War for oil?

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

thowra

Christian Graus wrote: Someone posted a link recently that the US is going to hold the Iraqi oil 'in trust' for the Iraqi people, and the first thing they will do with it is pay the cost of their liberation. In other words, take it until enough has come out to cover the cost of this military adventure. Free is better than any price, no matter how cheap. I'd be interested to see a source for that quote, it may well not be true. Either way, I don't see the problem of logic. It's better to own something than to pay someone else for it, no matter what the circumstance. I wonder how they'll calculate how much money they'll get for the oil though as there's actually *two* opportunities for them to derive revenue. 1. The Government sell it to the oil companies at a discount price. Great for the economy, great for anyone with any vested interest in the oil industry (Bush & his buddies of course). 2. Once the oil is refined and turned into fuel, the Government can then tax the oil companies' customers for the fuel they consume. It's like selling a manufactuer raw materials and demanding royalties from the manufacturer's customers for the completed product! Or how about MS charging us programmers for development tools and then charging our customers to use the code we developed! :) Who knows what tactics the US Government will use against its own population in order to increase the rate at which it can collect tax on the fuel produced from oil it originally sold! If the US Government starts to raise fuel taxes, you'll know why! Of course, if the UK takes its cut of the oil, our Government already taxes its hapless population's fuel at 400%! That's right, for every £1 of fuel we buy, 80p goes straight into the Government's coffers... "The folly of man is that he dreams of what he can never achieve rather than dream of what he can."

KaRl

Schlaubi wrote: . 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, ..) :wtf:! Are you informed about what happens in North Korea? Some examples: http://www.hrwf.net/newhrwf/html/north\_korea\_project.html http://web.amnesty.org/802568F7005C4453/0/70766A50C9A6FE12802569B50037CBA8?Open They are like red nazis, a mix between SS and NKVD.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Russell Morris

Schlaubi wrote: It'd be the domestic oil industry that would take over drilling for oil as well as selling it on the American market. No, it wouldn't. The rest of the world would go ape-shit if we just started treating Iraq's oil like spoils of war indefinitely. There's no such thing as a "local" economy - ours can very easily be damanged by the rest of the world protesting economically. -- Russell Morris "Have you gone mad Frink? Put down that science pole!"

Christian Graus

The Yahoo news item was down when I clicked it. I had no idea who posted it, and did not doubt the poster ( even before I knew it was you :rose: ), I just inherently don't trust what the news tells me right away, especially something like that. Yahoo are scum of the web, which only makes me doubt the evenness of the report a little more. I guess the thing is that it's just TOO outrageous IMO, and I hope it's not true, Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
C# will attract all comers, where VB is for IT Journalists and managers - Michael P Butler 05-12-2002
It'd probably be fairly easy to make a bot that'd post random stupid VB questions, and nobody would probably ever notice - benjymous - 21-Jan-2003

James T Johnson

Christian Graus wrote: Yahoo are scum of the web Fortunately, Yahoo plays no part other than distributing the news; to my knowledge all all Yahoo's news is fed from the AP and Reuters (among others). James "It is self repeating, of unknown pattern" Data - Star Trek: The Next Generation

KaRl

Stan Shannon wrote: Could someone who believes we are going to attack Iraq for their oil, please explain the logic of that argument I don't believe it's the only explanation, but it's IMO definitively one. Let's try to developp, I have time now, so I can do shorter: - Oil is a strategic resource. Having money to pay it is not sufficient enough, Oil can always be a subject of blackmail by producers. That's why France produces its electricity mainly with nuclear reactors, to gain an energetic independance. 1973 was a major economical crisis generated by political decisions, showing there a potential weakness of Occident and its dependency. - US way of life is mainly dependant of Oil as energy source, US needs in energy are far higher than any other country. Moreover, there's a political will not to change this. - US don't and will not produce enough to cover their consumption - Saudi Arabia is a an embarrasing ally. - South America is no longer "managed" by the CIA and other agencies, like in the 70's, even if I'm sometimes doubting for the Venezuela, for the same reasons. “Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas – reserves I’d love Chevron to have access to,” enthused Chevron CEO Kenneth T. Derr in a 1998 speech at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco [^] Note: Of course, you will find the analysis biased, and yes, it is. What is important here in this article are the facts presented. Actually, I wonder if you could become a potential threat to our national security with an invasion of Iraq.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

KaRl

Nitron wrote: some liberal, tree-hugging, pot-smoking, politically impervious, gay and wannabe human rights activist I'm not gay :)

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

KaRl

Bingo. I wonder also this: What is the cost of a war? Who gets the money?

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

KaRl

Roger Wright wrote: the US will operate the production facilities as normal, with the profits initially being used to pay for the war Incredible. US make war to a country. Billions are spent in armaments made by US industries, which finally get the cash. After the war, US use and sell resources of the invaded country to pay the cost of the war. Youp'la boum(*) ! Nice way to boost the economy. So sad thousand of iraquis will die under the bombs. *: Note of the writer: in french in the text

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop