Power Line News

Right here chums, is the reason for the war in Iraq.

e Unstated US Goals of Increasing the Flow of Oil from the Middle East, and US Dominance of the Area

Behind the acknowledged concern about the “free flow” of Persian Gulf oil are other motives. Following the recommendations of the Task Force Report, the Bush administration wishes to increase international (which may well turn out to mean US) investment in the under-developed Iraq oilfields. On 1/16/03 the Wall Street Journal reported that officials from the White House, State Department, and Department of Defense have been meeting informally with executives from Halliburton, Schlumberger, ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips to plan the post-war expansion of oil production from Iraq (whose oilfields were largely held by US companies prior to their nationalization). The Journal story has since been denied by Administration officials; but, as the Guardian noted on 1/27/03, “It stretches credulity somewhat to imagine that the subject has never been broached.” <4>

Lets see, White house, State Dept.,DoD.,Halliburton, ExcxonMobil, Schlumberger,, CheveronTexaco, and ConocoHiillips to plan the post war expansion of oil Production from Iraq, (whose oilfields were largely held by US Compainies prior to the Nationalization.) Sounds like to me the war is about taking the oilfields back from Iraq, after Saddam had nationalized them at some time in history, Course they wwould not do a thing like that, or would they?
It is worth pointing out that Saddam Hussein already has offered exploratory concessions (which remained inactive because of the UN sanctions) to France, China, Russia, Brazil, Italy, and Malaysia. If Saddam is replaced by a new client regime, it seems likely that these concessions will be superseded, although there are reports that the US has offered France, Russia and China a share of post-war Iraqi oil, as an inducement to get their support in the Security Council. <5> Last September former CIA Chief Woolsey threatened in the Washington Post (9/15/02) that the price for participation by France and Russia in the post-war Iraq oil bonanza should be their support for “regime change.” <6> It would not take much of such menacing talk from official sources to turn the Bush campaign against Iraq into a campaign against Europe (see Postscript).

Just your every day run of the mill operation in a facist goverment.

oldjim - 16 May 2008 06:05 PM

sarasara - 15 May 2008 02:58 PM

I saw a film on CNN about the Iraqi Air Force, talk about keen! To these guys getting up in the air is being a rockstar!

But I think they had only two planes, few months ago. I think I heard since that Iraqi helicopters were deployed in Basra.

Perhaps some pilots are being trained in the UK and other countries as well?

Just what we need, more fvriking rock stars, I could care less what they buy, as long as they funnel the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to pay for the war to the USA to benfit the american taxpayer.
And next thing you know, someone will say oil has nothing to do with the war. As your supposed to be, according to you an expert on Mid-east what would be the problem in billing Iraq for say 25 to 40 billion a year to pay the costs of american armed forces being in Iraq?

How interesting Oldjim that the only people I know who care about the Iraqis are Republicans. They love and value freedom and democracy enough to feel a pride in it’s spread.

The Democrats always talk of Iraq in terms of what a loss the funding is to them at home. A failure to grasp the fact that homeland security starts in the Middle East.

If Iraqi pilots feel like rockstars that’s a sign we are winning.