I think it's time to abandon the "blood for oil" argument.

[Paragon]

I much rather prefer "neocon foreign policy incompetence playing right into extremists' hands".

Who's with me?

[HFishbine]

1. How about

"neocon foreign policy incompetence playing right into extremists' hands for oil."

[Paragon]

2. Nah.

With pipelines blowing up on an almost daily basis now, it's almost an afterthought.

It's a friggin' holy war now, thanks to Dubya's "crusade".

[NewYorkerfromMass]

34. I tend to agree with you.

Bush's lame ass excuse for fighting terror happened to include getting the guy who tried to kill his dad.
It's all about looking like a tough ass Texan.
Fucking jerk.

[kysrsoze]

39. Come on - it was BOTH

Of course they would have loved the oil dividends if everything had worked out. Regardless, the high oil prices have benefitted their buddies anyway. Look at Halliburton and the huge profits the oil companies are making off sky-high prices.

I do agree, the whole Iraq war was also an attempt to show some major ass-kicking to the world. They knew they had someone they could pick on to show how Merka is winning the war on terra. That's a fact.

[Aidoneus]

3. how about

"Bush & the war have done more to advance the cause of world revolution more than I ever could, and that makes me embarassed"..

The idea of Iraq being another S.A./Kuwait is long out the window, so that point is a bit moot now. If they (Bush or Kerry, Jeb or Hilary after them, or Jenna Bush in 2012) get out of this without the US world empire being shattered, it'll be a miracle.

[ibegurpard]

4. Simplify

I agree with the point but make it simpler.

[Paragon]

6. Not everything is meant to fit on a bumpersticker.

:silly:

[ClassWarrior]

5. If it comes out, as one DUer suggested...

...that Cheney's secret energy policy was the blueprint for Iraq, it'll be all about blood for oil, all the time.

[filterfish]

right idea, just not snappy enough

half the folks i talk to don't even know what a 'neocon' is, the other half already agrees with your assessment

[thebigidea]

45. so isn't it time you started TELLING THEM what a neocon is? Hmmm?

[Warren DeMontague]

7. Because obviously it has nothing to do with oil.

Since it's about WMDs, that's why we're at war with North Korea.
And since it's about genocide and human rights atrocities, hence our presence in the Sudan.
And since it's obviously about stopping Al Qaeda and terrorists, no wonder we're also at war with Saudi Arabia, and we have the Family Saud under interrogation (along with Bush's uncle and the execs of Riggs Bank) at GITMO.


Of course it's about oil...
He who controls the spice, controls the universe, my son.

[TexasBushwhacker]

10. I agree

It's about oil. It's about money. It's about tossing high dollar no-bid contracts to his cronies. They don't care how many billions of taxpayer dollars they spend or how many thousands of lives are lost. They are evil.

[Paragon]

11. Sooo...

I take it the two of you are in the LIHOP/MIHOP camp?

[DrWeird]

13. Maybe I have you mistaken with somebody else...

Back when bullets first started flying, didn't you approve of this war?

[Paragon]

15. You do.

I never gave one iota of support to the war in Iraq. Protested against it, in fact.

[Sterling]

19. You seem to think the two are connected.

The oil and the idea 9-11 was somewhat an inside job? Does your dismissal of Mihop/LIHOP depend on you not believing that energy resources are the driving factor behind current geopolitics?

[wtmusic]

22. True..what the hell does LIHOP/MIHOP have to do with

blood for oil?

[Sterling]

29. They don't have to be connected.

But I assume most lihop/mihopers believe they are. However I don't think you have to think MIHOP to see that energy resources are the maojor factor in policy and will become more so over the next few decades.

This is not the last war for oil.

[TexasBushwhacker]

24. I don't think they're related per se

I knew that the pipeline through Afghanistan was something that they wanted for a long time. I think it could be LIHOP or MIHOP just for an excuse to get into Afghanistan. But other than the pipeline possibility, all Afghanistan has itself is horrendous terrain and soil that won't grow anything but opium poppies - lots of opium poppies.

When the enemy suddenly became Iraq, I realized that they were using 9/11 as an excuse to go after anything they wanted at any expense.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. Not Relevant- Because..

Whether or not we have a LIHOP/MIHOP situation, there is evidence- and not of the tinfoil hat variety, either- that Bushco. had a hard-on to invade iraq from the second they got in office. The fact that 9-11 gave them the pretext doesn't really change the fact that they were probably planning to do it anyway. And if you think their reasons for doing it- and wanting to do it- had nothing to do with oil, hey, you're welcome to your opinion... but, I mean, come on.

[wtmusic]

20. Well stated

:thumbsup:

[whistle]

8. The BushCo people wanted Iraq for a reason other then what we were...

..told by Bush. Bush wanted that war as soon as he arrived at the White House. No, I don't buy incompetence, although there certainly was plenty of that, just like I never bought the line that Bush was feeding us about stopping terrorism by defeating Saddam, or preventing WMD's from being delivered, or uranium yellow cake purchases by Saddam. Iraq is number two as far as world oil reserves, so that certainly is a possibility knowing Bush's myopic interests, another DU post describes drug connections by this administration also, no proof there, so I'm not rushing to judgment. Hegemony as a world power, a Christian worlds power, total control of all the world, emperor of the world, those are big motivators for a man with the ego, grandiosity and desire to be on top that George W Bush has and also his neurotic desire to please his mom and dad, that I can buy.

[Paragon]

9. If this is how they're pursuing hegemony...

...they're pretty incompetent at it, wouldn't you say? ;-)

[libhill]

42. Or, in a nutshell

Bush is nuts. End of story.

[NuttyFluffers]

12. there's nothing wrong with multiple angles of attack

especially if each holds a nugget of truth.

abandon no "weapon" in your arsenal against the madness that threatens us all. just pick the angle that you feel most comfortable with.

[Paragon]

14. Well...

...if the oil companies are being run out of Iraq for fear of keeping their heads attached, it might be time to change strategy.

[NuttyFluffers]

21. just because...

their plan failed doesn't mean the motive must've been different.

[KansDem]

16. I heard Terry Gross interview Robert Bryce last week...

(Robert Bryce wrote Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America's Superstate and Pipe Dreams: Greed, Ego, and the Death of Enron)

...and he said the Iraq invasion was not about taking its oil, but "controlling the flow of its oil." He seemed pretty adamant about making this distinction although I haven't been able to figure out how the two are separate...

[Sterling]

17. Yes it is as important to not let others have it as it is to get it

ourselves. Dont give up that in the next few years there will be production out of Iraq that favors American interests. Kerry will stay the course in Iraq, that much is certain. We are not giving up the oil just because it was not vaible in the first year or so after we took over. This stuff is for keeps.

[ContinentalOp]

47. Controlling the flow vs. Taking the oil:

"...and he said the Iraq invasion was not about taking its oil, but "controlling the flow of its oil." He seemed pretty adamant about making this distinction although I haven't been able to figure out how the two are separate..."

Well one related issue is petrodollars. The OPEC nations have always used US dollars as their standard trading currency which has helped to inflate the value of the dollar. Iraq started trading with Euros a while back and if the other OPEC nations followed suit our currency would be in big trouble. So by keeping the region "in line" they can continue to prop up our currency.

It's also important to remember how Enron was able to make billions of dollars, not by creating and selling energy, but by manipulating energy markets. The power lies in the control of the oil market moreso than the actual sale of the oil. As an illustration of this power look at the deal Bush made with Bandar to lower gas prices before the election. The real money and power lies in the manipulation of energy markets through control of the flow of energy.

[Jacobin]

18. The two are not mutually exclusive

Take your pick of those among lots of other really bad excuses for invading a country

[kiahzero]

23. It was time to abandon that argument

about 1 nanosecond after it was first put forward. It was never true, and just discredited those against the war to those we were trying to convince.

[Sterling]

27. I don't see how an intelligent person can believe

Oil had nothing to do with this war. It is obvious on oh so many levels.

[Lisa]

25. some of them think it's a GOOD argument ...

And see nothing wrong with it!

[Sterling]

28. Well in a way it is.

It at least observes the common reality unlike people who refuse to believe it is a/the factor driving policy.

[Lisa]

32. I'm trying to remember the theorist ...

I don't think it was Robert Klare, but someone who looks at geopolitics and resources anyway. His philosophy was that it was not only realistic, but laudable that the US should try to get control over energy supplies, etc., not only because of an ideological argument (to maintain the stability of democracy, etc.) but because that WAS the ideology -- unquestioned supremacy in all things. I thought that was rather interesting, since even some of the pro-PNAC folks had couched it in terms of a regrettable necessity.

I like your point about the policy situation -- "blood for oil" has kind of taken on its own reality.

[Amaya]

26. About the Oil?

Yes.

[JohnyCanuck]

30. Need for a US military presence transcends the issue of Saddam H.

Remember the PNACers statement in their document, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" available on their website at www.newamericancentury.org :

While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Rebuilding America's Defenses Pg 14 (It's a PDF file so Adobe Acrobat Reader required to view).

There are two possible reasons as far as I can tell why the PNACers might have felt the need to have a susbstantial force present in the Gulf. One would have to be to control access to the energy resources and also possibly to help ensure the safety of Israel from neighboring Arab states or leaders. However, I think the oil would probably be reason No 1. For one thing it looks like the Bush administration does believe that Peak Oil (A world peak in oil production before a permanent and irreversible decline in production sets in, sometimes called the Hubbert Peak) is almost upon us. You can argue if you want whether or not Peak Oil is really iminent, but the facts tends to point that the oil soaked Bush gang of robber barons believe that Peak Oil might be upon us much sooner than we have been expecting. One of the chief proponents of a rapidly approaching world oil production peak is the prominent energy investment banker Matthew Simmons. Matthew Simmons was on Dick Cheney's 2001 energy task force. You can see Mr Simmons opinion of Peak Oil by reading my sig line.

And here are some of Cheney's thoughts on difficulties in meeting future oil demand.

Dick Cheney, Peak Oil and the Final Count Down
By Kjell Aleklett
Uppsala University, Sweden

In the April 2004 issue of the magazine the Middle East I found a statement that Vice- President Dick Cheney had made in a speech at the London Institute of Petroleum Autumn lunch in 1999 when he was Chairman of Halliburton. A key passage from his speech was: “That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day.”

It suggested that he was fully aware of the issue of peak oil. A full text of the talk had been available on the website of the Institute of Petroleum, but has now been removed ( www.petroleum.co.uk/speeches.htm ). Nevertheless, further research did bring to light a printed version, dated 24.08.00, as follows:

Dick Cheney: “From the standpoint of the oil industry obviously - and I'll talk a little later on about gas - for over a hundred years we as an industry have had to deal with the pesky problem that once you find oil and pump it out of the ground you've got to turn around and find more or go out of business. Producing oil is obviously a self-depleting activity. Every year you've got to find and develop reserves equal to your output just to stand still, just to stay even. This is as true for companies as well in the broader economic sense it is for the world. A new merged company like Exxon-Mobil will have to secure over a billion and a half barrels of new oil equivalent reserves every year just to replace existing production. It's like making one hundred per cent interest; discovering another major field of some five hundred million barrels equivalent every four months or finding two Hibernias a year. For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of about ninety per cent of the assets.Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer greet oil opportunities,the Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greeter (sic) access there, progress continues to be slow. ( Bold by the author)”

To understand the magnitude of the problem that Dick Cheney is addressing we can compare “fifty million barrels a day” with the total production coming from the six countries bordering the Persian Gulf (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, United Arab Emirates,
Kuwait and Qatar), that in 2001 produced 22,4 million barrels per day (Energy Information Administration).

Dick Cheney, Peak Oil and the Final Count Down (Adobe Acrobat Reader required to view)

The fact that some of the neo-cons are very pro-Israel probably would be a contributing factor to the eagerness to go into Iraq, but in my mind not the main one. Here's an article that pretty well sums up my own point of view on this topic.

Pro-Israel Hawks and the Second Gulf War

The interests of the pro-Israel lobby and the attack-Iraq caucus of the second Bush administration have converged, and are to a significant degree represented by the same people. That is not to say that the interests they are pursuing overlap completely. For the neo-conservatives operating under the patronage of Cheney and Rumsfeld, the immediate interests are demonstrating that the overwhelming military power of the US can and will be efficaciously deployed to make and unmake regimes and guarantee access to oil. Destroying the Iraqi regime and installing a long-term US military presence in the Persian Gulf of even greater magnitude than now exists will remove the present limited threat to US oil interests in the region. It would reduce the need to conciliate the Saudis or the Russians or to develop alternative sources of energy. With the Second Gulf War, the neo-conservatives aim to establish the principle, in the extraordinarily hubristic words of President George H. W. Bush after the 1991 Gulf war, that "what we say goes." This agenda is far broader than that of the traditional pro-Israel lobby, although Ariel Sharon and his supporters are amenable to it and will seek to exploit it for Israel's purposes to the maximum extent possible.

Pro-Israel Hawks and the Second Gulf War

Would US forces be in Iraq today if the regions main exports were cotton and potatoes? I tend to doubt that would be the case, Israel or no Israel.

[JHBowden]

31. I'm officially agnostic.

I can't figure out what the hell we're doing over in Iraq.

[oblivious]

33. Let Wolfowitz tell you, just so that there is no doubt in anyone's mind.

The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported on Wednesday by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1369424,00.html

[greatauntoftriplets]

35. Partly the oil, partly the real estate.

Those lovely permanent military bases in Iraq, since the Saudis wanted us the hell out.

[oblivious]

36. Yeah, Wolfowitz admitted that too.

When we spoke in May, as U.S. inspectors were failing to find weapons of mass destruction, Wolfowitz admitted that from the outset, contrary to so many claims from the White House, Iraq's supposed cache of WMD had never been the most important casus belli. It was simply one of several reasons: "For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." Everyone meaning, presumably, Powell and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "Almost unnoticed but huge," he said, is another reason: removing Saddam will allow the U.S. to take its troops out of Saudi Arabia, where their presence has been one of al-Qaeda's biggest grievances.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/757wzfan.asp

[wtmusic]

38. Into Iraq, where US troops will be one of al-Qaeda's biggest grievances

I heard somewhere that Wolfie was smart...

[oblivious]

40. Yes, I've always wondered how anyone could call this guy smart.

I remember reading an article that explained his good reputation. Apparently he made a couple good calls in the 80s, I guess in relation to the Soviet Union, and he's been living off that good luck till now.

This Iraq fiasco should hopefully send him into oblivion.

[HEyHEY]

41. We're gonna need bigger signs

[ContinentalOp]

43. The obvious fact that it's "about the oil"...

...doesn't neccessarily mean that it's just about that specific oil at this specific time. I think that's the mistake the oil-denyers commonly make. It's about oil in a larger geopolitical sense which really boils down to control of the region and control of the major players in the region's oil industry.

[oblivious]

44. Right, and that answers #16 above.

[Algomas]

46. Absolucknfutly..

Chinas' need for oil is growing at an alarming rate. They have begun flexing their muscles and are probably the greatest threat our hydro-carbon based life style faces.
If world leaders are looked at as gangsters, then we are in for plenty of drive-by skirmishes that will kill millions.
It will be some nasty, ruthless shit tricklin' down on us. I think it's called "blowback" but I think it's just karma.
How can/will human beings thrive in such an insane environment?
Of course the only solution to survival is the notion of sufficiency. A fair share for all is my mantra now. I can accept far less in terms of possessions,status,luxury and mobility so that the world might reach a state of sufficiency.

"Imagine all the people,........"

[roper]

48. What exactly do you mean by "abandon the argument"?

Are there not, in most cases, several valid arguments?