25-02-2003 22:00									#31
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Which means a wage might rise from a pound a week to one pound thirty.

Awesome.

	25-02-2003 23:46									#32
	Full PM-box? Change here!

It's not about oil, it's about power, same as last time.

	26-02-2003 00:16									#33
	Inflate your Upload Space

"It's not about oil, it's about power"

Now you're just quoting Buffy.

	26-02-2003 00:22									#34
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: The whole "it's all about oil" crap is nothing but blatant anti-Americanism.

I concur.

Oil is just one of the many drops in the bucket. Yet, to economist it is one really big reason for the war. Since America is founded on Capitalists then it is a very big reason.

I would rate it even with Saddam's inability to control his ego and violate pacts and his prodution of WOMD.

That's right, I rate them even, and I am a big supported of force being used to irradicate the fool. If it were a stand alone issue I don't thing I would support the war at all.

Even with these reasons, the Europeans who are telling us that we can't attack really aren't helping. It is like telling someone not to push that big red button; then all they want to do is push it.

	26-02-2003 00:41									#35
	Re: Re: Whatever is wrong with #2: Calling it a War for Oil Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc War for oil doesn't make any sense. Remove the sanctions and Baghdad would be over joyed to sell the stuff to us.

I do not enjoy to say this, but: *Dinodoc, you are right.*

For some time I thought it was a war for oil (in the first place), but it isnīt. Itīs a war for Israel.

And I really, really want to know how the War Party in this forum is going to talk itself out of the following quote:

There is another unsettling and understated motive for war: Israel wants it. Last summer, in words he may now regret, former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark explained the thinking behind an invasion, and the British paper The Guardian quoted him on August 21: "Those who favor this attack now tell you candidly and privately that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel." Israel, and its supporters in the United States, would be happy to see Iraq a smoking ruin.

According to a Los Angeles Times article of December 1, 2002, a 1996 report from an Israeli think tank to then-incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argued that "removing Saddam from power" was "an important Israeli strategic objective." Since that time, three of the authors of that report have become important figures in the Bush administration: Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board; Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense; and David Wurmser, special assistant in the State Department. It apparently arouses no notice in government circles when Jews who have written policy papers on Israel's strategic objectives join an American administration — and proceed to push the same objectives.

Just four days after the September 11 attacks, at an important meeting with the President to discuss how to respond, Mr. Wolfowitz argued that the real threat to America did not come from Afghanistan or al Qaeda but from Saddam Hussein, and that Iraq should be our real target (Time Magazine, January 19, 2003). Mr. Wolfowitz has very close ties to Israel, so it is hardly a coincidence that he should urge a course of action that promotes Israel's strategic interests.

There is a very large and perhaps decisive contingent of Jews among the Americans who are calling for war, not just in government but also in the press. Virtually every Jewish commentator, including Charles Krauthammer, Norman Podhoretz, William Safire, Morton Kondracke, Don Feder, Ben Wattenberg, and Mona Charen, is calling for war as loudly as possible. Democratic presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman, who has always had a reputation as a dove, has suddenly announced himself a warhawk, too.

As early as October 29, 2001, William Kristol and Robert Kagan — also Jews — wrote in The Weekly Standard that the war in Afghanistan was "but an opening battle" in a war against Islam that will "spread and engulf a number of countries." They looked forward to American-imposed "regime change" in Syria, Iran, Egypt, Libya, and Saudi Arabia in addition to Iraq — in short, in any Middle Eastern country hostile to Israel. What they and many other influential American Jews appear to want is for the United States to fight as many wars as necessary in order to make the Middle East safe for Israel.

Saddam Hussein has indeed expressed a desire to destroy the Jewish state, and during the Gulf War he lobbed a few Scud missiles at Israel. American Jews make no secret of their love of Israel, and it is easy to understand why they want Mr. Hussein crushed. However, it is not America's job to make the world safe for Israel, or if it is, someone should plainly explain why. -from: G P Blythe, Why the Empire strikes first

	26-02-2003 00:42									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

If this is about oil why aren't Marines patrolling the streets of Caracas?

	26-02-2003 00:43									#37
	Got spare money?

Wow, an Austrian blaming problems of the world on a Jewish conspiracy. Haven't seen that for sixty years.

	26-02-2003 00:46									#38
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Felch X Wow, an Austrian blaming problems of the world on a Jewish conspiracy. Haven't seen that for sixty years.

The guy I quoted is American.

Come up with something better.

	26-02-2003 00:49									#39
	Remove this text

Well you asked how the War Party would respond. It's obvious - with ad hominem attacks.

	26-02-2003 00:50									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Felch X Well you asked how the War Party would respond. It's obvious - with ad hominem attacks.

	26-02-2003 01:00									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Oil is a fungible commodity. One barrel is pretty much the same as another. So benefits of lower oil prices accrue to all consumers of oil, not just to countries which import oil. HERE is some recent data on world oil comsumption.

That said, its not clear that bringing Iraq's production back onto the world market makes that much difference to the price. First, they are already pumping it out at a pretty good clip anyway. Second, their current production is only about three percent of the world total. Third, while they have the world's second largest reserves, most of those reserves are relatively deep, and so not worth recovering at current or likely future prices.
HERE is some recent data on world oil production.

DanS had a good article from the Financial Times which indicated that the net benefit to the US, after the cost of military and rebuilding, was about $1000 per person IIRC. We can get that from a modest tax cut.

	26-02-2003 01:13									#42
	Support Apolyton

adam smith,

	26-02-2003 01:20									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: I do not enjoy to say this, but: *Dinodoc, you are right.*

--

And no this isn't for oil. As AS said, there is very little benefit to the US based on 'oil'. This is basically a 'Saddam's a bad man and has WOMD' war.

	26-02-2003 03:45									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui This is basically a 'Saddam's a bad man and has WOMD' war.

WOMD:

	26-02-2003 03:52									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Russia must have misplaced a bunch.

	26-02-2003 04:13									#46
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

And about this 'Saddam-bad-man-is-has-Womdies'-business:

1) I honestly donīt think he has.

But letīs assume I was wrong, and he had a few: What is he *going to do* with them?

2) I think we have established he is not going to attack the United States. He canīt, and he wonīt.

3) Nor is he going to attack Europe.

4) He might *like* to attack Israel, but he wonīt: Israel has more Womdies than he has, and always will.

5) All he could possibly do is *deter* Israel (from attacking him, or expelling the Palestinians).

6) This would be a good thing in itself, but quite apart from that:

7) The French have wisely decided that keeping Saddam from deterring Israel will cost them a lot of Francs, and you never get anything in return from Israel, so they are not amused.

8) Americans have unwisely decided that they want to help Israel with its dirty jobs, sacrificing money, good standing with their Allies, morality and all reputation they ever had, together with the blood of their soldiers, for precisely nothing in return.

They should be very thankful to Europeans who point that out to them. I recommend myself for a Medal of Freedom.

Last edited by Comrade Tribune on 26-02-2003 at 04:22

	26-02-2003 04:37									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Does anyone have a decent source for where Persian Gulf Oil exports go? Last time I saw such a thing not much of it went to the States United, but that was a long time ago, and Japan was a major buyer, so who knows what that looks like now.

Also, the US looks like the major buyer of Iraqi oil, but does anyone know how the UN food for oil program impacts that? Does the UN 'cut the check' out of New York and does that make it look like it all goes to the States? I bring that up because the ME is a very expensive place from which to ship oil to the US because of geography. Mexico, Canada, Venezuela, the West African coast, and the North Sea are much cheaper.


Of course the current Iraqi situation has Israel as a major factor. The US believes that Israel would preemptively strike Iraq if it had reason to believe that Iraq was close to being nuclear capable, just like they did in 1985ish. The US would get blamed for having its 'client' state do its dirty work, and the world would get another 1000 years of religous strife in the region.

Conversely, the US makes the Iraqi dictatorship fall in return for Israeli concessions on the Palestinian issue...

	26-02-2003 04:43									#48
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Sten Sture Conversely, the US makes the Iraqi dictatorship fall in return for Israeli concessions on the Palestinian issue...

Nice try, but no cookies.

US establish new Iraqi dictatorship replacing the old one so that Israel can finally expel the Palestinians without fear of repercussion. Patriotic US sheep are lied to, because they would ask about benefits of it all, if the truth were known...

	26-02-2003 04:47									#49
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

According to this site, Sten, 2001 PG oil exports were as follows:

US - 2.7 million barrels per day
OECD - 2.8 mbbl/day
Japan - 4.1 mbbl/day

I'd look up some more, but I got baby duty for the night.

	26-02-2003 04:48									#50
	Suffering from ads?

I don't think that US oil consumption is relevant to this discussion. The US doesn't want the oil to use, it just plain wants it.

	26-02-2003 05:06									#51
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Sandman I don't think that US oil consumption is relevant to this discussion. The US doesn't want the oil to use, it just plain wants it.

Nah, they need to defend their living standard.

	26-02-2003 05:33									#52
	Tired of ads?

If the US was successful (the war's easy and no contest, it's those sticky details after Saddam's ass is kicked to hell that are the problem), then the US would substantially enhance it's geopolitical power over one of the most universally critical resources in the industrialized world.

I don't think that's the real reasoning, though, because oil is a market commodity, and short of hunting down and killing buyers and sellers (mostly our allies, more or less), you're not going to keep anyone from getting it.

IMO, the biggest reason is simply that Iraq is a combination of a patsy regime that can be knocked over in a conventional, stand-up fight, led by a caricature who's widely disliked, and who has given us a patina of an excuse to test new geopolitical doctrine - or at least a new face on the regurgitated doctrine of invading whoever offends you sufficiently, and installing a client state.

A lot of it is also just do-something itis and rationalization - at least with Saddam, there will be some tangible results on a map, rather than simply wasting the occasional ragtag fighter in Afghanistan, and dealing with that low-yield shithole.

The problem with Afghanistan now, is that fixing the problems there requires a lot of time, money, personnel, and the best result you can achieve with it is not hearing about the place in the news. Not at all sexy to the administration chickenhawks, who all want visible action.

	26-02-2003 05:35									#53
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Comrade Tribune Nah, they need to defend their living standard.

Hey, CT, if we let you commies run things, then just about everyone (except, of course, party apparatchiki ) would have about that standard of living.

	26-02-2003 05:56									#54
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat IMO, the biggest reason is simply that Iraq is a combination of a patsy regime that can be knocked over in a conventional, stand-up fight, led by a caricature who's widely disliked, and who has given us a patina of an excuse to test new geopolitical doctrine - or at least a new face on the regurgitated doctrine of invading whoever offends you sufficiently, and installing a client state.

Some plausibility in this one, but I propose: It still canīt be the whole story.

For current US behaviour to make sense, it must be motivated by one of two things:

1) You are now really going for 'Purge Them, before They Purge You' Stalin Doctrine World Rule. (Talk about Commies. )

If that is so, then you should recognize that the logical answer to this is the Osama Doctrine: 'Get THEM First.' You are in the fast line proving that OBL has been right, after all.

OR:

2) This has got nothing to do with enlightened US interest at all; you are being hijacked by the Israel Lobby, and afraid to even admit it.

In the first case, your leadership is insane; in the second, just cowardly and/or stupid.

Make your choice.

	26-02-2003 06:07									#55
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Sandman I don't think that US oil consumption is relevant to this discussion. The US doesn't want the oil to use, it just plain wants it.

You caught us. Every American I know has dozens of barrels of oil on the "stash reserve" tucked away in basements, closets, and under kitchen sinks. We get our kicks by not using oil and just holding on to it. Silly me, I thought we were hiding this from you all in Europe. I guess the jig is up now...

	26-02-2003 06:15									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Felch X We get our kicks by not using oil and just holding on to it. Silly me, I thought we were hiding this from you all in Europe.

I guess what Sandman meant is: You donīt depend on Iraq for oil. Probably correct.

So you want to play Oil Monopoly. Probably also correct. Just not the whole story.

	26-02-2003 06:19									#57
	Increase Your PM Length

I whish this were for oil, then it would all be so simple.

This is war as an experiment of a new grand policy designed by the Civilians at the Pentagon (Wolfowitz, Perle, Armitage, Rummy). Which makes it a far more serious thing than just a war for oil.

	26-02-2003 06:23									#58
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by GePap I whish this were for oil, then it would all be so simple. This is war as an experiment of a new grand policy designed by the Civilians at the Pentagon (Wolfowitz, Perle, Armitage, Rummy). Which makes it a far more serious thing than just a war for oil.

"Civilians" can be such a dirty word sometimes.

I also think a big part of it is punishing Saddam (a la Noriega) for no longer being our boy. When you consider Rummy and Bush sr's (and others in the present administration) ties to Saddam back in the good ol' days, there's certainly a personal element, and I think there's also some issue of making an example of what happens if you bite the hand that feeds (so what if the hand gets caught double-dealing with your enemy, that's it's prerogative), so that any future thugs we cultivate will have an idea of what happens if they get too uppity.

	26-02-2003 06:31									#59
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

MtG: you know, I don't think that the notion of it being personal ahs anyting more to do with this than oil... I really think these guys seriously believe they are out to save the world one invasion at a time: wars of ideology have a way of coming to bite one in tha ass more then wars based on concrete things like commodities or vendetta's. Vendettas have ends, ideas live for ever.

	26-02-2003 06:46									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

We do have Noriega though, as a precedent - a relatively needless invasion, certainly not a national security issue, advocated by many of the same people, to overthrow a dictator who was once "our boy" and who decided to do things "his way."

If you go back to BNL and the Reagan administration (and Bush Sr. at the beginning) and the way the US really worked and cultivated Saddam, these people invested a lot in the idea that Saddam was going to be a useful proxy for our power projection and containment goals in the mideast.

I don't doubt there's a lot of pure "save the world" ideological delusion involved - this administration has more Cromwellian zealots per capita than any US administration that I can think of. The interest in Iraq in particular is a bit obsessive, though - on the threat scale, Iraq really isn't that high - not even close to the DPRK, or ultimately, the fundamentalist half of the Iranian government, but it takes more than ideology to explain the almost single-minded obsession with Saddam that these people have.