USA Will Take Over Iraq's Oil...

[Maestro Minded]

the bush-administration informed this tuesday the senate the plan they had for iraq adter the war. their plans were divided in 3 steps. They would:

1. stabilize - which means taking over the oil-fields

2. remove the military occupation and replace with a democracy

3. change the laws to be able to maintain and keep elected goverments

they could see this happening within a 2-years range
-------------------------------------------
information taken from TT-DPA (Scandinavia's biggest news agency)
-------------------------------------------




so who said usa werent after the oil?? ?? ??

[Woodrow]

This is the LAMEST argument out there...

If we were after the oil:

1.) Why do we have a ban on Iranian oil?

2.) Why did we oppose Iraq being able to sell as much oil as It wanted on the free market? Whereas the french wanted to let them sell as much as possible

3.) Why didn't we go after it in the first war?

All you see is: TAKING OVER THEIR OIL

What I see is: "remove the military occupation and replace with a democracy", and  "change the laws to be able to maintain and keep elected goverments"

[Maestro Minded]

This is the LAMEST argument out there...

If we were after the oil:

1.) Why do we have a ban on Iranian oil?

2.) Why did we oppose Iraq being able to sell as much oil as It wanted on the free market? Whereas the french wanted to let them sell as much as possible

3.) Why didn't we go after it in the first war?

All you see is: TAKING OVER THEIR OIL

What I see is: "remove the military occupation and replace with a democracy", and  "change the laws to be able to maintain and keep elected goverments"

and what about the oil.? .. explain that... the oild part was their FIRST step... not democray.. but OIL... explain that

[Woodrow]

This is the LAMEST argument out there...

If we were after the oil:

1.) Why do we have a ban on Iranian oil?

2.) Why did we oppose Iraq being able to sell as much oil as It wanted on the free market? Whereas the french wanted to let them sell as much as possible

3.) Why didn't we go after it in the first war?

All you see is: TAKING OVER THEIR OIL

What I see is: "remove the military occupation and replace with a democracy", and  "change the laws to be able to maintain and keep elected goverments"

and what about the oil.? .. explain that... the oild part was their FIRST step... not democray.. but OIL... explain that

Oil is one of Iraq's Natural resources.

A great deal of money is needed to make Iraq a democracy and get it back on it's feet

Oil can generate a great deal of money.

Why shouldn't we use a natural resource to help rebuild a country?

[Maestro Minded]

This is the LAMEST argument out there...

If we were after the oil:

1.) Why do we have a ban on Iranian oil?

2.) Why did we oppose Iraq being able to sell as much oil as It wanted on the free market? Whereas the french wanted to let them sell as much as possible

3.) Why didn't we go after it in the first war?

All you see is: TAKING OVER THEIR OIL

What I see is: "remove the military occupation and replace with a democracy", and  "change the laws to be able to maintain and keep elected goverments"

and what about the oil.? .. explain that... the oild part was their FIRST step... not democray.. but OIL... explain that

Oil is one of Iraq's Natural resources.

A great deal of money is needed to make Iraq a democracy and get it back on it's feet

Oil can generate a great deal of money.

Why shouldn't we use a natural resource to help rebuild a country?

so you dont think that usa will use the opportunity to lower the oil price?? (this is a situation that may happen really soon, think of that before blindly responding with a "no")

[Woodrow]

If we can remove WMD's from saddam,

liberate a people,

Set up a democracy,

and at the same time get lower gas prices...

Whats the big deal?

[Maestro Minded]

If we can remove WMD's from saddam,

liberate a people,

Set up a democracy,

and at the same time get lower gas prices...

Whats the big deal?

BUSTED

i've reached my goal with this thread

[Woodrow]

If we can remove WMD's from saddam,

liberate a people,

Set up a democracy,

and at the same time get lower gas prices...

Whats the big deal?

BUSTED

i've reached my goal with this thread

And what might that be?

[Woodrow]

"Analysts say additional speculation that Washington may seek to quickly flood the world market with cheap Iraqi oil to benefit Western economies is unfounded. Iraq's oil industry is currently in a state of massive disrepair due to a dozen years of UN sanctions, which have complicated getting replacement parts and have led to overpumping of, and damage to, several important oil fields. Iraq's oil industry currently produces about half of the oil it did before the 1991 Gulf War.

A recent study by the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations estimated that bringing Iraq's oil sector back up to pre-1990 production levels would cost some $5 billion, in addition to $3 billion in annual operating costs. Some experts have estimated it would take at least five years for Iraq's oil industry to return to full productivity."

"A commentary in Britain's "Financial Times" this week said that "the idea that [oil] is the motive for an attack on Iraq is fanciful." The paper said a war with Iraq could cause oil prices to skyrocket in the short term, dealing a serious setback to the U.S. economy and "with it, Mr. Bush's chances for re-election in 2004." The paper added that, "It is arguable that the rise in oil prices that accompanied the last Gulf War tipped the U.S. into the recession that cost [Bush's] father a second term" as president."

This comes from radio free europe
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/01/07012003163705.asp

[Maestro Minded]

"Analysts say additional speculation that Washington may seek to quickly flood the world market with cheap Iraqi oil to benefit Western economies is unfounded. Iraq's oil industry is currently in a state of massive disrepair due to a dozen years of UN sanctions, which have complicated getting replacement parts and have led to overpumping of, and damage to, several important oil fields. Iraq's oil industry currently produces about half of the oil it did before the 1991 Gulf War.

A recent study by the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations estimated that bringing Iraq's oil sector back up to pre-1990 production levels would cost some $5 billion, in addition to $3 billion in annual operating costs. Some experts have estimated it would take at least five years for Iraq's oil industry to return to full productivity."

"A commentary in Britain's "Financial Times" this week said that "the idea that [oil] is the motive for an attack on Iraq is fanciful." The paper said a war with Iraq could cause oil prices to skyrocket in the short term, dealing a serious setback to the U.S. economy and "with it, Mr. Bush's chances for re-election in 2004." The paper added that, "It is arguable that the rise in oil prices that accompanied the last Gulf War tipped the U.S. into the recession that cost [Bush's] father a second term" as president."

This comes from radio free europe
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/01/07012003163705.asp

it comes from the ONLY european country who FULLY supports usa's plans...(didnt you think i would notice??)

the biggest oil-nation today is saudi-arabia....



iraq got the second spot...


so even though they havent fully recovered yet from the gulf wars, they still is the second biggest oil nation... so whats your point?

[Maestro Minded]

USA-Iraq: It Is an Oil War After All

American sources made it clear that the United States fully intended taking over Iraq’s oil fields, administering them in the long term and using Iraqi oil revenues to partly defray the costs of conducting war and maintaining a long-term military occupation of Iraq.

According to DEBKAfile’s Washington sources, the war bill which, unlike Gulf War I, America will carry more or less single-handed, is estimated at $130 billion, while maintaining app. 70,000 US troops in the country to protect the oil fields and maintain Iraq’s post-war stability could run to another $10-12 billion a year. To raise this cash, the United States plans to increase Iraq’s oil output from 1.6 million to 6.5 million barrels per day, necessitating further heavy outlay for renovating the badly run down Iraqi oil production equipment.

At the same time, the long-term, military-backed control over Iraq’s oil resources – on the spot rather than from outside the region – will make America the leading strategic-political-military force in the Middle East and Persian Gulf as well giving Washington a controlling interest in the global oil market.

Henry L. Marconi
PRAVDA.Ru
Sydney


-----------------------



hm.....hm......hm...

[Woodrow]

USA-Iraq: It Is an Oil War After All

American sources made it clear that the United States fully intended taking over Iraq’s oil fields, administering them in the long term and using Iraqi oil revenues to partly defray the costs of conducting war and maintaining a long-term military occupation of Iraq.

According to DEBKAfile’s Washington sources, the war bill which, unlike Gulf War I, America will carry more or less single-handed, is estimated at $130 billion, while maintaining app. 70,000 US troops in the country to protect the oil fields and maintain Iraq’s post-war stability could run to another $10-12 billion a year. To raise this cash, the United States plans to increase Iraq’s oil output from 1.6 million to 6.5 million barrels per day, necessitating further heavy outlay for renovating the badly run down Iraqi oil production equipment.

At the same time, the long-term, military-backed control over Iraq’s oil resources – on the spot rather than from outside the region – will make America the leading strategic-political-military force in the Middle East and Persian Gulf as well giving Washington a controlling interest in the global oil market.

Henry L. Marconi
PRAVDA.Ru
Sydney


-----------------------



hm.....hm......hm...

Please tell me how much Iraq CURRENTLY puts out a day...

Also, how am I supposed to take you seriously when you quote something from PRAVDA.Ru...

Lets take a look at another article Pravda has up... This one talks about how space aliens helped saddam make Cow sized  Scorpions to protect his palace.

"Mohammed Hajj al-Amdar said on the basis of strange stories coming out of that valley: “Saddam gave the aliens sanctuary, so that they couldn’t be captured by Americans. Nobody can reach the citadel Qalaat-e-Julundi at night. They say that the aliens created “watchdogs” for Saddam. The aliens took ordinary desert scorpions and used their bio-engineering to grow the scorpions to giant size. Scorpions of a cow-size! They are wonderful watchdogs: they blend in with the desert, swiftly and silently move on their warm-blooded prey for a decisive attack. Luckless intruders hear just some strange sound from behind stones, then a pincer crushes their necks, another pincer crushes their legs; then the victims is slammed to the ground and beaten with a barbed tail six or seven times. Death comes almost immediately.” "

Here is the link
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2003/01/31/42821.html

[Entreri117]

I'm disappointed in you, Maestro...believing everything you read about the war in Iraq...shame on you.

Why are we in Iraq?  3 reasons...

1) Preventing that dipshit Sadaam from possessing, and USING WMD's

2) To liberate a country, and set it up as either a "Sphere of Influence" or a "Protectorate"

3) Yes, we are there for the oil.


Considering that the USA is one of the major automobile nations in the world, having to pay $1.85 per gallon for gas is simply obsurd!

PS: This is kinda off topic, but Alaska has a shitload of oil...why don't we use that?

[Jay ay Beee]

This is the LAMEST argument out there...

If we were after the oil:

1.) Why do we have a ban on Iranian oil?

2.) Why did we oppose Iraq being able to sell as much oil as It wanted on the free market? Whereas the french wanted to let them sell as much as possible

3.) Why didn't we go after it in the first war?

All you see is: TAKING OVER THEIR OIL

What I see is: "remove the military occupation and replace with a democracy", and  "change the laws to be able to maintain and keep elected goverments"

1) Because Iran makes you pay out of your ass for its oil, you can't get it for low prices so you 'ban' it to pretend that you are taking a principled stand against the country.

2) Because on the free market they sell to the highest bidder, so nations will just drive the price up so high (like in an auction) that America will end up paying out of their ass for its oil.

3) Don't know enough details to answer.



What I see is: "remove the military occupation and replace with a democracy", and  "change the laws to be able to maintain and keep elected goverments"

Exactly.  

Do you think George Bush would come out and say "Oh yeah this war is all about oil"
Public opinion would really get behind him then.

Understand politics, break down the rhetoric.

[Jay ay Beee]

Quote:
The paper said a war with Iraq could cause oil prices to skyrocket in the short term, dealing a serious setback to the U.S. economy and "with it, Mr. Bush's chances for re-election in 2004." The paper added that, "It is arguable that the rise in oil prices that accompanied the last Gulf War tipped the U.S. into the recession that cost [Bush's] father a second term" as president."

Bush is far more ruthless than his father though.  Senior lost because 1)The economy, 2)He was running against one of the greatest politicians ever.  
The secret of winning the next election if you're an incumbent President and you have little charisma or speaking ability is distracting the people from the problems of the country.  Best way to do this in America - create a Lord of the Rings good vs Evil battle, in the form of a war.  Bush senior got his war, but after it finished the people focused on the economy again.  War over = domestic problems.
Dubya's plan - Keep fighting!  He struck gold with the war on terror idea, because he actually makes people believe that countries are a genuine threat and so he goes and fights them because they 'harbour terrorists'.  By continually distracting, he doesn't have his failures (nearly all of his domestic political moves, hello, OSAMA isn't dead! etc.) focused on.  Bush's plan is to keep fighting all of these wars, use it to carry him to victory in 2004.  After all, you question his foreign policy and you are "siding with Sadaam" and "anti-American".

So that's why the main thrust of that FT article is bull.