Truthout Excerpt:
New Oil Law Means Victory in Iraq for Bush
From those earliest days until now, throughout all the twists and turns, the blood and chaos of the occupation, the Bush administration has kept its eye on this prize. The new law offers the barrelling buccaneers of the West a juicy set of production-sharing agreements (PSAs) that will maintain a fig leaf of Iraqi ownership of the nation's oil industry - while letting Bush's Big Oil buddies rake off up to 75 percent of all oil profits for an indefinite period up front, until they decide that their "infrastructure investments" have been repaid. Even then, the agreements will give the Western oil majors an unheard-of 20 percent of Iraq's oil profits - more than twice the average of standard PSAs, the Independent notes.
Big Oil will rake off up to 75% of all the profits until their “infrastructure investments” have been repaid? Production sharing agreements have their place, but what was so wrong when some Americans asked that oil rich Iraq share in the cost of their own liberation? Dick Cheney railed against the American public when it was suggested that the American treasury be repaid with oil profits from Iraq. He went as far to say that should Americans taxpayers expect to be repaid, world opinion of America would plummet. Could it really have gone any further down than Bush has taken it? Bush constantly reminds us that the insurgents and militias will take the oil profits if we fail in Iraq, as if it really is the only prize worth fighting for.
Consortium News Excerpt:
Not only have possibly hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result, but U.S. forces killed Hussein’s two sons and turned the deposed dictator over to his enemies so he could hanged like a common criminal on Dec. 30.
So there can be little incentive for Iranian or North Korean leaders to follow the Iraq model of disarmament and inspections. Further, the explosion of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world has increased risks to the pro-U.S. dictatorship in nuclear-armed Pakistan, where Islamic militants with close ties to al-Qaeda are reported to be gaining strength.
The remaining two of the so-called axis of evil have nothing to lose now by nuking up. To them, it may be the only thing that can guarantee superpower militaries will not invade.
Out of all the conspiracies and accusations, from the Kennedy assassination to 9/11 was an inside job to the DaVinci Code, none of them are as believable or convincing enough as the evidence available to support the most inconvenient truth of all – that the Bush War in Iraq is all about oil. He is taking us on a ride to nowhere.
27 comments:
It is a scary thought that people actually believe this stuff that you are trying to say. The conspiracy theories are out there in full force from the looney lefties. But, yet they haven't found a way to better handle the situation in Iraq. They would just assume to sit back and watch terrorists acts. They would just assume having Saddam in power killing millions of his own people. Thumbing his nose at the international community. They whine and bitch and say it's all about oil. How stupid of a statement. The lefties don't have a course of action or a plan their plan it seems is to play the blame game. Not much of a plan if you ask me. It surley doesn't show much leadership either. They call it Bushes war? How stupid of a comment is that? They are americans fighting for OUR freedoms and the looney lefties call it BUSHES WAR? Did we call the war in Somalia CLINTONS war? NO. We are all in this together and we should look at it that way. The consequences of losing this war are much greater than we can possibly imagine. Why can't the lefties accept the fact that we are at war. Why do they just want to get up and leave? Why are they always looking for the easy way out of situations Are that that scared of victory? I certainly don't think that the brave men and woman go into the military thinking they aren't going to win. What kind of people are these lefties? Are they people that go into a ghame with the mindset that they aren't going to win? The clock is still running on the demorats and their counter of the presidents plan in Iraq. We have yet to hear of a plan from them. Instead they just whine and say the prwesidents plan isn't any good. Well, President Bush doesn't have that luxuary of sitting back and whining about what if's he had to make a decission on what the intelligence he had. He had to do what he though was best for the American people at the time. The demorats are real good at playing Monday morning quarterback in this whole thing. Why can't they come up with a plan of their own? It was just a month ago that leading democratic senators were saying to send in more troops but, now that the president wants to do the same thing it's a bad idea. These democrats are all about politics. They don't give a rat about the American people. They care about themselves and it is showing already. It's time to open your eyes and see what liberalism is all about.
So you believe that we are there for WMD's, because Saddam was involved in 9/11, or was it that Saddam was going to launch an attack on the US? The reason people are having a hard time getting behind this war is because they have been lied to since day 1 about why we are there. Lied to over and over again. You ask Dems to come up with a plan, well I'm asking the Repubs for a reason why we are there. The real reason, you know, the truth.
We are there because because Saddam Hussein was believed to have WMD's. The whole world thought he had WMD's. He didn't comply with the UN resolutions that were set in place at the end of the first Gulf war. He had 12 years to comply with the UN resolutions but, repeately kicked out the inspectors. He would show the inspectors were to look. Common sense tells you if a person is lying or hiding something they don't want you to find they will act the way that Saddam was acting. He simply had to follow international law and come forward and show us were the WMD's were. If he destroyed them then he should have show documentation of that. September 11th changed the minset of the United Sates and the world. We couldn't just react to situations we had to prevent situations. Saddam was not a friend of The United States or our allies. If he did have WMD's he would have used them on us or our allies. He used them on his own people. He wouldn't be afraid of using them against us or our allies. You can't still be bitter about the fact that you were so called lied to and insist we get out of there because we shouldn't have been there in the first place. We need to make sure Iraq is a stable enviroment and will not be another afganistan where terrorists can have a safe haven. Yes we are all upset about setbacks we have had in Iraq. But, we need to act as a country and come together with a plan to secure Iraq and let them florish as a democratic society and country. Terrorists aren't stupid they work our media very well. They know that one car bomb will make the five o'clock news over here. They know if they repeatly blow up cars and mosques that the images will be show over here. They know that the people over her will get mad and want us out. They know if we leave they will have won the war. We can't have that. That mindset isn't the right mindset. The Iraqi people need to follow up on our efforts and see this through. There are only two real hotspots in Iraqi. We need to get a handle on those spots and the quicker we do that and stablize those areas the quicker we can get our troops out of there.
If you wanted to repel the most technologically advanced military on Earth with huge laser/satellite advantages, how would you do it? Suicide bombers, IED's and sling-shots - it is THEIR country. Imagine if China invaded us.
If you did'nt know it before, you must know it by now, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
I strongly believe my fellow lefties have a plan to defeat our flagless, uniformless and countryless enemies. It's just not Bush's way. The recent special operations conducted in Somalia with cooperation from other countries like Ethiopia and UN input was an oddity for the Bush Administration. But that was "Clintonesque" style "Hit and Run" action and coupled with investigations, arrests and the PROPER use of intelligence is probably the only way we can defeat this enemy we seem to know so little about.
hey maxx. The whole world did not think saddam had weapons. powell showed "after" photos of cleaned and swept weapons facilities in Iraq, even powell knew it was a sham. intelligence agencies throughout the world said iraq was not tied to 9-11 and has no wmd. saddam hung onto power with the bluff. more people have been merdered in iraq in the past three years than in the previous 20. his was nearly disfenseless when we invaded. bush and his cabinet have pulled the wool over your eyes.
The war in Iraq is Bush's war. Had the Democrats not vote to fund it they would have been labeled as traitors by people like you maxx. When the intelligence didn't go his way, Bush changed it and made it fit. Now, the generals don't go his way, he changes them to make em fit. It's his war and your war -maxx, keep changing things often enough and your bound to get lucky, sooner or later. For many Americans, its too late right now.
It sure would be nice if you and your fellow lefties would tell someone what your plan is. Why is it such a big secret? You have had aple amount of time to come up with some sort of plan. And yes the whole world did think Saddam had WMD's. Why then did Clinton bomb Iraq in 1998? I do believe it was to destroy Saddam's WMD's. Well, a slight intelligence flaw he ended up bombing a asprin factory. But, he thought Saddam had WMD's. That's what the UN inspectors were looking for were WMD's. It's truly amazing how blind you lefties are. Which ever way the wind blows is how your plan seems to sway.
No matter what Clinton did then and might say now, history tells us he did not amass 250,000 troops around Iraq's perimeter and invade the country. You might look at that as weakness, but the results today tell us Clinton did the right thing by NOT invading. Bush decided to build up our adrenaline to invade, against the advice of millions.
Saddam wheeled in barrels of disarmament documents in December of 2002 only to be ignored. Bush said Saddam is a liar and just buying time.
Any plan that differs with the Bush plan is the "lefty" plan. You got it from the Baker/Hamilton plan and you hear different versions of it from generals and politicians on "Meet The Press" and "Fox News" every Sunday. You and Bush aren't listening. Drawdown American troops - replace some with UN troops - let Iraqis be Iraqis - protect the Iraqi border a little better than we protect our own border. That's not too much too ask.
Bush betrayed the American public with his obsession and the only people who will convince him to do the right thing are Republicans. He won't listen to anyone else.
Your right Saddam was just an honest law abiding dictator. A man of honesty and integretity. The lefty plan just over a month ago was to put more troops into Iraq. But, now it's a bad thing because the republicans are in favor of it. Truth is sending in 20,000 more troops isn't even the amount of troops that wee in Iraq at the beginning of the Iraq war.
MAXX what are you saying man? Saddam was a brutal dictator who killed millions of his own people. He isn't a honest man and should never have that distinction made. He had WMD's used them on his own people and the international community thought he had them. If we didn't go in to Iraq and left Saddam in power down the road he would have developed a means of delivering his WMD's and killing our allies in the middleeast. He would have also be able to engage in more genocide in his country.Come on Maxx get a clue man.
Don't worry 10:14 AM, Maxx is trying to be sarcastic. He's just as nuts as you are.
The world is lucky we confiscated all those WMD before Saddam had a chance to use them on our troops..... Wait a second. They found NO WMD. Youse guys are stuck in 1988. Please go back to the future, and least around June of 2003.
Just an observation from a person who jumps around a bit on the political scene. I believe in the free market place. I think it's a woman's choice to have an abortion or not. It's her body. I don't believe the death penalty is the way we should punish people for their crimes. I don't think we are taxed to much. I believe all politicans lie. So, that being said. What if we didn't go into Iraq and the President had the same intelligence he had when he went in. Everything was the same but, we turned the other cheek and allowed Saddam to be in power. Then 10 years down the road we find out Saddam has developed a way to deliver his WMD's. The inspectors are still searching for his WMD's and they keep getting the run around by Saddam. We still do nothing. We figure it's not our problem. Then he uses a missile to attack our friend in Kuwait. Hundreds of thousand of people die from ricin gas. 2,500 Americans die from the gas. What would be said then? The blame would go to the former President Bush (43). Because he ignored the intelligence ten years before and did nothing. Isn't it better to not have found them going in there than for the intelligence to be correct and we do nothing at all and Saddam using them down the road. It's a toss up in this day and age. I'm not saying we should have gone into Iraq the way we did. But, I'm also not sure that if we didn't go into Iraq that something would have happened later. Just a theroy pf mine. I just haven't seen anywhere where people think about this.
6:42 Very good theory. Well thought out.
Your theory is somewhat refreshing to hear instead of the typical blind jingoisms.
But, the no-fly zones were functional, we have satellites, inspectors were inspecting and the UN was willing to participate.
If we use our Presidents own reasons and evidence regarding the WMD, I don't then find any consolation or safety knowing we DID NOT find WMD. With that - we should now be on Red Alert.
But I am confused by the idea that we invade a country because someone said it poses a threat and we find none - that that's better somehow then finding a threat. It blows the whole justification for war right out the window. Which is why we are discussing it today.
Whether we or our allies are attacked tomorrow or ten years from now by ANYBODY, people will always say SOMEONE could have done more. George W. Bush made a huge mistake with Iraq - plain and simple.
You may want to refresh your memory a bit and go back to Febuary 1998. Here is the link of what former President Clinton said about Saddam Hussein and the threat he posses to the United States. He also goes into the WMD's that Saddam has.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
I ask you max what has changed since 1998?
Well, well the price of a barrel of oil is around $51.00 a barrel. What is this? Are the big oil companies out of their minds? Just a few months ago they were raking in billions of dollars in record profits. Now they are selling oil for around fifty one dollars a barrel. What about the theory that oil was going down because of the election. President Bush shouldn't have ordered his oil buddies to drop the price of oil down this far. I mean how are these oil companies going to be able to make money at fifty one dollars a barrel. There is no reason for this. The election is over and the price of oil should be going up. Again the lefties were WRONG!!! LMAO
1. Clinton did not invade Iraq. Why do Bush supporters use Clinton or the UN as supporting players to the mistake in Iraq?
2. Alot has happened between 1998 and February 2003.
3. Why was oil $76 a barrel? What has changed since. The middle-east is ready to implode. China and India are buying more oil than two months ago. The Doomsday clock was moved up two minutes. We have a long way to go (under $40) before lefties begin apologizing for cheap gasoline.
HELLO no one ever said he INVADED Iraq. He didn't have the balls to. He did believe Saddam had WMD's and BOMBED Iraq to destroy the WMD's he believed Saddam had. Yeah alot has happened since 1998 and Febuary 2003. 9/11 happened we can't just react to situations we need to act on situations which we did in Iraq. With all the intelligence that we had about Saddam to not act on it would have be irresponsible in a post 9/11 world.
Clinton didn't have the balls or....stupidity either. The Iraq invasion was a Bush reaction only, there was no petition or mandate from the people to invade Iraq. Americans wanted those who perpetrated 9-11, not anybody else.
To 1:44 PM
After Bush was re-elected in 2004, most people were shocked and did not see the Dems sweeping the House & Senate in November, even though the polls said they were ahead. Many thought the fix was in again, and the Republicans would hold on to their majorities. So, many assumed gasoline prices would spike up. If the lefties were wrong, they were wrong thinking they would lose this time.
With that said, gas would be $70 a barrel and climbing if the Republicans didn't lose and Bush wasn't in so much trouble. It would have been back to business as usual. How's that?
That's a bunch of BS. Bush is still in the whitehouse and he's the oil man. It's a simple concept you lefties tend to ignore it's called supply and demand.
Anybody notice oil shot up again? What happened....the State of the Union address? He mearly mentions upping the strategic reserve and gas shoots up .20¢ in Milwaukee. No more supply or demand from yesterday, yet it goes up.
Economists and other experts who insist Big Oil, OPEC or the oil markets in general are free and unmanipulated are full of crap and should be egged and tomatoed the second they open their mouth about "supply and demand."
It is supply and demand. Are you going to whine when the price of oranges goes up when they have a bad year in Florida? How about the price of steel. Steel prices have tripled in the past five years do you whine about that? Is it some sort of steel makers cartel that is driving up the prices of steel? I guess I should be egged and tomatoed since I believe in free market place. The cost of gasoline went up because the refineries are having to switch over and make heating oil again. The warm weather we enjoyed the past few weeks is gone and so is the heating oil supply.
I would think supply would be up due to the warm weather we've had. Warmer weather, less usage, more supply. If refineries are just now starting to make fuel oil again they are dumber than I thought. Maybe they have no concept of time. I mean it is January. Historically it does get cold in the WINTER months. Gee who would have forseen cold weather?!
To 6:17 AM
The orange market is very different. There is physical evidence of the damage and shortages. I have not seen one bit of evidence of an oil or gasoline supply shortage anywhere. Not even during Katrina. It was all speculation and price manipulation to avoid physical shortages. No lines, no rationing. Just price gouging.
In fact all I see is a glut of oil so large that OPEC considers production cuts every 3 months. The oil supply and storage capacities are manipulated, insiders know the money market, Big Oil's sole responsibility is to keep the prices high enough to accomodate their own tight-rope supply, and avoid physical shortages. I encourage simple supply and demand economics, and as a lefty, strive for free enterprise. I just don't see much of it here.
Just like healthcare, if big business won't look out for the interests of the common good, we have nobody to look to but the government for help. Big business is their own worst enemy.
Just like 3:17 PM says, If refineries are just now starting to make fuel oil again they are dumber than I thought. But 3:17 knows better, why would Big Oil possibly do anything that would just earn them honest profits, when thay have the tools to earn them obscene profits.
Post a Comment