The US elections.

[ezekiel]

And, because the plan failed, this has resulted in massive profits for the oil companies.

uh...yes...and? There's been an increase in crude oil prices due to a) Venezuela still being in chaos low inventories in the US c) instability in Iraq d) chaos in Nigeria and finally terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia. If the US controlled the pipelines as they had wanted then they wouldn't be with the short side of the stick...in a few years they probably won't be once it's stabilized and Iraq finally pumps oil for them. Right now the country reaping the benefits is Saudi Arabia due to their relatively stable production and the price hike.

And how the heck were we supposed to do that? Stay camped out there forever? If we had wanted to do something like that then we would have brought enough troops to occupy the country. We didn't. We brought enough troops to over throw Saddam and that was it. The plan was to push him out, set up a new government, and then leave. We have done this before to other counties with mixed success. Panama and Haiti are the most recent examples, but Japan is an example of the best case.

Yes, Japan is doing well...but guess what? The US didn't suddenly give a decrepit country the key to salvation through democracy. Japan was already well on its way to a fully democratic system and even had 2 parties in the twenties during the Taisho era. Even after the 1947 post-war conditions, Japan has been ruled by a single party since except for a brief stint during the economic crisis of the nineties. Their boom is their doing, not America's.

Public opinion from the world, the United States, and Iraq never would have tolerated a simple take over and squatting on the oil rigs.

Hence WMDs and Terrorism...

I liked your link to worldwatch. There is some sound thinking in there, but there is also some fluff.

By rejecting U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol early in his tenure, George W. Bush sought to throw a wrench into the international machinery set up to address the threat of climate change. By securing the massive flow of cheap oil, he may hope to kill Kyoto.

There is a temptation for every man to view himself as the center of the universe. To assume that other people care about what he cares about. To believe that either you are for me (and what I believe) or you are against me (and what I believe). I don't think Bush cares enough about Kyoto to give it a second thought, much less serve as a motive. I also think Bush is given far to much credit/blame for killing Kyoto. Before Bush's announcement the Senate had already warned 95-0 that it would never ratify it.

Yeah, he already pretty much killed it so I don't think there's a Kyoto link either. It'd be beating a dead horse... ::biggrin I actually agree with you! ::wink

Considering Hussein killed tens of thousands of people with his chemical weapons, I think you mean that Bush was secretly thinking...

"Iraq claims to have NO MORE WMDs and has (finally) stopped trying to manufacture nukes. Because Hussein says that he destroyed his WMDs, and because he has (unwillingly) stopped obstructing the inspectors quite so much, we trust him on this point even though he can't prove it and even though the inspectors utterly failed to find his nuclear program until two high level defectors pointed it out. It is true that all the scientists the inspectors talk to are terrified of having their families tortured to death, but we are positive that THIS TIME the inspectors have finally gotten the truth... even though the bulk of my security analysts say he still has stuff stashed somewhere."

The same analysts that said that even if he had them he wouldn't use them against the US? Its not the presence of WMDs that irks the US...btw, WMDs does not equate nuclear weapons. Bush purposely lumped them all together to confuse the population (as stated in the Carnegie report) Gas is also considered a WMD and the US fully supported Saddam (and his WMD use) when he warred with Iran. Later, after 10 years of sanctions, he's suddenly become a threat to the US? No...No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.

I just wanted to say that...

1) You don't have to be a fundamentalist to be a terrorist. With 9-11 acting as inspiration Saddam could pull a copy-cat on his own.

No you don't, but it's fundamentalists that are targeting the US. Saddam isn't a terrorist and the terrorists he supported (actually the families of dead terrorists, the suicide bombers) are concerned with the Gaza strip and Palestine.

2) It would have been pretty easy for Saddam to acquire those links, even if he didn't have them before.

But he didn't...this line of reasoning is beyond absurd. Attacking a country because it could, possibly, some time in the future, be a threat is NOT grounds for a war.

3) And most importantly, if you really want to win the war on terror then you have to dry up the supply of angry young men from failed states. Radical militant Islam is (correctly or incorrectly) viewed as a response to their own repressive governments. Turning Iraq into a democracy would presumably force the other gulf states to reform their own governments as well.

Saddam repressed radical Islam...You don't seem to understand that if anything, the US has created of surge of radicals in Iraq with Kurds aiming for control of Northern iraq. This war had nothing to do with terrorism except for the reasons of going to war told to the american public.

Note I didn't say I approved or disapproved. I was simply stating a fact. I'll also note that you didn't disagree with those facts, you just said you didn't like it.

Uh...what's there to disagree with? You want me to claim there was another 9/11, you just haven't heard of it? No...I do disagree that's its due to the "yellow alert" status and Bush's handling of the situation. Security is still full of holes as many stubborn airplane passengers and news crews have proven. No matter what measures are taken, if a group truly wants to take out the Golden Bridge its probably going to happen. See my signature..

[Alex Green]

...If the US controlled the pipelines as they had wanted then they wouldn't be with the short side of the stick...

...in a few years they probably won't be once it's stabilized and Iraq finally pumps oil for them.

Guys, I've had a lot of economics. These arguments don't make sense. The oil market just doesn't work this way.

There is no oil 'crisis', no 'shortage'. The United States can (and does) buy every drop of oil that it needs to. True, oil is expensive, and it would be nice to increase the supply, but it was always obvious that the war wasn't going to do that anytime soon. If all we cared about was the supply of oil and increasing it, just dropping the sanctions would have done that easily.

Would Saddam sell oil to us? No? Who cares! Basic economics. Increasing the supply decreases the price. If Iraq is selling its oil on the world market at world prices, WHO BUYS FROM WHOM DOESN'T MATTER! If he only sells to the French then the French can't buy from South America and there is more for us there. If Iraq is selling the US oil at market prices then we need to buy less from South America (etc).

It is true that a few companies will get more profit with the American's in there, but again, if that were the motive then there were FAR easier ways to do this. Example: Leave Saddam there, make a deal with him that if we drop the sanctions he will bring in American companies to fix up his infrastructure.

...Japan... is their doing, not America's.

I recall reading something about us leveling the country and then taking it over for a while. I'm pretty sure that a number of their institutions (including their constitution) were rebuilt basically from scratch. Saying they were headed that way without us is very much a reach considering their roll in WWII. It's exactly like saying the Nazi's would have created a western style democracy if given the chance.

The same analysts that said that even if he had them he wouldn't use them against the US?

I found what Tenet said and he did in fact say that. (See Document 17)

He also stated pretty definitively Iraq does have WMDs (although not nukes), and that there was a high probability of him trying to use them on us if we invaded. Further, the concern was that as he got more of them he would be using them to blackmail other countries, including the US. The questions raised were "how far along is he", not "does he have them". Although we can say with hindsight that this was wrong, it was what the intelligence services believed at the time.

the US fully supported Saddam (and his WMD use) when he warred with Iran.

Meaning we knew how dangerous he was?

Later, after 10 years of sanctions, he's suddenly become a threat to the US?

The sanctions were failing. One of the lessons we were supposed to learn from WWII is that you deal with guys like this when they are small.

...it's fundamentalists that are targeting the US.

And it never would occure to Saddam to try to gain favor with them? Actually he already was by funding Palestinian bombers. He wanted to be the Arab's big leader.

The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):  -The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

...Saddam isn't a terrorist...

Ah... use of torture/murder as an instrument of repression against his political enemies... a "rule by terror" style of governorship... He doesn't quality because he ran a "national group" rather than a "subnational group"? Actually it seems to me that he fits the role rather well. He was just (usually) less subtle than the groups which put bombs on airplanes.

Attacking a country because it could, possibly, some time in the future, be a threat is NOT grounds for a war.

No, treating him like he was some sort of mild lamb is beyond absurd. The guy has a history. If he was let out of his box, how long do you think it would have taken him to rebuild his WMDs? And how long after that would you think it would have taken him to use them?

Your line of reasoning seems to be that we were supposed to wait for him to really get his act together and then wait even longer to see how far he would go with it. We were supposed to just trust that he wouldn't DARE attack the US. (Well, other than occassionally trying to assassinate former presidents).

Saddam ran around starting wars, building WMDs, and then using them. Given a chance to be dangerous, I think we could pretty much guaranty that he would be dangerous. Further, he also had a long history of misjudging how much he could get away with, and with revenge. How much of a chance did you want to give him? Do you really think our intelligence services would have seen what ever he was up to coming?

[ezekiel]

Guys, I've had a lot of economics. These arguments don't make sense. The oil market just doesn't work this way.

There is no oil 'crisis', no 'shortage'. The United States can (and does) buy every drop of oil that it needs to. True, oil is expensive, and it would be nice to increase the supply, but it was always obvious that the war wasn't going to do that anytime soon. If all we cared about was the supply of oil and increasing it, just dropping the sanctions would have done that easily.

Would Saddam sell oil to us? No? Who cares! Basic economics. Increasing the supply decreases the price. If Iraq is selling its oil on the world market at world prices, WHO BUYS FROM WHOM DOESN'T MATTER! If he only sells to the French then the French can't buy from South America and there is more for us there. If Iraq is selling the US oil at market prices then we need to buy less from South America (etc).

It is true that a few companies will get more profit with the American's in there, but again, if that were the motive then there were FAR easier ways to do this. Example: Leave Saddam there, make a deal with him that if we drop the sanctions he will bring in American companies to fix up his infrastructure.

I'm impressed that you know more than the Energy Information Administration. I didn't just make this stuff up. Your reasoning works...except when one customer buys half the world stock available. I also think that Saddam had somewhat of a grudge and trust issues with the US. ::sarcasm

I recall reading something about us leveling the country and then taking it over for a while. I'm pretty sure that a number of their institutions (including their constitution) were rebuilt basically from scratch. Saying they were headed that way without us is very much a reach considering their roll in WWII. It's exactly like saying the Nazi's would have created a western style democracy if given the chance.

Just because Pearl Harbor happened doesn't mean that Japan was ruled by a fascist government, far from it. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor thinking that war was inevitable (and the fact that it came without a declaration was a genuine mistake) due to US pressures on Japan like the seizing of all Japanese assets on US soil. It's not like saying the Nazis would have created a western democracy if given the chance.

I found what Tenet said and he did in fact say that. (See Document 17)

He also stated pretty definitively Iraq does have WMDs (although not nukes), and that there was a high probability of him trying to use them on us if we invaded. Further, the concern was that as he got more of them he would be using them to blackmail other countries, including the US. The questions raised were "how far along is he", not "does he have them". Although we can say with hindsight that this was wrong, it was what the intelligence services believed at the time.

Yes, I know this. He might use them if cornered if the US invaded his country...meaning that he was no immediate threat. I bet France and England might use them if the US invaded their country too... ::rolleyes

But again, Bush deliberately muddled information to make things seem much worse than they were, or that he knew they were.

Meaning we knew how dangerous he was?

Meaning the US didn't think he was all that dangerous then, he certainly didn't become more dangerous after 10 years of sanctions.

The sanctions were failing. One of the lessons we were supposed to learn from WWII is that you deal with guys like this when they are small.

How were they failing? They certainly destroyed the economy there...Personnally I like to think that the lesson learned from WWII is the importance of international comity and working together. The lessons learned were codified and meant to be followed which the US blatantly disregards...and now the UN's credibility suffers because of it. If they can't prevent the US from doing what it wants when it wants then I guess there's not much use in it...Personnally I'm really happy that the EU is forming and quite successfully too. There's still some hope yet.

And it never would occure to Saddam to try to gain favor with them? Actually he already was by funding Palestinian bombers. He wanted to be the Arab's big leader.

Okay...Arab and Islamic fundamentalist is NOT the same thing to be bundled together! Islam and Islamic terrorists are NOT one and the same! Palestine is being supported for matters of sovereignty, something Iraq knows of due Kuwait being taken from them, not because Jews aren't followers of Islam. It isn't the same thing at all! It'd be like saying France funding FLQ terrorists in Quebec (pro-sovereignty movement, haven't had a terrorist action in decades though) is actually funding Catholicism versus English Protestants. Are they any closer to funding fundamentalist terrorists? No. France hates Islamic fundamentalist terrorists (some debate that they hate Arabs period) with a vengeance...so did Saddam.

Ah... use of torture/murder as an instrument of repression against his political enemies... a "rule by terror" style of governorship... He doesn't quality because he ran a "national group" rather than a "subnational group"? Actually it seems to me that he fits the role rather well. He was just (usually) less subtle than the groups which put bombs on airplanes.

Yup, when you're the leader of the nation things are different. You're not a terrorist, you're a Tyrant. This reminds me of the Eddie Izzard skitsaying that we just don't know how to deal with Tyrants.

Pol Pot killed 1.7 million people. We can't even deal with that! You know, we think if somebody kills someone, that's murder, you go to prison. You kill 10 people, you go to Texas, they hit you with a brick, that's what they do. 20 people, you go to a hospital, they look through a small window at you forever. And over that, we can't deal with it, you know? Someone's killed 100,000 people. We're almost going, "Well done! You killed 100,000 people? You must get up very early in the morning. I can't even get down the gym! Your diary must look odd: “Get up in the morning, death, death, death, death, death, death, death – lunch- death, death, death -  afternoon tea - death, death, death - quick shower…"

So I suppose we're glad that Pol Pot's under house arrest… you know, 1.7 million people. At least he - we know where he is - under house arrest! Just don't go in that ****ing house, you know? I know a lot of people who'd love to be under house arrest! They bring you your food… "Just stay here? Oh, all right. (singing laconically ) Have you got any videos?" You know, you just sit there all day... And Pol Pot was a history teacher. And Hitler was a vegetarian painter. So... mass-murderers come from the areas you least expect it. I don't know how the flip comes over, but it happens.

Izzard is hilarious btw...watch all of his shows! One of the rare 'smart' comedians out there.

Your line of reasoning seems to be that we were supposed to wait for him to really get his act together and then wait even longer to see how far he would go with it. We were supposed to just trust that he wouldn't DARE attack the US. (Well, other than occassionally trying to assassinate former presidents).

No, my line of reasoning is that the US should've worked with the UN instead of against it.

[Obsidian Shade]

Sorry, but as we know today the sanctions worked. Saddams army was once the biggest and strongest in the arabian world. After the first war and with all the sanctions there were no real oppostion when your troops invaded the Iraq. How can you say the sanctions didn't work? Where are the dangerous weapons? Where are all the missiles?

The Un Weapon Inspectors told it. But Bush and his guys didn't even want to hear 'cause they knew it would be nothing they like.

And what about Guantanamo? You say Saddam was a terrorist? Then you are saying Bush is a terrorist too. I hope you will never selected as a terrorist bei the U.S. Gouvernment only because you was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Rumsfeld, as far as I remember had stated that they lied to the world recently. Got anyone a link?

[Bahamut810]

There is no oil 'crisis', no 'shortage'. The United States can (and does) buy every drop of oil that it needs to. True, oil is expensive, and it would be nice to increase the supply, but it was always obvious that the war wasn't going to do that anytime soon. If all we cared about was the supply of oil and increasing it, just dropping the sanctions would have done that easily.

Would Saddam sell oil to us? No? Who cares! Basic economics. Increasing the supply decreases the price. If Iraq is selling its oil on the world market at world prices, WHO BUYS FROM WHOM DOESN'T MATTER! If he only sells to the French then the French can't buy from South America and there is more for us there. If Iraq is selling the US oil at market prices then we need to buy less from South America (etc).

Just wanted to point out that just becuase the oil companies get more oil dosent mean the prices will go down. Sure, It could. Sure it would be nice. But without someone saying 'Hey, this is crazy that gas is a good dollar more a gallon then it was (2?) years ago," and forcing a change...

I dont see the Bush (oil baron) administration doing that.

[archer]

Okay folks. Time to just let this thread die. At this point it really seems that we're just beating a dead horse. I'm not going to lock the thread, I don't think it's necessary. But I would like to watch this one fade into the sunset...ok?

[phoenix]

Seconded. ::cool ::archerrules ::baaa

[ConcreteDragon]

Thank You, A!

::archerrules

[ezekiel]

.

[knave]

lol - that would almost qualify as subtle if not for the avatar ::biggrin ::thumbsup

[Alex Green]

Sorry Archer, I think I have to respond to this one. I like the article. It sums up the entire "the war for Iraq was only about oil" argument. It's well written, but it also suffers from the same problems the argument suffers from. I've got two econ degrees and since some of it trods pretty heavily on economics, I'd like to review it.

Today, a wave of mergers has given the successor companies a new and unprecedented scale, reducing the major firms to just five. In 2003, annual revenues of the leader, ExxonMobil, were an astonishing $247 billion. By way of comparison, Exxon’s revenue is vastly greater than such well-known international companies as Walt Disney ($25 billion) and Coca Cola ($19 billion) and it is larger than the revenues of 185 national governments, including Brazil, Canada, Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands. Only the world’s six richest countries - the US, Japan, Germany, France, Italy and the UK - had revenues above this level.

True, but so what? This is what we call comparing apples and oranges. Let's put some context on these statements.

Countries have taxes, you pay or you go to jail. They can do whatever they want with their money. ExxonMobil's revenues may have been $247B, but it's net earnings were only $17B. I.e., they had to pay $230B to get their revenue. Comparing a company's gross revenue to a country's shows either fuzzy thinking or is done to make a weak argument seem larger. But at least he choose to use their recent revenue figures.

The oil industry gained its crucial role in military affairs during World War I. In the run-up to the war, the world’s navies converted from coal to oil-fired ships, because of significant advantages in speed and range of operation. The war also marked the first military uses of the automobile, truck, tank and airplane. Belligerents on both sides faced severe oil shortages, but the Allies eventually gained the upper hand with vastly greater supplies. Lord Curzon, a member of the British War Cabinet, concluded that “the Allied cause has floated to victory upon a wave of oil.”

True, but so what? When I was in Poland I visited some salt deposits that had been absolutely critical to the mobilization of it's army back in the middle ages (salt let you preserve meat). If the author wants to talk about the importance of oil they should talk about it's current relevance. Talking about how oil had no substitutes to the 1940's military machine sounds grand until you remember this isn't the 1940's.

I don't know off hand how vulnerable we are to oil nowdays compared to the 1940's, but I'm not the one writing the article. I know that we have nuclear powered ships and subs. I know we have the strategic oil reserve but I don't know how many years it could run the military on it's own. I remember reading that the US economy is less vulnerable to oil shocks than we were in the 70's because oil is a smaller percentage of the economy. I'm not saying oil isn't important (more than salt I gather), but how important I can't judge from the 50+ year old information the author chose to present.

In 1974, while the US corporate tax rate was 48%, the nineteen largest oil companies paid a tax rate of only 7.6%.

The author was trying to show off the political influence of oil companies so he trots out an impressive fact. A fact without any context, 30 years old, culled from 50 years worth of data? Just off hand I'd guess he's trying (again) to make a weak argument look stronger.

I'm even less impressed considering 1974 means 1973's taxes, and there was a massive disruption to the system that year, i.e. the Arab oil embargo. Worse, in the early 1970's several Arab nations nationalized their oil fields. I don't know what the US tax code looked like in the 1970's but I'll bet companies could write off the loss of their assets.

Close Personal Ties between Companies and Governments

...The career of Allen Dulles serves as a case in point. He began as a US diplomat in the Middle East and rose to be chief of the Near East section of the State Department. In the early 1920s...As CIA chief, he arranged for the overthrow of Mossadegh, winning a place in Iran’s rich oil fields for US firms [in the 1950's]

I see we are back to the 1920's through the 50's. If we are going to hold the US government responsible for every unethical thing it did in the 40's, can we do the same to Germany?

The administration of President George W. Bush represents an especially close set of personal ties between the oil companies and the government - at the very highest level.  The president and his father were both longtime industry insiders from Texas and chief executives of their own oil companies. ... In the earliest days of the administration, they promoted a number of striking industry-favorable policy decisions, such as the rejection of the Kyoto Treaty on global warming, the ouster of the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the elaboration of a strongly pro-oil national energy plan.

Finally we get to some meat for the argument. Yep. The President is an oil man. If he'd come up through the environmental movement I'd expect him to try (and fail) to pass Kyoto through the Senate. But since he is an oil man I'd expect he already have an idea that letting Saddam run around invading his neighbors would be a bad thing, just like Clinton.

And then we have the various wars. I love this statement; "Saddam Hussein could not be ousted by covert means... invasion and direct control over Iraq’s oil would now be required.

And now that the US has "direct control" over Iraq's oil, what are we trying to do? We are trying to set up elections, recreate the Iraq government, and turn the whole thing over to them. How dare we.

US-UK forces invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003, seizing the major oilfields and refineries almost immediately. When coalition forces later entered Baghdad, they set a protective cordon around the Oil Ministry, while leaving all other institutions unguarded, allowing looting and burning of other government ministries, hospitals and cultural institutions. Looters sacked the National Museum and burned a wing of the National Library, but the Oil Ministry stood relatively unscathed, with its thousands of valuable seismic maps safe for future oil exploration.

So the oil industry (which is the VAST majority of Iraq's GNP) was viewed as more important than the National Library & the National Museum? Without enough troops choices had to be made, I find it hard to fault this one.

...the US and the UK, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1483 which lifted the former sanctions and allowed the occupation authorities to sell Iraqi oil and put the proceeds in an account they controlled. ...

With the stated goal of using that money to rebuild Iraq. Treating it as "spoils of war" would have meant keeping it, and/or not keeping track of the money, and/or putting the money into their own accounts. You have separate accounts to prevent people (i.e. Trusties) from stealing the money in the accounts. That's why the IRS makes me do something very similar with my daughter's college money. It's for her benefit, not mine, and it has to be tracked separately. This is the sort of thing you do when you are trying to not steal or abuse the money involved.

[ezekiel]

Those who don't like it can feel free to ignore the thread

Sorry Archer, I think I have to respond to this one. I like the article. It sums up the entire "the war for Iraq was only about oil" argument. It's well written, but it also suffers from the same problems the argument suffers from. I've got two econ degrees and since some of it trods pretty heavily on economics, I'd like to review it.

I'm duly impressed.

True, but so what? This is what we call comparing apples and oranges. Let's put some context on these statements.

Countries have taxes, you pay or you go to jail. They can do whatever they want with their money. ExxonMobil's revenues may have been $247B, but it's net earnings were only $17B. I.e., they had to pay $230B to get their revenue. Comparing a company's gross revenue to a country's shows either fuzzy thinking or is done to make a weak argument seem larger. But at least he choose to use their recent revenue figures.

Where did you get your $17B? 44.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot...Not that I think its hugely important but their net earnings were $22B for the year 2003 as stated in their financial statements. It was also mentioned in the next paragraph of the article which you omitted to make it look as if the information was deliberately muddled:

Today, a wave of mergers has given the successor companies a new and unprecedented scale, reducing the major firms to just five. In 2003, annual revenues of the leader, ExxonMobil, were an astonishing $247 billion.3 By way of comparison, Exxon’s revenue is vastly greater than such well-known international companies as Walt Disney ($25 billion) and Coca Cola ($19 billion) and it is larger than the revenues of 185 national governments, including Brazil, Canada, Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands. Only the world’s six richest countries – the US, Japan, Germany, France, Italy and the UK – had revenues above this level. 4

Among the world’s fifteen largest corporations listed in the 2002 “Fortune Global 500,” five were oil companies. After US-based Exxon came the UK giants Shell and British Petroleum (BP), the mammoth French firm Total, and the huge US-based Chevron. Compared to the large automakers, with their anemic profits, the oil companies stand out among the world’s biggest corporations for their high profitability. In 2001 (and again in 2003), Exxon earned the world’s highest profits. In 2003, its earnings reached a record $22 billion, more than General Motors, Ford, DaimlerChrysler and Toyota taken together.5

The point, as stated in the article, is that Oil companies have grown, even since the "archaic" times of decades ago. No matter how you cut it their revenues were as high as the revenues of many countries. He is just pointing out that the Oil companies do have a lot of power and throwing some figures for comparison.

True, but so what? When I was in Poland I visited some salt deposits that had been absolutely critical to the mobilization of it's army back in the middle ages (salt let you preserve meat). If the author wants to talk about the importance of oil they should talk about it's current relevance. Talking about how oil had no substitutes to the 1940's military machine sounds grand until you remember this isn't the 1940's.

I don't know off hand how vulnerable we are to oil nowdays compared to the 1940's, but I'm not the one writing the article. I know that we have nuclear powered ships and subs. I know we have the strategic oil reserve but I don't know how many years it could run the military on it's own. I remember reading that the US economy is less vulnerable to oil shocks than we were in the 70's because oil is a smaller percentage of the economy. I'm not saying oil isn't important (more than salt I gather), but how important I can't judge from the 50+ year old information the author chose to present.

From the article, one paragraph before the one you quoted.

Modern warfare particularly depends on oil, because virtually all weapons systems rely on oil-based fuel – tanks, trucks, armored vehicles, self-propelled artillery pieces, airplanes, and naval ships. For this reason, the governments and general staffs of powerful nations seek to ensure a steady supply of oil during wartime, to fuel oil-hungry military forces in far-flung operational theaters.

This isn't a thesis, it's an article. If you want the actual figures of oil consumption through modern warfare I'm sure you can find them...do you really think it's lost importance? The bombers fly with helium perhaps? Nuclear hummers?

The author was trying to show off the political influence of oil companies so he trots out an impressive fact. A fact without any context, 30 years old, culled from 50 years worth of data? Just off hand I'd guess he's trying (again) to make a weak argument look stronger.

I'm even less impressed considering 1974 means 1973's taxes, and there was a massive disruption to the system that year, i.e. the Arab oil embargo. Worse, in the early 1970's several Arab nations nationalized their oil fields. I don't know what the US tax code looked like in the 1970's but I'll bet companies could write off the loss of their assets.

See, this is called exposure. He's pointing out the history of political influence by companies. If you keep reading in the next paragraph:

The companies have also enjoyed unofficial immunity from anti-trust or anti-monopoly laws. Though the US government knew for decades about the international oil cartel, federal authorities took no enforcement action until 1952, when President Harry Truman ordered a criminal anti-trust suit. The companies mobilized all their legal and political muscle to quash the case. General Omar Bradley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reportedly approached the President and successfully urged that the “national security” required a softening of the government’s legal stance. Shortly afterwards, the National Security Council decided on various limitations to the suit that further weakened the government’s case. Though the judicial process lumbered on for fifteen years, the oil companies had nothing to fear and remained safely protected by the national security umbrella. Today, after a decade of mega-mergers, the companies still escape anti-trust scrutiny.

Better? Its all in the article if you read it all in context. Let's keep reading

In 1979, President Jimmy Carter set up the US Central Command, a permanent military force designed to intervene in the Middle East on short notice.

In 1979? Pff, disco was still alive then... ::rolleyes

Presidents have expanded and strengthened this force several times since.

Oh..

In testimony to Congress in 1999, General Anthony C. Zinni, commanding officer of the Central Command, affirmed the importance of the Persian Gulf region, with its huge oil reserves. It is a “vital interest” of “long standing,” he said, and the United States “must have free access to the region’s resources.”

ah...1999

Its not like he based all of his argumentation on decades old information...

I see we are back to the 1920's through the 50's. If we are going to hold the US government responsible for every unethical thing it did in the 40's, can we do the same to Germany?

Again, if you keep reading... ::sarcasm See he starts with old evidence and then closes with today which you quoted as..

The administration of President George W. Bush represents an especially close set of personal ties between the oil companies and the government - at the very highest level.  The president and his father were both longtime industry insiders from Texas and chief executives of their own oil companies. ... In the earliest days of the administration, they promoted a number of striking industry-favorable policy decisions, such as the rejection of the Kyoto Treaty on global warming, the ouster of the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the elaboration of a strongly pro-oil national energy plan.

and then said

Finally we get to some meat for the argument. Yep. The President is an oil man. If he'd come up through the environmental movement I'd expect him to try (and fail) to pass Kyoto through the Senate. But since he is an oil man I'd expect he already have an idea that letting Saddam run around invading his neighbors would be a bad thing, just like Clinton.

Let's read the full bit about the Bush administration:

The president and his father were both longtime industry insiders from Texas and chief executives of their own oil companies. Other oil figures at the top of the administration include Vice President Dick Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton, the nation’s largest oil-services company, and National Security Advisor Condolezza Rice, a former director of Chevron Texaco, after whom the company named one of its supertankers.

Its not just the president. Its the administration. President + VP + now secretary of state Rice. Were I a believer in conspiracy theories I'd add Powell since he worked for the Caryle group...but I like Powell so I won't. President + VP + NSA or Secretary of State Rice should be enough I think. You don't think the administration has a direct, personal interest in oil? Its an administration that's been after Iraqi oil since day one:

The new Bush administration came into office in January 2001 at this critical juncture. Revelations by former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill inform us that the new administration started planning for an invasion of Iraq almost immediately. According to O’Neill, Iraq was “Topic A” at the very first meeting of the Bush National Security Council, just ten days after the inauguration. “It was about finding a way to do it,” reports O’Neill, “That was the tone of the President, saying ‘Go find me a way to do this.’”49 Meanwhile, the President ordered stepped-up overflights and provocative attacks on Iraqi targets under a plan, evidently known as Operation Desert Badger. On February 16, US aircraft bombed Iraqi radar installations north of the no-fly zone and very close to southern limits of Baghdad. Readily audible from the Iraqi capital, this attack drew wide media comment.

Just a few weeks later, the hastily-organized National Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by Vice President Cheney, studied the challenge posed by French, Russian and other companies. One of the documents produced by the Cheney group, made public after a long court case, is a map of Iraq showing its major oil fields and a two-page list of “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” The list showed more than 40 companies from 30 countries with projects agreed or under discussion, but not a single US or UK deal.50 The list included agreements or discussions with companies from Germany, India, Italy, Canada, Indonesia, Japan and other nations, along with the well-known French, Russian and Chinese deals. The Cheney Group’s report, released in May, warned ominously of US oil shortfalls that might “undermine our economy, our standard of living, our national security.”

The reasons of "why Iraq?" have been adequately explained in the article I think.

And then we have the various wars. I love this statement; "Saddam Hussein could not be ousted by covert means... invasion and direct control over Iraq’s oil would now be required.

And now that the US has "direct control" over Iraq's oil, what are we trying to do? We are trying to set up elections, recreate the Iraq government, and turn the whole thing over to them. How dare we.

The US doesn't have direct control. Neither I nor the article state that it does:

Company Bonanza or Greedy Overreach?

Was the war a bold and successful calculation or a major error, resulting from official hubris and company greed? The war’s authors hoped to affirm a New American Century and company pre-eminence, but the conflict instead could limit US global ambitions and set back oil company aspirations. It is too early to be certain of the outcome, but we can make a few preliminary conclusions.

The companies hoped that the Iraq war would allow them to take over Iraq’s oil reserves with only a minimum of difficulty. Self-confident assurances by pro-war ideologues in Washington reinforced the widely-held conviction that the sole superpower could easily mobilize international support and that the people of Iraq would welcome the invaders and applaud the “liberation” offered by a US occupation government. The hawks expected that they could rapidly set up a pliant government and privatize the Iraqi industry or distribute production agreements speedily to US firms. But these ideas proved illusory. Instead, Bush and Blair faced enormous worldwide opposition to the war. And in spite of US forces’ rapid seizure of the country, they now grapple with economic chaos and an intense and lethal resistance movement.

The companies, it should be said, are not in a great hurry. They plan and act on decades-long time horizons. They can wait out the insecurity of the present if the precious Iraqi oil fields fall dependably into their hands sometime in the next few years. But it is by no means certain that the Anglo-American giants will get their way as easily in Iraq as they did in Washington. As they wait, the violence of pacification and resistance engulfs the country. War number eight gets under way.

[Bahamut810]

So the oil industry (which is the VAST majority of Iraq's GNP) was viewed as more important than the National Library & the National Museum? Without enough troops choices had to be made, I find it hard to fault this one.

Just wanted to point out...

Oil or Hospitals...and they chose oil.

[Alex Green]

Just wanted to point out...

Oil or Hospitals...and they chose oil.

Considering how much of Iraq's economy is oil, they made the right choice. When we leave Iraq is going to have to buy it's own food etc. If the oil industry is working then they can feed their people and rebuild hospitals. If the oil industry is not working then the only way to pump the stuff would be to sell mineral rights to the oil companies.

Where did you get your $17B? 44.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot...

Line 3, Column 3 from the links he supplied. Link Yes, I'm ignoring "Net Income" in favor of "Earning Excluding Merger Effect... etc". I did that to ignore accounting tricks which can artificially increase or decrease their income. It's something you do sometimes when evaluating companies and their stock prices.

Reading further, we find ...."ExxonMobil's Chairman Lee R. Raymond commented as follows, ..."Full year 2003 earnings excluding special items and a required accounting change in the first quarter were also a record at $17,030 million..."

It was also mentioned in the next paragraph of the article which you omitted to make it look as if the information was deliberately muddled:  ...  The point, as stated in the article, is that Oil companies have grown, even since the "archaic" times of decades ago. No matter how you cut it their revenues were as high as the revenues of many countries. He is just pointing out that the Oil companies do have a lot of power and throwing some figures for comparison.

Comparing gross income of a country to the gross income of a company is misleading. Selling someone something that you purchased or built is a different activity than saying "pay this or you go to jail". A country with revenues of 100B can spend half that on a 50B army. If Exxon tries to spend half their revenue they'll go bankrupt.

Yes, oil companies have a lot of money and influence. However they probably have less (comparably speaking) than they did in the 30's and 40's. They make up less of the economy, their stock holders are more diverse, etc.

Modern warfare particularly depends on oil, because virtually all weapons systems rely on oil-based fuel - tanks, trucks, armored vehicles, self-propelled artillery pieces, airplanes, and naval ships. For this reason, the governments and general staffs of powerful nations seek to ensure a steady supply of oil during wartime, to fuel oil-hungry military forces in far-flung operational theaters.

This isn't a thesis, it's an article. If you want the actual figures of oil consumption through modern warfare I'm sure you can find them...do you really think it's lost importance? The bombers fly with helium perhaps? Nuclear hummers?

Yeah I could find "the actual figures of oil consumption for modern warfare". But he is the one making the argument, and as such the burden is on him to pull in data that isn't 50 years old to support his claims.

Nuclear subs. Nuclear aircraft carriers. Missiles. Information technology (including satellites). There is a reason he pulls most of his quotes and stats from the 1940's. Oil is still important now, but back then it was far more important. What he is doing is presenting misleading facts and statistics to strengthen his case. If his case were strong enough to stand on it's own I'd hope he wouldn't be doing this.

The author was trying to show off the political influence of oil companies so he trots out an impressive fact. A fact without any context, 30 years old, culled from 50 years worth of data? Just off hand I'd guess he's trying (again) to make a weak argument look stronger.

I'm even less impressed considering 1974 means 1973's taxes, and there was a massive disruption to the system that year, i.e. the Arab oil embargo. Worse, in the early 1970's several Arab nations nationalized their oil fields. I don't know what the US tax code looked like in the 1970's but I'll bet companies could write off the loss of their assets.

See, this is called exposure. He's pointing out the history of political influence by companies.

If he really wanted to do that he wouldn't be presenting one year's worth of data that wasn't representative of the whole situation, and then not bother telling us that it wasn't representative of the whole situation. What was their tax rate last year? The year before it? Doesn't that matter a whole lot more than one aberrant year back in the 70's?

The companies have also enjoyed unofficial immunity from anti-trust or anti-monopoly laws...

If you ignore the break up of Rockefeller's Standard Oil in 1907. I don't know enough about anti-trust and/or anti-monopoly laws to comment on the 1950's case Truman brought.

In 1979, President Jimmy Carter set up the US Central Command, a permanent military force designed to intervene in the Middle East on short notice.

Context: Iran's revolution and the taking of American hostages. The funny part about Iran is that Carter let the Shaw be overthrown without too much fuss. But I guess mentioning this wouldn't have supported the author's arguements.

In testimony to Congress in 1999, General Anthony C. Zinni, commanding officer of the Central Command, affirmed the importance of the Persian Gulf region, with its huge oil reserves. It is a “vital interest” of “long standing,” he said, and the United States “must have free access to the region’s resources.”

ah...1999

Its not like he based all of his argumentation on decades old information...

That's right. Not all. Just the vast majority.

Further, it's interesting that he doesn't supply a link to Zinni's statements. I've looked for them (to supply the context), and as near as I can tell this is what Zinni actually said. Link The big worry appears to be Iraq (or perhaps Iran) shutting down the Gulf. "Free Access" in this case means that we don't want the Gulf to be blockaded, not that we want to steal the oil.

The US doesn't have direct control. Neither I nor the article state that it does:

Go back and read it again. The author says

This increasingly aggressive policy towards Iraq expressed a hardening conviction among leaders in the US and the UK that Saddam Hussein could not be ousted by covert means, and that invasion and direct control over Iraq’s oil would now be required.

And then I said:

I love this statement; "Saddam Hussein could not be ousted by covert means... invasion and direct control over Iraq’s oil would now be required.

And now that the US has "direct control" over Iraq's oil, what are we trying to do? We are trying to set up elections, recreate the Iraq government, and turn the whole thing over to them. How dare we.

Its not just the president. Its the administration. President + VP + now secretary of state Rice. Were I a believer in conspiracy theories I'd add Powell since he worked for the Caryle group...but I like Powell so I won't. President + VP + NSA or Secretary of State Rice should be enough I think. You don't think the administration has a direct, personal interest in oil? Its an administration that's been after Iraqi oil since day one:

Being after Iraq and after Saddam isn't the same as being out to steal Iraqi oil. Bush probably considers Iraq to be a failure of his father. Not because we didn't steal the oil but because we left Saddam there in the middle of oil land. Sanctions and backing his foes didn't work. The sactions were largely falling apart. The only two options left were military intervention or to let Saddam out of his box.

Granted, the oil companies wanted to take advantage of the war and set up shop afterwards. Granted, Bush is an oil man and as such has an understanding of how important Gulf oil is to the world's economy. But the days of taking over a country for it's economic resources are long past. That would be one of the reasons why Iraq's invasion of Kuwait couldn't be allowed to stand. If you want a recent example, we invaded Panama, gapped the guy at the top, and then left it and the canal in Panama's hands. If you want another example, the money that comes from the oil pumped out of Iraq has been staying in Iraq via those special accounts.

I'm sorry but this article with it's MANY references to the days of long yesterday doesn't even come close to establishing otherwise.

[madcat82]

::cry ::cry ::cry ::cry ::cry ::cry ::cry ::cry ::cry ::cry ::cry ::cry ::cry ::cry

[Nullifier]

Doesn't that matter a whole lot more than one aberrant year back in the 70's?

You said aberrant. Heh. ::bigsmile ::tongue

[Alex Green]

Normally it's a tough word to work in. ::cool

[phoenix]

Levels 12-gauge moderation shotgun at Ezekiel and Alex.

::ohcrap ::smiley6

[ezekiel]

It's 4h30am so...

I'll be back.

off hand like that...

Missiles aren't thrown and don't work off of nuclear power...If you truly think modern warfare somehow doesn't depend on oil..uhh...k

If you ignore the break up of Rockefeller's Standard Oil in 1907. I don't know enough about anti-trust and/or anti-monopoly laws to comment on the 1950's case Truman brought.

or today? He didn't just mention the Truman era...

Context: Iran's revolution and the taking of American hostages. The funny part about Iran is that Carter let the Shaw be overthrown without too much fuss. But I guess mentioning this wouldn't have supported the author's arguements.

So? How does this affect the argument?

That's right. Not all. Just the vast majority.

That might be because the vast majority of history didn't occur yesterday... ::sarcasm

Go back and read it again. The author says

This increasingly aggressive policy towards Iraq expressed a hardening conviction among leaders in the US and the UK that Saddam Hussein could not be ousted by covert means, and that invasion and direct control over Iraq’s oil would now be required.

And then I said:

I love this statement; "Saddam Hussein could not be ousted by covert means... invasion and direct control over Iraq’s oil would now be required.

And now that the US has "direct control" over Iraq's oil, what are we trying to do? We are trying to set up elections, recreate the Iraq government, and turn the whole thing over to them. How dare we.

K, let's try again with a paragraph before and after the one you quoted:

On December 16-19, 1998, the US-UK launched Operation Desert Fox. Hundreds of strike aircraft and cruise missiles hit Baghdad and other major Iraqi targets, including an oil refinery. The attacks ended the UN arms inspection program, pre-empting any declaration that Iraq was nearly free of mass destruction weapons. Following Desert Fox, US-UK air forces patrolled the “no-fly” zones with new, more aggressive rules of engagement and regular attacks on Iraqi targets.

This increasingly aggressive policy towards Iraq expressed a hardening conviction among leaders in the US and the UK that Saddam Hussein could not be ousted by covert means, and that invasion and direct control over Iraq’s oil would now be required.

The Bush Administration Heads for War

The new Bush administration came into office in January 2001 at this critical juncture. Revelations by former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill inform us that the new administration started planning for an invasion of Iraq almost immediately. According to O’Neill, Iraq was “Topic A” at the very first meeting of the Bush National Security Council, just ten days after the inauguration. “It was about finding a way to do it,” reports O’Neill, “That was the tone of the President, saying ‘Go find me a way to do this.’”49 Meanwhile, the President ordered stepped-up overflights and provocative attacks on Iraqi targets under a plan, evidently known as Operation Desert Badger. On February 16, US aircraft bombed Iraqi radar installations north of the no-fly zone and very close to southern limits of Baghdad. Readily audible from the Iraqi capital, this attack drew wide media comment.

See? He never said the US had "direct control" hence what I quoted, what he really said:

Was the war a bold and successful calculation or a major error, resulting from official hubris and company greed? The war’s authors hoped to affirm a New American Century and company pre-eminence, but the conflict instead could limit US global ambitions and set back oil company aspirations. It is too early to be certain of the outcome, but we can make a few preliminary conclusions.

The companies hoped that the Iraq war would allow them to take over Iraq’s oil reserves with only a minimum of difficulty. Self-confident assurances by pro-war ideologues in Washington reinforced the widely-held conviction that the sole superpower could easily mobilize international support and that the people of Iraq would welcome the invaders and applaud the “liberation” offered by a US occupation government. The hawks expected that they could rapidly set up a pliant government and privatize the Iraqi industry or distribute production agreements speedily to US firms. But these ideas proved illusory. Instead, Bush and Blair faced enormous worldwide opposition to the war. And in spite of US forces’ rapid seizure of the country, they now grapple with economic chaos and an intense and lethal resistance movement.

The companies, it should be said, are not in a great hurry. They plan and act on decades-long time horizons. They can wait out the insecurity of the present if the precious Iraqi oil fields fall dependably into their hands sometime in the next few years. But it is by no means certain that the Anglo-American giants will get their way as easily in Iraq as they did in Washington. As they wait, the violence of pacification and resistance engulfs the country. War number eight gets under way.

Read it this time.

But the days of taking over a country for it's economic resources are long past. That would be one of the reasons why Iraq's invasion of Kuwait couldn't be allowed to stand.

I seem to be missing something...what?

[Alex Green]

Missiles aren't thrown and don't work off of nuclear power...If you truly think modern warfare somehow doesn't depend on oil..uhh...k

Missiles use rocket fuel. I think it's solid state stuff and I'm not sure if it is oil based or not.

But the actual point isn't that these things don't use oil. The point is that they use it less. In WWII you had large numbers of tanks, troops, water craft, air craft (etc) all using horrendous amounts of gas. Without a good supply of oil the war effort would have ground to a halt. Without the war effort the Axis countries take over the world. That's the context for the 1940's.

Since then, and especially since the information revolution of the 90's, oil is less important and the stakes are generally less high as well. Being less important isn't saying that it isn't important, but a special ops teams in South America fighting drug lords and revolutionaries don't use anywhere near the same level of oil as the 1940's WWII army, nor are the stakes as important. Ditto a nuclear sub firing a cruse missile.

Without oil in the 1940's the US would have been helpless prey for it's enemies. In the 1960's without oil the US could still obliterate it's enemies with nuclear weapons. This would be why the Arab oil embargo didn't pry the US away from Israel. In the 90's much of warfare is fought with information, small squads, long range weapons, and satellites.

The big threat that an oil disruption in the Gulf would do is to the world economy, not to the world military. There are other sources and the US military could pay top dollar to make sure they got their cut first.

Saying the US is going to drop all of it's morals and take over a country for it's resources is a huge claim. Saying that we would do so because in the 1940's we really needed it isn't a huge amount of evidence. We didn't invade the Arab states during the embargo. We didn't invade Iran when the Shaw got kicked out, we didn't even do it when they took hostages.

Context: Iran's revolution and the taking of American hostages. The funny part about Iran is that Carter let the Shaw be overthrown without too much fuss. But I guess mentioning this wouldn't have supported the author's arguements.

So? How does this affect the argument?

His argument is that we are there only for the oil. His implication by bring up Carter's strike force is that it was going to invade the Gulf for the oil.

The fact is true. But in reality Carter's strike force had nothing to do with oil and nothing to do with the author's argument. Even putting it in implies that he doesn't have the evidence he needs so he has to take things out of context. Ditto looking at tax returns from the 1970's. Ditto looking at US personnel in the 1920's. Ditto looking at how WWII was won.

That's right.  Not all.  Just the vast majority.

That might be because the vast majority of history didn't occur yesterday...

But it would be much more impressive if he restricted himself to the last thirty, or even the last twenty years. When he reaches back to the 1920's for examples of how close the oil industry is to the US government, I have to wonder why he isn't talking about how much money they are giving to candidates instead during elections. The obvious reason is that the relevant data doesn't support his contentions.

See? He never said the US had "direct control"

No, he was saying that we wanted to establish it.

[ezekiel]

Missiles use rocket fuel. I think it's solid state stuff and I'm not sure if it is oil based or not.

But the actual point isn't that these things don't use oil. The point is that they use it less. In WWII you had large numbers of tanks, troops, water craft, air craft (etc) all using horrendous amounts of gas. Without a good supply of oil the war effort would have ground to a halt. Without the war effort the Axis countries take over the world. That's the context for the 1940's.

Since then, and especially since the information revolution of the 90's, oil is less important and the stakes are generally less high as well. Being less important isn't saying that it isn't important, but a special ops teams in South America fighting drug lords and revolutionaries don't use anywhere near the same level of oil as the 1940's WWII army, nor are the stakes as important. Ditto a nuclear sub firing a cruse missile.

Without oil in the 1940's the US would have been helpless prey for it's enemies. In the 1960's without oil the US could still obliterate it's enemies with nuclear weapons. This would be why the Arab oil embargo didn't pry the US away from Israel. In the 90's much of warfare is fought with information, small squads, long range weapons, and satellites.

The big threat that an oil disruption in the Gulf would do is to the world economy, not to the world military. There are other sources and the US military could pay top dollar to make sure they got their cut first.

Saying the US is going to drop all of it's morals and take over a country for it's resources is a huge claim. Saying that we would do so because in the 1940's we really needed it isn't a huge amount of evidence. We didn't invade the Arab states during the embargo. We didn't invade Iran when the Shaw got kicked out, we didn't even do it when they took hostages.

I'm sorry, but you've been watching way too many TV shows...Oil is of primordial importance to the US military. Nuclear subs and aircraft carriers would suddenly reduce their need? Aren't you forgetting the jet fighters that weren't there in WWII? That soldiers need to eat and drink? That those supplies are brought to them by something other than nuclear subs and aircraft carriers? Special Ops? What, you think Special Ops in WWII used huge petrol guzzling trucks while on the prowl? Consumption has gone up, not down. At the height of WWII the US (Texas being the prime Oil ressource at that time) was shipping 50million gallons daily of which not all ships made it. You can read through the Army Quartermasters site on POL if you want.

The military's tanks, helicopters and other equipment consume 15 million gallons of fuel daily, about the same amount the entire state of Florida uses in a day, he says. One Abrams tank, which gets less than a mile to a gallon, needs about 300 gallons every eight hours.

From here, an article about military logistics for the Iraq war. This is for a much smaller operation than WWII and doesn't take into account all other US military operations in the world.

His argument is that we are there only for the oil. His implication by bring up Carter's strike force is that it was going to invade the Gulf for the oil.

The fact is true. But in reality Carter's strike force had nothing to do with oil and nothing to do with the author's argument. Even putting it in implies that he doesn't have the evidence he needs so he has to take things out of context. Ditto looking at tax returns from the 1970's. Ditto looking at US personnel in the 1920's. Ditto looking at how WWII was won.

So tell me, why was the strike force implemented and why is there a permanent force of 20000 US soldiers in the Golf?

No, he was saying that we wanted to establish it.

To which you replied: And now that the US has "direct control" over Iraq's oil, what are we trying to do? We are trying to set up elections, recreate the Iraq government, and turn the whole thing over to them. How dare we. ::confused

But it would be much more impressive if he restricted himself to the last thirty, or even the last twenty years. When he reaches back to the 1920's for examples of how close the oil industry is to the US government, I have to wonder why he isn't talking about how much money they are giving to candidates instead during elections. The obvious reason is that the relevant data doesn't support his contentions.

But he has stated the facts of today, you're just ignoring them. He does have the evidence and what you've asked for is either so obvious that he probably just didn't see a need to mention the specifics (Modern warfare doesn't really need oil! Prove it! ::sarcasm ) or has been given in the text (Like the net earnings). Iraqi oil is the cheapest to produce by far. All the top executives in the Bush administration have direct, personal ties to the oil industry. They personnally profit from it. Cheney had a report stating that 30 countries had companies expoiting Iraqi oil but the US and UK had no presence there and warned about future US oil shortfalls being a threat to national security. So its a coincidence that the US and UK are the ones forming the "Coalition" is it? Add to that the lies about a terrorist link and gross exaggeration of the Iraqi threat to the american public and you've got quite a case.

I'm seriously thinking of pulling out of this debate, you seem to be grasping at straws at this point. If nothing has convinced you so far about the Bush administrations lies, or that the Bush administration instigated the Iraq war for oil, nothing will.

[Archer21]

And at this point, this thread is done. There are only 2 people really actively participating in this debate, Alex and Ezekiel. I asked politely to have it dropped, and it wasn't. I understand why both parties want it to continue, but the debate no longer needs to remain public.

If anyone wants to continue the topic or topics being discussed, feel free to do so via PM, or email.