The Lies The War Was Based On

To be fair, even the most benevolent invasion force would have to take control of some of these functions in the name of being humane.

BUT....the freezing out of the UN, the shifty oil contract granting to Friends-of-the-Administration Halliburton and Bechtel, the intervening in what KIND of government Iraq established...that's all absolutely uncalled for and absolutely against the promises and ideals we claimed to be genuine as we entered Iraq.

To be even more fair, Bechtel isn't one of the friends-o-admin as Halliburton can be somewhat accurately characterized as being.

Again, awarding Halliburton with any contract for Iraq -even to supply fucking gaskets- is a bad political move. No matter if Cheney cannot even walk into the Halliburton headquarters office complex and no matter if the entire deal is clean.

Anybody with a brain can see that.

</strong>

<a href="http://www.vegsource.com/talk/flame/messages/82404.html" target="_blank">http://www.vegsource.com/talk/flame/messages/82404.html</a>

"The bin Ladens have a ten-million-dollar stake in the Fremont Group, a San Francisco-based company formerly called Bechtel Investments, which was until 1986 a subsidiary of Bechtel. The Fremont Group’s Web site, which makes no mention of the bin Ladens, notes that “though now independent, Fremont enjoys a close relationship with Bechtel.” A spokeswoman for the company confirmed that Fremont’s “majority ownership is the Bechtel family.” And a list of the corporate board of directors shows substantial overlap. Five of Fremont’s eight directors are also directors of Bechtel. One Fremont director, Riley Bechtel, is the chairman and chief executive officer of the Bechtel Group, and is a member of the Bush Administration: he was appointed this year to serve on the President’s Export Council."

Thin, very thin. Hell, if you took every deal around the Nation and around the World you'd find some sort of "relationship" and could place a nice conspiratorial spin on things.

Yeah, God forbid we question the connections and ethics of an international oil conglomerate...

I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that the two are, arguably, the best companies in the world, at what they do?

(There is ONE company, that can even begin to compete with Halliburton. Schlumberger Limited (symbol SLB), a FRENCH company.)

Thin? He's a member of the Bush administration! They have a "relationship"!

Bechtel is an industrial contractor. They weld, pour concrete, and wire stuff up.

Next?

Heh...good one.

How thick must it be? If this were a jury selection process, that'd pretty much be grounds for disqualification.

I'm sure there are perfectly capable and legitimate oil companies that could do work in iraq that do NOT have ties to EL Presidente, but we don't really seem to be interested in securing their services.

Best oil companies? Arguably.

Best oil companies for THIS situation in which conflicts-of-interest will undermine the legitmacy of a very crucial operation? Indisputably not.

They are not "just" oil companies. Both are international GIANTS in not simply 'drilling for oil'. They design and update the entire infrastructure of the environment in which the oil is being drilled.

Halliburton Company: Company Report

One of the world's largest providers of oil field services (along with Schlumberger), Halliburton has operations in more than 100 countries. The company's Energy Services Group (about 55% of sales) provides pressure pumping, production enhancement, and well drilling and completion services for the oil and gas industry. It also provides oil and gas equipment and well logging and testing services. Halliburton's Engineering and Construction Group, which operates as Halliburton KBR, works on both energy-related and civil infrastructure facilities . Its projects include gas processing facilities and chemical plants, as well as prisons, stadiums, and highways.

Well, excuse the pee outta me.

Here's the cynical view: If the contract were awarded to say, any of the companies that built and maintain any of the North Sea oil infrastructure -which chances are would be connected somehow to Halliburton- there would still be the Bush/Blair connection.

Punditly this is a no-win situation. Again, Halliburton should have been disqualified no matter that they are the best company to build and rebuild oil field equipment/infrastructure.

And the "jury" test doesn't matter here although the analogy is essentially correct.

Grifter says they are in the oil business, Kronos says they aren't....which is it?

An industrial contractor who builds stuff for oil companies is and industrial contractor that also builds other things.

If the uniform supply company who supplies blue shirts for gas station attendants can be considered in the oil industry then where does the connection end?

I believe Kronos was referring to Bechtel. I was referring to Halliburton and SLB.

Probably there was some confusion on that issue. Nonetheless, these two companies are called "oil companies" by many incorrectly.

</strong>

Can we get past the semantic hurdles? Yes, they do more than drill oil, but oil is a primary focus of their business and it is the catalyst which brings them to Iraq, so for the purpose of THIS DISCUSSION, let's just say they are oil companies.

With close ties to El Presidente. Looks bad.

A company that builds stuff for oil companies stands to make a crapload of money in a situation like this. Gas station attendants will still make minimum wage.

But that's like calling TNT Industrial Contractors a soup company because they built the newest Campbell's Soup plant.

I know Haliburton's connection, but I don't know of Betchel's. Can someone fill me in if there is or isn't a connection, and what it is?

Also, can a Bush supporter please explain to me how they can think that this isn't about oil?

First, there's a slight connection Micah lists above. Second, even if part of this whole thing is "about oil" what's the deal?

I hardly think the connection is slight, but it's all opinion.

And it being about oil isn't a big deal. It being about insider deals, unfair business practices (like the initial shady Halliburton contract for Iraq), and us being absolutely dishonest about how much control Iraq would have in their own destiny is wrong.

If it's their oil, why can't THEY decide who will help them repair and run the pil fields from here on out? We know they don't have the resources to do it and they must go to outside firms. But how about letting THEM choose the firms?

Betchel donated WAY into the millions to the GOP.

Oh, and I'm a Bush supporter, and to be honest I don't care if it's about oil. I think you would find that many Bush supporters don't really care if it's about oil. IF you are a Bush supporter, you will recognize that this is, in fact business. Oil, corn, rice, whatever. It just happens to comes down to oil, in this case.

But doesn't it bother you that the whole war was:

1. Supposed to be about disarming Saddam.
2. Then it was supposed to be about liberating Iraq.

But now it seems that neither were in the plan... it just looks like Bush & Co. just wanted to play 'let's make a deal.'

I find that rather painful. I understand that the powers are a business, but aren't you as tired as I am of being lied to by politicians and businessmen hiding behind bullshit rhetoric?

No, I'm not.

They have to put forth "bullshit rhetoric" to get the approval of the sheeple.

Sadam was toppled: threat managed and people allowed a different government.(At this point ANYTHING is better than what they had).

It cost us a TON of money to do it, so, we get a little something, something for our trouble. Nothing wrong with that.

I am a believer, at least on the International level, that the ends justify the means. Reason being, if you are around in the end, you have a say in how the history is portrayed.

Sad, but true.

At least I know where you stand. I'll agree to disagree.

Fair enough, my friend.

That may be the most cynical statement I've read about this thing yet. And the GOP were calling the Dems cynical? Sheesh.

Wow. It sickens me to think there are actually people out there who think it's OK to be lied to by the government and invade other countriesto help make more money.

We paid a TON of money for this war??? Yes, the government did. And who is it that stands to gain from the Iraq war? Certainly not Halliburton, Betchel, or defense contractors who now have to produce more weapons to replace the ordinance used.

Wow, you're right. The ends DO justify the means.

First, I'd like to think it was more about dismissing Saddam. After all, a disarmed Saddam was a given because of the stonewalling by A)France, and B)The UN. The weapons still exist, just in a different State, such as Syria. But that's neither here nor there at this point.

And I am in fact very tired of being lied to. It's just that a reconstruction deal out in the open, whether it is to a Bush connection or not, is at least not a lie.

Nevertheless, our oil comes mostly from Canada and Venezuela anyway. I'm still fairly shocked that people don't know this and still claim that this is all about oil. Because the logic would dictate that if the war were all about oil it would have been waged on those eeeeviil Venezuelans or the Axis of Caribou.

If it weren't about oil, the resource admin buildings wouldn't have taken precedence over hospitals when Iraq was conquered. I can see the provincial legislature, a hospital, and one of Esso's refineries outside my window this second. If a foreign military dropped bombs for two weeks then protected the refinery while the hospital and legislature burned, it'd be pretty clear what those foreigners wanted.

I don't think the American economy was so desperate for oil that unfettered access to Iraqi oilfields was necessary, it's more a matter of all the lucrative exploration and extraction contracts that are ripe for the picking. It's not a matter of need, it's a matter of want. It's not like there's an oil shortage or anything, no.

Saying 'if it were about oil we'd attack Canada too' doesn't wash. We're already staunch trade allies, and we share an open border. I doubt Bush could come up with an excuse for attacking us that the American public would fall for.

Maybe a few freepers, but they don't count.

But Iraq? Being attacked by people who sorta look like Saddam Hussein and come from more or less the same part of the world as Saddam Hussein, i.e., not the good ol' U S of A, under God, gave The Idiot all the excuse he needed.

This "all about oil" angle is ridiculous. Oil doesn't have nothing to do with what happened, but it certainly isn't the central figure in this Middle Eastern drama.

Consider:

Dick Cheney has close personal ties to Standard Oil (ExxonMobil). They were the largest contributers to the Bush war chest (1.8 million). Why haven't we handed all the oil in the country over to them yet? Why are we even talking with companies like BP, ChevronTexaco, Lukos, etc?

Halliburton is the best candidate for the job of rebuilding a lot of the Iraqi infrastructure. Dick Cheney was their CEO. Big deal. Even if giving them something is a result of Mr. Cheney, why don't the Iraqis deserve the best the world has to offer?

If you lined up all the companies and leaders in the world, they would all have close connections. Government leaders often come from the business world, and vice versa. Therefore, business shouldn't be used for anything, because it is a kickback from some world leader(s), right?

Saudi Arabia has the largest proven oil reserves in the world. We already had bases in their nation. Why didn't we take them over (not a bad idea, IMO)?

JUST about oil, no. The political clout of an easy and (relatively) blood-free victory is the greatest asset we gained from the war, and Bush is using it to try and push his agenda.

But I repeat...if it is "Iraqi oil," why do they have NO say in how it is being processed and which company handles the infrastructure rebuilding?

It's a joke. Even if Iraqi oil production is at full capacity for decades, they still have an army of creditors waiting to collect on past loans and unpaid debts that far exceed any possible oil revenue they could generate. Any oil revenue left after that will go directly to these long-term contracts with American, Bush-friendly firms like Bechtel and Halliburton.

After that, if there are any scraps over, THEN it's their money. That's absurd.

I will guarantee you that we wouldn't have found Saddam such a threat and the people so much in need of liberation if Iraq's primary produce was turnips and not oil.

We could well be talking to ChevronTexaco because Condoleeza Rice was once employed by them.
Besides which many oil companies pumped money into Bush's campaign.

The problem with Halliburton, Bechtel et all is not just because they have ex-chairmen and members of the boards in the Bush administration but also because they overwhelmingly financed his election campaign.

As for giving the Iraqis the best in the world? Well since we have already dropped the best munitions in the world on them why not?

As for Saudi Arabia. It does have the biggest reserves in the world but building a case for invading it is far harder. But with Iraqs supplies plus the availability of Russian and African oil it means that America can rely less on oil from OPEC nations. Effectively by increasing or decreasing oil production from Irag then can damage OPECs control over pricing ensuring that SUV driving soccer mums can drive freely in their land-yachts.

</strong>
You are right there, although I would add their proximity to other oil fields into that equation.
</strong>
But what about Lukos? What about Lukos? They are Russian, they had contracts in Iraq before the war, and they didn't donate a dime to the Bush administration.
<strong> Big business gives all kinds of money to political campaigns, especially the GOP. Does that mean the government shouldn't give contracts to companies like Lockheed Martin or Boeing, because they were big campaign donors. Perhaps we should outsource to Airbus all our defense production.
<strong> You could easily make a case for Saudi Arabia based on their support of al Qaeda. It was tenuous to link Iraq to them, but the Saudi connections are all over the place. We could easily show money trails, people trails, etc. that run all the way to the Saudi leadership from al Qaeda.

You could easily make a case for Saudi Arabia based on their support of al Qaeda. It was tenuous to link Iraq to them, but the Saudi connections are all over the place. We could easily show money trails, people trails, etc. that run all the way to the Saudi leadership from al Qaeda.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Ah well now we see the other side of the problem. I agree with you about Saudi Arabia's Al Qaeda connections. Many people do.

And yet how much about this have we heard from the Bush administration. Very little. Instead we get some half-assed connection to Iraq, indeed to the area of Iraq that Saddam had very little control over.
In fact the Kurdish controlled part of Iraq. But they are our friends now.

The issue you raise with Saudi Arabia is part of the whole problem with Bush's war on terror.

No consistency.

Hey Chumley,

Last time I checked, there wasn't an infitnate supply of oil on the Earth, and yes, we do get our oil mostly from South America, but that fact will change now because now we can get it from Iraq!

We are not going into Iraq because we want there oil. We are going into Iraq because we want to control there oil. This way, if something fucked up happens in somewhere like Venezuela (which has been having major political problems as of late) we have a huge source of oil at our disposal. We also will not have to worry about OPEC as much. We also gain strategic bases in the area.

Oh that's a load of crap and you know it! Canada and South America are going to be our strategic oil partners for a very long time. Do you seriously, and with forethought, believe that we want to "get it" from Iraq when it's plentiful from right fucking next door...in the same hemisphere?

And there's the kicker. We get bases that are outside the Arabian Penninsula and al Qaeda has one less thing they can be mad at us about.

This is especially true since Canada just announced that they now have 105 billion barrels of oil reserves, second in the world to...the Saudis.

I find it odd that a retired Royal Dutch Shell VP (Phil Carroll) has been posted as the advisor to the Petroleum ...not sure of the correct term, the board that overseas the rebuilding of the infrastructure...and no one's raised this as an issue, to my knowledge (not that it is one, that I know of, but I was half expecting to see something in this forum about it being a problem for somebody). Is it because Shell is a Dutch company, and notoriously neutral in global politics? (Dutch culture has little tolerance for political BS, in general terms.)

As for addressing the issue of Halliburton & Schlumberger abit above, the assertion that they are not oil companies is correct. They are construction and services...Halliburton can come in and build an entire processing plant for an oil company, but they don't own it or run it or get a cut of the production, they simply make the plant for the company. (Or whatever...Shell IT uses Schlumberger smart card readers for their computers, for instance, just like they use Compaq to provide the computers and Microsoft to provide the custom OS)
Do they make huge profits BECAUSE the oil companies hire them to do this? Hell yes...just like Microsoft does, just like Aramark food services does for winning the contract to provide food in the cafeteria, etc...but they are most definately not oil companies. This may seem like splitting hairs, but it isn't...you start lumping everything together, and the lines get very blurry in an area where you're trying to sharpen focus on, in the first place.

I guess. I just wish that all of this had been on the table. I think a lot of people on the other side are too content with the lies that are put out from this admin. Not saying any other administration has been better, but I did believe that Clinton was bombing Iraq as a scapegoat, and I disliked him for it. Bush should get the same shit for not being clear about why we invaded Iraq.

Also, now that it looks like we have not one, but possibly two strikes in one week from Al Queada I dont think a lot of what we have done has really prevented anything. They seem just as consistent as before 9-11. I really wonder what conservatives will say if we have another large scale attack on American soil. Will it still be Clinton's fault? Will Bush recieve any responsibility? If we do have another attack, would people who supported going into Iraq change there opinions after the fact?

Sure, but there's a very good chance that the moment the US invades Saudi Arabia a nuclear bomb will detonate somewhere over America, or a jet will crash on a nuclear power plant.

And even if that doesn't happen, the vast majority of Muslims will be mighty peeved about christians occupying the muslim holy land and will start really considerign the idea of a Jihad. Not to mention that you'd never be able to hold Mecca or Medina. I wouldn't be surprised if every resident turned into a potential suicide bomber.

And in any case, Bin Laden is not very fond of the Saudi royal family, despite the fact that he gets money from them. The US was also an Al Quaeda sponsor and that led to 9/11. You'd be doing his dirty work and possibly help him establish a theocracy in the long run.

Even simpler economics: more often than not, it's just as important to stop other people having a resource as it is to make use the resource yourself.

The US has plenty of oil supplies that are more convenient and more plentiful than Iraq. Logically speaking, there's no need to possess the Iraqi oil fields. But since when has modern capitalism been about "need"?

It's better (from their perspective) for a US oil firm to control Iraqi oil even if they never use it, than to have someone else own it.

Each side would most likely use another attack as justification as to why their side is right. The left will say that Bush accomplished nothing in trying to stop the attacks through the "war campaign on terror", while the right will say that the left kept them from properly protecting our nation. The real question is whether the american populous is smart enough to see through this bullshit from each side. They certainly haven't been able to so far since the 9/11 attacks.

America - Loved or hated, but never ignored.