Friday, October 28, 2005

Exxon Profits WAAAAAY up...


Can someone please explain to me why the war in Iraq has nothing to do with oil... when ALL of the oil companies are enjoying HUGE profits... the military camps during the invasion of Iraq were each named after different U.S. oil companies... and the most of the Bush regime came from the oil sector... and some of the closest pals of the Bush family are Saudi oil men?

I guess I'm just an ignorant liberal weenie who's just a few eggs short of a crate... but for some reason none of the neo-"con" story has ever computed for me. Can someone please enlighten this poor wayward lib?


Oh! Above is a cellphone snap of the giant cup of coffee I drank this morning at Seatle's best. ;-)

5 Comments:

At 7:20 AM, Blogger copy editor said...

Were the camps really named that?

You've got a great blog, btw.

 
At 7:35 AM, Blogger skiphunt said...

Thanks!

Yes, they were. I'm not sure if they were "official" names, or nicknames given by the soldiers. I've read it both ways.

Also, the invasion was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom". Originally they were going to call it "Operation Iraqi Liberation..." Until some genius realized the first letters spelled. OIL.

 
At 11:32 AM, Blogger Lone Pawn said...

Personally, I don't really buy the oil story. And here's why:

If they were going to blow off the UN and waste billions, wouldn't it have been significantly cheaper to simply decide the US will no longer enforce sanctions on Iraq, bribe who they need to bribe, and flood Iraq with bribe money to ensure that US firms will get exclusive access to Iraq's southern oil fields?

And so far we've recouped very little oil from Iraq. Most profits are the property of the Iraqi government, which is funneled into army units and reconstruction efforts which are destroyed almost as fast as they're built.

Rather, this was part of the neocon (and I use the word strictly, not as a slur) strategy to turn the middle east into a possibly democratic, certainly free-market neoliberal paradise, allowing US firms to set down resource collection and factory production efforts in the relatively undeveloped mideast. As a benefit, this would mean that the Muslim world would have some stability after world oil production peaks, as they'd have economies that didn't revolve around oil, and they'd have democratic governments that could weather social shocks in a way that dictatorships can't.

Yes, they did try to save the oil wells. And that was a cost-saving measure. Because in a country whose economy revolves around black gold, destruction of the oil infrastructure would be destruction of the entire Iraqi economy, and reconstruction would have been even more difficult.

Read PNAC's site to find out what they wanted. Heck, check out a few essays by F. Fukuyama, R. Kagan, and W. Kristol, they're all pretty erudite.

However, they botched it to all hell, turned the Iraqi people against us, and now we're stuck in a quagmire that looks unlikely to ever turn into a functional democracy and certainly won't be a model to the Arab world. Rather, it's model of all the instability and violence that the Arab world fears democracy will bring, and it's that fear that has kept them from democratic reforms.

So I don't believe it was about oil. Capitalism? Yes. Yes, it was certainly about capitalism; we wanted the mideast to open its markets to our corporations. Politics? Yes; we wanted vassal states in the Mideast that wouldn't spawn terrorists and instability (especially as regards Israel and the Indian subcontinent, as both are nuclear hotspots) as soon as the oil ran out. WMD? Of course not, that was a brazen lie. Oil? Not precisely.

And that's what I think.

 
At 11:34 AM, Blogger Lone Pawn said...

Oh, and Exxon profits have nothing to do with the war. That's entirely gouging. Oil companies collude to fix prices high, that's well-known. But since supplies are sufficient at the moment, all Iraqi oil would do is lower prices, not increase sales. And frankly, Exxon likes prices where they are.

Oh, and I like your blog.

 
At 6:11 AM, Blogger skiphunt said...

lone pawn.. you make a reasonable case. I didn't think it was ALL about the oil.. but I believe the Bush administration needed the support of the largest conglomerates who'd stand to gain from war, unstable fuel markets, destruction, and rebuilding.

Many of the potentially interested conglomerates also lay down the law on the general messaging we see via all media, so I think the oil was more of a fringe benefit to get support for the whole invasion package.

What I don't get is why the botched it all up? Most of these guys go all the way back to the Reagan era. And, they got plenty of practice in under Bush senior. Even had a trial run with "Desert Storm".

Do you really think they didn't know what they were doing before they got into it? So, if the answer is yes.. did they possibly botch it on purpose in order to have MANY years of destruction that WE are paying them to do via our taxes.. and then double charging us for the reconstruction of what we already paid them to destroy? Sounds like a pretty sweet racket to me. Maybe the "oil" argument is just a smokescreen for something even MORE sinsister.


Thanks for the comments, I think you're like the second person to comment on any of my blogs. Mostly just the ad spammers. ;-)

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home