Iraqi oil 4-evah!
May 30th, 2007 11:07 pm · 45 comments
Building on this information from earlier today, Josh Marshall puts his finger right on it:
Talking about drawdowns in late 2007 or by the end of 2008 is basically a joke, in other words. Countries can really only think on forty or fifty year horizons. So what this means is that the US military presence in Iraq is permanent.
As TPM Reader DS made clear in the email we posted earlier, there’s only one goal that makes sense of that strategy. And that is to permanently dominate the cluster of oil fields in southern Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran. Nothing to do with democracy, as though that needed saying. But also nothing to do with terrorism. We’re permanently occupying Iraq to lock down the world oil supply.
Nothing to do with democracy, nothing to do with terrorism. But we do need the oil.
Be sure to read the linked email. And viewed in that light - well, September 11 was a pretty fortuitous event, don’t you think?
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Tags: Oil · War on terror · War in Iraq
There are currently 45 comments on this blog postView Topic | Comment on this blogusedmeat
5/31/07
12:13 AM | Rumor has it Bush was looking to go into Iraq right after his inaguration. We never did find out what dick Cheney and those oil guys were meeting about although its been said there were maps of Iraqi oil feilds in the room.
The tinfoil hat brigade has Bush knowing about the attacks and doing nothing so he would have an excuse to go into Afghanistan and Iraq.
|
justplainjoe
5/31/07
5:56 AM | "As TPM Reader DS made clear in the email we posted earlier, there’s only one goal that makes sense of that strategy. And that is to permanently dominate the cluster of oil fields in southern Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran. Nothing to do with democracy, as though that needed saying. But also nothing to do with terrorism. We’re permanently occupying Iraq to lock down the world oil supply."
and yet with the worlds best military our incompetant preznit couldn't even do this right.
keep showing yer support fer jr folks. the rest of us will support the troops.
|
hahaha
5/31/07
6:28 AM | So if a majority of troops say they want to stay and complete the mission, would you support them? |
ihavehorns
5/31/07
6:42 AM | QUOTE(hahaha @ May 31 2007, 06:28 AM) [snapback]292779[/snapback]
So if a majority of troops say they want to stay and complete the mission, would you support them?
Complete what mission.....WHAT IS THE MISSION??? |
hahaha
5/31/07
7:19 AM | According to Gil it is to secure the oil fields. |
cyberscribbler
5/31/07
8:20 AM | QUOTE(hahaha @ May 31 2007, 07:19 AM) [snapback]292786[/snapback] According to Gil it is to secure the oil fields. According to BUSH it's to establish a permanent presence in the region, similar to South Korea.
Can't both be true Oil & Logistics?
|
usedmeat
5/31/07
10:07 AM | http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,2091584,00.html
QUOTE
It was one of the most brazen attacks on a government building in Baghdad. More than 40 men in police uniforms drove up in a convoy of 19 government-issued SUVs, to the technology and information directorate of the finance ministry. They sealed off the building, set up roadblocks outside it, walked into a hall where a British consultant was giving a lecture on computers, and shouted: "Where are the foreigners?" The consultant and his four British bodyguards were led away by a man in a police major's uniform, without a shot being fired.
We are doing so well there.
|
Shawn
5/31/07
10:12 AM | QUOTE(usedmeat @ May 31 2007, 10:07 AM) [snapback]292825[/snapback]
I wonder who trained them? Most likely us. Its nice to know we are providing military training and equipment that is in turn being used against us. If the goal is to secure and take over the oil fields, I wish they would just stop pretending otherwise. Take over the fields, build a fortress around the area, steal the oil and be done with it. At least we'd have some direction and definable goals if we did that.
Later...Shawn
|
usedmeat
5/31/07
10:24 AM | QUOTE(hahaha @ May 31 2007, 06:28 AM) [snapback]292779[/snapback] So if a majority of troops say they want to stay and complete the mission, would you support them?
What about the Iraqis? Do they have a say in this? I googled for polls of the Iraq people, this is what I found.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5217874/site/newsweek/
QUOTE June 15 - The first survey of Iraqis sponsored by the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal shows that most say they would feel safer if Coalition forces left immediately, without even waiting for elections scheduled for next year. An overwhelming majority, about 80 percent, also say they have "no confidence" in either the U.S. civilian authorities or Coalition forces. Article dated 6/16/04.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/27/iraqis-poll/
QUOTE The Program on International Policy Attitudes released a new poll on Iraqi public opinion today which finds that seven in ten Iraqis want US-led forces to commit to withdraw within a year. Moreover, an overwhelming majority believes that the US military presence in Iraq is provoking more conflict than it is preventing. The poll was conducted during the first week of September. Here are some of its key findings: ...
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51624/
QUOTE On Tuesday, without note in the U.S. media, more than half of the members of Iraq's parliament rejected the continuing occupation of their country. 144 lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal, according to Nassar Al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the Al Sadr movement, the nationalist Shia group that sponsored the petition.
Article date 5/09/07
Seems to me I remember the Deciderer 'n Chief saying we would stay as long as the Iraqis wanted us.
|
hahaha
5/31/07
10:30 AM | QUOTE Can't both be true Oil & Logistics?
Sure. I imagine in Dick's mind it is a good long term strategy. I don't agree. I think the writing is on the wall for the oil companies, hence why they are going out with every last dollar then can get their hands on. Oil/gas may be a good short term investment but it is only a matter of time before they will be obsolete.
QUOTE What about the Iraqis? Do they have a say in this?
You bet they do. If they say get out, I say we pack up and split! I think our troops would agree. |
usedmeat
5/31/07
10:40 AM | QUOTE You bet they do. If they say get out, I say we pack up and split! I think our troops would agree. What are we waiting for? |
UncommonSense
5/31/07
12:30 PM | Are the oil company exec's trying to wring out every last cent of profit from oil in their lifetime(s)?
Not kidding here.....are the barons of oil f***ing us, our children, our society, our country, our world - simply to make as much money as absolutely possible....world-be-damned?
If so, is it an attack upon us all? Perhaps those pitch-forks, tourches and pop guns need to come out?????
|
hahaha
5/31/07
8:12 PM | QUOTE What are we waiting for?
Don't know. The public elected the Dems to bring the troops home. What are they doing?
QUOTE If so, is it an attack upon us all? Perhaps those pitch-forks, tourches and pop guns need to come out?
Unfortunately that would probably land you in jail. How about just not purchasing gas or oil? |
justplainjoe
5/31/07
8:45 PM | QUOTE(hahaha @ May 31 2007, 10:30 AM) [snapback]292831[/snapback]
I think the writing is on the wall for the oil companies, hence why they are going out with every last dollar then can get their hands on.
ummmm just a guess but....because they are greedy bastads who don't give a rat's arse about you let alone the troops and they paid off evil bums like cheney to get the job done so they could suck every last dollar out no matter how many people die?
|
hahaha
5/31/07
9:42 PM | Another conspiracy theory? Anything is possible and I guess if it is true then they are laughing their way to the bank along with many other investors who went along for the ride. Wouldn't be the first time and for sure won't be the last that someone took advantage to make a large sum of cash. |
harv1
5/31/07
11:00 PM | The president has no intention of honoring what he just said recently about if they want us out we'll leave. They've already said just that very thing. Guess they'll have to say it again so he can ignore them again. |
hahaha
6/1/07
6:05 AM | The Iraqi people said it, not the Iraqi government. Same thing in America. Polls in Iraqi have varied greatly. Usedmeat was nice and biasrd and picked out the ones to prove his point. There have been many others that stated the Iraqi people do not like us there but didn't want us to leave until the country was more secure. Obviously as time rolls on that will change, same as it has with the public opinion in America. This president has no need to listed to the public. He is not up for re-election and it appears he truly believes he knows what is best and will go against public pressure. The congress on the other hand should really have listened to the people and done what is necessary. Will be interesting to see if these Dems get re-elected because I think they truly believe that by the time the next election rolls around people will forget about their inaction in the 1st half of 2007. |
Cody
6/1/07
9:19 AM | Folks might want to check and see who is getting the oil, who is handling the oil, etc, before jumping in with their 'opinions'. Or, you could just hop into your SUV or pickup truck and bitch about the oil companies. Stop buying petroleum products and/or buy oil company stock. Standing on the sidelines and continually complaining is tiresome.
Good God, collectivists are such whiners! |
usedmeat
6/1/07
10:14 AM | QUOTE The Iraqi people said it, not the Iraqi government. QUOTE On Tuesday, without note in the U.S. media, more than half of the members of Iraq's parliament rejected the continuing occupation of their country. 144 lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal, according to Nassar Al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the Al Sadr movement, the nationalist Shia group that sponsored the petition.
QUOTE Usedmeat was nice and biasrd and picked out the ones to prove his point. There have been many others that stated the Iraqi people do not like us there but didn't want us to leave until the country was more secure. How about providing some links to these polls? The only poll I could find was from 2003. |
hahaha
6/1/07
10:36 AM | Fall of 2005:
QUOTE The poll asked "How long do you think the US and other coalition forces should remain in Iraq?" The results:
26 percent said "leave now."
19 percent said "remain until the Iraqi government elected in December is in place."
16 percent said "remain until the Iraqi security forces can operate independently."
31 percent said "remain until security is restored."
3 percent said "remain longer but leave eventually."
1 percent said "never leave."
4 percent expressed no opinion.
http://www.factcheck.org/article366.html
2007:
QUOTE Those who want foreign troops to go immediately are still in a minority, though a growing one (35% compared with 26% in 2005). Most want the Americans to (somehow) restore security first.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6454251.stm
QUOTE However, only 35 percent of all Iraqis and 36 percent in Baghdad said occupation forces should leave Iraq now. About 45 percent of Baghdad residents and 38 percent of all Iraqis said foreign troops should stay “until security is restored.”
http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=12905
|
harv1
6/1/07
10:36 AM | usedmeat: I thought I had heard or read that the parliament HAD voted already and Bush had already ignored them. If this is yet another vote, what is Bush waiting for? He clearly said in his press conference that if they voted for us to leave that we would leave. |
hahaha
6/1/07
10:45 AM | Harv, I believe the vote happens in June. Usedmeat's quote talks about 144 members who signed a petition requesting a timetable be added to the document that they are to vote on in June. It is believed that it may not be included but is under discussion. |
hahaha
6/5/07
6:35 AM | The Americans chime in:
QUOTE Overall, 61 percent in this poll said the war was not worth fighting, and nearly two-thirds said the United States is not making significant progress restoring civil order in Iraq. However, there is no such general agreement about what to do.
In this poll, 55 percent -- a new high -- said the number of U.S. military forces in Iraq should be decreased, but only 15 percent advocated an immediate withdrawal of all American troops. An additional 12 percent said all U.S. forces should be out of Iraq sometime later this year.
By the way in the same poll....
QUOTE Just 39 percent said they approve of the job Congress is doing, down from 44 percent in April, when the new Congress was about 100 days into its term. More significant, approval of congressional Democrats dropped 10 percentage points over that same period, from 54 percent to 44 percent.
Great way to show you are in touch with the people who elected you!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19037437/
|
justplainjoe
6/5/07
6:51 AM | QUOTE(hahaha @ Jun 5 2007, 06:35 AM) [snapback]293929[/snapback] The Americans chime in: By the way in the same poll.... Great way to show you are in touch with the people who elected you! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19037437/
yes but what you conveniently overlook is that the 39% approval for congress is up dramatically from the approval of congress when the republicans were giving bush everything that he wanted.
not bad for a scant 5 months.
but feel free to spin it so you don't have to admit to yerself the awful truth..you guys had yer chance and you screwed us.
besides the only poll that counts is the one last november when we thru out the liars, crooks and perverts.
|
hahaha
6/5/07
7:03 AM | QUOTE the most gloomy expression of public sentiment since January 1996
Bush was in office in 1996?
QUOTE but feel free to spin it so you don't have to admit to yerself the awful truth..you guys had yer chance and you screwed us
Since you like to point out problems with Christians, I love to point out problems with Democrats. Guess what. Your team is not doing any better and will more then likely just make things worse! |
bigstew
6/5/07
8:23 PM | QUOTE(hahaha @ Jun 5 2007, 07:03 AM) [snapback]293935[/snapback]
Bush was in office in 1996?
Since you like to point out problems with Christians, I love to point out problems with Democrats. Guess what. Your team is not doing any better and will more then likely just make things worse!
Touche'
|
BuffaloBill
6/5/07
8:31 PM | QUOTE(hahaha @ Jun 5 2007, 07:03 AM) [snapback]293935[/snapback]
Bush was in office in 1996?
Since you like to point out problems with Christians, I love to point out problems with Democrats. Guess what. Your team is not doing any better and will more then likely just make things worse!
is that you daddyg?  you know back when you said about the multiple id posters comment directed at me I had an inkling but now I think with certain gramatical tendencies it may be true. How've ya been, where'd ya move to? pm me, I've missed ya. 
|
hahaha
6/6/07
4:26 AM | Who the heck is daddyg and what do you do with my momma? |
justplainjoe
6/6/07
5:56 AM | QUOTE(hahaha @ Jun 5 2007, 07:03 AM) [snapback]293935[/snapback]
Bush was in office in 1996?
Since you like to point out problems with Christians, I love to point out problems with Democrats. Guess what. Your team is not doing any better and will more then likely just make things worse!
i am not a democrat and i am not a christian.point away.
i fail to see how anyone can make things worser.
of course if bush could get 4 more years.......
|
hahaha
6/6/07
6:35 AM | Like I said before, you may not be a Democrat on paper but your views are very left of center. Guilty by association. |
justplainjoe
6/6/07
6:59 AM | QUOTE(hahaha @ Jun 6 2007, 06:35 AM) [snapback]294225[/snapback] Like I said before, you may not be a Democrat on paper but your views are very left of center. Guilty by association.
yes my views are progressive and therefore i should feel guilt??
hahaha
good one.
let's see..i believe in personal responsibilty and accountability from the top on down.
i believe that lying is wrong.
i believe killing is wrong.
i believe stealing is wrong.
i believe we should help our fellow americans instead of some ungrateful foreigners.
i believe our gummint should not be borrowing money which future generations must repay.
i believe that we have a responsibilty to future generations to be good stewards of god's good earth and therefore should not be poisoning it.
i believe that halth care in amemerica should not be a business in which people are denied medical treatment so some insurance company can make money.
i believe we should take care of our elderly.
i believe in the potential inherent in all people.
i believe collectively those in need should be given a hand up.
etc etc
shall i assume that you do not believe any of the above?
|
hahaha
6/6/07
9:02 AM | I did not say you should feel guilty, said you are guilty of being lumped in with the Democrats due to your views. You can have any views that you want. I could care less.
Yes, I don't believe in any of the items on your list. 
So, according to your logic (from many other posts), if a person believes in Jesus and Jesus said we should not kill, then you can not support our current President because he went to war.
#2 on your list is lying - I guess you can not support any politician because I have not met one of them who lies. You say you run a business - you are going to tell me you have never lied?
I can agree with a lot of things on your list. I more then likely do not agree with how we accomplish them. "Progressives" think we should pay more taxes and let the government handle these items through "programs" and "hand-outs."
I think they can be handled better by us citizens through organizations and individuals reaching out to each other.
That used to be a basic philosophical difference between Republicans and Democrats. Not so much anymore. |
justplainjoe
6/6/07
9:18 AM | QUOTE(hahaha @ Jun 6 2007, 09:02 AM) [snapback]294247[/snapback]
You say you run a business - you are going to tell me you have never lied?
i tell you i have never ever lied. never.ever.
|
Shawn
6/6/07
9:50 AM | QUOTE(hahaha @ Jun 6 2007, 09:02 AM) [snapback]294247[/snapback]
#2 on your list is lying - I guess you can not support any politician because I have not met one of them who lies. You say you run a business - you are going to tell me you have never lied?
Maybe if we the people would stop letting politicians slide, when they lie, just because they just happen to be of the "right" political party, politicians would eventually stop lying.
Later...Shawn
|
Pericles
6/6/07
10:08 AM | QUOTE(justplainjoe @ Jun 6 2007, 09:18 AM) [snapback]294257[/snapback]
i tell you i have never ever lied. never.ever.
Never?
Your wife: "Honey. Do I look fat in this dress?"
Gestapo: "Are there any Jews hiding here?"
|
bigstew
6/6/07
10:14 AM | Maybe we need 5 parties. Having two is really screwing things up. You either have to support one extreme or the other. |
justplainjoe
6/6/07
10:26 AM | QUOTE(Pericles @ Jun 6 2007, 10:08 AM) [snapback]294284[/snapback]
Never?
Your wife: "Honey. Do I look fat in this dress?"
Gestapo: "Are there any Jews hiding here?"
i never lie in my business. i also assume people are teling me the truth.
my wife is thin and you will find morris upstairs in the bathroom.
|
Shawn
6/6/07
10:31 AM | QUOTE(bigstew @ Jun 6 2007, 10:14 AM) [snapback]294294[/snapback] Maybe we need 5 parties. Having two is really screwing things up. You either have to support one extreme or the other.
I think two parties can work, but people need to be willing to cross party lines when voting. If the politician for you party is a liar, vote for his opponet at the next election. If that guy turns out to be a liar, vot for his opponet at the next election. And so on and so on. Eventually, the politicians who want to make a career out of politics and serve more than one term, will catch on. It might take a while, and there might be some growing pains, but it is the only real way for us to change the current cycle.
Later...Shawn
|
usedmeat
6/6/07
10:52 AM | QUOTE So, according to your logic (from many other posts), if a person believes in Jesus and Jesus said we should not kill, then you can not support our current President because he went to war. There is a difference between defending your survival and what Bush has done in our name. Thank god that this group wasn't in power during the cold war because the U S would be a radioactive wasteland.
There are some things government can do better than individual groups, just ask the soldiers drinking dirty water ands eating bad food in Iraq how well private contracters are doing. Or how about the fact that countries that have some sort of single payer health care system spend less of their GNP on it and get better service.
|
Cody
6/6/07
11:33 AM | QUOTE(usedmeat @ Jun 6 2007, 10:52 AM) [snapback]294307[/snapback] There is a difference between defending your survival and what Bush has done in our name. Thank god that this group wasn't in power during the cold war because the U S would be a radioactive wasteland.
There are some things government can do better than individual groups, just ask the soldiers drinking dirty water ands eating bad food in Iraq how well private contracters are doing. Or how about the fact that countries that have some sort of single payer health care system spend less of their GNP on it and get better service.
I guess you could make the argument that UN resolutions are meaningless and we can do without ME oil. The other statement is speculation....should I say 'fear mongering'?
Soldiers drinking dirty water and eating bad food in Iraq.....gee that sounds like Vietnam to me, or Korea, or WWII, WWI, etc. GWB has a lot of legitimate things to answer for wrt the Iraq War. It really isn't necessary to make others up.
I would agree that govt. can theoretically employ economies of scale. I have lived with 'single payer' health care, both here and abroad. I would differ on the quality of care based on my own experiences. I would take a look at how our legal system has driven up the cost of health care. Many MD's I know order un-necessary tests to protect themselves from liability suits.
|
justplainjoe
6/6/07
11:48 AM | QUOTE(Cody @ Jun 6 2007, 11:33 AM) [snapback]294322[/snapback]
I guess you could make the argument that UN resolutions are meaningless and we can do without ME oil. The other statement is speculation....should I say 'fear mongering'?
actually we can do without middle east oil since we only get app 18% of our oil from there.the big oil companies want the profit more than we need the product. better fuel economy, less waste, carpooling, drive less, public transport, etc can save us 18% .
let the oil companies hire mercenaries to steal someone's oil instead of making our kids die for their profit.
|
bigstew
6/6/07
2:04 PM | QUOTE(Cody @ Jun 6 2007, 11:33 AM) [snapback]294322[/snapback]
I guess you could make the argument that UN resolutions are meaningless and we can do without ME oil. The other statement is speculation....should I say 'fear mongering'?
Soldiers drinking dirty water and eating bad food in Iraq.....gee that sounds like Vietnam to me, or Korea, or WWII, WWI, etc. GWB has a lot of legitimate things to answer for wrt the Iraq War. It really isn't necessary to make others up.
I would agree that govt. can theoretically employ economies of scale. I have lived with 'single payer' health care, both here and abroad. I would differ on the quality of care based on my own experiences. I would take a look at how our legal system has driven up the cost of health care. Many MD's I know order un-necessary tests to protect themselves from liability suits.
Another huge problem is medical assistance. The government tells hospitals they cannot refuse medical assistance, but then dictates what they will pay for any procedure, drug, or item. It may cost double or triple that, but hospital are force to accept it and write off the rest. Then their paperwork is so stringent, that a comma misplaced can cause a claim rejection. Top that off with a very thin window of time to send in their claim means that a rejection or 2 may mean they have run out of time and their claim is expired. They intentionally make it extremely difficult for a hospital to get all their claims paid(at its reduced cost). In order to keep its doors open, they run it like a business. That is why it costs $8 for an aspirin, and a twenty minute ambulance ride costs $500.
|
UncommonSense
6/6/07
2:49 PM | QUOTE(bigstew @ Jun 6 2007, 02:04 PM) [snapback]294394[/snapback]
Another huge problem is medical assistance. The government tells hospitals they cannot refuse medical assistance, but then dictates what they will pay for any procedure, drug, or item. It may cost double or triple that, but hospital are force to accept it and write off the rest. Then their paperwork is so stringent, that a comma misplaced can cause a claim rejection. Top that off with a very thin window of time to send in their claim means that a rejection or 2 may mean they have run out of time and their claim is expired. They intentionally make it extremely difficult for a hospital to get all their claims paid(at its reduced cost). In order to keep its doors open, they run it like a business. That is why it costs $8 for an aspirin, and a twenty minute ambulance ride costs $500.
LGH a non-profit hospital ------- $98 million surplus, even after their construction binge.
What in lieu of taxes payment have they made to Lancaster City, Lancaster County, The Schoold District of Lancaster etc.
How many procedures, medications etc are overpriced?
|
P. Floyd
6/6/07
2:55 PM | between the use of words like "teh" and "evah," hooked on phonics has clearly been working for gil. then again, i never put journalistic professionalism as his forte. |
hahaha
6/6/07
4:49 PM | QUOTE Thank god that this group wasn't in power during the cold war because the U S would be a radioactive wasteland
Au contraire, mon Frare. Vast differences between the cold war and now. Russia knew that a nuclear attack would mean destruction of themselves. Same with North Korea. None of these countries believe in life after death. They know hitting the button meant the end of themselves. Not so with the current ME environment. They think hitting the button means virgins and lots of fun. |
View Topic | Comment on this blog
