$$Trillions

China moved from a net exporter of oil from the first gulf war to a net importer of nearly twice of Iraq's total production. High oil prices aren't just screwing our economy, its squeezing China's (and India's and... etc.). They want to use more of it. So does the rest of the developing countries of Asia... or developing countries in general. The Saudi's are also worried about the high price of crude, too. They don't like alternative energy talk... go figure.

2007 article that saw it coming

to

Jul 2008
Western Firms' Dreams Of Iraq Oil May Prove Fleeting

Iraq is a free country now, they're free to do business with anyone they please. That was the objective of the past 5 years, right?

Funny, I though it was going to Jordan.

Mission Accomplished.

Well, it was their money!

This will not end well.

Clearly, this is a case of NO OIL FOR BLOOD!

/wait. what?

Etchy333: Well, it was their money!

+100

The best part is all the ads in my local Senate race complaining about one of our candidates going to Iraq to make oil deals. So the Chinese make a deal with Iraq and everyone complains. An American goes to Iraq to try to make a deal and he's criticized. WTF?

What a shocker, all those shrill voices saying we invaded only for oil now criticizing us for not taking the oil! It's a switcheroo!

BlakeyRat: What a shocker, all those shrill voices saying we invaded only for oil now criticizing us for not taking the oil! It's a switcheroo!

Murdoch said that oil would be $22-bbl after Iraq. Where is it? Jordan, thats where.

BlakeyRat: What a shocker, all those shrill voices saying we invaded only for oil now criticizing us for not taking the oil! It's a switcheroo!

Switcheroo....like, saying the war was against turrists before conceding that it was really for....what was it for, again, Bushie Two Times? I lost track in the twisting storm of BULLS--- that is your screed.

sarcastrophe: The best part is all the ads in my local Senate race complaining about one of our candidates going to Iraq to make oil deals. So the Chinese make a deal with Iraq and everyone complains. An American goes to Iraq to try to make a deal and he's criticized. WTF?

When you're clearly in the wrong, such as spending trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives, to invade a sovereign nation for their oil, it's hard to look right.

Marla Singer's Laundry: Switcheroo....like, saying the war was against turrists before conceding that it was really for....what was it for, again, Bushie Two Times? I lost track in the twisting storm of BULLS--- that is your screed.

So which is it? Should we be pissed because the Chinese are getting oil deals or should we be pissed because Americans are trying to make oil deals? Or is there some way to reconcile being pissed about both?

BlakeyRat: What a shocker, all those shrill voices saying we invaded only for oil now criticizing us for not taking the oil! It's a switcheroo!

They're grasping for straws. They were counting on Iraq being a death pool around election day. The Dems are pissed because we're losing less GIs now.

emocomputerjock: Iraq is a free country now, they're free to do business with anyone they please. That was the objective of the past 5 years, right?

There was an objective?

moralpanic: When you're clearly in the wrong, such as spending trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives, to invade a sovereign nation for their oil, it's hard to look right.

I agree 100%. I'm one of the "get out Iraq RIGHT NOW" people. I'm probably the most anti-war person in the politics tab. But this line of attack doesn't make any sense.

Of course it went to the Chinese, they PAID for the war! This isn't rocket science.

moralpanic: a sovereign nation for their oil

what does this mean? What was the plan?
Was there anyone against a plan like this?

I suppose this would be a bad time to point out that perhaps it would be a good time to get off of an oil-based economy...

/ just saying. Would rather the Chinese hit that wall unprepared.

Way to go, you Republican cockbags.

Woohoo! We won! USA! USA! USA!

maxheck: I suppose this would be a bad time to point out that perhaps it would be a good time to get off of an oil-based economy.

I got a crazy idea.

How about we spend that money into that plan.. And..

Money spent to buy oil is money not available to be spent here in the U.S. It's as simple as that. Lower aggregate demand leads, through a multiplier, to lower national income.
The second impact arises from the fact that Iraq expenditures do not stimulate the economy in the short run as much as expenditures on, say, infrastructure or education that are so badly needed here at home. A dollar spent to hire a Nepalese contractor-or even an Iraqi-in Iraq does not have the first round, second round, or nth round impacts that a dollar spent here does.

The third impact is that both directly, and indirectly, through the mounting deficits, Iraq expenditures are crowding out investments that would have increased America's productivity in the future.

naah, thats nuts.

In simple terms, for the mentally deficient among us:

Idiots: Let's kill us some attractive and successful sand-Americans and we'll get cheap oil!
Sane people: Cheap oil would be great, but, uh, it won't work. This is bullshiat.
*Five years and one giant clusterfark later*
Iraq: No, you can't has oil. Not yours.
Sane people: So what about that cheap oil you idiots were talking about? Or did you really intend for it to go to the Chinese?
Idiots: FIRST you said we shouldn't go. NOW you're mad at us because it failed miserably and the oil's going to the Chinese. There's just no pleasing you liiiiiiiibs!

I wonder if this what Cheney had in mind when he had his top secret energy meetings?

LarryDan43: Of course it went to the Chinese, they PAID for the war! This isn't rocket science.

are you saying the neocons are foreign agents and we've had a Manchurian candidate in office for 8 yrs whose job it was to destroy this country for China? Well then my opinion of Bush and Cheney just went up. Excellent job. Well done sirs.

BlakeyRat: What a shocker, all those shrill voices saying we invaded only for oil now criticizing us for not taking the oil! It's a switcheroo!


I think if you criticize Republicans for starting a war for oil, its fair game to criticize them for being so incompetent, that they couldn't even get the oil.

Nemo's Brother: They're grasping for straws. They were counting on Iraq being a death pool around election day. The Dems are pissed because we're losing less GIs now.

You miserable farking coward. I have family over there right now, and for you to say that because I'm voting for Obama I'm wishing them some kind of harm is one of the lowest things I've ever heard. You're the kind of asswipe who voted for the idiots who put these kids there in the first place, and I'm sure you'll be pulling that lever again, but you think you can accuse me of sedition?

I sincerely hope you die of an aneurysm in the farking bathtub while you jerk off thinking about what a war hero you'd be if only.

depmode98: I think if you criticize Republicans for starting a war for oil, its fair game to criticize them for being so incompetent, that they couldn't even get the oil.

But, again, people are also criticizing them for trying to GET the oil deals in the first place:

VoteVets.org Ad - Why Hasn't Bob Schaffer Fought for Us? (new window)

So.... please... which is it?

ifarkthereforiam: I wonder if this what Cheney had in mind when he had his top secret energy meetings?

That group designated to make a national energy plan? nothing is disclosed from it.

What do we actually know on Cheney / neocons?
There is a great deal of discussion on Iraq, Iran and oil companies, and often this premise is positioned in contrast to Israel; However, an exploration of efforts by the oil companies reveals a much more complicated picture. While neoconservatives were writing about

[1996]This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right

.....

An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression...

[1998] We urge you [Clinton] to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

Oil companies were fighting and lobbying to increase trade to both Iraq and Iran. In the late 1990's, Iraq was begging to sell their oil, and countries like France, Russia, UK, and Italy ^[4][5], and U.S. companies like ExxonMobil (and the American Petroleum Institute) were lobbying to ease the sanctions ^{[6][7][8*][9*]}. Oil corporations were not looking to invade Iraq before the war, as the neoconservatives were: the oil companies pushed hard to reduce sanctions.

In Iran, the U.S. oil companies ran into intense lobbying efforts in the 1990's that turned the trade relationship from U.S. oil companies as the biggest customers to severe sanctions that not only curbed U.S. companies, but imposed penalties on foreign companies trading with Iran as well^[10][11]. By the mid 1990's, US oil companies were already Iran's biggest customers (a fact exposed, in part by an AIPAC research paper^[12*]), despite laws forbidding the import of Iranian oil^[12*][13*]. Conoco sought out to have the first production agreement with Iran to develop two large Iranian oil and gas fields. In a move wholly unanticipated by Conoco, AIPAC, Senator D'Amato (D-NY), and wealthy activists like Charles, Edgar (Jr.), and Edgar (Sr.) Bronfman successfully lobbied Congress to terminate the deal, over objection by U.S. oil companies^{[12*][13*][14*][15]}. The resulting Iran and Libya sanctions act^[10] placed stiff penalties on domestic and foreign companies, raising the ire of some of traditional American allies^[13*][16].

Dick Cheney, both the oil industrialist and a man often associated with neoconservative foreign policy, broke sharply with neoconservative goals in the 1990's on both Iraq and Iran vis-a-vis oil. While neoconservatives were motivated by a lost opportunity for regime change in Iraq during the first Gulf war, and wrote about pre-emption in 1992^[17], Cheney, broadcasting from the AEI (a neoconservative think tank), broke with this sentiment for pre-emption and famously and prophetically stated at great length how an invasion of Iraq would result in a "quagmire"^[18]. Cheney vis-a-vis Iran also merges with this conflated topic of Israel. Cheney, in contrast to AIPAC, the Bronfmans (a family with various political and philanthropic associations to Israel^{[19][20][21][22]}) , and neoconservative authors, called the US government "sanctions happy"^[23*] and urged Congress to ease sanctions against Iran and enter into diplomatic discussions with the country's leaders so the oilfield services company could legally do business there ^[24][25]. Furthermore, while Cheney publicly called Iraqi sanctions a good idea, he privately was conducting millions of dollars in business in Iraq (1997-2000) at roughly the same time he was railing against the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act ^[24][25][26]. Cheney moved in sync with these neoconservative goals for Iran and Iraq after September 11^[27]. Thus Dick Cheney's positions in the 1990's ran contrary to the goals of the neoconservatives, AIPAC, and individual philanthropists associated with Israel.
...snip

sarcastrophe: moralpanic: When you're clearly in the wrong, such as spending trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives, to invade a sovereign nation for their oil, it's hard to look right.

I agree 100%. I'm one of the "get out Iraq RIGHT NOW" people. I'm probably the most anti-war person in the politics tab. But this line of attack doesn't make any sense.

You're trying to make sense of something that never had any sense to begin with.

Hobodeluxe

are you saying the neocons are foreign agents and we've had a Manchurian candidate in office for 8 yrs whose job it was to destroy this country for China? Well then my opinion of Bush and Cheney just went up. Excellent job. Well done sirs.

No, what I'm saying is we paid for our war from borrowed money from China. It should come as no surprise as part of that arangement allows them first dibs on oil contracts.

It should come as some surprise that our loss of life has so little value in determining those contracts.

If you agree with these policies, by all means, vote for McCain Pallin and pray you don't have a child nearing the age of 18 that they can send off to fight their next war.

I doubt there was some kind of D.C.-Baghdad trade agreement which stated "dead americans = lucrative oil contracts".

It's their oil, they're free to do whatever they want with it. And if the Chinese gets it, it's sort of good since it'll reduce the demand on the rest of the supply. At least short term demand.

Oh and guys don't get too carried away. We will get contracts ,just before the election and everyone will be like "sweet it paid off" little realizing that it only means out oil companies get the contracts. it all still goes into the same pool that determines the supply v demand and the price unless we get a deal like Jordan which is not likely.

but I'm not going to rest easy cause this could be their October surprise. we could be in dire need after the hurricanes and Iraq will come to our rescue. Perfect story for political points there.

moralpanic: You're trying to make sense of something that never had any sense to begin with.

Very true.

sarcastrophe: depmode98: I think if you criticize Republicans for starting a war for oil, its fair game to criticize them for being so incompetent, that they couldn't even get the oil.

But, again, people are also criticizing them for trying to GET the oil deals in the first place:

VoteVets.org Ad - Why Hasn't Bob Schaffer Fought for Us? (new window)

So.... please... which is it?

"We all got farked up and shot and I think Mike ended up with a piece of shrapnel embedded in his cumulonimbus or something. Schaffer got a bunch of oil money. What a farking asshole."

Not hard to interpret if you're not filtering through a lens of stupidity.

LarryDan43: Hobodeluxe

are you saying the neocons are foreign agents and we've had a Manchurian candidate in office for 8 yrs whose job it was to destroy this country for China? Well then my opinion of Bush and Cheney just went up. Excellent job. Well done sirs.

No, what I'm saying is we paid for our war from borrowed money from China. It should come as no surprise as part of that arangement allows them first dibs on oil contracts.

It should come as some surprise that our loss of life has so little value in determining those contracts.

If you agree with these policies, by all means, vote for McCain Pallin and pray you don't have a child nearing the age of 18 that they can send off to fight their next war.

I think you missed the sarcasm in my post. sorry I'll try harder next time. We're on the same side here bro.

A Dark Evil Omen: Not hard to interpret if you're not filtering through a lens of stupidity.

I agree 100%. But I'm also not complaining about other countries getting oil deals. My only point is if you're going to complain about one, you can't complain about the other.

let me post this too, cause it usually jumps in..

one should be careful not to conflate "pro-Israel" to the Israeli right - or buy into the conspiracy theory that this represents "all Jews"

sarcastrophe: A Dark Evil Omen: Not hard to interpret if you're not filtering through a lens of stupidity.

I agree 100%. But I'm also not complaining about other countries getting oil deals. My only point is if you're going to complain about one, you can't complain about the other.

Sigh. See my post above. If you promise cheap oil, you get a lot of people killed and destroy your country's economy for it, and then don't even manage to get said oil for the country even after making sketchy deals for it, you can expect to be called on it.

sarcastrophe:
So.... please... which is it?

Wow, i don't know why you keep framing the argument into one 'which is right'. Neither are right. Which is more right? Hitting your kid or hitting your wife?

NEITHER ARE RIGHT. It wasn't right for them to invade a nation for the oil, and it's just not as right for them to do it, and not be able to keep it.

So, how does America get paid in this? People say the war was for oil, but oil=money. Someone's going to rake it in at the end of the day, and the bastards wont hire me.

sarcastrophe: A Dark Evil Omen: Not hard to interpret if you're not filtering through a lens of stupidity.

I agree 100%. But I'm also not complaining about other countries getting oil deals. My only point is if you're going to complain about one, you can't complain about the other.

Um why not? I really don't understand your logic here. You're assuming the same people who are upset about the US getting the deals, are the same people who are upset that China are now making deals.

Hobodeluxe: Oh and guys don't get too carried away. We will get contracts ,just before the election and everyone will be like "sweet it paid off" little realizing that it only means out oil companies get the contracts. it all still goes into the same pool that determines the supply v demand and the price unless we get a deal like Jordan which is not likely.

As long as these oil corporations pass the savings on to the taxpayers who paid for the war, and if we can ignore all of the American and Iraqi lives destroyed by injury, death, mental disorders, etc, then I think this can be called an unqualified success(assuming that the children of the massive numbers of Iraqi dead don't later grow up to dislike the US in typical post-puppet regime fashion).

Of course it was all about their oil. Except the dolts in charge thought that they'd fall over backwards for us after we liberated them and give it to us for all our troubles in bombing the hell out of them. Instead we saw literal truckloads of cash go missing, merc and infrastructure companies make a killing, oil companies taking advantage of the clusterfark to screw everyone, a whole bunch of dead and wounded, and American citizens paying $3.50 for unleaded wondering why the hell and where's their slice. Naive NeoCons living in a world of Holy lollipops and Jesus-puppydogs failing to realize that people would act like humans was the root of the problem.

Obama's reaction to the hurricane is exactly what I thought it should be. ^{(^)}

LarryDan43: Of course it went to the Chinese, they PAID for the war! This isn't rocket science.

You win an entire bucket of inter-tubes.

China financed the war. Most of the debt incurred by the US for the Iraq War is due to China.

All those borrowed trillions have to come from somewhere. So China is financing America's war. The US is now operating at such a deficit, in fact, that it doesn't have the money to bail out its own banks.

Party Boy: let me post this too, cause it usually jumps in..

one should be careful not to conflate "pro-Israel" to the Israeli right - or buy into the conspiracy theory that this represents "all Jews"

Greed is color blind...or sth like that.