How Is the U.S. Profiting from Iraqi Oil? [Archive]

adios

07-19-2004, 12:10 PM

Absolutely.
Kellog Brown and Root (KBR) is owned by Halliburton and is administering the contracts in Iraq. The following is what I would consider a negative take on KBR:

Kellogg Brown and Root (http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Kellogg_Brown_and_Root)
Kellogg Brown and Root

Kellogg Brown and Root, also known as KBR Engineering & Construction, is a unit of the Halliburton Company which provides military support services.

Formerly known as Brown and Root Services, KBR was scrutinized in 2000 by the GAO for overcharging and providing unnecessary services in the Balkans.

Balkans Support Contract is the largest contract for services to U. S. forces, representing about $2 billion in contract costs spent in the Balkans since December 1995.[1]
Brown & Root's open-ended logistics contracts from the Army and Navy --indeed much of the military privatization campaign -- are grounded in a 1992 study the company did for the Defense Department that several analysts said formed the template for privatization of logistics for a downsized U.S. military. Soon after the company delivered the classified study, which reportedly concluded that the Pentagon could save hundreds of billions of dollars by outsourcing, Brown & Root won its first competitively bid logistics contract.

Vice President Dick Cheney was defense secretary when the first Brown & Root study was done, and he became chief executive of its parent company, Halliburton, when he retired.

Source: Los Angeles Times; January 24, 2003 Pg. 1;"Privatized Army In Harm's Way" By Mark Fineman, Times Staff Writer

Contracts

The Army has hired Kellogg, Brown and Root to provide housing accommodations for approximately 100,000 soldiers in Iraq ($200M) through a long-term contract of December 2001 called the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP).
Brown and Root won the first five-year LOGCAP contract in 1992, but lost the second to rival DynCorp in 1997 after the GAO criticized the Army for not adequately controlling contracting costs in Bosnia. [2]
Other LOGCAP orders have included pre-invasion order to repair oil facilities in Iraq; $28.2 million to build enemyprisoner-of-war camps; and $40.8 million to accommodate the Iraqi Survey Group, which was deployed this spring to find hidden weapons of mass destruction.
Los Alamos National Laboratory announced Aug. 9, 2002, the award of a site services support contract to a team led by Kellog Brown and Root, Inc. The laboratory's largest contract, LANL reported the 5-year deal to be worth $700M.
KBR wins new Iraq contract ... a new US army contract to help repair Iraq's dilapidated oil industry, BBC/UK, January 16, 2004: "Parsons Iraqi Joint Venture and Worley Group also will share in the $2bn (£1.1bn; 1.6bn euros) worth of work. ... KBR will develop Iraq's southern oil fields, while Parsons and Worley will work together in the north of the country."

External Resources
"Outsourcing War; An inside look at Brown & Root, the kingpin of America's new military-industrial complex", Business Week Online, 15 September 2003 (also at ICH).

Rooster71

07-19-2004, 12:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you want to know how Halliburton and Bechtel profiteer from the war, all you have to do is read.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be willing to wager some money that the Iraqi's will reap mucho profits from the oil services work performed. Halliburton is an oil service company (at least a good portion of their business is) and we'll see in the future what companies the Iraqis contract to because the Iraqis don't have these capabilities at this time. Oil is over $40 a barrel again and Iraqis stand to make a fortune in the long run. These profits should dwarf the profits from oil services. So in my mind the arguement that the U.S. is benefitting from Iraqi oil is at least open to debate.

[/ QUOTE ]
Any war is profitable, period. I don't remember anyone arguing that it is all about oil. If the US profits from Iraqi oil, it would be have to be over the long term. If anyone wants to argue that the US won't profit from Iraqi oil, just reference Bush's speeches where refers to a free Iraq as a "trading partner". What do you think Bush is talking about?

Sure, we can export all sorts of goods to Iraq, but what else does Iraq have to offer us?

Rooster71

07-19-2004, 12:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, the U.S.A. has not even profited financially from the Iraq war; on the contrary, it has been a very expensive undertaking.

[/ QUOTE ]
Very expensive? Of course it's been very expensive, to the US government (read "taxpayers"). Are you trying to say that Halliburton, Bechtel, etc. are all operating at a loss, out of the goodness of their hearts?

nicky g

07-19-2004, 12:28 PM

Fair enough, thanks.

adios

07-19-2004, 12:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Any war is profitable, period.

[/ QUOTE ]

To whom? The U.S. government is spending billions and billions.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't remember anyone arguing that it is all about oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've never heard anyone or read anything declaring that the war is all about oil? I doubt that, I can find a few statements to that effect if you'd like me to /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[ QUOTE ]
If anyone wants to argue that the US won't profit from Iraqi oil, just reference Bush's speeches where refers to a free Iraq as a "trading partner".

[/ QUOTE ]

That's really poor IMO. The U.S. in running a monster trade deficit and the only item that I see the U.S. importing from Iraq is oil, which is an at all time high. Exports to Iraq will be a totally insignificant compared to what the U.S. imports in foreign produced oil.

[ QUOTE ]
What do you think Bush is talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, see above, not sure which Bush statement you're referrring to.

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, we can export all sorts of goods to Iraq, but what else does Iraq have to offer us?

[/ QUOTE ]

See above. The magnitude of the demand for U.S. imports from Iraq and U.S. exports to Iraq is not even close. I realize that the U.S. is much bigger in size but scale accordingly and I think you'll see that demand for U.S. imports by Iraq is negligible. It will be interesting to see who the Iraqis contract to in order to service their oil fields in the future.

No I don't think there is any case at all that trade with Iraq will benefit the U.S. more than say trade with Saudia Arabia. I fully expect Iraq to join OPEC and my take is that Allawi isn't especially enamored with the U.S.

MMMMMM

07-19-2004, 02:20 PM

"Are you trying to say that Halliburton, Bechtel, etc. are all operating at a loss, out of the goodness of their hearts?"

No, are you trying to say they should be?

MMMMMM

07-19-2004, 02:26 PM

"Any war is profitable, period."

That is a totally asinine statement.

A true statement would be: "Any war is costly, period".

Some wars, over the ages, may have made up for the immense costs of war by resorting to massive plunder. This however is obviously not the case in Iraq.

The costs of war with Iraq may eventually--and hopefully--be made up by mutually beneficial trade and business dealings in the long-term. There is the potential for long-term profit even exceeding the cost of the war.

To state that "Any war is profitable, period" shows that you have literally no idea what you are talking about, in the macro-economic-historical sense.

jokerswild

07-19-2004, 02:41 PM

You continue to make the error that Bush represents the sentiment and economic interests of the US people. Nothing can be further from the truth. Why don't you and MMMMMMMMM wite Congress and the White House to demand an accounting of taxpayers money, and the funds generated by Iraqi oil sales? You won't get an adequate answer. In MMMM's case, he advocates violence against the US government when he disagrees with it. His contact would probably result in more surveillance of himself, as he could be seen as a radical threat.

Bush makes money for the oil companies that he and Cheney have both financial and political ties. They are fascists. It's plain and simple.

MMMMMM

07-19-2004, 02:58 PM

The only radical thing I might consider doing is putting a tethered leash and a wire mesh muzzle on a certain little yappy Schnauzer I know of who barks incessantly. I think he is starting to annoy the neighbors. Perhaps he should be sent to obedience school.

jokerswild, if you ever find yourself at Foxwoods please PM me and I will make a special effort to drag myself away from the computer and we will have a pleasant lunch (my treat, even;-)). I think it is safe to say you probably like the standard brands, right? I will bring many flavors just in case.

After lunch I will even pay your hotel bill for the week at the 4 Paws Resort in Groton. They can set you up with an excellent trainer and after your vacation you can trot on back to the Midwest with a new and better outlook on life. No need to thank me; I used to have pets and miss helping strays. The look in your eyes will be all the thanks I need /images/graemlins/smile.gif

jokerswild

07-19-2004, 03:13 PM

Yes George Bush does put American lives at risk for his own economic profit. He doesn't think at a high level. He is a moron.

How about hiring the Iraqis that ran the fields before? A truly sovereign Iraq would demand it. The puppet government in place today will do whatever Bush tells it to do.

daryn

07-19-2004, 04:02 PM

i think that's sad that you think that way. as if somehow george bush is directly profiting from american deaths.

ThaSaltCracka

07-19-2004, 04:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
He doesn't think at a high level. He is a moron.

[/ QUOTE ] Pot meet kettle.......

jokerswild

07-19-2004, 04:38 PM

I'm so gald that you agree that George Bush is a moron.Whether you believe that I am or not is irrelavent.

Of course, you fail to address any issue with facts or documentation. I suppose your real name is Pa Kettle!

adios

07-19-2004, 04:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Bush makes money for the oil companies that he and Cheney have both financial and political ties.

[/ QUOTE ]

What other companys besides Halliburton are profiting from the expansion of Iraqi oil production capacity directly? My understanding is that Iraqi oil production is a state owned industry. Elaborate for me please.

ThaSaltCracka

07-19-2004, 05:01 PM

I do think he is a moron, you agree right?
However if he is such a moron, then it would simply not be possible for him to plan an attack on Iraq simply for his own personal financial gain. That would be to complex for him, wouldn't it?

[ QUOTE ]
Whether you believe that I am or not is irrelavent.

[/ QUOTE ] This is not irrelavent. I do think your a moron, therefor all your posts are moronic.

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose your real name is Pa Kettle!

[/ QUOTE ]
would you like to support this with facts or documentation.

juanez

07-19-2004, 08:07 PM

I'd like to read an answer to this as well.

It seems that the US oil companies will have to BUY oil from Iraq in order to sell it elsewhere. It's not like they will be pumping it out of the Iraqi oil fields, putting it all in giant Halliburton transport ships and directly shipping it to the US so Bush's friends can gouge us all with high prices at the pump...or will they? Enlighten me please.

nothumb

07-19-2004, 08:31 PM

adios,

My read on the war is that there will be short-term profits for companies to which Cheney et al are tied closely (and contracts they got without bidding for them, and more disclosures of over-charging and the suspect accounting we have come to know so well). However there will be a net loss when one figures out what the US spent on occupying the country.

I think the war in the long run, if you talk to the neo-cons who actually think this is good strategy and not the corporate profiteer end of this operation (Richard Pearle et al) was deemed to be more for the purpose of stabilizing this oil and putting it under the control of a friendly regime. I personally can think of a lot of better ways to guarantee a stable energy supply, but sadly they are too much work and fly too much in the face of vested interests that have more lobbyists at Congress than I do.

I don't think Bush did this for any one reason more than another. I think a coalition of various conservative and neo-conservative viewpoints within the administration are all getting theirs on this one, and in fact I doubt that there is a consistent policy or coherent strategy in play here.

NT

adios

07-19-2004, 11:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think the war in the long run, if you talk to the neo-cons who actually think this is good strategy and not the corporate profiteer end of this operation (Richard Pearle et al) was deemed to be more for the purpose of stabilizing this oil and putting it under the control of a friendly regime.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. I have no reason to doubt what you state here and if true that's a silly reason. Again my take on Iraq is that they will be a participating member of OPEC (not sure how much effect OPEC really has now btw on prices now) and that Allawi isn't especially enamored with the U.S.

Rooster71

07-20-2004, 12:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any war is profitable, period.

[/ QUOTE ]

To whom? The U.S. government is spending billions and billions.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't remember anyone arguing that it is all about oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've never heard anyone or read anything declaring that the war is all about oil? I doubt that, I can find a few statements to that effect if you'd like me to /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[ QUOTE ]
If anyone wants to argue that the US won't profit from Iraqi oil, just reference Bush's speeches where refers to a free Iraq as a "trading partner".

[/ QUOTE ]

That's really poor IMO. The U.S. in running a monster trade deficit and the only item that I see the U.S. importing from Iraq is oil, which is an at all time high. Exports to Iraq will be a totally insignificant compared to what the U.S. imports in foreign produced oil.

[ QUOTE ]
What do you think Bush is talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, see above, not sure which Bush statement you're referrring to.

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, we can export all sorts of goods to Iraq, but what else does Iraq have to offer us?

[/ QUOTE ]

See above. The magnitude of the demand for U.S. imports from Iraq and U.S. exports to Iraq is not even close. I realize that the U.S. is much bigger in size but scale accordingly and I think you'll see that demand for U.S. imports by Iraq is negligible. It will be interesting to see who the Iraqis contract to in order to service their oil fields in the future.

No I don't think there is any case at all that trade with Iraq will benefit the U.S. more than say trade with Saudia Arabia. I fully expect Iraq to join OPEC and my take is that Allawi isn't especially enamored with the U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is truly amazing that anyone would ask who is profiting from the war.

If your ideas about this are correct, then the Bush administration is only concerned with humanitarianism. Good luck finding anyone who agrees with that.

nothumb

07-20-2004, 12:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting. I have no reason to doubt what you state here and if true that's a silly reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Even if we controlled Iraq's oil resources outright they will simply not sustain the massive demand for any period of time. Also, wars for natural resources return to a dangerous precedent set by Japan in the first half of the 20th century and would encourage some highly unpleasant aggression from China or Russia. Such a move is unnecessary and indicative of how beholden to the energy industry our government truly is (on either side).

[ QUOTE ]
Again my take on Iraq is that they will be a participating member of OPEC

[/ QUOTE ]

How soon do you see this happening? I doubt the interim regime will take this step.

[ QUOTE ]
and that Allawi isn't especially enamored with the U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't trust an Arab enamored with the US any further than I can toss Ahmed Chalabi. And I haven't wrestled since high school.

I don't know how much he likes us, how much he resents us and owes to his British hosts, or how close his CIA ties actually are. (Any Iraqi exile who lived in Britain is going to have 'CIA ties'.) But I do know this: we own the guy, because all we have to do to pull the plug is tell 160,000 dudes in green to look the other way while somebody pops him. He knows this and he won't get out of line.

NT

Boris

07-20-2004, 12:42 AM

Actually if the war was to secure oil for the USA I would probably be in favor of it. The problem is that I'm sure Saddam would have done business with the USA. The almighty dollar is more powerful than any bomb we can drop. If the Wahabbi Saudi gov't and the Pakistani's will do business with us then so would Saddam.

There may be some broader economic benefits like if we could preven Iraq from selling the Chinese that may eventually give us an economic advantage if we were able to "control" a large enough portion of the oil reserves in the world. This is a long shot but it seems like the only plausible economic argument.

This all begs the question of why exactly we did go to war against Iraq. I don't have a good answer. The most likely explanation to me is that Bush is weak minded and easily swayed by the skilled politicians in his inner circle (Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, etc...). Bush's religious beliefs may also play a role but I have no idea if he is a beleiver deep down. Please spare me the arguments about Saddam having WMD or being a sponsor of Bin Laden. It's obviously bullshit and if you believe that explanation you are a sucker.

Rooster71

07-20-2004, 12:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"Any war is profitable, period."

That is a totally asinine statement.

A true statement would be: "Any war is costly, period".

Some wars, over the ages, may have made up for the immense costs of war by resorting to massive plunder. This however is obviously not the case in Iraq.

The costs of war with Iraq may eventually--and hopefully--be made up by mutually beneficial trade and business dealings in the long-term. There is the potential for long-term profit even exceeding the cost of the war.

To state that "Any war is profitable, period" shows that you have literally no idea what you are talking about, in the macro-economic-historical sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have read your post and can safely say that you are the one who has no idea what you are talking about. You say that "any war is costly, period" is a true statement, but "any war is profitable, period" is an incorrect statement. I assume you are talking monetary costs. If so, this brings me to ask how can something be costly but not profitable? The only correct answer to that would be that there are no profits made. If this is the case, please let me know who is providing goods and services at cost (without regard to profit).

Your statements regarding historical plundering show that you either have no clue whatsoever or that you have missed the point completely. Sure, war was not profitable prior to the industrial age and it's never been profitable for the losing country. War is not profitable to the United States government, but when has the US Government been in business to make a profit?

To state that a war (a modern war in which the US is involved) is costly but not profitable shows that you logic lacks even the most basic understanding of economics.

Rooster71

07-20-2004, 12:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"Are you trying to say that Halliburton, Bechtel, etc. are all operating at a loss, out of the goodness of their hearts?"

No, are you trying to say they should be?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, but you know that's not the point.

MMMMMM

07-20-2004, 01:56 AM

When you state that "Any war is profitable, period" I assume you are talking in net terms. Otherwise you should have qualified it.

In net terms, almost all wars are costly (or unprofitable).

Having some segment become profitable due to war does not justify the unqualified statement, "All wars are profitable, period". Heck, you might just as well say "All fires are profitable, period" because obviously there is some party who will profit from a fire. Overall, though, fires are costly rather than profitable--and so too are wars.

MMMMMM

07-20-2004, 01:57 AM

Nor is it the point that they are profiting.

jokerswild

07-20-2004, 03:07 AM

I'm not the one that stated he believes the second amendment is designed so that citizens such as yourself can take up armed resistance to the US government.

I'm also not the one that thinks that Richard Clarke is the bogeyman. I suppose that you also feel that way about the former treasury secretary.

Why don't you demand that your Fuhrer investigate Saudi ties to 9-11? There is plenty of meat there. Follow the money. You never will follow the money because it leads directly back to the Fuhrer,his family, and friends.

nothumb

07-20-2004, 03:09 AM

M,

While I think all the most suspect people are profiting from this war, your logic is spot on in this post.

War is not profitable for the vast majority of people even in the winning country. Especially if we pull our heads out of our asses and don't speak in strictly monetary terms.

NT

Chris Alger

07-20-2004, 03:26 AM

Has anyone ever said it is? You mean the U.S. government? It isn't. Iraqi oil revenues are being used to build U.S. military facilities, but no one expects them to fully compensate the U.S. for the costs of the war. You mean the citizens of the U.S.? They aren't. If Iraqi oil goes into full production there could be a downward bump in wholesale prices, or a slower increase in prices, but its a mixed blessing. No one thinks this war was about the wholesale price of oil.

If you mean how will the owners, producers, infrastructure builders, transporters and brokers profit, it's the same way they profit from any natural resource. If you mean U.S. industry as a whole, greater U.S. influence over Iraqi oil production means more stability and certainty to the price and supply of an important raw material, one with a historically tumultuous market. But all that's in the background, and far from certain to be realized.

If you're asking how the U.S. government obtains greater power by militarily occupying and exercising veto control over the policies of a country with the world's second largest oil reserves, and in the future the second most important member of OPEC (making the U.S. a de facto member, or more of one), or by solidifying its sphere of military and political influence in the Middle East and Central Asia, the answer is obvious. Just ask the President: <ul type="square"> The presence of American forces overseas is one of the most profound symbols of the U.S. commitments to allies and friends. Through our willingness to use force in our own defense and in defense of others, the United States demonstrates its resolve to maintain a balance of power that favors freedom. To contend with uncertainty and to meet the many security challenges we face, the United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia, as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. forces. [/list] The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2320.htm#bases)

In other words, U.S. policy is officially committed to an expanded degree of military (and therefore political) influence over the Middle East and Central Asia (e.g., the need to build more bases "beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia"). The U.S. has decided to "contend with uncertainty" by enlarging its threat of military violence --state terror -- toward the rest of the world.

The short-term winners in this enterprise are the U.S. government and imperialist ideologues, the most animated and extreme of which are the necons, but they're a subset of a larger faction. The larger faction are those that seeks to expand U.S. influence over the world, a predictable and rational response to the vaccuum created by the collapse of the Soviet Union. There are some lucky companies (like Haliburton and Bechtel) and industries (defense) that will profit directly, but the business community as a whole, including the oil industry, benefits indirectly, in the long term. The benefits are so remote to most they don't actively guide policy and I suspect that many of them have a lot of misgivings. The oil industry doesn't directly influence U.S. policy in the Middle East the way it influences oil regulation.

The real questions are: (1) how do the most powerful institutions of American society benefit (not "profit") from American aggression in the Middle East, and (2) how much influence do those institutions that benefit the most have over U.S. policy? Then look at how and where they intersect.

adios

07-20-2004, 09:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone ever said it is? You mean the U.S. government? It isn't. Iraqi oil revenues are being used to build U.S. military facilities, but no one expects them to fully compensate the U.S. for the costs of the war. You mean the citizens of the U.S.? They aren't. If Iraqi oil goes into full production there could be a downward bump in wholesale prices, or a slower increase in prices, but its a mixed blessing. No one thinks this war was about the wholesale price of oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you telling me that you've never heard anyone proclaim that this war is all about oil? That this war is intended to benefit oil companies.

[ QUOTE ]
If you mean how will the owners, producers, infrastructure builders, transporters and brokers profit, it's the same way they profit from any natural resource.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh in order to reach full production capacity investments have to be made in the infrastructure. Are Iraqis actually paying for this investment?

[ QUOTE ]
If you mean U.S. industry as a whole, greater U.S. influence over Iraqi oil production means more stability and certainty to the price and supply of an important raw material, one with a historically tumultuous market.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what influence might that be? Price, production capacity what?

[ QUOTE ]
But all that's in the background, and far from certain to be realized.

[/ QUOTE ]

Got tht right.

Skipped commenting on the rest of your post (I've read it before in many different ways) since it's tangental to my specific question.

adios

07-20-2004, 09:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
How soon do you see this happening? I doubt the interim regime will take this step.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the current Iraqi government is already there basically. I don't think Iraq is getting anything less than what other OPEC countries are getting for oil and I think their production quota would be much greater than they're producing now. I see the current government proceeding full speed ahead in providing their own security. We'll see what the future brings.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know how much he likes us, how much he resents us and owes to his British hosts, or how close his CIA ties actually are. (Any Iraqi exile who lived in Britain is going to have 'CIA ties'.)

[/ QUOTE ]

A means to an end.

[ QUOTE ]
But I do know this: we own the guy, because all we have to do to pull the plug is tell 160,000 dudes in green to look the other way while somebody pops him. He knows this and he won't get out of line.

[/ QUOTE ]

My take is that he wants change this ASAP.

MMMMMM

07-20-2004, 10:34 AM

"I'm not the one that stated he believes the second amendment is designed so that citizens such as yourself can take up armed resistance to the US government."

I believe the second amendment is designed so that the general populace can remain armed, in order to potentially fend off any severe threats, external or internal, in times of large emergency.

"I'm also not the one that thinks that Richard Clarke is the bogeyman. I suppose that you also feel that way about the former treasury secretary."

Neither thought ever occurred to me.

"Why don't you demand that your Fuhrer investigate Saudi ties to 9-11? There is plenty of meat there. Follow the money. You never will follow the money because it leads directly back to the Fuhrer,his family, and friends."

I think Saudi Arabia should have to pay for a significant portion--say half--of the total 9/11 damages, because not only were the hijackers Saudi, but because Saudi Arabian state emphasis on Wahhabism is what spawned al-Qaeda in the first place. Additionally their continued export of Wahhabism has been steadily creating violent radicals throughout the world. Wahhabism is a very pernicious ideology and I think the Saudis should be held partially responsible for material damages resultant from the promulgation of this absolutist creed. The ten million dollar check Prince Bindar offered the mayor of New York for the city was virtually an insult. I believe the Saudi government should have to pay at least a third of the total 9/11 damages.

adios

07-20-2004, 11:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Actually if the war was to secure oil for the USA I would probably be in favor of it. The problem is that I'm sure Saddam would have done business with the USA. The almighty dollar is more powerful than any bomb we can drop. If the Wahabbi Saudi gov't and the Pakistani's will do business with us then so would Saddam.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
There may be some broader economic benefits like if we could preven Iraq from selling the Chinese that may eventually give us an economic advantage if we were able to "control" a large enough portion of the oil reserves in the world. This is a long shot but it seems like the only plausible economic argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree but don't think this a realistic scenario.

[ QUOTE ]
This all begs the question of why exactly we did go to war against Iraq. I don't have a good answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

It specifically does not look like an oil grab to me as I seem to recall hearing and reading from many detractors.

[ QUOTE ]
The most likely explanation to me is that Bush is weak minded and easily swayed by the skilled politicians in his inner circle (Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, etc...).

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt his inner circle of advisors have recommended such action. I'm fairly certain that their vision of how things would play out let's say was on the optimistic side. I'm also fairly certain that we'll see an Iraqi government evolve that is not really aligned with U.S. interests in the Middle East. I had a perverse thought that a new Iraqi government may give comfort and some aid to the likes of Hezbollah sometime in the future. I'm not buying the viewpoint that Allawi is U.S. puppet yet. True he needs U.S. support at this time but I think it's fair to say that the U.S. and the Iraqis have incentive to see Iraqis take charge of their own security. When that happens bye-bye U.S. troops IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
Bush's religious beliefs may also play a role but I have no idea if he is a beleiver deep down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm fairly certain he is.

[ QUOTE ]
Please spare me the arguments about Saddam having WMD or being a sponsor of Bin Laden. It's obviously bullshit and if you believe that explanation you are a sucker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bad intel, bad intel. As I've stated before the buck stops with Bush so it doesn't absolve him from responsibility.

nicky g

07-20-2004, 11:23 AM

"Bad intel, bad intel. "

The WMD, maybe. The Al-Qaida links, no. It was the administration that pushed that while their intelligence and counter-terrorism advisers resisted it.

Cptkernow

07-20-2004, 11:39 AM

Wouldnt a more accurate question be:

"How does the aquisition of IRAQ's Oil assets further the geo-political strategic aims of the USA?"

adios

07-20-2004, 12:01 PM

Read the Senate Intelligence Committee Report and the conclusions starting on page 345 and tell me that the CIA wasn't indicating problematic ties to Al Qaeda and Iraq. For an example of one specifically is conclusion 94 (I can't copy it from my browser unfortunately) in the section on Iraq's Links to Terrorism.

Intelligence Committee Report (http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf)

We may quibble about the interpretation of the data but there certainly was plenty of information reported on Iraqi-Al Qaeda links. To what degree the CIA disagreed with the administrations interpretation of the data is something else. Perhaps I should amend my statement to bad intel, bad intel analysis. How much risk the U.S. should take in allowing Iraq to provide training and safe harbour to Al Qaeda is open to debate as well.

nicky g

07-20-2004, 12:20 PM

But the reports it refers to were unsubstantiated.

nicky g

07-20-2004, 12:26 PM

93 seems crucial to me: "The CIA reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contact between Iraq and al-Qa'ida throughout the 1990s, but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship." The administration pushed a much closer relationship than this overall assessment suggests.

nothumb

07-20-2004, 12:29 PM

If Allawi wants to change this, how will he do so? There is no ready Iraqi police force and there won't be soon. If he really does feel this way (and I don't agree with you) he will not be around long and we'll need to pick somebody else.

Seriously, if Allawi is not cooperative with the US, why is he saying he authorized air strikes in Fallujah that are wildly unpopular with Iraqis, many of whom claim they struck civilians? Are these the actions of a guy with a free hand? He is in our pockets and he will be as long as our forces are there, which, believe me, is going to be a while.

NT

nicky g

07-20-2004, 12:29 PM

Also note conclusion 90 on Iraq being most likely to use its own intelligence services to conduct attacks and compare to Bush's "Saddam would like to use al-Qa'ida as a forward army."

nicky g

07-20-2004, 12:36 PM

Thanks for the link to the report by the way, I hadn't seen it. Will look through if I have time.

adios

07-20-2004, 12:56 PM

The questions in my mind are to what degree of certainty is required in order to take the appropriate action and what is the appropriate action given the uncertainty. The links to Al Qaeda were murky as stated in the report therefore the uncertainty as to the meaning of these links could probably be assessed accurately. My take is that the Bush administration assessed the uncertainty and viewed the situation as too threatening to leave in it's current state. I also think that the Bush administration saw an opportunity to promote stability in the region by promoting a democratic government in Iraq. There's no question that the Bush administration underestimated the challenge involved. I readily acknowledge that the proper interpretation of the intelligence is open to debate and the proper course of action is open to debate.

jokerswild

07-20-2004, 02:47 PM

How inane. Your willingness to stretch to defend your dictator is beyond super hero ability.

Why don't you ask what was ISI's involvement? Atta was wired 100k 1 week before 9-11 from an agent of Pakistan's ISI. You aren't advocating overthrowing Pakistan. Other 9-11 hijackers received funding directly from a Suadi princess. You aren't interested in holding the culprits responsible.

You are simply justifying to yourself that you are not a fascist murderer.

adios

07-20-2004, 03:00 PM

......

Patrick del Poker Grande

07-20-2004, 03:05 PM

I don't believe Iraq was the end of the plan. It was only the easiest place to begin. It turns out there were a couple disproportionately powerful countries in the UN who were profiting from Saddam and saw fit to make things as difficult as possible. This is what is blowing the whole thing. With a bit of cooperation, we'd all be in a much better place right now and we'd be moving on to our next objective in reforming the region. It's not about Iraq. It's about the entire region and everyone from Syria to Pakistan, the Saudi Penninsula, Northern Africa, and everyone in between.

The problem with this particular anti-war crowd is they can't see the bigger picture. I'm not going to say Bush has done everything right, because he obviously hasn't. However, I applaud his efforts and his vision. Had the opposition not been so short-sighted (and greedy, in the case of a few of our European "allies"), we'd be much further along on the path to a much better world. It's a long and hard path, to be sure, but at least we're on a path and not just aimlessly wandering.

jokerswild

07-20-2004, 03:13 PM

What a girly man fascist murderer,

adios

07-20-2004, 03:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What a girly man fascist murderer

[/ QUOTE ]

Soon this forum will belong to the hate mongers only. Sad day for this site.

Chris Alger

07-20-2004, 03:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Are you telling me that you've never heard anyone proclaim that this war is all about oil? That this war is intended to benefit oil companies.

[/ QUOTE ]
As with the pro-war counterparts, the antiwar movement includes people with varying degrees of sophistication. So someone, somewhere, has surely said that the war was fought at the behest of oil companies, or something similar, just as someone has said that the war results from a "Zionist conspiracy."

But the claim that the war was fought at the behest of oil companies to enrich them isn't a claim that's made by many of the left and isn't a component of any plausible antiwar argument. It's a red herring that the right likes to knock down by pointing out the Iraqi oil revenues will amount to some small percentage of the U.S. economy, or that oil companies have interests that are different from other big industries, like finance or agriculture. Therefore, they argue, the war has little or nothing to do with oil.

Oil and oil wealth are obviously the key influences over U.S. policy in the Middle East, certainly to a greater degree than the happiness and freedom of people who live there. Almost everyone who isn't making a speech for public consumption acknowledges this.

Consider, for example, the description of the importance of oil by Roger Ebel (http://www.csis.org/html/sp990525Ebel.html) of the center-right Center for Strategic and International Studies. The thrust of Ebel's argument is that the U.S. doesn't and shouldn't care much about short-term concerns about oil imports and profits. Yet the stratigic importance of oil remains: <ul type="square"> Oil fuels military power, national treasuries, and international politics. Because of this it is no longer a commodity to be bought and sold within the confines of traditional energy supply and demand balances. Rather, it has been transformed into a determinant of well-being, of national security, and of international power for those who possess this vital resource, and the converse for those who do not.

Nations are prisoners of geography, and no one nation enjoys in unlimited fashion all of the fruits that geography can bestow. Some, by accident of nature, are rich in energy resources, but totally lacking in other strengths. Some are dynamic in all of the virtues we may respect but poor in natural resources. This makes for a shrinking and increasingly interdependent world. At the same time, it also makes for conflicts among nations, as each seeks to maximize strengths and minimize weaknesses, while preserving and hopefully enhancing its stature among its peers. [/list] Notice how neatly this dovetails with the take of those at the Marxist end of the spectrum, who differ primarily in the degree of "good faith" they are willing to impart on U.S. elites: <ul type="square"> Oil is certainly an important element in this war, but not because of the involvement of US oil companies. Its importance lies in geopolitical strategic significance. Oil is a strategic material the lack of which is a fatal blow to an economy, or leaves it incapable of waging war. Whoever controls the world's oil supplies will have a major strategic advantage over its imperialist rivals. US imperialism's occupation of Iraq will not only give it direct control over its oil supplies but will enable it to apply direct military pressure on all the major producers in the region, as well as control the supply of oil to the rest of the world from this region. For example, Japan depends on the Middle East for 95% of its oil, Asia as a whole has a 75% dependency, and Europe though less dependent still gets 25% from there. The US, in contrast, meets 82% of its own energy needs.

This would appear to back up the 'war for oil' arguments, because the US will control oil production, supply and reserves. Iraq has 11% (15 billion tons) of the world oil reserves. [/list] The Real Role of Oil in Imperialist Strategy (http://www.internationalism.org/wr/261_oil.htm)

This is just common sense. Ask anyone why the U.S. is more concerned about the Middle East than, say, sub-Saharan Africa and they'll say "oil," even if they can't imagine Bush killing U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians "over oil."

The obvious predominance of oil (and oil revenues) as a strategic concern tends to be acknowledged more than explained in ordinary (mass media) discourse. The reason for this is just as obvious as the reason for the empty rhetoric about liberty and freedom in U.S. policy papers: putting it in material, cost-benefit terms would interefere and maybe cripple the ability of the U.S. to obtain popular support for wars to extend its strategic power. Of course, some people delude themselves into thinking that any power to the U.S. government manages to accrue to them or their pocketbooks, or would support any war by the U.S. for any reason. But most people want some good reason before they support a war.

To manufacture consent for war, the public must be deceived into believing that it faces some immediate, tangible and horrible threat, while at the same time asserting that the war reflects our highest ideals. Prefabricated notions like these can be used in tandem or, as one becomes less plausible than the other, interchangeably, which recent events bear out (the shift from the "self-defense" justification to "liberation"). This is the same rhetorical pattern that every empire has used, at least since the Romans. It's a little harder for the U.S. now, especially since Vietnam, although the means (mostly TV) are infinitely more sophisticated.

There's no conspiracy to this, its just the necessary mode of official rhetoric, like when athiest politicians invoke the Almighty. The only people that take it seriously are those that are informed just enough to be intellectually boxed in by the rhetoric, those that think that believing the rhtetoric is some kind of virtue, and those that the alternative to the rhtetoric is just too scary, like having to worship the devil or something.

[ QUOTE ]
Uh in order to reach full production capacity investments have to be made in the infrastructure. Are Iraqis actually paying for this investment?

[/ QUOTE ]
If by "Iraqis" you mean most or nearly all of the people of Iraq, they won't be given the choice. Iraq's oil resources will be developed with Western (probably mostly U.S.) capital under the direction of a U.S.-backed (probably hand-picked) oil ministry, like the one they've got now.

[ QUOTE ]
And what influence [over "stability and certainty to the price and supply" of oil] might that be? Price, production capacity what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Both, together with a greater say over the use of oil proceeds.

Chris Alger

07-20-2004, 03:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Actually if the war was to secure oil for the USA I would probably be in favor of it."

[/ QUOTE ]
What's the difference is saying that you'd favor war if it were "to secure slaves for the USA?" If you're willing to favor the killing of thousands of people for the wealth represented by oil, why should you care about enslaving people, assuming it amounted to a real economic benefit for "the USA" (whatever that means)?

adios

07-20-2004, 03:36 PM

I appreciate your post and I'm sure you'll be the first one to tell me if I'm proven wrong, but I believe that the Iraqi government won't necessarily be aligned with U.S. interests especially concerning their oil. I've already touched on this in other posts.

[ QUOTE ]
Iraq's oil resources will be developed with Western (probably mostly U.S.) capital under the direction of a U.S.-backed (probably hand-picked) oil ministry, like the one they've got now.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm right about how things will play out in Iraq, the Iraqis will have gained a great deal from this capital investment.

I see that many on the left have embraced the idea that the U.S. has established a puppet regime in Iraq and that the U.S. will be simply pulling the strings.

Chris Alger

07-20-2004, 03:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I see that many on the left have embraced the idea that the U.S. has established a puppet regime in Iraq and that the U.S. will be simply pulling the strings.

[/ QUOTE ]
Some on the left talk like this but it's probably because they've never employed anyone. It's more complicated. The puppets often have their own agenda and like to pull back on their strings. Still, the determinants of relative power are real and account for most consequences.

jokerswild

07-20-2004, 04:50 PM

G-d will not forgive you.

busted_player

07-20-2004, 06:34 PM

US control of mideast oil is important. the actual details dont really matter. read dune.

for example, the oil companies made a killing on the war precisely because the oil supply from iraq was disrupted, and in a fearful way.

its hard for simpletons, but oil companies can actually make much more money by selling (a little) less oil, when the fear is there that the supply may shrink drastically. (and the icing on cake is that the supply isnt even threatened, only the short term extraction methods).

sameoldsht

07-20-2004, 09:19 PM

Please define "US control of mideast oil". Are we "controlling" OPEC in some way?

jokerswild

07-21-2004, 12:27 AM

http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=714

Try this on for size.

MMMMMM

07-21-2004, 01:16 AM

"Please define "US control of mideast oil". Are we "controlling" OPEC in some way?"

Of course we are. We just keep throwing tons and tons of money at them and keep hoping they'll be nice to us. Isn't that some form of control? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

adios

07-21-2004, 04:09 AM

Chris Alger wrote in another post in this thread:

[ QUOTE ]
As with the pro-war counterparts, the antiwar movement includes people with varying degrees of sophistication. So someone, somewhere, has surely said that the war was fought at the behest of oil companies, or something similar, just as someone has said that the war results from a "Zionist conspiracy."

[/ QUOTE ]

jokerswild

07-21-2004, 07:19 AM

http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=714
The media hardly evens informs the public on the daily death count. It's at 900 Americans as of now. Probably, the Iraqis are at 20 to 30 times that.

Hosni Mubarak once stated that the war in Iraq has created 100,000 new Osama Bin Ladens. Of course, hatemongers like you aren't interested getting at the truth of 9-11. You are just interested in killing Arabs with oil,for Jesus of course.

MMMMMM

07-21-2004, 08:26 AM

"Hosni Mubarak once stated that the war in Iraq has created 100,000 new Osama Bin Ladens."

Hosni Mubarak was once asked what percentage of Muslims in the world are radical Islamists, his response was: not that many, maybe only 1% or so. When it was pointed out that 1% of 1 billion would be 10 million radical Islamists, he said that he had never thought of it that way before.

"Of course, hatemongers like you aren't interested getting at the truth of 9-11."

Why you might presume that adios would not be interested in getting at the truth of 9/11 is rather baffling, given his generally inquisitive posts.

"You are just interested in killing Arabs with oil,for Jesus of course."

A most bizarre interpretation of adios' posts and interests. Would you care to elaborate on your reasoning?

Rooster71

07-21-2004, 12:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
When you state that "Any war is profitable, period" I assume you are talking in net terms. Otherwise you should have qualified it.

In net terms, almost all wars are costly (or unprofitable).

Having some segment become profitable due to war does not justify the unqualified statement, "All wars are profitable, period". Heck, you might just as well say "All fires are profitable, period" because obviously there is some party who will profit from a fire. Overall, though, fires are costly rather than profitable--and so too are wars.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think fires would be very profitable. Sure, to some they may be. But I don't see how fires could ever have enough effect to warrant increased government spending. So comparing fires to war would be comparing apples to oranges.

Rooster71

07-21-2004, 12:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
M,

While I think all the most suspect people are profiting from this war, your logic is spot on in this post.

War is not profitable for the vast majority of people even in the winning country. Especially if we pull our heads out of our asses and don't speak in strictly monetary terms.

NT

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry. Please excuse me for assuming that you would be intelligent enough to understand my post.

nothumb

07-21-2004, 12:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry. Please excuse me for assuming that you would be intelligent enough to understand my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh oh, looks like I'm a traitor. I said something civil to the hatemongers.

When you claim all wars are profitable, you are referring to the trend that economies tend to be jump-started by major conflicts (the best example of which would be WWII which ended the Great Depression). Even if nations do not increase GDP enough overall to cover the entire cost (thus turning a 'profit') production is amped up, jobs are created and money is flowing. This can and does often lead to successful post-war economies.

In the case of the Iraq war, the jump-start has been negligible. Industries with contracts for this war are specialized and many of them are operating in-theater. Furthermore, companies like Halliburton received no-bid contracts and they are operating at inflated costs, which are being paid for in US tax dollars.

I understand that war is profitable for some people, although in this case it is profitable for even fewer than usual because of the scope and nature of the conflict. Unfortunately, as I said, the people profiting are exactly the wrong people, which is one of the things that really makes this war suspect in my eyes.

I just think it's incredibly narrow-minded to say something like 'all wars are profitable,' when there are much more specific and compelling ways to describe the situation. So take a feckin chill pill.

NT

Cptkernow

07-21-2004, 01:34 PM

The war is "profitable".

How much growth due think there would be in any given year if there was an oil squeeze in the USA.

Practicaly every form of econimic activity will depend on oil at some point.

Before the war, there were large reserves of oil under the control of a USA hating dictator. Other large oil reserves were under control of regimes ambivalent at best to the USA and/or unstable so supply is not gaurenteed.

Now oil in Iraq is controled by friendly american multi nationals the USA has a much more secure oil supply.

This is how the USA profits from Iraqs oil.

I am personaly convinced that Saddam did pose a threat to the USA and its Allies.

The fact that the invasion of Iraq has achieved Americas most important geopolitical strategic objective (see above) is I am sure, pure coincidence.

adios

07-21-2004, 01:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The media hardly evens informs the public on the daily death count. It's at 900 Americans as of now. Probably, the Iraqis are at 20 to 30 times that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw this news item reported by many news agencies today.

[ QUOTE ]
Hosni Mubarak once stated that the war in Iraq has created 100,000 new Osama Bin Ladens.

[/ QUOTE ]

What kind of dictator would you say Mubarak is?

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, hatemongers like you aren't interested getting at the truth of 9-11.

[/ QUOTE ]

I consider the source of this statement /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[ QUOTE ]
You are just interested in killing Arabs with oil,for Jesus of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not where my interests lie /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

It's so sad to see this forum being hijacked by extremists of your ilk that are so full of venom and hate.

MMMMMM

07-21-2004, 01:42 PM

It is LUDICROUS to claim the "the war is profitable" in overall terms at this point.

The costs of this war have been mind-boggling even in purely financial terms. Those costs may eventually be recouped, and it may prove profitable in the long term. The war has been costing billions of dollars every month.

The war may eventually prove profitable. As of right now however, it is, and has been, a giant sinkhole for money.

MMMMMM

07-21-2004, 01:44 PM

Well they're both horrendously expensive, and up through now this war had been hideously unprofitable in overall terms.

Cptkernow

07-21-2004, 02:06 PM

You are accounting the war too simply.

All wars are a sinkhole for money. Please explain how you have a profitable war in the short term?

Even if the war cost twice as much as it did now, it would be negligible against the cost of an oil squeeze in the USA.

Also most of the cost of this war is via TAX. Where do you think that tax is going?

The majority is going straight back into the American economy via spending on defence contracts and munitions.

The major leakeges will be on solidiers wages that will be spent in Iraq. However as I understand it, alot of these wages will be spent on services supplied in the field by USA corporations so this loss is mitigated.

Most of the real cost or expense then will go into the "rebiulding programme".

However this is another investment as securing the oilfields is meaningless if you dont also secure political stability.

adios

07-21-2004, 02:07 PM

Apparently the leftists are having a problem with this fact. A lot of nebulous claims to profits from geo political gains but quite frankly they're not apparent at this time. I'll concede right now that if Allawi is more or less a U.S. puppet, then the leftists are probably right. I think Allawi will turn out to be very far from being a U.S. puppet. The profits to Halliburton are in the noise level when compared to the costs of the Iraqi incursion. IMO only the most warped and deranged of cynics would believe that the U.S. went to war to primarily to add to Halliburtons bottom line.

nothumb

07-21-2004, 02:12 PM

Cpt,

I agree that this war is largely about securing a stable supply of oil (see my previous posts on this topic). However, I would not say that we turn a profit by guaranteeing such a supply (which we still, presumably, will be paying for, though perhaps eventually at a cut rate). Rather, I think we are at best breaking even, and more likely we are throwing money in a hole to preserve our current energy system, which is quickly becoming unsustainable given the global market and increasing demand.

Think of it this way: say you've got a shitty car that gets you place to place, and the transmission craps out. You can either

A. Spend a bunch of time, money, blood and sweat getting a new one installed and praying nothing else craps out or

B. Spend that 2 grand on a decent, reliable car.

Again, some people 'profit' from this war, but overall, US energy consumers will experience AT BEST some short-term relief from the inevitable energy crisis our generation is going to face.

NT

Cptkernow

07-21-2004, 02:14 PM

It seems to me that those on the right are being purposefully obtuse.

Who do you think the USA would have controll Iraqs oil.

1. SADDAM
2. CEO of Haliburton.

its a no brainer.

Every war fought by those on the left or right has a geo political/strategic aim. In fact relations between states transcend such terms and allways boil down to intense self intrest.

To think otherwise is just naive.

Cptkernow

07-21-2004, 02:24 PM

"inevitable energy crisis our generation is going to face. "

Some dont consider it inevitable. Mitigating the probable energy crises and its cost is the prime strategic objective of every western state. Much more important than dealing with the odd bothersome terrorist.

Lets talk about the cost of there being a real hard oil squeeze. It will criple western economies above and beyond anything that this little disturbance in Iraq will cause.

Looking at it in terms of profit is also a complete mis direction.

If the USA had to go to war to secure next years AIR supply (to be supplied by haliburton) would you say it was non profitable. It wouldnt make sense.

Neither does this question.

jokerswild

07-21-2004, 02:37 PM

Another thing that fascist murdering pigs like you do; you call everyone that disagress with your murderous opinion a "leftist." The left in the USA no longer exists. Mr.Hoover and Mr.McCarthy eradicated any left in North America. Murdering fascist pigs like to lable people communists so that they have no qualms about denying civil liberties, the right to work, or in some cases justifying murder.

Of course murdering hatemongers like you will never admit that they are killing for just money. They will concoct imperialist arguments that they are helping their victims. As the Spanish committed genocide in the New World, they justified it by claiming to bring Christianity to the heathens. The disgusting racist nature of this argument holds true for the Mioddle East in the same context. You can't hide the fact that you are an imperialistic racist, hate mongering individual. You affirm it with every post.

Patrick del Poker Grande

07-21-2004, 02:43 PM

Michael Moore called. He wants his lunacy back.

Cptkernow

07-21-2004, 02:59 PM

"Lefty" Central Command to Jokerswild.

STFU. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

adios

07-21-2004, 03:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Who do you think the USA would have controll Iraqs oil.

1. SADDAM
2. CEO of Haliburton.

[/ QUOTE ]

None of the above.

MMMMMM

07-21-2004, 03:34 PM

The war just might be profitable in the long run, or, perhaps it might be better to say that it just might be worth it in the long run. But saying "the war is IS profitable" is both a presumption and a stretch, and untrue because as of now it IS a money sinkhole.

Cptkernow

07-21-2004, 03:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who do you think the USA would have controll Iraqs oil.

1. SADDAM
2. CEO of Haliburton.

[/ QUOTE ]

None of the above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I should have said obtuse and pedantic.

Try swaping the word have for prefer.

Cptkernow

07-21-2004, 03:42 PM

I said in my first post the war is "profitable"

notice the quotation marks.

There are reasons for the quotation marks. I have explained fully why I used them. Please dont make me repeat myself.

Patrick del Poker Grande

07-21-2004, 03:55 PM

http://www.br0wnsnake.com/dog.swf

(sorry I couldn't find a better video on such short notice)

nothumb

07-21-2004, 05:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Some dont consider it inevitable. Mitigating the probable energy crises and its cost is the prime strategic objective of every western state. Much more important than dealing with the odd bothersome terrorist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

When I said 'inevitable,' I meant it given our current strategy and our refusal to develop safe, alternative energies. Some forward-thinking countries are already trying to move their energy supply completely away from fossil fuel. We're getting more and more dependent on it.

[ QUOTE ]
Looking at it in terms of profit is also a complete mis direction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I thought this was what I had been saying. I think there is gain involved, but profit is a poor term.

[ QUOTE ]
If the USA had to go to war to secure next years AIR supply (to be supplied by haliburton) would you say it was non profitable. It wouldnt make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. I would say it's a matter of survival. But oil is not necessarily a matter of survival. This, to me, makes less sense than the previous comparison.

[ QUOTE ]

Neither does this question.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point of the transmission analogy was this: we have an energy system that is going to run into some serious problems over the next few decades and quite possibly become obsolete, much like a 1972 Plymouth Valiant. We have a choice of trying to patch the Valiant together and keep plugging along until it completely craps out on us, or we can get one of those cool hybrid cars. Or a bicycle, or something else reliable. A friggin camel, I don't know. Point being, all the money and manpower we are sinking into controlling energy supplies - or even, say, a small fraction of it - would be better invested in creating more sustainable energy solutions.

Cptkernow

07-21-2004, 05:34 PM

Given the chances of our economies migrating to a new energy source before an oil squeeze is virtualy nil, then the comparison between oil and air is relevant.

What is more intresting is robust war supporters like MMMMMMMMM and Adios arguing that the Iraq war is a waste of money.

"it IS a money sinkhole. "

Seems a bit of a flip flop dont you think?

MMMMMM

07-21-2004, 07:02 PM

"What is more intresting is robust war supporters like MMMMMMMMM and Adios arguing that the Iraq war is a waste of money.

"it IS a money sinkhole. "

Seems a bit of a flip flop dont you think?"

Not all all a flip flop; I believe the war was good for many reasons. That doesn/'t necessarily mean that we will recoup our investment in it; at present the cost side of the ledger far outweighs the materialized benefit side. It also certainly doesn't mean that the Iraq war--or all wars--ARE profitable, period (as RedRooster21 was trying to claim).

Boris

07-21-2004, 07:11 PM

I am against going to war to secure slaves. There is lots of available labor that is cheaper than slave labor.

Cheap oil has a very direct benefit to the overwhelming majority of US citizens, especially the lower income brackets. I believe that distribution of wealth matters, so I'm all for cheap energy.

The war in Iraq is, at the very worst, a wash in terms of Iraqi lives lost. If Saddam had remained in power at least as many Iraqis would have died a war related death had the US not invaded. So its hard to argue that the US has any moral culpability for civilian deaths as the result of collateral damage.

nothumb

07-21-2004, 07:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The war in Iraq is, at the very worst, a wash in terms of Iraqi lives lost. If Saddam had remained in power at least as many Iraqis would have died a war related death had the US not invaded. So its hard to argue that the US has any moral culpability for civilian deaths as the result of collateral damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ethicists would have a field day with this piece of totally feckin disgusting logic. By this analogy, cops could barricade an apartment building with a serial killer inside and pepper it with RPGs. If a few residents got clipped along with the culprit, they could always say, "Well, it's basically a wash since he was going to kill you anyway." Not as if the job of the police was to protect them. Not as if we invaded Iraq to 'liberate' people.

It's like the North forcing slaves into indentured servitude after the Civil War. "Well, you're basically coming out even, since the Confederates were going to keep you under lock and key as it is."

As for your assertion that 'as many civilians' would have died in Iraq during Saddam's rule as did during the war, do you have any evidence to support this? Saddam was a bad, bad guy, but did he kill 10,000 people a year? He certainly couldn't have done it as efficiently and on such a scale.

Man, I almost laughed at your post until I realized you might have been serious.

NT

wacki

07-21-2004, 07:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Bad intel, bad intel. "

[/ QUOTE ]
This is true. Spying is a very difficult game, especially in a Iraq where over a million people were killed in the 20 years that Hussein was in power. 50,000 deaths a year can cause a bit of paranoia.

[ QUOTE ]

The WMD, maybe. The Al-Qaida links, no. It was the administration that pushed that while their intelligence and counter-terrorism advisers resisted it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The WMD, definitely, just not in the massive stockpiles both the CIA, British Intel, and Russian Intel thought he had. Greenpeace had a "Dollars for Barrels" program to get people to stop using barrels that were once filled with yellowcake for water collection. 150 barrels of yellowcake are still missing. Kind of scary.

The polish army found cyclosarin shells about a week or two ago, and there have been several other small finds, just no large stockpiles yet.

The bush administration pushing WMD while everyone else resisted?!?!?! That's complete bullshit.

Here is about 47 quotes from Clinton and Gore trying to rally up support to go into Iraq to get saddam and WMD's.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040623.htm

Iraq about oil? I don't see how when we are spending over a trillion dollars and they only have 112 billion barrels of oil. Canada has 1.6 TRILLION barrels of oil in the northwest territory that is already being harvested for profit. Look at the last national geographic for info on that one.

If we were going to go to war for oil, why wouldn't we go into the Sudan and Nigeria? After all Nigeria used to be our number one supplier for oil before the war broke out there.

wacki

07-21-2004, 08:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The war in Iraq is, at the very worst, a wash in terms of Iraqi lives lost. If Saddam had remained in power at least as many Iraqis would have died a war related death had the US not invaded. So its hard to argue that the US has any moral culpability for civilian deaths as the result of collateral damage.

[/ QUOTE ]
As for your assertion that 'as many civilians' would have died in Iraq during Saddam's rule as did during the war, do you have any evidence to support this? Saddam was a bad, bad guy, but did he kill 10,000 people a year? He certainly couldn't have done it as efficiently and on such a scale.

Man, I almost laughed at your post until I realized you might have been serious.

NT

[/ QUOTE ]

About 50,000 people died a year under Saddam's rule. How do you think people like "Chemical Ali" got their name? The Iran-Iraq was a slaughter, he used gas on his own troops because it was too much of a pain to get them to pull away from the Iranians, he VX'ed the kurds........ I could go on forever.

Patrick del Poker Grande

07-21-2004, 08:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's like the North forcing slaves into indentured servitude after the Civil War. "Well, you're basically coming out even, since the Confederates were going to keep you under lock and key as it is."

[/ QUOTE ]
This is very telling.

nothumb

07-22-2004, 01:21 AM

nothumb

07-22-2004, 01:24 AM

Ok, 50k it is. I'm assuming you mean unnatural deaths here? Are these all combat deaths, disappearances, or is some starvation figured in here? What is the source of this?

As I said, I don't know the figures either, it was just a terrible piece of logic. I don't care if he was killing MORE people every year than we have killed so far (which he might well have been).

NT

nicky g

07-22-2004, 05:17 AM

50k a year is a completely ridiculous figure, even including the Iran war. It would add up to 1.25mn. Noone seriously suggests Saddam killed that many. There are no reliable figures for this but the most I've ever hear mentioned is 600,000 (from a Shia opposition group supporting the war in the run up to it); MMMMMM said 500,000; HRW say 300,000; others say 100,000-200,000. Not sure if those figures include Iran Iraq war which was estimated at 150,000 Iraqi deaths - Saddam's regime bore the brunt of the responisbility fot that, having started the war, but not all of it.

nicky g

07-22-2004, 05:39 AM

No decent intelligence showed that Saddam had restarted a WMD programme; that he had was based on guesswork ("well, based on what we know of him, he would if he had the chance") and the evidence of several demonstrably unreliable defectors, largely supplied by Iraqi opposition groups. The UN inspectorate accounted for the destruction of 95% of all existing WMD stocks. Iraq claimed the rest had either been destroyed without proper documentation or mislaid/stolen. Either way most of the substances involved would have deteriorated well past the point of effectiveness by 2003. If the intelligence agencies believed they had strong evidence of massive stockpiles, it was wishful thinking on their part.

"The bush administration pushing WMD while everyone else resisted?!?!?! That's complete bullshit."

!!?!!?**£**!"!!!! That's not what I said.

The gulf between stores of Yellowcake and producing a nuclear bomb is about a million miles wide. From the Greenpeace site for the campaign you mention: " None of this nuclear material is prohibited by UN resolutions or is usable for nuclear weapons ."

Radioactive barrel swap (http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/news/details?item_id=288792)

What is yellowcake anyway? (http://slate.msn.com/id/2085848/)

""I really poo-pooed the whole thing because yellowcake isn't worth a damn in terms of nuclear weapons," says Sam Taylor, longtime publisher of the Moab Times-Independent in the southeastern Utah redrock town once dubbed the "Uranium Capitol of the World."
"There's a long expensive process between Uranium 238 [the most commonly occurring isotope of uranium when it is dug out of the ground] and Uranium 235, which is fissionable," says Taylor, 70, who ran uranium drill rigs on the plateau as a young man. "Why should they worry about him buying yellowcake when one of the only places that enriches it into U-235 is a government lab in Oak Ridge, Tenn.?" "
Uranium oxide: Yellowcake not all it's cooked up to be (http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:-TGayDFZU70J:www.sltrib.com/2003/Aug/08042003/utah/81085.asp+iraqi+yellowcake+reserves&hl=en)