Old 24th March 2003, 05:27   #1
InvisableMan
Ninja Master!
(Forum King)
 
InvisableMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Hotel California
Posts: 4,331
one dumbfuck subject

give me a good reason exactly WHY the war in iraq would be for oil?


you cant? interesting.
InvisableMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2003, 06:00   #2
fwgx
Rudolf the Red.
(Forum King)
 
fwgx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 9,314
To control OPEC from inside.

.: fwgx.co.uk.:.My art:.

"We think science is interesting and if you disagree, you can fuck off."
fwgx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2003, 06:13   #3
Curi0us_George
Forum King
 
Curi0us_George's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Oxford, MS Posts: -1
Posts: 5,179
Send a message via AIM to Curi0us_George Send a message via Yahoo to Curi0us_George
You do realize that we only get about 25% of our oil from OPEC, don't you? It wouldn't be that beneficial for us to control OPEC. Besides which, controlling one oil producing country would hardly give us control of OPEC.

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.

47 65 6C 61 65 64 2E 63 6F 6D 00
Curi0us_George is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2003, 06:34   #4
fwgx
Rudolf the Red.
(Forum King)
 
fwgx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 9,314
It would let you control them a hell of a lot more. Iraq is only permitted to sell $20bn in oil a year - which equates to every Iraqi living on one 50th of what people in Britain live off, about £190 a year. Iraq is capable of a hell of a lot more production than that. It would force other OPEC countries to lower their prices.

It's a reason anyway, as was asked for.

e: 25% is still one fuck load of oil.

.: fwgx.co.uk.:.My art:.

"We think science is interesting and if you disagree, you can fuck off."
fwgx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2003, 06:40   #5
Curi0us_George
Forum King
 
Curi0us_George's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Oxford, MS Posts: -1
Posts: 5,179
Send a message via AIM to Curi0us_George Send a message via Yahoo to Curi0us_George
Quote:
Originally posted by Phily Baby
It would let you control them a hell of a lot more. Iraq is only permitted to sell $20bn in oil a year - which equates to every Iraqi living on one 50th of what people in Britain live off, about £190 a year. Iraq is capable of a hell of a lot more production than that. It would force other OPEC countries to lower their prices.
I don't think Bush really wants to control OPEC. He might want to make sure that they aren't going to try to starve Europe, but I don't think he's nearly so concerned about OPEC's direct influence on the US.

Iraqis are living off far less than that. Most of that money goes straight into Saddam's pocket, 20 billion or 20 trillion. That's not even a related argument, though.

Quote:
It's a reason anyway, as was asked for.
"Because oil is cool" is a reason, too. But I think he wanted a good reason.

Quote:
e: 25% is still one fuck load of oil.
Indeed, but it could be replaced from other sources.

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.

47 65 6C 61 65 64 2E 63 6F 6D 00
Curi0us_George is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2003, 07:36   #6
fwgx
Rudolf the Red.
(Forum King)
 
fwgx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 9,314
>>>Most of that money goes straight into Saddam's pocket, 20 billion or 20 trillion

billion. 7bn of which goes to compensation to Kuwait et al. A lot of which goes to repairing the infrastructure required for the survival of civillains that was destroyed, against the rules of the Geneva convention, in 1991, some will goto Saddam, about 0.8% goes towards paying for the weapons inspectors. So yes, you're right the normal Iraqi probably gets a lot less - go sanctions, wooooo. We're doing this for the people of Iraq we've successfully repressed and devalued their currency from one months wages in 1990 to being worth about a fiver or less today .

.: fwgx.co.uk.:.My art:.

"We think science is interesting and if you disagree, you can fuck off."
fwgx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2003, 07:47   #7
Xerxes
Capitalist Alumni
 
Xerxes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: my 4 Houses on Park Place
Posts: 8,687
Send a message via ICQ to Xerxes
A simple cost benefits analysis would show that a Trillion+ dollars, diplomatic penalties, and soldiers' lives simply is not worth "oil" or "inside influence of OPEC", as protestors' over simplistic worldview would have it.
Xerxes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2003, 08:20   #8
Curi0us_George
Forum King
 
Curi0us_George's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Oxford, MS Posts: -1
Posts: 5,179
Send a message via AIM to Curi0us_George Send a message via Yahoo to Curi0us_George
Quote:
Originally posted by Phily Baby
billion.
I wasn't asking you to clarify the value. I was pointing out that Saddam's people are starving not because he doesn't have the money to feed them, but because he is unwilling to give them that money.

Quote:
7bn of which goes to compensation to Kuwait et al. A lot of which goes to repairing the infrastructure required for the survival of civillains that was destroyed, against the rules of the Geneva convention, in 1991, some will goto Saddam, about 0.8% goes towards paying for the weapons inspectors. So yes, you're right the normal Iraqi probably gets a lot less - go sanctions, wooooo.
The sanctions don't matter. Saddam is not interested in helping his people. They're not going to see the money, no matter what the amount is.

Quote:
We're doing this for the people of Iraq we've successfully repressed and devalued their currency from one months wages in 1990 to being worth about a fiver or less today .
We've done nothing. Saddam did that. He started the Gulf War. He's starving his people. But sure, we're responsible for the plight of the Iraqi people.

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.

47 65 6C 61 65 64 2E 63 6F 6D 00
Curi0us_George is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2003, 08:22   #9
feroxis
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ole Miss
Posts: 58
Phily:

Saddam Hussein's Iraq

"Sanctions are not intended to harm the people of Iraq. That is why the sanctions regime has always specifically exempted food and medicine. The Iraqi regime has always been free to import as much of these goods as possible. It refuses to do so, even though it claims it wants to relieve the suffering of the people of Iraq.

• Iraq is actually exporting food, even though it says its people are malnourished. Coalition ships enforcing the UN sanctions against Iraq recently diverted the ship M/V MINIMARE containing 2,000 metric tons of rice and other material being exported from Iraq for hard currency instead of being used to support the Iraqi people.

• Baby milk sold to Iraq through the oil-for-food program has been found in markets throughout the Gulf, demonstrating that the Iraqi regime is depriving its people of much-needed goods in order to make an illicit profit.

• Child mortality figures have more than doubled in the south and center of the country, where the Iraqi government -- rather than the UN -- controls the program. If a turn-around on child mortality can be made in the north, which is under the same sanctions as the rest of the country, there is no reason it cannot be done in the south and center (see chart 2).

The fact of the matter is, however, that the government of Iraq does not share the international community's concern about the welfare of its people. Baghdad's refusal to cooperate with the oil-for-food program and its deliberate misuse of resources are cynical efforts to sacrifice the Iraqi people's welfare in order to bring an end to UN sanctions without complying with its obligations."


And, on the issue of mismanagement of funds:


"Saddam's Excesses

In addition to the revenues generated under the oil-for-food program, the government of Iraq earns money from other sources which it controls. Rather than spend these funds to help the people of Iraq, Saddam Hussein chooses to build monuments to himself. In addition, he deprives those in need of water and other scarce resources in order to favor elites and other supporters of the regime.

• Saddam celebrated his birthday this year by building a resort complex for regime loyalists. Since the Gulf War, Saddam has spent over $2 billion on presidential palaces. Some of these palaces boast gold-plated faucets and man-made lakes and waterfalls, which use pumping equipment that could have been used to address civilian water and sanitation needs. "


The sanctions imposed on Iraq were primarily there to make the government spend its money on bettering the lives of its people rather than the military and excesses for the ruling regime. The oil for food program is an example of this. Please note that where such programs are controlled by the UN (the northern part of the country) the inhabitants' situation is far better than in the middle and southern regions, which are controlled by the Iraqi government.


But, by all means, don't allow mere facts and figures to sway you.
feroxis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2003, 08:57   #10
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
just a Q

Do you, or do you not agree, that controling the oil production of Iraq, gives substancial influence on world market prices for oil?
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2003, 09:10   #11
feroxis
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ole Miss
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
just a Q

Do you, or do you not agree, that controling the oil production of Iraq, gives substancial influence on world market prices for oil?
I know the question wasn't addressed to me, but:

In a word, yes. However, the American government isn't going to be taking over Iraq as a colony or something. Theoretically they will have control over it themselves. That may sound like an optimistic projection, but... *shrug*

At any rate, I sincerely doubt that Iraq will start pumping oil into the US at $1 a barrel shortly after the war. I happen to believe that prices will remain competitive, because that's what will be best for the people of Iraq.

Then again, all of that is pretty much conjecture at this point, and I can't make you believe that the US is sincere in its promises of a wholly independent Iraq, both politically and economically.
feroxis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2003, 09:46   #12
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
nope, it will leave a pro US goverment, and leave some troops for "security" reasons before they go out fighting Iran, North Korea or whoever is next on the list.
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2003, 09:53   #13
feroxis
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ole Miss
Posts: 58
All I can really say is that time will tell.
feroxis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2003, 15:43   #14
caserock90
Senior Member
 
caserock90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Telecom heaven
Posts: 227
Send a message via ICQ to caserock90 Send a message via AIM to caserock90 Send a message via Yahoo to caserock90
Oil is precious to any country, as a natural resouce to Iraq, it is their life that has not bloomed. Whom ever takes the initiative and begin to rebuild Iraq with the money, they will become an instant hero for that country. I dont know how many years behind Iraq is but with the money well distributed, it can become a respectful country in a matter of a century. Being cought up with the technology of the year 2100, it may not depend on oil as much, or if the oil is not near being depleted, then they will transform oil into another form of energy.

caserock90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2003, 19:41   #15
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Re: one dumbfuck subject

Quote:
Originally posted by InvisableMan
give me a good reason exactly WHY the war in iraq would be for oil?
teeheehee - but i never said it was

it could be (and almost certainly is, regardless of your views on the war), a factor in the decision to attack, though.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2003, 23:37   #16
InvisableMan
Ninja Master!
(Forum King)
 
InvisableMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Hotel California
Posts: 4,331
yus! another intelligent topic by invisableman! go me!
InvisableMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 22:00   #17
Fickle
Butterknife of Justice
(Forum King)
 
Fickle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 5,502
We, as Americans, sit on a vast expanse of Oil under Alaska. We sell the majority to JAPAN. We DON't Need Saddams oil. We never have. This is not about oil.
Alaskan Reserves are gigantic. The whole of America could live from it for a long time. Instead we feed it to Japan. You know, those guys we obliterated? Well, we obliterated two cities, but you get the general idea.

Go read a book without pictures
pabook? | Look, a blog! | Buy Stuff I Wrote
Fickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 22:15   #18
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
fickle, you need to get your facts straight.

It's realy not that simple.

Why? because getting oil out of alaska is alot more expensive than getting it from the middle east. Now that's a treat to american way of life.... paying 1 dollar per liter for gas like we're doing over here

besides wouldn't it be cool to see the most magnificent national park in the united states destroyed from oil interrests, which i know bush is planning on.... woohoo go cowboy :shrugs:
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 23:32   #19
Curi0us_George
Forum King
 
Curi0us_George's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Oxford, MS Posts: -1
Posts: 5,179
Send a message via AIM to Curi0us_George Send a message via Yahoo to Curi0us_George
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
fickle, you need to get your facts straight.

It's realy not that simple.

Why? because getting oil out of alaska is alot more expensive than getting it from the middle east. Now that's a treat to american way of life.... paying 1 dollar per liter for gas like we're doing over here
[quote]
European gas is so expensive because your governments tax the hell out of it.

Quote:
besides wouldn't it be cool to see the most magnificent national park in the united states destroyed from oil interrests, which i know bush is planning on.... woohoo go cowboy :shrugs:
Tapping into some oil does not require destroying Alaska.

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.

47 65 6C 61 65 64 2E 63 6F 6D 00
Curi0us_George is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2003, 17:58   #20
Fickle
Butterknife of Justice
(Forum King)
 
Fickle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 5,502
Quote:
Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
fickle, you need to get your facts straight.

It's realy not that simple.

Why? because getting oil out of alaska is alot more expensive than getting it from the middle east. Now that's a treat to american way of life.... paying 1 dollar per liter for gas like we're doing over here

besides wouldn't it be cool to see the most magnificent national park in the united states destroyed from oil interrests, which i know bush is planning on.... woohoo go cowboy :shrugs:
You obviously have never been there.

We already pump oil from there, and have the Alaskan Pipeline moving it around the massive state to refineries and such. George W. wants to tap even more, which is truly unnessesary. All we have to do is cut Japans tap into it, and we'd have more.
By the way, despite having one of the largest reserves in the world, Alaska Oil and gas prices are extremely high.

And I'm not saying I'm an expert just because I've been there, but I do think it's a lovely place and we should keep the reserves intact. All we have to do stop selling it all to Japan, and we could be self efficiant.

Go read a book without pictures
pabook? | Look, a blog! | Buy Stuff I Wrote
Fickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump