... dann lesen wir das:
The well-rehearsed oil argument attempts to make war a simple issue of good versus evil, with oil-greedy imperialists on one side and defenseless civilians on the other. This presents the world as we might prefer it to be, where it's easy to know whom we should oppose, rather than as the world really is - where wars are weird, confusing, and often fought for no obvious material or economic gain.
> http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0123/p09s02-coop.html
Und in der Tat finden wir:
However, instead of speculating on benefits to be derived by American oil companies from U.S. control of Iraq, it is much more reasonable to actually look at Big Oil’s position on attacking Iraq. Did oil companies actually push for war? On the contrary, the representatives of the U.S. oil industry actually sought less hostile relations with Iraq. They had been solid in opposing the embargo on Iraq, which had kept them out of that country. After George W. Bush assumed the presidency in 2000, they lobbied hard for a repeal of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act and other embargoes that curbed their expansion of holdings in the Middle East. That put the oil industry at loggerheads with the neoconservatives, who for years had been calling for regime change in Iraq.
Stephen Sniegoski: "The Transparent Cabal", p. 335.
Die Ölindustrie der USA wollte bis zum letzten Moment eben keinen Krieg. Stan Crock und Chester Dawson schreiben auf Bloomberg über den Konflikt der beiden Kriegstreiber:
The fight pits powerful interests such as the pro-Israeli lobby and the U.S. oil industry against each other. And it is sure to preoccupy the Bush Administration and Congress. The Administration is currently reviewing both U.S. energy needs and its policy on sanctions. Congress is expected to vote this summer on whether to renew the five-year-old Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, which penalizes U.S. and foreign companies that invest in the two countries' energy sectors. The law expires on Aug. 5. Meanwhile, because of eroding support, the U.N. is likely to revise its tough sanctions policy toward Iraq.
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2001-05-07/rogue-states-why-washington-may-ease-sanctions
Roger Burbach beschreibt das genauer:
The mounting criticism of Bush’s Iraqi policies now extends to key business allies of the administration. “The big oil companies were not enthusiastic about the Iraqi war,” says Fareed Mohamedi of PFC Energy, a consultancy firm based in Washington D.C. that advises petroleum firms. “Corporations like Exxon-Mobile and Chevron-Texaco want stability, and this is not what Bush is providing in Iraq and the Gulf region,” adds Mohamedi. The specific interests of big oil appear to have been trumped by the ideologues in the Bush administration.
Nach der Aufzählung der Zioncons, die zum Krieg bliesen und die Ölindustrie abblitzen ließen, fährt er fort:
Fareed Mohamedi of PFC Energy asserts that the large petroleum companies had a more realistic approach to securing their interests in the Gulf region and the Arab world. “Big oil told the Cheney Task Force on Energy Policy in 2001 that they wanted the US sanctions lifted on Libya and Iran so they could gain access to their oil supplies. As far back as 1990, they were even arguing that the United States should cut a deal with Saddam because he had given signals he was willing to let US oil companies into Iraq.” Cheney of course ignored the arguments of the big oil companies.
Von Susan Lindauer wissen wir, daß Saddam den USA anbot, jährlich eine Million PKW in den USA zu kaufen, sollten die Sanktionen aufgehoben werden. Er wollte auch 5.000 US-Soldaten stationieren lassen, auf daß sie nach WMD suchen mögen.
Nein, hier ging es nicht um Öl.
> https://extremeprejudiceusa.wordpress.com/