[Malone LaVeigh]

Published on Friday, January 10, 2003 by the Long Island, NY Newsday
Plan: Tap Iraq's Oil
U.S. considers seizing revenues to pay for occupation, source says
by Knut Royce


WASHINGTON - Bush administration officials are seriously considering proposals that the United States tap Iraq's oil to help pay the cost of a military occupation, a move that likely would prove highly inflammatory in an Arab world already suspicious of U.S. motives in Iraq.

Officially, the White House agrees that oil revenue would play an important role during an occupation period, but only for the benefit of Iraqis, according to a National Security Council spokesman.

Yet there are strong advocates inside the administration, including in the White House, for appropriating the oil funds as "spoils of war," according to a source who has been briefed by participants in the dialogue.

"There are people in the White House who take the position that it's all the spoils of war," said the source, who asked not to be further identified. "We [the United States] take all the oil money until there is a new democratic government [in Iraq]."

(more) (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0110-01.htm)

[PATH]

It just gets curiouser and curiouser!:what:

[Ebbtide]

Jeez, Bush in control of more oil? How interesting

:rolleyes:

[Pendragon]

I am sure its from a reliable source:rolleyes:

[rock jock]

Give me a break. This may be a bad idea, but there is no conspiracy at work.

[bronco61]

Bush administration officials are seriously considering proposals that the United States tap Iraq's oil to help pay the cost of a military occupation

Officially, the White House agrees that oil revenue would play an important role during an occupation period, but only for the benefit of Iraqis



Riiiiiiiiight http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/misc/eek2.gif

[Malone LaVeigh]

rock jock:

Who said anything about a conspiracy?

Also, who believes any of this:
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost of an occupation would range from $12 billion to $48 billion a year, and officials believe an occupation could last 1 1/2 years or moreWe've been in Afghanistan over a year now, and that's a cakewalk compared to Iraq.

[Poodleshooter]

Of course the real question is: Will cheaper gas and oil offset our tax losses for funding the war?

[4v50 Gary]

Reparations... Gawd, it sounds so Victorian and it throws a dubious cloud over any American military activity in the Middle East. We're not here to fight to protect our interest but to secure your oil?

[Art Eatman]

Oil money as reparations? Glom on to Hussein's Swiss bank account maybe, but not the Iraqi people's oil.

Stealing. Dishonorable. Shameful.

At least we were in a real war with people who attacked us and our allies, in WW II--yet we didn't squeal like little piggies for "reparations" from Japan and Germany.

The reparations imposed on Germany following WW I were causal in Hitler's rise to power. Maybeso we'd learned something. Sorta like repealing Prohibition, we'd learned something.

The modern Governmental Controllers are much slower learners--and possibly are agin the process of learning, entirely. Doesn't matter if it's the WOD or reparations.

Art

[rock jock]

The reparations imposed on Germany following WW I were causal in Hitler's rise to power.
Actually, Art, history shows that that is not true at all.

[Standing Wolf]

Do I look dumb enough to believe anything appearing in a so-called "news" source for self-styled "progressives"?

Click on the link. Take a look around. Bring along a barf bag.

[bastiat]

Common dreams: Breaking news & views for the progressive community.

Yeah, I'm taking their 'unbiased' word for it.

[Preacherman]

Rock jock, better check your facts... I've studied history to post-graduate level over more than 20 years, and if there's any conclusion about Nazi Germany that is overwhelmingly subscribed to by virtually every historian of note, it's that the Treaty of Versailles gave rise to conditions in Germany that led directly to the spread of support for the Nazi Party as the consequences of that treaty came home to roost. Art is right on this one (not that he isn't right on most other things as well! :D ).

[Hal]

rock jock,
Care to expand on that a bit?

[Bruce H]

There are those who will go to any length to tie the United States position on Iraq to oil. If it is true, it isn't the brightest idea being bandied about. But on the other side of the coin why is Saddam still the countrys leader? A determined effort by Iraqi citizens that believe in themselves could get rid of Saddam. When a country lets one man like Saddam control them, they have to share in the blame for what happens. After his adventure in Kuwait the Iragi citicenry should have hung him and moved on. If the United States does take action there somebody is going to pay the bills. I really don't see any reason my money should be used.

[New_comer]

I just don't know....

May be the son seeking vengeange/redemption for Papa...

For a job left unfinished 12 years ago... :rolleyes:

[Waitone]

The UN's reaction and our "allies" reaction to the war on Islamofascist terrorists is based in economics. Our "allies" all have benefited from the rebuilding of Iraq after the first war. Many of them, France in parrticular, have been quite helpful in rebuilding the Sadaam's nuclear infrastructure. French and Germans are good for pharmaceutical industry. As so forth.

If Bush wants to cut through the bravo-sierra of our "allies" all he has to do is explain very quietly that they will get nothing of the rebuilding after the war if they don't pitch in with a smile. If that means control of oil to pay off our debts for the war, so be it. Only the most naive will say this is about liberation of Iraq. Its about a homocidal maniac having control and use of weapons of imaginable destruction sitting on the world's second largest reserves of oil.

There is no principal here. Its all real politic.

[Malone LaVeigh]

It's not "real politic," it's gangsterism.

The Common Dreams site (one of the best sources of non-corporate news, in my opinion) reproduces articles from other sources. The one linked is from the BBC. I suppose you folks don't believe those commies, either. :rolleyes:

[fallingblock]

Well, actually as a news organisation they are quite visibly biased to the left...a characteristic shared by our own ABC.
I would not accept any of the BBC's 'journalism' without a lot of critical review:rolleyes:

[Blackhawk]

bronco61,

Guess you just couldn't stay away, even after your buh-bye thread slamming Lawdog, eh...? :rolleyes:

How am I ever going to believe you now after all that? :D

[Wildalaska]

We arent gonna do anyhting, flex a little muscle then go home....

[Lord Grey Boots]

Folks, the "its about oil" argument doesn't cut it. Oil is relatively cheap and stable right now, and there is lots of other places where the oil companies can get cheaper oil faster. Russia, South America, couple of places off of Africa, S.E. Asia, etc etc.

The huge investment that would be needed to put into the Iraqi oil production facilities make any gains in oil supply very small and long range in the best case, and non-existant and unneeded in the realistic case.


Its about breaking the power of one of the top 2 or 3 particularly nasty terrorist supporting governments, choking off support for terrorist organizations (Al Quada, Hamas, etc), holding Saddam responsible for the agreements he made with the UN and has violated all over the place, and shutting down one of the few offensively proactive invaders on the planet.

[Khornet]

all you lefties think everything America does is based on ulterior motives like oil, but when we question your 'data' and motivation we are being fascists?

[ReadyontheRight]

If invading Iraq is all about giving the Bush family control of more oil, why didn't we make Kuwait a U.S. colony controlled by "Bush cronies" after the Gulf War?

[Sean Smith]

People have the oil thing completely backwards.

All of Bush's buddies are U.S. oil company executives. That means their businesses extract oil FROM THE U.S., and their business craps out when world oil prices fall below a certain point. The U.S. can export oil and make money only in a world oil market with INFLATED prices.

Let's say that Saddam is ousted. U.N. sanctions on Iraq go away, and Iraq can sell all the oil they want. And they will want to sell all of it to pay for rebuilding the country and get their economy out of the trash can. World oil prices fall like a rock (remember supply & demand?). U.S. oil companies can't make a profit selling their oil at market prices. All of Bush's friends go out of business.

Even if U.S. oil companies were unilaterally GIVEN all of the Iraqi oil for U.S. corporate exploitation (which is pretty unlikely), they would still be screwed, because all their domestic oil production would become non-profitabe... extraction costs are just too high compared to Middle Eastern oil.

Iraq producing lots of low-cost oil would be a DISASTER for the U.S. oil industry. It might be good for the U.S. economy in a general sort of way, but all of Bush's "puppetmasters" would be screwed.

You really would have a better case arguing that the Bush administration deliberately seeks to keep foreign oil OFF the market via various Middle East crises and Iraqi sanctions to keep prices up and U.S. oil a profitable venture. At least that conspiracy makes some basic sense.

[Lord Grey Boots]

Sean, I think you have a really good point there.

[ReadyontheRight]

All of Bush's buddies are U.S. oil company executives.

He also has buddies in Major League Baseball, but he didn't step in during the potential baseball strike.

So you would prefer to have politicians and presidents who have NO contacts or experiences with any sort of business? I guess we have that with all the professional politicians out there creating "common sense" gun laws and other feelgood legislation.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge GW Bush fan, and the fact that we all can have this discussion is what makes America great. However, the idea that he is motivated to make changes in Iraq just to help his "oil buddies" is ridiculous.

We do have a significant interest in the Middle East because of oil. Oil drives the US economy because it is an inexpensive energy source for motive power, which drives trade.