The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ] No matter what the reason, if you're against this war, it's a good decision. However... I'm sorry Peter, but EVERY war is about profits. That's been observed by many people much smarter than me. Mark Twain, Albert Einstein, Thomas Paine, Smedley Butler, the list goes on. And who benefits the most from this? How can any sane person say this is not about oil? If it were just about a new doctrine of eliminating a perceived threat, wouldn't attacking N. Korea be the wiser option? Anybody notice what happened in Afghanistan? We went in to get Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar "dead or alive". What happened? We didn't get either of them, saw NO proof of their guilt, did NOT establish democracy, put a former Unocal employee (Karzai) in charge, and signed multi-billion dollar pipeline contracts. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck... Want further proof? You brought up Venezuela. The ONLY democratically elected leader in OPEC - Chavez. As soon as W takes charge in America, there is a coup. Before Chavez is kicked out, Bush makes a statement supporting his ouster. Coincidence? This is CIA work, plain and simple. In Saudi Arabia, the King is on his deathbed, and 3 princes have just died mysterious deaths (1 died of thirst in the desert, 1 a car crash, not sure about the other). I believe they will be next. Iraq is only the beginning. The USA intends to conquer ALL the oilfields in the Middle East. America's whole economic system, unfortunately, is built upon the premise that there is no other motivation like greed. That's naked capitalism. The unparalleled strength of the US economy shows that view is correct. However, why is it that when people start looking for answers to what's happened recently: 9/11, the war on terror, the powers that be are trying to tell us that money doesn't enter into the equation... peter kiernan <email@example.com> wrote:To be quite homest I think that the argument that the driving force behind US plans for Iraq is to benefit oil companies is not a correct analysis. To be sure, oil will figure as the a very significant factor in the fallout of an invasion of Iraq, but I don't think this is what the motivation is. What is most important to US oil companies, or any oil company for that matter, is stability and certainty, which a war against Iraq would potentially threaten. A war in the mideast could have negative effects on big oil's relations with other mideast producers, just as some of them are tentatively considering opening up their energy sectors to foreign investors, and damage could also be inflicted on their assets in other countries in the region due to deliberate sabotage. Furthermore, if big oil does have such a stranglehold on Bush's foreign policy, why then does the White House maintain unilateral energy sanctions on Iran and Libya, two countries American oil companies are busting to get in to? The US already buys oil from Iraq, Halliburton already supplies Iraq's oil industry with equipment under the oil for food program, would not Chevron Texaco and Exxon Mobil then prefer a policy of mending fences with Baghdad in return for lucrative oil concessions, as the Russians have done? Halliburton would love to get in to Iran, why then did Bush keep sanctions against Iran, despite Cheney's former role? Its ok to roll out impressive streams of data, but what does it actually mean? The US actually only gets 25% of its imported oil from the mideast, most from Saudi Arabia, then Iraq, then Kuwait. The US also gets huge amounts of oil from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela, and are trying to push Russia and West Africa as new suppliers. They do want to have alternatives other than Saudi Arabia but officially the White House is intent on keeping its relations with Riyadh, which is what oil companies would prefer. Anwyay, Europe and Japan are are more dependent on mideast oil than the US. What matters to oil companies is the corporate bottom line, not ideologically driven strategic doctrines based on transforming entire regions when nobody knows what the outocme will be, the political risk is just too high and its not something they would entertain. Its simply not something oil companies would bother to risk. Yes, the Bush administration and oil companies are in cahoots over expanding domestic oil and gas production, and sabotaging envrionmental constraints, but the evidence is on foreign policy the two don't actually see eye to eye all the time.And yes, the Bush administration sees Iraq as important because it is located in a region that has 66% of the world's oil, and the Persian Gulf is the outlet for most if it. But I don't think this means that its a grab for Iraqi oil, alot of neoconservatives will push for this, but at the end of the day there's no guarantee this will happen.The neocons know nothing about oil markets and how they work. What I believe is really driving this whole war is the rise of the neoconservative policy wonks in Washington who have been gunning for Iraq almost since the Gulf War. They have a vision of the US arrogating for itself the right to exterminate perceived threats anywhere around the world, and their biggest obsession has been Iraq. This is the basis of Bush's latest strategic doctrine, as articulated in September, that is, the right to engage in preemptive strikes against deemed potential threats. The second element of this neoconservative vision is transforming troublesome regions to be compliant with US interests, who will then presumably do what their told, such as be pro-Israel and become economic satellites of the US. Of course is oil is definitely part of their equation, but this theory doesn't come from oil companies. The neocons often clash with big oil, precisely because they want normal relations with Iran and Libya, and presumably with Iraq as well, even under a cowed Saddam Hussein that has disarmed or some other Baathist general willing to play ball. The only reason why I am giving my views on this is because I oppose this prospective war, because I think this aggressive doctrine is the real reason behind it, and since 9/11 Bush in his ignorance has bought the theory. But I also think this theory doesn't always play with US corporate interests, who are more interested in preserving a status quo. Therefore, I think its a waste of energy to focus exclusively about the oil rationale for this war. What we should be doing is challenging the doctrine Bush has adopted upon which he justifies invading Iraq.We should be challenging this new world order and the pax americana it will place over every-one. For example -The US, nor any other state, does not have the right under international law to change regimes of countries through preemptive war - and to do so is actually a recipe for a more dangerous, destabilized and fragile world system, even without Saddam Hussein in power Unfortunately continual bleating about oil diverts the attention from making a case against what's really going on here. There needs to be greater attention paid to challenging the neoconservative world view that places their perception of furthering US national security interests at the expense of the international community, international legality, and a reasonable, just international system that protects the rights of all nations, not the interests of just one. "No blood for oil" has become a slogan, instead we should be articulating the dangers for the inetrnational community of the actions of an unrestrained superpower. Peter Kiernan ----- Original Message ----- From: "tupac shakur" To: Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 5:29 PM Subject: [casi] Smedley Butler would be rolling over in his grave... [ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ] Something to think about... Do not the Bush/Cheney/Rice/Blair relationships to the oil industry, the Bush Administration's desire to put Iraq under U.S. control, and America's heavy dependency on Iraqi oil make you wonder what other considerations may be at play? Please read the facts below and see if you can shed some light on the interesting relationships and ulterior motives that can be read from these facts. Facts: * 31% of U.S. oil comes from Arab OPEC countries. * 86% of oil imported to the U.S. from the middle east comes from Saudi Arabia and Iraq. * In July of 2002 Chevron imported 5,061,000 barrels from Iraq. * Chevron imports nearly five times more oil to the U.S. from Iraq than any other oil company. * Chevron is the only major U.S. oil company that imports more oil from Iraq than from Saudi Arabia. sources for the above facts: Department of Energy publications located here or here * There are current Bush Administration plans to further reduce our dependency on Saudi Arabian oil, and to replace the Saudi supply with Iraqi oil. source: Jane's Foreign Report * BP (British Petroleum) is the only oil company other than Chevron that imports more oil to the U.S. from Iraq than from any other middle eastern nation. source: Boycott Middle-East Oil, verified with Department of Energy stats * Britain is the only other country who's government is strongly backing the U.S. invasion of Iraq. source: The Observer * George Bush Sr. is a former director of Halliburton. He is now one of the directors of The Carlyle Group, one of the U.S.'s largest defense contractors. source: The Consortium and Here In Reality * Dick Cheney, was Halliburton's chairman and chief executive. Halliburton is the world's largest oil field services company. source: WhiteHouse.org * Halliburton has signed contracts and provides services to Chevron. source: The Consortium * The Bush Administrations' National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice, was a former director of Chevron and held a quarter of a million shares of Chevron stock. She even had a tanker named after her until before being appointed by President Bush. sources: Multinational Monitor and Democratic Underground These facts show there is a serious conflict of interest with the relationships between the Bush family, the Bush Administration, Chevron, and Halliburton. The facts show the Bush family and friends stand to profit greatly from war and the controlled flow of Iraqi oil. Why should these conflicts of interest be allowed to progress to the point of war? The invasion of Iraq will certainly kill many people who have no interest, and who's families will not profit from the success or failure of Chevron, BP, Halliburton, or the Carlyle Group. A lot less dangerous, but just as obvious analogy would be to imagine if the CEO of Sun Microsystems was to win the Presidential election (by whatever means). Imagine then that the CEO of Seagate (a hard drive manufacturer) were his running-mate, and other key members of the technology industry were appointed to lead positions in the President's Administration. Imagine that plans were enacted to switch all government operated computer systems from their current platform to Sun systems, all having Seagate hard drives. This platform conversion (war) would cost millions in taxpayer dollars and would ensure the profitability and longevity of Sun and Seagate (Chevron and Halliburton). Would this not raise any suspicions? Let's review: Halliburton is the largest oil field services provider and provides services to Chevron. Bush Sr. was a director of Halliburton. Dick Cheney was Halliburton's CEO. Chevron is the #1 importer of Iraqi oil. There are Bush administration plans to reduce demand for Saudi oil and use Iraqi oil in place. Bush wants to invade Iraq. Invasions bring profit to defense contractors. Bush's daddy is one of the directors of one of the largest defense contractors. See the circle of greed and profit? There must be a way to stop the relationship between the Bush Administration, Halliburton, The Carlyle Group, and Chevron from pushing this country into war and killing people who have no interest in profiting from the oil industry!!! http://www.vinceandjessica.com/rascalcountdown.html --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email firstname.lastname@example.org All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email email@example.com All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email firstname.lastname@example.org All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk