Motive for war EXPLAINED! Now STFU

[plornive]

If you were Saddam, what would you do after the US turned your economy from the best in the middle east to the worst in the middle east? If you were Bush Sr., what would you do if some middle eastern country was trying to fuck you in the ass?

There is something called 'Dependency Theory' that applies to nations. Basically it says this: The US is not a dependent nation, but somehow the US became dependent on Iraq for oil, and Iraq started to fuck the US in the ass. The US got pissed and now it is calling some big guys over to gangrape Iraq.

And do you know how Bush is explaining this? With 'modernization theory'! Iraq is being 'liberated' and converted to 'democracy'! Sorry folks, but modernization theory (the idea we are trying to liberate Iraq and prevent massive warfare) is INCONSISTENT! In order to believe in this theory, you must ignore the timing of this war, the motives of US leaders, the fact that the US is using not diplomacy nor warfare to 'liberate' N. Korea, and the fact that this war is in fact completely consistent with 'dependency theory'! Although the chemicals Iraq probably has are illegal, there must be a MOTIVE to fight a war like this!

 

[plornive]

Dependency theory: http://www.iusb.edu/~ktazar/dependency.html

And do you know why most of you will disgree with me? Because your morals contradict these actions with such motives. Why don't you just admit that I'm right? I won't think you are 'bad' because of it. The world needs a good war.

 

[WODIN]

That funky sharon sneaker just freaks me out.

 

[plornive]

When I said STFU, I didn't quite mean it. I want you to at least ADMIT that you are wrong!

 

[havoc]

I am wrong for reading this thread, there homie, I admit it!

 

[plornive]

HAHA
Anyone else?

Seriously, discuss. I will take you seriously.

 

[WODIN]

I just can't get past that Sharon Sneaker.....

 

[CanadianCripple]

Problem with your theory: The U.S. is NOT dependant on Iraqi oil.

People who think this is all about oil should research where U.S. oil imports come from.

 

[plornive]

Problem with your theory: The U.S. is NOT dependant on Iraqi oil.

People who think this is all about oil should research where U.S. oil imports come from.

Doesn't matter. Iraq has great influence over oil prices. If OPEC says oil prices should increase, who are other countries to argue?

 

[CanadianCripple]

Doesn't matter. Iraq has great influence over oil prices. If OPEC says oil prices should increase, who are other countries to argue?

Russia's emerging oil industry will have more of a say on oil prices in the future than OPEC (or the present war). Do you actually think oil companies want oil to be very cheap? Of course not!

You made a false statement in your little theory & chose to ignore it. You're a joke. I'll not waste my time on you.

 

[plornive]

Russia's emerging oil industry will have more of a say on oil prices in the future than OPEC (or the present war). Do you actually think oil companies want oil to be very cheap? Of course not!

You made a false statement in your little theory & chose to ignore it. You're a joke. I'll not waste my time on you.

They are dependent on Iraq to not cause oil prices to increase too much. SAME F'IN THING!

Russia opposes this little war. Why do you think that is? You shot your foot and now you are trying to run away are you?! I'll shoot you in the back!

 

[CanadianCripple]

They are dependent on Iraq to not cause oil prices to increase too much. SAME F'IN THING!

Russia opposes this little war. Why do you think that is? You shot your foot and now you are trying to run away are you?! I'll shoot you in the back!

First off, Saudi Arabia has the most power in OPEC.

2ND, you're suggesting this war is to control the price of oil... that could be done (under your scenario) if the U.S. simply dropped sanctions & turned a blind eye.

3RD, The Russians are against this war because Saddam owes them a fortune. They're afraid they won't get it after Saddam goes.

4TH, your origional post was based on the U.S. being "dependent on Iraq for oil"... again, this is simply untrue.

Sorry but your shot missed .

 

[Lumberg]

That funky sharon sneaker just freaks me out.

me too. i bet you could jump really, really high in them though.

notre dame better order some up for their big game vs. 'zona.

 

[DcupSheepNipples]

USA

IRAQ OIL

 

[CanadianCripple]

USA

IRAQ OIL

Check out the approx. 2 trillion barrels of oil sands reserves yet to be really tapped, in Alberta.

 

[DcupSheepNipples]

Check out the approx. 2 trillion barrels of oil sands reserves yet to be really tapped, in Alberta.

Canada Oil

 

[Silent Method]

Dependency theory: http://www.iusb.edu/~ktazar/dependency.html

And do you know why most of you will disgree with me? Because your morals contradict these actions with such motives. Why don't you just admit that I'm right? I won't think you are 'bad' because of it. The world needs a good war.

This "Dependency Theory" argument is short-sided and narrow.


But for the sake of arguing your point...

Suppose you are absolutely correct. Assume that the driving force behind our president, our intelligence community, and our military leaders is simple oil and money. Assume that the actions commanded by our president have no other motivation force behind them other than that oil and money.

Does that make it wrong to fight to end the evil that Saddam strives to implement among his people as well as other nations?

Does that make it OK for Saddam to carry out kidnapping, torture, murder, rape, and terror on his people and others?

Does that make it OK for him to put up his middle finger, lie, as well as ignore the U.N.s demands and criteria for disarmament?

Does that make it OK for him to hide and plot for the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons?

Does that make it OK for him to seek after nuclear weapons, to attempt to gather the necessary materials for them, and to order scientists to work to build them?

Does that make it OK for him to, by his very own admission, pay and support the families of terrorists that would murder the innocent civilians of America and other nations?


If our leaders have no other motivation than oil and money, I'd say they sure came upon a once in a lifetime situation to facilitate their greedy little desires - along with their simple pursuit of riches they are serving the good of our nation, the citizens of Iraq, and other nations that may have been subject to the threat of Saddam's regime.

Are you saying allowing these things to continue with no intervention is OK because we might make money off of putting a stop to it? I doubt that you believe the aforementioned behaviors of the Iraqi regime are just. May I then assume that you are not in favor of allowing such things but merely object to using war as the means with which to fight it?

If that is the case, I suggest you put forth argument to support your position. Crying that's it's all about money and oil has little bearing on the fact that our action, if successful, WILL strike a tremendous blow to the crimes, and to the support of the perpetuation of crimes, against humanity being carried out in Iraq.

Just what do you suggest we do about the situation in Iraq? More weapons inspectors? Assume that they work well (which they arguably do not). How effective are those weapons inspectors against the organized kidnapping, torture, murder, and rape in Iraq? How well do they work against the support of terrorists, organized or individual, seeking to murder innocent civilians?

What's next? Tougher sanctions? Want to talk about oil and money? Saddam is set for life. Sanctions are great at helping him to oppress his people.

Do we talk Saddam out of his ways? Should we send Jimmy Carter over there to try for a promise of "good will" from Saddam?

What's left? Should we send Vin Diesel over there? Set him up with a GTO, a parachute, and a tranquilizer gun and have him take out Saddam?

We live in a real world. Sometimes war is necessary that security, freedom, and liberty remain, and that oppression, torture, and murder among a nation is stopped.

God forbid we may derive some monetary benefit from this war. But in regard to the crimes and intentions to harm other nations, just what do you suggest we do about the current Iraqi regime?


plornive, this thread is a joke.

 

[gymnpoppa]

If liberation is really the purpose, why didn't we start/finish in Afghanistan? Karzai is one executed assassination attempt from being deposed there. We have not rebuilt nor allocated the funds to (Bush's promise) bring Afghany up, nor do we have a history of doing so. Precisely why the Turks (our friends) balked at the "lowball" offer for use of their space......of course they've backtracked slightly to allow use of airspace, but bottom line, NOBODY believes the line of bullshit Americans seem to believe are the reasons. There are numerous dictatorships comparable to Saddam, (Burma), there are millions of people in Africa in need of liberation also, with much less risk than Iraq.

Also, we buy a ton of oil from Iraq, and we have been for years......we've never stopped, even during the sanctions. Is it any wonder we have zero credibility with the majority of the world?

double standards exist where as Israel is concernced also. Sharon has committed war crimes in the past as well.

a consistent foreign policy would go a long way toward allaying the constant image we've managed to acquire outside the country.



Also, since most Americans (and the administration ) think the UN is irrelevant, I suppose by that logic, we should be footing the bill, humanitarian aid, and any other costs incurred. Actually we have a coerced, bribed, threatened, coalition of the willing (40 countries) to help us.

No need to ask the UN. I bet we suck their ass for help after this is over.

 

[plornive]

First off, Saudi Arabia has the most power in OPEC.

The US is using a different strategy with Saudi Arabia, considering we have military bases in Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia isn't screwing the US. Taking control of Iraq would enable the US/UK lower oil prices by increasing production in Iraq, causing increased production of oil by Saudi Arabia to make up for lower prices. France and Russia are pissed off because they would not get a peice of the action and their action is currently in Iraq.

2ND, you're suggesting this war is to control the price of oil... that could be done (under your scenario) if the U.S. simply dropped sanctions & turned a blind eye.

We don't know what would happen if the US turned a blind eye. Additionally, this war is NOT just about controlling the price of oil. It is also about dominating the Middle East simply for the sake of domination.

3RD, The Russians are against this war because Saddam owes them a fortune. They're afraid they won't get it after Saddam goes.

Fair enough. Also, the French and the Russians are pissed off that the US is ruling the world and they want a peice of the action as stated above. It helps them more in this situation to oppose the US.

4TH, your origional post was based on the U.S. being "dependent on Iraq for oil"... again, this is simply untrue.

They are/were dependent on Iraq to a limited extent. This is not black and white. Just like condoms prevent HIV but don't reduce transmission by 100%!

 

[plornive]

People...
The US wants to control oil production and therefore prices. It also wants a peice of the action in new oil drilling in Iraq and subsequently Saudi Arabia. France and Russia don't want the US to have this kind of control --- they want it! Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US in a sense. If there are foreign companies involved in oil drilling in Saudi Arabia, the US will get a peice of the action --- while France and Russia will not! Why will this happen? Because the US will control oil production enough to influence oil production in Saudi Arabia. I don't care about Russian oil reserves right now --- they are in another equation alltogether.

Is Iraq really that important for this to happen? Yes! The US wants US-friendly regimes in the middle East. Not regimes that will only try to thwart US domination.

Now, I hear you about the weapons Iraq may have. That all fits into the equation. Why do you think Iraq has these weapons? So people don't mess with them! (actually, it may have backfired). Truth be told, Iraq was screwed from the beginning. It all comes down to domination, which is largely influence by OIL, one of he few bargaining chips the middle East has.

I am not saying this war is right or wrong. I'm simply providing a consistent framework of motives for this war.

 

[plornive]

This "Dependency Theory" argument is short-sided and narrow.

Short sighted? Not at all, look at history! Narrow? I think not. It is broad and most importantly consistent! It doesn't need to be twisted around because it is correct!

All of your points are taken into account in my mind! Domination includes everything, although OIL is the main currency of power everyone wants to get in the end.

The idea that people follow all of these complicated morals you speak of is INCONSISTENT. There is no moral progression in history and modernization is crap. Your statements are proven wrong today and in history. Look at the entire history of the relationship of the US and Iraq. Who ultimately caused more misery? The US.

 

[ANABOLICK1]

Anybody who thinks this war is about oil is sadly misinformed...before this war, the US relied on Iraq for only 15% of it's oil consumption..the rest from countries like Kuwait, saudi Arabia and Venezuela...

 

[plornive]

Before WW2, the US had very little to lose in China. Why did the US choose to fight Japan?

Think a little deeper than percentages.

 

[CanadianCripple]

We don't know what would happen if the US turned a blind eye. Additionally, this war is NOT just about controlling the price of oil. It is also about dominating the Middle East simply for the sake of domination.

LMAO! OK? I now cannot take anything you say seriously at all.

As for where the majority of your oil comes from... it's the US... you produce most of your own. Next comes Canada as your next largest supplier. BTW, we have lots more to give too.

But domination for domination sake is just a retarded concept. This is what drives me nuts about the internet... anyone can voice their insane opinion.

Spelling EXPLAINED! in caps with an explanation point doesn't make your point valid. I'm sorry, but the more you attempt to "explain" your feable opinion (opinion is fine when based on knowledge), the more you fail.

 

[CanadianCripple]

Before WW2, the US had very little to lose in China. Why did the US choose to fight Japan?

"Why did the U.S. choose to fight Japan?" What the hell are you talking about? No, forget it... I don't think I want to hear this one.

 

[HansNZ]

Problem with your theory: The U.S. is NOT dependant on Iraqi oil.

People who think this is all about oil should research where U.S. oil imports come from.

This indictates a lack of knowledge of economics. This whole "US is not dependent on Iraqi Oil, we're doing it for the benefit of everyone else" theory is a typical example of disinformation. You should be more mindful of what you learn from the media.

Oil has a WORLD price. If the middle eastern supply was hindered in any way (as it was in the 1970s) then the WORLD price of oil goes through the roof. When countries like Japan start to source their oil form countries which supply the US, such as Venezuela, because the middle eastern supply is cut off then the price the US pays for oil is greately increased.

The USA is one of the most oil dependent economies in the world. Even slight increases in price send the US into recession. Control of the world's oil is essential to the US. American planners are increasingly worried about the stability of Saudi Arabia which has a repressive government hated by its people and basically propped up by the CIA. The Saudi supply is IMMENSE. If that were to be cut off then DISASTER. This is why US planners need control over Iraqi fields. They sure aren't going to work with Saddam, or let him hold the USA's leash - hence our current war.

Sorry, but Middle Eastern oil does matter!

 

[Silent Method]

Short sighted? Not at all, look at history! Narrow? I think not. It is broad and most importantly consistent! It doesn't need to be twisted around because it is correct!

All of your points are taken into account in my mind! Domination includes everything, although OIL is the main currency of power everyone wants to get in the end.

The idea that people follow all of these complicated morals you speak of is INCONSISTENT. There is no moral progression in history and modernization is crap. Your statements are proven wrong today and in history. Look at the entire history of the relationship of the US and Iraq. Who ultimately caused more misery? The US.

Again we disagree. There are universal moral ideals. For instance, no people on this earth, as a nation, support the murder of "innocent" people. The problem is we don't agree on who is innocent. Even the scum who murdered thousands on 9/11 believed those who they were killing were somehow "guilty."

Anyway, this is beside the point that was making in my last post. I think you missed the point.

Lets say that for our administration carring out this war, it's all about oil and money. I do not believe that this is the case, but assume it is. Does that make the action unjust?

Lets say there was a murderer on a killing spree who got mugged. The mugger knocked the murderer cold and stole his gun and wallet. Was the mugger wrong to have stopped the killer?

This is, of course, very simplistic. Consider a very dynamic situation between worl nations and the the very diverse motivations of thousands of administrators and even more thousabnds of soldiers. To assert that "it all comes down to oil" is short-sidded and absurd.

 

[CanadianCripple]

This indictates a lack of knowledge of economics. This whole "US is not dependent on Iraqi Oil, we're doing it for the benefit of everyone else" theory is a typical example of disinformation. You should be more mindful of what you learn from the media.

Oil has a WORLD price. If the middle eastern supply was hindered in any way (as it was in the 1970s) then the WORLD price of oil goes through the roof. When countries like Japan start to source their oil form countries which supply the US, such as Venezuela, because the middle eastern supply is cut off then the price the US pays for oil is greately increased.

The USA is one of the most oil dependent economies in the world. Even slight increases in price send the US into recession. Control of the world's oil is essential to the US. American planners are increasingly worried about the stability of Saudi Arabia which has a repressive government hated by its people and basically propped up by the CIA. The Saudi supply is IMMENSE. If that were to be cut off then DISASTER. This is why US planners need control over Iraqi fields. They sure aren't going to work with Saddam, or let him hold the USA's leash - hence our current war.

Sorry, but Middle Eastern oil does matter!

Hans, my simple minded communist buddy, your post is full of statements which show you have a fantastic grasp of the obvious. "Oil has a WORLD price", "The USA is one of the most oil dependent economies in the world.", "blah blah blah". Brilliant stuff... I hope you didn't have to pay tuition costs to learn that.

YOU, as usual, miss the concept I laid out. Annnnyway.

"This is why US planners need control over Iraqi fields. They sure aren't going to work with Saddam, or let him hold the USA's leash - hence our current war."

Oh good grief! So let me get this straight. You actually believe the US plans on going in and forming the 51st state of America? Governor & all? Because that is the only way they'll be able to completely control Iraq in the manner you envision. Putting another dictator in power will only lead the West to this point again oneday. The US & Britain are doing this for the interests of their own countries (of course), but that reason is security. In doing so, some semblance of freedom & democracy will be brought to the Middle East & STABILITY in return. EXTREME terrorism has opened the eyes of most free countries (even if they pretend not to support this war. i.e. Canada) and now understand that playing footsy with the dictators of the world will only lead to a bad outcome. I've said it before... Iraq is step 1 of many. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria etc... better fall in line or they're next. Terrorism in this decade will no longer be the highjacking of planes. Must be interesting to be in a remote local like NZ, and be able to cast moral judgement on a country which has as much power & responsibility of that of the US.

Hmmm. Interesting. The Brits have just announced the people of Basra are rising up against Saddam's forces. Hope it's true.

 

[HansNZ]

Hans, my simple minded communist buddy, your post is full of statements which show you have a fantastic grasp of the obvious. "Oil has a WORLD price", "The USA is one of the most oil dependent economies in the world.", "blah blah blah". Brilliant stuff... I hope you didn't have to pay tuition costs to learn that.

YOU, as usual, miss the concept I laid out. Annnnyway.

"This is why US planners need control over Iraqi fields. They sure aren't going to work with Saddam, or let him hold the USA's leash - hence our current war."

Oh good grief! So let me get this straight. You actually believe the US plans on going in and forming the 51st state of America? Governor & all? Because that is the only way they'll be able to completely control Iraq in the manner you envision. Putting another dictator in power will only lead the West to this point again oneday. The US & Britain are doing this for the interests of their own countries (of course), but that reason is security. In doing so, some semblance of freedom & democracy will be brought to the Middle East & STABILITY in return. EXTREME terrorism has opened the eyes of most free countries (even if they pretend not to support this war. i.e. Canada) and now understand that playing footsy with the dictators of the world will only lead to a bad outcome. I've said it before... Iraq is step 1 of many. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria etc... better fall in line or they're next. Terrorism in this decade will no longer be the highjacking of planes. Must be interesting to be in a remote local like NZ, and be able to cast moral judgement on a country which has as much power & responsibility of that of the US.

Hmmm. Interesting. The Brits have just announced the people of Basra are rising up against Saddam's forces. Hope it's true.

All of the above has nothing to do with your post. You have gone off on a tangent. You wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by UpperTone
Problem with your theory: The U.S. is NOT dependant on Iraqi oil.

People who think this is all about oil should research where U.S. oil imports come from.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is false, and this is what I was responding to. The US economy IS dependent on the Iraqi supply of oil whether or not it would or would not consume it directly.

 

[CanadianCripple]

All of the above has nothing to do with your post. You have gone off on a tangent. You wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by UpperTone
Problem with your theory: The U.S. is NOT dependant on Iraqi oil.

People who think this is all about oil should research where U.S. oil imports come from.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is false, and this is what I was responding to. The US economy IS dependent on the Iraqi supply of oil whether or not it would or would not consume it directly.

No, I went off on something in your reply. It was also related to the rediculous theory that "taking over" Iraq will somehow keep oil prices where the U.S. "wants". Sorry, went over your head again. I forget that most people can't see issues on a multitude of levels and prefer to keep things simple. Something more along the lines of... "America is Bad, Bush is Hitler... Bush want all Oil in World". *I have it in quotes to make it easy for a peace a protester to copy & paste *

Dependent conjures up images, to most uninformed people, that the majority (or even a large amount) of U.S. oil comes from Iraq. One of my points is... this is a misconception.

I'll tell you what. I have another idea as to why reorganizing the Middle East is important. If I get around to it, I'll post my idea tomorrow. Let's just say, everyone on this planet had better hope the coalition is successful because Middle East oil is not going to matter for much longer... that is the real threat.

 

[HansNZ]

No, I went off on something in your reply. It was also related to the rediculous theory that "taking over" Iraq will somehow keep oil prices where the U.S. "wants". Sorry, went over your head again. I forget that most people can't see issues on a multitude of levels and prefer to keep things simple. Something more along the lines of... "America is Bad, Bush is Hitler... Bush want all Oil in World". *I have it in quotes to make it easy for a peace a protester to copy & paste *

I have no trouble seeing things from a multi-faceted perspective.
But I cannot mind-read your other intentions. I can only go on what you have posted. In any case this forum limits communication in a way that means you have to be quite specific about what you are refering to. I suppose I am too used to marking university essays where students have not stuck to the topic.

Expanding ideas is fine. I get accused of being too wordy myself. But so that everyone can follow a line of thought I find it is good to expand on ideas in a sequential way.

Dependent conjures up images, to most uninformed people, that the majority (or even a large amount) of U.S. oil comes from Iraq. One of my points is... this is a misconception.

You are correct that it is a misconception that the USA sources much of its oil from the middle east. However, it is not a misconception that the USA is dependent on this supply.

I'll tell you what. I have another idea as to why reorganizing the Middle East is important. If I get around to it, I'll post my idea tomorrow. Let's just say, everyone on this planet had better hope the coalition is successful

I look forward to hearing this. I agree that this war is multifaceted. It is not a single issue war.

 

[CanadianCripple]

I have no trouble seeing things from a multi-faceted perspective.
But I cannot mind-read your other intentions. I can only go on what you have posted. In any case this forum limits communication in a way that means you have to be quite specific about what you are refering to. I suppose I am too used to marking university essays where students have not stuck to the topic.


I look forward to hearing this. I agree that this war is multifaceted. It is not a single issue war.

As I look back at the thead, I'm pretty sure I explained why the US isn't dependent on Iraqi oil. I guess you're really trying to say they're reliant on Iraqi oil policy. Problem with this leads back to people's opinion that the U.S. plans on taking over Iraq... the reason most protesters believe to be the purpse of the war. As I said... short of creating a 51st star, this contol cannot be accomplished.

Keep in mind, OPEC only controls the number a barrels they produce, not the actual price of oil.

Glad to see you're a student who's profs trust you to grade 1st or 2nd year work.

OK enough for today. Actual work to do.

Nice to hear you see this war as being more than a one (or 2)trick pony.

 

[plornive]

"Why did the U.S. choose to fight Japan?" What the hell are you talking about? No, forget it... I don't think I want to hear this one.

To clarify, I was trying to illustrate that the benefits of an action are not always immediately obvious. Before the US took on Japan in WW2, critics held that the only benefit to fighting Japan was to protect US trade influence and investment in China, which was miniscule at the time. Perhaps the Japanese thought the US would not gather the resources to fight Japan.

If the US hadn't fought Japan, Japan could be much more dominant in Asia. Don't laugh at the idea of domination for the sake of domination. What do you think people gain by having excessive amounts of money? Think of power and dominance as money, and things make sense.

 

[plornive]

I would like to say that I was a jackass for most of this thread, but I just wanted an exchange of ideas.

Regarding making Iraq the 51st state --- unnecessary. Foreign companies are involved in the drilling of oil in Iraq. If the US choose the new regime, guess who is going to be involved in the drilling of oil in Iraq? And after that happens, and the oil supply is increased, and prices decrease, other countries will need to increase oil production to make up for reduced revenues. The US should be able to get a piece of the oil industry in Saudi Arabia. It's all about getting a bigger peice of the pie at a better price.

 

[Lumberg]

I would like to say that I was a jackass for most of this thread, but I just wanted an exchange of ideas.

Regarding making Iraq the 51st state --- unnecessary. Foreign companies are involved in the drilling of oil in Iraq. If the US choose the new regime, guess who is going to be involved in the drilling of oil in Iraq? And after that happens, and the oil supply is increased, and prices decrease, other countries will need to increase oil production to make up for reduced revenues. The US should be able to get a piece of the oil industry in Saudi Arabia. It's all about getting a bigger peice of the pie at a better price.

The Baghdad Bombers: 33rd team in the NFL.

 

[CanadianCripple]

I look forward to hearing this. I agree that this war is multifaceted. It is not a single issue war.

Actually, it looks like you'll need to sit tight. Just to make sure I wasn't going to accused of stealing somebody else's idea, I did an extensive search on my idea and discovered that it apparently hasn't been hit on. I'm going to take some time & write a proper article in the hopes of getting it printed in some mainstream papers.

 

[HansNZ]

Actually, it looks like you'll need to sit tight. Just to make sure I wasn't going to accused of stealing somebody else's idea, I did an extensive search on my idea and discovered that it apparently hasn't been hit on. I'm going to take some time & write a proper article in the hopes of getting it printed in some mainstream papers.

Post it on here when you write it so that we can give your an opinion.

 

[spongebob]

This indictates a lack of knowledge of economics. This whole "US is not dependent on Iraqi Oil, we're doing it for the benefit of everyone else" theory is a typical example of disinformation. You should be more mindful of what you learn from the media.

can you argue without trying to insult what you percieve to be someones comprehension ability because they offer a different opinion???

 

[spongebob]

Oil has a WORLD price. If the middle eastern supply was hindered in any way (as it was in the 1970s) then the WORLD price of oil goes through the roof. When countries like Japan start to source their oil form countries which supply the US, such as Venezuela, because the middle eastern supply is cut off then the price the US pays for oil is greately increased.

The USA is one of the most oil dependent economies in the world. Even slight increases in price send the US into recession. Control of the world's oil is essential to the US. American planners are increasingly worried about the stability of Saudi Arabia which has a repressive government hated by its people and basically propped up by the CIA. The Saudi supply is IMMENSE. If that were to be cut off then DISASTER. This is why US planners need control over Iraqi fields. They sure aren't going to work with Saddam, or let him hold the USA's leash - hence our current war.

Sorry, but Middle Eastern oil does matter!

1. its not just the middle east as we have seen recently with the strike in venezuela. and not ot mention mexico and canada generally hold two of the top spots as exportors to the US. any disruption would cause concern.

but your arguement rest on your assumption that oil production would be "cut-off". show me where it has been cut-off in the middle east anytime recently. even in the 70's when prices were high, there was not a shortage, tankers full of oil sat off the coast of the US while lines at the pump were down the block. until it happens(oil production "cut-off") your arguement is just an assumption.

2. yes the US is dependent on crude oil(it consumes more the any other nation), as is all other industrialized nations. quit shipping oil to europe and see what happens. quit shipping oil to japan and see what happens. i guess you think everything would just be a-ok!

and remember that if the US economy fails it affects the world. if you do not understand this then that indicates a lack of knowledge of economics as you put it.

your whole arguement about saudi's instability and its oil supply possibly being cut-off is baseless. what makes you think the saudi's will cut-off production or exportation to the US?

the US has been importing as much oil as they want from iraq in case you havent noticed. if we wanted more we would simply lift sanctions. again your arguement is based on assumptions and not the facts.

one last comment, are you aware of the amount of oil canada has? read the link D-CUP's posted. its estimated at over a trillion bbls. and venezuela also has one of the two largest deposits of bithumis sands(oil soaked sand). the process of extraction is different from convential means but that will not be a factor in the future.

as far as conventional proven crude reserves, iraq has approx. 12% of the worlds total.