[larryw]

I was reading a thread on battle rifles and noticed that one member had a "No war for oil" sig line.

So I ask, what are your thoughts? (Apologies if we've already been over this turf, I didn't see it.)

I'll start. I don't think the war is about oil (if it was, why did we return the oil fields captured in our last foray there?), but even if it was, its OK with me.

Oil is a key and critical part of our way of life, security and freedom. Oil makes it possible to feed our population (think the farmer who grows the corn picks up the thousands of pounds of seed on his rickshaw and harvests his crop with an ox?). Oil gives us the mobility (freedom) that is the envy of the rest of the world. The list goes on and on, but I gotta go burn some so I can get to work to earn a living to feed and shelter my family.

[MonkeyMan]

If the impending war with Iraq is for oil then World War 2 was for sauerkraut and sushi (and a little pasta). The largest supplier of oil to the United States is:

wait for it:

Canada.

:neener:

[PATH]

Why don't we go to war with Canada! :neener:

[JohnBT]

Geez, you want to make Canada a state and give them the vote here after what they've done to socialize their country? Please reconsider :)

John

[jmbg29]

Geez, you want to make Canada a stateNo, I want to make it a parking lot.

Then we could tell the world "That's what we did with our socialist neighbors. You still want a piece of this?!" :evil:

Oh yeah, if this were about war for oil, we could take Me'he'co in one long afternoon and Vene'weh'la in about 12 hours (takes a little longer to get there).:evil:

[Malone LaVeigh]

Once more into the breach.

It's not so much a war for oil as a war for control of oil. It doesn't matter where we get our oil, though I believe the statement about Canada is incorrect. Oil is traded on a world market and the price is determined by supply and demand. In the 1990s, Iraq, through the limited "Oil for food" program and some smuggling was able to dump enough oil on the world market to drive the price of a barrel from about $30 to about $10. Cheap energy is, of course, a stimulant to the economy in general.

The stupid thing about this is that Saddam would be happy to glut the world market again. Functionally, there is little if any difference between Saddam or some US-friendly junta controlling Iraq. The difference is that Saddam interferes with US plans for global hegemony and the balance of power with our chief surrogate in the ME, Israel.

So it's about control of resources, just like most acts of naked aggression throughout human history. It's understandable, if reprehensible.

[ReadyontheRight]

Geez, you want to make Canada a state

We can call them "Seriously North Dakota"



I guess it is a war to stabalize oil supplies. It's also a war to reduce the likelyhood of terrorism against the USA and also to save a subjugated people from arbitrary torture and murder. Saddam seems particularly nasty at torture and his sons are now taking over.

The UN study criticizing torture and human rights abuses in Iraq was published when?

(drum roll please):
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
September 2001.

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/0321hmn.htmIn a report issued September 2001, the United Nations Special Rapporteur, who monitors human rights conditions in Iraq for the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and U.N. General Assembly, criticized the Iraqi regime for "the sheer number of executions" taking place on political grounds. It also noted an increase in the execution of persons under the loosely defined offense of "sabotaging the national economy" and to reduce the excessive prison population. Iraq made no attempt to answer allegations of extrajudicial killings, investigate such abuses or identify and punish the perpetrators.

[Leatherneck]

I agree with malone's first and third paragraphs. :o

But this defies credulity Functionally, there is little if any difference between Saddam or some US-friendly junta controlling Iraq.
Apart from the nerve gas thing, right?

TC
TFL Survivor

[12.7x99mm]

I want cheaper gas!

[Hkmp5sd]

Funny thing happened on the way to the gas station. As a result of sanctions against Iraq, the US was not buying ANY oil from Iraq. None. Zip. Nadda. Then comes along the "2 for the price of one" presidents called Klinton. Need a little campaign money? Boom. We are now buying oil from Iraq. Imagine that.

[10-Ring]

I don't think impending war w/ Iraq is over oil. The gov't has already stated that a post Saddam Iraq will need the $$ their oil production generates to help rebuild. I believe this war is to eliminate an evil in this world before it gets too strong and out of control.

[Selfdfenz]

"Functionally, there is little if any difference between Saddam or some US-friendly junta controlling Iraq."

Malone did you really think about that comment before you made it? Isn't "a difference" implicit in your own comment?


S-

[El Tejon]

As much as I mistrust Bush, I cannot see how it he would launch an attack on Iraq just for the sake of cutting out the Euros oil money. If we just want to exercise raw power just to exercise it as some in Europe fear, then aren't there a dozen different ways to do so?

[Malone LaVeigh]

Malone did you really think about that comment before you made it? Isn't "a difference" implicit in your own comment? <Sigh> Read my post, guys. I was talking about the world oil market. Either, if given a chance, would glut the world oil market. Which, I suppose I should be for since it would essentially end the debate over ANWR and any other domestic oil development for a long time.

[Khornet]

and I saw what's inside. "US plans for global hegemony", eh?

[Malone LaVeigh]

"US plans for global hegemony", eh?As my kids used to say, "duh." Your point? I don't know how I could have made my opinion on that issue more clear.

[Khornet]

I mean that it's hard to take you seriously when you talk like Che Guevara.

[Malone LaVeigh]

I guess that makes us even...

[jmbg29]

Khornet, you Che Guevara you.:evil:

Sandi who?:p

[Kaylee]

"War for Oil" is as far as I can tell the rallying cry of the "Dem Evil Capitalist Pig" lemmings. They start with the presumption that Selfish Evil Capitalist Fatcats are pulling all the strings, and then seek for an explanation to justify that belief, however contrived. Sometimes they're right, of course.. this time I don't think so.

I'm finding myself in agreement with Malone here as far as the GLOBAL MARKET effects being little different between a US-friendly and an unsanctioned US-hating Iraq. Both would sell enough to lower the global market price. If anything, the oil interests benefit from a continuation of the status quo, with oil production artificially low out of Iraq, thus driving up everyone else's price.

Unless of course Saddam really were to create a Pan-Arab nation of sorts, that whole "New Babylon" or whatever it was said he was after. That might have some unpleasant economic consequences for 'em. Maybe.

Now, I WOULD believe that there's more than a little "they tried to kill my daddy" behind the CNC's dedication to this theatre. But that's not the point in question. At this point though I'll follow Tam's observations... we've rattled our sabre so much we're committed. Might as well get it over with, tear out the entire existing power structure, and install one that won't suck as much.

War without sticking around to manage the results gets ya another bigger war. It's like leaving an old thorn in the wound to fester.. you need to clean it ALL out and start fresh.


And finally... if it truly were "blood for oil" I'd not feel comfortable with that. Armed robbery is armed robbery, no matter on a personal or a national scale. But as I said... I don't think that's the case here.

-K


-K

[Thumper]

Malone,

What's "reprehensible" about a nation's elected leaders aggressively pursuing that nation's best interests?

I'm not talking about bombing babies here...I'm just trying to make the point that I want them to worry about me first.

The Iraq thing for me boils down to this:

*****************************

Would Hussein, given the opportunity to do so, cause massive casualties and civil unrest in the U.S?

If so, is there the SLIGHTEST POSSIBILITY that he might posses WMD?

*****************************
If you answer yes to both of these questions (perhaps even either) then it's a foregone conclusion that it's in our best interest to remove him.

Is my reasoning flawed?

[jrhines]

..and when mainland China moves on Taiwan (they may have WMD)...
..and when Syria moves on Israel (they certainly have WMD)...

[Art Eatman]

Funny thing about this worrying about Iraq and oil is that it's non-U.S.-oriented companies who will have the contracts. Regardless of the mouth-music out of France, Elf is one of the larger "oil-partners" with Iraq, right now. And then Russia is right in the middle of things, right now...

Question #1: If we brought all our armed forces out of the mideast, would Hussein quite working with Al Queda?

Question #2: If we brought all our armed forces out of the mideast, would Al Quaeda "quit and go home"? As in, refrain from killing the Infidels of the Great Satan?

Stipulate our foreign policy over the last 100 years has had us in bed with some sorry-trash rulers. If we "came home", is there some magic which would then protect us from existing hatreds?

Art

[Thumper]

I don't quite get your point, jrhines.

Are you saying that these other threats somehow diminish the threat from Hussein?

Or that they should be dealt with first?

Or that, since we haven't dealt with them (yet) we shouldn't deal with the Iraqi threat?

Yes, these countries have posed a threat for years. 9/11 was a dilineating factor. I hope the American public will no longer be complacent enough to simply "wait 'til they do something."

With WMD, the stakes are too high.

[triggertime]

12.7x99mm,

"I want cheaper gas!"

Eat more beans!

[44Caliber]

We must look at history! Hitler was allowed to run amok and launched a World War that killed millions. I praise our Pres. Bush for taking a stand despite the German and French leaders
44 Caliber

[rock jock]

Canada.
Not true. The No. 1 country from which we import oil is Saudi Arabia, for both 2001 and 2002. There is the top five (all figures in thousands of barrels):

Country 2001 2002
Saudi Arabia 17,983 16,426
Mexico 15,145 16,153
Canada 14,862 15,618
Venezuela 14,299 13,687
Nigeria 9,526 6,163

Canada is still up there, though. That surprised even me.

[Malone LaVeigh]

What's "reprehensible" about a nation's elected leaders aggressively pursuing that nation's best interests?
Well, plenty, if it amounts to theft. But more to the point, it's not in this nation's interest to go to war. It's in the interest of certain economic and political segments in this country, and brother, that doesn't mean you or me. Would Hussein, given the opportunity to do so, cause massive casualties and civil unrest in the U.S?

If so, is there the SLIGHTEST POSSIBILITY that he might posses WMD? No, what it boils down to is does he represent a credible threat? A lot of folks out there would do us harm, and may have the means to do so. I'm not convinced Saddam represents that threat. I see a bigger threat in what we might become if we follow through with this.
Question #1: If we brought all our armed forces out of the mideast, would Hussein quite working with Al Queda? It hasn't been shown that Hussein is working with Al Queda.
Question #2: If we brought all our armed forces out of the mideast, would Al Quaeda "quit and go home"? As in, refrain from killing the Infidels of the Great Satan?... If we "came home", is there some magic which would then protect us from existing hatreds? I thought about this a lot after 9/11. There's no easy answer. I think there will be further attacks and casualties whichever path we take. The difference is that a non-violent, international diplomatic response might start building good will in that part of the world and lead to a long-term peace. A military action will likely produce further enmity, worse complications and long-term repercussions, not to mention a human and environmental holocaust. So I disagree with Kaylee and Tamara also. I don't think it's ever too late to start looking for peaceful solutions. Neither way is without costs. Only one leads me in my mind to see any end in sight.

[Malone LaVeigh]

rock-jock, are you sure those are oil figures? Canada exports a lot of natural gas this way.

[Thumper]

Malone,

No.

So you don't think that there's the SLIGHTEST POSSIBILITY that SH has WMD?

Or were you simply rejecting the argument?

If so, I'd like an answer to the question.

Do you think there's that possibility, even if you consider it remote?

[Hkmp5sd]

ever consider there is an easier way to get the oil we want?

All be have to do is make a deal with Saddam and step back. He can then eliminate his fellow Arab states one at a time. As part of our deal, we naturally get really good oil prices once he is in control of the entire mid-east oil sources.

He's not Islamic, radical or otherwise. He doesn't really even care much about Arabs. I'm sure as part of the deal he would hand over every member of Al Queda in the world.

In addition, he would probably be more than happy to take out any other persons we wanted eliminated anywhere in the world. Want Castro toast? No sweat. Mexico causing too many problems? How about a new replacement government for them? Need 500,000 troops for cannon fodder to take out the North Korean nuclear capability? How about someone to smuggle in a fair sized nuclear bomb and decapitate the communist government in China? Perhaps someone to wipe out the PLO and then sign an Arab/Israeli peace treaty?

Plausible deniability is a wonderful thing.

Yep, it would be a whole lot easier for the US. Saddam wants power and money. Unlike Hitler or Stalin, he doesn't want to rule the world, just the Arab part of it.

[Sean Smith]

No, the war isn't for oil. It is a really stupid statement that mainly shows that the people spouting it off have no clue about anything... to include economics.

If Bush is an oil industry whore like all the slobbering leftists think, the last thing he'd want to do is lower the price of world oil by freeing up Iraqi oil exports. Doing so would lower world oil prices below the point at which U.S. oil can make a profit. The last time the U.S. oil industry bottomed out was when... world oil production was high and prices were low.

And if we just wanted oil and Iraq isn't a threat... why not just eliminate U.N. sactions and buy it all for cheap? Since all Bush wants is that oil. That we buy from countries other than Iraq. And would put all his buddies out of business if the price fell too much. :rolleyes:

[Malone LaVeigh]

Malone,

quote:No.

So you don't think that there's the SLIGHTEST POSSIBILITY that SH has WMD? You need to read the rest of the sentence. I have to give Bush credit for doing a masterful job of framing this issue. We all know Saddam had WMD. We all know he was uncooperative in getting rid of them. We all know he's had several years since the last inspector left. Now, I'm open to the possibility that he might be crafty enough to have actually gotten rid of them, but it's unlikely.

The question in my mind, and to most people in the rest of the world, is whether he represents a threat. We know he either wasn't willing or able to deploy any WMD in Gulf War I. We have good evidence that GW I and the first round of inspections eliminated about 90% of his capability. We know whatever he managed to squirrel away has just grown nore obsolete and ineffective since GW I. In other words, there is still plenty of time to let the diplomatic processes work.
If Bush is an oil industry whore like all the slobbering leftists think, the last thing he'd want to do is lower the price of world oil by freeing up Iraqi oil exports. The major oil (and related) companies stand to make tons off of the deal. Haliburton is already building military bases and oil facilities in the ME and the 'stans. As I said before, it's not about oil, it's about control of oil.

[Hkmp5sd]

We know he either wasn't willing or able to deploy any WMD in Gulf War I.

He wasn't willing to use WMD in the Gulf War because of two very important facts.

1. Him, personally, was never a direct target of the war. He knew that he was not going to be killed or removed from power.

2. He was told through back channels that in the event he did use WMD, the US would respond with nuclear weapons. This was a bluff, but it was also effective.

I'm not convinced Saddam represents that threat. I see a bigger threat in what we might become if we follow through with this.

Unless you are attending National Security Council meetings, being briefed by the CIA and Military Intelligence, it is unlikely you will ever be convinced.

Your information comes from two sources, either what the government specifically tells you or what the news media is peddling.

[Thumper]

The question in my mind, and to most people in the rest of the world, is whether he represents a threat. We know he either wasn't willing or able to deploy any WMD in Gulf War I.

Ah...the hint of possibility that he was simply unwilling. Malone, that's disingenuous at best.

You know as well as I do that Saddam didn't use chemical weapons in Gulf 1 because of our policy on retribution for the use of WMD. A new age MAD, I suppose...

Obviously, In this situation, that balance no longer holds true.

He'd love to get a haymaker in on the Great Satan, especially through an al Qaeda interemediary...plausible deniability and all that. Think he'd have any trouble finding volunteers?

[Silver Bullet]

What does this have to do with oil ?

The issue is whether or not Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and is willing or planning to use them on us, by itself or through a terrorist group. If so, the question becomes "Do we neutralize the threat before or after an American city gets nuked/anthraxed/smallpoxed?"

If we do it before a city gets destroyed, there will be millions of critics self-righteously criticizing us for invading Iraq without sufficient provocation (probably the same nit-wits who criticized Bush for not doing anything to head off September 11).

If we do it after a city gets destroyed, there will be millions of critics self-righteously criticizing us for not doing anything about it beforehand when we had the chance.

Either way, there will be no shortage of lame brains who will pretend they could have done better if they were in charge.

I have to respect Bush for his guts in taking on this issue (unlike one recent president). I just hope he really does have the evidence incriminating Iraq.

[bad_dad_brad]

Of course it is all about oil, that is, the hegemony over the mid-east oil in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The civilized world can not, will not, let irrational radical Muslims control this vital resource. 911 was the wakeup call.

The agenda of Osama and the radical Wahhabi and other Islamic fundamentalist sects is to obtain WMD and to control the oil in the region, so that they can build their backward version of a perfect fundamentalist Islamic world (do you remember what Taliban Afganistan was like).

Pakistan and Iraq are both critical targets in this agenda. Perhaps this article from the British publication "The Guardian" will enlighten vis a vis the business concerns of various countries besides the US regarding Iraqi oil.

You know folks, if Hitler would have had a strategic oil view of the world, we would all be speaking German today. Why do you think Japan took out Pearl Harbor? Because we cut off their Dutch East Indies oil over their war with China.

Besides this article, if you want to understand, just how important oil is to the world's economy, read Daniel Yergin's Pulitzer Prize winning book "The Prize". Yes, it is all about oil.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,845166,00.html

Over a barrel

The mother of all legal rows over who has the right to Iraq's lucrative oilfields is likely if the United States wins its war for the country itself

Tom Cholmondeley
Friday November 22, 2002
The Guardian

All the players in the current quarrel can agree on one thing - Iraq has the potential to become a great oil nation again. There is a huge gap between the trickle of oil coming out of Iraq today and its capabilities.

According to Opec, the entire world's known oil reserves run to 1,000bn barrels. Iraq claims a 10th of this, just over 100bn barrels. However, in an interview before the current conflict, Taha Hmud Moussa, then Iraq's deputy oil minister, said the oil "will exceed 300bn barrels when all Iraq's regions are explored". If true, this means Iraq has a quarter of the world's oil. The UK's North Sea reserves are 5bn barrels and we are the EU's largest oil producer. Iraqi's oil is not miles offshore under a treacherous sea. This makes it cheaper than the $3 to $4 barrel oil Britain produces - much cheaper.

John Teeling, head of one of the few western companies to admit to working in Iraq, is exultant. His Dublin-based company Petrel is keen to develop unexplored oilfields. This oil could cost as little as 97 cents a barrel. "Ninety cents a barrel for oil that sells for $30 - that's the kind of business anyone would want to be in," he says. "A 97% profit margin - you can live with that."

Last month, behind the closed doors of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, leading oilmen, exiled Iraqis and lawyers held a meeting entitled "Invading Iraq: dangers and opportunities for the energy sector". One delegate said the entire day could be summarised with: "Who gets the oil?" If America changes the regime you might expect US companies to get it. But it may be more complicated than that.

History can reveal much of how this may end. Iraq's oil was originally developed through a consortium called the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC) - split roughly a quarter share to BP, Shell, and the forerunner to Total, with the remainder owned mainly by Standard Oil and Mobil. But, in 1972, it was nationalised by the revolutionary Iraqi regime. Negotiations over nationalisation were fierce, and Geoffrey Stockwell, who headed the IPC team, had some extraordinary clashes with both Saddam Hussein and Iraq's vice-president, Salih Mahdi Ammash. Ammash said Iraq would "go through any battle with the companies that was necessary", and resort to "all means necessary". The companies would also "lose Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti oil because if their Arab brethren did not stand by Iraq, they would use force to stop this oil flow".

After a painful battle, the IPC finally signed the nationalisation agreement on February 28 1973. Today, if "regime change" happens, we could see three of the world's largest public companies - BP, Shell and ExxonMobil - fighting for their old IPC possessions.

Back in the 1970s, the IPC was compensated for its lost oilfields, and that would normally end any future rights they might have. However, they may well try to show that the compensation deal was signed under duress. An incoming Iraqi government could face a giant legal compensation case.

"If you argue there is something amounting to duress, then you could argue the compensation agreement is invalid," says Professor Thomas Wälde, formerly principal UN interregional adviser on oil and gas law. "If I were their [the companies'] adviser, I would develop this into a bargaining chip with the new government. It would play a role in the race for getting new titles."

The stakes are high. Iraq could be producing 8m barrels a day within the decade. The maths is impressive - 8m times 365 at $30 per barrel or $87.6bn a year. Any share would be worth fighting for.

The stakes are equally high for the French, Russians and Chinese. It is striking that the three countries which delayed America's new UN Iraq resolution all have potentially massive oil pacts there. Saddam is believed to have offered the French company Total Elf Fina exclusive rights to the largest of Iraq's oil fields, the Majnoon, which would more than double the company's entire output at a stroke. Meanwhile, Russia and China have sought various deals on the supergiant West Kurna and Rumaila fields respectively. Russian company Lukoil has been assured it will not lose its stake in the 20bn barrel West Kurna field.

Former CIA director James Woolsey, who is close to the Iraqi opposition groups, recently told the Washington Post: "It's pretty straightforward. France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq towards decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure the new government and American companies work closely with them. If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult, to the point of impossible, to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them."

Experts on international law seem not to be on Woolsey's side, however, and a new Iraqi government may have little choice but to work with Saddam's current friends. "The majority opinion is that if a government creates a [legal] title, it survives a change of government," says Prof Wälde. "The idea that all the Iraqi oil industry is now going to be sold to Exxon, say, or BP... is not going to work."

"Regime change does not change the acquired rights companies have in the area," says Doak Bishop, vice-chair of the Institute of Transnational Arbitration. "If the Russians and the French have legal rights in those fields, then a regime change would not oust them of those rights, but it could well get pretty messy."

Should "regime change" happen, one thing is guaranteed - shortly afterwards there will be the mother of all legal battles.

[Malone LaVeigh]

Ah...the hint of possibility that he was simply unwilling. Malone, that's disingenuous at best.

You know as well as I do that Saddam didn't use chemical weapons in Gulf 1 because of our policy on retribution for the use of WMD. A new age MAD, I suppose...

Obviously, In this situation, that balance no longer holds true. Read what you just wrote. If he was detered in the past by a sort of assured destruction (nothing "mutual" about it), what makes you think he has since become suicidal? You say "obviously" the "balance" no longer holds. Did you think before you wrote? There was and is no balance. If he did anything to us, he would be a dead man and he knows it. Why do you think he asked permission to invade Kuwait in the first place?
If we do it after a city gets destroyed, there will be millions of critics self-righteously criticizing us for not doing anything about it beforehand when we had the chance. I think SB has hit on the crux of the matter. There exists some real probability that some future acts of terrorism will occur against US interests. Bush has nothing to lose and everything to gain by starting a war. If nothing happens, he can take credit. If another act occurs, whether Iraq is blamable or not, he can at least say he did something. And by then everyone would have forgotten Iraq anyway and be focusing on the next bogeyman. Of course the truth is that a war just makes us more at risk, but that doesn't matter to him or to (almost) any other politician. Also, of course, the American troops he expends in the process don't matter either.

[Thumper]

Malone,

Um...How 'bout you reading what I wrote.

He'd love to get a haymaker in on the Great Satan, especially through an al Qaeda interemediary...plausible deniability and all that. Think he'd have any trouble finding volunteers?

That plausible deniability upsets that balance. Didn't think I'd have to explain that. Hence the "obviously..."

My fault for making poor assumptions concerning your cognitive skills. I'll try harder to explain in the future.

[bad_dad_brad]

A more comprehensive link from The Guardian about the subject of oil. Interesting reading.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/0,11319,608464,00.html

[Sean Smith]

Wow, what a great idea... give the evil oil companies the oil wells in Iraq so they can get nationalized again. I'm sure that would be very profitable, especially since the oil companies would need to spend billions of dollars to get Iraqi oil production back up to speed. So Iraq could take it back. It all makes sense to me now, your ideas are soooo smart... :rolleyes:

HINT: pretty much all the Arab oil countries at some point nationalized all the foreign oil production assets in their countries. They never gave them back, and it sure seemed to pay off pretty well for them. Why in the world would anybody think that, even if Bush was so stupidly obvious that he'd just give all the Iraqi oil to Exxon, that the new Iraqi government wouldn't just nationalize it the first chance that they got?

:confused:

As I said before, it's not about oil, it's about control of oil.

That's a meaningless statement. That's like saying "It's not about the sex, I just want to get laid whenever I want." :rolleyes:

Again: if we just wanted cheap oil, and the Iraqi threat was just a sham like the leftists claim, we'd just get the Iraqi sanctions lifted and let them export all the oil they wanted. World oil prices would fall like a rock and we could get all the oil we could want. Talking about controlling oil is meaningless when the market would it worth very little anyway. Sure, Saddam would spend all the money on VX and German and French-supported nuclear weapon development. But since those threats don't exist, and all we care about is cheap oil, they are a non-issue.

[Malone LaVeigh]

If I start replying in kind to you rude people, this thread is going to get yanked. I guess someone around here is going to have to take the high road, so it might as well be me.

Hence the "obviously..."Well, you can assert it and call it "obvious" all you want, but it still doesn't make it true. Let me make sure I get your argument right this time.:rolleyes: You're saying Saddam might have WMD that he's willing to turn over to his long-time avowed enemies on the promise that they'll use them against the US. (BTW, the "Great Satan" is an Islamic fundamentalist term for the US, so really doesn't fit for Saddam.) Now he also has to trust that they won't get caught and spill the beans or make a video tape bragging about it that will be found in some cave some day. All of this to get in a "Haymaker."

OK, now we have that clear...
Wow, what a great idea... give the evil oil companies the oil wells in Iraq so they can get nationalized again. I'm sure that would be very profitable, especially since the oil companies would need to spend billions of dollars to get Iraqi oil production back up to speed. So Iraq could take it back. It all makes sense to me now, your ideas are soooo smart...You're right, of course. I stand in awe of your irrefutable argument. To think that I thought that oil companies might want to have a hand in ME oil! Why we all know they learned their lesson when when the wells were nationalized in Iraq... and Iran, of course. I'm sure they've never given it another thought. they must have been awfully reluctant to go back into Iran after the CIA overthrew the last elected president and installed the Shah. Did it out of a sense of duty to the Iranian people, I suppose. The "white man's burden" and all that.

I'd be having fun with this if it wasn't so serious...

[jmbg29]

If one is about to be bitten by a deadly-poisonous snake, it matters very little as to what species of deadly poisonous snake it happens to be.


Daily Telegraph; 29/07/2001

Iraq builds 'Mother of all Battles' mosque in praise of Saddam
By Philip Smucker in Baghdad


SADDAM HUSSEIN has unveiled the latest weapon in his cynical campaign to use religion to bolster his dictatorship: the Mother of all Battles mosque.

The grandiose project, which shoots up into the sand-blown skies next to a modern motorway 15 miles outside Baghdad, bears the imprimatur of a man keen to preserve his tyrannical legacy in both blood and stone.


The mosque's towering minarets are built to resemble ballistic missiles sitting on launch pads and its 605-page Koran has been written, the Iraqi propaganda machine boasts, with Saddam's own blood. Its name comes from his famous description of the Gulf war.

The Scud-shaped minarets (complete with launch platforms) on the mosque's perimeter are 37metres (120ft) high; there are four more minarets next to the mosque's dome that resemble huge machinegun barrels, each 28 metres (93ft) high. Taken together, the numbers 37-4-28 give the date of birth of the megalomaniacal leader.

Most striking is the dubious and totally unverifiable claim that Saddam donated nearly 50 pints of his own blood for the writing of a Koran. All 605 separate pages of dark red Arabic script, as seen by The Telegraph, have been encased in glass in a rotunda inside the mosque.

Dahar Al-Ani, director of information for the mosque, said: "Over three years, the president gave us a total of 28 litres of his own blood which has been mixed with chemicals to produce this hand-written Koran of 605 pages."

Western diplomats based in Baghdad are unimpressed with the Iraqi leader's religious devotion, dismissing the mosque and its holy book written in blood as a crude publicity stunt. "How can we be sure this is Saddam's blood and not that of some of his victims?" one asked.

The construction of the mosque is the latest phase of the Iraqi government's "Faith Campaign" that opposes religious freedom and has included assassinations of religious leaders.

One diplomat said: "Saddam is just supporting his ideology with religion. He plays the religious card just to stay in power."

After the Gulf war, Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Muslim, suppressed a revolt led by the majority Shi-ite groups in the South. Then in 1994, the president, looking to bolster his image as a good Muslim, banned alcohol and encouraged more mosque building.

Large murals and bronze statues of Saddam praying are as common now days across Iraq as pictures of him shooting guns and patting small children on the head. Prisoners in Iraq can reportedly obtain early release by memorising long passages from the Koran.

At the Umm El-Mahare (Mother of all Battles) mosque, there is a massive water and stone relief map of the Arab world. Iraq is represented by a large rock carved with the faces of "martyrs" who gave their lives in the "Mother of all Battles".

Iraqi officials say that the all-Iraqi-built mosque and the holy shrine housing the Koran have been constructed to prove to the world that Iraq can continue to defy American and British efforts to impose their "imperial will" in the Middle East.

The huge dome of the mosque is inscribed in Arabic lettering with the word "La", meaning "No" in Arabic. "This is the biggest 'No' ever given to the Americans," said Mr Al-Ani proudly.

Iraq's long-suffering citizens could draw a different message, however. The reality is that Saddam has again diverted much-needed public money to finance one of his pet projects while his people remain mired in poverty.

In Baghdad, an even larger mosque - the information ministry claims it will be the world's largest when finished - is under construction, while another sprawling presidential palace is almost complete, with four huge busts of Saddam's scowling visage staring out over the city's squalor.

One of the priorities of the Faith Campaign is to fend off unrest in Shi'ite religious centres in the South. In the holy city of Najaf, officials last week adamantly denied fresh claims by Iraqi dissident groups that Saddam's government is responsible for the mysterious death in June of the Ayatollah Hussein Bahrir Al-Aloum.

The sudden death of the ayatollah, who had a history of heart trouble, followed the recent killings of three leading religious figures in the city. Those murders were blamed on Iranian-backed factions.

Supporters of the dead ayatollah, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, claimed that their 75-year-old leader was poisoned because he would not agree to allow the president's men to direct Friday prayer sessions. "Saddam ordered him killed because he would not support the government's Faith Campaign," one man who claimed to be a supporter of armed groups fighting in Iraq, told me.

Heavy machineguns placed in turrets across Najaf, as well as soldiers wearing flak jackets in the brutal 115-degree summer heat bore testimony to the difficulty Saddam still faces in imposing his religious views across Iraq.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WADI e.V. | tel.: (+49) 069-57002440 | fax (+49) 069-57002444
http://www.wadinet.de | e-mail: info@wadinet.de



http://www.wadinet.de/News/images/saddams_mosque.jpg

Yeah. He would never do anything to manipulate and sometimes even encourage Islamic radicals. No, not Unka Saddam.

I'm sure that it would be far below his hallowed socialist dignity to play his Islamic radical adversaries like a fiddle. I'm sure that a devout, introspective and placid mind like his could never scheme to play off his enemies against each other. No, not Saddam.

No Malone, I'm certain that you are correct. Such diabolical plans only occur in the minds of your fellow Americans, right? America is what is wrong the world over, isn't it? Feh.:fire:

[Khornet]

have advanced so many arguments that I must conclude that none of us really know what's going on. Maybe even Saddam and Bush don't really know.

At the risk of sounding deconstructionist (which philosophy I despise), we're all taking what data we have and evaluating it on the basis of our overall world view. The anger in this debate arises less from the particular point being discussed than from the conflict of two world views.

This, not name-calling, is the point of my Che Guevara remark to Malone. If I caused offense, I apologize. But when you use stock Marxist phrases like 'US hegemony', it makes you look, rightly or wrongly, like you belong to the 'America is always wrong' camp.

And as I hinted at above, there do seem to be two world views in this debate: one group operates on the assumption that America's intentions are generally honorable, and the other (at least their words make it look that way to me) operates on the assumption that her motives are always ulterior.

I hate when a debate degenerates into a peeing contest, and I hate even more being the cause of that deterioration. So I'll just say that I find it bizarre to think that Mr. Bush would risk war for anything as tawdry as oil or diversion from domestic troubles.

[Ryder]

I would like to hope it's about having learned to accept challenges.

We ignored OBL for 9 years after his formal declaration of war and that resulted in the WTC thing. Right now 80% of the Islamicists are jumping up and down in the streets screaming death to america. So we knock em up side the head one time (Iraq) and see if it brings them to their senses before anything more drastic is called for.

[Art Eatman]

While oil is an important factor in all this backing and forthing about Iraq, what I see as mistaken is the ongoing nonsense that the U.S. and "BushOil" will be the prime beneficiaries as to direct control of Iraqi oil. That's not so.

At present, the proceeds from Iraq's sale of two million barrels of oil per day go to the UN. They then disburse funds as mandated by agreements made after the Gulf War.

At present, France and Russia receive the highest percent of these funds. Their oil interests, or other companies which sell "stuff" to Iraq.

The US and the UK have the least involvement in these monies.

Future benefits will accrue to oil service companies. The best and largest of these are primarily US-based. Sure, Halliburton is a good stock investment, but they won't have any say as to which oil company works where or has drilling/development rights. Pipeline companies will also get a lot of work, since much of Iraq's oilfields are undeveloped.

If Iraqi oilfields become more fully developed, crude oil prices will fall--reducing the profits to Exxon, et al. This does not redound to enhancement of the billfolds of the folks at "BushOil". It reduces good ol' Joe Sixpack's cost of commuting.

One thing to remember is that the Clinton administration and OPEC agreed to a general crude oil price of $25/bbl. This was seen as being a price we could afford, and would maintain adequate income--and thus political stability--to the member producers. It will be interesting to see what happens to the world price of oil, compared to this number.

Anyway, if you're gonna talk about the mideast and oil and Iraq, at least learn who are the players, not to mention the history of who done what to whom in the awl bidness.

Art

[Silver Bullet]

Of course it is all about oil
I'm referring to the U.S. reasons for this war, and that reason is to prevent an American city from being destroyed. The oil has been in the Iraqi ground for a long time, and we never attempted to go after it before. What's different now is the threat to the American people that we want to preempt. Oil only exists as a subplot.

I think SB has hit on the crux of the matter
True, I have, but you managed to misinterpret my point. Bush is in a lose-lose situation with regards to how his political opposition will react after the fact. If he does nothing and [i]if an American city suffers WMD,[/] the opposition will rail about his not doing anything when he had the chance, just as they did about the September 11 events. If he invades Iraq before an American city is attacked, the political opposition will call him a war-mongerer (although that group was silent when Clinton sent our forces to Somalia and Bosnia).

Admittedly, there is another possible sequence: America stays home and Iraq doesn't attack us. The problem is that we're betting a lot of American lives. What we don't know is what the government knows.

[gburner]

I happen to disagree, but if you think this is about oil, so what? We've fought wars for lesser reasons and more nebulous doctrine. We play the same dirty little international game that everyone else does. It's just that the cognitive dissonance in juxtaposing perception and reality gets some folks undies in a bunch. "We're the USA...we take the moral high road...we fight a good, clean fight...we would never stoop to the jackbooted ways of our enemies".
Whatta load of manure! Not only do we do it, but should do it because Darwin mandates it. Wade into them, spill their blood......and do it quickly.
I'm not happy with the prospect of a chemical or biological air biscuit being floated in this country just to satisfy
Malone and his French friends about the immediacy of the threat.

[Khornet]

that none of those who oppose the war do so because they WANT more Americans to be killed in terror attacks, and to suggest otherwise is unfair.

But sauce for the goose, and all that....it would be nice if those who oppose the war had the decency not to use the same approach with those of us who do support it, and stop accusing us of lusting after Iraqui oil and not caring who gets killed. Unfortunately, that's what I hear all the time. So let's have a DEBATE.

[Combat-wombat]

After Dubya's State of the Union Adress, I'm a little more convinced that it's not for oil. nevertheless, I still think this is a good response to all those "drug money supports terror" ads:

Here's Jane. Jane is filling up her Ford Excursion with gasoline. This is Jane's gas dealer. He buys his gasoline from Texaco. This is Texaco's CEO, who bribes the president to make relations with the middle east and bomb the countries who don't cooperate.
OIL MONEY SUPPORTS WAR.

[Malone LaVeigh]

...it would be nice if those who oppose the war had the decency ...to ... stop accusing us of lusting after Iraqui oil and not caring who gets killed. Unfortunately, that's what I hear all the time. So let's have a DEBATE. Fair enough. Though I really believe oil is a big part of the motive of Bush and the other main instigators of this thing, it would be foolish to also overlook the political implications. And, of course, I respect the opinions of others who disagree with me.

[Art Eatman]

Combat-wombat and Malone: The problem with your argument about oil is that it's pretty much answered by PM Blair's comment (para-phrased):

If oil were the issue, the answer is simple: Cut a deal with Saddam to provide the technology to develop his oil fields and then we all go home. We'd have oil at low cost, and he could build whatever WMD he wishes--or not build, as he wishes.

So, I ask, how is the war "all about oil"?

Again: France, which says it is against the war, is the largest "dealer" in Iraqi oil, via Elf petroleum corp. They are also the largest Central European trading partner of Iraq.

The results of a war in Iraq, given the present politics of oil-deals and the UN, would mean less profit for Texaco and Exxon and other essentially-US oil companies.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Art

[jmbg29]

Why is this so hard to understand?Because it doesn't sound really brainy like:US plans for global hegemony Geez Art, you always go for the common sense answers.:D :D :D

[Sir Galahad]

If we wanted to conquer nations for the oil, we could take them without so much bandying about with the UN. We are the first nation with the ability to take most of the world for ourselves since the Roman Empire. Unlike the Romans, we have not done so. But at least the Romans never had to deal with a bunch of their citizens waving signs that read "No Blood For Grain!" or some other such silly thing.

[bad_dad_brad]

Don't kid yourselves folks. Oil is the blood that pumps through the world's economy. Oil companies throughout the world do not compete against each other, they cooperate, because, they all know that no one country, nor company, can control things, unless, and this is important, they destroy a thing.

Iraq has huge deposits of known oil, and undiscovered potentials that make them the number one oil resource. Imagine if they destroyed this resource or made it unavailable for years. The world simply will not be able to function in the future without Iraqi oil. And it is cheap oil as well. This is not a simple equation, nor can it be explained in simple terms. This is classic economics.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,882519,00.html

US buys up Iraqi oil to stave off crisis

Seizing reserves will be an allied priority if forces go in

Faisal Islam and Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow
Sunday January 26, 2003
The Observer

Facing its most chronic shortage in oil stocks for 27 years, the US has this month turned to an unlikely source of help - Iraq.

Weeks before a prospective invasion of Iraq, the oil-rich state has doubled its exports of oil to America, helping US refineries cope with a debilitating strike in Venezuela.

After the loss of 1.5 million barrels per day of Venezuelan production in December the oil price rocketed, and the scarcity of reserves threatened to do permanent damage to the US oil refinery and transport infrastructure. To keep the pipelines flowing, President Bush stopped adding to the 700m barrel strategic reserve.

But ultimately oil giants such as Chevron, Exxon, BP and Shell saved the day by doubling imports from Iraq from 0.5m barrels in November to over 1m barrels per day to solve the problem. Essentially, US importers diverted 0.5m barrels of Iraqi oil per day heading for Europe and Asia to save the American oil infrastructure.

The trade, though bizarre given current Pentagon plans to launch around 300 cruise missiles a day on Iraq, is legal under the terms of UN's oil for food programme.

But for opponents of war, it shows the unspoken aim of military action in Iraq, which has the world's second largest proven reserves - some 112 billion barrels, and at least another 100bn of unproven reserves, according to the US Department of Energy. Iraqi oil is comparatively simple to extract - less than $1 per barrel, compared with $6 a barrel in Russia. Soon, US and British forces could be securing the source of that oil as a priority in the war strategy. The Iraqi fields south of Basra produce prized 'sweet crudes' that are simpler to refine.

On Friday, Pentagon sources said US military planners 'have crafted strategies that will allow us to secure and protect those fields as rapidly as possible in order to then preserve those prior to destruction'.

The US military says this is a security issue rather than a grab for oil, after a 'variety of intelligence sources' indicated that Saddam planned to damage or destroy his oil fields - which would inflict up to $30bn damage on the US economy and cause irreparable environmental damage.

But the prospect of British and US commandos claiming key oil installations around Basra by force has pushed global oil diplomacy into overdrive. International oil companies have been jockeying position to secure concessions before 'regime change'.

Last weekend a Russian delegation flew to Baghdad to patch up relations after Iraq's cancellation of its five-year-old contract to develop the huge West Qurna oil field - worth up to $600bn at today's oil price. Lukoil was punished by Baghdad for negotiating with the US and Iraqi exiles on keeping its concession in a post-Saddam Iraq.

The delegation of Ministers and oil executives returned to Moscow with three signed contracts. Oil is the state budget's lifeblood, and Russia requires an oil price of at least $18. Russians fear a US grip on a large reserve of cheap oil could send prices tumbling.

But Saddam has offered lucrative contracts to companies from France, China, India and Indonesia as well as Russia.

It is only the oil majors based in Britain and America - now the leading military hawks - that don't have current access to Iraqi contracts.

Richard Lugar, the hawkish chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, suggests reluctant Europeans risk losing out on oil contracts. 'The case he had made is that the Russians and the French, if they want to have a share in the oil operations or concessions or whatever afterward, they need to be involved in the effort to depose Saddam as well,' said Lugar's spokesman.

A delegation of senior US Republicans was in Moscow last Tuesday trying to persuade Kremlin officials and oil companies that a war in Iraq would not compromise their concessions. A leaked oil analyst report from Deutsche Bank said ExxonMobil was in 'pole position in a changed-regime Iraq'.

Washington is split along hawk-dove lines about the role of oil in a post-Saddam Iraq. Two sets of meetings sponsored by the State Department and Vice-President Dick Cheney's staff have been attended by representatives of ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhilips and Halliburton, the company that Cheney ran before his election.

The dovish line, led by Colin Powell, places the emphasis on 'protection' of Iraq's oil for Iraq's people. His State Department has pointed to a precedent in the US interpretation of international law set in the 1970s. Then, when Israel occupied Egypt's Sinai desert, the US did not support attempts to transfer oil resources.

While the State Department is mindful of cynical world opinion about US war aims, officials do not always stick to the script. Grant Aldonas, Under Secretary at the US Department of Commerce, said war 'would open up this spigot on Iraqi oil which certainly would have a profound effect in terms of the performance of the world economy for those countries that are manufacturers and oil consumers'.

The US economy will announce zero growth this week, prolonging three years of sluggish performance. Cheap oil would boost an economy importing half of its daily consumption of 20m barrels.

But a cheaper oil price could have been reached more easily by lifting sanctions and giving the US oil majors access to Iraq's untapped reserves.

Instead, war stands to give control over the oil price to 'new Iraq' and its sponsors, with Saudi Arabia losing its capacity to control prices by altering productive capacity.

Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Defence Secretary, and Richard Perle, a key Pentagon adviser, see military action as part of a grand plan to reshape the Middle East.

To this end, control of Iraqi oil needs to bypass the twin tyrannies of UN control and regional fragmentation into Sunni, Shia and Kurdish supplies. The neo-conservatives plan a market structure based on bypassing the state-owned Iraqi National Oil Company and backing new free-market Iraqi companies.

But, in the run-up to war, the US oil majors will this week report a big leap in profits. ChevronTexaco is to report a 300 per cent rise. Chevron used to employ the hawkish Condoleezza Rice, Bush's National Security Adviser, as a member of its board.

Five years ago the then Chevron chief executive Kenneth Derr, a colleague of Rice, said: 'Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas - reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to.'

If US and UK forces have victory in Iraq, the battle for its oil will have only begun.

[Art Eatman]

I find it a bit difficult that any regime installed in a post-Saddam Iraq would do anything other than cut the best money-deal it could, on the oil. That means that any US/UK companies would have to out-bid others, as to royalties to the government.

Those with existing contractual arrangements through the UN will try to keep them in place, and odds are that there will be widespread support within the member nations in support. This does not bode well for the US/UK companies.

I'd bet that if I can figure this out, so can the Administration. Odds are that the politics and PR for "world opinion" will mean more than the lobbying of the Awl Bidness Boys of the US/UK.

Interesting times.

:), Art

[jmbg29]

The Guardian?

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

ROTFLMFAO:D :D :D :D

[Malone LaVeigh]

The Guardian? ... Translation: "My ears are closed, I can't hear you!"

[jmbg29]

Translation: "My ears are closed, I can't hear you!"I hear, read and see very well thank you. That is why I get to laugh so hard and so often at you. ;)

Sandi who?:evil:

[Khornet]

I have read many articles from it, and so can claim to have had eyes open,etc. My eyes were opened to the fact that The Guardian is shamelessly, reflexly anti-American, and shows so little balance that it has become a joke.

Did a count once of how many liberal vs conservative print media exposures per month I had:

Liberal:
Hometown paper 30 isssues
Neighboring town paper 20 issues
Wash. Post in doc's lounge 20 issues
Newsweek, Time 8 issues 78/mo lib

Conservative:
Wall St Journal at my office 20 issues
National Review biweekly 2 issues
Weekly Standard 4 issues
American Rifleman (single-issue pub but thrown in) 1 issue

27 Issues Conserv.

So how come I'm still conservative? Just brainwashed I guess.

[Art Eatman]

Sure, the Guardian is biased. This doesn't mean that alleged facts are false, or that events did not happen.

You have to learn to ignore the biased adjectives and the conclusions drawn from the facts. The basic information, itself, is often quite valid.

The big problem--regardless of political position--is that ever since Watergate, reporters try to write as journalists instead of sticking to just reporting the facts. Rather than limit themselves to the traditional "Who, what, when, where" routine, they try to interpret "why" as well--and that's beyond their level of competency.

Again, "Mediahcrity"--just your average, run of the mill, incompetent media person.

Art