Oil and Betrayal in Iraq, By George Lakoff

[babylonsister]

Oil and Betrayal in Iraq, By George Lakoff
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Wed, 09/19/2007 - 10:40pm. Guest Contribution
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by George Lakoff

George Lakoff of the The Rockridge Institute examines what Alan Greenspan's admission that "the Iraq war is largely about oil" means for America's troops and for the people of Iraq:



Alan Greenspan should know. It was oil all along. The former head of the Federal Reserve writes in his memoir, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Greenspan even advised Bush that "taking Saddam Hussein out was essential" to protect oil supplies.

Yes, we suspected it. In a deep sense, many of us knew it, just as those in Washington did. But now it's in our face. Greenspan put the mother of all facts in front of our noses, and we can no longer be in denial. The US invaded Iraq for the oil.

Think about what it means for our troops and for the people of Iraq. Our troops were told, and believed because they trusted their president, that they were in Iraq to protect America, to protect their families, their homes, their friends and neighbors, our democracy. But they were betrayed. Those troops fought and died and were maimed and had their marriages break up for oil company profits. An utter betrayal of our men and women in uniform and their families, a betrayal of their sacrifices, day after day, month after month, year and year — and for some, forever! Children growing up fatherless or motherless. Men and women without legs or arms or faces — for oil company profits.

And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, more maimed, and millions made refugees. For oil profits.

And what profits they are! Take a look at the study of Iraqi oil contracts by Global Policy Forum, a consultant to the United Nations Security Council. Or read this editorial from The Daily Times in Pakistan.

The contracts that the Bush administration has been pushing the Iraqi government to accept are not just about the distribution of oil among the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. The contracts call for 30-year exclusive rights for British and American oil companies, rights that cannot be revoked by future Iraqi governments. They are called "production sharing agreements" (or "PSA's") — a legalistic code word. The Iraqi government would technically own the oil, but could not control it; only the companies could do that. ExxonMobil and others would invest in developing the infrastructure for the oil (drilling, oil rigs, refining) and would get 75% of the "cost oil" profits, until they got their investment back. After that, they would own the infrastructure (paid for by oil profits), and then get 20% of oil profits after that (twice the usual rate). The profits are estimated to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. And the Iraqi people would have no democratic control over their own major resource. No other Middle East country has such an arrangement.

more...

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1315

[yurbud]

1. If Democrats were serious about ending war, they would say this EVERYDAY, over and over

That they don't makes it clear they are giving us lip service and oil companies first class service.

[yurbud]

2. bold-face the betrayal paragraph--that's the emotional hook

Think about what it means for our troops and for the people of Iraq. Our troops were told, and believed because they trusted their president, that they were in Iraq to protect America, to protect their families, their homes, their friends and neighbors, our democracy. But they were betrayed. Those troops fought and died and were maimed and had their marriages break up for oil company profits. An utter betrayal of our men and women in uniform and their families, a betrayal of their sacrifices, day after day, month after month, year and year — and for some, forever! Children growing up fatherless or motherless. Men and women without legs or arms or faces — for oil company profits.

[babylonsister]

3. Yes, that's really powerful, and true. Thanks, and done. nt

[yurbud]

7. thanks for posting this. VOTE it UP on DIGG too LINK:

I'm glad to see someone else on this issue. We should bang this drum until it's the only thing people hear.

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Oil_and_Betrayal_in_Iraq_by_George_Lakoff

[OneBlueSky]

4. in other words . . . the U.S. is in Iraq to steal its oil . . . and that's why . . .

this "war" isn't going to end anytime soon . . .

[babylonsister]

5. It appears that way; it's the Iraqi's oil, but so what? The bullies are in town. nt

[Kikosexy2]

6. One of the first...

signs this war/invasion was about oil is when the troops were order first to protect the oil wells in Iraq...you would think that the first order would be to protect the civilians of Iraq from our shock and awe..but nope! it was to protect the oil first and foremost...Bushco, et al we're expecting the Iraqis just to bend over, take it up the ass and grab their oil and run...I'm glad the Iraqis are resisting to give up their oil (and remember even Chimpie had said many times that the oil belongs to the Iraqi people)...these greedy MoFos don't deserve squat...and the sad part is our brave troops are nothing but disposable pawns in this oil grab...Face it, our troops are dying not for democracy or freedom but for lining the pockets of these evil, murderous thugs in the White House and their oil barron buddies...and what do the troops get in return?...lifetime of blown off limbs, mental instability, inadequate healthcare, and death...while Bushco and buddies rake in billions...DISGUSTING!!!!