For those who believe we took over Iraq for OIL, here is a lnk from your own parties network (CNN)?

Question

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Despite claims by some critics that the Bush administration invaded Iraq to take control of its oil, the first contracts with major oil firms from Iraq's new government are likely to go not to U.S. companies, but rather to companies from China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia.

While Iraqi lawmakers struggle to pass an agreement on exactly who will award the contracts and how the revenue will be shared, experts say a draft version that passed the cabinet earlier this year will likely uphold agreements previously signed by those countries under Saddam Hussein's government.

@ Rukidding

- Just doing my job as an honest American, hate to see so many people believe a lie that isnt true that we somehow are benefiting free oil from Iraq and that was the sole purpose for invasion.

.


"And what are you doing watching CNN if it's "our" network? "

Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer, grasshoppa"

@ Friendlyflyer

"please .... Its CNN, not pro-Bush. "

Yah this is aimed at liberals who believe Bush is teh root of all evil. And they dont believe sources from fox so I gave them their own network, whats your point?

Answer 1

People have been posting this as proof about not being over there for oil, please people think a little deeper and I will repeat my post for you as well.
Oil conquest in Iraq still helps us by supporting our allies and economic partners which trickles down to profits for US companies. You also have to look at the long term implications. the fact that we control the country means that we will always have future rights to that oil, much like what we are doing in Saudi Arabia. The problem is is that most people are short sighted and think that the first contracts completely disprove that we are there for Oil. US companies have already made billions and Haliburten was laying oil piplelines into Iraq before we had even taken Baghdad. BY the way Haliburten is moving to the UAE (United Arab Emirates) to make it easier to help build Iran's Nuclear infrastructure (Their offshore office in in the Caymen Islands was catching flack). Don't be so Naive, do you really think we do anything unless there is something in it for US business and money? If so, then why are we supporting Teodora Obiang and equatorial Guinea? He has committed more atrocities than Saddam, but we treat him like a Saint because we found oil in his country. He has been given millions in US dollars since 1997 and owns mansions in the US, but slaughters his people back home and keeps them in poverty

Answer 2

Oil is the existence-blood of the country. it really is in mainly everthing you employ, all the way all the way down to plastic. no longer merely gasoline. war is inevitable. because the begining of time. see you later as someone is on correct, there'll be someone attempting to take their position. it really is a organic order. Even the cells on your body salary war on a familiar foundation. The earth manifests this through wild-fires, volcano's, and hurricanes. the fact is, that there'll consistently be a "reason" for war. And those motives will decision searching on the guy waging it. some countries use their faith, others use the individuals, or their freedom, etc. there is constantly a scapegoat, there needs to be, in the different case theres no justification. Iraq and the middle east have consistently been at war, the U. S. has stepped in using crimes antagonistic to humanity. a similar reason we were given centred on WWII. it really is not any longer available for the war to be about oil because we are sitting on the biggest grant of it on the earth. If it were about oil, a barrel of it wouldnt be over $one hundred and forty at present. imagine about it. The far-left makes it unlawful for us to apply those factors, using gasoline expenditures higher and better, it extremely is what they choose. they choose the U. S. to be in a disaster, so a similar those who were given us there can step in and "keep" us (aka thoroughly administration each and every element).

Answer 3

From your link:
"Aljibury said the Chinese agreement is to produce about 70,000 barrels of oil a day, while the Vietnamese one is for about 60,000."

"But the barrel amount is tiny even by Iraq's depressed post-war production of around 2 million barrels a day"

please .... Its CNN, not pro-Bush.


--

Point is you, apparently, did not read the whole article since it states the 'other' contracts are "tiny"(exact word from link) then you claimed some type of victory over an oil theory ... it was from CNN and you believed it would be pro-Bush just going off the title. Funny stuff.

Answer 4

You know they aren't going to believe you just because you posted it. Now they'll try to say that CNN is a conservative news media and they are plotting against them.

Good work on the research.

Answer 5

I personally don't think we went over there for oil...that's a little hard to grasp for me, BUT this article doesn't necessarily prove that wasn't the reason (If it were). Just cause we haven't received any oil doesn't mean that we aren't going to eventually their country just got first dibs. :)

And what are you doing watching CNN if it's "our" network?

Answer 6

Those contracts represent 2 million barrels per day. Iraq can produce 6 million barrels per day. Who do you think is going to get the other 4 million barrels per day?

Answer 7

First, thanks for not making me have to go to the link by providing the story. Second, thanks for putting them straight with their own network, not that they will believe it.

Answer 8

Amen good reverend I loves it....