The real reason behind the Iraq war
 

NYT: With Iraq foothold, oil giants eye future - The New York Times- msnbc.com

A few quotes:
“The attraction of these fields to oil companies is not the per-barrel profit, which is very low, but their value as an entrance ticket to the oil sector of southern Iraq,” said Reidar Visser, a research fellow at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs who operates an Iraq Web site, Historiae. “In terms of size and potential, the Basra region remains one of the most attractive areas of future growth for the international oil industry.” Within days of that deal’s ratification, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell signed an initial contract to develop West Qurna, Iraq’s most sought-after field in part because it is believed to have at least 8.6 billion barrels of oil.

The government said it expected production from the three fields alone to vault Iraq’s output to 7 million barrels a day from 2.5 million barrels a day within six years, which would move it from the world’s 13th largest producer to the fourth, according to Department of Energy statistics.

“Iraq is now on its way,” Mr. Shahristani said after the announcements. “The production from these three fields will surely threaten other oil-producing countries and will show the world that Iraq can match Saudi Arabia’s production,” said Mr. Hassani. “Our share has been taken by other countries, and we will gain our share again from the countries that took it.” This whole war was manufactured for the sole purpose of profit and control. And judging by the last quote, a gateway to a full blown world war in the middle east for control of the oil.

I am not the best researcher, if anyone could help put together a list of companies that have seen their profits skyrocket since the war started, I would be interested to see them. Haliburton, Blackwater (now called Xe), and Exxon-Mobile profitted big and are still profitting but I know there are more. I would also like to know what individuals whom have easy access to the president and major political players that have personally benefitted from the war.

Lets open a dialogue about this and see what we come up with.

don't we already have about 50 "its about oil" threads?

I felt this article merited s new thread since the information in it is very clear. I apologize if you do not agree. I was just hoping to discuss this in light of teh article I linked.

love this strawman..


BAGHDAD - More than six and a half years after the United States-led invasion here that many believed was about oil, the major oil companies are finally gaining access to Iraq’s petroleum reserves. But they are doing so at far less advantageous terms than they once envisioned.


and -

Iraq’s first stab at opening its oil industry to foreign investment ended in disappointment at an auction in June in which most companies declined to bid. But last month many of those same companies — including Exxon Mobil and Occidental Petroleum, the first American companies to reach production agreements with Baghdad since the 2003 invasion — signed deals at much the same terms they rejected over the summer.

“most companies declined to bid”.....so? Ah we went to war for oil..I see.

And as far as taking little now for a possbile score later, so what? Whats your issue ?

Yeah! I think I'm gonna need to see a link for this. Your moderator status doesn't give you free rein to post whatever you want without a verifiable link to back your assertions!

...it's from the article in the opening post...

time for the Gray Whore to trot out a reconditioned dead horse.

Now that you have ruled out oil as a reason for the war Imperator, would you mind to repeat the REAL reasons for that war.

Just so that us with a bad memory are not left completely clueless.


Jen

Oops! Sorry Imperator! Carry on then!

to off those Hussein boys, they were scum.

So, your bet is, that regime change was the real reason?

It´s actually completely illegal to start a war for that reason, you know.


Jen

It was always about securing Iraq's oil resource for western consumption. This didn't mean we were 'stealing' the oil in the conventional sense of not paying for it, it meant the oil would be controlled by US interests and wouldn't go to russia/china except at our behest, and certainly wouldn't go to them without us having opportunity to participate.

With Saddam in power, he was selling primarily to Russia and China and a bit to France. That didn't make bush's oil buddies very happy and bush had the double-bonus that he could argue making the US military fight wars to make his buddies profit was also giving the US a strategic advantage in controlling Iraq's vast oil resource. I.e. Sure it was good for his buddies, but it was good for the US as well (except for the thousands of dead US/British soldiers and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis).
Iraq makes historic return to oil sales as PM calls for British troops to leave - Telegraph

Its not worth arguing with anyone who thinks it wasn't about oil. Such people are deluding themselves too much to consider reality.

For starters, the Team Bush, blatanly lied to the American public about WMDs in Iraq so why then would we invade that country? There was never any link between Bin Laden/Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein. Yes the man was a tyrant, but in HIS country. He was never a threat to us. What else would war do for the business elite?

Seeing as how, Exxon-Mobil didn't like the original deal, it would seem to me that the war helped them get an agreement. They already made their short term money with the spiking price of oil due directly to the war (Bush is an oil man is he not?) Now it's time to lay the foundation for the long-term. This war benefited them and had zero benefit for the American people and really no benefit for the Iraqi people. That much is clear and now with the country in shambles, it will not be hard to get slave labor to work the oil fields.

That whole region in the Middle east is going to be the stage for the next world war.

Exactly.

And to that, you can add former CEO at Halliburton oil, Dich Cheney`s "energy task force", who started their meeting at the same time the plans for the war in Iraq started to gain momentum.

Cheney Energy Task Force - SourceWatch

And a grim picture starts to emerge.

And frankly, I agree with Disillusioned 1, that it is hard to take people, who claims it had nothing to do with oil, seriously.


Jen

I think it was a two birds with one stone deal. Oil and energy companies contributed a lot to the Bush-Cheney campaign, Halliburton got no-bid contracts and Saddam was the guy that got away from Bush Sr.

i agree this is the most likely reason. i think there were other reasons to go too (i.e. i believe that bush honestly thought there were wmd's in iraq), however, to say it had nothing to do with oil is willful ignorance...EVERYTHING we do in the middle east has something to do with oil.

He might have truely believed that in 2001 and 2002, but when he released the war in 2003, I am absolutely convinced he knew the chance of finding these weapons, were close to zero.

I can absolutely recommend to follow the newly started British "Chilcot" investigation, about how the war in Iraq started, and who knew what, and when.
There has already been some quite controversial discoveries.

It might raise some serious questions here and therehttp://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...lies/smile.gif


Jen

This issue has been debated ad nauseum. IMO the Iraq war was about securing the supply of oil from perceived threat to its supply, that being an increasingly bellicose Saddam. In fact, our overarching foreign policy goal in our dealings with the Middle East is to make sure nothing threatens the supply of oilcoming from there to here. These dumbassed conspiracy theories that Dick Cheney had a bunch of his oil-company cronies in a basement war room at the white house plotting the invasion of Iraq over cigars and cognac, and then the Evil Uncle Dick Cheney duped his dumb rich-kid boss into doing just that, I don't buy it. It would make for a nifty movie, starring J.T. Walsh as the Evil Dick Cheney,http://1000awesomethings.files.wordp...that-thing.jpg and Judge Reinhold as the gullible, slow-witted Bushhttp://www.arktimes.com/blogs/rockca...Fast_Times.jpg

It has been the stated and the legislated goal of the U. S. for regime change in Iraq since the Clinton administration.

We did not go to war "for" oil. We went to war "because" of oil in Iraq, which gave that oppressive regime the means to fund terrorists (Saddam gave 24,000 to each family of a suicide bomber in Israel), and fund their efforts for wmds once the sanctions were lifted (there was a strong international effort to lift the sanctions before 9/11 and don't forget the UN Oil for Food program). We also invaded Iraq to change the geopolitical situation in the Middle East. Remove Saddam and help create a relatively free society in the Middle East. Once we removed Saddam the whole region changed its tune, Qaddafi gave up his own wmd program, AQ Khan was ended, the Syrians left Lebanon, even Iran was cooperating with us. When we started to get bogged down and the Dems in Congress started to say we had already lost the Iranians started to play their games again.

Unfortunately we now have a president who is seen as weak and as someone who will "cut and run." Deadlines in Afghanistan and weak rhetoric towards Iran does not make us safer or the world safer.

Yes, oil had everything to do with it, but not in the way you and Blaze believe.

Oh, so it was oil all along.......................howz a bout that! Hey........maybe, just maybe..... they faked 9/11 to justify invasion.