The US, The UN and Iraq

thanks bill, understand, now.

thought this was interesting from New Scientist mag (although it only restates arguments long since discussed)

By Fred Pearce
Iraq has the second largest proven reserves of oil in the world, behind only Saudi Arabia. 112 billion barrels lie below the country's desert sands, together with another probable 220 billion barrels of unproven reserves. What's more, the US Department of Energy says, "Iraq's true resource potential may be far greater, as the country is relatively unexplored due to years of war and sanctions."

This, plus the fact that "Iraq's oil production costs are among the lowest in the world, makes it a highly attractive oil prospect," says the department's latest country analysis. No wonder many critics believe that the campaign to topple Saddam Hussein is really a battle for Iraq's oil.

Iraq is peppered with oil fields. The biggest are in the far south around Basra and in the Kurdish north. Military strategists predict that troops entering Iraq from the Gulf and overland from Turkey would first aim to secure these fields. The goal would be both to cut off supplies to Saddam's military and to keep the oil safe for future use by preventing sabotage by a desperate Saddam or capture by warring factions emerging from Saddam's shadow.

The oil fields and pipelines are in a bad state. Many were bombed during the last Gulf war and have never been repaired. UN sanctions mean many have no markets in any case. According to the Iraqi government a third are not in production.

All that would change if Saddam were overthrown and UN sanctions ended. The world is likely to grow increasingly thirsty for Iraqi oil. "The US in particular is ever more dependent on oil imports, especially from the Middle East, which has 70% of world reserves," says Paul Rogers of the University of Bradford's department of peace studies. "Thirty years ago, the US was virtually self-sufficient in oil, but it now imports over 60 per cent of its needs."

With fears about global warming barely registering inside the Bush administration, the US Department of Energy says it expects US oil consumption to rise by a staggering 48 per cent between now and 2020. "There is a deep and pervading recognition at the heart of the Bush administration that the most significant future vulnerability for the US is its steadily growing dependence on Gulf oil," says Rogers.

Rogers says securing foreign oil supplies has been a central goal of US foreign policy for 30 years. The Iraq war, from this perspective, represents a ratcheting-up of this strategy. Some hawks in Washington, such as the influential Heritage Foundation, also see it as a chance to break the grip of, or even destroy, OPEC and permanently lower oil prices by raising supplies.

This strategic insecurity is fed by growing fears about Saudi oil supplies, should radicals unseat the current regime there, and increasingly pessimistic predictions of future world oil supplies from US oil companies. Last year, Exxon admitted that new oil discoveries were falling badly behind rising demand. Worldwide, existing oilfields can only meet half the demand for oil expected by 2010, said Exxon director Harry Longwell in the journal World Energy.

Certainly, US oil companies look forward to 'privatising' the Iraqi oil industry after Saddam's fall. They have already held talks with leaders of the Iraqi National Congress, the main opposition group. They are not alone in eyeing Iraqi oil.

French, Russian, Chinese and other oil companies have established oil links with Saddam, in the expectation of cashing in once UN sanctions are over. But many are severing those links and cosying up to the Iraqi National Congress. They will have heard CIA director James Woolsey say last autumn, "France and Russia... should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them."

That could be bad news for British oil chiefs who may expect a payback for the UK's support for the war. Recently Lord Browne, chief executive of British oil giant BP, claimed that his company was being squeezed out in deals between US oil companies and the Iraqi National Congress and called for a "level playing field for the selection of oil companies to go in there if Iraq changes its regime."



From New Scientist Online News 18:50 29 January 03

thanks bill, understand, now.

thought this was interesting from New Scientist mag (although it only restates arguments long since discussed)

By Fred Pearce
Iraq has the second largest proven reserves of oil in the world, behind only Saudi Arabia. 112 billion barrels lie below the country's desert sands, together with another probable 220 billion barrels of unproven reserves. What's more, the US Department of Energy says, "Iraq's true resource potential may be far greater, as the country is relatively unexplored due to years of war and sanctions."

This, plus the fact that "Iraq's oil production costs are among the lowest in the world, makes it a highly attractive oil prospect," says the department's latest country analysis. No wonder many critics believe that the campaign to topple Saddam Hussein is really a battle for Iraq's oil.

Iraq is peppered with oil fields. The biggest are in the far south around Basra and in the Kurdish north. Military strategists predict that troops entering Iraq from the Gulf and overland from Turkey would first aim to secure these fields. The goal would be both to cut off supplies to Saddam's military and to keep the oil safe for future use by preventing sabotage by a desperate Saddam or capture by warring factions emerging from Saddam's shadow.

The oil fields and pipelines are in a bad state. Many were bombed during the last Gulf war and have never been repaired. UN sanctions mean many have no markets in any case. According to the Iraqi government a third are not in production.

All that would change if Saddam were overthrown and UN sanctions ended. The world is likely to grow increasingly thirsty for Iraqi oil. "The US in particular is ever more dependent on oil imports, especially from the Middle East, which has 70% of world reserves," says Paul Rogers of the University of Bradford's department of peace studies. "Thirty years ago, the US was virtually self-sufficient in oil, but it now imports over 60 per cent of its needs."

With fears about global warming barely registering inside the Bush administration, the US Department of Energy says it expects US oil consumption to rise by a staggering 48 per cent between now and 2020. "There is a deep and pervading recognition at the heart of the Bush administration that the most significant future vulnerability for the US is its steadily growing dependence on Gulf oil," says Rogers.

Rogers says securing foreign oil supplies has been a central goal of US foreign policy for 30 years. The Iraq war, from this perspective, represents a ratcheting-up of this strategy. Some hawks in Washington, such as the influential Heritage Foundation, also see it as a chance to break the grip of, or even destroy, OPEC and permanently lower oil prices by raising supplies.

This strategic insecurity is fed by growing fears about Saudi oil supplies, should radicals unseat the current regime there, and increasingly pessimistic predictions of future world oil supplies from US oil companies. Last year, Exxon admitted that new oil discoveries were falling badly behind rising demand. Worldwide, existing oilfields can only meet half the demand for oil expected by 2010, said Exxon director Harry Longwell in the journal World Energy.

Certainly, US oil companies look forward to 'privatising' the Iraqi oil industry after Saddam's fall. They have already held talks with leaders of the Iraqi National Congress, the main opposition group. They are not alone in eyeing Iraqi oil.

French, Russian, Chinese and other oil companies have established oil links with Saddam, in the expectation of cashing in once UN sanctions are over. But many are severing those links and cosying up to the Iraqi National Congress. They will have heard CIA director James Woolsey say last autumn, "France and Russia... should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them."

That could be bad news for British oil chiefs who may expect a payback for the UK's support for the war. Recently Lord Browne, chief executive of British oil giant BP, claimed that his company was being squeezed out in deals between US oil companies and the Iraqi National Congress and called for a "level playing field for the selection of oil companies to go in there if Iraq changes its regime."



From New Scientist Online News 18:50 29 January 03

Setanta

I will answer your criticisms of me by PM as I'm certain no one here cares what you and I think of each other.

I thought Setanta's remarks were refreshing and on the mark; but, you do have every right to move it to PM. Have a good day perception!

Walter, We've learned from history that our government cannot be trusted. I didn't trust GWBush before he became president, and that hasn't changed during the past two years. It's incumbant upon us to check everything our leaders say to make sure they are not stretching the truth only to make their arguments sound factual. You probably didn't listen to his State of the Union address. It has many holes and inconsistencies. c.i.

Nobody asked me, but hey - I've never let small details like that hinder me...

I think Setana's remarks were profound and very lucid. I think his appraisal of what is, and is not conducive to productive exchange of ideas were right on the mark. Too often, discussions disintegrate into pis_ing contests and little semantic dagger wars. I've been as guilty of it as anyone, as witnessed lately by my recent games with Trespassers.

So, although Perception opted to move their disagreement to a PM (as, it was correctly pointed out, is his right), I think the subject of dismantling other's arguments with superior logic or more convincing substantiation, versus pursuing ego duels involves all of us on this really well maintained forum.

Here's another view point.

Flogging the French
January 31, 2003
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Ah, for the halcyon days of a year ago, when we fretted
about why Arabs hate us. Now the question is: Why does
everybody hate us?

The European edition of Time magazine has been conducting a
poll on its Web site: "Which country poses the greatest
danger to world peace in 2003?" With 318,000 votes cast so
far, the responses are: North Korea, 7 percent; Iraq, 8
percent; the United States, 84 percent.

O.K., it's just an Internet poll and not worth the pixels
it's not printed on. Sure, the Poles and Portuguese may
still dance with us. But if there were an extra spot on the
axis of evil, the world would vote us in. Somehow, in a
year's time, we've become Iraq.

John le Carré put it this way in a (representatively
venomous) essay this month in The Times of London: "America
has entered one of its periods of historic madness, but
this is the worst I can remember."

So what should we make of this? Does it matter that we've
somehow morphed in public perceptions from the world's only
superpower to the world's super-rogue state?

Of course it matters.

The macho notion that we'll do what
we choose and if the world doesn't like it, it can go
[insert expletive here] is both ludicrous and dangerous. We
mustn't become slaves to foreign opinion, but neither
should we glibly dismiss it as we prepare to launch a war
that will hugely aggravate this distemper - which will
nurture more terrorism.

One example: In 1991 the U.S. leaned on Saudi Arabia to let
us keep military bases there after the gulf war. We ignored
its concerns about public opinion because the bases would
improve our security.

Wrong. In fact the bases radicalized many young Saudis, and
persuaded Osama bin Laden to turn his sights on the U.S.
What seemed a shrewd move to improve our security ended up
undermining our friends and strengthening our enemies.

Moreover, while the lack of allied support won't prevent us
from getting into a war with Iraq, it may prevent us from
getting out. The U.S. sees its role as the globe's SWAT
team, but after we have ousted Saddam and whistled for the
cleanup crew it's not clear that the allies will want to
help. Nor will they pay the bill for this Iraq war as they
did the last one. Each time Don Rumsfeld insults Europe, it
costs us another $20 billion.

It's also possible that if all your friends say you're
making a mistake, they're not mendacious back-stabbers but
simply right. As Kipling said: "trust yourself when all men
doubt you / But make allowance for their doubting too."

In fairness, I also have to say that President Bush is
right that we must reserve the option of invading countries
unilaterally. Think back to 1993, when we let European
passivity, particularly by John Major and François
Mitterrand, block military strikes in Yugoslavia until tens
of thousands of people had been killed. In retrospect we
should have ignored the Europeans and unilaterally attacked
Serbia to stop the genocide. Ditto in Rwanda. But in Iraq
there is no such urgency.

Of course the anti-Americanism is unfair. It's particularly
irritating coming from the French, who pandered shamelessly
to Baghdad during the 1990's to get oil-for-food contracts,
thus undermining containment and creating today's crisis.

Yes, the French can be exasperating. Years ago I worked for
a summer on a French farm, and my boss constantly denounced
the English as penible - tiresome - so one day I asked why.
"Because they fought us at Waterloo!" he stormed, arms
flailing. "If Napoleon had been left alone, he could have
created a common market 150 years ago. It was penible of
them to resist!"

But just because the French can be penible doesn't mean
they are always wrong. The French and Germans have a real
argument against invading Iraq - that containment and
deterrence are better than invasion. While it's fair to
disagree, it's puerile to refuse to listen.

The most sensible suggestion for confronting
anti-Americanism comes from one prominent American
official: "It really depends on how our nation conducts
itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation,
they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong,
they'll welcome us."

That was George W. Bush in the second presidential debate.
He was dead right - back then.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31KRIS.html?ex=1045039263&ei=1&en=568330c7d467c86a

Wow, so profound. I never realized that depth existed.

yeah really, who wrote it?

I ain't aggin it or with it; just posting to show 'nother view point. c.i.

Just settling in ...

Anon

It would appear that I must yet again explain my rationale. I am mostly an observer on this forum unless things get a little slow then I try to take up where someone has left off. I started the "Shark/ Guppie " routine to inject a little humor into the most intense thread on the forum. I, being the guppie(buffoon) that has to run for cover when the sharks appear----I thought the head shark title for Setanta would fit quite well and actually was meant as a compliment because when he attacks he ususally has good reason even if he does sneer(his favorite word) a bit too much.

Regarding the comment about "logic is met yet again by blind denial" was a result of watching Asherman, Georgeob1, and Timber painstakingly refute all arguments time after time and far better than I ever could----only to have the next posts ignore them completely. This cycle has repeated itself many many times on this thread(this thread is very very long) therefore if Timber or the others can't make a logical point---I have no chance.

After watching the latest exchange and a particularly good exposition from Timber which was completely ignored I threw in some barbs. The emotions on this thread are too near the boiling point already and I apologize to the participants for the barbs.

With that explanation I will return to the ranks of the observers until something else must be addressed.

BTW---I thought Mamajuana's article warranted some serious consideration ---- except I must ask who this guy is to suddenly come forward after 14 years and after Amnesty International has verified everything about the Iraqis being guilty. If the guy is who he says he is then this is the type of article that will help change some opinions----

Anyone who would like to take me to task is welcome by PM.

oops, excuse me guys, did I just spill my drink in someone's lap? Clumsy of me.......... you were all doing fine regulating yourselves. It was a clear abuse of power on my part. But it's very interesting reading, most of it. It's just I've discovered that I hate sitting in the corner for too long without saying hi dee y'all. Keep it up.

perception, My initial reaction was the same; who the hell is this guy? I'm sure with his credentials, it'll be easy to discredit him if he's a fake. c.i.

Besides, don't you think the NYT did some of their homework before posting that article? c.i.

C.I.

I think the NYTimes allows their editorialists great lattitude(re. Krugmans constant Bush bashing) but their articles generally have a ring of authenticity and are also generally unbiased.

Here's some more on "Iraq's Chemical Warfare."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/3441

c.i.

Lola

You know you're welcome anytime---this meaningless little situation that you dropped in on will take a little reading on your part(very dull reading) but is well under control----I think.

I'm still waiting for that philosophy thread you pomised me----I know it's tough to concentrate with the bullets about to fly.

Unsnap those garters and bring this discussion to a halt, Lola.

One more time, babee...

just a thought here but i listened to Swartzkoph (sp) on the today show earlier this week and he made some interesting comments. He stated that he felt we should attack Iraq only when we know what our objective is, the constant waffling of goals would undermine the effort such as "disarmament" "regime change" "terrorism". the other concern he voiced was that if Rumsfelt insisted, as he has in the past, to be a "airplane general" interfering in the military operations, the effort would become as botched as Viet Nam.