Oil a factor in Australian role in Iraq

NCfan · July 2007

Truthmonger wrote:

I agree, except there's only one problem - its THEIR oil, not ours. Concocting stories to invade Middle East contries, or fabricating reasons to plant ourselves there won't work. If you don't think ownership of said resource is important, then hey, I say countries from around the globe should start pilfereing American oil, from American soil, and start doing so on the flimsiest of reasons. It has nothing to do with necessity, unless you buy into the "might is right" argument.

Ya know, I'm starting to think thgat we in the West don't want oil self-sufficiency. B/c achieving that robs us of one of the primary ruses for being in the Middle East.

We're not there to steal their oil dude, we are currently paying out the ass - over $70 a barrell for it. With regards to the oil aspect, we are there to protect it not to shoot up the place and pump it back to America while our troops stand guard.

If we needed oil so bad that we had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars a week to wage a war to "steal" it from the Iraqi's - why the fuck wouldn't we just go up to Anwar and drill the shit out of the place. That is certainly much, much easier than fighting in Iraq for it. Oh wait, that wouldn't feed the military/industrial complex - my fault... sorry for over looking that part.

Anyhow, the fact that we are still in Iraq trying to rebuild the country is why you can't deny the aspect of nation-building as a legitimate reason for being in Iraq as well.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · July 2007

NCfan wrote:

I love it how so many of you post on this board with such certainty that we are only in Iraq and the Middle East for oil. Nobody will deny the fact that oil plays a part, but it is a complex situation and there are benefits above and beyond oil that keeps the US involved with Middle Eastern affairs.

The fact is, the United States is involved in almost every corner of the globe as are many of the more developed/leading countries. The US has an immense impact on world affairs regardless if our military is in town or not for many reasons, be they economical, political or cultural.

It just sucks balls how the MT has been hijacked by like-minded people who "know" that the US is an evil empire ruled by corupt politicians and greedy corporations whose only ambitions are to feed their machines, fill their wallets and grab power by any means necessary. What is considered the "center" around here as far as discussion goes is sooooo scewed the left that its just rediculous.

Global domination from the end of a gun barrel. It's quite simple. Look at the numbers. It's not about defense. It's a strangle hold.

NCfan · July 2007

callen wrote:

its not that we're like minded or that we know....we just look at the facts and it screams what it is.....why aren't we in Africa???? Why didn't we go after North Korea??? Oil...there's no grey area...and one really has to suppress facts to think otherwise. Oh never mind...its Sadaams fault.

We are in Africa my friend. We are all over the world. There is hardly a country out there that our troops are not in or close enough to have an influence.

The big difference between "Africa" and Iraq is that the Middle East is the troubled region producing terrorists, not "Africa". What good would it do to attempt a political/social change in Africa when the terrorist are coming out of the Middle East?????????????????????

And as far as Muslim countries in Africa, yeah, there is no double standard - we are all on top of them - Somalia, Ethiopia, Djubuti, Eygpt...

North Korea... we have been negotiating with them for decades. They have a massive army and citizenry that is basically brain-washed to fight till the last child is standing for their leader/god, Kim Jung Il. It's a lot different than Iraq. And our approach reflects that difference.

Are there any more "facts" I'm suppressing that you would like to discuss???

jlew24asu · July 2007

NCfan wrote:

We're not there to steal their oil dude, we are currently paying out the ass - over $70 a barrell for it. With regards to the oil aspect, we are there to protect it not to shoot up the place and pump it back to America while our troops stand guard.

If we needed oil so bad that we had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars a week to wage a war to "steal" it from the Iraqi's - why the fuck wouldn't we just go up to Anwar and drill the shit out of the place. That is certainly much, much easier than fighting in Iraq for it. Oh wait, that wouldn't feed the military/industrial complex - my fault... sorry for over looking that part.

Anyhow, the fact that we are still in Iraq trying to rebuild the country is why you can't deny the aspect of nation-building as a legitimate reason for being in Iraq as well.

your first 2 paragraphs are dead on. I always thought this was common sense. all I hear is "we went to war for oil" guess what, thats a reason. and guess what else, we are paying a shitload for it. like you said, 72 dollars a fucking barrel. we didnt "go there for it". whatever that means.

your last paragraph is correct but I'm starting to get pissed off that the Iraqis cant put aside their differences and start building their own country, instead of blowing it up themselves.

callen · July 2007

NCfan wrote:

We are in Africa my friend. We are all over the world. There is hardly a country out there that our troops are not in or close enough to have an influence.

The big difference between "Africa" and Iraq is that the Middle East is the troubled region producing terrorists, not "Africa". What good would it do to attempt a political/social change in Africa when the terrorist are coming out of the Middle East?????????????????????

And as far as Muslim countries in Africa, yeah, there is no double standard - we are all on top of them - Somalia, Ethiopia, Djubuti, Eygpt...

North Korea... we have been negotiating with them for decades. They have a massive army and citizenry that is basically brain-washed to fight till the last child is standing for their leader/god, Kim Jung Il. It's a lot different than Iraq. And our approach reflects that difference.

Are there any more "facts" I'm suppressing that you would like to discuss???

I missed us going into Africa, deposing a leader and putting in a couple of hundred thousand troops. Course I really would have wished it would have stopped the genocide from happening.....hmmmm. We only invaded two countries....Afganistan to rid the Taliban and Iraq for their oil....oh and as a nice bonus...help VP's company out....simple...really simple.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · July 2007

It's not about stealing oil and handing it out for nothing. It's about controlling it so that it's available for certain people when it's needed. Nothing ever gets cheaper. Go to your local star bucks and order a latte. Should Starbucks etc.. be near free for Americans because it's American owned? That's not exactly how it works.

What's a lot more concerning is the 7 trillion Americans have to pay out in massive taxes at some point and get absolutely nothing in return.

even flow? · July 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

It's not about stealing oil and handing it out for nothing. It's about controlling it so that it's available for certain people when it's needed. Nothing ever gets cheaper. Go to your local star bucks and order a latte. Should Starbucks etc.. be near free for Americans because it's American owned? That's not exactly how it works.

What's a lot more concerning is the 7 trillion Americans have to pay out in massive taxes at some point and get absolutely nothing in return.

Some people still think that nobody makes money off of oil being 70 bucks a barrell. :rolleyes:

NCfan · July 2007

callen wrote:

I missed us going into Africa, deposing a leader and putting in a couple of hundred thousand troops. Course I really would have wished it would have stopped the genocide from happening.....hmmmm. We only invaded two countries....Afganistan to rid the Taliban and Iraq for their oil....oh and as a nice bonus...help VP's company out....simple...really simple.

When you said before that we "are not in Africa" that our presence there does not count in your view becuase we have not deposed a leader with a couple hundred thousand troops? I'm pretty sure people in the horn of Africa would definetly tell you the Americans are there.

How can you deny a mutli-faceted reasoning for deposing Saddam, and only concentrate on the oil aspect? Doesn't the fact that we are still there suffering over a hundred casualties a month tell you there is another purpose besides grabbing the oil? If we were there JUST for the oil, why did we not go in, go straight for it and begin to pump it all back to the US while our troops stood guard? Why is it that the Democracts are screaming and kicking for us to leave? Do you not think they are controlled by corporate interests?

NCfan · July 2007

even flow? wrote:

Some people still think that nobody makes money off of oil being 70 bucks a barrell. :rolleyes:

OPEC is the real winner with high oil prices. But don't kid yourself, the oil industry is only a fraction of corporate America and their influence on foreign policy is not trumped by all the others who are getting fleaced by $70 a barrell oil. (Do you think Detroit is pyschyed about $70 oil? Do you think Wall Street is pysched about it?)

Not to mention the American voters are pissed about the price. It's not like Dick Cheney and George Bush are the whipping boys of the oil industry - they have a lot of people answer to and hand out favors.

even flow? · July 2007

NCfan wrote:

When you said before that we "are not in Africa" that our presence there does not count in your view becuase we have not deposed a leader with a couple hundred thousand troops? I'm pretty sure people in the horn of Africa would definetly tell you the Americans are there.

How can you deny a mutli-faceted reasoning for deposing Saddam, and only concentrate on the oil aspect? Doesn't the fact that we are still there suffering over a hundred casualties a month tell you there is another purpose besides grabbing the oil? If we were there JUST for the oil, why did we not go in, go straight for it and begin to pump it all back to the US while our troops stood guard? Why is it that the Democracts are screaming and kicking for us to leave? Do you not think they are controlled by corporate interests?

It's a show!

Those same dems who screamed bloody murder about you going in in the first place? You can't tell me you actually believe that the entire force would pull out in a four year span if the dems won. Don't kid yourself.

Did you pay attention when your boys first went in as to what they did secure? Was it the museum? No. Was it the health and welfare of the people? No. Was it the cache of arms that were locked with a twist tie? No. It was the oil fields and they couldn't even do that right.

If I didn't think you worked for the government, I would wonder what rock you crawled out from with the stories you believe in.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · July 2007

NCfan wrote:

OPEC is the real winner with high oil prices. But don't kid yourself, the oil industry is only a fraction of corporate America and their influence on foreign policy is not trumped by all the others who are getting fleaced by $70 a barrell oil. (Do you think Detroit is pyschyed about $70 oil? Do you think Wall Street is pysched about it?)

Not to mention the American voters are pissed about the price. It's not like Dick Cheney and George Bush are the whipping boys of the oil industry - they have a lot of people answer to and hand out favors.

Bush admin opposes Democratic push to sue OPEC

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2242484120070522

comments?

NCfan · July 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

It's not about stealing oil and handing it out for nothing. It's about controlling it so that it's available for certain people when it's needed. Nothing ever gets cheaper. Go to your local star bucks and order a latte. Should Starbucks etc.. be near free for Americans because it's American owned? That's not exactly how it works.

What's a lot more concerning is the 7 trillion Americans have to pay out in massive taxes at some point and get absolutely nothing in return.

Not sure what you mean by "controlling" the oil in Iraq for certain people - especially the "when it's needed" part. As if all oil producing nations have oil derecks and other infastructure just sitting there not pumping, saving that oil for "those" that "need it".

It's all about money... the oil is for sale, and as supply dwindles, the price goes up. Whoever is willing to pay that price be it the Japanese, Chinese or Europeans is who will get the oil.

Ya know that points out another problem with you reasoning. If America couldn't get the oil, or we couldn't afford it - then I could consider us invading to "grab" what we otherwise could not get. But since we have no shortage of oil imports, and our economy is pumping along impressively even with record oil prices - it just adds to the reasons of why I can't buy the argument that we are there solely for an oil grab.

onelongsong · July 2007

jlew24asu wrote:

why is this such a shock to you? do you understand that Oil is one of the, if not thee, most valuable commodity in the world? at the present time, it is needed to keep economies running. its not greed that is keep them there. its necessity

i guess it's a leaders responsability to protect the interests of his people. at this point in time; a loss of oil would mean a collapse of not only the economy; but it's civilization. those of you living in the city have a simple walk to the grocery. but what would you do if there was no food there? it's more than just oil. until we learn to live without oil; it will remain the life blood of our economies and survival.

NCfan · July 2007

even flow? wrote:

It's a show!

Those same dems who screamed bloody murder about you going in in the first place? You can't tell me you actually believe that the entire force would pull out in a four year span if the dems won. Don't kid yourself.

Did you pay attention when your boys first went in as to what they did secure? Was it the museum? No. Was it the health and welfare of the people? No. Was it the cache of arms that were locked with a twist tie? No. It was the oil fields and they couldn't even do that right.

If I didn't think you worked for the government, I would wonder what rock you crawled out from with the stories you believe in.

Insults usually indicate a form of retribution for the lack of argument, which seems to be the case here. I certainly hope our troops didn't try to secure a fucking museum first in the middle of a war, LOL!

Securing "the health and welfare of the people"... that isn't even comparable to infastructure, like oil fields. The cache of arms? You act as if there were all piled up in the middle of Baghdad with a bow on top! Truth is people probably hid their weapons.

And here is a reason for the oil fields being a top priority, hmmmmmm, could it be that they are Iraqi's largest asset? Could it be that they were ESSENTIAL to rebuilding Iraq once the government was toppled and they were a critical aspect of the plan going in to use the oil revenue so the Iraqi's could foot more of the bill to give them a decent governemtn???

There are logical explanations worth discussing for all of these things, but for whatever reason you'd rather chalk my view up to living under a rock... typical MT.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · July 2007

NCfan wrote:

Not sure what you mean by "controlling" the oil in Iraq for certain people - especially the "when it's needed" part. As if all oil producing nations have oil derecks and other infastructure just sitting there not pumping, saving that oil for "those" that "need it".

It's all about money... the oil is for sale, and as supply dwindles, the price goes up. Whoever is willing to pay that price be it the Japanese, Chinese or Europeans is who will get the oil.

Ya know that points out another problem with you reasoning. If America couldn't get the oil, or we couldn't afford it - then I could consider us invading to "grab" what we otherwise could not get. But since we have no shortage of oil imports, and our economy is pumping along impressively even with record oil prices - it just adds to the reasons of why I can't buy the argument that we are there solely for an oil grab.

It's about control. Control or resources, control of people, places, and things as long as America is at the top (as outlined in PNAC)

I really don't think it's much more complicated than that.

jlew24asu · July 2007

onelongsong wrote:

i guess it's a leaders responsability to protect the interests of his people. at this point in time; a loss of oil would mean a collapse of not only the economy; but it's civilization. those of you living in the city have a simple walk to the grocery. but what would you do if there was no food there? it's more than just oil. until we learn to live without oil; it will remain the life blood of our economies and survival.

sad but true isnt it? I will be the first to stand and cheer when we loose our dependence on oil. I dont own a car, but when I have the need for one again, it will be an alternative fuel car for sure.

jlew24asu · July 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Bush admin opposes Democratic push to sue OPEC

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2242484120070522

comments?

"The White House said the bill could actually lead to higher crude oil and gasoline prices, and that foreign nations would likely retaliate by limiting U.S. access to global oil supply."

RainDog · July 2007

jlew24asu wrote:

"The White House said the bill could actually lead to higher crude oil and gasoline prices, and that foreign nations would likely retaliate by limiting U.S. access to global oil supply."

The White House says a lot of things. And when they say them, they usually cover their asses by using words like "could" and "likely." Trust me, I know. I do the same thing whenever I'm trying to cover my ass.

War for oil. Not war for cheap oil.

NCfan · July 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

It's about control. Control or resources, control of people, places, and things as long as America is at the top (as outlined in PNAC)

I really don't think it's much more complicated than that.

There is a fine line to walk when it comes to taking pro-active measures to ensue the survival of your country and/or it's social norms. For the majority of this country's existance we have been mostly isolationist, but the two world wars of the 20th century pushed us in a new direction, and the cold war and ensuring technology revoloution that created globalization are making the judgement call harder and harder to make.

Take for instance Bush's reasoning for invading Iraq. Both positions of supporting or being against the war were justified. Most Americans in the begining bought into the argument that we need to overthrow Saddam and make sure he didn't have WMD's - that was a justifiable pro-active measure in many people's eyes. Now, becuase the war went so badly and we didn't find weapons, most have changed their minds.

In the 50's and 60's our country did all sorts of nasty shit, and we felt it was justified to prevent another massive war - and becuase Amerians felt we were morally superior to others I would say. Vietnam and the late 60's kind of changed all that, and Watergate in the 70's totally disifranchised people from their government. Although we still did shady shit in the 80's and 90's, it just wasn't excepted like it was in earlier decades.

Now Americans totally don't approve of things that were normal back then - spying, torture, Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo, the Patriot Act. We are moving in the right direction with Americans respecting other countries and their right to their own culture, religion and politics.

If it weren't for the recent Islamic fundamentalist movement that seemingly culminated with 9/11 - we would still be sitting back not doing shit when something bad happens in the world.

I really think people have over-reacted to the Iraq war and the polarizing president we have. We are not out to rule the world and control everybody. Those are just cheap claims becuase America is currently struggling with it's new foreign policy in the Middle East.

jlew24asu · July 2007

RainDog wrote:

The White House says a lot of things. And when they say them, they usually cover their asses by using words like "could" and "likely." Trust me, I know. I do the same thing whenever I'm trying to cover my ass.

War for oil. Not war for cheap oil.

well in this case, if we sue the organization who controls oil, the price of oil would "likely" go up. seems like white house propaganda to you, but its true.

Oil a factor in Australian role in Iraq

Comments

Categories