A US soldier walks towards a burning oil
well in Iraq's vast Rumaila oil fields in this
March 2003 photo: Even directly after the
invasion, the US troops didn't pay close
attention to the issue of oil.
Photo Credit: Der Spiegel
In my article yesterday Wikileaks Exposes Lie That Iraq War was About Oil I pointed out that the leak of hundreds of thousands of documents remarkably has not revealed a single trace of mention that the US presence in Iraq in any way, shape, or form involved oil. If George Bush went to Iraq because of oil, he didn't share his intentions with a single, living soul.
Is it possible that millions of liberals know what has to be the best kept government secret in the world? Really now.
A reader calling himself johnny utah (interestingly logged in from Nevada) is not convinced:
I agree with you most times Bernie- but we(USA) are in Iraq for $$ - why else are we in Iraq? Democracy or perhaps being humanitarians? Ha .... we are there for $$. Iraq has lots and lots of oil.
America does not need to invade a country to make money. America does not need to invade a country to control oil or any other commodity. In fact, we don't even need the whole might and power of our military to control anything. One single American corporation is big enough to corner the market in any commodity if they so chose to do and were legally allowed to; for example, in today's Wall Street Journal it was reported that J.P. Morgan Chase is in control of more than 50% of all the copper stored in official London warehouses. (1)
Most people, and this includes Americans, have no clue how big Big Corporations really are. Some are richer than entire countries. So the notion that America's military needs to go around drumming up business for corporations is laughable. Corporations can take care of themselves without pushing us into war.
Wars do not make money any more than breaking windows makes money. It merely shifts expenditures on unnecessary products and takes away revenues that would have been spent more efficiently by private individuals.
If dropping bombs on buildings and shooting at people actually increased GDP, then the Sudan, Somalia and Nigeria would be the richest countries in the world.
But let's pretend that George Bush was so clever that he made sure never to put in writing or to allow anyone to tape a conversation in which he discloses that he invaded Iraq so that American oil companies could benefit.
But if that was in the slightest way his intention, shouldn't he have whispered a command to our generals in Iraq to make sure that whoever gets into power in Iraq that they give concessions to American Oil companies?
It seems no one told the Iraqis that we are in Iraq for the oil. Not one single American oil company has benefited from the war in Iraq. How is that possible? From the German Magazine Der Spigel:
Contrary to what many people believe, the Iraq war provided few advantages for the US oil industry. The diplomatic cables show that, in most cases, it was competitors to the Americans who often did better in the country.
In the end, bidder consortiums led by France's Total and China's CNPC secured contracts. Other companies awarded contracts were from Malaysia, Vietnam, Angola, Norway, Britain and Russia.
But there were no US companies.
"No Blood for Oil" had been a slogan used by protesters against George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq. A SPIEGEL cover story in January 2003 even carried the title "Blood for Oil" and analyzed Iraq's role as an oil power.
Few Oil Profits from $700 Billion Investment
But the opposite came true. A lot of blood was spilled, but very little oil flowed for the US.
The leaked documents do not show we went to Iraq for oil; my many articles on the subject demonstrate how ridiculous the idea is; and finally, an ugly fact that cannot be disputed: reality. In reality not a single oil contract went to an American Oil company.
Sorry johnny utah, I bought more oil for my salad last week at Stop & Shop than George Bush's oil buddies got from Iraq.
WSJ Online, Big Bank Sitting On A Big Pile Of Copper
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. has emerged as the mystery buyer of more than $1 billion of copper, accounting for more than 50% of all the metal stored in official London warehouses and stoking worries about an impending supply shortage.
The New York bank's purchases have caused a stir in commodities circles in recent weeks. The London Metal Exchange late last month revealed a buyer had snapped up a large chunk of the exchange's copper stockpiles, leaving some to question whether a trader was trying to corner the market for the metal.
J.P. Morgan's appearance as the owner of the copper alleviated some of those worries.
The bank bought the copper mostly on behalf of clients, according to a person familiar with the matter, so it doesn't directly own all the metal. But the buying spree does leave a large swathe of copper in the hands of one bank and its clients.
"That percentage of total LME inventories is enough to get people's attention. They certainly do sort of have a lock on the market there," said Louis Zawislak, president of Commodity Management Solutions Ltd., a metals-consulting company.