[DaveB]

It's about oilfield services.

From http://www.forbes.com/home_europe/newswire/2003/03/06/rtr900049.html

HOUSTON, March 6 (Reuters) - A Halliburton Co. (nyse: HAL - news - people) subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR) has won the contract to oversee any firefighting operations at Iraqi oilfields after any U.S.-led invasion, a Defense Department source said on Thursday.

KBR was widely viewed by many in the oilfield services industry as the likely candidate to oversee firefighting in Iraq's oilfields. Halliburton does extensive logistic support work for the U.S. military.

Vice President Dick Cheney served as Halliburton's chief executive officer from 1995 to 2000,

A possible beneficiary of Thursday's deal is oilwell firefighting company Boots & Coots International Well Control Inc., with which Halliburton has had an alliance since 1995.

A Halliburton spokeswoman declined comment and referred all questions to the Defense Department.

db

[Monkeyleg]

"KBR was widely viewed by many in the oilfield services industry as the likely candidate to oversee firefighting in Iraq's oilfields."

So, if many other companies thought KBR was the most likely to get the contract, where's the surprise? If it's some kind of quid pro quo, where's the "pro?"

I've been in the advertising industry here for almost 25 years. Let's say I got elected governor, and an ad agency that I'd worked with got the state tourism contract. The odds that an agency I hadn't worked with getting the contract would be very slim, given my experience.

Cheney has experience in the oil industry, as well as contacts.

[The Plainsman]

This whole thing, shipping 300,000 troops, armor, etc., to the Middle East is just a thinly veiled cover-up to create business for one of Dick Cheney's old employers. WOW! What some people won't do for a little business? :scrutiny: :barf:

[Battler]

If a village in Iraq ends up needing an idiot, does that mean the LIBERALS secretly wanted this war to get the work?

[10-Ring]

If it were about oil, wouldn't it have been more politically sound to just lift the trade embargo? No, it's about a regime w/ evil intentions and a growing arsenal of weapons of mass destructions.

[2nd Amendment]

And again I'll ask, so what if it IS about oil? Energy is a classic reason for war and one of the better ones. To be perfectly blunt, if bombing Iraq forward to the Stone Age keeps the juice flowing then let me help load. Of course, it's a simplistic explanation from the anti-war hacks in this case but hey, if that's what they want to think then fine. Works for me.

[Battler]

When somebody says "this is about oil", mention to them that we are already importing Iraqi oil, for Iraqi labor rates.

The best way to get oil would be to become friends with Saddam, and let the black juice flow.

As it is, we're going to have BURNING oilfields.

BTW - tell them also that if it were about oil we'd invade Saudi Arabia instead. Lots more oil, and the army there is a joke.

Battler.

[Leatherneck]

We're in it for the cleanup after the invasion (assuming that the guys who've been hawking the fields for a while don't prevent torching). Oh yeah--that makes sense.:rolleyes:

TC
TFL Survivor

[Drjones]

1. I'm unclear as to how much oil Iraq actually has. I've heard that Saudi Arabia, Russia, South America, and Alaska all have WAY more oil than Iraq could ever dream of.

If that's the case, (that Iraq really doesn't have that much) then there goes your argument.

2. Even IF it is partly about oil, so what? Our economy and national security depend heavily on oil. What is wrong with protecting OUR economy, security, and other interests? (I mean other than because a bunch of hippies and communists think its hip to protest)

Don't get me wrong...I do think we should get off petroleum, but that's not going to happen tomorrow, nor will the oil industry let that happen anytime soon.

[Atticus]

That's absurd. The war for oil argument makes more sense (and that is little or none). Iraq is STILL the sixth largest supplier of US oil. http://www.ott.doe.gov/facts/archives/fotw246.shtml

If we wanted oil... we would invade Canada- it's closer and has much less fight in it (just kidding Canuks).

[Bainx]

Do not forget that Japan went to war over oil also.

[Cactus]

Drjones,

The estimates for Iraqi oil reserves are that they have the second largest reserves on earth. This equals approximately 6% of worlds total oil reserves.

As for KBR getting the contract for putting out any fires, DaveB, that makes perfect sense. They are one of, if not THEE, top firms in this field. Who did you think would get the job, Greenpeace?:rolleyes:

[CaesarI]

Point #1 IIRC KBR got the contract last time too. Primarily cause they're really, really, good. Exactly how many of these companies do they think exist?

Point #2 The war ain't about oil. why?
1) Saddam wants to sell more oil than we'll let hum under sanctions. He likes selling oil. Removing him does not lower oil prices.

2) We get more oil from Velezuela than we do from Saddam by a factor of about 6. This is irrelevent, however... since oil is fungible, and oil prices rise equally everywhere (excluding :cuss: taxes). Venezuela will cause oil prices to be higher for the next couple of years at least due to Chavez being a filthy Communist. Venezuela would also be easier for us to conquer.

3) Even though we have a claim on Saddam's oil, since Iraq stole err... nationalized British and American oil wells in the country in the 50's, we will not be taking back the oil. Anyone who thinks the US is going to steal the Iraqi's oil is either too stupid to live, or a liar. And I'll dance [read: challenge to a debate] with anyone who cares to argue otherwise. I prefer a nice waltz, but I'll let the challenger choose.

That's the brief 5 minute argument on why no sane/honest/halfway-educated person should believe the war in Iraq is about oil. Insane/dishonest/less-than-half-educated people are more common than you'd think :banghead:

-Morgan

[Jim March]

It's not about Iraq's oil.

If Saddam gets ahold of some nukes, he can screw up the economy and stability of the entire middle east. And THAT would trash the world's economy something fierce.

[Battler]

I believe it's that IRAQ has the 2nd most oil PRODUCTION.

The best land sources for oil are probably in the caucasus.

Of course, there's TONS under the sea.

[Sir Galahad]

Actually, the war is being promoted behind the scenes by the shadowy cabal that runs McIlhenney Company. They make the little bottles of Tabasco sauce that come in every MRE accessory pack and stand to make something like $1 million dollars off the war. Plus they'll be able to market Tabasco to the conquered Iraqis and get the jump over Heinz trying to butt in with their ketchup. Think about it! :D And you watch, after the war, Tabasco will market Gulf War 2 commerative collectable bottle Tabasco and make millions! It's sinister! :D

[Hkmp5sd]

On a side note, Sean Hannity gave one reason today why France, Germany and Russia are so opposed to a war against Iraq. It appears that they were selling all kinds of weapons and supplies to Iraq throughout the 80's. It has been reported Germany sold Iraq 8 mobile labs as late as 1988, even though they were part of the group supposedly against the spread of WMD.

They are scared that the US may find evidence of the transgressions if we invade. This is also why they keep harping on giving the inspections longer to work. They're praying Iraq is destroying any evidence and they want to give them as much time as possible.

[hops]

The following is not to say that the current Iraq issue is exclusively about oil. It is about Saddam and his actions too. However, the economic reality of oil is a primary catalyst - and economic reasons are what most wars are really about. If North Korea had something of significant economic value, the Korean war would have been settled favourably back in 1950's.

===========================
San Remo, April 1920

The victors gathered on the northwestern coast of the Italian Riviera in a town called San Remo , then as now a place of respite for Europe's wealthy. It was April, 920, a moment that in the argot of the 21st century we would call an inflection point. They were there to divided up the world. The Great was over, and its mericful end brought a halt not only to the killing on a historic scale but to a world order. The Ottoman Empire was finished. The conquering imperial powers of the war, France and England, convened at San Remo to conclude a peace treaty with Turkey and to parcel out out the spoils of what was supposed to be the War to End All Wars. And those spoils, they knew very well, included oil - lots and lots of oil.

For that reason San Remo was to be a private affair, a matter between those countries, Britain and France, with rich histories in colonial intrigue. Shut out was the nation for which the first wolrd war repersented the end of isolationist innocence. A releative novice as the imperial game, the U.S. would have lost the war's most valuable prize were it not for a man named A.C. Beford.

He was neither diplomat nor politican, but the chairman of Standard Oil of New Jersey. And when the French and British concluded the deal at San Remo that divided between them the entire future output of Middle eastern oil, Bedford intervened. He got a copy of the agreement from a friend in the French delegation and passed it on to the State Department in Washington. Alarmed at what had happened, the U.S. quickly become a palyer in the Middle East.

Fortune magazine Vol. 146 NO. 11 November 25, 2002.

This is just the start of what is a very interesting article. It's always been about oil - black gold.

[Drjones]

HKMp5:

Could it be possible that the reason that France, Germany, and Russia are against the war because they stand to gain from it?

Like the fact that Russia is owed about $4 BILLION from Iraq for weapons purchased from Russia.

Iraq's armed forces are made up entirely of French, Chinese, and Russian planes, tanks, artillery, SCUDs, etc.

IIRC, Germany even supplied WMD to Iraq too!!!

VERY good article here:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/13/134858.shtml

Hmmm....Would a $4 BILLION debt be reason enough for YOU to be against the war? :scrutiny: :rolleyes:

[grampster]

I'm on board with the Tabasco sauce bit. Makes sense to me.

[Ninj500]

I want to make it clear that I DO NOT agree with the following theory. A liberal co-worker of mine seems to think the reason for the war in Iraq isn't to lower the price of oil but raise it. The threat of war in Irag caused oil prices to rise, and if the price of oil goes up, it goes up for everyone. Including the oil producers in the US. So, Bush and Cheney's buddies in Texas get more for their barrel of oil even though it doesn't cost them a penny more to get it out of the ground. The longer the threat looms, the longer oil prices stay high, the more the US oil companies make. Which explains why Bush isn't doing anything about the economy. His buddies are raking in the money so he's happy. When the lack of a strong economy gets Bush voted out of office, he doesn't care because one of his buddies in the oil industry will reward all his hard work by giving him a job as a consultant making millions a year.

[jmbg29]

HEYHEY! HOHO! TABASCO FOR OIL HAS GOT TO GO! HEYHEY! HOHO! :rolleyes: :uhoh: :barf: :barf: :barf:

U.S. OUT OF NORTH AMERICA!!!!!

:cuss: :cuss: WINGNUTS!

[waterdog]

Brown & Root and Bechtel Corp were at the time of the VN war, the largest construction companies in the world.

Ladybird Johnson had family ties to B&R

They built all the large airfields, and harbors in most of Asia.

It's not about oil, it's about POWER

waterdog

[Blackhawk]

You're not going to know what it's about until long after it's over. :neener:

[Soap]

I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt in this case. Do you people seriously think that our leaders (that many of us here voted for) are so instable that they would go to war to make some cash?

Halliburton/B&R has had its hands in the war-related business for decades. They have also had many political ties as well. In reality, these ties are very important for them because it gives them an advantage when they attempt to get bids for contracts. Networking, nothing wrong with that.

BTW- I have some ties with Halliburton/B&R myself, does that mean that I'm one of the Halliburton Illuminati that create wars to make money?

[mussi]

f it were about oil, wouldn't it have been more politically sound to just lift the trade embargo? No, it's about a regime w/ evil intentions and a growing arsenal of weapons of mass destructions.

And? So do Iran, Syria, Lybia, Israel and a few other countries in the region. Frankly, who hasn't gotten WMDs in that region?

We already have the islamic nuke - it's just a question of time until everybody has one. And yes, I think Saddam is the better option than a regime close to the Mullahs of Iran, or a 'democratic' Shiite government with an independent Kurdistan. Saddam may be insane, but he's not dumb, and the US can keep him on the short leash. A shiite government is not that easily controllable.

[jmbg29]

Saddam may be insane, but he's not dumb, and the US can keep him on the short leash.I hear this from Europeans all the time. You call us arrogant powermongers. You accuse us of having designs on global hegemony. You say that the U.S. and its singular super-power status is the greatest threat to the world.

But you always come back to the same solution and it is this: the U.S. may NOT do what is in its own interests, BUT they are most certainly welcome, no, make that expected, to expend their lives, time, resources, and money "keeping" <fill in the blank> on a short leash.

Forum rules prohibit me from telling you folks what you can go do with yourselves.

BTW IIRC mussi, I believe you are in Switzerland, yes? Exactly what contribution to the world (other than melting pillowcases full of gold fillings - from the victims of Nazi death camps - down into ingots) have the Swiss made to global peace?

And once again for clarity...if it were about "oil", we would have taken Venezuela yesterday, and Mexico a couple of decades ago. Frankly, we are so powerful, we could have done both in about a week.:fire: :cuss: :fire: