Reply
Thu 3 Feb, 2005 03:00 pm
. That's the multibillion-dollar question, according to some estimates.
Most of the White House's publicly stated reasons for invading Iraq have focused on banned weapons, terrorism and liberation of the Iraqis.
But it cannot be ignored that today, American and British soldiers are guarding roughly 1,000 wells that tap into the world's second-largest known pool of oil. The estimated 112.5 billion barrels of crude oil beneath the country are worth potentially hundreds of billions of dollars over the next century and are second only to Saudi Arabia's 261.7 billion barrels.
"'Wow!' is right," says Jay Mandle, an economics professor at Colgate University and an expert on America's foreign oil dependency. "If you want to be cynical, it's a tremendous prize."
The Bush administration has repeated that the oil belongs to the people of Iraq. But some experts like Mandle predict simply handing all that oil over to a fledgling government that may not stay friendly to U.S. interests will be seen by some American leaders as too risky. They'll be tempted by the prospect of solving many of our oil-dependency issues, creating a cheap supply of gasoline for decades, and rendering OPEC irrelevant, Mandle predicts.
"That's the attractiveness of colonialism: natural resources," he says. "But colonialism is very costly to the colonizer. Think of the policing we're going to have to do in that region if we keep armed Americans outside Iraq's oil wells."
Many economists predict that, no matter how you do the numbers, it will cost more to keep Iraq's oil than give it back.
"The advantage of having the Iraqi people have their own control of their own resources is: Not only are you supporting the ideals of America, you ally the best interests of the Iraqi people with the interests of the American people," says Greg Mounty, deputy chief economist for Bank One. "Iraqis benefit if they sell their oil, and we benefit if we buy."
Some hope an America-friendly Iraq could reduce gas prices here.
Q. So when does the oil start flowing?
A. It already is, but the catch is how much faster can it flow.
Despite Iraq's massive oil reserves, its infrastructure is aging and in need of improvement, analysts say.
"Their reserves are one thing," says Carl Tannenbaum, chief economist for LaSalle Bank. "Their ability to get it up out of the ground is another, and their ability to get it onto the world market is another entirely."
Some have predicted that lucrative contracts to U.S.-based companies can allow modern technology to speed up Iraqi oil production.
But John Tatom, professor of economics at DePaul University, says that can't happen, thanks to the geology of the country.
"It is true that there are some reserves that aren't being tapped, and production can be increased," he says. But the geology of the area dictates the speed that the oil can be extracted, and Iraq will never match Saudi Arabia.
"As long as the Saudis exist, (Iraq's) not going to affect the price of oil," he says.
I'm missing the point of this. ARe you saying that America is actually going to control Iraq's oil? Wow you are naive. We havent even done it yet and your condemning for doing so? (if I've interpreted this correctly)
El-Diablo wrote:I'm missing the point of this. ARe you saying that America is actually going to control Iraq's oil? Wow you are naive. We havent even done it yet and your condemning for doing so? (if I've interpreted this correctly)
yes America will eventually have full control via the puppet leaders which they install
Really? Wheres that crystal ball of yours? I believe it's in your ass.
Quote:Wheres that crystal ball of yours?
The crystall ball is history, as in Eisenhower era Iran history.
No matter what happens in Iraq, liberals will still find gratification in the results. If the U.S. succeeds, then it confirms for them that we went there to set up a puppent government that will throw oil at us. If we fail, then it confirms for them that Bush is a moron who waged a war that was doomed to fail. Either way, the liberals will claim that they have been right all along.
Instigate wrote:No matter what happens in Iraq, liberals will still find gratification in the results. If the U.S. succeeds, then it confirms for them that we went there to set up a puppent government that will throw oil at us. If we fail, then it confirms for them that Bush is a moron who waged a war that was doomed to fail. Either way, the liberals will claim that they have been right all along.
Just because we're succesfull at going there and setting up a puppet government that will throw oil at us, doesn't mean that Bush isn't a moron who waged a war that was doomed to fail...
sorry douldn't resist :wink:
Perhaps you guys were too busy reading the latest conspiracy theories over at Salon.com while the elections were taking place. Yes? We weren't even in the buildings.
Question: What's will really happen to Iraq's oil?
Answer: Iraq will sell its oil on the world market. It makes no difference whatsoever whom they sell it to. Do a google on the "effects of supply and demand", and you probably won't ask such a foolish question again.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Perhaps you guys were too busy reading the latest conspiracy theories over at Salon.com while the elections were taking place. Yes? We weren't even in the buildings.
Question: What's will really happen to Iraq's oil?
Answer: Iraq will sell its oil on the world market. It makes no difference whatsoever whom they sell it to. Do a google on the "effects of supply and demand", and you probably won't ask such a foolish question again.
Anyone who is not one of Bushco's minions, must then be a conspiracy theorist?
I'm not sure how being skeptical of a misleading and seemingly misguided administration leads one to this unfortunate conclusion.
a)misleading: because of the untruths spread publicly about Iraq's WMD programs and capabilities
b) misguided: because of the "evolution of the justification for war".
candidone1 wrote:
Anyone who is not one of Bushco's minions, must then be a conspiracy theorist?
No, the people that spread conspricacy theories like we went to Iraq to steal their oil are conspiracy theorists. Being a Bush "minion" or not has nothing to do with it.
Quote:I'm not sure how being skeptical of a misleading and seemingly misguided administration leads one to this unfortunate conclusion.
a)misleading: because of the untruths spread publicly about Iraq's WMD programs and capabilities
b) misguided: because of the "evolution of the justification for war".
Being skeptical and being a doofus are two seperate issues.
McGentrix wrote:
candidone1 wrote:
Anyone who is not one of Bushco's minions, must then be a conspiracy theorist?
No, the people that spread conspricacy theories like we went to Iraq to steal their oil are conspiracy theorists. Being a Bush "minion" or not has nothing to do with it.
Then I woul honor the individual who can conclusively deunk this theory. But, "because Bush said it ain't so" won't cut it.
McGentrix wrote:
candidone1 wrote:I'm not sure how being skeptical of a misleading and seemingly misguided administration leads one to this unfortunate conclusion.
a)misleading: because of the untruths spread publicly about Iraq's WMD programs and capabilities
b) misguided: because of the "evolution of the justification for war".
Being skeptical and being a doofus are two seperate issues.
We can agree on that.
So, just hook me up with some info. that makes this cloud of doubt go away, and I'll be a believer.
You must believe in Bogfoot, the Lochness Monster, alien abductions, Men in Black and the CIA plot to kill JFK, too, huh?
There is nothing that debunks any of these conspriracy theories either, but most people understand that that is what they are, theories.
McGentrix wrote:You must believe in Bogfoot, the Lochness Monster, alien abductions, Men in Black and the CIA plot to kill JFK, too, huh?
There is nothing that debunks any of these conspriracy theories either, but most people understand that that is what they are, theories.
You're impossible man.
Debunking a credible hypothesis should be simple if there is mounting evidence to the contrary.
It's just not there.
...and your analogy is weak.
BTW...who is Bogfoot?
W.M.D = Way of Merchandising Dark gold
Terrorism = Using violence and/or threats of violence to induce extreme fear in people.
Shock and Awe = Refer to the above.
Regime change = The enforced removal of a ruling power without the support of it's subjects.
Democracy = A system where people get the government they vote for.
Jed Bush = Relative of George W Bush in Florida who decided that America needed 'regime change' in 2000.
Christian = Person who sincerely puts there faith in Jesus Christ.
Freemason =Person whose faith is in power and how to get more of it by joining an exclusive occultic rich man's club.
Bushtianity = A religion where you can be two things at the same time thereby getting enough fundamentalist votes for a power base and still be down with the guys at the lodge.
Blair = A type of poodle or lapdog. The term is derived from the word liar.
Ally = A relationship of political conveinience. For example ; Somebody you sell weapons to.
Terrorist threat = An ally you sold a shed load of weapons to who decides he is no longer going to do what you tell him to. [That incidently is the only thing Islamic jihadists and Saddam Hussein had in common.}
Liberation = The act of setting free. Or the opportunity for people to live in a democracy where they can guarantee freedom and civil liberties protected from abuse from the state.
Guantanamo bay = A place where people are incarcerated or the opportunity to live in a dictatorship where you have all freedoms taken away and the state is any thing but civil.
Theft = The act of taking what belongs to another. Often proven by a legal contract.
Contract = A legal document between two or more paries. eg ; The oil contracts between Iraq and various countries.
Fence = A middle man for stolen goods {slang term] eg ; People who pass oil over to their business friends regardless of previously legaly binding contracts.
Patriot = A person who will stand for the truth out of sincere love to his countrymen.
Traitor = A man who undermines the safety and interests of his countrymen and sells them down the river.
Patriot act = A bill that was printed out in the middle of the night and forced through before anyone had a chance to read it guaranteeing the state new rights to undermine the civil liberties of citizens it knows damn well have nothing to do with terrorism.
Recent satirical picture depicting George W Bush's meeting with the Queen.
Queen : ..and what do you do for a living?
Bush : Whatever I goddamn like maam.
That sounds about right to me.
akobadgeth wrote:
...Terrorism = Using violence and/or threats of violence to induce extreme fear in people....
Of course, there are no real terrorists or terrorist organizations, and there's nothing whatever to really fear. 9/11 was a completely isolated incident, and not indicative that we may be in for more.
Brandon9000 wrote:akobadgeth wrote:
...Terrorism = Using violence and/or threats of violence to induce extreme fear in people....
Of course, there are no real terrorists or terrorist organizations, and there's nothing whatever to really fear. 9/11 was a completely isolated incident, and not indicative that we may be in for more.
911 was an inside job, take a look at rafick's post
candidone1 wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:Perhaps you guys were too busy reading the latest conspiracy theories over at Salon.com while the elections were taking place. Yes? We weren't even in the buildings.
Question: What's will really happen to Iraq's oil?
Answer: Iraq will sell its oil on the world market. It makes no difference whatsoever whom they sell it to. Do a google on the "effects of supply and demand", and you probably won't ask such a foolish question again.
Anyone who is not one of Bushco's minions, must then be a conspiracy theorist?
I'm not sure how being skeptical of a misleading and seemingly misguided administration leads one to this unfortunate conclusion.
That is indeed an idiotic conclusion. But, it's yours, not mine.
Next you tell McG it's only logical he should be able to prove a negative.
Get a grip people. Do the google I suggested and learn why this foolishness is foolish.
9-11 was an inside job, eh?
Read rafick's post.
"MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT" 9/11 WAS AN "INSID
"MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT" 9/11 WAS AN "INSIDE JOB"
This article is the single most important work presented by vox information sciences. It contains the single most important key to uncovering WHAT REALLY HAPPENED on 9/11. It describes in chilling details the FACTS about the players and events of 9/11.
It is the single most popular research work on this entire site and is the principal core thesis on which this site is based on. This article is dedicated to all the many educational institutions and people around the world seeking the truth about the staged "Terrorist" attacks perpetrated by a clandestine US group, operating under a plan that is over 20 years old. A plan to attack the American people and rouse them to become the New World Order's foot soldiers and worker ant's on a quest for global conquest. It is complete with FACTS never before presented in one complete work. Originally presented in may of 2002 it is presented here in it's original form.
vox
A thorough scientific analysis of the swirl of events, people, nations, motivations, propaganda, personalities and histories involved in this current moment in history, leads to only one conclusion - That clandestine forces aligned with George Bush Sr. are planning to attack the US population, blame it on Islamic terrorists and use the attacks as a pretext for a total clamp-down on dissent, basic civil liberties, normal democratic processes and In the confusion that will follow they will wage unchecked war and aggression against Iraq, and other nations, Islamic and otherwise, who have natural resources and particularly oil reserves that this shadowy group of petrochemical and arms industrialists are thirsting for. Their ultimate goal? The conquest of Eurasia. Three quarters of the worlds population and resources are to be found on the Eurasian landmass. It has been the principal focus of State Department and military strategists since presidential National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski outlined it twenty years ago as the principle American "Imperative." Meaning - To survive, we MUST conquer. But what of all those nations that we will be conquering? According to Brzezinski and his cabal of adherents in the Military and State Department and industry for whom his writings are like a biblical tome - it's for their own good.
The problem Brzezinski says is that most average American's don't have a taste for crusades of global conquest...
Unless...
...there's a sudden terrifying threat.
http://www.voxfux.com/archives/00000076.htm
I wouldn't consider VOX a reliable source. But that is just me. It looks like a conspiracy website to me.
Correct me if I am wrong here people.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace