Iraqi Oil..Who Comes First? The United States of America? Or Our Good "Ally" Israel? OMG!!!?

Question

A few years back, Ahmad Chalabi had promised to reopen an old British-built pipeline from Kirkuk in northern Iraq to the Israeli port of Haifa. Israel could save 20 percent on energy costs by getting oil from Iraq instead of Russia.The idea drew enthusiastic response from Israel.
The United States, a close ally of both Israel and Jordan, would benefit from better access to the rich Iraqi oil fields, thereby reducing U.S. dependence on Saudi Arabia..

But the plan fell through. Chalabi was forced out of that decision.

Still it fueled all Iraqis' suspicion that their country was invaded for Israel's benefit. (Which we all know by now, was a true assessment)

But Israel has an ace in the hole. Interestingly enough,under a little known 1975 Memorandum of Understanding, the United States guarantees virtually all Israel's oil needs in the event of a crisis - even if it means reducing the amount of oil available to Americans.

We need to take care of our OWN needs.....

Lord Kelvi
Who said we got "MOST"? The question referred to
"REDUCING U.S. DEPENDENCE on Saudi Arabia."

From "Energy Information Administration, Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government":(September 29,2006)
The top sources of US crude oil imports for July, 2006 were Canada (1.624 million barrels per day), Mexico (1.561 million barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1.264 million barrels per day), Venezuela (1.191 million barrels per day), and Nigeria (1.014 million barrels per day).

Hummm LeANne.
You seem young as I am..yet you know so little. So I shall teach you.
.I was not even born when it happened,. back in the l970's
when people got up early sometimes 4 am to get gas for their cars....
when gas lines were blocks long...

You say "we have never threatened to invade them for their oil - not even during their oil embargo tantrums of the early '70s did we threaten military action - we just paid more and more for the oil!"

My my. You have much to learn. Had you never heard ---
In light of these facts, of the Henry ‘Kissinger plan’ which suggested that the U.S. invade Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and several other countries to secure these Middle Eastern oil fields?
the 'Kissinger plan' is a logical extension of previous US policy towards the Middle East. Establishing US military dominance in the region has long been the policy of the US ruling class. Is this not a threat?



humm perhaps you should visit a library and seek further knowledge, Yes

Answer 1

memorandums are meant to be broken !!!!!

Answer 2

"A true assessment??????"

Oil is an important commodity for the United States - but one question still haunts me - if oil is the major factor driving our foreign policies, why didn't we just keep Kuwait after we drove the Iraqis out?
Think about it. We have made these Arab countries filthy rich for one simple reason: WE PAY FOR THEIR OIL - we have never stolen their oil, we have never even threatened to invade them for their oil - not even during their oil embargo tantrums of the early '70s did we threaten military action - we just paid more and more for the oil!
In light of these facts, how can you believe we're invading now for oil? How about national security? Does 9/11 ring a bell?

Answer 3

So we invaded Iraq for Israels income? uncertain approximately that, yet whilst so, stable for Israel. they are on our part you comprehend. If we ought to preserve our very own desires, why do not we drill in Alaska? Its Freaking Alaska!! What approximately all of the oil off Florida or Cali? lamentably, that's all a moot factor. As hybrid autos proceed progression, the prefer for oil will drop, and the oil prosperous center east will glut, and their earnings disappear.

Answer 4

I my self don't see a problem helping Israel.. They are the largest military base the United States has in the middle east. We aswell have an agreement to supply Israel with arms to defend them selfs. And as long as they are fighting our battles for us why would you want to take away their oil or arms? How much would it cost for us to take that much man power over there and support them? Well over 200 billion so far just to keep 100,000 troops in Iraq and then we have lost 3000 of them.

I think you have your thoughts backwards in your head. Think what they are doing for us and what they will do for us later. How much money is your brother or sisters life worth? Maybe your son or daughter's lifes worth? I think mine kids are worth a lot more then the price we pay Israel to keep them crazies in line over there. The countries in the Middle East has seen what Israel can do to them and they know the USA is 1000 times stronger.

Our biggest problem in inside the USA not outside.

Answer 5

All bogus.... In the first place we don't get most of our oil from the Saudis... as far as our own needs.... If we would drill in Alaska... off shore Florida, and California, we wouldn't need nearly as much foreign oil. So work to get that done.

Answer 6

what Iraqis are you talking to. this is the first i hear that they have a suspicion that we invaded their country for Israels benefit. you must have an insight that we don't. i agree that you take care of your own first but their is always enough to around if not then we go and take it.

Answer 7

If this is true then you should be able to produce some links. If it is true, then we should break that Memorandum because that's just stupid. Gives us some links.

Answer 8

Thank you God for leading Moses out of Egypt.........We better help Israel!!!!!!!!!!!!! Unless, of course, you would rather live in Iraq, Saudia Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc.....

Answer 9

God, family, country in that order. Get that part right and the BS you bring up will fall right into place

Answer 10

Wanna know more about Chalabi?

Osama Bin Laden Invited to the White House?
Christopher Ruddy
Thursday, June 6, 2002
Osama Bin Laden Invited to the White House!
Now that sounds more than far-fetched. And certainly President Bush would rather see bin Laden's head on a platter than to have him as a dinner guest.

But a senior former CIA agent who served in the Middle East for almost two decades fighting terrorists thinks that bin Laden may believe that, like fellow terrorist leader Yasser Arafat, he may find himself someday a guest of a future U.S. president.

This former CIA officer, Robert Baer, recently wrote the explosive book "See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism."

Baer writes that when he sees Arafat "standing in the Rose Garden at the White House or when I hear that a CIA director has met privately with him at some desert tent, I wonder sometimes if Arafat's example doesn't make Osama bin Laden consider that he, too, might become a statesman in time."

Baer's point seems fantastic. However, we now know for a certainty that Arafat has masterminded and backed too many terrorist acts to count, from the Munich massacre to jet hijackings and worse.

A veteran of the Mideast, Baer knows Arafat. Baer writes that while "terrorist organizations operate like the most complicated interlocking directorate ever created," he discovered that many of the trails of these groups and their activities "converge at the feet of Yasser Arafat."

Yet today our liberal media prefer to describe Arafat as a freedom fighter. Baer's observations are deemed politically incorrect.

That may be one reason his book, with many important revelations, with a foreword by Seymour Hersh and published by Random House, has gotten such little media attention since it hit bookstores earlier this year.

Perhaps a companion book might have been titled: "Speak No Evil: Why A Veteran CIA Officer Should Keep His Mouth Shout About How Bill Clinton Undermined America's National Security."

While Baer fairly criticizes problems in the CIA and its handling of terrorism from the days of the Reagan and Bush administrations, he also clearly shows that the infrastructure of the CIA's ability to fight terrorism completely collapsed under Bill Clinton.

Here are just some of Baer's key points:

In 1991, the CIA closed up its activities in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. During the Clinton years things got even worse, when CIA operatives around the globe were directed away from spying on the bad guys and told to start worrying about "human rights, economic globalization, the Arab-Israel conflict." By 1995, the Clinton administration thought spy operations were so unimportant that a CIA analyst who had never served as a spy or even overseas was made director of operations, the CIA's chief spy.

Iran remains a major player in the terrorist world. Baer says that in 1982, Arafat "had put his entire worldwide terrorist network at Iran's disposal." Baer believes that the Iranians were clearly the culprits behind the bombings of the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in the early 1980s. In 1996, bin Laden formed an alliance with Iran. The purpose of the alliance was simple: Attack America.

The Clinton White House's gross negligence and malfeasance was demonstrated by its handling of Saddam Hussein. Baer states that in 1995, top staffers at the National Security Council prevented a planned coup by Iraqi military leaders against Saddam Hussein. Baer was the top CIA man in Northern Iraq working with Iraqi dissidents.
Baer also reveals just how much the Clinton White House sought to protect Hussein.
In 1995 Baer was summoned by the CIA back from Iraq to Washington. Upon reporting to CIA headquarters, a CIA superior told him why he was called home: "Tony Lake [Bill Clinton's national security adviser] ordered the FBI to investigate you for trying to assassinate Saddam Hussein."

After months of investigation, the charges were found to be baseless and dropped.

Like many other CIA veterans who were thwarted from doing their jobs by their own government, Baer retired. Still, the CIA gave him due recognition. He was awarded its Career Intelligence Medal.

But the coddling of Hussein was not isolated to just targeting Baer and removing him from Iraq.

In fact, the Clinton White House clearly decided to keep and maintain Saddam Hussein in power. [Note: I suspected this back in 1998 and wrote about it in "Maybe Saddam Actually Likes Bill Clinton."]

In one of the most important revelations in "See No Evil," Baer reveals that Saddam Hussein might well have been deposed by his own troops, especially if the economic sanctions had been rigorously applied.

But with U.S. complicity, Saddam Hussein was able to sell millions of barrels of Iraqi oil by shipping them overland through NATO ally Turkey.

During the mid-'90s Baer says, the smuggled oil through Turkey "was a lifeline for Saddam, who used the money to fund his intelligence services and Special Republican Guards – the forces that kept him alive."

The pipeline of smuggled oil was no hidden, disputed fact. Baer reports the Iraqi oil trucks stretched back anywhere from 20 miles to 70 miles as they waited to cross into Turkey.

Baer was baffled. He writes, "What I couldn't understand was why the White House didn't intervene." He says the U.S. could easily have closed down the truck pipeline into Turkey.

"It was almost as if the White House wanted Saddam to have a little walking around money," Baer writes.

Baer concludes that the Clinton administration "helped Saddam pay for his praetorian guard, just what you'd expect of a clever superpower that was secretly supporting the local despot."

Why would Bill Clinton, our president, do such a thing? Why would he help Saddam Hussein at the very time his public rhetoric against him was so strong?

Nobody who has studied Bill Clinton should be surprised by his duplicity. The facts show, and future historians will discover, that Bill Clinton was no friend of the United States.

Editor's Note: Get your copy of "See No Evil" at a great price