Operation Iraqi Liberation - OIL - Page 3

AMosely · 09-19-2007, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

My only question is this: Do you consider it a "bad thing" for the country to undergo massive infrastructure building financed by outside loans? Is that better or worse than simply not having any infrastructure to speak of?

Well, that's what my mind has been chewing on for quite some time - and I would immediately ask from whose perspective 'better or worse' would apply to.

It's obviously a profitable (and therefore 'better') enterprise for American economic and diplomatic interests, at least on the surface. Throughout the 20th century, this particular brand of free-market capitalism has certainly proven profitable for American interests and has been embraced by almost all Republican and Democratic leaders ever since George Shultz and the Nixon administration, possibly earlier.

On the downside, though, is this - the citizens and political leaders of the countries being strung up by these 'free trade' loans and the binding political ties that come with them often times do not appreciate the terms, conditions and after-effects. More often than not, leaders who have the popular backing of the people refuse to go along with American interests and are consequently 'replaced.' Take the case of Omar Torijjos, the former Panamanian leader who was assasinated by the CIA in 1981 (a staged plane crash, still not officially admitted to). This infurates the general populations of these countries, essentially rendering the population powerless to foreign interest, and is the root cause of a great deal of violent protest and ultimately war in the latter half of the 20th century. Americans are told that the spread of free-market capitalism is the spread of freedom. To the citizens of the countries being exploited, it is the spread of American power and control. It is in fact the latter, and not the former, that is more true.

In the case with Saudi Arabia - which in the 1970's presented enourmous economic and political (Middle-Eastern) possibilities. The ruling Royal House of Saud had billions of oil dollars but were still practically living in tents. So-called economic hitmen, not officially working for the US Government but instead for companies like MAIN and Bechtel, worked out deals with the Royal House of Saud in which the Saudis would send their petro-dollars back to the US and 'invest' them in government securities. The US Treasury would then invest these securities in the form of contracts to and investments in US-owned companies (MAIN, Bechtel) to build Saudi infrastructure - which they did and in fact continue to do today. In other countries, if they do not have the money to pay for the contracts, the US will issue loans through the World Bank.

This same strategy was used in Iraq with Hussein in the late 70's. Remember the pictures of him shaking hands with Rumsfeld and Cheney? Well, Hussein didn't buy in the end, became bitter about it, and you know the rest of it (Kuwait, the Gulf War, and on to today).

What I'm getting at is this - it can be rationally argued, if not proven, that the empire-building arm of free-market capitalism is at the root of a great deal of American distrust and hatred among third-world countries in South America, Africa and the Middle East. This includes acts of terrorism and many of the groups that support it, such as Bin Laden's Al Qaeda, which was born out of hatred for the US-led Saudi Arabian makeover outlined previously and seeks to fight or prevent it on all fronts (Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq). Bin Laden knows the inner workings of this first hand because his own family's business has a stake in it - they owned upwards of a $10 million stake in the Fremont Group, a subsidiary of the Bechtel corporation until 1986.

Removing all notion of fairness from the equation, because this system is by no means fair, these policies in the post-WWII global climate have clearly brought tremendous benefits to the Western world, primarily US interests. So much so that these interests are not in the least bit threatened by the aftermath of this style of empire building. Iraq is a new and risky approach, only somewhat comparable to the US invasion of Panama, in that it presented a situation in which the US would have to put money and soldier's lives on the line in order to shift the country into a position in which it was ready to receive free-market 'aid' in the form of World Bank loans, rich (re)construction contracts, more oil traded 'favorably' to the US and ideally yet another another Western ally in the Middle East.

As I've said before, these, combined with the perceived threat of terrorism, are what guided Bush to his rapid decision to invade. I'll admit that they are compelling reasons. What I am not ready to admit is if this continued blatant self-interest is truly worth the cost - a growing culture among the world's poor that firmly (and somewhat rightly) believes that the US and other 'industrialized' nations are out to exploit them and their home countries.

I guess my ultimate conclusion, and frustration, is that these plans and policies would be so much more effective if they were fair and not guided so much by greed. It's the greed that reaps the big money, but it's also what reaps the biggest hatred and resentment, and that ultimately reaps war and death - for all sides. So do I think this is a good pattern? No, I really don't, but it is indeed a fascinating story to watch.

Kerostasis · 09-19-2007, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMosely

...these policies in the post-WWII global climate have clearly brought tremendous benefits to the Western world, primarily US interests.

While your description of the benefits to the Western world of these policies is certainly fascinating, I was really interested in your opinion on the potential benefits to the countries receiving the new infrastructure. Certainly there are always going to be some number of traditionalist and/or xenophobic holdouts who reject the policies purely because of the foreign involvement implied, but for the country as a whole, are they better or worse off after purchasing vast quantities of infrastructure through foreign contractors? And if a generic "better or worse" is too vague, then how about "richer or poorer"? On the one hand there's the impressive cost of the infrastructure to consider, but on the other hand there's the vastly improved productivity and industry that comes along with such improvements.

Steeler · 09-19-2007, 07:17 PM

You'd have to ask them. It's difficult to determine the relative value of societal change unless you yourself are subject to it. I imagine that if I perceived an upswing in infrastructure and wealth as benefiting the same old tyrants and bosses and criminals that ruled over my world before the foreigners got involved, I'd be none too thankful for the otherwise superficial changes to my society. Even if it did mean more potable water, electricity, and frozen dinners.

Then there's Iraq, where the local infrastructure has actually backslid since the invasion, causing a refugee crisis. You could look at the long game and claim that a generation from now things will be better, but that's a bet with poor odds and still leaves the problem of that missing generation.

jex · 09-19-2007, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

You are exactly correct. Iraqi Oil exports have actually gone DOWN since we invaded, and the US has actually had to ship Oil INTO Iraq to help stabilize their economy in the months after the fall of Baghdad, when terror strikes prevented their own oil fields from functioning.

Considering all of this was easily predictable before the war, its honestly amazing to me to hear anyone still holding out the tired old line that "we invaded Iraq to control its oil."

One of the first places secured by troops were the oil facilities. It's amazing to hear people think that we didn't go in for the oil since all the other reasons have been shown to be false.

Can you provide a link to your assertion about oil being shipped in? Also, if this is so bad, why are oil companies showing record profits? BP brought in something like a Billion in it's first quarter, so somebody somewhere is gaining out of this.

Also, since I have read that the US was 50% dependant on other nations oil, it would seem prudent to want more control over it (imagine for instance the US has no control of oil - it's the one thing our entire industry runs on) and that would mean invading another country to get it.

Even if exports have gone down, contracts are assured and there are millions of barrels to be had out of it.

TheFatKidDeath · 09-19-2007, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

I don't quite follow your comment: What did he say that you think is duplicitous?

First he claims, "In his new book "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," Greenspan wrote: "I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil."

He then clarifies his view:

"In The Washington Post interview, Greenspan said at the time of the invasion he believed like President George W. Bush that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction "because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something."

Then in the same paragraph he re establishes his position that the invasion of Iraq was largely about oil (or "economically motivated" Orwell would be proud).

"But Greenspan's main support for Saddam's ouster was economically motivated, the Post reported.

"My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day" passing through," Greenspan said.

Even a small disruption could drive oil prices as high as $120 a barrel and would mean "chaos" to the global economy, Greenspan told the newspaper.

Then he contradicts his previous statements:

Given that, "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added he was not implying the war was an oil grab, the Post said."

Now that's both duplicitous and speaking out of both sides of ones mouth.

Kerostasis · 09-19-2007, 09:40 PM

@Jex : That comment of mine is over a year old. At the time I made it, I'm pretty sure it was true, and at the time I had documentation. Now a year later, it may no longer be true, and I no longer have the original documentation. That is, Iraqi oil exports DID go down dramatically shortly after the invasion -- they have probably come back up since, although I'm not sure how much. But really, thats not the point. The point is that we don't OWN any of Iraq's Oil. Iraq owns Iraq's oil, and when profit is made by selling Iraqi oil, its Iraqis who make that profit, not BP and Exxon.

@FatKidDeath: You're seeing double-speak where there is none. He is clearly drawing a distinction between HIS motive for supporting the war and the ADMINISTRATION's motive for wanting the war. The two do not need to be the same. Greenspan makes it clear that he thought there was a definate economic incentive for the war. That does not automatically imply that Bush went to war solely for Greenspan's reasons. Nor does it imply that any non-economic reasons are irrelevant.

TheFatKidDeath · 09-19-2007, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

@Jex : That comment of mine is over a year old. At the time I made it, I'm pretty sure it was true, and at the time I had documentation. Now a year later, it may no longer be true, and I no longer have the original documentation. That is, Iraqi oil exports DID go down dramatically shortly after the invasion -- they have probably come back up since, although I'm not sure how much. But really, thats not the point. The point is that we don't OWN any of Iraq's Oil. Iraq owns Iraq's oil, and when profit is made by selling Iraqi oil, its Iraqis who make that profit, not BP and Exxon.

@FatKidDeath: You're seeing double-speak where there is none. He is clearly drawing a distinction between HIS motive for supporting the war and the ADMINISTRATION's motive for wanting the war. The two do not need to be the same. Greenspan makes it clear that he thought there was a definate economic incentive for the war. That does not automatically imply that Bush went to war solely for Greenspan's reasons. Nor does it imply that any non-economic reasons are irrelevant.

Splitting hairs and I see no distinction between his motive for supporting the war and the Administrations motive for invading. Greenspans and the Bush Administrations reasons for the war are one in the same. The difference is Greenspan has stated publicly what, in my opinion, the Bush Administration says privately.

To paraphrase a quote I read somewhere "The United States would not have invaded Iraq if it's main export was broccoli."

Kerostasis · 09-19-2007, 10:27 PM

Your evidence for this is what, your own assertion? I'm not asking for hard proof, but do you even have a line of logic to show why you think thats likely? How does any of this show duplicity?

Steeler · 09-20-2007, 07:29 AM

As I noted a year ago, Cheney's motivation is laid out quite clearly in the PNAC documents - remove Saddam, create a more reliable proxy state against Iran, secure a long-term influence over the development of the Caspian oil fields. Whether or not those attitudes are still operational is up for debate, but it's pretty clear that the VP at least believed that an invasion of Iraq would accomplish these objectives.

jex · 09-20-2007, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

@Jex : That comment of mine is over a year old. At the time I made it, I'm pretty sure it was true, and at the time I had documentation. Now a year later, it may no longer be true, and I no longer have the original documentation. That is, Iraqi oil exports DID go down dramatically shortly after the invasion -- they have probably come back up since, although I'm not sure how much. But really, thats not the point. The point is that we don't OWN any of Iraq's Oil. Iraq owns Iraq's oil, and when profit is made by selling Iraqi oil, its Iraqis who make that profit, not BP and Exxon.

My Apologies Kero, I just thought this was a new thread and never even checked the date. However, figures still stand and BP have had record profits. This may be due to oil unforthcoming from Iraq (which you stated) which pushed up the price of the barrel and therefore had a positive knockon effect for BP?

AMosely · 09-20-2007, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

And if a generic "better or worse" is too vague, then how about "richer or poorer"? On the one hand there's the impressive cost of the infrastructure to consider, but on the other hand there's the vastly improved productivity and industry that comes along with such improvements.

Again though, it depends on whose perspective you are looking at. Richer for some, poorer for others. I doubt that some of the native Ecuadorian tribes who had their ancestral lands taken from them (logged, flooded and mined) in the name of economic expansion would call any of it progress. Most who end up on the 'poor' end of the deal end up fighting because they have no other recourse. In the Middle East, I think it's pretty obvious that not everyone in the population wants the west's brand of progress, so they too denounce and fight it. If a population wishes to remain technologically behind but independent, is it not their right to be left alone? Is it their right to fight if they are not?

It's the impressive cost of the infrastructure that is the most weighted part of the equation. By issuing loans that countries can never repay, American controlled interests can literally have third-world governments eating out of their hands, and can use that as leverage for favorable trade agreements (on resources like oil) or political/military policies (the use of bases, airspace, etc). This is the point of the excersise. The fact that American contractors can handsomely profit from the contracts is merely an added bonus.

What's not part of the excercise is the equitable delivery of infrastructure. It turns out that much of the infrastructure only tends to profit certain industries, corrupt officials, and foreign investors. History shows that it doesn't benefit the people of the country as a whole. Perhaps this will change in the future, as I hope humanity is learning important lessons about oppressed or otherwise disenfranchised populations. But in the mean time, I am of the opinion that the current system that I am describing is in large part not in the best interests of the countries receiving the loans, and may not even be in the long-term interests of Americans either due to the fact that sooner or later, the situations turn sour and end up creating new conflicts which otherwise would have been avoided.

**BigGaayAl** · 09-20-2007, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

While your description of the benefits to the Western world of these policies is certainly fascinating, I was really interested in your opinion on the potential benefits to the countries receiving the new infrastructure. Certainly there are always going to be some number of traditionalist and/or xenophobic holdouts who reject the policies purely because of the foreign involvement implied, but for the country as a whole, are they better or worse off after purchasing vast quantities of infrastructure through foreign contractors? And if a generic "better or worse" is too vague, then how about "richer or poorer"? On the one hand there's the impressive cost of the infrastructure to consider, but on the other hand there's the vastly improved productivity and industry that comes along with such improvements.

I think Argentina is a very good answer to your question. They had puppet/military regimes for long, nice Nafta dealings, great "helping" loans from the worldbank. Then they decided they had to start paying back the loans, and the country totally crashed. They are climbing out of the pit now, by using non currency based economy.

Well I'm not a specialist, but I think I got the general situation describer pretty accurately.

A nice link I'm sure at least Mosely will enjoy:http://www.democracynow.org/article..../03/08/1529222

THe interview/vid shows Haitian democratically elected president Bertrand Aristide in an interview with Amy Goodman. He tells the shocking tale in person: the US forces picked him up to send him to a secure location, at a time of turmoil. Amazed he is dropped brought to an airport and deported to South Africa.

Spread that democracy George, we believe you!

Switch · 09-21-2007, 01:56 PM

In the end the US is attempting to put 'something' into power over there that benefits the US. The concern for actual Iraqi liberty or democracy is minimal.

Oil isn't the biggest issue here, though it does play a fairly large and obvious component. One which the administration never even mentions... But the point is that US rarely deals in altruism. In the middle east where we deal with a foreign culture and a foreign religion the war on 'terror' is a gigantic misnomer. No body deals in terrorism as much as first world nations do. The US has multi billion dollar infrastructures in the CIA, NSA, and military whos jobs it is, among other things, to incite terrorism across the world need be. I'm not talking about mass troop movements. I'm talking about state sponsored assassination (The US has used car bombs to kill targets... car bombs that killed many many civilians and even missed the intended target), disinformation, and torturous interrogation. Those are acts of terrorism far more devious than crazed religious zealots. The reason it's more devious is because its being done by people who croak on and on about democracy and freedom while leaving the citizens of their nation states ignorant of what they've actually done. Now, I haven't said whether these measures are necessary or justified, I'm just pointing out that we, as Americans, are probably the most guilty participants in the war of terror. Thats true whether or not we believe it. Unfortunately, our flag has been behind many many things we will not know about or not want to know about.

'Ha, give me an example of a us car bomb killing civillians you crazy liberal story teller'

Learn about state terror if you like.

**BigGaayAl** · 09-22-2007, 08:13 AM

Lol switch, refer to chomsky?? No you didn't! I think about half the people in this thread will refuse to hear a word of what this excellent scholar says. Imagine Chomsky on the O'Reilly show

. That man would cut Stephen Hawking's mike, I wonder what he'd do to Chomsky.

On topic then, I am certain the us invaded to secure oil interests. Whether Bush was in on this, or simply caught up in his infantile goodguys-badguys world-view, that we will never know.

I'm quite sure Bush doesn't know why we wen't in there. The people who nudged him towards it all, they know. They are well-known: the neo-cons.

Then all you have to do is read their inhuman world-views, and you KNOW it is all about strategic positioning for resources: oil.

The reason Bush didn't plan the "aftermath" of the war is simply that. The neocon theory mandates that the Iraqis greet the liberators with flowers, and the new Yank-ocracy spreads itself across the middle east.

All the middle east experts where saying it doesn't work like that, I think we're all sorry they were right.

Zephyr · 09-25-2007, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switch

In the end the US is attempting to put 'something' into power over there that benefits the US. The concern for actual Iraqi liberty or democracy is minimal.

Oil isn't the biggest issue here, though it does play a fairly large and obvious component. One which the administration never even mentions... But the point is that US rarely deals in altruism. In the middle east where we deal with a foreign culture and a foreign religion the war on 'terror' is a gigantic misnomer. No body deals in terrorism as much as first world nations do. The US has multi billion dollar infrastructures in the CIA, NSA, and military whos jobs it is, among other things, to incite terrorism across the world need be. I'm not talking about mass troop movements. I'm talking about state sponsored assassination (The US has used car bombs to kill targets... car bombs that killed many many civilians and even missed the intended target), disinformation, and torturous interrogation. Those are acts of terrorism far more devious than crazed religious zealots. The reason it's more devious is because its being done by people who croak on and on about democracy and freedom while leaving the citizens of their nation states ignorant of what they've actually done. Now, I haven't said whether these measures are necessary or justified, I'm just pointing out that we, as Americans, are probably the most guilty participants in the war of terror. Thats true whether or not we believe it. Unfortunately, our flag has been behind many many things we will not know about or not want to know about.

'Ha, give me an example of a us car bomb killing civillians you crazy liberal story teller'

Learn about state terror if you like.

Mhm...so not only is that video cropped together to take the points that side with your argument, thus making it propaganda, it also ends with footage of Sept 11th claiming that "only explosives cause pulverized concrete"...

...

What is the difference between Political Assassination and State-Sponsored Terrorism?

Would you mind using Chomsky's definition as well when you compare the two?

Isn't it true that the killing of civilians was an accident, that the target actually had nothing to do with the local mosque?

Also, hadn't the timing of the bomb had been set to try to get him when he was at home?

Could you tell me a bit more about Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah?

-Zephyr

09-19-2007, 07:17 PM	#33 (permalink)
Steeler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Taxachusetts Age: 30 Posts: 2,952	Re: Operation Iraqi Liberation - OIL You'd have to ask them. It's difficult to determine the relative value of societal change unless you yourself are subject to it. I imagine that if I perceived an upswing in infrastructure and wealth as benefiting the same old tyrants and bosses and criminals that ruled over my world before the foreigners got involved, I'd be none too thankful for the otherwise superficial changes to my society. Even if it did mean more potable water, electricity, and frozen dinners. Then there's Iraq, where the local infrastructure has actually backslid since the invasion, causing a refugee crisis. You could look at the long game and claim that a generation from now things will be better, but that's a bet with poor odds and still leaves the problem of that missing generation. __________________

09-20-2007, 07:29 AM	#39 (permalink)
Steeler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Taxachusetts Age: 30 Posts: 2,952	Re: Operation Iraqi Liberation - OIL As I noted a year ago, Cheney's motivation is laid out quite clearly in the PNAC documents - remove Saddam, create a more reliable proxy state against Iran, secure a long-term influence over the development of the Caspian oil fields. Whether or not those attitudes are still operational is up for debate, but it's pretty clear that the VP at least believed that an invasion of Iraq would accomplish these objectives. __________________

09-21-2007, 01:56 PM	#43 (permalink)
Switch Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: NJ Posts: 1,166	Re: Operation Iraqi Liberation - OIL In the end the US is attempting to put 'something' into power over there that benefits the US. The concern for actual Iraqi liberty or democracy is minimal. Oil isn't the biggest issue here, though it does play a fairly large and obvious component. One which the administration never even mentions... But the point is that US rarely deals in altruism. In the middle east where we deal with a foreign culture and a foreign religion the war on 'terror' is a gigantic misnomer. No body deals in terrorism as much as first world nations do. The US has multi billion dollar infrastructures in the CIA, NSA, and military whos jobs it is, among other things, to incite terrorism across the world need be. I'm not talking about mass troop movements. I'm talking about state sponsored assassination (The US has used car bombs to kill targets... car bombs that killed many many civilians and even missed the intended target), disinformation, and torturous interrogation. Those are acts of terrorism far more devious than crazed religious zealots. The reason it's more devious is because its being done by people who croak on and on about democracy and freedom while leaving the citizens of their nation states ignorant of what they've actually done. Now, I haven't said whether these measures are necessary or justified, I'm just pointing out that we, as Americans, are probably the most guilty participants in the war of terror. Thats true whether or not we believe it. Unfortunately, our flag has been behind many many things we will not know about or not want to know about. 'Ha, give me an example of a us car bomb killing civillians you crazy liberal story teller' Learn about state terror if you like. __________________ \|TG\|Switch Better known as: That noob who crashed the chopper. That noob who ran over the mine. That noob who TK'd me with a sniper rifle. That noob who hit that APC at 300m with light AT! Our APC...

09-22-2007, 08:13 AM	#44 (permalink)
BigGaayAl Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: gent, belgium Posts: 1,488	Re: Operation Iraqi Liberation - OIL Lol switch, refer to chomsky?? No you didn't! I think about half the people in this thread will refuse to hear a word of what this excellent scholar says. Imagine Chomsky on the O'Reilly show . That man would cut Stephen Hawking's mike, I wonder what he'd do to Chomsky. On topic then, I am certain the us invaded to secure oil interests. Whether Bush was in on this, or simply caught up in his infantile goodguys-badguys world-view, that we will never know. I'm quite sure Bush doesn't know why we wen't in there. The people who nudged him towards it all, they know. They are well-known: the neo-cons. Then all you have to do is read their inhuman world-views, and you KNOW it is all about strategic positioning for resources: oil. The reason Bush didn't plan the "aftermath" of the war is simply that. The neocon theory mandates that the Iraqis greet the liberators with flowers, and the new Yank-ocracy spreads itself across the middle east. All the middle east experts where saying it doesn't work like that, I think we're all sorry they were right. __________________ Support your right to arm bears. ~Cleveland Amory I am a kind of paranoiac in reverse. I suspect people of plotting to make me happy. ~J.D. Salinger

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links