The oil is not really the core reason for invading and continuing to occupy Iraq. The oil is just a means to an end, not an end in itself, and the big profits for corporations are just a nice side benefit. The core reason for invading Iraq is far, far more sinister and dangerous than obtaining and profiting from Iraq's oil, and is spelled out quite clearly by PNAC, with which I am sure everyone here is acquainted.
It's all about establishing unchallengeable military, political, and economic world dominance folks. And the part oil plays in it is this: By controlling the oil supply, by obtaining and keeping the power to turn the oil spigot off and on at will, the United States obtains the ability to control the progress, growth, and power - including military power - of other countries. He who controls the oil controls the world.
No politician - not Obama, not an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress, no one - is going to willingly get your kids out of there. It's going to take a hell of a lot more than a few demonstrations once a year on the anniversary of the invasion. Oh, Obama will reduce the number of your kids who are there at any given time, if only to reduce the visibility to Americans of the occupation. But they'll be there for a good long time until the American people do something real about it, or the Iraqis finally succeed in kicking them out, as they finally succeeded in kicking out the British.
Posted by Shirin at July 22, 2008 11:59 AM"all the senseless killings of our children in the name of easy oil."
Without minimizing the loss for those whose loved ones have come back to Iraq in a coffin, or badly maimed physically or mentally, your "children" are people who have reached the age of consent and made a completely voluntary decision to join a group whose primary purpose is to break things and kill people. They have had choices every step along the way, and have chosen to go to Iraq and use whatever destructive and deadly violence is necessary to dominate the people there, including killing Iraq's children.
The children of Iraq, whom your "children" are killing, are actual children - infants, toddlers, little kids, adolescents, and teenagers. You know, like the four year old nephew of my friend who was shot to death by American troops who went on a rampage in his quiet neighborhood while he was playing in his family's front garden. Or like the eight year old little girl who was gunned down by an American sniper who took careful aim and murdered her as she stood on the balcony of her family's home. Those are the real children, whom your "children" are killing, and the real children, unlike your "children" have absolutely zero choice in what is happening to them and to their families and to their country.
So, while I do understand your grief and outrage that your "children" are being used (and allowing themselves to be used) in this horrible way, and that a few thousand of them have died as a result, please forgive me if I find myself wishing that you (collectively) would put less emphasis on those who are harmed because they go to Iraq to harm others, and more emphasis on their victims.
Posted by Shirin at July 22, 2008 12:21 PMDon't forget the unborn children deformed by depleted uranium and whatever other nasties we've brought with us.
Nice to see you again, Jeff. Good post!
Posted by iamcoyote at July 22, 2008 12:37 PMyour "children" are people who have reached the age of consent and made a completely voluntary decision to join a group whose primary purpose is to break things and kill people.
Actually, I don't think breaking things and killing people is the primary purpose of the National Guard. Secondary, maybe. But its primary purpose would be to protect the people and property in their home state while getting a chance to go to college.
And if they are called up for the secondary purpose of defending the USA and its interests around the globe, it's supposed to be for a pre-determined amount of time. Turns out that's not the case either.
No thinking person really doubts that the main goal of the invasion was liberating Iraq's oil from Saddam. PNACers may have have delusions of far greater grandeur, but getting back into Iraq's largely unexploited enormous fields was the chief motivation of Cheney's gang. Whether that's how it was sold to Pinhead Rose-Garden-prayin' Bush will never be known---there are almost certainly no documents.
Because adequate oil for Gas-Guzzling Nation was the goal, it's likely that everyone, Dem and Repub, voting for the invasion was aware that the whole WMD story was a scam. And it's certainly why McBush has taken the "100 years of Peaceful Occupation!" line.
As for the idea that this is something that needs to be "discussed" by the leaders and the country, that's a pipe dream---we don't even have other nations' openly charging us with invading a country for its oil. Everyone (allies included) are quite happy to keep up the charade that this was "all about Saddam's WMDs".
The vast number of boobs of BushAmerica categorically refuse to look beyond the superficial, obviously false and proven false, claim as to why Bushco invaded Iraq. The idea that the MSM would question it now is comic, that a leading politcian would raise our illegal invasion and force some level of national discussion about the crime is a fantasy.
We ignore that we are torturing people. We ignore that we are kidnapping people. We ignore that we are detaining people indefinitely on no evidence or torture-generated "evidence". We ignore that the president is wiretapping Americans without warrants. We ignore that dozens of high official intentionally broke dozens of federal laws. We ignore that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result of our unprovoked invasion and that Our Imperial Boys have killed tens of thousands of them. We ignore that their country has been smashed into oblivion, and that millions of innocent Iraqis have had to flee and lost their life savings and family members and hate our guts.
So OF COURSE we are going to ignore that we invaded and occupied Iraq for its oil reserves, and to influence the oil reserves of neighboring countries. You'll NEVER see any discussion of this by a leading politician or MSM outlet, as long as you live. Only defeated nations are required to examine their massive crimes of aggressive militarism.
Posted by euzoius at July 22, 2008 02:35 PM"No thinking person really doubts that the main goal of the invasion was liberating Iraq's oil from Saddam."
So, I am not a thinking person, is that it? Because, as I have said very clearly I do not believe that obtaining oil or even obtaining big profits from oil was the main goal at all. So, I have, according to you blindly and stupidly and without any thinking at all, concluded that the main goal of the invasion was much bigger and more sinister than just obtaining oil, that oil is mainly a means to a much greater end, and was only one of a number of reasons Iraq was chosen for the honour of being invaded and destroyed.
By the way, are you aware of the fact that Cheney and his gang are very much part of PNAC - so much so that you really cannot separate Cheney et al. from PNAC?
Posted by Shirin at July 22, 2008 02:46 PMshirin, your extreme sensitivity is a big problem.
I took your view that the US was actually seeking to achieve world dominance through "controlling the oil supply" as placing you squarely in the "oil camp"---certainly not one in disagreement with that camp. If the Cheney goal was indeed world domination through control of oil, then Iraq was invaded for its oil. And Cheney never signed any of PNAC's famous missives so far as I know.
My post didn't indicate that Bushco merely wanted BigOil to profit from Iraq's oil---they wanted to assure a large increase in world supply to aid the US's gas guzzling.
And how exactly did Bushco plan to "turn the oil spigot off and on at will"? What was to be the control mechanism?
Since now I assume you'll claim I can't read or properly undertstand your posts, I'll let others see the exchange and draw their own conclusions. Since you apparently thought I intentionally insulted you, I'll say that wasn't my intent and let it go at that. But this is becoming quite tiresome. Good day.
Posted by euzoius at July 22, 2008 03:32 PMNo, I did not think you were intentionally insulting me. There are some things that just don't read well in this medium - sorry for that. It was not entirely clear, though, that you were - more or less - agreeing with me, but that's OK. I can handle someone having a different point of view than me. In fact, it can be beneficial.
As for my "extreme sensitivity", it looks to me like YOU are the one who got a bit too excited about not very much. So, let's chaulk it up to miscommunication and move forward.
PS Unless it has been removed, you will certainly see the Cheney name on the PNAC website, though it will not be that of the VP. However, recalling back to the year 2000, it was, in fact, Dick Cheney who brought so man of the neocons, including many PNACists and certainly PNAC supporters into the administration and put power and influence very much into their hands. In fact, having Cheney chosen as the VP was seen at the time as a tremendous gift to PNAC.
Posted by Shirin at July 22, 2008 03:51 PMPS Unless it has been removed, you will certainly see the Cheney name on the PNAC website, though it will not be that of the VP. However, recalling back to the year 2000, it was, in fact, Dick Cheney who brought so man of the neocons, including many PNACists and certainly PNAC supporters into the administration and put power and influence very much into their hands. In fact, having Cheney chosen as the VP was seen at the time as a tremendous gift to PNAC.
Shirin, the PNAC website has been inoperable for sometime, but yes ole dead eye was a signatory....in fact wikipedia has a nice (poor choice of adjective) overview on its site, especially the implication that these rogues had an inkling into the 2000 election fix and hence the name "Project for a New American Century".
Oh, btw, I agree with euz...it's all about the oil, world domination was a secondary benefit..all about MONEY...imo....gawd it will be nice to be rid of this crowd.
Posted by Goyo at July 22, 2008 05:28 PM
Shirin and euzoius are both correct.
In my opinion, it was 70/30...getting a foothold in central Asia and furthering the imperialistic foreign policy of this country was the prime reason for the invasion. The oil, as Shirin stated, was merely a nice side benefit.
So now that the US is in Iraq, it will stay in Iraq for a long, long time. You see, the general American public is ignorant…but not that ignorant…..they want the oil, they just don’t want to be seen as the imperialistic thugs that they are. They’re the nice guys…always the guys with the white hat.
Damn euzoius, that was sardonic as hell! Still one of the best posters here.
And I assure you Shirin all regulars here at TLC are well aware of Cheney and the rest of the PNACer's.
Posted by Seven of Six at July 22, 2008 05:46 PMWill John Edwards be the VP.
Posted by at July 22, 2008 06:07 PMhate to spoil a good fight, but controlling oil AND world economic dominance are the same fucking thing.
hello?
Posted by the young Judith (tyj) at July 22, 2008 06:30 PMhate to spoil a good fight, but controlling oil AND world economic dominance are the same fucking thing.
Because it apparently needs to be said more than once.
Posted by iamcoyote at July 22, 2008 06:50 PMFucking DUH!
Didn't we all really know this deep down from the very get-go?
Posted by angryspittle at July 22, 2008 07:09 PM"...controlling oil AND world economic dominance are the same fucking thing."
Not really. There is more to world economic dominance than just oil, and controlling the oil supply gets you a whole lot more than just economic dominance. And it was not only economic dominance I was talking about, it was, if you will, full spectrum world dominance.
In addition, I am not convinced at all that economic dominance is what they lust for the most. There are people in this world who care less about money than about simple, raw power. Their biggest thrill is seeing others cringing and kowtowing before them. I have known people like this. For them money is just a pleasant side effect of power.
Posted by Shirin at July 22, 2008 07:27 PMGoyo, my recollection is that Lynn Cheney was a charter member of PNAC. I did not recall Dick's name being on the document in question, but I could be remembering incorrectly.
We will have to agree to disagree whether oil or world domination was the core reason for invading Iraq. I have studied the question in some detail, and there is no doubt in my mind. I also find going after oil a lot easier to comprehend, and a lot less scary. It's easy to understand why someone would have a compulsion about gaining more and more wealth. I have known a number of people in my life who were driven by a need for power, and for whom wealth was very secondary, and they are impossible to understand, and very, very dangerous and scary people.
Posted by Shirin at July 22, 2008 07:33 PMBack in 2003 both Democrats and Republicans believed Iraq had WMDs. And the public wanted to gol in.
Hey check out pickensplan.com and start a thread.
Posted by muck at July 22, 2008 08:10 PMWell at least now we know why Cheney gad secret meetings with oil industry execs to discuss energy policy in 2001
Posted by tenacitus at July 22, 2008 10:30 PMeuzoius, Shirin, goyo - there was no one reason why the Bush Regime invaded Iraq. Different parts of the Regime had different reasons: superpower dominance, oil, war profits, etc.
dumbMuck: "Back in 2003 both Democrats and Republicans believed Iraq had WMDs. And the public wanted to gol in."
The ReThugs were like lemmings following Dear Leader. The majority of Democrats did not follow.
Posted by Gay Veteran at July 23, 2008 05:11 AM