Is McCain admitting the war is all about oil?

[jeffy777]

Originally Posted by John McCain

“My friends, I will have an energy policy which will eliminate our dependence on oil from Middle East that will then prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.”

hmmmm....interesting

[Crazyjeeper]

Well, you can't say that the oil wasn't considered when we went to war. I wouldn't be surprised if the war is about oil. We needs it.

[Shawn]

As much as I hate this war and GWB, I don't think this war is about oil. I can't see even the Bush Administration thinking in such a foolish way.

And America isn't dependent on the Middle East's oil. Don't you guys have heaps of oil in Alaska and elsewhere? One way of reducing independence would be to use your own before you knock on someone else's door to borrow oil.

Another way of reducing dependence on foreign oil would perhaps, and I'm taking a shot in the dark here, be to change the wasteful way in which the US consumes oil.

This comment by McCain just goes to show me how out of touch with reality and reason he is.

[Vette Boss]

I've thought the war was about oil from the start. Dubya comes from an oil mongering family, he's clearly got his hand in the cookie jar, in that respect. Do you think it's a coincidence that the vice president and others all worked for oil companies, in some way? They all, strangely, support the war..

It's all profiteering, they're only at war because it benefits them.

[jeffy777]

Originally Posted by Shawn

I can't see even the Bush Administration thinking in such a foolish way.

Really?

Here are a few interesting quotes along the same lines for Bush's right hand man:

Originally Posted by Dick Cheney

Dick Cheney, USA Vice-President speaking in 1990:
"Whoever controls the flow of Persian Gulf oil has a stranglehold not only on our economy but also on the other countries of the world as well." - Dick Cheney, USA Vice-President speaking in 1990

"By 2010 we will need [a further] 50 million barrels a day. The Middle East, with two-thirds of the oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize lies." - US Vice President Dick Cheney, then Halliburton chief executive officer, London, autumn 1999

"The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is." Dick Cheney
Collateral Damage Conference, Cato Institute June 23, 1998

[Scott]

Originally Posted by jeffy777

hmmmm....interesting

I think that was an intentional effort to get people who might be on the fence to swing his way. There is no way he believes that Iraq is about oil... no friggin' way.

[jayhawk]

To ask a simple question, if the war is about oil, why haven't we taken any from Iraq? Or have we?

Also, IIRC 60% of our oil is from Canada. My percentage may not be exact, but it is pretty high.

[Cobol74]

I think its also about petro-dollars (See Rob Newman video posted on this site and on YOUTUBE) - to be fair to the US if they want to do that OK; what is not OK is that we joined in too, Tony Blair you wally.

[the Interceptor]

Originally Posted by jayhawk

To ask a simple question, if the war is about oil, why haven't we taken any from Iraq? Or have we?

I think the idea is not to have control of the middle east to directly take their oil right now, rather than to ensure a long-term lower-level control. With every second, oil gets more interesting, as there is less. Having influence on who gets what for which price today may become a goldmine tomorrow.

[anti-net]

Originally Posted by jayhawk

To ask a simple question, if the war is about oil, why haven't we taken any from Iraq? Or have we?

Also, IIRC 60% of our oil is from Canada. My percentage may not be exact, but it is pretty high.

Because they didn't think things would go this badly.

[Susurrate]

The war was and is about oil, just not in the way most people say it is. It's not a we're gonna kill you and take your oil and there is nothing you can do about it war, it's a lets kill this crazy fucker over here next to these people who we can work with so he doesn't invade them and threaten our supply of oil from so and so a la Kuwait.

As for why don't we drill in new areas in Alaska ask your friendly local ecomentalist why we aren't doing that, I think it has something to do with permafrost or something equally stupid.

[chaos386]

When have wars been about anything but land and/or resource acquisition?

Originally Posted by jayhawk

To ask a simple question, if the war is about oil, why haven't we taken any from Iraq? Or have we?

It's not quite as simple as flipping a switch and the oil goes through a different pipeline. Iraq's old government was demolished, the new government is still finding its legs, and there's quite a bit of civil unrest and small rebellions going on. The country has to be stable before it can start exporting oil in its full capacity, and I think the Bush Administration was expecting that to happen much sooner.

Besides, blatantly taking the oil would cause too much of an international outcry to be worth doing, so I'm guessing if they had a sinister plan, it was going to involve much more subtle avenues for profit (like, say, government contracts during the war and for the reconstruction afterwards, perhaps awarded to a company previously run by one of the cabinet members...)

Originally Posted by jayhawk

Also, IIRC 60% of our oil is from Canada. My percentage may not be exact, but it is pretty high.

It's not quite as simple as "America needs oil, let's go get some." Nearly as important as making sure your country gets enough oil is making sure oil is traded in your currency. Middle East nations friendly to the US all sell their oil in US Dollars, which helps it keep its value (well, that's the idea, at least. I don't think the war's been kind to the Dollar).

Originally Posted by Susurrate

The war was and is about oil, just not in the way most people say it is. It's not a we're gonna kill you and take your oil and there is nothing you can do about it war, it's a lets kill this crazy fucker over here next to these people who we can work with so he doesn't invade them and threaten our supply of oil from so and so a la Kuwait.

And let's not forget the scary (to the US) possibility of Iraq selling their oil in Euros rather than USD. If you think the exchange rate is bad now (or good if you live in the EU ), just think of what it might have been if Iraq's oil production boosted the Euro further.

Originally Posted by Susurrate

As for why don't we drill in new areas in Alaska ask your friendly local ecomentalist why we aren't doing that, I think it has something to do with permafrost or something equally stupid.

I think it has more to do with the fact that the ANWR fields only have about two years worth of oil in them (14.77 billion barrels at the most). I'm going to hazard a guess that they're more useful as a reserve than as an operational field at the moment (i.e. the price of oil has to rise further before a well will be profitable).

[Susurrate]

Wells would be quite profitable right now, they would have been profitable 5 years ago. As for 2 years of oil, that if you met 100% of the US demand which would be difficult and very low profit, if used like any other reserves they would last 20-30 years.

[chaos386]

I may have jumped the gun a bit on the 2 year estimate (I was thinking in response to the proposal that the US should use it as a main source of oil, to eliminate foreign dependence), but I still stand by my opinion that it's in the US's best interests to keep it as an emergency reserve for the time being. If the US uses up all it's oil reserves now, then it will definitely be dependent on foreign oil in the future.

[phuckingduck]

IIRC Most of the oil contracts hereto awarded in Iraq have been to mainly European and Chinese companies. I'm too lazy to look it up, but only a handful of the major contracts have gone to American companies. And on top of that, very little oil has flown to anyone as of yet, so it's a wash really.

[jeffy777]

Perhaps it's not so much that we want the oil