No war for oil?

September 2, 2005 2:21 PM

Turns out that it's about the oil, after all. We've been screaming it for years, and he's totally ignored our allegations. But, there's no demonstration chant a good spin-doctor can't turn into a point for their side. Remember, the terrists hate our Amercun freedom petroleum.
posted by Netzapper (55 comments total)

Disaster always seems to put energy into the political system
posted by TwelveTwo at 2:23 PM on September 2, 2005

Well, at least it has something to do tangentially with terrorism, and it's not just about kickbacks to Big Oil. Right? Right? Please?
posted by Rothko at 2:28 PM on September 2, 2005

As the price of gasoline rises you'll find fewer and fewer people who mind that it was about oil.
posted by jfuller at 2:29 PM on September 2, 2005

Hah.
posted by delmoi at 2:30 PM on September 2, 2005

Allow me to state the obligatory:

I KNEW IT!
posted by HiveMind at 2:31 PM on September 2, 2005

Shh! Careful Rothko... The horde may come! Then this will be like 200 comments and everyone is like, "[ParisParamus and/or dios] you ass" and they are like, "My contrarian stance is the truth! Your idiocy is obvious and proves my own internal logics that I am superior" Then they are like "I hate chu!" Then the occasional person uses logic, then they are like, "Begone logic! This is a place for hating people that don't use logic! If we all were to use logic and reasoned debate we'd have nothing to do!" And then it repeats.
posted by TwelveTwo at 2:32 PM on September 2, 2005

He actually came out and said it? What the hell? This administration's behavior is so surreal it would give Salvador Dali nightmares.
posted by Ndwright at 2:33 PM on September 2, 2005

I'm shocked, shocked!
posted by ericb at 2:37 PM on September 2, 2005

We have always been at war with Iraq.
posted by Acey at 2:37 PM on September 2, 2005

Wow, Andy Dick must be working overtime these days.

(hope that's not too obscure)
posted by fungible at 2:37 PM on September 2, 2005

Someone should arrest him for looting.
posted by twistedonion at 2:39 PM on September 2, 2005

I'm shocked, shocked!

Really? I'm awed...
posted by aaronscool at 2:41 PM on September 2, 2005

Wow, first John Paul admits that Galileo was right, now this. Quite the decade.
posted by dreamsign at 2:48 PM on September 2, 2005

As the price of gasoline rises you'll find fewer and fewer people who mind that it was about oil.
posted by jfuller at 5:29 PM EST on September 2 [!]

Actually, that sort of thing would put pressure on people to use less oil. If Bush knows what's good for him, he had better get a steady supply of crude coming for his friends, or people will start to conserve energy and Big Oil will make smaller profits.
posted by Rothko at 2:52 PM on September 2, 2005

"The terrorists and insurgents are now waging a brutal campaign of terror in Iraq. They kill innocent men and women and children in the hopes of intimidating Iraqis. They're trying to scare them away from democracy. They're trying to break the will of the American people. Their goal is to turn Iraq into a failed state like Afghanistan was under the Taliban. If Zarqawi and bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks; they'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions; they could recruit more terrorists by claiming an historic victory over the United States and our coalition."

Transcript at SignOnSanDiego.com
posted by justkevin at 2:54 PM on September 2, 2005

About time.
It's the one damn reason I agreed with the war in Iraq.
Of course the continual self inflicted political foot shooting, lies, etc. etc. etc. pretty much shot that all to hell.

I mean f'ing DUH. Resources. We need 'em. We need to play keep away from the 'bad guys'. Go figure.

No blood for oil, I never got. I mean as opposed to what? Blood for what? And BushCo didn't say "freedom" right off. I'm happy to fight for that.
(I get the pacifist POV though. I respect it.)

But if we can just hammer out that government corruption thing...
posted by Smedleyman at 3:07 PM on September 2, 2005

I always thought it was about oil, but with respect to knocking Iraq out of the oil game by keeping it in a quagmire, and put Saudi Arabia's oil barrons (Bush's very good friends mind you) into the #1 position in terms of oil out of the persian gulf. Bush eliminated their number one competitor for them, and now prices are sky high. Works out very well if you're sitting on billions of barrels of oil.
posted by SirOmega at 3:11 PM on September 2, 2005

I can't wait till we run out of oil. We need to put energy production on a distributed level otherwise whoever controls it controls everything. It's like Microsoft controling the OS on everyones desktop, they have you over a barrel. We need an open source movement in energy production.
posted by stbalbach at 3:12 PM on September 2, 2005

Turns out that it's about the oil, after all.

Huh? How does protecting oil fields so it doesn't fall into the wrong hands turn into oil as rationale for the invasion?
posted by gyc at 3:17 PM on September 2, 2005

I'm waiting for the outrage here...
posted by jokeefe at 3:17 PM on September 2, 2005

stbalbach: it can't be far away

http://freeenergynews.com/OSEN/
posted by mens_lepidopterae at 3:18 PM on September 2, 2005

Thanks for the link mens_lepidopterae -- looks like some people are seriously looking at this.
posted by stbalbach at 3:23 PM on September 2, 2005

I should start prototyping this stuff in my basement. (Which, thank goodness, is still safe and dry.)
For now, anyway.
posted by mens_lepidopterae at 3:23 PM on September 2, 2005

So ... Bush invaded Iraq because he was worried Saddam may have spontaneously - in a fit of unprecedented generosity - given those oilfields to Bin Laden, thus enabling Al-Qaeda to join OPEC!

Of course, it all makes perfect sense now!
posted by kaemaril at 3:25 PM on September 2, 2005

We need an open source movement in energy production.

Solar? That would seem to be the most open, distributed, independant kind possible. The problem is you couldnt get all of your energy from it. Still though, the dreams of 50% efficient panels generating 3/4 of my power needs, and my bill dropping dramatically is quite nice. It sure would give them less leverage over the rest of us.
posted by SirOmega at 3:26 PM on September 2, 2005

I mean f'ing DUH. Resources. We need 'em.

Eh? So it doesn't matter that they don't belong to us? I know that international capitalism has a long history of military involvement, but surely we pretend in rhetoric at least that those days are gone.

What happens when only "good guys" are left, and they don't want to trade? Invade if they look at you funny?
posted by dreamsign at 3:29 PM on September 2, 2005

Check your state's break-even point for photovoltaics. Not far away.

Start up a cottage-industry biodiesel plant / distributor / conversion shop. Closer than you think, at these prices.
posted by mens_lepidopterae at 3:31 PM on September 2, 2005

"How does protecting oil fields so it doesn't fall into the wrong hands turn into oil as rationale for the invasion?"

Homer Simpson, by way of explaination: "Look, I thought the cop was a hooker."

Rationale? No. Reason? Yes.

Strategically you can't have 'bad guys' controlling a resource you need. They could then dictate policy to some degree. They could also use the wealth the oil brings to futher their ideals.

That's the general idea.

Is that what Bush is saying? I have no friggin' clue. I stopped trying to parse his verbage long ago.

Is it 'right'? Debatable. For me it stopped being 'right' the moment they started the subterfuge and these backdoor shennanagins with Haliburton started up.
(Sorry, Simpson reference coloring my text as well as that mental picture of Bush holding hands with that Saudi)

Not to mention the SUV tax breaks, not lowering MPG, not shoveling assloads of cash into research on alternative fuels so the 'bad guys' can't dictate policy, etc.

So, even though I KNEW it was about oil, even though I would support it based on oil - I still feel lied to, and outraged.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:31 PM on September 2, 2005

dreamsign: ... obviously, if they don't want to trade then they're not the good guys. Haven't you been paying attention? If they're not friends with us they're against us! And, thus, we are quite entitled to kill them and steal their stuff.... ;-)
posted by kaemaril at 3:32 PM on September 2, 2005

I should have pasted that in directly (from my Closer link):

As of December, 2004, on Maui B100 biodiesel costs $2.59/gallon (road tax included) for your road vehicle, this is one of the lowest prices for biodiesel in the world. On Oahu biodiesel is $2.49/gallon (road tax included). On Mainland USA biodiesel costs between $2.00 and $18.00 per gallon (before road tax - road tax varies state to state).

All would be fine until we rely on consecutive bumper crop years of [bio-fuel-source-of-choice] (and no good years for locusts).
posted by mens_lepidopterae at 3:40 PM on September 2, 2005

If you want to understand the economics of oil (along with the impact of global politics on it), read this guy's speeches and interviews on those topics. Admittedly, when you're listenting to a lifelong manager within the oil industry, you have to take it with a grain of salt. But the guy didn't get where he is being a dummy (nor because his dad was there first).

Maybe this is the wrong thread.
posted by mens_lepidopterae at 3:49 PM on September 2, 2005

not shoveling assloads of cash into research on alternative fuels so the 'bad guys' can't dictate policy,

Yeah, really.
posted by Specklet at 3:53 PM on September 2, 2005

"What happens when only "good guys" are left, and they don't want to trade? Invade if they look at you funny?"

Valid inference, but I wasn't positing a moral paradigm; simply illustrating the strategy. (Or rather the stated strategy that appears to be getting milked for all the bucks the pigs can syphon.)

E.g. In chess, the bishop moves diagonally. It's smart to open with strategy "X" if your opponent is doing "Y".

I'd be deliriously happy if we set up a democracy there, it prospered, and spread to other tyrrannical governments in the region. I'd be even more happy if we didn't need to invade to do that. I'd be really really thrilled if we focused so much brainpower and incentives on researching alternative energy sources that we stopped being dependant on oil.

As it is, you look at the best moves with what you have. Then some goof gets in charge of the board and puts the queen out front or moves the side pawns out early and you say "ok then, from here - this is the best you can do"

Then they say "Ok I'll move my knights" then for some reason they castle or something and give the knights to Adnon Kashoggi.

And it continues ad nauseum.


But under my above stated condition, I'm for the invasion. 'course I'm a bit of an idealist when it comes to democracy. And of course, that isn't what happened or is happening or looks like it's anywhere on the horizon.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:54 PM on September 2, 2005

Nothing to do with democracy, Smedley. The U.S. has a long history of preferring "friendly" dictators to unpredictable democracies -- even to the extent of helping to topple them and install someone reliably pro-U.S..

And in life, framing the starting positions alters the projected best course. Life isn't chess.

But then I do very well with my queen out in front.
posted by dreamsign at 4:25 PM on September 2, 2005

Oh... holy shit, that was yesterday's news. Jeez, guys... MeFi used to be the first place I found this kind of stuff first... are we now really becoming a Metoo community weblog?

Just to reprise, here's the score for those that weren't paying attention:

* 2002: "It's not about oil; we need to go to war to keep WMDs out of the Terrorists' hands."
* 2003: "It's not about oil; we need to go to war because Saddam Hussein is a bad guy."
* 2004: "It's not about oil; we need to go to war to promote democracy in the MidEast."
* 2005: "Okay, it's about oil."
posted by psmealey at 4:42 PM on September 2, 2005

dreamsign: You don't understand chess. If your queen goes out in front too early, you lose, fast, unless your opponent is an imbecile.

And no, the Iraq war was never about oil. That's just the latest in the list of unconvincing after-the-fact excuses.

Saddam would happily have sold all his oil to the USA. And he hated Osama Bin Laden just as much as the US does.

The Iraq invasion was simply designed to make Bush look like a strong leader. That's all it was ever for. The only real reason, behind all the lies.

Bush killed all those people so he could look tough and cool. A real "War President" in Rove jargon. That's the level of Bush's thinking, and to pretend that either Bush or Rove has ever had some kind of strategic, economic, or military masterplan is to overlook the obvious.

Bush is an imbecile, advised by imbeciles, and under his "leadership", America has gone from being a country with a trillion dollar surplus, admired throughout the world, to being a globally loathed pariah state, with huge and growing debts, caught in an unwinnable war against the most courageous, committed group of religious fanatics the world has ever known: the Muslims.

Bush put his queen (the military) out front too early. The sucker's mistake.

He lost.

This is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.
posted by cleardawn at 4:52 PM on September 2, 2005

"They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions"... isn't that what we are doing; wanting to seize oil fields to fund OUR ambitions.
I guess in our case it's called protecting our national interest.
posted by threehundredandsixty at 4:52 PM on September 2, 2005

And he hated Osama Bin Laden just as much as the US does.

I think this is an over-simplification.

Saddam cared about Saddam. Next was sticking it to the US any way he could.

Hitler hated Stalin but was willing to work with the communists when the opportunity presented itself.

Saddam was sorta trying to islamicize the country a bit, and while I'm no ME scholar I think Saddam's state islam and OBL's brand were more compatible with each other than the Shiite/Iranian axis of islam was with either.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 5:03 PM on September 2, 2005

You don't understand chess.

I know about tempo, thanks.

Bush put his queen (the military) out front too early.

Huh? More time would have meant more conclusive evidence from the weapons inspectors that threatened invasions were not called for. Maybe you should stick to Stratego.
posted by dreamsign at 5:17 PM on September 2, 2005

We need an open source movement in energy production.
posted by stbalbach at 3:12 PM PST on September 2 [!]


Tesla was working on that, but "THEY" shut him down, and "destroyed" his notes.

But if Tesla's technology of free power anywhere, with a ground probe or antenna were in place, we wouldn't have cell phones, radio, broadcast television, etc. Those wavelegnths would be used for the power source.
What we might have by now if Tesla's ideas were not suppressed, FLYING CARS!! (Suppressed because free energy that anyone can access, free of charge, is just too communist. Who's gonna pay for that? Also, with his generators, I believe that people in China could pull the same juice that someone in say Louisiana could, no matter where the generator was in the world.)
posted by Balisong at 5:26 PM on September 2, 2005

But Tesla sure was right on the whole alternating current and electrical generator ideas.
posted by Balisong at 5:29 PM on September 2, 2005

dreamsign: You don't understand chess. If your queen goes out in front too early, you lose, fast, unless your opponent is an imbecile.

Bush put his queen (the military) out front too early. The sucker's mistake.

Yeah I'm sure Hikaru Nakamura, the U.S. chess champion, is a sucker at chess, but anyways, back to spinning this non-story into the war being all about oil all along.
posted by gyc at 5:34 PM on September 2, 2005

cleardawn: The Iraq invasion was simply designed to make Bush look like a strong leader. That's all it was ever for. The only real reason, behind all the lies.

I think there's a reason behind that. He needed to be a war president in order to manufacture the blind support needed to drive his economic policies through. It's always been about gutting the estate tax, the capital gains tax, the progressive income tax, social security.

I believe he's even been quoted as saying something along these lines before he was elected.
posted by cytherea at 5:45 PM on September 2, 2005

fungible:
That is quite obscure, but *I* got it at the very least. And I give you a hearty LOL. Cheers. :)
posted by mrzer0 at 5:46 PM on September 2, 2005

Too many books on chess; not enough games.

I suppose they castle as soon as possible, too.
My only request is that if we play, it has to be for money.

I've heard argument that this is about long-range strategy to slow development in China, the only real threat in the foreseeable future.
posted by dreamsign at 5:48 PM on September 2, 2005

Yanno. I can work with this. Ring Halliburton trucks around every oil pump and give volunteering employees some powerful stock options and plenty of ammo. Then bring our troops back home. Any soldier that wants to stay, fill out a W-2 and join the dark side, so be it.
posted by hal9k at 5:56 PM on September 2, 2005

“...And in life, framing the starting positions alters the projected best course...”
My point exactly, dreamsign - I agree with your post almost entirely.



“Life isn't chess”


Main Entry: met·a·phor
Pronunciation: 'me-t&-"for also -f&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French metaphore, from Latin metaphora, from Greek, from metapherein to transfer, from meta- + pherein to bear
1 : a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly : figurative language -- compare SIMILE
2 : an object, activity, or idea treated as a metaphor :


/derial- gyc, Fischer did well with a queen sacrifice, doesn’t mean it’s a consistiently useful strategy. But whatever works.
Chess for money?
....How much money? Naw, my wife would kill me. Even if I won (doubtful).



“I've heard argument that this is about long-range strategy to slow development in China, the only real threat in the foreseeable future.”



Yep, that’d be part of the grand scheme. You have to do a lot of nasty things to keep the world from ending some times. Lately I’m often questioning if that is in fact the goal.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:10 PM on September 2, 2005

This live preview works like ass on this crummy work computer.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:10 PM on September 2, 2005

The thing that bothers me about this "it was for the oil" is the brazen stupidity of such a strategy. We introduced instability into the middle East. This war is more about "not getting oil." If you are going to have a war for economic reasons, at least pick a war you can win.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:57 PM on September 2, 2005

Metafilter: This live preview works like ass
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:50 PM on September 2, 2005

it's about the oil everywhere
posted by amberglow at 8:53 PM on September 2, 2005

It sure as hell wasn't about the oil 6 years ago.
It wasn't until we elected oil barrons to run the country, and forgive energy company faux pas, and overlook the whole US connection to the 'oil for food' program.

It stinks to high heaven (if that's your kick..)!!

I agree with cleardawn and smedleyman.

I have long wondered what the 'True Cause' is. Why don't they just lay it on the line?
In the next 50-200 years, this is what our country is going to need, and there is a good candidate to overthrough in order to take over the recources in the region. We will overcome and occupy the area, and stifle any opposition. Things will run smoothly.

( X ) Yes. A vote FOR this referendum.
( ) No. A vote AGAINST this referendum.
-----------------------------------------

But they didn't put it that way, did they?

They change the goalpoasts weekly. (weakly.)

What is considered to be a success in the new Iraq government is about the same goal for Bush's first presidential debate.

Don't fall on your face, or eat babies, live onstage.

I could be a world leader if these are the credentials.
But, I guess it happens with larger regimes, people under your command, just start falling on their faces, and eating babies, live, onstage, and well... It's time to move the goalpoasts.
posted by Balisong at 9:43 PM on September 2, 2005

Very funny and astute exposition, TwelveTwo. Fortunately, this particular thread did not turn into that. I also enjoyed Smedleyman's comments.
posted by blue shadows at 10:58 PM on September 2, 2005

As the price of gasoline rises you'll find fewer and fewer people who mind that it was about oil.


Priceless.
(pun intended)
posted by matteo at 2:27 AM on September 3, 2005

WTF is our oil doing under their sand to begin with?

The Eternal War To Subjugate Brown People must continue regardless of the purported justification. [/satire]

I'm hearing the troops are becoming reluctant to now refer to Iraqis as "hajis" these days. I suppose demonizing people only works when they're not proving themselves to be resourceful warriors.

Cheney's war has always been about the oil PROFITS.
posted by nofundy at 8:15 AM on September 3, 2005