Oil & War

"Oil is much too important a commodity to be left in the hands of the Arabs."
                              
                                -- Henry Kissinger, US Secretary of State
      
                                                          under Presidents Nixon & Ford

Home
About us
Cultural Creatives
Being Peace
Journey Within
Nonviolence
Dialogue
Transforming World
13 Grandmothers
Cost of War
Oil & War
Corporations & War
Withdrawing Consent
God the Economy
Doublespeak
Empire
Kudos
Inspirations
Earth
Animals
Sacred Feminine
Woman's Womb
Equality for All
Elections
Stories & Features
Expressions
Simple Living
Introversion
Album
Afghanistan
Palestine/Israel
Face of Iraq
Links
Contact us

 

 

 

 

 

 

** Search this site **

 KPFA

Dispatches from Edge

The Price of Oil

Foreign Policy in Focus

Oil Empire

bbb

Propaganda Matrix

 

Videos, audios, etc.

Remembering Saudi’s King Abdullah: "He Was Not a Benevolent Dictator, He Was a Dictator" 012315

The New Great Game - The Decline of the West & the Struggle for Middle Eastern Oil

Bahrain: Shouting in the dark Full length documentary

Paul Mason, The New Global Revolutions
Alistair Smith - Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics


Audio from KPFA Letters and Politics 022912

Dr. Mary Jane Deeb and Conn Hallinan - Intervention in Libya and oil

Audio from KPFA Morning Show 082811

The Halliburton Agenda: The Politics of Oil and Money 051704

Drilling and Killing: Chevron and Nigeria's Oil Dictatorship 071103

 

 

Articles 

Timor's Oil: Blessing or Curse? 082611

Arctic Oil / THE LAST REFUGE - Caribou migration, drilling plan symbolic of battle between oil and environment 082805

Gulf oil -- How important is it, anyway? 041303

Carve-up of oil riches begins 110302

Why are we at war? It's the oil, stupid!

Energy and war --MoveOn Bulletin 11/20/02

 

 

 

 

Jon Carroll- The Death of Empires 022102

America's Pipe Dream -- A Pro-Western Regime in Kabul Should Give the US an Afghan Route for Caspian Oil 102301

Drilling and Killing: Chevron and Nigeria's Oil Dictatorship, A One-Hour Documentary - 082701 - Audio

War and Oil: The Politics of Dick Cheney 072500 -- Audio

 

 

 

Carve-up of oil riches begins

US plans to ditch industry rivals and force end of Opec, write Peter Beaumont and Faisal Islam

Sunday November 3, 2002
The Observer

The leader of the London-based Iraqi National Congress, Ahmed Chalabi, has met executives of three US oil multinationals to negotiate the carve-up of Iraq's massive oil reserves post-Saddam.

Disclosure of the meetings in October in Washington - confirmed by an INC spokesman - comes as Lord Browne, the head of BP, has warned that British oil companies have been squeezed out of post-war Iraq even before the first shot has been fired in any US-led land invasion.

Confirming the meetings to US journalists, INC spokesman Zaab Sethna said: 'The oil people are naturally nervous. We've had discussions with them, but they're not in the habit of going around talking about them.'

Next month oil executives will gather at a country retreat near Sandringham to discuss Iraq and the future of the oil market. The conference, hosted by Sheikh Yamani, the former Oil Minister of Saudi Arabia, will feature a former Iraqi head of military intelligence, an ex-Minister and City financiers. Topics for discussion include the country's oil potential, whether it can become as big a supplier as Saudi Arabia, and whether a post-Saddam Iraq might destroy the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

Disclosure of talks between the oil executives and the INC -- which enjoys the support of Bush administration officials -- is bound to exacerbate friction on the UN Security Council between permanent members and veto-holders Russia, France and China, who fear they will be squeezed out of a post-Saddam oil industry in Iraq.

Although Russia, France and China have existing deals with Iraq, Chalabi has made clear that he would reward the US for removing Saddam with lucrative oil contracts, telling the Washington Post recently: 'American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil.'

Indeed, the issue of who gets their hands on the world's second largest oil reserves has been a major factor driving splits in the Security Council over a new resolution on Iraq.

If true, it is hardly surprising, given the size of the potential deals. As of last month, Iraq had reportedly signed several multi-billion-dollar deals with foreign oil companies, mainly from China, France and Russia.

Among these Russia, which is owed billions of dollars by Iraq for past arms deliveries, has the strongest interest in Iraqi oil development, including a $3.5 billion, 23-year deal to rehabilitate oilfields, particularly the 11-15 billion-barrel West Qurna field, located west of Basra near the Rumaila field.

Since the agreement was signed in March 1997, Russia's Lukoil has prepared a plan to install equipment with capacity to produce 100,000 barrels per day from West Qurna's Mishrif formation.

French interest is also intense. TotalFinaElf has been in negotiations with Iraq on development of the Nahr Umar field.

Planning for Iraq's post-Saddam oil industry is being driven by a coalition of neo-conservatives in Washington think-tanks with close links to the Bush administration, and with INC officials who have long enjoyed their support. Those hawks have long argued that US control of Iraq's oil would help deliver a second objective. That is the destruction of Opec, the oil producers' cartel, which they argue is 'evil' - that is, incompatible with American interests.

Larry Lindsey, President Bush's economic adviser, recently said that a successful war on Iraq would be good for business.

'When there is a regime change in Iraq, you could add three to five million barrels [per day] of production to world supply,' he said in September. 'The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy.'

Analysts believe that after five years Iraq could be pumping 10m barrels of oil per day. Opec is already starting to implode, with member nations breaking quotas in an attempt to grab market share before oil prices fall.

Russian concern over a future INC-inspired carve-up of Iraq's oil to the benefit of the US has become so intense that it recently sent a diplomat to hold talks with INC officials. At that meeting in Washington on 29 August the diplomat expressed concern that Russia would be kept out of the oil markets by the US.

A model for the carve-up of Iraq's oil industry was presented in September by Ariel Cohen of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, which has close links to the Bush administration.

In The Future of a Post-Saddam Iraq: A Blueprint for American Involvement, Cohen strikes a similar note to Chalabi, putting forward a road map for the privatisation of Iraq's nationalised oil industry, and warning that France, Russia and China were likely to find that a new INC-led government would not honour their oil contracts.

Cohen's proposal would see Iraq's oil industry split up into three large companies, along the areas of ethnic separation, with one company in the largely Shia south, another for the Sunni region around Baghdad, and the last in the Kurdish north.

The Iraq crisis
Iraq: Observer special
Terrorism crisis: special report
Observer Worldview

More from Guardian Unlimited
Special report: Iraq

The road to war?
03.11.2002: Moving in for the kill on Iraq
29.09.2002: Dan Plesch: Weapons of mass distraction
06.10.2002: Scramble for oil behind US diplomacy
Worldview: More from Dan Plesch

In Iraq
20.10.2002: How Iraqis are facing up to the threat of a US attack

Saddam's opponents
29.09.2002: Dilip Hiro: US struggles to rally a fractured opposition

Britain
27.10.2002: Armed forces call up medics
20.10.2002: Leader: Know the enemy
29.09.2002: Andrew Rawnsley: Blair breaks first rule of war
22.09.2002: Ken Loach: Marching off to peace
29.09.2002: Euan Ferguson: Of Muslims and Morris men
29.09.2002: Fleet Street goes topsy-turvy after dossier skirmish

Peter Beaumont
29.09.2002: Peter Beaumont: US quietly turns up the heat on Iran
22.09.2002: Peter Beaumont: Now for the Bush Doctrine
15.09.2002: Public language moves into war mode
Worldview: best of Peter Beaumont

Comment
22.09.2002: Rosemary Hollis: Hawks won't stop with Baghdad
22.09.2002: Jessica Matthews: How to make inspections work
22.09.2002: Terry Jones: The audacious courage of Mr Blair
22.09.2002: Anthony Sampson: Why Blair must listen to chorus of dissent
15.09.2002: The road to war? What the experts say
15.09.2002: David Rose: Ritter, hero of doves was a hawk

With the Kurds
15.09.2002: Jason Burke: Return to Kurdistan
18.08.2002: 'Saddam will not stop me being a Kurd'
25.08.2002: Jason Burke: Kurdistan's first suicide bomber
Worldview: best of Jason Burke

Iraq Comment highlights
08.09.2002: Leader: The fight must go on
01.09.2002: Leader: War is not inevitable
25.08.2002: Christopher Hitchens: You can only go wrong withHenry K
11.08.2002: Mark Leonard: Could the left back war on Iraq
11.08.2002: Leader: The world needs a plan for Iraq
11.08.2002: Anthony Sampson: West's greed foroil fuels Saddam fever
11.08.2002: Nick Cohen: Who will save Iraq?
11.08.2002: Letters: Why war now?
04.08.2002: Richard Harries: This war would not be a just war
28.07.2002: Nick Cohen: US doesn't wants democracy in Iraq
14.07.2002: Leader: What would we be fighting for?
14.07.2002: John Pilger: The great charade
17.02.2002: Will Hutton: Support for America could be Blair's nemesis
02.12.2001: David Rose: Why the doves are wrong - again
24.02.2002: Andrew Rawnsley: How to deal with the American goliath
16.12.2001: David L Mack: Iraq after Saddam
17.02.2002: Terry Jones: OK, George, make with the friendly bombs

Special reports
Iraq: Observer special
Observer Worldview
Afghanistan
Terrorism crisis
Islam and the West

More global commentary
More from Peter Beaumont
More from Jason Burke
More from Ed Vulliamy
More from Mark Leonard
More from Dan Plesch

Observer investigation: what is the evidence?
17.03.2002: Should we go to war against Saddam?
17.03.2002: Timeline: From friend to foe
17.03.2002: Key sources: who to believe?

The military build-up
08.09.2002: Britain and US ready to fight alone - Blair
08.09.2002: Peter Beaumont: Countdown to conflict
08.09.2002: US pours arms into Gulf region
01.09.2002: Focus: When US turned a blind eye to poison gas
01.09.2002: Focus: Will Bush go to war against Saddam?
04.08.2002: Bush ready to declare war
21.07.2002: Bush rallies US for strike on Iraq
14.07.2002: PM and Bush plan Iraq war summit
14.07.2002: Focus: Hawks lay their plans
17.03.2002: Army fear over Blair war plans
10.03.2002: Bush wants 25,000 UK Iraq force
07.04.2002: Blair to back US war on Iraq
24.02.2002: Blair and Bush to plot war on Iraq
02.12.2001: Secret US plan for Iraq war

Debating America
Worldview highlights: debating American power
26.05.2002: Henry Porter: Don't wag your finger at us, Mr Bush
17.03.2002: John Lloyd: How anti-Americanism betrays the left
10.03.2002: Mark Leonard: Why America isn't listening
07.04.2002: Nick Cohen: With a friend like this...
10.02.2002: The debate: Is America too powerful for its own good?
23.12.2001: Henry Porter: The triumph of reason
27.01.2002: Paul Rogers: American unilateralism is back
20.01.2002: Christopher Hitchens: What Bush got right

Useful links
UNSCOM
UN resolutions on Iraq
British Foreign Office: Relations with Iraq
US State Department Iraq Update
Arab.net - Iraq resources
Campaign against Sanctions on Iraq
Centre for non-proliferation studies

www.guardian.co.uk

 

 

 

 

 

Energy and War

MoveOn Bulletin
Wednesday, November 20, 2002

Editor: Sarah Thompson
Editorial Assistant: Leah Appet
Subscribe online at: http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/


Contents:

1) Introduction: Energy Policy=Foreign Policy?
2) One Link: Axis of Oil
3) Consumption and Production
4) The Bush Administration and Energy Policy
5) The "War on Terrorism"
6) Iraq
7) Alternatives
8) Credits
9) About the MoveOn bulletin and MoveOn.org


1) INTRODUCTION: ENERGY POLICY=FOREIGN POLICY?

"Together, oil and coal constitute the biggest single industry in history."
- Ross Gelbspan, in his book, The Heat is On

Energy is the keystone of the quality of life characteristic of much of the modern industrialized world. It makes our technology possible. It touches our lives in thousands of ways each day--from the heat we use in our homes, to the materials that make up the many products we use, to the types of medical services we enjoy, to the ways we communicate and travel.

Yet we take energy largely for granted. We treat it as though it will always be available. And we underestimate its importance in our everyday lives.

Most of our energy comes from oil, gas, and petroleum products. These non-renewable resources not only fuel our cars, but they are also used in literally thousands of ways to support our industrialized lifestyle. They are the key to the current world economy. But they will not last forever. By some estimates, oil production may reach its peak as soon as 2003; by other estimates, 2010. Either way, oil production will most certainly peak within the lifetimes of most people around today. Meanwhile, we have done little to reduce our dependence on this source of energy, thereby assuring that the demand will remain. Once the oil resources of the world begin to diminish, the price of oil will inevitably rise quite high.

This may explain why oil is important enough to fight over.

Oil may not be the only reason for a new Gulf War, but there is little doubt a successful military seizure of Iraq would have the end result of giving the US control over Iraq's oil reserves. Not only would this immediately put money into the pockets of US oil companies, it would also ensure that Iraq's oil reserves don't fall into the hands of a US competitor such as China.

Still, at best, this type of power-grab will only be beneficial to some, and only in the short-term. Burning oil and gas pollutes our collective environment, no matter who controls the oil reserves. Once oil reserves begin to decline, competition for them will become even more intense, and may result in conflicts that we can't yet foresee, all with their attendant environmental and humanitarian consequences. After that, even those oil reserves that we have today will dwindle and go dry, and the cost of finding more oil and extracting it will continue to rise, until it outweighs potential profits, and the amount of energy needed to recover the oil is equal to or exceeds the energy in the recovered oil. In the meantime, unless the population has found some more sustainable way to produce energy, our quality of life will deteriorate. Experts worry that the lack of availability of oil could cause the global human population to actually decline.

If the experts are right, we need more of a solution than squabbling over whatever oil is left. And we need more of a solution than reducing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. We need to start reducing our dependence on oil, period. We may even need a radical change, a new revolution on the scale of the industrial revolution, in order to completely end our use of oil.

It isn't really that controversial of an idea, after all, that the oil will eventually run out. The controversial part comes when deciding what to do with that knowledge. The Bush administration's ties to the oil industry will likely mean that new policies aimed at ending dependence on oil won't be coming from the government. So new ideas and environmentally concerned action will have to come from the grassroots level. It will take a lot of effort, but it could help ensure a much better future for many generations to come.

If the experts are right, the sooner we start, the better.


2) ONE LINK: THE AXIS OF OIL

Cheney, Bush, and the industry form a kind of "axis of oil" which serves US corporate interests. In fact, based on consultations with energy industry leaders such as the CEO of Enron, the Bush administration has determined that the basis of the US national security is access to oil. Not surprising then that Iraq is the new target in the "war on terrorism."
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1113-08.htm


3) CONSUMPTION

On a table showing world petroleum consumption from 1991-2000, the US is the highest consumer of petroleum by far.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/table12.html

Dependence on foreign oil is a result of this high rate of consumption. In June 2002, Under Secretary of State Alan Larson testified before the House of Representatives International Relations Committee that US dependency on foreign sources of oil will be an "unavoidable component of the energy supply mix." According to Larson, "We are virtually self-sufficient in all energy resources except oil, of which we import 52 percent of our needs. Estimates indicate that over the next 20 years, U.S. oil consumption will increase by 33 percent or more than 6 million barrels a day. Depending on many factors, including the policies we adopt, the Energy Information Administration estimates that imported oil could grow to 62 percent of our total oil consumption by 2020." Thus the energy security policy of the US must "ensure that our economy has access to energy on terms and conditions that support economic growth and prosperity" and "ensure that the United States and its foreign policy can never be held hostage by foreign oil suppliers."
http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_06/alia/a2062007.htm


4) THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND ENERGY POLICY

The Bush administration is as oil-drenched as they come, as this article takes care to demonstrate. But what does this mean? According to the article, "George W.'s ties to oil don't prove that the industry decides our every foreign policy move. But they do just about guarantee, for all practical purposes, that nothing significant will change in American energy policy. With Bush-Cheney in power, oil addiction is here to stay."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CAV111A.html

For in-depth information about Dick Cheney and his ties to the energy industry, see our previous bulletin, "Who is Dick Cheney?"
http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/bulletin1.html

This is an excellent overview of a report on the campaign contributions made by various energy companies to Democratic and Republican candidates over the past ten years. Not surprisingly, President Bush was the number one recipient of campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry in the last election. Enron was the number one campaign contributor in this industry, while Exxon Mobil came in second. Bush also received a large amount of money from the utilities industry. In fact, his two-year fund-raising total was more than any other federal candidate has received from electric utilities in the past decade. There is lots of detailed information here, especially if you have a little time to explore the charts.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/energybriefing.htm

Confused by all of the information out there about Enron? Never fear--here, in point form, is "Enron at a Glance." Along with other useful information, this list notes that Enron CEO Kenneth Lay "was appointed to the Bush transition team where he worked directly with Vice President Cheney to develop the administration's national energy policies," and that "no fewer than 52 former Enron executives, lobbyists, lawyers or significant shareholders ended up working for the Bush administration."
http://www.thedailyenron.com/enron101/glance.asp

Now that the Republicans have won full control of both Congress and the Senate, it is far more likely that they will pass a controversial energy bill which includes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
http://www.adn.com/front/story/2095762p-2192708c.html

MSNBC takes a look at the Republicans who will be taking over the environment and energy committees, and how this is likely to affect policy in 2003, including the energy bill.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/831973.asp

This website offers a critical analysis of the energy bill, breaking it up section by section with links and pro/con summaries provided for the various topics covered. A very useful resource if you have a little time to browse.
http://www.energyjustice.net/energybill/


5) THE "WAR ON TERRORISM"

Why do so many people outside of the US seem to think that the war on Afghanistan is related to oil? This article gives an overview of a number of sources that examine the many links between oil policy and events in Afghanistan, and gives the gist of their arguments on subjects such as the rise and fall of the Taliban.
http://www.afgha.com/
article.php?sid=13313&mode=thread&order=0

Appointments to the region since the war are also indicative of an oil connection. For example, Zalmay Khalilzad was appointed as envoy to Afghanistan in January of 2002. Khalilzad is a former aide to the Texas-based oil company Unocal. He drew up Unocal's risk analysis on its proposed trans-Afghan gas pipeline. Hamed Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, is also a former consultant for Unocal.
http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=1149

Unocal formed the CentGas consortium in the mid-90s with the intent of building the trans-Afghan pipeline. Unocal then withdrew from the pipeline project in 1998, after the US bombed Afghanistan. At the time, the statement issued by the company said that "Unocal will only participate in construction of the proposed Central Asia Gas Pipeline when and if Afghanistan achieves the peace and stability necessary to obtain financing from international lending agencies for this project and an established government is recognized by the United Nations and the United States."
http://www.unocal.com/uclnews/98news/082198.htm

The conditions Unocal wanted currently exist. So is the trans-Afghan pipeline project going through? You bet--it is the major Afghan "reconstruction" project. Other sources estimate that building could begin in mid-2003.
http://www.afgha.com/
article.php?sid=14728&mode=thread&order=0

Although earlier reports suggested that Unocal was the top company being considered to build the pipeline, currently it appears that Unocal will not have any direct involvement. In fact, thus far the company has made a point of distancing itself from the project, especially in response to reports that have highlighted Unocal's former attempts to court the Taliban in order to pave the way for the pipeline.
http://www.unocal.com/uclnews/98news/centgas.htm

The war on Afghanistan allowed the US to place military bases in the nine surrounding countries, all rich in oil and natural gas. In fact, oil can be linked to any number of US policies around the world that are being pursued under the guise of the "war on terrorism."
http://www.utnereader.com/bMedia.tmpl?command=search&db=
dArticle.db&eqheadlinedata=Oiling%20the%20War%20Machine

A number of countries with interests in oil have reason to worry about what a new US presence in Central Asia and possibly the Persian Gulf could mean for them. This US presence could also trigger more terrorist attacks aimed at disrupting the world economic system.
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=853

US dependence on Saudi oil has forced te Bush administration to maintain an alliance with the country that may be interfering with the goals of the "war on terrorism." This article quotes Edward L. Morse, former deputy assistant secretary of state for international energy policy under President Ronald Reagan, who has said, "The stark truth is that we're dependent on this country that directly or indirectly finances people who are a direct threat to you and me as individuals." This is apparently why the US government has remained fairly silent about the obvious Saudi connection to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn14772.htm


6) IRAQ

"Oil is much too important a commodity to be left in the hands of the Arabs."
- Henry Kissinger, US Secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford

Whether or not the key members of the Bush administration would personally profit from the spoils of a war on Iraq, their ties to the industry are still a conflict of interest. This is an excellent overview of Dick Cheney's
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0915-04.htm

"Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century" is a report that was given to Dick Cheney in spring of 2001. It highlights how likely an energy crisis is, and the fact that the US will need to create a long-term plan for maintaining access to energy. According to the report, "As the 21st century opens, the energy sector is in critical condition. A crisis could erupt at any time from any number of factors and would inevitably affect every country in today’s globalized world. While the origins of a crisis are hard to pinpoint, it is clear that energy disruptions could have a potentially enormous impact on the U.S. and the world economy, and would affect U.S. national security and foreign policy in dramatic ways."

The basic conclusions of the report are that the US must develop a comprehensive and long-term energy policy aimed at dealing with the energy crisis, and that this must be done immediately.

Progressives may not always agree with exactly how the report recommends doing this (for example, the report cites environmental policies as restrictions on the market and is positive about the effects of drilling in the Arctic National Refuge, but also lists ensuring the protection of the eco-system as a priority). Yet it certainly makes it clear that addressing the complex topic of energy is one that needs to be given top priority. It's a long report, but if you have the time to read it, it's very worthwhile.
http://bakerinstitute.org/Pubs/workingpapers/
cfrbipp_energy/energytf.htm

According to this article in the Sunday Herald, "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century" could be read as a call for war against Iraq. This article may not be exactly fair to the authors of the report, who seem to be open to more possibilities than simply direct military intervention, but it is probably at least accurate in that the emphasis the report places on Iraq could easily be used as justification for war.
http://www.sundayherald.com/28224

The Global Policy Forum (GPF) is a New York-based NGO (non-governmental organization) that has consultative status at the UN. This excellent short article by GPF's executive director clearly demonstrates the connection between the vast oil reserves of Iraq and US policies in the region.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/08jim.htm

In this more detailed article, which has been published in a number of places including Alternet and Zmag, Rahul Mahajan examines each publicized reason for a new war on Iraq and explains why they don't "hold water." Mahajan argues that the only reasonable explanation for a new war is oil; US desire for oil also explains why the sanctions against Iraq have remained in place for so long, despite the tragic effect these sanctions have had on Iraq's civilian population. According to Mahajan, "The sanctions have turned the Iraqi regime permanently against the United States. If they were lifted, the government would make oil exploration deals with French and Russian companies, not American ones. Continuation of the sanctions is a constant political burden for the United States. The Bush administration wants a war to extricate itself from this stalemate, by replacing Saddam with a U.S.-friendly dictator who will make deals with American companies and follow American dictates."
http://www.rahulmahajan.com/iraqoil.htm


7) ALTERNATIVES

This article by a controversial geologist lists the pros and cons of various alternative energy sources. As he sees it, the reality is that the many options we are currently exploring are not enough to replace our dependence on oil. The author concludes that a revolution on the scale of the industrial revolution will be needed to reduce our dependence on oil. The tone of the article is not exactly optimistic, and not everyone may agree with its conclusions, but it's included here so you can decide for yourself.
http://www.oilcrisis.com/youngquist/altenergy.htm

We don't have the space here to cover all of the various alternative forms of energy and methods of conservation. So we are providing the following websites as a kind of introductory resource.

The GrassRoots Recycling Network provides analyses of alternative sources of energy. It also provides many link to organizations that already practice alternative forms of energy consumption, as well as reducing landfill waste.
http://www.grrn.org

The Global Alliance for Incineration Alternatives (aka Global Anti-Incineration Alliance) provides links and examples from around the world to alternatives to incineration as a means of ridding the planet of waste. It has an active email list that provides volumes of information about laws, companies, activist strategies, standards, country requirements, alternatives, etc.
http://www.noburn.org

These sites from the US and New Zealand stress the necessity of ending the production of waste, rather than simply managing waste. They provide many governmental and private reviews of cities, counties and businesses that have found alternative means to prevent waste and to encourage environmentally sound methods of alternative energy production.
http://www.zerowasteamerica.org
http://www.zerowaste.co.nz

EnergyJustice has an entire section of its website dedicated to alternative energy. It provides statistics, examples, and methods for implementing solar and wind energy in a profitable way.
http://www.energyjustice.net

New Urbanism is a website about automobiles, the negative impact of their use, and some possible transit alternatives.
http://www.NewUrbanism.org/pages/496683/index.htm


8) CREDITS

Research team:
Susan Bunyan, Lita Epstein, Terry Hackett, Sharon Hametz, Matthew Jones, Linda Langness, Cameron McLaughlin, Janelle Miau, Vicki Nikolaidis, Sarah Jane Parady, Kim Plofker, Jesse Rhodes, Ora Szekely, Bland Whitley, and Mary Williams.

Proofreading team:
Madlyn Bynum, Eileen Gillan, Mary Anne Henry, Kendra Lanning, Mercedes Newman, Dawn Phelps, Rebecca M. Sulock and Rita Weinstein.


9) ABOUT THE MOVEON BULLETIN & MOVEON.ORG

The MoveOn Bulletin is a free, biweekly email bulletin providing information, resources, and news related to important political issues. The full text of the MoveOn Bulletin is online at :
http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/

MoveOn.org does not necessarily endorse all of the views espoused on the pages that we link to, nor do we vouch for their accuracy. Read them at your own risk.

The MoveOn Bulletin is a project of MoveOn.org. MoveOn.org is an issue-oriented, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that gives people a voice in shaping the laws that affect our lives. MoveOn.org engages people in the civic process, using the Internet to democratically determine a non-partisan agenda, raising public awareness of pressing issues, and coordinating grassroots advocacy campaigns to encourage sound public policies.

You can help decide the direction of MoveOn.org by participating in the discussion forum at:
http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?forum_id=223

To be kept informed about actions and campaigns, many of which are related to bulletin topics, you can sign up for MoveOn's action updates, at:
http://www.moveon.org/keepmeposted/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why are we at war? It's the oil, stupid!

By Joseph Clifford, JAMESTOWN, Rhode Island -
Please see The Ultimate 9/11 Information Archive on one website located at
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/archiveprior_knowledge.html

The Russians got into their Vietnam right after we got out of ours? Isn't that strange?

We supported Bin Laden and the Taliban for years, and viewed them as Freedom fighters against the Russians. Isn't that strange?

As late as 1998 the US was paying the salary of every single Taliban official in Afghanistan? Isn't that strange?

There is more oil and gas in the Caspian Sea area than in Saudi Arabia, but you need a pipeline through Afghanistan to get the oil out. Isn't that strange?

UNOCAL, a giant American Oil conglomerate, wanted to build a 1-000-mile long pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea. Isn't that strange?

UNOCAL spent $10 billion on geological surveys for pipeline construction, and very nicely courted the Taliban for their support in allowing the construction to begin. Isn't that strange?

All of the leading Taliban officials were in Texas negotiating with UNOCAL in 1998. Isn't that strange?

1998-1999 - The Taliban changed its mind and threw UNOCAL out of the country and awarded the pipeline project to a company from Argentina. Isn't that strange?

John Maresca, vice president of UNOCAL, testified before Congress and said no pipeline until the Taliban was gone and a more friendly government was established. Isn't that strange?

1999-2000 - The Taliban became the most evil people in the world. Isn't that strange?

Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. Isn't that strange?

Sept. 11, 2001 - WTC disaster. Bush goes to war against Afghanistan even though none of the hijackers came from Afghanistan. Isn't that strange?

Bush blamed Bin Laden but has never offered any proof saying it's a "secret." Isn't that strange?

Taliban offered to negotiate to turn over Bin Laden if we showed them some proof. We refused; we bombed. Isn't that strange?

Bush said: "This is not about nation building. It's about getting the terrorists." Isn't that strange?

We have a new government in Afghanistan. Isn't that strange?

The leader of that government formerly worked for UNOCAL. Isn't that strange?

Bush appoints a special envoy to represent the US to deal with that new government, who formerly was the "chief consultant to UNOCAL." Isn't that strange?

The Bush family acquired their wealth through oil? Isn't that strange?

Bush's secretary of interior was the president of an oil company before going to Washington. Isn't that strange?

George Bush Sr. now works with the "Carlysle Group" specializing in huge oil investments around the world. Isn't that strange?

Condoleeza Rice worked for Chevron before going to Washington. Isn't that strange?

Chevron named one of its newest "supertankers" after Condoleezza. Isn't that strange?

Dick Cheney worked for the giant oil conglomerate Haliburton before becoming vice president. Isn't that strange?

Haliburton gave Cheney $34 million as a farewell gift when he left the company. Isn't that strange?

Haliburton is in the pipeline construction business. Isn't that strange?

There is $6 trillion worth of oil in the Caspian Sea area. Isn't that strange?

The US government quietly announced on Jan 31, 2002 that we will support the construction of the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline. Isn't that strange?

President Musharraf (Pakistan), and interim leader Karzai, (Afghanistan - UNOCAL) announce agreement to build proposed gas pipeline from Central Asia to Pakistan via Afghanistan. (Irish Times 02/10/02) Isn't that strange?

 

 

 

 

 


FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Lysistrata Project posts this material without profit for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.