It is with reluctance
- Thread starter Gonz
- Start date
a13antichrist
New Member
Gato_Solo said:
Why do people insist that the size of US oil imports from Iraq means that the US doesn't want Iraqi oil? It shows no thought process or logic at all. If the US already did get lots of its oil from Iraq, then you might have been able to question why they would need to go in. But kicking out Saddam means that the US can now more likely get lots more oil from Iraq than they did before.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
a13antichrist said:Gato_Solo said:
Why do people insist that the size of US oil imports from Iraq means that the US doesn't want Iraqi oil? It shows no thought process or logic at all. If the US already did get lots of its oil from Iraq, then you might have been able to question why they would need to go in. But kicking out Saddam means that the US can now more likely get lots more oil from Iraq than they did before.
Once more, someones conclusion is based on supposition. I'll give you a thought...
1. If the US really wanted Iraqi oil, why didn't they just lift the sanctions that were placed on Iraq during the last gulf war? It would've been a hell of a lot cheaper, in the long run.
It's called logic...
Aunty Em
Well-Known Member
Gato_Solo said:
As the owners of second largest oil reserves in the region I'd say that makes them a subtantial "competitor" and potential financial threat to US allies oil suppliers, wouldn't you? Especially as they were a "maverick" state.
Opec controls the price of oil by controling production... what happens if someone floods the market with cheaper oil? It may not have happened yet, but there was always the potential that it could.
Lets face it, we can speculate as much as we like but unless we happen to inhabit the higher echolons of big business and politics we're never going to know the real reasons... the only thing we know for certain is that we are never going to be told the real truth. The system is so corrupt that no matter how idealistic most people are when they begin, by the time they have reached a position in which whistle-blowing would be beneficial to the masses they have been seduced by money, power and position and the comforts that go with it.
a13antichrist
New Member
Gato_Solo said:
Well no, because Saddam would have refused to sell oil to the US. Only way to obtain a new plentiful source of oil was to get rid of Saddam.
For the record though, I'm not too bothered about whether the US was there to get Iraqi oil or not. I was more concerned simply about your claim that since the US hardly gets any of its oil from Iraq, it couldn't possibly be interested in theirs - which is certainly not true.
chcr
Too cute for words
Not that I disagree with everything you say, but at what point in the last thirty years has the government been logical.Gato_Solo said:
BTW, it's not about the oil, it is about control of the money. Oil has replaces gold, and will in turn be replaced by something else. Once upon a time it was tea. Unfortunately, we don't learn from past mistakes and are therefore doomed to repeat them. Note: I'm not singling out one country, I'm speaking of humanity as a whole.
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
, it IS
G4
New Member
Are you sure?
The oil in Iraq is of much better quality than in America, and a lot cheaper to extract, as it is very near-surface. Good infrastructure to take advantage of oil wells in Russia would take billions of dollars, and the USA can´t afford to give Russia that kind of leverage.
Not wanting to be "boring", just adding more stuff to the conversation. I mean, when putting morality aside, invading Iraq so to control it´s oil and deliver a message to the rest of the world ("Don´t fuck with us; see, Saddam used to be our buddy and now look at him") makes ALL the sense in the world. It´s a master stroke. Blindly believing that it was done simply as part of the battle against terrorism and to free the Iraqi people is what doesn´t make any sense. It is the truth, but only 50% of it.
There are dictators and opression and WMDs all over. Quite a few countries that support terrorists. Why Iraq? Some of the reasons I hear make sense. After all Saddam broke the armistice when he kicked out the inspectors. He deserved it. The Iraqi people deserve an oportunity to be free.
But in the end... it comes down to energy. The western world needs more energy. We can´t trust the Muslims when it comes to something as important as oil. I don´t say it, some important north american politician said that last sentence.
I hate it, but it´s the way it is...
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
Oil played a distinct role in the reasons for this war, but that role was much more politically oriented (and far thinking I might add) than it was economic.
I've explain what I mean in detail in previous threads, and to be honest I don't care to do it again. Do a search if anyone really cares.
I've explain what I mean in detail in previous threads, and to be honest I don't care to do it again. Do a search if anyone really cares.
I've never completely discounted oil as part of this campaign. Hell, I damn near wrote a dissertation on it somewhere in the past few thousand threads.
The war was not about oil.
The war was not some directive of the (fill in your favorite monopoly), nor it's CEO, CFO, Chief Director, shareholders or some other wizard running Washington from behhind the scenes either.
NOw, onto Saudi.
The war was not about oil.
The war was not some directive of the (fill in your favorite monopoly), nor it's CEO, CFO, Chief Director, shareholders or some other wizard running Washington from behhind the scenes either.
NOw, onto Saudi.
flavio
Banned
ris
New Member
i heard today that garner and his team have been junked because they still can't get baghdad under control and can't even talk to each other. new boy, brenner, is going to sort everything out, with indications from rumsfeld he's got authorisation to use harder line security measures on looters.
the war was fairly easily won, the peace, in baghdad certainly, appears to be somehting of a problem.
the war was fairly easily won, the peace, in baghdad certainly, appears to be somehting of a problem.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
G4 said:
Actually, the quality of oil in the US and Mexico is better. That's why you have most of Texas oil, Mexical oil, and Alaskan oil in the 'Light Sweet Crude' catagory. Check the oil market futures for more info.
Which politician. If you're going to post the quote, you should post the source as well, or it will be written off as liberal rhetoric, or pure idiocy.