British lawmaker: Iraq war was for oil

[moghrabi]

British lawmaker: Iraq war was for oil
by Adam Porter in Lisbon
Friday 20 May 2005 9:49 PM GMT


Labour politician and former UK environment minister Michael Meacher has slammed Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George Bush for starting a war, he says, to secure oil interests.

Speaking on Friday on the sidelines of the fourth International Workshop on Oil and Gas Depletion in Lisbon, Portugal, Meacher, a member of the British parliament, said: "The reason they attacked Iraq is nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, it was nothing to do with democracy in Iraq, it was nothing to do with the human rights abuses of Saddam Hussein."

When asked by Aljazeera.net whether the war in Iraq was about oil he said: "The connection is 100%. It is absolutely overwhelming."

Meacher connected the wars in Iraq with a desire by US and UK interests to dominate oil supplies in times of increasing market volatility. He also thought the war was designed to pressure Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil supplier.

Middle East control?

"It was principally, totally and comprehensively to do with oil," Meacher continued. "This was about assuming control over the Middle East and over Iraq, the second largest producer and also over Saudi Arabia next door.

"It was about securing as much as possible of the remaining supplies of oil and also over the Caspian basin, which of course is Afghanistan."

Meacher also said the US had poor environmental standards.

"American power plants waste more energy than is needed to run the whole Japanese economy," he said. "They have set their face against the Kyoto protocol."

He then went on to talk of "apocalyptic" energy problems facing the world, including the possibilities of serious shortages in the world oil supply due to ongoing field depletion.

Meacher painted a picture of spiralling oil costs as high as "$100 or $150 a barrel" creating massive social dislocation. These difficulties could cause "war, revolutions and migration on a scale we have never before seen", he said.

Aljazeera
By Adam Porter in Lisbon

You can find this article at:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/AC9B68BD-9853-494D-AB7D-A5EF74C46694.htm

 

[no1important]

RE: British lawmaker: Ira

I am not surprised at all. Greed runs the world.

 

[Derry McKinney]

RE: British lawmaker: Ira

I wondered how long it would take for the senior officials to start coming forward. Hopefully there will be several more.

 

[no1important]

Re: RE: British lawmaker: Ira

I wondered how long it would take for the senior officials to start coming forward. Hopefully there will be several more.

Personally I think the "sh*t" will hit the fan very soon. You will see more senior officials coming forward. Especially from non US countries from the "coalation" in Iraq.

The non US countries will get ticked over the oil be unfairly distributed etc and they will start complaining and talking publicly.

 

[I think not]

Is this a war for oil?

"One argument against the war, presented by those on the left who question Bush's motives, is that it is intended to capture Iraq's petroleum resources. While there is no way to assess to what extent these resources are a strategic factor in Bush's calculations, those who assert a simple link between oil and the war almost always fail to deal with a number of inconvenient facts. First, if the US wanted its oil companies to have access to the Iraqi market, it could have simply pressed the United Nations to drop sanctions against Iraq. Also, oil is a commodity whose price is set on the world market, as Peter Ferrara points out on National Review Online. Since Iraq has been allowed to sell oil in order to purchase food and other key commodities, it is already contributing to the world supply of oil and thereby lowering the price Americans pay. Finally, as energy expert Daniel Yergin argues, Iraq has only three percent of world production capacity, and to double that "could take more than a decade. In the meantime, growth elsewhere would limit Iraq's eventual share to perhaps 5 percent, significant but still in the second tier of oil nations."

This article is old but still applies.

It’s Not About the Oil, Already!
Basic economics.

By Peter Ferrara

he American Left and its international comrades are claiming that the impending war with Iraq is not about defanging terrorism. Rather, they say, it's all about oil. They argue that President Bush is really motivated by a desire to seize Iraqi oil for American oil companies (and gas-guzzling American SUV drivers). "No blood for oil!" is their rallying cry.


No basis has ever been cited for this accusation — perhaps because the accusation makes no sense, as a matter of basic economics.

Unless the Iraqis drill and sell their oil, it is worthless to them. They must sell it somewhere on the world oil market to get any gain out of it.

But oil is a fungible commodity, so once they sell it — anywhere — it becomes part of the world oil supply. That increased supply in turn reduces the world oil price, until some equilibrium is reached between supply and demand.

From that point on, it doesn't matter to anyone where the Iraqi oil actually goes. If it goes to Japan, the Japanese will buy less oil from Venezuela and Nigeria. More oil from those countries would then go to the U.S. Indeed, as the oil supply sloshes around on world markets, no one really cares — or keeps track of — where it originated, so long as it meets quality standards. For all anybody knows or cares, every drop of Iraqi oil could end up at southern California gas stations.

Moreover, just who do the "war protesters" think Iraq would sell its oil to, in any event? The Western oil companies, primarily American companies, would be the primary purchasers of Iraqi oil, whether they buy it directly or circuitously through various middlemen. Who else is going to refine, distribute, and sell the stuff to the huge Western (and particularly American) consumer market? Have you ever seen or heard of any Iraqi gas stations?

In short, the oil companies already ultimately get the oil now. They don't need Bush to go to war to get it for them.

The proportion of the world oil supply currently consumed by America will continue to get here one way or another through world oil markets. If oil producers tried to cut off the huge American consumer market, there would effectively be a huge drop in the total world demand for their oil — and, consequently, a huge reduction in the world price.

Who else is going to consume world oil output except American consumers (and those gas-guzzling SUVs)? The truth is that Middle Eastern oil producers — including Iraq — need America and its consumers a lot more than we need them. We can always figure out other ways of powering our transportation and warming our homes, technologically. But has the Middle East ever figured out any way of getting dollars other than pumping and selling oil?

That is why an oil boycott is ultimately no real threat either. Again, Iraq and other oil producers must sell the oil somewhere on the world market to get anything out of it. And once they do, they add to the world oil supply and reduce the price to approach a new supply/demand equilibrium. The world oil market then distributes the available oil supply to wherever the demand is — which means America and the rest of the West.

Indeed, it is the West that has been restraining Iraqi oil supply since the Gulf War, with various restrictions on Iraqi oil sales. And it has been the Iraqis who have been pleading to open up their production and sales. An Iraqi oil boycott is not even remotely an issue today.

So the contention that the impending war is really about oil is senseless as well as being baseless. Which leaves us with this question: Why is the American Left joining with its foreign comrades to defame America with this silly and transparently false accusation? Is it really all just about anti-Americanism? Is it really just rooted in a hatred of American power and an attempt to stop its exercise? Isn't it time they came clean and told the truth?

 

[jimmoyer]

ITN ?

The truth in your quoted essay is belied by the fact that most critics of the war admit to knowing how much money the taxpayers of America are footing and thus implicity acknowlege that oil revenue is literally paying for nothing.

 

[peapod]

Must into that baby duck again eh? think. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Derry McKinney]

First, if the US wanted its oil companies to have access to the Iraqi market, it could have simply pressed the United Nations to drop sanctions against Iraq.

Except that French and Russian companies had already signed contracts for the oil.

Also, oil is a commodity whose price is set on the world market, as Peter Ferrara points out on National Review Online. Since Iraq has been allowed to sell oil in order to purchase food and other key commodities, it is already contributing to the world supply of oil and thereby lowering the price Americans pay.

Saddam, along with Hugo Chavez, was pushing other OPEC nations to switch to the Euro. That would have ended the USD's status as an oil currency and sent the price of oil in the US even higher.

Ferrera says that it wasn't about the oil, but he skips a few pertinent facts. The PNAC letter pushing for an invasion of Iraq for the oil. The fact that access to Middle Eastern oil has been considered a security issue to the US since the 1970's. The fact that oil has been a major strategic concern in every war since WWI, when warfare became mechanized. The fact that most of the Bush cabinet has ties to the oil industry.

The illegal invasion of Iraq was to get control of the oil fields.

 

[Gonzo]

I dont need a lawmaker to tell me that the war was for oil. I knew that as soon as I heard they were going to invade Iraq.
The reason Canada didn't go to war in Iraq is that Bin Lauden wasn't there. He was in Afghanastan, and Canada joined them then. Thats the difference. Thats why the U.N. didn't support the war in Iraq.

 

[jimmoyer]

The UN didn't support the war in Yugoslavia.
Go figure that one.

And as far as the feathery factoid of Saddam and Chavez (what an elevated status for him!!!) and OPEC wanting to go Euro over the Dollar, well, ahem, I believe they can go Euro over Dollar any time they want to and switch back and forth several times a week if they want to.

Will we jump for anything that supports our bias?

 

[I think not]

First, if the US wanted its oil companies to have access to the Iraqi market, it could have simply pressed the United Nations to drop sanctions against Iraq.

Except that French and Russian companies had already signed contracts for the oil.

I suppose that explains their opposition to the war, doesn't it?

Also, oil is a commodity whose price is set on the world market, as Peter Ferrara points out on National Review Online. Since Iraq has been allowed to sell oil in order to purchase food and other key commodities, it is already contributing to the world supply of oil and thereby lowering the price Americans pay.

Saddam, along with Hugo Chavez, was pushing other OPEC nations to switch to the Euro. That would have ended the USD's status as an oil currency and sent the price of oil in the US even higher.

Ferrera says that it wasn't about the oil, but he skips a few pertinent facts. The PNAC letter pushing for an invasion of Iraq for the oil.

Mind providing a link to that PNAC letter?

The fact that access to Middle Eastern oil has been considered a security issue to the US since the 1970's. The fact that oil has been a major strategic concern in every war since WWI, when warfare became mechanized. The fact that most of the Bush cabinet has ties to the oil industry.

The illegal invasion of Iraq was to get control of the oil fields.

Why not just make a deal with Saddam. Here you go Saddam, $5 billion for yourself and we control your oil. And you can do as you wish to your people. Saves us time, about $180 billion, not to mention lives lost and heightened anti-Americanism.

Now I wonder why Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia allowed for the US to undermine their interests. Hmmmmm.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I tend to lean toward Gwynne Dyer's analysis. It's not about Iraq and never was, it's not about terrorism, at least not any more, and it's not really about oil either, except peripherally. Most of the debate about the war has been about such secondary issues. Gotta see a bigger picture than that.

It's about how the world's going to be run. Dyer summarizes it this way:

"What is really at risk here is the global project to abolish war and replace the rule of force in the world with the rule of law, the project whose centerpiece is the United Nations. It was mainly an American initiative at the start, almost 60 years ago, and today it still commands the support of almost every government on the planet (although the Bush administration has been an exception). It is a hundred-year project at the least, for it is trying to change international habits that had at least five thousand years to take root... But it is now under serious threat."

And further:

"The UN system recognized from the start that the great powers were the problem: they were given vetoes precisely so that the Security Council would never find itself in the hopelessly compromised position of trying to enforce the law against them. All hope of progress therefore lies with the gradual habituation of the great powers to obeying the new international law that forbids a unilateral resort to force--and since that is ultimately in their interest too, they have generally at least tried to cloak their actions in legal justifications acceptable to the UN. But current American strategic doctrine requires the destruction of the international law embedded in the United Nations Charter

...

No other major power wants to abandon the project to outlaw war and start back down the road to alliances, arms races, and all the other old baggage, but if the world's greatest power becomes a rogue state they won't have much choice.

If that happens we have lost a lot."

Quotes from Gwynne Dyer, Future: Tense, McLelland & Stewart Ltd, 2004. ISBN 0-7710-2978-0

 

[jimmoyer]

Good points, Dexter Sinister.

Often change comes form unpredictable and unexpected reasons. If it takes the world uniting against a rogue superpower even if it is not totally correct, then that unity of purpose is a process no one would have predicted.

There are even bigger pictures and bigger forces than the ritual partisan arguments that will change this world and the human race.

 

[Derry McKinney]

And as far as the feathery factoid of Saddam and Chavez (what an elevated status for him!!!) and OPEC wanting to go Euro over the Dollar, well, ahem, I believe they can go Euro over Dollar any time they want to and switch back and forth several times a week if they want to.

If you took the time to do any research at all, you'd find that the spectre of the USD losing its status as an oil currency was a concern of analysts all over the world.

A little more research and you'd find that Chavez was largely responsible for bringing OPEC back to relevance.

Will you try to dismiss anything that refutes your argument with bitter sarcasm and ignorance?

I suppose that explains their opposition to the war, doesn't it?

I suppose they likely would be against an illegal war that would destabilize the Middle East and lose them lucrative contracts as well.

Mind providing a link to that PNAC letter?

Find it yourself, you have Google. The existence of PNAC documents urging an attack on Iraq aren't exactly secret.

Why not just make a deal with Saddam. Here you go Saddam, $5 billion for yourself and we control your oil. And you can do as you wish to your people. Saves us time, about $180 billion, not to mention lives lost and heightened anti-Americanism.

Because they couldn't without running into legal problems. Because Saddam wouldn't deal with the US. Because Georgie would look like an idiot trying to make a deal with Saddam after Georgie I's invasion of Iraq. Because that wasn't the PNAC plan.

 

[I think not]

I suppose they likely would be against an illegal war that would destabilize the Middle East and lose them lucrative contracts as well.

No and Yes

Find it yourself, you have Google. The existence of PNAC documents urging an attack on Iraq aren't exactly secret.

Bullshit. None exists. Simple as that. I have found no document on PNAC site indicating the Iraq war was about oil. Only a 108 page pdf document entitled: Iraq:Setting the Record Straight

Because they couldn't without running into legal problems. Because Saddam wouldn't deal with the US. Because Georgie would look like an idiot trying to make a deal with Saddam after Georgie I's invasion of Iraq. Because that wasn't the PNAC plan.

Legal problems? I suppose an "illegal" war was less than a problem?
Really? Saddam shaking hands with Rumsfeld and Co. and couldn't deal with the US? Thats your explanation? Georgie looking like an idiot? He doesn't need much help with that. What economic sense would a PNAC plan make if it were to spend upwards of $200 billion dollars to secure less than 3% of the worlds oil supply?

 

[Derry McKinney]

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm
http://www.sundayherald.com/27735
America Pealr Harboured

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

 

[I think not]

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

"Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm

"We agree with Secretary of State Powell’s recent statement that Saddam Hussein “is one of the leading terrorists on the face of the Earth….” It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a “safe zone” in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means."


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

Opinion of Author, AKA spin

http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

Opinion of Author, AKA spin

America Pealr Harboured

Opinion of Author, AKA spin

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

FOUR ESSENTIAL MISSIONS page 18
HOMELAND DEFENSE.
LARGE WARS.
CONSTABULARY DUTIES.
TRANSFORM U.S. ARMED FORCES.

The world oil is used 0 times in 90 pages.

 

[Derry McKinney]

First you claimed that no such document exists, which was obviously false. Now, having asked for sources, you are unwilling to accept them. You try to write them off as "just opinion" but those opinions are based on more data than your opinion is.

I was able to find three documents from PNAC in a very short time. I never looked for the one that Wolfowitz (PNAC member) wrote up for George Sr. because it was written before PNAC was an official organization, but I'm sure that you are aware of that document as well.

You are also ignoring,

Except that French and Russian companies had already signed contracts for the oil.

Saddam, along with Hugo Chavez, was pushing other OPEC nations to switch to the Euro. That would have ended the USD's status as an oil currency and sent the price of oil in the US even higher.

The fact that access to Middle Eastern oil has been considered a security issue to the US since the 1970's. The fact that oil has been a major strategic concern in every war since WWI, when warfare became mechanized. The fact that most of the Bush cabinet has ties to the oil industry.

Taken all together these facts point to control of the Iraqi oil fields being a driving force behind the illegal invasion.

 

[jimmoyer]

There is no doubt that the United States nor for that matter the rest of the world desired to raise a military force to stop the carnage in Ruwanda.

Or for that matter, the Balkans.

And you wonder why?
No oil ?
Same reason for the world, too?

You think any other government in the world wanted to ask its voters to shed their sons and daughters to stop a slaughter in the Balkans or Ruwanda for the purpose of a good cause?

It appears a good cause isn't enough for the world, and it appears getting oil as the French Russians and Germans saw their chance to have by almost getting the embargo lifted before the war was a worthy cause to do business with a festering psycho sick police state that 10 years from now would be another Kim of N.Korea.

You have your hands on something, Derry. No one is denying it. But there is more to all of this than narrowing it down to the one thing you want to hammer home to all of us.

Every time you fill gas in your car or have it power a generator to light up the barn for your goats, you are contributing your token percentage to a terrorist.

Perhaps even more of a bizarre portrait of the world is best had through the eyes of Alfred Hitchcock who had that great technique of panning the camera away from the bloody shower out the room, down the stairs, out the front door and then rise above the house and then rise further above the whole town.

I respectfully give you your due for your passion and intelligence but respectfully show disagreement for the narrow head of the nail you continue to hammer.

 

[Derry McKinney]

RE: British lawmaker: Ira

I'm not the one being narrow here. I listed several points that, when combined, point to oil being the motivation. I think not chose to separate them and try to prove them false. He failed each time because he was dealing with them as isolated events.

Perhaps because you are an American, Jim, you are also ignoring another salient fact. Canada has enough oil that it is not dependent on terrorist states for its supply. The only thing threatening our energy independence is our trade relationship with the US.