TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- It's Not a War for Oil
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

It's Not a War for Oil

i found this article well written in a manner which rationally explains why the war on iraq is not about oil. i would appreciate it if you read it before posting you opinion on the US-Iraq-Oil topic

quote:

It's Not a War for Oil By Thomas W. Lippman The Washington Post. Friday, January 24, 2003; Page A27 The failure of the Bush administration to articulate a compelling rationale for a potential war with Iraq is having a pernicious global side effect: It is fostering the belief that such a conflict would be a "war for oil" and therefore an exercise in imperialism, not an exercise in security. This view is widely held in the Arab world, where commentators argue that the United States must be expecting instability in Saudi Arabia to compound the instability in Venezuela, and is therefore looking elsewhere for ensured oil supplies. It showed up in the signs and shouts of the antiwar demonstrators who came to Washington last weekend: "No blood for oil!" "We don't want your oil war." The oil-industry connections of President Bush and Vice President Cheney reinforce the presumed oil rationale. Some proponents of the oil theory also cite the "Carter doctrine," in which President Jimmy Carter proclaimed that the United States would protect its access to Persian Gulf oil by "any means necessary, including military force." The Carter doctrine, however, was inspired by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and was directed against "outside" forces, namely Moscow; it was not about the governance of the Persian Gulf countries themselves. Even a perfunctory acquaintance with the realities of the global oil market would indicate that the "oil war" theory does not stand up to analysis. As an imagined rationale it doesn't square with the facts; and in the unlikely event that it actually does factor into the administration's thinking, it is a specious argument that cannot justify sending American forces into combat. First, if the United States felt compelled to increase its access to oil from Iraq, it could do so by getting the U.N. Security Council to lift the economic sanctions that restrict Iraqi output -- no bloodshed necessary. Iraq's oil would flow freely into the global market, contracts already signed with Russian and European companies would increase Iraqi production and, as a beneficial side effect, prices would decline as supplies increased. Then assume the worst in Saudi Arabia: Militant anti-American extremists seize control of the government. Such rulers might refuse to sell oil directly to the American customers, but it's highly unlikely they would refuse to sell oil to anyone, because the country's other sources of income are negligible. Because the worldwide oil flow -- about 67 million barrels a day -- is fungible in a global market, the effect of such a move by Saudi Arabia against the United States would be minimal. To the extent that the Saudis shifted oil sales to customers in Europe or Asia, those customers would stop buying oil from wherever they get it now, and the United States could shift its Saudi purchases to those other suppliers. It might be necessary to modify refinery runs to account for variations in oil quality, and shipping costs might increase with distance, but the overall impact would be tolerable. Moreover, the record shows that even countries whose rulers are hostile to us are willing to sell us oil because they need the money. Saddam Hussein's Iraq itself sells oil to American consumers under the "oil for food" program. If the United States buys no oil from Iran or from Moammar Gaddafi's Libya, it is because we cut them off -- not because they cut us off. Libya would welcome the return of a petroleum relationship with the United States. Finally, an American takeover of Iraq would not, in the long run, give the United States guaranteed access to Iraqi oil. A democratic Iraq might well decide that its future prosperity would be best served by a supply relationship with, say, China, now an importer of oil with rapidly growing demand. The days when industrialized countries acquired ownership of oil in producing countries are decades in the past. Conversely, a fragmented Iraq, breaking up along ethnic lines, might produce less oil than currently, rather than more. As the U.S. military buildup around Iraq's perimeter accelerates, the Bush administration is obliged to make a persuasive case for war. It should also make clear what its motives are not.

I read it and my mind is not changed. The argument FOR believing that this war is over oil is presented fairly well in the first few paragraphs.

The arguments to the contrary are basically that the US could get access to iraqs oil by lifting the sanctions. There is two reasons they don't want to do this.

One is that the sanctions are hurting iraq badly, and they like that. The benefits of cheap iraqi oil do not outweigh giving up their strangle hold on iraqs economy. and who says iraq would sell cheap oil to the US anyway? they are enemies after all. They'd probably charge an outrageous price, or sell it through a middle man who would also inflate the price.

the US is better off getting it's oil elsewhere, and that is why the sanctions won't be lifted.

The second reason is, the US doesn't want to BUY iraqs oil, it wants to STEAL iraqs oil, as in take it over. how? i'm not sure.. but i am confident Dubya will do his best.

my 6.0 SUV needs oil!

Additionally... oil, as a source of fuel, is basically headed towards extinction. Hydrogen-based fuel is the way of the future, and will probably be more prevalent than petroleum in 10-15 years.

I'm not sure what the Arab world is going to do economically once that happens, but I suspect it isn't going to be pretty. They've invested billions in their petroleum industries, and for most Arab nations the vast majority of their economic infrastructure is based on petroleum sales. Once demand plummets, these countries are probably going to need some kind of aid. I'm interested to see if the EU, which has been decidedly pro-Arab for some years now, will be willing to foot the bill.

you are generalizing, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Algeria, Morocco and some more aren't living on Petroleum. The gulf states are, and they are in deep shit cause they are also so in debt!! stupid morons!

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek you are generalizing, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Algeria, Morocco and some more aren't living on Petroleum. The gulf states are, and they are in deep shit cause they are also so in debt!! stupid morons!

You're right, I said "most" but there are a lot of them that aren't dependent on petroleum.

I would just love to fast forward 50 years, to see how will the middle east be. Gulf states and Israel aren't self sustainble.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Additionally... oil, as a source of fuel, is basically headed towards extinction. Hydrogen-based fuel is the way of the future, and will probably be more prevalent than petroleum in 10-15 years. I'm not sure what the Arab world is going to do economically once that happens, but I suspect it isn't going to be pretty. They've invested billions in their petroleum industries, and for most Arab nations the vast majority of their economic infrastructure is based on petroleum sales. Once demand plummets, these countries are probably going to need some kind of aid. I'm interested to see if the EU, which has been decidedly pro-Arab for some years now, will be willing to foot the bill.

I think it'll be more than 10-15 years. Hell, we could ditch our gas guzzlers right now no problem. We have all the technology to do so, but people are just too greedy in nature. No way oil companies will let themselves go out of business that easily.

it is a well known fact that oil reserves are rapidly declining...i even read sumwhere that within 5 yrs., we'd prolly hit the peak of oil production, and from then on it will start only to decline...of course from basic economics we can tell that we will never get to the point where there is absolutely no oil, (as in 'not-a-single-drop-left') since as the amount of available oil goes down, its price will be driven up to insanely high levels (the whole supply-demand thing)..

so in order to prevent the prices of oil from taking that route, it would make sense for the US to take over iraq's oil assets now...the country that controlled the most oil would be the most powerful...

just my $0.02

The reason US is attacking Iraq is because it doesn't want to buy oil from Iraq, it wants to gain ownership of the Iraqi oil producing plants and oil rich areas.

And about the gulf countries getting screwed up when the oil is gone, remember that Iran had a large nuclear program which would make it independent on oil, but that was before the US supported islamists took over and ended that program.
For the rest of those countries, they're just plain stupid, investing so much in luxuries and nothing in real infrastructure, they're gonna get so screwed up when the oil is gone.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 The reason US is attacking Iraq is because it doesn't want to buy oil from Iraq, it wants to gain ownership of the Iraqi oil producing plants and oil rich areas.

the article brings up a good point to debunk that opinion:
"
Finally, an American takeover of Iraq would not, in the long run, give the United States guaranteed access to Iraqi oil. A democratic Iraq might well decide that its future prosperity would be best served by a supply relationship with, say, China, now an importer of oil with rapidly growing demand. The days when industrialized countries acquired ownership of oil in producing countries are decades in the past. Conversely, a fragmented Iraq, breaking up along ethnic lines, might produce less oil than currently, rather than more.
"

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy the article brings up a good point to debunk that opinion:

ya its like these people can't read! maybe thats why they formulate such ridiciouliously naive opinions on this topic. Read the damn thing, you might learn something!

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I'm not sure what the Arab world is going to do economically once that happens, but I suspect it isn't going to be pretty. They've invested billions in their petroleum industries, and for most Arab nations the vast majority of their economic infrastructure is based on petroleum sales. Once demand plummets, these countries are probably going to need some kind of aid. I'm interested to see if the EU, which has been decidedly pro-Arab for some years now, will be willing to foot the bill.

forget economic consequences....can you imagine what will happen in the mid-east POLITICALLY once the sheikh's will have to say good bye? Civil wars and wars between the arab countries themselves(currently their oil-power and shared hatred against israel is the only thing unifying them)....gonna be very ugly.

Regardless of what you write, oil is certainly a very important factor that is driving the Administration -- just not the only one, or probably the main one.

What the US is worried about is not so much oil for itself, but the general supply of oil which is endangered by Saddam's control and power. And by the way, most of Iraq's oil goes to Europe anyway, not the USA. So you could say the US is concerned about Europe's supply of oil. Why? Because this affects the global economy - and, in particular, America's.

quote:

Originally posted by Eugene Regardless of what you write, oil is certainly a very important factor that is driving the Administration -- just not the only one, or probably the main one. What the US is worried about is not so much oil for itself, but the general supply of oil which is endangered by Saddam's control and power. And by the way, most of Iraq's oil goes to Europe anyway, not the USA. So you could say the US is concerned about Europe's supply of oil. Why? Because this affects the global economy - and, in particular, America's.

yes i with both of what you said, you bring up a very rational point. of course, its also naive to think oil doesnt play a role in this 'war' but i feel it is far less of a factor then people make it out to be with all their 'bush-oil conpiricies'. also what you said about iraqi oil mostly going to europe is also correct and wasnt mentioned in the article, its also a very good point.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy the article brings up a good point to debunk that opinion: " Finally, an American takeover of Iraq would not, in the long run, give the United States guaranteed access to Iraqi oil. A democratic Iraq might well decide that its future prosperity would be best served by a supply relationship with, say, China, now an importer of oil with rapidly growing demand. The days when industrialized countries acquired ownership of oil in producing countries are decades in the past. Conversely, a fragmented Iraq, breaking up along ethnic lines, might produce less oil than currently, rather than more. "

Ok, first of all, guess who will choose the democratic president or help out Iraq with a democracy. does USA ring the bell ! ? ! ? .. Now, take for a good example Afghanistan. The US helped set up the gov't and leaders. They are allies, the USA helps them, and they give the USA bases, ( now ) and whichever the USA may need. The samething will happen with Iraq. The USA never does things without something in change ( AT LEAST NOW ). So the USA will help out Iraq and actually set up their gov't if theres an eventual defeat. Guess what, the USA will have priviledges and benefits with this democratic IRAQ , providing the USA with cheaper oil. If for an eventual win for the USA, OIL will cost us , Americans about $1.10 a gallon .... it will also help out the economy from where it is now, and help BUSH administration gain points and ranking for the 2004 elections. Thats how I see it. Now, neither you or I know if the USA has interest over oil, but the obvious attitude of the Bush administration tours war with Iraq, seems a bit obvious to the millions of people in the world.

I will bring another interesting article which I read 2 days ago.. and share it with you guys.

people people, this war is for oil, at least indirectly. I'll tell you why.

There was a meeting setup by the US with all the Iraki opposition groups. Thase groups agreed that if Saddam is removed from power, the new govt in Irak will pay to the US what the war will cost to them.

This means, Irak will sell its diamond fields to have the cash to pay the war. Well, actually they don't have diamonds, they have the 2nd largest known petroleum reserve in the world. So take a guess on how they will pay the US back.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX Ok, first of all, guess who will choose the democratic president or help out Iraq with a democracy. does USA ring the bell ! ? ! ? .. Now, take for a good example Afghanistan. The US helped set up the gov't and leaders. They are allies, the USA helps them, and they give the USA bases, ( now ) and whichever the USA may need. The samething will happen with Iraq. The USA never does things without something in change ( AT LEAST NOW ). So the USA will help out Iraq and actually set up their gov't if theres an eventual defeat. Guess what, the USA will have priviledges and benefits with this democratic IRAQ , providing the USA with cheaper oil. If for an eventual win for the USA, OIL will cost us , Americans about $1.10 a gallon .... it will also help out the economy from where it is now, and help BUSH administration gain points and ranking for the 2004 elections. Thats how I see it. Now, neither you or I know if the USA has interest over oil, but the obvious attitude of the Bush administration tours war with Iraq, seems a bit obvious to the millions of people in the world. I will bring another interesting article which I read 2 days ago.. and share it with you guys.

i still stand by the original articles point. you said, and correct me if im wrong, that the new democratic government will present the US with cheaper oil. i belive that even though this is the most plossible outcome, there is no obligation, there is no pre-condition. there is no treaty, that will force this to happen. and thats what the article gets at, its not a given, in the long term there is no committment for cheap oil to the US.

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek people people, this war is for oil, at least indirectly. I'll tell you why. There was a meeting setup by the US with all the Iraki opposition groups. Thase groups agreed that if Saddam is removed from power, the new govt in Irak will pay to the US what the war will cost to them. This means, Irak will sell its diamond fields to have the cash to pay the war. Well, actually they don't have diamonds, they have the 2nd largest known petroleum reserve in the world. So take a guess on how they will pay the US back.

really? where did you hear this?

i kind of find it absurd, that america wants to fight this war but wants the new iraq to pay for it, thats borderline extortion/blackmail.

If American invasion happens, Iraq will be weak and it will require foreign aid in many areas, especially military and intelligence support. And the Americans are the only ones that are going to offer it, so new Iraq will be dependent upon america, and it will have to give something in return. And the only thing it can offer is to give oil fields to americans. While it will not be obligatory for Iraq to give the oil to the US, there won't be any other way of insuring stability and progress.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy i still stand by the original articles point. you said, and correct me if im wrong, that the new democratic government will present the US with cheaper oil. i belive that even though this is the most plossible outcome, there is no obligation, there is no pre-condition. there is no treaty, that will force this to happen. and thats what the article gets at, its not a given, in the long term there is no committment for cheap oil to the US.

Well, we dont know if there WONT be any conditions , treaties I doubt, but IM sure there will be something, it was said allready. That if USA attacks IRAQ quick and efficiently, US will get Saddam out and make it a democratic nation, been that the case, the OIL will be regulated and so on .. making it alot cheaper for the US and pumping up the economy. Come on, its obvious that THATS what Bush wants, undirectly or not, its the most obvious scenario. Even if it dont seem like it. Face the fact. None of us can be right, we really dont know whats inside their heads... Only HISTORY will unveil all the answers to this discussion if there is an answer.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX Well, we dont know if there WONT be any conditions , treaties I doubt, but IM sure there will be something, it was said allready. That if USA attacks IRAQ quick and efficiently, US will get Saddam out and make it a democratic nation, been that the case, the OIL will be regulated and so on .. making it alot cheaper for the US and pumping up the economy. Come on, its obvious that THATS what Bush wants, undirectly or not, its the most obvious scenario. Even if it dont seem like it. Face the fact. None of us can be right, we really dont know whats inside their heads... Only HISTORY will unveil all the answers to this discussion if there is an answer.

you guys completely miss his point.
First, New-Iraq does not have to sell oil to america - and america does not have to provide it with aid, but their will be an exchange which will be benifitial for BOTH PARTIES, not just america. The Iraqi people will be probably gaining much more in comparitive terms then the americans at the pumb from this co-operation. But if it is not so, if the Iraqis gain less, then they don't have to be dependent upon the US, they can join with another foreign power, such as China or Russia - which will probably provide vast ammount of foriegn aid to New Iraq to skew their alliance to support them, and their economic needs. Russia, and China can both strike deals with Iraq for its oil, if it is not happy selling it to the US. Who knows, maybe New Iraq will join OPEC if it in their own best interest and there won't be much any nation can do about that then.

Saying the US won't gain anything from war with Iraq is absolutely false, after all.. why would they trouble themselves to a war without purpose? who has ever done such things in history?

But to say it is soley about oil, and furthermore that this is the primary cause is almost as extreme. Oil will help Iraq to unify itself strongly, so it can pay for its own way, and if it sells it to america because they are on friendly terms, what is wrong with that? But it is not the cause.. after all Afghanistan has no oil, and the US still has little interest economically in such area, yet they grant large sums of foriegn aid, almost unconditionally!

Face it, war with Iraq is politically motivated, everyone is just trying to come up with economic excuses for it to make it look 'capitilisticly evil'.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus after all Afghanistan has no oil, and the US still has little interest economically in such area, yet they grant large sums of foriegn aid, almost unconditionally! Face it, war with Iraq is politically motivated, everyone is just trying to come up with economic excuses for it to make it look 'capitilisticly evil'.

I'm sorry but there is of course economic interests for the U.S. in Afghanistan. Some would even categorize it as huge. Ever since 1997 a consortium has been trying to build a huge gas-pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India. The closest way is through Afghanistan. And who has the biggest stake in this consortium with 46% (54% in 1998)? Unocal, a big U.S. oil company. You can read it here: Unocal Official web site.

Turkmenistan have huge natural reserves when it comes to gas, stemming from the Caspian Basin, and the prospected throughput of the pipeline would be around 2 billion cubic feet per day (20 billion cubic meters per year). A study by the Institute for Afghan Studies placed the total worth of oil and gas reserves in the Central Asian republics at around US$3 trillion at the prices around year 2000. That's a huge sum of money in most peoples eyes.

A deal between Unocal (and friends) and the Taliban regime was under progress (albeit steeped in disagreements) until the U.S. bombings of Osama bin Laden's training camps in 1998 made Unocal to withdraw until more stability could be ensured in the region. The U.S., under the 90's, saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability and was happy to negotioate with it. Despite all that outrage you could read about in the papers after 9/11 about the totalitarian, inhuman, totally repressive way they ruled the country and opressed the women. As long as there is benefits for the U.S. it doesn't seem to care how horrible the other part isand is even willing to support it. In total disregard of all that talk about fighting for democracy and whatnot.

The Karzai government, installed by the U.S. after the war in late 2001, have now starting to revive the old negotiations about the pipe line.

No matter how you twist and turn it, the oil factor always seems to raise it's very ugly head. It was of course not the main reason for the U.S. attacking Afghanistan but to say there is no ecnomic interest in that region from the U.S. is to be naive IMO.

Excellent post DJ irish!

BTW, i have heard unsubstantiated reports that Hamid Karzai may have been an ex employee idirectly of unocal. they deny this, and i have not found proof otherwise, so i don't believe it right now.

anyone else know about this?

Nice post DJ IRISH.

And to Yoepus, you admit to say that the USA wont make a war without anything in change or back. You also mention that IRAQ is not force to sell to the US and either the US buy from IRAQ. No conditions. But the most common sense , LOGICAL sense is that the US will benefit either way if it gets SADDAM out, thats my point, its not that I dont understand what the WASHINTONG POST says. My point is that the US does have an interest, while you recall it minor or huge, it does have an interest for OIL. COme on ! OIL is one of the most important factors for the US ECONOMY. To prove you so, Bush's administration wants or started to explore the Alaskan resources for petroleum, this is one bad thing for the environment ( but thats another sub. ) and he also wanted to do exploration on the Florida Gulf Coast .. which by the way would cause terrible catastrphe on the Coral Reefs, thats another sub. With this things in mind, it clearly shows that Bush is totally on the lookout for Oil, and what better deal then kicking Saddam and heaving an allie ruling Iraq ....

I do understand that for the Jewish community, with all due respect, would be more then happy with Saddam out of the middle east, If I was , I know I would, but when it comes to the interests of what the US wants, its a different story

I mean it on the nice side, dont come back with flames. Thanx

LiquidX

yep, plus Karzai was a consultant for Unocal.

oh and recently(2002.12.31) the US named Zalmay Khalilzad as a special envoy to Afghanistan, another ex-advisor for Unocal, he was working on the matter of implementing a pipeline thru Afghanistan with the accord of the Talibans in 1997.

How everything falls into place, its all logical *sarcastic smile*

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.