Latest 15 of 37 Total Comments Show All

• 

  Betzee at 04:07 AM JST - 5th July

  "Refine" is the operative word here. We’re about to enter phase two of the Iraq War. Little notice has been paid to the recent no-bid contracts that were awarded by the Iraqi Foreign Ministry to American oil conglomerates. (Incidentally, no-bid contracts are not a sign of either accountable government or good value for public money, but we all know that by now.) As Alan Greenspan noted in his memoirs The Age of Turbulence last year, “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq War was largely about oil.”

  While some war boosters predicted in early 2003 that prices would fall to USD 20 a barrel, in fact it took 5 years to get Iraqi oil up to pre-invasion output levels. Given our dependence on oil, something the current administration has done nothing to lessen, the protection of overseas oil supplies has become a matter of “national security.” (One only need to look at the post-Cold War resurgence of Russia to see how control of energy resources determines a country ranking on a power index.) The U.S. is now spending increasing sums for imported oil and whoever is elected must give this situation the highest priority.

  Will turning on the spicket in Iraq lower prices? Well, the news of the contracts did nothing to lower the price as the market would predict, namely that speculators would respond to a future increase in supply by putting their money elsewhere. It’s unlikely this deal can stave off more hardship for the foreseeable future; the 5.5 year conflict contributed to the massive U.S. plunge into debt and the fall of the greenback, in turn raising prices to their current levels (which are expected to continue climbing).

  Anyway, protecting the oil fields will play a role in the strategic calculations of the candidates with respect to Iraq. This is certainly part of the security agreement currently under negotiation.

• 

  tclh at 06:01 AM JST - 5th July

  Obama:"... careful about how we get out","...reserve the right to do what's best","..keeps some troops in Iraq to fight AQ"...this can only mean one thing that America will NEVER leave Iraq ,that also means America under Obama's leadership(if anf when) has responsible foreign policy.I think he will do things much smarter and I wish him best of luck .

• 

  RomeoRamenII at 07:29 AM JST - 5th July

  Obama says Iraq trip could refine his policy

  barack obama: A man who, heh, says what he means and means what he says.

  RR

• 

  jimenezsnyder at 08:16 AM JST - 5th July

  I wonder how long the US will be in Kosovo. . . . It goes to show that a Democrat can invade a foreign country without UN approval, occupy it indefinitely and the media will give him a pass. But if a Republican ousts a dangerous thug like Saddam Hussein, brings him to trial and converts Iraq from a fear-based autocracy to a fledging democracy, the cowardly media will crucify him.

  Everyone can see that things are pretty much winding up in Iraq. Whether it's Obama or McCain, troops will probably start coming home in about the same amount of time. But whatever that length of time, a Republican will be seen as prolonging the agony for personal gain and a Democrat will be seen as a long-awaited bringer of peace.

  It's amazing to me that liberal fundamentalists are calling Obama a flip-flopper for wanting to get a good look at the problem.

  Actually, it doesn't amaze me at all. It's consistent with the nature of fundamentalism.

  As for the oil problem . . . why is American media completely ignoring Honda's hydrogen fuel cell technology? Embarrassment, racism or fear of real change?

  Oh, and when will the US get out of Japan?

• 

  Betzee at 08:50 AM JST - 5th July

  It's amazing to me that liberal fundamentalists are calling Obama a flip-flopper for wanting to get a good look at the problem.

  It's amazing to me that you identify "redmeatkoolaid" and "Romeo Ramen" as liberals! By contrast this is what someone who appears to be of a more liberal bent has posted:

  If "flip-flopping" will result in a more realistic strategy, rather than the current "cut and run", then by all means, flop away!

• 

  RedMeatKoolAid at 01:10 PM JST - 5th July

  Looking like the 'anti-war' Left is bogged down in a quagmire. I reckon Obama think you all a bunch of Monicas.

• 

  RedMeatKoolAid at 02:07 PM JST - 5th July

  "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war was largely about oil."

  "The quote ran round the world. Blood for oil--it seemed as if Greenspan was lining up with ANSWER and Michael Moore. In an interview with Bob Woodward, Greenspan tacked a bit: Ensuring the stability of oil supplies was "not the administration's motive" for the Iraq War, but it "would have been my motive." "Taking Saddam out," he added, "was essential." In Greenspan's defense, protecting the world's most important product from a megalomaniac is reason enough to fight. But there were others, repeatedly stressed by the president and Congress, including Saddam's fondness for tyranny, terrorists, and WMD. Meanwhile, we are saddened to acknowledge what everyone should know: Iraq coverage is largely about spin."

  from Nat'l Review Oct 8 2007

• 

  SuperLib at 06:11 PM JST - 5th July

  SuperLib, it seems like you still think it's a better strategy for your and your family's tax dollars to be spent on Iraq and Iraqis.

  But why spend time saying things you don't really believe? I've stated my position twice in simple language. The door is open for your comments. Why not sit down and have a rational conversation?

• 

  SushiSake3 at 07:02 PM JST - 5th July

  "But why spend time saying things you don't really believe? I've stated my position twice in simple language. The door is open for your comments. Why not sit down and have a rational conversation?"

  Why do you still not understand?

• 

  Betzee at 07:27 PM JST - 5th July

  "Taking Saddam out," he added, "was essential."

  Yeah it was and he was a terrible guy. But that doesn't change the fact that almost every action the US has taken in the oil-rich ME since way back when from propping up autocrats (Shah) or more recently implanting democracy, fighting terrorism or preventing the USSR from gaining a foothold there (overthrowing Mossadeq), or, here, toppling Saddam's Baathist regime had the potential to affect the availability of oil for our own ever-expanding needs and thus entailed some calculation about it.

  When oil was offered as a motivation for Operation Iraqi Freedom it was always shot down on the grounds, "Look how high the price of gas is!" That simply means things didn't go according to plan and is not evidence there was no plan. Of course energy security is a legitimate national security concern. But had it been offered as such the question would have been raised as to whether this was the way to go about it, namely do we need to militarize control of imported energy? The answer may, upon reflection, be yes; others are doing it such as the Chinese in Sudan.

  If you plotted oil price increases on a graph the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran would stand out as a spike. But it didn't prove to be so disastrous because the Saudis, and others, increased production to offset the loss from Iran. This time we're looking at a steady rise with no end in sight. Anyone who lives in a snow-belt state knows how many people, particularly elderly on fixed incomes, have had to apply for public assistance to pay their winter heating bills.

  The election and cold weather will be coming together and what plans the candidates have, and how Iraq figures into it, will play a prominent role. None of the options are particularly attractive. It has been suggested, for example, that the only way to jolt speculators back to reality is to publicly take the option of bombing Iran off the table. I hope the next administration has the leeway to take a fresh approach from the one pursued by the GWB administration with such disastrous results.

• 

  Nippon5 at 08:00 PM JST - 5th July

  here is the top ten countries the US gets its oil from 1. Canada 2. Mexico 3. Saudi Arabia 4. Venezuela 5. Nigeria 6. Angola 7. Iraq 8. Algeria 9. United Kingdom 10. Brazil here is the official numbers of oil from all arab countries imported to the US Totals: all imported 1,814,134 amount from Arab countries (middle east 385,221 Total percent of oil imports from Middle east 21% On top of this 40% of all crude oil used in the US is from the US

  According to the people saying we invade for Oil Canada and Mexico better get its army ready cause here comes the states

  Guys dont make excuses for a man who ignored the UN and attacked all other countries around it at some time in the last 20 years, killed his own people by the 100 thousands and would if he could attack and kill anyone in his way... Luckly he is now dead

  Just because you dont like the policy of Bush attacking Iraq doesnt mean attacking Iraq was wrong... If the UN had a set then we wouldnt have to police the world so much.. Or maybe some of the so called industrial countries would get off their high thrones and stop some of the countries close to them from killing woman and children.. Its a lot closer for Europe to go to those countries then the US, but they just sit back and sell them weapons, and as we have seen buy the oil even though it was sanctioned by the UN....

  As far as Iran they were the ones who pioneered Terriosim and hijacking planes and if they do get the ability to make and use nukes they will... They have stated that the Jews should all die and that reminds me so much of Germany that it makes me sick that we have let that happen again.

  Once again the people who think a president makes a differance are living high on something... Show me one president who has stopped hunger, war, child abuse, or any other important item.....

  Cant worry about important things when you have an aide under your desk, or trying to hide the fact you didnt do your time in the guard, or what ever they are doing instead of the job of representing and looking out for America and Americans

• 

  Betzee at 08:00 PM JST - 5th July

  Michael Klare, author of the recent book Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy is on the Left. But that in an of itself is not enough to dismiss his arguments. How else to explain Africom for example? The Chinese are all over Africa. They are really our strategic competitors; the Russians are sitting pretty since the Soviet-era pipeline infrastructure gives them control of energy resources, particularly natural gas reserves, outside their present-day borders.

  As we approach the 2008 elections, two paths lie before us. One leads to greater reliance on imported fuels, increased militarization of our foreign fuel dependency and prolonged struggle with other powers for control over the world's remaining supplies of fossil fuels. The other leads toward diminished reliance on petroleum as a main source of our fuel, the rapid development of energy alternatives, a reduced US military profile abroad and cooperation with China in the development of innovative energy options. Rarely has a policy choice been as stark or as momentous for the future of our country.

  http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080519/klare

• 

  peacetoismailha at 10:11 PM JST - 5th July

  I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis.

  • George W. Bush

  How many Iraqis have died as the result of the Anglo-American invasion and occupation of their country remains an unresolved question in the anti-war movement. It is a question the pro-war camp avoids. Yet what more important question is there?

  http://www.truthout.org/article/dahr-jamail-and-jeff-pflueger-learning-count

• 

  Sarge at 10:30 PM JST - 5th July

  "Yet what more important question is there?"

  How about "How many more children would have starved to death in an Iraq being run into the ground by Saddam and U.N. sanctions if Iraq hadn't been liberated?

  Nah...

• 

  Nippon5 at 08:40 AM JST - 6th July

  From Websters (not some opinion based web site that all the political idiots use to explain thier side like http://www.truthout.org)

  Main Entry: 1war

  Pronunciation: \ˈwȯr\

  Function: noun

  Usage: often attributive

  Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of

  Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High

  German werran to confuse

  Date: 12th century

  1 a (1): a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2): a period of such armed conflict (3): state of war b: the art or science of warfare c (1)obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2)archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war 2 a: a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b: a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end c: variance, odds 3

  Now where in the definition of war does it say a peacful non violent act that makes people hug love and kiss each other..

  War is a killing and that has to happen in order to bring peace...

  I am not pro war at all, but I do understand that if you just sit back and say gosh this is horrible I wish they would stop killing their own people, nothing will stop. You have to be realistic in life and not live in the fantasy world you create in you mind. You will not see peace on earth in your life time nor in your grandchildrens life time. Even if everyone in the world wanted peace someone will end of killing/hurting/fighting/starting war over something as it is human nature to have conflict. So world peace is a pipe dream that those with limited minds think will happen. The best we can do is have a strong arm (like a real UN army) that can keep the peace, but that wont happen either as all countries are in the game for themselves.

  Once again all you anti war people please list any goverment that hasnt started a war, aided others in war, or has terrorism coming from their borders. When you can show the world that your country is the golden ticket of anti war then please feel free to voice about how bad the US is for taking out a murdering goverment and spending billions of dollars building a better place.

  I hope the US pulls out from all countries in the future, I thing all the people in those countries should defend their own countries instead of us protecting them, but I just dont see countries like Japan spending the trillions of dollars needed to have a real military force when they get it for free.. Why buy the cow if you get the milk for free!!!!!

  And to end again with the same truth all the political people dont like to hear... NO POLITICAL person who is elected does anything that isnt supported by the companies and groups paying for them to be in office.. All POLITICAL people in goverment are trying to keep thier jobs so they must satisfy the companies who pay for thier multi million dollar campaigns so they can get re elected.. they are just puppets of corporations....

Register or login to add a comment!