Bush Administration passes the buck

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » July 16, 2003, 11:35 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:It took the USA 6 years to hammer out a good system of government after we broke loose from England.

Establishing a representative goverment in a country that knows only dictatorships will take a while.

Just Monday they made a step towards this goal by creating a council of Iraqi leaders that represented all the major factions in Iraq.

This process is like pushing a freight train. It takes a bit for it to get rolling.

Not too mention the fact that the middle eastern mentality & culture is nothing like that of the european one. A western style government more than likely will NOT work there. It's been shown time and time again since the break up of the Turkish-Ottoman Empire following WWI. Trying to draw some kind of parrallel between the origins of our country, and possible directions Iraq could take just doesn't jive.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » July 16, 2003, 11:45 am

Once again, those of you who think the US is out to steal oil from Iraq are short-sighted and lacking in imagination.

This won't be settled in a week, six months or even a year. A decade from now you will see a much more stable Iraq. Sorry if your patience doens't stretch that far.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » July 16, 2003, 11:59 am

Fallanthas wrote:Once again, those of you who think the US is out to steal oil from Iraq are short-sighted and lacking in imagination.

This won't be settled in a week, six months or even a year. A decade from now you will see a much more stable Iraq. Sorry if your patience doens't stretch that far.

I call bullshit. Its a fairly safe bet that you will not finish anything in Iraq. Just look at afghanawho?. Those opinion polls are going to be ugly in a few months.

I wish you luck in trying to sucker other nations into sending troops into the shooting gallery formerly called Iraq. I would have thought "the coalition" would have plenty of troops. Didn't it consist of like 40+ nations?

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » July 16, 2003, 12:42 pm

The argument of the Iraq war being over oil never struck me as being that logical. Of course something not being logical certainly doesn't preclude a politician from doing it, but when you look at the numbers it just doesn't seem to make sense.

Did a little searching to see how much oil/money are we really talking about in Iraq (this is obviously just from web surfing, so if anyone knows of better numbers/something I am missing I would be interested in seeing it).

Found a source that detailed some information about Iraq's oil reserves and its production in recent years.

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

Iraq certainly has a lot of oil, 2nd largest proven reserves in the world (112 billion barrels) and large areas are still unexplored. Back in 1990 its production was 3.5 million barrels per day. This fell sharply after the first gulf war. More recently in 2001 it was producing 2.42 million barrels per day, and averaged 2.02 million over the first 11 months of 2002.

According to the following article ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 3Jul2.html

Benchmark Brent crude oil has averaged $26.45 per barrel since the eginning of 2000, when OPEC set a $25 target for its own oil. This is a 44 percent increase on the previous decade, when Brent averaged

$18.37.

Of course, that is not counting the price of production, in the same article ...

Western economists estimate the marginal cost of world oil production is around $15 per barrel, almost half current prices.

So with a real rough estimate of the profit from iraqi oil that gives us 8 billion based of the lower more recent production or 15 billion if you look at the higher numbers back from 1990. That looks like a lot money, but when you compare it to the kind of money the U.S. economy and government works on, its very minor (U.S GDP estimate for 2001 was just over 10 trillion dollars, government revenue 1.8 trillion or so according to the cia world factbook). That is of course assuming that we could actually just confiscate all of iraq's oil production for an extended period of time, which I think would be infeasible politically.

And of course, how much is this costing us? Well, from this article

(http://www.msnbc.com/news/938233.asp?cp1=1) ...

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a hearing that the burn rate for American money to fund the military presence in Iraq was now $3.9 billion a month almost $1 billion a week.

But that billion a week is just the beginning. It doesn’t include the cost of running Iraq’s government and rebuilding it, which could be an additional billion a month, according to rough U.N. estimates made before the war. Then there’s the matter of Iraq’s enormous debts. Last week the major creditor countries in the so-called Paris Club agreed to restructure about $21 billion worth, but estimates of the total external debt, including war reparations to Kuwait, run well over $100 billion.

As occupying country, we may very well get stuck with that debt. This is of course just for what it is currently costing us, it doesn't go into what the war cost. Granted, those costs may go down over time, but it would take a long long time before it returned enough to pay for the costs, once again this is even based off the highly dubious suggestion that we could just take all the oil without repercussions.

Of course, you could argue that it wasn't for the oil in national terms, but for contracts etc Bush could hand out to his friends. Possible I guess, but it still seems unlikely. If you were President and wanting to slip some graft to your buddies why do something as big and attention drawing as a war? Lots of people involved, greater chance of people finding out. Plus if people do find out, the consequences would be greater (people will not be amused if they find out you sent their sons and daughters to die so you can make a buck, they will want your head).

It just doesn't seem to make much sense.

noel · Post by **noel** » July 16, 2003, 1:40 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:It took the USA 6 years to hammer out a good system of government after we broke loose from England.

Establishing a representative goverment in a country that knows only dictatorships will take a while.

Just Monday they made a step towards this goal by creating a council of Iraqi leaders that represented all the major factions in Iraq.

This process is like pushing a freight train. It takes a bit for it to get rolling.

And in the meantime, we're involved in Vietnam v2.0. I'm sorry, that's not good enough. I don't give a fuck about Iraq and their goverment, not because I don't give a fuck about Iraq or their goverment, but because I'm not willing to bleed soldiers at a rate of 1-6 per day in order to stabilize Iraq. We're supposed to learn from our past mistakes so we don't repeat them. There needs to be a better way.

As I've said before, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't now. We can't leave. If we leave, we've abandoned them. We can't stay. If we stay we might as well just send our troops to a meat grinder. Lovely situation we have here.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » July 16, 2003, 1:54 pm

We abandonded the Afgans, we can abandon the Iraqis! We have also abandoned the Lebanese, The Somalians, the Vietnamese, etc. Numerous places where we have sent troops, and left before business was over for one reason or another.
I don't blame the Iraqis for not trusting us. We went to Afganistan at the end of 2001, took out there government, albiet a pretty harsh one....but left them in an even worse situation. Has anyone wondered why Afganistan is never in the news anymore?

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » July 16, 2003, 2:12 pm

If you were President and wanting to slip some graft to your buddies why do something as big and attention drawing as a war?

They're a little cleverer than that though. The oil money from the "instantly privatised the second we got the keys to the building" Iraqi wells is funding the reconstruction. Guess who got the reconstruction contracts?

The fact that the industry was privatised so quickly certainly raised my eyebrows. Not much involvement from the Iraqi people in that little decision.
I've said the war was about oil but I've never envisaged Bush and chums just walking out of there with pockets full of the stuff. With a friendly/puppet government I'm sure there will be some "democratically sanctioned" discounts given to the US by their grateful proxies. IMO it has everything to do with strategic oil policy (and a lot to do with Saudi as well) but it has plenty of juicy fringe benefits that are all ready being milked hard.
Strategic oil policy is a hella lot less sexy than "OMG WMD" and the other rhetoric spewed in the hasty run-up to war. How many US families would gladly send their kin to die for such a cause? I think not many which is why they've all been told they're "defending freedom".

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » July 16, 2003, 2:14 pm

I call bullshit. Its a fairly safe bet that you will not finish anything in Iraq. Just look at afghanawho?. Those opinion polls are going to be ugly in a few months.

Which has shit to do with what I said.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » July 16, 2003, 2:19 pm

This won't be settled in a week, six months or even a year. A decade from now you will see a much more stable Iraq. Sorry if your patience doens't stretch that far

You want patience now but had none before the war. How much of this shit could have been avoided with a little more patience then, huh?

I think you are at best 50/50 on your claim about Iraq in 10 years. I'm sure they said the same when they partitioned Palestine. And Ireland. Etc.
My own money is on a messy withdrawal in 3-5 years time, forced by constant attrition of the occupying troops, followed by Afghan-style anarchy or an Islamist state. Or maybe both in quick succession.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » July 16, 2003, 2:36 pm

Strategic oil policy? Spending 50-100 billion a year to get 10-20 billion worth of oil (if we are lucky, probably a worse exchange rate). If we just wanted their oil we should have just pushed to raise the sanctions against them and bought it. It would have been a lot cheaper.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » July 16, 2003, 2:42 pm

They're a little cleverer than that though. The oil money from the "instantly privatised the second we got the keys to the building" Iraqi wells is funding the reconstruction. Guess who got the reconstruction contracts?

I didn't state before but I was basically talking about the reconstruction contracts etc. when I said the graft. I still say that if you are wanting to give your buddies some fat goverment contracts starting a war (with attendent occupation etc) is going way overboard and more likely to bring attention on you and have more serious repercussions if you are caught. I just don't see where the benefit would be worth it as a primary reason of the war (you might take advantage of it if you are going to war anyway, but I don't think it is strong enough to be a prime reason for the war).

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » July 16, 2003, 2:49 pm

Xyun wrote:It is not at all safe to call it a fact dumb shit.

Xyun wrote:I'm not alledging that the documents were forged by the US at all.

Ok good, we can agree on that then. Feel free to let your repressed angst out with more flames though. I know in these troubling times when all of our rights are slowly disappearing there is a lot of it to go around.

Xyun wrote:Ok this is the fucking CIA we are talking about here. You mean to tell me when it comes to intelligence, the IAEA is more proficient in identifying forged documents for a goddamn nuclear program than the CIA? You gotta be fucking kidding. The CIA is the elite intelligence agency in the fucking world.

I don't pretend to know exactly what happened, but the thought that the CIA willingly cited obviously forged documents then handed them over to the IAEA is a fucking joke. I think the importance that these documents were given is being way over blown. In the State of the Union when Bush referred to Iraq trying to get uranium from Africa he cited British Intelligence- the same British Intelligence that wasn't basing their assessment on said document.

kyoukan wrote:nothing but shady business has been going on regarding Iraq's oil since they were conquered by their new masters.

Huh? Shady business with regards to Iraq's oil? This is the first I've heard about it. Since you used the words "nothing but" I'm sure you'll be able to give me atleast two examples. I won't be holding my breath though.

All I can say is if you have this much bitterness and hatred towards someone who might have alterior motives in wanting to free millions of people from a tyranical dictator, you must have an inordinate amount of seething anger towards someone who has started two wars with his neighbors, is responsible for hundred of thousands of deaths, has gassed his own people, cuts the tongues out of people who exercise freedom of speech, allows freedom of religion only to a certain extent, and has allowed his own people to starve and suffer because he wants to pursue WMDs. Oh wait, I forgot, no you don't, you're a fucking hypocrite.

kyoukan wrote:The first thing they do after liberating the people from oppression is to oppress them, then they start pumping and selling their oil and keeping the money in order to "rebuild Iraq" which was fucking blown up by them in the first fucking place. Who gets to the oil money to rebuild Iraq? COULD IT BE MORE HUGE AMERICAN CORPORATIONS WITH TIES TO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION?

We're oppressing the Iraqi people? Are you REALLY this ignorant? Did you not see the protests against us that our troops sat there and watched, while Saddam would have slaughtered them all then imprisoned there families? Did you not see the religious activies happening that for decades Saddam wouldn't allow? And why does rebuild Iraq have parentheses around it? How the hell do you think we'd rebuild Iraq? You know we've said everything we do with their oil is going to be completely transparent and really will go to the re building of Iraq...right? You know that every household in Iraq didn't have power before we attacked and clean water in many places was a joke...right?

/agree with everything Kilmoll said.

This isn't Vietnam and we're not going to abandon Iraq. There's really not much else I can say other than history will prove us right.

edit: spelling error was too annoying

noel · Post by **noel** » July 16, 2003, 2:49 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:My own money is on a messy withdrawal in 3-5 years time, forced by constant attrition of the occupying troops...

I hope to God we don't stand for it for even that long.

vn_Tanc wrote:...followed by Afghan-style anarchy or an Islamist state. Or maybe both in quick succession.

Totally agree. (Directed at no one in particular: I'M GENERALIZING SO FEEL FREE TO CRUCIFY ME BUT...) Seems to be the only type of goverment that works over there.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 16, 2003, 3:01 pm

As I said before it took the USA 6 years to get an effective representative government running after independance.

Japan has the second largest economy in the world today. This strength was in part a result of a representative goverment established after WWII.

Guess how long it took to get that government running?

7 years

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 16, 2003, 3:26 pm

You know Tanc,

You're arguement that conservatives were impatient before the war and patient after the war I have seen argued in total reverse.

It's kinda funny,

He's the reverse I've heard:

"Liberals are impatient to see WMD found today, yet were willing to allow weapon inspections go on forever with Hans Blix."

Same mechanism, just flipped.

noel · Post by **noel** » July 16, 2003, 3:36 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:You know Tanc,

You're arguement that conservatives were impatient before the war and patient after the war I have seen argued in total reverse.

Where the fuck did he say the word 'conservative'?

Don't turn this into a fucking bipartisan bullshit thread. We've had quite enough of those already.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » July 16, 2003, 3:43 pm

A theory:

What if Saddam had those WMD and we found them? Ask yourselves, would it be better to have public pressure off or perhaps a weapon that can only be traced to Iraq, so you could potentially blame it on terrorists when you use it against political enemies. North Korea maybe?

Just a exersize in thought, not saying this is the case at all in reality. However, if it was the case... I would have to give Bush more points for intelligence and less for harmlessness.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 16, 2003, 3:54 pm

Calm down Aranuil,

I'm not on any crusade. I'm commenting on an interesting use of language.

noel · Post by **noel** » July 16, 2003, 4:24 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Calm down Aranuil,

I'm not on any crusade. I'm commenting on an interesting use of language.

I just checked, my pulse rate is still in the 40s.

If you weren't replying to Tanc's post, then your non-sequiteur makes some degree of sense though I have no idea why you addressed him.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » July 16, 2003, 4:54 pm

I think the importance that these documents were given is being way over blown.

The reason the US and Britain gave to the rest of the world for going to war was WMD. These documents were part of the evidence. The only reason you think it is over blown is because in the end, it turns out that 1) they were forged and 2) there are no WMDs. Now that you have no credible reason for going to war, any flaw in your argument is just minor and is being over blown in your opinion. Of course, if I was wrong, I would say, well I'm wrong but it's not that important, like you are doing now. Good thing I'm never wrong.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 16, 2003, 5:03 pm

The latest from Afghanistan:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/fun.games/ ... index.html

Looks like they're forming the Taliban v.2. I wish we could just leave these fucking fanatics alone to brutalize each other.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » July 16, 2003, 5:16 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:As I said before it took the USA 6 years to get an effective representative government running after independance.

Japan has the second largest economy in the world today. This strength was in part a result of a representative goverment established after WWII.

Guess how long it took to get that government running?

7 years

Read my post again.

What happened in Japan, and the economic miracle of the 50' in Germany is NOT going to happen. The middle east is by and large not a secular culture, the implications of which are very hard to pinpoint, and how to approach equally as daunting.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 16, 2003, 5:18 pm

Ok Aranuil, before you melt down into unwarranted diatribes allow me to elaborate.

vn_Tanc wrote: You want patience now but had none before the war. How much of this shit could have been avoided with a little more patience then, huh?

Adex_Xeda wrote: He's the reverse I've heard:

"Liberals are impatient to see WMD found today, yet were willing to allow weapon inspections go on forever with Hans Blix."

The method of argument is identical. The subject of arguement is similar. Yet the same bits of information can be carefully rearranged to produce the opposite arguement.

I consider that quite novel. It's similar to the eureka one experiences as a 3rd grader noticing that mom spelled backwards was still mom.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » July 16, 2003, 5:20 pm

A eureka which I'm sure you experience daily.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 16, 2003, 5:21 pm

Skogen I read your post however I think the outcome will be much brighter and the dissimilarities of culture much less significant.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 16, 2003, 5:28 pm

Xyun,

Discovery is all around us, all we have to do is slow down enough to notice.

The most powerful thoughts and dreams mean nothing if we can't get them out of our heads and communicated on to others. Language is the key to this transfer.

It's also a cheap hobby, unlike that $50 waste of megabytes, Master of Orion 3 I bought the other day.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » July 16, 2003, 5:42 pm

We're oppressing the Iraqi people? Are you REALLY this ignorant? Did you not see the protests against us that our troops sat there and watched, while Saddam would have slaughtered them all then imprisoned there families? Did you not see the religious activies happening that for decades Saddam wouldn't allow? And why does rebuild Iraq have parentheses around it? How the hell do you think we'd rebuild Iraq? You know we've said everything we do with their oil is going to be completely transparent and really will go to the re building of Iraq...right? You know that every household in Iraq didn't have power before we attacked and clean water in many places was a joke...right?

There have been events where US Soldiers have shot and killed demonstrators. There have also been problems with religious events for the people who "were on the wrong side" aka not openly supported the Coalition.

Also, there is an Iraqi professor at an University in Iraq who writes a weekly column in one of Norway's largest newspapers (they did the same thing with a Serb professor during the problems there, was quite fascinating to read it then as well) who gives a bit of insight to what is going on. Their water and electricity comes and goes, but is more gone than there. Also, he reported of US tanks driving around with signs saying something like "Give us peace and we give you water and electricity!".

The situation is hardly as black and white as you like to color it.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » July 16, 2003, 5:59 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Skogen I read your post however I think the outcome will be much brighter and the dissimilarities of culture much less significant.

This country, Great Britain, and France have been thinking like that since 1920's on a vast number of issues in the middle east (the conflict between India & Pakistan over Kashmir, the creation of Isreal, among others) The western way of thinking is very obviously not working.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » July 16, 2003, 6:34 pm

There have been events where US Soldiers have shot and killed demonstrators.

The difference being I'm sure the US soldiers were assaulted first. Being ex-Military I can fucking guarantee your our boys didn't just decide to "light up" the crowd for shits and giggles, nor do I believe for one damn minute that that they had orders to forcibly disburse the crowd.

I certainly believe a demonstration as we have witnessed would have never happened under Saddam's rule because the outcome would have been clear - a bloodbath of the demonstrators by military under orders from the government.

Yay, the left-wing trolls on this forum hooked another "rightie". Go high five yourselves before you jump off a cliff - PLEASE.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 16, 2003, 6:45 pm

Actually Iraqis in Baghdad are forbidden to congregate in groups larger than four right now, so organized protesting would be illegal.

but HOORAY FOR LIBERTY

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » July 16, 2003, 7:58 pm

I just don't see where the benefit would be worth it as a primary reason of the war

I think the primary is Iraq's oil but not simply because of its economic value. The driving force here is the "War On Terror". To make any kind of dent in Al Qaeda Saudi Arabia has to be 'dealt with'. Saudi is the USs chief ally in the area and sits on a sea of oil. So obviously if you're gonna ride in and clean up that town they arent going to want to sell you oil. Hence a need for a new strategic oil source. Good Morning Baghdad.

Remember these people are thinking a century ahead. The US _absolutely_ has to have a foothold in the oilfields of the middle east. It's why both world wars had huge campaigns there. The dollar value of the oil today or tomorrow is a secondary consideration compared to its rising strategic value in the future.

and btw

"Liberals are impatient to see WMD found today, yet were willing to allow weapon inspections go on forever with Hans Blix."

If that had been something i'd have said maybe you would have had a point.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » July 16, 2003, 10:07 pm

I think the primary is Iraq's oil but not simply because of its economic value. The driving force here is the "War On Terror". To make any kind of dent in Al Qaeda Saudi Arabia has to be 'dealt with'. Saudi is the USs chief ally in the area and sits on a sea of oil. So obviously if you're gonna ride in and clean up that town they arent going to want to sell you oil. Hence a need for a new strategic oil source. Good Morning Baghdad.

So we are going to take Iraq's oil so we have oil when we invade Saudi Arabia? If we are so rapacious why didn't we just take Saudi Arabia's oil in the first place? Plus as I said earlier, if we wanted Iraq's oil the far far cheaper way would be to just buy it from them, raise the sanctions.

Or are you just talking about putting pressue on Saudi Arabia rather than invading? They could then try to stop selling to us. Even if they manage to stop any other countries from acting as an intermediary and reselling oil to us, we could still shift our purchases to lean more heavily on other suppliers. Yes, Saudi Arabia is our largest supplier of crude (2nd largest supplier of all petroleum products, and refined combined) but they only account for about 17 percent of our oil imports (source http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/saudi.html). A pretty hefty chunk to be sure and going to other sources would be more expensive, but I can't think that it would be more expensive than what we are paying in iraq, or even close to it. Of course there also lies the problem of while it would be a bad deal for us if they stopped selling to us, it would likely hit them a lot worse, since such a greater percentage of their economy is tied into it. Yes they could probably switch to other buyers like we would switch to other sellers and we all end up about where we started just with different trade relationships. I still don't see a persuasive reason for the invasion of iraq based on the oil that we might concievably get out of it (as a prime factor).

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » July 16, 2003, 11:55 pm

By itself it's not, but selling weapon systems to the world's largest army, especially the army of a goverment with goals that are not necessarily aligned with ours could very legitimately raise a few eyebrows

This one stuck out at me the most. They maybe the largest army in the world. Yet they cant supply 1/2 of them, and muchless get them anywhere. They hardly have any Air Support,or Trains to move their Army. Sure it will be 30 chinese men to 1 american, but if they cant be supplied or put in to action because they are 1,000 miles away. The army is useless.

Supplying China who is a Ally, is a lot diffrent than what Regan did during the Iran& Control afair.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » July 17, 2003, 12:42 am

I've linked this before and I'm not saying that oil was the primary reason for war, but this information may be useful for some of you who are talking out of your ass.

OIL: The Other Iraq War

noel · Post by **noel** » July 17, 2003, 5:25 am

Raistin wrote:This one stuck out at me the most. They maybe the largest army in the world. Yet they cant supply 1/2 of them, and muchless get them anywhere. They hardly have any Air Support,or Trains to move their Army. Sure it will be 30 chinese men to 1 american, but if they cant be supplied or put in to action because they are 1,000 miles away. The army is useless.

Supplying China who is a Ally, is a lot diffrent than what Regan did during the Iran& Control afair.

I understand what you're saying, but you're working on the assumption that the US would be their target, and I'm... not.

Very frankly, our 'relationship' with China is far too new to make me feel 100% comfortable with supplying them weapons. I'm not like... lying awake at night thinking about it, but that's just my opinion.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » July 17, 2003, 6:05 am

Or are you just talking about putting pressue on Saudi Arabia rather than invading? They could then try to stop selling to us

Without a friendly country in the middle east the US faces the possibility of being squeezed by OPEC. I don't think having the keystone of US power (industrial and military might) at risk of being undermined by people outside the US's influence is a thing that makes the current US Administration happy. Especially when the "war on terror" potentially makes a lot of OPEC members "enemies".

The rise in oil process of the last year were apparently fueled by the US buying oil en masse to build up sufficient reserves for the Iraq war. We all saw how much strife the gas price hike caused. Your huge and powerful military are useless without oil. It's hard to "project power" without fuel.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 17, 2003, 7:26 am

The US actually gets very little crude from the middle east.

well, until now anyway. now I guess they will get all their oil from Iraq at special bargain basement "hey thanks for liberating us!" prices (free).

Most US oil comes from Venezuela, Canada, and the US itself.

Prices skyrocketed because Venezuelans went on a 4 month work stoppage to protest Chavez.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » July 17, 2003, 7:53 am

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn32041.htm

Relevant snippet:

Over the past year, the government added 37 mm barrels to the SPR, bringing the reserve to 599.5 mm barrels. Traders say that heavy buying played a role in driving prices higher ahead of the war

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 17, 2003, 8:07 am

I don't doubt that but did they buy most of that oil from OPEC nations? Probably not.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » July 17, 2003, 9:05 am

well, until now anyway. now I guess they will get all their oil from Iraq at special bargain basement "hey thanks for liberating us!" prices (free).

According to Xyun's link, the U.S. imports about 8-9 million barrels a day, from my links earlier Iraq was producing a little over 2 million just before GW2. Sustainable production from Iraq is thought to just under 3 million, so it isn't enough to cover all of our imports. And as I pointed out earlier, the costs of the war, occupation, rebuilding are far greater than the value of all the oil iraq produces for the forseeable future. This is assuming that we can just take all their oil, which I still see as highly dubious, particularly for any meaningful length of time.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » July 17, 2003, 9:06 am

kyoukan wrote:Actually Iraqis in Baghdad are forbidden to congregate in groups larger than four right now, so organized protesting would be illegal.

but HOORAY FOR LIBERTY

Damn that must really cut down on your Bukkake partys.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » July 17, 2003, 9:12 am

Without a friendly country in the middle east the US faces the possibility of being squeezed by OPEC. I don't think having the keystone of US power (industrial and military might) at risk of being undermined by people outside the US's influence is a thing that makes the current US Administration happy. Especially when the "war on terror" potentially makes a lot of OPEC members "enemies".

If OPEC could charge us higher prices and expect to make more profit they would already be doing it. Whether or not we have a friendly country in the middle east is really beside the point. They could try to cut us off, but as I said before it would seem probable that we would just shift sources. Also if they don't sell to us then it probably effects them a lot more than it does us since a greater proportion of their smaller economies are tied up in selling oil to us than ours is buying from them (sure it would impact us too, but not to as high of a degree).

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » July 17, 2003, 9:57 am

You're still looking too short term - remember your neocon leaders are thinking about the next 100 years here.
If OPEC hike prices now I dare say the US could find ways to mitigate the effect (though I don't think you'd come out unscathed). But think 50-70 years ahead and who's oil wells are running dry in that time and who's aren't? I'd bet the second largest confirmed reseves will be ticking along nicely in comparison. And if your plans for the immediate future run the risk of setting the whole mideast region alight then having a strong military presence in the area doesn't hurt.

Still it's just my theory and frankly it's pleasant to discuss it this far without it degenerating into the usual bullshit about liberals. Something of a record, even. And I _like_ my theory (:P) cos I'm not prepared to consider capitalist banditry as a reason for a war even though it's tempting. Of course the other options are that (a) your leaders genuinely believed the crap they were telling us which is frankly fucking terrifying given the serial incompetence coming to light now. Or (b) it was really all just to get revenge on Saddam and that's just mindbogglingly illegal and stupid.

That's my theory. Now let's hear some others

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 17, 2003, 11:39 am

I don't think we will be relying on oil 50-70 years from now so it is pretty irrelevant. I would say it is only 20-30 years to have a majority of the vehicles in the U.S. running on alternate fuel sources.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » July 17, 2003, 11:48 am

I don't think we will be relying on oil 50-70 years from now so it is pretty irrelevant. I would say it is only 20-30 years to have a majority of the vehicles in the U.S. running on alternate fuel sources

They've been saying that since the 70s. I expect it will actually happen shortly after we crack sustainable fusion.
It'll be a long time AFTER that happens that your air force and navy comes up with a replacement fuel.

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » July 17, 2003, 1:20 pm

They've been saying that since the 70s. I expect it will actually happen shortly after we crack sustainable fusion.
It'll be a long time AFTER that happens that your air force and navy comes up with a replacement fuel.

They have made a few cars that do run with out oil based fuel. Compared to cars in the 70's the 80s,90s, and now 2000+ are heads and shoulders above what cars use to be in the 70's.

Back in the 70s cars would only get 15 miles per gallon city,25 highway. After 1974 and the new regulations on cars set up a pace where cars would have to find a better means to spend its fuel. Now we have cars doing 30 city and 40+ highway. Not to mention Pulbic trans, more people walking, and biking to work.

As was said before, oil wont be the base of our engery in 70 years. I dont expect it to be in 30. 30 years IS a long time, and we have come so far to find new ways to do stuff, Im sure were going to have a better way to pruduce energy in a less harmful, bottomless well type way.Holy hell what a run on sentence.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » July 17, 2003, 2:27 pm

Prices skyrocketed because Venezuelans went on a 4 month work stoppage to protest Chavez.

And yet many here continued to scream the increase was a direct effect of the war in Iraq.

I notice Ford is now marketing flex fuel engines on a lot of their smaller vehicles. Anyone know anything about it? I am assuming it's a gas/ethanol burner but I am having a hell of a time getting any info out of their website.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » July 20, 2003, 2:03 am

kyoukan wrote:Actually Iraqis in Baghdad are forbidden to congregate in groups larger than four right now, so organized protesting would be illegal.

but HOORAY FOR LIBERTY

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/07/ ... index.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Thousands of Iraqi Shiite demonstrators staged protests Saturday in Baghdad after reports that U.S. troops surrounded the house of a Shiite cleric a day after he criticized a U.S.-appointed governing council for Iraq and said he was forming an army.

Don't you ever get tired of talking out of your ass?

Nilaman · Post by **Nilaman** » July 20, 2003, 4:46 am

And that "vn_tanc" wanted proof!