The invasion of Iraq was about oil, so it makes sense that the continued occupation of Iraq is about oil. U.S. oil companies are rushing to get contracts signed in Iraqi blood that will give them exclusive rights to Iraq's oil---and its revenues. The problem is that Iraq's government is situated in a war torn city, Baghdad. It won't do Exxon much good to have a contract with a government that might crumble at any moment. Worse, yet, what happens if a car full of Exxon executives gets blown up by Shiite or Sunni fighters?
20,000 U.S. troops is a drop in the bucket of Iraq's civil war, but it might be enough to secure the roads between the airport and major hotels and the government buildings. The policy of kicking in the door of rebels who live inside Baghdad and securing the city--but not the countryside where many of the rebels actually have their strongholds--could be the first step toward building a walled enclave where the Colonials, U.S. oilmen and representatives from Halliburton and other business interests can mingle with Iraq's puppet leaders in safety while they work out the deals that will allow U.S. corporations to bleed that country dry. With a cut for the puppet Iraqi government officials, of course.
For the U.S. oil companies, there is another big problem in Iraq right now. That is the Iranian influence. For several years, the Bush military encouraged shiite militia "freedom fighters" to help the Iraqi police combat Sunni rebels. However, Iranians have a tendency to nationalize their oil reserves. Worse yet, Iran is now getting mighty close to Venezuela, and Chavez is also a big believer in the nationalization of resources. The last thing that Exxon wants is for the situation in Iraq to be stabilized and for the country to suddenly decide that it no longer likes its contracts with Exxon, and it is now going to control its own oil.
So, suddenly we have a "We have always been at war with Oceania" moment in which W. proclaims that Iran is the sole reason that our troops are dying in Iraq and the sole reason that there is civil war in that country. Never mind the fact that The Baker Study Group Report page 29 says that private Saudi citizens are arming Sunni rebels in Iraq and that the U.S. used a former Iran-Contra figure to arm shiite militia. The name of the game is now "Blame Iran." All the corporate media except NBC/MSNBC (which has been singing "You will invade Iran over our dead bodies" since winter 2004-5) are playing the game, some more successfully than others. This AP story
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/world/16459745.htmIran, Venezuela plan anti-U.S. fund
By NATALIE OBIKO PEARSON
The Associated Press
just makes me want to stand up and cheer for both countries, but hey, I am an old style pinko who looks at things like unprovoked U.S. invasions of foreign countries and asks myself "Which U.S. company stands to make profit off this use of our armed forces as a mercenary for hire?"
Recommended reading:
War is a Racket Maj.Gen Smedley Butler
http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm"WAR is a racket. It always has been.It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
