Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

War on Iraq

Claiming the Prize: War Escalation Aimed at Securing Iraqi Oil

By Chris Floyd, Information Clearing House. Posted January 12, 2007.


The reason that Bush insists that "victory" is close at hand is because Iraqi ministers are likely to approve a new law opening the door to their oil reserves.
Advertisement

I. The Twin Engines of Bush's War

The reason that George W. Bush insists that "victory" is achievable in Iraq is not because he is deluded or isolated or ignorant or detached from reality or ill-advised.

No, it's that his definition of "victory" is different from those bruited about in his own rhetoric and in the ever-earnest disquisitions of the chattering classes in print and on-line. For Bush, victory is indeed at hand. It could come at any moment now, could already have been achieved by the time you read this. And the driving force behind his planned "surge" of American troops is the need to preserve those fruits of victory that are now ripening in his hand.

At any time within the next few days, the Iraqi Council of Ministers is expected to approve a new "hydrocarbon law" essentially drawn up by the Bush Administration and its U.K. lackey, the Independent on Sunday reports.

The new bill will "radically redraw the Iraqi oil industry and throw open the doors to the third-largest oil reserves in the world," say the paper, whose reporters have seen a draft of the new law. "It would allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil companies in the country since the industry was nationalized in 1972." If the government's parliamentary majority prevails, the law should take effect in March.

As the paper notes, the law will give Exxon, BP, Shell and other carbon cronies of the White House unprecedented sweetheart deals, allowing them to pump gargantuan profits from Iraq's nominally state-owned oilfields for decades to come.

This law has been in the works since the very beginning of the invasion -- indeed, since months before the invasion, when the Bush Administration brought in Phillip Carroll, former CEO of both Shell and Fluor, the politically-wired oil servicing firm, to devise "contingency plans" for divvying up Iraq's oil after the attack.

Once the deed was done, Carroll was made head of the American "advisory committee" overseeing the oil industry of the conquered land, as Joshua Holland of Alternet.org has chronicled in two remarkable reports on the backroom maneuvering over Iraq's oil: Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil and The U.S. Takeover of Iraqi Oil.

According to senior Bush minions talking up the plan for what is not a surge but a long-term escalation of urban warfare that the U.S. ground commander in Iraq says will likely last for years, Bush's new "stratergery" includes "benchmarks" that the natives must meet to keep in favor with their colonial master. One of the most prominent of these is the demand that Iraq "finalize a long-delayed measure on the distribution of oil revenue." As we can see by the Independent stories quoted here, that benchmark should be done and dusted within weeks.

From those earliest days until now, throughout all the twists and turns, the blood and chaos of the occupation, the Bush Administration has kept its eye on this prize. The new law offers the barrelling buccaneers of the West a juicy set of production-sharing agreements (PSAs) that will maintain a fig leaf of Iraqi ownership of the nation's oil industry -- while letting Bush's Big Oil buddies rake off up to 75 percent of all oil profits for an indefinite period up front, until they decide that their "infrastructure investments" have been repaid. Even then, the agreements will give the Western oil majors an unheard-of 20 percent of Iraq's oil profits -- more than twice the average of standard PSAs, the Independent notes.

Of course, at the moment, the "security situation" -- i.e., the living hell of death and suffering that Bush's "war of choice" has wrought in Iraq -- prevents the Oil Barons from setting up shop in the looted fields. Hence Bush's overwhelming urge to "surge" despite the fierce opposition to his plans from Congress, the Pentagon and some members of his own party.

Bush and his inner circle, including his chief adviser, old oilman Dick Cheney, believe that a bigger dose of blood and iron in Iraq will produce a sufficient level of stability to allow the oil majors to cash in the PSA chips that more than 3,000 American soldiers have purchased for them with their lives.

The American "surge" will be blended into the new draconian effort announced over the weekend by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki: an all-out war by the government's Shiite militia-riddled "security forces" on Sunni enclaves in Baghdad, as the Washington Post reports.

American troops will "support" the "pacification effort" with what Maliki says calls "house-to-house" sweeps of Sunni areas. There is of course another phrase for this kind of operation: "ethnic cleansing."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: war in iraq, bush, oil

Chris Floyd is an American journalist. He is the author of the book, Empire Burlesque: The Secret History of the Bush Regime. He has been a writer and editor for more than 20 years, working in the United States, Great Britain and Russia for various newspapers, magazines, the U.S. government and Oxford University.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Bingo
Posted by: edith on Jan 12, 2007 2:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
-"These groups equate their own interests, their own wealth and privilege, with the interests of the nation -- indeed, the world -- as a whole."-

So there it is. The oil money will also provide enough slush to buy off more Shia politicians, perhaps even Sadr. Then what I call 'Reverse Sadaam' begins-an effective well-funded Shia dictatorship that cleanses Bagdad and key areas of troublesome Sunnis who don't want US payoffs. Those people and their neighorhoods will indeed be targeted for "cleansing" with the help of additional US forces. ( Some deal must be in the works with the "moderate" Sunni states to allow this reallocation of "human resources"- my term. ) Is an attack on Iran the quid pro quo for Sunni state agreement for the US and the organized Shia to run Iraq?

Money talks louder than guns, and it makes sense that this extortion scheme (production agreements) really is Bush's "peace plan. But whether Iraq should have been created orginally or not, these sects live side by side for the most part in Iraq's crowded urban areas, and protracted urban struggle, not peace, is the likely outcome.

Bush's hope that Shia goons will come over to the US side and then prevail against skilled Sunni urban fighters is just another pathetic "W" fantasy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bingo Posted by: willymack
The gist of the problem
Posted by: mat38 on Jan 12, 2007 5:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"...the neocons -- somehow "hijacked" U.S. foreign policy to push their radical dreams of "liberating" the Middle East by force and destroying Israel's enemies is absurd."
While it may be absurd that Neocons, The Israel Lobby, and foreign Isralis agents control our policies in the Middle East and elsewhere, it is happening nonetheless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iraq is a colonial occupation.
Posted by: douglashoyt on Jan 12, 2007 5:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is inaccurate and misleading to term the occupation of Iraq as a war. Continuing to call this occupation a war is misleading and frames the arguments in a wrong fashion.

Call this what it is: an occupaton of imperial domination.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

9/11 and the Invasion of Iraq.
Posted by: douglashoyt on Jan 12, 2007 5:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Considering what we know now, it is not a "tin foil hat" conspiracy to believe that the attack on the WTC was either:

allowed to happen so the demolition of the towers would happen,

or the TWC attack was under the direct control of the military/industrial complex so Iraq could be invaded.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wasn't it the Carlyle group that enabled Saddham in the first place?
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 12, 2007 6:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh well, for all the wealthy/business ELITES that funded him, it's TRAGIC that they are rewarded while the lower and middle class in America continues to be robbed and punished to death ! So much for them "pro-lifers" out there. Ooops, I forgot, the "pro-lifers" are getting cherishing their BRIBES the wealthy/business ELITES give 'em !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is more than oil
Posted by: CMaciolek on Jan 12, 2007 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After watching Juniors speach on Wednesday, I couldn't help but feel deeply that he removed his mask - they no longer are concerned about whether the American public accepts their authority or not. Up until now they at least tried to fudge it, but now all we will ever get are speaches like Wednesday's: empty displays of arrogant authority.

We are in the final phase of the corporate takeover of the U.S. They will attack Iran and Syria during the month of Muharram (the first month of the Islamic calendar which begin on January 20) without permission or remorse; and they will not even try to explain it to us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BUSH'S BACK DOOR IRANIAN WAR PLAN TO BYPASS CONGRESS
Posted by: michaelo on Jan 12, 2007 7:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BUSH'S BACK DOOR IRANIAN WAR PLAN TO BYPASS CONGRESS
by Michael O'McCarthy

An obviously dysfunctional President Bush disingenuously threatened on Wednesday night (01-10-07) to go to war against Iran: to "interrupt the flow of support" from Iraq's two key neighbors and to "seek out and destroy" networks providing weapons and training to U.S. enemies in Iraq. Today US troops invaded an Iranian consul in Iraq and kidnapped consul personnel.

"Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity, and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria," he said. This has to be seen as both a warning to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, his government and to the Iranian people and a promise to his allies, most notably, Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Bush announced that the US will deploy Patriot air defense systems and the deployment of a major strike group of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast and to expand intelligence sharing "to reassure our friends and allies."

The "allies" in mention are Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other dictatorial monarchies in the Bush camp.

The Patriot is a long-range, all-altitude, all-weather air defense system to counter tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and advanced aircraft. This weapon would be used by the US to defend against Iranian counter attack following US strikes at the "networks." Following the Iranian counter attack aimed at Iraq, the Kurds, Kuwait, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan ... Bush would order an all out air attack on the nuclear facilities in Iran, not requiring, arguably, Congressional approval to extend the current war.

DEMAND A CONGRESSIONAL HEARING NOW ... DEMAND THAT CONGRESS CUT OFF FUNDS NOW. ... DEMAND THAT CONGRESS IMPEACH BUSH NOW!

Michael O'McCarthy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A "DEMAND THAT"!!! PAGE Posted by: G.Achin
For an explanation of this madness ...
Posted by: TarryFaster on Jan 12, 2007 8:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
click here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More of the same
Posted by: darby1936 on Jan 12, 2007 8:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America has been on a wartime footing since the start of World War II. Absurdaties such as "they'll follow us over here" and even the "War on Terror" help perpetuate this policy. In another day it was "Communism". If the U.S. had spent one tenth of the money we have spent on this war in energy research, we would be a long way toward energy independence. Of course, energy companies don't want the U.S. or the world, to have energy independence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is what Americans need to know
Posted by: drblack on Jan 12, 2007 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most Americans have never heard of the Iraqi Hydrocarbon act. I saw Candy Lice mention that "The Iraqi's MUST pass a hydrocarbon bill" and that was it ,with no explanation of the why or what.
I love how all the bush wags say "If we lose Iraq it will strength terrorists in various ways" . They never can add any specifics backed up by facts.
This whole Bush thing will ruin our country and we have only a few years of freedom left if Americans do not rise up in anger.
Divide and conquer. This is why Rove invented the whole Liberal-neoCon thing. If we fight in America with no regard to facts then the power can do what it wants.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The New Crusade About to Begin
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 12, 2007 9:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course, it is about more then oil, although oil is important. Bush is planning, no doubt, to attack Iran, Syria or both, and probably fairly shortly. The setup is already in place, even with the 20,000 extra troops, of course the US occupation will not be successful. And, it will be blamed on Syria and Iran. This will then be the Bush pretext for invasion. Quite possibly starting up with Israeli (US supplied) bunker busters, and possibly with Israeli nukes on them. The War on Islam is about to begin, for Bush, the modern day Crusader of Christianity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dear Chris Floyd
Posted by: rwa on Jan 12, 2007 9:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have found many of your articles informative and insightful, however I am baffled by your take on the "oil surge" article put out by The Independent:

"The cost-per-barrel of extracting oil in Iraq is among the lowest in the world because the reserves are relatively close to the surface. This contrasts starkly with the expensive and risky lengths to which the oil industry must go to find new reserves elsewhere - witness the super-deep offshore drilling and cost-intensive techniques needed to extract oil form Canada's tar sands."


First off, they misinform. The cost of lifting Iraqi crude is close to $1000/barrel if you factor in the cost of occupation as given by Joseph Stiglitz in the Guardian last Saturday. I wonder why anybody, much less yourself, would assume that this cost can be reduced? Furthermore, while the oil profits may be privatized, the U.S. government would still have to come up with the ongoing cost of occupation, currently borrowed from international sources. How long do you forsee this credit being extended?
My rough calculation would suggest that if the funds spent on the war on Iraq had gone to development of non-conventional resources, it would have covered the difference between light and heavy oil production cost for U.S. consumption for a period of many decades.
Surely with raiding pensions, medicare, S&Ls, pentagon budget blackholes, big oil incentives, etc... Cheney could have come up with a less nonsensical way of transferring funds from the treasury to corporate coffers. I think that The Independent (which is on record stating that it stands by Israel) ran this piece with the intention of providing a rationale for ongoing occupation. I also see the "war for oil" explanations for U.S. policy, as being a distraction from the fact that U.S. policy serves the interests of zionism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bingo Posted by: Coleman
» Think Nigerian delta... Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Bingo Posted by: rwa
» RE: Dear Chris Floyd Posted by: yellow
Who Rules America?
Posted by: rwa on Jan 12, 2007 10:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excerpt:

"Sooner or later a break between Wall Street and the militarists will occur. The additional costs of an escalating wars, the continual ballooning debt payments, huge imbalances in the balance of payments and decreasing inflows of capital as multi-national repatriate profits and overseas central banks diversify their currency reserves will force the issue. The enormous and growing inequalities, the massive concentration of wealth and capital at a time of declining living standards and stagnant income for the vast majority, gives the financial ruling class little political capital or credibility if and when an economic and financial crisis breaks.

With foreign investors owning 47% of all marketable US Treasury bonds in 2006 compared to 33% in 2001 and foreign holdings of US corporate debt up to 30% today, from 23% just 5 years ago, a rapid sell-off would totally destabilize US financial markets and the economic system as well as the world economy. A rapid sell-off of dollars with catastrophic consequences cannot be ruled out if US-Zionist militarism continues to run amuck, creating conditions of extended and prolonged warfare.

The paradox is that some of the most wealthy and powerful beneficiaries of the ascendancy of finance capital are precisely the same class of people who are financing their own self-destruction. While cheap finance fueling multi-billion dollar mergers, acquisitions, commissions and executive payoffs, heightened militarism operates on a budget plagued by tax reductions, exemptions and evasions for the financial ruling class and ever greater squeezing of the overburdened wage and salary classes. Something has to break the cohabitation between ruling class financiers and political militarists. They are running in opposite directions. One is investing capital abroad and the other spending borrowed funds at home. For the moment there are no signs of any serious clashes at the top, and in the middle and working classes there are no signs of any political break with the two Wall Street parties or any challenge to the militarist-Zionist stranglehold on Congress. Likely it will take a catastrophe, like a White House-back Israeli nuclear attack on Iran to detonate the kind of crisis which will provoke a deep and widespread popular backlash of all things military, financial and made in Israel. "

James Petras, a former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University

http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/115078

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who Rules America? Posted by: Prophit
» RE: Who Rules America? Posted by: rwa
» RE: Who Rules America? Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: Who Rules America? Posted by: yellow
Thought-provoking assessment
Posted by: hopeseeker on Jan 12, 2007 1:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow. I'm a Brit whose been been reading Alternet for many years without commenting - a quiet lurker I guess.

I'm wondering how closely this research runs alongside the work of David Icke's 'Illuminati' thoughts.

Be interesting to read the psychological profiles if the Carlyle group members for starters!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thought-provoking assessment Posted by: hopeseeker
The 'Surge' Is A Red Herring
Posted by: rwa on Jan 12, 2007 1:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Near the end of his "surge" speech, Bush adopts the neoconservative program as US policy. The struggle, Bush says, echoing the neoconservatives and the Israeli right-wing, goes far beyond Iraq. "The challenge," Bush says, is "playing out across the broader Middle East. . . . It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time." America is pitted against "extremists" who "have declared their intention to destroy our way of life." "The most realistic way to protect the American people," Bush says, is "by advancing liberty across a troubled region."

This, of course, is a massive duplicitous lie. We have brought no liberty to Iraq, but we have destroyed their way of life. Bush suggests that Muslims in Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine are waiting and hoping for more invasions to free them of violence. Did Bush's invasion free Iraq from violence or did it bring violence to Iraq?

It is extraordinary that anyone can listen to this blatant declaration of US aggression in the Middle East without demanding Bush's immediate impeachment.

Republican US Senator Chuck Hagel declared Bush's plan to be "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam." In truth, it is far worse. It is naked aggression justified by transparent lies. No one has ever heard governments in Iraq, Syria, or Iran declare "their intention to destroy our way of life." To the contrary, it is the United States and Israel that are trying to destroy the Muslim way of life.

The crystal clear truth is that fanatical neoconservatives and Israelis are using Bush to commit the United States to a catastrophic course."
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=10311

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good article.
Posted by: johndoraemi on Jan 12, 2007 3:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm surprised Alternet published this at all. The "conspiratorial zeal" was toned down a bit (no linking of 9/11 to the White House), and so the article passed their gatekeeping litmus test.

I would disagree with the minimization of the Zionist influence on US policy in Iraq. Breaking up the Muslim nations into disorganized ethnic and tribal areas is a long held MOSSAD plan. The idea originated in Israel, and has been a staple of right wing Israeli strategy for decades.

To imply that US middle east policy is not shaped at all by the many Likudnik Zionists in positions of influence would be flat wrong. The record shows otherwise.

Policy is a confluence of interests, and not singularly determined by any one faction or party. When these interests coincide, a tipping point is reached, and we get war, no matter if the reasons are bogus, no matter if it is the "supreme international crime," no matter that the US Constitution and UN Charter forbid it. When enough of the elites agree on something, the job of their politicos is to make it happen.

The "Israel firsters" are an entrenched faction and a powerful part of the elite in this country. That is undeniable.

Crimes of the State Blog

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Israeli Factor
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 12, 2007 5:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For Israel, I think they no doubt would like to see Iraq turned into a "client state" of the USA, with a suitably docile puppet government. To a certain degree, they have had some success with Egypt and Jordan, but of course, Iran and now Iraq remain major preoccupations. Being a client state of the Americans means being an automatic ally of Israel, with America herself well controlled politically by Israel. To some extent, we have disagreement on the Left with how much influence Israel has on American Policy. I happen to think it is quite a bit due to the money and neocon infiltration, however, outstanding theorists like Noam Chomsky believe America is still the dominant force even with Israel. But, regardless we all would agree this unholy and unhealthy alliance has led to enormous problems and quite likely was a major driver of the Iraq invasion to begin with. The fact that it's a driver now for a likely Iran/Syria invasion just shows how the problem continues and even multiplies. As for Mr. Floyd, he is not completely off base. Oil and money have always been part and parcel of the Bush/Cheney equation. However, Bush and the Neocons are primarily idealogues, and very dangerous ones at that. And, the Israelis have had a field day with this by catering to the fear mongering of "the war on terror" and drawing in the Evangelicals for support as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Israeli Factor Posted by: rwa
» Bushes Ideaology Posted by: sofla100
» RE:OIL pure and simple. Posted by: yellow
"equate their interests, wealth and privilege, with the interests of the nation - indeed, the world"
Posted by: Sojourner on Jan 13, 2007 11:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Floyd has put his finger on a simple context for understanding what has happened to US government since Reagan. All politicians tell us what they are doing is for our own good. If they identify that with their "special" interests rather than with the general interest, what the Constitution calls "the general welfare," it makes life simple for them.

It's just the latest version of what the head of GM meant when he said "What's good for business is good for America." That identifies the GOP better than anything else.

But it fails to distinguish between general interests and special interests, which are rarely ever the same. No, the special interests of business are not ALWAYS good for America. No, the special interests of Bush & Co are not ALWAYS good for America.

No wonder Americans feel ripped off. We have been ripped off and are being ripped off. Our public treasury has been raped by Bush & Co.

It began in earnest again with Reagan. Amazing how Americans love our oppressors. Floyd's similie of the abused wife is also spot on. We are not victims; we are suckers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

JoeDean
Posted by: joedw on Jan 13, 2007 9:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article seems to incisively cut through all distraction and obfuscation (misdirected b.s.). It has always been about oil; using pretext after pretext to ensure our unfettered access to an incredible supply. They have and will do what is necessary, with plenty of political savvy to keep it going. No real news here. It's alway been about the oil money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

War rhetoric
Posted by: nise52 on Jan 15, 2007 7:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you truly believe all the war rhetoric ("promoting democracy in Iraq...bringing freedom to Iraq...pulling down a dictator!), then why haven't we removed Castro from Cuba all these decades? It's close (therefore cheaper) to remove someone like him (right offshore from Florida) rather than move men/machines 13,000 miles to Iraq. Hmmm...could it be that Cuba has nothing we want (like oil fields?).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

mlou
Posted by: ericksonml@sbcglobal.net on Jan 16, 2007 11:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is there ANY way to stop this?

How can this information get out to everyone?

Does anyone in the US or Britain Care that we kill people to steal oil???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More than oil.
Posted by: Hirnlego on Jan 16, 2007 5:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read more about the neoconservative objectives by googling "US Dominance in Central Asia and the World". Should lead you to cooperativeresearch.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush Tawks Fernie Cause he's Brayne Damabged
Posted by: 2shane on Jan 18, 2007 11:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush is a brain damaged scumbag junkie.... in a 3 piece suit.

That's whie he, he, he, um ah talks funni.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]