Check Out Our Sports Photo Galleries Contact Us
Exchanging American blood for Iraqi oil
by David Farside
Mar 17, 2008 | 629 views | 0 0 comments | 25 25 recommendations | email to a friend | print
When Bush was elected president for his second term, I said the war in Iraq was about oil, not weapons of mass destruction. I predicted the price of gasoline would be $4 a gallon before George retired to his ranch in Texas. And I would be willing to bet George gets back in the oil business as soon as he leaves the White House.

A recently released report on the government’s investigation of more than 2,000 documents prove there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and there was no link between Hussein and bin Laden, meaning the war was about oil. Information on the Web site of the Global Policy Forum might explain the reason why.

In 1972, Iraq nationalized the oil industry. France, Russia and China seemed to have an inside track leading to the pockets of the Iraqi government. The U.K. and the U.S. were excluded from entering into contracts for oil reserves with Iraq. And both countries have been trying to get Iraqi oil ever since. It’s no wonder that France, Russia and China were opposed to our invasion, occupation and colonization of Iraq. They were about to lose the contracts they had with a sovereign country and would now have to deal indirectly with the United States.

In this new political and corporate environment where Washington is dictating policy to and for Iraq, “friendly” governments and corporations will receive the most lucrative oil deals providing hundreds of billions of dollars in profits over the next 20 years.

The new Iraqi constitution written in 2005, dictated by the United States, creates a conduit for these foreign companies (the U.S. and the U.K.) to negotiate with Iraq on production-sharing agreements that will give Exxon and a few others control over dozens of oil fields, including the superstar of oil reserves, Majnoon. But the Iraqi parliament hasn’t passed the legislation yet that will allow foreign companies to take over their nationalized oil fields.

Presently, Iraq has the fourth largest proven oil reserves in the world. Its estimated 112 billion barrels represent about 11 percent of the world’s total supply. The three largest reserves are in Saudi Arabia followed by, of all places, Canada and Iran. No wonder George wants to invade Iran. Canada exports more than 90 percent of its oil to the United States. I wonder if Bush will start a war with them, too!

But the value of Iraq’s resources is not limited to oil. Iraq, with their proven natural gas reserves of 112 trillion cubic feet, ranks 10th in the world among gas producers.

Since the Iraqi politicians seem to be dragging their feet on legislation allowing American corporations to take a bite out of their oil; the United States has threatened to withdraw funding for the reconstruction of its infrastructure we blew up and military support for its so-called protection. Maybe they just want us to leave.

The United States has preached that in a democracy the will of the people should be heard and represented, but not in the new democracy of Iraq. Most Iraqis are still in favor of their national control of oil. And their oil workers’ union (yes, they have a union) opposes the de-nationalization of Iraqi oil.

When we invaded Iraq, Bush said the revenue from the sale of Iraqi oil would be used to rebuild a better Iraq and contribute to its independence. So what is Iraq doing with the money it receives from the sale of its oil? That is the same question the U.S. Senate is asking the Iraqi government.

Last week at a congressional hearing, David Walker, our controller general, alleged the Iraqi government is not spending its own money for reconstruction. He stated, “The Iraqis have a budget surplus, we have a huge budget deficit. ...One of the questions is who should be paying to rebuild their infrastructure? The Democrats are asking the same question. U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., says, “They ought to be able to use some of their oil to pay for their own cost and not keep sending the bill to the United States.”

Some U.S. insiders believe the reasons for Iraq’s giant budget surplus is because Baghdad hasn’t set priorities on how to allocate their money. And why should they? If they hold onto their money and spend ours, they can loan our Federal Reserve some of our own worthless dollars to bail out the banks that are going out of business in our perfect free-market capitalistic society.

So, was the invasion of Iraq really Bush’s conspiracy to gain control of Iraq’s oil and gas reserves for his own personal future exploration? If oil is not the motive for the war in Iraq, then why didn’t we invade Afghanistan where our enemies live? It’s simple – Afghanistan has poppy seeds, not oil.

Let’s not forget George had his own oil – Exploration Co., Arbusto, from 1979 to 1983. George managed to get himself into a $3.1 million debt before he sold it to Spectrum 7. There, he became their chief executive officer where he managed to get them so far in debt he needed to harken oil and gas to bail him out. And we all know what he did to the Texas Rangers.

It’s sad to think we are using the values of democracy to justify the death of so many innocent civilian men, women and children who are just considered collateral damage. It is sad to think what George Bush is willing to do for oil and world dominance. It’s sad to think we are exchanging American blood for Iraqi oil. It’s just sad.

David Farside is a Sparks resident and political activist. The polemics of his articles can be discussed at His Web site is
Comments-icon Post a Comment
No Comments Yet
Featured Businesses