PDA

View Full Version : World News Could you explain more about 'America going after the oil'



matthew
06-07--2006, 07:10 PM
Specificaly for Atomic.. but anybody can chip in.

Could you explain more about 'America going after the oil'
Do you know how many barrels America imports from Iraq ?
Compared to other countries !. Is it in a significant amout to be 'worth it' compared to how much the war is costing them ?.

It has always bothered me this one. I find people quite happy to not believe the goverment was involved [in 9/11] but then think it is ''all about oil''.

Imho how can it be if the two issues are different.. Iraq was under resolutions for 10+ years.. 'out of the blue' a band of nutters decieded to blow up some towers and try and blow up the pentagon. These two issues are different. Saddam had no hand in the planning or execution of these atrocities.

The cost of the war is running into millions of pounds a day.. how can it then be financialy viable.. ?. I suppose as you say ''they fucked it up''.. Not forgeting Though the Iraqi goverment have control of the oil.


It seems if America did do it for the oil.. they also gave the opportunity for the majority of other countries to buy the oil..also.

If the iraq economy benefits from this more 'free' trade.. i don't see a issue with it.

Though i think to say it is all about oil is simplistic..and not true.

If it IS then it seems to be a win win situation.

Atomik
06-07--2006, 07:16 PM
Specificaly for Atomic.. but anybody can chip in.

Could you explain more about 'America going after the oil'
Do you know how many barrels America imports from Iraq ?
Compared to other countries !. Is it in a significant amout to be 'worth it' compared to how much the war is costing them ?.In theory, very much so. At full production, Iraq could meet half of America's curent oil consumption.


Imho how can it be if the two issues are different.. Iraq was under resolutions for 10+ years.. 'out of the blue' a band of nutters decieded to blow up some towers and try and blow up the pentagon. These two issues are different. Saddam had no hand in the planning or execution of these atrocities. America had been discussing options for invading Iraq for years. 9/11 gave them a convenient exucse.


The cost of the war is running into millions of pounds a day.. how can it then be financialy viable.. ?. I suppose as you say ''they fucked it up''.. Not forgeting Though the Iraqi goverment have control of the oil.They fucked it up. America expected to be able to prop up a friendly regime in Iraq - one which could have kept the country stable. Remember, while such a regime owns the oil, they would have no cash and would need to grant contracts to foreign companies to extract it.

matthew
06-07--2006, 07:52 PM
In theory, very much so. At full production, Iraq could meet half of America's curent oil consumption.


If America was going to be the main or only benefactor. I actually looked it up after i posted it.. It is running at 0.500 million barrels on average a day [going to America].. in comparison nothing spectacular..


America had been discussing options for invading Iraq for years. 9/11 gave them a convenient exucse.

This is like the Iran situation though .. ''Nothing being taken off the table''

Along with every othe possibility ..inclueding useing diplomacy. That failed.

It was always going to end in a war..if Saddam did not comply. Did the US draft all the resolutions applied to Iraq ?... i don't think so.




They fucked it up. America expected to be able to prop up a friendly regime in Iraq - one which could have kept the country stable. Remember, while such a regime owns the oil, they would have no cash and would need to grant contracts to foreign companies to extract it.


It has only been a few years.

They HAVE propped up a friendly country..the oil revenues will improve.. The major oil companies are working with the iraqi goverment and the american goverment..and every other goverment that wishes to join in.

Your right.. no doubt [about requireing investment etc]. the only thing i dispute is your thinking it was the main reason. I don't think so.

Atomik
06-07--2006, 08:06 PM
It is running at 0.500 million barrels on average a day [going to America].. in comparison nothing spectacular.. Because they fucked it up. Iraq is way, way below its production capacity.

To be honest though matthew, we've been round in circles on this issue in numerous threads. You don't believe the war was about oil, and I don't have the time or energy to convince you otherwise.

matthew
06-07--2006, 10:39 PM
Because they fucked it up. Iraq is way, way below its production capacity.

To be honest though matthew, we've been round in circles on this issue in numerous threads. You don't believe the war was about oil, and I don't have the time or energy to convince you otherwise.

It is below it's capacity... for obvious reasons.


I CAN beleive it was about oil in a certain regard. The problem i have is it was ONLY about oil. It is too simplistic to imagine it was ONLY about oil. That is my dispute. For e.g if you ONLY put into google ''Iraq oil Bush'' (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%27%27Iraq+oil+Bush%27%27&meta=)and did not put '' aid iraqi us '' (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%27%27+aid+iraqi+us+%27%27+&meta=)then you would come across a different message.

You seem happy with the simplistic view.. i concern myself with the bigger picture. I wonder why that is ?.

Lunar Seed
07-07--2006, 02:42 AM
The cost of the war is running into millions of pounds a day.. how can it then be financialy viable.. ?.

Because those millions per day are public money.
That is then laundered back into private money in the pockets of Cheney, and associates, through the process of tenderless contracts to the likes of Haliburton, Bechtel, etc., which are privately owned.

Quite clever really.
The public, bears the cost and the ruling elite get the profit.
It is a system that worked well throughout recorded history.

The poor sods in Iraq, of course, just get to die...

Atomik
07-07--2006, 07:18 AM
You seem happy with the simplistic view.. i concern myself with the bigger picture. I wonder why that is ?.You should know me well enough to realise that my view of any given situation is never simplistic, which makes that last comment particularly cheap and snide. Like I said.... I simply don't have the time or energy to get drawn into a comprehensive debate on this subject yet again, so please find someone else to argue with.

Coyote
07-07--2006, 07:22 AM
Its the same thing govts and empires have done for 4000 years; expansionism. Its not as simple as being "about the oil" or even "the contracts for halliburton" - nothing new, nothing bizzarre, just the homeless and souless seeking to fill the gap with an illusion of control and angrandizement.

But of course conspiracies sell media.....

Its not a conspiracy, its the simple fact of what empires do. If anything, the conspiracy is keeping quiet about how ineffective it is in meeting its needs - we are sold again and again that:
1, The world is hostile
2, An increase in power/control will solve this and bring security
when this is bullshit as as long as you have the view of "1" you will never find a home and security.

Now THATs the fragging conspiracy; an unconscious conspiracy of denial :(

matthew
07-07--2006, 04:15 PM
You should know me well enough to realise that my view of any given situation is never simplistic, which makes that last comment particularly cheap and snide. Like I said.... I simply don't have the time or energy to get drawn into a comprehensive debate on this subject yet again, so please find someone else to argue with.

I suppose i do

Looking back.. i was a little cheap and snide. I'll apologies for that. It was not my intenion. I suppose i have the ability to be that way.. so sometimes [even with out realiseing] i do it. Sorry.

thanks for the reponse .

Atomik
07-07--2006, 04:32 PM
I suppose i do

Looking back.. i was a little cheap and snide. I'll apologies for that. It was not my intenion. I suppose i have the ability to be that way.. so sometimes [even with out realiseing] i do it. Sorry.

thanks for the reponse .:hug: