| -Caveat Lector-
http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_24_02/Crude_War_looms_in_Iraq/crude_war_looms_in_iraq.html Crude War looms in Iraq The good news is that the orthodox media is finally facing up to the fact—reported previously in this populist newspaper—that the primary motivation for President Bush’s insistence for waging aggressive war against Iraq is oil. Exclusive to American Free Press By Christopher Bollyn Ignore the human costs of the Iraqi war and the $200-$250 billion that the United States would have to spend of taxpayers’ money to attack the Middle East country. The outcome of the war could be a bonanza for American and British oil companies. America’s warmongering is fueled by greed—the immense profits Big Oil will realize when Iraq is conquered. That’s why the administration is determined to make war even though Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has already surrendered to U.S. demands. The war rationale had been that Saddam had thrown out the United Nation’s inspectors. Hussein capitulated and told the UN, by letter, that inspectors could return with no conditions attached. However, the administration still wants war and has sought a resolution from Congress rubberstamping its plans. “A U.S.-led ouster of President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies,” a recent Washington Post article said, and scuttle huge oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France, and other countries. Petroleum experts estimate that Iraq may possess more than 330 billion barrels of oil—making it the richest oil reserve in the world. The Post article, “When it’s over, who gets the oil?” was a front-page story in the International Herald Tribune on Sept. 16. The article suggests that the administration of President Bush is already using the promise of Iraqi oil profits as future spoils of war to force reluctant countries to support a U.S. and British-led invasion of Iraq. The article, however, failed to mention the most lucrative spoils: Iraq’s estimated 330 billion barrels of probable oil reserves. “It’s pretty straightforward,” said former CIA director R. James Woolsey, one of the leading war hawks calling for “regime change” in Iraq. “France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we’ll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them. “If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them,” Woolsey said. Since the Gulf War in 1991, companies from more than a dozen nations, including France, Russia, China, India, Italy, Vietnam and Algeria, have negotiated to develop Iraqi oil fields, refurbish existing facilities or explore undeveloped tracts. Most of the deals are on hold pending the lifting of UN sanctions, which would occur when a new government is installed. The Russians have recently signed a proposed $40 billion economic agreement with Iraq that reportedly includes opportunities for Russian companies to explore for oil in Iraq’s western desert where extensive probable reserves are being explored. The French company Total Fina Elf has negotiated for rights to develop the huge Majnoon field, near the Iranian border, estimated at 30 billion barrels of oil. These agreements, however, would be worthless if a new Iraqi government, installed by the U.S. and British forces, tears them up. The U.S. and British governments support the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an organization of Iraqi opposition groups, which may replace the current government in Baghdad. Officials from the INC say they will not be bound by any of the existing deals if and when they are installed in power. “We will review all these agreements, definitely,” said Faisal Qaragholi, a petroleum engineer who directs the London office of the U.S.-backed organization of opposition groups that is backed by the United States. “Our oil policies should be decided by a government in Iraq elected by the people.” Ahmed Chalabi, the INC leader, spoke as if he had already been elected and said he favored the creation of a U.S.-led consortium to develop Iraq’s oil fields, according to the Post. “American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil,” Chalabi said. “Administration officials have been unwilling to talk about the specific costs of a war, preferring to discuss the removal of Mr. Hussein in foreign-policy or even moral terms,” The Wall Street Journal’s Bob Davis wrote. “Discussing the economics of the war could make it seem as if the U.S. were going to war over oil. That would sap support at home and abroad, especially in the Middle East, where critics suspect the U.S. of wanting to seize Arab oil fields.” The cost of the planned U.S.-led war in Iraq would be primarily borne by U.S. taxpayers because, unlike the Gulf War of 1991 in which allies paid $48 billion of the $58 billion total, there are no allies willing to contribute to the war effort other than Britain and Israel. If Iraq has a “long history of playing games,” Britain has an even longer history of meddling in Iraqi affairs. The nation of Iraq was created from the conquered Mesopotamian provinces of the defeated Ottoman Empire by Britain after World War I. Iraq was occupied by British troops from 1919 to 1932. During the occupation, Iraqis were not allowed to govern their own affairs and Indians were used as administrators. Britain actually drew Iraq’s boundaries and installed the first king of Iraq, as it did in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the region. While the recent history and immense oil wealth of Iraq is relevant to the current issue of war, the mainstream media tends to ignore it. CNN and BBC reach millions and have focused intently on Iraq but have avoided discussing its history or immense oil wealth. CNN International is sponsored by the oil giants Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum (BP), which has absorbed Amoco and ARCO. AFP asked the commercial television network BBC World if the fact that Chevron, Texaco and Shell were corporate sponsors had influenced their decision not to discuss Iraq’s oil reserves. BBC World spokesman Ciara O’Sullivan said that the editorial content was “completely independent.” The immense oil wealth of Iraq “is going to be the big story,” O’Sullivan said. It is a “major debate that is going to bubble up.” <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om |
