How to sell a WAR about OIL without actually mentioning

[ou812]

Inquisitive Citizen (IC): Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?

Warmonger (WM): We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of Security Council Resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate Security Council resolutions.

IC: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more Security Council resolutions than Iraq.

WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.

IC: Mushroom c loud? But I thought the UN weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.

WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.

IC: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.

WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.

IC: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?

WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry, lunatic murderer.

IC: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry, lunatic murderer?

WM: The issue is not what we sold to Saddam, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.

IC: What about our green-light to the invasion of Kuwait?

WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Quaida. Osama bin Laden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two.

IC: Osama bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?

WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we attack immediately.

IC: Is this the same audio tape where Osama bin Laden calls Saddam a "secular infidel"?

WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.

IC: He did?

WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Quaeda poison factory in Iraq.

IC: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?

WM: And a British intelligence report...

IC: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?

WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...

IC: Weren't those just artistic renderings?

WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...

IC: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the UN's Chief Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix?

WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.

IC: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point.

IC: So what is the point?

WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the Security Council will become an irrelevant debating society.

IC: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the Security Council?

WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us. Of course!

IC: And what if it does rule against us?

WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.

IC: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?

WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, and Spain, for starters.

IC: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.

WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

IC: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.

WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.

IC: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?

WM: Yes.

IC: But doesn't the Constitution say only Congress can declare war?

WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our president, because he's acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.

IC: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?

WM: I never said that.

IC: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.

IC: But the UN inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.

WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

IC: You know this? How?

WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.

IC: The weapons we sold them, you mean?

WM: Precisely.

IC: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.

WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.

IC: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?

WM: Exactly.

IC: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, & gt; biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.

WM: That's a diplomatic issue.

IC: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?

WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the UN inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.

IC: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.

WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.

IC: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and further decrease our security?

WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.

IC: But every one has admitted there is no evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraq with the 9/11 terrorist attacks? Almost every one of the alleged terrorists were from our "ally" Saudi Arabia, none were from Iraq.

WM: Yes, but this is not just about terrorist attacks. It's about our national security.

IC: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Aren't they supposed to protect us? And don't these change the way we live?

WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.

IC: I do. I'd like to know why are we invading Iraq?

WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.

IC: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, would we have an obligation to listen?

WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.

IC: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?

WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.

IC: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?

WM: Well, I meant the majority of the Security Council.

IC: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?

WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.

IC: In which case?

WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.

IC: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?

WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.

IC: That make s no sense.

WM: Look, if you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with the all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.

IC: I give up!

[weyes]

great! where did you find this?

[kramadas]

Oh man, thats fuckin awesome!!!

[djxeno]

LOL nice.

[pookie23]

[georgeacasta2]

:clap2:

[bigpoppanils]

:laugh: :laugh:

[weyes]

ou812 - from where is the walken quote? my dad wants to know.

and you didn't answer me, either .

[somebitch]

LOL. that is awesome. who wrote it? i feel like the IC every time a pro-war thread appears or someone brings this up in real life.

[normalnoises]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18841-2002Sep14?language=printer

washingtonpost.com

In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue

U.S. Drillers Eye Huge Petroleum Pool

By Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway

Washington Post Staff Writers

Sunday, September 15, 2002; Page A01

A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition.

Although senior Bush administration officials say they have not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, American and foreign oil companies have already begun maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world outside Saudi Arabia.

The importance of Iraq's oil has made it potentially one of the administration's biggest bargaining chips in negotiations to win backing from the U.N. Security Council and Western allies for President Bush's call for tough international action against Hussein. All five permanent members of the Security Council -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- have international oil companies with major stakes in a change of leadership in Baghdad.

"It's pretty straightforward," said former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Hussein from power. "France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them."

But he added: "If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them."

Indeed, the mere prospect of a new Iraqi government has fanned concerns by non-American oil companies that they will be excluded by the United States, which almost certainly would be the dominant foreign power in Iraq in the aftermath of Hussein's fall. Representatives of many foreign oil concerns have been meeting with leaders of the Iraqi opposition to make their case for a future stake and to sound them out about their intentions.

Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, companies from more than a dozen nations, including France, Russia, China, India, Italy, Vietnam and Algeria, have either reached or sought to reach agreements in principle to develop Iraqi oil fields, refurbish existing facilities or explore undeveloped tracts. Most of the deals are on hold until the lifting of U.N. sanctions.

But Iraqi opposition officials made clear in interviews last week that they will not be bound by any of the deals.

"We will review all these agreements, definitely," said Faisal Qaragholi, a petroleum engineer who directs the London office of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella organization of opposition groups that is backed by the United States. "Our oil policies should be decided by a government in Iraq elected by the people."

Ahmed Chalabi, the INC leader, went even further, saying he favored the creation of a U.S.-led consortium to develop Iraq's oil fields, which have deteriorated under more than a decade of sanctions. "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil," Chalabi said.

The INC, however, said it has not taken a formal position on the structure of Iraq's oil industry in event of a change of leadership.

While the Bush administration's campaign against Hussein is presenting vast possibilities for multinational oil giants, it poses major risks and uncertainties for the global oil market, according to industry analysts.

Access to Iraqi oil and profits will depend on the nature and intentions of a new government. Whether Iraq remains a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, for example, or seeks an independent role, free of the OPEC cartel's quotas, will have an impact on oil prices and the flow of investments to competitors such as Russia, Venezuela and Angola.

While Russian oil companies such as Lukoil have a major financial interest in developing Iraqi fields, the low prices that could result from a flood of Iraqi oil into world markets could set back Russian government efforts to attract foreign investment in its untapped domestic fields. That is because low world oil prices could make costly ventures to unlock Siberia's oil treasures far less appealing.

Bush and Vice President Cheney have worked in the oil business and have long-standing ties to the industry. But despite the buzz about the future of Iraqi oil among oil companies, the administration, preoccupied with military planning and making the case about Hussein's potential threat, has yet to take up the issue in a substantive way, according to U.S. officials.

The Future of Iraq Group, a task force set up at the State Department, does not have oil on its list of issues, a department spokesman said last week. An official with the National Security Council declined to say whether oil had been discussed during consultations on Iraq that Bush has had over the past several weeks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Western leaders.

On Friday, a State Department delegation concluded a three-day visit to Moscow in connection with Iraq. In early October, U.S. and Russian officials are to hold an energy summit in Houston, at which more than 100 Russian and American energy companies are expected.

Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) said Bush is keenly aware of Russia's economic interests in Iraq, stemming from a $7 billion to $8 billion debt that Iraq ran up with Moscow before the Gulf War. Weldon, who has cultivated close ties to Putin and Russian parliamentarians, said he believed the Russian leader will support U.S. action in Iraq if he can get private assurances from Bush that Russia "will be made whole" financially.

Officials of the Iraqi National Congress said last week that the INC's Washington director, Entifadh K. Qanbar, met with Russian Embassy officials here last month and urged Moscow to begin a dialogue with opponents of Hussein's government.

But even with such groundwork, the chances of a tidy transition in the oil sector appear highly problematic. Rival ethnic groups in Iraq's north are already squabbling over the the giant Kirkuk oil field, which Arabs, Kurds and minority Turkmen tribesmen are eyeing in the event of Hussein's fall.

Although the volumes have dwindled in recent months, the United States was importing nearly 1 million barrels of Iraqi oil a day at the start of the year. Even so, American oil companies have been banished from direct involvement in Iraq since the late 1980s, when relations soured between Washington and Baghdad.

Hussein in the 1990s turned to non-American companies to repair fields damaged in the Gulf War and Iraq's earlier war against Iran, and to tap undeveloped reserves, but U.S. government studies say the results have been disappointing.

While Russia's Lukoil negotiated a $4 billion deal in 1997 to develop the 15-billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern Iraq, Lukoil had not commenced work because of U.N. sanctions. Iraq has threatened to void the agreement unless work began immediately.

Last October, the Russian oil services company Slavneft reportedly signed a $52 million service contract to drill at the Tuba field, also in southern Iraq. A proposed $40 billion Iraqi-Russian economic agreement also reportedly includes opportunities for Russian companies to explore for oil in Iraq's western desert.

The French company Total Fina Elf has negotiated for rights to develop the huge Majnoon field, near the Iranian border, which may contain up to 30 billion barrels of oil. But in July 2001, Iraq announced it would no longer give French firms priority in the award of such contracts because of its decision to abide by the sanctions.

Officials of several major firms said they were taking care to avoiding playing any role in the debate in Washington over how to proceed on Iraq. "There's no real upside for American oil companies to take a very aggressive stance at this stage. There'll be plenty of time in the future," said James Lucier, an oil analyst with Prudential Securities.

But with the end of sanctions that likely would come with Hussein's ouster, companies such as ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco would almost assuredly play a role, industry officials said. "There's not an oil company out there that wouldn't be interested in Iraq," one analyst said.

Staff writer Ken Bredemeier contributed to this report.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company

[siceone]

To kill your War for Oil Theory...

It would have been 90 billion dollars cheaper to just lift the sanctions and flood the world market. DUH!!!

Take an Economics class

[magellanmax]

Originally posted by siceone

To kill your War for Oil Theory...

It would have been 90 billion dollars cheaper to just lift the sanctions and flood the world market. DUH!!!

Take an Economics class

Ever heard of the OPEC ?

[siceone]

Originally posted by magellanmax

Ever heard of the OPEC ? [/quote

Opec Sets production

Saddam hussien is notorious for producing oil above Opec limits...

He had already been shipping oil to france syria russia and germany out side of the embargo and owed them billions in oil debt which was known all before the war....

if we dropped the embargo the oil would have flowed from Iraq you think he cares about Opec?

you think the rest of Opec would have lowered production cutting thier own revenue?

[magellanmax]

Originally posted by siceone

Originally posted by magellanmax

Ever heard of the OPEC ? [/quote

Opec Sets production

Saddam hussien is notorious for producing oil above Opec limits...

He had already been shipping oil to france syria russia and germany out side of the embargo and owed them billions in oil debt which was known all before the war...

...and I'm sure you've got concrete evidence to support these claims...right?

[siceone]

Originally posted by magellanmax

...and I'm sure you've got concrete evidence to support these claims...right?

IF you want I can find it for you PM me to remind me I gotta look for it all again

[ou812]

Weyes - I saw it on another message board, as to it's origins, I have no idea.

The quote is Christopher Walken in the movie True Romance from the scene when he is interrogating Dennis Hopper, right before he puts a bullet in his head.

[cintron]

Originally posted by ou812

Inquisitive Citizen (IC): Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?

Warmonger (WM): We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of Security Council Resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate Security Council resolutions.

IC: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more Security Council resolutions than Iraq.

WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.

IC: Mushroom c loud? But I thought the UN weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.

WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.

IC: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.

WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.

IC: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?

WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry, lunatic murderer.

IC: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry, lunatic murderer?

WM: The issue is not what we sold to Saddam, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.

IC: What about our green-light to the invasion of Kuwait?

after this point, the article is useless.

1.) It has NOT been proven that Iraq does NOT posess nuclear arms. Only speculated.

2.) Iraq does posesss missiles with ranges greater than allowed by UN specifications. Additionally such missiles can be "stretched" or elongated using larger booster sections to boost range greatly. The risk is not that Iraq will strike the continental United States, but rather that he will strike anything in the gulf region, most likely US interests. Stop sticking your head in the sand.

3.) We sold Dual-Use chemicals, unmixed, to Iraq. We did not send the weaponry to deliver said chemicals, nor the mixing instructions on "how to bake a deadly Sarin cupcake in 5 minutes." Iraq figured that out and used it against Iranians all on their own.

You can buy a gun at Walmart but that doesn't make you a criminal unless you go and shoot someone with it.

4.) No "green-light" was ever given to Saddam to invade Kuwait. To even suggest we allowed him to waltz in, with our approval, is ludicrous and ignorant.

any more "expert" opinons for the oh-so-knowledgeable political and military pundit/sarcasm crowd?

[weyes]

thanks, ou812. i asked again in another post; please disregard !

[lizard23]

This war is not about oil! I cannot believe that people are ignorant enough to have convinced themselves of this. This war is to prevent 9/11 from happening again b/c it is a known fact that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and harbors terrorists. Damn fucking hippies fighting for a cause that they have no clue about...

[ou812]

Originally posted by lizard23

This war is to prevent 9/11 from happening again b/c it is a known fact that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and harbors terrorists...........

I'll believe you as soon as you can show me some proof.

[Drunk]

Originally posted by ou812

I'll believe you as soon as you can show me some proof.

1. UNSCOM reported throughout the 90s that Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological agents. Iraq somehow cannot account for them and has absolutely zero documentation to prove their destruction. Your logic is ass backwards. It's not up to the United States to prove Iraq has WMD. It's up to Iraq to prove it doesn't.

2. Saddam has funneled money to the families of Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad suicide bombers. There’s plenty of articles chronicling this. Do a search on google.

[lizard23]

Where's your proof that the war is about oil? This is an issue that the American public will never be made fully aware of b/c of security issues. I don't think that Bush sees Sadaam as a threat just b/c he's war hungry - he has good reasons for wanting to oust him from power, some that we will never know about. Yes, war sucks, but America wouldn't even exist if it weren't for war and neither would Isreal. War protects the freedoms that we are granted in America and if you enjoy your freedom, then you should support the cause and the young men and women fighting to keep you free.

[cintron]

Originally posted by ou812

I'll believe you as soon as you can show me some proof.

maybe you should pray that you are never proven right.

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the safety of our country is a more worthy consideration than the fulfillment of your skepticism?

[ou812]

Originally posted by cintron

maybe you should pray that you are never proven right.

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the safety of our country is a more worthy consideration than the fulfillment of your skepticism?

It's not just my skepticism, it's the skepticism of the majority of the modern world.

Hey, I'm all for securing our borders, increasing security in airports and things of the like, more power to us to prevent what happened on 9/11 from happening again.

But you know as well as I that going halfway across the world to blow up a country we still don't have any definitive evidence on is not going to make a damn bit of difference in making the world any safer for people in this country. In fact it will only generate MORE resentment and hate against the U.S., as if we didn't have enough to begin with.

[cintron]

Originally posted by ou812

It's not just my skepticism, it's the skepticism of the majority of the modern world.

Hey, I'm all for securing our borders, increasing security in airports and things of the like, more power to us to prevent what happened on 9/11 from happening again.

But you know as well as I that going halfway across the world to blow up a country we still don't have any definitive evidence on is not going to make a damn bit of difference in making the world any safer for people in this country. In fact it will only generate MORE resentment and hate against the U.S., as if we didn't have enough to begin with.

true. No matter what we do, or how careful we are about noncombatant casualties, the world won't care.

Most people just see us as the "aggressor" faction, and nothing we do will change their mind.

we could pave the road to baghdad with golden bricks, it won't make a damn bit of difference.

It's a shame that a lot of people would prefer to see evidence manifest itself in the form of an attack on the US first, before agreeing to commit to the use of force.

We've grown up accepting the notion that the US only uses force in response to force used against us.

If we do that these days, that means lots of people die.

Shame that most people are unwilling to conceed that fact when they voice opinion.