I was wrong, it was about oil

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 2:58 pm

Along I have been pooh poohing those of liberal persuasion that insisted the Iraq war was about oil. I must in all fairness say I was in error and owe you my sincerest apologies:

According to a copy obtained by ABCNEWS, some 270 prominent individuals, political parties or corporations in 47 countries were on a list of those given Iraq oil contracts instantly worth millions of dollars.

According to the document, France was the second-largest beneficiary, with tens of millions of barrels awarded to Patrick Maugein, a close political associate and financial backer of French President Jacques Chirac."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Inve ... 129-1.html

Forgive me for ever doubting you.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 5:27 pm

This one puts it a little more directly:

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking ... -7323r.htm

While I haven't seen the hard evidence yet, it sorta all adds up and is roughly what I assumed was going on during the stonewalling sessions at the U.N. I won't be surprised if this story just quietly gets forgotten about. People only want to hear about U.S. hypocrisy and greed.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 5:59 pm

Great stories, thanks guys. I remember reading things about France's oil contracts at the time so this isn't a surprise. We knew they had a lot to lose by saddam leaving even before this article.

Wood, I hope you keep the same open mind when I make a post about Bush and WMD in a week or so.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:16 pm

I think the more devout liberals would have argued that the war was about oil for ourselves and not France's lust for the stuff, per se. Clearly, this casts new light on why France was so adamant on throwing a wrench in the diplomatic process.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 9:07 pm

One of the biggest intelligence failures of the United States is not what went wrong with the WMD information on Iraq.
It is that we have Congressmen and Presidents who actually thought France was an ally.
Just because they were on our side in WWII doesn't mean they are one of us. They never were. In fact they only chose us after Hitler went back on his word and started to take over.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 9:17 pm

It is always an intelligence failure to ever assume any country is not looking out for its own self interest. There are no 'allies forever'.

I'm not sure though that this is completely new info. We knew france stood to lose oil contracts from saddam's fall, this is just more specific.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 12:54 am

Apology accepted Woody. now it's Bash's turn.

bash · Post by **bash** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 7:55 am

Heh. Whoosh!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 8:21 am

No problem Fernman...one must note that no where on the "List" are the names of Cheney, Bush or Halliburton to be found

Oh and Birdy, just because something ain't found don't mean it doesn't exist

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 12:38 pm

I'm pretty sure Woody was being sarcastic, so yeah, whoosh!

"one must note that no where on the "List" are the names of Cheney, Bush or Halliburton to be found"

Heh!? I bet they're on the "List" now.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 1:51 pm

I guess you guys missed the sarcasm in my post. lol

So yea. whoosh.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 5:35 pm

I just love you guys...I don't even have to use emoticons to get my feelings across. Heh, don't think my bon homie will make me the sap either (of course a few more drinks and that could all change).

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 6:33 am

In Ken Timmermans book "French Betrayal of America" it now appears that oil (for food)was being given to French power brokers to the tune of 100 billion dollars. Not only were the French recieving dirty oil but former UN head Bhutros Bhutros Ghali family was also recieving dirty oil. Was it a small wonder that the UN kept issueing resolutions to Iraq?

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 10:01 am

<A long-time critic of unilateral U.S. sanctions, which he has argued penalize American companies while failing to punish the targeted regimes, Cheney has pushed for a review of U.S. policy toward countries such as Iraq, Iran and Libya>

http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/02.03E.Hallib.Iraq.htm

Bad website? I find the stuff interesting, it may be a liberal anti-Bush site, very possible, but the questions that arise cannot be merely stamped out because of it.

Repo Man · Post by **Repo Man** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 11:15 am

If the Iraq war was all about oil, then where the heck is my oil? Gas prices in California will be threatening $3.00 per gallon soon!

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:13 pm

djordan, you have the common misconception.

There will never be a decline in prices. First it was, not enough oil, then it was Middle East is too dangerous to get oil safely, then it was we need oil from Alaska to cut prices, and now it's Iraq's infrastructure needs major repairs so the price wont go down. Don't ever expect it to. Oil companies post record profits when the price goes up. Check Wall Street Journal, it's amazing the price gouging that goes unchecked in this world. But then again, that's what you get when you have more than half dozen oil execs on the Cabinet

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:52 pm

Or maybe OPEC is just diminishing production to drive up gas prices in hopes that it will reflect badly on the Bush Administration and help put Sen. Kerry (the man with no plan) in the Whitehouse. Just a thought (that I'm not the first to think of). The price of OPEC crude oil now is $32.75 per barrel. In 2003 it averaged $28.10 per barrel. I can't find the average for 2002, but saw one reference to $22.00 per barrel.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:04 pm

Aww come on index_html, if it isn't anti-Bush it isn't hip, if it isn't hip it can't be true

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:14 pm

OPEC doesnt care who the president is. They do this every single year.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:44 pm

Is that sarcasm or are you really that naive? In case it's the latter, think about it. We currently have an administration that's determined to introduce democracy and liberty in a region ruled by autocrats, theocrats and dictators. The Saudi Princes, Iran's Mullahs, Syria's Boy Ba'athist, Egypt's dictator-in-sheeps-clothing have everything to lose if democracy takes root (I realize Egypt and Syria aren't members of OPEC, but OPEC certainly influences the political winds of the Middle East as a whole). We overthrew the Taliban and Iraqi regime with relative ease. Yet Sen. Kerry thinks terrorism is a law enforcement issue and would apparently send Buford T. Justice out in his squad car to apprehend fanatics with AK-47s, grenades, and RPGs. He voted against financing the reformation in Iraq and believes in the stagnant beaurocracy of the United Nations. Iraq is a member of OPEC ... think Saddam wishes Al Gore won the last election?

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 2:33 pm

I'm saying they cut production and inflate the oil prices every single year. This is NOT exclusive to the Bush tenure. If you think that, then you're a bigger idiot than I thought

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 2:45 pm

No, what you said is that OPEC doesn't care who the president will be. I understand that OPEC manipulation of the market is nothing new, the question is why is the price of OPEC crude suddenly sky high right now? While I have no definitive proof that the Arab members of OPEC are essentially campaigning against Bush (and never claimed to), it would make sense that they would seek to support a U.S. president who rejects promoting change in the region, which could theoretically cost the powers that be their oil-financed opulence. I would think they care a great deal about who our next president will be. Anyways, back to work ... trying to build a bigger idiot.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 3:06 pm

Zuruck wrote:OPEC doesnt care who the president is. They do this every single year.

who the president is...not will be. I don't understand why you think he doesn't want to promote change in the region. He never said that, he wants UN controlled activity. That's a little different then saying he wants to let the place teem with bad people. Be smart index. You seem to be. The whole world isnt on a big campaign against Bush. Just 85% of it

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 4:23 pm

Zuruck wrote:...he wants UN controlled activity. That's a little different then saying he wants to let the place teem with bad people.

lol!
How many years did the U.N. threaten to punish Saddam.....12?!?

So these gangsta's are selling crack on the corner and for 12 years the cops drive by and tell them "We have a warrant for your arrest, you better stop or else..." but they never do anything except warn them.

Then a new cop comes to work the neighborhood, he arrests the gangsta's and the friends of the old cops complain. They say, of the old cops, "they wanted police controlled activity. they don't want the place teeming with bad people"
Then we find out some of the old cops were getting paid under the table by the gangsta's...

and you're telling index_html to "be smart"

lol! x2

Repo Man · Post by **Repo Man** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 11:29 pm

Zuruck wrote:djordan, you have the common misconception...

On the contrary, it is you who has the misconception:

1. You don't recognize sarcasm when you see it.

2. You apparently agree that the war was not about oil--for America anyway.

3. The soaring gas prices in California are mainly due to government wacko environmental policy.

Itâ??s simple economicsâ?¦

In the name of saving the environment, California has half the number of oil refineries now than what we had twenty years ago, meaning less production capacity.

The population has dramatically increased in that time period, causing increasing demand.

California now requires a special additive to gasoline sold here that is not used anywhere else in the world. If there is any interruption in production there is no way fuel can be imported from another state to meet the demand.

More demand than supply equals rising prices.

The same nitwits that gave California the electric crisis three years ago, by deregulating a monopoly, is at it again.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 1:08 am

I smell BS

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 8:53 am

Yeah djordan, Chicago uses reformulated gas as well. We get his when you do as well. It sucks real bad.