Why Are We In Iraq? For the Oil, of Course!

I think it's likely. And for the record, I think that when a lot of people say it's for the oil, they don't always mean just the profits for the oil companies.

Without oil to run our tanks and airplanes we would be impotent. We only import something like 30% (i'll look that up) of our total oil imports from the middle east. But if we were to lose that 30% while at war we would definitely feel it domestically as our military needs would be the priority.

You could say that the war is for oil directly and for the preservation of our super power status indirectly.

I would say it's impossible to say Oil wasn't involved, but it was hardly the only reason.

Switching to hydrogen-based fuel for cars would have been cheaper than the war, and ultimately, a better long-term solution without the loss of life, but Bush don't play that. In fact, if the US government pursued this switching of fuel, they wouldn't need ANY oil, and would have effectively crippled the middle east economically.

Cav- I agree that alternate forms of fuel are the way to go, but it would take a long time to develop these alternatives. The oil and gas plug could be pulled almost instantly.

Hydrogen-based fuel is not just a pipe dream, it's a viable alternative, but the scientists pursuing the concept are underfunded because the auto industry has a stranglehold on the government, being such a huge lobby.

I think there are other technologies besides hydrogen that could work well also. As I understand it the current method of creating the hydrogen also depends on fossil fuels.

I think it takes an all around approach. Hybrid vehicles are available now. We should be encouraging their production and expansion. We need to look at the way our cities and suburbs are designed and make as many changes as we can that allow people to walk, use bicycles and public transportation, and make other healthy and conservationist choices. This is something we should have been doing over the last 20 years.

But alas, as Phoenix says, the plug could be pulled instantly. Well, my feeling is that Americans never do anything unless we're forced to. The oil embargo of the seventies gave us more efficient cars. When that ended we suddenly stopped caring about fuel efficiency.

I agree with cavfancier.

I also think that the GOP is scrambling to find a justified reason for Iraq and came up with yet another new one using an old one with a new angle.

Either hydrogen based cars or hybrid cars could conceivibly make the US completely unreliant on that 30% of oil you import from the Middle East, even if you still need to rely on fossil fuels in the interim, while new technology is developed. Hey, get more from Canada. That would be mutually beneficial, and I know some gas suppliers already do buy their crude from the north. We're also way too polite to invade.

Incidentally, hydrogen fuel production does not rely on fossil fuels: http://4hydrogen.com/about.html

revel- I was attempting to make this thread as apolitical as possible. How did you come up with your conclusion that my thread had anything to do with the GOP?

Cav- That is definitely true. But the fact remains that the auto industry are producing gas guzzlers for one and only one reason. THEY SELL!

My overall take is, and?

It can be a legitimate goal, but needs to be accomplished legitimately. There is oil is Russia, and Russia is going through a particularly difficult and unregulated time. It could be seen as legitimate to grab control of all of Russia's oil as a safeguard for the possibility of Mideast terrorists grabbing the oil in the Mideast. But does the legitimacy of that goal -- removing possible leverage from the terrorists -- mean that we can just go and DO it?

The process is the thing, and the process here was spectacularly bad.

The real reason we went to Iraq?

Yes, it was oil! But not the oil you think!

Our invasion of Iraq had more to do with the fact that Iraq changed it's oil standard to the Euro from the dollar a year or so before the invasion.

Why is this problematic for America? Because at the time, the dollar was waaaaaay down on the Euro (remember that? like 35% for a while) and it made more sense for countries like Iraq to simply be getting, literally, more money per gallon of oil by using the Euro.

Why is this a problem for America? Well, a lot of other countries in the M.E. were starting to consider doing the same thing. This is a big problem for our government. Why? Because right now, to pay for oil bought by the U.S. government, we do something that may surprise you:

print more money.

That's right. When the government needs to buy a billion dollars of oil from Saudi Arabia, we can just run off a billion dollars of cash and send it over there. It doesn't have to be backed up by real resources; we removed ourselves from that standard years ago.

Now, when the official note that is being used for exchange is euros, the U.S. gov't has to actually pay it's bills; we can't just print up a bunch of Euros and give them away, after all.

Does this process cause inflation? You bet! But it also allows our government to run in a state where we get oil basically for free from the Middle East. The leaders of OPEC don't care; the dollars they recieve spend just like real ones, all over the world.

What was the FIRST thing that we did in our capacity as occupiers of Iraq? That's right, secured the offices of the Iraqi Oil Commission and one of our first official decrees was that we were changing the Iraqi oil standard back to the dollar.

Economics are more important to this administration than any number of people's lives.

Cycloptichorn

I understood that the current methods for producing hydrogen relied on fossil fuels. http://www3.iptv.org/exploremore/energy/profiles/hydrogen.cfm

But it doesn't really matter. The point is that I agree with you. We should be investing heavily in all viable alternatives, including hydrogen.

Agree with soz and cy. Even if it was deemed to be necessary it was still a morally bankrupt decision.

Your thread is titiled why are we in Iraq. I don't see how you can keep that from being political.

Perhaps GOP is the wrong word, I just meant those that favor us being in Iraq.

Re: Why Are We In Iraq? For the Oil, of Course!


Hmmm - it seems this is an argument - though also seemingly couched as a simple fact - for invading other countries every time we worry that we can't have something we want?

This would, of course, justify Japan's attack on the US also given the embargo, or blockade, or whatever it was.

I mean, I know this is how countries actually tend to operate - but it is interesting to see it stated calmly, without the usual folderol and stuff to make you weep - you know, freedome and such.

Of course, one could argue that just buying it from other countries might have been cheaper.

Oh - seems the invasion hasn't worked - petrol is well over a dollar here - and oil prices continuing to rise.

cycloptichorn has hit on something I have seen before. And it fits the puzzle perfectly.

Good arguments, all. But what Cycloptichorn sez is quite revelatory.

If one must wonder what's truly at stake regarding the American economy for us to do the things that we do in the Middle Eastern region, here is one clear example. We are now building military bases in Iraq and getting ready to occupy that land as long as those oil reserves are there. America will control that oil, and at the cost of thousands of American lives.

This should be no surprise. One should also refer to the Carter Doctrine (in keeping with the apolitical format here) to realize at what point the precendent was made that America must have unfettered access to Middle Eastern oil.

The West is so dependent on oil that it'll do anything to get it.

The Middle East considers their oil sacred and their own. America doesn't realize that we are making some major investments in future terrorist acts via our actions in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East.

We're in Iraq alright, but not for the Oil.. Hasn't anyone wondered the real reason France, Germany and Russia weren't in favor of taking out Saddam? It was the Oil, stupid... Yeah, there was an ant-war, oil for food fraud that needed to be protected..

UN inspector 'took £60,000 Iraq bribes'
By David Rennie in Washington
(Filed: 06/10/2004)

Iraqi oil officials have accused a United Nations inspector of taking almost £60,000 in bribes from Saddam Hussein's regime as his henchmen and foreign business partners siphoned millions from the UN's oil-for-food programme, it was reported yesterday.

An inquiry by officials in the State Oil Marketing Organisation - a body which, under Saddam, was a key player in schemes that allegedly diverted billions in oil revenues from the UN-run programme - accused an inspector contracted through the Dutch company Saybolt of falsifying documents in return for bribes, the Wall Street Journal reported.


It is estimated that Saddam diverted at least £5.6 billion from the UN programme
Saybolt was one of two Western companies hired by the UN to provide inspectors to help monitor the oil-for-food programme. A second company, Cotecna Inspection Services of Switzerland, has come under fire from Congressional Republicans, after it emerged that it employed Kojo Annan, the son of the UN secretary-general, as a consultant, after being awarded an oil-for-food contract. A UN review of Mr Annan's employment found no conflict of interest.

Senior executives from Cotecna and Saybolt were yesterday summoned before the United States Congress to help to explain how Saddam managed to divert money from the oil-for-food programme. The witnesses also included a senior manager from BNP Paribas, the French bank that controlled the escrow accounts into which oil revenues were paid.

Cotecna, Saybolt and BNP Paribas deny any wrongdoing. Saybolt told the Wall Street Journal: "Our inquiries both at the time and subsequently do not confirm the allegations of a bribe. But we're prepared to look into it further, given the new details."

Saybolt's managing director, Peter Boks, who was due to appear late yesterday, submitted a vast quantity of correspondence showing that Saybolt inspectors had repeatedly complained to Iraqi officials and the UN about apparent abuses.

The United States government representative at the hearing, Ambassador Patrick Kennedy, said that "voluminous oil-for-food documents are now being safeguarded" in Baghdad and the US embassy was working to gain access to them.

Mr Kennedy, of the American mission to the United Nations, directly blamed the "self-serving national economic objectives of certain key member states" on the Security Council for inhibiting British and American efforts to clamp down on oil-for-food corruption. The statement appeared to be aimed at France and Russia, which sought to have sanctions against Saddam lifted.

US congressional investigators at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) have estimated that Saddam diverted at least $10 billion, or £5.6 billion, from the oil-for-food programme. It has been alleged that political figures around the world were invited to profit from the illicit oil trading.

The GAO found that the UN-administered scheme failed to prevent Saddam siphoning off money by demanding illegal "commissions" from oil buyers, and demanding a flat 10 per cent "kickback" on the value of all humanitarian imports. Under that system, a company selling Iraq £10 million of baby milk powder, for example, only delivered £9 million worth, and sent the last million as cash.

Despite pleas from Britain and the United States, members of the UN Security Council also allegedly turned a largely blind eye to evidence of rampant corruption within the scheme, which saw middlemen trading in "oil vouchers", that allowed oil sales outside the rules of the UN scheme.

=========================================
Please read the following and try to have an open mind!

Chirac's War for Oil
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 16, 2004

Frontpage Interview has the pleasure to have Kenneth Timmerman, author of the new book The French Betrayal of America, as its guest today.

Mr. Timmerman has spent twenty years reporting on Europe and the Middle East. He is also the author of Preachers of Hate: Islam and the War on America . Visit his website at www.KenTimmerman.com.

FP: Mr. Timmerman welcome back to Frontpage Interview, it is a pleasure to have you with us again.

Timmerman: Thanks, Jamie. Frontpage is one of the rare bright spots in today's media, which is dominated by the centers of spin.

FP: President Bush's critics say Iraq was a war for oil. You seem to agree, but in your new book, you claim that war was being waged by French president Chirac. Could you explain this to our readers?

Timmerman: If you read the French press, or the glowing accounts of Chirac's opposition to the U.S. effort to build an international coalition to oust Saddam Hussein that appeared here in America, you might actually believe that the French were standing on principle.

I reveal that Chirac was defending something quite different when he sent his erstwhile foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, around the world to buy votes against America at the United nations. Chirac was determined to maintain Saddam Hussein in power so that two extraordinarily lucrative oil contracts, negotiated by the French, could go into effect. Very little has been written about this until now.

The deals were negotiated separately by CFP Total and by Elf Aquitaine during the mid to late 1990s. At the time, both companies were state-controlled. They have since been privatized and combined into the world’s second largest oil giant, TotalFinalElf.

Through my sources, I obtained a copy of one of these contracts. It spans 154 pages, and grants the French exclusive right to exploit one of Iraq’s largest oil fields at Nahr al-Umar for a period of twenty years. Under the deal, the French were given 75% of the revenue from every barril of oil they extracted - 75%! That is absolutely stunning. Not even during the pre-OPEC days were foreign oil operators granted such extravagant terms.

I discussed the contract with an independent oil analyst, Gerald Hillman, who estimated that during the first seven years alone, it would earn the French around $50 billion. Elf-Aquitaine negotiated a virtually identical deal with Saddam to expand the gigantic Majnoon oil field as well. Put together, those two deals were worth $100 billion to the French. That’s 100 billion good reasons for Mr. Chirac to keep Saddam in power.

FP: The contracts were dependent on Saddam?

Timmerman: That’s correct, although I am sure the French are trying to put pressure on the Iraqi Governing Council to honor these scandalously corrupt deals.

Because of the United Nations sanctions, the French were allowed to do some initial scoping out work on the oil fields, but they couldn’t begin actual production until the sanctions were lifted. So this was a clear quid pro quo. As Hillman told me, what the French were saying in this contract was very simple: “We will help you get the sanctions lifted, and when we do that, you give us this.” And that is precisely what the French were trying to do at the UN. I’ve called these $100 billion deals from Saddam to Chirac the largest bribe ever paid in history. It was Chirac’s War for Oil.

FP: Were there personal payoffs to President Chirac? Your book portrays him as shockingly corrupt, but what’s the proof?

Timmerman: Most American newspapers hardly ever write about France, so Americans have no idea that Mr. Chirac was on the verge of being indicted by an investigative magistrate in 1999 on corruption charges. Never before in French history had a sitting president been under such assault from the legal system, which traditionally has been under the boot of the ruling party.

That particular case involved Mr. Chirac’s alleged misuse of public funds during his 18 years as Mayor of Paris, where he established an extensive system of political patronage grafted to a national political party. Among the schemes that came to light, which I detail in my book, were kickbacks Chirac’s party demanded from contractors on virtually every public works contract - right down to maintenance contracts in the public schools!

Chirac’s party wasn’t alone in this; indeed, virtually everyone from the Communists to the Far Right benefited from similar schemes. But clearly, Mr. Chirac was deeply involved on a very personal level in organizing the clandestine financing of his political party.

There’s one great scene I describe in my book, which came to light during these court cases, where a visitor allegedly brings Chirac and his chief of staff a suitcase full of cash. Chirac is in his office in the palatial Paris town hall, and opens a door to reveal a safe built into the wall. It just so happens that the safe is located in the private toilet in his office. So Chirac flushes the toilet to cover the noise as he dials the combination to the safe, just in case some political opponent has planted a listening device inside his office.

There’s another scene I describe in the scene, where a well-known arms dealer arrives in Geneva from Baghdad, carrying the torn half of a $1 bill. Under instructions from Saddam Hussein, he meets with an Iraqi government employee, then goes down to the UBS bank, where they withdraw several million dollars in cash. Later, at a pre-arranged meeting place, an emissary for a prominent French politician arrives. “You’d never ask their name, they’d never ask you your name,” the arms dealer told me. “You have half of the dollar, and he has half of the dollar. You match the serial numbers and make the exchange. That was how it worked.”

There have long been rumors that Chirac financed his RPR party with cash from Saddam Hussein, but no one has ever come forward with material evidence to substantiate the claim. If my arms dealer source is accurate - and I believe he is - we now know why. Cash payments are by nature untraceable.

FP: Can the United States ever trust the French again -- after all they did last year to muster an anti-American coalition vs. Saddam?

Timmerman: Mr. Chirac has shown through his behavior that France is no longer the ally that it once was. I am heartened by the change of foreign minister. Dominique de Villepin, whose theatrical silliness and weird obsession with Napolean I profile in the book, has gone on to greener pastures; as Interior Minister, he now runs the French counter-espionage service and their secret police. The new foreign minister, Michel Barnier, is much more low key, and will focus on Europe more than America.

He has stated that he will try to repair relations with the United States. But from all the U.S. diplomats and senior Bush administration people I’ve spoken with recently about this, I think the key phrase is “Trust, but verify.” The French have a lot of work to do to demonstrate that they won’t stab us in the back as they did last year at the United Nations.

This said, we don’t really need the French for much, unless the President decides he must return to the United Nations. Going to war without France is like going deer-hunting without an accordeon.

FP: What is it about the French do you think that makes them so predisposed to admiring anti-American dictators and mass-murderers like Saddam Hussein?

Timmerman: I think the problem, to paraphrase Condi Rice’s recent testimony, is structural. The French Socialist economy has spawned vast state-owned enterprises that are unable to compete in a free, fair market. To maintain the socialist welfare state, with its ten to twelve percent unemployment rates, the French desperately need to cut backdoor deals with dictators and authoritarian states. Hence, their current fondness for the mullahs in Tehran, and the Chinese communists.

Iraq was a special case. I was invited in the late 1980s to visit the Iraqi Army staff college, and was surprised when I saw a plaque donated to the college by visiting French general Pierre-Marie Gallois, the “father” of the French strategic nuclear force. Many in the French Gaullist elite saw in Saddam Hussein an Iraqi De Gaulle, a fellow spirit: someone willing to stand up to superpowers, and take his country on a “third way.” That third way, of course, led directly through Paris, in opposition to Washington.

One of our biggest problems as we go forward with France will be the safeguard of our nuclear weapons secrets. I tell the story in my book of our extensive nuclear weapons cooperation with France, and end with a question: should U.S. taxpayers continue to subsidize the French nuclear weapons establishment?

My answer is a clear, resounding: No.