks for sharing.
While one less is good news, I can't count how many times the # 2 man in Al Qaeda (after Bin Laden) has been announced killed. # 3 just moves up.
I am more heartened by the second half - the Iraqis did it? Do you have a link to the source of information? I hope it's true...
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
I just looked under International on Google News. Not sure where the story came from, but I saw it on the morning news at the house and have heard it on two different radio stations.
A real milestone would be for the various Iraqi political factions to reign in their militias and end this horrifying sectarian violence. There is a milestone I would stand up and cheer for.
Another two-bit al Quaida leader killed? Sorry Bob, I aint breakin' out the champagne just yet.
First, I wouldn't consider the head guy "Another two-bit al Quaida leader". Yes, there are many others waiting to fill his shoes, but when the last one is killed, he too would have been the leader for some brief amount of time. The point, again, is that the tribal groups are fighting the insurgents. That meens they are fighting FOR their country and AGAINST the same garbage that the coalition forces are fighting. The milestone is the people of Iraq standing up for Iraq. We could belitle every acheivement and point out how much better it could have been or we can celebrate the acheivement and look forward to the next. I prefer the possitive route, there are enough people out there willing to trash every accomplishment in Iraq.
Again, just my simple thoughts.
Bob, I want to see progress believe me I do. But I keep seeing sectarian violence of an awful magnitude. Car bombs blowing up a marketplace and killing 50 Shias? A bomb detonated the next day, outside a mosque, murdering 30 Sunnis? And on and on it goes.
I am trying to weigh the sectarian killings vs taking out an al Quaida leader and.... wow I am having trouble viewing that as progress. But I will grant you it is one less terrorist.