"Mr. Bush, will you give Iran's oil to your cronies like you did Iraq's?"

[yurbud]

The chances of an American reporter asking this are about zero, but if one of them did and by some miracle it got on TV, we might finally have an honest debate about what we are doing in the Middle East.

And if you want to use the fall back argument that we need the oil to run our economy, consider how China is gaining access: through long term contracts, not invasions. The issue is who profits from the decreasing supply and for the Bushies the only correct answer is American oil companies, who are thanking us for the gift of Iraq's oil with $3 a gallon gas.


BBC series on WAR for OIL on youtube:
Part 1 http://youtube.com/watch?v=Aar6EZvvdW4
(links to part 2& 3 will be in related video column)

Greg Palast's timeline of Iraq oil meeings (with video interviews with the players):
http://www.gregpalast.com/iraqmeetingstimeline.html

Detailed report on restructuring of Iraq's oil industry to benefit our oil companies:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm


Naomi Klein on privatization and its effects in Iraq:
http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html


Economic war crimes in Geneva and Hague Conventions:

The Hague Convention of 1907 (IV) see articles 47, 53, 55
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/195?OpenDocument

The Geneva Convention of 1949 (IV) we've broken almost every section of article 147, and Bush has personally broken article 148.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/380?OpenDocument


Colin Powell's chief of staff on oil motive for Iraq War:
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2005/11/powell-aide-says-war-about-oil-so-we.html

Broader background on oil, war, and foreign policy:
http://www.mymethow.com/~joereid/oil_coup.html



The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time author's website:
http://www.bushagenda.net/index.php


A good brief summary of neoliberalism:
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

How "economic hit men" set it up and enforce it:
http://www.johnperkins.org/Preface.htm

[gratuitous]

1. I'd send the reporter who asked that a shiny nickel

As far as I can tell, nobody knows how much oil is being produced in Iraq, who's paying for it, if it's being paid for, who's shipping it, and who's getting paid for it on delivery. And with oil selling at near record levels, that's a rather large sum of money that's just disappearing into the fog of war.

But I've been told by my local newspaper that it's "naive" to think this whole war was just about oil. While they've since become slightly soured on Georgie's excellent foreign adventure, they've never withdrawn their condescending charge.

[yurbud]

2. I got the same shit from LA Times editors who claimed both that

it was not the cause and that they covered it. When pressed about the absence of this on the front page, they said it was more of a business page story.

The one piece I found on it was an opinion piece by Antonia Juhasz, but that is like throwing a pebble in the pond of terrorism, WMD, and spreading democracy lies.

[Jack Rabbit]

3. I believe that is a given

Iran is not an immediate threat; the policymakers in the junta know that that Iran will not have nuclear weapons for several years. What's the rush about? Why not use that time to come up with a peaceful resolution?

Does Bush fear being followed in office by an honest man who won't pkunge America into an unnecessary war of aggression based on a pack of lies? That his successor will tell the oil companies that they'll have to buy oil on the market because the US government won't steal it for them any more? That he'll tell Halliburton's corporate officers to go find honest work?

Is this the October surprise? Is it just about election year politics? Is it just an attempt to keep Republicans in power so there will be no Congressional investigations of intelligence manipulation, torture, domestic spying or election fraud in Florida and Ohio?

Whatever the reasons, the bottom line is that there is no legitimate reason to attack Iran now; that. as was the case with Iraq three and a half years ago, this is a war being fought for nefarious purposes using national security as a false justification; that, also like Iraq, it is an unnecessary war of aggression and a war crime on its face.

ON EDIT

The good news it that this means that the nuxlear option is off the table (it was probably never on the table, really). Bush's corporates cronies have no use for radio-active oil.

[Bucky]

4. Another given: we don't have the capacity to attack Iran

We could bomb them, but the retaliation would mean an end to oil exports out of the Persian Gulf for several years. Most Persian Gulf oil goes to China and India (about 2/3rds) while the US recieves only about 1/6th of the petroleum coming thru the Strait of Hormuz. They'd be shooting fish in a barrel with their missile batteries all along their coast line. Another major zone for reprisals is the stationary oilfields in Iraq--a strike to hit Halliburton, KBR, Shell, and Bechtel (v3.0) where it hurts the most.

The only option that would work would be one with a follow up ground invasion--for which we lack the troops. Our total Army forces number about 550,000 troops counting everyone. Occupation of Iraq takes about 160,000 troops (tho they're trying to order up more). That means, given rotation schedules, that you have another 200-300,000 either gearing up to go to Iraq or currently recuping and recovering from their last deployment. If you factor out the troops guarding South Korea, guarding Japan, stationed in Germany, stationed in the US, stationed in the Caribbean, or getting sent off to other peacekeeping missions, it's a little unclear where those invading forces are gonna come from.

We are checkmated in Iran. There's no one left to fight them with.

[Jack Rabbit]

6. A point I've brought up before

The scary thing about a nuclear option is that if Bush intends to go to war against Iran, for any reason, and can't occupy the country after an invasion, then what? A massive nuclear strike killing millions of Iranians would seem to be the answer; but if the Bushies do that, we'll be hit by a wave of terrorist attacks very soon, not to mention all the problems you point out. Furthermore, that would finally get the international community -- which has been as cawardly as some Democrats in dealing with Bush -- to get into gear and make the White House squatter and his fellow thugs the pariahs they deserve to be.

On the other hand, I have always maintained that the real difference between Bush and the neoconserves on the one side and Hitler and the Nazis on the other is that the earlier bunch were principally mass murderers and the latter-day bunch are principally thieves. A thief does not destroy his loot. That isn't so much another reason to believe he won't nuke Iran as it is a restatement of the one already given: His friends in the oil corporations can't use radio-active petroleum.

That would suggest that he isn't going to war against Iran either way. Or that this is his October surprise and all that's being planned is bombing raids against uranium-enrichment facilities. It would just be something flashy and showy that makes a big bang and doesn't really accomplish anything except to get the part of the world that get its news from outlets more reliable than the US corporate-owned MSM mad at Americans.

[yurbud]

11. Seymour Hersh said the Pentagon freaked because this is what Cheney

ordered them to plan for.

[Jack Rabbit]

12. That's true

By "this" I believe you mean for a nuclear contingency.

But I don't think the brass is too keen on the idea of going into Iran at all right now when their troops are tied up in Iraq.

[yurbud]

13. not just that but the consequences of going into Iran too--

definitely more terrorism, and possibly a world war with Russia and/or China.

And I think we learned in Korea not to get in war with China anywhere they can walk to.

[Jack Rabbit]

15. "We" may have learned that

The neoconservatives haven't learned anything from Iraq yet.

[yurbud]

18. they probably learned they need to clamp down on democracy here

faster and further the next time they come to power.

[Jack Rabbit]

19. They knew that after the 2000 coup

Let me bring out one of my oldies but goodies. Pay special attention to Part 3. Please also keep in mind that I wrote this around Thanksgiving in 2001, about two and a half months after the September 11 attacks.

Bush governs not as an elected leader, but as a banana republic dictator. His authority rests on fraudulent elections and his purpose to use government to redistribute wealth to his corporate cronies. That kind of authority used to that kind of purpose can be maintained only by suppression of civil liberties.

Please don't compare Bush to Hitler. Or the Devil. He's more like Noriega with nukes.

[yurbud]

20. low rent fascist with high priced toys. But why didn't they go all the

way on gutting democracy since they got their Reichstag Fire?

[yurbud]

21. Californians still haven't figured out blackout/deficit/Arnold connection

I wrote editors of LA Times about it, and whether they would run a story on the irony of a Republican winning a recall on the basis of blaming the sitting governor for a deficit run up by Republican advocated deregulation.

He said that since California is mostly Democratic, Democrats had to vote for deregulation hence there is no story.

So if somthing is a bipartisan scam, or a republican scam, it is not news.

Though if a Democrat has sex with his wife and enjoys it too much, that should be front page news.

"Senator, how long have you been enjoy sex with your wife? Did you have sex before you were even married? Would you want children to know you have sex?"

[yurbud]

8. this would make sense to Pentagon, not Bushies. they got the fever

[yurbud]

5. you can have radioactive oil if locals pump it for you.

[Jack Rabbit]

7. What would a fender-bender look like with that sfuff in a gas tank?

I'm not a nuclear scientist, so somebody fill me in.

[yurbud]

14. the oil wouldn't be radioactive--it would have been underground

at the time of the blast.

Google "nuclear fallout" sometime.

I was in Civil Air Patrol in high school, and actually got a civil defense certification for flying over nuked cities with a Geiger counter. (I know, very Dr. Strangelove).

Most of the radiation is released in the initial blast. After that, the radiation is attached to solid particles that are easy to shield against, so long as you don't inadvertently eat something contaminated or breathe it in.

[Jack Rabbit]

16. Thank you

Like I said, I'm not a nuclear scientist.

[yurbud]

17. Me either. I am more of a nuclear artist--mainly interpretive dance

My next performance will be "H Bomb over Bikini Atoll"

Please put your goggles on.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. "Bush has personally broken article 148"

Art. 148. No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party in respect of breaches referred to in the preceding Article.

I don't know if he's personally broken it, but it sound an awful lot like the bill before Congress right now.

[yurbud]

10. that was in regard to the looting war crimes--taking possession of

their oil and restructuring Iraq's oil industry to suit oil companies.