I am tired of these war protesters saying this war is for oil. They say the war is for oil while not really telling us why it wouldn't make sense for the United States to attack Iraq for its oil. I am not an expert on the subject so I thought maybe you people would become convinced this war is not really for oil if you hear from an expert who actually knows something about oil. His name is Jerry Taylor, and he is an oil expert and the Director of Natural Resources Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington. He has even testified on Capital Hill and served on congressional testimony bodies.

Mr. Taylor spoke to BBC news.com

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2861721.stm) about this "Blood for Oil" argument. Mr. Taylor says that: "Is the war with Iraq about oil when all is said and done? The anti-war movement seems to think so. I am not so sure.

Unless the peace movement has discovered telepathy, I doubt that it's in any better position to divine the hidden thoughts or secret motivations of George Bush and Tony Blair than I am. Arguing about unstated motives, therefore, is a waste of time - claims cannot be proven or disproven.

Is it so difficult to imagine that both Bush and Blair sincerely believe - rightly or wrongly - that a well-armed Iraq poses an intolerable danger to the civilized world? If access to oil were of concern to them, one might have expected members of their administrations to hint as much. After all, the Thatcher and Bush "senior" administrations were quite open about the role that oil played in justifying the first go-around in Kuwait. Polls in the United States revealed at the time, moreover, that the public responded favourably to the argument. Why the supposed reticence now?

Regardless, it's difficult to know exactly what's being alleged when one is confronted by the slogan "No Blood for Oil!"

If the argument is that war is primarily being executed to ensure global access to Iraqi oil reserves, then it flounders upon misunderstanding. The only thing preventing Iraqi oil from entering the world market in force is the partial U.N. embargo on Iraqi exports. Surely if access to Iraqi oil were the issue, it would have occurred to Bush and Blair that removing the embargo is about 100 billion dollars cheaper - and less politically risky - than going to war.

If the argument is that war is being undertaken to grab Iraqi reserves, flood the market with oil, bust the OPEC cartel, and provide cheap energy to western consumers, then war would be a dagger pointed at the heart of big oil companies. That's because low prices equal low profits. But if the market were flooded with cheap Iraqi oil, it would also wipe out the small-time producers in Texas, Oklahoma, and the American Southwest that President Bush has long considered his best political friends.

Accordingly, it's impossible to square this story with the allegation that President Bush is a puppet of the oil industry. If oil company "fat cats" were calling the shots - as is often alleged by the protesters - President Bush would almost certainly not go to war. He would instead embrace the Franco-German-Russian plan of muscular but indefinite inspections. Because keeping the world on the precipice of uncertainty regarding conflict is the best guarantee that oil prices, (and thus, oil profits,) will remain at current levels.

If the argument is that "Big Oil" is less interested in high prices than it is with outright ownership of the Iraqi reserves, then how can we account for Secretary of State Colin Powell's repeated promise that the oil reserves will be transferred to the Iraqi government after a new leadership is established? Do the protestors think that this high-profile public commitment is a bald-faced lie? If outright ownership of oil is the real goal of this war, then I'm forced to wonder why the U.S. didn't seize the Kuwaiti fields more than 10 years ago.

If the argument is that this war is aimed at installing a pro-American regime more inclined to grant oil contracts to American and British rather than French and Russian oil firms, then it invites a similar charge that France and Russia are against war, primarily to protect their cosy economic relationships with the existing Iraqi regime. Regardless, only one or two American or British firms in this scenario would "win" economically while the rest would lose because increased production would lower global oil prices and thus profits. Because no one knows who would win the post-war contract "lottery," it makes little sense for the oil industry (or the politicians who supposedly cater to them) to support war.

Moreover, the profit opportunities afforded by Iraqi development contracts are overstated. The post-war Iraqi regime would certainly ensure that most of the profits from development were captured by the new government, whose reconstruction needs will be monumental. In fact, Secretary Powell has repeatedly hinted that Iraqi oil revenues would be used for exactly that purpose. Big money in the oil industry goes to those who own their reserves or who secure favourable development contracts, not to those who are forced to surrender most of the profits up-front through negotiation.

If the argument is that the United States is going to war to tame OPEC by ensuring that a puppet regime friendly to America holds the second largest reserves within the cartel, then it runs up against the fact that the United States has never had much complaint with OPEC. Occasional posturing notwithstanding, both have the same goal: stable prices between 20 and 28 dollars a barrel. The cartel wants to keep prices in that range because it maximizes their profits. The United States wants to keep prices in that range because it ensures the continued existence of the oil industry in the United States without doing too much damage to the American economy. The United States doesn't need a client state within the cartel, particularly when the cost of procuring such a state will reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

Oil, however, is relevant to this extent: Whoever controls those reserves sits atop a large source of potential revenue which, in the hands of a rogue state, could bankroll a sizeable and dangerous military arsenal. That's why the United States and Great Britain care more about containing the ambitions of Saddam Hussein than, say, the ambitions of Robert Mugabe. Still, if seizing oil fields from anti-western regimes is the name of the game, why aren't U.S. troops massing on the Venezuelan border and menacing Castro "Mini-Me" Hugo Chavez?

In sum, the argument that the war with Iraq is fundamentally about oil doesn't add up. While everyone loves a nice, tidy political morality play, I doubt there is one to be found here."

This quote was an exact copy of the transcript of what Jerry Taylor said. If you still believe this war is for oil then I feel pity for you. You can see the transcript at --

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2861721.stm --- and then click on -Jerry Taylor: the war is not about "blood for oil"-

Cato Institute in Washington is a major Facist propagandist group. You believe them your a fool.

"They say the war is for oil while not really telling us why it wouldn't make sense for the United States to attack Iraq for its oil"

so.... "They say the war is about oil, to which we say 'Why Not?'."

wtf is that.

And the whole thing is like that. Goddamned warmongers are running out of ammo in a big way.

ya, it seemed like the article was far too eager to dismiss every argument against the war with flooded rebuttals.

"If the argument is that war is primarily being executed to ensure global access to Iraqi oil reserves, then it flounders upon misunderstanding. The only thing preventing Iraqi oil from entering the world market in force is the partial U.N. embargo on Iraqi exports."

Re:i dont think they want global access to iraqi oil.more like,u.s. and british access.

"If oil company "fat cats" were calling the shots - as is often alleged by the protesters - President Bush would almost certainly not go to war. He would instead embrace the Franco-German-Russian plan of muscular but indefinite inspections. Because keeping the world on the precipice of uncertainty regarding conflict is the best guarantee that oil prices, (and thus, oil profits,) will remain at current levels. "

Re:??? during the uncertainty of war oil prices went sky high.now that the war is underway oil prices are starting to 'stabilize' and are expected to go down.

"If the argument is that "Big Oil" is less interested in high prices than it is with outright ownership of the Iraqi reserves, then how can we account for Secretary of State Colin Powell's repeated promise that the oil reserves will be transferred to the Iraqi government after a new leadership is established? Do the protestors think that this high-profile public commitment is a bald-faced lie? "

Re: uh, yes. are you that naive? the bush administration already made the 'high-profile public commitment' that the war would be swift and over very quickly--i dont think so.they also said they were positive they would find chemical weapons.well, they're right on the outskirts of the capital city and still nothing.funny how the media is now focusing more on the 'liberation' of the iraqi people than the quest of finding chemical weapons.

assuming it does go back to the iraqi govt. it will be hand chsen by the u.s.,a 'puppet 'govt..im sure the oil will somehow end up in u.s. hands.

"Still, if seizing oil fields from anti-western regimes is the name of the game, why aren't U.S. troops massing on the Venezuelan border and menacing Castro "Mini-Me" Hugo Chavez?"

Re: the cia, unsuccesfully, already tried ousting Chavez from presidency(see:the unrest unfolding there in recent months).

they've also been terrorizing the region years before Catro..yes, because of oil.

"In sum, the argument that the war with Iraq is fundamentally about oil doesn't add up. While everyone loves a nice, tidy political morality play, I doubt there is one to be found here."

Re:hahaha

Have you ever been diagnosed wit ADHD, Seems that your concept of war (right or Wrong) is that of a video game. Sorry dude it's not like pulling the DVD out of your PS2, some go faster then others or slower. Is the war interfering with your cartoons, try reading a book.

"This article explains exactly why the war in Iraq is not for oil."

Right. The keen interest of the U.S. and other Western nations in the Middle East over the past century has nothing to do with oil. I suppose oil had absolutely nothing to do with the first British invasion of Iraq way back in 1917 or the colonial administration that followed (and the Brits used mustard gas on the Iraqis back then, by the way). It had nothing to do with decades of support for the Saudi monarchy, the overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 (oh, wait, that was Saddam, so obviously HE was after oil but our moral, upstanding leaders would NEVER do anything for the sake of profits, no, not them!) and the ensuing Gulf War. No, oil couldn't possibly have anything to do with anything the US government does in the Middle East, because the US is too NOBLE to do anything like that.

"Unless the peace movement has discovered telepathy, I doubt that it's in any better position to divine the hidden thoughts or secret motivations of George Bush and Tony Blair than I am. Arguing about unstated motives, therefore, is a waste of time - claims cannot be proven or disproven."

It is a fact that Halliburton has a big fat contract to do oil-related construction in Iraq after the war, and Cheney is on their payroll to the tune of $500,000 a year. It is a fact that having control over the world's second-biggest oil fields provides enormous leverage over other countries that are even more dependent on foreign oil than we are. It is a fact that these oil fields are worth trillions of dollars.

"Is it so difficult to imagine that both Bush and Blair sincerely believe - rightly or wrongly - that a well-armed Iraq poses an intolerable danger to the civilized world?"

IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO BE SUFFICIENTLY IN TOUCH WITH REALITY TO REALIZE THAT IRAQ IS ANYTHING BUT WELL-ARMED, THAT THEY HAVE NO ICBM'S, NO NUKES, FEW IF ANY CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS, AND THE WEAKEST MILITARY IN THE MIDDLE EAST? Is it so difficult to see through idiotic propaganda consisting of forged, plagiarized, and outdated documents, fuzzy satellite images of who-knows-what, and ludicrous comparisons of Saddam Hussein to Hitler, who happened to have a real military? Is it so difficult to realize that UN weapons inspectors are a whole lot more credible sources of information about what weaponry Iraq does or doesn't have than the people who want to bomb the hell out of Iraq? Why the hell are so many Americans so fucking DUMB that they can't figure this stuff out? I mean really, Iraq has a military budget of $1.4 billion, less than 1/300th of the U.S.'s. And Osama bin Laden hates Saddam Hussein's guts, so don't even try that ridiculous crap about there being a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.



"If access to oil were of concern to them, one might have expected members of their administrations to hint as much."

What the hell does this guy think the Bush and Blair administrations are, complete idiots? Why would they tell the public "yeah, we just want to kill lots of innocent people and steal their oil"? How can anyone take the Cato Institute seriously when they say things like this?



"After all, the Thatcher and Bush "senior" administrations were quite open about the role that oil played in justifying the first go-around in Kuwait. Polls in the United States revealed at the time, moreover, that the public responded favourably to the argument. Why the supposed reticence now?"

The main argument made back then was that Iraq was violating international law by invading Kuwait. Presumably, to the extent that the oil angle was acknowledged, it didn't go over badly because the public felt Kuwait's oil belonged to Kuwait. But why would anyone accept that it was okay for the US and Britain to seize control of Iraqi oil fields? And given the obvious role that oil plays in Middle East policy in general, what kind of sense does it make to say that control over the richest untapped oil reserves in the world isn't on the minds of a bunch of former oil executives?

"If the argument is that war is primarily being executed to ensure global access to Iraqi oil reserves, then it flounders upon misunderstanding."

Who the heck is saying that? Do pro-war folks really believe that anti-war folks think the US & Britain are waging war in Iraq on some do-gooder mission to make sure the rest of the world has access to Iraq's oil?

"The only thing preventing Iraqi oil from entering the world market in force is the partial U.N. embargo on Iraqi exports. Surely if access to Iraqi oil were the issue, it would have occurred to Bush and Blair that removing the embargo is about 100 billion dollars cheaper - and less politically risky - than going to war."

Since when do Bush and Blair care about how much they soak taxpayers? And isn't the fact that they DIDN'T do this a dead giveaway that what they really want is to overthrow Saddam and install a US/Brit-friendly government?

"If the argument is that war is being undertaken to grab Iraqi reserves, flood the market with oil, bust the OPEC cartel, and provide cheap energy to western consumers, then war would be a dagger pointed at the heart of big oil companies. That's because low prices equal low profits. But if the market were flooded with cheap Iraqi oil, it would also wipe out the small-time producers in Texas, Oklahoma, and the American Southwest that President Bush has long considered his best political friends."

1) Why would the big oil companies which will undoubtedly have a controlling interest in these oil fields deliberately do something that would harm their profits?

2) Small-time oil producers are also small-time campaign contributors.

3) Why wouldn't it be economically advantageous for the big oil companies to force oil prices down just enough to drive OPEC, small-time Texas/Oklahoma producers, and any other competitors under? Isn't driving competitors out of business what capitalism is all about?

"Accordingly, it's impossible to square this story with the allegation that President Bush is a puppet of the oil industry."

And I suppose the fact that Halliburton got a contract without it even going out for bidding to anyone else was just a coincidence.

"If oil company "fat cats" were calling the shots - as is often alleged by the protesters - President Bush would almost certainly not go to war. He would instead embrace the Franco-German-Russian plan of muscular but indefinite inspections."

If this Cato Institute moron knew anything, he'd realize that the French and Russians already have oil contracts with Iraq and wouldn't stand to benefit from a war that likely will allow British and US firms to muscle in at French and Russian firms' expense.



"If the argument is that "Big Oil" is less interested in high prices than it is with outright ownership of the Iraqi reserves, then how can we account for Secretary of State Colin Powell's repeated promise that the oil reserves will be transferred to the Iraqi government after a new leadership is established?"

Because he's a proven liar? Because the "Iraqi" government will be a US/British puppet regime? Whatever the reason, anyone who isn't a completely gullible moron knows better than to trust in the US government's good intentions.



"If the argument is that this war is aimed at installing a pro-American regime more inclined to grant oil contracts to American and British rather than French and Russian oil firms, then it invites a similar charge that France and Russia are against war, primarily to protect their cosy economic relationships with the existing Iraqi regime."

Isn't that obvious?

"Regardless, only one or two American or British firms in this scenario would "win" economically while the rest would lose because increased production would lower global oil prices and thus profits. Because no one knows who would win the post-war contract "lottery," it makes little sense for the oil industry (or the politicians who supposedly cater to them) to support war."

If NO ONE knows how many companies will have oil contracts in post-war Iraq, neither does this fellow, by definition.

"Moreover, the profit opportunities afforded by Iraqi development contracts are overstated."

Since when was oil not profitable? Since when was the reconstruction of a country whose infrastructure has been completely wrecked not profitable?

"The post-war Iraqi regime would certainly ensure that most of the profits from development were captured by the new government, whose reconstruction needs will be monumental."

Them and what army? The profits from reconstruction will go straight into the pockets of US corporations like Halliburton and Bechtel (with which Daddy Bush has long been associated), financed by Iraqi oil.

"In fact, Secretary Powell has repeatedly hinted that Iraqi oil revenues would be used for exactly that purpose."

Let us blow up your country, steal your natural resources, and use the revenue from those resources to pay our companies to help rebuild your country. Gee, I wonder why Iraqis don't seem to be showering American troops with flowers.

"If the argument is that the United States is going to war to tame OPEC by ensuring that a puppet regime friendly to America holds the second largest reserves within the cartel, then it runs up against the fact that the United States has never had much complaint with OPEC."

So I'm sure that's why they tried to overthrow the Venezuelan government, which wanted oil prices to go up.

"The United States doesn't need a client state within the cartel, particularly when the cost of procuring such a state will reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars."

Those hundreds of billions of dollars come primarily out of working taxpayers' pockets -- or Bush will just run the deficit higher. This fellow acts like the cost of the war is going to be billed in full to the oil companies or something. How absurd!

"Oil, however, is relevant to this extent: Whoever controls those reserves sits atop a large source of potential revenue which, in the hands of a rogue state, could bankroll a sizeable and dangerous military arsenal."

Look in the mirror, Americans! The US is the rogue state with the biggest and most dangerous military arsenal in history. How many countries will you let the US conquer before you wake up to your government's imperial ambitions?

"Still, if seizing oil fields from anti-western regimes is the name of the game, why aren't U.S. troops massing on the Venezuelan border and menacing Castro "Mini-Me" Hugo Chavez?"

Is this fellow so naive as to think that the US doesn't care about overthrowing the Venezuelan government and isn't involved in the coup attempts?

...then why the fuck is the Bushit Adminis-Nazi-tration sending soldiers to Iraq? "Liberation"? Sure, just like the slave traders "liberated" the people of Africa to come to the USA and live on plantations. GMAFB: It IS about oil and nothing else. Bush is a mother-fucking, two-faced, Nazi, war-criminal, asshole, lame, Vietnam-AWOL liar. And those are his GOOD points.

Fuck Bush and his immoral war. Rot in hell, Bush. You are a traitor to the freedoms upon which this country was founded. Shame, shame on you.

Send your Mothers, Sisters, Aunts, Grandmothers, Wiives and Girlfriends, we will service them. They may not want to comeback to you, but we will make them anyway.

Have at it right-winger. From what we hear, this is what you like.

Bambi is a deer!

So....you would fuck Bambi, huh? Guess you right wingers will do anything for Bush.

I guess your right I will fuck most anything, but I would have to draw the line with your mother.

MY DAD KILLS FOR THE USA says that "Re:??? during the uncertainty of war oil prices went sky high.now that the war is underway oil prices are starting to 'stabilize' and are expected to go down" Well, guess what you smart son of a bitch, when the price of oil is high then there is more profit, when the price of oil goes down then there is less profit. Thank you for proving my point.



Jeff, first of all is that restating the history of Iraq does not have any relevance to the situation. Why don't we just have a little history lesson of the entire Middle East while we're at it. Speaking of the Middle East, did I ever say that every action taking by the United States in the Middle East has not been for oil? No I did not.



You then say Iraq has "FEW IF ANY CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS, AND THE WEAKEST MILITARY IN THE MIDDLE EAST." First, that means that Saddam has at least has some chemical or biological weapons and, thus, he is in direct violation of UN resolutions. Second, if Iraq has the weakest military in the Middle East, you go ahead then and name one country that has a stronger military than Iraq-- besides Israel of course.



You also stated that "Is it so difficult to realize that UN weapons inspectors are a whole lot more credible sources of information ... than the people who want to bomb the hell out of Iraq? Well, guess what Jeff, they are called inspectors for a reason. That is because they are supposed to inspect weapons. They are not detectives. Since they aren't detectives, it is probably pretty hard to find weapons when those weapons are hidden.



Jeff, you state, "And Osama bin Laden hates Saddam Hussein's guts, so don't even try that ridiculous crap about there being a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda." Where the fuck in my article did I say that. I guess you assume that if one person says something, then the rest of the people believe it too. First, I don't believe that bin Laden and Saddam are connected, and, secondly, I did not write anything remotely related to that in the article. I guess that is the one place where you and I would agree.



You then say, "Since when do Bush and Blair care about how much they soak taxpayers? And isn't the fact that they DIDN'T do this a dead giveaway that what they really want is to overthrow Saddam and install a US/Brit-friendly government?" Or could it be that Bush and Blair believe that Saddam is an international threat? No matter what people say, someone can say the opposite. Since the point cannot be proven or disproved (unless you're telepathic, I'm not) it really has no relevance to this argument.



These next quotes with 1, 2, and 3 in front of them are Jeff's response to Taylor saying, "If the argument is that war is being undertaken to grab Iraqi reserves, flood the market with oil, bust the OPEC cartel, and provide cheap energy to western consumers, then war would be a dagger pointed at the heart of big oil companies. That's because low prices equal low profits. But if the market were flooded with cheap Iraqi oil, it would also wipe out the small-time producers in Texas, Oklahoma, and the American Southwest that President Bush has long considered his best political friends."



"1) Why would the big oil companies which will undoubtedly have a controlling interest in these oil fields deliberately do something that would harm their profits?" You tell me. You talk as if oil companies control the United States-- which gets into conspiracy theories and what not. Once again, this conspiracy claim cannot be proven or disproved.



"2) Small-time oil producers are also small-time campaign contributors." Tell me something the whole world doesn't know. Jeff, usually a smaller business contributes smaller donations.



"3) Why wouldn't it be economically advantageous for the big oil companies to force oil prices down just enough to drive OPEC, small-time Texas/Oklahoma producers, and any other competitors under? Isn't driving competitors out of business what capitalism is all about?" Jeff, if you would actually read what Jerry Taylor wrote then it would make more sense. Taylor said that cheap Iraqi oil flooding the market would, "…wipe out the small-time producers in Texas, Oklahoma, and the American Southwest that President Bush has long considered his best political friends." Now, would it make sense to Bush to wipe these important campaign contributors off the map? No, it would be a bad idea. So why would Bush want this war if in the long run it hurts his main political friends? I was hoping you could tell me that, Jeff. Plus, what is wrong with capitalism, unless you want to live in Communist China, most people prefer the system here in the United States.



Jeff then says, "And I suppose the fact that Halliburton got a contract without it even going out for bidding to anyone else was just a coincidence." Must I also point out that Halliburton didn't get another high profile contract after it dropped out of the bidding race.



Jeff adds, "If this Cato Institute moron knew anything, he'd realize that the French and Russians already have oil contracts with Iraq and wouldn't stand to benefit from a war that likely will allow British and US firms to muscle in at French and Russian firms' expense." My god, what happened to the leftist cry of France protecting the world from US imperialism? So, France has economic gain to be made if they oppose the war. I thought they were just trying to make the world a safer place.

Part of Taylor's comments said that, "If the argument is that "Big Oil" is less interested in high prices than it is with outright ownership of the Iraqi reserves, then how can we account for Secretary of State Colin Powell's repeated promise that the oil reserves will be transferred to the Iraqi government after a new leadership is established?" Jeff's intelligent response to this statement was, "Because he's a proven liar? Because the "Iraqi" government will be a US/British puppet regime? Whatever the reason, anyone who isn't a completely gullible moron knows better than to trust in the US government's good intentions." Hmmm, the Iraqi government will be a US puppet? How do you know that? Do you just know? Have you seen any "secret" documents from Greenpeace foretelling of US puppet governments? What if the post-war government in Iraq is set up like those in post-WWII Germany and Japan-- are those puppet governments? So, if your main argument is about a puppet government, (at least I think it is; I am not sure the "whatever the reason” actually means-- it implies that you will still hold your belief no matter how ridicules the theory), then, once again, the point is not debatable, since it cannot be proven or disproved.

Jeff then goes on to say, "If NO ONE knows how many companies will have oil contracts in post-war Iraq, neither does this fellow, by definition". This was his response to Taylor saying, "Regardless, only one or two American or British firms in this scenario would "win" economically while the rest would lose because increased production would lower global oil prices and thus profits. Because no one knows who would win the post-war contract "lottery," it makes little sense for the oil industry (or the politicians who supposedly cater to them) to support war." Jeff, my sorry little friend, if you would actually read, once again, what was written then it would make sense. Taylor says "only one or two American or British firms in this scenario would "win" economically while the rest would lose ... Because no one knows who would win the post-war contract "lottery". Taylor does not say he doesn't know how many companies will have oil contracts; he says that he doesn't know who will be the "one or two American or British firms..." The words 'one' and 'two' do not imply many.

Jeff says, "Them and what army? The profits from reconstruction will go straight into the pockets of US corporations like Halliburton and Bechtel (with which Daddy Bush has long been associated), financed by Iraqi oil." Do we know who is really going to get the contracts though? Are the contracts only going to go to Halliburton and Bechtel? Is it possible that the oil money might actually finance the Iraqi post-war government? Once again your argument cannot be proven or disproved since we do not have first hand knowledge and therefore the argument is irrelevant.

Jeff rants, "Let us blow up your country, steal your natural resources, and use the revenue from those resources to pay our companies to help rebuild your country. Gee, I wonder why Iraqis don't seem to be showering American troops with flowers." I guess you don't watch the news. The Iraqis welcomed US troops in Najaf. "Coalition troops encountered Iraqis who were initially cautious but ended up chanting along with the troops and shaking their hands...” as CNN reported. I wonder why they were cautious though. Maybe because they were afraid that Saddam's thugs would kill them--just like the rest of Iraq's citizens.

Jeff then rants again, "Look in the mirror, Americans! The US is the rogue state with the biggest and most dangerous military arsenal in history. How many countries will you let the US conquer before you wake up to your government's imperial ambitions?" Look how many countries in the Eastern Block the United States has saved because of the United States' "imperial ambitions". Last I heard the real imperial age went out a long time ago. Oh, and Jeff, you should look in the mirror, too.

Jeff, in summary I would like to say you should think about what you write first. First, you use way too many rants that make no sense, as I have kindly pointed out. Secondly, you use too many false arguments that do not bolster you case. Third, you cannot make statements that cannot be proven or disproved. Fourthly, it would be helpful too if you actually read what was actually written before writing a response. I would appreciate if all left wing nuts would try to stick to facts a little more and not just rant on about "Imperial America" and what not. I mean, doing it sometimes is okay, but, hell, the whole argument can't be based on that.

P.S. I am not even going to respond to Fuck All Right Wingers as Fuck the Protesters and Rightwinger have already responded for me. Keep it up boys. Those liberals-- they have no argument so they resort to the rant and rave method. That gets 'em every time.

I hereby announce that this war is now officially all about the oil.

There. Happy?

Bottom line is that you liberals, with all of your bitching, whining, pissing, and moaning haven't been able to prevent it or stop it from happening.

In short, you're all failures.

Again.

wow,

no woman

still?

"Jeff, first of all is that restating the history of Iraq does not have any relevance to the situation."

So there's this whole history of Western policies in the Middle East which are widely acknowledged to be very much about oil, and this is irrelevant because we are supposed to take the Bush/Blair Administration's word that oil has absolutely nothing to do with it? Anyway, not all of them have been mum about their interest in Iraq's oil -- Richard Perle from the US and Jack Straw, Britain's foreign secretary, have both acknowledged the oil motive.



"You then say Iraq has 'FEW IF ANY CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS, AND THE WEAKEST MILITARY IN THE MIDDLE EAST.' First, that means that Saddam has at least has some chemical or biological weapons and, thus, he is in direct violation of UN resolutions."

Do you really not understand what "few if any" means? It means "there could be few, or there could be none." If Iraq's chemical and biological weapons stockpile is small and it has no other weapons of mass destruction or the means to deliver them (and the latter is acknowledged even by most within the Bush and Blair administrations), then obviously it is not a significant threat. In fact, it may well be that Iraq has none. By US estimates, around 80% of such weapons that Iraq possessed were wiped out by the first Gulf War, and the inspectors estimated they destroyed around 90% of what was left in the first round of weapons inspections. Then there's the testimony of Iraqi defector and head of their weapons programs Hussein Kamel that Iraq made a conscious effort to destroy its stockpiles because they wanted to give the US as few rationales for attacking them as possible. (This part of Kamel's testimony was omitted by Powell and Bush in their recent allusions to his statements, yet another example of White House deception.) Then there's the fact that the inspectors succeeded in finding these weapons the first time but did not find any in significantly more intensive inspections the second time -- and US troops haven't been able to find any, either. How plausible is it that such weapons were found in the 1990s but somehow Iraq is now so much better at hiding them that not a single one has been found? That just doesn't make any sense.

"Second, if Iraq has the weakest military in the Middle East, you go ahead then and name one country that has a stronger military than Iraq-- besides Israel of course."

If you're going to discuss these issues with people the least you could do is look up basic information first. Figures on recent military budgets (cf. www.cdi.org) include: Saudi Arabia $21.3 billion, Israel $10.6 billion,Turkey $5.8 billion, Iran $4.8 billion, Egypt $4.4 billion, Kuwait $3.9 billion, United Arab Emirates $3.1 billion, Iraq $1.4 billion, Libya $1.2 billion, Syria $1 billion. And use a little common sense: Iraq's military was decimated in the first Gulf War and continued to have its capacity eroded by 12 years of bombings, sanctions, and inspections. Even if they are spending slightly more than, say, Syria, much of their expenditures have had to go toward replacing what they've lost. It is quite likely that Iraq's military is the weakest in the region. Otherwise, why would Kuwait, which Iraq invaded in 1990, have expressed opposition to the war?



"You also stated that "Is it so difficult to realize that UN weapons inspectors are a whole lot more credible sources of information ... than the people who want to bomb the hell out of Iraq? Well, guess what Jeff, they are called inspectors for a reason. That is because they are supposed to inspect weapons. They are not detectives. Since they aren't detectives, it is probably pretty hard to find weapons when those weapons are hidden."

Then how did they find them in the 1990s? Do you think that the Iraqis were telling them where to find them back then, and suddenly changed their minds and decided to hide them? And if it is so hard for the inspectors to find them, how is it that the Bush Administration claims to "know" the Iraqis have such weapons? Are THEY telepathic?



"Jeff, you state, "And Osama bin Laden hates Saddam Hussein's guts, so don't even try that ridiculous crap about there being a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda." Where the fuck in my article did I say that. I guess you assume that if one person says something, then the rest of the people believe it too. First, I don't believe that bin Laden and Saddam are connected, and, secondly, I did not write anything remotely related to that in the article. I guess that is the one place where you and I would agree."

So if Iraq doesn't have long-range missiles and doesn't have connections with bin Laden, how exactly are they a major threat to the US?



"You then say, "Since when do Bush and Blair care about how much they soak taxpayers? And isn't the fact that they DIDN'T do this a dead giveaway that what they really want is to overthrow Saddam and install a US/Brit-friendly government?" Or could it be that Bush and Blair believe that Saddam is an international threat?"

The fact that they are attacking Iraq and not, for example, North Korea suggests that they are fully aware that N. Korea has a serious capacity to threaten its neighbors and even the US (they have ICBMs, lots of heavy artillery which can easily reach Seoul, and may soon have nuclear weapons) while Iraq doesn't. Look at the countries the US has attacked over the years: Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, Libya, Iraq, Yugoslavia, etc. They're all militarily pretty weak. Do you really think that our government doesn't know this? They're not stupid; they don't want to get into a long war like Vietnam because they know the public would turn against it.

""1) Why would the big oil companies which will undoubtedly have a controlling interest in these oil fields deliberately do something that would harm their profits?" You tell me. You talk as if oil companies control the United States-- which gets into conspiracy theories and what not. Once again, this conspiracy claim cannot be proven or disproved."

Not sure what this has to do with my point that if oil companies controlled Iraq's resources, they obviously wouldn't overproduce to such an extent that they couldn't make any profits at all. But anyway, you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to realize that Bush and company are oil men and that the oil and gas industries are right at the top of Bush's campaign contributors. That doesn't mean, of course, that oil is the only industry that the Bush Administration's policies are intended to serve. Bush & Co. collected record campaign donations from a wide assortment of big corporations and rich people, and all of those folks are getting plenty back from this administration.

And all you have to do is look at the official policy statements of the Bush Administration such as September's National Security Strategy document, as well as statements from the Project for a New American Century which many Bush officials are a part of, and the Trilateral Commission which Bush's dad, for example, is a part of, to realize that these folks really do aim to dominate the world militarily, politically, and economically, and that they do specifically talk about the importance of controlling natural resources such as oil. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to realize that most capitalists want to make as much money as possible any way they can, that they work together to accomplish that goal, and that they don't give a damn how many people they kill in the process.

""2) Small-time oil producers are also small-time campaign contributors." Tell me something the whole world doesn't know. Jeff, usually a smaller business contributes smaller donations."

The point, of course, is that such small contributors don't have the degree of influence that the article implied they did.



""3) Why wouldn't it be economically advantageous for the big oil companies to force oil prices down just enough to drive OPEC, small-time Texas/Oklahoma producers, and any other competitors under? Isn't driving competitors out of business what capitalism is all about?" Jeff, if you would actually read what Jerry Taylor wrote then it would make more sense. Taylor said that cheap Iraqi oil flooding the market would, "…wipe out the small-time producers in Texas, Oklahoma, and the American Southwest that President Bush has long considered his best political friends." "

Again, check out documents from the Project for a New American Century if you doubt that the Bush/Cheney clan has been planning war with Iraq for a decade or more and that it has a lot to do with controlling Iraq's oil. Whether small-time oil producers are better political friends than Ken Lay of Enron and other big-time corporate folks who contributed heavily and have long ties with the Bush clan, I don't know, although I doubt it. Bush raised $191 million, very little of it from small-time oil producers. And looking at Bush's policies, it's pretty clear that they're mainly tailored to bigger corporate interests -- just as government policies usually are. They do what big money wants them to.

"Plus, what is wrong with capitalism, unless you want to live in Communist China, most people prefer the system here in the United States."

What's wrong with capitalism in a nutshell is that a wealthy elite rules the world in its interest and runs roughshod over everyone else's interests. "Communist" China is also run by a fairly affluent elite that serves its own interest at others' expense, and their system has become about as capitalistic as anyone else's.



"Jeff then says, "And I suppose the fact that Halliburton got a contract without it even going out for bidding to anyone else was just a coincidence." Must I also point out that Halliburton didn't get another high profile contract after it dropped out of the bidding race."

Halliburton still has that contract, and US corporations -- especially those with ties to Administration officials (many of whom, Cheney being the best-known example, stand to profit) -- are going to get the vast majority of contracts to rebuild Iraq. The Seattle paper has an article on-line about this: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/114656_rebuild28.shtml



"Jeff adds, "If this Cato Institute moron knew anything, he'd realize that the French and Russians already have oil contracts with Iraq and wouldn't stand to benefit from a war that likely will allow British and US firms to muscle in at French and Russian firms' expense." My god, what happened to the leftist cry of France protecting the world from US imperialism? So, France has economic gain to be made if they oppose the war. I thought they were just trying to make the world a safer place."

Well, welcome to the real world.



[Part of Taylor's comments said that, "If the argument is that "Big Oil" is less interested in high prices than it is with outright ownership of the Iraqi reserves, then how can we account for Secretary of State Colin Powell's repeated promise that the oil reserves will be transferred to the Iraqi government after a new leadership is established?" Jeff's intelligent response to this statement was, "Because he's a proven liar? Because the "Iraqi" government will be a US/British puppet regime? Whatever the reason, anyone who isn't a completely gullible moron knows better than to trust in the US government's good intentions." Hmmm, the Iraqi government will be a US puppet? How do you know that? Do you just know? Have you seen any "secret" documents from Greenpeace foretelling of US puppet governments? What if the post-war government in Iraq is set up like those in post-WWII Germany and Japan-- are those puppet governments? So, if your main argument is about a puppet government, (at least I think it is; I am not sure the "whatever the reason” actually means-- it implies that you will still hold your belief no matter how ridicules the theory), then, once again, the point is not debatable, since it cannot be proven or disproved.]

What do you think the government of Afghanistan is if not a US puppet regime? Many of the top officials are actually Afghan-Americans, have ties with US oil companies, etc. What was the Shah of Iran if not a US puppet? What about the Somozas in Nicaragua, or Pinochet in Chile, Marcos in the Philippines, Suharto in Indonesia, the generals in Guatemala, and an endless list of dictatorial regimes all too eager to serve US corporate interests, as long as they got their own piece of the pie? Why is it "ridiculous" to think that Iraq's new regime will do the bidding of multinational corporations, especially those from the US, when that's already what the majority of government's in the world do, at the very least doing whatever the US-dominated IMF and World Bank tell them to?

[Jeff then goes on to say, "If NO ONE knows how many companies will have oil contracts in post-war Iraq, neither does this fellow, by definition". This was his response to Taylor saying, "Regardless, only one or two American or British firms in this scenario would "win" economically while the rest would lose because increased production would lower global oil prices and thus profits. Because no one knows who would win the post-war contract "lottery," it makes little sense for the oil industry (or the politicians who supposedly cater to them) to support war." Jeff, my sorry little friend, if you would actually read, once again, what was written then it would make sense. Taylor says "only one or two American or British firms in this scenario would "win" economically while the rest would lose ... Because no one knows who would win the post-war contract "lottery". Taylor does not say he doesn't know how many companies will have oil contracts; he says that he doesn't know who will be the "one or two American or British firms..." The words 'one' and 'two' do not imply many.]

If no one knows, then no one knows, and no one can say they know how many firms will get contracts.



[Jeff rants, "Let us blow up your country, steal your natural resources, and use the revenue from those resources to pay our companies to help rebuild your country. Gee, I wonder why Iraqis don't seem to be showering American troops with flowers." I guess you don't watch the news. The Iraqis welcomed US troops in Najaf. "Coalition troops encountered Iraqis who were initially cautious but ended up chanting along with the troops and shaking their hands...” as CNN reported. I wonder why they were cautious though. Maybe because they were afraid that Saddam's thugs would kill them--just like the rest of Iraq's citizens.]

Well, if you only watch CNN or Fox you probably won't hear much from the many Iraqis who hate, fear, and distrust the US, nor will you hear much about the fact that instead of refugees fleeing Iraq there have been thousands of Iraqis returning from abroad to fight the US & British invasion of their homeland. While some Iraqis may welcome the Americans, at least overtly, many do not. Clearly the US wasn't expecting the level of resistance there has been to the US invasion.

Naturally they're afraid of Saddam Hussein's regime, but why would they trust a country that used depleted uranium on them (resulting in a sevenfold increase in cancer rates, etc.), stood by and let Saddam's henchmen massacre a Shiite uprising in 1991, blew up their water treatment plants, imposed the worst sanctions in history on them, has killed over a million of their population, and has now launched an unprovoked attack on their country? Why would they want somebody dropping bombs in the middle of cities, or invading and taking over their country? If you checked out the Web sites of folks who've been to Iraq and talked to the Iraqi people (Voices in the Wilderness, Iraq Peace Team, etc.), you'd realize that Iraqis mostly despise Saddam Hussein but don't like or trust the US either. You need to put yourself in their shoes. If we had a dictator like Saddam, would that necessarily mean we'd want another country (especially one whose leadership had given us lots of reasons not to trust their motives) with the most powerful military in the world to wage war on us, endangering our lives far more than they already were? How many dictatorships end because of a US invasion (vs. how many end because of spontaneous -- and sometimes quite nonviolent -- uprisings of the people themselves)? Did the Soviets or the Czechs or countless other nations need the US's "help" getting rid of their dictatorships? Considering how many dictatorships the US has installed or supported over the years, why on earth would anyone believe the US when it told them it wanted to bring them freedom?



"Jeff then rants again, "Look in the mirror, Americans! The US is the rogue state with the biggest and most dangerous military arsenal in history. How many countries will you let the US conquer before you wake up to your government's imperial ambitions?" Look how many countries in the Eastern Block the United States has saved because of the United States' "imperial ambitions". Last I heard the real imperial age went out a long time ago."

The vast majority of the world's people, especially in the countries victimized by military attacks from the US or other imperialist powers or by the policies of the IMF, World Bank, etc., completely disagree with you. Imperialism doesn't have to involve directly ruling other countries oneself.

"Jeff, in summary I would like to say you should think about what you write first."

Likewise, and it would also help if you were better-informed. There's no excuse for being so in the dark about, for example, how well-armed many countries in the Middle East are, the long US history of supporting repressive governments, etc.

The biggest difference between so-called "liberals" who oppose this war and "conservatives" who support it is that war supporters seem to be willing to believe just about anything their government says, despite the endless list of lies told by government officials (Clinton, Truman, Reagan, Nixon, you name them) over the years, and have endless faith in their government's supposed good intentions, while critics regard government officials' claims with the skepticism they deserve and don't think they are up to anything good, unless you consider enhancing corporate profits at all cost no matter how many people get hurt to be a good thing. Also, we give a shit about the lives of Iraqis, whereas a lot of you war supporters value Iraqis' lives about as much as you value those of mosquitos or houseflies.

I just scanned part of your post, hate to get drawn into long ramblings. The USSR and their satellite countries collapse because they were bankrupted from heavy spending on the military and an economy that could not support it. Saddam has great wealth in oil to supply him with the cash to buy people, equipment and maintain equipment.

Both sides of the issue have willing believers that are being lead by the nose. You assume that the conservatives don't look beyond what is being said by their government. The reality is they are reading, watching and listening to many sources well beyond the boarders of the U.S.A. They have come to their own conclusions, they are looking at the big picture.

How about BLOOD FOR BLOOD? Is that okay?

Okay conservatives, we have a new battle cry! The looney left says "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!" and we can't rightly argue with that.

So the best retort we have is, "BLOOD FOR BLOOD!!!"



How many died?

According to HRW/ME, "at least fifty thousand rural Kurds ... died in Anfal alone, and very possibly the real figure was twice that number ... All told, the total number of Kurds killed over the decade since the Barzani men were taken from their homes is well into six figures." "On the basis of extensive interviews in Kurdistan and perusal of extant Iraqi documents, Shoresh Resoul, a meticulous Kurdish researcher ... conservatively estimated that 'between 60,000 and 110,000' died during [al-]Majid's Kurdish mandate," i.e., beginning shortly before Anfal and ending shortly afterwards. (Randal, After Such Knowledge ..., p. 214.) Other Kurdish estimates are even higher. "When Kurdish leaders met with Iraqi government officials in the wake of the spring 1991 uprising, they raised the question of the Anfal dead and mentioned a figure of 182,000 -- a rough extrapolation based on the number of destroyed villages. Ali Hassan al-Majid reportedly jumped to his feet in a rage when the discussion took this turn. 'What is this exaggerated figure of 182,000?' he is said to have asked. 'It couldn't have been more than 100,000' -- as if this somehow mitigated the catastrophe that he and his subordinates had visited on the Iraqi Kurds." (Iraq's Crime of Genocide, pp. 14, 230.)

Yeah, right, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with oil. You still believe in Santa, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny, too?

Yeah, right, the war is about liberating the common man in Iraq. Sure........that's the fucking reason we are planing our flags all over the place cuz we are liberating them.

Bull shit, Bushit Butt-Kisser: We are liberating their OIL. So...give me a fucking legitimate reason we are over there. We are spending billions to liberate some little country. Ask yourself this question: If they had no oil, would we be there?

Take your head out of your ass and get a clue, lame brain.

"legitimate reason" #1

"legitimate reason" #2

"legitimate reason" #3

"legitimate reason" #4

Want more?

We have a couple hundred thousand of 'em...

http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

...legitmate enough for me, Eric. I simply do not understand people who do not scream for the head of the man who ordered this heinous crime.

Perhaps some of those here could explain to me why Saddam deserves to keep breathing?

Why are they being so useless? They should stop relaxing and work for me. Damn liberals.

Hey, umm, how much oil do they have in Afghanistan?

Not much now, but wait untill the pipeline is finished. Then we'll see how much flows through into our oil hungry

military and petro industries.

When exactly did you forego the use of all petroleum products? Where did you get your wooden computer? Is it tough to get parts for your coal-burning car? Did you move to where your power is supplied only by hydroelectric dams?

Oh. That's what I thought.

If you have no clue what that was all about, then please shut the fuck up. Okay?

When exactly did you forego the use of all petroleum products? Where did you get your wooden computer? Is it tough to get parts for your coal-burning car? Did you move to where your power is supplied only by hydroelectric dams?

Oh. That's what I thought.

Yes, petroleum produces many products.

We use it for just about everything.

I think we can thank Ronald Raygun for cutting the funding on alternative energy research.

Hemp seeds could supply the material for the majority of plastic products and building materials. Energy exists in countless renewable

areas and the dependence upon this polluting source of power will not

last even if we ‘liberated’ all the oil in the world.

Get used to it.

No kidding. There's good work being done today. Me? I like the new fuel cell technologies. I haven't looked into new materials, though. Hemp, huh? Pass the Twinkies, please.

Hemp and its uses, besides the recreational.

http://www.thehia.org/

http://www.hemptech.com/links/regionSearch.html

http://www.hemptech.com/frameset/faq.html

anyway, stop eating twinkies and read some.

I'm here.

And I don't usually read anything you post due to the

fact that you are just an echo for Fox news.

Get carpal tunnel if you wish, monkeyboy.

Bush Admirer 1

Sheepdog 0

...morality or ethics. They measure how effective the Propaganda has been and how many people either believe it, or are afraid to think to themselves. In short they measure transient impressions, group think, and nothing more.

They offer nothing towards resolving the question: Is this right?

Poor pathetic dishwasher. You misspell more words per post than you have teeth.

If you're truly concerned with the lives of Iraqis, then you should be just as upset about the Iraqis killed by the US and British. Over 1000 civilians have now been killed by British and American bombs, missiles, artillery fire, etc. Considerably more (well over 1 million) have been killed over the last 12 years by the combination of sanctions and the destruction of civilian infrastructure in the first Gulf War and subsequent bombings. Do Iraqi lives only matter if their deaths are attributable to Saddam Hussein's regime? Are their families going to be any less upset if their killers were American?

You may say "well, this war is for the good cause of liberating Iraqis from Saddam Hussein." Well, ask the people of Afghanistan if they are free now. There is still no democracy in Afghanistan -- in fact, other than World War II, I can't think of a single example where US wars resulted in democracy.

And what about the opinions of people in Iraq? Did anyone ask them if they wanted to be "liberated" by having their country bombed and invaded? There are plenty of people who've gone to Iraq and talked to the people there (it's hard to get away from the "minders," but possible), and few in Iraq wanted this invasion or trust the U.S. government. They've also had plenty to say about the effects of the war on their country. Consider comments from victims of a US cluster-bomb attack on Hilla:

One mother, whose five-year-old son lost his arm to a bomblet, pointed to six other beds occupied by youngsters with bloodstained bandages and bruises, and cried: “What did these little children do to the Americans? What did they do to Bush?”

Bassan Hoki, 38, said he was in the bus attack. Surgeons had amputated his right arm above the elbow, and seeping bandages covered deep wounds on both his legs. His mother, who was seated beside him, was killed instantly in the blast. “I looked around me, it seemed like everyone was dead,” he said. “People’s heads were snapped off their bodies. The bus was torn to pieces.”

He added, “I have just one thing to say to George Bush. He is a criminal and a liar to talk of bringing us freedom. He attacks civilians for no reason. This is a crime, a crime, a crime.”

Hussein Ali Hussein, 26, a salesman who lost most of one leg when a car was hit by an American tank shell, said: “We believed the Americans, when they said they were not going to attack civilians. Why would the Americans do this to me? But we Iraqis will never accept that this country is ruled by anybody but Iraqis, so we will fight to the last drop of our blood.”

A 21-minute videotape of the Hilla hospital carnage has been seen by reporters in Baghdad. In one sequence, according to the Independent, the video shows a father holding pieces of his baby and screaming “Cowards, cowards” at the camera.

In response to "Legitimate Reason #1, 2, 3 & 4," by this logic, the thousands of casualties caused by US and British bombs and missiles are legitimate reasons for someone to wage war on the US and Britain. You seem to think that those of us opposed to this war are "peace idiots" who somehow haven't noticed that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. I have trouble believing that you have genuine compassion for the Iraqi people, given that you only discuss and show pictures of the casualties caused by Hussein's regime. It seems to be more about feeling superior to mythical "peace idiots" for you than about a genuine interest in the well-being of the Iraqi people, who have died and suffered at least as much because of US war and sanctions as because of Saddam Hussein.

We're opposed to this war not because we haven't noticed that Saddam Hussein's regime has produced the ugly results your pictures show, but because, first of all, war isn't the answer to this situation (any more than it was to, say, South African apartheid or the dictatorships of Eastern Europe). It only makes things worse. War is not a fucking video game; it kills vast numbers of innocent people.

We also differ from war supporters in that we are a lot more skeptical of the claims of politicians. All this prattle about "freedom" -- where's the freedom in Afghanistan? And where are those "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq? (Raining down from the sky courtesy of US B-52s, that's where!)

From what I have seen in the photos from the war front and what I have read in the newspapers and heard on the radio and the TV, the US and Great Britain are waging a war against the civilians. This was IS about oil and Bush and Cheney's rich corporate friends. They are monsters and criminals and need to be removed from office.

Well....cry all you want to, lay down in the streets, have a die in, nothing can stop the machine!

Bush 2004 baby, can't stop a war time President from winning!

So we bombed a few civilians, it's called collateral damage, shit happens.

"...can't stop a war time President from winning..."

Hmmmmmm......think maybe, just maybe, that's why we are in Iraq? Might not be the total reason, but I bet it is right up there on W's laundry list. #1 Spot, you ask? OIL, of course.