rEvolutionist wrote:http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1635518
This was at the end of yet another long attempt to un-addle you and get you to understand that we were talking about 2003 being about IRAQI oil, not 1991 and KUWAITI oil. You only accept that oil had anything to do with it via KUWAIT in 1991. But's that a strawman, as Hermit and others weren't talking abou KUWAITI oil. They were talking about IRAQI oil in 2003. In this link above you deny that 2003 was largely about Iraqi oil (and probably the Bush family's ego). You believe it was a continuation of 1991 via 1441. Which it wasn't, as amply shown by the wording and surrounding authoritative quotes of the resolution itself, and the quotes by people high up in the administration and it's agencies.
“If Iraq was invaded for oil,” Ahmad writes, “then the US was remarkably negligent in securing the prize.” Iraq awarded its first major post-invasion oil concessions in 2009, and the big winners? Norway, France, China and Russia. Of the 11 contracts signed only one went to a US company (Exxon Mobil). The only sector in which US firms prevailed was oil services—but “in that sector the US has always enjoyed a virtual monopoly, invasions or no,” Ahmad notes.
It’s true that Bush and Cheney had worked in the energy industry, but US oil companies did not push for the invasion—in fact they lobbied to lift the sanctions on Iraq, which blocked potential profits. The oil industry has long favored agreements with governments, Ahmad notes; belligerence, in contrast, “has only jeopardized investments and brought uncertainty to future projects.” Did US oil companies try to cash in on the opportunity presented by the toppling of Saddam Hussein? By all means, but this is not to be confused, Ahmad argues, with why the invasion happened. Gulf energy resources have long been a vital US interest, he notes, but on “no other occasion has the US had to occupy a country to secure them.”
http://inthesetimes.com/article/17626/w ... teaches_us
The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald is one such revivalist. In a column on Monday he's magnanimous enough to concede that saying the war in Iraq was fought strictly for oil is an "oversimplification." Yet just as quickly, he can't contain himself. "But the fact that oil is a major factor in every Western military action in the Middle East is so self-evident that it's astonishing that it's even considered debatable, let alone some fringe and edgy idea," he contends. The war for oil mantra may be self-evident to Greenwald and his fellow travelers, but the facts say otherwise.
If oil were a major factor for prosecuting war in Iraq, it stands to reason the United States would be getting substantial amounts of it. It may come as a shock to Greenwald as well as a number of other Americans, but with regard to importing oil, the overwhelming percentage of our imported oil does not come from the Middle East. Canada and Latin America provide the United States with 34.7 percent of our imported oil. Africa provides another 10.3 percent. The entire Persian Gulf, led by Saudi Arabia at 8.1 percent, provides us with a total of 12.9 percent of our imported oil.
As recently as December 2012, Iraq provided the United States with approximately 14.3 million barrels of oil out of a total of about 298 million barrels imported, or 4.8 percent of our total imports. And as this chart indicates, we were importing the highest amount of oil from Iraq before we went to war to oust Saddam Hussein.
Furthermore, the United States fully supported the United Nations' oil embargo against Iraq, imposed when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, despite the reality that we were far more dependent on imported oil then than we are now. We continued to support it even when it was revealed that the eventual softening of those sanctions, known as the oil for food program, revealed that Russia, France and a number of other nations were collaborating with Saddam Hussein to violate sanctions in return for billions of dollars of ill-gotten gains. Of the 52 countries named in a report compiled by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker detailing the scandal, only 28 even wanted the evidence, and the United States led the way in prosecuting those implicated.
In 2010, the UN Security Council lifted most of the remaining sanctions. The Security Council said it "recognizes that the situation now existing in Iraq is significantly different from that which existed at the time of the adoption of resolution 661" in 1990. In other words, they recognized that Butcher of Baghdad and his brutal dictatorship had been tossed on the ash heap of history, and a relatively stable government had taken its place. The Council also voted to return control of Iraq's oil and natural gas revenue to the government by June 30 of that year. "Iraq is on the cusp of something remarkable--a stable, self-reliant nation," said Vice President Joe Biden, who chaired the meeting.
It is precisely that self-reliant nation--not an oil-rich client state of America--that Iraq is becoming.
If America went to war in Iraq mostly for oil, it would stand to reason that we would maintain a stranglehold on both their supply and production. Ten years after the war began, China has emerged as one of the main beneficiaries of a relatively stable Iraqi government and a country that, after two decades, is poised to become the world's third largest oil exporter
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/182499/ ... old-ahlert
In short, if the war was all about oil for the US, then how come we still only import about 1 or 2 percent of our oil from Iraq? We get 75% of our middle east imports from Saudi Arabia, and the rest from a combo of Kuwait, and other middle eastern countries, including a small percentage from Iraq. The bulk of US foreign oil comes from Canada and South America. Wow, we are such great oil thieves, eh?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
