![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "pacplyer" wrote in message om... (Steven P. McNicoll) wrote in message om... (pacplyer) wrote in message . com... What dumb comments! We import 80% of all our oil from Saudi Arabia. No, we do not. Since 60% of all our oil is imported, it's obvious that we do not import 80% of all our oil from Saudi Arabia. I meant to say: We import 80% of all our *gulf* oil from from Saudi Arabia. But even that figure fluctuates yearly. So, my statistical error. Would you agree that pre-war Iraq produced less than 10% of U.S. imported oil? Post-war it is minimal so far. I doubt the output has been restored to any comprable pre-war level. My point was that stealing oil from Iraq was not a motive for the invasion. Iraqi oil production was minimal because of the sanctions and if any oil did make its way to the US it would have probably been a mistake. The only oil that was allowed to be exported was for humanitarian supplies. Therefore US imports of oil from Iraq were zero before the war. Because Iraqi oil production has been held back for 14 odd years the Iraqis have some of the biggest oil reserves known. So going to war to steal Iraq's oil is not an unreasonable assumption. It is not just a matter of current production it is about access to future production and the control of the reserves. Its of no consequence to the US whether the Iraqi oil production is high or low at the moment as their is a glut of oil. In fact I suspect that the US is happy for it to take some time before Iraqi oil production is up to pre Gulf War I levels. Its like keeping money in the bank. Mind you some Iraqi people might like to see production and exports rise and try and get living standards back to what they used to be. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"S Green" wrote snip
Iraqi oil production was minimal because of the sanctions and if any oil did make its way to the US it would have probably been a mistake. The only oil that was allowed to be exported was for humanitarian supplies. Therefore US imports of oil from Iraq were zero before the war. Because Iraqi oil production has been held back for 14 odd years the Iraqis have some of the biggest oil reserves known. So going to war to steal Iraq's oil is not an unreasonable assumption. It is not just a matter of current production it is about access to future production and the control of the reserves. Sure it's an unreasonable assumption. The burden of proof is upon the person making the charge of stealing (that would be you, Green.) I see no evidence that spending 170 billion was a secret plot to steal such a small (5% of total U.S. import) oil. Future undeveloped oil fields cost a fortune in development, require regional stability, and their future output is theroretical at best. But this charge of stealing is a moot point anyway. Once we hand over control, that oil can go to the world market (not just the U.S.) The difference will be that the oil proceeds this time will go more towards improving the standard of living for common Iraqies instead of all to a madman building secret "superguns" (1991) and other military hardware to support more 8-year wars on his neighbors (e.g. the Iran-Iraq war.) Looking for WMD is what the Bush Admin did. Just because they didn't discover functioning a-bombs or bugs doesn't mean those things didn't slip into Syria before we got there. Saddam = weapon purchases and regional war. USA/handover = oil production and money spread to more individuals (we hope.) Its of no consequence to the US whether the Iraqi oil production is high or low at the moment as their is a glut of oil. In fact I suspect that the US is happy for it to take some time before Iraqi oil production is up to pre Gulf War I levels. Hmmm, you said pre war production was zero (see your quote above.) Martin posted a link that in 1999 it was 8% of all US imports (isn't that pre Gulf War II ? I guess you meant the immediate period before invasion? Its like keeping money in the bank. Mind you some Iraqi people might like to see production and exports rise and try and get living standards back to what they used to be. But again, who is all this revenue going to go to? Warlords? Madmen? Some long lost royal familly? Radical terrorists? I betcha none of them want it to go to their people. I want us to pull out, but I realize it's going to be a disaster any way we do it. I supported both invasions, but I am against this occupation. Our attempts at helping these people achieve freedom is unappreciated. There is no way to convert oppressed peoples who have not the courage to throw off their oppressors themselves. Believing that all people on this earth deserve freedom is where Bush screwed up. The guy is too big-hearted. Our reconstruction efforts also appear to be unappreciated. My conclusion is that some people just don't deserve to be liberated. We should pull out and let the place fall into civil war. If it spreads into the other oilfields then we'll come back and bomb them again. Is this what you want, Green? pacplyer |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|