War for oil?

David Wulff

Eh? :confused:

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

peterchen

Do you want to listen, or to flame? (No, I don't expect you to turn into a peaceloving saddamhugger... - in turn I admit that oil ain't the only reason for invading iraq ;) ) Main points: they could sell it to someone else, and someone else could earn big money with it Iraqi oil is cheap and good. (The last figures I read for getting it out of the ground is $1/barrel, compared to $6/barrel in Iraq. further, most of it is much easier to refine) Iraqui production is throttled, so the evil man doesn't get too much money for WMD's. They call it "UN sanctions" (and yes, they are not the holy grail of solving conflicts.) The US relies heavily on oil imports for their economy. Bot for political reasosn (buy other people's oil, before attacking own reserves), and for the sheer need of it (you wouldn't survive very long on your own, although the estimates vary widely). The US needs oil. And it needs it cheap. Iraq was, and is, one of the big oil providers. And they have neither other resources (traditionally 95% of foreign exchange came/come from oil), nor an independent industry. To get a reasonable economy up and running, they need to sell oil. I don't know how much your gas prices went up lately, but do you expect them to drop to pre-"Iraq-Crisis" levels after Iraq can export again as much as they like? Current contracts with the Iraq give France, Russia, and China "premium access" to the oil resources once the UN sanctions are lifted, whereas US companies are left out. A "regime change" would likely allow to void the existing contracts, and negotiate new ones. Unless the US leaves Iraq in a state of chaos (not very likely), Having US companies build drilling equipment for UN money, having US companies operating the drilling would sure give your economy a little boost, wouldn't it? A war moves tax payers money into private pockets. When did a economically sane country ever Sure, all these things might even be solved through the UN, without a war. But the US has a desire to do things on their own. Be it for mentality, be it to prove it's the world power, be it for utter ignorance (I don't know, all three may have a part, and others), I don't know. What I know is that an "we can do it, so we will do it" attitude is a dangerous thing in a global village (if it's allwoed to abuse this image for this purpose) OK, that's it for today.

It's a royal pain to watch a sex drugs and rock'n'roll design decay into an aids crack and techn

Chris Losinger

Nitron wrote: As an American, the last thing I want is Iraqi oil why do you dislike Iraqi oil? remember, 80% of the 9/11 gang came from Saudi Arabia - do you have bad feelings about their oil too? (you can safely estimate that 1/5 of the gas in your car came from Saudi oil). Nitron wrote: liberal, tree-hugging, pot-smoking, politically impervious, gay and wannabe human rights activist :omg: you might want to find a counselor, to help you work through your anger. -c

A | B - it's not a choice.

ThumbNailer

HENDRIK R

Russell Morris wrote: There's no such thing as a "local" economy - ours can very easily be damanged by the rest of the world protesting economically. You're right when saying there's no local economy - all continents (let's see them as economical regions) are dependent on each other. But I think there wouldn't be much protest. Beside the fact that the oil companies surely would export their oil to other nations (kind of sharing;)) and possibly!!! share the oil with companies from England or France, just the fact that espacially the great export nations need the foreign markets (and for all European/Asian markets that's for clear America) would prevent any kind of economically protest. Only Russia would possibly protest, but even they depend on America's support to build up their own economy.

Lost User

Sure oil is an important point, but I think is not only about Iraq, look to the neighbourhood of Iraq : Iran , S.Arabia ..... Iran is much more dangerous than Iraq and on Osama Bin Laden we can see that there are enough radical people in S.Arabia who are only waiting for the right time to 'bomb out' the royals out of country to create a similar state like Iran. In such a scenario ,GW thinks (better : the people thinking for him) he can control Iran and S.Arabia better if he places 200 000 soldiers near their border ! Iraq will be an 'operation centre' for further action in the near east.

Lost User

Michael P Butler wrote: I see our phantom post voter expressed his opinion with a low vote rather than arguing their case ;) Pussies can't be helped I'm afraid. Funnily enough it had 1 vote of 5 before I went to bed last night. 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

KaЯl wrote: Are you informed about what happens in North Korea? I must admit that I'd not known that much about what currently happens (and already had happened) at NK. The problem is that NK doesn't play that big role in the global news, especially in nowadays' Iraq-dominated reporting. But I keep my opinion up: you can't compare them at all - or better: I hope you can't compare them. While their home policies don't seem to differ that much, their foreign polies do. Iraq not long ago tried to widen it's influence throughout the region, even by means of war if it has to. And that's not been it's first attempt and possibly wouldn't be the last. In contrast to that, NK now (hope I'm not wrong this time) concentrates on internal affairs, albeit surely using the wrong instruments. The fact that NK tries to recommence it's nuclear power plans is alarming but does not yet mean they want to use it for an attack - currently it seems to be mostly a mean to get a strong position towards the U.S.

Nitron

Chris Losinger wrote: Nitron wrote: As an American, the last thing I want is Iraqi oil why do you dislike Iraqi oil? Don't get me wrong, it all burns the same. The original statement was to give an argument as to why we should go to war for Iraqui oil. And my opinion is that if we go to war with Iraq, it's most likely not going to be for the oil. Chris Losinger wrote: you might want to find a counselor, to help you work through your anger. Sorry, I just get a little agitated when people blindly start "save the earth" peace riots without knowing the facts. And I mean facts, not ignorant entertaining media pitches. Ok, I feel better now. ;P - Nitron

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

Stan Shannon

Thanks. That is the sort of logical analysis I was looking for. I would make certain points, however. The U.S. does not have cheap oil because of any sort of nefarious abuse of the worlds natural resources on our part. We have cheap oil because that is the price the market will bear. If those selling oil raised it beyond the natural market limit, the worlds economies would suffer and their own investments would decrease in value. They would loose money rather than gaining it. Which ever system is the most capitalistic is going to have the greatest say over what the market value is and what direction the flow of oil will go. Our economic system itself, not our military, is what controls that. We do not need our military to secure an oil supply, we merely need to control the worlds markets. So far, we are doing that with relative ease. If anything, an expensive military makes it more difficult to do that not less so. I agree that current U.S. behavior is dangerous in the "global village". First, however, I am not a citizen of any global village. If the global village wants to bring me in line, I'm afraid I'm going to have to require it to kick my ass first. Second, would it be any less dangerous, from our perspective, for the U.S. to just bend over let the U.N. have its way with us. The U.S. has the most to lose regardless of which path we choose. Lastly, I would bet my last dollar that when everything is said and done, the Iraqi government will retain control of it's oil, regardless of the outcome of any conflict. The only difference will be that "U.S." (hell, they are all international anyway) oil companies will be more competitive with European ones in that market. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle

peterchen

Economy: I could agree with your economic argument, except for one fundamental point: IMO "free market" self regulation does not cope well with non-economic facts, and should not be the only regulatory mechanism. A free market handles social facts "economically sane", rather than "socially sane". That's why - but that's my personal wisdom - a free market can't be the only mechanism of control. A free market is "fair" only if the competing countries have the same starting conditions. US: politically stable, rich resources, and a business-oriented society. Iraq: instable, has desert and oil, socially conservative Who would you bet your money on? The Iraq can sell it's oil and strike it rich, or remain a bowl of sand with some oases. Yes, the U.S. could get all the oil you need without Iraq even existing. But it more expensive, and less reliable (look what Venezuela did to the market..). Iraqi oil is one of the cheapest, and whatever way the UN sactions are lifted, the crude oil prices will drop (much more than the gas prises) Yes, an expensive military is economically stupid - unless you own Lockheed. A population convinced of the need of a strong army is a good way to make money. Yes, whatever the outcome will be, Iraq will again live on their oil. But the economic winner will be the oil industry, especially those companies that have influence on the U.S. president elected. Global Village: Quick check: where's your keyboard made? (mine: Made in China). Even if yours is Made in U.S.A. - look around you: how many things are made from resources mined in the US, formed by american hands, with tools made in USA? Noone was invited into the global village. But we both benefit from it. Stan Shannon wrote: for the U.S. to just bend over let the U.N. have its way with us Hoi! The heart of the chicken! The U.N. is about political cooperation. This often means it's not done your way. Your way might be better for you - but it would work only if you build a wall around your country. Shit, I should learn to write less. But it's heartwarming to see someone willing to listen ;) Peter

It's a royal pain to watch a sex drugs and rock'n'roll design decay into an aids crack and techno implementation [sighist] [Agile Programming] [doxygen]