Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Why we're in Iraq: Not oil... not oil... not oil... [VIDEO]

Posted by Evan Derkacz at 5:42 AM on March 30, 2007.


Jim Hightower unravels the mystery of an unfolding plan
hightower

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Video in your
mailbox!

 

Texas rabble-rouser Jim Hightower's latest animation tells the story of the administration's plan to open Iraqi oil to their cronies from the start. The Iraqi government is set to vote on it directly... More Hightower animation HERE.

Digg!

Tagged as: iraq, oil

Evan Derkacz is an AlterNet editor. He writes and edits PEEK, the blog of blogs.


Honduras Crisis Forces Obama to Focus on Latin America
Will Obama side with a democratically elected government that happens to be a Venezuelan ally?
Post by Tom Hayden. July 1, 2009.
Fox News Urges Viewers to Keep on Tea Baggin' on July 4th (VIDEO)
No, we won't EVER get tired of that double-entendre!
Post by Lee Fang. June 30, 2009.
Katie Couric, Tavis Smiley, Bob Woodward, Nicholas Kristof, and I Hit YouTube with Pointers for Citizen Journalists
Become The Huffington Post's 'Eyes and Ears.'
Post by Arianna Huffington. June 30, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
nice piece, except...
Posted by: andrewstromotich on Mar 30, 2007 7:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nice piece, it gets the whole system for extracting oil rights from iraq down in a clear and concise way, but again it refers to "the current civil war"...

wake up, wake up WAKE UP!! it ain't no civil war. Was vietnam a civil war? they called it a civil war. 4 million vietnamese citizens were killed, and many were killed by other vietnamese in the form of the "vietnamese national guard", but that's about as legit as the "iraq national guard"...
c'mon kids, use your noodle. the civil war is apart of the plan to permanently destabilize the country.

shia and sunni in iraq (not to mention kurd, turkoman, etc.), have alot to work out in order to get back to the pluralistic society they were after expelling the british occupiers, but the violence you see now is not a natural state. All this is is big oil using the american military to help them destroy the country that possesses what they want.

In sierra leone it was diamonds the corps wanted, and they hired mercs like executive outcomes to help them destroy the country and create civil divide. in iraq, the situation was far more involved, and would take the biggest, most bad ass merc there is to rip it up there. that's why they bought the presidency. they couldn't just do a black op like sierra leone, they needed political justification to fly this hindenburg, and they got it.

that's what sickens me the most: sierra leone was hidden from the western public, iraq is right there staring the american public (and the world) in the eye....
and even well meaning, educational undertakings like this, still misrepresent the situation as being 'civil' in nature (hmmn, i wonder how long it would take an occupying mercenary force to start a race war in america?)...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: nice piece, except... Posted by: jags105
» RE: nice piece, except... Posted by: andrewstromotich
I disagree
Posted by: jags105 on Mar 30, 2007 12:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it really is a Civil War, albeit one that was instigated/initiated by the CIA/US Government. Remember the "suits" that were seen leaving the Shia' Mosque shortly before it blew up some time ago?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Didn't Bidden mention "separtion"
Posted by: maxloen on Mar 30, 2007 12:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No, no, this is a civil war, and the only solution will be to have permanent well-fueled giga bases in all three of the 'parts' that we have to part(ition) Irak into. Once made to go their 'separate' ways, Kurds' oil goes to Israel, to keep Palestinians menial workers churning worthless pollutants off 'maquilladoras' in Gaza; bad-Sunnies toiling for the Exxon-Blackwater Ministry of Rewards; and Shiites united under a political "ayatollah" ruling from New Persia, but with secret bank accounts in Bahamas and, just in case --but with so few surviving natives left, who cares!-- a villa in Paraguay, right next to the Bushies' compound.
See kids all the coherent good that can be achieved when both the money and the newspapers are printed by the same interests.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OK...
Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal on Mar 30, 2007 1:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...so now that the truth is out, I am going to start to support the troops who are protecting my new found oil interest. It should last for my lifetime and for my children and children's children. Whew!

How you ask? I will be buying a few of those yellow ribbons for my cars and new Hummer that I will be able to afford to put gas into, as I am sure the price will now tumble.

And I can relax as it is great that it only the poorest and dumbest that are joining and sacrificing their lives for me and NASCAR.

Also, I now know that I should at all costs tell my kids and grandkids to NEVER enlist in the military as there are plenty of people running to defend us from terrorism. They would just get in the way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thank you "Stephen Colbert" Posted by: Idunno
So, what else is new?!
Posted by: monkeywrench on Mar 31, 2007 8:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hightower is a good guy, but the fact that we are in Iraq for its oil is not news. Greg Palast has been saying this for far, far longer. Of course, if anybody has noticed, in the mainstream media, the word "oil" has been carefully removed from virtually every utterance in every news story concerning Iraq, to make it easier for us to believe that we went to Iraq to free the Iraqis. The fact is, the Bush administration doesn't give a crap about the Iraqis, just like we didn't give a crap about the Kuwaitis in the first Gulf War. Hell, the Bushies don't even give a crap about Americans, let alone some foreigners sitting on top of the oil we consider to be ours by divine right – or. at least, the "right of the gun." Geez, if ignorance is bliss, there should be one hell of a lot of ecstatic individuals in America – most of them working for the so-called "mainstream media."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THIS IS AN OCCUPATION , NOT A WAR.
Posted by: brdieR on Apr 1, 2007 2:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A point of clarification...

THIS IS AN OCCUPATION , NOT A WAR. Remember, in May 2003 Bush stood aboard the USS Abraham, behind him the banner read “Mission Accomplished.” He said, "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11th, 2001, and still goes on."

Notice the shift in Bush’s language. After declaring victory in the war with Iraq, it is now “a war on terror.” So, we are currently battling an emotion: a state of intense fear, not a specific army or country.

According to the quarterly report to Congress, the Pentagon describes the conditions in Iraq "are properly descriptive of a 'civil war.'”

So we are currently OCCUPYING a country in the middle of a CIVIL WAR. Unable to take sides, with no specific enemy or clear goals for “winning,” we are fighting a PERPETUAL war. If you think we are safer now, you are kidding yourself. The longer we OCCUPY Iraq, the greater number of militant extremists we will produce.

If we had a rational, intelligent, president, we would not be in this mess. It will take a strong, pragmatic president to get us out of this quagmire and restore our position in the world. That leader is BARACK OBAMA.

I'm proud of the fact that I stood up early and unequivocally in opposition to Bush's foreign policy (and was the only U.S. Senate candidate in Illinois to do so). That opposition hasn't changed.
Barack Obama

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Apr 3, 2007 9:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Folks, consider yourselves armed with a new weapon to fight the psychotic misinformation of the talking points dutifully spewed by those who actually support this war or once did foolishly thinking our political elite gave a damn about ANYONE'S freedom or soveriegnty. The next time you hear "its not about oil!"... you can provide facts that prove that baseless and naive assertion to be untrue. Yes, it is somewhat doubtful that those who buy into the "conservative" psychopathology of the day will listen, as facts and reality mean nothing to them... but at least others might hear and know that where the truth and the facts lie.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]