[quote="jato"]We are in Iraq to establish a strategic presence. To apply force or the threat of force to oil producing countries in order to keep the oil flowing freely to the world markets, thereby keeping the price down and ensuring a cheap supply of energy for the USA.
It won’t work.
I believe it had nothing to do with “terrorismâ€
PeakOil is You
THE War in Iraq Thread pt 2 (merged)
by khebab » Mon 08 Nov 2004, 09:57:26
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TrueKaiser', '.')..
2. selling oil in euro's: technically there was one weapon of mass destruction there. it was the willingness of sadam to sell his oil in euros undermining our petro-dollar system.
2. selling oil in euro's: technically there was one weapon of mass destruction there. it was the willingness of sadam to sell his oil in euros undermining our petro-dollar system.
Not only Saddam, apparently Russians and Chinese are now trying to achieve the same goals (see thread on the subject).
- khebab
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 899
- Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Canada
by khebab » Mon 08 Nov 2004, 10:32:45
I was personnaly thinking that invading Iraq was an indirect blow to the Saudis and that they were in fact the real target because:
Basically, after Afganistan Saudi Arabia should have been the next logical target but this is a sacred land for muslims and they produce 20% of the world oil so you cannot attack them directly. Invading Iraq was delivering an important message to Saudis: we are in your backyard and we are watching you so beware!
I personnally believe Iraq was not really posing a threat, this is just the marketing message to sell the war to the mass. most of their military and industrial infrastructure has been destroyed during the first war anyway. Ok, Saddam was a bad guy, blah, blah,... but they are all bad guys in this region. Saddam was starting selling oil in Euros, maybe but it's a small drop in the sea. Invading Iraq is costly for the US but it is a long term investment in terms of oil reserves and strategic positioning .
- 1) Saudi Arabia had sponsored openly for decades terrorism activities across the world and especially against Israel (ex: hamas)
2) 99% of 9/11 hijackers were Saudis and the mastermind is the son of a powerful Saudi familly and I believe SA is the true sponsoring state behind 9/11
3) Saudi Arabia did not support the Iraq invasion (US airplanes were not able to use Saudi bases to launch attacks against Iraq)
4) Instauring democracy in one of their neighbors is a slap in their face and pose a threat to their secular feodal system.
Basically, after Afganistan Saudi Arabia should have been the next logical target but this is a sacred land for muslims and they produce 20% of the world oil so you cannot attack them directly. Invading Iraq was delivering an important message to Saudis: we are in your backyard and we are watching you so beware!
I personnally believe Iraq was not really posing a threat, this is just the marketing message to sell the war to the mass. most of their military and industrial infrastructure has been destroyed during the first war anyway. Ok, Saddam was a bad guy, blah, blah,... but they are all bad guys in this region. Saddam was starting selling oil in Euros, maybe but it's a small drop in the sea. Invading Iraq is costly for the US but it is a long term investment in terms of oil reserves and strategic positioning .
- khebab
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 899
- Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Canada
Reasons for Iraq
by smallpoxgirl » Mon 08 Nov 2004, 17:43:56
The real question, IMHO, is why did the US attack Iraq the first time. Bush the elder gave Sadam the go ahead for invading Kuwait and then sent an army after him but never occupied Iraq. Why? The most reasonable explanation I've seen is that Bush anticipated peak oil and decided to set aside Iraq as a strategic oil reserve. Iraq is oil rich but had poorly developed its oil resources by 1991 due to political instability including the Iran/Iraq war. If you believe the stories about Reagan conspiring with Saudi Arabia to flood the oil market in the 80's and bankrupt the USSR, then it would make sense that by '91 with the USSR crumbling, they would want to decrease world oil supply and bolster profits for their friends in Texas. By placing Iraq under embargo for 13 years, the Bush-Clinton-Bush administrations maintained Iraq's oil relatively undeveloped. By keeping Sadam in power rather than occupying the country, they prevented the oil from being developed too early, and they gave themselves an easy scape goat to blame for all the starving people. Now as peak oil looms large and oil prices are climbing, they've decided they need to tap that reserve. They sure weren't going to give all that money to Sadam, so he's out and they're trying to establishing a puppet government that will funnel all the money back to US corporations. The only wild card, IMHO, is that Bush is rather boorish in his approach to the whole thing and has the locals hoping mad.
The secondary benefit is giving the US a reason to maintain a massive military presence in the middle east which it can use to threaten and intimidate other oil producing countries.
The secondary benefit is giving the US a reason to maintain a massive military presence in the middle east which it can use to threaten and intimidate other oil producing countries.
-
smallpoxgirl - Expert
- Posts: 7258
- Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
by KiddieKorral » Mon 08 Nov 2004, 17:46:22
Who the heck knows what the Bush administration was thinking? All I have to say is, follow the oil.
American by birth, Muslim by choice, Southern by the grace of God!
-
KiddieKorral - Tar Sands
- Posts: 851
- Joined: Fri 18 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: 28° N 81° W
by Freud » Mon 08 Nov 2004, 19:06:01
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('trespam', 'D')o Americans support a war for oil? I think it depends on how the question is posed. Would most Americans volunteer to help rebuild Iraq as part of the effort to secure Mideast oil supplies? I think not. I think they would first look for ways to use oil more effectively. Americans probably will not admit to supporting war for oil if you ask them, though they do through their day-to-day actions. But their day-to-day actions are built on abstraction and distance from the effects and suffering, whether in Iraq or in elsewhere.
I like to use the example of vegetarianism versus eating meat. I think eating meat is fine, but I think the people eating it should be willing to look that cow in the eyes, and then smash its brains out with a rock. Or cut its throat. I guess that's more humane (cow-mane?) way: throat cutting. It would be nice if people were more exposed to the costs of their actions, e.g. visiting a slaughter house.
I like to use the example of vegetarianism versus eating meat. I think eating meat is fine, but I think the people eating it should be willing to look that cow in the eyes, and then smash its brains out with a rock. Or cut its throat. I guess that's more humane (cow-mane?) way: throat cutting. It would be nice if people were more exposed to the costs of their actions, e.g. visiting a slaughter house.
You've just highlighted every year since '45.
-
Freud - Peat
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Sun 31 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- PresidentBush
Iraq: Whats an
by Muffloj » Thu 13 Jan 2005, 00:59:08
Every day on CNN I see and hear of these insurgents blowing up US soldiers and getting themselvs shot all to hell . Who exactly are we shooting ? What where they doing before we invaded Iraq . I cant help but imagine a 21 year old grocery bagger turned insugent when we blew up his house , killed a few of his family members , and invaded his hometown .
I need to be convinced that the haman beings that we are slaughtering arent just defending there homes .
How do you think Texas would react to being "liberated" by a foreign nation .
I need to be convinced that the haman beings that we are slaughtering arent just defending there homes .
How do you think Texas would react to being "liberated" by a foreign nation .
-
Muffloj - Wood
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Mon 03 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Re: Whats an "Insurgent" ?
by skiwi » Thu 13 Jan 2005, 01:33:05
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Muffloj', '
')
How do you think Texas would react to being "liberated" by a foreign nation .
')
How do you think Texas would react to being "liberated" by a foreign nation .
Unlike the Iraqis they should be relieved
Let us make him who shall nourish and sustain us. What shall we do to be invoked; to be remembered in the earth.
We have tried with our first creatures but we could not make them venerate us.
So let us try to make obedient respectful beings who shall
We have tried with our first creatures but we could not make them venerate us.
So let us try to make obedient respectful beings who shall
-
skiwi - Tar Sands
- Posts: 673
- Joined: Mon 23 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Frost Free in New Zealand
by Sencha » Thu 13 Jan 2005, 07:32:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')atch Red Dawn. Those are insurgents.
Wow, so the entire Iraqi population are technically insurgents then?
We are so going to live out that movie. I bet the Russo-Sino Army will drop right on my college green.
"Looks like those ROTC boys missed their drop!"
BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!
Vision without action is a dream, action without vision is a nightmare.
-
Sencha - Lignite
- Posts: 375
- Joined: Mon 21 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Massachusetts
![[smilie=new_popcornsmiley.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/new_popcornsmiley.gif "new_popcornsmiley")
