War for oil?

Lost User

Stan Shannon wrote: Could someone who believes we are going to attack Iraq for their oil, please explain the logic of that argument? Do you believe that we are going to just give the oil to one of our oil companies? Nationalize it and use it for our own purposes? What? It seems to me that the oil in Iraq is going to come to us (the west) of its own accord whether we go to war with Iraq or not. In a sense, we already own all the world's oil resources. It is just a matter of paying them to get it out of the ground for us. And considering that they largely have to pay us for their food, they have to be a little careful about how much they charge for that service. What else are they going to do with the oil except sell it to us? I see no logic in going to war for a resource which is essentially under our control already. I'm sure our oil companies would like to control the drilling operations as they could probably do it more efficiently and thus improve their bottom line, but I find it difficult to believe that would justify the expense of a war in the mind of even the most ruthless business man. Without having a full understanding of the current situation of oil supply. Here is my take on how someone may have this view. France and Russia have the contracts with Iraq now. America may eventually get the oil but they are paying a middle man. America don't want to pay the middleman. So they bomb the fuck out of Iraq, control the supply and remove the middleman saving big dollars. I am not saying this is what is happening only how I think the Oil Theorists must view it. Michael Martin Australia mjm68@tpg.com.au "I personally love it because I can get as down and dirty as I want on the backend, while also being able to dabble with fun scripting and presentation games on the front end." - Chris Maunder 15/07/2002

HENDRIK R

Stan Shannon wrote: Could someone who believes we are going to attack Iraq for their oil, please explain the logic of that argument? Do you believe that we are going to just give the oil to one of our oil companies? Nationalize it and use it for our own purposes? What? Well, the first thing people that support the war-for-oil-theory think of is that America don't want to have to pay for the oil which could be available for nothing. And there's another (important?) fact that could support their view: the way Bush handles the conflict with Nort Korea. While constantly talking about war concerning the Iraq-question without having proved anything yet, he only considers a political solution as practical when regarding Koreas nuclear weapon plans or nuclear power stations (which are admitted by N.Korea themselves). And why? because N.Korea don't own any resources that could be valuable for the U.S. I personally don't really support these views. You can't compare Iraq and N.Korea - you've only to look at what Saddam's already done in the past (use of biological weapons against iraqs population, attack on Kuwait, ..). But on the other side the N.Korea argumens really makes one think about the real reasons of an attack on Iraq. If Bush would finally give any evidence of Saddam owning ABC-weapons, the war-for-oil-theory could be destroyed in a short time.

Stan Shannon

Perhaps. But possible the only oil connection is that, sense Iraq does have oil, they have a means to financially sustain their weapons production and hence are not inclined to negotiate. NK on the otherhand, having no such resource to support their ventures, can be forced to negotiate simply to acguire the basic necessities of life. Also, consider that the U.S. has a tremendous amount of oil in our own territory that we won't touch because it might inconvenience a few caribou. Does it makes any sense at all that we would obliterate an entire country to get their oil instead? How do people resolve that inconsitancy? "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle

Stan Shannon

Christian Graus wrote: It's better to own something than to pay someone else for it, no matter what the circumstance. But wouldn't dumping Iraqi oil freely into the U.S. market wreak havoc in our own domestic oil industry? "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle

Paul Watson

Stan Shannon wrote: Do you believe that we are going to just give the oil to one of our oil companies? Nationalize it and use it for our own purposes? What? Plus didn't Bush say in his State Of The Union that one priority would be to make the US more energy independant? To get energy internally, not rely on external sources. I thought it was rather smart of him that he spoke of "energy" and not "oil." We know what he means but the idiots can't attack him directly. That "US sequestering Iraqi oil with alterior motives" idea is daft. Every Arab country around Iraq would stand and not let a drop out of Iraq back to America. If they let it happen then they would be screwing themselves over. I ran with the It Is All About Oil stuff for awhile but it is such a shaky, paranoid arguement, especially with the American support of Israel and not Palestine.

Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa

Roger Wright wrote: Using a feather is kinky; using the whole chicken is perverted!

Lost User

I posted the original link, it was to an item on Yahoo news. Elaine The tigress is here :-D

HENDRIK R

Stan Shannon wrote: Perhaps. But possible the only oil connection is that, sense Iraq does have oil, they have a means to financially sustain their weapons production and hence are not inclined to negotiate. NK on the otherhand, having no such resource to support their ventures, can be forced to negotiate simply to acguire the basic necessities of life. I fear that a country, whatever it's called, really wanting to sustain it's weapon production, will find a way to succeed. If it doesn't own any valuable resources, it has to finance it by any other means (but please don't ask me what that could be;)) Stan Shannon wrote: Also, consider that the U.S. has a tremendous amount of oil in our own territory that we won't touch because it might inconvenience a few caribou. As far as I know of America's oil there'd be massive resistance to drilling for oil as most of it seems to be located in protected areas. And thus it's much more easier to take over Iraq's oil than to drill one's own under protest of conservationists and perhaps America's public. Stan Shannon wrote: Does it makes any sense at all that we would obliterate an entire country to get their oil instead? How do people resolve that inconsitancy? I agree to that. There must be sure other reasons than only the oil. Perhaps Bush has evidences for Saddam still producing weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps he fears Iraq could support terroristic organisations. Perhaps it's that his father misssed the opportunity to bring down Saddam. Perhaps he only wants to protect Iraq's population as well as Israel's. In fact I don't know, but I hope he can produce real good reasons.

HENDRIK R

Stan Shannon wrote: But wouldn't dumping Iraqi oil freely into the U.S. market wreak havoc in our own domestic oil industry? Why should it? The oil wouldn't be imported by some nameless dont-know-who. And certainly not for free. It'd be the domestic oil industry that would take over drilling for oil as well as selling it on the American market.

David Wulff

Stan Shannon wrote: Does it makes any sense at all that we would obliterate an entire country to get their oil instead? How do people resolve that inconsitancy? It's really rather simple: you never use your own supplies when you can source it elsewhere, even if there is a great cost involved. America is an island (a very big one I'll grant you but still essentially an island) and an industrial one at that. Running out of oil would cripple the country entirely. Trade treaties are made and broken at the tip of a hat, you need to keep your own supplies in reserve incase you are unable to source your oil elsewhere.

David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk

Michael P Butler

I see our phantom post voter expressed his opinion with a low vote rather than arguing their case ;-) Michael The avalanche has started, it's too late for the pebbles to vote.

Stan Shannon

David Wulff wrote: Running out of oil would cripple the country entirely. Trade treaties are made and broken at the tip of a hat, you need to keep your own supplies in reserve incase you are unable to source your oil elsewhere. But that begs my original question. We can never "run out" of oil as you suggest because there is absolutely nothing else the people who own it can do with it except sell it to us. If they don't sell it to us, the stuff is worthless. So in a very real economic way, we (the west) effectively control it already. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle

David Wulff

Stan Shannon wrote: So in a very real economic way, we (the west) effectively control it already Don't be blinded, the East is very fast in catching up and would be more than capable of taking it over if given the chance. Your enemies will not sell you oil for all the gold in the world if you use it to kill them.

David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk

brianwelsch

If it was just oil, we'd get into bed with Saddam like others and make nice little deals to secure "our share". Meanwhile asking the UN human rights folks to go help the poor civilians. Of course its a part of decision making, but its certainly not the entire reason. BW "Gandalf. Yes. That is what they used to call me. Gandalf the Grey. *I* am Gandalf the White." - Gandalf the White

Jason Henderson

I think Bush blew this whole idea out of the water when he said we were going to give billions to hydrogen fuel research.

Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism *

Nitron

Stan Shannon wrote: Could someone who believes we are going to attack Iraq for their oil, please explain the logic of that argument? You may want to ask some liberal, tree-hugging, pot-smoking, politically impervious, gay and wannabe human rights activist for an argument on that opinion. :mad: As an American, the last thing I want is Iraqi oil! IMHO of course. :| - Nitron

"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb

Fazlul Kabir

Stan Shannon wrote: I find it difficult to believe that would justify the expense of a war in the mind of even the most ruthless business man. Oil may not be the only reason, but it's certainly one of the major reasons for going to war. "When there is regime change in Iraq, you could add three million to five million barrels [per day] of production to world supply. The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy." - Larry Lindsey, Bush's former top economic adviser. Economists predict that after a successful Iraq invasion, the price of oil will drop from the current $30 - $34 a barrel to $15 to $20 a barrel; possibly a 50 percent decrease. The effects of this on the U.S. economy, which is heavily dependent on oil, will be dramatic.

Stan Shannon

I don't think I'm the one who is blinded. Nothing could be better for business than if the East *did* catch up. Why should we try to inhibit their progress by European style conquests of the world's oil supplies? "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle

Chris Losinger

not so fast. he could have said "i'm gonna put a woman on mars by 2004". actually doing it is something else. -c

A | B - it's not a choice.

ThumbNailer

Roger Wright

Oil is definitely not the reason for attacking Iraq - there are lots of good reasons for that. But the cost of doing so is going to be huge, and having the oil there presents a rare opportunity to recoup the cost after the fact. If I understand the proposal correctly, the US will operate the production facilities as normal, with the profits initially being used to pay for the war, then reserved for the people of Iraq. In addition, we will be providing food and medical supplies that have been withheld from the people by the current regime, and assisting in the reconstruction of infrastructure damaged by the fighting. A high priority will be to establish a stable, non-threatening government in Iraq, then getting out. A presence will certainly be maintained - it's strategic location in the region is too important to neglect - but the American people have no interest in becoming a colonial power. Nobody wants to read a diary by someone who has not seen the shadow of Bubba on the prison shower wall in front of them!
Paul Watson, on BLOGS and privacy - 1/16/2003

Chris Losinger

here's one for you: if it's not about oil, what it is about? it can't be humanitarian, because nobody has said the situation there has changed so dramatically in the last 6 months that the US absolutely needs to go in, right now, with or without the UN. and if it was about humanitarian issues, the UN would be right there with us. Saddam has been brutalizing his people for years, and not until last summer did the honorable Republicans decide that the situation was urgent? sure, Saddam is a bad guy, but the world is full of them. but we aren't lined up to topple all the african wackos. if it's WMDs, GWB is being incredibly disingenuous when he says he has all of this 'evidence', but isn't giving enough of it to the inspectors to let them actually find anything of any significance. he must know that having the inspectors find something real would pretty much seal the deal at the UN. but, at this point he's just insinuating. if you listened closely last night, when he went down the list of violations, 99% of them were "so and so estimates Iraq has X, but IRaq hasn't accounted for X and hasn't proven they've destroyed X." so, GWB might actually be asking Iraq to prove a negative in some cases. it can't be about "spreading democracy", because we won't let them have a democracy - since that would likely mean another anti-US government. it can't be about 9/11, though he keeps trying to make the connection at least superficially. Iraq is not a threat to us. they are a minor threat to their neighbors. but as a 30+ country coalition proved in 1991, any military adventures by Iraq will be pushed back pretty damn quickly. ie. this can't be pre-emptive if there's no reasonable expectation that Saddam would attack his neighbors. so, if it's not WMD's, not humanitarian, not to spread democracy, not pre-emptive and is at-best a unilateral, aggressive invasion... what's the real cause? i don't belive it's 100% about oil. but i do believe oil is a huge part of it. mostly because by securing Iraq's oil, we can thumb our noses at Saudi Arabia - we can move our military bases and favored oil fields out of that mess and into the shiny new Iraq - with 70K troops keeping the peace for us. bad idea all around. -c

A | B - it's not a choice.

ThumbNailer