comments_imageCOMMENTS: 78

Did Big Oil Win the War in Iraq?

As U.S. and British oil companies sign contracts with the Iraqi government, is it time to declare Big Oil the "victor" in the bloody venture?
November 14, 2009  |  
 
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

Last week, ExxonMobil became the first U.S. oil company in 35 years to sign an oil-production contract with the government of Iraq.

As I write, several other contracts with the world’s largest oil companies are being finalized, and more are expected when a new negotiating round kicks off in Baghdad on Dec. 11.

Do these contracts represent a "victory" for Big Oil in Iraq? Yes, but not one as big as the companies had hoped for (at least, not yet).

Before the United States and Britain invaded Iraq in March 2003, their oil companies were shut out of oil-production contracts being negotiated by the government of Saddam Hussein. Today, more than six years of war later, Saddam is gone, and the U.S. and British oil companies are not only in on the oil contracts, they have managed to sweeten the terms.

However, organized resistance by Iraqis and people around the world has thus far succeeded in denying Big Oil its Big Prize: passage of the Iraq Oil Law, alternatively called Iraq Hydrocarbons Law, which would grant far greater control over Iraqi oil to foreign companies on terms much less favorable to Iraq than the current contracts provide.

If the negotiations proceed on their current path, foreign companies will produce the vast majority of Iraq’s oil. How much control they will exert, and who will reap the greatest benefits (and endure the steepest costs) is yet to be determined.

Before the Invasion

In January 2000, 10 days into President George W. Bush’s first term, representatives of the largest oil and energy companies joined the new administration to form the Cheney Energy Task Force. As part of its deliberations, the task force reviewed a series of lists titled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts" naming more than 60 companies from some 30 countries with contracts in various stages of negotiation.

None of contracts were with American nor major British companies, and none could take effect while the U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iraq remained in place. Three countries held the largest contracts: China, Russia and France -- all members of the Security Council and all in a position to advocate for the end of sanctions.

Were Saddam to remain in power and the sanctions to be removed, these contracts would take effect, and the U.S. and its closest ally would be shut out of Iraq’s great oil bonanza.

After the Invasion

The invasion of Iraq dealt handily with the problem of U.S. and British exclusion. ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips and other major oil companies met with the Iraqi government on countless occasions, and the Iraqis tried to make deals.

But the oil companies, backed aggressively by the Bush administration, steadfastly insisted that contracts would only be signed after the Iraq Oil Law was passed. They nearly prevailed on several occasions, but organized resistance in and outside of Iraq has continually stymied the law’s passage.

Several forces have conspired to bring the oil companies to the negotiating table today.

Most recently and significantly, Iraq’s Parliament has refused to even consider the law until after the January 2010 elections. It is quite likely that a new government hostile to the interests of foreign (particularly U.S. and British) oil companies could come to power in those elections, making passage of the law much less likely. The deals being offered today would be the best the companies would be likely to get.


Antonia Juhasz is the director of the Chevron Program at Global Exchange. She is author of The Tyranny of Oil: the World's Most Powerful Industry, and What We Must Do To Stop It (HarperCollins, 2008), paperback to be released on Dec. 8 with a new foreword, and The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time (HarperCollins, 2006). She is the editor and lead author of The True Cost of Chevron: An Alternative Annual Report. She is on the National Advisory Board of Iraq Veterans Against the War, an associate fellow with the Institute for Policy Studies, a fellow with Oil Change International, and a senior analyst with Foreign Policy in Focus. http://www.Twitter.com/AntoniaJuhasz
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: iraq, oil, contracts


Comments are closed-

Oil mans war
Posted by: union steamfitter on Nov 14, 2009 2:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This war was started by the "oil man" with Thermite, and will not be finished until their friends in the Defense Industry have made a "killing" using our tax dollars. Wake up America, you know not to believe the media, don't fall in line and do their bidding. We are not sheep -do not be told what to think,Please. You know who was in charge of security at WTC prior to our unfortunate start of this war.Oh and don't forget about all the elevator work that was done around those precious inner collums before the "fire" that brought down those buildings,the facts are not secret. Use you brain and Elect someone that is not in the loop next time around.

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

» Waterboard Silverstein Posted by: weathered
» RE: Waterboard Silverstein Posted by: union steamfitter

Comments are closed-

this was the type of shit
Posted by: eosrk on Nov 14, 2009 4:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that brought Saddam into power in the first place

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

» RE: this was the type of shit Posted by: union steamfitter

Comments are closed-

The real reason we removed Saddam - Oil access
Posted by: LeonBNJ on Nov 14, 2009 5:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have long believed that the real reason we removed Saddam was for access to Iraqi oil by Americans and selected non-American companies. The 'food for oil' program had become a disaster, run by a UN deal via French banks, with massive corruption and side deals done by Saddam. That deal shut out the American companies as well as something Republicans had to change. I think that a long-term issue is that I think many USA and EU politicans wanted to find any way to keep access to the oil in Iraq from China and India for important economic reasons.

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


Comments are closed-

So now what? How do we get our money back?
Posted by: peterjkraus on Nov 14, 2009 5:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let them sign contracts and steal Iraq's oil. Then enact price controls and levy an import tax on the Iraqi oil being brought into the US.

Those of us who had a good inkling about the true cause of the war -- and trumpeted it -- can rejoice: we damn well knew it all along. All the made-in-China Support Our Troops-stickers and all the Democracy and Freedom bullshit that had the masses enthralled was window dressing for the rapacious Big Oil companies that would gladly have sacrificed ten times the American soldiers who died for them: Chevron board member Condi Rice and Chevron adviser Hamid Karzai are the tip of the iceberg that is waiting for the day when compliant "politicians" in both Iraq and Afghanistan are "elected" to positions of absolute power. Then, we'll see what contracts signed today are worth.

Another war for Democracy and Freedom, anyone?

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


Comments are closed-

A stolen election in 2000,
Posted by: weathered on Nov 14, 2009 6:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
9/11, Iraq/Afgn theft/torture, selfish and despicable Israeli extortion and now a profound redistribution/consolidation of wealth - all of it very carefully presented and packaged w/the phony and fraudulent energy of a hollywood production.

As long as WE let the Liars continue to Lie, we'll suffer - take back the media its an accomplice to the crimes. The real criminals are in Great Neck, Aspen, TelAviv.....

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

» Gosh Bill.... Posted by: Don't Panic

Comments are closed-

Mission Accomplished! Now you know the rest of the story.
Posted by: kettleblack on Nov 14, 2009 7:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The ends justify the means. That was the Bushco motto from the beginning.
Why did Bush-Cheney hold secret meetings to determine America's energy policy? So they could take by force, what they could not get by peaceful means. The oil reserves in the Middle East.
There was no public discussion, as most Americans would not have voted to go to war for oil. So, they made up lies to get us into war.
They created an imaginary threat (nuclear bomb), and played on America's fears.
But, now we are in two wars without end, and chasing a ghost all around the oil fields in the Middle East.
So, the Cheney Energy Plan is to militarily control the oil in the region, and zero investment in any other forms of energy. Putting all your eggs in one basket is a gambler's desperation. Usually, is fails.
It was never up for public discussion, but could we have done better by spending a trillion dollars and eight years on alternative energy sources, instead of killing a million Iraqis?
We might not need that oil today, had we invested wisely.

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

» Indict Silverstein Posted by: weathered

Comments are closed-

rmuldavin
Posted by: rmuldavin on Nov 14, 2009 8:08 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have two ways to reach AlterNet: copperwire rural phone line (cwrpl) and just this last week, WildBlue Satellite Modem (WBSM).

Today (14Nov09) your first two articles would not download on either crrpl nor WBSM, but the third article (Did Big Oil WIn the War in Iraq?).

Let me check the WBSM again.... Got the first two articles now the third.

{comments-rm: I have to confess that my thoughts are "petty" in regard to other persons inspite of trying to discipline myself, and "mal" in regards to "states" or "governments", thus the thrid story about the role of religious bias in shaping increased push for slective population growth is timely, but "all needs to be examined in detail".

So let the games begin. AterNet, your webpage is great, I was watching Al Gore while this was happening on the our other satellite DishTv, and thank your commentators and staff for getting the revolution rotating, a helix of truth.

Best, rm

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


Comments are closed-

It has always been about resources and markets.
Posted by: frankly1 on Nov 14, 2009 8:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The U.S. got in to the empire buisiness in 1898 and no matter what they say it is ALWAYS about the money. Hawaii, Cuba, Perto Rico, Philippines, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Iran, Vietnam, Chile, Afganistan, and Iraq are just some that we have used force to take over and control. The U.S. government acts as a wing to enforce corporate policy around the world and the American taxpayers pay for it and provide the muscle. The fact that the majority of Americans are ignorant of this only shows how well they control the public mind. John Pilger said that he is always amazed that Any Americans actually know any of this given the extent of contol. The truth is that all of these "operations" eventually "blowback" against America and make things worse. So it will go!

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


Comments are closed-

Public-private partnerships
Posted by: lclark on Nov 14, 2009 8:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's what is behind the concept.

Use public resources to advance private profit.

As in use national wealth to fund wars to grab resources for multinationals. There's that pipeline in Afghanistan the Taliban wanted to high a fee for.....

In the U.S. you see toll roads build with tax revenue sold off to private multinationals for a nickel on the dollar.

2/3 of the public water systems created with public revenue are now in the hands of multinationals.

You pay off the government officials, reward those who enable the transfer of public assets to multinationals.

It's simply corruption of the Republic.

The Donkeys and Elephants are feeding high on the hill and when they relieve themselves it will trikle down to the citizens.

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

At least we get to place comments in the free-speech zone and talk to ourselves......:-)

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


Comments are closed-

Iraq
Posted by: bettyn on Nov 14, 2009 9:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
was all about making Big Oil and the military-industrial complex rich. Nothing else matters. The cost in young lives lost means nothing to these corporate pigs. We're all just pawns in their big money-making schemes. The same thing is going on in Afghanistan.

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

» RE: Iraq Posted by: patfr

Comments are closed-

oily indeed
Posted by: tazdelaney on Nov 14, 2009 11:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
just prior to the iraq war, it was knownas 'project OIL'for operation iraqi liberation.' mind you the US was 'liberating' the iraqis from hussein, whom the US had hired in 1959 and gradually led to supreme power there through 1989. but right before the war began, as that mane seemed like a telling joke, it was changed to 'operation iraqi freedom.'

while the US/UN embargo against iraq was said to be to thwart hussein making more money from iraq's oil; according to the american petroleum institute, by 1995, having gotten through the 'loopholes' iraq was again the 3rd largest supplier of oil to the big oil companies and american consumers.

there's been confusion as to how the iraq war had to do with oil, since by the end of 2003, the iraqi oil pipelines were down and even iraqis were having to buy halliburton's imported gasoline. but what has been less seen is how saudi arabia filled that gap with its oil and the saudis and big 4 oil companies made the largest profits in business history, into the trillions of dollars from 2003-2009, with exxon-mobil alone making $42 billion in pure profit in just 2007. doesn't it just make you feel like a sucker thinking back on spending $5 a gallon to fill up that 20mpg SUV? why, it was your patriotic duty to help support the ultra-rich war-profiteers...

big surprise that the iraqis, who have so much reason to be thankful for their 'liberation' are now to be cut out of any profit-sharing on the sea of oil they happen to have been born on, a sea of oil apparently owned by corrupt governments, corrupt corporations – 'our oil.'

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


Comments are closed-

to the victor go the spoils
Posted by: tazdelaney on Nov 14, 2009 11:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the poor iraqi people have been losing since the start of british colonization some 100 years ago; rule which was handed over to the US in the 1950s when england had its hands full holding its colonies in africa and elsewhere.

while certain of the corrupt iraqi vichy puppet government officials and business-persons will make out like the bandits that they are; by and large, the iraqi people will see none of the money, jobs or benefits from their oil. hopefully, their patriots (aka 'insurgents' or 'terrorists') will continuously destroy the oil drilling plants and pipelines so as to make the profiteers on iraqi misery suffer a wee bit.

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


Comments are closed-

Y'all think it's bad NOW? Just wait.
Posted by: SagaciousD on Nov 14, 2009 11:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Take a good look at the list of global powers bidding for the rights to these oil fields: the USA, the EU, China, Russia... India will probably get in on the act... it's a veritable who's who of economic and military powerhouses. They have all deployed very long straws in desperate search of whatever milkshakes they can find. They NEED to drink those milkshakes. It's the only way they can stay alive. Blood has been always been spilt for these milkshakes, and There Will Be More Blood as the supply dwindles further.

So far, the developed nations have mostly avoided direct conflict with each other (well, at least since WWII) in favor of racing each other to smash-and-grab from the weaker countries that could not defend their sizable oil reserves. It was the more profitable strategy, given the pain that advanced militaries could inflict on each other. But what happens when all of the big reserves have been grabbed by the Powers? Will they be content with whatever distribution is settled upon? Not for long, I reckon. Bidding wars could easily escalate into shooting wars for the last few billions of barrels of extractable oil. We live in interesting times.

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


Comments are closed-

PROOF OF A "WAR-FOR-PROFIT, WHICH IS MASS-MURDER"
Posted by: AlwaysAskWhy on Nov 14, 2009 12:51 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"In other words, 'we know you want the law, but Parliament isn’t biting, and we’re not keeping 150,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq indefinitely for you to get it. So, sign the d*** contracts.'"

Acknowledged that this is a paraphrase of Clinton's attitude, but could anything be MORE CONFIRMING that Bush/Cheney's ATTACK ON and OCCUPATION OF IRAQ WERE PURELY FOR PROFIT?

MASS-MURDER-FOR-PROFIT. WHEN WILL WE SEE PROSECUTIONS???

MR. HOLDER?

HELLO?!

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


Comments are closed-

UNOCAL'S AFHANISTAN PIPELINE
Posted by: AlwaysAskWhy on Nov 14, 2009 12:56 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BY THE WAY: Does anyone know if the UNOCAL pipeline is being built yet in Afghanistan to transport oil and natural gas from Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to the Gulf?

UNOCAL testified in front of congress in 1998 about the 'feasibility' of running a pipeline through Afghanistan - in which they said that it would be impossible... UNLESS there is but ONE governing power in Afghanistan... VOILA! HAMIT KARZAI! (jeez, how did he get there?)

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


Comments are closed-

PIPELINE IN AFGHANISTAN
Posted by: AlwaysAskWhy on Nov 14, 2009 1:08 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This ought to make one verrrryyy courious!:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sardi7.html

Is an Oil Pipeline Behind the War in Afghanistan?

by Bill Sardi

Testimony before the US Congress is circulating on the internet. It pertains to a proposed oil pipeline through Central Asia that is applicable to the current war in Afghanistan.

On February 12, 1998, John J. Maresca, vice president, international relations for UNOCAL oil company, testified before the US House of Representatives, Committee on International Relations. Maresca provided information to Congress on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and how they might shape US foreign policy. UNOCAL's problem? As Maresca said: "How to get the region's vast energy resources to the markets." The oil reserves are in areas north of Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia. Routes for a pipeline were proposed that would transport oil on a 42-inch pipe southward thru Afghanistan for 1040 miles to the Pakistan coast. Such a pipeline would cost about $2.5 billion and carry about 1 million barrels of oil per day.

Maresca told Congress then that: "It's not going to be built until there is a single Afghan government. That's the simple answer."

=========
AND

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1984459.stm

Monday, 13 May, 2002, 10:20 GMT 11:20 UK
Afghanistan plans gas pipeline

Oil pipelines

The pipeline is Afghanistan's biggest foreign investment project

Afghanistan hopes to strike a deal later this month to build a $2bn pipeline through the country to take gas from energy-rich Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India.

Afghan interim ruler Hamid Karzai is to hold talks with his Pakistani and Turkmenistan counterparts later this month on Afghanistan's biggest foreign investment project, said Mohammad Alim Razim, minister for Mines and Industries told Reuters.

"The work on the project will start after an agreement is expected to be struck at the coming summit," Mr Razim said.

The construction of the 850-kilometre pipeline had been previously discussed between Afghanistan's former Taliban regime, US oil company Unocal and Bridas of Argentina.

The project was abandoned after the US launched missile attacks on Afghanistan in 1999.

US company preferred

Mr Razim said US energy company Unocal was the "lead company" among those that would build the pipeline, which would bring 30bn cubic meters of Turkmen gas to market annually.

Unocal - which led a consortium of companies from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Japan and South Korea - has maintained the project is both economically and technically feasible once Afghan stability was secured.

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


Comments are closed-

Everything you need to know about .....
Posted by: richard0a37 on Nov 14, 2009 2:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oil, Gas, Russia, China, Iran, Afghanistan and Obama

http://www.bushstole04.com/ Obama_Presidency.htm/obama_oil_gas.htm

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175121

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


Comments are closed-

A delightful youtube of Obama lying about bringing the troops home...
Posted by: Prinzowhales on Nov 14, 2009 3:09 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...'first thing, if elected'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LsSppYxSHk&feature= player_embedded

(if you link, remove the space between "=" and "player" that I added to get below the Alternet 60 limit on characters)

Just where did all of the Obamanoids go? They were thick as fleas not long ago. One would have thought it would take more than a couple of flushes to make all of that 'hope' and 'change' disappear from between their ears. Does Goldman Sachs have their tongue?...along with their job, house, retirement and future...

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


Comments are closed-

The human price of Exxon's oil contract and Zionist hatred for gentiles...
Posted by: Prinzowhales on Nov 14, 2009 3:38 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is in the nurseries of Falluja.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/13/fal luja-cancer-children-birth-defects

This was noted at what the State Department once called the foremost disinformation site on the internet...Rense.com.

Let's take a moment to remember that saintly woman, Clinton's Secretary of State, Mad Dog Albright, who opined that sanctions against Iraq were 'worth the price'...of tens of thousands of dead children...Apparently, liberal Democrats and Neo-Scum Republicans had this in common--they all thought that it was worth the price! Exxon has its contracts, Iraq has its million dead and million more displaced and untold wounded and the US taxpayer gets the bill for Halliburton's cash cow of a war. Everybody wins!! Right folks?!

DOWN WITH THE DEMOPUBLICAN BANKER REGIME! TROOPS HOME NOW!...well, isn't that what Goldman Sachs' Man Friday promised?

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


Comments are closed-

There are few real journalists like Antonia Juhasz
Posted by: rmillsap on Nov 14, 2009 4:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have always believed that Big Oil (U.S. and British) got us into the war in Iraq, but I guess there has never been a smoking gun that made it safe enough for people in positions of leadership and responsibility to say it. Now that these companies are getting their contracts, I wish the U.S. Government would hand them a bill for services rendered. It has been very disappointing to see the news media avoid this story. Although Antonia Juhasz reports that the Iraqi Oil Law has been resisted by Iraquis and people around the world, few Americans seem to have heard about it, let alone understand its implications. If it were not for Antonia Juhasz, I would not know anything about it, myself. I am very grateful to her for having the determination, intelligence and resources to discover the facts and report them. Despite the change in administration, she continues to fight a lonely battle.

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


Comments are closed-

War for Oil
Posted by: maxsmart on Nov 14, 2009 4:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So the war was for the oil companies in those original secret White House meetings but who is going to secure the system. Probably the military gets some kind of special deal and the US and others who did the fighting for them will just get more expensive oil. However, with the chaos and lack of security the companies may find it more expensive than they counted on.

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

» RE: The Military's Special Deal Posted by: kettleblack

Comments are closed-

cars without gasoline.
Posted by: richholland on Nov 15, 2009 2:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
from 1937 till 1947 in several countries in Europe we had GASOGENEcars.
They didnt look fancy but you could burn wood and coal instead gasoline.

I wonder do we really need allways petrol.
What if carbuilders really would change to other energy??

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


Comments are closed-

Dont want war over oil?
Posted by: bigbrother on Nov 15, 2009 5:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stop using it! Walk or ride a bike instead of your limos and SUV's.

BTW, better we win the war on oil than China or Iran!

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

» RE: Alternative Fuels Posted by: kettleblack
» our oil addiction Posted by: techcafe

Comments are closed-

champss
Posted by: champss on Nov 15, 2009 6:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Besides that fact that the "Seven Sisters" of oil had been excluded there are other reasons for our invasion of Iraq. (Actually former "Seven Sisters" since Exxon and Mobil are now one.) The Saudis desperately wanted to find a way to get US troops off their soil. Fundamentalist Muslims used it as fuel for recruiting. The sacred sites of Mecca and Medina had been violated by US troops on Saudi land. We could then have an army in the Mideast to protect our interests. (Sorry to say but in the real world this is a very effective way of doing it)

The Saudi lack of real cooperation after 9-11 also served as Realpolitik reasoning for the invasion. Plus the fact that the Saudis felt we could never wean ourselves off their oil reinforced the US position for invasion.

Prior to the war Iraq's oil reserves were untested. Saddam would not allow any surveys. After the war and testing the Iraq's oil reserves are listed as 3rd largest.

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


Comments are closed-

I LOVE Big-Oil!!
Posted by: AJR Journal on Nov 15, 2009 6:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From exploration and discovery, to drilling and finding, to piping and terminals, to shipping and refining, and finally to transport and retailing, the World of Oil is a beautiful, productive system.
What a miracle of human endeavor!!
Gas in Milwaukee today is $2.59 per gallon!

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


Comments are closed-

The Iraqis won
Posted by: Hans B on Nov 15, 2009 3:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who would have believed it possible. After an invasion, a period in which the government was totally dependent on the invader, and the near crushing of Iraqi nationalism under the weight of sectarian violence, and despite the huge combined pressure of threats and corruption attempts, the Iraqi parliament still did not sign the oil law. No matter how sweet the present agreements with oil companies are, Iraqis won this one, and did so against all odds.

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


Comments are closed-

How many MORE facts in this story are off-the-mark?
Posted by: batteredup on Nov 15, 2009 8:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"In January 2000, 10 days into President George W. Bush’s first term, representatives of the largest oil and energy companies joined the new administration to form the Cheney Energy ... "

Uh, idiot George didn't seize power until Jan. 20, 2001. So ten days into his regime would have been Jan. 30, 2001.

So was this the actual date? It would be refreshing to see more journalists adhere to dissemination of FACTS and worry less about abstract language games being passed off as pretty prose.

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


Comments are closed-

We Won!
Posted by: InsertNameHere on Nov 15, 2009 11:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
< sarcasm > Listen, I am sick of all this war for oil, lefty-pinko poppycock! President Bush started this war because Saddam was sitting on a stockpile of nukes, we found them! Then we executed his ass. We didn't get Bin Laden, but the mission was successful because inside each and every one of these Iraqis, is an American, struggling to get out! Now they are free to sell their oil to us! < /sarcasm >

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

» RE: We Won!....new board game... Posted by: Captainmagic

Comments are closed-

http://www.ebuyings.com
Posted by: jacklang0001 on Nov 17, 2009 5:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.ebuyings.com
have some cheap things ...
nike shoes, fashion clothes ;brand handbags ,wallet ...
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
accept the paypal

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


Comments are closed-

http://www.ebuyings.com
Posted by: jacklang0001 on Nov 17, 2009 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.ebuyings.com
have some cheap things ...
nike shoes, fashion clothes ;brand handbags ,wallet ...
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
accept the paypal

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


Comments are closed-

Oil is a winner-gets-all game
Posted by: oilprice on Nov 17, 2009 4:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oil is a winner-gets-all game.
Europe, the US and China are cutting everyone else out of the oil supply. Read this article from Oil-Price.net
The days of oil are numbered and we know it.

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


Comments are closed-

The Answers is ......
Posted by: Don't Panic on Nov 19, 2009 9:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes...Yes...Yes...Yes.....oh and do not forget who loses......everybody else....

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


Comments are closed-

Must Hurry
Posted by: DreemPowers on Nov 20, 2009 1:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
US Big Oil needs to get as many contracts as possible. The longer it goes on. The more attention it will attract. One thing you hear about is the oil fields in the south. They are Iraq's biggest. However it seems there hasn't been much talk about the northern fields. Fields the US help the Kurds protect in the days of Saddam. The oil law that some want passed right away to help push more oil contracts, Baghdad will only sign 1, if the kurds recognize the oilfield near kirkuk as "Sunni". Also the kurds want more rights(profit and a final say who gets the contracts) from the fields then the southern region gets. If the Kurds get there wish to more rights I bet you'll see much more US & British companies there.

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

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Oil mans war
Posted by: union steamfitter on Nov 14, 2009 2:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This war was started by the "oil man" with Thermite, and will not be finished until their friends in the Defense Industry have made a "killing" using our tax dollars. Wake up America, you know not to believe the media, don't fall in line and do their bidding. We are not sheep -do not be told what to think,Please. You know who was in charge of security at WTC prior to our unfortunate start of this war.Oh and don't forget about all the elevator work that was done around those precious inner collums before the "fire" that brought down those buildings,the facts are not secret. Use you brain and Elect someone that is not in the loop next time around.

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

» Waterboard Silverstein Posted by: weathered
» RE: Waterboard Silverstein Posted by: union steamfitter

Comments are closed-

this was the type of shit
Posted by: eosrk on Nov 14, 2009 4:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that brought Saddam into power in the first place

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

» RE: this was the type of shit Posted by: union steamfitter

Comments are closed-

The real reason we removed Saddam - Oil access
Posted by: LeonBNJ on Nov 14, 2009 5:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have long believed that the real reason we removed Saddam was for access to Iraqi oil by Americans and selected non-American companies. The 'food for oil' program had become a disaster, run by a UN deal via French banks, with massive corruption and side deals done by Saddam. That deal shut out the American companies as well as something Republicans had to change. I think that a long-term issue is that I think many USA and EU politicans wanted to find any way to keep access to the oil in Iraq from China and India for important economic reasons.

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


Comments are closed-

So now what? How do we get our money back?
Posted by: peterjkraus on Nov 14, 2009 5:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let them sign contracts and steal Iraq's oil. Then enact price controls and levy an import tax on the Iraqi oil being brought into the US.

Those of us who had a good inkling about the true cause of the war -- and trumpeted it -- can rejoice: we damn well knew it all along. All the made-in-China Support Our Troops-stickers and all the Democracy and Freedom bullshit that had the masses enthralled was window dressing for the rapacious Big Oil companies that would gladly have sacrificed ten times the American soldiers who died for them: Chevron board member Condi Rice and Chevron adviser Hamid Karzai are the tip of the iceberg that is waiting for the day when compliant "politicians" in both Iraq and Afghanistan are "elected" to positions of absolute power. Then, we'll see what contracts signed today are worth.

Another war for Democracy and Freedom, anyone?

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


Comments are closed-

A stolen election in 2000,
Posted by: weathered on Nov 14, 2009 6:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
9/11, Iraq/Afgn theft/torture, selfish and despicable Israeli extortion and now a profound redistribution/consolidation of wealth - all of it very carefully presented and packaged w/the phony and fraudulent energy of a hollywood production.

As long as WE let the Liars continue to Lie, we'll suffer - take back the media its an accomplice to the crimes. The real criminals are in Great Neck, Aspen, TelAviv.....

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

» Gosh Bill.... Posted by: Don't Panic

Comments are closed-

Mission Accomplished! Now you know the rest of the story.
Posted by: kettleblack on Nov 14, 2009 7:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The ends justify the means. That was the Bushco motto from the beginning.
Why did Bush-Cheney hold secret meetings to determine America's energy policy? So they could take by force, what they could not get by peaceful means. The oil reserves in the Middle East.
There was no public discussion, as most Americans would not have voted to go to war for oil. So, they made up lies to get us into war.
They created an imaginary threat (nuclear bomb), and played on America's fears.
But, now we are in two wars without end, and chasing a ghost all around the oil fields in the Middle East.
So, the Cheney Energy Plan is to militarily control the oil in the region, and zero investment in any other forms of energy. Putting all your eggs in one basket is a gambler's desperation. Usually, is fails.
It was never up for public discussion, but could we have done better by spending a trillion dollars and eight years on alternative energy sources, instead of killing a million Iraqis?
We might not need that oil today, had we invested wisely.

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

» Indict Silverstein Posted by: weathered

Comments are closed-

rmuldavin
Posted by: rmuldavin on Nov 14, 2009 8:08 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have two ways to reach AlterNet: copperwire rural phone line (cwrpl) and just this last week, WildBlue Satellite Modem (WBSM).

Today (14Nov09) your first two articles would not download on either crrpl nor WBSM, but the third article (Did Big Oil WIn the War in Iraq?).

Let me check the WBSM again.... Got the first two articles now the third.

{comments-rm: I have to confess that my thoughts are "petty" in regard to other persons inspite of trying to discipline myself, and "mal" in regards to "states" or "governments", thus the thrid story about the role of religious bias in shaping increased push for slective population growth is timely, but "all needs to be examined in detail".

So let the games begin. AterNet, your webpage is great, I was watching Al Gore while this was happening on the our other satellite DishTv, and thank your commentators and staff for getting the revolution rotating, a helix of truth.

Best, rm

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


Comments are closed-

It has always been about resources and markets.
Posted by: frankly1 on Nov 14, 2009 8:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The U.S. got in to the empire buisiness in 1898 and no matter what they say it is ALWAYS about the money. Hawaii, Cuba, Perto Rico, Philippines, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Iran, Vietnam, Chile, Afganistan, and Iraq are just some that we have used force to take over and control. The U.S. government acts as a wing to enforce corporate policy around the world and the American taxpayers pay for it and provide the muscle. The fact that the majority of Americans are ignorant of this only shows how well they control the public mind. John Pilger said that he is always amazed that Any Americans actually know any of this given the extent of contol. The truth is that all of these "operations" eventually "blowback" against America and make things worse. So it will go!

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


Comments are closed-

Public-private partnerships
Posted by: lclark on Nov 14, 2009 8:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's what is behind the concept.

Use public resources to advance private profit.

As in use national wealth to fund wars to grab resources for multinationals. There's that pipeline in Afghanistan the Taliban wanted to high a fee for.....

In the U.S. you see toll roads build with tax revenue sold off to private multinationals for a nickel on the dollar.

2/3 of the public water systems created with public revenue are now in the hands of multinationals.

You pay off the government officials, reward those who enable the transfer of public assets to multinationals.

It's simply corruption of the Republic.

The Donkeys and Elephants are feeding high on the hill and when they relieve themselves it will trikle down to the citizens.

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

At least we get to place comments in the free-speech zone and talk to ourselves......:-)

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


Comments are closed-

Iraq
Posted by: bettyn on Nov 14, 2009 9:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
was all about making Big Oil and the military-industrial complex rich. Nothing else matters. The cost in young lives lost means nothing to these corporate pigs. We're all just pawns in their big money-making schemes. The same thing is going on in Afghanistan.

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

» RE: Iraq Posted by: patfr

Comments are closed-

oily indeed
Posted by: tazdelaney on Nov 14, 2009 11:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
just prior to the iraq war, it was knownas 'project OIL'for operation iraqi liberation.' mind you the US was 'liberating' the iraqis from hussein, whom the US had hired in 1959 and gradually led to supreme power there through 1989. but right before the war began, as that mane seemed like a telling joke, it was changed to 'operation iraqi freedom.'

while the US/UN embargo against iraq was said to be to thwart hussein making more money from iraq's oil; according to the american petroleum institute, by 1995, having gotten through the 'loopholes' iraq was again the 3rd largest supplier of oil to the big oil companies and american consumers.

there's been confusion as to how the iraq war had to do with oil, since by the end of 2003, the iraqi oil pipelines were down and even iraqis were having to buy halliburton's imported gasoline. but what has been less seen is how saudi arabia filled that gap with its oil and the saudis and big 4 oil companies made the largest profits in business history, into the trillions of dollars from 2003-2009, with exxon-mobil alone making $42 billion in pure profit in just 2007. doesn't it just make you feel like a sucker thinking back on spending $5 a gallon to fill up that 20mpg SUV? why, it was your patriotic duty to help support the ultra-rich war-profiteers...

big surprise that the iraqis, who have so much reason to be thankful for their 'liberation' are now to be cut out of any profit-sharing on the sea of oil they happen to have been born on, a sea of oil apparently owned by corrupt governments, corrupt corporations – 'our oil.'

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


Comments are closed-

to the victor go the spoils
Posted by: tazdelaney on Nov 14, 2009 11:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the poor iraqi people have been losing since the start of british colonization some 100 years ago; rule which was handed over to the US in the 1950s when england had its hands full holding its colonies in africa and elsewhere.

while certain of the corrupt iraqi vichy puppet government officials and business-persons will make out like the bandits that they are; by and large, the iraqi people will see none of the money, jobs or benefits from their oil. hopefully, their patriots (aka 'insurgents' or 'terrorists') will continuously destroy the oil drilling plants and pipelines so as to make the profiteers on iraqi misery suffer a wee bit.

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


Comments are closed-

Y'all think it's bad NOW? Just wait.
Posted by: SagaciousD on Nov 14, 2009 11:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Take a good look at the list of global powers bidding for the rights to these oil fields: the USA, the EU, China, Russia... India will probably get in on the act... it's a veritable who's who of economic and military powerhouses. They have all deployed very long straws in desperate search of whatever milkshakes they can find. They NEED to drink those milkshakes. It's the only way they can stay alive. Blood has been always been spilt for these milkshakes, and There Will Be More Blood as the supply dwindles further.

So far, the developed nations have mostly avoided direct conflict with each other (well, at least since WWII) in favor of racing each other to smash-and-grab from the weaker countries that could not defend their sizable oil reserves. It was the more profitable strategy, given the pain that advanced militaries could inflict on each other. But what happens when all of the big reserves have been grabbed by the Powers? Will they be content with whatever distribution is settled upon? Not for long, I reckon. Bidding wars could easily escalate into shooting wars for the last few billions of barrels of extractable oil. We live in interesting times.

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


Comments are closed-

PROOF OF A "WAR-FOR-PROFIT, WHICH IS MASS-MURDER"
Posted by: AlwaysAskWhy on Nov 14, 2009 12:51 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"In other words, 'we know you want the law, but Parliament isn’t biting, and we’re not keeping 150,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq indefinitely for you to get it. So, sign the d*** contracts.'"

Acknowledged that this is a paraphrase of Clinton's attitude, but could anything be MORE CONFIRMING that Bush/Cheney's ATTACK ON and OCCUPATION OF IRAQ WERE PURELY FOR PROFIT?

MASS-MURDER-FOR-PROFIT. WHEN WILL WE SEE PROSECUTIONS???

MR. HOLDER?

HELLO?!

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


Comments are closed-

UNOCAL'S AFHANISTAN PIPELINE
Posted by: AlwaysAskWhy on Nov 14, 2009 12:56 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BY THE WAY: Does anyone know if the UNOCAL pipeline is being built yet in Afghanistan to transport oil and natural gas from Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to the Gulf?

UNOCAL testified in front of congress in 1998 about the 'feasibility' of running a pipeline through Afghanistan - in which they said that it would be impossible... UNLESS there is but ONE governing power in Afghanistan... VOILA! HAMIT KARZAI! (jeez, how did he get there?)

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


Comments are closed-

PIPELINE IN AFGHANISTAN
Posted by: AlwaysAskWhy on Nov 14, 2009 1:08 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This ought to make one verrrryyy courious!:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sardi7.html

Is an Oil Pipeline Behind the War in Afghanistan?

by Bill Sardi

Testimony before the US Congress is circulating on the internet. It pertains to a proposed oil pipeline through Central Asia that is applicable to the current war in Afghanistan.

On February 12, 1998, John J. Maresca, vice president, international relations for UNOCAL oil company, testified before the US House of Representatives, Committee on International Relations. Maresca provided information to Congress on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and how they might shape US foreign policy. UNOCAL's problem? As Maresca said: "How to get the region's vast energy resources to the markets." The oil reserves are in areas north of Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia. Routes for a pipeline were proposed that would transport oil on a 42-inch pipe southward thru Afghanistan for 1040 miles to the Pakistan coast. Such a pipeline would cost about $2.5 billion and carry about 1 million barrels of oil per day.

Maresca told Congress then that: "It's not going to be built until there is a single Afghan government. That's the simple answer."

=========
AND

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1984459.stm

Monday, 13 May, 2002, 10:20 GMT 11:20 UK
Afghanistan plans gas pipeline

Oil pipelines

The pipeline is Afghanistan's biggest foreign investment project

Afghanistan hopes to strike a deal later this month to build a $2bn pipeline through the country to take gas from energy-rich Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India.

Afghan interim ruler Hamid Karzai is to hold talks with his Pakistani and Turkmenistan counterparts later this month on Afghanistan's biggest foreign investment project, said Mohammad Alim Razim, minister for Mines and Industries told Reuters.

"The work on the project will start after an agreement is expected to be struck at the coming summit," Mr Razim said.

The construction of the 850-kilometre pipeline had been previously discussed between Afghanistan's former Taliban regime, US oil company Unocal and Bridas of Argentina.

The project was abandoned after the US launched missile attacks on Afghanistan in 1999.

US company preferred

Mr Razim said US energy company Unocal was the "lead company" among those that would build the pipeline, which would bring 30bn cubic meters of Turkmen gas to market annually.

Unocal - which led a consortium of companies from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Japan and South Korea - has maintained the project is both economically and technically feasible once Afghan stability was secured.

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


Comments are closed-

Everything you need to know about .....
Posted by: richard0a37 on Nov 14, 2009 2:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oil, Gas, Russia, China, Iran, Afghanistan and Obama

http://www.bushstole04.com/ Obama_Presidency.htm/obama_oil_gas.htm

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175121

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


Comments are closed-

A delightful youtube of Obama lying about bringing the troops home...
Posted by: Prinzowhales on Nov 14, 2009 3:09 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...'first thing, if elected'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LsSppYxSHk&feature= player_embedded

(if you link, remove the space between "=" and "player" that I added to get below the Alternet 60 limit on characters)

Just where did all of the Obamanoids go? They were thick as fleas not long ago. One would have thought it would take more than a couple of flushes to make all of that 'hope' and 'change' disappear from between their ears. Does Goldman Sachs have their tongue?...along with their job, house, retirement and future...

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


Comments are closed-

The human price of Exxon's oil contract and Zionist hatred for gentiles...
Posted by: Prinzowhales on Nov 14, 2009 3:38 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is in the nurseries of Falluja.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/13/fal luja-cancer-children-birth-defects

This was noted at what the State Department once called the foremost disinformation site on the internet...Rense.com.

Let's take a moment to remember that saintly woman, Clinton's Secretary of State, Mad Dog Albright, who opined that sanctions against Iraq were 'worth the price'...of tens of thousands of dead children...Apparently, liberal Democrats and Neo-Scum Republicans had this in common--they all thought that it was worth the price! Exxon has its contracts, Iraq has its million dead and million more displaced and untold wounded and the US taxpayer gets the bill for Halliburton's cash cow of a war. Everybody wins!! Right folks?!

DOWN WITH THE DEMOPUBLICAN BANKER REGIME! TROOPS HOME NOW!...well, isn't that what Goldman Sachs' Man Friday promised?

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


Comments are closed-

There are few real journalists like Antonia Juhasz
Posted by: rmillsap on Nov 14, 2009 4:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have always believed that Big Oil (U.S. and British) got us into the war in Iraq, but I guess there has never been a smoking gun that made it safe enough for people in positions of leadership and responsibility to say it. Now that these companies are getting their contracts, I wish the U.S. Government would hand them a bill for services rendered. It has been very disappointing to see the news media avoid this story. Although Antonia Juhasz reports that the Iraqi Oil Law has been resisted by Iraquis and people around the world, few Americans seem to have heard about it, let alone understand its implications. If it were not for Antonia Juhasz, I would not know anything about it, myself. I am very grateful to her for having the determination, intelligence and resources to discover the facts and report them. Despite the change in administration, she continues to fight a lonely battle.

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


Comments are closed-

War for Oil
Posted by: maxsmart on Nov 14, 2009 4:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So the war was for the oil companies in those original secret White House meetings but who is going to secure the system. Probably the military gets some kind of special deal and the US and others who did the fighting for them will just get more expensive oil. However, with the chaos and lack of security the companies may find it more expensive than they counted on.

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

» RE: The Military's Special Deal Posted by: kettleblack

Comments are closed-

cars without gasoline.
Posted by: richholland on Nov 15, 2009 2:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
from 1937 till 1947 in several countries in Europe we had GASOGENEcars.
They didnt look fancy but you could burn wood and coal instead gasoline.

I wonder do we really need allways petrol.
What if carbuilders really would change to other energy??

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


Comments are closed-

Dont want war over oil?
Posted by: bigbrother on Nov 15, 2009 5:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stop using it! Walk or ride a bike instead of your limos and SUV's.

BTW, better we win the war on oil than China or Iran!

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

» RE: Alternative Fuels Posted by: kettleblack
» our oil addiction Posted by: techcafe

Comments are closed-

champss
Posted by: champss on Nov 15, 2009 6:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Besides that fact that the "Seven Sisters" of oil had been excluded there are other reasons for our invasion of Iraq. (Actually former "Seven Sisters" since Exxon and Mobil are now one.) The Saudis desperately wanted to find a way to get US troops off their soil. Fundamentalist Muslims used it as fuel for recruiting. The sacred sites of Mecca and Medina had been violated by US troops on Saudi land. We could then have an army in the Mideast to protect our interests. (Sorry to say but in the real world this is a very effective way of doing it)

The Saudi lack of real cooperation after 9-11 also served as Realpolitik reasoning for the invasion. Plus the fact that the Saudis felt we could never wean ourselves off their oil reinforced the US position for invasion.

Prior to the war Iraq's oil reserves were untested. Saddam would not allow any surveys. After the war and testing the Iraq's oil reserves are listed as 3rd largest.

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


Comments are closed-

I LOVE Big-Oil!!
Posted by: AJR Journal on Nov 15, 2009 6:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From exploration and discovery, to drilling and finding, to piping and terminals, to shipping and refining, and finally to transport and retailing, the World of Oil is a beautiful, productive system.
What a miracle of human endeavor!!
Gas in Milwaukee today is $2.59 per gallon!

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


Comments are closed-

The Iraqis won
Posted by: Hans B on Nov 15, 2009 3:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who would have believed it possible. After an invasion, a period in which the government was totally dependent on the invader, and the near crushing of Iraqi nationalism under the weight of sectarian violence, and despite the huge combined pressure of threats and corruption attempts, the Iraqi parliament still did not sign the oil law. No matter how sweet the present agreements with oil companies are, Iraqis won this one, and did so against all odds.

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


Comments are closed-

How many MORE facts in this story are off-the-mark?
Posted by: batteredup on Nov 15, 2009 8:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"In January 2000, 10 days into President George W. Bush’s first term, representatives of the largest oil and energy companies joined the new administration to form the Cheney Energy ... "

Uh, idiot George didn't seize power until Jan. 20, 2001. So ten days into his regime would have been Jan. 30, 2001.

So was this the actual date? It would be refreshing to see more journalists adhere to dissemination of FACTS and worry less about abstract language games being passed off as pretty prose.

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


Comments are closed-

We Won!
Posted by: InsertNameHere on Nov 15, 2009 11:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
< sarcasm > Listen, I am sick of all this war for oil, lefty-pinko poppycock! President Bush started this war because Saddam was sitting on a stockpile of nukes, we found them! Then we executed his ass. We didn't get Bin Laden, but the mission was successful because inside each and every one of these Iraqis, is an American, struggling to get out! Now they are free to sell their oil to us! < /sarcasm >

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

» RE: We Won!....new board game... Posted by: Captainmagic

Comments are closed-

http://www.ebuyings.com
Posted by: jacklang0001 on Nov 17, 2009 5:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.ebuyings.com
have some cheap things ...
nike shoes, fashion clothes ;brand handbags ,wallet ...
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
accept the paypal

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


Comments are closed-

http://www.ebuyings.com
Posted by: jacklang0001 on Nov 17, 2009 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.ebuyings.com
have some cheap things ...
nike shoes, fashion clothes ;brand handbags ,wallet ...
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
accept the paypal

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


Comments are closed-

Oil is a winner-gets-all game
Posted by: oilprice on Nov 17, 2009 4:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oil is a winner-gets-all game.
Europe, the US and China are cutting everyone else out of the oil supply. Read this article from Oil-Price.net
The days of oil are numbered and we know it.

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


Comments are closed-

The Answers is ......
Posted by: Don't Panic on Nov 19, 2009 9:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes...Yes...Yes...Yes.....oh and do not forget who loses......everybody else....

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


Comments are closed-

Must Hurry
Posted by: DreemPowers on Nov 20, 2009 1:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
US Big Oil needs to get as many contracts as possible. The longer it goes on. The more attention it will attract. One thing you hear about is the oil fields in the south. They are Iraq's biggest. However it seems there hasn't been much talk about the northern fields. Fields the US help the Kurds protect in the days of Saddam. The oil law that some want passed right away to help push more oil contracts, Baghdad will only sign 1, if the kurds recognize the oilfield near kirkuk as "Sunni". Also the kurds want more rights(profit and a final say who gets the contracts) from the fields then the southern region gets. If the Kurds get there wish to more rights I bet you'll see much more US & British companies there.

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

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS