Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Oil and War

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

keane

Joined: 09 Jul 2007

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 1:38 am Post subject: Oil and War

Quote:

"The Control Of Oil" is such a commonly used phrase when it comes to the Iraq war that I wish everyone who wants to claim the war isn't about the oil had read the book before they start sounding off - its almost impossible to convince garden variety neocons that this really is just the latest in a long line of our oil wars in Iraq over the past century (and I've tried this on quite a few occasions) - even if they know nothing of the history of oil or the history of Iraq they'll just parrot the standard propaganda lines about (non existant) weapons of mass destruction or spreading "freedom and democracy" (while still backing any American politician who calls for the new Iraqi government to be replaced whenever it doesn't do what it is told) and ignore both history and common sense.

There were 3 particular items which came to mind when I first read about the proposed oil law - John Blair's comments about old oil discoveries in Iraq being suppressed (back in the days when oil was in gross oversupply rather than the more balanced supply / demand situation of recent years), the maps of Iraq that were some of the few artifacts to emerge from Dick Cheney's secretive "energy taskforce" meetings back in 2000 and Daniel Yergin's description of Iraq as "the greatest prize in all history".

He leaves out that Iraq was on the agenda from Day 1 in the Bush Administration and that maps of Iraq's oil had been made up no later than Day 12 of this administration. Fact. This was nine months before 9/11 and the scapegoating of Saddam. All fact. History will not be kind.

Much, much more here.

Quote:

This remarkable -- and welcome -- failure reflects massive Iraqi opposition to Big Oil's designs to gain control of Iraq's oil resources, and the success of an international campaign to shine a spotlight on Big Oil's planned oil grab. Every ethnic and geographic grouping in Iraq believes Iraq's oil should be developed under the control of Iraqi state-owned companies rather than multinationals. Overall, Iraqis hold this position by a two-to-one margin, according to a July poll.

Says Antonia Juhasz of Oil Change International, "everyone thought this law was going to pass because no one knew what it was. Now that people know what it is, it seems far less likely that it will actually pass."

Iraqi people not as full of crap as their government.

Delude thyselves not, my puppies.

VanIslander

Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:46 am Post subject:

the word 'oil' is almost never mentioned on CNN with all their war coverage and behind the scenes political analysis but the station does have a bunch of Shell Oil commercials

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:37 am Post subject: Re: Oil and War

keane wrote:

Quote:

"The Control Of Oil" is such a commonly used phrase when it comes to the Iraq war that I wish everyone who wants to claim the war isn't about the oil had read the book before they start sounding off - its almost impossible to convince garden variety neocons that this really is just the latest in a long line of our oil wars in Iraq over the past century (and I've tried this on quite a few occasions) - even if they know nothing of the history of oil or the history of Iraq they'll just parrot the standard propaganda lines about (non existant) weapons of mass destruction or spreading "freedom and democracy" (while still backing any American politician who calls for the new Iraqi government to be replaced whenever it doesn't do what it is told) and ignore both history and common sense.

There were 3 particular items which came to mind when I first read about the proposed oil law - John Blair's comments about old oil discoveries in Iraq being suppressed (back in the days when oil was in gross oversupply rather than the more balanced supply / demand situation of recent years), the maps of Iraq that were some of the few artifacts to emerge from *beep* Cheney's secretive "energy taskforce" meetings back in 2000 and Daniel Yergin's description of Iraq as "the greatest prize in all history".

History will not be kind?

I seriously doubt history will take its cue from a couple of left wing bloggers and a few letters.

And if there is a terrorist attack after Bush leaves office...particularly if a Demo gets in and start dismantling the Homeland security...history may yet be quite kind to Bush.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:57 am Post subject:

Oil played a role. But the US goal was not to control it but to prevent someone like Saddam from doing so.

keane

Joined: 09 Jul 2007

Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 1:43 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Oil played a role.

But the US goal was not to control it but to prevent someone like Saddam from doing so.

Uh..... No.

1. Iraq on the agenda, bin Ladin off it on Day 1 of the Bush administration, round one.

2. Oil maps all drawn up by Day 12.

3. Saddam accused of being in league with AQ when facts showed otherwise.

4. Saddam claimed to be threatening the world with mushroom clouds when the facts showed differently.

5. The "Iraqi" oil law pushed by "BuCheney" above all else in Iraq.

6. Said oil law giving the vast majority of oil profit to non-Iraqis.

7. Cheney's secret oil meetings. (Why the *beep* do meetings about oil have to be secret????? EVER??? Oh! That's right! They had to write the "Iraqi" oil law...)

8. The protection of only one resource in Iraq during and after the war: the oil.

9. The plan to stay in Iraq for decades. Why?

Etc.

Wake up and smell the gasoline.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:16 am Post subject:

[quote="keane"][
Uh..... No.

Quote:

1. Iraq on the agenda, bin Ladin off it on Day 1 of the Bush administration, round one.

Quote:

False the policy before 9-11 was smart sanctions.

Strategic asset needed to pay for rebuilding Iraq

Quote:

2. Oil maps all drawn up by Day 12.

Strategic asset needed to pay for rebuilding Iraq

Quote:

3. Saddam accused of being in league with AQ when facts showed otherwise.

He was crazy enough to do it. There were even contacts,

Quote:

4. Saddam claimed to be threatening the world with mushroom clouds when the facts showed differently.

Saddam intended to re arm. He deceived the IAEC in the late 80s. He used chemical weapons against his own people.

Quote:

5. The "Iraqi" oil law pushed by "BuCheney" above all else in Iraq.

Probably to make things easier since most of Iraq can't agree.

Quote:

6. Said oil law giving the vast majority of oil profit to non-Iraqis.

That would encourage investment.

Quote:

7. Cheney's secret oil meetings. (Why the *beep* do meetings about oil have to be secret????? EVER??? Oh! That's right! They had to write the "Iraqi" oil law...)

I don't know but it doesn't show anything

Quote:

8. The protection of only one resource in Iraq during and after the war: the oil.

to pay for reconstruction.

IF the facilities were attacked they could always be rebuilt.

Quote:

9. The plan to stay in Iraq for decades. Why?

To project power in the middle east. Cause mideast regimes and elites teach hate and incite violence. To force mideast regimes to kill off those who support AQ. What is wrong with that?

Quote:

Wake up and smell the gasoline.

Ah so that is why you have the opinions you do.

keane

Joined: 09 Jul 2007

Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:43 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

keane wrote:

1. Iraq on the agenda, bin Ladin off it on Day 1 of the Bush administration, round one.

False the policy before 9-11 was smart sanctions.

Wrong. Read O'Reilly. Why would he lie? He is STILL a loyal Republican. I've posted on this forum about it recently. Search. Truth, friend, not talking points.

Quote:

2. Oil maps all drawn up by Day 12.

Strategic asset needed to pay for rebuilding Iraq

By exporting 80% of the profits? Do you think about what you post?

Quote:

5. The "Iraqi" oil law pushed by "BuCheney" above all else in Iraq.

Probably to make things easier since most of Iraq can't agree.

Jesus... Wrong again. Most Iraqis... that would be, oh, 70%, want Iraqi control of Iraqi oil. What silly bastards they are! After all, look at the mess the Saudis are making of their oil fields!

Quote:

6. Said oil law giving the vast majority of oil profit to non-Iraqis.

That would encourage investment.

In WHAT? There is nothing to invest in but oil.

Quote:

7. Cheney's secret oil meetings. (Why the *beep* do meetings about oil have to be secret????? EVER??? Oh! That's right! They had to write the "Iraqi" oil law...)

I don't know but it doesn't show anything

Nah... means nothing.

Quote:

8. The protection of only one resource in Iraq during and after the war: the oil.

to pay for reconstruction.

With WHAT? You are saying to send 80% of the profits OUT OF IRAQ.

Quote:

9. The plan to stay in Iraq for decades. Why?

To project power in the middle east.

Congrats. You got one right.

Quote:

Cause mideast regimes and elites teach hate and incite violence. To force mideast regimes to kill off those who support AQ. What is wrong with that?

It's bullshit, that's what's wrong with that. It's about oil. Pure and simple.

Quote:

Wake up and smell the gasoline.

Ah so that is why you have the opinions you do.

Rhhee, I am one of the few here who defends your posting as being at least sincere. Drop the playground, peer-pressure-made-me-say-it bull, eh?

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:00 am Post subject:

[quote="keane"]

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

keane wrote:

1. Iraq on the agenda, bin Ladin off it on Day 1 of the Bush administration, round one.

False the policy before 9-11 was smart sanctions.

Quote:

Wrong. Read O'Reilly. Why would he lie? He is STILL a loyal Republican. I've posted on this forum about it recently. Search. Truth, friend, not talking points.

the policy before the war was smart sanctions.

Tuesday, June 12, 2001, updated at 08:10(GMT+ 8 )
World

Quote:

Iraq Warns Turkey Against Backing "Smart Sanctions"
Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz Monday warned Turkey against backing a U.N. Security Council draft resolution on "smart sanctions" which Washington and London seek to impose on Iraq.

During a meeting with visiting Turkish Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Faruk Logoglu, Aziz, who is also Iraq's foreign minister, warned that if Turkey voted in favor of the draft resolution, Iraq would stop dealing with it, the official Iraqi News Agency reported.

The two ministers also discussed bilateral relations between the two countries.

For his part, Logoglu stressed Turkey's desire to develop economic ties with Iraq, the agency said.

Political observers in Baghdad believed that the Turkish official's visit is important at this stage as Turkey seeks to keep its relations with the U.S., and at the same time, to maintain its trade with Iraq.

Turkey suffered 35 billion U.S. dollars of losses from suspension of trade with Iraq due to the 10-year-plus UN sanctions on Baghdad imposed on Iraq following its invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

However, analysts put Turkey's direct and indirect losses at over 85 billion dollars, with the southeastern parts of Turkey being the worst affected areas by the sanctions on Iraq.

Iraq threatens to suspend its oil exports to and reconsiders economic and political ties with neighboring countries if they back the draft resolution.

Iraq halted oil exports on June 4 to protest against a United Nations Security Council's resolution to extend the oil-for-food deal for only 30 days instead of a regular six-month term.　

The Security Council's decision was aimed to allow more time for the 15-member body to discuss the American-British plan on "smart sanctions" against Iraq.

The "smart sanctions" are aimed at easing curbs on exporting civilian goods to Iraq while tightening control on materials that can be used for military purposes.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/english/200106/12/eng20010612_72405.html

Quote:

2. Oil maps all drawn up by Day 12.

Strategic asset needed to pay for rebuilding Iraq

Quote:

By exporting 80% of the profits? Do you think about what you post?

to get investments sure .

Quote:

Jesus... Wrong again. Most Iraqis... that would be, oh, 70%, want Iraqi control of Iraqi oil. What silly bastards they are! After all, look at the mess the Saudis are making of their oil fields!

\
The Kurds and the Shias and the Sunnis agree?

Quote:

In WHAT? There is nothing to invest in but oil.

Iraq is a risky place

Quote:

Nah... means nothing.

what does it mean?

Quote:

8. The protection of only one resource in Iraq during and after the war: the oil.

to pay for reconstruction.

Quote:

With WHAT? You are saying to send 80% of the profits OUT OF IRAQ.

Iraq is a risky place. Who wants to invest in such a place. even for oil>

Congrats. You got one right.

Quote:

It's *beep*, that's what's wrong with that. It's about oil. Pure and simple.

Not oil it is about forcing the Bathists the Khomeni followers and the Al Qadists to give up their war or force regimes in the mideast to kill them.

keane

Joined: 09 Jul 2007

Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:37 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

I believe everything Bush tells me.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:47 am Post subject:

I have a lot of faith in Thomas Friedman. Too bad he is not president.

Because We Could
Thomas L. Friedman
New York Times Op-Ed Columnist
Wednesday, June 4, 2003 Posted: 7:02 AM EDT (1102 GMT)

Quote:

The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.'s) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real story we should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war, and it's the wrong issue now.

Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real reason, the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.

The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there ?a bubble that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the World Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was O.K., having state-run newspapers call people who did such things "martyrs" was O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such "martyrs" was O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists were ready to die.

The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government ?and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen ?got the message. If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe