Iraq: oil auctions show war was NOT about oil???
Posted: 02 Jul 2009, 10:55
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 65,00.htmlAny notion that the invasion of Iraq was simply an oil grab took another hit on Tuesday ...
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
http://forum.powerswitch.org.uk/
Iraq: oil auctions show war was NOT about oil???
Page 1 of 2
Re: Iraq: oil auctions show war was NOT about oil???
Posted: 02 Jul 2009, 11:23
Hm. I wouldn't go to Time magazine for in-depth, politically neutral reporting. My guess is that there is all sorts of stuff going on behind the scenes that tells a very different story.Vortex wrote:http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 65,00.htmlAny notion that the invasion of Iraq was simply an oil grab took another hit on Tuesday ...
Posted: 02 Jul 2009, 12:37
It was never about taking Iraq's oil, but rather having military bases in a "safe" (as they believed) Middle East country. That's why, despite the apparent departure from Iraq, the military bases are still there (and in Afghanistan).
Posted: 02 Jul 2009, 12:49
I'm not convinced of that. The Iraqi Oil Ministry was the sole building that was guarded to the hilt immediately after the invasion, while looters were allowed to run riot in Baghdad's museums.WolfattheDoor wrote:It was never about taking Iraq's oil, but rather having military bases in a "safe" (as they believed) Middle East country. That's why, despite the apparent departure from Iraq, the military bases are still there (and in Afghanistan).
Posted: 02 Jul 2009, 12:57
But you can have more than one reason for an action. It can be both oil and bases; and also jobs for the military industrial complex and a political opportunity and a personal grudge in the Bush family, and...WolfattheDoor wrote:It was never about taking Iraq's oil, but rather having military bases in a "safe" (as they believed) Middle East country. That's why, despite the apparent departure from Iraq, the military bases are still there (and in Afghanistan).
Peter.
Posted: 02 Jul 2009, 14:18
Ummm, why have bases there if they didn't want to control that all important resource - the black gold? Remember, the American way of life is non-negotiable....... so oil has to be got......WolfattheDoor wrote:It was never about taking Iraq's oil, but rather having military bases in a "safe" (as they believed) Middle East country. That's why, despite the apparent departure from Iraq, the military bases are still there (and in Afghanistan).
Posted: 02 Jul 2009, 14:33
Maybe I didn't make myself clear. Of course it was principally about oil but not just taking Iraq's (as the article suggests). The US wanted to secure the flow of oil from all of the Middle East countries so they needed military bases in the region to "step in" if threatened.snow hope wrote:Ummm, why have bases there if they didn't want to control that all important resource - the black gold? Remember, the American way of life is non-negotiable....... so oil has to be got......WolfattheDoor wrote:It was never about taking Iraq's oil, but rather having military bases in a "safe" (as they believed) Middle East country. That's why, despite the apparent departure from Iraq, the military bases are still there (and in Afghanistan).
Saudi is and will be an insecure partner, Iran we know about, and the others are too small so Iraq was the obvious choice. Since Saddam was no longer the USA's ally, they decided to invade. Now if only the occupants had refused to fight back...
Posted: 02 Jul 2009, 16:01
I wondered if it was about the petro-dollar. Didn't Saddam threaten to start selling oil for Euros ?
Posted: 02 Jul 2009, 16:30
You can trade oil in Iran for EurosCatweazle wrote:I wondered if it was about the petro-dollar. Didn't Saddam threaten to start selling oil for Euros ?
Posted: 02 Jul 2009, 17:11
Perhaps that's why they're next on the Hit List.ziggy12345 wrote:You can trade oil in Iran for EurosCatweazle wrote:I wondered if it was about the petro-dollar. Didn't Saddam threaten to start selling oil for Euros ?
Posted: 02 Jul 2009, 23:58
Surely this was a PR stunt.
It was and is all about oil, just as Afghanistan and Pakistan are about a gas pipeline (TAPI versus IPI)
It was and is all about oil, just as Afghanistan and Pakistan are about a gas pipeline (TAPI versus IPI)
Posted: 03 Jul 2009, 08:22
I have to agree with WolfAtThe Door.It was and is all about oil, just as Afghanistan and Pakistan are about a gas pipeline (TAPI versus IPI)
I was reading something the other day which suggested that Iraq & Afghanistan are primarily about having a military presence in the region, to ensure oil flows in general ... and also to keep out other super powers in the years to come.
Posted: 03 Jul 2009, 09:23
Vortex wrote:Urm, there's no actual doubt about this is there?...suggested that Iraq & Afghanistan are primarily about having a military presence in the region, to ensure oil flows in general ... and also to keep out other super powers in the years to come.
Posted: 03 Jul 2009, 09:37
... no ... but many seem to think that the Americans will seize the Iraq oil fields and take every single drop ....
Posted: 03 Jul 2009, 13:18
Oh I agree, and the construction of the TAPI pipeline will ensure increased US control thereby destroying Iran's hopes of doing the same thing with its proposed IPI pipeline.Vortex wrote:I have to agree with WolfAtThe Door.It was and is all about oil, just as Afghanistan and Pakistan are about a gas pipeline (TAPI versus IPI)
I was reading something the other day which suggested that Iraq & Afghanistan are primarily about having a military presence in the region, to ensure oil flows in general ... and also to keep out other super powers in the years to come.
The TAPI pipe could also supply us with a lot of LNG. The contracts have already been signed between the US and the participating countries. You only have to look at where the British and American forces are fighting to see they follow the proposed supply route.