What really scares me about USUK aggression

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Re: What really scares me about USUK aggression

Originally posted by problem_child
First off I'd like to say that this thread is for those that will not waste all our time by discussing the irrelevant propaganda-issues put out by USUK leadership regarding weapons of mass destruction or the evilness of Saddam or 45-minutes or World security or any of the other chewing-gum-topics divulged for the benifit of the voting public.

That's a rathered blinkered attitude.

There is no set single reason as to why the relevant people felt war was justified. It was, and remains, a subjective issue which is answered by individuals according to their own values. Therefore, blindly discounting all of these bar one is pretty much on a par with putting one's fingers in one's ears and going "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!".

[Theben]

Of course it's to project power. But the power is needed to control the flow, and more importantly, the price of oil. Oil factors in heavily in transportation; transportation costs literally affect every consumable on the market. Lower oil price=lower prices for everything, consumer purchasing power increases, citizens are content, maybe vote for guy who brought about low prices.

There's also that hubub about Kazakh's oil find in the Caspian, that they're having trouble getting to open sea. Supposedly Unocal has an agreement with them. I can't see a war with Iraq helping that, unless the power was needed to project into Iran. Certainly the threat is now an option. With U.S. forces on 2 sides and current aggressive diplomatic posturing, maybe we can convince Iran to build that pipeline to the gulf coast, and avoid problems with other nearby neighbors.

[Chemical Ollie]

If it wasn't about oil, what is Haliburton doing there in the first place?

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Sandman
Just one question: how does this work? Sounds like it violates every physical law there is.

Oil is created from organic matter (vegetation, etc) slowly over time (in nature anyway). We still have swamps and bogs, and they're still slowly creating oil. Saying oil quit being produced once we discovered it is like saying water quit flowing downhill the first time a human took a drink or the planet stopped turning the day we discovered gravity. Its still going on.

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
If it wasn't about oil, what is Haliburton doing there in the first place?

They're looking for weapons of mass destruction...........

[Agathon]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet

Yeah! Like Canada!

You'll smile on the other side of your face with a hockey stick you know where.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sandman
It was probably about oil.

Sandman, don't be a simpleton. If oil was the goal, if we truly just cared about the oil, then why not just buy it at market price from what ever dictator happened to be selling it? That would surely be cheaper then sending the $200 billion (US/UK/Australia) combined cost for war and reconstrution.

Since we are willing to spend so much more then market price it stands to reason there are many more reasons then just the oil which the idiot "no blood for oil" crowd keeps babbling about.

[Bereta_Eder]

There have been studies before the war even started that showed that the US can make up for the cost of the war by exploiting Iraqi oil and then make profit as well in the long term.

Of course things don't always go as you plan but those studies did exist.

[Dinner]

Then I question the studies, especially,since the Iraqi Oil production isn't even enough to pay for reconstruction much less modernization. Face it Iraq is a money pit because it started the war as a third world **** hole (BTWE in 1918 the British tossed all sorts of money into the place and it was so far behind that in the end it was still a **** hole).

I seriously question the intelligence of anyone who thinks the US or UK is ever going to get repaid for their war effort or their reconstruction effort. It's just not going to happen.

[Bereta_Eder]

The studies were from the American Pentagon and Deutsche Bank, IIRC.

World Bank and UN estimated that reconstruction of Iraq will amount to 56 Bil. Putting the oil production on its feet will cost just 8 bil according to the occupational forces estimates. (and Iraq remains the 2nd richest oil country in the world, has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world.)

I don't think they are taking into account deliberate sabotage of oil wells though IMO.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Remember they also had studies from these same people proving they had weapons of mass destruction...........

[Dinner]

And the Bush adminstration had studies which said the total cost of the war plus reconstruction would be between $40-$75 billion. There are three times that now and the first year isn't even up. The studies are all politically expediant lies.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Sandman, don't be a simpleton. If oil was the goal, if we truly just cared about the oil, then why not just buy it at market price from what ever dictator happened to be selling it? That would surely be cheaper then sending the $200 billion (US/UK/Australia) combined cost for war and reconstrution.

Since we are willing to spend so much more then market price it stands to reason there are many more reasons then just the oil which the idiot "no blood for oil" crowd keeps babbling about.

Because Haliburton would not get the profit from that deal. Now they do.

[Bereta_Eder]

The companies will get their oil profit share despite the overal cost for the US itself though, no?
Also which studies are political lies? Could they be the 45-75 bil ones as well?

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

Oil is created from organic matter (vegetation, etc) slowly over time (in nature anyway). We still have swamps and bogs, and they're still slowly creating oil. Saying oil quit being produced once we discovered it is like saying water quit flowing downhill the first time a human took a drink or the planet stopped turning the day we discovered gravity. Its still going on.

That would take a million years

They're looking for weapons of mass destruction...........

I thought that was Hans Blix' job. What did he do wrong that US weapons inspectors did right?

[Bereta_Eder]

Also Oerdin, I remember there were 3 scenarios contemplated in those studies. The "good" one, the medium and the worse.

The "good" scenario (a very fast conclusion of the war) is what actually happened. The cost was estimated as the lowest for the "good" scenario.