Whatever Happened to the Neocons’ Grand Schemes to Control Iraq’s Oil?

[Dan J 277]

The U.S. doesn't "own" the oil in Iraq nor is the U.S. getting free oil. Going to war from a country that wanted to sell oil doesn't make sense. It's far easier to get oil from other corrupt governments like Mexico, Nigeria or Venezuela or non-democratic countries like Saudi Arabia.

There aren't any lasting democracies imposed by outside forces? Ask the Germans or Japanese about that one.

The U.S. spends plenty on defense in peacetime or wartime so it doesn't make much difference to them.

I never said they did. Getting oil from a friendly country is much better and probably cheaper than getting oil from an unfriendly country. When its about oil, it doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be in the control of US oil companies, (Which it actually isn't, most contracts went to European countries) but in that its in control of friendly countries/corporations. Oil services companies like Haliburton will benefit no matter which company has the contract.

I don't think democracy was forced on either Japan or Germany. Germany had already been a Republic after the end of the german empire, due to the collapse of the monarchy and not a mandate from another country. Japan had already begun experimenting with democracy before ww1, but it was not strong enough, and the military leaders took over.

There is much more turnover of equipment at wartime than at peacetime.

[Darnell 8,479]

ok - is a bit of data here - http://www.iraqoilreport.com/

Looks like China is buying most of the output. Hopefully they are paying in USA T-bills, ya?

have a read?

(that would be funny, yes? Iraq shift to being the USA's largest debt-holder over a course of 14 months )

Edited February 4, 2010 by Darnell

[My Name Is Nobody 3]

Its hard to find something that never existed

The most important fact is that millions of Iraqi's go to bed every night and say thank you to the the pictures of Bush and Cheney hanging on their walls for freeing them from a brutal dictator.

[luckytxn 2,265]

It was never about oil in the first place. Most oil from the middle east goes to Europe and China. The U.S. actually produces most of its own oil or get it from neighbors. It was just a convenient excuse that the opposition party here could spout out to get the public in a frenzy. There is one thing though that is now there that is very important and that is bases. With bases the whole area becomes a sphere of influence to us. No one can do anything now in that area with out it becoming of interest to us. If democracy is so important to impose on others then why didn't we impose it on Kuwait? No we kicked out such an evildoer in Hussein to restore a royal state. The royal state though (and they are dictators after all) became our puppet and just signs any contract we want them too. That got our foot in the door there with bases. In effect we now own the whole middle east as of now.

I laughed when Obama the Socialist used the same tired ploy of the opposition to get us out of the war in Iraq. I knew it would be tough for any president to give up the power and control that comes from being a strong commander in chief and having forces fighting somewhere. He did say what he was planning and no one cared then or now that all he did was shift troops from Iraq to afghanistan. (Think Iraq was fun? Enjoy the meat grinder.) From what I have read additional space on bases not in Iraq or Afghaniststan has been made to accomadate more troops so any troops moved from Iraq and not to Stan will have a place to go. This is a long held dream of many of both parties to have what is known as perpetual war. Bush has given them what most have always wanted but never had the balls to pull off. After the phony cold war was gone(Closest anyone has come to perpetual war) the two party system was adrift in how to achieve the glory years again. Maybe many here will remember the initial estimates back when this was new of this maybe taking a 100 years or even lifetimes and so on. It was usually said by breathless talking heads who were excited about the prospects to their abilities to cover this news for many years. No this is about us having and controlling a region that is very important to most others. And with us controlling this means we control pretty much Europe and are kicking China in the balls as others.

We could bring all the troops home from that region and even the whole world right now and our national security would be just fine. Our so called allies would ####### a brick. It would mean that the European nations would have to spend a lot of money to start getting ready for possible war in the future. (That would siphon Socialist money though or increase taxes a lot)India and Pakistan would continue to bicker and even war. China and Russia would start coming into more conflict but so what? Let them have their fun.

The U.S. could actually get by with no middle east oil. It may hurt but we would then have to start doing what we should have been doing and looking for alternatives. We actually have the capacity to keep our economy running from just what we have here in resources. That is something that Europe or the Aussies or Japan and many other countries don't have. It may cost more to extract and produce energy from coal or shale or the famous Canadian sands and many other things but we have enough to get by for many lifetimes here. )The estimates have been around a thousand years but I dispute this.)

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Oh they're after the oil, but they aren't that transparent about how they go about it.

Back in 2006, there was some resentment in the UK (though a relatively minor scandal coming as it did on the back of the Downing Street memo), that despite being the US' biggest supporter in the war, we got stiffed on the "reconstruction" contracts.

A few weeks ago people were complaining about Obama awarding a $25 million no-bid contract to a private company that had ties to the Democratic party (which was subsequently canceled, though naturally noone on here was as interested in that as in the fact that the Obama adminstration did something questionable), yet this pales to the Bush administration's $500bn worth of no-bid contracts in Iraq.

Go figure.

The private sector made a $hitload of money at the expense of taxpayers money and the lives of thousands of US soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

Mission accomplished indeed. Bunch of pirates in expensive suits - they should all be first against the wall when the revolution comes.

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

We stopped thinking about it because the biased liberal media stopped talking about it, the protests ended and the attempts by congress to de-fund the war have stopped. The liberal Democrats that now own the war and promised to end it (they haven't done anything to end it) do not want to talk about it.

If there was ever a more glaring example of the biased media, I cannot thik of it. The coverage of the war ended the day Obama took office...pooof....gone.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Oil and War in Iraq have been inextricably intertwined, it seems, in the war plans of both the Pentagon and the oil industry--otherwise known as "Big Oil"--long before the recent war in Iraq.

However, in the words of one US oil company executive, the plans for Iraq's oil "'all turned out a lot more complicated than anyone had expected'. Instead of the anticipated post-invasion rapid expansion of Iraqi production (an expectation of an additional 2m b/d entering the world market by now), the continuing violence of the insurgency has prevented Iraqi exports from even recovering to pre-invasion levels." [1]

"In short," wrote Ian Rutledge, in the April 11, 2005, Financial Times (UK), "the US appears to have fought a war for oil in the Middle East, and lost it. The consequences of that defeat are now plain for all to see." [2]

.......

Financial Times = liberal media.... :rofl:

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

The oil in Iraq is sold, there is no need to steal it any more than there is a need to steal automobiles from Japan. They gladly sell them to you. The best thing we could do to get the oil price DOWN would be for our troops to evaporate from Iraq tomorrow. They will go about killing each other with an alacrity we cannot even imagine. But in order to do so they will have to sell oil to pay for it. None of the middle east countries have anything of value to sell, except oil. In order for them to do anything they have to sell oil to foreign coutries to earn money to do so.

When Iran and Iraq went to war in 1980-88 the prie of oil dropped to under $10 per barrel from a high of $50. It would have to do the same now. There is no way around it. Increased need for funds = increased sales of oil = lower price per barrel = bad news for the American oil industry which affects who? Texas. Where was George Bush from? What does his family do? Who suffered during the last war? What state had a maor financial crisis and nearly went bankrupt? Texas. Where dod the savings and loan debacle begon? Texas.

And you STILL think the war was so we could get more oil from Iraq?

Is there anyone here that has been paying attention since before Clinton was dipping his cigars in special sauce?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Oil and War in Iraq have been inextricably intertwined, it seems, in the war plans of both the Pentagon and the oil industry--otherwise known as "Big Oil"--long before the recent war in Iraq.

However, in the words of one US oil company executive, the plans for Iraq's oil "'all turned out a lot more complicated than anyone had expected'. Instead of the anticipated post-invasion rapid expansion of Iraqi production (an expectation of an additional 2m b/d entering the world market by now), the continuing violence of the insurgency has prevented Iraqi exports from even recovering to pre-invasion levels." [1]

"In short," wrote Ian Rutledge, in the April 11, 2005, Financial Times (UK), "the US appears to have fought a war for oil in the Middle East, and lost it. The consequences of that defeat are now plain for all to see." [2]

.......

Financial Times = liberal media.... :rofl:

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The FT is pretty well respected.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The FT is pretty well respected.

I rest my case.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Nah, that's lazy.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Oil and War in Iraq have been inextricably intertwined, it seems, in the war plans of both the Pentagon and the oil industry--otherwise known as "Big Oil"--long before the recent war in Iraq.

However, in the words of one US oil company executive, the plans for Iraq's oil "'all turned out a lot more complicated than anyone had expected'. Instead of the anticipated post-invasion rapid expansion of Iraqi production (an expectation of an additional 2m b/d entering the world market by now), the continuing violence of the insurgency has prevented Iraqi exports from even recovering to pre-invasion levels." [1]

"In short," wrote Ian Rutledge, in the April 11, 2005, Financial Times (UK), "the US appears to have fought a war for oil in the Middle East, and lost it. The consequences of that defeat are now plain for all to see." [2]

.......

Financial Times = liberal media.... :rofl:

forget about Financial Times, lets take a look at Ian Rutledge. He wrote a book about our addiction to oil, here

I think its ridiculous people still want to say this was about oil, do they not even remember what the atmosphere was like pre Iraq war, it was about dealing with the terrorist before they come to USA and deal with us. I think for the most part that people who believe this Oil nonsense are very few...well in the US anyways.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You mean you believed the "fight them over there before they show up over here" nonsense?

Jeez.

Edited February 5, 2010 by Gene Hunt