West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Maestro Minded on February 12, 2003, 01:41:11 PM
-
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?? ?? ??
-
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"
-
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
-
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?
-
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")
-
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?
-
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
-
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?
-
"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
-
"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?
-
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...
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
;D
-
Let me break down this oil problem...
First to reiterate: If we wanted the oil we could have took it the first time.
Secondly, the proceeds from the sale of any iraqi oil goes to the nation of iraq. The US doesn't not steal the oil and the profits.
This may result in a lower price on oil for ALL countries. A stablized government in Iraq will sell oil at reasonable prices. By reasonable I mean a value that maximizes benefit on both sides. The iraqi people will benefit from the sale of oil and the rest of the world will benefit from the use of that oil.
Here is an analogy. Let's say the United States owned the only water supply for the WHOLE world. Because the world needs water and the US realizes this we say "fuck you all, pay us $$$$$$$$ actually $$$ isn't enough because we don't care we just want to see the rest of the world fail miserably we don't need money. We don't even care if our people are dying and living miserable lives we just want to see the rest of the world turn to shit."
or in more realistic terms let's say microsoft sells a really popular program like windows that everyone needs and uses. Now lets say microsoft is like fuck you all we rule this market we will charge you really high prices and never put out good software. Guess happens? Antitrust case! Everyone complains that microsoft is taking unfair advantage of a current situtation and fucking us all in the ass.
But now lets consider Iraq? They own oil. The world uses oil. Iraq is like fuck you all its my oil i will charge any price I want and be a dick just to fuck everyone over except myeslf because I'm Saddam and I want 900000000 presidential palaces. I don't even care about my poeple I want more presidential palaces because I love my presidential palaces. Right now I have 10,000 but I'm hoping to triple that number by selling everyone one really expensive oil. Oh fuck they put an embargo on me, well now i just want to blow up everyone and develop biological weaponry to spread disease throughout the world.
That was a dramatization. But hopefully you understand the analogy. And if im really lucky you will understand the contradiction in your criticism.
I am not pro war in Iraq, but if you are going to criticize it do so on grounds other than Oil. The oil arguement was made up to keep the world's eye off larger issues.
-
I just want to clarify something because it seems upon re-reading my earlier post I over-emphasised my focus on the war being fought for oil
Reasons for Bush wanting to attack Iraq
1) Stay in the White House
2) Extend dollars, and thus the hegemony goes on
Oil is a part of number 2, but is not the main reason why I am anti-the war.
One statement:
By controlling the direction of Iraq's oil, America can choose which nations benefit economically from the money that is made from sales.
This is not a good enough reason to fight a war, let alone using it as a means to improve public opinion back home.
I am tired, I've been up all night so may be making some mistakes but my argument is valid and stands. Also, please: where is the contradiction in my criticism shown in your analogy?
-
The contradiction is that if America controlled all the worlds oil many people would complain that we are being unfair, blah blah blah.
The contradiction is that when microsoft or any other monopoly exploits its monopoly power every one complains that they are acting unfairly, people sue, the monopoly company gets sent to court and severely reprimanded.
Iraq has near monopolistic powers on oil. They control one of the world's largest oil supplies. If the situation was reversed and the US controlled all this oil then you would complain about how the US controls oil and charges it to everyone else at really high rates and how unfair it is and how the US government is assholes. But since everyone hates the US, and will cheer on anyone that opposes the US no matter how horrible a country they are, its OK that Saddam controls Iraq's oil. In fact we want saddam to control the oil just to spite the US and for no other reason.
That is the contradiction.
Iraq is a near monopoly. Any other monopoly the world agrees is a bad thing, especially when the monopoly exploits its powers unjustly. Well guess what Iraq is doing, but its OK since Iraq opposes the US.
And
-
Ha, ha you just walked into that my man
Monopolies are bad, because monopolies lead to the possibility of the misuse of what the monopoly is of. Therefore, you can see that the fairest way to take the world forward is to share the resources between all fairly responsible nations. It has been announced that the US will basically take it over, giving a tiny amount of Iraq's oil resources to Britain. So, maybe if the US devised a plan based on sharing the misused resources........
-
all i got to say is i own a mustang GT
-
First off, Stabalize Doesn't mean "taking over the oil fields" so your whole argument isn't worth crap from the first sentence.
Does anyone else realize the U.S. doesn't get it's oil from the middle east besides me?
-
First off, Stabalize Doesn't mean "taking over the oil fields" so your whole argument isn't worth crap from the first sentence.
Does anyone else realize the U.S. doesn't get it's oil from the middle east besides me?
the title/head was "stabilize",.... the content was "taking over their oil"
-
Does anyone else realize the U.S. doesn't get it's oil from the middle east besides me?
You seen Scarface right?
The USA is Tony Montana
Now think about that metaphor very hard, and try and apply it to what you just said in order to think more clearly about the situation.
-
You've seen Close encounters of the third kind right?
The French are playing the role of Drew Berrymore...
-
Does anyone else realize the U.S. doesn't get it's oil from the middle east besides me?
You seen Scarface right?
The USA is Tony Montana
Now think about that metaphor very hard, and try and apply it to what you just said in order to think more clearly about the situation.
::)
ok mr comunist, you relise any and every cap. government......hmmmmm like you and yours, can be labled that?
-
Ha, ha you just walked into that my man
Monopolies are bad, because monopolies lead to the possibility of the misuse of what the monopoly is of. Therefore, you can see that the fairest way to take the world forward is to share the resources between all fairly responsible nations. It has been announced that the US will basically take it over, giving a tiny amount of Iraq's oil resources to Britain. So, maybe if the US devised a plan based on sharing the misused resources........
What did I walk into? All i did was reiterate myself since. You didn't set a trap unless I changed my opinion. I said what I said, and then repeated it again.
I'm really unsure of your arguement here
-
First of all, Jake, you have little or no comprehension of this subject matter beyond your polar world of communist vs capitalist, good vs evil and so on.
Engel: Keep spitting that real deep knowledge man.
Ant my argument is that the USA should step back from Reagan and his two little boy's (Dumb and Dubya) ideologies that lead to ruthless market capitalism. My argument is that the free world should share its resources in order to help the less well of nations.
Leave the ever so funny 'hippy' allegations that are going to fly my way out of this thread please.