Skip to content

ExpatSingapore

Home Message Board Contact Us Search

ExpatSingapore Message Board 25 May 2012, 21:42:37 pm *
Username: Password: (or Register)
 
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Iraq & Oil – A Different Perspective  (Read 358 times)
Noddy
Newbie
*
Posts: 38


View Profile WWW
« on: 10 April 2004, 10:38:00 am »

There's been a lot of 'opinion' on this board about the role of oil in Iraq - thought it would worthwhile posting the following article.

While the article was written prior to the war, the analysis stands up pretty well.

Logged
ExpatSingapore Message Board
« on: 10 April 2004, 10:38:00 am »



 Logged
Dr Opinion
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1418


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: 10 April 2004, 12:28:00 pm »

This guy goes through a bunch of random ideas about a motive. Let me spell it out and save people the bother of reading such a silly article:

(i) Elements within the US Government want exclusive access to Iraqi oil for US oil companies. This has been the case for many years, possibly decades.

(ii) Kuwait was a trap. Saddam was told that the US would consider it an "internal Arab matter", but then the US used it as a reason to decimate Iraq's military... at that time Iraq had the third or fourth largest army on earth.

(iii) After Kuwait, the US has denied Iraq from dealing with Russia, Japan, France, and China, by vetoing many repeated requests by the UN Security council to end Kuwait-related sanctions on Iraq. This has saved the oil for later seizure on behalf of US interests.

(iv) Iraq has been deliberately crippled with ten years of sanctions. These sanctions have definitely not had any effect on WMD: these were all gone a year or so after the Kuwait war. Rather, these sanctions have ensured further reductions in Iraqi conventional military, emergency, and medical capabilities, intended to make this invasion easier.

(v) The bizarre no-fly zones were enforced for a decade to allow the CIA to arm and train Kurdish fighters in the north, specifically with this war in mind.

(vi) The time was right to get an "Oil Administration" into power. Bush, Cheney, and Condi are US Oil people. If this "Oil Administration" had failed to get into power and start the Iraq war, another "Oil Administration" would have run for office next time, again and again, until the Oil lobby got their people in and the war could get underway.

(vii) The purpose of the war is to seize the oil so that it is made available exclusively for US interests at a later date. The purpose most certainly is *not* to reduce the price of oil, or increase access to oil by foreign governments. This seizure can easily be accomplished through, for example, the creation of a nationalized Iraqi oil company that owns the Iraqi oil fields, yet is itself owned and controlled indirectly by US interests. This, of course, could not be accomplished easily if the UN were controlling the administration of Iraq.

> "...Unless the peace movement has discovered telepathy, I doubt that it's in any better position to divine the hidden thoughts or secret motivations of George Bush and Tony Blair than I am. Arguing about unstated motives, therefore, is a waste of time -- claims cannot be proven or disproven..."

What an idiot.

Whenever a crime is committed, the police detective first of all must uncover both the stated and unstated motives. That's a given. This idiot doesn't seem to have a clue.

In many cases the ignorant may not even realize a crime has occurred. The detective has to see past that.  

Logged
Noddy
Newbie
*
Posts: 38


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: 10 April 2004, 16:22:00 pm »

Doc -

>  (i) Elements within the US Government want exclusive access to Iraqi oil for US oil companies. This has been the case for many years, possibly decades.

Let’s try & get specific here - which US Oil Companies are you talking about?  Which part or parts of the US Government are you referring to?  Why do they want exclusive access for US oil companies?  What evidence can you offer to support your contention?

>  (vi) The time was right to get an "Oil Administration" into power. Bush, Cheney, and Condi are US Oil people. If this "Oil Administration" had failed to get into power and start the Iraq war, another "Oil Administration" would have run for office next time, again and again, until the Oil lobby got their people in and the war could get underway.

Who is this "Oil Lobby"?  Are they upstream companies?  Or downstream companies?  Or integrated companies?  Or are they primarily oil industry service providers?  Are their operations primarily based in US or dispersed globally?  As the author points out, the motivations of he calls "big oil" and "little oil" are usually quite different and are often diametrically opposed.

>  (vii) The purpose of the war is to seize the oil so that it is made available exclusively for US interests at a later date. The purpose most certainly is *not* to reduce the price of oil, or increase access to oil by foreign governments. This seizure can easily be accomplished through, for example, the creation of a nationalized Iraqi oil company that owns the Iraqi oil fields, yet is itself owned and controlled indirectly by US interests. This, of course, could not be accomplished easily if the UN were controlling the administration of Iraq.

What does "made available exclusively for US interests at a later date" mean?  The oil can only be 'used' by the US Government?  Just the federal government or do the states get to dip their beaks too?  Or can the crude only be used as a feedstock for US refineries?  What if these refineries are partially or fully owned by foreign companies?  What about for overseas refineries owned by US companies?  Or can the end use of the oil can only be in US vehicles?  Or possibly the nationalized Iraqi oil company sells output into the world market and US government creams the profits?  I’m sure there's a dozen more scenarios you could concoct.  But if you explored the implications of each one, I think you'd find that none would simultaneously benefit whoever you believe is part of the 'oil cabal'.

I’ll give you 10/10 for pitching an engaging story – pity it’s got more holes than Blackburn, Lancashire.

Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines