On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 21:02:32 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 8/27/2014 8:29 PM, jps wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 10:41:48 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:46:39 -0700, jps wrote:


I never said Bush and Cheney were going to get oil. Your reading
comprehension has maybe taken a dive in the past few years? I said
that our interests were that the oil be made availabe on world markets
in order that it cause downward pressure on oil prices.

The US was getting more and more dependent on foreign oil in the early
2000s, pushing over 50%. A spike in oil prices and gasoline would
have put any economic recovery into peril. Bush knew that and put
Cheney in charge of finding a way to increase production domestically
while looking for anwers elsewhere.

Iraq could provide a big boost to oil production and, if they were
clever about it, they could find a way to push Iraqi oil away from
OPEC and put further pressure on oil prices and the Saudi cartel.

Do a little research into the new Iraqi constitution and you'll find
long passages around the framework of oil production, distribution,
etc.

This was part of Cheney's energy plan. We spent 5000 lives, 50,000
injured, 10s of thousands of Iraqi lives were dead, ruined or
displaced and 2 trillion sunk into a country we broke and now own.

****ed up American imperialism at work.

The flaw in your whole conspiracy theory is that starting a war never
increases oil production. The best way to do that would be to simply
lift the embargo.

They didn't want to lift the embargo to simply have the oil flow back
through OPEC. They wanted to use Iraq to bust OPEC into bits.

Why else would they start a war that they knew wasn't for the purposes
they were citing? They actively squashed any information that would
undercut their case for war. WMD, yellowcake, aluminum tubes,
winnebago mobile weapons labs. All bull****, and they knew it.



Your recollection of history has maybe taken a dive in the past few years?

Hmmm.... maybe.