The war in Iraq was never about oil.
yngster said 04/16, 04:40 PM
Every time I see some hippy standing on the corner with a picket sign protesting no war for oil I scream out the window of my truck, "That war isn't about oil you idiot." The fact is that war is not about oil. Are we getting oil any cheaper? Nope, were not. In fact most of our oil comes from Saudi Arabia. We get very little oil from Iraq.
Donkey DooZoo said 04/16, 08:17 PM
Yngster, I believe (and truly hope) that the war is all about oil. Many believe that we reached world "peak oil" production in 2001. It means that, at the current rate of consumption, the world will run out of it sometimes around 2020. If nations run out of oil, humanity will be on a destructive path to stone age. So the game for each nation is to buy time to find alternative means of energy. Buying time means keeping your own reserves intact and using other nations' resources--easy targets. It would be too difficult to go after Russia or Canada; however Iraq and, why not, Iran are easier targets. Do you think the French, Germans, and Russians opposed the war in Iraq because they did not believe that saddam had WMDs? No, they opposed the war because they were Iraq's best economic partners (number 1, 2, and 3, respectively). Nothing wrong there, they were just positioning themselves to have some control over Iraq's oil reserves and protecting their interest. That's exactly what we should do right now--i.e., protect our interest and collect the return from our investment. Keep on yelling at the hippies, they deserve it anyway.
yngster said 04/18, 04:13 PM
First of all, the first thing Bush did after invading Iraq was sign a treaty which stated that the Iraqis would recieve all of the profit from the oil fields.
Second of all, most of the oil consumed by the United States comes from Canada, mexico, venezuala, Nigeria and Angola. Basicly, what the Hippy's are arguing is that Bush started a war to get oil contracts, that is simply not the case.
Thrid, bush is a neo conservative. neo conservatives feel the need to spread democracy. That's what the war is all about. It's about spreading democracy and finishing what his father started. Throughout history of the 20th the United States has made allies through war. Germany, Itally, and Japan are examples of that. Bush started a war to make an ally out of an enemy and to create an example for other middle-eastern countries to follow. The American Revolution inspired the French revolution and Bush was hoping that a revolution in Iraq would inspire other countries to follow Iraq's example. Thus creating a pro-western middle east. At least this is the best explanation I could come up with. Do you have a better explanation?
Donkey DooZoo said 04/19, 12:43 AM
Well, I believe that our government is "economically pragmatic" (this is a good thing).For instance, the BBC published an article last month on a secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. This plan was crafted by neo-conservative and the oil industry with the intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas (it is also a good thing to go after those camel breath OPEC punks, isn't it?). In addition, the US controls all Iraqui accounts from pre-war and post-war oil money (billions or trillions, I do not know). You probably know that there are current issues on how those accounts are managed. Breimer is having hard time to keep the all thing quiet.
In short, you do not need to get the smelly black stuff to benefit from it. For example, think how this money can be put to work (we know that some of this money was used to pay US contractors, and US private interest...I read this an MSNBC article); this is the same thing as reinjecting money in our economy, isn't it? This is an indirect way to benefit from Iraqui oil and it is fine with me!
yngster said 04/20, 06:55 PM
Well, first of all, China, India, Vietnam and Indonesia are the countries which recieve the majority of Iraq's oil.
Second of all, there are three things wrong with your agrument and this secret sell off plan.
1) that war has cost almost 4 or 5 trillion dollars and has cost 4000 American lives. It is impossible for the U.S. to profit or benefit from this war.
2) George W. Bush signed a treaty in 2003 immediatly after the invasion that makes such a plan impossible.
3)China, India, Vietnam and Indonesia are the countries which recieve the majority of Iraq's oil.
Donkey DooZoo said 04/21, 12:50 AM
You are right on point 2. However, the US was granted the authority by the UN to manage the money generated from oil--the infamous accounts mentioned earlier.
on point 1: look at it as an initial outlay. The political, financial and economic future (strategic) benefits are enormous--starting with the oil paradigm.
Comments
Add Your Comment
This war is not about oil, as a matter of fact if there wasn't any oil, the liberal congress and the crazy anti-get rid of terrorism people in congress would say we invaded Iraq because of the sand. you should all be grateful that we are over there, because if we weren't there would still be explosions, but they would be in time square, not in a Baghdad market square
Chestypuller94 | 04/17/08
Report Offensive Comment
Pablo, what part? Peak oil? this is a well-known theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil). France, Germany and Russia being prime economic partners to pre-war Iraq; this is a fact. Nations racing to control energy sources: It has been the game since the beginning of the industrial era (mid-nineteen century). Nonetheless, I started the debate with: "I believe and I hope." On a positive note, Yngster and I have similar views on hippies. LOL
Donkey DooZoo | 04/17/08
Report Offensive Comment
Chest, fighting to control oil is not a bad thing. More importantly, I am grateful everyday for the work of our troops over there.
Donkey DooZoo | 04/17/08
Report Offensive Comment
I forgot to include Saudi Arabia in that list of countries the U.S. gets it oil from
yngster | 04/18/08
Report Offensive Comment
It sounds like a fratricide debate: 2 conservatives agreeing on staying in Iraq...for different reasons. Interesting. DZ, I read some of your debates, is your driving argument always about making cents on the dollar invested?
oulala | 04/19/08
Report Offensive Comment
I agree with DDZ, the was wa about Oil... other reasons were just use to legitimise it. I however, have a problem with the strategy to put the lives of defenceless women and children in danger because of oil. The war was never supposed to have been waged. Having said that, I am proud of our men and women in uniform there.
CRISP | 04/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
How could the profits/benefits of this alleged scheme be greater than 5 trillion dollars? The fact that the profits/benefits could not possibly be greater than 5 trillion brings forth a few possibilities. 1)these scheming neo-conservatives aren't too bright and none of them can do the math. 2)the war is not about oil and this plan is just a liberal rumor.
yngster | 04/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
By the way, I think you give George W. Bush too much credit. Do you actually believe that he has the intelligence to pull off such a scheme?
yngster | 04/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
P&L, hate to break it to ya, but nobody give's a rat's **** what you think. All you do is parrot Dem talking points. And poorly. You do your party a disservice every time you write something. Yngster, what about the notion that some considerable portion of that $5T benefited people Bush and Cheney are in league with?
majestik | 04/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
On your first comment. I do not really want to go into a lecture on capital budgeting. 2 words though: REAL OPTIONS--you are a college student? finance major? It might make sense to you. Say, as you claim, that the current outlay is $5 trillions, the rebuilding of Iraq will (is already) be financed with oil money over, say, a present value of 500 billions 10-20 years (I am making up numbers here...moot point, see what's next). Still you are far from the 5 trillions. The additional huge value of this capital project comes from options to enhance our geopolitical, economical and financial interest in this oil producing region(can't be quantified accuratly, though look at figures in, say, the $100 trillions range, maybe more...I don't know). Iraq might be ranked 10th among oil producing countries, it is 4th in oil reserves. Knowing that Saudi Arabia is tapping into the last 5% of quality oil (low sulfur oil), the interest in Iraq is ENORMOUS. Factor in $5 trillion spent in weak dollars, and a barrel of oil that can reach $150-200 (it closed today above $117.48; we are getting closer and closer to 200!). In fact, I will go further: If we spend 4, 5 or 10 times what we already spent; the capital project (war in Iraq) is still profitable! On your second comment: I don't really care about Bush, he is a puppet (Chesney is much smarter). I don't care about liberals, this a debate between conservatives ;-). I can't have this discussion with a liberal, the debate would go nowhere (economic interest and better good Vs. touchy feelings...muted debate).
Donkey DooZoo | 04/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
Yep, I'm a finance major. that was a good guess. good debate. congrats on your victory.
yngster | 04/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
Post A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th PresidentThe Brazen Pirates of Somalia
This year, close to 90 ships have been seized in and around the Gulf of Aden, more than triple the number of 2007
(Jason R. Zalasky / US Navy / EPA )
Donkey- facts are much better than wild speculation.
Pablo the Great | 04/17/08
Report Offensive Comment