Afghanistan was all about oil! Oops no it wasn't
 

http://www.eurasianet.org/department...av060602.shtml

Summary: Ted Rall and other anti-war people told us that Afghanistan was "targetted" by the administration before 9/11 because they wanted an oil pipeline through it. They appeared to have a point when it turned out that President Karzai had dome some work for Unocal.

Turns out that Unocal hasn't wanted it since 1998 and there are no plans for a pipeline, nor even any demand for one.

Give it time brother! If we crush Pakistan after straightening out Iraq, Iran, Colombia, a Korea, the Ivory Coast, Syria, and a few others we could make it about fuel for India.

Afghanistan was all about oil??


There have been many remarks regarding this theory on the Cellar as well as all over the US media. I think Griff made some points on this too. His comments are generally stated in a logical way, and normally inserts some humor. I think Griff is a pretty level headed guy, but I have never really bought into the "(insert military action of your choice here) is all about the oil" movements. At least not in the omnious way it often portayed as.

It may very well sound inconsistent that *I*, as a conspiracy enthusiast, could not see the logic in the Bush/911 and "Bush war for oil" scenarios. You know I love a good conspiracy. Maybe if I read the same books as the anti-war crowd I'd become a believer.

Maybe this sounds like I'm knocking Griff, but I'm not trying to. I'll let my meds kick in and repost something better. :)

Nah, I don't read it as a knock. My view on Bush and oil wars is this : Bush is oil people. Everybody thinks their sector of the economy is the most important. The oilman thinks America would roll over dead if it started moving toward other fuels. He only sees the destruction in his corner rather than the enormous opportunities that open up elsewhere (not that it wouldn't be a bumpy ride). Therefor in the mind of the oilman, oil = national security. It becomes the trump card, "Yes I believe we should always avoid foreign entanglements but on this one thing we must compromise our ideals." The Democratic vision of US foreign policy is at least as hideous because their interventions are more likely to occur for less hard headed reasons but my real venom is saved for the Republicans because they should know better.

Oh no you don't Griff! You will NOT bring Côte d'Ivoire into this...let the foo-foos in Paris deal with that.

Now that's something I can agree with.

(WARNING: bullshit conspiracy theory coming up)

On the other hand, there could be other motivations and perpetrators in this war.

Consider this:

The assault rifle cartell has taken some hits in the past 10 years. The 94 ban actually provided a boom for the short term, but the overall sales have been disappointing to the cartell memebers, who wish to have a Bushmaster AR style rifle in every home in America. After the public flocked to the gunshops in droves after the 911 attacks (Bushmaster's "test marketing manipulation") and purchased a record number of their rifles, they have been looking to expand on this strategy.

If the US attacks Iraq, the cartell wins twofold. The military already has approx (?) 100+ k troops in the region. So lets say for the sake of argument that only half of them are issued an M16. They are running desert exercises now and we all know how sand affects pricision machinery, so immediately following the main event they will all be left in country as "used". That creates a lucrative parts market for the cartell and at the same time helps to eliminate any excess inventory. It doesn't matter what country takes delivery of the stockpile of M16s after the war. If we chose to allow the "new and Americanized" Iraqi army have the rifles, we can take payment in crude oil if need be. When the newly installed gov't needs another ass kicking, the next generation M16s will replace the current model that the Iraqis will be using.

Now, lets take a closer look at the maryland sniper shootings and how they relate to the AR cartell. This duo was actually sponsored by the cotton underwear cartell. It was their hope that the public would need some new briefs during this little spree , thus heading off the predicted flat Christmas market for the underwear retailers and saving them from bankruptcy. This was successful for the underwear cartell, but the resulting lawsuits threatened the rifle cartell. How can they sell their rifles to the public if the suits shut them down? So what did they do? They were smart, they took advantage of the sniper shootings by labeling them as a "precursor" to the terrorism that will follow the attack on Iraq. At the same time support is being raised for the idea that whether or not we attack them, there will be many more terrorists getting into the country via our unguarded borders. So either way, the rifle cartell, will clean up. The underwear cartell will also reap direct benefits too, but not as much as the rifle cartell. Lets say just for kicks, the borders will be guarded. Who wins? The rifle cartell, because we all know they will buy tens of thousands of rifles, but the public non-confidence in the border patrol will also boost the civilian market.

Ok, so lets recap here

Us attackes Iraq......RC wins......terrorists strike the homeland.....RC wins (UC wins too)....Bush finally has the borders patrolled.....RC wins

So, as you can clearly see now, this war isn't all about the oil, it's all about the rifles (and the underwear) :)

Brings to mind the South Park underpants gnomes though.

1. Get lots of underpants
2. ?
3. Profit!

So even though I now need a refurbished M1, I can't do it because I'm playing into the hands of The Man? Or is this just "Big Rifle" you're talking about.

Sorry Syc, but your government already has advisors in the Coast. I'm not the one bringing them in. The French are in deep do do there, btw, something we should remember when tempted to make French surrender jokes.

Aww come on--- don't you know??? ANYTHING you do plays into the hands of The Man. :thumb:

Griff, do you REALLY think the Bush administration cares about Africa? You didn't buy into that "we're going to help Africa fight AIDS" thing, did you? ;)

Man, I hate the man.

Syc, lets say you had this ally who was in a real sticky whicket trying to maintain order in a place it used to oppress and you could help this ally out with that problem by putting your troops in instead wouldn't your ally maybe owe you a big favor say giving up opposition to and maybe assisting in...

..as well as the three African nations on the UNSC...

That would assume that we have troops to put in said spot, and that their Uncle Sam is willing to look past the last African adventure 10 years ago.

The only way to escape the ever watching eye of The Man is to buy your M1 through a private sale and make your own Man pants. Try not to buy white cotton material for your undergarments though, this may tip off The Man.

As for the women that wish to use this strategy, get creative.

Slang, dear, I think it's time that you called me about some new medication ... ;)

I haven't said too much about a pending invasion, but FWIW, I don't support the US and UK going forward with an invasion on their own. And even if authorized by the UN, I have my reservations.

Having said that, some questions come to mind:

Is the US actually dragging its feet on a possible invasion? Are the media and/or government making too much of these "deadline" dates? Is Colin Powell really the one calling the shots, much to the chagrin of Dubya and the Big Dick? Is the administration taking world opinion and US public opinion into more consideration than it seems? Why doesn't the administration dangle WW2 in front of France and Germany and call it a day? What does it matter if Germany doesn't support an invasion, since they can't really do shit militarily anyway, thanks in part to us? If the US and UK go off unilaterally, could it result in a backlash against us in the form of tariffs or embargoes, primarily by bigger countries like Japan?

I don't have the answers...merely questions for the big picture.

I don't know any of the answers to those...

Is the administration taking world opinion and US public opinion into more consideration than it seems?

The SOTU speech was weird that way. It was full of vim and vigor and promise that we'd do it without the UN if we had to and it was critical to the security of the US and etc. etc. and then finished with "... so we'll go back to the UN..." which was totally anti-climactic to any unilateralist's ears.

Why doesn't the administration dangle WW2 in front of France and Germany and call it a day?

Ah... why not just go ahead, and not spend time going through the diplomatic channels as far as possible? Why spend political capital in China that you might need for N Korea, when you could just say "OK we really need to do this so we're just going to, just like you all would have done and often have done anyways"?

Does the administration really believe in and want the world's approval, even though the US+UK make up about 25 times the military force that France could muster (not including nukes)?

Or... are they doing this because it's more productive than simply waiting for troop movements to complete?

Or... do they think it will underline the uselessness of the UN?

Or... are they waiting for the Iraqi regulars to be completely demoralized... and/or for their other "psy-ops" work to take more effect?

(Follow that second link, campers, it's way cool!)

Or... is there another motive that we don't yet know about?

If the US and UK go off unilaterally, could it result in a backlash against us in the form of tariffs or embargoes, primarily by bigger countries like Japan?

Japan's in favor of the war. (Probable reason: Oil! They don't have any!) Biggest trade partner not in favor of the war: Mexico. (Probable reason: Oil! They have some!)

I would bet a dollar we don't really know squat about what's going on in there.

I agree with Slang...it's hard to get a true picture of Iraq, given their media watchdogs. From what I know about Iraq, I think they would warily accept a US invasion, given that US occupancy can't be any worse than the current state of affairs.

Sheppsie, the Guardian? I must say I'm surprised. Not that I dislike the Guardian, but that you used it.

Has anyone noticed that the French and American positions seem a bit similar?

France: "We don't like war. We'll do it if we absolutely have to, but we'd like the UN to figure this out first."

The US: "We're all for war. We'll do it if we absolutely have to, but we'd like the UN to give us a green light."

I just think the US should assume a more sarcastic personality at the UN. We always sound a bit overbearing, IMO...we should use a little more wit and sarcasm.

France: "You should not bomb innocent Iraqi civilians!"

The US: "You're right. I mean, that's a whole different ballgame than pillaging places like Côte d'Ivoire, Chad, or Algeria."

or...

France: "War must be avoided at all costs."

The US: "Look, it's not like we're building the Maginot Line here."

As to whether we need to do this...that's assuming that it necessarily NEEDS to be done. I dunno, man...I wouldn't mind Saddam being out of power, but at what cost to us, the United States (and the UK for that matter)?

[analysis]I believe so, for the US had gotten an increasingly bad reputation in world affairs over the years.

The US is indeed a great nation, and provides a plethora of opportunities for citizens and non-citizens alike. We are indeed the last great superpower. And who really cares about what others think of us? We do what the fuck we please, and help the world enough to justify any of our indiscretions.

But...has that attitude cost us? Was 9/11 the price paid for our moments of arrogance?

So, perhaps because of 9/11, the US wants to look more like a good guy. Perhaps the Bush administration is thinking, "If we go into Iraq on our own, we could be setting ourselves up for more frequent and more intense attacks from abroad." As I see it, a UN approval gives the US real justification...like the world is saying, "OK US, you win this one. Go for it." And if Iraq and other nations have issues with it, we can point to the fact that the action was supported by a majority of the nations on the security council, including the 3 big dogs that are currently on the fence.

And maybe this won't change anything, in terms of being a target of terrorists...or improving our world reputation. But in an ever-changing world, I'd rather have the majority of it on my side in a situation such as this.

In addition, there is another ugly aspect that could play itself out if the US and UK do this without the UN: The possibility of US and UK forces being tried for war crimes. Sure, this could happen regardless of UN approval. But let's say the US and UK go off on their own...you don't think a country like Russia or France would rub their hands in glee at such a possibility? And while the US may thumb its nose at such a thing, I don't think it's something to take lightly.

An aside: I sense that the US will ignore a World Court ruling from last week that orders the stay of execution for 3 Mexican citizens on death row in Texas and Oklahoma. The US has done such things in the past, claiming the right of national sovereignty.[/analysis]

The UN is not perfect by any means, but I do think it has served its purpose on many fronts...and still does. I think it's still a very relevant forum, especially in today's world.

Which brings up my whole US as OPEC controller question again. :)

Canada does not appear to support us, and I don't recall them having significant (if any) oil. As far as Japan, if we don't get the Korean thing straightened out, then we could be in deep shit with them as well.

In the end, I'm not sure if the benefits outweigh the cost or consequences that could result from a unilateral invasion. I only hope the Bush administration is giving incredibly heavy thought to all this.

The notion of Russia pushing a war-crimes slant is laughable. They need the U.S. as an ally far too badly to even think about pissing us off. They talk a tough game, but when it's time to put up, they always whimper and fall away.

France won't do it 'cause they're a bunch of fucking sissies. I could see Schröder saying something, but he's a goon anyway and will be out of power next election.

The only perma-member of the UNSC I can see saying anything is China, but they need trade with the U.S. way too much. I think all our "tensions" with China are just a big act.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, Dave. But what you presented gives me more questions to ask:

Okay, so let's say that the 3 big dogs sitting on the fence go ahead and go with a new SC resolution. What are we trading that in for? I don't see us really convincing these folks that what the US and UK do is necessarily the right thing. I think it's going to cost us, much like it cost us more aid to Pakistan for their help.

So, what are we giving away for this? More aid to Russia and China (more $$$ that we don't have)? Some ridiculous trade agreement with France? An agreement to look the other way on, say, human rights issues in Russia, China, or France's former colonies? Or, do we abandon or modify our current policy with Taiwan?

While these folks are dependent on us to a degree, we're dependent on them too...to play nice and not stir shit up. With China, Russia, and the US, there are only so many little things each can get away with before someone cries foul. (And with China, we have to be especially careful, given the embassy incident in Yugoslavia and the dead pilot...even though one was an accident and the other appears to be the fault of the Chinese.)

France...I dunno. We could use their pharmaceuticals, and their wines and foods are good too. But they seem harmless compared to the other two...they're like one of those little yappie dogs that just barks incessantly, but doesn't really do much. But we do need a vote from them in the event of another UNSC resolution, or anything else we want to push through the SC.

We don't necessarily need a vote. They can abstain.

<i>But...has that attitude cost us? Was 9/11 the price paid for our moments of arrogance?</i>

There must be something in our collective culture that makes us explain it that way, but... no!

The appeasing French got that oil tanker clocked USS Cole-style a few months back. Mostly Aussies died in Bali. Israelis were the outright declared target in Kenya.

Any country with a freedom-loving non-Islamic people is fair game to these fucks.

Quick interesting note:

Coincidence? I think you think it's not!

Oh, separately, Syc your note that <i>Has anyone noticed that the French and American positions seem a bit similar?</i> is even more interesting now than it was 24 hours ago. The new French and German idea, which they will bring to the UN, is that they could have UN forces go in and force disarmnament.

Without stopping to consider all the implications, that does mean they now agree with the US position that force is necessary and even desireable to manage (or oust) Hussein.

IOW all the huffing and puffing about being "against force" was just that, huffing and puffing.

I agree with that to a point. But if you look at the events you mentioned, along with the African embassy bombings, all those events involved allies of the United States. Even Indonesia is a relative ally of ours.

My understanding of this French-German plan is that it's not much about any real military might. It involves peacekeepers, most of which I would imagine will be Canadian, Japanese, and German. Oh, I'm sure they'll be thrilled to leave a place like Kosovo or Rwanda, but are they going to be like they were initially in Kosovo?: "Don't try to attack us or else we'll continue to warn you."

Australia looks to be in favor of military action...how's that sitting with the populace, jag?

Don't ask me i haven't read an aussie paper in 3 weeks. There was plenty of antiwar stuff going on when i left, don't ask me what the mood is now. *sighs* i don't know, i have no idea what my position is. That may be because i've spent much of the last few days in trainsit on sweet fuck all sleep.

*shrugs*
Hurry up and overthrow the place, instate some utterly farcical democracy propped up for the next 10 years, cue human interest stories about Iraqi children on the hallmark channel and get the oil pumping so that we can all stop worrying our little heads over such issues when we should be trusting our governments who know better than us and get back to being true patriots by spending our savings so the consumer confidence index goes up.

You know every time we (the west) wade into the middle east we fuck things so badly it comes back and bites us hard on the arse, i wonder what is going to come out of this one. Saddam was the product of US foreign policy/interference, lets see what they come up with to replace him, it's a hard act to follow.