Coping with Reality....How does the U.S. take over Iraqi oil?

[sirs]

We keep hearing the perseverating drum beat by many of the fringe left that "It's all about the oil", that Iraq's oil was THE primary reason for the risking of American lives and the loss of Iraqi civilian lives.

When it was brought up as to if this were the case, why haven't we done it, alot of stumbling rhetoric referenced how apparently incompotent Bush is, or how we have to at least "pretend" we're abiding by international law....basically trying to explain away why we haven't

So my question of intrigue, if it's all about the oil, how WOULD have Bush/America taken control of Iraqi oil?

[Michael Tee]

<<We keep hearing the perseverating drum beat by many of the fringe left that "It's all about the oil", that Iraq's oil was THE primary reason for the risking of American lives and the loss of Iraqi civilian lives.>>

I guess to these fruit-bats, Alan Greenspan is a member of the fringe left.

<<if it's all about the oil, how WOULD have Bush/America taken control of Iraqi oil?>>

Invade country, instal puppet government that they can leave behind them.

Change the constitution by abolishing public ownership of the natural resources.

Have the puppet government enact hydrocarbons legislation that permits the government to grant oil concessions in which the concessionaire gets to keep up to 90% of the profit.  [Oooops!  oversimplification warning.  They aren't really aiming at 90% because that is flagrantly outrageous.  They put 90% in the draft, so when it finally passes with some lesser amount as the top take-home share, it can be argued that the feisty little Iraqi government valiantly fought Big Oil's 90% figure and wrestled it down to 50% which looks, on its face, to be eminently reasonable - - till it's pointed out, as the MSM never will, that under Saddam, "multinational" (i.e., U.S.) corporations didn't get ANY  of that oil wealth.

Make sure that the puppets all understand that fucking with the U.S. takes many forms, and will be dealt with ruthlessly, again in the last resort by regime change if need be.  One form of fucking with the U.S. would definitely be taking too "unreasonable" a line in their negotiations with Big Oil, another would be in failing to appreciate in appropriate ways that Amerikkkan Big Oil has first dibs on all the oil in Iraq and that attempts to sell to other groups would not be advisable.

[sirs]

Which of course, since it's why we went in, is precisely what's been accomplished......right?   We have our guy running things....oh wait.  But we have an exact copy of our constitution in place....oh that's right.  Well, we have the government doing precisely our bidding becasue we've told them what would happen if they crossed us.....oh wait

Now, we can return to our regularly scheduled reality check, which includes that Grrenspan was very clear that oil is simply a component of the decision making.  At no time has he concluded that Bush went into iraq for the oil.  But Tee can invalidate that with a quote of Greenspan that indicates preciesly that.......Something along the lines that Bush took us into Iraq FOR the oil.  We shall eagerly await such validation

*whistle*

[Michael Tee]

<<Which of course, since it's why we went in, is precisely what's been accomplished......right?   We have our guy running things....oh wait.  But we have an exact copy of our constitution in place....oh that's right.  Well, we have the government doing precisely our bidding becasue we've told them what would happen if they crossed us.....oh wait>>

Cute.  Here's a radical concept for you to get your head around, sirs:  Bush and all the scum around him are fuck-ups.  They have failed.  They have NOT been able to carry out the rather simple plan that they were following.  They failed because they are fucking stupid.  Because they set out on something that even a guy like me could see was doomed to fail.  However, when they BEGAN the venture, they did so believing that it would succeed. 

<<Now, we can return to our regularly scheduled reality check . . . >>

Yeah, I know.  Greenspan said it was all about oil.  The Bush administration raised a shitstorm of protest.  Greenspan said it wasn't all about oil.  I believe Greenspan was telling the truth the first time.  You believe he was telling the truth the second time, after the whole Bush administration must have descended on the guy like a ton of bricks.  Welcome to your opinion.  You're certainly entitled.  I just don't happen to believe it.  So shoot me.

[sirs]

Ahhh...back to the "Bush is incompotent" tact.  When all us fails, and the hole of debate desperation gets too great, just simply claim Bush is an incompotent moron, declare victory, and hit enter.  How convenient          Oh, and thanks for also debunking your own Greenspan spin  <must fit template...must fit template>    LOL

[Michael Tee]

<<Ahhh...back to the "Bush is incompotent" tact.  When all us fails, and the hole of debate desperation gets too great, just simply claim Bush is an incompotent moron, declare victory, and hit enter.  How convenient  [Roll Eyes] >>

You're just getting crazier and more desperate with each exchange.  Of course Bush is incompetent.  Who else landed the U.S. in a comparable mess in recent memory?  When you point to the U.S. inability to achieve its objectives as proof that it had no such objectives, the only other possibility IS that it had the objectives and failed to achieve them through the incompetence of its Chief Executive.    Why are you rolling your eyes?   


<<Oh, and thanks for also debunking your own Greenspan spin >> 

I did?  How?  When?  Are you sure you can read English?