Finally the truth slips out - It's all about the oil

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by bsmeter2, Nov 5, 2006.

  1. Bush Says U.S. Pullout Would Let Iraq Radicals Use Oil as a Weapon

    By Peter Baker
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Sunday, November 5, 2006; Page A06


    GREELEY, Colo., Nov. 4 -- During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, President Bush and his aides sternly dismissed suggestions that the war was all about oil. "Nonsense," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld declared. "This is not about that," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.

    Now, more than 3 1/2 years later, someone else is asserting that the war is about oil -- President Bush. Election Resources

    As he barnstorms across the country campaigning for Republican candidates in Tuesday's elections, Bush has been citing oil as a reason to stay in Iraq. If the United States pulled its troops out prematurely and surrendered the country to insurgents, he warns audiences, it would effectively hand over Iraq's considerable petroleum reserves to terrorists who would use it as a weapon against other countries.

    "You can imagine a world in which these extremists and radicals got control of energy resources," he said at a rally here Saturday for Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.). "And then you can imagine them saying, 'We're going to pull a bunch of oil off the market to run your price of oil up unless you do the following. And the following would be along the lines of, well, 'Retreat and let us continue to expand our dark vision.' "

    Bush said extremists controlling Iraq "would use energy as economic blackmail" and try to pressure the United States to abandon its alliance with Israel. At a stop in Missouri on Friday, he suggested that such radicals would be "able to pull millions of barrels of oil off the market, driving the price up to $300 or $400 a barrel."

    Oil is not the only reason Bush offers for staying in Iraq, but his comments on the stump represent another striking evolution of his argument on behalf of the war. The slogan of "no blood for oil" became a rallying cry for antiwar activists prior to the March 2003 invasion and angered administration officials. "There are certain things like that, myths, that are floating around," Rumsfeld told Steve Kroft of CBS Radio in November 2002. "It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil."

    White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Saturday that Bush's latest argument does not reflect a real shift. "We're still not saying we went into Iraq for oil. That's not true," he said. "But there is the realistic strategic concern that if a country with such enormous oil reserves and the corresponding revenues you can derive from that is controlled by essentially a terrorist organization, it could be destabilizing for the region."

    Some analysts, however, said that Bush is exaggerating the impact of Iraq's oil production on world markets. Iraq has more than 112 billion barrels of oil, the second-largest proven reserves in the world. But it currently pumps just 2.3 million barrels per day and exports 1.6 million of that, according to the State Department's tracking report on the country, still short of what it produced before the invasion.

    That represents a fraction of the 85 million barrels produced around the world each day and less than the surplus capacity of Saudi Arabia and other Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, meaning in a crisis they could ramp up their wells to make up for the shortfall, analysts said. The United States also has 688 million barrels of oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, enough to counter a disruption of Iraqi oil for 14 months.

    Even if Iraq did not sell oil to the United States, it would not matter as long as it sold it to someone because the international market is fungible and what counts is the overall supply and overall demand, according to analysts. If Iraq cut off exports altogether, it still would not have the dire effect on the world market that Bush predicts, they said. The price of oil began rising dramatically in 2002 as the confrontation with Iraq loomed, but many factors contributed, including increasing demand by China and problems in Nigeria, Venezuela and elsewhere.

    The world, in fact, has already seen what would happen if Iraqi oil were cut off entirely, as Bush suggests radicals might do. Iraq effectively stopped pumping oil altogether in the months immediately after the invasion. And yet the price of oil has never topped $80, much less come anywhere near the $300 or $400 a barrel Bush cited as a possible consequence of a radical Iraqi regime withholding the country's oil.

    "They're a minor exporter," said Edward Morse, managing director and chief energy economist at Lehman Brothers. "They have potential to be a greater exporter. But it's ludicrous to suggest someone could hold the world hostage by withholding oil from the market, especially a regime that needs money."

    Disruptions of oil supplies certainly affect the markets, but not as drastically as Bush suggested, Morse said. He noted that Venezuela's capacity has fallen by 1 million barrels a day since President Hugo Chavez came to power there and yet it has not given him any geopolitical leverage over the United States even though he is an avowed Bush foe. But Morse agreed that Iran, for example, could "play mischief" because it already effectively controls much of Iraqi oil in the southern part of the country.

    Fratto, the White House spokesman, argued that even if radicals could not move the markets dramatically with Iraqi oil, they would use the country as a base to topple other governments in the Middle East such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, which would give them "a lot more oil to blackmail with."
     
  2. It's all about the oil?

    Can't see why. From 1991 to 1996, the UN imposed trade sanctions on Iraq. No oil exports from Iraq in those years. Price of oil might have gone up. Don't remember.

    Iraqi oil production now is very low. The world does not need Iraqi oil apparently. Maybe Bush mentioned an increase in oil prices because Americans want cheap oil.

    Only thing that concerns me is if radicals take over Iraq and use the oil proceeds to further their conquests of other arab oil producing countries, then drive oil prices up.
     
  3. yeah I know.

    2 weeks from now it'll be martians landing in Iraq.

    This fool and his supporters doesn't have a F**king clue why they're in Iraq. The reasons for invading Iraq which has resulted in the killing of 600,000 Iraqi civilians changes by the minute.

    Neocons and the voters who vote these people in, are a clear and present danger to the welfare of America. And that folks is the truth.
     
  4. What is very telling about this Sundays New York Times article....is the detail that has been gathered about this specific case...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/b...gewanted=2&_r=2

    What should be noted is that oil, politics, Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc...are one of the same....

    Needless to say...the Americans have been played out big time by the Bush Oil Administration...

    The real question here is that an enterprise approach to oil would have been a lot calmer than a war approach to oil...oil would be around $40 today without Bush policies had enterprise been the focus...The Bush policy approach to oil has meant an average increase of over $100 billion per month to the world....and has provided financial windfalls to the oil welfare states which finance terrorism...

    A war approach to oil...associates with it a far more expensive price for oil...A calm process such as enterprise is a lower price association to oil...

    Thus the enterprise approach such as the Chinese are using, has a much lower price impact on oil...but yet the Chinese are very effective in securing supplies...

    One might just wonder why enterprise was not used in the case of Iraq....

    Seems to be that the case is growing that justice is still missing in Washington with regards to the supposed leadership that controls the US government....
     
  5. "Sometimes, the best way to examine a radical assertion is to assume that it is correct and examine the likely consequences. For example, proponents of the Loch Ness Monster assert that there is a surviving plesiosaur lurking in the murky depths of a Scottish lake. We are then drawn into endless discussion of distant wakes and grainy photos and claims of hoaxes, etc. But if you cut to the chase, so to speak, and grant the premise, where does that leave you? Plesiosaurs are air-breathing reptiles that have to daily consume massive amounts of fish to survive. There are essentially no fish in Loch Ness. Does it order out for pizza? Also, as an air breather, we would not have a surface sighting once or twice a decade, but hundreds of times a day. If you grant the premise of an air-breathing dinosaur the entire proposition becomes ridiculous, not on the basis of the evidence, but on the monumental lack of evidence supporting the idea.

    Likewise with a “war for oil.” What would a real "war for oil" look like? Well, US troops would have sped to the oilfields with everything we had. Everything we had. Then, secure convoy routes would have been established to the nearest port – probably Basra – and the US Navy would essentially line the entire gulf with wall-to-wall warships in order to ensure the safe passage of US-flagged tankers into and out of the region.

    There would have been no overland campaign – what for? – and no fight for Baghdad. Fallujah and Mosul and all those other trouble spots would never even see an American boot. Why? No oil there. The US Military would do what it is extraordinarily well-trained to do: take and hold a very limited area, and supply secure convoys to and from this limited area on an ongoing basis. Saddam could have stayed if he wanted: probably would have saved us a lot of trouble, and the whole thing would have become a sort of super no-fly zone over the oil fields, ports and convoy routes, and the devil take the rest of it. Sadr City IED deaths? Please. What the f**k does Sadr City have that we need?


    That’s what a war for oil would look like. It’s entirely possible that such an operation could have been accomplished and maintained without a single American fatality.

    We have lost thousands killed and wounded because they are being blown up as they continue to provide security, electrical and water services, schools and hospitals to a land ravaged by three decades of fear, torture and barbarism. It is the American presence in the cities, providing security and some semblance of order for Iraqi citizens, that has cost us so many lives. If we are going to be tarred and slandered and pay the public relations price for “stealing Iraqi oil,” then the least we can do is go in and actually steal some of it, instead of dying to protect that resource for the use of the Iraqi people. Which is what is happening, because, as usual, there is not a shred of evidence to the contrary, no matter how many imbeciles hold up signs and dance around in giant papier–mache heads."

    Bill Whittle
    11/06/06
    ejectejecteject.com
     
  6. Excellent Commentary Hapaboy....


    Hapabay wrote:

    "Sometimes, the best way to examine a radical assertion is to assume that it is correct and examine the likely consequences. For example, proponents of the Loch Ness Monster assert that there is a surviving plesiosaur lurking in the murky depths of a Scottish lake. We are then drawn into endless discussion of distant wakes and grainy photos and claims of hoaxes, etc. But if you cut to the chase, so to speak, and grant the premise, where does that leave you? Plesiosaurs are air-breathing reptiles that have to daily consume massive amounts of fish to survive. There are essentially no fish in Loch Ness. Does it order out for pizza? Also, as an air breather, we would not have a surface sighting once or twice a decade, but hundreds of times a day. If you grant the premise of an air-breathing dinosaur the entire proposition becomes ridiculous, not on the basis of the evidence, but on the monumental lack of evidence supporting the idea.

    Likewise with a “war for oil.” What would a real "war for oil" look like? Well, US troops would have sped to the oilfields with everything we had. Everything we had. Then, secure convoy routes would have been established to the nearest port – probably Basra – and the US Navy would essentially line the entire gulf with wall-to-wall warships in order to ensure the safe passage of US-flagged tankers into and out of the region.

    There would have been no overland campaign – what for? – and no fight for Baghdad. Fallujah and Mosul and all those other trouble spots would never even see an American boot. Why? No oil there. The US Military would do what it is extraordinarily well-trained to do: take and hold a very limited area, and supply secure convoys to and from this limited area on an ongoing basis. Saddam could have stayed if he wanted: probably would have saved us a lot of trouble, and the whole thing would have become a sort of super no-fly zone over the oil fields, ports and convoy routes, and the devil take the rest of it. Sadr City IED deaths? Please. What the f**k does Sadr City have that we need?

    That’s what a war for oil would look like. It’s entirely possible that such an operation could have been accomplished and maintained without a single American fatality.

    We have lost thousands killed and wounded because they are being blown up as they continue to provide security, electrical and water services, schools and hospitals to a land ravaged by three decades of fear, torture and barbarism. It is the American presence in the cities, providing security and some semblance of order for Iraqi citizens, that has cost us so many lives. If we are going to be tarred and slandered and pay the public relations price for “stealing Iraqi oil,” then the least we can do is go in and actually steal some of it, instead of dying to protect that resource for the use of the Iraqi people. Which is what is happening, because, as usual, there is not a shred of evidence to the contrary, no matter how many imbeciles hold up signs and dance around in giant papier–mache heads."

    Bill Whittle
    11/06/06
    ejectejecteject.com
    ...................................................................................................

    Exactly....This is why Iraq is such a special opportunity to those who have oil interests in that the world will not stand for a blantant frontal move on oil resources as this is a flagrant violation of international law....

    In the Iraq case, this was /is a perfect situation in that the Hussein part of the decision ...gave legal impetus to the move...

    However this case is somewhat like the gray areas between the SEC and the supposed violations of some of the larger firms who deny wrong doing but pay the large fines...In other words yes I am guilty but I am not guilty...

    In the Iraq case...you have many individuals that are very sophisticated with respect to the oil business that are very much aware of what instability does to oil prices/oil production sensitive regions of the world...that indeed hold important political and governmental positions....

    School is out on the investigations that need to take place with respect to some of the individuals and what the items actually were ...that actually led to the war decision with Iraq...

    Indeed some individuals are very suspect....and if investigations commence as they should...perhaps justice will prevail...

    In any case ...this is an issue whereby an answer is well overdue and needs to be resolved one way or another to the American public...and also in regards to the upholding the good reputation of the US with respect to other suspecting governments...
     
  7. Oh nonsense. The US is the world's only superpower. According to the moonbats, we have already violated international law on a number of issues and are nothing but imperialist dogs.

    If we really wanted Iraq's oil for our personal consumption, we'd take it, and wouldn't give a shit about what the rest of the world thinks.

    Stop trying to make excuses for a moonbat conspiracy theory that has zero evidence to support itself (like most moonbat theories).
     
  8. Excellent Commentary Hapaboy .....

    Hapabay wrote...

    Oh nonsense. The US is the world's only superpower. According to the moonbats, we have already violated international law on a number of issues and are nothing but imperialist dogs.

    If we really wanted Iraq's oil for our personal consumption, we'd take it, and wouldn't give a shit about what the rest of the world thinks.

    Stop trying to make excuses for a moonbat conspiracy theory that has zero evidence to support itself (like most moonbat theories).

    ...............................................................................................

    Good post Hapaboy....this line of response is made to order for the party in power...and is why if there is a change in power...there are quite a few folks around who would like to prove this out one way or the other...and probably will....

    One thing for sure.....this issue is not going away if the Democrats come into power....
     
  9. Only someone devoid of basic math skills...
    Could possibly promote the "war for oil" canard.

    Iraq production = 2.5 million barrels/day x $60 = $150 million/day = 55 billion/year.

    This is an exageration...
    Because it leaves out the cost of production...
    So lets make it $40-45/barrel = $40 billion/year.

    US GNP: ---------------> $6737 billion/year
    Iraq Oil Revenues: -------> $40 billion/year

    What kind of idiot would believe...
    That the US Senate would vote 80-20 to authorize a major war...
    For LESS THAN 1% of American GNP.

    That, folks, is why they are called Moon Bats.
    Rational thinking is foreign to them.
    It's all one conspiracy or another.
     
  10. Excellent Commentary Hounddog1...

    Houndog wrote...

    Only someone devoid of basic math skills...
    Could possibly promote the "war for oil" canard.

    Iraq production = 2.5 million barrels/day x $60 = $150 million/day = 55 billion/year.

    This is an exaggeration...
    Because it leaves out the cost of production...
    So lets make it $40-45/barrel = $40 billion/year.

    US GNP: ---------------> $6737 billion/year
    Iraq Oil Revenues: -------> $40 billion/year

    What kind of idiot would believe...
    That the US Senate would vote 80-20 to authorize a major war...
    For LESS THAN 1% of American GNP.

    That, folks, is why they are called Moon Bats.
    Rational thinking is foreign to them.
    It's all one conspiracy or another.

    .............................................................................................
    Excellent commentary Houndog1....

    Iraq is only part of the oil equation in this case...The real question here is the price of all oil...without the Iraq war....and with the Iraq war...

    No Iraq war...the price of oil would be around $40 for oil...not just Iraqs oil....Iraq is just a small part of the total picture...

    Here again...if the the Democrats do win....there will be an investigative committee formed to review all of the issues regarding the reasons for entrance into the Iraq war and who was responsible for them...

    One thing for sure...there are government officials who knew full well the impact of the war on oil prices...and absolutely nothing was mentioned to the US public...nothing...about higher prices to be paid for oil....

    Obviously the price of oil factored itself into the US Oil businesses as well....as can be noted in the windfall profits for the oil companies...Just check the value of XOM, HAL....etc... a few years ago versus today...check out the record profits etc...The head of XOM gets $800 million etc...

    So its not just the physical oil in Iraq...

    Excellent commentary all...what a truly intelligent crowd we have here....
     
    #10     Nov 7, 2006