"Why We Did It" by Rachel Maddow

[PainIsLIfe]

Neither the US, nor US oil companies ended up with rights to those oil fields or contracts in them.

Gas was $1.55 in my area before the invasion, it hasn't been below $3.00 since.

 

[Happy Boy]

Neither the US, nor US oil companies ended up with rights to those oil fields or contracts in them.

Gas was $1.55 in my area before the invasion, it hasn't been below $3.00 since.

I don't think you are getting the point. That's a far too simplistic an analysis.

Put it this way, had the invasion not taken place, and Saddam Hussein had maintained his gamesmanship over supply and the Hormuz issue, gas prices could have caused a serious global meltdown. He controlled 10% of the global oil supply, at any point he could hold a gun to the head of the global economy, so if we want to talk in hypothetical, had it not taken place we could have been paying $100 per gallon (exaggerated to make the point).

Do you see what I am getting at? It wasn't done to win contracts and physcially capture the oil fields, it was to make sure supply of oil from Iraq stayed high or increased to avoid supply problems which were shocking the global economy, done under the guise of freedom and liberation. This has been verified by people in the Bush administration at the time.

I really think it would make more sense if you spent just 15 minutes to watch the opening section of the video.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

I don't think you are getting the point. That's a far too simplistic an analysis.

Put it this way, had the invasion not taken place, and Saddam Hussein had maintained his gamesmanship over supply and the Hormuz issue, gas prices could have caused a serious global meltdown. He controlled 10% of the global oil supply, at any point he could hold a gun to the head of the global economy, so if we want to talk in hypothetical, had it not taken place we could have been paying $100 per gallon (exaggerated to make the point).

Do you see what I am getting at? It wasn't done to win contracts and physcially capture the oil fields, it was to make sure supply of oil from Iraq stayed high or increased to avoid supply problems which were shocking the global economy, done under the guise of freedom and liberation. This has been verified by people in the Bush administration at the time.

I really think it would make more sense if you spent just 15 minutes to watch the opening section of the video.

I've seen it before - statements out of context and extrapolated to fit her own narrative.

Frankly, Maddow has blatantly lied; and been caught, too many times for me to take what she says at face value.

 

[Gregster]

He controlled 10% of the global oil supply, at any point he could hold a gun to the head of the global economy, so if we want to talk in hypothetical, had it not taken place we could have been paying $100 per gallon (exaggerated to make the point).

Do you see what I am getting at? It wasn't done to win contracts and physcially capture the oil fields, it was to make sure supply of oil from Iraq stayed high or increased to avoid supply problems which were shocking the global economy

So...am I to understand that Saddam Hussein-- one of the most sadistic, vicious, homicidal/genocidal, tyrannical, self-serving, egomaniacal bastards to act as a country's head of state in contemporary history-- had it within his power to use his strategic oil reserves as leverage to wreak havoc on the world economy (and by implication any/all countries in it) any time he wanted?

Yet, he didn't. Not as a means to motivate the UN to lift sanctions and/or stop sending weapons... [CONT'D]

 

[JuliaB4GSP]

I don't think you are getting the point. That's a far too simplistic an analysis.

Put it this way, had the invasion not taken place, and Saddam Hussein had maintained his gamesmanship over supply and the Hormuz issue, gas prices could have caused a serious global meltdown. He controlled 10% of the global oil supply, at any point he could hold a gun to the head of the global economy, so if we want to talk in hypothetical, had it not taken place we could have been paying $100 per gallon (exaggerated to make the point).

Do you see what I am getting at? It wasn't done to win contracts and physcially capture the oil fields, it was to make sure supply of oil from Iraq stayed high or increased to avoid supply problems which were shocking the global economy, done under the guise of freedom and liberation. This has been verified by people in the Bush administration at the time.

I really think it would make more sense if you spent just 15 minutes to watch the opening section of the video.

US received more oil from Iraq and Iraq contributed more to the world oil supply before the 2003 invasion. The invasion hampered Iraqi oil output big time and is likely a major reason for the crude spike in 2008. The anticipated oil infusion during the occupation never came to pass and we're still feeling the effects on supply and it's directly related to our invasion/occupation. We caused the oil supply problems in Iraq. Saddam needed the money and needed to pump oil to keep his head above water. Someone bombed the country and caused a decade of disorder.

 

[Gregster]

[CONT'D] ,..inspection snoops to crawl up his bunghole looking for hidden stocks of bugs and gas? Because having a joint UK/US aerial cordon over 1/4 to 1/3 of his sovereign airspace didn't cramp his style? Because playing that card to disincline Bush and Blair of the notion of invading his country and deposing him seemed a bit much, as it were?

As for the crucial necessity of keeping Iraqi oil flowing freely: Iraq's apparatus of oil production was a wreck well before either Dubya assumed office, or 9/11 took place.

During the Iran/Iraq War, both sides hammered the other's capacity to produce oil in the hope that economic ruin would bring about victory if brute nilitary force didn't. I don't think Desert Storm helped much, nor did UN sanctions that included quotas which strictly curtailed how much oil he could export and/or obliged him to accept food as payment.

Moreover: after Saddam took power in Iraq, he nationalized the Iraqi oil industry.... [CONT'D]

 

[Gregster]

[CONT'D]...a move which was eventually attended by the same happy results that usually come about from such schemes.

I guess my point-- if you've managed to not go face-first into your keyboard by now-- is that Iraq's oil production was thoroughly pinched without Saddam deciding to do so for some reason or other. And I think you're blowing Saddam's ability to have influenced global oil markets *WAY* outta proportion.

At any rate: if Saddam decided to royally fuck the global economy as you describe...do you think the world would just bend over and grab its ankles?

 

[shera]

Who benefits the most from the wars? Companies who, surprise surprise, also happen to be the ones financing the president, members in the house of representatives and the senate.

This isn't even a secret and the information is available on many govt sites as well. These companies include Boeing, L-3 Communications, Raytheon, Bechtel, Aerojet, Alliant Techsystems, Northrup Grumman, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics (whos markings appear on bombs found throughout the ME. Hit pause when you watch Dirty Wars and UK media pics of chemical bombs used in Palestine. There's many more.

 

[Palooka]

I don't think you are getting the point. That's a far too simplistic an analysis.

Put it this way, had the invasion not taken place, and Saddam Hussein had maintained his gamesmanship over supply and the Hormuz issue, gas prices could have caused a serious global meltdown. He controlled 10% of the global oil supply, at any point he could hold a gun to the head of the global economy, so if we want to talk in hypothetical, had it not taken place we could have been paying $100 per gallon (exaggerated to make the point).

Do you see what I am getting at? It wasn't done to win contracts and physcially capture the oil fields, it was to make sure supply of oil from Iraq stayed high or increased to avoid supply problems which were shocking the global economy, done under the guise of freedom and liberation. This has been verified by people in the Bush administration at the time.

I really think it would make more sense if you spent just 15 minutes to watch the opening section of the video.

Mothafuck do you believe that shit ? seriously?

 

[Gregster]

I can't help but wonder: how many of those constantly harping on how Iraq was "all about oil" because any/all projection of political and/or military in the region is "all about oil" are aware that oil comes from a hell of a lot more places than the Middle East? Africa, the North Sea, Latin America, even North America. America's chief suppliers of oil in recent years (15+ or so) have been Mexico and Canada. Like any other good or resource in demand-- coal, oil, timber, precious metals, even coke or heroin-- if one source becomes unreliable, others gladly pick up the slack.

And it's not as if any Mid East countries-- or all of OPEC-- haven't tried using oil to bend the US politically and strategically; those of us old enough to remember gas-rationing should know that.

Did we invade the Mid East, kick ass, and plant our flag on their oil fields? No...we carpooled, took the bus, and started driving fuel-efficient Japanese 4-bangers. OPEC got fucked, gas got cheap again.

 

[Gregster]

As for Maddow's documentary: the smell of bullshit is overpowering.


Which sure is surprising, considering the Fox News-like attention to balance of MSNBC's commentators.

For fucks' sake, Maddow has tried laying culpability for the Russia/Ukraine/Crimea mess on Bush...five years after the man's left office.

There's "liberal bias," then there's "ridiculously liberal bias," then there's "you-gotta-be-friggin'-kidding liberal bias," then there's Rachel Maddow. Why anyone would expect Little Miss Smug-Fest to produce anything remotely fair and level-headed about US involvement in Iraq is beyond me.

 

[drowningidiot]

I doubt there was any real long term thinking involved. It seems a bit silly trying to reduce it down to a single factor like oil and petro dollars. More than anything else it was an excuse to shovel money at defense contractors. A few of the idiots in charge might actually believed the WMD shit though probably not too many. Top it off with a little post-9/11 bloodlust cuz we couldn't get our fill of dead Muslims in Afghanistan.

 

[PEB]

A fitting post. Carter's presidency would have been better had he not had the misfortune of the energy crisis.

I think his presidency would have been better without the Iranians holding hostages? At the time when President Carter wanted to change US direction on energy research. The solar panels where more a symbol of the direction that President Carter wanted to take the Country. President Carter found out the hard way that he had less control over energy production and events over the world.

EDIT:On a side note has anyone ever questioned why we where selling weapons to Iran after they held US citizens hostage?

 

[PEB]

As for Maddow's documentary: the smell of bullshit is overpowering.


Which sure is surprising, considering the Fox News-like attention to balance of MSNBC's commentators.

For fucks' sake, Maddow has tried laying culpability for the Russia/Ukraine/Crimea mess on Bush...five years after the man's left office.

There's "liberal bias," then there's "ridiculously liberal bias," then there's "you-gotta-be-friggin'-kidding liberal bias," then there's Rachel Maddow. Why anyone would expect Little Miss Smug-Fest to produce anything remotely fair and level-headed about US involvement in Iraq is beyond me.

Please tell me what was levelheaded about why we went to war in Iraq again? All news media is full of BSers some bigger then others. That being said reaching past the BS there is a lot of reasons to believe US race to Iraq was more then just WMDs.

 

[PEB]

I doubt there was any real long term thinking involved. It seems a bit silly trying to reduce it down to a single factor like oil and petro dollars. More than anything else it was an excuse to shovel money at defense contractors. A few of the idiots in charge might actually believed the WMD shit though probably not too many. Top it off with a little post-9/11 bloodlust cuz we couldn't get our fill of dead Muslims in Afghanistan.

I don't think it was as much about Muslims as it was connecting it to patriotism. President Bush and Cheney knew that making this almost a holy war that they could push the most dramatic change in rights and the direction of Government in history. They reshaped the Country to the benefit of the defense contractors and oil industries. So different is this structure today there is little that anyone can do to change this anytime soon. The last time such an act of this scope happened lead the US to fighting in Japan. To this day there are questions of what President Franklin D. Roosevelt knew before Japan's attack of Pearl Harbor. People well know of the influence such acts have on the emotions of the American people.

 

[Gregster]

Please tell me what was levelheaded about why we went to war in Iraq again?

Whether or not OIF and our policies in Iraq that followed were a great idea or a crime against humanity doesn't vindicate sloppy and editorially slanted reportage about it.

All news media is full of BSers some bigger then others. That being said reaching past the BS there is a lot of reasons to believe US race to Iraq was more then just WMDs.

About a week ago, I happened to rewatch a documentary movie in my DVD collection called "War Room" about reportage during the Iraq invasion, to include the period right before it. The prevailing focus is on US miliary Public Affairs liasion officers and assorted producers, editors, and flaks working for Al Jazeera.

I can't recall when I saw it last, but time and hindsight made it seem quite telling at times. One of the PA officers-- a young Marine Lieutenant-- looks to have a terminal case of "Deer In Headlights Syndrome." [CONT'D]

 

[Gregster]

[CONT'D]

One Al Jazeera reporter (who was so fat he looked like a parade float) alternates throughout the movie from expressing his unshakeable faith in the basic decency and humanity of the American public and his disdain for the general anti-Semitic tone of the Arab-language media ("A damned water main in the middle of Damascus breaks, and we blame Israel!") to his profound disgust with US foreign policy and the federal governments' rhetoric ("We know you are huge, we know you can crush everyone...do we have to *like* it as well?!").

One Al Jazeera producer reacts to prodding about Al Jazeera's supposed anti-US slant by confiding that if the money was right, he'd pack his shit, take the kids, move to the US, and work for Fox News in a heartbeat.

Anyway: with all this time and hindsight, a lot of stuff looks different. I freely admit seeing stuff I used to firmly agree now made me say "Gimme a fuckin' break" out loud.

Does it mean I now support notions about the war that...
[CONT'D]

 

[Gregster]

[CONT'D] ...that were facile and had little merit at the start and completely debunked by history and events since? No.

Am I aware that mass media is positively rife with tepid lies and partisan prevarication? Of course; I was hoping my comparison of MSNBC and Fox would convey that. I think the constant moaning about how the entire media is "conservative-dominated" or "liberal-biased" (with the obvious exception of the ones who usually say stuff I agree with) is crap.