Skip

War Could Unshackle Oil in Iraq
September 14, 2002 10:07 PM   Subscribe

War Could Unshackle Oil in Iraq ..All five permanent members of the Security Council -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- have international oil companies with major stakes in a change of leadership in Baghdad. Okay, everybody say it with me now...It's about the OIL!
posted by bas67 (38 comments total)

 
...and...? While the primary purpose of any military action in Iraq would be to reduce or eliminate the threat of nuclear/chem/bio weapons that Hussein is trying to obtain, make, or buy, there would be other benefits -- namely, the potential for oil to be "unshackled" to some degree.

Oil is important to the world. Very important. To hundreds of millions of people. In fact, I'd wager that you, bas67, use oil in some form or another on a daily basis, and are (perhaps unwittingly) grateful for the pleasures & conveniences brought about by oil and the by-products of oil. "Unshackling" the oil income that is currently being used by a tyrannical, despotic madman in order to create weapons that he would assuredly use to slaughter and terrorize millions of people IS a worthy goal. Don't you agree?
posted by davidmsc at 10:20 PM on September 14, 2002


It's about the OIL!

In other news, scientists have discovered the world is actually round, and orbits around the orange thing in the sky.
posted by SpaceCadet at 10:23 PM on September 14, 2002


Okay, everybody say it with me now...It's about the OIL!

Why bother posting when you are not going to encourage discussion.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:27 PM on September 14, 2002


davidmsc: Unshackling" the oil income that is currently being used by a tyrannical, despotic madman in order to create weapons that he would assuredly use to slaughter and terrorize millions of people IS a worthy goal.

Hey, don't talk about our Allies like that:

Turkey loves to kill Kurds too.

Egypt hates Israel to death and has built a military just for this reason.

Saudi Arabia pisses on internationally accepted human rights and was home to the 9/11 terrorists.

davidmsc, time to get those troublemakers! Are you with me? Saddam is just the appetizer! Yeah, didn't think so.
posted by skallas at 10:38 PM on September 14, 2002


Easy there, skallas...I never said the U.S. could solve all world problems in one masterstroke...as the sole "hyperpower," we have the luxury (for lack of a better word) of being able to choose what problems to address, and when. I agree that there are other issues and nations to address and/or confront, but the *most* pressing right now, in light of Hussein's history and likely path, is Iraq.
posted by davidmsc at 10:46 PM on September 14, 2002


You know davidmsc, you're right. Oil is very important, to many people. It's very very important to our Oil drenched administration. Also I'm sure Cheneys friends at Haliburton will be only too happy to step in and clean up all that war mess (like they did last time) for a very handsome sum from the Government.

Just tell me what has changed about Saadam in the last year that has caused Bush to need to go to war NOW. Why would he want a lame duck congress (most up for re-election in November right?) to vote on anything this important unless it's mostly to change the course of debate during the elections and to reap huge campaign contributions from is grateful oil buddies.

And Steve, I don't feel the need to direct people in discussion. If you have a point make it.
posted by bas67 at 10:50 PM on September 14, 2002


I still wanna see if the US defies the UN to go after Iraq for defying UN resolutions, while allied with a country that had defied hundred of UN resolutions. Using the excuse of preventing Iraq from intimidating other countries with their power, while Iran would gladly storm over their nation, and while the US intimidates other countries.

Welcome to the US War on Terror (US v. Evil Nations) version of Monopoly, where if you're evil, you go to jail, but if you're the US, you can ignore that 'go to jail' card and collect ownership of Afghanistan place. :)

Oil makes this war go around and around.
posted by RobbieFal at 10:55 PM on September 14, 2002


davidmsc: I agree that there are other issues and nations to address and/or confront, but the *most* pressing right now, in light of Hussein's history and likely path, is Iraq.

Nonsense. Your initial post was a call to arms because of the potential nastiness:

"he would assuredly use to slaughter and terrorize millions of people"

Oh, really? Is it because Bush is beating the war drum and coming up empty on proof that you're able to make that grand Nostradamus like declaration? I don't think the facts fit the rhetoric. So your little statement is an appeal to popularity, you're calling on the good people to fight the bad people. My post is essentially saying that there are bad people everywhere (and we love them) and when the US picks a fight its for more than just to oust the evildoers. I mean we're not touching the Sudan or anything.

So this leaves you in a funny position. Either you admit this is about something more than beating the baddie or go back to your Nostradamus declarations and 'US as world benefactor' position. Pick from the following list: oil, Bush-clan revenge, protecting Israel/preventing nuclear parity. They're pretty valid working assumptions on whats going on at the Bush administration when the press isn't there. Or you believe the US does this kind of thing for the good of the world. I'll take the former and laugh at the latter.

Bush and his handlers know they can get Iraq right now, and they think its worth a try. That's whats most likely going on. Saddam and the A-Bomb should be a hip self-produced comic book not a national position.
posted by skallas at 11:00 PM on September 14, 2002


If you have a point make it.

Bas67, you are an ideologue. You posted this thread so you could bash the current administration, and make your self feel better about your self. There is no new news in this post. But even if there was a point to be discussed, that hasn't been flamed to death, you posted with a loaded discription, that right off the bat puts every one on edge. That is my point.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:02 PM on September 14, 2002


"The threat of biological terrorism is a tool that the authoritarians can always use in a pinch."

- R U Sirius, from The Revolution (Feral Press, 2000)
posted by tpoh.org at 11:14 PM on September 14, 2002


Steve,
I'm sorry I put you on edge.

Now do you have a point to be discussed about the post? Pick a side. Form an opinion. Argue it to me. Tell me why I'm wrong.

And don't tell me what I am, or what my motivation is -- you don't know me. Leave the personal stuff out of it.
posted by bas67 at 11:17 PM on September 14, 2002


Perhaps BAS67 was reading this?
posted by RubberHen at 11:38 PM on September 14, 2002


From the article on the FPP: "... senior Bush administration officials say they have not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq..."

Hahahahahaha! Stop, you're killing me!
posted by Nicolae Carpathia at 12:34 AM on September 15, 2002


Iraq 'close to nuclear bomb goal'

Defector: Iraq could have nukes by 2005

I personally would prefer to have a conflict with a non-nuclear assisted mad man, than the alternative.

Since we would have to fight him now... or later... I find it hard to swallow that other countries, the UN, feel that it is their place to dictate how our soldiers die.

Just another view.
posted by dancu at 12:51 AM on September 15, 2002


What in the wide world of sports are you talking about dancu?

"since we have to fight him now. . . or later"
"dictating how our soldiers die"????

We merely believe we have to be in constant conflict. Conflict keeps us, here in the USA, malleable and obedient. How many out there, I shudder to ask, accept the rationale that "we just have to take out Saddam because he's a menacing warlord" in much the same way we accept that popping the barrel of a shotgun in one's mouth and pulling the trigger will scatter bits of your brain all over whatever was behind you when you did it? Good god, you don't need to actually put the gun in your mouth to deduce what would happen when a thousand pellets swiss-cheese your cranium. Why then accept the idiotic inevitability of imperialistic posturing? It's now of course "inevitable" because so many have swallowed the notion that We Are At War. We're not. They are. Not us. We're their pawns and they are gods who get rich with every switch they flick. We are nothing. If an innocent Iraqi is killed by a smart bomb he is a casualty. Casualties are worthless dead statistics. If an Iraqi is worthless, so then are we.
posted by crasspastor at 1:13 AM on September 15, 2002


skallas- So your little statement is an appeal to popularity, you're calling on the good people to fight the bad people.

Wecome to democracy, skallas.
posted by ttrendel at 1:45 AM on September 15, 2002


1. Iraq has oil
2. Iraq's leadership is isolated, fragile, and weak
3. Americans are pissed about Sept 11th, and war against anyone tangentially involved or even of the same religion/race is popular
4. Iraq will be better off without Saddam

... opportunity knocks. This is not "about" anything other than opportunity. There are too many good reasons to do it (from the amoral perspective, and from the moral as well, even though on balance that's a lot more cloudy) for an aggresive hyperpower to turn it down. The only thing that will stop it from happening is public opinion, but because of Sept 11th that seems unlikely. That seems illogical as hell, but so is crashing planes into buildings.
posted by chaz at 2:48 AM on September 15, 2002


We each see things Not as They are but rather as We are.
posted by Postroad at 4:11 AM on September 15, 2002


The statement that the Iraqis will have the nuclear bomb by 2005 seems a powerful reason to attack. But what is the evidence?

1/ Khidir Hamza who defected 8 years ago from Iraq citing German intelligence saying Iraq have the capabilitity to make nuclear bombs.
2/ Mr Butler saying that 11 years ago Iraq had the ability to make nuclear weapons.
3/ Mr Straw [UK Foreign Secretary] says that they will reveal on Sept 24 a dossier that shows Saddam has the "desire to aquire nuclear weapons".

These three people have not provided any evidence that the public has seen. Do we need to know more before the USA attack?
posted by meech at 5:06 AM on September 15, 2002


There are those of us who support this action because it will be the first step in bringing more representative government to the region.

I don't think it's about the oil, and it's a possibility it isn't about the terrorism either. To be honest the reasons don't particularly interest me as long as the end result is the liberation of the millions there living under oppressive governments.

You might say we support despots in the region already (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc) and I would agree. We should stop supporting those people as soon as it is possible to do so. In the mean time we can push those countries we are "allied" with in the region towards more democratic reforms.

Iraq isn't likely to reform under Hussein and that is why he has to go. This won't be quick, and it won't be pretty. I am hoping however that history will smile on the result.

I don't understand why those of us who support this action are painted as ignorant muslim haters and oil executives. The best man at my wedding is a Muslim Bengali and he is more adamant about bringing "the blessings of liberty" to the Muslim world than anyone I know.
posted by revbrian at 5:54 AM on September 15, 2002


revbrian: You really are incredibly naive if you think war with Iraq has anything to do with democracy. No American-installed puppet government is likely to last long. Whatever replaces it after the inievitable revolution is likely to be as bad, or worse, than the Hussein regime. Remember, the USA was a backer of the Shah of Iran.

Democracy is not a factor in Bush's thinking, and it will not be a long term result of a war.
posted by salmacis at 6:23 AM on September 15, 2002


We each see things Not as They are but rather as We are.
posted by Postroad at 4:11 AM PST on September 15


There may be some blowback on that there quote, Postie. It'll be hard for you to argue your pov without it being thrown back atcha.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:43 AM on September 15, 2002


I've got a shocking revelation for you folks: america has had nuclear weapons for a long time now, and is distinguished as being the only one to use them on another country. so here are the facts:

1.) history has shown america to be an effective destabilizer in the middle east.
2.) foreign groups we train and set up with governments have a nasty habit of becoming rabid anti-westerners after a decade or so.
3.) if allowed to attack iraq, the only thing that will be able to stop shrub's war machine is term limits.
4.) for the love of moses, can we go one month without killing someone in middle east?

anyhow, why don't we give this a shot?
posted by mcsweetie at 7:33 AM on September 15, 2002


"since we have to fight him now. . . or later"

Yes, I see that we have been unable to avoid armed conflict with Cuba.
posted by shagoth at 7:41 AM on September 15, 2002


It's all about oil... scientists have discovered the world is actually round, and orbits around the orange thing in the sky.
[stunned, quonsar stands gape-mouthed in the face of this unspeakable heresy and wonders "but if that's true, why are we lying to our children? why do we bother with all this patriotic propoganda?" nope, NO WAY. it's all about the fact that we are the good guys, the best nation in the world, and those funny brown fuckers with the head towels are all TERRISTS!]
posted by quonsar at 7:58 AM on September 15, 2002


Mr Straw [UK Foreign Secretary] says that they will reveal on Sept 24 a dossier that shows Saddam has the "desire to aquire nuclear weapons".

There are two groups of world leaders: those with nuclear weapons, and those with the desire to acquire them.
posted by riviera at 8:33 AM on September 15, 2002


According to the military analyst group Jane's, Russia is particularly concerned about the effect on its economy of lower oil prices:

Moscow has benefited greatly from the restricted supply of Iraqi oil since the Gulf War in 1991. Relatively high -- and stable -- oil prices have given Russia a major economic boost.

However, what the Kremlin fears most is the ousting of Saddam Hussein and his replacement with a US-backed puppet regime. Should such an administration be installed in Baghdad, there is likely to be a marked fall in oil prices as US oil companies are free once again to invest in Iraq's ageing and under-funded industry. While lower oil prices will be welcomed by the US, Russia will be facing difficult economic prospects. From Moscow's perspective, a protracted diplomatic wrangle -- and restricted Iraqi oil output -- would be best.

posted by mediareport at 8:44 AM on September 15, 2002


The Gulf war was about two things: Oil and getting ourselves a platform in the Middle East. While it could be said with a straight face that Iraq is legally subject to attact because there was never a cease fire and the instruments which suspended hostilities have not been lived up to on Iraq's part, that same logic would justify a rapist visitation rights for the child he produced with his victim.
I am disgusted with how little we have accomplished in our 'war on terrorism' this last year. We have been unable to get revenge or justice or security. Afghanistan now owns us, and we'll spend Billions of dollars and do very little good until we leave and they sort things out for themselves. The same thing will happen in Iraq: they are more civilized and lack the warlord culture, but not long after they are left on their own Islamic fundies or secular dictator-types will take over and we'll be worse off than we are now. If the charges against Iraq are valid reasons for invasion and regime change then why does that not apply to Saudi Arabia, the Center of Islamic Jihad? If we're going to make life and death decisions like this shouldn't we use the same standards of judgement regardless of what country it is?
posted by Mack Twain at 8:48 AM on September 15, 2002


shagoth.... what the hell are you talking about? Bay of Pigs.... that was us.

Also Cuba never has trained soldiers that killed 2500+ Americans, nor has it ever invaded another country.

There are many in this country who do not see justification for this war, but if Iraq acquired Nuclear weapons... and there was an exchange with Israel, many innocent people would die in the process.

It is time for a regime change in Iraq... they need a new leader... we obviously can't squeeze him out with economic sanctions... that only hurts the Iraqis.

It seems very presumptuous that we are starting a war before it happens.... but we can't trust him anymore he removed our weapons inspectors and will not allow them back in unconditionally. When a person doesn't meet the requirements of their parole.... it's time for an arrest.

Man... I forgot that all these conversations on Metatfilter were so childish.
posted by dancu at 8:52 AM on September 15, 2002


Yo, mcsweetie: No shit we have nuclear weapons. We also have chem and bio, as far as any of us know. And, as others have pointed out, so do China, France, etc, etc. The difference between us & our fellow known nuclear neighbors is that none of us have blatant intentions of using them on one another, or to otherwise conquer other nations. China has problems, sure, and we keep a close eye on them (remember last year's spy-plane incident), but they're not training/harboring/funding/outfitting bands of terrorists who goal is to inflict destruction on America and her allies.

And yes, we ARE the only nation to have used a nuclear weapon against another. Seems to me it brought WWII to a screeching halt, thereby saving thousands (hundreds of thousands, millions?) of lives and establishing the U.S. as the dominant force in the world that followed. For those who haven't been paying attention, this is a GOOD thing.
posted by davidmsc at 10:22 AM on September 15, 2002


One more thing:
...for the love of moses, can we go one month without killing someone in middle east?

Better question: for the love of moses, can the Middle Easterners go one fricking DAY without killing fellow Middle Easterners? Seems to me they do a good job of killing each other; they certainly don't need our assistance in that regard.
posted by davidmsc at 10:24 AM on September 15, 2002


we should attack just to llive up to our reputation as "evil, war loving madman" hey, we have a reputation to uphold...right.

opposition: "see, told you he was a madman bent on war lust"

BIG SAM: " ge outta ma way or your next"

opposition " stop madman, stop"

BIG SAM " boy you are dense, I'm a madman right, they don't stop, so why are you blabbering for me to stop" (more random killings ensue)

opposition: "my god he's mad...someone stop him"

Big SAM: "why (and how)"

opposition: "because your a madman...."

"right round baby right round like a record spinning..."



this is not about oil, this is personal. the damage to the oil fields, disruption in supply lines, the cost of the military action will outway the 'cheaper oil' from a more stable iraq.

Also Cuba never has trained soldiers that killed 2500+ Americans, nor has it ever invaded another country

your funny...Angola for starters...i believe liberia and a few other incursions under the red banner.

(resumes dance party music)
posted by clavdivs at 10:58 AM on September 15, 2002


we ARE the only nation to have used a nuclear weapon against another. Seems to me it brought WWII to a screeching halt, thereby saving thousands (hundreds of thousands, millions?) of lives

You're way too certain for someone who doesn't know what he's talking about, davidmsc. Dwight Eisenhower has said the use of atomic bombs on Japan was completely unnecessary: "I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.'"

Admiral William Leahy, chief of staff for both Roosevelt and Truman, felt the same way: "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan."

I await your rebuttal to the General and Admiral. On to Iraq:

The difference between us & our fellow known nuclear neighbors is that none of us have blatant intentions of using them on one another

What evidence do you have that Hussein has "blatant intentions" of using nuclear weapons on his neighbors, a suicidal move many feel is obviously against his own self-interest?
posted by mediareport at 1:33 PM on September 15, 2002


thereby saving thousands (hundreds of thousands, millions?) of lives and establishing the U.S. as the dominant force in the world that followed. For those who haven't been paying attention, this is a GOOD thing.

and it only cost 340,000 japanese civilians! to quote philosopher "Ted" Theodore Logan: excellent!

Seems to me they do a good job of killing each other; they certainly don't need our assistance in that regard.

agreed. so why don't we forget about this unnecessary war thing?
posted by mcsweetie at 2:00 PM on September 15, 2002


"...but we can't trust him anymore he removed our weapons inspectors and will not allow them back in unconditionally..."
posted by dash_slot- at 7:31 PM on September 15, 2002


What's most frightening, davidmsc, is that you and millions of people in the US believe that the US should solve the world's problems. Who gave the US the right to do that? Or is it simply because the US has more nukes than anyone else in the world? Of all the navel gazing the US has done recently, they seem to have missed one spot.
posted by timyang at 10:10 PM on September 15, 2002


Who gave the US the right to do that?

(Chinese have a wonderful phrase, it is called Mandate from Heaven)

Holgate used to think it was because we were "big"

i feel that we should let it go to dogs for a spell and watch the world squirm.
posted by clavdivs at 8:44 AM on September 16, 2002


Who gave the US the right to do that?

We did. By virtue of (a) our morality as a nation, which is to say the *goodness* of our nation, and (b) our responsibility to our citizens and future generations, and (c) because we can, where others can not.

I await your rebuttal to the General and Admiral.

Don't need to rebut them...the arguments both for & against both positions have been hashed, re-hashed, and turned upside-down by everyone since August 1945. While you cite some credible sources, there are equally credible sources that argue otherwise. The two sides, IMO, are evenly balanced. Having said that -- I believe it was the right thing to do, based on everything that I've read/seen/heard in textbooks, news reports, and military history courses.
posted by davidmsc at 6:22 PM on September 18, 2002


« Older The Mind of a Madman.   |   Like it was so hard to get... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post