Well Wheres the Oil?

PC Mode

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 Last

PanzerJaeger 21:16 08-12-2005

All through the run up to the Iraq war and into the liberation some people, (I wont call them what they are for fear of being labeled an evil labeler

), screamed that America was only going into Iraq for the oil. We, the Americans, were scolded for using our army to defend oil pipelines instead of museums and hospitals. We were berated with vague and unsubstantiated links between the administration and "big oil", blah blah blah.

Well oil hit 68$ this morning, who knows where it is now..

Where is all this oil we are supposedly raping Iraq of? Where is the oil we are -according to the bumperstickers i read - trading for blood? Where are all those supposed oil trucks our troops are losing their lives defending going to?

Does anyone seriously still believe this myth?

Adrian II 21:24 08-12-2005

Originally Posted by PanzerJager:
We were berated with vague and unsubstantiated links between the administration and "big oil", blah blah blah.

Read

King of Atlantis 21:24 08-12-2005

Your correct on this point. I am still against the war, but i have never claimed it was for oil, maybe for a corperation invasion though

sharrukin 21:29 08-12-2005

Well I don't see what so wrong about going to war for oil.

It is a concrete and clear aim, and was in fact the policy of the US for many years that they would not let the Soviets get a hold of the Middle East. The RDF (rapid deployment force) was created for that exact purpose.

Now I think there are better ways to get oil than invasion. One is to buy it. The Iranians continued to sell oil to the west even after the 1979 revolution. That is one reason I don't think our 'alliance' with Saudi Arabia makes sense.

We went to war with Iraq over the invasion of Kuwait because of oil. The French, British, and others did as well.

The second invasion was not however IMO over oil, or at least it wasn't the primary reason, but I am sure it was considered as a supporting factor. By itself, it would never have been the reason for war.

Tribesman 22:14 08-12-2005

Panzer , you sad man , you really thought(or didn't think) that what mattered was the price of a gallon in your fuel tank .
Don't you realise yet that you don't matter , you are just a pawn that is willing to pass off the governments shit (it doesn't matter what government it is , left/right) ,you get screwed either way .
If you think this stupid conflict was about oil or not , you cannot deny that the oil companies are absolutly creaming it , they are benefitting while you are paying , just like it was under the oil/food bullshit , just as they benefit under trade agreements , just as they benefit under just about everything that goes .
It doesn't matter who is the president , or if the so called left/right are in ascendancy ...you are going to get screwed .

Red Harvest 22:24 08-12-2005

Originally Posted by PanzerJager:
All through the run up to the Iraq war and into the liberation some people, (I wont call them what they are for fear of being labeled an evil labeler ), screamed that America was only going into Iraq for the oil. We, the Americans, were scolded for using our army to defend oil pipelines instead of museums and hospitals. We were berated with vague and unsubstantiated links between the administration and "big oil", blah blah blah.

Well oil hit 68$ this morning, who knows where it is now..

Where is all this oil we are supposedly raping Iraq of? Where is the oil we are -according to the bumperstickers i read - trading for blood? Where are all those supposed oil trucks our troops are losing their lives defending going to?

Does anyone seriously still believe this myth?

Funny, many supporting the Administration were pointing out that the war/rebuilding would pay for itself in oil. The damage to the production/refining infrastructure was underestimated by the Admin. Post war sabotage/insurgence was underestimated by the Admin--especially its effect on bringing production and refining back on line. Troop requirements to stabilize the country were underestimated by the Admin. Hence oil production from Iraq has not approached what the White House expected.

The lack of real energy policy from 2001 is partially responsible for the oil run up. Oil demand is inelastic, it takes time to move it. Dubya's comment on energy conservation was that "energy conservation isn't the answer." (Wish I had the full text of the quote, I remember when he said it during his great "Energy Policy" summit at the start of his administration.) As a result consumption grew faster than production. OOPS! Conservation is the answer. Production can't keep up despite being given a headstart by Dubya's policy. A number of us predicted this would happen regardless of Iraq. Note also that U.S. production has declined from 9.06 million barrels/day in 2000 to 8.70 million barrels a day in 2004. World production went from 77.8 million BPD to 83.0 million BPD from 2000 to 2004.

I'll tell you where the oil went, it went into that fleet of new larger SUV's. It went toward feeding the reversal in fuel efficiency. It went to other countries like China who are growing rapidly and using more energy than before (and still a small fraction of what we use per capita.)

RabidGibbon 23:23 08-12-2005

Where are the WMD's?

Ronin 00:31 08-13-2005

silly bear.....if oil was cheaper aliburton(whatever the hell the spelling is) couldn´t make enough money out off it

you think this was done so that american´s could buy cheap gas?

lancelot 00:32 08-13-2005

Well Im cynical enough to believe that hikes in oil prices are probably nothing more than a clever marketing ploy to force exactly what is happening-a nice big price increase.

@panzer

Ok, so the war isnt about oil. What do you think the primary motivation is? Do you believe its about the myth of removing nasty dictators or protectinig the innocent?

Its just I find it coincidental that the US isnt really bothered about all the dictators in resource poor African nations (Zimbabwe for instance)...

You take on that?

Ultimately, I just dont believe the US is that selfless..

Taffy_is_a_Taff 01:31 08-13-2005

I drank it,
I admit it, I am am internal combustion engine powered robot.

's true.

ichi 01:43 08-13-2005

oil at $68 bucks a barrel confirms my suspicions, not undermines them. The Saudi's control most of the oil, huge corporate interests control a lot, Iraqi oil is limited due to insurgency damage and mismanagement.

When people said that this was about oil, dude, it wasn't so that cheap plentiful Iraqi oil would flow into your gas tank. 'About oil' means that the current admin's corporate sponsors could get filthy richer.

and it wasn't all about oil. Saddam represented a huge threat to the Saudis, sure, but W also wanted to finish Dad's job, and get us in a war where he could cry 'emergency' and get lots of free passes legally and politically, and also to divert our attention from Enron and ANWR and a lot of other nasty stuff.

ichi

Navaros 02:08 08-13-2005

it's not a myth. didn't you hear about all the deals Haliburton is getting out of Iraq's oil? several billion dollars

hoarding Iraq's oil does not mean that you will get a better price on oil. it just means that big business will be able to extort you even more.

PanzerJaeger 02:17 08-13-2005

Originally Posted by :
Panzer , you sad man

Hey Tribesman, go fuck yourself.

To you other guys, thanks for helping me understand your viewpoint. The idea that the war was about lining the pockets of the oil companies is a lot more believable, but it wasnt made clear by the anti-war crowd. Most people I know assume that the "oil theory" has to do with reducing the price at the pump.

Again, thanks for the explanation - people usually make a lot more sense when you hear them first hand.

Oh and..

Originally Posted by :
Ok, so the war isnt about oil. What do you think the primary motivation is? Do you believe its about the myth of removing nasty dictators or protectinig the innocent?

If you look at the history of the Iraq saga since 1991, Saddam continually attempted to undermine the US and presented himself as an enemy and a threat. History shows that both the Clinton and Bush administrations felt that Saddam was hostile and a real danger - Clinton of course used military action against him several times.

I truly believe that the Bush administration thought that he had WMDs. He made it look that way, and most people in the intelligence world believed it.

I think the liberation was a culmination of years of failed policies and a perceived growing danger - ie the sanctions breaking down and Saddam free to pursue his nuclear program.

Gawain of Orkeny 02:34 08-13-2005

Originally Posted by :
There is little doubt in my mind that the war was about Oil, and Iraq simply presented itself as the best target for that purpose.

Of course the war was about oil in a large part. But not to make Bush and his freinds rich as some hear seem to be saying but to keep the flow of it stable. Again we get very little oil from Iraq. There were so many reasons that could be used to justify invading Iraq. I truly believe it is the centerpiece in the war on terror . The best thing we can do is bring freedom and democracy to that region of the world.

Gawain of Orkeny 02:50 08-13-2005

Originally Posted by :
We, as in the American people, get very little oil from Iraq. The big companies that Bush has handed Iraq off to are, however, getting extremely rich.

THey already are extremely rich. So its yours and other opinions that these people are sacrificing American servicemens lifes to get even richer. Im sorry I dont trust the government but this is more than I can believe. They would be getting richer with far less fuss without invading.

sharrukin 02:57 08-13-2005

I think a large part of it is about the Neo-con faction within the administration wanting a strategic platform in the middle east, and their hopes to use it to destabilize the region and introduce democracy. Things changed along the way and made these goals seem less and less realistic, but this was a part of the reason IMO.

Proletariat 03:11 08-13-2005

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
With Neo-Cons in power, is it so surprising that we could sacrifice lives for money?

Can you define 'Neo-Con'? Do you think Bush is one?

I have never heard the connotation that a Neo-Con is a capitalist who oils his machine with the blood of the military proletariat before.

Proletariat 03:21 08-13-2005

Much better. That's the tin-foil armored crowd I can recognize.

sharrukin 03:30 08-13-2005

Originally Posted by Proletariat:
Can you define 'Neo-Con'? Do you think Bush is one?

Bush in my understanding is not a Neocon, but has a fair number of Neocons as advisors.

My understanding was that they described themselves as Liberals mugged by reality?
They generally seem to have similar views to Liberals on many things except military action and some financial aspects.

Is this not the case for most?
What is a Neocon in your opinion?

Strike For The South 03:51 08-13-2005

Neo linkage

IMO the war wasn't started solly for oil but you should always be distrustful with a man like bush for the sole reason of his many big business connections

Red Harvest 05:20 08-13-2005

Originally Posted by Proletariat:
Much better. That's the tin-foil armored crowd I can recognize.

I have to agree with him on this, Proletariat. Having Dubya and Cheney (who used to run Haliburton) calling the shots has meant that oil company/oil services profitability takes precedence over everything else.

Cheney did some "aggressive accounting" at Haliburton that forced later restatement of earnings and should have gotten him in big trouble. He was lucky with respect to timing. What he did is something that is clearly a no-no. He claimed revenue for cost over runs on major Haliburton projects that were in dispute, and that were not really eligible for repayment since they were fixed-price contracts. Haliburton claimed 100% of the disputed items would be in Haliburton's favor. There is no way to justify that accounting wise, because the disputed items would all have to arisen from customer change orders. The real kicker though is that they didn't bother to disclose the accounting practice change when they started doing it.

Quoting from a lawsuit in the matter.
"On information and belief, by virtue of the Change in Accounting Principle, Halliburton reported unbilled receivables of $98 million for the year ended December 31, 1999, unbilled receivables of $113 million for the year ended December 31, 2000, and unbilled receivables of $234 million for the year ended December 31, 2001, based on unapproved and disputed cost overruns, change orders, and unresolved claims, without disclosing the Change in Accounting Principle to book speculative revenue on unresolved claims and change orders not approved by its customers. The undisclosed Change in Accounting Principle and the revenue recognition arising therefrom violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”) because such revenues were not probable and could not be reliably estimated"

The end result of course is to artificially inflate profits. This makes Cheney and other execs wealthier at shareholders (aka "suckers") expense.

Gawain of Orkeny 05:29 08-13-2005

Here heaven forbid you would all HAVE to read this so Ill just provide a link you can ignore

Cheney doesn't gain a penny from Halliburton's contracts

Redleg 06:13 08-13-2005

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny:
Here heaven forbid you would all HAVE to read this so Ill just provide a link you can ignore

Cheney doesn't gain a penny from Halliburton's contracts

What's funny is that many try to make it sound like Haliburton's contracts with the government just started happening. A little research will show that Haliburton has been deeply involved in infastructur contracts where-ever the United States Army is deployed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

Originally Posted by :
The LOGCAP contract awarded to Brown and Root in 2001 was the third, and potentially most lucrative, super-contract awarded by the Army. Brown and Root won the first five-year contract in 1992, but lost the second to rival DynCorp in 1997 after the GAO criticized the Army for not adequately controlling contracting costs in Bosnia

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york070903.asp

Originally Posted by :
In 1997, when LOGCAP was again put up for bid, Halliburton/Brown & Root lost the competition to another contractor, Dyncorp. But the Clinton Defense Department, rather than switch from Halliburton to Dyncorp, elected to award a separate, sole-source contract to Halliburton/Brown & Root to continue its work in the Balkans. According to a later GAO study, the Army made the choice because 1) Brown & Root had already acquired extensive knowledge of how to work in the area; 2) the company "had demonstrated the ability to support the operation"; and 3) changing contractors would have been costly. The Army's sole-source Bosnia contract with Brown & Root lasted until 1999. At that time, the Clinton Defense Department conducted full-scale competitive bidding for a new contract. The winner was . . . Halliburton/Brown & Root. The company continued its work in Bosnia uninterrupted.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/082903B.shtml

Some need to do more research into the subject before making certain types of allegations. Two companies have been deep into the government's pockets since the start of the LOGCAP contracts - which was not started by this President Bush or Vice President.

bmolsson 06:46 08-13-2005

Redleg, doesn't that make it a rather bad choice of Vice President ??

Gawain of Orkeny 06:49 08-13-2005

Originally Posted by :
Redleg, doesn't that make it a rather bad choice of Vice President ??

Did you know that Gore has a large share of Haliburton stocks? You will have a hard time finding a politicain without ties to some major corporations.

Redleg 06:57 08-13-2005

Originally Posted by bmolsson:
Redleg, doesn't that make it a rather bad choice of Vice President ??

How so? Because he is tied to a company that has huge governmental contracts.

Hell then several Presidents had no business getting elected.

Adrian II 07:56 08-13-2005

Originally Posted by Red Harvest:
Funny, many supporting the Administration were pointing out that the war/rebuilding would pay for itself in oil. The damage to the production/refining infrastructure was underestimated by the Admin.

On the mark again, Red Harvest. The BBC site I linked to explains a lot, most of which was publicly known before the war in Iraq started.

People like James Baker III were among the oil industry 'experts' who helped restore realism to the Neocon policy plans with regard to Iraqi oil. Baker's institute came up with a report that addressed the real issues and estimated that restoration of Iraq's oil production woule cost at least five billion dollar and restoration of its electricity infrastructure (a necessary condition for the resumption of oil production) another twenty billion dollar. And it would take years before Iraq would be able to 'pay' for anything with is oil revenues.

Apart from being a former Foreign Secretary, Mr. Baker is a lawyer and the founder of Baker Botts of Riyadh and Houston. Among his clients are Exxon-Mobil and the defense minister of Saudi Arabia. His firm is defending the Saudis in a lawsuit filed by families of 9/11 victims on the grounds that Saudi money helped pay the terrorists. He's Senior Counsel for The Carlyle Group, a company that invests pension funds in defense and telecommunications companies around the world. The Carlyle Group, led by people like Carlucci, Bush senior and Joh Major, is the nation's 10th largest defense contractor and has extensive ties to Enron, Global Crossing, Arthur Andersen, the Saudi royals and the Bin Laden family.

Mr. Baker is also George Bush' favoured negotiator for the Middle East. He has his office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, right next door to George. His job right now is to 'restructure' Iraq's debt. The Saudis have a 30 billion dollar claim on Iraq.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting that Bush policies are exclusively driven by oil. I don't think they are, we've been there and discussed that. But people who want to know about the influence of big oil on the Bush administration should look no further than someone like James Baker III. If they care to look at all, of course.

Tribesman 08:51 08-13-2005

Hey Tribesman, go fuck yourself.
Charming , can I add that to all my posts Panzer ?
Whats up ? don't you like facing the fact that your darling government is screwing you over , thats life , get used to it .

bmolsson 10:01 08-13-2005

Originally Posted by Redleg:
How so? Because he is tied to a company that has huge governmental contracts.

Hell then several Presidents had no business getting elected.

Politics and business doesn't fit with each other. No governmental positions should be held by somebody doing business with the government. For this is a rather important thing to keep the creditability and transparancy of a government institution as a presidency.

The Black Ship 15:17 08-13-2005

Originally Posted by lancelot:

Its just I find it coincidental that the US isnt really bothered about all the dictators in resource poor African nations (Zimbabwe for instance)...

You take on that?

Ultimately, I just dont believe the US is that selfless..

First, the former colony of Rhodesia is a Birt problem, you know...sphere of influence. Second, Zimbabwe can hardly be described as resource poor. Job poor, yes, but resource poor...

I understand Panzer's point, if you can lambaste Bush for the lack of WMD then the same scrutiny can be shown upon those that claimed "all about the oil"...can't you?

Fair is fair.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 Last

Single Sign On provided by vBSSO