McCain Implies Iraq War is for Oil

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Are you saying that if Saddam hadn't been sanctioned for 10 years he wouldn't have done the same?

Well, I think they are pumping as much as they can in Iraq as well. I'm not sure what you are suggesting about Saddam. I'm sure he would be pumping as much as he could also.

Saddam always argued for higher oil prices just like Chavez does today, but he never went out and cut back on production on his own. That would be stupid, as it wouldn't affect the price.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Kid]We did, however, control the situation to insure that the oil keeps flowing in the largest supply that is possible.[/q]

And now you are arguing that Saddam would have kept the oil flowing in the largest supply possible... so why exactly was invading Iraq for controlling oil flow?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[q=Kid]We did, however, control the situation to insure that the oil keeps flowing in the largest supply that is possible.[/q]

And now you are arguing that Saddam would have kept the oil flowing in the largest supply possible... so why exactly was invading Iraq for controlling oil flow?

To show the world what we will do if they defy us. Also, that keep a standing army in that country.

[Kidlicious]

Imagine what the price would be if the supply of oil did actually decrease like in did in the 70's. Nothing pisses the US off more than an oil producing nation trying to increase the price of oil. The Saudis know this. Since the 80's they are in it for the long haul. They know the long run consequences of high oil prices.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
To show the world what we will do if they defy us. Also, that keep a standing army in that country.

Defy us? Not in pumping less oil. "Defying us" doesn't make a war for oil argument work.

[DinoDoc]

I actually think realists would be offended at people trying to rationalize Iraq as a realist undertaking.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Defy us? Not in pumping less oil. "Defying us" doesn't make a war for oil argument work.

Mkay. They defy us and they are a leading oil exporter. Is that better for you?

[BeBMan]

WWII was about oil too. Germany invades Poland since it needs it to reach the Caucasus oil through Poland. Germany invades France to use French gas stations to tank up Rommel's tanks (heheh) in Le Cateau. German U-boats sink UK ships shipping oil to the home islands. UK bombs German oil refineries. Germany finally invades USSR for the Causcasus oil since the French resistance closed all gas station in France. Italians waste oil in Northern Africa for nothing. Germany researches oil conversion techs, everyone gets mad and invades Germany.

Don't get me even started on WWI.

[VetLegion]

Yeah, WWI was entirely about preventing Germany from building the railroad through Turkey to the middle east and thus securing access to that big supply of oil.

[BeBMan]

Also I forgot: The US waited with DDay until mid-44 to save oil. Japan started the war cuz there was an oil embargo. And the invasion of Italy in 1943 was because of olive oil.

[VetLegion]

Missed that bit about Italy but it's so obvious now

[Arrian]

Let's see do any of these principle sound familiar to you...

Justice for all

All men are created equal

The principle of truth

... I believe all of those. What about you?

Yes, I do. Well, close... change "all men are created equal" to "all people shall be treated equally under the law." Functionally it's the same, but I like my version better

Anyway... my original comment about your principles and the US's principles was simply made to point out that even if US foreign policy were consistent with the principles of the US 100% of the time, you wouldn't like it because those principles involve capitalism. It wasn't a defense of US foreign policy. It was more of an observation.

I would like it if US foreign policy were more... honest. Not necessarily more principled, because the world isn't a very principled place, but more honest. As in less claiming that we're great and altruistic and more recognition that we, like everyone else, act in what we perceive to be our best interests (or, if you prefer, the best interests of those in or close to power).

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BeBro
WWII was about oil too.

No it wasn't. It was to make everyone have to wear lederhosen to school.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
Anyway... my original comment about your principles and the US's principles was simply made to point out that even if US foreign policy were consistent with the principles of the US 100% of the time, you wouldn't like it because those principles involve capitalism. It wasn't a defense of US foreign policy. It was more of an observation.

If capitalism worked so well, why would I be a communist?

Also, what principles are you talking about? You know, a lot of people who fought in the revolution thought they were fighting for a classless society. They thought they were fighting for something completely different from what they got.

Not necessarily more principled, because the world isn't a very principled place, but more honest.

What do you mean? The US is responsible, in a large way, to how the world is. We have meddled in the affairs of other nations to a terrible degree, and we've been doing it for quite a long time. So have other nations, especially in the past.

[Patroklos]

So apparently they AREN'T pumping as much of it as they can... seeing as how the pre-war supply was higher and they are expected to almost triple their current supply in only FOUR YEARS (which would probably have been what Iraq was producing if it hadn't been under sanction).

When I was there (1 1/2 years ago) the bottleneck wasn't pumping or pipelines but the the platforms that the tankers get the oil at, ABOT and KAAOT. Iraq does not have a deep water port capable of hosting large oil tankers, so most of its oil is pumped via underwater pipelines to these platfoms on the edge of Iraqi territorial waters.

ABOT is decently maintained and runs a pretty much full capacity, but KAAOT is not and still had damage from Iranian attacks in the 80's when we got there in 2003. KAAOT also had a fire in 2006 that severly reduced its pumping capacity.

Now when I was there there was not a minute ABOT was not in use (it can host up to four tankers at a time, depending on their size) but you can only pump so fast to so many ships. KAAOT was being repaired but I do not know how far along they are, and it is in more shallow water anyways so it can't host the largest tankers. I am curious as to what the oil minister means when he talks about these increases in capacity. Unless they built more platforms, dredged a deep water chanel, or built a pipeline of which I have heard nothing about.