What Bush is doing in Iraq

[Michael]

Three months after the US occupation of Iraq, the country is still being shaken up. But there is progress. One advance has been in the oil industry, which has been revived mainly by US companies, some of them associated with leading Washington politicians. In an exclusive story, Foreign Report reveals a second advance that will affect regional strategies and the USA's position in the Arab/Islamic world.

This second development, less well known but no less important, is the US decision to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

The USA has a simple idea: to make money out of Iraq. Exploiting Iraqi oil is one way of doing this. We expect US companies to win the lion's share of the contracts. Britain should get a look-in. The French, Russians and Germans, who had 'future contracts' with Saddam Hussein's regime that would have come into effect after the end of UN sanctions, will be out of the deal.

We expect the Bush administration to use the technique applied with Egypt and Israel, both overloaded with new US weapons. The USA will rebuild the Iraqi army on condition that new weapons purchased for the armed forces will be made in the USA, which will supply much of the credit for their purchase with the rest coming from oil revenues.
from Janes Military Analysis

And then we wonder why Iranians may/are making nuclear weapons: Iran's nuclear work revealed or why China helps them. Bascially no one has any trust in the USA government - lets face it they lie/cheat/steal and who knows what else - they are untrust worthy. It's so easy for the US Gov to sell the idea "everyone is out to get us". Maybe "out to stop us" would be a better way of putting it.

 

[bandwidthbandit]

I'm sorry but no matter what your views of the war or US foregin Policy, the notion that the US has gone into Iraq to profit from Iraqi oil is absurd. The US will spend many more billions of dollars in rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure and government than could be made from the sale of it's oil. And if the US wanted oil so badly why didn't we seize Iraq at the end of first Gulf War? You can question the war, and even The Bush administration's motivations for starting this war. But the idea that the US is in it just for the oil/profit just does not hold up to any kind of logical reasoning.

 

[DeeCee]

Yo! BackdoorBandit!
Hang around here long enough and you may learn different.
Welcome to the forum.
Dee Cee

 

[Psycho-Cannon]

much more may be spent reconstructing Iraq than from is made from direct sales or Iraqi oil yes BUT and its a big but ^_^.
The money paying isn't american its Iraqi and money from other countries buying Iraqi oil and that money goes into American Corporations pockets and America.
So America makes money from the oil...makes money from the reconstruction, Iraq and the world foot the bill.
So why is this suddenly such an illogical motive?

 

[bandwidthbandit]

I think the real reason Bush went into Iraq is to use it as a tool for his "war on terrorism" and part of that is regime change in the so called "rogue nations". If, and that is a big if, they can manage to bring some sort of democracy to Iraq, it will serve as a catalyst for change in the region. Espeically in neighboring Iran, which is another member of Bush's "Axis of Evil". To some degree events in Iraq already seem to be serving as a destablizing force for the ruling regime in Iran. And if Iraq's move to democracy doesn't serve the purpose of stirring reform in "rouge" nations like Iran then the US could always use Iraq as a launching pad for the next war against others in the region. I'm not saying I agree with this policy. But I think if you look at the facts and the rhetoric coming out of the Bush administration it is pretty obvious that Iraq was the first of many nations that will face a volley of political, economic, and if need be, military pressure to bring about regime change.

 

[Vortexx]

Pretty soon Ethiopia might be declared a terrorist roque nation for not wanting to buy American GM seeds....

 

[bhudmaash]

I'm sorry but no matter what your views of the war or US foregin Policy, the notion that the US has gone into Iraq to profit from Iraqi oil is absurd.

what about the notion that Israel could proffit handsomely from Iraqi oil?

 

[bandwidthbandit]

I'm not aware of how that would happen. Perhaps you could explain.

 

[bhudmaash]

something my Jewish friend mentioned in passing. He's very candid and frank with the political situation. We were talking about the war, and the inevitable oil debate started, and he just mentioned that Israel hasn't got it's own oil supply, and then gave me one of those "know what I mean??" looks.

been to busy to check it out.

 

[Jerrek]

So now the USA is going to set up an Israeli controlled government in Iraq?

 

[bhudmaash]

...no, Israel benefitting from the US initiated regime change in Iraq does not equal an israeli controlled gvt in iraq.
It doesnt have to.
Hows about some lateral thinking

 

[Clockwood]

Obviously Michael hasn't looked at the bill for the war. Its huge and is growing every day. There is not a chance we would make a net profit even if we were playing as dirty as he says.

Anyway we would have to buy oil from them like anybody else. Even then it would not directly benifit the US government. It might help private companies a bit (still not much) but the government would only see a faint shadow of this in taxes.

If we were trying to make some sort of profit we would do what civilizations have done for thousands of years. We would have gone in and taken every last thing of value, burnt down everything else, and gone home. Everything in that Iraqi museum would be in the Smithsonian, the Iraqi national bank would be empty, and the furnishings from his palaces would be on route to the US.

 

[EI_Sparks]

Even then it would not directly benifit the US government.

Sure would benefit those members of the US administration who get personal payments from private companies in the arms trade, the energy business and so on, wouldn't it?

We would have gone in and taken every last thing of value, burnt down everything else, and gone home. Everything in that Iraqi museum would be in the Smithsonian, the Iraqi national bank would be empty, and the furnishings from his palaces would be on route to the US.

There was a call for Iraqi artifacts to be hauled to US museums. Personally, I think it's only a matter of time.
The national bank is going to be changed to use dollars... so the US can just print off enough cash and buy anything they want. However, in real terms, that means that the Iraqis get paper and you get goods...
As to resources going to the US, the first tanker of Iraqi Oil left Iraq today for the US.

But you're right - the whole invasion was not for gaining oil. You can do that by just buying it. But what the invasion did do was to arrange matters so that Iraqi oil is now sold for dollars and not euros - a state of affairs that, had it spread to other OPEC countries, would do more damage to the US economy than even Dubya.

 

[Clockwood]

Give me all your paper then if its so worthless. And those silly little metal tokens your government prints.
You of course know how heinously devalued Iraqi currency it and that we dont want Saddams face on every bill.

FYI: As soon as the Euro equals the Dollar (1 dollar= 1 Euro) I would lock their values together.

 

[AndersHermansson]

Blahblahblah. Like the leading Capitalist country in the world would have made a move without making sure expenses were paid and more.

 

[EI_Sparks]

As soon as the Euro equals the Dollar (1 dollar= 1 Euro) I would lock their values together.

Since it went from $0.86 through $1 to the current $1.154 without anyone in the EU or US suggesting that (and for good reason), I doubt anyone's going to suggest it now - thankfully. I don't particularly want my currency tied to the dollar right now!

 

[Clockwood]

Exactly why I was thinking about it.

 

[DJSupreme23]

OH no, not again...

I think it's sad to see the "USA bad oil-hungry militarist nation" conspiracy still alive.

First of all, do you think GW. Bush has his own personal swimming pool he wants to fill with Iraqi oil? Not to my knowledge he doesnt! ;p

Who gets the oil? The *market* gets the oil.

Who is paid for the oil? The Iraqi *people* is paid for the oil.

Yes, US oil entrepreneurs will most likely be middlemen in the extraction and sale of the oil, but as someone else here has said, it's only fair that some money go back to the USA in the form of taxes on the oil companies' profits - a military operation of the magnitude we have seen is not free - far from it.

And lastly - stop the **** about the USA occupying (evil sense of the word) Iraq. They have liberated 26 million Iraqis from the worst megamurderer on planet Earth for the last 10 years.

The fact that the Iraqi people (those few who did) were allowed to protest against the US occupation is a sure testimony to the fact that the Iraqi people is now MUCH MORE free and safe than under Saddam.

And even if the USA left Iraq after Saddam was thrown out, the US would STILL be under fire from anti-americans... but this time for "leaving the Iraqi's in the after-war turmoil etc etc " (hypothetical situation, but I would not at all be surprised if we were to see such a reaction - it's emotion that drives the anti-USA banter, you know).

- Peter, Denmark

PS: I dont particulary like GWB.

(edit: spelling)

 

[nico]

I think it's sad to see the "USA bad oil-hungry malitarist nation" conspiracy still alive.

Call it what it is man, PNAC.

First of all, do you think GW. Bush has his ownpersonal swimming pool he wants to fill with Iraqi oil? Not to my knowledge he doesnt!

Unless Bush has a death wish he won't do that.

Who gets the oil? The *market* gets the oil.

And in reality who is the market? The US 20 million barrels a day!

Who is paid for the oil? The Iraqi *people* is paid for the oil.
Right? only if the oil is nationalized, not privitized.

stop the **** about the USA occupying (evil sense of the word) Iraq. They have liberated 26 million Irais from the worst megamurderer on plater Earth for the last 10 years.


Do you realize what you are saying? You killed 7000 to get rid of one man, you are the one's who supported and proped up Saddam during the horrid 80's. Who defended Saddam at Halajba? The good ole USof A. It is occupation my friend freedom and democracy are when the people of the land decide for themsleves to free themselves from Saddam. If you really cared, then you would have went in, in 1980! Stop the Bull shit.

The fact that the Iraqi people (well, some of them) were allowed to protest against the US occupation is a sure testimony to the fact that the Iraqi people is now MUCH MORE free and safe than under Saddam.

Most of those protesters what a theocratic Iraq with democrapcy. Free and safe? Ironic too bad most don't have clean water, or electricity, or their heritage was destroyed by the looting of the Iraqi museum, looting hospitals, meanwhile the first thing the US did in Baghdad was secure the oil ministry.

it's emotion that drives the anti-USA banter, you know

And it's complete and utter ignorance that drives pro-war sentiment like that.

 

[EI_Sparks]

Clockwood,
I can understand what the US would get from it - but what the hell would the EU have to gain by tying itself to a nation with a $40 billion/month trade imbalance and a $44 trillion fiscal deficet?

DJ,

think it's sad to see the "USA bad oil-hungry malitarist nation" conspiracy still alive.

And I think it's sad to see people still thinking "it was about oil" means that the only reason for the invasion was to throw a few drums on a ship and send it to the US. It was about oil - but about controlling it's sale rather than just stealing some.
Of course, the presence of US military bases in the middle east wasn't exactly a fly in the ointment either.

First of all, do you think GW. Bush has his ownpersonal swimming pool he wants to fill with Iraqi oil? Not to my knowledge he doesnt! ;p

How about the million dollars a year that Cheney gets from Halliburton? Think that might have influenced him in any way?
And that's just one example.

Who gets the oil? The *market* gets the oil.

Yes, but the market gets it by paying in dollars.

Who is paid for the oil? The Iraqi *people* is paid for the oil.

Actually, that's not quite so clear. I haven't seen any plans to disperse the money to the people. I have seen the US say that they'll take at least a large share of the proceeds to pay for the war. I've also seen the US say that the proceeds from the sale will be used to rebuild Iraq - which means that the proceeds will pay US companies (recall that no other companies were allowed to apply for the contracts) to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure that US forces destroyed in the first place.

Yes, US oil entrepreneurs will probably be middlemen in the extraction and sale of the oil, but as someone else here has said, it's only fair that some money go back to teh USA in the form of taxes on the oil companies' profits - a military operation of the magnitude we have seen is not free - far from it.

So you lie about the reason for the war, go in and kill ten thousand innocent civilians or more, destroy what little infrastructure survived the last gulf war and sanctions, and then you expect them to pay for it?
Nice of you...

And lastly - stop the **** about the USA occupying (evil sense of the word) Iraq. They have liberated 26 million Irais from the worst megamurderer on plater Earth for the last 10 years.

Actually, that title does not belong to Hussein. And last I checked, the US troops were merrily occupying Iraq. They're a foreign army in Iraq during a time of war and they've taken over the civil structures - that's occupation.

The fact that the Iraqi people (well, some of them) were allowed to protest against the US occupation is a sure testimony to the fact that the Iraqi people is now MUCH MORE free and safe than under Saddam.

All bar the ones that get in the way of the US.

And even if the USA left Iraq after Saddam was thrown out, the US wouuld STILL be under fire from anti-americans... but this time for "leaving the Iraqi's in the after-war turmoil etc etc " (hypothetical situation, but I would not at all be surprised if we were to see such a reaction - it's emotion that drives the anti-USA banter, you know).

Oddly enough, you're right - had you lied about the reason for the war, gone in and killed ten thousand innocent civilians or more, destroyed what little infrastructure survived the last gulf war and sanctions, and then left them all to die because of the damage done to the infrastructure, yes, you would have been criticised.
Funny old world, isn't it?