Many of us have always known that the Iraq war was for the oil but now since Greenspan has come out and announced that it is his belief too, I think we can finally put the argument to bed. Greenspan could easily explain why he made the comment of course but he hasn't been drawn out on the issue yet. That can only be because it is so politically damaging to the US cause.

The US is now an oil have-not nation and has been for years. Oil, or more importantly affordable oil, to the tune of 22,000,000 barrels a day is absolutely essential to the US' continued prosperity and even being denied a couple of million barrels a day would be catastrophic for them in a very short time. Their reserves are not adequate to sustain the consumption for any more than a year if the flow of oil is abated. For thow reasons the US must consolidate it's control over most of the world's remaining sources of affordable oil. And by doing so will also keep it affordable by being in a strategic position to control prices.

The US differs from Canada and Russia for examples, in the fact that Canada and Russia are not have-not countries. Increasing oil prices can only benefit Canada and those nations which have an adequate amount to sell. The US does not and therefore it's very obvious that it needs to put itself in a position in which it can maintain suitably low prices regardless of supply and demand.

And of course, there really was never any doubt that it had to be an oil war anyway, and that includes the first Gulf war along with all the phoney excuses for it and the manipulating of Saddam to invade Kuwait for Iraq's very economic survival.

Can there now still be any real credible denial of the obvious? Can we finally lay aside all the novel excuses used by the US to justify their war?

However, for the US to finally admit it's complicity in an illegal and completely unnecessary war it then have to bear the guilt. For this reason it will never be admitted in full by any US politician. That doesn't mean that the rest of the world can't understand the truth and deal with it accordingly. Whatever that would mean?

Comments?

Gee, answering yourself,,, how about quoting or counter argument yourself too? aye i thought so

Hey Orwell, don't forget the forgeries that BushII tried to pass off as fact in his January 2003 State of the Union address.
Also, 'we know where the WMD are', they're 'in and around the area of Kirkuk Rumsfeld said.
Those mobile biological labs whoops actually weren't...
Then there were the amazing stories passed off as fact about Saddam having human shredding machines.
The 'Mushroom clouds' that Condi Rice gave us.
The 45 minutes to launch and the 'imminent threat'.
And that's only a fraction of them.
That Office of Disinformation must have been working overtime.

Fool me once shame on you,
Fool me twice shame on me.

Haha, and all the bodies in mass graves that vanished in the same way the Kosovo bodies vanished in 99. But how did the moron president put it?

Fool me once shame on me, ...................

I like that version better.

No seriously Waylander, there are so many ridiculous lies that they have been caught in now that I'm amazed that any of these chickenhawks on this forum have the cajones to still support them. Maybe it's because they don't have to show their faces. And then there are the ones who still insist that the missing in action WMD's were found because they found a couple of old artillery shells lying around from the early 90's. Pathetic! As the angry man would say! :-)

you said "there were no WDMs",,, i've said "how Kurds died?"
you said "Bush came for oil",,, i've said "show me pumps working for US"

you here not to debate and you are pathetic when you do that !!!

true democrat face, makes fun of those who doesn't speak English ! nice group of racists mixed with terrorists who hide among normal guys who really want peace and socialism

do you always spank random 14 years old girls before the bed?

i'm starting to get what type of "liberal" you are. a troll, pedophile, racist and mentally unstable

now seriously, i would read about "narcissistic personality disorder" if i were you,,,

neorealist wrote:
Thank you because it's important to get that out of the way first.


Pretty close, although it's more than gasoline but you probably know that. My point is to make the point that it was an oil war. Once that point is made then how can the US not be seen as an evil aggressor? It simply can't be justified going to war and murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and others to procure control over M.E. oil. Would you disagree?


Of course. From what you have said so far you have demonstrated that you are in tune with reality. What now bothers me is the question of whether you are justifying your country's foreign policies or not. To justify pure evil such as the Iraq war would be very troubling from my POV.


You'll be making a big mistake to start trying to tell me anything about the oilsands of Northern Alberta. I spent parts of 5 years in Syncrude and Suncor, beginning in 1998 as a consultant in the electronics field. I saw the beginning of the American money come in to develop the industry at a breakneck pace. Since then the output of the tarsands has doubled at least and is in the process of doubling again according to their predictions. This was of course a mad rush by the US to procure enough oil from Canada to meet the shortfall which the US knew quite well would develop in the M.E.

And as for the tarsands not having perfected their methods of extraction, you would have to be more specific. I will say that they are in the process of improving even more their methods but you should know that they have now got the price down to something around $10/barrel and that includes virtually all overhead. After oil passed $15barrel it became obvious that the tarsands was going to be productive and profitable until all the oi is removed from the ground. And by that time they may go back and remine the tailings to get out the % they couldn't in the first place.

The estimates of the amount of oil in the ground in 98 was that they could continue at the present rate of extraction for another 80 years. That was published in a daily paper that went out to all employees in Suncor. However since that time they have doubled the rate of extraction. You can do the math but rmember that they intend to double it again.

Canada will always be the US' biggest supplier of oil from here on out and we are not going to deny them to any appreciable amount for quite a while. However I have to wonder what will happen when the inevitable time comes where it becomes obvious that we are cutting damaging our own economy by selling it all off. Such is the problem in the world today with the US now being a have-not country.

Is there anything else you would like to tell me about the oilsands or is there anything else you would like to discuss on the issue? I certainly hope this helps to educate some of the mutts on this forum who seem to have nothing better to do than hurl childish remarks at others who wish to discuss the realities of the issue.