A Sciforum member recently made this comment "If the job of the U.S. military leaders is to plunder, then they should all be fired! They destroy more than they appropriate. They made such a rotten mess of Iraq that we still have not gotten one drop of Saddam's oil." Well Iraq is not such a mess that other's cannot benefit from their oil. An American soldier who served in Iraq once told me that they had been used to protect oil fields and that the oil is going to China. I didn't pay much attention to it at the time but there is this recent article from the Washington Post questioning why it is China and not the US who have first dibs on Iraqi oil contracts. Something quite ironic since the US is said to have gone into Iraq for those exact reasons, to extract oil. Not only were the US going to pay for the war with the oil but also build the country. Washington Post But as the U.S. military draws down and Iraq opens up to foreign investment, China and a handful of other countries that weren't part of the "coalition of the willing" are poised to cash in. These countries are expanding their foothold beyond Iraq's oil reserves -- the world's third largest -- to areas such as construction, government services and even tourism, while American companies show little interest in investing here. "The U.S. really doesn't know what to do in Iraq," said Fawzi Hariri, Iraq's industry minister. "I have been personally, as the minister of industry, trying to woo U.S. companies into Iraq. There is nothing yet. Nothing tangible." In the past two years, Chinese companies have walked away with stakes in three of the 11 contracts the Iraqi Oil Ministry has signed in its bid to increase crude output by about 450 percent over the next seven years. They also renegotiated a $3 billion deal that dates to when Saddam Hussein was in power.Only two American firms won stakes in oil deals, an underwhelming showing that industry analysts and U.S. officials say reflects deep concerns about doing business in a country besieged by insecurity, corruption and political turmoil. "People know they didn't participate in the invasion or the sanctions, and they have an old participation in Iraq that predates Saddam Hussein," said Ahmed Abdul-Redha al-Zanki, the senior engineer for Iraq's North Oil Co., which is working with the Chinese to develop the field. "They work with us as partners," in stark contrast to the condescending practices of Western companies, he said. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/01/AR2010070103406.html Much of what is said in this article doesn't make sense to me. It says that the US shows 'little interest' in Iraqi oil. If this is the case then why were they there? Why are US troops defending oil infrastructure for the benefit of the Chinese? CONTINGENCY OPERATING BASE BASRA, IRAQ - Oil executives buzz in and out of this American base, the former British base connected to the Basra airport, some for meetings with officials, some staying the night – or longer.The American mission in Basra, Iraq’s oil capital, is perhaps unlike that of any U.S. outpost in the world: to ensure the world’s largest oil companies have as few problems as possible as they start work on Iraqi oil contracts that could see the country become the largest producer ever.It’s also a tricky prerogative, considering the country’s lack of weapons of mass destruction but abundance of oil, which only bolsters the claims of those who say economic bounty was the motive for the U.S.-led invasion. “U.S. government policy at this time is that the USG in Iraq should assist in facilitating the mobilization of these companies without regard to the nationality of the companies,” said Kenneth Thomas, head of the energy and transportation section of the Basra Provincial Reconstruction Team, a U.S. Embassy initiative. “If more American companies come into Iraq, we will of course assist them in any way we can.” http://www.iraqoilreport.com/oil/pr...-base-in-basra-on-frontline-of-oil-boom-4871/ How very nice of them. I mean its very nice that the US military is willing to use american troops to 'help them any way they can' even though those countries did not take part in the 'coalition of the willing'. China and Russia have their own troops. Why are they not using them to secure the oil fields from which they benefit? Since it was the United States who first had its big boots in the country I find it hard to believe that they suddenly cannot secure an oil deal or that they have 'no interest'. Also the comment that American companies 'don't know what to do' in Iraq, leaves me dumbfounded. Its not the first time that mega US oil companies have had to deal with corrupt nations in political turmoil, it never stopped them before. US oil companies are in Syria, Pakistan, colombia, Chad, Nigeria, Congo nevertheless its being cited that the US doesn't know what to do in Iraq, a country that they not only destroyed and occupied but re-built using Halliburton who does oil and gas consultation plus provides oilfield technologies among other things. I just find these reasons do not make sense. Is it possible that after a 10 year investment, not to mention the relationship they had with the former regime, that they suddenly 'don't know what to do'? WASIT, Iraq — A red banner hangs at the entrance of the office of the company — the Iraqi affiliate of China's state-owned China National Petroleum Corp. — its Chinese characters promising anyone who can decipher them: "We will try our best to make this project a success." From among the most outspoken of critics of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, China has emerged as one of the biggest economic beneficiaries of the war, snagging five lucrative deals. While Western firms were largely subdued in their interest in Iraq's recent oil auctions, China snapped up three contracts, shrugging off the security risks and the country's political instability for the promise of oil. The result of its efforts is that about half of China's oil comes from the region. It has ousted the United States as OPEC kingpin Saudi Arabia's top oil customer. Saudi Arabia has also set up a joint venture refinery in China. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37577656...il_and_energy/ China and Iraq will sign a deal next week to develop the Ahdab oil field, 100 miles southeast of Baghdad, at time when political gridlock and security concerns have cast doubt over several pending short-term contracts. The new agreement, valued at $1.2 billion, is a variation of a deal struck with the state-owned China National Petroleum Corp. in 1997, when Iraq was in the clutches of Saddam Hussein. “The Chinese contract was signed with the former regime,” Hussein al-Shahristani, Iraq’s oil minister, said in an interview that appeared on Iraqi news Web site al-Noor. “It’s valid. It was unfair because it was a production-sharing contract. We have negotiated with them for a year. It was turned from a sharing contract into a service contract.” http://moneymorning.com/2008/08/22/china-iraq/ 'The Obama administration advised Marathon Oil not to invest in the KRG last month. U.S. policy is to tell American companies not to sign petroleum deals with the Kurds because there is no national oil law between them and Baghdad. They told Marathon that they are taking a risk working in Kurdistan without the central government’s okay. The Oil Ministry has called all oil contracts with the KRG illegal.' Iraq Oil Report, “US Authorities Advised Marathon Oil Against KRG Deal,” Iraq Business News, 11/3/10 China's deal with Iraq began before the invasion in Iraq. One would think that contracts secured & signed with an ousted and defunct regime would be null and void. I mean why is it that the US cannot sign an oil deal Kurdistan under a new regime but the Chinese can secure oil based on a contract with an ousted regime? Does anyone else find this somewhat incredulous?
Have you ever considered that China out bid the US on those contracts, offering more than America wanted to pay? Although I don't like that idea myself the business world is always trying to bargain commodities any way they can in order to get what they need.
sweet almost feels like there really are no real nations any more. or the US just cracked into Iraq to just sell it off to any one, they are in a world of debt any way. any way... Fuck.
And how does that explain the US using its own troops to protect oil fields from which they do not benefit? Also wouldn't it make sense that the coalition government that the US set up would have made a sweet-heart deal with the US? I mean they've been on the ground for quite a while. Surely they could have manipulated the situation in their favor if they had chosen to do so.
I'm sorry but I don't see what the information in the link has to do with the oil per se. Surely you don't believe that Bush's CLI was purely interested in building a democracy?
Is it possible that they were forced to give first dibs to the Chinese in exchange for the Chinese floating our dollar? A round-about way of paying off our debt?
No, that was their "mission statement" or the gobbledygook they used to sell the war. Since they dissolved immediately after ensuring the war, its clear that the war itself was their only purpose. Its why US troops are in Iraq. As to the whys and wherefores of it, its anybody's guess. Its possible, but that means that the US army is actually working for Chinese interests. Bizarre.
Well now I'm really confused. Are you saying that the war was a means in itself? That there was no reason except that they 'felt like it'? Going to war for oil is one thing. Going to war so you can service others is something you could never have told the american people but going to war just because...well...'just because?' is a whole new world of reality all together.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And yet its possible. It is possible that its to service our debt by some other means. I don't buy this 'they're not really interested' or 'they don't know what they're doing' business.
Its PNAC, they are not supposed to make sense - they just got lucky with Bush Look at what they do: http://www.newamericancentury.org/ Makes perfect sense to me, its clear they have absolutely no clue what they are doing and why
But Sam they must have wanted SOMETHING from the whole excursion. It may have been some nefarious thing but it must have been something, some gain. The reasons for going into Afghanistan are clear, stupid perhaps but clear. The reasons for going into Iraq were always hinged to the pursuit of oil and now they are saying the US shows 'no interest' in that pursuit. I find that highly suspicious. Why throw all that money away for nothing? Why put up with all the questions and haranguing by the UN and international community for nothing? Why throw all that money away? I mean sometimes wars don't turn out in ones favor as they are prone to unlikely outcomes but there had to be something they wanted. Other nations are walking away with the oil. I just want to know why the americans are down with that.
The only "aim" of the Iraq war was to depose Saddam. So officially the war should have been over when Saddam was killed. I don't think they planned much beyond that.
Well that doesn't make any sense at all. There were always other ways of deposing Saddam. And anyway what is the big deal if they have a despot in power anyway? No biggie. The world has its share of despots and that never bothered them before. There is something more to this than regime change. Alan Greenspan said it was for oil: AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil. In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece Watch this clip from Australian news: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7t_u641NyM I still believe it was for oil, I just no longer believe it was oil meant for the US. Can you imagine it? They could have just gone to war for the Chinese!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And according to Zelikow, who served on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB) between 2001 and 2003, it was for Israel But, who knows the truth? Whatever the reason, and it changed on a frequent basis at the time, the point remains that the US gained nothing from the war, lost a critical restraining influence on Iran [the big bogeyman] and bled its economy for it.
In Iraq our military guards oil destined for China and in Afghanistan it guards opium fields destined to be made into heroin to be sold around the world. Our military is really a mercenary army serving the interests of wealthy Capitalist oligarchs.
Maybe people with a LOT of money and power don't really care about "countries" interests - they'll be fine one way or another.
The people with a lot of money and power went into Iraq for their own interests. Where were those interests? If not oil then what?
