It's about OIL, OIL, OIL.

Cheney and Team decided some years ago that America must tie up a large oil reserve in the middle east, or the American way of Life will colapse, as surely did Germany collapse toward the end of World War 2 in Eastern Europe, when they ran out of oil. Cheney is not leaving Iraq without an Oil contract (the Iraq Oil Law) in place which assures American participation.

CHENEY and team intractable positions on the Iraq War have been impossible to dislodge, with moral logic or diplomatic reasoning. There is no tragedy or deed too dark to contemplate and implement, if it furthers their end. And their end is to lock up large oil reserves for America.

They are convinced that worldwide supply will soon be  overwhelmed by demand and that the American Way of Life can only proceed with a robust economy. And there will be no robust economy without large oil reserves  preserved now for American useage over the coming 50 years. They see no choice but to take over sufficient oil reserves, one way or another. Any US action, that does not assure locking up large oil reserves,  is seen as a form of the surrender of America. There is no horrific war casualty or collateral damage, regardless of extent, that will be cause any re-assessment of this strategy and objective. For they view any change.... as total surrender of American power, wealth and influence.... the surrender of the American Dynasty.

No discusion is warranted with these Neo-cons, unless we can shift the discussion and argument... from why we must end the war in Iraq..... to  .... Can the USA survive and thrive in the near and distant future, without controling foreign oil reserves? Because, unless you get Cheney to agree that we can thrive without mid east oil....there is nothing to discuss with him about Iraq. And assuming he doesn't change his assumption about the requirement of locking in these reservses for America and his belief that Iraq was the best oil "safe to crack"....he will not let our troops leave Iraq, until the Iraq Oil Law is in effect, and its regulations have been implemented. These regulations will go a long way to assure American Oil Companies the opportunity to dominate the development and distribution of Iraqi Oil.

The War in Iraq will not see an exit strategy until this new Iraq Oil Law, now in draft form, is voted into law. This law, as now drafted, offers the US oil companies the ability to control the development and distribution of Iraq Oil and the opportunity to participate in the massive profits.

Keep you eye on the ball.... AND THE BALL IS THE OIL.  

< It's Official: Terrorism Doesn't Mean Anything Anymore | We Are Not At War With Iran! >
 Display:
Our addiction to oil is a much bigger security threat to the U.S. than terrorists will ever be. This country will go down the crapper if our oil fix is ever shut off by some of the same countries that we constantly bad mouth such as Venezuela.  Iraq must have more oil reserves than we are being told for us invest so much money and blood in that shit hole. Spreading democracy my ass! As you say, OIL HAS US BY THE BALLS!

by MountainMan on 04/06/2007 03:21:39 PM EST

THE BALL IS OIL AND OIL HAS US BY THE BALLS!

by MountainMan on 04/06/2007 03:24:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Change the US to U.S.

by MountainMan on 04/06/2007 03:28:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Do you guys have a passing acquaintance with reality?

Despite claims by some critics that the Bush administration invaded Iraq to take control of its oil, the first contracts with major oil firms from Iraq's new government are likely to go not to U.S. companies, but rather to companies from China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia.

While Iraqi lawmakers struggle to pass an agreement on exactly who will award the contracts and how the revenue will be shared, experts say a draft version that passed the cabinet earlier this year will likely uphold agreements previously signed by those countries under Saddam Hussein's government.

"The Chinese could announce something within the next few months" if all goes well with the oil law, said James Placke, a senior associate at Cambridge Energy Research Associates who specializes in the Middle East. [CNN]

American oil companies will play a big role in developing Iraqi oil fields, but they will have plenty of competition.

by Twba on 04/07/2007 04:06:23 PM EST

Bush lied about the reasons he invaded Iraq as everyone knows. So Oil is as a reason as any.

by Left Is Right on 04/07/2007 04:24:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Back to the bigger issue. Do you honestly believe our addiction to oil is less of a threat to this country than terrorists? If so, let's turn off the tap from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia right now and see what happens. That would show you true reality. While we're at it let's throw Mexico in just for fun. It is like depending on other countries for our water and air!

by MountainMan on 04/07/2007 05:57:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Whatever? That's all you say when I show you the news that Asian oil companies are first in line to tap into Iraq's reserves?

Do you honestly believe our addiction to oil is less of a threat to this country than terrorists?

Yes. Have you seen the lifestyle of people who are not addicted to oil? They cook their meals by burning dried animal dung. The indoor air pollution from those cooking fires is a leading cause of death for those people who are not addicted to oil. Our "addiction" to oil is less of a threat than a long list of things.

If so, let's turn off the tap from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia right now and see what happens.

I know what would happen. Millions of Saudis would starve to death. Addiction to oil is a two-way street.

by Twba on 04/08/2007 11:33:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I have read some about the current draft and it does seem much more fair and equitable than any of the previous drafts. 

I still think oil was a large motivation in the original invasion, it's just like with everything else with iraq...the reality on the ground has changed many original plans. 

by alphasigmookie on 04/08/2007 08:04:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thompson has an interesting platform on Iraq. Why not let the Iraqies vote on it and decide if they want us there and for how long.

by acroso on 04/08/2007 11:52:29 PM EST

"Thompson has an interesting platform on Iraq. Why not let the Iraqies vote on it and decide if they want us there and for how long."

I agree. That would be a brilliant play. If they vote to keep us there, Democrats look stupid.

If they vote for us to leave, Bush can avoid responsibility for the aftermath. "I wanted to stay, but.."

by KenTX on 04/08/2007 11:59:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Thompson has an interesting platform on Iraq. Why not let the Iraqies ( sic) vote on it and decide if they want us there and for how long.

Too late buttercup, they already did that. Since Bush ignores election results he can't rig it's no surprise that the newcomer to the crop of lobotomized Republicans would come up with such a sophomoric idea. Heres a concept; READ something other than Limpballs transcripts. You can start here, a fairly prophetic article that sums up the whole Iraqi debacle...

 

Published in 2005:

Iraq's election result: a divided nation

Iraq is disintegrating. The first results from the parliamentary election last week show the country is dividing between Shia, Sunni and Kurdish regions.

Religious fundamentalists now have the upper hand. The secular and nationalist candidate backed by the US and Britain was humiliatingly defeated.

The Shia religious coalition has won a total victory in Baghdad and the south of Iraq. The Sunni Arab parties who openly or covertly support armed resistance to the US are likely to win large majorities in Sunni provinces. The Kurds have already achieved quasi-independence and their voting reflected that.

The election marks the final shipwreck of American and British hopes of establishing a pro-Western secular democracy in a united Iraq.

For six months the Shia have ruled Iraq in alliance with the Kurds. Kurdish leaders are not happy with the way this government has worked. The Kurds, supported by the US, will now try to dilute Shia control of government by bringing in Sunni ministers and Mr Allawi. But one Kurdish leader said: "We have a strategic alliance with the Shia religious parties we would be unwise to break."

The elections are also unlikely to see a diminution in armed resistance to the US by the Sunni community. Insurgent groups have made clear that they see winning seats in parliament as the opening of another front.

The break-up of Iraq has been brought closer by the election. The great majority of people who went to the polls voted as Shia, Sunni or Kurds - and not as Iraqis. The forces pulling Iraq apart are stronger than those holding it together. The election, billed by Mr Bush and Mr Blair as the birth of a new Iraqi state may in fact prove to be its funeral.

 

We are pissing in the wind in Iraq and spending billions in a vain attempt to create a country that the people don't want under the guise of  "The War on Terrorism" ...amazing.

 

Yet al qaeda  moves about in Afghanistan and Pakistan with impunity.

"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 04/09/2007 10:45:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
What is wrong with this proposal?

"Why not let the Iraqis vote on it and decide if they want us there and for how long."
 

by KenTX on 04/09/2007 09:11:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Oh come on..just a cheesy idea to give Bush and neocons political cover...laughable.

By the same token you could have a national referendum in the US about continuing the war. But we did that didn't we. Bush won't listen to the American people...why would he listen to the Iraqis?

Anyway Ken ,Bush is opposed to setting a date certain after all.  You said so yourself; "enemies" will just wait us out and all that.

Using Bushes logic, you can call it a deadline, date certain or an election or whatever you want.  The results will be the same.

Are you saying Bush is wrong? If so...he should sign the appropriations bill.

No matter, Iraq as a sovereign federal state is doomed. Always was. We made sure of that...the power vacuum created by Bushes initial Iraq ( and that idiot Bremer) "plan" was filled by insurgents and militias. The Iraqi election in 2005 pretty much sealed the deal.

All Bush is doing is postponing the inevitable , stalling until 2008. Iraq always was about politics and had very little to do with the "War on terror" Rove saw to that when he convinced to Bushies to politicize 911 (to the detriment of all).

 

 

 

 


"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 04/10/2007 09:17:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: