War not about oil?

by kokomero Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:14

Your logic and reasoning are very weak.

The US/K colonisers can not control Iraqi oil if they have no way
y of ensuring preferential supply/pricing, and contracts for US/K collaborators/contractors to pump that oil.

Secondly if UN sanctions were removed the oil would be under the control of Saddam/Iraq which would not allow the US/K to control the oil directly or by proxy (installed government).

by - Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:16

Those were my first comments as well.
To be fair they are quite well met in the essay.

by Truth - truth Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:43

This war is a war to save the dollar and save America from economic collapse. This is in fact a war between Europe the Euro and America and the dollar with Iraq as the battlefield. America must and will win this war it's very existence depends on it, forget about saving the civilian population or we care about the Iraqi people, the very existence of the U.S. as a super power is worth millions of iraqi lives any lives for that matter. Rumsfeld is right when he says this is a war unlike any before it and this is why: Since the value of currency shifted from the gold standard in 1971 to oil, the U.S.has had a monopoly on the world economy, with an agreement between the oil producing countries of the world to trade in dollars and dollars only. As America is the only country to mint dollars they have literally had 30 years worth of any amount of anything they want for free writing cheques that will never be cashed, no wonder they are the most powerful military force ever.
But... enter stage right, the Euro and it's growth and a threat to the almighty dollar, America with it's trillions of dollars of debt cannot allow this to happen,as if this rude shock to the dollar monopoly was not bad enough, in 1999 Iraq starts to trade oil in Euros and Russia among others starts to think along the same lines America realises it's precarious position, and starts to work to redress the situation in the only way it can, armed to the teeth. Were you wondering why this war had to be fought so soon? now you know the U.S. could not let anybody else get the same idea or realise the Euro could actually be more profitable. It is not about oil directly but is about returning the Iraqi oil wells to trading in dollars and send a warning to others not to contemplate anything other than the status quo. And this is why people in Europe ought to oppose this war because it is our economy that will be buggered and us that will be out on the street looking for jobs that don't exist, are you worried about Americas bloated military now, well just wait till they have blown all competition to the dollar out of the water and have secured the "New American Century" as they call it. Wait for another few years when they have full control over middle eastern oil and no competition anywhere in sight and the CIA is sitting in your back garden and they know what you had for breakfast by the colour of your shit. This will happen as this is the biggest lunge for world domination the world has seen and makes Hitler's attempt look like a sad joke, wait a few years and see by then it will be too late this war will not add to American power but will multiply it many fold today they can fly a missile through your letter box tommorow they won't have to, the possibilties will be endless we will all be living in the American dream with no social security no free health care a military autocricy run by insanely wealthy corporate executives. What are our options? you tell me !!!

by - Wed Mar 26, 2003 12:03

"This why people in Europe ought to oppose this war because it is our economy that will be buggered and us that will be out on the street looking for jobs that don't exist"
Does that mean that the US people ought to be for war for the same reason?

...

Again, I'd really have to ask, have you actually read the full text of the essay?

The arguements you're making regarding the dollar and euro are good ones, and are met. I don't know if you have further points to rebuke the ones made in the essay, and I would very much like to hear them if you do.

But at present you appear to outraged by something you haven't bothered to fully read.

by kokomero Wed Mar 26, 2003 12:28

Try downloading guerre.pps from this website. If you don't have powerpoint you can view it using powerpoint viewer from http://www.microsoft.com.

It contains an in depth analysis of how the US actually MADE money from the last Gulf War and are planning to do the same this time round. Pretty compelling stuff.

It is in French so to summarise what is in the file:

The first gulf war cost $40B and on first reaction one might assume the US bore all of the cost. They bore only 25% of the cost, with the other 75% being borne mainly by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Before GF 1 the price of 1 barrel of oil was $15 and during the war it rose to $42, producing a profit of $60B which was split 50-50 between the local governments and the oil multinationals pumping the oil.

Of the 50% or $30B which went to the oil companies, $21B went to the mainly US-based 7 sisters (Shell, Tamoil, Esso…) and the other $9B went mainly to private US-based concerns.

The US had a war cost of $10B and a profit to US oil companies of $21B, so they made $11B. On top of this they raised taxes on the $9B in profits raised by the private US concerns.

Therefore the US made $11B directly from the war and a good portion of the remaining $49B from the original $60B by way of taxation. And of cousre US concerns did very well out of the reconstruction of Kuwait.

Who paid for the war? Actually we did, through higher oil prices to the tune of $60B through higher oil prices!

by - Wed Mar 26, 2003 12:39

Thanks for a reasoned answer. I don't know French I'm afraid, but I appreciate the link anyway.

In regards your point:
Sorry, but isn't that exaclty the arguement the essay spends some time rebuking?
If they wanted to keep prices high, they wouldn't be going anywhere those oil fields. They'd be making damned sure that the sanctions continued.

by kokomero Wed Mar 26, 2003 12:58

I read the essay which was interesting but put forward no alternate hypothesis as to why the US/K are trying to colonise Iraq.

If you look at Israel and Iraq and compare them in terms of human rights, WMD, attacking their neighbours and finally oil as I did in previous postings you will see that they look similar in many respects except that one has oil. So why hasn't Israel been invaded?

I never said the US/K wanted to control the oil directly ... an undemocratic or even tyrannical proxy regieme such as that in Kuwait or in Saudi Arabia will do just fine.

by - Wed Mar 26, 2003 13:10

He sees Iraq as a potential danger. I doubht Iran is seen in that context:
"Oil, however, is relevant to this extent: Whoever controls those reserves sits atop a large source of potential revenue which, in the hands of a rogue state, could bankroll a sizeable and dangerous military arsenal. That's why the United States and Great Britain care more about containing the ambitions of Saddam Hussein than, say, the ambitions of Robert Mugabe. Still, if seizing oil fields from anti-western regimes is the name of the game, why aren't U.S. troops massing on the Venezuelan border and menacing Castro "Mini-Me" Hugo Chavez?"

Regarding a puppet-state:
"If the argument is that this war is aimed at installing a pro-American regime more inclined to grant oil contracts to American and British rather than French and Russian oil firms, then it invites a similar charge that France and Russia are against war, primarily to protect their cosy economic relationships with the existing Iraqi regime. Regardless, only one or two American or British firms in this scenario would "win" economically while the rest would lose because increased production would lower global oil prices and thus profits. Because no one knows who would win the post-war contract "lottery," it makes little sense for the oil industry (or the politicians who supposedly cater to them) to support war".

by - Wed Mar 26, 2003 13:18

It is possible that they are actually scared of a military tyrant in charge of a growing arsenal and sitting on oil fields.

I've no doubht that money is a consideration as well. But, it is just possible that what Blair is saying may well be a motivating factor.

by kokomero Wed Mar 26, 2003 15:52

"Oil, however, is relevant to this extent: Whoever controls those reserves sits atop a large source of potential revenue which, in the hands of a rogue state, could bankroll a sizeable and dangerous military arsenal. That's why the United States and Great Britain care more about containing the ambitions of Saddam Hussein than, say, the ambitions of Robert Mugabe. Still, if seizing oil fields from anti-western regimes is the name of the game, why aren't U.S. troops massing on the Venezuelan border and menacing Castro "Mini-Me" Hugo Chavez?"

Rubbish! N. Korea has nukes without oil ... his thesis simply does not add up and smacks of a rebuttal strategy rather than serious argument.

by Gaillimhed Wed Mar 26, 2003 18:15

The Invasion of iraq is a massive mobilisation of military men and machinery that marks the emergence of the US as *the* dominant global power. Their aspirations have been made known in no-uncertain terms, American interests are of absolute primacy and the rest of the world better get ready for a good shafting, SIT DOWN. So BBC guy is kinda right, its definitely about more than JUST oil, but one thing BBC-guy and all those other media moderates havent figured into their clever rebuttals is this: They assume that the Bush administration know what theyre doing, that they are omnipotent leaders with superhuman powers of intelligence and foresight. and that they would never make a stupid blithering catastrophic blunder. In case anyone is in any doubt let me assure you that is not the case! these men are fools, dangerous fools who have no regard for life, rights, environment. The interntional Anti War movement isnt just *anti war*, its anti empire, and even more than that its anti Bush-american empire. Its not just about oil and its not just about war.

by - Thu Mar 27, 2003 10:32

kokomero : "Rubbish! N. Korea has nukes without oil"

But they don't yet pose a -direct- threat to Western territory... which is quite a weak arguement I'll admit. But in order of priority, Iraq would seem like a more immediate threat.

I know it's been stated that N. Korea is a "local problem", do you think that there won't be US action there at some point in the next few years?

by Sean Tue Apr 01, 2003 20:22

If the US was to go to war for oil, it would actually be easier to invade and conquer Venezuala than it would to conquer Iraq.