Oil Conspiracy debunked? Puppet government theory debunked?

[Chip]

You are correct. I had thought prior to the war there was a sanction against US purchase of Iraqi oil.

However, I did a little more digging, and discovered something even better.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mttimiz1a.htm

Here is another chart from the same site, depicting a larger history:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mcrimiz2a.htm
There are times since 1973 where we received no oil directly from Iraq and times where our imports from Iraq suddenly spiked.

The reasons for the variety of import quantities is certainly unclear from this data. We may have received indirect supply when the figures are down, or we may have purchased more from other countries those years, with Iraq selling to a different mix of nations.

What is clear, however, is that our dependence on directly received barrels of Iraqi crude coincides with the emergence of China as a world-player in manufactured exports.

What matters is not what President was in power when our direct exports went up, about which, being neither a Republican or a Democrat, I could care less.

What matters is that when the worldwide demand for oil spiked in the mid nineties, and Gulf War trading stipulations were eased, we most certainly turned to our man Saddam for increased oil imports, and by 2001 we were quite dependent on Saddam, who dictatorially controlled his country's imports, for a great deal of his special, essential, light, sweet crude, for which all other market sources were contracted and thus exhausted.

What I get from this is that, we have purchased far more oil from Iraq, than we are currently. In fact, the biggest increase in oil purchased from Iraq, came during the Clinton years. I can only assume that is when the Oil-for-Food program started. Unless you know differently.

In 2002 our exports from Iraq dipped. I don't know why. There may have been less availability, or, ...

... That was the year, however, that Saddam's plans to pipeline oil to China became public knowledge. He couldn't change trading partners until the sanctions preventing him from doing so had expired. The volume of oil he wanted to export to China was also made known ... and it was clear he would have to rob Peter to pay Paul, as he obviously wan't going to conjure that much additional oil out of his ground.

When the obvious diversion reality was divulged as being at the expense of the West, we, and our allies, who had become dependent on Iraqi crude, protested ... to which Saddam replied, in effect, that "when the sanctions expire, you can't stop me!".

Since all other sources of light sweet crude were already claimed, and since the loss of Iraqi crude would cause a crippling spiral recession-depression, not only in America but throughout the Western industrialized world, we invaded to steal Iraq's oil distribution rights to prevent the recession-depression.

If you recall, once our invasion of Iraq began, Saddam started sabotaging his oil procurement machinery ... and exports of Iraqi crude dropped to all Western customers.

When we'd eventually repair the machinery, oil would start flowing ... only to be stopped again during the next wave of sabotage ... etc. Thus, though our receipt of Iraqi crude dropped a bit because of these continued acts of sabotage, sustained by Al Qaeda et al who entered Iraq after we invaded, we continued to receive Iraqi crude at a rate much higher than ever before prior to 1996, with the exception of our rising pre-Gulf War consumption brought to a screeching halt by Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and subsequent penalties on Iraq.

The bottom line is that we had reached a point of no return dependency on Iraq for oil imports by 2002, when Saddam then let us know on no uncertain terms that we would shortly lose his oil.

However this still doesn't support the conspiracy theory, since we were getting tons of oil, in fact the largest recorded shipments of oil, prior to the war. So it doesn't make sense.

There is no "conspiracy theory".

No secret "conspiring" took place.

Though Saddam's deal with China and Russia, brokered by the French, to send oil to China, China to send cheap goods to Russia, and Russia to send arms to Iraq, all orchestrated by the thereby "despised" French in exchange for a secure oil supply, was made public, that was the closest thing prior to its revelation to a conspiracy somewhat relevant to the matter.

Supply and demand is open and obvious -- there's nothing conspiratorial about it.

Indeed, high school economics kids grasp the obvious nature of oil dependency, planned diversion (remember this was in all the media back then), and the repercussions to an oil-dependent nation such as the U.S.

It was obvious why we invaded: to steal Iraq's oil distribution rights.

There was nothing secret and conspiratorial about our obvious reason for invading Iraq.

That Bush and the gang lied to everyone but the Senate Security Council on the matter, knowing that invading and slaughtering predictably hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children in a heist would be met with global denouncement, reprimand and maybe even U.N. military action against the U.S., is a phenomenal act.

That he actually got away with the invasion via lies, faked CIA reports, etc., etc., is a phenomenon of power, nuclear, economic, power, that allows obvious liars to lie and those who listen to the lies to be either duped or forced, via relative powerlessness, to pretend to believe the liar.

If you want to call Bush's lies a "conspiracy", go ahead, if it helps your denial.

But when someone is obviously lying, as Bush was eventually proven to have done, when those lies are obvious lies from the beginning, it's hard to label something so blatantly obvious a "conspiracy".

But if that helps you get your mind around the truth of what Bush did, then knock yourself out.

 

[Chip]

You do not understand what a commodities market is. That's ok, most don't.

In a commodities market, vast amounts of raw goods, change hands very quickly, and in a short amount of time. There are three groups of people for nearly every market. The Buyer, the Seller, and the Trader. Commodities Traders can be from any country, but has little effect on where the commodity goes.

For example, a commodity Trader from Burma purchases one tanker from Brazil, filled with oil, roughly 2.2 Million barrels of oil. Now once that ship leaves the dock, what control does Brazil have over that commodities Trader in Burma? Zero. Then the Trader sells the oil to the US or whomever.

This is what happened in the 70s during the Arab Oil Embargo. Although the Arab countries refused to sell their oil to US Traders, the Trades they did sell them too, simply sold it here anyway. If they sold it to Germany, and the Germany Trader sold it here, it didn't make a difference.

Similarly, the contracts to Chinese commodity traders, will not even show up on the oil radar. The Chinese traders will sell it on the open market, just like all the other Traders. We will purchase it through them, or through who they sell it too.

Erroneous, irrelevant diversion, inapplicable to the matter at hand.

The truth remains that China needed oil.

The truth remains that Saddam wanted to divert Western oil to China to supply that lucrative need.

The truth remains that Saddam was none too happy with Westerners stemming from the Gulf War.

The truth remains that supplies of light sweet crude had peaked and demand had risen competitively beyond.

The truth remains that it doesn't matter how straightforward or indirect the process a country goes through to receive crude -- what matters is whether they can get their hands on it or not.

The truth remains that in high demand and short supply -- a short supply that would have been made worse by diversion of Western Iraqi crude to China -- prices on the commodities market for oil would have skyrocketed out of control, and to the degree where retail sales would have drastically dropped as U.S. commerce could not afford to sustain markets at such high petroleum costs.

The truth remains that with the loss of Iraqi crude, the cost of crude would have risen above our ability to purchase and use it.

That's what's important: the relevant truth.

Your diversionary irrelevant "lesson" on the supposed mechanics of procurement is meaningless ... except as a coping mechanism to maintain your denial.

Funny how I used YOUR logic, and you correctly identified it as being "erroneous, meaningless, nonsensical, reply indicates incomprehension".

Erroneous, incomprehensible, continued compounded rhetoric.

YOU are the one who claimed that Bush attacked Iraq in order to prevent the U.S. going through an economic downturn, and China from getting oil contracts.

True ... and I'm not the only one, the truth of the matter being what it is.

And your point?

Yet that is exactly what happened. So in your view, Bush must have changed his mind and decided that we needed and economic downturn and China to get oil contracts. But like you said, that doesn't make sense. Why? Because your whole stupid theory doesn't make sense.

Irrelevant, meaningless, based on misconstruence probably purposeful.

But I just proved conclusively, we didn't steal his oil distribution rights. Opps.

False.

You "proved" nothing.

You merely conjured up and concocted an obviously falacious theory to support your idealization based denial of Bush's obvious murderous theivery of Iraq's oil distribution rights.

The truth of the murderous theivery, covered simply by Bush and the gang's lies, has been revealed to the world's disbelievers via the uncovering of the facts that debunk Bush's lies throughout the years since 2002.

It's all a done deal, Andy -- only paradigmic dualistic Republican diehards still "refuse" to see the truth of the matter of the murderous oil distribution rights heist.

But I just showed the figures that prove we are not "receiving our pre-invasion share". We got more oil prior to the war, than after.

Erroneous, irrelevant.

As you most probably knew, the sabatoge of oil machinery, which begun even before we set foot in Iraq, caused a significant drop in supply to everyone.

You knew that, I'm sure.

Yet you purposely withhold the facts of the significant up and down sabatoge and repair, repeat, repeat, repeat, process that caused the sum of exports of crude from Iraq to drop as a result.

You purposely withhold an obvious reality that's been all over the news in the past six years.

Why?

Simply to make a cheap and flimsy point that falls the moment the truth of the sabatoge cycle is presented?

Well, I guess you took lessons from your guru GWB himself: just lie in the face of obvious reality to the contrary ... you'll perhaps get away with it.

Not this time, though.

Just like your whole theory. It doesn't fit the facts. It doesn't make sense. It isn't logical. Moving on...

Erroneous. Projection.

Indeed, your projection here, born of psychological denial of the truth of GWB's murderous thievery of Iraq's oil distribution rights, is "your whole theory" spun as it is, that "doesn't fit the facts" as they truly are. Your projection "isn't logical". It never wholly is.

You will not be moving on.

 

[Bunz]

What??? You joke... What evidence do you have of this?

9th paragraph from your source.

The Iraqis claimed that the reason they canceled the deal was because the contract talks to work out the details had taken too long, to complete the work required in the one year time frame given.

The same paragraph mentions that the US asked for the delay until thier hydrocarbon laws can be figured out.

Earlier this summer, a group of Democratic senators led by Charles E. Schumer of New York had appealed to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to block the deals, contending that they could undermine the efforts of Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites to reach agreement on a hydrocarbon law and a revenue-sharing agreement. This criticism was conveyed to Mr. Shahristani by the American Embassy in Baghdad in late June, and after that the deals were delayed.

That said, they signed a deal with China!!

Yeah they did, China is paying for the war anyways.

Now let me get this straight... our main purpose was oil, and their government is our puppet, so they sign a deal with arguably our enemy China, and sold their oil contracts to Chinese oil companies, instead of our own. We're getting zero oil, and they are signing deals with opposing nations... Now what am I missing here?

The zero oil issue is has been dealt with.

While we are on the issue though, there is no question that the American people were entirely misled about the cost of this war. Pentagon and White House officials said the cost would be about $100billion.
I think Wolfowitz made it clear here as well what the burden would be to the US tax payers.

"We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." – Wolfowitz, March 28, 2003.

 

[Andy]

Here is another chart from the same site, depicting a larger history:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mcrimiz2a.htm
There are times since 1973 where we received no oil directly from Iraq and times where our imports from Iraq suddenly spiked.

The reasons for the variety of import quantities is certainly unclear from this data. We may have received indirect supply when the figures are down, or we may have purchased more from other countries those years, with Iraq selling to a different mix of nations.

Yeah, almost like we're purchasing oil on a world commodities market, where sometimes they have the best price, and sometimes they don't. Oh wait, we are purchasing oil on a world commodities market, and sometimes Iraq has the best prices, and sometimes they don't.

What is clear, however, is that our dependence on directly received barrels of Iraqi crude coincides with the emergence of China as a world-player in manufactured exports.

We are not "dependent". The amount of oil purchased from Iraq is less than 500 Thousand barrels a day. We use 20.7 Million a day. That's only 2.5% of our oil usage at best. Plus we purchase so much oil form dozens of other countries, it would be nothing for other countries to pick up the slack of oil sales.

Logically, as China has become more a of buyer of oil, the increased demand has raised prices. As prices rise, it is more economical to purchase oil from the middle east in general, which accounts for higher purchasing from there.

That's all this is. Pure and simple basic economics at work. No shady deals, no hidden agenda, no conspiracy theories.

When the obvious diversion reality was divulged as being at the expense of the West, we, and our allies, who had become dependent on Iraqi crude, protested ... to which Saddam replied, in effect, that "when the sanctions expire, you can't stop me!".

Since all other sources of light sweet crude were already claimed, and since the loss of Iraqi crude would cause a crippling spiral recession-depression, not only in America but throughout the Western industrialized world, we invaded to steal Iraq's oil distribution rights to prevent the recession-depression.

But once again, you missed the fact we never got Iraq's oil distribution rights. We never got it. If that was the goal, we would have the Iraqi oil fields as we speak, and this whole thing would a obvious point. But we didn't. It didn't happen. What you claim, did not occur.

If you recall, once our invasion of Iraq began, Saddam started sabotaging his oil procurement machinery ... and exports of Iraqi crude dropped to all Western customers.

Saddam was a mad man. He did the same thing in every situation he's ever been in.

The bottom line is that we had reached a point of no return dependency on Iraq for oil imports by 2002, when Saddam then let us know on no uncertain terms that we would shortly lose his oil.

But we intended to deal with Iraq prior to that. In fact, all the way back in 1998, we planned to deal with Iraq. So how does that fit into your calculations?

It was obvious why we invaded: to steal Iraq's oil distribution rights.

But we didn't.

That Bush and the gang lied to everyone but the Senate Security Council on the matter, knowing that invading and slaughtering predictably hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children in a heist would be met with global denouncement, reprimand and maybe even U.N. military action against the U.S., is a phenomenal act.

Actually the Rockefeller report proved conclusively that Bush did not lie about anything.

The difference is I have documented evidence on my side... you have conspiracy theories.

 

[Andy]

9th paragraph from your source.

The 9th paragraph of that article refers to a move by democrat (shocking) Senators from back in June of 08. Further, the administration said that domestic Iraq contracts were an Iraqi affair, and that they would not intervene either way. In other words, they didn't apply pressure on Iraq, for or against, the contracts.

The same paragraph mentions that the US asked for the delay until thier hydrocarbon laws can be figured out.

Which tends to suggest that maybe BigOil isn't controlling the whole thing, and the conspiracy theories are bunk.

Yeah they did, China is paying for the war anyways.

Which still proves my point.

The zero oil issue is has been dealt with.

Granted. However the theory we went there for oil, when we were *purchasing* it before, and we're *purchasing* it now, means nothing has changed, defeating any purpose for going. So maybe oil wasn't the motivator? Maybe all the intelligence data that the Rockefeller proved existed, was in fact the prime reason for going?

While we are on the issue though, there is no question that the American people were entirely misled about the cost of this war. Pentagon and White House officials said the cost would be about $100billion.
I think Wolfowitz made it clear here as well what the burden would be to the US tax payers.

Yeah and the sun rises in the west. You are shocked that government underestimates costs? You think this is new? Have you ever heard of Medicare? Or Social Security? Or any of the billion of other programs that have all been horribly underestimated on cost?

Every administration in every generation of our government has horribly under estimated the cost of anything that government does.

Of course once again, if you want to talk about a burden on the tax payers, Obama is doing far worse in one single year than Iraq over the past 5 years.

From the Government Accountability Office, from 2003 to 2008, the DOD has recieved $808 Billion dollars for the Global War on Terror. This includes clandestine action, Iraq, and Afghanistan, plus other operations in support of anti-terror actions.

Keep in mind that during that time frame, our federal government received $13,313.4 Billion dollars.

The entire GWoT budget, is merely 6% of the total collected taxes.

Meanwhile, Obama's current Stimulus is going to spend $787 Billion (and they will over spend that much for sure. They always do) in one single year. The estimated tax revenue for '09 is $2,700 Billion. That one single bill, is 30% of the entire countries budget.

Now which do you suppose will be a bigger burden on the tax payers? You get one guess.

"We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." – Wolfowitz, March 28, 2003.

I can't remember where I saw this, which is why I haven't said it yet... but somewhere I read that Iraq has spent $4 for every $1 dollar we've spent. I wish I could find that.

 

[Bunz]

The 9th paragraph of that article refers to a move by democrat (shocking) Senators from back in June of 08. Further, the administration said that domestic Iraq contracts were an Iraqi affair, and that they would not intervene either way. In other words, they didn't apply pressure on Iraq, for or against, the contracts.

Hmmm, let me paste it, and make bold the area I think you might want to re-read.

Earlier this summer, a group of Democratic senators led by Charles E. Schumer of New York had appealed to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to block the deals, contending that they could undermine the efforts of Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites to reach agreement on a hydrocarbon law and a revenue-sharing agreement. This criticism was conveyed to Mr. Shahristani by the American Embassy in Baghdad in late June, and after that the deals were delayed.

Which tends to suggest that maybe BigOil isn't controlling the whole thing, and the conspiracy theories are bunk.

Well I have never said, big oil was controlling the whole thing, but the amount of the strategic petroleum resources under Iraqis soil did play a part.

Granted. However the theory we went there for oil, when we were *purchasing* it before, and we're *purchasing* it now, means nothing has changed, defeating any purpose for going. So maybe oil wasn't the motivator? Maybe all the intelligence data that the Rockefeller proved existed, was in fact the prime reason for going?

Have you read the entire report? I dont have time to, but here is what the Senate Intelligence Committe summed it up as follows.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775

Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

Ø Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

Ø Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

Ø Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

Ø The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

Ø The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

Yeah and the sun rises in the west. You are shocked that government underestimates costs? You think this is new? Have you ever heard of Medicare? Or Social Security? Or any of the billion of other programs that have all been horribly underestimated on cost?

Every administration in every generation of our government has horribly under estimated the cost of anything that government does.

Of course once again, if you want to talk about a burden on the tax payers, Obama is doing far worse in one single year than Iraq over the past 5 years.

From the Government Accountability Office, from 2003 to 2008, the DOD has recieved $808 Billion dollars for the Global War on Terror. This includes clandestine action, Iraq, and Afghanistan, plus other operations in support of anti-terror actions.

Keep in mind that during that time frame, our federal government received $13,313.4 Billion dollars.

The entire GWoT budget, is merely 6% of the total collected taxes.

Meanwhile, Obama's current Stimulus is going to spend $787 Billion (and they will over spend that much for sure. They always do) in one single year. The estimated tax revenue for '09 is $2,700 Billion. That one single bill, is 30% of the entire countries budget.

Now which do you suppose will be a bigger burden on the tax payers? You get one guess.

Your right, everyone else overestimates the cost of something. Except the something we are talking about is not providing affordable health care to Americans, but a wasteful and expensive not to mention unnecessary war.
The costs of which arent dont yet by a long shot. Even if we left the country tomorrow, the cost that are necessary to the veterans will continue to rack up in the decades to come.

I can't remember where I saw this, which is why I haven't said it yet... but somewhere I read that Iraq has spent $4 for every $1 dollar we've spent. I wish I could find that.

Yeah, I have been looking for that as well. Please do mention it when you find it, because I have the feeling this is an inaccurate number to say the least. I highly doubt the Iraqis have spent over three trillion bucks.

 

[Andy]

Well I have never said, big oil was controlling the whole thing, but the amount of the strategic petroleum resources under Iraqis soil did play a part.

Then why didn't we GET the oil? I see a difference between buying oil, and getting oil. To me, going and getting oil, means simply laying claim to the oil field, and exporting the oil to the US for free. Or at least demanding tribute of oil to the US for free.

However, that's not whats happening. We bought it from them before, and now we're buying it from this after.

But the conspiracy claim is essentially this...

Say I buy a bottle of soda from you for $1 every day. Now decide to beat you up, for the bottle of soda. So after I beat the tar out of you, and bloody my hand doing so, now I'm going to.... buy the soda from you for $1.50 (because the price went up from before the war). Now does this make sense?

Of course not. Some have said, well it just didn't work out as planned. If it had, we would (blaw blaw blaw). Well the problem is, this is exactly what happened in 1991 with the first war, which they also claimed was about oil. But what happened?

Before, we bought oil from Kuwait. Then we went there (for oil supposedly), kicked out Iraq, liberated Kuwait, and.... then bought oil from Kuwait again, only for more money. (because war always drives up prices)

So apparently neither war got anything they wanted, or perhaps it was never about oil at all.

Have you read the entire report? I dont have time to, but here is what the Senate Intelligence Committe summed it up as follows.

Actually I have. I read this article on the report, and assumed it could be full of BS. So I downloaded the entire report in full, and verified the claims.

'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence."

Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."

Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,"

and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."

Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

I think a main point was to stop Saddam before they had a working relationship, regardless to whether they had one yet. The Rockefeller report merely says that the evidence of connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam was not enough to prove they had a working relationship... yet.

Ø Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

Funny because other reports seem to, perhaps not contradict, but at least validate that possible threat.

The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda. But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups.

The report, titled "Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents," finds that:

• The Iraqi Intelligence Service in a 1993 memo to Saddam agreed on a plan to train commandos from Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the group that assassinated Anwar Sadat and was founded by Al Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Ø The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

He's had bunkers for ages. Not sure if they had WMD facilities underground. But then, this specific report is the first I've ever heard about them.

Ø The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

Other countries confirmed that one.

Your right, everyone else overestimates the cost of something. Except the something we are talking about is not providing affordable health care to Americans, but a wasteful and expensive not to mention unnecessary war.
The costs of which arent dont yet by a long shot. Even if we left the country tomorrow, the cost that are necessary to the veterans will continue to rack up in the decades to come.

This is the type of lame excuses I would expect from Shaman. It's kinda sick that I used to defend you from people who claimed you were a hack job.

Do you realized that the entire Department of Veterans Affairs Budget for 2007 is only $35.6 Billion dollars? That includes Health care, outpatient, Acute Hospital care and even Psychiatric.

Yeah, I have been looking for that as well. Please do mention it when you find it, because I have the feeling this is an inaccurate number to say the least. I highly doubt the Iraqis have spent over three trillion bucks.

No, what are you talking about? We have not spent nearly that much.

Even for the 2009 budget, we're only spending about $0.9 Billion on Iraq construction. Assuming that we have spent that much every year since 2004 (I assume construction really didn't get going the very first year of the war), then at most we have spent $5.4 Billion on construction. If Iraq has spent 3 times as much, that's only $16.2 Billion. A perfectly believable number given their oil income.

Of course we have not spent 0.9 Billion every year either. I wager much less than that.

 

[Bunz]

Then why didn't we GET the oil? I see a difference between buying oil, and getting oil. To me, going and getting oil, means simply laying claim to the oil field, and exporting the oil to the US for free. Or at least demanding tribute of oil to the US for free.

We did get the oil, and will continue to, Invading Iraq ensured that the government of Iraq is favorable to the US and will continue to sell us vast amounts of oil, and it adds another ally that is a member of OPEC, which gives the US further influence on the supply side of the oil cartel.

However, that's not whats happening. We bought it from them before, and now we're buying it from this after.

But the conspiracy claim is essentially this.

Say I buy a bottle of soda from you for $1 every day. Now decide to beat you up, for the bottle of soda. So after I beat the tar out of you, and bloody my hand doing so, now I'm going to.... buy the soda from you for $1.50 (because the price went up from before the war). Now does this make sense?
Of course not. Some have said, well it just didn't work out as planned. If it had, we would (blaw blaw blaw). Well the problem is, this is exactly what happened in 1991 with the first war, which they also claimed was about oil. But what happened?
Before, we bought oil from Kuwait. Then we went there (for oil supposedly), kicked out Iraq, liberated Kuwait, and.... then bought oil from Kuwait again, only for more money. (because war always drives up prices)

Andy, this is directed at the most ardent of the consipracy theorists, the same folks who said 9-11 was an inside job. You arent debating them here. But the fact of the matter is that if we took the oil equation out of the situation in Iraq, it would have never happened.

So apparently neither war got anything they wanted, or perhaps it was never about oil at all.
Actually I have. I read this article on the report, and assumed it could be full of BS. So I downloaded the entire report in full, and verified the claims.

'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.

I did read this article before, and I think this article towards the end was quite telling.

But the phony "Bush lied" story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.

The intel failed.

I think a main point was to stop Saddam before they had a working relationship, regardless to whether they had one yet. The Rockefeller report merely says that the evidence of connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam was not enough to prove they had a working relationship... yet.

Oh Geez, as I said before, if we were to engage in offensive warfare with a country that might develop ties to one fringe organization or another and we would be fighting every country on earth.

He's had bunkers for ages. Not sure if they had WMD facilities underground. But then, this specific report is the first I've ever heard about them.
Other countries confirmed that one.

Dont kill the messenger here, I was only posting what the Senate Select Intelligence Committee reported directly from thier own website.

This is the type of lame excuses I would expect from Shaman. It's kinda sick that I used to defend you from people who claimed you were a hack job.

Now this is hillarious. I mean I literally slapped my knee reading this. Andy, you dont need to defend me in any way shape or form. Defend me from whom? I ask this but I doubt you will answer. Either way, thanks for the entertaining blip right there. I can handle myself you need not concern yourself with trying to defend me.

Do you realized that the entire Department of Veterans Affairs Budget for 2007 is only $35.6 Billion dollars? That includes Health care, outpatient, Acute Hospital care and even Psychiatric.

I am aware of that, I am also aware that it has probably been under funded for decades now, but this number is only going to increase. The Vietnam vets are getting older and the latest crop of OIF and OEF veterans are going to put a further strain on the system without more funding.

No, what are you talking about? We have not spent nearly that much.

Even for the 2009 budget, we're only spending about $0.9 Billion on Iraq construction. Assuming that we have spent that much every year since 2004 (I assume construction really didn't get going the very first year of the war), then at most we have spent $5.4 Billion on construction. If Iraq has spent 3 times as much, that's only $16.2 Billion. A perfectly believable number given their oil income.

Of course we have not spent 0.9 Billion every year either. I wager much less than that.

I do stand incorrect in this regard. When I originally replied, you had mentioned that Iraq had spent 4to1, I was referencing the roughly 800billion the US had spent to this point. I thought you were referring to this number.

In regards to the several billion we have spent to date, with no end in sight, I will point out that the cost is doing nothing but increasing and the return is often questionable, but more importantly it takes away from projects in America that are necessary for our own economy and infastructure. While you might minimize the dollars spent in reference to the overall US budget, the tables can easily be turned on many other things.

 

[Andy]

We did get the oil, and will continue to, Invading Iraq ensured that the government of Iraq is favorable to the US and will continue to sell us vast amounts of oil, and it adds another ally that is a member of OPEC, which gives the US further influence on the supply side of the oil cartel.

We are buying it on the world commodities market, as we always have in the past. And we're doing so at a higher price than before. This makes no logical sense.

Andy, this is directed at the most ardent of the consipracy theorists, the same folks who said 9-11 was an inside job. You arent debating them here. But the fact of the matter is that if we took the oil equation out of the situation in Iraq, it would have never happened.

Prove that.

The intel failed.

Great. Then it wasn't Bush's fault now was it?

Oh Geez, as I said before, if we were to engage in offensive warfare with a country that might develop ties to one fringe organization or another and we would be fighting every country on earth.

Yeah, we have CIA information right now that indicated Russia is trying to establish a working relationship with terrorist organizations?

Now this is hillarious. I mean I literally slapped my knee reading this. Andy, you dont need to defend me in any way shape or form. Defend me from whom? I ask this but I doubt you will answer. Either way, thanks for the entertaining blip right there. I can handle myself you need not concern yourself with trying to defend me.

I'm only going to say that I have. I would not betray those whom I had a private conversation with. Fear not though, I won't be defending you to anyone else for a long time.

I am aware of that, I am also aware that it has probably been under funded for decades now, but this number is only going to increase. The Vietnam vets are getting older and the latest crop of OIF and OEF veterans are going to put a further strain on the system without more funding.

What? You are still trying to defend this unsupportable theory that war vets are going to kill our budget?

If $787 billion stimulus is 30% of our budget.... and thats supposedly doable
and $808 Billion GWOT over 6 years is 6% of our budget, and thats doable
Then we can surely double our VA budget to $80 Billion, which is about 2.5% of our yearly budget.

It's just amazing how you can twist and spin in the wind, to support one massive pork over spending, and then attack a tiny fly on the wall. Let's blow 30% of our budget for a political pay off scheme, and then attack this tiny 2.5% of the budget because of the war? That is partisan hack tactics.

I do stand incorrect in this regard. When I originally replied, you had mentioned that Iraq had spent 4to1, I was referencing the roughly 800billion the US had spent to this point. I thought you were referring to this number.

Ah... but 800 Billion isn't just Iraq either. That's the entire war or terrorism. Don't tell me your against the billions we spent in Afghanistan too? Funny, Obama just sent tens of thousands of troops there. Are you against Obama policy as well?

For the Record, only $500 Billion has been spent on Iraq the entire 6 years. (just a reminder: Obama just signed away $787 Billion in just this year, and it's only Feburary)

In regards to the several billion we have spent to date, with no end in sight, I will point out that the cost is doing nothing but increasing and the return is often questionable, but more importantly it takes away from projects in America that are necessary for our own economy and infastructure. While you might minimize the dollars spent in reference to the overall US budget, the tables can easily be turned on many other things.

Well you and I already disagree on "infrastructure necessary for our own economy". The Soviet union was well know for it's massive infrastructure building projects. That didn't stop them from having one of the most poor nations on earth. Cuba started with a very well developed nation, and now lives in utter poverty. The list of countries that started out far advanced with well built infrastructure, and ended in poverty after government programs, is a mile long.

China being a prime example. Many don't realize that just a hundred or more years ago, China lead the entire world economically. Then after adopting communism, the country sank into one of the most poverty stricken countries on Earth, where 66% of the population lived under the poverty line of $42/month. But hey! They had great infrastructure! They had government supported jobs! They had free health care!

Poverty everywhere.

Now here you are in the US... and what's your big claim? We need government funded infrastructure! The path to hell is paved with good intentions... although normally ignorant intentions.