• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Serious Why is there no government action against Chinese Communist Party propaganda on Singaporeans?

Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
By Antonia Juhasz, Special to CNN

View attachment 87528


Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with winners: Big Oil.
It has been 10 years since Operation Iraqi Freedom's bombs first landed in Baghdad. And while most of the U.S.-led coalition forces have long since gone, Western oil companies are only getting started.
Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.
From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.


The war is the one and only reason for this long sought and newly acquired access.
Full coverage: The Iraq War, 10 years on

Oil was not the only goal of the Iraq War, but it was certainly the central one, as top U.S. military and political figures have attested to in the years following the invasion.
"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."
For the first time in about 30 years, Western oil companies are exploring for and producing oil in Iraq from some of the world's largest oil fields and reaping enormous profit. And while the U.S. has also maintained a fairly consistent level of Iraq oil imports since the invasion, the benefits are not finding their way through Iraq's economy or society.


These outcomes were by design, the result of a decade of U.S. government and oil company pressure. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then CEO of Chevron, said, "Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas-reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." Today it does.
Exclusive: Hans Blix on 'terrible mistake' in Iraq
In 2000, Big Oil, including Exxon, Chevron, BP and Shell, spent more money to get fellow oilmen Bush and Cheney into office than they had spent on any previous election. Just over a week into Bush's first term, their efforts paid off when the National Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by Cheney, was formed, bringing the administration and the oil companies together to plot our collective energy future. In March, the task force reviewed lists and maps outlining Iraq's entire oil productive capacity.
Planning for a military invasion was soon under way. Bush's first Treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, said in 2004, "Already by February (2001), the talk was mostly about logistics. Not the why (to invade Iraq), but the how and how quickly."
In its final report in May 2001 (PDF), the task force argued that Middle Eastern countries should be urged "to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment." This is precisely what has been achieved in Iraq.
Here's how they did it.
The State Department Future of Iraq Project's Oil and Energy Working Group met from February 2002 to April 2003 and agreed that Iraq "should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war."
Arwa Damon: Iraq suffocates in cloak of sorrow
The list of the group's members was not made public, but Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum -- who was appointed Iraq's oil minister by the U.S. occupation government in September 2003 -- was part of the group, according to Greg Muttitt, a journalist and author of "Fuel on the Fire: Oil and Politics in Occupied Iraq." Bahr al-Uloum promptly set about trying to implement the group's objectives.
At the same time, representatives from ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Halliburton, among others, met with Cheney's staff in January 2003 to discuss plans for Iraq's postwar industry. For the next decade, former and current executives of western oil companies acted first as administrators of Iraq's oil ministry and then as "advisers" to the Iraqi government.
Before the invasion, there were just two things standing in the way of Western oil companies operating in Iraq: Saddam Hussein and the nation's legal system. The invasion dealt handily with Hussein. To address the latter problem, some both inside and outside of the Bush administration argued that it should simply change Iraq's oil laws through the U.S.-led coalition government of Iraq, which ran the country from April 2003 to June 2004. Instead the White House waited, choosing to pressure the newly elected Iraqi government to pass new oil legislation itself.

Did Iraq give birth to the Arab Spring?
This Iraq Hydrocarbons Law, partially drafted by the Western oil industry, would lock the nation into private foreign investment under the most corporate-friendly terms. The Bush administration pushed the Iraqi government both publicly and privately to pass the law. And in January 2007, as the ''surge" of 20,000 additional American troops was being finalized, the president set specific benchmarks for the Iraqi government, including the passage of new oil legislation to "promote investment, national unity, and reconciliation."
But due to enormous public opposition and a recalcitrant parliament, the central Iraqi government has failed to pass the Hydrocarbons Law. Usama al-Nujeyfi, a member of the parliamentary energy committee, even quit in protest over the law, saying it would cede too much control to global companies and "ruin the country's future."
In 2008, with the likelihood of the law's passage and the prospect of continued foreign military occupation dimming as elections loomed in the U.S. and Iraq, the oil companies settled on a different track.
Bypassing parliament, the firms started signing contracts that provide all of the access and most of the favorable treatment the Hydrocarbons Law would provide -- and the Bush administration helped draft the model contracts.


Why women are less free after Iraq War
Upon leaving office, Bush and Obama administration officials have even worked for oil companies as advisers on their Iraq endeavors. For example, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad's company, CMX-Gryphon, "provides international oil companies and multinationals with unparalleled access, insight and knowledge on Iraq."
The new contracts lack the security a new legal structure would grant, and Iraqi lawmakers have argued that they run contrary to existing law, which requires government control, operation and ownership of Iraq's oil sector.
But the contracts do achieve the key goal of the Cheney energy task force: all but privatizing the Iraqi oil sector and opening it to private foreign companies.
They also provide exceptionally long contract terms and high ownership stakes and eliminate requirements that Iraq's oil stay in Iraq, that companies invest earnings in the local economy or hire a majority of local workers.
Iraq's oil production has increased by more than 40% in the past five years to 3 million barrels of oil a day (still below the 1979 high of 3.5 million set by Iraq's state-owned companies), but a full 80% of this is being exported out of the country while Iraqis struggle to meet basic energy consumption needs. GDP per capita has increased significantly yet remains among the lowest in the world and well below some of Iraq's other oil-rich neighbors. Basic services such as water and electricity remain luxuries, while 25% of the population lives in poverty.
Share your story of the Iraq War

The promise of new energy-related jobs across the country has yet to materialize. The oil and gas sectors today account directly for less than 2% of total employment, as foreign companies rely instead on imported labor.
In just the last few weeks, more than 1,000 people have protested at ExxonMobil and Russia Lukoil's super-giant West Qurna oil field, demanding jobs and payment for private land that has been lost or damaged by oil operations. The Iraqi military was called in to respond.
Fed up with the firms, a leading coalition of Iraqi civil society groups and trade unions, including oil workers, declared on February 15 that international oil companies have "taken the place of foreign troops in compromising Iraqi sovereignty" and should "set a timetable for withdrawal."
Closer to home, at a protest at Chevron's Houston headquarters in 2010, former U.S. Army Military Intelligence officer Thomas Buonomo, member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, held up a sign that read, "Dear Chevron: Thank you for dishonoring our service" (PDF).
Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with losers: the Iraqi people and all those who spilled and lost blood so that Big Oil could come out ahead.
What a crock of shit.

https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/05/investing/us-untapped-oil/index.html

Move over, Saudi Arabia and Russia. America now has more untapped oil than any other country on the planet.
That's according to a new report from Rystad Energy that estimates the U.S. is sitting on an incredible 264 billion barrels of oil reserves. It includes oil in existing fields, new projects, recent discoveries as well as projections in undiscovered fields.
 
Greenspan, Kissinger:
Print
By Robert Weissman
Huffington Post
September 17, 2007


Alan Greenspan had acknowledged what is blindingly obvious to those who live in the reality-based world: the Iraq War was largely about oil. Meanwhile, Henry Kissinger says in an op-ed in Sunday's Washington Post that control over oil is the key issue that should determine whether the U.S. undertakes military action against Iran.

These statements would not be remarkable, but for the effort of a broad swath of the U.S. political establishment to deny the central role of oil in U.S. involvement in the Middle East. Greenspan's remarks, appearing first in his just-published memoirs, are eyebrow-raising for their directness: "Whatever their publicized angst over Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction,' American and British authorities were also concerned about violence in the area that harbors a resource indispensable for the functioning of the world economy. I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

His follow-up remarks have been even more direct. "I thought the issue of weapons of mass destruction as the excuse was utterly beside the point," he told the Guardian. Greenspan also tells the Washington Post's Bob Woodward that he actively lobbied the White House to remove Saddam Hussein for the express purpose of protecting Western control over global oil supplies. "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," Greenspan said. But, writes Woodward, Greenspan "added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab." "No, no, no," he said. Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of "making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately we will."

There's every reason to credit this view. U.S. oil companies surely have designs on Iraqi oil, and were concerned about inroads by French and other firms under Saddam. But the top U.S. geopolitical concern is making sure the oil remains in the hands of those who will cooperate with Western economies.

Henry Kissinger echoes this view in his op-ed. "Iran has legitimate aspirations that need to be respected," he writes -- but those legitimate aspirations do not include control over the oil that the United States and other industrial countries need. "An Iran that practices subversion and seeks regional hegemony -- which appears to be the current trend -- must be faced with lines it will not be permitted to cross. The industrial nations cannot accept radical forces dominating a region on which their economies depend, and the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran is incompatible with international security." Note that Kissinger prioritizes Iranian (or "radical") control over regional oil supplies over concern about the country acquiring nuclear weapons.

One might reasonably suggest that Greenspan and Kissinger are only pointing out the obvious. (Kissinger himself refers to his concerns about Iran as "truisms.") But these claims have not been accepted as obvious in U.S. political life. The Iraq was "is not about oil" became a mantra among the pro-war crowd in the run-up to the commencement of hostilities and in the following months. A small sampling --



  • Said President Bush: The idea that the United States covets Iraqi oil fields is a "wrong impression." "I have a deep desire for peace. That's what I have a desire for. And freedom for the Iraqi people. See, I don't like a system where people are repressed through torture and murder in order to keep a dictator in place. It troubles me deeply. And so the Iraqi people must hear this loud and clear, that this country never has any intention to conquer anybody."

  • Condoleeza Rice, in response to the proposition, "if Saddam's primary export or natural resource was olive oil rather than oil, we would not be going through this situation," said: "This cannot be further from the truth. ... He is a threat to his neighbors. He's a threat to American security interest. That is what the president has in mind." She continued: "This is not about oil."

  • Colin Powell: "This is not about oil; this is about a tyrant, a dictator, who is developing weapons of mass destruction to use against the Arab populations."

  • Donald Rumsfeld: "It's not about oil and it's not about religion."

  • White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer on the U.S. desire to access Iraqi oil fields: "there's just nothing to it."

  • Coalition Provisional Authority Paul Bremer: "I have heard that allegation and I simply reject it."

  • General John Abizaid, Combatant Commander, Central Command, "It's not about oil." Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham: "It was not about oil."

  • "It's not about the oil," the Financial Times reported Richard Perle shouting at a parking attendant in frustration.

  • Australian Treasurer Peter Costello: "This is not about oil."

  • Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger: "The only thing I can tell you is this war is not about oil."

  • Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary: "This is not about oil. This is about international peace and security."

  • Utah Republican Senator Bob Bennett: "This is not about oil. That was very clear. ... This is about America, and America's position in the world, as the upholder of liberty for the oppressed."

  • And Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen joined war-monger Richard Perle in calling Representative Dennis Kucinich a "liar" (or at very least a "fool"), because Kucinich suggested the war might be motivated in part by a U.S. interest in Iraqi oil.
What lessons are to be drawn from the Greenspan-Kissinger revelations, other than that political leaders routinely lie or engage in mass self-delusion? Controlling the U.S. war machine will require ending the U.S. addiction to oil -- not just foreign oil, but oil. There are of course other reasons that ending reliance on fossil fuels is imperative and of the greatest urgency. More and more people are making the connections -- but there's no outpouring in the streets to overcome the entrenched economic interests that seek to maintain the petro-military nexus. A good place to start: The No War, No Warming actions planned for October 21-23 in Washington, D.C. and around the United States.
 
US dont give two hoots to UN or even UNSC. US just invaded Iraq when no green lights were given. US will get wat they want thru deceits n lies if it warrant.
You are describing China perfectly.
 
1595914104274.png



First published by GR on January 31, 2015


NEW YORK – USA – In a remarkable admission by former Nixon era Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, reveals what is happening at the moment in the world and particularly the Middle East. [please note this is a SATIRE, which in many regards says the truth regarding the current situation, the interview is fiction, it never took place, some of the quotes are from Henry Kissinger]


Speaking from his luxurious Manhattan apartment, the elder statesman, who will be 89 in May, is all too forward with his analysis of the current situation in the world forum of Geo-politics and economics.


“The United States is bating China and Russia, and the final nail in the coffin will be Iran, which is, of course, the main target of Israel. We have allowed China to increase their military strength and Russia to recover from Sovietization, to give them a false sense of bravado, this will create an all together faster demise for them. We’re like the sharp shooter daring the noob to pick up the gun, and when they try, it’s bang bang. The coming war will will be so severe that only one superpower can win, and that’s us folks. This is why the EU is in such a hurry to form a complete superstate because they know what is coming, and to survive, Europe will have to be one whole cohesive state. Their urgency tells me that they know full well that the big showdown is upon us. O how I have dreamed of this delightful moment.”
“Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.”
 
What I do not understand is how the entire world can accept this gross violation of humanity. For the atrocities US committed, the nation deserves to be subjected to long term threat of terrorist Attack. America created these terrorists. You can never eliminate them all. They might lay low for a while but you will never know when they strike. The world is no longer a safe place because of these crimes US committed.
ah... the world at large does not accept it. Only governments who need them do.

And as you rightly say, they created the terrorists. they are already subject to and will continue to be under threat of terrorism for a long time.

How to avoid terrorists? Stay away from their targets...
 
Then perhaps you should stand on the side of the lesser evil.

If ur a cheena, i can understand which side ur fm. But i cant forgive all those unnecessay killing of innocent children, man n woman by US n Western europe countries. Practically all the major ME countries were destroyed by US invasion/ intervention. War still going on in Syria as i am typing now. US troops still tere. Afghanistan too.
 
If ur a cheena, i can understand which side ur fm. But i cant forgive all those unnecessay killing of innocent children, man n woman by US n Western europe countries. Practically all the major ME countries were destroyed by US invasion/ intervention. War still going on in Syria as i am typing now. US troops still tere. Afghanistan too.
And you are ignorant that CCPee is doing the same to its people ? Or are you practicing selective hatred ?
I suggest you do research on the atrocities inflicted onto China people by its government. You are obviously letting your emotions rule over your rationale.
US is not a saint by any measure and whatever they are doing in Syria is a necessary evil. If you can suggest a better measure, please share.
 
Last edited:
And you are ignorant that CCPee is doing the same to its people ? Or are you practicing selective hatred ?
I suggest you do research on the atrocities inflicted onto China people by its government. You are obviously letting your emotions rule over your rationale.
US is not a saint by any measure and whatever they are doing in Syria is a necessary evil. If you can suggest a better measure, please share.

Dont meddle with other people affairs. If u tink Saddam or Assad are ruthless, just ask cia or mossad to do the job. Just like hw dotard eliminate Qasem.
 
Dont meddle with other people affairs. If u tink Saddam or Assad are ruthless, just ask cia or mossad to do the job. Just like hw dotard eliminate Qasem.
Don't meddle with people affairs and let Saddam kill people ? So that is your rationale ? What if those people are your family members ?
Don't use your emtional Muslim rationale to justify yourself. Most of us can use our common sense to analyse things, maybe you should do the same. We don't use our race or religion to justify ourselves.
 
Don't meddle with people affairs and let Saddam kill people ? So that is your rationale ? What if those people are your family members ?
Don't use your emtional Muslim rationale to justify yourself. Most of us can use our common sense to analyse things, maybe you should do the same. We don't use our race or religion to justify ourselves.

So its ok for US to invade thru lies n deceits? Its ok for outsider to invade n killed thousands of innocents? Egypt, Lybia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan...the lists goes on
 
Don't meddle with people affairs and let Saddam kill people ? So that is your rationale ? What if those people are your family members ?
Don't use your emtional Muslim rationale to justify yourself. Most of us can use our common sense to analyse things, maybe you should do the same. We don't use our race or religion to justify ourselves.

No where in my post did i say Saddam was a righteous ruler. Hes an evil ruler. In cahoot wirh US to invade Iran. So hes evil. But not the subjects. Why invade n massacred innocent people? If those killed happened to be ur parents or close one, do u tink US is the saviour?
 
No where in my post did i say Saddam was a righteous ruler. Hes an evil ruler. In cahoot wirh US to invade Iran. So hes evil. But not the subjects. Why invade n massacred innocent people? If those killed happened to be ur parents or close one, do u tink US is the saviour?
Why don't you start a war and see if you can prevent collateral damage. As I have said, you are letting your emotions rule over your rationale. Frankly you have the typical woman mindset. So if you think I am sexist in my remark, yes I am. If you I think I want to piss you off, yes I am. Period.
 
not always. It has to be the appropriate kind of progress and prosperity. Everyone who favours China points only to progress and prosperity. That alone is not enough. There has to be social development as well. But in all fairness to you, jobs, jobs, jobs and security are the foundation of any progress.

I would like to point out @amransan 's experience. He used to live in a kampung. Back then, nobody was racist and everybody helped each other. When he was moved to the HDB, suddenly his life was a great deal different. I don't know exactly what, but it was negative. That's why I'm tagging him so that he can help answer this.


bro my life in singapore the only sweet memories when i lived in kampong in the 70s to late 80s.
trust me bro i had so many sad expriences over so many years in singapore that i dont want my children to experience what i experienced bro.
that is why i made sure my offspring was born in Australia and on the month i got my Australian passport me and my dear wife went back to sg to renounced our sg citisenship.
the stories i will share to my daughter when she grow up so that she learn to treat others with respect no matter what colour skin and treat other like she wants others to treat her the same way.
 
bro my life in singapore the only sweet memories when i lived in kampong in the 70s to late 80s.
trust me bro i had so many sad expriences over so many years in singapore that i dont want my children to experience what i experienced bro.
that is why i made sure my offspring was born in Australia and on the month i got my Australian passport me and my dear wife went back to sg to renounced our sg citisenship.
the stories i will share to my daughter when she grow up so that she learn to treat others with respect no matter what colour skin and treat other like she wants others to treat her the same way.
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
Why don't you start a war and see if you can prevent collateral damage. As I have said, you are letting your emotions rule over your rationale. Frankly you have the typical woman mindset. So if you think I am sexist in my remark, yes I am. If you I think I want to piss you off, yes I am. Period.

No use communicating with an Islamic retard. His Islamic founder Mohammad killed and raped so many innocents, but he says it is ok and want to follow that lunatic example. Even when Muslims kill Muslims, he said nothing, but when non-Muslims kill Muslims, he cry mother cry father. Such is the idiotic behaviour of an Islamic retard.
 
Last edited:
Why don't you start a war and see if you can prevent collateral damage. As I have said, you are letting your emotions rule over your rationale. Frankly you have the typical woman mindset. So if you think I am sexist in my remark, yes I am. If you I think I want to piss you off, yes I am. Period.

U still dont see my point,do u? War is the last resort. Infact not necessary at all unless provoked. No collateral damage if teres no war. US started it first all these while. Look, not just Iraq but the rest of the ME countries too. Just like u speak up for ur own race. Why can i speak up for my own bros/sis over at ME?
 
Back
Top