Isn't the following incredibly misinformed?

Question

"One must wonder, moreover, why so much credibility should be given to the unproven conspiracy theory that five years ago the United States went to war over oil? Indeed, the fear of giving any credence to this conspiracy theory contributed to the insufficient U.S. effort in the Iraqi oil sector from the very beginning."

The US has pretty much stolen Iraqi oil. The National Iraq Oil has been privatized and mostly sold to American Big Oil.

Interesting there's so much American interest in Iraq oil and none about the millions of suffering refugees or Iraqis living and attempting to do business in bombed out buildings. The care and rebuilding of Iraq is a farce.

Answer 1

http://www.handsoffiraqioil.org/2008/06/...

And so the game continues. The west just could no longer dialog or negotiate for the east had the upper hand. The EU outbid UK and US as seen/proving aide from France, Germany and surprisingly Turkey and Russia.

The fact that Saddam considered China and the Euro was just to much for the US. http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/08/22/c...

As for Iraqi Infrastructure, that is the responsibility of the UN.......... oh, wait, the UN did not agree on this attack, that's why the US is demanding UN and NATO assistance - not to care for the Iraqi populace but to defend Georgia's Natural *** - ets - Please Not the Advisory - http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/caspgrp...

Reinvent the Empires - supress the Camels http://oilandgas.einnews.com/news/oil-ga...

Answer 2

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who served as the chief prosecutor of the major n**i war criminals, called starting a war without cause the "supreme war crime" because all other war crimes flow from it.

Under the United Nations Charter, which is a binding international treaty ratified by the United States, it is illegal to attack another nation except: 1) when authorized by the Security Council; or 2) when necessary for self-defense and then only for as long as necessary to get the matter to the Security Council.

The Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441 that found Iraq in material breach of prior resolutions and warned of "severe consequences" if Iraq didn't conform. But that resolution also explicitly stated that the Security Council remained seized of the issue and the United States assured the other members that Resolution 1441 did not authorize it to attack Iraq; the U.S. would have to return to the Security Council for another resolution before it could attack Iraq. In early 2003, the United States did return to the Security Council with a resolution authorizing an attack on Iraq. When it became clear that the proposed resolution could not muster a majority, the United States withdrew the resolution and attacked Iraq anyway. There is no crime more serious than illegally starting a war.

Answer 3

Yes it is.

I'm going to post links to back this up( US stealing Iraqis oil). as many as I can.

Regards.

Answer 4

Of course, but I would disagree with "Misinformed" I would say "disingenuous"  

Answer 5

any proof to back up your claim??

or it is simply your imagination??

Answer 6

Yes.

Four major US, British and French oil companies are getting their hands on the petroleum reserves of Iraq for the first time in 36 years, based on no-bid contracts, the New York Times reported.

These deals reached with the US-backed regime in Baghdad have placed the five-year-old US war of aggression in the clearest possible perspective.

For the thousands of American families who have seen their sons and daughters killed in the Iraq war or return maimed or psychologically damaged, the knowledge that their sacrifices have opened up potentially huge new profit streams for Exxon-Mobil, Shell, British Petroleum and Total will provide cold comfort.

For the over one million Iraqis killed and the millions more turned into refugees or made homeless in their own land, an overriding justification for their suffering has now been laid bare. It was to further enrich the already obscenely wealthy corporate executives and major shareholders of Big Oil.

As the New York Times reported: “The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.”

The Times acknowledged that “The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India.”

No-bid deals in the oil sector are not only “unusual,” under conditions in which oil demand is at an all-time high crude is selling for nearly $140 a barrel and energy-producing countries around the world—Russia, Kazakhstan, Venezuela, Bolivia and others—are exerting a tighter national grip over their reserves. Such contracts cannot be explained outside of their being negotiated at the point of a gun.

"I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil." – Alan Greenspan