oil profits and Iraq War "failure"

[yurbud]

Is it possible that far from securing Iraq's oil for us as the world's supply begins to decline, the goal of the war was to keep Iraq's oil out of the market or at least keep it at a trickle?

The sanctions were about to come off which could have at least temporarily increased the supply and held down prices-cutting oil company prices.

If the war were just about securing the oil for us or even more cynically (and likely) for American instead of French and Russian companies, then it would have made sense to follow the advice of the Pentagon and State on how to do the occupation.

By doing the direct opposite, Iraq's oil flow has stayed a trickle, and the constricted supply has shot oil company profits through the roof.

Am I missing something?

[pushycat]

1. Bet you're missing some money out of your pocket. Sure hope

a scenario like yours isn't anywhere near the truth. That Freeway Blogger sign about 2$ gal gas/2 soldiers per mile is way too prescient for me.

[pretzel4gore]

2. while vast numbers of greedy people

operating through gop representatives in a kind of machiavellian way might explain the result we see, the fact is that the 'interests served' since bush came along is not the public interest. period. Somewhere, there's a theory that, in a real democracy, with one human, one vote, the 'intelligensia' has a double duty: to represent the 'noble' while also honour the wishes of the herd, the masses, the 'people, whatever you call us.....the theory is that the tipping point, in a 'real democracy' is when the men elected to top office can't shine the shoes of the heavyweights, the wealthy and hereditary powerful. when jfk was elected, despite the fact the big shots preferred the other guy, a hitherto unanimity of purpose was lost, and jfk was removed...to make a long story short, the end of usa as a representative democracy came about the time we landed on the moon-that was the last thing collective america would be allowed to do. The pigmedia has wrecked every us presidency since...johnason, nixon, ford, carter (remember carter's $58 billion deficit? Or the constant hostage crisis? that ended when reagan was 'elected') Reagan was never a 'popular' president; how could he be? He was a 3rd rate actor, a former actors unionist who blah blah blah....he couldn't debate a khruschev, or last one minute with a real politician who took power like a mao or stalin or even a charles de gaulle or a saddam hussein (and this goes double for junior the bozo bush aka potus incredibleus) Without denigrating anyone, it can be said that US leaders really CAN't lead, witness clinton, who is nearly a rock star in reputation, but spins his wheels uselessly. The 'men' who run america, and thus influence the world, mainly use media, they in effect tell the people what they THINK they think, or in a crunch, what they thought they THOUGHT they thought...it's a non mystery that defies understanding because it exploits every base grotesque and ugly sentiment in humanity, thus passes off un reported, while we entertain ourselves with stuff that denies the reality...the iraq war has no purpose but to fill newstime and keep the fat people entertained while saying whatever happens was always the agenda; it's gadarene swine time, all dressed up to look like it has an objective...iow, the emperor has no clothes, he aint an emperor and he isn't very smart and can barely shine shoes. Someone forgot that "power corrupts, and absolute power really corrupts" The rightwing idea explaining circumstances that it's a 'clash of civilizations' is nonsense; 'do unto others as you'd have them do unto you' is a freaky joke, said by the usa, isn't it?