Town Square

Oil and the Empire

Original post made by Albert on Mar 30, 2007

The oil men of the Bush administration are trying to set up one of the biggest swindles in history--the great Iraq oil robbery.

The cabinet of the new Iraqi government, under pressure from the U.S. occupiers who put them in power, approved a law that would undo Iraq's nationalized system and give Western oil giants unparalleled access to the country's vast reserves.

The oil companies would be guaranteed super-profits, on a scale
unknown anywhere else in the Middle East, for a period of 20 to 35 years from oil pumped out of two-thirds or more of Iraq's oilfields. Meanwhile, Iraqis would continue to endure poverty and the devastation of war while sitting atop what is estimated to be the third-largest supply of the world's most sought-after resource.

The great Iraq oil robbery isn't a done deal. Even if the law is finalized by May as expected, the major oil companies say they won't have anything to do with production in Iraq until "security" is established, and that would mean a success for the occupiers and their Iraqi puppets that the U.S. hasn't been able to achieve over the past four years since the invasion.

Still, the law underlines the importance of the scramble for oil to the U.S. empire-no matter how much George Bush and his administration deny it with claims about spreading "democracy" and making the world safe from terrorism.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 30, 2007 at 6:29 pm

Was jagit busy?
I see nothing wrong with the United States seeking a prefered position in the Iraqi oil fields. Remember the story of the Little Red Hen? Where were other potential customers when the work was being done? I seriously question whether we will get very much higher royalties than anyone else, but the people have been guaranteed their share, unlike in other middle Eastern kingdoms..

Posted by smith, a resident of Professorville
on Mar 30, 2007 at 11:38 pm

Walter Wallis sees nothing wrong with a country invading another sovereign nation to take over their oil reserves... And some newspapers write articles about creatures like him....

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 31, 2007 at 7:11 am

We invaded Iraq to make them comply with the obligations of their truce agreement subsequent to their expulsion from Kuwait. We could have had exclusive access to the oil just by agreeing to let Saddam stay. Imperialism should be made of sterner stuff.
It's a bitch when your pearls run into reality, ain't it, Smitty?

Posted by sarlat, a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 31, 2007 at 7:45 am

Actually, the US has done to Iraq exactly what Iraq had done to Kuwait-invaded a sovereign nation and decimated it. Unlike Iraq being expelled from Kuwait, the US can't be ejected from Iraq because it's the only super-bully left in the world. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with Saadam or WMD or cease fire violations, it was part of the neo-cons grand strategy of emperial expansion, achieving control of vast oil reserves that no empire can do without. The neo-cons know that Hitler failed in his emperial quest because of his failure to take control of the Russian vast oil fields and they were determined not to repeat his failure.

Posted by James, a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 31, 2007 at 7:58 am

Do the lefty America haters get their propaganda from the same play book? "Blood for oil" is their broken record.

If America wanted free oil, it would have just taken it from Kuwait, once we invaded the place to kick out the Iraquis. Come to think of it, we could have taken over the Saudi oil fields while we were at it. Indeed, imperialism should be made of sterner stuff (as Walter said).

Posted by Billy, a resident of Community Center
on Mar 31, 2007 at 9:02 am

Howdy Boys and Girls!
Enjoyed reading all your pertinent points.
Just wanted to let you know that you are all invited to over to my place this afternoon for some skeet shooting and some oil drilling.

Posted by Albert, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 31, 2007 at 9:21 am

he hydrocarbon law that the Bush regime id forcing its puppet Iraqi patlament to pass will make available to Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, BP/Amoco, and Royal Dutch/Shell about 4/5's of the stupendous petroleum reserves in Iraq. That is the wretched goal of the Bush Administration, and in his speech setting the revenue-sharing "benchmark" Mr. Bush consciously avoided any hint of it.

The legislation pending now in Washington requires the President to certify to Congress by next October that the benchmarks have been met-specifically that the Iraqi hydrocarbon law has been passed. That's the land mine: he will certify the American and British oil companies have access to Iraqi oil. This is not likely what Congress intended, but it is precisely what Mr. Bush has sought for the better part of six years.
It is why we went to war.
For years President Bush has cloaked his intentions behind the fabricated "Global War on Terrorism." It has long been suspected that oil drove the wars, but dozens of skilled and determined writers have documented it. It is no longer a matter of suspicion, nor is it speculation now: it is sordid fact.
Planning for the two wars was underway almost immediately upon the Bush Administration taking office--at least six months before September 11, 2001. The wars had nothing to do with terrorism. Terrorism was initially rejected by the new Administration as unworthy of national concern and public policy, but 9/11 gave them a conveniently timed and spectacular alibi to undertake the wars. Quickly inventing a catchy "global war on terror" theme, the Administration disguised the true nature of the wars very cleverly, and with enduring success.
The "global war on terror" is bogus. The prime terrorist in Afghanistan and the architect of 9/11, Osama bin Laden, was never apprehended, and the President's subsequent indifference is a matter of record. And Iraq harbored no terrorists at all. But both countries were invaded, both countries suffer military occupation today, both are dotted with permanent U.S. military bases protecting the hydrocarbon assets, and both have been provided with puppet governments.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 31, 2007 at 9:31 am

Capture bin Ladin and the boo-boo will all be better?
I hope these Truthers don't drive.
The United States pays for oil, it does not steal it. If you think we have enough military to hols oil fields against the interest of the locals then you don't know oil, ppeople or military.

Posted by The Beaver, a resident of Community Center
on Mar 31, 2007 at 9:41 am

Hey, there he is, our resident neo con spewing out his misinformation like clockwork. Keep up the fine work Wally.

Posted by 51st State, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Mar 31, 2007 at 9:52 am

Hey, while we are at it may I humbly suggest a better place to grab oil be Venezuela. As an added bonus we will also own CITGO. Lets' make it part of united states.

Posted by James, a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 31, 2007 at 10:31 am

Why go to Venezuela or Iraq? We can just take over the Mexican oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico. Much more convenient.

If our ethics are those described by the lefties on this thread, there should be no hesitation to do it. I'm confident, in fact, that Bush has had this plan all along (along with his neocon buddies). He will probably launch the attack in May of '08 - just enough time to get lower gas prices before the election. Clever guy.

Posted by sarlat, a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 31, 2007 at 10:51 am

The neocon strategy is to install puppet governmets whereever possible in oil reach countries or countries bordering oil rich regions. The CIA field agent during the Tora Bora battle said that Bin Laden and his cronies were completely surrounded. He tried to call in 400 Rangersin order to finish them off and was refused immediately. He felt like the Pentagon desperately DID NOT WANT Bin Laden to be captured or killed. If Bin Laden is alive and at large, the US has an excuse to stay in Afghanistan which is so close to a region rich in oil and natural gas.It seems very obvious that if Bin Laden and Al qaeda didn't exist, the neocons would have had had to invent them-they are that convenient for their insane imperial designs. Unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, the Mexican or Venezuelan people would never tolerate a puppet government controlled by the US and would overthrow it immediately, the US is that despised in Latin America, so the neocons have to go east, and of course, they also want to create and perpetuate an Israeli hegemony in the middle east.

Posted by James, a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 31, 2007 at 11:32 am


I've heard some strange stuff, but the twisto logic (paranoia)that you resort to has me really chuckling. Do you suppose the neocons (those clever Jews) secretly funded and supported Al qaeda from the beginning? You know, just so that they could manipulate the U.S. into rabid support for Israel? It gets pretty spooky out there...can't be too cautious.

BTW, we would not need to set up a puppet government in Mexico to take their gulf oil fields. A couple of destroyers and some special forces should do the job. If we were true imperialists, we wouldn't hesitate.

Posted by Wolf, a resident of Palo Verde
on Mar 31, 2007 at 11:57 am

Yep... it's all about oil, and the neocon-crypto-Jew Bush had it planned from day one. He set up Al Qaeda, he was behind 9/11, and it was his dad that was behind the WTC explosion in 1993. Better keep a close eye on the Bushes this coming week -- they will need a blood of young Christian child for Passover...

It is beyond me how such idiocy keeps coming from people that otherwise seem sane. There is an interesting clip (both video and audio) that attempts to make sense of it at Web Link . While simplistic to a degree, it does seem to capture the essence of why modern "liberals" seem to prefer Hitler or Saddam to imperfect America.

Posted by sarlat, a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 31, 2007 at 12:16 pm

Even the US needs an excuse to invade a sovereign country and take over its oil fields. In the case of Mexico teror and WMD won't work, although you start hearing from seceral Bush regime sources that Chavez is financing international terrorists. Al Qaeda wasn't created by the neocons, but its existence so convenient for their purposes.It gives them a pretense to invade so many countries. And of course, a dead or captured Bin Laden would eliminate the excuse for being in Afghanistan. Bin Laden and some of his folowers were trained by Americans to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, although the Reagan administration had been warned that those people were extremely dangerous and would very likely turn against the US.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 31, 2007 at 12:49 pm

Osama the only reason to be in Afghanistan? A short memory must be a comfort to truthers like sariat and Beaver.
I may be con, a bit, neo, not for a long time.
If the Mexicans have not overthrown the government of 400 families that have kept them in peonage, I doubt they would object to not having to go North to get the benefits of US living. Manila misses our money and Puerto Rico wouldn't cut the umbilicus on a bet.

Posted by Smith, a resident of Professorville
on Mar 31, 2007 at 8:59 pm

Actually Osama and his friends DID get money and weapons from the US in the 80s when it was handy to use the islamic extremists to fight the Soviets who had then invaded Afghanistan.

So yes we did finance OSama Bin Laden in the beginning, as we supported Saddam Hussein when it was expedient for us (remember the video of the handshake between, was it Rumsfeld? and Saddam Hussein, back in the 70s or 80s...)

So enough about the "spreading democracy" nonsense. This is just a fabricated excuse.

Posted by John, a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 1, 2007 at 12:06 am

I've never understood the argument about our previous support for Saddam or the Mujahadeen. We also supported Stalin in our fight against Hitler, even though Stalin was also an evil thug. FDR even chided Churchill about his new friend, "Uncle Joe". So what?! It all these cases, they were considered the lesser of the evils at the time, and we got significant blowback at a later point. More importantly, we were successful each time. We stopped Hitler, the Soviet Union and Ayatollah Khomeni.

The leftists seem to confuse previous support for current bad guys as some type of conspiracy to hoodwink the American people. This type of paranoid thinking is reflective of nondisciminating minds.

Posted by Mercedes, a resident of another community
on Apr 1, 2007 at 6:18 am

It IS about the OIL! Those of you who think that the OIL companies won't be stealing the Iraqi OIL need to read up on the current news. The way the Hydrocarbon Law works is that the Sunni, Shiia and Kurd will share the profits of only 20% of the total OIL output. The rest of the 80% of the OIL will be open to foreign OIL investors (Exxon-Mobil, BP, Shell, etc...)for AT LEAST 30 years. The profits they will make from the OIL (easily accessed right under the ground, not hundreds of feet down the crust, so no need for heavy drilling) will be astounding! So this is what Bush has been planning for years--enough money for him and his OIL buddies, and the heck with the rest of us. If you voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 then you have approved and consented to Bush and his Illegal and Immoral war in Iraq. Either you have a lot of OIL stocks and bonds and are waiting to jump on the OIL profits gravy train; OR you are INCREDIBLY naive and not savvy to the ways of this evil world and its greedy OIL barons.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 1, 2007 at 7:48 am

Ocam sure takes a beating on this forum.

Posted by Beaver, a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 1, 2007 at 8:43 am

Hey Wally, noticed your up and adam, back to your whimsical habbits, keeping the world safe from liberal and progressive minded people. Don't worry, it'll soon be all over, and not due to global warming either. For now, if you want to play around on the computer, well, that's okay, but remember, don't think that anybody is really taking you for real. Most people around town can read the writing on the wall, and guess what, it ain't yours that they are reading!

Posted by funny stuff, a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 1, 2007 at 11:16 am

I find it amusing that these liberal hippies that post here dont even take into consideration or respect another view. You bash people that think differently than you. I dont get it, you have such tunnel vision on a great conspiracy you cant see the other side of the argument.

Sadly this is not confined to this forum. It seems to be in the minds of most liberals that they cant see the other side of the argument. Then they spew out some unfactual remarks with no proof to back it up.

All I want to see is you people understanding the other side of the argument and understand that another point of view is crucial to having a good argument and is the basis for a good democracy. If we all thought alike wether it be conservative or liberal we would be giving up everyones ability to think for themselves.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 1, 2007 at 11:56 am

If the above are examples of liberal and progressive minded people, I'll take Peoria. Reality is not conservative or liberal, it is real, and that is what I'm. Try again after you get some coffee.

Posted by funny stuff, a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 1, 2007 at 2:51 pm

You can be "real" if it makes you feel better, but there will always be conservative or liberal overlap in your thoughts no matter what stance you take.

Posted by Smith, a resident of Professorville
on Apr 1, 2007 at 5:45 pm

"Sadly this is not confined to this forum. It seems to be in the minds of most liberals that they cant see the other side of the argument. Then they spew out some unfactual remarks with no proof to back it up."

Who's bashing who here and not backing up anything??! I had a good laugh reading your post!

Posted by funny stuff, a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 1, 2007 at 6:19 pm

You seriously disagree with that statement? Look at most posts here about politics and I hope you will have the power to find out realize what I am talking about.

All I really want is for people to see the other side of the argument regardless of if they agree with it or not. I see the basis for critical arguments diminishing in this country. And I fear tht whenever some big celebrity or some news reporter sitting in front of a camera tells you something you beleive it. People need to research and collect information on there own and not rely on outside sources.

My intent was not to bash but to illuminate my point.

Posted by Smtih, a resident of Professorville
on Apr 1, 2007 at 7:55 pm

And my point is, funny stuff, that the attitude you decry is as prevalent among neo-cons as it is among liberals. I don't think there is a monopoly when it comes to narrow-mindedness. Unfortunately. I agree with you that everybody should be able to see both sides of any issue.

The one aggravating factor in this country is that mainstream media do not deliver objective information. Their news are slanted according to their own agenda. So we have to look for information beyond that which is the most accessible to us.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 2, 2007 at 12:59 pm

For all of that, "it was all for the oil" flies in the face of the scenarios I suggested. Imperialism should be made of sterner stuff.

Posted by Draw the Line, a resident of Stanford
on Apr 2, 2007 at 2:15 pm

Right on, Wallis!

I am glad someone has the time to counteract these guys who make not sense.

I have always been amazed at the ability to, on the one hand, say it is all about the oil, and our imperialistic nature and superior military ability, and on the other hand not recognize that if we actually just wanted the oil, we would simply take it.

Cracks me up that anyone would think that we would plan to spend 300 billion dollars and 5 years and lives lost..all for the privilege of buying oil at the same price as the rest of the world.

The most we can say that "it is for the oil" is this: if we had let Saddam continue with his plans to gain enough weapons to hold the oil hostage, then the rest of the world would have gone into a Depression on par with the one of the 30s...and millions would have died.

But, it is easier to believe that we did this for the good of the SUVs

Posted by Mercedes, a resident of another community
on Apr 3, 2007 at 9:44 am

To Wallis and other Neocons:

We ARE going to be stealing the OIL! We Are going to just go and take it! Why are those permanent US military bases right next to the OIL fields in the Northeast and Southeast of Iraq? Do you think they are there so that Bush and his OIL buddies can go ask them to protect them while they "buy" OIL? Come on, fellows and ladies--the US will be there at least 30 YEARS until every last drop of OIL is taken; NOT sold.

You who think this is good MUST have stock in OIL. I wonder if you can sleep at night, knowing that you are agreeing that the OIL companies are taking "blood money" that our beloved troops are spilling for the damn OIL. Why don't you just admit that you can't figure out a way to apologize for your own greed? How much money can one person have? When will it be ENOUGH?

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 3, 2007 at 11:32 am

Mercedes, I have already presented my arguments. If your wit cannot at least respond to them instead of rambling off into a mindless rant I can't help you. It may comfort you to call me a neocon, but as I have demonstrated I am not neo. I have one share of PG&E and one share of Southern Pacific. No closet full of OxyPet like your darling Gore. Go back to your Goddess Rosie and leave this forum to rational discussions.

Posted by Mercedes, a resident of another community
on Apr 3, 2007 at 2:13 pm


Well, good for you that you have one whole share of PG&E--it's more than I would ever want to have. By the by, I believe in God, which I've heard president Bush is supposed to believe in, too. I don't care what Rosie has to say--not interested. But I AM concerned when it comes to our country and our troops that are being sacrificed for Bush's dream of Iraqi OIL.

You may think that "in it for the oil" is simplistic fantasy and that I am a raving maniac. But can you CONVINCE me that Bush took us to Iraq to fight the "war on terror"? A "war on terror" can NOT be won with just military force--because terrorism is all over this world and where one dies for his twisted beliefs, there will be another one, two or three others to take his place. There is NO WAY to find all of these people because Terrorism and Fanaticism is not only a way of Life, but a state of Mind--there is NO WAY to enter the mind of a man to know what he truly is willing to do or who he may be willing to kill for his Philosophy of Life. There is no proof, and people like me who have seen what this love of OIL is doing to us, our country, and our world can understand that YES! This IS about the OIL! It doesn't have to be some complex complicated system of Imperialism or what have you to be pushed by a White House that has one thing on its mind--MONEY, lots and lots of MONEY for Bush, Cheney, Rice, Exxon-Mobil, BP, Shell, etc...and the rest of us "poor simple folk" are supposed to follow and believe Everything and Anything Bush says because he's our president? Not me!

You are giving this White House administration the benefit of the doubt by thinking that they could have such a diabolical plot such as world domination or Imperialism up their sleeve; but you are not really LISTENING to what they have been saying and DOING these past six years, Wallis...

I'm sorry if I offended you because I sound like a raving maniac--I am not. I am just a woman, an Hispanic woman who has gone through the "school of hard knocks" and who doesn't swallow all the bunk of what our leaders try to fill our minds with. I prefer to think for myself; and what I have heard and seen from these past six years leads me to believe that I have been right all along--Bush and his White House administration doesn't care about me or you; they don't care about breaking the Geneva Convention, they don't care about the Congress; they don't care about the less fortunate or the sick; they don't care about our allies(only that puppy dog British Blair); they don't care how many people, from our troops in Iraq, to the Innocent Iraqi Civilians will die because of this war--they only care about the "haves and the have-mores" and especially MONEY...

Posted by Smith, a resident of Professorville
on Apr 3, 2007 at 2:55 pm

Actually I see three reasons for the Iraq war:

1) Oil as stated here.

2) To please Israel, that had a big problem with Iraq and wanted Saddam taken out. Otherwise there was not terrorist threat from Iraq. We all know that those claims were bogus.

3) For our dear George to take revenge on Saddam after he purportedly tried to assassinate his dad, George Bush Senior.

Anytbing else, war on terrorism, exporting "democracy", etc. is a BIG smoke-screen.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 3, 2007 at 6:38 pm

I suppose you mean the smoke rising from 30,000 burning cars in paris, from English subway cars and from Spanish trains? Sure, just smoke.
I guess you have forgotten that we went into Kuwait to save Islamics just as we went into Kosevo and into the Soviet beset Afghanistan. So much for Islamic gratitude. We did not take the Kuwaiti oil fields even though we were right there with a honkin' big army. We instead allowed Saddam to cheat and steal his own people's food and medicine and take pot shots at our pilots, all in violation of his solemn treaty but with the cooperation of our "allies" france and germany. [I will no longer capitalize those names] I am sure sorry that liberals have managed to make anti-semitism acceptable again, because I consider Jew hatred to be a sure sign of real low intelligence and less manhood.