Shuster on Hardball: Blood for Oil
By Nicole Belle Monday Sep 17, 2007 3:01pm
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather for vids)
David Shuster looks at Greenspan's "revelation" that the occupation of Iraq was all about the oil. What do you know? Despite White House officials talking out of both sides of their mouths and spinning seven ways to Sunday, their overriding concern has always been what we on the left have said from the beginning: What's OUR oil doing under THEIR sand?
Login or Register to post comments.
We've been right all along, but their pundits will still be the only ones invited back on TV to continue giving their flawed, demonstrably erroneous, opinions. That's why I call them:
The PEP Squad: Perpetually Erroneous Pundits
It has always been about the oil.
Even Cheney said that we wouldn't be there if they didn't have oil.
It is surprising that Greenspan has revealed this. If I didn't know better, I'd think he's trying to pimp a book or something.
And thank God for David Shuster, The former Fox reporter who said of his old employer:
Once again the president has been caught with his dick in the peanut butter.
Duh
All this comment from Greenspan does is validate what many believe, that all members of the Dumbya Regime involved in the propaganda drive to the illegally invade Iraq are war criminals.
Okay so I am going to ask my Question for the Zillionith time....Oil the night before the War was 29 Dollars /barrel....NOW it is 80 dollars/barrel....so What went wrong? I mean is this really what the goal was back in Oct 2002 when Cheney First Peddled the Mushroom Clouds ??? ( or was it WMD? or was it the Dictator? or Bringing Democracy? gee I can't remember What was First now.....)
The international oil companies/U.S/OPEC doesn't want Iraq's oil on the market. They want to control it through the Iraqi government, which is no more than a front. If they can control the output, they control the prices. We didn't invade to get the oil, we invaded to control it. I have never seen anyone in the media address this.
Greenspan is getting a little upset that, as he put it "It's unfair for the 'lefty' blogs to use my
book to say Bush lied". Well Mr Greenspan, we knew this all along so don't get all bent out of
shape and blame the blogs when the Bush Cabal threatens you and your family to 'Shut up or else!"
Does anyone actually believe the war's NOT about oil and the power potential that derives from oil?
Shuster needs his own show.
So this is news? The fact that Iraq has oil is the sine qua non reason for Bush deciding to invade. If Iraq had no oil, then Bush would have treated Iraq the same way he treats the multitude of nations around the world who are as oppressed by their government as Iraq was by Saddam. Bush would have done nothing.
fedup @ 9:
You are dead on the money! It's not about 'cheaper oil,' it's about who controls the PRICE of oil.
We killed 1.2 million people to stabilize the price of oil, and it nearly doubled since the invasion.
Are we even doing this for oil?
OK Lawrence you answered me. thanks
Lawrence Santoro @ 11:
It's about fighting Islamo-fascism. We have to fight them there or we'll be fighting them here.
Geez....didn't you get your talking points memo.
Dear Enigma Forever,
You're right about the cost of oil per barrel. But follow your thread of thought further and you will see it IS the answer. An answer which has translated to massive profits of American oil corporations and their puppet politicians. For crissakes, Condosleazy Rice even has a tanker named after her!
You can bank on the fact that the Bush cartel has had a very generous increase in earnings over the past 7 years and it's not due to their public servant salaries, it's due to their stock portfolios and bribes, er, campaign contributions.
Operation
Iraqi
Lies
It couldn't get any more obvious.
For an interesting read, check out a brief article entitled "How Big Oil Beguiled Iraq" in the Cousteau Almanac. Printed in 1978.
Wait a minute... you mean after attacking the World Trade Center on 9-11 Saddam melted down all of Iraq's WMD's and turned them into oil....
THAT BASTARD!!!
I love American news. They are either bordering on mentally challenged or just willfully ignorant. I tend to think it's both.
Like we need that clown Greenspan to give credence to the fact this war is about oil. FUUUUUCCCCCKKKKK! I weep for the U.S. Your population are turning into meatballs!
Score another one for us dirty old hippie types. We called it a long time ago. We may be dirty and old and all hippie-ish, but we have been right from the start.
There is one main concern of U.S. Foreign Policy: oil.
And fear. Two, two... There are two main concerns: oil and fear.
And control. Damn. There are three main concerns...
Repeat until the end of time.
I really don't have a lot of faith in Greenspan. He stated back in 2001 (in support of Bush's stupid tax plan) that we'd be in trouble if we paid off the national debt too fast. Greenspan seems to have a need to suck up to those in power so he'll say whatever is required.
And why are we hearing from all these bozos now about how fucked Cheney/Bush is? Where the hell were these cowards when their prostests might have saved lives?
Like has already been said, the liberals, those the right-wing-hatemongers has done their utmost to revile and debase, have been right all along.
We didn't need Greenspan to say it, we knew it, he just confirmed it. And I'm not turning into a meatball at least it doesn't show yet. ;)
Curtilingus @ 15:
It's being done for the oil COMPANIES
They get oil and profits... sort of a win win situation for them
The American citizens get debt and coffins... sort of a lose lose situation for us
enigma4ever @ 8:
I was thinking about oil prices today. Not all of the $80/barrel can be blamed on Bush, but that doesn't mean he made things any better. China and India's economic boom increasing demand is a large chunk of it, and Katrina taking out refinery production has to be factored in as well. Even with these factors thrown in, I'd say that if we didn't go into Iraq, oil would be at the absolute most, $50/barrel and gas averaging somewhere around $2.00/gal.
Greg Pallast wrote an article recently saying that the goal of the Iraq
waroccupation wasn't to get more oil, but to cut out a large source of oil and drive up profits for the oil companies. It's simple economics: less supply = higher prices.Curtilingus @ 15:
Remember, Cheney had a "secret" meeting at the white house with oil executives. And certainly the Bush family gains off of the increase in oil prices. It's not so much the stabilization of the price of oil, but the ability to dictate the price.
Simon White-Thatch Potentloins @ 22:
...No one can escape the Cheney Inquisition!!!!
Using a straight line, please connect Dot A to Dot B.
Updated: 10:55 a.m. PT Jan 30, 2006
DALLAS - Exxon Mobil Corp. posted record profits for any U.S. company on Monday — $10.71 billion for the fourth quarter and $36.13 billion for the year — as the world’s biggest publicly traded oil company benefited from high oil and natural-gas prices and solid demand for refined products.
fedup @ 9:
Bingo!
The Iraq war/occupation is not just to control the price of oil but to control us. If the money spent on death and destruction in Iraq was instead spent on renewable energy, we'd all be better off but that would mean the common people would be more empowered and less enslaved to the oil companies.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but one thing that is rarely mentioned in all these reports is that Saddam was seeking to take their oil off the "Dollar Standard" and put it on the "Euro"...I believe that it would cost specifically American Companies "mucho dinero"...I quote from a William Clark esay from Jan 2003:
"Although completely unreported by the U.S. media and government, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking -- it is in large part an oil currency war. One of the core reasons for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves."
The longer the Iraqi oil sits, the more it is worth. The evil bastards don't care if it takes ten years and ten times the death and cost to the US to stablize Iraq and get the oil flowing again. For them, the longer it sits untapped the better.
Bev, you're correct.
Good thing Greenspan is going senile enough to accidentally let out the truth.
It was always about the oil and treasonous acts from within.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear."
Cicero
Recommend googling Zeitgeist (2hr movie) about these assholes. In keeping with their tired, yellowed one-page script we've known all about it for the last 7 years as they become more of a deadly disease on the world (more violent, more virulent, more cruel, more sick to death of themselves and us).
May they fail miserably.
How long til we exhale?
The Saudis are apparently going to buy a boatload of fighters (Eurofighter Typhoon) from the EU for countless billions. This is partly what got Saddam ousted by the US; Saddam wasn't willing to blow all of Iraq's resources on overpriced Western military hardware. Saddam was too frugal for his own good; he wasn't going to let foreign interests bleed him, either by tapping his country's oil or by selling him things he didn't need (to maintain total control of Iraq).
IIRC, Saudi Arabia went from being in the black to in the red due to the first Gulf War.
People like Greenspan, people in high enough positions to know and influence who makes money, should be forced to divulge their assets and investments for as long as they are in government and for a period of time after they leave, say about seven years.
Did you see Chapelle address this topic?
Pretty obvious, and pretty sad --the reality.
But this -not reality-- is pretty funny.
Yeah, it's about the oil. Everything else has been a smokescreen, a shiny object, a distraction, a bait and switch. But if you want to laugh about it a little. click the link.
I put this here partially for comedy, but also to point out that plenty of people knew it was about the oil but the bobbleheads..... well, you know....
Oh, Oh. How can Greenspan say, 'it was necessary to take Saddam out because of what he was going to do with oil prices? Must the world remind the USA, this was his country's oil. Oil is a commodity. Just like lumber, beef and and the overall availability of food is here in the USA....I ask the question folks. What if other countries feel they want our resources (agriculture, lumber or beef,) do they have the right to take over our country to obtain the resources that we have? Do we have the right to invade and take control of their resources?
We better hope that one day when the earth is near total darkness because our efforts to fuck it up, that the less fortunate and starving people of the world don't pick a fight with us because, if they put up this type of resistance over oil, how hard will they fight for food and their existence?
In a Major Step, Saudi Arabia Agrees to Write Off 80 Percent of Iraqi Debt
There is hundreds of billions of dollars in debt that is going to just vanish due to this invasion and occupation. Where did all that money go? Sounds like the S&L scandal but on a global scale.
I went down to the antiwar protest in march of 2003 in NYC. I'm a Vietnam war vet and I was clear that a war in Iraq was not much different than any other bullshit war the US has gotten into. But the term "No Blood for Oil" was beyond me. I knew there would be "no blood for oil signs" in the mix and I wanted to understand it. Well I came to understand it and to quote Margaret above: "duh". I came back to work on Monday and suggested to my secretary that she was the basis for no blood for oil. (she owns a big SUV and an eight cylinder Impala). Forgetting my own particular rudeness and social insensitivity, she responded to my accusation by saying "why should she change her lifestyle if "they" weren't going to". So to distill this commentary, it's about lifestyle. America is about consumption and the level we consume at in terms of dollars determines our status. And so, I am saying that we Americans are showing off, at the level that we can afford. No one is moved by the "blood for oil" argument because we're too busy expressing and communicating to each other how well off we are with the status symbols that are relevant: autos, homes, heated pools and rec. vehicles. My secretary, who thinks she is a compassionate human is not moved by blood for oil arguments. AND she doesn't have any children in this war. this invasion of Iraq is more about the common man (woman) not caring. Not caring about the apparent dishonesty of these greedy, incompetent fuckers that have taken charge of our government and caring only about what level we can achieve on the status scale, here in the good ole US of A, my secretary, as good a person as she thinks she is, is a narcissistic enabler for the killers of good people, both American and Iraqi. Who are the "they" she talks about? I'm not sure but I think "they" is the latest trend. If everybody decides to own a Prius, the that is "they". If everyone decides to super-insulate their homes, that is "they" and if everybody ignores their part in this clusterfuck then she is going to continue to be proud to have an income that allows her to show off (with cars and home) and make that economically visual statement that she is better off than most of the losers around her. And fuck you very much Greenspan with your revelatory book five years too late, you rich bastard. PS I'm no fucking saint. I'm not holier than thou. I'm an asshole.
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction
Salon exclusive:
By Sidney Blumenthal
Sep. 06, 2007 | On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.
Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.
We’re likely to see oil at $125 per barrel by next spring.
Backwoods, that's the same sort of answer I got from someone when I asked about conserving energy and global warming. He said, why should we do anything if all the other countries aren't going to do it too?
CRIMINALS!
Jon Stewart said it best when he said, "If God loves us so much, then why did He bury our oil over there??"
Don't grab the wrong end of the stick. It's about THE oil, not just about Iraq's oil.
It's about CASPIAN SEA oil, Iranian oil, Iraqi oil, Saudi oil, Big Oil.
• MOST ESPECIALLY, it is about AIRBASES near the Caspian reserves, and removing Iran from the mix, by crippling its OIL infrastructure, and trying to wound the country so severely that the gov't will fall (fat chance).
It's about getting airbases as close to the Caspian reserves as possible. Oh, and making a trillion dollars for the MIC is just the gravy part of being in the (mostly illegal) killing business.
yes this was a war for oil, but not for us. this was a war for israel - primarily to advance their strategic interests but also included a plan for an oil pipeline from iraq to israel with their man ahmed chalabi in charge. there was not a single US interest served by this war. unfortunately though our politicians don't work for us anymore. i guess we don't pay enough.
If we needed the oil, Saddam was more than happy to sell it to us and at a far lower price than we are paying today. don't be snowed by the media - it's bought and paid for by israel - just like george bush and the US congress.
Another way of looking at it is Greg Palast's. That is that we invaded not to loosen and increase the flow of oil, but to control and constrict it. Notice how prices have gone up, up, up since the invasion. With Iraqi oil off the market that has allowed the global oil companies to have their way with prices--not to mention the control it gives us over European and Asian (read China's) access to oil...
Backwoods @ 42:
No it isn't. We're perfectly happy to buy oil products at what they cost. It's not the population -- it's the PROFITMAKING on the population's consumption that drives wars, not the population's easy gorging on the earth's wealth.
And that consumption binge is supported, surprise, by the military profitmakers. So, to recap -- need oil, perfectly happy to pay for it. Before Bush's War on Reality, it was about $1.25. We've proven we can pay three times that, and probably could pay five or ten times that (those of the people you're talking about). So it's not about the market demand -- it's about MAKING OBSCENE PROFITS BY GENOCIDE.
Can we all just IMPEACH BUSH now?
... what a sad and humiliating chapter in this nations history.
andy @ 49:
That's flatout NONSENSE.
Bushco's allies are THE SAUDIS. Always have been, always will be, until it's time for Kissinger's plan to partition Saudi Arabia.
Israel has been screwed royally by Bushco. CENTCOM failed ENTIRELY to guard any of the immense quantity of explosives in Iraq. HUNDREDS of tons of high-explosives, along with weaponry, shells, nuclear materials, and over 500 shoulder-fired missiles -- GONE.
In PETN (the plane blowing up material) alone, from Al-Qaqaa alone, Bushco released 8.4 TONS. That's 16,000 airliners.
So, no, Israel is not the beneficiary of this genocide, though plenty of racist Zionist Jews are happy to see Arabs killed en masse. It is simply false to claim that Bushco is working for Israel. They are working for themselves, and Israel is, as always, the convenient campaign excuse domestically. Bushco has left Israel in desperate shape -- especially as it FAILS in its purpose -- and the upcoming attack on Iran could be the end of Israel entirely.
billions for the CEOs, caskets and artificial limbs for the GIs
RW @ 52:
NO, and we're not going to be able to at all.
There are something like 30 votes in the Senate for conviction. That's it, and unless something changes, the Republicans are voting en block STILL. They will not vote the facts -- they are COMPLICIT.
a guy @ 50:
You and Palast have this one wrong. The price gouging we're seeing is a PAYMENT to the Saudi backers and to Big Oil.
Big Oil opposed Bushco's plan. They thought it would endanger the Big Profits they were already making. But Bushco brought them along with promises of wealth unseen ever on the earth -- and they have delivered.
The real deal is AIRBASES. That's the E-ticket to PNAC, and that's the ride we're on.
Curtilingus @ 15:
How high a price will they consider stable?
We didn't invade to stabilize the price of oil, we invaded to control the oil and then let our beloved oil companies stick it to us with high prices (which will get higher). We strung up several Germans on October 15, 1946 for the primary crime of invading countries that were no threat to Germany. Will history repeat?
Paul in LA @ 51:
In the sixties, there were two antiwar songs that resonated with me, one was Dylan's Masters of war. That puts the responsibility on the politicians and industrialists. The other was Buffe St Marie's Universal Soldier. I am always ambivalent about who allows this shit to go on. If you and I don't take the responsibility (and there are a lot of you and I's), then the masters of war just step right in and take over. Both songs were written about the war in Vietnam but which one do you think hits the mark more accurately.
Pissed of Patricia-- Diane, my secretary was a good person, but she would not take responsibility for something about herself (and her husband the patriarch) that she saw as an abstraction. Using non-renewable fuels at a rate that could be described as "greedy" was beyond her comprehension, as it is for most of us.
SHUSTER ROCKS!!!
I think there is a third view, distinct from Paul in LA @ 56 and a guy @50: the goal was to secure a cheap, plentiful supply of oil for the USA. The result of the war is neither.
President Carter had his, come to Solar moment, many years ago as the evidence for the need to change to a renewable/sustainable world was and is overwhelming. His courage and vision to lead us into a Solar Promised Land was a threat to the dark lords of greed and centralized control.....their black knights to the rescue, ronnie reagan and his "cheney" wild bill casey alas the rest is a sordid history of greed, corruption and Genocide eventually leading to the Fall of the benevolent, empathetic USA as we thought that we knew it.
Why ask why? You guys just haven't been paying attention to my ministry and you're amongs the most informed in the nation.
Impeachment? Somebody's going to have to volunteer to go into the oval office and give W a hummer. Now who's it gonna be?
anwaya @ 61:
If that were so, then they wouldn't need the airbases to attack Iran.
WHEN they attack Iran, then your theory will be disproven. If the goal was free Iraqi oil, then attacking Iran would the LAST thing they would want to do. But, as Wes Clark says, the PNAC specifies a list of seven countries to attack (in 'five years' according to Clark). As I recall the list, it is "Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, & Somalia."
Bush calls that third country Lebalebanon. As for their score, it is quite low -- they have worked hard to attack Syria to little result so far, Lebanon has been trashed and the south cluster bombed genocidally, Yemen is being squeezed by the new (Syriana) airbase in Qatar, and the US has shelled Sudan from the sea, and Somalia has been the target of several USN interdictions, what the PNACers call 'pirates,' which could be anything.
Iran is the one outstanding planned attack -- and to harbor such plans and mislead the American people about them is, actually, TREASON, because they have armed our enemies in order to foment chaos. Not to mention completely illegal as violation of the UN Charter on a gross scale.
The war in Iraq, and everything else that has been going on in the world for the past 1/2 century or so, has only to do with GREED. Greed for power, greed for wealth, greed for control by an international cabal of elitist pigs who wish to impose a NWO.
GWBush on the other hand, has gotten a little off track since being "born again, and he thinks that the real payoff will be when he can start Armegeddon and he and his buddies can all be Raptured away.
You know, I really think Schuster should get more air time. Maybe they could get rid of tweety or Tucker.
I want to talk about Matthews' jacket. Eyaaauhh!
We invaded Iraq to stop Sadaam from selling oil to willing partners in violation of the oil-for-food program.
Greenspan is a trickle down Macro Economist who cares not a whit for small investors.
BTW Mr. Greenspan, please look at a map of the Persian Gulf and explain to us how Sadaam could have taken control of the Straits of Hormuz.
Sorry to be so flippant about this particular report, but, "Duh..."
$125...$150 per barrel? That's our fault. We choose to require this product. Shit, we're like friggin hippos we're so obese and can't walk 2 blocks to the store to pick up a bag of Doritos and a 6 pack (lite).
The fact is folks...the USA took this land of ours from the Indians when all they wanted was to live, fish & hunt. Oh, 300 years later our Gov't is qilling to reimburse the abotiginal society Billions of $$ but that isn't giving them back the way their culture existed is it?
The same goes for Iraq. 200 years from now, long after Americn companies have made their Katrillions and our society will have used up the oil, we'll say here...here's 1/2 a trillion in compensation.....here's your life back.
In both cases, compensation like that is essentially, an admission of guilt but hey...we said we're sorry.
And we wonder why people hate us. It's not countries that hates us....it's cultures and societies and they'll be around a long time. We might want to just get use to being hated...but hey, we'll have all the toys.
SANTA
First, THANK YOU Alan Greenspan! Geez, nothing like hearing it from some rich white guy to make everyone believe it. Not to take anything away from the man — 60min had a good piece on him.
I think it's about "the oil", but more specifically, it's about:
• The remaining 1/4 of all the oil that's left on this god-forsaken rock
Think SCARCITY -- a fundamental concept to any economist (no less the great one). Like oil at $80/bbl? You'll love it at $160.
Each life of 3,787 is worth $2.89 each or $10,944.43
A small price to pay to run my Hummer.
The troops volunteered so fuck'em.
War is their job so they better start doing it and quite fucking belly aching.
We invade a sovereign country that has not threatened us in any way based on lies. We kill nearly one million citizens, destroy their infrastructure and create more than 4 million refugees. This is now the second largest refugee crisis in the world. We detain without charge and torture numerous detainees, several hundred have died in detention.
We hold up the proposed "Production Sharing Agreement" that we are trying to ramrod through the Iraqi Legislature as evidence that they have a functrioning government when that legislation gives 83% of the oil revenues to U.S. and British oil companies.
This is about oil, has always been about oil and the unmistakable conclusion that any clear thinking person is.......
WE ARE A NATION OF WAR CRIMINALS
We deserve to have the entire world of just and peace loving nations and people aligned against us. Our leaders should be subjected to arrest and trial at the Hague. (We are no better than Milosevic and the Serbs.)
sorry you guys dont get it. greenspan's got you all running around in circles with the latest tag line - it's the oil! that is so obvious. that is just the latest propaganda so nobody looks at the real culprit. as to paul's comment - you are right - none of these wars are good for israel. but in 2003 they didn't know that. they thought it would be a quick easy war, they'd put in their guy and they'd get their pipeline, new markets, etc.
why do you suppose we want to attack iran? oil? nukes? nope. because iran supports hezbollah. and hezbollah is the only thing standing in israel's way of grabbing the litani river in lebanon. they've been trying to get that water since 1982.
wake up. the usa is not an independent country. we work for israel.
Iraq could export $20 billion dollars of oil per year. At a cost of 1 trillion dollars estimated to be spent on the war, it would take us (American taxpayers) 50 years just to break even, not counting the extra cost we pay for gas. All while the oil companies pull in the profits.
Thanks, Retard-in-Chief!
What am I saying? I must have had a wingnut-type brain malfunction above. American taxpayers (not to mention Iraqis) won't see a dime of any money that comes in from Iraqi oil. We and the Iraqis are paying money and lives to give even more profits to the American oil companies. Forget the 50 years part.
Paul in LA @ 56:
I agree about the bases. But this is part of Palast's thesis. Again, the only reason we are there is because of oil. Do you think we'd give a shit about building bases in, say Darfur? It's all about controlling the oil flow. And by constricting it, we can keep the costs high. Palast also talks about the deal with the Saudis who are the big dogs on the oil scene now and want that to continue. When Saddam or any country talked about opening up the oil spigot, the Saudis got very angry. Don't forget that Iraq has the second largest oil reserve in the word outside of SA...
a guy @ 77: "I agree about the bases. But this is part of Palast's thesis. Again, the only reason we are there is because of oil."
That piece of SPIN ignores the very real danger that millions will cease to be as a result of a Bushco nuclear war in the ME.
• MILITARY power is a LOT more significant than oil wealth in its ability to destroy lives. The airbases are FAR more important than the oil lust which underlies part of the strategy.
The military power is what has undermined our Constitution, not the oil lust.
"It's all about controlling the oil flow."
No, it's not. It's about accessing the Caspian supply before the Russians and the Chinese do. It's about putting airbases as close to the Caspian as possible, as a generational change in the geopolitics.
Those airbases are FAR too dangerous to gloss as about oil. Palast has a tendency to shoot himself in the foot with the glibness of his glosses. If it's about 'oil,' or 'imperialism,' oh well, it's US history in a nutshell, etc. We've all heard that USELESS ragging from the left. The grand theories don't mean peat next to outing the airbases and DISMANTLING THEM AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
"Don't forget that Iraq has the second largest oil reserve in the word outside of SA.
You do not factor in the Caspian, which could outpace Iran and Iraq both. THIS is why we are in Afghanistan, and THIS is why they are destroying Iraq and threatening Iran. And there is still a very real risk that part of our fleet will be bow-up in the Persian Gulf, and us at war for REAL in months over the audacious illegality of Bush's actions and those airbases. Don't turn off the emergency flashers with 'it's all about oil' -- maybe, but on a scale most people don't think of being possible.
Shared Humanity @ 73:
No. Vivid rhetoric does not make us all guilty for Bushco's crimes.
That's the difference between a CRIMINAL JUSTICE view, and a political or theological view.
These are CRIMES. There are people in this country who have abetted genocide, and some of them may well be punished for that.
We do have to press for justice, or else we may inherit some guilt, but that citizen's task is in itself highly positive -- not some kind of guilt trip.
.
Imagine IF China did to the USA what the USA has done to Iraq all to secure the coal deposits for their energy needs...
Would those that argue for America's right to "PIRATIZE" another Nation's natural resources be arguing for China's right, too?
.
Paul in LA @ 78:
Gosh, am I smelling a conspiracy theory? Do you think 911 could have been a motive to start another "Pearl Harbor" while Bush and Cheney are running the country? Think I will get the pitchfork and light up the torches.
jackp @ 81:
sorry folks, I should have said do you think that the explanation above was the motive for a 911?
Greenspan is still on the team. They've done their demographics. Americans are so utterly unaware of the world mean living standard they think that poverty is having to take a bus to Walmart. Half of you will come around to thinking that oil ain't no bad thing, albeit a little guiltily. That's a whole lot bigger percentage than are for the war and the coming attack on Iran at the moment. Pretty soon Bush will be saying it openly. It will start with the "conceding" that oil was essential to the security of the United States. Soon as the tide turns - ta ta Tehran
Greenspan was picked to let this little brainfart go. Soften you up. Get you off on another red herring while they get on with the Balkanization of the Middle East. Then it's winner take all. That is to say the two winners. Maybe then they'll move the Foreign Affairs Department to Tel Aviv so the neocons don't have such a long commute.
Max-1 @ 80:
These actions are being carried out by a dictator who refuses to listen to the American people, and who has broken all of our laws in his tyranny. What he is doing is flatly illegal, and everyone knows it.
"America" is not seeking (and obtaining) airbases to make an attack on the ME for the profit of Bushco. Our military is being used for private gain and illegal purposes. That's a crime against America, not America.
There is no need to conjecture about what the war is for: just google PNAC (Project for a New American Century) and read their military/political/economic strategy. I did that years ago, so none of what's been happening is a surprise to me, from 9/11 to pre-emptive war to permanent military bases. The guys who are bringing you today's disasters are the guys who developed that strategy - Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, J. Bush, Perle, Kristol, and all of their neo-con, fascist pig buddies, etc. GWBsh just happened to be available and is arrogant and sick enough to do their bidding.
jackp @ 82:
Whether it is or it isn't, it did or it didn't, is moot to the plurality of high crimes and felonies they have committed. Conyers' book documents 25+ of the most egregious felonies, and that's only up until 2004. He's documented many more since.
So it's rather moot if Nine-eleven (a taboo topic here) was conspiracy. Torturing ONE human being and killing him -- as was certainly done -- is already a capital crime under the War Crimes Act of 1996. Deploying lawless mercenaries in a ruthless occupation on trumped up charges...it really doesn't matter how long that phrase really is. A thousand K of anyone's harddrive has enough evidence to hold any kind of trial you care to name. The whole file-- documented in incredible detail for the first time in history -- is so rich in the record of tyranny that a foot is like a mile.
God, you liberals are so arrogant. So you were right about blood for oil, and right about there being no WMDs, and right about Saddam not having anything to do with 9/11. Do you always have to be so f*cking right... I mean, arrogant?! I want to divert the conversation from Iraq to arrogance. Rick Martel had his own perfume...
The WHOLE f***ing Middle East is about oil, and Bush and his
well-experienced team just happened to think that Iraq would be
the easiest place to assert our power.
Wow, imagine what a supposedly inexperienced Barack Obama would do!
What I find really interesting is that with all that's happened most people are content to sit and bitch about it on the internet rather than get off their @$$es and march in the street. If half the people who come to these message boards b!tch!ng about Bush @ Co went out to the street with protest signs and bullhorns we might actually be able to see some real change.
In case you guys hadn't noticed yet, the people who run the media and government DON'T CARE what people say on the net and half of them don't even check their own email.
Send letters people
make phone calls
march
otherwise nothing will change and Hillary or McCain or (god forbid) Guilliani will continue down the same path towards the end of America.
enigma4ever @ 8:
It wasn't about increasing our oil supply, you should look into what the oil companies have published. Saddam was producing TOO MUCH oil and they wanted to control it to restrict it in order to drive up profits. This is a fact backed by dozens of documents. There are lobbiests from the military industrial complex and oil companies who promoted this war from behind the scenes.
Backwoods,
Nicely said. For all the blame we place on our government for this war, don't get me wrong they deserve a large portion of the credit for screwing normal Iraqis and getting us involved in this unholy mess, we only have to look in our own backyard, or garage, or home to understand how they get away with it. Americans are increasingly selfish when it comes to giving up luxury for the greater good. Does anyone think that today's Americans would be willing to submit to rubber drives or paper drives, like in WWII, to help out? Hell no! I hate to have to say it but i am increasingly disappointed with my fellow citizens everyday. We all have our faults but we seem to be a society focused entirely on "I, the consumer" and not "We, the People."
Re: Control of oil prices
Guess why consumer prices were just reported as being down today, supporting the assertion that inflation is under control? Mainly because energy prices are down.
Why did gas prices drop before the last election? And despite an increase in oil supply, why did prices start climbing again afterwards?
If you can manipulate the price of oil (i.e. energy), you can manipulate the economy to fit whatever your agenda-of-the-moment is.
fpg
Curtilingus @ 15:
No, we're doing this so we've got a big enough piece of turf over there in the middle east to use as our base of military operations when the real shit hits the fan in a couple years with Iran.
I march against the war often, but when it is nighttime and everyone is asleep, I like to bitch online. I think you are wrong about people not caring about it enough to get off their arse. I mean, mine starts to hurt after a few hours.
Anyways, we really need oil. What is a few dead people as long as I can still run my SUV.
An Average Joe @ 17:
It is amazing how people get spun up about the oil.
It might be about the oil, but only if spin the nobs of sanity a little.
Before the war, our buddy Bill Clinton said, "Regime Change is the policy of the USA in regards to Iraq". Yes that is right "BILLY BOY CLINTON" wanted to get rid of Saddam.
Iraq was under Embargo, but nothing seemed to be changing. The only people being injured by the embargo were those not in power.
Had we lifted the embargo. Suddenly Saddam would have had large amounts of oil to sell and then lots of money to do all those things he enjoyed doing.
-- Sending Hit men after President Bush.
-- Building Nuclear Weapons (You are aware that many many tons of Yellow cake was found near a processing facility that just needed a little sprucing up).
-- Uncovering those WMD we know he had (cause we sold them to him).
-- Being a royal PIA.
You may think that Bush is an idiot. Maybe he is. His options however had been severely curtailed by IDIOT like most of your on this web site and the other group of morons at the UN.
The war is about OIL. It is about the power that oil represents.
Ask yourself, who you want in control of that power? Saddam or a bunch of misfits, with a few good boots on the ground.
You all liked Saddam didn't you. You'd love living in his country.
I take delight in reading these sites.
BECAUSE I know with talk like this, I DON"T LIVE IN A COUNTRY with a Tyrant like Saddam.
in recent stuudy. out of 500 anti war protestes not one new the cost of the war so far. or the projected cost of the war from the beginig. the so called hipeeezzzz who had there war for oil flags flying. did not even know the projected amount of oil in Iraq.this is the most unnerving thing even more so then the war.
Backwoods @ 42:
You are absolutely right. And despite of what you say at the end, you are one of the few with integrity (in this country, in this world). I applaud you.
(Of course, you still can be an asshole for all I know. But one with integrity.)
I never understood why the government didn't just bequeath $500B to the oil companies to privately do research for the express purpose of moving us to an alternative energy source. Nobody dies, technology stays at home, we become energy independent, profits remain in place with big oilcos, and depress the crap out of world oil prices, effectively making Iran/q's oil wealth so insignificant it's not even cost effective to pull it out of the ground. Harrumph.
[...] MSM finally says what we’ve known from day one: Iraq war fought for oil (tags: energy oil fuel economy economics bush iraq war) Post a comment — Trackback URI RSS 2.0 feed for these comments This entry (permalink) was posted on Thursday, September 20, 2007, at 10:24 am by Mobius and categorized in Mishegaas. [...]
[...] MSM finally says what we’ve known from day one: Iraq war fought for oil [...]
[...] frankly, is just a sideshow. The real story is that peak oil is here, Bush & Co. are out to shore up their control of the world’s energy resources, and Iran isn’t having [...]
Login or Register to post comments.