Whatever is wrong with #2: Calling it a War for Oil

[MikeH]

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

Awesome.

[chequita guevara]

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

[JohnT]

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

Now you're just quoting Buffy.

[Japher]

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.

[Comrade Tribune]

Re: Re: Whatever is wrong with #2: Calling it a War for Oil

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 isn´t. It´s 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

[Felch]

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

[Felch]

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

[Comrade Tribune]

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.

[Felch]

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

[Comrade Tribune]

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

[Adam Smith]

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.

[Kramerman]

adam smith,

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

[Comrade Tribune]

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

WOMD:

[Felch]

Russia must have misplaced a bunch.