POLL: repercussions of US occupation of Iraq

If your son was going to War to line the pockets of big corporations that will milk the Iraqi's dry?? you would most likely be singing a different tune..........And if it is about the "Oil" at least let our soldiers know thats why we are going.......peace

disclamer: I have not the slightest clue if this is in any way connected to oil or not......

 

Interesting turn of phrase... how exactly will the Iraqis be "milked dry" by international corporations? Will the oil be stolen from them rather than purchased? Will they be forced to award development contracts to the lowest bidder rather than the highest? Is the potential of massive foreign direct investment somehow a bad thing?

I brought about the oil argument as a tongue in cheek way to show how hollow and pointless it is as a left wing criticism.

Of course, in reality, it's not about the oil (on the hawk side, anyway). It's about neutralizing a confirmed genocidal maniac with narcissistic dreams of world domination who has used chemical weapons on his own people, has actively sought nuclear weapons since the '70s (thank heaven israel had the chutzpah to bomb Osirak in '82), and has stood in brazen violation of disarmament treaties established more than a decade ago.

Left wingers who chant "blood for oil" don't understand economics (or they don't want to let economics get in the way of a good slogan).

This war could cost the US as much as 200 billion dollars. That ain't chump change, even for Uncle Sam. And when it's over, European and Russian oil companies are gonna be fighting just as hard as American ones for a piece of the pie. Are we really that generous? And is oil really that precious of a commodity in the long run?

Ever heard of Sao Tome, a little country on Africa's western coast? Big oil thinks the next big discovery may be in Sao Tome- billions of barrels in their territorial waters.

Ever hear about the potential of the great white north? Here's a quote from a canadian oil firm:

"Alberta's three oil sand deposits — Athabasca, Cold Lake, and Peace River — contain resources that could supply Canada's energy needs for more than 475 years, or total world needs for up to 15 years. The production potential of all the oil sand deposits could be as high as 2.5 trillion barrels of bitumen (five times more than the conventional oil reserves in Saudi Arabia). The Athabasca deposit is twice the size of Lake Ontario."

Now you tell me: do the economics of spending $200 billion on a shooting war, only to split the economic benefits with all the rest of the world, still make sense from a monetary standpoint?

 

If there was a draft, and my son was drafted against his will to go and fight in a war I did not support, ya, I would have a problem with that.

If my son volunteered to fight for his country, and the government of that country sent him to war to protect our national interests and national security, that would have been my son's choice.

Until there is proof, which no one offers----just theory and speculation----about the real reason for a war....

I would suggest that you write your congressman or write the President....but allow our democratic system and process to work through the issues of the day.

If the people really believe based on evidence, not innuendo----that Bush and company are not acting in the best interest of the country and its citizens, that will be seen in the next election.

Too many people in this country participate in the National Enquirer level of TV journalism and opinion making that dominates the landscape, and go running off half cocked without getting the facts before forming those opinions.

While I don't trust Bush as far as I can throw him, until I have proof I don't distrust him either.

I suspend judgment until there are facts to support a conclusion.

As soon as someone on this board offers up proof that is without any reasonable doubt as to its veracity, I'll take a look at things from the "All or Nothing" perspective of Bush lovers, or the "Oil or Nothing" perspective of the Bush haters with the same big grain of salt.

 

Optional, you said "Until there is proof, which no one offers----just theory and speculation----about the real reason for a war...."


Have a look at the latest news, a report from Mr Blix.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/28/1043534034231.html

But of course, no matter how justified the reason, who wouldn't have fears if one's son (or daughter) went there.

Jack

 

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page6141.asp

how much more of a smoking gun do you want?

a nuclear exchange with israel?

 

Surely it does, if it is your pockets that money ends up in.......It made plenty of sense for the likes of fastow and friends to bring down billion dollar corporations for what seems like peanuts in the grand scale......same thang....

Anyways you bring up very good points.. I for one dont know shit when it comes to the real truth.....But seeing a family member go off to war for what may or may not take a long time and may or may not affect his/her health in someway is not easy even less if it is a war not fought for the true reasons......

 

All about oil?

Jan 23rd 2003
From The Economist print edition


Why invading Iraq would not produce an oil bonanza for America

“IF WE are the occupying power,” said Colin Powell, America's secretary of state, on January 22nd, Iraq's oil fields “will be held for the benefit of the Iraqi people.” The Bush administration was examining different ways of managing the oil fields in the event of America invading Iraq, he said. Stung by criticism in much of the world that lust for oil is driving its enthusiasm for war, the Bush administration is trying to reassure sceptics that Iraqi oil would not be run only to suit America. Yet even without these assurances, it is far from certain that Iraqi oil could be the bonanza for America that its critics imagine.

These critics claim that any post-Saddam regime—which they presume would be a puppet of America—would move quickly to start pumping out vast quantities of oil. It would surely give in to American pressure to leave the OPEC cartel of price-fixers. Iraq's gushing wells would quickly undermine the cartel's grip, prices would collapse and OPEC might even be destroyed altogether—taking with it such unsavoury regimes as Saudi Arabia's.

Actually, even if Mr Powell's assurances turned out to be flimsier than they appear, there are good reasons to think Iraq would not become either an OPEC-slayer or America's private petrol station. Two new reports on the subject stress the constraints and challenges—not the easy pickings and limitless bounty—that Iraq's oil represents for America.

One report, by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the James Baker Institute of Rice University, argues that Iraq's oil is not the prize it seems from afar. Iraq has vast reserves, but its infrastructure is, in the words of Dutch experts who inspected it a few years ago, in “lamentable” condition. A decade of sanctions and under-investment have cut Iraq's output and done permanent damage.

In the short run, a war would further disrupt Iraqi production (especially if Saddam Hussein were to destroy oil wells): the result would be greater market power for OPEC and maybe $40-per-barrel crude, says Phil Verleger, an energy economist affiliated to the CFR. After that, even assuming that rebuilding the oil sector were a top priority for a new government, and oil revenues were immediately redirected for that purpose, the CFR-Baker study reckons that it would still take nearly a decade and up to $40 billion to revive Iraq's oil sector. That could lift Iraqi output to 4.2m-6m barrels per day, up from around 2.5m bpd today. However, it would still fall far short of Saudi Arabia's whopping output of over 8m bpd today. That is why no truly independent Iraqi government would ever leave OPEC to go for volume instead: the Saudis have so much more oil than anyone that they will always win a price war.

Besides, talk of a speedy revival of Iraq's oil sector may be too optimistic. A report from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) observes that, after a regime change, there would be many competing claims for money that would slow investment in oil: buying food, financing reconstruction, paying for “democracy building” and keeping the peace. Iraq also has debts of over $100 billion—not including war reparations due to Iran and Kuwait for Mr Hussein's past aggressions. However, this argument would be weaker if an occupying American government footed the bill for oil investment.

In an effort to curry favour with anybody ready to oppose UN sanctions, Mr Hussein has offered juicy chunks of Iraq's oil bounty to companies from Russia, China and France—countries whose geopolitical strategies are also tainted by oil. Whether America could tear up such contracts and “pre-contracts” is unclear. American and British firms, which have been prevented from bidding for such contracts, would lobby to have them scratched and retendered (along with other Iraqi oil contracts) in a contest in which they have (at least) a level playing field. But to avoid a legal morass, the CFR-Baker report recommends the immediate creation of a UN dispute-resolution mechanism. Unless some way is found to provide a secure legal framework for oil concessions, much-needed foreign investment in Iraq could be delayed by years while the lawyers bicker.

In short, for all the accusations that America's war plans are motivated by the goal of cheaper oil, there would probably be no such prize, at least for many years. As the CFR-Baker report says: “There has been a great deal of wishful thinking about Iraqi oil.” It does not expect a bonanza.

 

whether it makes sense depends on where the 200 B comes from, and where it ends up.

but I agree with you that this does not appear to be primarily about seizing oil reserves - there are many other, simpler and more politically safe ways of doing that if they wanted to.

 

Schwarzkopf: "I have gotten somewhat nervous at some of the pronouncements Rumsfeld has made."


Desert Caution
Once 'Stormin' Norman,' Gen. Schwarzkopf Is Skeptical About U.S. Action in Iraq

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 28, 2003

TAMPA--Norman Schwarzkopf wants to give peace a chance.

The general who commanded U.S. forces in the 1991 Gulf War says he hasn't seen enough evidence to convince him that his old comrades Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz are correct in moving toward a new war now. He thinks U.N. inspections are still the proper course to follow. He's worried about the cockiness of the U.S. war plan, and even more by the potential human and financial costs of occupying Iraq.

And don't get him started on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

In fact, the hero of the last Gulf War sounds surprisingly like the man on the street when he discusses his ambivalence about the Bush administration's hawkish stance on ousting Saddam Hussein. He worries about the Iraqi leader, but would like to see some persuasive evidence of Iraq's alleged weapons programs.

"The thought of Saddam Hussein with a sophisticated nuclear capability is a frightening thought, okay?" he says. "Now, having said that, I don't know what intelligence the U.S. government has. And before I can just stand up and say, 'Beyond a shadow of a doubt, we need to invade Iraq,' I guess I would like to have better information."

He hasn't seen that yet, and so -- in sharp contrast to the Bush administration -- he supports letting the U.N. weapons inspectors drive the timetable: "I think it is very important for us to wait and see what the inspectors come up with, and hopefully they come up with something conclusive."

This isn't just any retired officer speaking. Schwarzkopf is one of the nation's best-known military officers, with name recognition second only to his former boss, Secretary of State Powell. What's more, he is closely allied with the Bush family. He hunts with the first President Bush. He campaigned for the second, speaking on military issues at the 2000 GOP convention in Philadelphia and later stumping in Florida with Cheney, who was secretary of defense during the 1991 war.

But he sees the world differently from those Gulf War colleagues. "It's obviously not a black-and-white situation over there" in the Mideast, he says. "I would just think that whatever path we take, we have to take it with a bit of prudence."

So has he seen sufficient prudence in the actions of his old friends in the Bush administration? Again, he carefully withholds his endorsement. "I don't think I can give you an honest answer on that."....

...He's had time to think. He likes the performance of Colin Powell -- chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War, now secretary of state. "He's doing a wonderful job, I think," he says. But he is less impressed by Rumsfeld, whose briefings he has watched on television.

"Candidly, I have gotten somewhat nervous at some of the pronouncements Rumsfeld has made," says Schwarzkopf.

He contrasts Cheney's low profile as defense secretary during the Gulf War with Rumsfeld's frequent television appearances since Sept. 11, 2001. "He almost sometimes seems to be enjoying it." That, Schwarzkopf admonishes, is a sensation to be avoided when engaged in war....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52450-2003Jan27.html

Maybe we will find out tonight about the solid proof and the solid reasons to go in and invade?

Josh

 

Norm is out of the operational intelligence loop so he can't give a qualified opinion.