Originally posted by Leif
The World at the moment would be paying huge amounts of money for the Oil left in Iraq if they hadn't attacked.
Leif you should really read my last post. The numbers don't add up at all. The amount that foreign contracts on oil are cheating the Iraqis out of is
less than half the cost of the war. At the actual discount we are getting (as opposed to the "if we got it free" example I used earlier) it could
take 50-100 years to break even, unless we can actually "win" the counter-insurgency war and effectively protect that infrastructure (in case you
haven't noticed, that's not going well). The catch is, that Iraq doesn't have enough proven reserves to extend the deal long enough for us to break
even. The current deal, which could last up to 40 years and is projected at most to net $194 Billion, covers as much as 64% of Iraq's proven
reserves. (see reference 5 of my last)
Your theory just doesn't add up in terms of "the world" (more appropriately, the US) raping Iraq for oil. The fact of the matter is the real
targets in this scheme are the American tax payers. The Iraqis are definately losing on the deal as well, but to those who actually planned and
executed this raid on the US Treasury, Iraq would be considered collateral damage.
At the Moment Syria and Iran are not seen as EVIL But soon they will fill the gap left by Iraq.
Syria and Iran are commonly seen as evil by many Americans. In a vacuum I suspect a majority would say so, although it is unlikely in my humble
opinion that the majority would support a war with Syria, and Iran is quite unlikely as well.
Syria's oil reserves are not noteworthy. Syria is, at best, an Israeli/Lebanese problem. A war there is highly unlikely.
Iran is another story. Although it is possible that America will go for the whole enchilada, the smart play is really just to go for Khuzestan, unless
we are trying to tie in Afghanistan's flank for a strategic wall against Russia and complete an overland supply line between Turkey and Hindu Kush
(not a worthwhile objective in my mind, unless we plan on establishing a ridiculously large and blatantly belligerent military presence in Southern
Asia to check Russia and China in the future, which I doubt even the cold warriors are seriously entertaining).
Actually Iran was in all ways the logical first target if your analysis were correct. Iran has more ports, strategically controls the gulf, has tons
of oil and is better equipped to actually get it to market, is better positioned to support our efforts in Afghanistan without dependence on Pakistani
cooperation, and contains large populations ethnically and linguistically suited to employment in the "war on terror", which would have made it an
easier sell to strategic circles than Iraq.
The fact that we whacked Iraq before Iran indicates to me that our interests here were more populist in nature, dependent on using an old boogeyman
that all Americans knew to hate for political gain while dipping into our pockets.
I don't pretend that we're seeing things BETTER than before 9/11, I'm saying HELL ON EARTH would have been just around the corner when Oil
depletion made the West dependant on the Arab states.
The end of oil will not be Hell on Earth. The decision to remain on oil has been a conscious one. We no longer have to remain on it. The airforce is
getting ready to start with a fusion drive on UAVs that will allow them to remain aloft for months on end. This same technology could be the end of
fossil fuels in all large transports (I wouldn't recommend putting it in cars though since it could be used to make a very small neutron bomb, but
things such as trains and commercial aircraft can be sufficiently tracked and controlled to make this practical.)
Long story short, if the powers that be in Western government and economics would adapt themselves to change and allow advancement, it would be
patently impossible for oil to ever become more expensive per watt than nuclear power, since nuclear power can be used to generate power for battery
storage or the production of hydrogen for fuel cells, etc.
Anybody doesn't believe me? then tell me WHY ELSE GO TO IRAQ LOSE SO MANY MEN, KILL SO MANY AFTER HUSSAIN IS GONE.
Because Americans percieved Iraq as being a "safe war" because we beat them so badly last time, Americans already hated Iraq, and therefore when a
war was needed to smokescreen this raid on American tax revenues by Cheney's friends, Iraq was the most practical target. It actually could have been
done to any country, in theory, since the target didn't actually have to have enough resources to make the balance sheets on the war add up.
Why not North Korea is obvious: 1. They have the bomb. 2. Americans have bad memories of war there. 3. The people gaining from this war are part of an
economy that depends on decent relations with China.
it IS the Oil - the West runs almost everything from it and it's by-products. I'm not clever enought o quote statistics, just look at the
map and the "Axis of Evil" is conveniently in the middle of the site of most of the worlds OIL.
All we've done is make our oil more expensive. It's not about oil. It's about money for the oil companies, or more specifically, for certain very
powerful individuals who have a major stake in oil companies, among other things. The subtle difference here rests in the fact that it has nothing to
do with "America" in the conventional sense. The people responsible for this are no more "America" than Saddam Hussein was "Iraq".
what do you do when no Country in the world can fight against it? Bring on "DESERT FART 3" subtitled "WAR ON EVIL IRAN< SYRIA AND ANY OTHER
COUNTRY DEEMED BY THE GOOD USA TO BE EEEEEEEEEEVVVVVIIIILLLLLL.
drink less coffee.