On Syria, Turkey, etc.: You don't think the US invaded Iraq because of the oil? Wrong!

Baghdad signed long-term contracts between late 2008 and early 2010 with oil groups including Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Total of France, Lukoil of Russia and CNPC of China to develop a dozen gigantic fields in southern Iraq.

via Iraq's oil output overtakes Iran's - The Washington Post.

You give as your reason that China was allowed in.

By way of background, Iraq issued its first round of licenses to exploit oil fields in the post-Saddam era in 2009. The most lucrative of the oil fields, the vast Rumeila field, was awarded to a consortium dominated by British Petroleum (BP) and the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC). Not only was the contract price comparatively low, at $2 a barrel, but the award was a less-favorable "technical service contract" which is effectively a flat payment for the service of extracting the oil. This is to be contrasted with the more common "production sharing contract" where the host country and the international oil company share the reserves in the oil field at a given percentage, enabling the oil company to account for a portion of the reserves as present assets. (http://jurist.org/forum/2012/08/haider-hamoudi-iraq-oil.php)

And Russia?

In addition, big oil companies such as Gazprom of Russia and Chevron of the United States have also signed deals with the semiautonomous region of Kurdistan, in northern Iraq, to tap smaller but lucrative oil fields there. The deals have soured the relationship between Baghdad and Irbil, the capital of the Kurdistan region. But the tension, so far, has not seriously hurt the development of the industry. (washingtonpost.com above)

Russia too has been allowed in.

Why would the US allow China and Russia to have any stake in Iraq and Kurdistan (still part of Iraq but semi-autonomous)? The US wants leverage with them. It's been a carrot. It's for the same reason the US granted Most Favored Nation trading status to China when China was barely out of Mao's anti-market communism and entering into Deng's budding Chinese-style market-socialism. In addition, a fuller reading on the subject will reveal that it is an expensive proposition to be the first into Iraq where the infrastructure suffered greatly from sanctions and the war. US and other oil companies want better terms and more stability and want Iraq itself to shoulder much of that burden. Therefore, many oil companies are not all in. Also, the oil companies play a competitive game anyway. Each has its own ideas as to where to invest and how to work the angles.

What's going on in Syria?

Syria is part of the greater region where the market-corporatists under the global-banking elite want total control and to have Russia and China on board. The US has great sway but not total control over global market-corporatism (corporate feudalism, which constitutes much of the financial power behind national and supranational governmental organizations). Corporations under global banking versus self-determining nation-states is the battle ground. Democracy versus not is only a tool in that battle. People can, and do, vote for the wrong things out of ignorance brought on by misinformation and censorship of salient facts.

The US has had longterm plans to topple Iran's Shiite Theocracy. One of the levers is oil sanctions. China requires oil because China has not invested properly in clean alternatives. If the US were to have not allowed China into Iraqi oil and then applied sanctions against Iran over trumped up nuclear-weapons-program charges against Iran, China would have been much more difficult to deal with than otherwise (even though China is not going along fully with the US on Iran).

Syria is a cog in the competition of empires. Turkey is a NATO member and even though it is predominantly Sunni, as are the Saudi Arabians, Turkey is a republic where Saudi Arabia is a hereditary, absolute monarchy. Syria is being pulled apart by Iran, Turkey, and especially the Saudis, with those three operating under the poor supervision of the larger, greater powers, with the US still at the apex but having lost as much as half of its relative global power during the last sixty years. It has lost much of it do to outsourcing and thereby the rise of other nation-states, particularly China {about to overtake the US in real terms (but not per capita) if it can avoid a hugely hard landing, which softer landing would surprise me — do they have the right stuff?}.

Southern Iraq is at odds with Northern Iraq (aka Kurdistan-Iraq) over Kurdistan's oil deals, which haven't paid off for the Kurds because the South is blocking exports. The Kurds need the South to let up or the Kurds need a pipeline bypassing the South's control. Turkey is a natural for such a pipeline:

In May, the KRG announced plans to build a pipeline from the Taq Taq oilfield to hook up with an existing one that runs from Kirkuk in Iraq to Ceyhan on Turkey's Mediterranean coast, targeting August 2013 as the completion date and initial capacity of 1 million barrels a day. (http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/05/us-iraq-kurdistan-oil-tussle-idINBRE87402C20120805)

The PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) though has been fighting against Turkey for decades right up to this day and recently reportedly attacked a Turkish military bus, killing and maiming (which the PKK doesn't deny it does). Turkey attack backed. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/11/us-turkey-kurds-idUSBRE87A0AF20120811)

The issues go deeper and become more complex the deeper one goes. Don't under-intellectualize the matter. Don't underestimate the lengths the powers will go to, to attempt to trick you into believing what isn't true. Deception is the name of their game. Some groups are slower to catch on to when they've been made though.

A prime case in point are the Likudniks (Israelis; members of a hardline-Zionist political party: Likud).

When I kept pointing out that there is zero proof offered up showing Iran has a nuclear-weapons program, the US finally (after many months) stopped saying that it knows Iran has a nuclear-weapons program. It fell back upon an earlier assessment that Iran had stopped in 2003. Of course, it has no proof that Iran ever had such a program. Benjamin Netanyahu, however, has not stopped speaking in ways he cannot substantiate. That makes him look stupid in the eyes of the Americans who have backed off the dumb comment. Why do I mention this? I say it because no matter who you are, how little you think you are, if you speak the truth, it does matter.

Continuing, to one degree or another, both Russian and Chinese leadership see the US and NATO and the EU as threats on all fronts. The globe has been described as a "Grand Chessboard" with Iraqi being about the center of the most important area in terms of ultimately controlling the whole of Eurasia, which is the ultimate goal, as controlling it will ultimately mean controlling the planet nearly by default. The type of control envisioned is godlike: omniscient. This is why surveillance is being ramped up. This is why secrecy (anti-democratic) is being ramped up.

Don't be fooled. All of that, that they are doing, is not a sign of intelligence. Neither their ends nor means are intelligent. The dumbest ones on the planet are those who refuse to understand intelligence while thinking themselves superior in their sociopathic takings.

Lastly, the US invaded Iraq for many reasons, but if Iraq had, had no oil, Iraq would have posed little threat or reward. That does not mean that other factors are not more at play elsewhere. Some places are not oil-rich but are still "strategic." Anyway, the whole world is the goal, and anti-Christ is their means and ends.

Do you want to know how it all turns out and which side you should be on and why, or do you mistakenly think there's safety in ignorance? If you don't want to know so you can go on doing wrong in ignorance, you're guilty of that; and you know now, regardless.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.