Damn, this is fun........
Hey no comment on your charts? Can you at least agree I can now read?
Bush just wants the oil!!!
by dubla 88 Replies latest social current
-
-
expatbrit
Valis:
The link is a good read, but it presents what you could call a "best case scenario" if you're feeling generous. It doesn't really give a realistic view, rather glossing over the timescales of the assumed "oil bonanza".
The fact is, Iraq's oil fields require massive amounts of time and money to even return them to pre-1991 levels. Currently, production is declining by about 100,000 bpd a year. A number of years of investment (up to about $40 billion) is needed to increase production to 5 million bpd. And any revenues will be eaten up by country reconstruction (estimated at $25 to $100 billion) and paying off Iraq's debt (about $100 billion). It would be decades before US companies saw any return on investment, if ever!
The money can be found (but what's the point?), but time is the real factor here. As mentioned it is OPEC and particularly Saudi Arabia who are the key oil players. Now, do you really think they will sit by and let the US have a couple of decades to develop Iraqi oilfields without responding/retaliating first? It is simply not a feasible scenario that America can sit in Iraq, occupy the country and develop its oilfields for its own personal benefit over the course of decades.
For further reasoning on this, here is a summary article from the Economist:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/48581/687945/post.ashx#687945
and this link is to the Council on Foreign Relations report (pdf. A long read, but the sections on "The Lure of Iraqi Oil" and "Oil and Iraq - Opportunities and Challenges" address this issue:
http://www.cfr.org/pdf/Post-War_Iraq.pdf
Expatbrit
-
seawolf
This war has a lot to do with helping Israel. It's been talked about here and there on tv lately.
Ambassador Joseph C, Wilson:
MOYERS: Tell me what you think about the arguments of one of those men, Richard Perle, who is perhaps the most influential advocate in the President's and the administration's ear arguing to get rid of Saddam Hussein. What do you think about his argument?
WILSON: Well, he's certainly the architect of a study that was produced in the mid-'90s for the Likud Israeli government called "a clean break, a new strategy for the realm." And it makes the argument that the best way to secure Israeli security is through the changing of some of these regimes beginning with Iraq and also including Syria. And that's been since expanded to include Iran.
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_wilson.html
There's a Time magazine article on it here, too.
"How Israel Is Wrapped Up in Iraq"
Joe Klein contends that a stronger Israel is very much embedded in the rationale for war with Iraq
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/printout/0,8816,419688,00.htmlFrom BBC's Panorama:
BRADSHAW: Back in 1996 a group of American neoconservatives helped write a
report called: “A Clean Break”. It was published by a think tank based in Israel.
They hoped their ideas might be taken up by incoming Prime Minister Binyamin
Netanyahu They included removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq which
they called an important Israeli strategic objective. The paper never became official
policy but was widely read.GREEN: I think it’s very interesting. I think there has always been a group in
Israel that has wanted to knock out Iraq – Iraq being the main remaining strategic
threat to Israel. Now if that has the effect of creating chaos in the Middle East and
hostility towards America, why should they worry? It’s we who should worry. If
we’re going to march to war to an Israeli drum, then that would be a very foolish
thing to do.BRADSHAW: And eight strong group behind the paper was chaired by Richard
Perle, now the Pentagon’s top civilian advisor. Two other members of the group
[Douglas Feith – David Wurmser] now have official posts in President Bush’s
administration.http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/panorama/transcripts/08_12_02.txt
It's interesting that the top guy screaming into Bush's ear is Richard Perle, who was fired as an aide to Sen. H. Jackson in the 70s for allegedly passing classified documents to the Israeli embassy. He should be in prison next to Pollard.
Anyway, I'm really surprised this hasn't come up here as of yet (that I can see). It's been talked about a lot on other boards. Oil has some to do with it as do a lot of other things but it appears more and more that Israel is a strong driving force in all of this.
-
Simon
ThiChi
You are clinging to the monetary amount of aid to clear the nations concience. The fact is, it doesn't do enough, it doesn't do half, hell, even a quarter of what other countries do.
Forget quoting the raw amount in dollars because the majority of it IS NOT AID
Do you understand that simple fact? How about if you were starving and I offered to give you some money?
Great !
... but ...
With the $10 I give you, you have to buy something from me. It's worth $1 but I'll sell it you for $10
Hey, aren't I a great guy? I helped some poor starving guy by giving him $10!
No, I have the $10 in my pocket and you are still hungry
... and THAT's the bottom line.
-
Valis
expat...maybe I took that article differently...I read into it that there are lots of countries and businesses involved in the mix and even if they are not involved in the millitary component (got that from CNN), when it comes around to the money, no matter what timetable is involved, they will ALL come calling and complaining...wanting their share of the Iraqi pie, even over deals they made w/the pre-war Iraqi regime...France on of the biggest whine and cheese cracker countries involved...
Sincerely,
District Overbeer
-
William Penwell
The blueprint for the creation of a "global Pax America", to which Bush subscribes and which is driving the invasion of Iraq, was drawn up in September 2000 for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush (George's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff).
I think he forgot Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell on this list. Oh wait they couldn't be their to busy talking to God.
Will
-
Realist
thichi,
ok lets look in the past! where and when did the US spend gigantic amounts on foreign aid??? name it!
the marshall plan was less than 12 billion dollars...and that money was not given out of pure reasons but to keep control over west europe.
on the other hand the US sucks money out of all developing countries!
so don't give us this nonsense about how generous the US is.
-
Realist
dubla,
when did i say bush was doing this for the average american? i will be willing to admit it was all done for profit after the fact, if that indeed becomes apparent. this thread was meant as a checking point; something to refer to after the war. im not condemning anyones predictions at this point.
but after the fact becomes apparent its too late!!! we are talking about the lives of thousands of peope here for christ sake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
just look at what the US did to all other developing countries! where did it establish a fair democracy? nowhere!
-
jelly
The two arguments can be boiled down to this: feel free to corect me if you think I am wrong
Simon- For Aid to be counted it can only be of a certain category
- Aid for military non-civilian uses does not count
- Lets just look at the last 12 years
- The US does not give the most amount based on GDP/GNP
- Therefore America is (Simon you have to fill this part in, what exactly does this say about Americans?)
- Military aid counts
- Lets adjust the time frame to the last 50 years
- The Fact that America provides the defense for many of these countries allows them more disposable income to donate (you might not agree but this is a strong argument)
- Private donations (which the American Tax law encourages) are ignored in Simons data
- what the hell does it matter if another country gives more of a percentage of their GNP than us, we still give alot so I am not sure what the point of the whole argument is
- ThiChi is correct about the private donations
- Simon's figures are a bit suspect I have to check again but I do not think they jive with the USAID website
- California is 20 billion in dept maybe the fed should stop sending money to Africa and send some to California
-
Pleasuredome
it's about the oil, not for the US to make money, but in order to flood the world market in order to bring the price of oil down from $32 a barrel, to $15 - $10 a barrel. the reasons why? well you'll just have to do some research.
Up the Euro!