Nader: What Role the Oil Industry Playing in Bush's Drive to War?

hasn't it already been discussed in another thread that sadaam is planning on destroying the oil fields right away and they are in no where near the financial state to be effective or ever turn a profit?

nice work catch.

 

If Nader didn't have such an ego, we wouldn't be discussing this in the first place. I won't listen to anything this a-hole has to say anymore. As far as I'm concerned, he pissed a lifetime of good works away by giving the election to Bush.

 

Agreed. He knew there was no chance he could win, so instead of withdrawing and telling his people to vote for Gore he stuck around and gave us the legacy of Dumbya.

 

I don't have a problem with him running, even though it was obvious beforehand that he was helping Bush.

But I do have a problem with the way he concentrated his resources and his rhetoric to hurt Gore. Hey, this is a democracy, and it's great that he could get his issues on the table. But he did more than that; he deliberately sabotaged Gore.

 

God what a double standard. Are you really saying that Nader "attacked" Gore to even a small degree compared to how violently and hysterically the entire Democratic party attacked Nader? Think about how cynical and defeatist your position is.

In the end, it was only the heavy-handed scare tactics of the Democrats that kept Nader from getting the 5% he needed for the Greens to be a viable party in the next election.

Anyway, Gore DID win the election as it was; GW was going to be president no matter what the results said, as we now know.

 

Poor analogy.

A good analogy would be if Gore attacked Nader more than he did Bush, which Gore obviously didn't. There's a difference between Nader trying to raise his issues, and Nader cynically trying to throw the election to Bush to advance his issues. IMO, Nader definitely crossed that line.

 

Yep. And the War in Afghanistan was all about a pipeline.

 

I thought the oil companies were against a war. They like the current high oil prices. Cheap oil is not good for the oil companies. Remeber the 70's and the high gas prices and huge profits for the oil comapnies.

 

If the US government was really so desparate to get it's companies access to the oil surely it would have simply removed the sanctions?

I'm not saying that there are no ties between the oil industry and the current US government simply that there are easier ways to acheive that aim.

 

So the USA is going to war for oil interests? That's funny, because it is French and German companies that are currently in oil deals with Iraq--and have since the Gulf war. That's WHY France and Germany are protesting the war--they are afraid of losing oil $$$.

Don't they tell you all that at your Gay Pride...errr...anti-war protests?

If we went to war in 91 for oil, why don't we control the oil now?

And since it is apparent that we did not go to war in 91 for oil, then how tired of an argument is it that NOW we are going to war for oil?

 

The analogy is spot on, superdave. Gore himself didn't need to attack Nader because his corporate chums who own the media were doing it for him. Have you really forgotten all those op/eds from supposedly "progressive" writers telling everyone NOT to vote for the person who they want to be president, but to vote for the "lesser of evils." Seriously, why bother if that is the situation we're left with. Actually, if you look at it this way, and I think it's much closer to reality than your lame depiction, THE ELECTION SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN AS CLOSE AS IT WAS. Gore basically got millions of votes that he neither earned nor deserved, from people who really didn't want him to be president.

Howard Zinn's take:
"The fact is that millions and millions of people voted for Gore who would have voted for Nader if they thought he had a chance to win. That is, millions and millions of people would whose basic views are closer to Nader than they are to Gore. But because people are trapped in this electoral system in which two parties and wealth control the media and control the electoral process, people are trapped in that therefore they vote their conscience, they dont vote their beliefs."

 

> I thought the oil companies were against a war.
> They like the current high oil prices.

For the companies that actually pump the oil, high prices are good. But now that so much of our oil is imported, it is not so good. It is getting expensive to buy that oil from OPEC and turn it into the gasoline, heating oil and so on that is sold to us. So what are the big companies doing? They are not buying any - they are just using internal stocks. In fact, oil and refined product stock levels are very very low - below the "saftey margin" at which refineries can guarantee stable prices. The companies think that prices are too high now, and they will buy when prices come down. They won't come down. This is very dangerous because if there are spikes in usage (like continuing cold weather), and when there is a war spike in oil, the price of oil in the US can go way way up. Right now, national news programs are saying we will see $3 a gallon for gasoline when a war starts. I'm saying it could be far above that, at least for a short while.

In any normal administration, we would see the government using the federal reserve now. But Bush the Younger is going to wait - he knows it is going to get much worse in the future.

> Remeber the 70's and the high gas prices and
> huge profits for the oil comapnies.

Most US companies pumped far more oil back then than they do now - in some cases 4 times as much.

 

This war (or lack thereof) is about oil for whom, exactly?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html

As of October 2002, Iraq reportedly had signed several multi-billion dollar deals with foreign oil companies mainly from China, France, and Russia. Deutsche Bank estimates $38 billion total on new fields -- "greenfield" development -- with potential production capacity of 4.7 million bbl/d if all the deals come to fruition (which Deutsche Bank believes is highly unlikely). Iraq reportedly has become increasingly frustrated at the failure of these companies actually to begin work on the ground, and has threatened to no longer sign deals unless firms agreed to do so without delay. Iraqi upstream oil contracts generally require that companies start work immediately, but U.N. sanctions overwhelmingly have dissuaded companies from doing so. Following the lifting of U.N. sanctions, Iraq hopes to increase its oil production capacity to over 6 million bbl/d or higher.

In recent weeks and months, Iraq reportedly has signed a flurry of deals with companies from Italy (Eni), Spain (Repsol YPF), Russia (Tatneft), France (TotalFinaElf), China, India, Turkey, and others. According to a report in The Economist, Iraq has signed over 30 deals with various oil companies, offering generous rates of return ("on the order of 20%") as part of its "Development and Production Contract" (DPC) model. Iraq introduced the DPC in 2000 to replace the previous "Production Sharing Contract" (PSC) arrangement.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2757797.stm

Even in 2001, France sold Iraq $650m-worth of goods, more than any other country, and was the Western country with the largest number of stands at last November's Baghdad Trade Fair.

But above all, the French are interested in Iraqi oil.

Nicolas Sarkis, of Arab Oil and Gas magazine, says France's state-controlled TotalFinaElf is poised to win contracts to drill the largest unexploited oil reserves in the world.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/12/1044927663992.html

Energy-importer China has a big stake in Iraqi oil, also, having signed long-term contracts with Baghdad that give it virtual ownership of huge undeveloped oil fields in the country.

 

The war is for oil for everyone. The public debate uses morality as the space for arguing, but that (of course) has no basis in reality and is only there to placate the citizens.

This Iraqi war will be the most important event in history since World War II. Common people don't know why, but I do feel that they know something about how important this war is, if only from a sense of fear and desperation from the governments. That is why there are so many peace marches.

 

It gets more and more crazy to continue to find how things ae all upside down. OIL is the prime motivator of France, Russia, Germany, and China and yet people all over the world blame GW fopr being the oil monger. Precious.

Sometimes, boys, that which is right must be held on to at all costs and against all dissenting voices.

Oh, and France and Germany ARE no longer allies. Let's just accept that and deal with it.

 

> Oh, and France and Germany ARE no longer allies.
> Let's just accept that and deal with it.

That is why the Iraqi war will be the most important event in history since World War II. It will determine if a lone United States Empire will succeed or not. If it does, we will be hated but powerful. If it does not, we will drop to a european standard of living with an insurmountable level of debt.

 

That drop is inevitable. Every empire comes to an end.

 

This is a sad day for America!

He hurt my man!
He sabotaged my man!
Who does Nader think he is, Ross Perot?

You will have to excuse me if I don't feel your pain.

I mean, this is the very thinking that has cost the dems the white house and then congress. Hey, they did us wrong! It is the same as your cute little ignore feature and dan's little killfile.

I would say that you should take your lumps like a man, but you rather take you ball and go home.



Here is to your pompous elitist attitude. Good to the last drop.

 

The difference is that those countries didn't bomb anyone, they just signed deals.

The war is not only for the oil, also for wider geostrategical reasons and benefits in the interior politics.

And the process of unification of EU will get quicker.