2007-04-06
First Iraqi Petro Contracts Go To...
...not US oil firms! If they had, of course Tom and Nadir would proclaim this as evidence of what they know to be true: that Bush invaded Iraq in order to steal its oil. But since the first round of Iraqi petro contracts have instead gone to non-US firms, this cannot contradict Tom & Nadir's 100% certain conclusion. It just means that the oil theft will come later. Just wait! (Not that US oil contracts represents theft of oil!)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Do you really think we invaded to secure oil for China? From the article: "But the barrel amount is tiny even by Iraq's depressed post-war production of around 2 million barrels a day."
No, Tom, I certainly don't think that Bush invaded in order to secure oil for China; nor do I think that he invaded to secure oil for the US. I think that he invaded in order to (1) eliminate the possibility of Hussein's government in any longer assisting anti-civilization terror; and (2) to plant the first Arab-run civilization in Arabia, as a first step to eradicating anti-civilization terrorism.
So this is the first Great power meddling in the Gulf area that has nothing to do with oil?
Diane Keaton: "Don't be naive, Michael. Senators and presidents don't have people killed."
Al Pacino: "Who's being naive, Kay?"
Nothing to do with oil? Only because of oil do these dictators have the resources to harm civilizations. Thus oil does have something to do with oil. But I see no reason to conclude that Bush invaded in order to steal oil, or that he has stolen oil. The neocons are very clear and consistent in their writings about why they favor free and independent democratic governments around the world, about how that helps increase prosperity in the US and diminishes the risk of war.
I find no reason to doubt that these people, or Bush in particular, earnestly believe in this model that they espouse, and that the Bushies in Iraq made this their objective. However I do find lots of reasons to reject many of their decisions as counterproductive to those ends.
Tom: What is your take on the "great power meddling" following WWI? My understanding is that Arabia prior to WWI existed as a colonial holding by the non-honkey, muslim Turks, who joined Germany in a war against France and England. The Turk govt fell to the allies.
What should France and England have done that that that they didn't do? Do they get any credit for their behavior compared with that of the Turks? Did the evil honkey great powers not turn all these Arabian lands over to independent local rule?
The evil honkey powers who now turn these nations over to puppet governments expect the new governments to be compliant to their wishes. When the puppets fail (ala Hussein, Noreiga and Diem) they get ousted or whacked. al-Malaiki is walking a tight rope.
China could have raise a lot more stink than they have over the Iraq invasion.
And besides, if US companies aren't the ones who will get the oil, aren't US firms like Haliburton supplying the equipment? Aren't US firms like Blackwater supplying the security?
ExxonMobil and Chevron may have to wait in line, but Bectel and the Carlyle Group won't.
Paul, who does your buddy Vassar work for?
Post a Comment