"Bush just wants oil." No...
A commonly heard statement is "George W Bush wants to invade Iraq to get oil." Is this going to be a war for oil? I think when people say this, it is just intellectual laziness.
The world produces 4.5 Billion Barrels of oil a day. Iraq produces 2.5 million a day. That is hardly enough to keep an SUV and a leaf blower going.
[ 01-16-2003: Message edited by: Mr. Macintosh ]</p>
The world produces 4.5 Billion Barrels of oil a day. Iraq produces 2.5 million a day. That is hardly enough to keep an SUV and a leaf blower going.
[ 01-16-2003: Message edited by: Mr. Macintosh ]</p>
Comments
However, people seem to want to find a single reason as to why something happens. Are we about to invade Iraq to go after Saddam's supposed weapons of mass destruction, or are we going in because of our oil interests? Can it not be for both reasons?
It is deftly obvious that oil is a concern. It isn't our only concern, I am sure. Fact of the matter is that Bush has made it no secret that he has wanted to invade Iraq since the idea was first proposed after 9/11. I'm not saying we shouldn't, because Saddam should have been ousted when we had the chance to begin with... but it's painstakingly obvious that th white house is searching for any and every sliver of evidence to justify Bush's thirst for war in Iraq. I just don't think the president is hiding his agenda very well, because he says Saddam obviously has weapons, but he can't prove it to us. He says weapons inspectors aren't looking in the right places, but he doesn't provide the right places to look to them.
At least if we had a better world leader, he would be able to make us feel better about his need and want to invade Iraq. As it stands with Bush, he seems to be shooting fish in a barrel to find just cause for us to invade. It should also be noted his approval rating continues to fall....
Bush isnt an evil, oil loving, mad man. He is the President and I am sure he knows the inner workings of the matter ten times beyond what the average citizen does. I hope we are going to attack for more than oil. But I wouldnt say that attacking JUST for oil is bad.
People need to realize that oil is the blood that runs though the veins of our economy, we need it...as idealistic as it may be to think that we are not dependant on oil, we are...and will be for a long time to come yet.
end of rant.
Anyway, I don't know if we're after Iraq's oil, but we are certainly after Iraq's peace. The Iraqi population isn't exactly anti-american, and the culture there is much more "modernized" than the one in Saudi Arabia. Iraq would be a better ally than Saudi Arabia.
Well, I dont get it. People are so caught up with isolationism, actling like nothing is our worry. I cant understand why in God's name we should not take action against a country that has been and will continue to be a threat? Us NOT doing anything would be like ignoring a robber that has a gun to your head.</strong>
After the Gulf War, Iraq was a threat to nobody, not even its neighbors. Iraq was and will never be threat to the USA. The only threat to the USA is from China (just 12 ICBMs), Russia and Europe. No other country has the means to hit US soil in any meaningful way.
That's pretty much why all this rhetoric about Iraq is water on under the bridge to me. Bush is playing politics.
<strong>Bush isnt an evil, oil loving, mad man. He is the President and I am sure he knows the inner workings of the matter ten times beyond what the average citizen does. I hope we are going to attack for more than oil. But I wouldnt say that attacking JUST for oil is bad.</strong>
We are country of the people, by the people. Bush is beholden to us to explain these inner workings of why we need to invade Iraq. He really hasn't given a good reason whatsoever yet. If he does, well, I don't think there would be much opposition.
<strong>People need to realize that oil is the blood that runs though the veins of our economy, we need it...as idealistic as it may be to think that we are not dependant on oil, we are...and will be for a long time to come yet.</strong>
Preemptively attacking a foreign nation for its national resources is the antithesis of the principles of this country. If we want oil, we can just by it from Iraq. They will have no problem selling to us. Afterall, we have no problems buying from Suadi Arabia.
I think we'd be on the verge of war with Iraq at this point regardless of the commander in chief.</strong>
That's an unsupportable supposition.
<strong>Anyway, I don't know if we're after Iraq's oil, but we are certainly after Iraq's peace. The Iraqi population isn't exactly anti-american, and the culture there is much more "modernized" than the one in Saudi Arabia. Iraq would be a better ally than Saudi Arabia.</strong>
Iraq is currently controlled by a secularist minority party. A Democratic Iraq would most certainly be Muslim, possibly fundamentalist and possibly fractured with civil war because of the Kurds. Peace will not happen long after Hussein has been ousted. It won't be that simple.
<strong>A commonly heard statement is "George W Bush wants to invade Iraq to get oil." Is this going to be a war for oil? I think when people say this, it is just intellectual laziness.
The world produces 4.5 Billion Barrels of oil a day. Iraq produces 2.5 million a day. That is hardly enough to keep an SUV and a leaf blower going. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe the world's second largest deposit of oil is under Iraq. The 2.5 million barrels a day could probably be due to the U.N. sanctions. So, remove Saddam, remove the sanctions, and Bush gets his hands on the second largest oil producing country in the world.
<strong>I believe the world's second largest deposit of oil is under Iraq.</strong><hr></blockquote>
"Iraq holds more than 112 billion barrels of oil - the world's second largest proven reserves. Iraq also contains 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and is a focal point for regional security issues."
...
"Iraq contains 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the second largest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia) along with roughly 220 billion barrels of probable and possible resources. Iraq's true resource potential may be far greater than this, however, as the country is relatively unexplored due to years of war and sanctions. Deep oil-bearing formations located mainly in the vast Western Desert region, for instance, could yield large additional oil resources (possibly another 100 billion barrels), but have not been explored. Iraq's oil production costs are amongst the lowest in the world, making it a highly attractive oil prospect."
...
"Although much of Iraq's southern oil infrastructure -- fields, refineries, storage facilities, transportation infrastructure -- was damaged during the Gulf war, the oil potential of this region alone is huge."
etc...
<a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html"; target="_blank">Click here to taste the salty goodness.</a>
Maybe he also wants something for his book after he's out of office. That's about it in a nutshell.
Also, oil production in the other OPEC nations will eventually cease, given oil is a finite resource, and the huge reserves in Iraq will become more and more important.
I think Saddam is playing a clever game in frustrating Bush by taking things to the limit but never quite pushing him over the top.
If America is so sure Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, why hasn't it provided the United Nations with concrete evidence so far, afterall it's intelligence services are mean't to be the best in the world. Supposing Iraq really doesn't have the weapons, Saddam will have the last laugh having watched Bush deploy thousands of troops and introduced some uncertainity into the American economy that the threat of war brings.
I only hope Bush doesn't attack Iraq to hide the fact that Saddam was right all along, if that proves to be the case.
[ 01-17-2003: Message edited by: RodUK ]</p>
That's an unsupportable supposition.
---
Iraq is currently controlled by a secularist minority party. A Democratic Iraq would most certainly be Muslim, possibly fundamentalist and possibly fractured with civil war because of the Kurds. Peace will not happen long after Hussein has been ousted. It won't be that simple.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
1) Of course it's an assumption. It wasn't meant to be fact. But despite the fact that I'm not a fan of the current republican party, I am glad that Gore is not President now. Being a mainstream democrat and a Clinton disciple, he is wishy-washy about aggressive foreign relations. Hussein is already walking all over the UN. Anyway, as much as I hate the international policeman role of America, I don't approve of the production of offensive weapons (i.e. not defensive weapons). Iraq is producing these "beyond a reasonable doubt." I don't know if invasion is the answer, but something has to be done, and diplomacy hasn't worked.
2) Would a fundamentalist population buy American cultural exports? Not likely. But the material I've read suggests that many Iraqi's do. Statistically, Saudi Arabians are much more prone to fundamentalism than Iraqis. Eliminating the totalitarian regime in Iraq followed by immediate free-trade agreements, even if they are only one-way at first, would almost certainly change the climate of the middle east overnight.
* * *
While I do sense that Bush's stance on Iraq could be considered a vendetta, I don't think it's nearly as superficial as many of you do. (examined above). Our economic situation is not bad. I don't think we are even in recession at this point. It's just not growing rapidly as it was in the 90's. . . and as history has told, ultra-rapid economic growth is almost always the child of speculation and shady practice. In so many ways, the 90's in America was the decade of deceit. Bush is just trying the best to do his job. If he sat on his hands and pushed for more patient measures, the press would still be battering him, and in this case he'd lose a lot of his party support. Personally, I was originally very much against military action towards Iraq, but now I can see why it's not such a bad idea. The population and the legislature has waited a long time and has been very patient. To blame the republicans for hastiness and disrespect of international sanction is foolish.
[ 01-17-2003: Message edited by: Splinemodel ]</p>
<strong> A commonly heard statement is "George W Bush wants to invade Iraq to get oil." Is this going to be a war for oil? I think when people say this, it is just intellectual laziness.
The world produces 4.5 Billion Barrels of oil a day. Iraq produces 2.5 million a day. That is hardly enough to keep an SUV and a leaf blower going.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That straw man you're attacking put up a hell of a fight.
[ 01-17-2003: Message edited by: stupider...likeafox ]</p>
<strong>Personally, I was originally very much against military action towards Iraq, but now I can see why it's not such a bad idea. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Personally, I still find the idea of unilaterial military action against Iraq a terrible idea. I'm 100% in favor of a U.N. sanctioned response.
<strong>[qb]
After the Gulf War, Iraq was a threat to nobody, not even its neighbors. Iraq was and will never be threat to the USA. The only threat to the USA is from China (just 12 ICBMs), Russia and Europe. No other country has the means to hit US soil in any meaningful way.
That's pretty much why all this rhetoric about Iraq is water on under the bridge to me. Bush is playing politics.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I bet you were saying that about terrorist groups before 9-11 as well. Was that a meaningful strike? Iraq can be better organized than that. Wake up sir.
[QB]
That straw man you're attacking put up a hell of a fight.
<hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> That was good!
I bet you were saying that about terrorist groups before 9-11 as well. Was that a meaningful strike? Iraq can be better organized than that. Wake up sir.</strong>
So NoahJ, do you think Iraq had something to do with Sept 11 too? Were any of the Sept 11 hijackers Iraqi citizens? (Actually, I would be really curious to hear your answers for these questions. And no fact checking, please.)
I still say it now, however. Terrorist groups can't attack the USA in any meaningful way. That's why they are terrorist groups. I'm not saying we shouldn't stop terrorism. We should. We tried in the past, it was just that the CIA and FBI were and are incompetent to let something so big occur.
And lastly, I'll answer your question. Was it a meaningful strike? Yes. Yes in the sense that it heralded the consequences of an increasingly technological society. That is, the consequences of terrorism increases with technology. The damage done and the lives lost in future acts of terrorism may be even bigger. Just like the advent of guns makes spree killings possible, the advent of university chemistry led to harder and more readily available drugs; heck, the advent of university chemistry led to homemade bombs.
Should we not do anything about it, obviously not. We are doing something about al queda. Should we do something about Iraq? Well, they haven't done anything yet. Should we try to stop them from doing something? Yes, that's what spies are for. Invasions are an entirely different matter.
1) ... Being a mainstream democrat and a Clinton disciple, [Gore] is wishy-washy about aggressive foreign relations. Hussein is already walking all over the UN.</strong>
Since we're dealing with unsupportable assumptions here, I will just say that Gore would have done a better job than Bush in dealing with Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea.
<strong>Anyway, as much as I hate the international policeman role of America, I don't approve of the production of offensive weapons (i.e. not defensive weapons). Iraq is producing these "beyond a reasonable doubt." I don't know if invasion is the answer, but something has to be done, and diplomacy hasn't worked.</strong>
How is Iraq a danger to the United States of America? What can it do to us? Does Iraq have an ICBM? Does Iraq have a nuclear plant?
I would pretty much do nothing. Maybe buy some oil on the cheap. Trade with them in lieu of building those "offensive weapons". If the spies see a nuclear plant or ICBM development, well, I'm sure Israel would have bombed them first. Kidding. If a real danger arises, that bridge can be crossed at that time.
Btw, how is Pakistan different from Iraq, except for the fact that Pakistan has nukes, is a foundry of Islamic fundamentalism, previously was the source of the Taliban, and is in a blood fued with the most populist democracy in the world? Oh yeah, their dictator is our friend. If we can deal with Pakistan peaceably, we can deal with Iraq peaceably.
<strong>2) Would a fundamentalist population buy American cultural exports? Not likely. But the material I've read suggests that many Iraqi's do. Statistically, Saudi Arabians are much more prone to fundamentalism than Iraqis. Eliminating the totalitarian regime in Iraq followed by immediate free-trade agreements, even if they are only one-way at first, would almost certainly change the climate of the middle east overnight.</strong>
Ok. We remove Hussein. What sort of government will be instituted in Iraq? Who institutes it? Who will be the policemen? Who will be the tax collectors? Who will enforce the law? Who will prevent corruption? Btw, Hussein's Baath party is the party that is secularist and wants modern accutrements. Let's hope they will conveniently abandon their leader.
Anyway, the threat to the US, I believe the thinking goes, Is that Iraq will sell or give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.
As for the oil motive, anyone would be a fool to disregard this as a constituent part of the reasoning behind war . . . even people who are pro-war recognize the fact . . . . even mr Mcintosh said as much in this thread . . .
but, you will notice that it also makes a good case for why the US is so dead set on going in before the rest of the UN tags along . . . it would be a magnifique coup to have all those reserves without haggling Frenchies or Danes or etc wanting a cut . . .
I can't help but think that the other thread with the Flash movie points to a very likely scenerio if we go to war without the rest of the UN . . . possibly even with the UN
[ 01-17-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
The Saudis just proposed something that I think will work if it is given time: blanket amnesty for the Generals in Hussain's army if they revolt against him and 120 of his military inner circle . . . .</strong>
Interesting. We'll see if the GWB administration pouts or not if it happens.
<strong>Anyway, the threat to the US, I believe the thinking goes, Is that Iraq will sell or give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.</strong>
That's the thinking yes. So do you believe it is well reasoned or not?
<strong>I can't help but think that the other thread with the Flash movie points to a very likely scenerio if we go to war without the rest of the UN . . . possibly even with the UN</strong>
Stranger things will happen.
The most dangerous situation in the world is Pakistan right now. They have nukes. They have ballastic missile experience. From Korea, no less! They have al queda living happily in its suburbs working to make Pakistan an ideal Islamic state. Musharruf may even have a shorter half-life than Hussein. Not sure which way to go if there was bet between who would stay in power longer, Musharruf or Hussein. It would seem to me that al queda will get their nuke, chem or bio weapon from here during an overthrow of Musharruf.
<strong>Anyway, the threat to the US, I believe the thinking goes, Is that Iraq will sell or give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.</strong>
That's the thinking yes. So do you believe it is well reasoned or not?
[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
No, I think that Hussain would gaurd his weapons jeoulously . . . it would be the one thing that he would be religious about. Although, I do believe that if there is some kind of action almost anywhere in the mid-east he wouldn't hesitate to use weapons like nukes . . . and he would probably target Israel.
[quote][qb]The most dangerous situation in the world is Pakistan right now. They have nukes. They have ballastic missile experience. From Korea, no less! They have al queda living happily in its suburbs working to make Pakistan an ideal Islamic state. Musharruf may even have a shorter half-life than Hussein. Not sure which way to go if there was bet between who would stay in power longer, Musharruf or Hussein. It would seem to me that al queda will get their nuke, chem or bio weapon from here during an overthrow of Musharruf. <hr></blockquote>I agree, and there is the real danger of nukes out of the chaos that is the former Soviet Union, but, I also think that an overthrow of Mushareff, or even merely a turning of a few dishearted tech workers, or minor military functionaries watching the war-heads in Packistan would be more likely to happen if we go in to Iraq without all of the UN support including, and especially, other Arab countries.
No, I think that Hussain would gaurd his weapons jeoulously . . . it would be the one thing that he would be religious about. Although, I do believe that if there is some kind of action almost anywhere in the mid-east he wouldn't hesitate to use weapons like nukes . . . and he would probably target Israel.</strong>
I'm not sure that's the right shade on the situation. At least, I don't think that's the purpose of a nation's desire for nuclear weapons. So far, in all cases from the USA, to Isreal, to Pakistan, nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterent for an attack on a nation's sovereignty. And that's probably why Iraq was and is trying to develop nuclear weapons. It's Hussein's ultimate survival weapon.
As far as whether he would use them, I think there is a lot of doubt of what he would do. His use of chemical weapons was always done with the tacit approval or indifference of the United States. During the Gulf War, he didn't use any, because he knew what would happen. When he gets close to the end, I'm not so sure he would use them. He would only use them for his ultimate survival.
<strong>I agree, and there is the real danger of nukes out of the chaos that is the former Soviet Union, but, I also think that an overthrow of Mushareff, or even merely a turning of a few dishearted tech workers, or minor military functionaries watching the war-heads in Packistan would be more likely to happen if we go in to Iraq without all of the UN support including, and especially, other Arab countries.</strong>
Musharruf is the last of the western trained individuals in Pakistan. The succeeding generation will be beholden to madrassas they were educated in. It's a scary situation in any case.