Oil a Motive for Aussies in Iraq
 

According to Mr Howard, our esteemed PM, the need to protect oil resources is a big part of the reason we're in iraq.

From here

So here we go. What do you think about that?

What's the price of gas where you are?

Petrol is at about $1.25/litre at the moment. It jumped up a bit this week.

As for the "we're there for the oil", meh.

I heard a segment of the interview on the radio yesterday, and oil was mentioned as one of the motivations for staying there. Nelson's only voicing what we all know to be true, but if the media reports were a bit less sensationalised, we'd all be better off.

It's all a bit "stability, blah - Iraq, blah - security, blah - terrorism, blah - oil, OMG!!!! he said "OIL" - There's the headline boys!"

I suspect its one of the main reasons why the US is there too, and why we went to Kuwait in 1991. Oil is currently the true power...water is on its way to replacing oil though, IMO.

Well, if we are really there to steal the oil, why don't we do it already? The price per barrel of crude has since more than doubled, over high demand and lack of security, exactly what this is supposed to be about? Let's take the freakin oil already, if that's what it's all about.

If we really have no agenda other than to secure all the world's oil, why did we focus on Iraq's 10% of it? Why didn't we go right after Iran's 11%? It would have been easier, would have prevented Iran from colluding in Afghanistan and Syria and Lebanon and the West Bank. And there's no doubt about their WMD plans. And the Arabs would be overjoyed. So why didn't we do that, if oil was the reason? Why why why why why?

In what way would it have been easier to invade Iran?

The fact that no one's made a grab for Iraq's oil yet is definitely no indicator of anyone's intention not to do so in the future.

The whole invasion of Iraq and 'liberating' the people etc is simply colonialism. I've mentioned this before and it's unlikely anyone will convince me otherwise simply because all the clues are there.

A. We want to show the people of Iraq a 'better' way of life. (better in who's eyes)

B. We're there fighting Muslim extremists (supposedly) who threaten our way of life. (as opposed to cannibals and heathens of the past)

C. They have something we don't but we want it.

Historically, the stronger nation has taken what they want from the weaker one and it's always been couched in lies and deciets to make the general population of the stronger country feel good about what they're doing. Over time, the culture and history of the weaker country is destroyed until very few of the indigenous residents even remember or care anymore.

This is a historical fact.

Explain to me how these things are not happening in Iraq. Are you going to tell me there has been no further introduction of Christian churches since this invasion? Are we not trying to change the way the people of this country have always lived? Do we not need oil?

I don't believe we are there to steal oil, only to ensure a stable supply continues to come our way for the foreseable future. If we pull out, Iran moves in.

Yes, and someone else gets the oil you want. That's exactly the point.

Colonialism isn't always as blatant as simply taking over. It's changing the structure of a country to suit the stronger country's needs. In the world as it is today, it would be almost impossible to just go in there and declare Iraq a US or British or even Australian colony (call it what you will). Instead, these governments have to achieve the outcome they desire by alternative means.

I'm no expert, but: because you get almost two fronts just from having a huge border with Afghanistan, and a third front is easily negotiated for with Armenia instead of having an insane last-minute debacle with Turkey, and it's roughly 500 air miles to Teheran from both Kuwait and western Afghanistan.

Well WTF are they waiting for? I really wish they would get on with it, my truck's tank is 18 gallons (68 litres).

UT, considering the fact that we absolutely know and have known for a very long time that Iran does and has had WMD for a very long time, I would think that'd be a pretty good reason not to piss them off too much.

Of course, I could be wrong, but it makes more sense to me that the countries around Iran are begining to unite which would certainly make life easier if anyone from the 'coallition of the willing' did decide to have a go.

What are they waiting for? They're waiting to set the government up and then do a contra deal with them about who gets the best price for their oil, considering who put them in power and how much it cost to put them there.

And remember, the rapist might have a gun, so just lie back and do whatever he demands.

Oh! OK! So when ExxonMobil gets a better rate per barrel than Royal Dutch Shell or (France's) Total S. A., we'll know the fix is in!!

So which US government official will be at the meetings where they negotiate the rates? And what discount will be enough reward?

I never thought you were an arsehole before UT. Why would you say such a thing?

You don't like my reasoning so you decide to say something personal that you know is difficult for me?

I never thought you'd bring yourself so low.

I'm done with this thread.

I didn't know that. I'm sorry.

Attacking Iran is the stupidest thing we can do, especially now.

Iran is much more united and has a much stronger military, plus it would hurt relations with China. Just allowing Iran to breathe for the next few years is the best thing we can do for it.

Contrary to popular belief, Ahmadinejad is not the ruler of Iran, they have a postion called the Supreme Ruler. The guy who has that postion right now, Ali Khameni, is much more sane. I don't have a cite for this but everything I've heard (right and left sources) say that the current administatraion in Iran is very unpopular with the people and the people of Iran just hate the American government, not the people.

Plus, Iran can not get nuclear weapons for at least 13 years.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...an-nukes_x.htm

I would certainly agree with these statements.

Not sure I would buy this one. There are many subject matter experts out there who would disagree.

Oh, dude... more from your story:
But did you notice... your story is from April 2006?

Since that time:

"Iran is currently installing 3,000 centrifuges, intends to go to 54,000" AP Jan 2007

"Iran close to running 3,000 centrifuges, says El Baradei" BBC Jun 2007

On 14 November 2006 President Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad announced "Today the Iranian nation possesses the full nuclear fuel cycle”. The event will be marked by a 10-day celebration at the start of February 2007, coinciding with the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. Iran will have 3,000 operational centrifuges by the end of 2006 as the first target towards the 60,000 it needs for its nuclear-energy requirements, according to Ahmadi Nejad. “We are determined to master the fuel cycle and commission some 60,000 centrifuges to meet our demands,” he told reporters.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on 20 December 2006 that the United States and the United Kingdom will disappear along with Israel. He was quoted by Iranian news agencies as saying that, "Any power that is close to God will survive while the powers which are far from God will disappear like the pharaohs." Ahmadinejad added that, "Today, it is the United States, Britain and the Zionist regime which are doomed to disappear as they have moved far away from the teachings of God." He reiterated that nuclear power was a "right" of the Iranian people.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...n/nuke2006.htm

My reasoning is more along the lines of what Mercenary said...it's not about taking the oil, but making sure nothing happens to it.

UT, you seem to be assuming that what was initially said was, "This is only about oil." No one said that prior to your post. If I'm misreading you, I apologize.

Funny how nobody needed a gun until the rapist - the United States - started imposing its unlateral will on other nations. There is good reason why wacko extremists in the American government are called 'big dic' thinkers. Containment worked just fine - especially in Iraq. Suddenly wacko extremists want to fix the world?

Iran had no significant nuclear program until "Axis of Evil". Even the Iranian people were, instead, advocating reform and removal of their wacko extremists. And then the 'big dics' took over in Washington. Suddenly America was going to fix the world as defined a paper that became the basis for Project for a New American Century. Its called pre-emption. Historically, it does not work. Containment worked just fine for everyone except those who rewrite history with a 'big dic' mentality.

That original draft that resulted in PNAC openly called for 'Pearl Harboring' of India, Germany, or Russia. And yet still the world did not take these wacko American extremists seriously.

Who now is the rapist? Who has made it necessary for most every nation in the region - including Turkey - to have nuclear weapons? Who advocates unilateral wars to impose their government on all others? Who is the rapist that openly states it will unilaterally attack other nations only for a political agenda? But UT advocates military solutions even though "Mission Accomplished" and Nam both proves those to be foolhardy.

Every nation in the Middle East should consider every WMD they can master. It is necessary to protect the region from those who advocate solutions in unilateral military excursions - also called pre-emption.

What do we call the next war? "Mission Gratification"? It would be appropriate.

Why is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad popular enough to be elected? Iran's Hitler is found in a recent version of Mein Kampf - the 'Axis of Evil' speech. Even moderate Iranians now support Iran's nuclear program. They would be unpatriotic to oppose it.

Those who did not see the danger and threat to all Americans in that 2003 speech never learned history - never learned what made America a great and respected nation especially during and after the Cold War.

The only hope we have of bringing long term stability to the region - concepts from good people such as Mohamed ElBaradei and negotiation. But then that had always been the solution. The US, instead, is even advocating the destruction of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. When wacko Americans (President Cheney) threatened unilateral war, well now Iran must develop a nuclear program. Only those with one-side perspectives (who also endorse something stupid called pre-emption) would not see beyond the testosterone thrill of more war.

What UT advocates will only lead to more war. But then that is what Cheney wants, what the most wacko of Israel's Lukid also want, and what Islamic extremists advocate. Makes one wonder is UT has thought this out far enough to appreciate the massive reality in Aliantha's post.

If the war were fought for oil, I see no reason that consumers would see any price difference.

UT, if Iran did have nuclear weapons, do you think they would actually use them?

That is the million dollar question. And Iran wants to keep it that way. Deterrent? Two good articles:

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute...les/pub678.pdf

http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/...ssanctions.pdf

I really don't know; and I mean, I've read both sides of the argument. There are those who say that when Ahmadinejad said he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map", that was actually a faulty interpretation of the language; and that since then the interpretation has been that he simply expects the end of the Zionist regime. And expects this to happen shortly, if the people will show a bit of patience.

And then there are those are argue, credibly, that being the "big man" is how Ahmeindiningcar maintains his power, that being as bombastic and jingoistic as possible is the only way to maintain power during his failing economy.

I mean if you asked that question amongst very smart people following the topic, you'd get a really wide variety of answers, some following the party line, some not;

And what it really comes down to, in a lot of ways is:

Are you comfortable not knowing the answer to that question?

I read the first article and it seems well-written and pretty accurate but they left out one major aspect and there were a few assumptions that I didn't completely agree with.

First, the article (at least the first one) solely focused on just nuclear weapons. Even though Iran does import most of the oil it uses because of a lack of oil refineries, they are looking for another power source and nuclear energy is the best option. Whether they are hiding behind the "we are using it for power only" curtain or not, this is an issue that has to be brought up.

The main disagreement I had was the idea that a non-aggression treaty would make a nuclear arsenal unnecessary. Taking out the need for nuclear energy, the fact is that Iran and North Korea does not trust the United States and I don't think a non-aggression pact would make them sleep better at night. Don't get me wrong, I think a non-aggression pact is a very good thing but I don't think that if they still pursue nuclear amibitions that it means they are definitely planning on making weapons for aggressive purposes.

The second but smaller disagreement was how the article says that Iran and North Korea are adversaries of the US and should be treated as such, if they do not want to be targeted, they should stop nuclear ambitions. This kind of goes on the "good" versus "evil" way of thinking, and leaves out what US influences have done to provoke previous responses out of those countries. I do not know the history of North Korea that well, but if you look at the history of Iran in the past 60 years, you will find a lot of US involvement and that most of the reactions produced by Iran are reactionary, not provocative.

I just skimmed through the second article but I will try to look at it tonight since it looks more in-depth.



In all honesty, I do not think Iran (North Korea I'm not convinced yet) will directly attack any other country because they have shown that they are looking towards the future and want to be power. I may be wrong with this but I have not seen anything that shows any direct threats of destroying Israel (Saying Israel should be destroyed does not mean they will attack them), and Iran does know the severe consequences of even touching Israel.

The main concern I have is that Iran or North Korea may sell their weapons to terrorist organizations. I doubt something like that will happen because if Israel or the US gets nuked, Iran will be attacked nevertheless and I don't know if they are willing to do that but you never want to make that assumption and prepare for the worst.


The best options I can see for these situations are the issuing of non-aggression pacts and then working together with countries to help provide Iran and North Korea energy while keeping close watch on their individual nuclear ambitions.

Another thing we might want to do is to stall Ahmadinejad until the next elections, whose term may have actually been cut short by 18 months. It was talked about in 2006 and all the articles I have found were made at the same time with no follow through so I don’t know if it was actually true or the outcome of the vote.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...335628,00.html

I am basically exactly the same place that you are. I am slightly leaning towards they won't do anything but I don't want to get too comforable with it.

I think it is more that I'm guessing there might not be an answer to that question.

To make myself more clear, does Iran even know if they will use nuclear weapons or not?

Well working backwards....
I doubt Iran will attack another country directly, that would not serve their aims on the international stage. But they will do what they have done since the late 70's and that is conduct their war actions through proxies. They also use provocative measures in an effort to elicit some form of action which will further serve their aims to bully their neighbors or the West. Kidnapping the sailors from the UK, jailing the dual citizens visiting from the US, supporting radical elements fighting the Israeli's, etc. Note that they have not at this point done anything overtly against the US forces which they have been caught at red handed. But we don’t know all the details either. The military in Iraq has accused the Iranians of direct action so I think there is information we are not privy to, and that is the way it should be. I think they are smarter than that. There is no doubt they are supporting the insurgency in Iraq, who wouldn't. But let us not pretend that and hope that in some way they will become good actors and make good on promises. Iran has always been in a push pull between moderates and radical elements since the revolution in ’79. That is a plus for us. We should foster the moderates and marginalize the extremists.

As far as their nuke program, they are doing nothing more than stalling for time as things ramp up in production. I don't trust treaty actions with countries like Iran, Iraq, or any of the others, most are not worth the paper they are written on. That is the stuff that supporters of the UN like to do to make them feel good. They are a regional threat IMHO. What to do about it is another thing all together. I think you miss typed when you said they import most of their oil, they export their oil and import their gasoline. They have only one refinery. IMHO they way to really hurt them militarily is to lock them down, land, air, and sea, and take out their one refinery, nothing more. A direct attack other than that would be stupid. We don't have the time or resources and the American public does not have the stomach for it. Their economy is more fragile than one would think. Any such actions would need to be taken before they obtained a nuclear weapon. Once they have the bomb there is no telling what they would do with it.

N.K. has been fairly isolated and I really don't think they are that much of a threat anymore. At least not as they were 5 years or so ago. That is another discussion.

Containment meant half the global body politic was an abscess of totalitarianism.

Much better for the world were it all democracy. This seems to be a consideration that never enters tw's thinking, and he won't say why this is. I say it's because he doesn't believe in nor practice democracy. He prefers totalitarian political systems, but oddly enough, never goes anyplace totalitarian. He didn't even experience totalitarian society the reversible way via the military.

Sayyyy, does totalitarianism look best at a bit of a remove? Ho ho ho.

Volleyball's in your court, tw.

UG, Iran is not a totalitarian regime. It isn't as democratic as the United States but it isn't even close to totalitarian. Read up on it/

But how far will they go is the question? The US has used proxies with intents to run down countries as well but they have never given them nuclear weapons. Iran may be the same, or they could be different.

Agreed, the Islamic revolution wasn't as extreme as many take it. The reason Iran united under Islam is because it was the only thing that they could be united under. The dictator in Iran from the 50’s to 70’s was very strict on what could happen and from what I have heard, the only place that rebellious ideas could be created were in mosques. Not everyone in Iran agreed with the ideas of the clergy, but they agreed it was better than what they currently had.

I don't think they trust us either. It should be done for more symbolic reasons than anything.

You are right, that is what I meant.

Unfortunately the question is really self defeating. To answer it requires numerous assumptions - so many that use of nuclear weapons in time becomes a forgone conclusion. However if you think you understand what this paragraph says, then you have not a clue. This summary becomes far more complex in its details.

For example, let's take Ahmadinegad's statements that are mostly just pompous declarations for political profit. It is doubtful that he is anywhere near as crazy as he would make himself appear. However, those public proclamations leave him exposed for manipulated by hawks within his government. Should he be forced into an 'attack or defray' situation, he may only have the attack option (knowing full well that option only means disaster) because of his boisterous proclamations.

Of the two TheMercenary articles, the longer one from Cordesman, et al is 'must read'. The effect and ability of all options (from sanctions to military attack) must be grasped. Their most important statement is: There is where the ultimate decision occurs for deployment or use.

The 'Axis of Evil' speech has made this new Iranian identity even more problematic. If that central problem is not addressed, then all options are losing options. The worst thing any nation can do to that problem is overt threats. And yet that is exactly what America's Richard Perle's, et al advocate and unfortunately want to make unavoidable.

What results is a second potentially worse situation: Only thing that can avoid war is that extremists understand the consequences of their actions. For example, if Iranian hawks believe they can deploy a hidden bomb to NYC without having the source of that weapon detected, well, extremists are dumb enough to do so. If that extremist believes he can deploy it without having it traced back to his nation, he has zero reasons to not do so. Therein lays the need for America to not box Ahmadinegad into a corner using his rhetoric against him and using ultimatums. Leaving the other guy with 'options out' is why we all are still here; why Khrushchev could rein in his 'big dic' generals.

But that means an American political position based in negotiation; not based in threats and ultimatums. The longer America uses threats and ultimatums means the less time we have to accomplish a solution that could be successful. Why. So many reasons including the above first quote "The general Iranian population seem ...". The longer Iran boasts about a nuclear program, then the more unsolvable this becomes. And this is ultimately where the conflict must be defused: Cordesman, et al paper discusses military options - again must read - to appreciate how futile that military option really is. Obviously a tactical victory is possible. But it does not address a strategic objective - again that first quote.

Even more obvious are impossible military options for Israel.

This nuclear proliferation problem cannot be solved with military action. American actions were even making it easier for Iran to obtain international support - that is until the Europeans stepped in using the only viable option for a solution. Sure, Nantz could be occupied militarily. That would be a tactical solution to the same military minds who also declared "Mission Accomplished". Just another example of win the battle and lose the war. The military action without a viable strategic objective cannot succeed long term. If it not yet obvious, the strategic objective is in that above first quote.

Any useful answer to whether Iran would use nuclear weapons is and must be irrelevant. 1) A solution was needed years ago by undoing "Axis of Evil" propaganda, so that underlying reasons for weapons were eliminated. And if no longer possible, 2) Iranian leaders must not be threatened with ultimatums leaving their leadership with time to truly grasp the responsibilities and consequences of using those weapons. Push them too fast or with ultimatums and the above second quote ("America ... cannot win") becomes reality.

If neither happens, then use of those weapons becomes a forgone conclusion - in time. How do we answer piercehawkeye45’s question? Massive and therefore irrelevant assumptions. The useful question is whether things to avoid the problem can be implemented. With wacko extremist rhetoric, those solutions cannot happen.

BTW, above is the power of containment and the obvious foolhardiness of testosterone laced pre-emption.

Thanks for the apology UT. It means a lot to me. My humblest to you also for my outburst.

(I apologized more in a PM to Ali. That's the risk when going for the most inflammatory metaphor possible...)

Yes he did, and it was very kindly written. Thankyou.

Oil is the ONLY reason anyone, other than Iraqis, are in Iraq.
No amount of oil is worth one soldier's life.

My immediate reaction would be to agree.... but, reflecting on it.... is the continued prosperity of 300,000,000 people worth one life? Two lives? Three? Tough question considering the lives spent on much, much less.... and celebrated in song and story, too.

Quoting Michael Yon... again.

Is Yon including the permanent bases when he talks about withdrawl? We keep getting assurances from the administration that we are not there permanently, but they're making huge investments that other administrations will be loathe to abandon. I'd say we're there for keeps.

I would say we are there for keeps if we were not about to elect Hitlery Clinton to office. When she or the next president pulls our troops out it will be a genocide that will become the legacy of the person who pulled the plug.

I agree with Griff.

Stating that Bush wants Iraq to be a prosperous democratic country as quickly as possible just doesn't make sense. As much as people want to say they are, Bush and Cheney (more Cheney) are not dumb guys. No idiot off the street can get to the position of (Vice) President and do what those two have done.

I can't see a possible way of how they could honestly think the army commanders were wrong when they asked for more troops and still want the best for Iraqis, there had to be a separate agenda in there. It just doesn't add up.

A Paul D. Eaton letter to Bush.

The do the Iraqis want us out or not debate is tough and almost stupid to discuss. I try to not be definite on what the Iraqis think or believe anything that I am told about what the Iraqis think because there is no clear way of knowing. Honestly, I think a lot of them are pissed off at us but there is now ay to back that up. I have no connections to Iraq or Iraqis (if I did it would still be bias) and you can find reliable sources saying both things which is obviously a clear contradiction. It probably depends on who you ask, when, where, etc on the answer you will or want to hear.

That is a very interesting philosophical question. Where is line drawn between the lives of few versus the comfort and happiness of many?

Ha, Hilary will not pull out of Iraq.

The only electable person I can see doing it is Obama but that is still not convincing. Edwards maybe but I'm not counting on it.

I don't find the genocide argument very convincing. Right now the violence in Iraq is getting worse and basically it is a long deadly civil war that may turn into genocide anyways versus a short deadly genocide (assuming the Shiites take over the Sunnis). I don't think the final outcome will be much different either. Neither side sounds real inviting.

So we stay there another "nine or ten years" (a quote from Gen Petreaus). We drive how many more million Iraqis into pauper refugees throughout the world. We cause how many more thousands of dead Iraqis – and TheMercenary says this is good.

TheMercenary spins a half truth while forgeting realities. He forgets that American presence only makes Iraq less safe and more violent. It creates a greater distrust among the various ethnic factions. When was the last time an American could sit in a sidewalk cafe in Fallujah. Yes, that was once standard before American occupation make Iraq “so much safer". But according to TheMercenary, "There is light in the end of the tunnel".

TheMercenary - your rhetoric are same lies from Nam. They do not work on those without a 'brown shirt' mentality.

Saddam killed maybe 200,000 of his own people in ten years. Americans created 100,000 dead Iraqis in less than two years. But Saddam is evil and an American presence does not create genocide. TheMercenary says it is so. Funny how those facts change when TheMercenary posts a political myth.

The longer Americans are 'saving them', then the more likely this civil war will kill even more Iraqis. Diyalah province once had no violence. Then American made is safer.

Iraq Study Group clearly offered a solution where few options were viable. Instead, TheMercenary's post even says the ISG is wrong. TheMercenary posts a political agenda rather than reality.

Iraq will not be a democracy. That option is gone as made so obvious by Iraq’s current government. Americans, doing as TheMercenary recommended, have seen to it that democracy - civil government representing all Iraqis - is not possible. Best we can now hope for is a theocracy dominated by the Shia with an autonomous province of Kurds.

But the longer we stay, the less likely even that becomes possible. Iraq Study Group defined an American withdrawal as the only solution. But somehow TheMercenary knows more – and cannot even say why.

We had a solution. What remains possible still reside in the Iraq Study Group; not in any political rhetoric that justify wacko extremist agendas.

tw offers solutions from the ISG. TheMercenary repeats political rhetoric from liars in the George Jr administration. One solution based in intelligent thought. Another only based in his political agenda.

Griff's post is accurate. Even Gen Petraeus said we will probably be in Iraq for another nine or ten years. Notice that Griff's post is confirmed with facts - not political rhetoric. Somehow TheMercenary calls 'nine more years' a victory - just like in Nam.

But then nine more years in Iraq means George Jr's legacy is safe. That is more important to whom?

Isn't it General Petraeus?

Pssst.... tw, it ain't about me, this one is about Oil....Please get back to us when you have something of importance to contribute.
:D

That is why we went there to begin with? Why we stay?
We are leaving without stealing their oil and natural gas?
I think not.
The DAY we have it secured, we are OUT of there & you know it.
Any good we do is incidental & PR.
Most Americans don't know about the untapped reserves of oil on the Iraq Kuwait border, it is HUGE.
It is the third largest land field ever discovered, the largest currently existing. (Part of the reason for the Kuait war, other than his need for more money, was over reveng for Kuait's possible side-drilling/or attempt to into it over the Iraq border)
All of this crap started when it was discovered.

OK, accepting that is all true, how many lives is it worth trading to guarantee the future prosperity of the US and it allies for the next 20, 30, 40 years?

Again, no amount of oil is worth one soldiers life.
ESPECIALLY if it was done while the nation was lied to as to the reason.
America is not a nation of thieves, at least not intentionally... once it has been shown that this administration has made us so they need to be prosecuted.