/pulls out clipboard
Pillaging? Check...

Here we go again with the "no-bid" contracts. Like oil deals are in General Accounting Office domain.

Now to get it out of the country...

Because massive pipelines are so easy to keep secure.

Yeah! Finally some war for oil evidence! Back out on the bridge with the signs, Berkleyans!

Sorry, the Iraq war was just not about oil. Or at least, if it was it was a very ill conceived move. War is quite expensive, if all we wanted was the oil, we would have simply bought it from Saddam.

nekom:Sorry, the Iraq war was just not about oil. Or at least, if it was it was a very ill conceived move. War is quite expensive, if all we wanted was the oil, we would have simply bought it from Saddam.

Sorry, but Saddam's contracts were with the French, Russians and Chinese. US Americans were left out on those and had to give our cash to the Reds in order to get our hands on the Iraqi Sweet.

By taking Saddam out we voided his contracts with Lukoil, Shell etc. and we were able to set up our own bidding process for Hunt and Exxon.

It's always about the resources- whether it's spices, minerals or shipping lanes. Always has been, always will. Everything else is propaganda to get you to sign up for the cause, Bucky.

The article says this instead of what the headline says:

"We" are already heisting Iraq's oil, or at least are on the cusp of doing so. Great journalism. Doesn't really matter whether we are or are about to. The premises of the article are stupid, too.

I hope we get oil out of Iraq and I hope American companies make money on the deal.

RogerDodger:By taking Saddam out we voided his contracts with Lukoil, Shell etc. and we were able to set up our own bidding process for Hunt and Exxon.

I understand that other countries dealt with him, but wasn't it our own sanctions against him that prevented us from buying Iraqi oil? I'm sure we could have negotiated a deal with him if that's all we wanted. On top of all that, the war added instability to the region which is always a bad thing for the oil flow. I think the Iraq war was entirely personal.

2wolves:Now to get it out of the country...

Because massive pipelines are so easy to keep secure.

Exactly. The deals are pretend. No oil company is stupid enough to put serious money into infrastructure that might get blown up. Which is why Iraq is still at embargo level output.

Plus the pretend deals will be worthless when Iraq ever gets a real government. The current government and "constitution" didn't get ratified by the Sunnis. Saudi Arabia (Sunni) is unlikely to leave the Sunnis stranded out of oil profits -- so no real oil deal exists.

nekom: On top of all that, the war added instability to the region which is always a bad thing for the oil flow.


$150 a barrel is a bad thing for you, but think about who's getting your $150 and why they'd want you to pay that versus the price before the war.

I agree with you that there SHOULD be another more profound or satifying reason for us to be there, but sadly this is just a business deal. Yes, it would've been cheaper in a lot of ways just to give Saddam a suitcase with a half-trillion dollars in it, but there's no way any American administration would do that.

The big indicator of how this went down back in 03 was when China, Russia and France didn't support the Coalition of the Willing. Simply put, they'd all lose by Saddam being removed.

Revenge on Saddam for whatever reason was a 50 cent bullet away, and we didn't even pull the trigger when we found him in the hole.

nekom

the war added instability to the region which is always a bad thing for the oil flow. I think the Iraq war was entirely personal.


Try reading the article again. Instability is the name of the game. The oil companies have no use for cheap, easy-to-get oil. Don't take my word for this, look at their profits.

I'm still waiting for my share of it.

nekom:Sorry, the Iraq war was just not about oil. Or at least, if it was it was a very ill conceived move. War is quite expensive, if all we wanted was the oil, we would have simply bought it from Saddam.

This has been raised before.

So I will give the answer again.

Because of the EMBARGO ON IRAQ (remember? No fly zones? Keeping him contained after Kuwait?)? No?

After the war, Iraq on a number of occasions throughout the 1990s was accused of breaking its obligations, including the discovery in 1993 of a plan to assassinate former President George H. W. Bush, and the removal of UN weapon inspectors in 1998 (the Iraqi government claimed that it suspected that some inspectors were spies for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency). As a result of these violations, economic sanctions were imposed upon Iraq.

So what you're saying is: if we wanted oil, WE COULD HAVE ILLEGALLY BOUGHT IT AND BROKE OUR OWN EMBARGO?

Why do Conservatives hate rules and laws so much that they have to suggest breaking them, or continue to break them?

oldebayer:Try reading the article again. Instability is the name of the game. The oil companies have no use for cheap, easy-to-get oil. Don't take my word for this, look at their profits.

I would think their profit margins would be the same no matter what the cost of a barrel of oil. There isn't one oil company, they have to compete on the market, and the price of crude is just one of many factors. Now unless you believe that there is some grand conspiracy between all of the world's oil companies, which I don't, what am I missing here?

Jackpot777:So what you're saying is: if we wanted oil, WE COULD HAVE ILLEGALLY BOUGHT IT AND BROKE OUR OWN EMBARGO?

We could have lifted the embargo and bought it at a far cheaper cost than the Iraq war, that's what my line of thinking is here.

Love Boat:Having read that mind numbing piece of psycho-babble, all I can say is that the perpetually enraged left is growing more insane with each passing day.

Good grief.

Translation: I have nothing but hate for those with different views, and I need to be coddled.

worth a read:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/04/oil.oilandgascompanies

Umm... does the sovereign nation of Iraq have a system and laws in place for only a bidding system of awarding oil contracts?

Its kind of a pertinent question. The author seems to believe our laws govern them.

Invading countries to seize their natural resources is illegal under the Geneva Conventions. That means that the huge task of rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure--including its oil infrastructure--is the financial responsibility of Iraq's invaders. They should be forced to pay reparations.

Those two sentences are not a cause and effect and is a large jump to a conclusion. They are being paid for their oil and no one bears responsibility to fix anything. A moral responsibility for sure but not a legal one.

nekom:"Sorry, the Iraq war was just not about oil. Or at least, if it was it was a very ill conceived move. War is quite expensive, if all we wanted was the oil, we would have simply bought it from Saddam."

Wow did you miss the point.

Since the TAXPAYER is paying for this war, and corporations are getting the benefit via "no bid" contracts, the cost to the oil companies is nothing. The benefit, however, is nearly unlimited.

Where does this leave the American consumer? You guessed it - farked once again.

/does it feel better to be farked by American corporations or by Saudi Arabia? You make the call.

Link (new window)

nekom:Jackpot777:So what you're saying is: if we wanted oil, WE COULD HAVE ILLEGALLY BOUGHT IT AND BROKE OUR OWN EMBARGO?

We could have lifted the embargo and bought it at a far cheaper cost than the Iraq war, that's what my line of thinking is here.

Halliburton wanted to do just that, AIPAC lobbied against it.

Genetically modified crops have emerged as the cureall for the food crisis, at least according to the World Bank, the European Commission president (time to "bite the bullet") and Prime Minister of Britain Gordon Brown. And, of course, the agribusiness companies. "You cannot today feed the world without genetically modified organisms," Peter Brabeck, chairman of Nestlé, told the Financial Times recently. The problem with this argument, at least for now, is that there is no evidence that GMOs increase crop yields, and they often decrease them.

The problem with this writer's argument is that it ignores reality. Why does she think the farmers grow GM crops, for the cachet?

No doubt the people of Iraq will support this.

Why I bet the CIA is making boodles off Iraqi oil. Just like Air America during Vietnam. Just like the Thai drug trade during Vietnam. Just like the drug trade with the Contras in the 80's.

Why? Cause the old man loves my ass.

/Ollie North.

/During Manuel Noriega's trial in 1991, pilot Floyd Carlton testified that his smuggling operation was flying weapons to the Contras at the same time he was flying dope to the United States. When Carlton's lawyer asked about Oliver North's knowledge of these flights, federal prosecutors vehemently objected, and U.S. judge William Hoeveler became angry. "Just stay away from it," the judge snapped, refusing to allow any more questions on the topic.[12]

Dick Cheney: We will be greeted as liberators.*



*Of oil.

nekom:Jackpot777:So what you're saying is: if we wanted oil, WE COULD HAVE ILLEGALLY BOUGHT IT AND BROKE OUR OWN EMBARGO?

We could have lifted the embargo and bought it at a far cheaper cost than the Iraq war, that's what my line of thinking is here.

You line of thinking is: changing good rules (that are there for a reason) beats principles?

You'll never get a Progressive thinking along those lines.

Snowflake Tubbybottom:Umm... does the sovereign nation of Iraq

Sovereign? You lost me there. The Iraqi "government" has no jurisdiction over the occupying army.

Nation? You lost me there too. They might have some semblance of countryhood. But they are not a nation.

The author's book, much like this article are not much more than a poorly supported bit of broad brush stroking combined with vague insinuations and pshyco-babble writ large to substitute for an understanding of foreign policy. It is the worst kind of hack analysis - it begins with a gimmicky concept then works backwards from there.

I know this is getting to be a bit of a 'cause celebre' due to her incessant peddling of her book, but after listinging to her umpteenth in-depth interview on NPR it is abundantly clear that this book and the author are completely full of horse feathers.

Love Boat:Having read that mind numbing piece of psycho-babble, all I can say is that the perpetually enraged left is growing more insane with each passing day.

Good grief.

Account created: 2008-06-30 19:32:33

Oh goody, a new afternoon leather troll alt. It was time for a new one.

Ah, Naomi Klein. Her book "The Shock Doctrine" should be required reading for anyone who wonders how the developing world gets so messed up. With more actual proof and a hell of a lot more intellectual rigour than "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man", it lays bare the incredibly cynical machine devoted to stripping crisis-stricken people of their resources and their self-determination, in the name of unfettered corporate greed.

1. Create (or exploit) a disaster or national crisis
2. Make un-democratic changes benefiting a small elite and corporations while the citizenry is busy trying to stay alive day to day
3. Declare those changes to be a fait accompli that cannot be rescinded or even voted on
4. Watch the money roll in

Major stooges of this approach are Thabo Mbeke of South Africa, and believe it or not Lech Walesa, both of whom were convinced to trash their countries' economies, on the very eves of their democratic blossoming. Why? So multinational corporations could gobble up national resources piecemeal, and make a killing selling them back to the people who used to own them.

(double post, SRY)

BojanglesPaladin:
The author's book, much like this article are not much more than a poorly supported bit of broad brush stroking combined with vague insinuations and pshyco-babble writ large to substitute for an understanding of foreign policy. It is the worst kind of hack analysis - it begins with a gimmicky concept then works backwards from there.

Yeah... extensively documented "horse feathers" with more well-researched footnotes than you could shake a stick at. I bet you also poo-poo Chomsky's research because you don't agree with his politics.

Bush didn't sit around and decide "hey! Imma gonna get my buddies that iraqi oil an make them billions! Ill cook up some reason to justify going to war!"

It was probably more like " mr president...since clinton and the liberals in congress have done nothing iraq is developing wmd's. Here see this cherry picked proof? And don't forget about the plot to kill your daddy! Besides...it will be easy since they surrendered so fast the last time. AND if they are friendly to us afterwards the other counties around them will soon follow!" Bush "sounds good boys. Lets do it."

good. fark iraq. I want $1.50 gas.

FTFA: even the most rabidly right-wing media hosts had to prove their populist cred by devoting a portion of every show to bashing Big Oil.

I hate this attitude along with the dumbass "a broken clock is right twice a day" cliche. Isn't it possible that people just don't usually have opinions that fall straight down party lines and there's no other motive for expressing a certain viewpoint?

Statements like this just further fuel the extreme political polarization in our society.

"Oh, he (from Party A) said something I (from Party B) agree with? Well he's obviously just pandering to sound good and so he doesn't seem so extreme." Really? What if he really thinks that and he's not "trying" to sound one way or another?

It's like you can't win. Unless you happen to have exactly 50% Right and 50% Left views on the issues of today.

RodgerDodger
It's always about the resources- whether it's spices, minerals or shipping lanes. Always has been, always will. Everything else is propaganda to get you to sign up for the cause, Bucky.


THIS.

Anybody who has ever played Civilization for any amount of time will suddenly find all the inexplicable facets of geopolitics quite understandable.

Bush Adopts Theocracy
Bush Adopts Police State

Bush has declared war on Saddam

A Great General has been fired
A Great General has been fired
A Great General has been fired

Fox News has been built in New York (-28% war weariness)


Unfortunately, Commander Dipshiat and his dilettante cabal (looking at you Rummy) farked this thing up so badly (fire the Iraqi Army?) that Iraq will remain in play for quite some time, we may never see the oil.

Happy Birthday!

/Killz alls da brown peeplz

Jackpot777:You line of thinking is: changing good rules (that are there for a reason) beats principles?

You'll never get a Progressive thinking along those lines.

I've never really believed that embargos did much good anyway. Cuba is still communist, Iran is still developing nuclear weapons, and Iraq was still under the control of a brutal dictator until the war.

If we had dropped the sanctions and just bought oil from Saddam, it's not as if that would have been the first time we made deals with bad people.

Control_this:Snowflake Tubbybottom:Umm... does the sovereign nation of Iraq

Sovereign? You lost me there. The Iraqi "government" has no jurisdiction over the occupying army.

And the occupying army has no authority over the oil so what was your point?

/2nd try

AMERICA! fark YEAH!


/le sigh

No Such Agency:(double post, SRY)
Yeah... extensively documented "horse feathers" with more well-researched footnotes than you could shake a stick at. I bet you also poo-poo Chomsky's research because you don't agree with his politics.

Footnotes are not proof, oddly enough. They just point to a place where something was said. That something might be statistics in a well-respected news source -- or it might be a bald assertion in an opinion piece.

The Troofers, for example, have LOTS of footnotes. Hell, the Bushies had lots of footnotes about WMD. Doesn't mean they aren't full of shiat. Mind you, its better to have footnotes and sources than none at all, but they aren't magical talismans.

Anyone can have facts in footnotes. But its the old lies, damn lies and statistics thing. Do said facts actually support the authors argument, especially in context? Good luck figuring that out.

That said, I do think Naomi Klein is a bit of a twit.

The Iraqis owe us. We liberated them and they should at least give us some oil for our trouble. Thousands of Americans dead and billions of dollars spent for the people of Iraq so yeah they farking owe us BIGTIME.

Snowflake Tubbybottom:
And the occupying army has no authority over the oil so what was your point?

You called Iraq a sovereign nation. That's a stretch.

No Such Agency

All the data in the world does not equal good or even useful analisys (just ask the CIA).

The problem with her book is that to her everything in the wolrd is in some way, somehow an example of her imaginary 'doctrine'. Things that don't are either distorted until they do, or the definition of 'exploited' is expanded so wide that it loses any value in the first place.

But worst of all, She thinks she has discovered some 'new' concept by which panic is exploited, seemingly oblivious to both human nature, and the entire histopy of civilization since the first farmers chose a chieftan. It's like running around with her startling discovery of a new phenomenon called 'war profiteering', or 'price gouging'!!!. Oh noes! Truly she is a powerful and insightful voice!

She might as well have written a Diet book about eating less and exercising more, and used frogs and horses to prove the benefits of her plan for people. With lots of footnotes.

All the footnotes in the world do not make up for a facile premise and a weakly rationalized argument. (Speaking of Chomsky...)

nekom

I would think their profit margins would be the same no matter what the cost of a barrel of oil.

Huh? Oil company profits (new window)

Apik0r0s:RodgerDodger
It's always about the resources- whether it's spices, minerals or shipping lanes. Always has been, always will. Everything else is propaganda to get you to sign up for the cause, Bucky.


THIS.

Anybody who has ever played Civilization for any amount of time will suddenly find all the inexplicable facets of geopolitics quite understandable.

Bush Adopts Theocracy
Bush Adopts Police State

Bush has declared war on Saddam

A Great General has been fired
A Great General has been fired
A Great General has been fired

Fox News has been built in New York (-28% war weariness)





So, is the Iraqi insurgency the equivalent of that one damn Phalanx fortified behind city walls in the mountains that minces your modern armor?

Naomi Klein blows my mind.
I heard her plugging Shock Doctrine on CBC & only realized later that I had read another book of hers years ago, The Beauty Myth.
It covers a lot of creepy stuff about marketing as social engineering, but the insight that grabbed me most was the idea that keeping males in a perpetual state of perceived sexual inadequacy & frustration is necessary not just to sell fast cars, clothes & electronics, but also to keep the war machine moving. Men in happy and satisfying love relationships are not that interested in leaving home to play chest-thumping manhood-affirmation games with guns, Humvees, Arabs, Vietnamese hookers, and getting their asses shot off.
Which really clicked with my pre-existing suspicion that homo-erotic angst is the engine that drives the whole military/industrial/gun-nut/Nascar complex.
Happy Independence Day. Consume. Obey.

Apik0r0s:Anybody who has ever played Civilization for any amount of time will suddenly find all the inexplicable facets of geopolitics quite understandable.

While defending, your M-1 Abrams tank was destroyed by an Iraqi spearman.

macadamnut:Naomi Klein blows my mind.
I heard her plugging Shock Doctrine on CBC & only realized later that I had read another book of hers years ago, The Beauty Myth.
It covers a lot of creepy stuff about marketing as social engineering, but the insight that grabbed me most was the idea that keeping males in a perpetual state of perceived sexual inadequacy & frustration is necessary not just to sell fast cars, clothes & electronics, but also to keep the war machine moving. Men in happy and satisfying love relationships are not that interested in leaving home to play chest-thumping manhood-affirmation games with guns, Humvees, Arabs, Vietnamese hookers, and getting their asses shot off.
Which really clicked with my pre-existing suspicion that homo-erotic angst is the engine that drives the whole military/industrial/gun-nut/Nascar complex.
Happy Independence Day. Consume. Obey.

I would like a subscription to your newsletter, or Naomi Klein's newsletter, or maybe just a script to the nation. I bet I could make a lot of money whipping out my pidgeon feather on national TV and yelling "Our penises are not too small! Power to the penis!"