Y’know, this ‘big oil’ conspiracy is the left’s equivalent of the lunatic right’s ‘black helicopters’ and the World Banking Conspiracy.
I know of NO evidence that the ‘oil industry’ controls the White House, other than that the President and Vice President once worked in it. But if that’s the charge, then the U.S. was controlled by the ‘acting industry’ when Reagan was President, and by the ‘legal industry’ when Clinton and Nixon were President. And I guess by the shadowy peanut farmer cabal when Carter was president.
But this oil consipiracy nonsense pre-dates both Bush administrations. I remember hearing it in the 1970’s. And it was just as wrong then.
If the oil conspiracy theorists want to be taken seriously, they’ll need to offer a lot more than, “Bush and his daddy are oil men”. How about, oh… EVIDENCE? Show us the chain of events that lead to the benefit of the texas ‘oil men’. For that matter, NAME them. Just what oil men? There seems to be this believe that the ‘oil industry’ is some monolithic entity. It’s an industry like any other.
Read further, and you’ll see that they’re talking about using the oil money to pay for the direct costs of the U.S. occcupation. That’s a far cry from plundering the country to make the homeland rich.
But even if ‘some’ in the administration think the U.S. should keep some of the oil revenues, that does not mean they are controlled by the shadowy big oil cartel. Show me causation. Let’s see some smoking guns. Name names, show how the money will flow, etc. Hand-waving and vague conspiracy theories about rich oil men is a waste of time.
Just a second there. If I suspect a man is plotting to burgle a house and steal the gold therein I have to prove he’s a jeweler?
Oil is valuable. Period. That’s reason enough.
And am I somehow deluded in imagining that the new! improved! Iraqi govenment, brimming over with gratitude, are not likely inclined to be, how shall we say it, rather more generous with thier American benefactors?
More to the point, like all middle-men types, the oil industry is mostly interested in stability. The leverage of Iraqi oil will go a long way toward that dream.
Perhaps more to the point, as the economy of America is so addicted to light, sweet crude a businessman of any stripe, from Chevron to WalMart, has a vested interest. Not to mention those who’s sweetest dream is an America puttering from supermarket to dry cleaners in a 10mpg Behemoth and gassing up every two days! Yessiree! Fill 'er UP!
Azael: I wasn’t insinuating anything. I was simply pointing out that later in the same article they say that some in the administration are saying that oil revenues should be used to pay for the cost of the American occupation. And others inside the adminstration don’t even agree with that, and say that Iraqi oil should only be used to benefit Iraqis.
elucidator:
NO IT’S NOT. Give me some proof. While you’re at it, you can explain why the U.S. didn’t finish Saddam off in 1991, when the elder evil oil man was in the White House, and before Iraq’s oil development rights were partially tied up by the French and Russians. And then you can also explain to me why the U.S. refused to buy Iraqi oil, and allowed the French and Russians to go in and sign all those oil contracts.
When you’ve finished figuring that out, then you can tell us exactly which American oil companies will benefit, and how they have access to power, and show us some documents indicating that the government is being pushed into war by them.
Hey, the Iraqis would sell the U.S. all the oil they want NOW, if the U.S. agreed to buy it. You don’t need a war for that.
But if you think the U.S. is going to take control of the oil fields and expropriate it all, you’re going to have to explain how they are going to convince the Russians and the French that their agreements are being torn up so the Americans can take it all.
Do you REALLY believe the U.S. is going to do this, or are you just spinning fairy tales that match your view of the Bush Administration as the reincarnation of the Spanish Conquistadors?
You’re simply not making sense. You’re just putting together disconnected thoughts and prejudices and trying to pass it off as THE reason for war. But this is great debates, and I’d sure like some cites and some logic. Lately, you’ve been really short on both.
Sam simply because you assert that a weak position is mine own, it doesn’t necessarily follow that I am obliged to defend it. Why am I obliged to explain why Bush I didn’t go to Baghdad?
Secondly, actual expropriation is not required. Oil fields are likely to be damaged, are they not? Contracts will be let for thier repair, almost certainly. Would it astonish anyone to see Haliburton gently treated? Control does not necessarily imply expropriation, in fact, that would be rather more crude than I would expect.
Do you imagine that the Russians and the French have not closely examined thier bread, in order to determine which side is buttered? If America installs a government sympathetic to its point of view, which is a lead pipe cinch, might they not rebuke and repudiate those contracts with allies who weren’t sufficiently commited to the Noble Cause? Do you imagine that Vladimir Putin shift in alliance is based on his deep committment to our common humanity?
Or might economic concerns have a bearing? Yes, I’ll wildly suggest they very well might. Hey, call me crazy but I think that has a lot to do with it. As to peering into Vlad “The Impalers” Putins mind, or offering a cite from one who has, I’m afraid I cannot. All of the public clairovoyants are employed by the administration, predicting what Saddam bin Laden is thinking, and what he will certainly do next.
[hijack, kind of]
Could any Canadians participating in this thread, or with opinions on the Irag-US controversy in general, please email me? I have a request unrelated to this board, although it does involve correspondence and fighting ignorance.
Mods, if this post is in any way out of line, I apologize.
[/hijack, kind of]
Honestly, do you believe the French and Russians will stand idly by as the US blatantly cuts them out of their oil deals? A good portion of the world believes its “all about oil”. Do you really believe that the US will openly confirm these vague suspicions by resorting to such measures? Even if the US secretly only cared about profits for oil companies, why would they allow this despiccable agenda to become apparent to the rest of the world? If you’re going to attempt fraud, you should at least use some discretion.
Nobody on the “it’s all about oil” side has yet rebutted the key question, which is “How would the Iraqi oil benefit American oil companies?”. As manhattan and others pointed out, the industry attempts to stabilize prices. Flooding the market with cheap oil would be bad for the very oil companies that are supposedly directing the Bush administration.
Without answering this, I don’t see how a compelling argument can be made that the war is truly “all about oil”, and no answers have been forthcoming.
Who said anything about opening the flood gates for oil? Control means just that, control. And, yes, just as Manny says, what the industry want most is stability. In what way does control adversely affect stability?
Every sensible poster to this thread has acknowledged that oil is a factor. The only debate centers around the degree to which it is a factor. But even that is variable: is Colin Powell more concerned with oil than Dick Cheney?
By the same token, if you are to insist that your position is superior because no one can prove that it is all about oil, well, that’s a pretty safe bet, absent a signed confession from every member of the Administration.
Of course there are other factors, not the least of which is the recent importance of clairovoyance to international policy. Whereby actions taken today are justified by certain knowledge as to what someone will do tomorrow.
I wouldn’t doubt that some persons are attracted to the “all oil” thesis only because nothing else makes any damn sense! We are to go halfway around the world to fight a war because GeeDubya says he can peer into Saddam bin Ladens mind, and, yep, he’s definitely planning an attack. Compared to that, the “all oil” thesis is sweet Reason.
Wow so many informed responses to my question. I would have chipped in sooner but my comp is dead and I have to go to Costa for my internet.
So oil is a factor, albeit a deciding one, that much seems to have been established. But as for the “war on terror” isn’t it ironic that the US continues to support Israel, a regime that uses terrorist actions to acheive political ends.
I am not going to mention US support of other dictatorships, nor US and UK arms sales to those regimes. Remember how the US and UK supported Iraq prior to the Gulf War? UK arms sales to Iraq continued even after Iraq’s attack of Kuwait.
As Manhattan said: “What justifies hostile action?”
I wonder how Ariel Sharon or Osama Bin Laden would reply.
I think the root causes of this conflict are a duality between the global economy and ethical government.
…is a little like saying Iraq has the “fourth largest standing army…” or some crap arse European country has the eleventh largest military in the world; i.e if they’ve only got sandals and one gun between ten, it ain’t worth a whole lot against carpet bombing.
In good 'ole '73 (spit…ting!), the four-fold increase in the barrel price sent us all out of shape for a couple of years - and guess what, the US had the same reserves then. And it’s even more of a world economy, world confidence, fee-flowing capital kinda world…lets not be parochial about this because (obviously) the US doesn’t trade or operate in a vacuum - you ain’t going to supply the world from those domestic reserves.
Even the news yesterday from OPEC sent the barrel price down a dollar or more…just a little mild relief that that the Saudi’s injected at Bush’s request cos even Texas don’t like the price over $30 (just under and the good ole boys are real happy, though) - note, the rhetoric will also be hushed by Bush until the price gets under the $30
Well I am sure Cheney can take care of this “illegality”. I think the main part of the contracts, i.e. reparation of the “accidently” bombed oil fields will go to american companies. Cheny and Co will find a way to get payed back, I am sure.
Then, the US will get reparations, which will pay for the war. The winner of this situation is the arms industry, which had a financially sucessful year.
.
Yes, but that would not bring stability. They could not be sure of a cheap and steady flow of oil. By winning the war they can. And they can control the oil price.
I don’t think that I need to prove how Cheny and Co. will do it, everybody with a little imagination will follow the points. I admit that I don’t have a proof for it, but, what the heck, neither does Shrub have a proof for the WOMD.
That’s not what I said. I personally don’t care if people come along or not, and I do not try to persuade others. But nevertheless I have an opinion, like all of all us, and I think most things which form our opinion are unconfirmed.
So, those who need proofs, wait for the fabricated ones from Shrubs and Co. But I am not sure whether these proofs will be more authentic than my “non-existing” ones.
In any way, not attacking a country because of lack proof is the better option than attacking the country in spite of the lack of proof.
Saudi Arabia produces 8,031,000 barrels per day. The US produces 9,051,000 barrels per day.
Fact: the US is the largest day-to-day producer of oil in the world.
Yeah, I guess that is as insignificant as the 11th largest army in the world. :rolleyes:
That’s all true, but that’s not what you were arguing in your last post. In your last post, you asserted
[/QUOTE]
the supply - none of it - is controlled by the US directly,
[/QUOTE]
and that was why the US was talking about invading Iraq.
Your underlying assumption has been proven incorrect, and therefore your conclusion is, at the very least, suspect.
So to put your argument into a movie metaphor that I can understand*, Cheney is Noah Cross, and you’re J. J. Gittes, shouting “Arrest him! He’s rich! Do you understand? He thinks he can get away with anything!” Well, with all due respect, I think the laws concerning conflicts of interest here are a little more robust than you believe.
Tell you what, if the US invades and if there is any sign that Cheney directly profits from contracts awarded to American companies, or if the US somehow arranges for the Iraqi oil ministry to tear up the contracts already awarded to European and Asian companies, I’ll open a thread congratulating you and elucidator for having smoked out the rats in the cellar.
If the US does not invade, or if there is no sign of Cheney profiteering, will you open a thread saying you were wrong?
There already is a cheap and steady flow of oil to the US. Even if the US simply expropriated all Iraqi oil (and I don’t think any one here would argue that this is likely), control of one country’s reserves (even a country as rich in oil as Iraq) will not enable the US to control market prices for oil.
But I don’t believe in it. Governments who want war will always find a way to go to war. And all points to the fact, that W wants a war. He searching for the reason for a long time now.
About your movie comparison: I don’t know this movie, but I don’t care if Cheny and Co. are rich. What is bad is that they start a war for this reason.
