[George Dickel]

and may not necessarily be the wrong reason.

Had Saddam Hussein not been kicked out of Kuwait and his army destroyed in 1991, I firmly believe he would control all the oil production in the middle east. He would have this control either through military occupation of the oil producing countries or by coercion from the threat of attack by WMD. He would have had the world by the you know whats. We could be paying $10.00 a gallon for gas. Think about how that would affect our economy. That was then, this is now and the industrialized world’s economy still depends on a steady flow of reasonably priced crude oil and the bulk of the world’s oil still comes from the middle east.

He has had 12 years to refine his capability for production of WMD and to rebuild his conventional forces, though not to the level they were in 1991. There may not be “hard proof” that he has these weapons but there is enough evidence to indicate he has them. There is “hard proof” he has missiles capable of delivering these weapons anywhere in the oil producing region and beyond. Through intimidation by the hint of using them on his neighbors, he could heavily influence the oil production levels and price for the crude. It would not be necessary to use a missile to deliver the warhead, it could be smuggled in and detonated with no “hard proof” he was behind it. He could also threaten to destroy the oil production of the other countries by targeting their oil fields if invaded by the UN or other forces. Destruction would not have to be permanent, just stop production long enough to cause a severe shortage of oil. It would take quite a bit of time to repair/re-drill oil wells and during that shortage how much economic damage would be done to the world economy? Does this sound a bad melodrama? Maybe I'm paranoid but trust is earned and Saddam hasn't earned it yet.

Our country got involved in World War II over oil. We cut off Japan’s supply and they attacked us to prevent the US from interfering with them taking it from other countries. Germany attacked Europe to obtain natural resources (oil primarily) and “living room” for the Germans.

And why are we not attaching North Korea because they have WMD? Duuhhh!!! They have no oil and are not a threat to the world ecomony.

[telewinz]

Oil is a good reason for me...its only one of the foundations of the American way of life. We can do without Mom's apple pie but not oil.

[Blackhawk]

George, your TF hatband's too tight.

Oil is the most basic commodity of the industrialized world. It doesn't take much imagination to tie every conflict from the 20th Century forward to oil.

However, it's a useful commodity, not a precious one.

[JohnBT]

"trust is earned and Saddam hasn't earned it yet"

I don't know anybody who trusts him. Who have you been talking to?

John

[Art Eatman]

Well, sure, in part about oil. Problem is, the idiot claque would try to have us believe it's all about awl, and it ain't.

What I find amusing about those who babble about the only reason is oil is that they are part of the same group that is anti-nuclear. On a comparison basis, France gets at least 76% of its electricity from nuclear power plants. Were we at the same level, our need for oil and natural gas would be much lower.

Another irony is that this same anti-war/anti-nuke crowd harps about the wonders of the wind generators of California. Now, these spend much of their useful lifespan not operating much due to maintenance problems. And, California, home of the anti-SUV haters, is a leader in new fossil-fuel electric generation which spew CO2 into the atmosphere.

Ah, I love the sound of hypocrisy in the morning! It smells like...Ignorance! Stupidity! Dementia!

:D, Art

[Quartus]

George Dickel? Wow! We don't see you very often, George. Pop in more, will you?


Now, these spend much of their useful lifespan not operating much due to maintenance problems

Depends which wind farm you're talking about, Art. Some of them do good work. Maintenance isn't the problem - the problem is that lots of small investors got into it as a tax shelter. The the tax rules were changed, and many were just left idle and written off. Others continue to be owned by individual investors who have neither the means nor the inclination to take care of them properly. If coal plants were maintained with the same indiffernce, it would not be pretty.

It really is a good idea, though. As a SUPPLEMENT to other sources.

[moa]

There is plenty of crude oil in world. More is found each day, it is just not drilled because there is plenty of cheap crude coming out of the Middle East and elsewhere like Canada, Mexico, Libya, Brunei, Venezuela, etc.

If Saddam had taken over or controlled the Mid-East oil and run up the price, the supplies would be produced elsewhere years ago.

Push come to shove, we could transform coal into petroleum products. We got about a 400 year supply of coal. The technology has been around for many decades. It is just too costly to do with the abundant supplies of crude worldwide available.

If we have a shortage of anything, it is refining capacity. I do not think a new refinery has been built in 20 years or so. Then we have all those stupid boutique gasolines that are required to be produced by law by various regions of the country. This puts a big strain on the refineries, decreases the supply of gasoline and raises its cost.

Something I found interesting yesterday at an Exxon station in Maryland. Diesel fuel was the same price as 93 octance gasoline.

[George Dickel]

JohnBT - The French are telling me to trust him and the Germans and a bunch of the British, the Chinese, all stellar nations every one of them. Why should I mistrust them? None other than Hans Blix says we should trust him. :rolleyes:

Blackhawk - Naw my hatband isn't on too tight, the HVAC system in our building has been broke for 3 weeks now and my desk is next to the windows on the west side of the building. Man has it been hot in here. I think I'm suffering from heat exhaustion. :D

Quartus - Thanks for the encouragement. I visit here every day and read and absorb. Just don't have too much time to post anything.

[Monkeyleg]

Welcome back, George Dickel. Haven't seen your name on a post since TFL.

If this were "all about oil," we would have lifted the sanctions on Iraq years ago so that Saddam could increase his production, which would have lowered prices.

For that matter, if this were AAO, we could have seized the Kuwaiti oil fields for ourselves.

I love all the arguments that attribute all sorts of ulterior motives to GW's war plans: it's a ploy to distract attention from the economy (hmmm, starting a war is a great way to notget the economy humming); it's payback for his dad (which explains why all of Bush Sr's advisors are/were against it); he's not diplomatically astute (ask Jacque Chirac about that one); he's not politically astute (call Algore for an opinion on that point).

No, GW is doing this because he honestly believes he's right. And so do I.

[moa]

Also, if the war and the subsequent "peace" go badly, Dubya's political career is over, and it may put the Republican party in an acute disadvantage.

Dubya has a lot riding on this war.

And, if he ignores the obvious threat of a possible or actual nexus between Iraq and international terrorists, and something really bad goes down, he is in the dumpster too.

This may be the model of future international conflicts. Rogue states arming fanatical terrorists with weapons of mass murder. Or, rogue states selling WMD weapons, materials and knowhow to other rogue states, such as North Korea selling nukes to Iraq along with the delivery systems.

[moa]

Actually, my biggest fear is that Dubya will go all "wobbly" if the war grinds on and there are significant casualities, both American an Iraqi civilians.

He has to see this through. He cannot turn a blitzkreig into a sitzkreig. Worse yet, he might decide to cut his losses, and cut and run. Not likely, but you never know. And, am not sure Colin Powell has much stomach for a lot of bloody business.

I got the impression that, if it were not for Powell, the Iraqi Republican Guard would be a memory left smouldering on the Highway of Death in 1991.

[Quartus]

If we have a shortage of anything, it is refining capacity.


BINGO!


I was a geology major when I first got out of the Army. (78) The career looked good as oil was short and exploration was hot.


Then we started finding oil. There's so much known about now that hasn't been touched that there just isn't any reason at all that we should be paying more than 1972 prices.


Oh, except for that regulation thing choking our abiliity to produce it economically.


Funny, the same crowd that is responsible for that is now crying boo hoos about a war that wouldn't be happening if we hadn't given the Arab nations this money and the power that comes with it.

[ahenry]

Well all I really want to know is, are we going to have a George Dickel at work and a George Dickel at home?

[bad_dad_brad]

George makes a good point, one I have often reminded folks of. The thing that makes Iraqi oil so attractive by the way, is that is so cheap to bring out of the ground. Cheapest oil anywhere.

Read the Pulitzer Prize winning novel: "The Prize" by Daniel Yergin for a good read on the politics and power of oil.

[EJ]

Oil --whatever--
We need to clean house out there--

[George Dickel]

"Well all I really want to know is, are we going to have a George Dickel at work and a George Dickel at home?"

Just George Dickel. On TFL for some reason I could not log in at work using my name and password used at home so I had to come up with George Dickel at work to be able to post from work. I probably did something wrong. Sometimes I amaze myself with my computer abilities.

[rebbryan]

the protesters said the last gulf war was about oil

[JoeSF]

Has N. Korea violated UN resoultions and a peace agreement it made with the United Sates, Great Britian and others?

[Quartus]

Sometimes I amaze myself with my computer abilities.

:D I love an honest man!

[George Dickel]

"Has N. Korea violated UN resoultions and a peace agreement it made with the United Sates, Great Britian and others?"

I believe they have. There was some kind of agreement that put UN cameras and observers at a nuclear facility in North Korea. They recently removed the cameras and either barred the observers or kicked them out of the country.

I think this was some kind of agreement with Clinton that we would provide a nuclear plant for power generation if they promised not to build nuclear weapons. :rolleyes:

It is a pretty well known fact that Kim Il and Kim Il Jr. are totally nuts but Clinton and the UN believed them. Where are these people when I have valuable interstate bridge properties for sale?

[CWL]

Nope.

Used to think that way until I looked at the numbers. The cost of this war is gonna cost 60-100Billion by the time it's through. And this doesn't include the bribes ...ah loans and subsidies we will be paying our allies like the Turks for hellping.

Even if we own every penny of Iraqs oil production for the next 10 years -and this won't happen, -we'll only break even after ~10 years. Is'nt the total reason.

The real reason we are doing this is global domination. We are telling all of our enemies (and our friends) to not mess with the USA anymore. This is a good thing for the USA strategically.

This is a message to the world to fear us. -since it is better to be feared than loved.

This is a message to our real friends/allies that we mean what we say.

This will put the Saudis in line for down the road-they won't be as dominant since the Iraqis have as much oil reserves as they do.

This will put us next to the Iranians -who are a bigger threat.

This will put us next to Syria -which is a terrorist country.

This will send a message to North Korea to think twice about inimidating us, after they see our military might.

This will send a message to China that we can defeat them in a war.

This will tell any future dictators that the USA will not be trifled with.

This will send a message to the UN and countries like France that their maneuverings are useless if they do not want to be our friends.

[Art Eatman]

Wuz just reading a StratFor artice to the effect that this Iraq episode is just one phase of the war started by Al Quaida against us, back in '93 and "updated" on 9/11. It will give us a useful base in the MidEast where we won't depend on the goodwill of any Arab country, and our very presence will shift the political balances in many.

Any "wimping" in this Iraqi deal will result in a total loss of influence in the MidEast, much worse than our loss of face in Somalia.

Art

[twoblink]

If we go broad enough; 9/11 was about oil.

It's a bit late regardless;

What's that up in the sky? It's a bird!! It's a plane! It's a Daisycutter!! :D

[ahadams]

by military force, we could have done so much easier by simply pulling all of our forces back home and pointing them north. Canada has more oil than the Saudis and the Kuwaitis combined. And it's not like their armed forces could stop us...

that one usually jams the gears of liberals - most of them haven't thought this through - at which point you can explain that this is because the inherent cryptoracism in socialist/"progressive" thought assumes that all needed natural resources are primarily controled by 3rd world countries.

try it sometime...it's great to see them go into overload like that!:D

[CampX]

To rewrite a famous quote...."It would be suicide to attack Canada because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass"........
Come and try me, oh Great Friend and lover of Freedom, Liberty, and Justice of the South. Piddlin' hypocrite.
:banghead:

[Cal4D4]

Re: Art Eatman's post on an advanced mid east base...China just figured that out and wants us to stop NOW.

[fallingblock]

That rifle BETTER be on your new gun registry database...
Chretien is trying to keep you safer, you know?:)

[ojibweindian]

CampX

What does Canada have that we Americans could possibly want and don't already have?

You can keep Canada. The fishing and hunting aren't THAT great.

[Art Eatman]

CampX, based on reading your response, you totally misinterpreted the point of ahadams' post.

And, hey, here's the deal: We come clean out Ottawa, and we'll give you Arizona's or Texas' gun laws in place of yours, okay? :D And buy the oil.
Separately, CampX: In your privately-owned-land oilfields, is the owner of the land the owner of the oil? Does he receive a royalty on production?

Art

[buzz_knox]

And why are we not attaching North Korea because they have WMD? Duuhhh!!! They have no oil and are not a threat to the world ecomony.

Respectfully, you're not looking at the facts. Are they a threat to the world economy? Well, given the fact that Japan and South Korea are both critical players and within easy striking distance, yes! NK is very much a threat to the world economy.

As for why we aren't attacking them, here's a few reasons you might not have considered:

1. they already have nukes and delivery systems; Iraq was developing them.

2. NK has a major ally (and threat) in the form of China right next door which has a tendency to ride herd on them, precluding any form of extremely aggressive action on the part of NK. Basically, the Chinese do keep them on a bit of a long leash but it's there. China doesn't want them going nuclear either, and will turn that area into a new province (and/or parking lot) if necessary, because China wants to protect trade just as much as we do. No one believes that anyone is performing a similar function where Sodamn Insane is concerned.

[moa]

China has to be concerned with a nuclear armed Japan, and maybe South Korea and Taiwan.

North Korea's actions and attitude may force others to have their own nukes as deterence. Japan probably could have a nuke in no time at all.

[Quartus]

I'm a fool for trying, I know, but I'll try anyway.


CampX, adams was not suggesting that the United States should invade Canada and take the oil. He was not suggesting that such an act would be morally justified, or in any way A Good Thing.


He was using that example to point out to liberals that their accusation that the Iraq war is "just about oil" is nonsense. Liberals believe that G. Bush is evil, cares nothing about killing people (or mayby enjoys it) and wants nothing but to enrich the oil companies by taking oil from Iraq. They say he doesn't care about world opinion, either.

adams was pointing out that, IF all that were true, we could acheive GW's objectives much more cheaply by taking Canada's oil. It's closer, so the invasion is easier and cheaper, and transporting the oil afterward would be cheaper and easier. There's no threat of chemical or biological weapons to face, and though the Canadian soldiers would probably not amuse us with mass surrenders, they are still not a formidable foe for the U.S. military.

So this silly example shows that the liberal's accusations are ridiculous.

See? No threat to invade Canada - just a ridiculous example to demonstrate the absurdity of the liberals' accusations.

Now you two kiss and make up! :)




Y'know, though, after thinking about it, maybe it's not such a bad idea. Your socialists have sure messed up a nice country.

:neener:


KIDDING! I'M ONLY KIDDING!

:D

[buzz_knox]

Japan definitely has the capability to make nukes, if they don't have them already. But Asia remembers all too well what Japan is like with a powerful military, and would react . . . harshly to the thought of Japan flexing her muscles again, especially with nukes.

[cuchulainn]

Two observations (made more in reaction to public debate than anything people in this thread have said):

1) If this is about oil, that doesn't preclude other reasons, including ridding Iraq of WMDs and liberating the Iraqi people. This isn't a "choose-one-answer-only" quiz. You cannot say, "Aha! I have evidence this is about oil; therefore, the other reasons are not true!"

2) So what if we treat North Korea differently than Iraq? This is international relations, and a nation is not required to act like a kindergarten teacher using a ruler to make sure each piece of cake is exactly the same shape and size. We do what is in our best interest regardless of one action seeming to contradict another, and that's a good thing IMHO. The idea of equal-treatment fairness in international relations would not only be naive, it could be deadly and thus unethical.

And in a similar vein, who says we have to address North Korea at the same time in order to make the Iraq war credible? We can wait as long as we see fit ... nothing wrong with that.

[Quartus]

Noicely said, guv'nor! Noicely said!


And that last point is something I should have thought of a long time ago, but didn't.



As for Japan getting nukes...

I think if China thought that Japan had or were about to get nukes, they just might go ballistic - literally. A pre-emptive strike. They remember the Rape of Nanking.

It's funny to watch their home grown war movies - with N. Korea as the noble defenders of whatever, and the evil Americans dying like cowards. They seem to have an attitude of, "All of the Orientals are our brothers, except those creeps on that island chain over there." They have an especially close bond with Korea - north and south, but they look kindly on the Vietnamese, Thais, etc., as well.

I don't doubt that the Japanese have the technological prowess to build nukes rather quickly, but that would be a match in a powder room!

[Hazwaste]

And the 1980 Olympic boycott was all about peanuts.

[moa]

Also, North Korea is playing nuclear blackmail with the US. They want unilateral discussions so they can weedle out more concessions. The US is not buying, and should not.

The only discussions we will agree to now are multi-lateral with all the players in the region attending.

The North Koreans cannot be trusted anyway. They agreed for a price to shut down their plutonium producing reactor under UN supervision while at the same time they are secretly enriching weapons grade uranium.

Any agreement with them is worthless.

And where is the UN on this? Technically there is a state of war between North Korea an the UN. Only a cease fire is presently in place.

[Quartus]

Any agreement with them is worthless.



Any agreement with any communist or any other dictator is worthless.