|
|
 |
| |
|
jvstr
Veteran
offline
Registered: Nov 2003
Local time: 06:15 AM
Location:
Posts: 424
|
It's Not a War for Oil
By Thomas W. Lippman
The failure of the Bush administration to articulate a compelling rationale for a potential war with Iraq is having a pernicious global side effect: It is fostering the belief that such a conflict would be a "war for oil" and therefore an exercise in imperialism, not an exercise in security.
This view is widely held in the Arab world, where commentators argue that the United States must be expecting instability in Saudi Arabia to compound the instability in Venezuela, and is therefore looking elsewhere for ensured oil supplies. It showed up in the signs and shouts of the antiwar demonstrators who came to Washington last weekend: "No blood for oil!" "We don't want your oil war."
The oil-industry connections of President Bush and Vice President Cheney reinforce the presumed oil rationale. Some proponents of the oil theory also cite the "Carter doctrine," in which President Jimmy Carter proclaimed that the United States would protect its access to Persian Gulf oil by "any means necessary, including military force." The Carter doctrine, however, was inspired by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and was directed against "outside" forces, namely Moscow; it was not about the governance of the Persian Gulf countries themselves.
Even a perfunctory acquaintance with the realities of the global oil market would indicate that the "oil war" theory does not stand up to analysis. As an imagined rationale it doesn't square with the facts; and in the unlikely event that it actually does factor into the administration's thinking, it is a specious argument that cannot justify sending American forces into combat.
First, if the United States felt compelled to increase its access to oil from Iraq, it could do so by getting the U.N. Security Council to lift the economic sanctions that restrict Iraqi output -- no bloodshed necessary. Iraq's oil would flow freely into the global market, contracts already signed with Russian and European companies would increase Iraqi production and, as a beneficial side effect, prices would decline as supplies increased.
Then assume the worst in Saudi Arabia: Militant anti-American extremists seize control of the government. Such rulers might refuse to sell oil directly to the American customers, but it's highly unlikely they would refuse to sell oil to anyone, because the country's other sources of income are negligible. Because the worldwide oil flow -- about 67 million barrels a day -- is fungible in a global market, the effect of such a move by Saudi Arabia against the United States would be minimal. To the extent that the Saudis shifted oil sales to customers in Europe or Asia, those customers would stop buying oil from wherever they get it now, and the United States could shift its Saudi purchases to those other suppliers.
It might be necessary to modify refinery runs to account for variations in oil quality, and shipping costs might increase with distance, but the overall impact would be tolerable.
Moreover, the record shows that even countries whose rulers are hostile to us are willing to sell us oil because they need the money. Saddam Hussein's Iraq itself sells oil to American consumers under the "oil for food" program. If the United States buys no oil from Iran or from Moammar Gaddafi's Libya, it is because we cut them off -- not because they cut us off. Libya would welcome the return of a petroleum relationship with the United States.
Finally, an American takeover of Iraq would not, in the long run, give the United States guaranteed access to Iraqi oil. A democratic Iraq might well decide that its future prosperity would be best served by a supply relationship with, say, China, now an importer of oil with rapidly growing demand. The days when industrialized countries acquired ownership of oil in producing countries are decades in the past. Conversely, a fragmented Iraq, breaking up along ethnic lines, might produce less oil than currently, rather than more.
As the U.S. military buildup around Iraq's perimeter accelerates, the Bush administration is obliged to make a persuasive case for war. It should also make clear what its motives are not.
Thomas W. Lippman, an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute, is writing a book on U.S.-Saudi Arabian relations.
|
12-01-2003 06:33 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
Charles
In the Now Guru
offline
Registered: Mar 2003
Local time: 09:15 AM
Location: NH-USA
Posts: 1139
|
| quote: |
| Who is to blame for "The failure of the Bush administration to articulate a compelling rationale for a potential war with Iraq"? At least on this point everyone must be in agreement that the US and UK governments must take the lion's share of the blame for this. |
I agree to a large extent. But of course they are at a disadvantage as the people who are actually doing the work, taking the risks, and of course making mistakes along the way. Quite honestly I have very little understanding of what is going on over there. Whether its being bogged down in a war that was over in a few weeks, to looting, to no electricity, etc, etc, the only things that covered are the negative sides. What "positive" reports do come out are usually hyperbolized BS from the media over anxious to be first with a story that sounds exciting.
| quote: |
| Because of the above failure oil, defense, imperialism, liberation, wmd, Al-Quida, terrorism, or whatever else anyone can think of can be used as a compelling argument both for and against the war. |
I would also fault heavily other word leaders who do nothing to leverage their power/authority to counter these claims.
For shame!
|
12-03-2003 07:48 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
Charles
In the Now Guru
offline
Registered: Mar 2003
Local time: 09:15 AM
Location: NH-USA
Posts: 1139
|
| quote: |
| I do find it interesting that you attack left wingers for basically being right if in a slightly wrong headed way. Good idea don't let those lefties get away with being right! |
I don't attack left wingers, I just think they are naive, misguided, and stupid.
There is a fundamental difference between accepting the fact that one of the primary reasons that the US overthrew Saddam was to get rid of a bastard who destabilized the region that was critical to the entire world (and the Iraqi's), and painting Bush out as an evil mogul out to pillage Iraq.
The fact that Saddam is a brutal bastard megalomaniac who murdered his people and attacked his neighbors, pursued WMD's, supported terrorism, etc., are just a few more of the many legs that the logic behind overthrow stands upon.
And just to make it clear, the left is wrong. Saddam was wrong. Getting rid of Saddam was right. Just because you use the word "oil" in a sentance, and I use the word "oil" in a sentance, doesn't mean I agree with your conclusions AT ALL.
|
12-03-2003 11:07 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
h@ts
INReview Maven
offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 02:15 PM
Location: england
Posts: 3938
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Charles
I don't attack left wingers, I just think they are naive, misguided, and stupid.
There is a fundamental difference between accepting the fact that one of the primary reasons that the US overthrew Saddam was to get rid of a bastard who destabilized the region that was critical to the entire world (and the Iraqi's), and painting Bush out as an evil mogul out to pillage Iraq.
The fact that Saddam is a brutal bastard megalomaniac who murdered his people and attacked his neighbors, pursued WMD's, supported terrorism, etc., are just a few more of the many legs that the logic behind overthrow stands upon.
And just to make it clear, the left is wrong. Saddam was wrong. Getting rid of Saddam was right. Just because you use the word "oil" in a sentance, and I use the word "oil" in a sentance, doesn't mean I agree with your conclusions AT ALL. |
naive, misguided, and stupid - the same could be said of the right. They were naive to beleive an Iraqi insurgence wouldn't occur. The history was there for all to see. It's still too early to get a clear picture where the occupation is going but it wasn't, despite what people say, what the Bush administration expected.
Misguided expectations and only listening to views that backed up those expectations, ie the information from the Iraqi exiles, and ignoring views that got in the way.
Stupid to get the whole pre-war PR exercise so badly wrong and stumble from one excuse to another when both world-wide and UN support wasn't forthcoming. If we in the West didn't believe, multiply that by a hundred to get an idea of how the Arabs see it and all that that entails.
Iraq's not the cake-walk the right thought it would be and it's only just begun. One more thing - I haven't heard anyone, left or right say that the world would be a better place if Saddam was still in power, although I don't feel one bit safer now he's gone, but then that's all part of the the terrorist argument.
Last edited by h@ts on 12-03-2003 at 11:55 PM |
|
12-03-2003 11:49 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
oneofpeace
INReview Maven
offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 09:15 AM
Location: United States
Posts: 3972
|
A little lesson for those that obviously are not either aware of or choose to ignore.
The US is 12th in the world for oil reserves, yet we're 1st in consumption consuming 19.998 million barrels a day, way up from the 70's. The energy crisis during the 70's was a wake up call that at first glance would appear that we've unfortunately have fallen back to sleep on but not so. It's all about oil companies making $$$$. Our dependency on oil is tantamount to an addict?s dependency on drugs and has the ability to cripple this nation and Carter knew it as well as every succeeding president. So it's vitally important to keep the world flowing with an abundant supply to keep oil companies rich and the US economy operating normally.
This article is misleading, why? Because they know fully well that Saddam was our enemy. He even tried to initiate another OPEC boycott on this country knowing that it would cripple us. They also know that Iraq alone would not immediately interrupt US operation, but let?s say Saudi Arabia for one of the reasons mentioned above that started this thread came reality and they halted or slowed down the oil flow. Then Saddam knowing this decides to do the same. This would have devastating affects on our economy and way of life. Gas prices would shoot through the roof. We already know Saddam wouldn?t bulk at the chance to do this. This is also why Bush buried that report on who was responsible for 9/11. It was a plane full of Saudis remember? Bush neatly tucked it away.
Those of you that are in the computer world know about fault tolerance. Well this is exactly that. To keep things going you must have a backup ready to spring online when the mains go down. Saddam was not US friendly. If anything happens in that region, he would be the first to jump on the bandwagon to hurt the US even further.
Like every other preceding president, Bush knowing this had to get Saddam out of there because that was his most direct threat against us. No one has even come close to mentioning it. Bush also had too many other temptations not to do it, and the perfect alibi to justify it to the US under the guides of ?fighting terrorism? AND WE FELL FOR IT!!!!
Look, the US's dependency on oil is the Superman's kryptonite. This is exactly why we stay in those regions to assure that the flow of oil continues smoothly. We were in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and now Iraq installing a US friendly government there. The 3 riches oil reserves in the world. This is called suring up the wall people plain and simple. The added attraction for Bush is that he and his Cheney gang (pun intended) can make millions in the process.
Wake up and smell the oil. Is this war about oil? You bet your life it is. We certainly need to keep the flow at pace with our consumption which increases with each passing year, but I draw the line when we lie to do it and so many of our troops are dying in the process. We here are so na?ve, but it?s that way because we have been lied to for so many years and sheltered from real world events that to us only exists on CNN.
Wake up dear people. The oil is brewing. I hope one day it just doesn?t spill over and burn us beyond recognition.
|
12-04-2003 02:28 AM
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
jvstr
Veteran
offline
Registered: Nov 2003
Local time: 06:15 AM
Location:
Posts: 424
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by frenchfries
For example, why was the minister of oil never attacked and was the only minister protected of lootings? |
You just answered the first question part of your question with the last part of your question.
The Oil Ministry was protected, along with the oil fields, for the obvious reason that that is the bread and butter of Iraq.
| quote: |
Originally posted by frenchfries
Where goes the money of the oil? |
Iraq oil sales watchdog board gets down to work
Reuters, 12.03.03, 5:37 PM ET
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 3 (Reuters) - A new international watchdog agency gets down to work on Friday ensuring that U.S. authorities in Baghdad are spending Iraq's oil in an open and appropriate manner, U.N. officials said on Wednesday.
A May 22 U.N. Security Council resolution created the International Advisory and Monitoring Board, to ensure Iraq's secretive U.S.-led civil administration was not engaged in any hanky-panky in marketing Iraq's oil and using the money to rebuild the strife-torn country.
International law allows Iraq's U.S. and British occupiers to use the oil money only for the benefit of the Iraqi people and bars any long-term marketing commitments.
It took more than four months of haggling over the watchdog's powers before it could begin its work. The dispute between Iraq's U.S. administrator, Paul Bremer, and officials of the four international agencies with seats on the board centered on its reach and independence.
The ground rules that finally emerged empowered the board to audit oil and gas exports, the Iraqi Central Bank account where oil revenues are to be deposited, and all disbursements from the Development Fund for Iraq which is authorized to spend the oil revenues.
Diplomats said the board would use the Friday meeting at U.N. headquarters, its first, to organize its work.
IMF senior adviser Bert Keuppens, U.N. Controller Jean-Pierre Halbwachs and World Bank Controller Fayezul Choudhury will hold three of the board's four seats, the United Nations said. A representative of the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development had not yet been named.
According to the Web site of the Coalition Provisional Authority administering Iraq, $2.5 billion in oil sale proceeds and $3.2 billion left over from the now-defunct U.N. oil-for-food program had been deposited into the Development Fund for Iraq as of last Friday.
Another $540 million in Iraqi funds recovered from foreign bank accounts was also deposited in the fund, the CPA said.
A total of $1.5 billion had been spent so far on electricity and oil equipment, wheat, other items and the Finance Ministry budget, the CPA said, without giving details.
--JV
|
12-04-2003 04:01 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
MrJukoVette
In the Now Guru
offline
Registered: Feb 2003
Local time: 09:15 AM
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2548
|
Not only leftwingers are usually naive, misguided and stupid, but they think they are poop of the world and think they know everything. Like the truth behind Bush's "oil imperialism". Oh God...
Anyways, coming back to the subject, I as a pro-war person, ADMIT that there are going to be many more problems in addition to current ones, like instability and attacks, humanitarian and social problems, etc. It is going to take time to find out where did the weapons disappear, where did all the billions Saddam got from oil-for-food go, and it is going to take even more time to finish the job and let iraqis live a good life. Maybe it will take 3, 5, okay - 10 years for the US to accomplish it's mission, the bottom line is, so far US keeps doing what they promissed to do - liberate, rebuild, fight terrorists.
|
12-05-2003 06:42 AM
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
USA1
INReview Maven
offline
Registered: Mar 2003
Local time: 08:15 AM
Location:
Posts: 4322
|
We don't need the oil. We could save a lot of money by just getting out of the UN.
The United States gives out $13.3 billion tax dollars in direct Foreign Aid annually. The United States is above and beyond the single most generous benefactor of the United Nations, donating $2.4 billion dollars of YOUR money, to primarily third-world dictators.
This amount is 25% of the United Nations budget. In addition, the United States also gives another $1.4 billion tax dollars to United Nations' programs and agencies. The American taxpayers fund more for the United Nations than ALL of the other 177 member nations COMBINED.
What most Americans do not realize is that the vast majority of the recipients of the of US Foreign Aid routinely vote against the wishes of the United States in the United Nations at an average rate of 74%. In other words, of the $13.3 billion tax dollars invested in direct Foreign Aid only about 26% or $3.5 billion went to support people who! endorsed American initiatives or causes. A staggering $9.8 billion tax dollars went to causes and people who were and are in open and direct opposition to the United States' interests and objectives.
Listed below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations' records:
Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time.
Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time.
Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time.
United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.
Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.
Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.
Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.
Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.
India votes against the United States 81% of the time.
Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.
Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.
US Foreign Aid to those that hate us:
Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.
Jordan votes 71% against the United States and receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
Pakistan votes 75% against the United States receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
India votes 81% against the United States receives $143,699,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
Perhaps it is time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay the taxes.
|
12-05-2003 02:08 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
oneofpeace
INReview Maven
offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 09:15 AM
Location: United States
Posts: 3972
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by sayzak21
oneofpeace, can you provide me with a list of possible oil companies in America or anywhere else who could get the contract, and then convince me why they should have it rather than Halliburton? I'm listening.
And don't you think it's silly to bomb a country just for oil? ...etc |
Sayzak are you under the impression that Halliburton is the only contractor qualified to do the job in Iraq? Do you not know that some republicans are calling for an investigation into the way Bush awarded the contracts to Halliburton?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/052103B.shtml
I know you may not want to hear from this link, but it's still informative although it's coming from a leftist org.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000737.html
Just sift through the typical opinion and read the facts
As for bombing Iraq for its oil, you have to see deeper than the surface when this allegation is being made. Let me try and make it a little clearer without being lengthy if possible 
Over the last 4 decades, the US has become very heavily dependant on oil. The embargo in the 70's pointed to a weakness this country has in its dependency. As a result, our government knew we had a real problem on our hands, one that could devastate this country.
When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1980, it was presumed that they were going after the oil in that region. They were our major enemy then and tensions were high because of the cold war and communism vs. democracy. Jimmy Carter then said he would defend this countries interests to its fullest, even militarily if necessary because he knew the impact this would have here should Russia control the worlds oil reserves.
Since the 70?s we?ve forged political relationships with the Arab world, mainly the oil reserved states. We did not want a repeat of the early 70?s. Iraq was our ally then because we had a common foe, Iran. This is when Saddam acquired his knowledge of chemical weapons manufacturing because we provided him with the knowledge on how to do it, knowing he would use them against Iran, but that?s another story.
The US has become over the next 2 decades the most oil consuming country in the world.
Instead of us learning from the 70?s, greed went after the dollar and oil companies made billions. It deepened our dependency on oil. Because of this, we have to at all cost keep the world flowing naturally with oil. This is why we forged relationships with both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The only other oil rich country was Iraq, and they were not US friendly by the late 80?s because Saddam was betrayed by the US during the war with Iran. Because Iraq?s ability to upset the balance of the world due to its resources, and because of ever increasing strains in our relationships, this was a major concern for the US.
Now cutting to the chase.
We needed Saddam out because he would undoubtedly hurt us if he ever was in position to do so. This is why the US pressed the issue with Iraq from the 90?s on. We were the forging force behind every resolution against Iraq to date. It wasn?t a matter of simply buying oil from Iraq, because Saddam was not trustworthy Before the last war, he promise oil in abundance to France Russia and China for their support against the US invasion. Does this suggest that we could do business or trust a government like that?
During the Gulf war, companies were lined up trying to get contracts from the US to rebuild Kuwait after the war. They knew they stood to make billions. Same here with the recent invasion. Companies were salivating at the opportunities to get into Iraq.
Bush had to secure Iraq for numerous reasons, none of which were second to ?fighting terrorism?. First we had to secure the world oil flow for our good. Secondly, there were billions to be made in the rebuilding process. Corporations were contributing Bush?s interest to the tune of millions. They knew he wanted to invade that country long before 9/11 which made it easier for him to do so. How do we worry about Saddam and chemicals in which he had no capacity to deliver them to the US, and we completely ignore N. Korea who kicked out UN Inspectors and has admitted it has nuclear weapons capable of hitting the US coastline? Many think our next invasion would happen in either Syria or Iran. Tell me, does this even make sense to you?
Consequently, Halliburton received the no bid contract to handle the Iraq?s oil situation. This administration said that they didn?t have time for the bidding process and awarded the contract to Halliburton before we even invaded Iraq prompting the need for explanation even among other republicans in Congress.
Halliburton has made to date 1.59 billion in the process. Now at the end of their contract, Bush extends it saying that because of rebels in Iraq, they don?t have time to award the contract to someone else. Halliburton stands to clear $2 billion easily before this is over with.
There?s much more, but now do you at least get the picture? We are not fighting terror in Iraq more than fighting for the dollars. This is why this war is about the oil in that region. It?s not about hauling it off on ships bound for the US. We?re under too many watchful eyes to do that, but it?s definitely about securing the oil flow to this country and making billions in the process while doing so.
|
12-05-2003 02:53 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
jvstr
Veteran
offline
Registered: Nov 2003
Local time: 06:15 AM
Location:
Posts: 424
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by sayzak21
Convince me why they should have it rather than Halliburton? I'm listening.
|
All of the nonsense you hear about Halliburton is because of Cheney's ties to the company. Leftists, especially communists, take that fact and try to spin it through a campaign of deceit and lies in a desperate attempt to undermine why Iraq was invaded, to undermine Bush, and, in the case of communists, to undermine the United States.
Halliburton is one of the few contractors in the world qualified to do the job in Iraq. Their contract currently stands at $1.5 billion, but may go up to $2 billion in the future.
Let's look at that $2 billion contract....
In 2002, Halliburton had a total of 455,000,000 shares outstanding:
http://www.halliburton.com/ir/ar/2002/equity1.html
Cheney owns approx. 433,000 shares of stock in Halliburton.
$2 billion / 455,000,000 shares = $4.3956 per share.
Assuming a 100% payout in dividends, Cheney would receive dividends of $1,903,295.
So, a war costing well over $100 billion dollars and hundreds lives was waged so Cheney could earn $1,903,295? I don't think so.
That isn't all. The above computations are wrong because the $2 billion is the amount of the contract... not the net income after taxes from the contract.
In 2002, Halliburton reported a net loss, but for the years 2000 and 2001, Halliburton reported a positive net income from operations:
http://www.halliburton.com/ir/ar/20...operations.html
Taking the highest percentage of net income to total revenue we arrive at 5% (for the year 2001). For the next calculation I won't use 5%, though. I won't even use 10%... I'll use 20%. Meaning that 20% of the $2 billion contract ends up as pure net income after taxes.
20% of $2 billion is $400 million.
$400 million / 455,000,000 shares = $0.8791 per share.
Assuming a 100% payout in dividends, Cheney would receive dividends of $380,650.
So, a war costing well over $100 billion dollars and hundreds lives was waged so Cheney could earn $380,650? I don't think so.
That isn't all, either.
What you'll never hear from one of these leftist/communist web sites and organizations is the results of an investigation done by the request of Senator Frank Lautenberg (Democrat-New Jersey).
The report concluded Cheney does indeed have a financial interest in Halliburton because of the 433,000 shares he owns and the deferred compensation he's received (arrangements made from before he was even VP). More to the point, though, is that Senator Lautenberg not only considered Cheney to be an honorable man.... he also acknowledged that the compensation received so far by Cheney from Halliburton has been donated to charity.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/09/25/new...cheney/?cnn=yes
--JV
|
12-05-2003 06:44 PM
|
|
|
| |
<
>
Copyright ?2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Page generated in 0.10017109 seconds (91.58% PHP - 8.42% MySQL) with 41 queries.
|
|
|
|
