|
It's Not a War for Oil
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Izzy |
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.
|
|
|
|
| JohnSmith |
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. |
|
|
| ahlamalek |
| my 6.0 SUV needs oil! |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| 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 cause they are also so in debt!! stupid morons! |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| 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 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. |
|
|
| ahlamalek |
| 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. |
|
|
| quddha |
| 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. |
|
|
| AnotherWay83 |
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 :D |
|
|
| 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.
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. |
|
|
| Izzy |
| 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.
" |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| 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! |
|
|
|
|
