Indirect Oil Profits in Iraq

[bunge]

Here (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,997059,00.html) is a brief explanation of how the U.S. intends to profit from the oil in Iraq. Those of you who continuously claimed that the U.S. wasn't attempting to profit from the oil should read it carefully. Don't worry, it's very short and doesn't use long words.

A simple analogy is how baseball teams are 'in the red' but somehow behind the scenes the owners are making a profit. One of the big undisclosed ways owners make profits are when the banks they own make the loans on new stadiums. The team might still lose money, but the owner makes a kiiling (no pun intended) on interest.

The same goes for the rebuilding process in Iraq.

[Aquafire]

If this is true, then it is dispicable..
If it is untrue, then it is the biggest pile of bullshit.
I'm always dubious of anything that the Guradian prints...
They're so " Unbiased " :lol:

[Harald]

Originally posted by aquafire
If this is true, then it is dispicable..
If it is untrue, then it is the biggest pile of bullshit.
I'm always dubious of anything that the Guradian prints...
They're so " Unbiased " :lol:

Debt is the most effective way to control the economic destiny of a country. The US and UK have been doing if forever (and don't anyone dare give me that 'conspiracy monger' BS).

It is interesting that the US is insisting that the EU wipes out its debt to Iraq in order to help recontstruction. Presumably so it can be indebted itself.

Aquafire, it's not rocket science, it's 100% true and yes it's dispicable. Good morning.

[Anders]

I agree with Harald here (surprise surprise).

I suggest anyone with interest in the area to read "Globalization and the Postcolonial World" by Ankie Hoogvelt. A great book analysing the strings of interdependence between first and "third" world countries in different periodes.

[SDW2001]

The Guardian is one of the most Left-of-center, anti-US "news"sources on the planet. Let's just get that out of the way.

From your link:

She warned against the coalition 'using the instrument of debt to control Iraq', after it leaves. Such a motive was behind the way Germany was treated after 1918, provoking resentment that eventually encouraged the rise of Adolf Hitler. (Emphasis added)

I think that pretty much says it all. But on to the issue at hand.

I have no problem with us giving them loans and...GASP!....asking that they be SECURED loans! :wow:

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
The Guardian is one of the most Left-of-center, anti-US "news"sources on the planet. Let's just get that out of the way.

From your link:

(Emphasis added)

I think that pretty much says it all. But on to the issue at hand.

I have no problem with us giving them loans and...GASP!....asking that they be SECURED loans! :wow:


Isn't the " media is biased " argument getting a little tired when your arguments and your links are so biased themselves?


Still in check.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
Isn't the " media is biased " argument getting a little tired when your arguments and your links are so biased themselves?


Still in check.

As wrong as you are about the media, I'd hope you'd at least admit the Guardian is literally hanging off the edge of Mount St. Leftist.

That's not the main point though. Do you have a problem with the "mortgaging" (read: securing of debt) of Iraqi oil?

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
As wrong as you are about the media, I'd hope you'd at least admit the Guardian is literally hanging off the edge of Mount St. Leftist.

That's not the main point though. Do you have a problem with the "mortgaging" (read: securing of debt) of Iraqi oil?

SDW, we've already established that you are very wrong about the media.

I think this is just one of many ways we will profit from Iraq's troubles.


Still in check.;)

[trumptman]

Well I won't question the sources or the motives, I just question the reasoning.

The U.S. is asking for a $120 billion on current loans to be canceled and $30 billion in new loans to rebuild and make improvements in Iraq.

How is getting $120 billion for free with an additional $30 backed by something the entire world uses a bad thing?

I could understand the conspiracy stuff if it were something that the market could be badly manipulated on and thus be turned worthless, (oil) say like sugarcane or coffee or something of that nature. We can't just plant oil somewhere else though and undermine the market to control Iraq via debt. Oil is used by the whole world.

I also remember that the U.S. loaned Mexico 50 billion dollars which they paid back early.

Nick

[jimmac]

Originally posted by trumptman
Well I won't question the sources or the motives, I just question the reasoning.

The U.S. is asking for a $120 billion on current loans to be canceled and $30 billion in new loans to rebuild and make improvements in Iraq.

How is getting $120 billion for free with an additional $30 backed by something the entire world uses a bad thing?

I could understand the conspiracy stuff if it were something that the market could be badly manipulated on and thus be turned worthless, (oil) say like sugarcane or coffee or something of that nature. We can't just plant oil somewhere else though and undermine the market to control Iraq via debt. Oil is used by the whole world.

I also remember that the U.S. loaned Mexico 50 billion dollars which they paid back early.

Nick



Very simple. Because it's not ours.

[groverat]

jimmac:
Very simple. Because it's not ours.

If we loan them money then it certainly is ours.

Hasn't the line since before the first bomb fell been that Iraq's rebuilding will be paid for by its own oil development? Suddenly that's despicable?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by groverat
jimmac:


If we loan them money then it certainly is ours.

Hasn't the line since before the first bomb fell been that Iraq's rebuilding will be paid for by its own oil development? Suddenly that's despicable?

Exactly. Loans should be secured. jimmac and bunge: Go ask for a $200,000 loan with no collateral. See what happens.

Jimmac: I haven't been proven wrong. That's all there is to say. Getting six liberals to agree with you doesn't "prove" anything.

[bunge]

Originally posted by groverat
Hasn't the line since before the first bomb fell been that Iraq's rebuilding will be paid for by its own oil development?

It's the profiting I'm highlighting. Many people claimed we wouldn't be making money from Iraqi oil. Many claimed we would be.

[Harald]

Originally posted by SDW2001
The Guardian is one of the most Left-of-center, anti-US "news"sources on the planet. Let's just get that out of the way.

From your link:

She warned against the coalition 'using the instrument of debt to control Iraq', after it leaves. Such a motive was behind the way Germany was treated after 1918, provoking resentment that eventually encouraged the rise of Adolf Hitler

I think that pretty much says it all. But on to the issue at hand.

I have no problem with us giving them loans and...GASP!....asking that they be SECURED loans! :wow:

This attitude, shown here, is alos exactly why Rummy is a dangerous, stupid bastard.

SDW, Adolf came to power partly (as in "encouraged") because the victorious powers put in a system of reparations and economic debt-based sanctions that made the country unable to support itself and feeling emasculated and bitter. Maybe they don't teach that in the US, maybe a society that could produce Hitler just dropped out of the sky. There were good political reasons behind this.

And if Rummy read some fcuking books, he'd know.

The article says this, and points out that historical precedent. Tell you what just cover your ears and go "LALALALALALA NOT LISTENING" like you did over the war. I mean, where are those WMD? Every day they're not found is another day they could be falling into terrorist's hands, and that was the point of the war ... they were so dangerous and 'we' knew exactly where they were, right?

Anyway, back on topic, go read some history.

[Scott]

Originally posted by bunge
Here (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,997059,00.html) is a brief explanation of how the U.S. intends to profit from the oil in Iraq. Those of you who continuously claimed that the U.S. wasn't attempting to profit from the oil should read it carefully. Don't worry, it's very short and doesn't use long words.

A simple analogy is how baseball teams are 'in the red' but somehow behind the scenes the owners are making a profit. One of the big undisclosed ways owners make profits are when the banks they own make the loans on new stadiums. The team might still lose money, but the owner makes a kiiling (no pun intended) on interest.

The same goes for the rebuilding process in Iraq.


Bunge please tell me where the "profit" is for the US? Iraq gets a loan that's agreed to be paid by oil revenue. Where's the major profit for the US? Maybe you misread.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Exactly. Loans should be secured. jimmac and bunge: Go ask for a $200,000 loan with no collateral. See what happens.

Jimmac: I haven't been proven wrong. That's all there is to say. Getting six liberals to agree with you doesn't "prove" anything.

Oh, oh. You decided to come back! You have been proven wrong numerous times. It doesn't have anything to do with them. You couldn't answer the question!



Still in check!:no:

[jimmac]

Originally posted by groverat
jimmac:


If we loan them money then it certainly is ours.

Hasn't the line since before the first bomb fell been that Iraq's rebuilding will be paid for by its own oil development? Suddenly that's despicable?


We shouldn't be there in the first place!:rolleyes:

[Scott]

Originally posted by jimmac
We shouldn't be there in the first place!:rolleyes:

Yea and Iraq shouldn't have had a brutal insane dictator in the first place.

[Harald]

Originally posted by groverat
jimmac:


If we loan them money then it certainly is ours.

Hasn't the line since before the first bomb fell been that Iraq's rebuilding will be paid for by its own oil development? Suddenly that's despicable?

Yes, except some of us said:

"This means that Halliburton etc. is going to get very rich, not indigenous Iraqi industry, which will piss off the entire population, not to mention justifying every suspicion of economic colonialism in Iraq and the wider Islamic world, and make the world more dangerous as it makes US corporates richer."

Comes down to the fact that the reason why the war was started has proven to be a lie (where are the WMD?), but people like me, who said that US economic interests related to oil would benefit enormously have been proven to be right. Absolutely right.

You remember, Hassan's oil dance? All that stuff about oil? Remember?

Put it another way: the money generated by this oil will flow directly to US conglomerates. It will not flow into the Iraqi economy until this COLOSSAL debt is paid off. This enormous debt that no Iraqi has OK'd. This enormous debt that will keep Iraq in indirect economic control by the US for eh well, for ever.

All that money could have gone to Iraqi industry.

[keyboardf12]

Yea and Iraq shouldn't have had a brutal insane dictator in the first place.


And we should not have been helping him up until bush senior's (not junior's) gulf war.


or done nothing when bush senior asked the iraqi people to "rise up" after the first gulf war and when they did bush senior LEFT THEM OUT TO DRY as SADDAM mowed those that rose, down.

[Scott]

Originally posted by keyboardf12
And we should not have been helping him up until bush senior's (not junior's) gulf war.


Yea and either should have France, Germany, Italy, the UN ... France should not have signed a special oil deal with the dictator that would go into effect when sanctions ended. This only emboldened Saddam and encouraged him to ignore the UN and not comply with 1441. But we're not her for a honest assessment of how the French propped up Saddam and hastened the war. We're only here to blame the US at every turn. Don your blinders.

Originally posted by keyboardf12
or done nothing when bush senior asked the iraqi people to "rise up" after the first gulf war and when they did bush senior LEFT THEM OUT TO DRY as SADDAM mowed those that rose, down. [/B]

shoulda coulda woulda Not going all the way was the first time was the biggest mistake. I doubt we'll make that again.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by Scott
Yea and Iraq shouldn't have had a brutal insane dictator in the first place.

You have got to be kidding me... So we go around the world and decide to "help" out repressed peoples?? Just happened to be Iraq??? Where all this oil just happens to be?

GET REAL!

I used to support Bush. That was before he insulted my intelligence.

Fellowship

[keyboardf12]

Yea and either should have France, Germany, Italy, the UN ... France should not have signed a special oil deal with the dictator that would go into effect when sanctions ended. This only emboldened Saddam and encouraged him to ignore the UN and not comply with 1441. But we're not her for a honest assessment of how the French propped up Saddam and hastened the war. We're only here to blame the US at every turn. Don your blinders.



Except for the last sentence. I agree completely.

We're only here to blame the US at every turn. Don your blinders.


No just certain political officials that SHOULD be held accountable and not be given a free pass under the guise of patriotism.

shoulda coulda woulda Not going all the way was the first time was the biggest mistake. I doubt we'll make that again.

What is it with Bushes, that country and Mistakes... ?

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by SDW2001
The Guardian is one of the most Left-of-center, anti-US "news"sources on the planet. Let's just get that out of the way.


Might it not be some of the actions the US is involved with are "anti-world" and not so much that the world is "anti-US" if not for the fact the US is so anti-World???

Forget the media. The US with Bush as leader is not seen well across the world and for damn good reason.

Just something to think about for once.

Fellowship

[Anders]

:wow:

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Scott
Yea and Iraq shouldn't have had a brutal insane dictator in the first place.


There are still lots of them around just like him so what's your point?

[Fellowship]

MSNBC Washington Post (http://www.msnbc.com/news/938198.asp?0cv=CB10)

:no: Aluminum tubes as well... where are those?

_Officials involved in preparing the speech said there was much more internal debate over the next line of the speech, when Bush said in reference to Hussein, “Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.”
_ _ _ _Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in his Feb. 5 presentation to the United Nations, noted a disagreement about Iraq’s intentions for the tubes, which can be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium.

:mad: Bush has abused his power.

Fellowship

[groverat]

jimmac:

We shouldn't be there in the first place!:rolleyes:

We've been strangling Iraq's economy for 12 years.

But it's been shown in previous threads that the history of this situation isn't your forte, so we should just let that go for now.

---

Harald:

Put it another way: the money generated by this oil will flow directly to US conglomerates. It will not flow into the Iraqi economy until this COLOSSAL debt is paid off. This enormous debt that no Iraqi has OK'd. This enormous debt that will keep Iraq in indirect economic control by the US for eh well, for ever.

All that money could have gone to Iraqi industry.

You take that article and make very big inferences. How do you know that the oil will not flow into the Iraqi economy until the debt is paid off?

Do you know what that $30 will be doing in Iraq?

You're making very broad statements with very very little information.

[Fellowship]

Groverat why are we in Iraq?

Fellowship

[groverat]

Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Groverat why are we in Iraq?

Fellowship

A lot of different reasons.
- Remove Hussein.
- Remove the need for troops in Saudi Arabia.
- Gain influence on Iraq's economy that is bound to be growing exponentially.
- Gain an ally in a dangerous region, or at the very least remove an enemy.

Those answers come from the "administration motivations" page but there are more reasons we should be.

But "it's all about the oil" is a popular rallying cry, especially for those with little substance.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by groverat
A lot of different reasons.
- Remove Hussein.
- Remove the need for troops in Saudi Arabia.
- Gain influence on Iraq's economy that is bound to be growing exponentially.
- Gain an ally in a dangerous region, or at the very least remove an enemy.

Those answers come from the "administration motivations" page but there are more reasons we should be.

But "it's all about the oil" is a popular rallying cry, especially for those with little substance.

1) yes
2) not sure : Saudi Arabia is much a safer place for US troops than Iraq, where many soldiers are attacked week after week.
3) Gain influence : yes, Growing exponentially ? : i hope it for Iraq, but it's not a cakewalk
4) it's possible, but the reverse is also possible, the future will tell. This is a very difficult task.

[zaphod_beeblebrox]

Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
You have got to be kidding me... So we go around the world and decide to "help" out repressed peoples?? Just happened to be Iraq??? Where all this oil just happens to be?

GET REAL!

Good idea. Time for you to take your own advice. Oil wealth confers geo-strategic importance whether anyone likes it or not. We don't go around the world and decide to help out repressed people but our intervention in places like Afghanistan and Iraq have that effect. And for many who supported the war that was all the reason they needed. By the way, where's all the oil wealth in Afghanistan?

[jimmac]

Originally posted by groverat
A lot of different reasons.
- Remove Hussein.
- Remove the need for troops in Saudi Arabia.
- Gain influence on Iraq's economy that is bound to be growing exponentially.
- Gain an ally in a dangerous region, or at the very least remove an enemy.

Those answers come from the "administration motivations" page but there are more reasons we should be.

But "it's all about the oil" is a popular rallying cry, especially for those with little substance.


1. Yes but with this regard it was because Saddam had WOMD and was a threat. Uh huh.

2. I'll bet they are still there 10 years from now.

3. Yes I expect some kind of monetary return.:rolleyes:

4. And lose half a dozen others in other regions.

[Anders]

Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Good idea. Time for you to take your own advice. Oil wealth confers geo-strategic importance whether anyone likes it or not. We don't go around the world and decide to help out repressed people but our intervention in places like Afghanistan and Iraq have that effect. And for many who supported the war that was all the reason they needed. By the way, where's all the oil wealth in Afghanistan?

Who said the situation in Afghanistan is the same as in Iraq. The outcome may have been but the reason for going in is very different (or at least it was somewhat clear in Afghanistan...)

[keyboardf12]

Actually,

(not that i think it was the majoirty of the case there, it was all about taking out al -queda. )

There was talk of some oil pipeline that corps.were drooling over before 9/11.

Here's some links from google.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/pipeline_timeline.htm

http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=1749

Message to oppressed people: Dig for oil!

:\

Ugg:

from the forbes article:

It gets uglier. The Taliban lusted after the $25 million a year in would-be pipeline royalties. Such a prize leads William O. Beeman, a professor at Brown University who's an authority on Central Asia, to conclude that Osama bin Laden's bombings in 1998 of U.S. embassies in Africa were designed to nip the budding relationship between the Taliban and Western interests. "Bin Laden didn't want the Taliban to be in bed with the U.S.," he says. "It would have made his position untenable."

[zaphod_beeblebrox]

Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Might it not be some of the actions the US is involved with are "anti-world" and not so much that the world is "anti-US" if not for the fact the US is so anti-World???

Forget the media. The US with Bush as leader is not seen well across the world and for damn good reason.

Just something to think about for once.

Here's something else to think about. They're not anti-US in Warsaw, Tehran (among the protestors) and Taipei. They are, rather, just the opposite. Why do you think that might be?

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Good idea. Time for you to take your own advice. Oil wealth confers geo-strategic importance whether anyone likes it or not. We don't go around the world and decide to help out repressed people but our intervention in places like Afghanistan and Iraq have that effect. And for many who supported the war that was all the reason they needed. By the way, where's all the oil wealth in Afghanistan?

After getting your PM all I can say is that you need to shut up.

SHUT UP

Oil wealth in Afganistan?? Who the hell is talking about Afganistan here?

Here is a clue... Not me.. Get a Clue.

Do you care to understand why I am upset at Bush?

Do you care to actually know my point of view? Or would you rather defend Bush all day long for 8 long years?

I am against this war in Iraq because it was sold with lies. ohhh "mistakes"
The day we decide we can go and overtake governments in the world where we please and place our colonial replacements is the day we are indeed "Hitler"

When that day comes trust me there will be those who want to knock us off our perch.

If we go to war I want the leader of the country to be honest with us.

If he is less than that I will not vote for the guy again. VERY VERY SIMPLE

Fellowship

[keyboardf12]

Oil wealth in Afganistan?? Who the hell is talking about Afganistan here?



He really should read the links i posted above....

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Here's something else to think about. They're not anti-US in Warsaw, Tehran (among the protestors) and Taipei. They are, rather, just the opposite. Why do you think that might be?

I agree with you here... I am not anti-US

I am anti-Bush

The form of freedom the American People have is top notch. The actions of the Bush Admin is another story. Don't try to mesh the two together.

Fellowship

[keyboardf12]

this is getting disgusting (er)

According to Afghan, Iranian, and Turkish government sources, Hamid Karzai, the interim Prime Minister of Afghanistan, was a top adviser to the El Segundo, California-based UNOCAL Corporation which was negotiating with the Taliban to construct a Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline from Turkmenistan through western Afghanistan to Pakistan.



Karzai, the leader of the southern Afghan Pashtun Durrani tribe, was a member of the mujaheddin that fought the Soviets during the 1980s. He was a top contact for the CIA and maintained close relations with CIA Director William Casey, Vice President George Bush, and their Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) Service interlocutors. Later, Karzai and a number of his brothers moved to the United States under the auspices of the CIA. Karzai continued to serve the agency's interests, as well as those of the Bush Family and their oil friends in negotiating the CentGas deal, according to Middle East and South Asian sources.



When one peers beyond all of the rhetoric of the White House and Pentagon concerning the Taliban, a clear pattern emerges showing that construction of the trans-Afghan pipeline was a top priority of the Bush administration from the outset. Although UNOCAL claims it abandoned the pipeline project in December 1998, the series of meetings held between U.S., Pakistani, and Taliban officials after 1998, indicates the project was never off the table.



Quite to the contrary, recent meetings between U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Wendy Chamberlain and that country's oil minister Usman Aminuddin indicate the pipeline project is international Project Number One for the Bush administration. Chamberlain, who maintains close ties to the Saudi ambassador to Pakistan (a one-time chief money conduit for the Taliban), has been pushing Pakistan to begin work on its Arabian Sea oil terminus for the pipeline.



Meanwhile, President Bush says that U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan for the long haul. Far from being engaged in Afghan peacekeeping -- the Europeans are doing much of that -- our troops will effectively be guarding pipeline construction personnel that will soon be flooding into the country.



Karzai's ties with UNOCAL and the Bush administration are the main reason why the CIA pushed him for Afghan leader over rival Abdul Haq, the assassinated former mujaheddin leader from Jalalabad, and the leadership of the Northern Alliance, seen by Langley as being too close to the Russians and Iranians. Haq had no apparent close ties to the U.S. oil industry and, as both a Pushtun and a northern Afghani, was popular with a wide cross-section of the Afghan people, including the Northern Alliance. Those credentials likely sealed his fate.

goes on in link below:


http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html


oh geez:



When Haq entered Afghanistan from Pakistan last October, his position was immediately known to Taliban forces, which subsequently pinned him and his small party down, captured, and executed them. Former Reagan National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, who worked with Haq, vainly attempted to get the CIA to help rescue Haq. The agency claimed it sent a remotely-piloted armed drone to attack the Taliban but its actions were too little and too late. Some observers in Pakistan claim the CIA tipped off the ISI about Haq's journey and the Pakistanis, in turn, informed the Taliban. McFarlane, who runs a K Street oil consulting firm, did not comment on further questions about the circumstances leading to the death of Haq.

[zaphod_beeblebrox]

Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
After getting your PM all I can say is that you need to shut up.

SHUT UP

Oil wealth in Afganistan?? Who the hell is talking about Afganistan here?
It's a place where we also intervened. Your words:
So we go around the world and decide to "help" out repressed peoples?? Just happened to be Iraq??? Where all this oil just happens to be?
I can understand why you don't want me to mention Afghanistan. It doesn't fit your cynicism.
Do you care to actually know my point of view?
You're telling me to SHUT UP and I'm suposed to care about YOUR point of view? Actually I do. That is, if you have something to contribute more than bitterness and vitriol.
Or would you rather defend Bush all day long for 8 long years?
I've criticized him in the past and I will in the future. I simply have no problem with the intervention in Iraq. A year ago I thought it was the right thing to do and I still think that way. You say Bush lied. When? When he said Saddam had WMDs? Even anti-war people didn't dare claim prior to the war that he didn't have WMDs.
The day we decide we can go and overtake governments in the world where we please and place our colonial replacements is the day we are indeed "Hitler"
Actually, Hitler did quite a bit more than that.
If we go to war I want the leader of the country to be honest with us.
If you're going to get cranky with me, I want something more serious than SHUT UP. Really now.

[zaphod_beeblebrox]

Originally posted by keyboardf12
He really should read the links i posted above....
I'm not going to go over that ground again. I've taken apart that argument several times now. It just doesn't hold water.

[keyboardf12]

The documented desire of U.S. Oil companies to place a lucartive pipeline in Afghanistan does not hold water?

You brought up the fact that we were in afghan. despite the lack of oil.

zaphoid beeblebox said:

By the way, where's all the oil wealth in Afghanistan?

I simply supplied links that showed "where all the oil wealth in Afghanistan" might be. And that it is not the oil free zone that people seem to believe.


Guess we know who else doesn't hold water...

[zaphod_beeblebrox]

Originally posted by keyboardf12
The documented desire of U.S. Oil companies to place a lucartive pipeline in Afghanistan does not hold water?
No, the economic rationale no longer holds water. Other pipelines have already been/are already being built. It makes no difference to us how Central Asian oil comes to market. In fact, it could be argued (and has been argued) that a trans-Afghan pipeline would be a poorer choice than most.

[keyboardf12]

Afghanistian: Oil Execs Revive Pipeline From Hell

Oil companies have dreamed of a trans-Afghan pipeline. Are they crazy enough to pull it off now?

By_Daniel Fisher
Forbes.com
February 4, 2002

It has been called the pipeline from hell, to hell, through hell. It's a 1,270-kilometer conduit, 1.2 meters in diameter, that would snake across Afghanistan to carry natural gas from eastern Turkmenistan--with 700 billion cubic meters of proven reserves--to energy-hungry Pakistan and beyond. Unocal of the U.S. and Bridas Petroleum of Argentina vied for the $1.9 billion project in the 1990s. Now, with the collapse of the Taliban, oil executives are suddenly talking again about building it.


"It is absolutely essential that the U.S. make the pipeline the centerpiece of rebuilding Afghanistan," says S. Rob Sobhani, a professor of foreign relations at Georgetown University and the head of Caspian Energy Consulting. The State Department thinks it's a great idea, too. Routing the gas through Iran would be avoided, and Central Asian republics wouldn't have to ship through Russian pipelines.


Was this pipeline finished? Poor choices are made often. I think for them (unocal etc. ) it would matter more that they owned the pipeline more most.) but unocal later in the article says they are no longer interested. hmm... It also goes onto say that the rebels and taliban did NOT blow things like pipelines and damns up during the past 50 years.

nice to know. if unocal suddenly "revives interest."

[Scott]

Originally posted by jimmac
1. Yes but with this regard it was because Saddam had WOMD and was a threat. Uh huh.

2. I'll bet they are still there 10 years from now.

...

Uh? No. They are out now. The "root causes" crowed should be happy. "Root cause" removed our way.

[Scott]

Can someone please tell me WHERE IS THE PROFIT FOR THE US IN SECURED LOANS? THE BASIC THESIS OF THIS THREAD HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. Bunge seems to have little ability to READ AND UNDERSTAND.

When you start off with your anti-US basis then I guess nothing needs to be proven just stated as fact.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
Can someone please tell me WHERE IS THE PROFIT FOR THE US IN SECURED LOANS? THE BASIC THESIS OF THIS THREAD HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN.

If these loans are interest free then you might be right, there is no profit. But I guess you're wrong instead.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
Bunge seems to have little ability to READ AND UNDERSTAND.

Scott seems to have little ability to think critically, especially when the United States is involved.

There's no reason to attack me directly over the issue. If the claim that we will profit from loans we give out is incorrect, show us. If the article is somehow incorrect, and we actually aren't going to help Iraq mortgage their oil for our own profit, show us.

Otherwise do us all a favor and realize* that the United States sometimes does things that are reprehensible.

EDIT: * You probably already realize it, just admit it. That's what I should have asked you to do.

[Harald]

Originally posted by groverat

You take that article and make very big inferences. How do you know that the oil will not flow into the Iraqi economy until the debt is paid off?

Do you know what that $30 will be doing in Iraq?

You're making very broad statements with very very little information.

No, you are insulting my intelligence. It's hard to credit something like this. Or answer it.

Let me ask you, have you ever heard of a company called Kellogg, Brown and Root? Little information? Do you not remember the fuss about the Pentagon awarding reconstruction contacts before the war started? WTflyingF?

I know that money will not flow into the Iraqi economy because it is going to large US conglomerates. They may well pay Iraqis to do a bit of labour, but the cashflow benefit and capital value of the contracts will benefit those companies and increase the size of the US economy. Do you not know what value means? Do you understand that the size of an 'economy' means the amount o' money free inside it? Money is flying out the ground in guaranteed dollars (plus interest). Can I also ask how you've managed to forget what effect huge international debt tends to have on countries?

The US is getting the benefit to its economy as if the oil was from Texas.

(edit: btw scott, THAT is how the US benefits from turning oil into dollars by means of a ... err ... huge loan that turns oil into contracts for US companies)

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Scott
Uh? No. They are out now. The "root causes" crowed should be happy. "Root cause" removed our way.


Ooooooo! " Our way ".


That was need for troops which means they could always go right back because what you think has been solved hasn't.


Scott:no:

[Aquafire]

Originally posted by bunge
It's the profiting I'm highlighting. Many people claimed we wouldn't be making money from Iraqi oil. Many claimed we would be.

Good morning to you all Especially to you "Bunge Anders, and Harald, & co"

....Re profits...As I live and breath, I know where you guys stand...

But remember that profits are part of the reward for takings capital risk...( the downside is you might lose the shirt of your back )...

I don't like the idea of gargantuan ( exploitative )profits that bleed the system dry & put nothing back.

And its profits that gave you that raise..It's profits that give your kids a job, its profits that put gas in your car..
It isn't the best system, but compared to the wholesale theft of oil profits being caried out in Iraq by Saddam & his coterie, it is a step in the right direction.

Time will tell, time will tell....

[keyboardf12]

I don't know if this is what they mean but i think the argument is more of a "profit vs. profiteering"

where those "profitteering" are companies that are very close to the vice pres. and president. and neither of which said eactly "we free you iraqi people, all its going to cost you is 18% annually of your most profitiable product you produce."

:\

or not...

[zaphod_beeblebrox]

Originally posted by keyboardf12
Was this pipeline finished?
No. Another route was chosen. It goes to the Black Sea. The first shipment from that pipeline left port in November of 2001. Now another pipeline is being built to transport this oil across Turkey to the Mediterranean. Turkey is concerned about the enviormental impact of tanker traffic through the Dardanelles.

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Note how a gas pipeline and an oil pipeline seem interchangeable in this thread.

Originally posted by keyboardf12
Was this pipeline finished?
It was never begun, nor does it seem it will be.
Poor choices are made often. I think for them (unocal etc. ) it would matter more that they owned the pipeline more most.) but unocal later in the article says they are no longer interested. hmm... It also goes onto say that the rebels and taliban did NOT blow things like pipelines and damns up during the past 50 years.
Afghanistan was a rather peaceful place until the seventies, and the Taliban did not exist till 1993.
The shape of Kabul seems to indicate that warlords, Mujahidin, Taliban, did destroy whatever they could their hands on in the course of their righteous struggles since the end of the Soviet invasion.
nice to know. if unocal suddenly "revives interest."
The nineteen-nineties CentGas project never saw the light of day because the main international partners, notably Unocal of the U.S.A., lost interest, and who could blame them? Not only the terrain is difficult and the distance to be covered rather lengthy, but the whole area is so backwards, unsafe, and on the whole not favourable to such endeavours.
The new fledgeling Afghan government, along with Turkmen and Paksitani governments, would like to revive the project (and who could blame them for desiring the jobs and revenues it could entail?) but the lack of interest from First-World companies or governments, to back such an entreprise, is one of the main reasons it is not likely to be implemented.

The idea according to which, the U.S.' intervention in Afghanistan, was motivated by an oil or gas pipeline, is of course, unfounded.
More about it was discussed here: Immanuel Goldstein, 25/III/2003 10:54 local (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22246&perpage=40&pagenumber=2)

As for the article linked above, it seems hastily assume analogies between the current situation in Iraq and post-WW1 Germany (immediate post-WW2 would be less inaccurate).

«Anne Pettifor, head of the Jubilee Plus debt relief campaign, said 'It is outrageous that the poor people of Iraq will be lumbered with billions of dollars of debt that will be used to boost the share prices of Wall Street financiers and US construction giants.'»
Similar things were heard in the late nineteen-forties, and that the Marshall Plan was a fascist plot by bloodsucking Wall Street financiers etc.

«She warned against the coalition 'using the instrument of debt to control Iraq', after it leaves. Such a motive was behind the way Germany was treated after 1918, provoking resentment that eventually encouraged the rise of Adolf Hitler.»
Actually, Germany was not controlled by the victorious Allies after 1918 (although the French did attempt it for a short time by occupying the Ruhr area), it was contolled (wholly occupied for ten years and still kept under various constraints later) after 1945, and a good thing it was, I certainly wish the same to Iraq.

[Scott]

So bunge you post something you don't know to be true as fact. Maybe you can do better next time?

[groverat]

Harald:

Let me ask you, have you ever heard of a company called Kellogg, Brown and Root?

Yeah, I do. I'm in Austin. KBR is based in Houston. I know people who work for them. I know a lot more about them than you do, I assure you.

Do you not remember the fuss about the Pentagon awarding reconstruction contacts before the war started? WTflyingF?

Yeah, I remember people talking about things they didn't know about. Especially funny in the case of the company hired to put out oil-well fires. As if there were multiple companies capable of deploying the equipment necessary in a reasonably quick period of time. We totally didn't let JoeVegan's International Organic Oil-Well-Fire-Fighters get a shot! :lol:

KBR is one of the (if not the) best at oil infrastructure development in the world. They can handle this task. One thing I saw missing from the "Why did THEY get the contracts?" gripes were alternatives. Can you name companies who could handle this?

Of course oil companies are going to make money from oil deals, who the **** else is going to build oil infrastructure and development?!

"BASEBALL PLAYERS MAKE MONEY OFF BASEBALL! UNILATERALISM!"

I know that money will not flow into the Iraqi economy because it is going to large US conglomerates.

A simple black/white view makes critical analysis irrelevant!

They may well pay Iraqis to do a bit of labour, but the cashflow benefit and capital value of the contracts will benefit those companies and increase the size of the US economy.

It will? How do you know?

Can I also ask how you've managed to forget what effect huge international debt tends to have on countries?

And we're (the US) is pushing/has pushed to get the vast majority of those debts forgiven, debts for things that did not help Iraq at all. Like Iraq having to pay the administrative costs of the sanctions that strangled the nation! w00t!

There's good debt and bad debt. Debt accrued under Hussein's control is bad, debt accrued while rebuilding the nation is good.

Simple math: $120 billion is 4x more than $30 billion.

The US is getting the benefit to its economy as if the oil was from Texas.

Bullshit.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
So bunge you post something you don't know to be true as fact. Maybe you can do better next time?

What are you talking about? Why don't you answer the questions posed for you rather than pretending you're correct?

[bunge]

Originally posted by groverat
Of course oil companies are going to make money from oil deals, who the **** else is going to build oil infrastructure and development?!

I don't know. Why don't we let the Iraqis decide?

Originally posted by groverat
"BASEBALL PLAYERS MAKE MONEY OFF BASEBALL! UNILATERALISM!"

Baseball players in the United States don't get paid by the Cuban or Japanese leagues. Surely you can do better than this groverat.

Originally posted by groverat
A simple black/white view makes critical analysis irrelevant!

I can only assume you're referring to your own post that I've quoted above.

[groverat]

bunge:

I don't know. Why don't we let the Iraqis decide?

Decide what? And who will be making the decision? "The Iraqis" is hardly an answer to that.

And who else is qualified to do it. There aren't many companies that can handle tasks of this scale.

Baseball players in the United States don't get paid by the Cuban or Japanese leagues. Surely you can do better than this groverat.

Do you think foreign entities weren't making money in Iraq prior to this war?

Ignorance is bliss, they say.

[bunge]

Originally posted by groverat
Ignorance is bliss, they say.

Speak for yourself.

You asked who would do the reconstruction. I suggest that Iraq should decide who builds their country and where the money comes from, not Bush. You pretend like that's not a viable option.

Great "argument." :rolleyes:

[alcimedes]

I suggest that Iraq should decide

who in Iraq?

[bunge]

Originally posted by alcimedes
who in Iraq?

Great question.

If we're going to be the government, then I guess it would make sense that we make the decisions. If we're not going to be the government, then how about Iraq's government make the decisions?

[alcimedes]

which is where i thought they were going. for now there is no govt. in Iraq, so we're making decisions. however, we're working at getting them set up with some sort of govt., at which point they will start making the decisions.

[groverat]

The wheels turn very slowly, alcimedes, very slowly.

[bunge]

Originally posted by alcimedes
which is where i thought they were going. for now there is no govt. in Iraq, so we're making decisions. however, we're working at getting them set up with some sort of govt., at which point they will start making the decisions.

Let's be realistic and honest, a $30 Billion (thousand million) dollar question can wait. If beginning is that essential, give them a $500 Million dollar loan to start. They've got enough oil to pay that off in a couple of days, plus interest.

The problem with this plan is that they, outside of their control, are being straddled with a huge debt that will take years to pay off (with oil being sold to us at $5 below market cost...gee thanks!)

groverat, instead of being blind, deaf and dumb, think.

Is $30 Billion essential? Maybe. Is it essential that our banks give it to Iraq on our terms? No.

[Harald]

Groverat, you are just a joker these days.

It's not 'bullshit' to say that the US is getting value off the oil as if it was Texan, it's a fact. The 'loan' is secured against oil, and it is priced in dollars (unlike the euros that used to squirt out of Iraq). The oil that comes out belongs to the US economy until the loan is paid back. It squirts straight in. Please address this economic arguement without a one-word answer. You might want to actually think about it first this time.

Much of the rest is classic colonial crap too; only KBR can handle the oil infrastructure huh ... Iraq can't because they never had an oil fire in Iraq before. They only happen in the states so an American company has to take care of it.

Oh, and I know that the loan will be used to pay US companies because, well, your government said so. So did you (KBR are the best at it, they can handle it, blah blah blah). Oh and I also know because some of the contracts have been divvied up already, it's US policy that aid money has to be spent with US companies.

I'm remembering when I kept trying to tell you a retired general called Jay Garner was going to run Iraq and you told me I had no evidence. He was in Kuwait at the time.

[Harald]

Originally posted by groverat
The wheels turn very slowly, alcimedes, very slowly.

No shit.

[groverat]

bunge:

Let's be realistic and honest, a $30 Billion (thousand million) dollar question can wait. If beginning is that essential, give them a $500 Million dollar loan to start. They've got enough oil to pay that off in a couple of days, plus interest.

Who is "them"? Who do you give this loan to and what will they do with it?

The problem with this plan is that they, outside of their control, are being straddled with a huge debt that will take years to pay off (with oil being sold to us at $5 below market cost...gee thanks!)

Oil will be sold to us below market cost to pay off this debt?
The debt will take years to pay off?
Are you ignoring the amount of debt forgiveness the US is calling for in Iraq?

Is $30 Billion essential? Maybe. Is it essential that our banks give it to Iraq on our terms? No.

Would they get better terms from someone else?

And you have zero idea how necessary any of it is either way. ZERO.

--

Harald:

It's not 'bullshit' to say that the US is getting value off the oil as if it was Texan, it's a fact. The 'loan' is secured against oil, and it is priced in dollars (unlike the euros that used to squirt out of Iraq). The oil that comes out belongs to the US economy until the loan is paid back. It squirts straight in. Please address this economic arguement without a one-word answer. You might want to actually think about it first this time.

Nowhere in anything quoted here does it say that the US will have dibs on Iraqi oil until the loan is paid off. Nowhere.

The loan will be "backed by" Iraqi oil reserves, that is completely different.

There very well might be a necessity for cash influx to further the rebuilding effort, you can't sit around waiting for political perfection in Iraq before you start rebuilding the economy unless you want it to be a welfare nation indefinitely. I don't know if this is the best idea but I know the level of FUD and hysteria you freaks are pumping here is ridiculous.

Much of the rest is classic colonial crap too; only KBR can handle the oil infrastructure huh ... Iraq can't because they never had an oil fire in Iraq before. They only happen in the states so an American company has to take care of it.

What Iraqi company could have done it? You do know that Iraq's oil infrastructure was managed and controlled by the guy we were going in to kill, right?

"Hey Saddam, while you're trying to sabotage the oil fields could you put out the fires you're trying to start? Thanks!"

:rolleyes:

Oh, and I know that the loan will be used to pay US companies because, well, your government said so. So did you (KBR are the best at it, they can handle it, blah blah blah). Oh and I also know because some of the contracts have been divvied up already, it's US policy that aid money has to be spent with US companies.

We are using our money to pay companies to rebuild things in Iraq. We happen to be the preeminent nation in these types of building efforts and home to the industry-leading corporations who do this work.

If you don't have any actual knowledge to dispute that KBR and Halliburton are the world leaders in this field and not just Cheney-puppets then just shut up about it.

Tell me, Harald, what would have been a better route?

I'm remembering when I kept trying to tell you a retired general called Jay Garner was going to run Iraq and you told me I had no evidence. He was in Kuwait at the time.

Where is Jay Garner now?

Pretty pathetic that you vaguely reference something months-old to hide your lack of argument here.

[bunge]

Originally posted by groverat
Who is "them"? Who do you give this loan to and what will they do with it?

groverat, the same questions could be asked of the $30 Billion (thousand million.) It's an irrelevant post. Who is getting the loan now? What are they going to do with it? Answer those questions and it might shed light on what you're asking, but is still irrelevant to this thread.

Originally posted by groverat
Oil will be sold to us below market cost to pay off this debt?
The debt will take years to pay off?
Are you ignoring the amount of debt forgiveness the US is calling for in Iraq?

US calls for debt forgiveness of old debt. US assumes control of new debt. That's good economics for the US.

And for those of you who claimed there was no money to be made by going to war in Iraq, groverat is proving you wrong.

Originally posted by groverat
Would they get better terms from someone else?

And you have zero idea how necessary any of it is either way. ZERO.

I haven't made any claims on necessity of the money. It probably is to some extent. What does that have to do with the thread? Nothing? Oh, thanks.

Money is to be made from this war. Anyone who said that couldn't be a motive for war was wrong.

That's plain and simple. You can try to prove otherwise, but I imagine you can't.

[Harald]

Originally posted by groverat


stuff

Yeh, nowhere does it say that the US has dibs on the oil. Not even in my mail, nor did I suggest it. May I ask, if not oil, which exports you think will be used to pay the loan back in dollars? Camel shit? Sand?

Next.

So you're suggesting that Saddam single-handedly ran Iraqi oil?

No? That would be a stupid interpretation of your sarcastic post?

Well, presumably, the same guys who looked after the oil when Saddam was in charge could do it after (minus the Russian and French guys).

Next: I don't give a monkeys how good the US is at rebuilding things the US bombed to pieces: to suggest that Iraq is somehow incapable of doing it itself is classic imperial bullshit. If that money went to Iraqi construction companies, who could then hire Halliburton themselves for all I care, the dividend it would have for the local economy would be enormous. The plain fact is that you don't understand economics, even though it's gratifying you've stopped pretending that there's there's not much evidence as you did above.

Where's Jay Garner? Uh, at home probably. Pretty sad you have to use a blindingly obvious fact unrelated to the force of my argument to hide your total lack of blah blah blah don't know why I bother with you.

[alcimedes]

problem is, (from what i've heard) is that everyone in any position of power in Iraq before was there because they were corrupt toadies of Saddam's. so you can't really offer contracts to the entrenched business when said business are extensions of what you're working to get rid of.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by alcimedes
problem is, (from what i've heard) is that everyone in any position of power in Iraq before was there because they were corrupt toadies of Saddam's. so you can't really offer contracts to the entrenched business when said business are extensions of what you're working to get rid of.

So what you are saying is...

We are replacing Iraqi crooks with American crooks?

Fellowship

[alcimedes]

We are replacing Iraqi crooks with American crooks?

yes, that's it exactly.

we're sending the Soprano's over to Iraq. screw waste disposal.

[bunge]

Originally posted by alcimedes
problem is, (from what i've heard) is that everyone in any position of power in Iraq before was there because they were corrupt toadies of Saddam's. so you can't really offer contracts to the entrenched business when said business are extensions of what you're working to get rid of.

Of course that hasn't stopped us from taking the ex-military personnel and making them police...

alclimedes, it sounds to me like you're at least admitting 'we' are going to make a healthy profit from post war reconstruction, are 'we' not? And that this undermines the pre-war argument that we couldn't go to war for directed profit, correct?

There is an Iraqi government in place right now that's sending a delegation to the U.N. What are they considered 'good enough' for governing and what are they not good enough to govern?

[alcimedes]

i would guess that when they have a police force behind them, and they've shown that they're as trustworth as the average politician, we will hand things over to them. you can't put a govt. in place w/o some kind of working police force though.

as for profits. if it is costing $1 billion a week to run things in Iraq right now, and you're looking at reconstruction dollars of $30 billion (of which only a small percentage will actually be profit) then we look to "make" $3-5 billion. that will be overshadowed by costs of staying there in two months.

i think the problem is that it depends on how you look at it. it is a negative sum total, but there are groups that will make money out of this whole deal.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by alcimedes

as for profits. if it is costing $1 billion a week to run things in Iraq right now, and you're looking at reconstruction dollars of $30 billion (of which only a small percentage will actually be profit) then we look to "make" $3-5 billion. that will be overshadowed by costs of staying there in two months.

i think the problem is that it depends on how you look at it. it is a negative sum total, but there are groups that will make money out of this whole deal.

So what you are saying is...

We are replacing Iraqi crooks with American crooks at tax payer expense and those who loose their life in this?

Fellowship

[alcimedes]

:wow:

right again! you're batting 1.000 today!

[bunge]

Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
We are replacing Iraqi crooks with American crooks at tax payer expense and those who loose their life in this?

That is unfortunately my take on the issue. Everyone in the country pays for the war, a very few make literally billions of dollars.

As for the $3-5 Billion figure, that doesn't include interest on a $30 Billion loan, does it?

[zaphod_beeblebrox]

So instead of a secured loan, Iraq should get the money how?

[Scott]

I still don't see any proof of profit from this. Is there any:no: It's all bunge's anti-US imagination.

[zaphod_beeblebrox]

Of course somebody's going to make money off of this. How else does $30B get raised - the loan fairy? I just don't see what the big deal is.

[Scott]

I don't see the profit. Because there is none to be seen. Not with the information on hand. Unless your an unthinking knee jerk anti-US bigot.

[BR]

Originally posted by Scott
I don't see the profit. Because there is none to be seen. Not with the information on hand. Unless your an unthinking knee jerk anti-US bigot.
So you don't see how banks make money from loans? Moron. I am with Zaphod on this one. Yes, there is profit to be made...no, I'm not sure if in this particular case it's a bad thing.

[Scott]

Originally posted by BR
So you don't see how banks make money from loans? Moron. I am with Zaphod on this one. Yes, there is profit to be made...no, I'm not sure if in this particular case it's a bad thing.

Prove to me the banks are making money on it. What bank? What profit and how much would they make normally had they not loaned it to Iraq?

Until you can you and bunge are the morons.

[alcimedes]

What profit and how much would they make normally had they not loaned it to Iraq?


that's a good point. is this loan to Iraq on some kind of exceptional terms or right along what they would have made loaning the money to someone else?

[BR]

Originally posted by Scott
Prove to me the banks are making money on it.

I told you that banks make money on loans. You don't understand how that works?

Unless this is an interest free loan to Iraq, whoever loans Iraq this money will make a profit. Failure to acknowledge that is willful stupidity. Again, I have not decided whether I think this kind of profit is right or wrong. However, it is stupid to contest that it doesn't exist.

[bunge]

Originally posted by BR
Again, I have not decided whether I think this kind of profit is right or wrong. However, it is stupid to contest that it doesn't exist.

It isn't necessarily wrong, but it should be 100% Iraq's decision. No, not some mayor of Bhagdad the U.S. propped up for two weeks, but a decision by Iraq none the less.

I'm sure there are lots of banks willing to loan money, and many companies within and outside of Iraq willing to do reconstruction. It's not the U.S.' call.

Besides that, the interest on bank loans undermines the pre-war argument that no money is to be made by going to war with Iraq.

Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
So instead of a secured loan, Iraq should get the money how?

It's their call.

[zaphod_beeblebrox]

Originally posted by bunge

It's their call.
What do you mean it's their call? The decision actually would be up to the lender. They're the ones with the money. Securing the loan with oil seems to me to be a pretty safe way to ensure favorable terms. If you don't do it that way, what do you do instead? $30B is a lot of money.

[bunge]

Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
What do you mean it's their call?

I mean, it's up to Iraq on who they go through and how much they get. And what currency the loan is in and what currency the oil is backed by. It's their call, not any U.S. administration.

[Scott]

This thread is the ultimate in anti-american stupidity. No one can provide any facts or figures but we are to take is as given that the US is going to "profit" from these loans. Please pull your heads out of your collective asses.

[groverat]

bunge:

groverat, the same questions could be asked of the $30 Billion (thousand million.) It's an irrelevant post. Who is getting the loan now? What are they going to do with it? Answer those questions and it might shed light on what you're asking, but is still irrelevant to this thread.

The loan would be given to American companies to rebuild Iraq and Iraq's oil would guarantee its repayment. They are going to use it to build things in Iraq.

Hence the use of the term "rebuilding".

US calls for debt forgiveness of old debt. US assumes control of new debt. That's good economics for the US.

And for Iraq.

$120 billion in debt to Europe for deals with Saddam is worse than $30 billion in debt to the US for deals that rebuild their country.

And for those of you who claimed there was no money to be made by going to war in Iraq, groverat is proving you wrong.

There is money to be made in everything. That's what you get with a globalized economy. :rolleyes:

I haven't made any claims on necessity of the money. It probably is to some extent. What does that have to do with the thread? Nothing? Oh, thanks.

Money has nothing to do with a thread about profits and loans? Fascinating.

----

Harald:

Yeh, nowhere does it say that the US has dibs on the oil. Not even in my mail, nor did I suggest it.

Oh really?
The oil that comes out belongs to the US economy until the loan is paid back.

You didn't just say that?

May I ask, if not oil, which exports you think will be used to pay the loan back in dollars? Camel shit? Sand?

Oil is guaranteeing the loan (which in itself is merely a rumor at this point), yes, but that in no way means Iraqi will have no oil to control until it is paid off. You are being a drama queen.

So you're suggesting that Saddam single-handedly ran Iraqi oil?

The Ba'ath party did, which was controlled by Saddam. The men we hunted and killed and captured.

Next: I don't give a monkeys how good the US is at rebuilding things the US bombed to pieces: to suggest that Iraq is somehow incapable of doing it itself is classic imperial bullshit.

The UN (Gulf War 1 & economic sanctions) is responsible for the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure. The Horrible Unilateral War of Unilateralism did very very little damage to economic infrastructure.

But those are facts... ugly truths that get in the way of simplistic generalizations.

If that money went to Iraqi construction companies, who could then hire Halliburton themselves for all I care, the dividend it would have for the local economy would be enormous.

What Iraqi construction companies? You are displaying glaring ignorance of Iraq's very recent economic makeup.

The plain fact is that you don't understand economics, even though it's gratifying you've stopped pretending that there's there's not much evidence as you did above.

You seem to think Iraq has a bustling manufacturing economy just waiting to be employed. :lol:

Where's Jay Garner? Uh, at home probably. Pretty sad you have to use a blindingly obvious fact unrelated to the force of my argument to hide your total lack of blah blah blah don't know why I bother with you.

Am I the one who brought that up? Be mad at yourself for not knowing what you're talking about, not me for pointing it out.

[torifile]

Originally posted by Scott
This thread is the ultimate in anti-american stupidity. No one can provide any facts or figures but we are to take is as given that the US is going to "profit" from these loans. Please pull your heads out of your collective asses.

I'm not sure where I stand on this particular issue, but Scott, you're being a dolt by saying that there won't be any profit made by the lenders. There is profit to be made, you need to admit that. Until then, you're the one with your head up your ass.

[bunge]

Originally posted by groverat
....

groverat, you're really stretching things. You're obviously avoiding the topic at hand; just trolling. You're not very good at the socratic method yet. Keep trying, keep learning. Stay in school.

Am I ignoring the debt forgiveness? No. It's not related to the profits the U.S. is going to take from the new debt they create.

Would they get better terms from someone else? It's their job to shop around, not ours to force the debt down their throats for our own economic interests.

Who would the loans go to and what would they do with it? It could go to the interim government and they could start the rebuilding process.

There is money to be made in everything? Not when forced by my government, or any government for that matter. You can't hide behind 'global economics' as a justification for war or theft.

Money has nothing to do with a thread about profits and loans? I never said that. It's another attempt at a 'smoke screen' from your trolling groverat. I said the necessity of the loans has nothing to do with the thread. You're pretending like I said something else because my arguments have left you with no rebuttal. You brought up the necessity of the loans, I claim that's not an issue. If they are necessary, Iraq should decide where they come from and the terms they agree to. If they're not necessary, the U.S. shouldn't be giving them out in the first place. Either instance supports my cause. That's why it's not relevant to the thread.

Wow. You're grasping at straws groverat. Just admit that those claiming that profit couldn't be a motivation for war were wrong.

[alcimedes]

Just admit that those claiming that profit couldn't be a motivation for war were wrong.

just for kicks can you do me a quick favor bunge?

can you do a little math for me.

start with the supposed "profit" you keep referring to here.

then subtract the cost of the war.

let me know what number you get.

[torifile]

Originally posted by alcimedes
just for kicks can you do me a quick favor bunge?

can you do a little math for me.

start with the supposed "profit" you keep referring to here.

then subtract the cost of the war.

let me know what number you get.

Did Halliburton (for example. substitute any of the many private companies that will be involved with this) pay for the war? No. So that's $0. Looks like they're still ahead.

So, the American people pay for this war and private corps get rich off it. :/ Seems like a good deal for the veep and his friends....

[bunge]

Originally posted by alcimedes
just for kicks can you do me a quick favor bunge?

...

let me know what number you get.

i think the problem is that it depends on how you look at it. it is a negative sum total, but there are groups that will make money out of this whole deal.

[alcimedes]

sure, but you really think that they're willing to spend 200+ billion dollars to make maybe 3-5 billion back? (assuming 10% - 15% profit margins)

[torifile]

Originally posted by alcimedes
sure, but you really think that they're willing to spend 200+ billion dollars to make maybe 3-5 billion back? (assuming 10% - 15% profit margins)

Again, do you think that the private companies funded the war? And if they did, it was at a loss (perhaps for humanitarian reasons??? :lol: )?

[alcimedes]

just seems like an insane risk to start a war with a nation, piss off the world, and extraordinary legal risks all for a few billion dollars that would easily be awarded via your regular pork channels in the govt.

[Anders]

Originally posted by torifile
Again, do you think that the private companies funded the war? And if they did, it was at a loss (perhaps for humanitarian reasons??? :lol: )?

What a great idea. Have the tanks painted with "This war is brought to you by Phillip Morris" and the grenades that hit the wedding parties in Afghanistan "This missile was broght to you by Coca-Cola".

One thing is for sure. If anyone the american people should pay for the war. They voted for it when they put GWB in the White House. The iraqis are not allowed to vote in presidental elections.

Do I sound bitter today?

[torifile]

Originally posted by alcimedes
just seems like an insane risk to start a war with a nation, piss off the world, and extraordinary legal risks all for a few billion dollars that would easily be awarded via your regular pork channels in the govt.

Maybe so, but that doesn't make it out of the realm of feasibility, does it? Maybe Dubya and his cronies didn't count on such a big stink being made over this? I dunno, but if fellowship is upset at the conservatives, they screwed up badly...

Personally, I think that we decided we should start this war and the US should not be profiting from it. At all. It just reaks of conflict of interest.

[bunge]

Originally posted by alcimedes
sure, but you really think that they're willing to spend 200+ billion dollars to make maybe 3-5 billion back? (assuming 10% - 15% profit margins)

One, I'm not saying this was the motivation for the war. I'm just undermining those arguments that claimed that a war for profit was basically an impossibility.

Second, I'm not sure your 3-5 Billion would be correct. I don't know how to calculate it, but a number of factors come into play.

First, under normal circumstances, the $30 Billion goes back to U.S. companies. So, in that sense, perhaps 3-5 Billion is correct. Of course, salaries and other expenses from that remaining 25-27 Billion also go back to other U.S. companies and employees, so a portion of that gets dumped into the U.S. economy as well.

Second, the interest on $30 Billion would be astronomical. Trumptman, if you're around, what would a $30 Billion mortgage be worth to a bank if paid back over 10, 15 or 30 years? Even at current super low interest rates?

In reality we don't know how the loans would be structured, but those figures might give us a clue. It's going to be a lot more than 3-5 Billion though.

[LiquidR]

originally posted by keyboard
And we should not have been helping him up until bush senior's (not junior's) gulf war.


We only supported him briefly, the majority of the support that Saddam and his B'aath predecessors received was from the Soviets. The B'aath party was originally a Marxist party, at that time the US loathed to have much to do with anyone having any sorta Marxism in 'em. We only gave up the money to Saddam to keep the crazy Iranians in check.

[BR]

Originally posted by LiquidR
We only supported him briefly, the majority of the support that Saddam and his B'aath predecessors received was from the Soviets. The B'aath party was originally a Marxist party, at that time the US loathed to have much to do with anyone having any sorta Marxism in 'em. We only gave up the money to Saddam to keep the crazy Iranians in check.

You mean we supported Saddam so that he would fight a war against Iran that we didn't want to directly get involved in and then when the Iran-Iraq conflict ended we thanked Iraq for fighting the war we didn't want to get directly involved in by essentially kicking them out of our car and ditching them in the middle of nowhere? That's what I thought. More STUPID foreign policy. UGH.

[LiquidR]

I didn't say it was a bright thing to do, hell, our government has been in practice of that same method for some time now, Iraq wasn't the first, can anyone say "Bay of Pigs".

I was just making the point that we were not the major supporter of Iraq's Baath party for the majority of it's life, nor the majority of Saddams stay in power, we just wanted him to do a little of our dirty work.

PS. Another example would be Noriega.

[Anders]

And a third example would be Pakistan.

And a fourth would be Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan

[LiquidR]

Yes, but I doubt that the US is the only nation to be guilty of such stupidity. Hell, every nation has made major political blunder. "Treaty of Vesaille" anyone, I think the Brits were heavily involved in that mess, or how about the mess that colonial Europe left in the Mid East and Africa, we're still flabbergasted on how to cope with that.

[RollerBovine]

Originally posted by groverat
A lot of different reasons.
- Remove Hussein.
- Remove the need for troops in Saudi Arabia.
- Gain influence on Iraq's economy that is bound to be growing exponentially.
- Gain an ally in a dangerous region, or at the very least remove an enemy.

Those answers come from the "administration motivations" page but there are more reasons we should be.


Then you are a nation of war criminals, as that is no basis to invade a country.

You need to find WMD (at least).

[zaphod_beeblebrox]

Originally posted by LiquidR
We only supported him briefly... We only gave up the money to Saddam to keep the crazy Iranians in check.
Actually we supported both sides in that war. Remember Iran-Contra? That was where we (indirectly) sold the Iranians weapons and used the proceeds from the sales to fund the Nicaraguan Contras.

[zaphod_beeblebrox]

Originally posted by bunge

Besides that, the interest on bank loans undermines the pre-war argument that no money is to be made by going to war with Iraq.

Interest free loans? You guys tell me how far you get with that. The belief that nobody should be profiting in post-war Iraq is crazy. Companies making profit over there is exactly what Iraq needs. If Iraq is going to have a normal economy it needs foreign investment. If some bank makes money off of this with a loan at fair market value, more capital will follow. This would be an unalloyed good thing.

[zaphod_beeblebrox]

Originally posted by bunge

Second, the interest on $30 Billion would be astronomical. Trumptman, if you're around, what would a $30 Billion mortgage be worth to a bank if paid back over 10, 15 or 30 years? Even at current super low interest rates?
A 10 year loan at 5% would mean roughly $8.18B in interest.

[groverat]

bunge:

Am I ignoring the debt forgiveness? No. It's not related to the profits the U.S. is going to take from the new debt they create.

But it is directly related to the suffering that these US loans will supposedly cause, which is the entire case against the loans, so they are 100% on topic.

Would they get better terms from someone else? It's their job to shop around, not ours to force the debt down their throats for our own economic interests.

Who is "their"?

Who would the loans go to and what would they do with it? It could go to the interim government and they could start the rebuilding process.

What interim government?

There is money to be made in everything? Not when forced by my government, or any government for that matter. You can't hide behind 'global economics' as a justification for war or theft.

Securing a loan is theft? heh

If the money is used to buy condos for Halliburton execs you'll have a point.

I said the necessity of the loans has nothing to do with the thread.

How can that not be a part of consideration?

If they are necessary, Iraq should decide where they come from and the terms they agree to.

Who is "Iraq"?

Wow. You're grasping at straws groverat. Just admit that those claiming that profit couldn't be a motivation for war were wrong.

You fight your own battles with other people.

[bunge]

Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Companies making profit over there is exactly what Iraq needs. If Iraq is going to have a normal economy it needs foreign investment. If some bank makes money off of this with a loan at fair market value, more capital will follow.

This is fine. It's not against my point at all though.

Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
A 10 year loan at 5% would mean roughly $8.18B in interest.

And over 30 years I think it's almost $30 Billion in interest.

[bunge]

Originally posted by groverat
But it is directly related to the suffering that these US loans will supposedly cause, which is the entire case against the loans, so they are 100% on topic.

Um, no, no and no.


Originally posted by groverat
Who is "their"?

How many times to I have to say it? Read the thread.

Originally posted by groverat
What interim government?

Ask the U.N., they'll know who I'm talking about.


Originally posted by groverat
Securing a loan is theft? heh

If the money is used to buy condos for Halliburton execs you'll have a point.

Well, it is when you secure me a loan out of your bank when I don't ask for the loan from you.

Originally posted by groverat
How can that not be a part of consideration?

Didn't you read my reply in the post you quoted? The necessity or lack there of doesn't have any effect on my argument. Well, it's either neutral or supports my case.


Originally posted by groverat
Who is "Iraq"?

Ask the U.N., they'll know who I'm talking about.

Originally posted by groverat
You fight your own battles with other people.

That's the point of the thread. Either you discuss it, or you're trolling. You're attempting to undermine my argument, but you're undermining an argument I haven't made in this thread. You're just trolling because...I attack your points in a lot of threads as well?

I recommend we stay on the topic at hand. Feel free to start any other threads based on any conclusions we come up with in this thread.

[groverat]

And over 8000 years it would be $12,000,000,000.

OMG TEH DEBIL!

[zaphod_beeblebrox]

Originally posted by bunge
This is fine. It's not against my point at all though.
Your point doesn't speak to the needs of Iraq. It's about some make-believe morality where "profit" is a dirty word.
And over 30 years I think it's almost $30 Billion in interest.
Roughly $27.98B to be more precise - which is why you shouldn't get a 30 year mortgage on a house.

[bunge]

Originally posted by groverat
And over 8000 years it would be $12,000,000,000.

Hate to be wrong, don't you?

[bunge]

Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Your point doesn't speak to the needs of Iraq. It's about some make-believe morality where "profit" is a dirty word.

You're wrong on both counts. You're just not comprehending because you don't want to believe what I've said is true, even though it is. I'm sorry you're wrong too.

[zaphod_beeblebrox]

Originally posted by bunge
You're wrong on both counts. You're just not comprehending because you don't want to believe what I've said is true, even though it is...
You're right. I'm not comprehending you. I don't want believe someone's going to profit in post-war Iraq? WHERE have I said anything that even remotely indicates this? I’m PERFECTLY OKAY with us making money in post-war Iraq. I think I’ve been pretty consistent and pretty clear about this.

[Scott]

Originally posted by bunge
You're wrong on both counts. You're just not comprehending because you don't want to believe what I've said is true, even though it is. I'm sorry you're wrong too.

It may or may not be true. You just haven't cited anything at all to show any type of "profit" at all. The original article makes no mentions of it. At face value it's a pure fabrication on your part.

[bunge]

Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
You're right. I'm not comprehending you.

No where have I stated or implied that making a profit in Iraq is forbidden.

[zaphod_beeblebrox]

Originally posted by bunge
No where have I stated or implied that making a profit in Iraq is forbidden.
Forbidden? I claimed THAT? Where? No, you didn't say making a profit is forbidden, but clearly you have implied that there's something wrong with it.

[bunge]

Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Forbidden? I claimed THAT? Where? No, you didn't say making a profit is forbidden, but clearly you have implied that there's something wrong with it.

It's sad when the argument breaks down into semantics.

Profit is not wrong. This situation however is. And regardless of the 'right or wrong' of this specific situation, the argument against war for profit can now be considered a invalid. Profit could have been a motive for the war. Previously that was considered an impossiblity by some of the AI crowd.

Scott, go read (http://www.exim.gov/tools/cirr_about.html) up about the bank authorizing the loan.

[Scott]

Still not seeing any profit. PROVE YOU CASE! Show me your brain can function for something other than knee jerk anti-americanism and tell me how a bank makes money on a loan, under what conditions it earns a profit it on it AND the conditions in this case that PROVE the US is making profit on the loan. Otherwise STFU.

[bunge]

Sure thing Jon.

-Bunge

[Jonathan]

boys and girls, it's not nice to call each other morons.

didn't we learn this in fourth grade on the playground?

thank you. :)

[BR]

Originally posted by Scott
Still not seeing any profit. PROVE YOU CASE! Show me your brain can function for something other than knee jerk anti-americanism and tell me how a bank makes money on a loan, under what conditions it earns a profit it on it AND the conditions in this case that PROVE the US is making profit on the loan. Otherwise STFU.

Wow. Just wow.

Bank loans 100,000 dollars at 10% interest rate. To make things simple, let's just say it's a one year loan to be paid back in one payment at the end of the year.

The bank gives 100,000 dollars to Person X on July 16, 2003.

July 16, 2004 rolls around.

Person X pays the bank 100,000 dollars PLUS 10,000 interest.

The bank made a 10,000 profit from the loan.





DO YOU SEE NOW?

[BR]

Originally posted by Jonathan
boys and girls, it's not nice to call each other morons.

didn't we learn this in fourth grade on the playground?

thank you. :)

Fine. I will stop calling the sky blue. *chuckles*

[zaphod_beeblebrox]

Originally posted by bunge

Profit is not wrong. This situation however is...
No it's NOT.
... And regardless of the 'right or wrong' of this specific situation, the argument against war for profit can now be considered a invalid...
THIS is all it takes? You don't demand much in the way of evidence, do you?
... Profit could have been a motive for the war...
:rolleyes: Oh, of course! We went to war to pad the earnings of some US companies. PROVE it.

[groverat]

bunge:

Hate to be wrong, don't you?

About what?

[BR]

Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
:rolleyes: Oh, of course! We went to war to pad the earnings of some US companies. PROVE it.

I highly doubt we went to war for that reason. However, I do not doubt that deals were done to get specific administration related companies the contracts once the war did begin. I'm sorry, but we still don't know what the true motivation for war was since the story has changed so many times.

[groverat]

I'd like to know who else within the US beside Halliburton (and subsidiary KBR) could've taken on this task. Be sure to include a nation with extensive experience in the middle east, even Iraq itself. And one capable of deployment with the speeed Halliburton/KBR could do it.

Just an interesting exercise.

[bunge]

Originally posted by BR
I highly doubt we went to war for that reason.

I agree. I don't think many people believe it's the sole motivation. I'm pretty sure that if there was no opportunity to profit we wouldn't have been as quick to attack though. That's just my opinion.

[Scott]

Originally posted by BR
Wow. Just wow.

Bank loans 100,000 dollars at 10% interest rate. To make things simple, let's just say it's a one year loan to be paid back in one payment at the end of the year.

The bank gives 100,000 dollars to Person X on July 16, 2003.

July 16, 2004 rolls around.

Person X pays the bank 100,000 dollars PLUS 10,000 interest.

The bank made a 10,000 profit from the loan.





DO YOU SEE NOW?

OH GOD YOU ARE SO STUPID! WHAT IS THE RATE OF THE LOAN TO IRAQ? HOW MUCH MONEY UNDER WHAT TERMS? IF YOU CAN'T TELL ME THEN YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF PROFIT. GIVE IT UP. BUNGE MADE IT UP. HE'S A LIAR JUST LIKE YOU!

[Hassan i Sabbah]

MAYBE IF I TYPE IN CAPITALS TOO I WON'T EVER HAVE TO MAKE A CONVINCING COUNTER-ARGUMENT AGAIN AND I CAN MAKE ACCUSATIONS OF MENDACITY WHEN I FIND THE FACTS INCONVENIENT.

EXPENSIVE RESTAURANT BILL? LIAR!
EARTHQUAKE IN JAPAN? LIAR!
BIG TAX BILL?

LIAR!
LIAR!
LIAR!

A;KLSUDFGHALSKDFJHA;SKLVHASD;LKVHAS;DKLJHF A;SVKLJVH ;ALSKHBV;L AERKHB ;ARLKBH RAL;KHB GA;RLEK BHA;LEKRHGV;LAKKHRGJMA;LIMCLAKSEHVRPGNOACIEHCMPOWI HMRGLQKUHMXRGOPQIHRPOQIHMRPCOIQHPFIOQHLKFMHQWXLUFK HQM
LIAR
LIAR
LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!

[709]

boys and girls, it's not nice to call each other stupid.

didn't we learn this in fourth grade on the playground?

thank you. :)

[alcimedes]

the problem is there are no facts in the original article, only stipulations. not sure how you prove non-existant facts wrong.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
MAYBE IF I TYPE IN CAPITALS TOO I WON'T EVER HAVE TO MAKE A CONVINCING COUNTER-ARGUMENT AGAIN AND I CAN MAKE ACCUSATIONS OF MENDACITY WHEN I FIND THE FACTS INCONVENIENT.



You're an idiot too. There's nothing to counter here. There's no proof of profit because no one as given any. There are no facts to find "INCONVENIENT". We have a loan secured by oil. Where's the profit? Please PROVE it to me.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
Please PROVE it to me.

Read the link to the site that I posted. The guidelines for loans is clearly spelled out in there. An yes, the guidelines show that the bank does in fact charge interest.

[BR]

Originally posted by Scott
You're an idiot too. There's nothing to counter here. There's no proof of profit because no one as given any. There are no facts to find "INCONVENIENT". We have a loan secured by oil. Where's the profit? Please PROVE it to me.
Prove that this is going to be an interest free loan. Otherwise shut the hell up. Any standard loan has interest attached. What you are hoping for is a special case where there is no interest attached. Since you are banking on the abnormality, the ball is in your court to prove that.

[709]

Originally posted by BR
Fine. I will stop calling the sky blue.
Ha! You're an idiot for calling the sky blue. There's nothing to see here. There are no *facts* that say the sky is blue. I'm sorry if you find that "INCONVENIENT". We have thin air and black space. Where's the blue? Please PROVE it to me.

[BR]

Originally posted by Scott
OH GOD YOU ARE SO STUPID! WHAT IS THE RATE OF THE LOAN TO IRAQ? HOW MUCH MONEY UNDER WHAT TERMS? IF YOU CAN'T TELL ME THEN YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF PROFIT. GIVE IT UP. BUNGE MADE IT UP. HE'S A LIAR JUST LIKE YOU!
How old are you?

[Scott]

Originally posted by BR
Prove that this is going to be an interest free loan. Otherwise shut the hell up. Any standard loan has interest attached. What you are hoping for is a special case where there is no interest attached. Since you are banking on the abnormality, the ball is in your court to prove that.

No. The burden of proof is on Bunge. But he and you can't prove it because you are liars. Bunge read an article about a secured loan and his knee jerk anti-americanism kicked in and he made up the rest.


You and bunge have shown nothing at all. It's your assumption that the loan will result in a profit.

Just admit you have no reason to believe that this is a "profit" making loan for the US.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
No. The burden of proof is on Bunge.

To anyone else reading, I would like to repeat myself.

First, if this is an interest free loan (and I'll concede that there is a chance that it is, just as I'll concede that there is a slight chance that Bush went to war solely for the sake of profit and nepotism) I would gladly come back and quote any article that shows this to be the case.

In lieu of this article, I have to say it's safe to assume that any bank giving a loan, even one guaranteed by oil, and especially from a bank that explicitly states that it loans money for a profit, would do so for a profit.

But even in the event that this loan is interest free, the system in place that actually structures what the loan can or can't be used for, supports the point of this thread. That the U.S., or at least specific companies, stand to make billions off of this war in Iraq.

[Scott]

Just admit you're wrong.

[Scott]

Oh and Bunge just to keep that hamster running on that wheel in your head at full speed ... it's possible that there is a rate on the loan and they still lose money on it.

[BR]

Originally posted by Scott
No. The burden of proof is on Bunge. But he and you can't prove it because you are liars. Bunge read an article about a secured loan and his knee jerk anti-americanism kicked in and he made up the rest.


You and bunge have shown nothing at all. It's your assumption that the loan will result in a profit.

Just admit you have no reason to believe that this is a "profit" making loan for the US.

Why haven't you been banned yet? Shit, ena wasn't as bad as you are.

[groverat]

There isn't a single mention of interest rates in the original story. Kind of hard to counter facts that don't exist.

[BR]

Originally posted by groverat
There isn't a single mention of interest rates in the original story. Kind of hard to counter facts that don't exist.

Unless it states explicitly "interest free", it's pretty safe to assume that there will be interest on a LOAN.

[bunge]

Originally posted by groverat
There isn't a single mention of interest rates in the original story. Kind of hard to counter facts that don't exist.

Feel free to go to the bank's website where the explicitly state that they give loans at interest rates for a profit. I already provided the link in the thread.

[Scott]

Just admit you are wrong, jumped to a conclusion you could not prove and you'll be more careful in the future.

[alcimedes]

Why haven't you been banned yet?

'nuff said (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27944)

Feel free to go to the bank's website where the explicitly state that they give loans at interest rates for a profit.

while true, the loans to Iraq are probably different than the loans set up for Mr. and Ms. Smith.

i don't know that we can assume that this loan will be the same as the others.

the problem is we need to know things we don't.

1. normal interest rates from this bank
2. interest rates offered to Iraq
3. risk involved in this loan relative to other loans

those three make up the underlying interest rates offered. we know none of them.

[bunge]

Originally posted by alcimedes

the problem is we need to know things we don't.

1. normal interest rates from this bank
2. interest rates offered to Iraq
3. risk involved in this loan relative to other loans

those three make up the underlying interest rates offered. we know none of them.

#1 is available on their site.
#2 is an unknown.
#3 is somewhat known, since the loan is backed by oil. Oil would have to become seriously deflated for a serious risk to occur.

As for #2, this thread has pointed out many other ways in which the U.S. or specific U.S. companies stand to profit indirectly off of the war. So, in the event that this is an interest free loan, the point still stands.

[Scott]

Plus others forget that Iraq couldn't get a loan from anyone at all these days. The fact that a US bank did loan them money, secured by the one thing that Iraq has of value, is a credit to the effort.


The Import Export Bank is not your run of the mill JP Morgan or CitiBank. It's sole purpose is to facilitate trade between the US and others.

[applenut]

Scott,

Ya wanna stop the childish bullshit and act like someone your current age?

Not only do you weaken your argument by showing your immaturity you also bring down the quality of the board.

If you can't participate in an argument without calling someone an idiot or stupid, or typing all caps, or using any other personal insults its a problem and it will have to be dealt with.

[Scott]

If you want me to stop calling it as I sees it I will.

I'm still waiting for the highly respected members of this board to weigh in with their considerable intellect and sound reasoning of the known facts in this situation to actually prove something close the statement in the title of this thread.

Otherwise their good name maybe be sullied by an opportunist.

[applenut]

thank you for your cooperation.

any further incidents in thsi thread and any other thread will result in the thread just being closed. Don't got time to baby sit and edit individual posts here and try make sure everyone is happy.

[BR]

Originally posted by applenut
thank you for your cooperation.

any further incidents in thsi thread and any other thread will result in the thread just being closed. Don't got time to baby sit and edit individual posts here and try make sure everyone is happy.

You just gave him a license to close any thread he doesn't like.