I'm sure they were just sharing a cup of tea, or some krumpets or some crap

[pike]

not discussing how to hop on the oil right after occuaption. Oh wait...

"BP is desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity," it quoted minutes of the meeting as saying.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/19/britain-iraq-oil-idUSLDE73I00J20110419


Related articles:

It has never seemed likely that the US and Britain invaded Iraq primarily for its oil. Reasserting US self-confidence as a super-power after 9/11 was surely a greater motive. The UK went along with this in order to remain America's chief ally. Both President Bush and Tony Blair thought the war would be easy.   

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/patrick-cockburn-they-denied-it-was-about-iraqs-resources-but-it-never-rang-true-2269731.html

AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

Two years before the invasion of Iraq, oil executives and foreign policy advisers told the Bush administration that the United States would remain “a prisoner of its energy dilemma” as long as Saddam Hussein was in power.

http://pubrecord.org/nation/2430/eager-to-tap-iraqs-vast-oil-reserves-industry-execs-suggested-invasion/



 

[06wildcat]

We take military action in countries that have oil. This is nothing new. The only outlier is Afghanistan. We let genocide occur in poor brown countries with no meaningful natural resources.

[AbeFroman]

I wish we would invade Alaska and Canada.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I wish we would invade Alaska and Canada.

we could drill the crap out of them for the oil.

[sonofdaxjones]

We take military action in countries that have oil. This is nothing new. The only outlier is Afghanistan. We let genocide occur in poor brown countries with no meaningful natural resources.

Pipeline routes,  natural gas, petroleum, coal, copper, chromite, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, zinc, iron ore, salt, precious and semiprecious stones . . . Drugs (The CIA doesn't like competition in this arena particularly).

Surround Iran, thwart China and Russia.

Any other questions?

[06wildcat]

We take military action in countries that have oil. This is nothing new. The only outlier is Afghanistan. We let genocide occur in poor brown countries with no meaningful natural resources.

Pipeline routes,  natural gas, petroleum, coal, copper, chromite, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, zinc, iron ore, salt, precious and semiprecious stones . . . Drugs (The CIA doesn't like competition in this arena particularly).

Surround Iran, thwart China and Russia.

Any other questions?

Yes, Dax, we took military action in 2001, six years before the resource mapping took place, and eight years before that mapping was actually "discovered".

And a huge LOL at including natural gas and salt on the list. We were just itching to get at that 30 million cubic meters that Afghanistan produces (and consumes) annually. U.S. production is about 600 billion cubic meters.

There is some infrastructure there that could possibly be seen as a motivation for military action though, so you did get one thing right in your pile of bullshit.

An no, Afghanistan is not an important foothold to "Surround Iran, thwart China and Russia." Proximity is its only strategic value. The disadvantages of it are well documented by our action there and the fact no invading force has ever managed to conquer the shithole.

[pike]

We take military action in countries that have oil. This is nothing new. The only outlier is Afghanistan. We let genocide occur in poor brown countries with no meaningful natural resources.

Pipeline routes,  natural gas, petroleum, coal, copper, chromite, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, zinc, iron ore, salt, precious and semiprecious stones . . . Drugs (The CIA doesn't like competition in this arena particularly).

Surround Iran, thwart China and Russia.

Any other questions?

Yes, Dax, we took military action in 2001, six years before the resource mapping took place, and eight years before that mapping was actually "discovered".

And a huge LOL at including natural gas and salt on the list. We were just itching to get at that 30 million cubic meters that Afghanistan produces (and consumes) annually. U.S. production is about 600 billion cubic meters.

There is some infrastructure there that could possibly be seen as a motivation for military action though, so you did get one thing right in your pile of bullshit.

An no, Afghanistan is not an important foothold to "Surround Iran, thwart China and Russia." Proximity is its only strategic value. The disadvantages of it are well documented by our action there and the fact no invading force has ever managed to conquer the shithole.

I'm sure they knew about it long before

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Wars are all about one of three things: 
1) natural resources (i.e. oil, any war over borders is based on natural resources)
2) suppressing some murdering villain bent on world domination (i.e. Hitler, Hussein, et al.)
3) religion (this one is more archaic, but if applied in the context political ideology it's still applicable, i.e. communism and the Vietnam and Cold Wars) 

Which do you think is more justified?  Iraq was a little of all three:  1) oil, 2,3) ruthless muslim dictator planning to use WMDs to kill everyone and take all of the ME oil (like he started to do with Kuwait)


If Obama had invaded Iraq the same idiots would be squawking about how it was our "moral duty" as part of our "social contract" with the world to save the civilians of Iraq from their murdering leader (i.e. what they did with Clinton in Serbia and what they're doing now with all those other shithole countries we're pissing money away in).

Hegemony!!!!

[pike]

Wars are all about one of three things: 
1) natural resources (i.e. oil, any war over borders is based on natural resources)
2) suppressing some murdering villain bent on world domination (i.e. Hitler, Hussein, et al.)
3) religion (this one is more archaic, but if applied in the context political ideology it's still applicable, i.e. communism and the Vietnam and Cold Wars) 

Which do you think is more justified?  Iraq was a little of all three:  1) oil, 2,3) ruthless muslim dictator planning to use WMDs to kill everyone and take all of the ME oil (like he started to do with Kuwait)


If Obama had invaded Iraq the same idiots would be squawking about how it was our "moral duty" as part of our "social contract" with the world to save the civilians of Iraq from their murdering leader (i.e. what they did with Clinton in Serbia and what they're doing now with all those other shithole countries we're pissing money away in).

Hegemony!!!!

I think you're missing the point. Just cause a country has a bunch of oil, doesn't make it ok for oil companies to foam at the mouth until we invade

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Wars are all about one of three things: 
1) natural resources (i.e. oil, any war over borders is based on natural resources)
2) suppressing some murdering villain bent on world domination (i.e. Hitler, Hussein, et al.)
3) religion (this one is more archaic, but if applied in the context political ideology it's still applicable, i.e. communism and the Vietnam and Cold Wars) 

Which do you think is more justified?  Iraq was a little of all three:  1) oil, 2,3) ruthless muslim dictator planning to use WMDs to kill everyone and take all of the ME oil (like he started to do with Kuwait)


If Obama had invaded Iraq the same idiots would be squawking about how it was our "moral duty" as part of our "social contract" with the world to save the civilians of Iraq from their murdering leader (i.e. what they did with Clinton in Serbia and what they're doing now with all those other shithole countries we're pissing money away in).

Hegemony!!!!

I think you're missing the point. Just cause a country has a bunch of oil, doesn't make it ok for oil companies to foam at the mouth until we invade

Yeah, taking advantage of an opportunity to get rich is stupid.  I suppose Green Energy people shouldn't froth at the idea of oil prices skyrocketing every time there's a genocide or rebellion in an OPEC country either.  What about that guy whose job is to clean up sewage at the drop of a hat when the outtake pipe clogs up and your basement floods with crap?  Lets not even get into those evil oncologists whom pray on people with cancer, all in the name of a buck.

:jerkoff:

Any type of business, profit, etc. can be spun into some evil endeavor.  You need to stop paying attention to the libs.

[pike]

Wars are all about one of three things: 
1) natural resources (i.e. oil, any war over borders is based on natural resources)
2) suppressing some murdering villain bent on world domination (i.e. Hitler, Hussein, et al.)
3) religion (this one is more archaic, but if applied in the context political ideology it's still applicable, i.e. communism and the Vietnam and Cold Wars) 

Which do you think is more justified?  Iraq was a little of all three:  1) oil, 2,3) ruthless muslim dictator planning to use WMDs to kill everyone and take all of the ME oil (like he started to do with Kuwait)


If Obama had invaded Iraq the same idiots would be squawking about how it was our "moral duty" as part of our "social contract" with the world to save the civilians of Iraq from their murdering leader (i.e. what they did with Clinton in Serbia and what they're doing now with all those other shithole countries we're pissing money away in).

Hegemony!!!!

I think you're missing the point. Just cause a country has a bunch of oil, doesn't make it ok for oil companies to foam at the mouth until we invade

Yeah, taking advantage of an opportunity to get rich is stupid.  I suppose Green Energy people shouldn't froth at the idea of oil prices skyrocketing every time there's a genocide or rebellion in an OPEC country either.  What about that guy whose job is to clean up sewage at the drop of a hat when the outtake pipe clogs up and your basement floods with crap?  Lets not even get into those evil oncologists whom pray on people with cancer, all in the name of a buck.

:jerkoff:

Any type of business, profit, etc. can be spun into some evil endeavor.  You need to stop paying attention to the libs.

last I checked the green energy people and the guy that cleans poop isn't trying to start multi trillion dollar wars on my dime in order to make money 

[pike]

We take military action in countries that have oil. This is nothing new. The only outlier is Afghanistan. We let genocide occur in poor brown countries with no meaningful natural resources.

Pipeline routes,  natural gas, petroleum, coal, copper, chromite, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, zinc, iron ore, salt, precious and semiprecious stones . . . Drugs (The CIA doesn't like competition in this arena particularly).

Surround Iran, thwart China and Russia.

Any other questions?

More like easier pipelines to China, thus making them richer so they can loan us more money so we can occupy even more nations!

[06wildcat]

We take military action in countries that have oil. This is nothing new. The only outlier is Afghanistan. We let genocide occur in poor brown countries with no meaningful natural resources.

Pipeline routes,  natural gas, petroleum, coal, copper, chromite, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, zinc, iron ore, salt, precious and semiprecious stones . . . Drugs (The CIA doesn't like competition in this arena particularly).

Surround Iran, thwart China and Russia.

Any other questions?

Yes, Dax, we took military action in 2001, six years before the resource mapping took place, and eight years before that mapping was actually "discovered".

And a huge LOL at including natural gas and salt on the list. We were just itching to get at that 30 million cubic meters that Afghanistan produces (and consumes) annually. U.S. production is about 600 billion cubic meters.

There is some infrastructure there that could possibly be seen as a motivation for military action though, so you did get one thing right in your pile of bullshit.

An no, Afghanistan is not an important foothold to "Surround Iran, thwart China and Russia." Proximity is its only strategic value. The disadvantages of it are well documented by our action there and the fact no invading force has ever managed to conquer the shithole.

I'm sure they knew about it long before

They don't even know exactly what's there now. They have a map that shows similar geology to other finds around the world. A lot of people in the oil business have gone broke with similar maps. Until they actually start sinking test shafts, it's unknown.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Wars are all about one of three things: 
1) natural resources (i.e. oil, any war over borders is based on natural resources)
2) suppressing some murdering villain bent on world domination (i.e. Hitler, Hussein, et al.)
3) religion (this one is more archaic, but if applied in the context political ideology it's still applicable, i.e. communism and the Vietnam and Cold Wars) 

Which do you think is more justified?  Iraq was a little of all three:  1) oil, 2,3) ruthless muslim dictator planning to use WMDs to kill everyone and take all of the ME oil (like he started to do with Kuwait)


If Obama had invaded Iraq the same idiots would be squawking about how it was our "moral duty" as part of our "social contract" with the world to save the civilians of Iraq from their murdering leader (i.e. what they did with Clinton in Serbia and what they're doing now with all those other shithole countries we're pissing money away in).

Hegemony!!!!

I think you're missing the point. Just cause a country has a bunch of oil, doesn't make it ok for oil companies to foam at the mouth until we invade

Yeah, taking advantage of an opportunity to get rich is stupid.  I suppose Green Energy people shouldn't froth at the idea of oil prices skyrocketing every time there's a genocide or rebellion in an OPEC country either.  What about that guy whose job is to clean up sewage at the drop of a hat when the outtake pipe clogs up and your basement floods with crap?  Lets not even get into those evil oncologists whom pray on people with cancer, all in the name of a buck.

:jerkoff:

Any type of business, profit, etc. can be spun into some evil endeavor.  You need to stop paying attention to the libs.

last I checked the green energy people and the guy that cleans poop isn't trying to start multi trillion dollar wars on my dime in order to make money 

perhaps not wars, but Enronesque tax schemes, and the pillaging the health care system are on the horizon.

In sum, Tomatoe Tomato

[pike]

Wars are all about one of three things: 
1) natural resources (i.e. oil, any war over borders is based on natural resources)
2) suppressing some murdering villain bent on world domination (i.e. Hitler, Hussein, et al.)
3) religion (this one is more archaic, but if applied in the context political ideology it's still applicable, i.e. communism and the Vietnam and Cold Wars) 

Which do you think is more justified?  Iraq was a little of all three:  1) oil, 2,3) ruthless muslim dictator planning to use WMDs to kill everyone and take all of the ME oil (like he started to do with Kuwait)


If Obama had invaded Iraq the same idiots would be squawking about how it was our "moral duty" as part of our "social contract" with the world to save the civilians of Iraq from their murdering leader (i.e. what they did with Clinton in Serbia and what they're doing now with all those other shithole countries we're pissing money away in).

Hegemony!!!!

I think you're missing the point. Just cause a country has a bunch of oil, doesn't make it ok for oil companies to foam at the mouth until we invade

Yeah, taking advantage of an opportunity to get rich is stupid.  I suppose Green Energy people shouldn't froth at the idea of oil prices skyrocketing every time there's a genocide or rebellion in an OPEC country either.  What about that guy whose job is to clean up sewage at the drop of a hat when the outtake pipe clogs up and your basement floods with crap?  Lets not even get into those evil oncologists whom pray on people with cancer, all in the name of a buck.

:jerkoff:

Any type of business, profit, etc. can be spun into some evil endeavor.  You need to stop paying attention to the libs.

last I checked the green energy people and the guy that cleans poop isn't trying to start multi trillion dollar wars on my dime in order to make money 

perhaps not wars, but Enronesque tax schemes, and the pillaging the health care system are on the horizon.

In sum, Tomatoe Tomato

Well yeah..the Green Energy tards are also communists, but STAY ON TOPICz!!!!

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

woooooooooooooooossssssssshhhhhh

New Blog Post

Death Panels

[sonofdaxjones]

We take military action in countries that have oil. This is nothing new. The only outlier is Afghanistan. We let genocide occur in poor brown countries with no meaningful natural resources.

Pipeline routes,  natural gas, petroleum, coal, copper, chromite, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, zinc, iron ore, salt, precious and semiprecious stones . . . Drugs (The CIA doesn't like competition in this arena particularly).

Surround Iran, thwart China and Russia.

Any other questions?

Yes, Dax, we took military action in 2001, six years before the resource mapping took place, and eight years before that mapping was actually "discovered".

And a huge LOL at including natural gas and salt on the list. We were just itching to get at that 30 million cubic meters that Afghanistan produces (and consumes) annually. U.S. production is about 600 billion cubic meters.

There is some infrastructure there that could possibly be seen as a motivation for military action though, so you did get one thing right in your pile of bullshit.

An no, Afghanistan is not an important foothold to "Surround Iran, thwart China and Russia." Proximity is its only strategic value. The disadvantages of it are well documented by our action there and the fact no invading force has ever managed to conquer the shithole.

The proposed pipeline routes were already well in place, in fact the Clinton Commerce Department helped Enron try to bid on the projects in the region.   You act like somebody just woke up one day and went holy eff, lets do some resource mapping on Afghanistan, we have no rough ridin' idea what's there (gosh we'd only been supporting the Mujaheddin since 1979 after all, and golly what 'resource' that Afghanistan has a lot of helped pay for that?).   If you actually did any research you'd know that various factions of our government have been eying resource control in the region for years before the actual invasion.   

In terms of the geo-strategery in surrounding China, Russia and Iran, one only need to pull out a map.

But that's okay 06, I bet you actually believe that the 76 days of bombing in the Balkans was to stop genocide.

[Dugout DickStone]

I wish we would invade Alaska and Canada.

I have been a proponent of the annexation of America Jr. for decades.  Some of my earlier writings examine this need in depth.

[pike]

I wish we would invade Alaska and Canada.

I have been a proponent of the annexation of America Jr. for decades.  Some of my earlier writings examine this need in depth.

Who's more lil bro....Canada, or Mexico?

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I wish we would invade Alaska and Canada.

I have been a proponent of the annexation of America Jr. for decades.  Some of my earlier writings examine this need in depth.

Who's more lil bro....Canada, or Mexico?

Obviously Canada is lil bro, 'cus Mexico is our daddy.

[pike]

I wish we would invade Alaska and Canada.

I have been a proponent of the annexation of America Jr. for decades.  Some of my earlier writings examine this need in depth.

Who's more lil bro....Canada, or Mexico?

Obviously Canada is lil bro, 'cus Mexico is our daddy.

Oh yeah that makes sense, especially since we give them all our jobs and send them all our money 

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I wish we would invade Alaska and Canada.

I have been a proponent of the annexation of America Jr. for decades.  Some of my earlier writings examine this need in depth.

Who's more lil bro....Canada, or Mexico?

Obviously Canada is lil bro, 'cus Mexico is our daddy.

Oh yeah that makes sense, especially since we give them all our jobs and send them all our money 

But they hold the keys to the side door and can come and go as they please.   

[06wildcat]

We take military action in countries that have oil. This is nothing new. The only outlier is Afghanistan. We let genocide occur in poor brown countries with no meaningful natural resources.

Pipeline routes,  natural gas, petroleum, coal, copper, chromite, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, zinc, iron ore, salt, precious and semiprecious stones . . . Drugs (The CIA doesn't like competition in this arena particularly).

Surround Iran, thwart China and Russia.

Any other questions?

Yes, Dax, we took military action in 2001, six years before the resource mapping took place, and eight years before that mapping was actually "discovered".

And a huge LOL at including natural gas and salt on the list. We were just itching to get at that 30 million cubic meters that Afghanistan produces (and consumes) annually. U.S. production is about 600 billion cubic meters.

There is some infrastructure there that could possibly be seen as a motivation for military action though, so you did get one thing right in your pile of bullshit.

An no, Afghanistan is not an important foothold to "Surround Iran, thwart China and Russia." Proximity is its only strategic value. The disadvantages of it are well documented by our action there and the fact no invading force has ever managed to conquer the shithole.

The proposed pipeline routes were already well in place, in fact the Clinton Commerce Department helped Enron try to bid on the projects in the region.   You act like somebody just woke up one day and went holy eff, lets do some resource mapping on Afghanistan, we have no rough ridin' idea what's there (gosh we'd only been supporting the Mujaheddin since 1979 after all, and golly what 'resource' that Afghanistan has a lot of helped pay for that?).   If you actually did any research you'd know that various factions of our government have been eying resource control in the region for years before the actual invasion.   

In terms of the geo-strategery in surrounding China, Russia and Iran, one only need to pull out a map.

But that's okay 06, I bet you actually believe that the 76 days of bombing in the Balkans was to stop genocide.

I love how you still think the cold war is going on Dax, love it. Also love how you failed to comprehend my post and specifically mentioned the two points I actually gave you in your rebuttal. BMW is rubbing off on you, except you're terrible at the whole jedi mind trick.