[Vision2020] Why Invading Iraq Makes "Oil" Sense

[Tbertruss at aol.com]

Phil wrote on 8/18/05:

"But it might interest you to note that Norway is the third largest exporter 
of oil.  Canada has the second largest reserves.  So if invading countries 
for their oil was the idea, invading Norway would look pretty good as would 
invading Canada."

The tar sands oil in Alberta are difficult to extract and turn into usable 
energy forms, and will probably not be extensively developed until after the 
cheaper and easier to access oil reserves in the world are more depleted, unless 
global military and/or political problems deny the US and its allies access to 
Middle East and other sources of oil.  New technology may change this 
picture.  From Forbes.com:

http://www.forbes.com/energy/2005/02/17/cz_0217oxan_canadaoil.html

"Also, in spite of recent technological advances, extracting oil from the tar 
sands remains a slow process. Oil from the tar sands cannot be extracted and 
refined into useable oil quickly enough to replace other readily accessible 
sources from elsewhere in the world. In 2004, oil from the tar sands accounted 
for just over 1% of global oil production. Further technological advances will 
be necessary to close this gap."

Invading Canada of course is a joke.  But consider that even if the US wanted 
to invade Canada to protect the tar sands oil reserves, why bother?  We 
already have a huge military presence here in the USA protecting "friendly" Canada 
anyway.  And besides, the oil reserves of Iraq and Saudi Arabia are larger 
than Canada's, easier to extract and of higher quality.  And unlike Canada's oil 
reserves, they are clearly under threat of control by ideologies and potential 
future regimes in the Middle East hostile to the US and its allies, such as 
the funding from the extreme Wahhahism in Saudi Arabia for Islamic terrorism, 
which had far more to do with the 9/11 attacks than the fantasies of Saddam's 
involvement. 

There is the potential for cutting off Middle East oil supply to the US and 
other allies under some future scenarios.  For example, again, the Wahhabism in 
Saudi Arabia is a threat to the stability of the Saudi government, and to US 
interests in Saudi oil reserves, which could result in Saudi Arabia turning 
against US oil interests, that a US military presence in Iraq can guard against:

>From the Council On Foreign Relations web site:


http://www.cfr.org/pub6178/michael_mandelbaum/us_faces_dilemma_on_saudi_policy.php

"But the rule of the Saudi royal family rests on another, internal bargain. 
The regime has embraced as its official ideology a radical form of Islam known 
as Wahhabism, which preaches intolerance for, indeed hatred of, all others - 
Muslim and non-Muslim alike - who do not subscribe to its precepts. It is as 
if, says the eminent historian of the Mideast Bernard Lewis, the U.S. government 
were promoting the ideas of the Ku Klux Klan.   "

>From the point of view of using military force to protect the largest and 
highest quality oil reserves in the world, both for the energy needs of the US 
and its allies, and to prevent these oil reserves serving the ends of ideologies 
or governments opposed to the USA, the US invasion of Iraq and building 
military bases there makes sense, if only the Iraqis and the rest of the world 
would cooperate with our agenda as we wish.  

In saying this I am not supporting the invasion and occupation of Iraq, but 
only pointing out the logic involved in the invasion from the point of view of 
protecting US energy interests and global political/economic hegemony 
regarding the largest, highest quality and easily accessible oil reserves in the 
world, those in the Middle East.

Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050821/76786db2/attachment.htm