oil in iraq

[mysecondstar]

i'm sure this has been done a thousand times in this forum, but instead of getting my idea lost in the depths, i'd just like to start a new topic.

i believe that the United States has no intention of taking the oil in iraq. none whatsoever. however, i do believe that once the US ousts saddam hussein, the more US-friendly government will be more than willing to ship oil to our country for a cheaper price. and since iraq is the second largest oil producing nation in the region, that means more oil for a cheaper price in America. it will also pressure other OPEC nations to follow suit to stay competative. that means cheaper prices across the board. that is after i have to pay $2/gallon at the gas pump for now.

[D2Kvirus]

Handy, since 17% of US oil imports just dried up as Venezuela have stopped shipping it out.

[kingflippy9000]

WHAT?! how can anyone think that Bush ISN'T gonna take Iraq's oil. that's just being naive. HELLO?! the Bush family made like all their wealth from oil. Watch the news. We want to fight to get saddam out, spread democracy to Iraq. Saddam should be ousted, I agree. What I don't agree with is the fact that Iraq has been a dictatorship for a long time. We can't force a political system that does not want it. If someone told you to do something you didn't want to, you'd tell them to fuck off, just like Iraq would do to us. Also to ensure there is democracy in Iraq after Saddam is out, our military is being stationed there for 5-10 years. What will they do there? Make sure that WE get the oil supply. So don't tell me that Bush isn't after Iraqi oil or distracting from the fact that our economy is shit, or basically using Saddam as a scapegoat of terrorism because we can't find bin Laden.

[TheEvilOne]

At 3/6/03 12:52 PM, kingflippy9000 wrote: WHAT?! how can anyone think that Bush ISN'T gonna take Iraq's oil. that's just being naive. HELLO?! the Bush family made like all their wealth from oil.

Even so, we don't just take another nation's resources by force. We have never done so, and I doubt that even we could get away with it. We will buy oil from Iraq once the new government is in place, and money will flow into their country. US wins, Iraq wins.

We want to fight to get saddam out, spread democracy to Iraq. Saddam should be ousted, I agree. What I don't agree with is the fact that Iraq has been a dictatorship for a long time. We can't force a political system that does not want it. If someone told you to do something you didn't want to, you'd tell them to fuck off, just like Iraq would do to us.

Are you suggesting that the Iraqi people actually like Saddam? Saddam hasn't stayed in power because of the support of his people. He has stayed in power because he silences those who oppose him. Trust me, once Saddam is gone, the Iraqi people will be overjoyed.

So don't tell me that Bush isn't after Iraqi oil or distracting from the fact that our economy is shit, or basically using Saddam as a scapegoat of terrorism because we can't find bin Laden.

We are still looking for bin Laden (one man can be pretty hard to find), and Bush is doing what he can about the economy. With the economy, there are so many factors at work that are beyond the control of one man. But still, another tax cut wouldn't hurt, in my opinion (I know there will be those who disagree). What I am predicting is a quick, decisive victory in Iraq, followed by a post-war economic rebound, thanks in part to cheap Iraqi oil, which we will be legitamately buying, not forcibly taking.

[thenark]

Bush wont take iraq's oil per se, but he will set up a government, in iraq that will give the US oil at low low prices, this would cause most countries to buy their oil almost exclusively from iraq. This would make most OPEC countries, whose entire economies are based on oil exports. Shrivel up and die, the poverty rates would skyrocket. So even if the US strike is fast, and efficient, it will involuntarily starve millions in other arab states

[mysecondstar]

At 3/6/03 12:52 PM, kingflippy9000 wrote: WHAT?! how can anyone think that Bush ISN'T gonna take Iraq's oil. that's just being naive. HELLO?! the Bush family made like all their wealth from oil. Watch the news. We want to fight to get saddam out, spread democracy to Iraq. Saddam should be ousted, I agree. What I don't agree with is the fact that Iraq has been a dictatorship for a long time. We can't force a political system that does not want it. If someone told you to do something you didn't want to, you'd tell them to fuck off, just like Iraq would do to us. Also to ensure there is democracy in Iraq after Saddam is out, our military is being stationed there for 5-10 years. What will they do there? Make sure that WE get the oil supply. So don't tell me that Bush isn't after Iraqi oil or distracting from the fact that our economy is shit, or basically using Saddam as a scapegoat of terrorism because we can't find bin Laden.

consensus is that if the US takes the oil, then the entire world will then see that oil was all the war was for and not the set up a democracy in iraq. it will create a diplomatic nightmare. and that is the last thing that Bush wants to happen.

and thenark is absolutely correct. with a US friendly government in place, they will sell oil to the US under OPEC prices. and since they do that the other OPEC nations will be forced to follow suit. it's the smartest thing Bushie thought up yet. or maybe it was Condolezza Rice? i'd wager it was...

[mysecondstar]

At 3/7/03 02:38 AM, mysecondstar wrote: and thenark is absolutely correct.

i rescind my previous statement. they won't starve them. they'll only put pressure on them to lower their prices on oil. not starve them. that is overstating. and it isn't just arab countries in OPEC. if i remember correctly Venezuela is a part of OPEC and they are in South America.

[TheEvilOne]

I really don't think the OPEC nations would be hurt too badly if they had to lower their prices to compete with Iraq. Though it could be argued that since Venezuela is already reeling, they may not be able to afford it.

Speaking of which: if this were all about oil, then why aren't we getting involved in Venezuela?

[JMHX]

At 3/6/03 03:33 PM, TheEvilOne wrote:

At 3/6/03 12:52 PM, kingflippy9000 wrote:

Even so, we don't just take another nation's resources by force. We have never done so, and I doubt that even we could get away with it.

Funny, I remember there being Indians out west in the 1800's. You know, that race of people we've wiped out for the better part of 4 centuries.

[TheEvilOne]

At 3/7/03 07:51 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Funny, I remember there being Indians out west in the 1800's. You know, that race of people we've wiped out for the better part of 4 centuries.

Okay, I stand corrected. But we've come a long way since then.

[mysecondstar]

At 3/7/03 08:44 AM, basher13 wrote: Then.

yes, then. since then we have been under the scrutiny of the world. what we got away with on our homeland before isn't going to happen again. the only time america really embarassaed it's self was Japanese internment. and that had nothing to do with resource but civil liberties. with the world as a stage, no one will do anything damning to their own self image.

[Slizor]

Speaking of which: if this were all about oil, then why aren't we getting involved in Venezuela?

Because Venezuela doesn't have a good pretext for war which was just sitting there. Plus it is a democracy.

[panik]

I agree with you but 2 quick things if we go to war the oil will be needed to pay for the cost of the war and 2nd iraq only supplies 2% of the worlds oil so they dont have a real affect on us with the prices

[JMHX]

At 3/7/03 01:58 PM, panik wrote: I agree with you but 2 quick things if we go to war the oil will be needed to pay for the cost of the war and 2nd iraq only supplies 2% of the worlds oil so they dont have a real affect on us with the prices

I've heard from 5-10%, but 2% is the lowest ever. I'll stick with the Washington Post estimate of 10% of the world's oil supply.

[Jlop985]

You know, once I believed all the crap that the Bush administration said about democratizing Iraq and getting rid of Hussein. However, there is proof that the war is just for oil. North Korea actually had WMD, and is threatening to use them, and Bush isn't doing anything to stop them, CAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE OIL.

[Slizor]

I've heard from 5-10%, but 2% is the lowest ever. I'll stick with the Washington Post estimate of 10% of the world's oil supply.

2% is a different statistic. 2% is how much of the oil they supply (I don't know this, but it's very possible since 55 out of 71 oil fields are untapped in Iraq.) Your statistic is about how much oil there is under Iraq.

I would like to point out, as I always do, that currently the US is getting 1 million barrels of oil a day from Iraq.

[mysecondstar]

At 3/8/03 12:55 AM, Jlop985 wrote: You know, once I believed all the crap that the Bush administration said about democratizing Iraq and getting rid of Hussein. However, there is proof that the war is just for oil. North Korea actually had WMD, and is threatening to use them, and Bush isn't doing anything to stop them, CAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE OIL.

you also fail to realize that north korea is a much different scenario for war. in iraq they are going to have battles over stretches of desert. in Korea, if they were to attack, would be completely and utterly urban warfare. plus any provocation may cause the north koreans to advance into South Korea and straight into Seoul, a city with 12 million people 20 miles south of the border between the two countries. so i can't stress enough how different the entire scenario is.

also, north korea doesn't only have weapons of mass destrcution but they are also nuclear. in no way do we want to provoke someone that has one and fire it into one of our allies, ie. South Korea, Japan or into our own country (as yet untested but still possible). if you had, in the palm of your hand, millions of peoples' i would be cautious. also the US sent a fleet of long range bombers to Guam to, in a sense, to flex the US military's might.