So much for blood for oil

December 21st, 2009 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

Do you remember the millions of people who denounced the War as being blood for oil – that it was only about the US trying to steal ’s oil supply.

There were many good reasons to oppose the Iraq War, but the blood for oil slogan was particularly moronic. For a start the cost of the war has proven to be much greater than the value of any oil. But this article from Time Magazine may be of interest to those who still cling to the slogan:

Those who claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get control of the country’s giant oil reserves will be left scratching their heads by the results of last weekend’s auction of Iraqi oil contracts: Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades.

That’s one myth destroyed.

Tags:

42 Responses to “So much for blood for oil”

  1. Komata (1,157 comments) says:

    But why let the facts get in the way of a good slogan? As we know, say something often enough and at a high-enough volume (to attract the MSM’s attention) and it eventually becaomes perceived as fact – especially in the USA where there is a very-ready willingness to believe everything they are told (especially if it’s on the Six O’clock news). If it’s there it MUST be true, while if you add-in a dose of political self-interest the whole thing becomes accepted as fact.

    Now that this rebutal has come out, should we be expecting anything approaching an apology from anyone – an admission that perhaps they were actually wrong? Can’t see it happening, but then again . . .

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Pete George (23,421 comments) says:

    Ah, but it doesn’t show if the intention was to try and get control of oil or not. It just shows that it wasn’t the end result (so far). A lot of things didn’t go as planned.

    The WMD myth has suffered mass destruction. The Al Qaeda story never had credibility. Why did they really go in there?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 28 Thumb down 43 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Murray (8,844 comments) says:

    And there we go again, never let the facts get in the way of an idealogical rant from the left.

    Why don’t you ask Iran why they’re invading petey.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 26 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. MyNameIsJack (2,415 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 47 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Jeff83 (771 comments) says:

    Slightly over simplified the arguments there though DPF. Firstly the cost of the war was expected to be allot less than it currently is, also I imagine America imagined they would have a more positive image internally than they turned out having, I mean the regime that was kicked out wasn’t exactly popular amongst the more populous Shia community (or Kurds).

    Further the arguments were not so much in “stealing” the oil reserves but establishing security of supply (with a more friendly government).

    Was this the sole reason for the invasion, certainly not and maybe totally not, but the above doesn’t disprove it.

    I would still say Iraq’s oil reserves were more a factor than any real notion of WMD’s. Also their reserves are estimated at 1,150,000,000,000 bbl (1.1 trillion bbl) which in today’s rate = $70,150,000,000,000 (70 trillion dollars) which would pay for the current estimated cost of the war, being $710 billion) (and this is from an anti war site – no time to find a better source) 100 times.

    Sources
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves
    http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&q=bbl&meta=
    http://costofwar.com/

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Pete George (23,421 comments) says:

    Murray, what are the facts? Do you know why the US really went into Iraq? There was no obvious imminent threat, even if they had found heaps of buried WMD. It was well known Al Qaeda were not significant there. Did they want a buffer zone between Israel and Iran? Who knows?

    It’s possible the US caught themselves out by making a big thing of installing a democracy free to make it’s own decisions, which is as likely to have then said “stuff US oil” rather than “thanks for invading us, how much do you want?”

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    The aftermath of wars are never what they were supposed to be are they.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Murray (8,844 comments) says:

    The facts are the Iraqis daily violated the terms of a ceasefire and were invaded bt 26 nations enforcing the conditions under which the coalition agreed to stop kicking the crap out of them after they invaded Kuwait.

    Seems really fucking simple to me. A lot like you. Of course for you 26 nations boils down to evil Amerikkka. Hows that jumping up and down about Iran invading Iraqi oil wells coming along?

    So hard to focus on more than one issue at once when you’re a myopic party mouthpiece replaying talking points isn’t it.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Paul Walker (50 comments) says:

    Blood for oil? Think about it this way, its just the theory of the firm writ large. Invasion amounts to a form of vertical integration, a very hostile takeover. That is, one “firm”, the US, wants to vertically integrate with another “firm”, Iraq, who is a supplier of an input for US production, oil. The question is does integration make sense? In a world of incomplete contracts we know integration makes economic sense when there is a possibility of a hold-up problem due to the relationship specific nature of investments. Given that oil is an more or less homogeneous good and there are a number of different supplies it is not clear what relationship specific investments have to be made and thus its not clear what the danger of hold-up is. Or to put it another way, our two firms should merge if they have highly complementary assets and not merge if they have independent asserts. Given there are a number of other supplies of oil its not obvious that oil from Iraq is highly complementary to US assets. If you think of this as a “make” – invade Iraq – or “buy” – purchase on the open market – decision, its not clear why a “make” decision is optimal.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Tassman (238 comments) says:

    Is the blood for oil slogan about those innocent school leavers who join the army in the name of their sovereign nations, some return in body bags others crippled and spend the rest of their lives enduring PTSD fighting for the economic interests of the rich elite, or was it about the slaughter of innocnet women and children caught in so-called friendly fire?

    It’s good to know that the war of Afghanistan is not really about who controls the dobe industry, but replacing the ruling regime from warlords to warwomen…

    In any case, Israel has found a new productive use for deadbodies, to culture body organs from dead Palestines…

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 26 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Chris C (224 comments) says:

    Time only refers to last weekend’s auction, not any previous bids or offers, and only includes bidders directly competing at auction for the service contracts for the oil fields, not any sales made by the Iraqi government through its own service contracts. This is only one auction – the largest so far, but American companies are already involved, and have been since the start. Added to which, Royal Dutch Shell wholly owns its American subsidiary, Shell Oil, so its not like the latest bids are free from any American connections or influence.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125741092983330293.html

    BAGHDAD — The Iraqi Oil Ministry said Thursday it awarded a consortium led by Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC the right to develop the West Qurna-1 field in southern Iraq, representing the first American-led team gaining access to Iraq’s oil patch.

    The pact is the latest in a series of deals that Iraq has signed or initialed with some of the world’s biggest oil companies. Earlier this week, Iraqi officials completed a final agreement with BP PLC and China National Petroleum Corp. and an initial agreement with a consortium led by Italy’s Eni SpA. U.S. oil company Occidental Petroleum Corp. participated as a junior partner in the Eni-led bid.

    For Exxon and Shell, two of the largest publicly listed oil companies, the deal grants entry into a country that boasts one of the world’s largest reserves of petroleum. Like most of the oil-rich Middle East, the country has long been off limits to Western firms.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Pete George (23,421 comments) says:

    Murray, the US chose to rustle up a posse of nations and invade Iraq. It wasn’t done because of UN obligations – actuallyacted against UN requirements. And they have chosen to ignore any number of UN violations by other countries, eg Somalia.

    It supposedly had some retribution factor, but it has resulted in more dead and far more injured US citizens than 9-11.

    Its ironic that the WaPo most influential person of the decade is down to the final two – GW Bush and Osama Bib Laden.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. mikeysmokes (269 comments) says:

    I didnt really buy the “blood for oil” slogan but on the bullshit scale it probably smelt less fishy than the Team America “we’re dropping bombs on your head to give you democracy” line.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. andrei (2,536 comments) says:

    It supposedly had some retribution factor, but it has resulted in more dead and far more injured US citizens than 9-11.

    Genius at work folks – I suspect that if you check it out Pete you will find WW2 resulted in more dead and far more injured US citizens than died at Pearl Harbor.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Dyannt (28 comments) says:

    I thought the invasion had something to do with Saddam Hussain’s plan to trade his oil in Euro’s not American Dollars.
    If he had broken the agreement to trade in USD, who knows how many other countries may have followed suit.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Chthoniid (2,029 comments) says:

    The casus belli for war with Iraq was non-compliance with UN resolutions.

    The (speculative) WMD threat to develop domestic support for the war in invading countries (chiefly US/UK).

    The ‘blood for oil’ was always in fantasy land.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Chris C (224 comments) says:

    Dyannt (8) Says:
    December 21st, 2009 at 5:44 pm

    I thought the invasion had something to do with Saddam Hussain’s plan to trade his oil in Euro’s not American Dollars.
    If he had broken the agreement to trade in USD, who knows how many other countries may have followed suit.

    The dollar hegemony argument, detailed here.

    Dollar hegemony was fragile before that though; its status as a reserve currency is still unparallelled, but there were better reasons for a major challenge to its status than Iraq shifting its reserves into Euros. Which it did anyway, with only a marginal effect on the dollar price.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Jeff83 (771 comments) says:

    Genius at work folks – I suspect that if you check it out Pete you will find WW2 resulted in more dead and far more injured US citizens than died at Pearl Harbor.

    Yeah, and how is WW2, where Japan directly attacked the US, at all related to the US invasion of Iraq? Seriously?

    None of 9-11 were from Iraq, with most being from Saudi Arabia.
    Iraq did not provide the training or funds.
    Al Qaeda was not established in Iraq.

    In your own words “genius at work”.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Colonel Blimp (8 comments) says:

    If you really want to know about the Iraq war go to the Iraq Inquiry (www.iraqinquiry.org.uk) currently being held in London. You can hear the audio- best-or read the transcripts -quicker. Its fascinating -history before the books are written. While its a British perspective, and oil is peripheral, its never-the-less gives an insight into how the Americans were thinking in the lead up and after the war began.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. rimu (51 comments) says:

    The cost is borne by the government, while any potential profits are garnered by private corporations. So it doesn’t matter to the corporations if the war costs more than the oil, because they aren’t paying. It doesn’t matter to them if the war goes terribly, drags on for years and then they win no oil contracts, again because they aren’t paying. Worth a try, innit?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. kiki (425 comments) says:

    Blackwater made a killing.

    and China’s doing well out of Afghanistan

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/63452.html

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Pete George (23,421 comments) says:

    “In the Humvee patrolling Baghdad’s deadly roads, one soldier kept both hands tucked inside his body armor, hoping they would not be blown off if a bomb penetrated the vehicle. Another always planted one foot in front of the other, hoping he might lose only one. Yet another carried a good-luck charm: “a small cross knitted in army colors by someone in his parents’ church in Ohio.”

    “Somewhere, far from Iraq, was where the orders began, but by the time they reached Rustamiyah, the only choice left for a soldier was to choose which lucky charm to tuck behind his body armor, or which foot to line up in front of the other, as he went out to follow the order of the day.”

    We will, however, be reminded of the immense cost to many Americans, the lives lost or transformed forever — the lives of soldiers, and of their loved ones. In the world Finkel describes, of unspeakable heat, and fear, and boredom and violence and bravery, the debates over policy seem not so much right or wrong as beside the point.

    “Sometimes,” Finkel writes, “the soldiers would listen to the screaming [on cable TV] and wonder how the people on those shows knew so much. Clearly, most of them had never been to Iraq. And yet to listen to them was to listen to people who knew everything. They knew why the surge was working. They knew why the surge wasn’t working. . . . ‘They should come to Rustamiyah,’ more than one soldier said. . . . Then maybe they could go back on TV and scream about how bewildering all of this really was. At least then they would be screaming the truth.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/20/AR2009122002126.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. andrei (2,536 comments) says:

    Yeah, and how is WW2, where Japan directly attacked the US, at all related to the US invasion of Iraq? Seriously?

    In much the same way the invasion of Iran in WW2 was related to Pearl Harbor I guess.

    Of course back then they didn’t piss about and Iran fell over tout suit

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Simon (726 comments) says:

    Time magazine is still being produced? It must receive a government subsidy.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Paul G. Buchanan (301 comments) says:

    The vulgar claims abut oil were never to be taken seriously, but there was an oil-based geopolitical logic at play. Cheney, Rumsfeld and W. Bush are all “oil men” not so much because they have vested financial interests in the oil business (although they do), but more because they see the world geopolitically through the prism of that precious commodity. Freeing Iraqi oil fields from Saddam, no matter who subsequently did the drilling and extracting, would free up enough oil (with international sanctions lifted once Saddam was ousted), to seriously erode Saudi monopoly over oil pricing. Coupled with Russian crude production, that in turn would a) reduce Saudi economic influence in OPEC and political influence in the Arab world and b ) help to increase the supply of Arabian sweet crude available and hence lower its price as well as that of lesser blends. Lower crude prices translate into lower retail prices, meaning less energy and transportation costs for individual consumers, airlines, shipping and trucking companies, etc. After all, oil is the lifeblood of international commerce. The savings accrued from lower oil prices could then be spent on any number of alternatives, from conspicuous consumption in malls to increased R&D in firms. Politically, such an evolution would be a winner not only for those who orchestrated the invasion (although they would reap the benefits of international gratitude), but for all industrialised countries (to include Japan, India and China). Thus the geopolitical logic appeared to be sound, especially when added to the idea pushed by Richard Pearle and others that a US friendly post-Saddam, oil-rich regime would allow for the establishment of a permanent US military presence in Iraq that would be drawn from the relocation of US troops from Germany and Saudi Arabia (the latter lowering tensions about the presence of infidel forces in the Muslim holy land). That presence, standing between Syria and Iran, wold allow the US to project superior force in that AOR, which in turn would help with the larger mission of dealing to armed Islamicists. Or so they thought.

    For some reason, rather than present this logic, realpolitik as it was, to the American public ad world community as a rationale for invading, the US and UK chose to falsify claims of WMD and al-Qaeda connections. Perhaps the Bush/Blair alliance did not trust their own people to accept the oil-based geopolitical argument on its merits. Perhaps they thought it better to justify the invasion and occupation on imminent threat and humanitarian (democratization) grounds rather than on resource-based ones. Whatever the reasons, it was this deception that helped contribute to the emergence of vulgar oil-for-blood theories.

    Although there was much wrong with the idea that Iraq would somehow turn into a pro-US client once Saddam was removed, the oil-based geopolitical logic was essentially sound, and could in fact prove true, albeit in delayed fashion, now that the reconstruction of Iraqi oil production is underway. Given the state of world economic affairs, the impact of fully on-line Iraq oil production can only be a good thing except, perhaps, for the Saudis and more importantly, the Iranians (which is why the cross-border raid was staged as a type of warning about how the Iranians could respond to any potential aggression).

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Simon (726 comments) says:

    “but there was an oil-based geopolitical logic at play”

    Umm if it was about oil lift the sanctions bring the RAF & USAF home and let the oil flow. Anyway half the oil is in northern Iraq / Kurdistan which was free of Hussein anyway.

    Besides which Iraqi oil production was only 10% of what comes out of Saudi. And from early in Bush’s first term he stepped up R&D in alternative fuel which good ole Obama has been more than happy to continue.

    It was never about oil.

    Though The Tigris and The Euphrates are a more valuable resource than the oil fields.

    No blood for water. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHIFMkmhDY0

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” Cheney, Rumsfeld and W. Bush are all “oil men” not so much because they have vested financial interests in the oil business (although they do), but more because they see the world geopolitically through the prism of that precious commodity. ”

    There is no basis at all to the claim that these three men see the world geopolitically through any prism. This is pure speculation driven by the authors anti Bush administration political prejudices.

    ” would free up enough oil (with international sanctions lifted once Saddam was ousted), to seriously erode Saudi monopoly over oil pricing. ”

    More wild speculation. Whether the oil embargo in Iraq was in place or not would in fact have every little impact on oil prices and definitely not enough to warrant the expenditure that underwrote the conflict.

    ” The savings accrued from lower oil prices could then be spent on any number of alternatives, from conspicuous consumption in malls to increased R&D in firms. ‘

    Utterly crazy. We’ve moved in a few sentences (that should be paragraphed) from an ‘oil driven geopolitical view’ to sending American soldiers to die to allow “conspicuous consumption in malls”. Savings? What about the cost of the war for fuck’s sake?? (estimated at around $3 trillion) Just pure extreme left bullshit.

    ” For some reason, rather than present this logic, realpolitik as it was, to the American public ad world community as a rationale for invading, the US and UK chose to falsify claims of WMD and al-Qaeda connections.”

    More same old same old extreme left propaganda cloaked in academic language. No deliberate deception has ever been proven, and in fact long before the war began it was widely accepted in global academic, political and media circles that Saddam was attempting to or had succeeded in manufacturing WMD. Here’s a link wherein your favourite propaganda outfit the BBC claims in 2001 that Saddam was working on a nuclear bomb-

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/correspondent/1191203.stm

    To think NZ universities are full of this ingrained and bigoted anti-US anti Bush bullshit. (Well, I’m thankful at least that students are now spared the ravings of the above lunatic.)

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Rich Prick (1,648 comments) says:

    Team America will no doubt make it to the Documentary Channel.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Chris C (224 comments) says:

    Redbaiter (8200) Says:
    December 21st, 2009 at 10:07 pm

    More same old same old extreme left propaganda cloaked in academic language. No deliberate deception has ever been proven, and in fact long before the war began it was widely accepted in global academic, political and media circles that Saddam was attempting to or had succeeded in manufacturing WMD. Here’s a link wherein your favourite propaganda outfit the BBC claims in 2001 that Saddam was working on a nuclear bomb-

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/correspondent/1191203.stm

    WOW. You have me convinced. A sketchy documentary that explores allegations from exiled Iraqis that say that, despite no evidence to support it, let alone from the US government or any other Western government – which would have been fucking brilliant as a casus belli, by the way – Saddam actually managed to set off a nuclear bomb. Without anyone knowing. At all. And they bought the materials from South Africa!

    Completely, totally and utterly convincing. You should do stand-up. Especially if the “global academic, political and media circles” you’re talking about was related to the completely and utterly debunked claims of either yellow cake uranium from Niger, or the dodgy dossier.

    I mean, this is notwithstanding that for six years no-one has found anything. But that’s okay, you just keep on with the reality in your head. Don’t let what we’re all doing out here distract you.

    Or are you talking about the mustard gas that Rumsfeld sold to them in the 1980s and they subsequently dropped on the Kurds? Because that actually happened. Or the pre-1991 nuclear technology that the West helped them acquire? Because that happened too. But I’ll tell you what, we certainly heard about it when they found a fly farting, so it’s beyond me how your revelations – which you should relate to the intelligence services immediately – escaped everyone else.

    Here’s a whole ream of documents, reports and papers from The Project for the New American Century dating back to the end of the first Gulf War that say that the stated principle of key figures in the Bush administration and their backers is to assert America’s dominance on the world by military means and the subsequent use of the resources gained:

    http://www.newamericancentury.org/

    And just in case you want updates from the same people that ran the PNAC, here’s the sequel, the Foreign Policy Initiative:

    http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/

    Oh, and just to leave you with a quote from PJ O’Rourke, who supported the invasion, but not for the straw reasons you’ve put forward…

    “As a casus belli, WMDs did seem like a pair of pants cut to fit North Korea into which Iraq was being stuffed.”

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Spoff (275 comments) says:

    “Julian Borger reports on the shadow rightwing intelligence network set up in Washington to second-guess the CIA and deliver a justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force

    According to former Bush officials, all defence and intelligence sources, senior administration figures created a shadow agency of Pentagon analysts staffed mainly by ideological amateurs to compete with the CIA and its military counterpart, the Defence Intelligence Agency.

    The agency, called the Office of Special Plans (OSP), was set up by the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to second-guess CIA information and operated under the patronage of hardline conservatives in the top rungs of the administration, the Pentagon and at the White House, including Vice-President Dick Cheney……”None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels,” said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr Feith’s authority without having to fill in the usual forms.

    The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship Mr Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel’s Likud party.

    In 1996, he and Richard Perle – now an influential Pentagon figure – served as advisers to the then Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu. In a policy paper they wrote, entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, the two advisers said that Saddam would have to be destroyed, and Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would have to be overthrown or destabilised, for Israel to be truly safe.

    The Israeli influence was revealed most clearly by a story floated by unnamed senior US officials in the American press, suggesting the reason that no banned weapons had been found in Iraq was that they had been smuggled into Syria. Intelligence sources say that the story came from the office of the Israeli prime minister. ”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jul/17/iraq.usa

    “The dissolution of Syria and Iraq into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front. Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run, it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel.

    “An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and Lebanon.

    “In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul and Shiite areas in the South will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north.”
    (from an article published in 1982 by the World Zionist Organisation’s publication Kivunim)

    http://www.counterpunch.org/heard04252006.html

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Paul G. Buchanan (301 comments) says:

    Simon:

    The problem was that lifting sanctions alone could not guarantee Saddam’s agreement to open up the oil spigot. His strategy was to keep enough oil flowing to arm himself and prop his regime, not satisfy market demand (I will not here go into his logic for invading Kuwait in Gulf War 1, but that had an oil-based geopolitical logic all of its own). Thus, for the oil-based geopolitical play to happen, he needed to go.

    Your water-focused scenario is interesting, but that is of regional, not global import.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. emmess (1,416 comments) says:

    Iraq was a victory
    That’s all that matters now

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” WOW. You have me convinced.”

    When you develop enough intelligence to grasp the real point, have another go. Time wasting extreme left idiot.

    ” and the subsequent use of the resources gained:”

    Obviously you didn’t even read the initial post by Mr. Farrar. Go away you ranting bereft of fact simpleton loon.

    As for the nut with the Julian Borger bullshit, what is it with you dumbfuck leftists that you are always trying to draw people’s attention to the rantings of bigoted left wing journalists we have long ago discounted as reliable sources of information? This is a right wing blog you loser. Post your worthless crap over at the Standard where they’ll welcome it in moondog delerium.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. jackp (668 comments) says:

    If you believe the Time Magazine report, then you believe in the tooth fairy. I didn’t read it but Time Magazine is not top on my list of accurate information. Why did the US attack Iraq? Because of a tyrant that has weapons of mass destruction? Any country that has large vast of oil reserves and is against the US is a threat to the United States. Look at Venezuela. The US financed a coup against Chavez but by popular demand, Chavez is back in power. I believe the man who was in charge of the coup is now hiding in the US. The US is a bully. If you don’t think the US is benefiting from those large oil reserves in Iraq, you are kidding yourselves. Actually, Bush was right, Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that was threatening the US. That was the Euro. Hussein was trading oil for Euros and when the value of the dollar was dropping, Opec took notice. This scared the US. Also, the government contractors have and are still making billions. We have learned our lesson in Vietnam, war is fantastic business especially for the Vice President. There is so much blood money coming from Iraq and it would take more than an article from Time Magazine to convince me otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “The US is a bully.”

    What’s your favourite country then?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Chris C (224 comments) says:

    Redbaiter (8202) Says:
    December 21st, 2009 at 11:16 pm

    ” WOW. You have me convinced.”

    When you develop enough intelligence to grasp the real point, have another go. Time wasting extreme left idiot.

    ” and the subsequent use of the resources gained:”

    Obviously you didn’t even read the initial post by Mr. Farrar. Go away you ranting bereft of fact simpleton loon.

    As for the nut with the Julian Borger bullshit, what is it with you dumbfuck leftists that you are always trying to draw people’s attention to the rantings of bigoted left wing journalists we have long ago discounted as reliable sources of information? This is a right wing blog you loser. Post your worthless crap over at the Standard where they’ll welcome it in moondog delerium.

    The original post by DPF was about a Time article which was shown to be lacking in both information and proper assessment of that information. As I posted up there, American companies have been deeply involved in extraction and transportation of Iraqi oil from the outset, and as Paul Buchanan has noted – and as I linked to Peter Dale Scott – the economic reasons for access to oil go above and beyond mere reductionist notions of American companies needing to be the ones buying the contracts for America to benefit.

    But, as I pointed out above, and which you conveniently ignore because you’re a bulletheaded idiot, ExxonMobil and Occidental have both been involved in consortiums to extract oil, and Shell Oil is a wholly owned subsiduary of Royal Dutch Shell – so American listed companies have the foot in. (Oil) well in. Oh, and not raised before – the UK was the largest coalition partner, and BP and Royal Dutch Shell are both British owned and FTSE listed. In fact, BP has business links to Tony Blair’s cabinet – Google “Sir David Simon” and “Lord Brown”.

    So thank you for showing, once again, that you don’t have the wherewithall or the intelligence to either process or act on information received, and that you can’t argue without resorting to ad hominem attacks that presuppose a particular political position. Which I don’t hold, but knock yourself out if you want to carry on, because frankly, it’s fucking hilarious. Sometimes, I even read bits out for other people in the room, and we laugh.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. expat (4,048 comments) says:

    LOL, nice try David!

    Of course the Iraq invasion was about securing a strategic supply of oil for the US and her allies, always was always will be.

    The announcement that Iraq has the 3rd largest reserves on the planet bears this out.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Sometimes, I even read bits out for other people in the room, and we laugh.”

    Yeah well, weaving baskets all day in a room full of similar retards would make laughs pretty hard to come by.

    The point of the reference to the BBC article was not to convince anyone that Saddam had WMD’s but to give an example of how widespread the belief was you dull witted loon.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Chris C (224 comments) says:

    Redbaiter (8203) Says:
    December 21st, 2009 at 11:54 pm

    “Sometimes, I even read bits out for other people in the room, and we laugh.”

    Yeah well, weaving baskets all day in a room full of similar retards would make laughs pretty hard to come by.

    Does it make you feel better to think that a room full of retards find you a complete and utter joke?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Falafulu Fisi (2,178 comments) says:

    MyNameIsJack said…
    the culture of entitlement is strong in Amercan corporations.

    What an idiotic and a stupid comment.

    Does Microsoft think that it is entitle to the market that is competing in? Nope. Market power speaks. Microsoft doesn’t wait for a government to give it some favorable contracts, they get in there and compete against others and if they win, it is because of their market power and excellent marketing.

    What makes you think that Google is entitled to expect you to use their search engine while there are free other similar services to use? Did the NZ or some other governments make it favourable for Google to allow its search engine to be used by the majority of the populations but not others? Nope. Market power. The market power that enables scums and anti-capitalists like you to enjoy for free.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. radar (319 comments) says:

    Aren’t Iraq’s oil fields now more open to an international market – thereby increasing supply and probably decreasing prices – than they were under Saddam Hussein? I fail to see how just because no American companies bought rights to any of the oil fields that therefore it’s evidence that the war wasn’t about oil. Oil was a factor for sure. May not be the whole motivator, but it was a factor.

    “Redbaiter (8219) Says:

    December 21st, 2009 at 11:29 pm
    “The US is a bully.”

    What’s your favourite country then?

    Vote: 5 8″

    What are you? Eight years old?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Jeff83 (771 comments) says:

    What are you? Eight years old?

    He is the resident crazy, he brings joy to my life through his ridicolous ramblings.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.