If the war in Iraq really is about controlling oil . . . [Archive] - The Orange Mane

View Full Version : If the war in Iraq really is about controlling oil . . .

The Lone Bolt

08-28-2006, 05:19 PM

. . . then the instigators hoping to profit (Bush, Cheney, or whoever) may be in for a huge disappointment.

New technologies that may make oil worth a whole lot less:

http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2005_03/pr2901.htm

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=communique&newsid=10734

New nano-material batteries may make electric cars a reality. As I see it, the main obstacle to selling electrics to the public was limited range. Until now batteries took hours to recharge. Thanks to these breakthroughs, electric cars may soon recharge in minutes giving them the unlimited range of gas cars. If this technology is not cost-prohibitive, we may see a lot more electrics on the road in the near future.

http://www.starrotor.com/Engine.htm

This engine theoretically beats conventional engines on four counts: lighter, cheaper, easier to maintain, and up to triple the gas milage.

http://www.acceleratedcomposites.com/aptera.php

Even if this car does not sell, an inexpensive method of making composite materials will lead to lighter cars and far better milage.

Bronco_Beerslug

08-28-2006, 05:22 PM

If the war in Iraq really is about controlling oil It isn't (The Iraq occupation).

The Lone Bolt

08-28-2006, 05:30 PM

And also, Ford Motor Co is working on a technology developed by the EPA.

So if Bush and Cheney wanted to invade Iraq to control oil, wouldn't you think they'd kill the program that developed this technology faster than you can say "oil profits"?

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051218/AUTO01/512180348/1148

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/02/60_mpg_ford_f15.php

60 mpg Ford F-150 Hydraulic Hybrid: Could It Be True?
February 14, 2006 10:41 AM - Collin Dunn, Seattle

Ford, the same company that has recently brought us the "It's not easy being green" Super Bowl ad and the "Midwest Ethanol Corridor," is reported to be waist-deep in developing a hydraulic hybrid system that would give their ubiquitous pickup F-150 400% increased gas efficiency. Wow. The hybrid system works similarly to the current gas-electric systems, replacing today's Nickel Metal Hydride battery storage by storing excess energy in hydraulic cylinders; this system claims almost triple the efficiency of the current battery setup. What does that mean for the F-150?

Well, the standard F-150 has a curb weight of about 4800 lbs., which is 65% greater than theToyota Prius, yet the Hydraulic F-150 with a continuously variable transmission matches the Prius with 60mpg city rating, which works out to a 400% increase over its gasoline version. Again, according to this source, the Hydraulic F-150 is currently scheduled for launch in August of 2008. The hydraulic hybrid system was developed and patented by the EPA, and quietly made news late last year. The details are a little sketchy and the information isn't well coordinated; is all of this too good to be true?

Bronco_Beerslug

08-28-2006, 05:44 PM

If we spent the money we give big oil and gas on research and incentives for alternative and renewable energy we could kick the oil habit in 10 years (not having to depend on ME countries for oil).

-----------------------------------------------

(previous threads)
Ford devloping f150 Hybrid - Sounds almost too good to be true (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=38039&highlight=hydraulic+hybrid)

157 miles per gallon (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=41349&highlight=hydraulic+hybrid)

The Lone Bolt

08-28-2006, 06:39 PM

defenseman

08-28-2006, 06:54 PM

I already saw the Loremo one, but I wasn't aware that the hydraulic-hybrid had already been posted.

Still, the other technologies look intriguing, no?

It doesn't matter. If it's proven it's NOT about this, they'll say it's about THAT. IF it's proven it's not about THAT, they'll say it's about the other IT. All of it NEGATIVE, and GW's fault. Same ole, same ole. Don't bother with this at all, you can't win..dman

Bronco_Beerslug

08-28-2006, 07:27 PM

I already saw the Loremo one, but I wasn't aware that the hydraulic-hybrid had already been posted.

Still, the other technologies look intriguing, no?
I've been advocating renewable and alternative energy for a long time. We gave 12 billion in subsidies this year to big oil and gas, think what that would do for R&D in renewable and alternative energies. We could even go further and invest a lot more money as incentives and subsidies in these energies and in the process developing new industries and manufacturing technologies in this country.

Rohirrim

08-28-2006, 09:05 PM

It doesn't matter. If it's proven it's NOT about this, they'll say it's about THAT. IF it's proven it's not about THAT, they'll say it's about the other IT. All of it NEGATIVE, and GW's fault. Same ole, same ole. Don't bother with this at all, you can't win..dman

We could argue the reasons behind the decision to go to war in Iraq. Maybe it simply comes down to Saddam threatened Dubya's daddy. Dubya was known to be a vicious "loyalty enforcer" when his dad was prez. Who knows?

But you couldn't be seriously contemplating the idea that this war is anyone's responsibility but George W. Bush's, could you?

bendog

08-29-2006, 10:15 AM

We could argue the reasons behind the decision to go to war in Iraq. Maybe it simply comes down to Saddam threatened Dubya's daddy. Dubya was known to be a vicious "loyalty enforcer" when his dad was prez. Who knows?

But you couldn't be seriously contemplating the idea that this war is anyone's responsibility but George W. Bush's, could you?

Well, it was about the oil in part. d-man can google 'new american century' and read the documents written by .... wolfowitz himself. Here's one BEFORE 9-11
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqsep1898.htm

US policy anticipated a population that would accept a provical govt of people like Chalabi who would do with Iraq's oil essentially what China and Veneueala are up to. It's not selling cheap so much as buying ahead of time entire oil fields for exclusive rights. We sought to do it with force, while the chinese simply used our dollars.

W*GS

08-29-2006, 10:23 AM

But you couldn't be seriously contemplating the idea that this war is anyone's responsibility but George W. Bush's, could you?

Didn't you know? Bush is just a puppet of evil and malicious forces - the ones who really run things. It's not his fault; he's a marionette...

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-29-2006, 10:40 AM

THE JERK: WHY SADDAM HAD TO GO

by Greg Palast
Excerpt from 'Armed Madhouse'

The 323-page multi-volume "Options for Iraqi Oil" begins with the expected dungeons-and-dragons warning:

The report is submitted on the understanding that [the State Department] will maintain the contents confidential.

More...

For two years, the State Department (and Defense and the White House) denied there were secret plans for Iraq's oil. They told us so in writing. That was the first indication the plan existed. Proving that, and getting a copy, became the near-to-pathologic obsession of our team.

Our big break came when James Baker's factotum, Amy Jaffe, first reached on her cell in Amsterdam, then at Baker's operation in Houston, convinced herself that I had the right to know about the plan. I saw no reason to correct her impression. To get the plan's title I used a truly dumb trick, asking if her copy's headings matched mine. She read it to me and listed its true authors from the industry.

The plan carries the State Department logo on the cover, Washington DC. But it was crafted in Houston, under the tutelage of the oil industry -- including, we discovered, Donald Hertzmark, an advisor to the Indonesia state oil company, and Garfield Miller of Aegis Energy, advisors to Solomon Smith Barney, all hosted by the James A. Baker III Institute.

After a year of schmoozing, Jaffe invited me to the Baker lair in Houston.

The James A. Baker III Institute is constructed a bit like a church or mosque, with a large echoing rotunda under a dome at its center, encircled by memorabilia and photos of the Great Man himself with the world's leaders, about evenly split between dictators and democrats.

And there is the obligatory shot of a smiling Nelson Mandela shaking Baker III's hand. (Mandela is not so impolite as to remind Jim that he was Reagan's Chief of Staff when Reagan coddled the regime that kept Mandela imprisoned.)

For tax purposes, it's an educational institute, and looking through the alarm-protected display cases along the wall was unquestionably an education. You could virtually write the recommendations of the 'Options for Iraqi Oil' report by a careful inspection of the trinkets of Baker's travels among the powerful.

There is the golden royal robe given Baker by Kazakh strongman Nazerbaev, the one who shared in the $51 million payment from ExxonMobil -- a James A. Baker client -- and alongside it a jeweled sword with a note from Nazerbaev, "Jim, there will always be a slice for you." (I made that up.)

Who is this James A. Baker III that he rates a whole institute, and one that will tell Iraq its oil future? Once Secretary of State to Bush Sr., Baker was now promoted to consigliere to ExxonMobil, the Republican National Committee and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

In Houston, I found in Jaffe a preppy, talky Jewish girl with a Bronx accent like a dentist's drill who, stranded in a cowboy world, poignantly wanted to be one of The Boys. She thinks she can accomplish this through fashion accoutrements -- she showed me her alligator cowboy boots and rolled her eyes -- "for Rodeo Day!"

Lucky for me and my (hidden) recorder, she did not learn from Baker and the boys' Rule #1 for rulers: shut up.

So while Amy was in the mood to say too much, and before I got into the details of Big Oil's plan for Iraq, I needed Amy's help in finding the answer to the question that was just driving me crazy: why did Saddam have to go? Why did the oil industry promote an invasion of Iraq to get rid of Saddam?

The question is basic but the answer is not at all obvious.

We know the neo-cons' answer: Their ultimate target of the invasion was Saudi Arabia, which would be cut low by a Free Iraq's busting the OPEC oil cartel. But Big Oil wouldn't let that happen. The neo-cons' scheme ended up an unnoted smear under Amy's alligator boot heels.

And we can rule out Big Oil's desire for Iraq's oil as the decisive motive to invade. The last thing the oil industry wanted from Iraq in 2001 was a lot more oil.

Neither Saddam's affection for euro currency nor panic over oil supply 'peaking' ruffled the international oil industry. What, then, made Saddam, so easy to hug in the 1980s, unbearable in the 1990s?

Saddam had to go, but why?

Amy told me they held meetings about it.

Beginning just after Bush's Florida 'victory' in December 2000, the shepherds of the planet's assets got together to plan our energy future under the weighty aegis of the "Joint Task Force on Petroleum of the James A. Baker III Institute and the Council on Foreign Relations." The master plan makers included Paul Bremer's and Kissinger's partner, Mack McLarty, CEO of Kissinger McLarty Associates; John Manzoni of British Petroleum; Luis Giusti, former CEO of the Venezuelan state oil company (until Hugo Chavez kicked him out); Ken Lay of Enron (pre-indictment); Philip Verleger of the National Petroleum Council, and other movers and shakers crucial to such bi-partisan multi-continental group gropes -- all chaired by Dr. Edward Morse, the insider's insider, from Hess Oil Trading.

Their final report detailed Saddam's crimes. Gassing Kurds and Iranians? No. James A. Baker was the Reagan Chief of Staff when the U.S. provided Saddam the intelligence to better target his chemical weapons. Weapons of Mass Destruction? Not since this crowd stopped selling him the components.

In the sanitary words of the Council on Foreign Relations' report (written up by Jaffe herself), Saddam's problem was that he was a "swinger":

Tight markets have increased U.S. and global vulnerability to disruption and provided adversaries undue potential influence over the price of oil. Iraq has become a key "swing" producer, posing a difficult situation for the U.S.
government.

Now hold on a minute: Why is our government in a "difficult" position if Iraq is a "swing producer" of oil?

The answer was that Saddam was jerking the oil market up and down. One week, without notice, the man in the moustache suddenly announces he's going to "support the Palestinian intifada" and cuts off all oil shipments. The result: Worldwide oil prices jump up. The next week, Saddam forgets about the Palestinians and pumps to the maximum allowed under the Oil-for-Food Program. The result: Oil prices suddenly dive-bomb. Up, down, up, down. Saddam was out of control.

"Control is what it's all about," one oilman told me. "It's not about getting the oil, it's about controlling oil's price."

So, within days of Bush's election in November 2000, the James Baker Institute issued this warning:

In a market with so little cushion to cover unexpected events, oil prices become extremely sensitive to perceived supply risks. Such a market increases the potential leverage of an otherwise lesser producer such as Iraq...

I met with Falah Aljibury, an advisor to Goldman Sachs, the Baker/CFR group and, I discovered, host to the State Department's invasion planning meetings in February 2001. The Iraqi-born industry man put it this way: "Iraq is not stable, a wild card." Saddam cuts production, or suddenly boosts it, playing games with the U.N. over the Oil-for-Food Program. The tinpot despot was, almost alone, setting the weekly world price of oil and Big Oil did not care for that. In the CFR's sober language:

Saddam is a "destabilizing influence... to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East."

With Saddam out of control, jerking markets up and down, the price of controlling the price was getting just too high. Saddam drove the oil boys bonkers. For example, Saddam's games pushed the State Department, disastrously, to launch, in April 2002, a coup d'etat in Venezuela.

This could not stand. Saddam delighted in playing cat-and-mouse with the USA and our oil majors. Unfortunately for him, he wasn't playing with mice, but a much bigger and unforgiving breed of rodents.

Saddam was asking for it. It was time for a "military assessment." The CFR concluded:

Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon to manipulate oil markets... United States should conduct an immediate pol icy review toward Iraq, including military, energy, economic, and political/diplomatic assessments.

The true motive to invade Iraq, Saddam's "manipulation of oil markets," was there, but not yet, in April 2001, the official excuse.

Not surprisingly, the desires of the "Project for a New American Century," the neo-con field of dreams, of remaking Arabia, was not in the Baker Institute-CFR plan. However, the conclusion, Saddam must go, matched the neo-con's policy demand, if for highly different reasons. The Baker-CFR panel had a limited concern: Get rid of the jerk, the guy yanking the market.

Morse was close-lipped about who saw and used the 2001 Baker-CFR report, but Amy Jaffe could not help telling me that Morse reported its conclusions in a briefing at the Pentagon.

More important, back in early 2001, the initial Baker-CFR report (another participant tipped me) was handed directly to Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney met secretly with CFR task force members (including Ken Lay) to go over the maps of Iraq's oil fields. That, apparently, sealed it. Cheney took the CFR/Baker recommendations as his own plan for dissecting Iraq, I'm told, beginning with the none-too-thinly-veiled take-out-Saddam "assessment."

And whose plan was it? I knew the membership of the Baker-CFR group was Big Oil and its retainers. But I was curious to know who put up the cash for drafting the extravagant report that was so protective of OPEC and Saudi interests. This document was, after all, the outline on which the Bush administration drew its grand design for energy, from Iraq to California to Venezuela. According to Jaffe, the cost of this exercise in Imperialism Lite was funded by "the generous support of Khalid al-Turki" of Saudi Arabia.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/338

The Lone Bolt

08-29-2006, 11:29 AM

The Lone Bolt

08-29-2006, 11:35 AM

And another thing:

The answer was that Saddam was jerking the oil market up and down. One week, without notice, the man in the moustache suddenly announces he's going to "support the Palestinian intifada" and cuts off all oil shipments. The result: Worldwide oil prices jump up. The next week, Saddam forgets about the Palestinians and pumps to the maximum allowed under the Oil-for-Food Program. The result: Oil prices suddenly dive-bomb. Up, down, up, down. Saddam was out of control.

Can this author provide evidence to support the claim that Saddam's "jerking" up or down oil prices from his own country had any effect at all on world oil prices? This article provides no data or supporting evidence for this claim.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-29-2006, 12:14 PM

Interesting article, but I'm confused about a few things:

First of all, why invade? Couldn't we have just swung a deal with Saddam to keep prices stable? I'm sure he would have gladly kept the oil prices the same if we lifted sanctions and bribed him. It certainly would have been a lot less expensive and politically costly than a war.

It's only expensive for the American taxpayer. Bush and his oil/arms cronies have made out like bandits. Bush doesn't give a damn about the political costs - he doesn't have to face the voters again, and he knew the corporate media and Diebold had his back in '04. The rethugs can cut and run and dump the resulting mess on the Dems in '08 if they so choose.

Secondly, according to this website http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/iraq/oil_4-24-03.html, Iraq only suppied 3% of the world's oil before the invasion. How could altering the price of only 3% of the world's supply cause such upheaval in the market that a war was necessary to put an end to it?

Apparently, these industry insiders weren't getting their data from PBS:

Beginning just after Bush's Florida 'victory' in December 2000, the shepherds of the planet's assets got together to plan our energy future under the weighty aegis of the "Joint Task Force on Petroleum of the James A. Baker III Institute and the Council on Foreign Relations." The master plan makers included Paul Bremer's and Kissinger's partner, Mack McLarty, CEO of Kissinger McLarty Associates; John Manzoni of British Petroleum; Luis Giusti, former CEO of the Venezuelan state oil company (until Hugo Chavez kicked him out); Ken Lay of Enron (pre-indictment); Philip Verleger of the National Petroleum Council, and other movers and shakers crucial to such bi-partisan multi-continental group gropes -- all chaired by Dr. Edward Morse, the insider's insider, from Hess Oil Trading.

If they're right, we should have invaded Central America and not Iraq if we wanted to control oil:

The neo-cons had other plans besides an invasion, e.g., a coup in Venezuela (after all, they know we have limited ground forces.) They were certainly pissed when their plot to whack Hugo Chavez didn't work out.

And my earlier question still hasn't been answered: If the Bush admin went to Iraq to control oil, why would his administration make the control of oil less imperative by allowing research on hydraulic-hybrids that may ultimately reduce the price of oil? Doesn't make any sense.

First of all, the article contends that the junta went to Iraq to control the price of oil first and foremost. Second, BushCo could reduce the price of oil simply by calling for some relatively simple conservation measures at home. They haven't. Why? Keeping us dependent on oil while manipulating supply to drive prices up is much more profitable.

BroncoBuff

08-29-2006, 12:43 PM

. . . then the instigators hoping to profit (Bush, Cheney, or whoever) may be in for a huge disappointment.

New technologies that may make oil worth a whole lot less:
You have some good facts, Bolt ... but they don't correlate with your premise.

If the traditional oil businesses face these challenges, they are MORE likely to take dramatic steps to consolidate their holdings/profits. Your premise implies that, faced with these challenges, Bush and big oil would eschew reckless and dramatic moves like the invasion/occupation of Iraq.

I like this argument better: If GW was really in bed with oil/the Saudis, and they were really helping each other, they wouldda hiked production in the summer of 2004 to keep US gas prices low for the election. Instead, prices really shot up August thru October, which made for a closer election - which, without Roves shepherding of 10+ anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives to prod red-voter turnout in key states - would have gone the other way (for Kerry). This is a great argument against many of the advanced conspiracy theories like the straw man you set up and knowck down here.

BTW - gas prices are a excellent barometer for incumbent/chellenger voting patterns in these United States. I can't believe nobody is talking about their effect on this November.

The Lone Bolt

08-29-2006, 01:25 PM

It's only expensive for the American taxpayer. Bush and his oil/arms cronies have made out like bandits. Bush doesn't give a damn about the political costs - he doesn't have to face the voters again, and he knew the corporate media and Diebold had his back in '04. The rethugs can cut and run and dump the resulting mess on the Dems in '08 if they so choose.

But doesn't a war damage his entire political party? Wouldn't that make it harder for the neocons to move politically in the future?

Apparently, these industry insiders weren't getting their data from PBS:

Here's another website http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/pgulf.html that reports Iraq's total percentage of Gulf Region oil output was only 5% before the invasion.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/images/pgexppie.jpg

So are you suggesting that this information is wrong or that the Joint Task Force on Petroleum was unaware of this fact? If these sources that I have presented are accurate the question remains: how can the manipulation of only 3% of the world's oil supply have such a dramatic impact on the price of oil the world over? The article you present makes this claim but presents no supporting evidence and, on the surface of it, the claim seems unlikely.

The neo-cons had other plans besides an invasion, e.g., a coup in Venezuela (after all, they know we have limited ground forces.) They were certainly pissed when their plot to whack Hugo Chavez didn't work out.

Why not a coup d'etat in Iraq and an invasion in S. America? If SA has more oil, aren't BushCo doing it backwards?

First of all, the article contends that the junta went to Iraq to control the price of oil first and foremost. Second, BushCo could reduce the price of oil simply by calling for some relatively simple conservation measures at home. They haven't. Why? Keeping us dependent on oil while manipulating supply to drive prices up is much more profitable.

But doesn't the EPA's hydraulic-hybrid drive reduce our dependence on oil? Wouldn't any such innovation have the long-term effect of driving oil prices down (or at least making oil less profitable than it would otherwise be)?

I don't think you're seeing the contradiction in your reasoning here.

The Lone Bolt

08-29-2006, 01:30 PM

You have some good facts, Bolt ... but they don't correlate with your premise.

If the traditional oil businesses face these challenges, they are MORE likely to take dramatic steps to consolidate their holdings/profits. Your premise implies that, faced with these challenges, Bush and big oil would eschew reckless and dramatic moves like the invasion/occupation of Iraq.

It seems illogical to me for BushCo to go through so much trouble to control a resource that will likely decline in value over the next couple of decades.

I like this argument better: If GW was really in bed with oil/the Saudis, and they were really helping each other, they wouldda hiked production in the summer of 2004 to keep US gas prices low for the election. Instead, prices really shot up August thru October, which made for a closer election - which, without Roves shepherding of 10+ anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives to prod red-voter turnout in key states - would have gone the other way (for Kerry). This is a great argument against many of the advanced conspiracy theories like the straw man you set up and knowck down here.

BTW - gas prices are a excellent barometer for incumbent/chellenger voting patterns in these United States. I can't believe nobody is talking about their effect on this November.

Good point.

W*GS

08-29-2006, 01:40 PM

Don't apply reason to the theories of the Bush haters, Lone Bolt. All that does is prove you're one of Them, spreading disinformation and that you're just another Rove mouthpiece...

Their faith is unshakable.

bendog

08-29-2006, 02:22 PM

Bolt, winning a war is always popular. I rather doubt the neocons thought the Iraqis wouldn't be happy campers.

Jim Baker is a bit more shrewd. He didn't propose occupying and nation building. He just wanted a new jefe who'd play ball like Saddam used to.

mhgaffney

08-29-2006, 02:24 PM

It isn't about oil (The Iraq occupation).

Maybe in your mind it isn't. I certainly hope that these new technologies can take replace our oil addiction. We needed them a decade ago.

But I think you are vastly over estimating our leaders' collective intelligence. These neo cons are insular and retro in their thinking. They do not seek out nor will they listen to good advice. Their plan from the start was to extrapolate US military power around the globe -- a pax americana.

I have seen no evidence they are backing off from the plan -- despite their repeated failures and incompetence.

If you have evidence to the contrary I'd like to see it.

MG

Rohirrim

08-29-2006, 02:34 PM

Their faith is unshakable.

And yet, it's the neocons who proceed with their ideology, even when that ideology is proven to be an unmitigated disaster. I would say that is the definition of "unshakable" faith.

bendog

08-29-2006, 02:38 PM

Exactly wags. From Iraq to Britian and really to afghan what can you pt to that the neocons have attempted that worked out, and afghan was really a pentagon not a neocon operation? Given the troops, it might work.

bendog

08-29-2006, 03:11 PM

But doesn't a war damage his entire political party? Wouldn't that make it harder for the neocons to move politically in the future?

Here's another website http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/pgulf.html that reports Iraq's total percentage of Gulf Region oil output was only 5% before the invasion.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/images/pgexppie.jpg

So are you suggesting that this information is wrong or that the Joint Task Force on Petroleum was unaware of this fact? If these sources that I have presented are accurate the question remains: how can the manipulation of only 3% of the world's oil supply have such a dramatic impact on the price of oil the world over? The article you present makes this claim but presents no supporting evidence and, on the surface of it, the claim seems unlikely.

Why not a coup d'etat in Iraq and an invasion in S. America? If SA has more oil, aren't BushCo doing it backwards?

But doesn't the EPA's hydraulic-hybrid drive reduce our dependence on oil? Wouldn't any such innovation have the long-term effect of driving oil prices down (or at least making oil less profitable than it would otherwise be)?

I don't think you're seeing the contradiction in your reasoning here.

Ps, Bolt, Iraq's oil RESERVES are second only to the saudies. Controlling access to the reserves, while limiting pumping to conserve them, would allow the US to have access to oil when other reserves were drying up. Stupid idea, I know, but you know those whacky neocons.

The Lone Bolt

08-29-2006, 03:22 PM

Ps, Bolt, Iraq's oil RESERVES are second only to the saudies. Controlling access to the reserves, while limiting pumping to conserve them, would allow the US to have access to oil when other reserves were drying up. Stupid idea, I know, but you know those whacky neocons.

Well LABF's article suggests that Saddam was removed from office because he was screwing with the market, not becase we are trying to effectively take over Iraq's oil supply. I was only addressing the flaws in his article.

And you are talking only about proven reserves, which according to the article that I cite above may not be an accurate indicator of where most of the oil really is that can be feasibly extracted.

The two approaches are very different. DOE and the oil industry have relied on narrow estimates of proven reserves which are the basis of our foreign policy. USGS relies on a more scientific but virtually unknown estimate. If we rely more on the USGS than the oil industry, it is plain that:

* The Middle East does not have two thirds of the world's oil -- it has 54 percent of identified reserves, or, if you look at ultimately recoverable reserves, 39 percent.

* Kuwait -- not Iraq -- has the second largest identified oil reserves in the world with 99.4 billion barrels, compared to 96.5 for Iraq, according to USGS.

* Saudi Arabia may have one quarter of the world's identified oil reserves, as the oil industry claims, but it has only about 16 percent of all ultimately recoverable reserves, according to the USGS.

In the report that accompanies the reserve estimates, USGS did not include "unconventional" oil such as Venezuelan heavy crudes. However, the agency did say that these unconventional sources "are approximately equal to the Identified Reserves of conventional crude oil accredited to the Middle East."

In other words, according to the USGS, and employing a conservative estimate for unconventional oil, the Middle East probably has anywhere from 29 to 35 percent of ultimately recoverable world oil reserves -- not two thirds, as is commonly claimed by the oil industry.

bendog

08-29-2006, 03:42 PM

W*GS

08-29-2006, 03:45 PM

And yet, it's the neocons who proceed with their ideology, even when that ideology is proven to be an unmitigated disaster. I would say that is the definition of "unshakable" faith.

Sorta like the faith of so-called "progressives" in the all-knowing all-powerful State. Despite Mao and Stalin, they still believe in it.

Despite tens of millions dead - is that an "unmitigated disaster" or just part of their plan?

Rohirrim

08-29-2006, 03:51 PM

Sorta like the faith of so-called "progressives" in the all-knowing all-powerful State. Despite Mao and Stalin, they still believe in it.

Despite tens of millions dead - is that an "unmitigated disaster" or just part of their plan?

You'd have to ask them.

bendog

08-29-2006, 04:03 PM

who believes in an all powerful state? Aside from the guy Bushii is bringing home to meet Poppy and Babs?

The Lone Bolt

08-29-2006, 04:21 PM

There weren't really flaws to the story. The story asserted that Jim Baker (ie. Poppy's hit man) wanted Saddam removed because he manipulated, or could manipulate, oil prices. That proved to be a false fear, mainly because of oil for food .... and yeah I know about the corruption, and some was even American.

The neocons (PNAC) have quite a different theory. They propose using the US military to secure raw materials. Jim Baker merely BUYs them. Force is reserved when people won't sell to democracies/capitalists on ideological grounds or where they threaten the sealanes for transport.

As for proven reserves, the neocons can only invade where reserves are known to exist. Even they don't claim to be presceint. But beyond a doubt even they conceed we will run out of oil half way into the century by the latest.

Well the article makes claims like this:

The tinpot despot was, almost alone, setting the weekly world price of oil and Big Oil did not care for that. In the CFR's sober language . . .

The flaws with this assertion are that:

1) The author does not provide supporting evidence that Saddam's changing of oil prices from Iraq had any effect at all on world oil prices.

2) With only 3% of the world's oils supply coming from Iraq, it seems unlikely that Saddam could set the world's oil prices "almost alone."

And the other article gets it's info from the US Geological Survey's World Petroleum Assessment and Analysis, surely a credible and scientific source.

And furthermore:

In the report that accompanies the reserve estimates, USGS did not include "unconventional" oil such as Venezuelan heavy crudes. However, the agency did say that these unconventional sources "are approximately equal to the Identified Reserves of conventional crude oil accredited to the Middle East."

So neocons have good reason to believe that more oil exists outside of the ME than within.

bendog

08-29-2006, 04:26 PM

And they're working to destablize Chavez as we speak. (which may not be a bad idea, but invading him would be)

PS, and I fail to see why you need confirmation that saddam did seek and sometimes succeed in manipulating the price of oil prior to invading kuwait. He had a legit greiveanc that his country was deeply in debt after fighting Iran, and he had been a tool of the US kuwait and the saudies. And invading kuwait was part of that, as kuwati opposed raising prices.

Even after GWI he and WJC did thier little dances of WJC moaning of the womd and saddam threatening to shut off the spice to cause price spikes.

The Lone Bolt

08-29-2006, 04:45 PM

And they're working to destablize Chavez as we speak. (which may not be a bad idea, but invading him would be)

PS, and I fail to see why you need confirmation that saddam did seek and sometimes succeed in manipulating the price of oil prior to invading kuwait. He had a legit greiveanc that his country was deeply in debt after fighting Iran, and he had been a tool of the US kuwait and the saudies. And invading kuwait was part of that, as kuwati opposed raising prices.

Because it seems very unlikely that a country that exports only 3% of the world's oil could have that dramatic an effect on the oil market. I'd like to see some proof.

And Saddam started the war against Iran, so he has no legitimate greivances. The western world only supported him in order to avoid an Iranian hegemony in the region if Iraq fell to Iran.

bendog

08-29-2006, 05:02 PM

Because it seems very unlikely that a country that exports only 3% of the world's oil could have that dramatic an effect on the oil market. I'd like to see some proof.

And Saddam started the war against Iran, so he has no legitimate greivances. The western world only supported him in order to avoid an Iranian hegemony in the region if Iraq fell to Iran.

You seem to either ignore or not know of the influence of Khomeni in Iran prior to the iran-iraq war. No doubt Saddam launched at least pre-emptive attack, but Khomeni was asking for it, as the kuwaties were as well.

And you seem totally unaware of the price manipulations during the war, and the aftermath. Moreover, if you read on teh oild for food program your answers would be obvious.
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2000/09/high_oil_prices.php

The Lone Bolt

08-29-2006, 05:44 PM

You seem to either ignore or not know of the influence of Khomeni in Iran prior to the iran-iraq war. No doubt Saddam launched at least pre-emptive attack, but Khomeni was asking for it, as the kuwaties were as well.

And you seem totally unaware of the price manipulations during the war, and the aftermath. Moreover, if you read on teh oild for food program your answers would be obvious.
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2000/09/high_oil_prices.php

Then article that you cite is an editorial. I don't think this person's opinion can be considered evidence.

And Iran and Kuwait didn't "have it coming." Kuwait has a right to charge whatever they want for their own oil. If they didn't charge a price dictated by Saddam, that did not give him the right to invade and forceably annex their country. Saddam felt that the Kuwaitis "owed him" for "protecting them" from Iran, but that's BS. It was Saddam that aggressively attacked Iran and then because the war that he started had drained his economy he thought he could recoup his losses by claiming that the Kuwaitis "owed him" and should therefore charge oil at any price he dictated.

(It's funny how you feel that Saddam was well within his rights to invade a country that didn't play along, but you condemn the U.S. for allegedly doing the same thing)

As I understand it, Saddam's invasion of Iran were over:

1) Fear that the Iranian revolution might lead to a shia revolution in his own country,

2) Saddam taking advantage of a weakened Iran to take over oil fields in Khuzestan and the Shatt al Arab waterway.

I don't see how either of these justifies an invasion. What is your explanation?

The Lone Bolt

08-29-2006, 06:18 PM

Hhhmmm. It seems not every anti-war site blames Iran.

http://www.antiwar.com/wanniski/?articleid=6065

Iraq blames old regime for 1980s war with Iran

By Sabrina Tavernise, New York Times

BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 19 - In a move that is likely to inflame further Sunni Arab resentments, the Iraqi government publicly acknowledged for the first time on Thursday that Iraq was the aggressor in 1980 when it touched off a bloody eight-year war with Iran.

In a joint statement at the end of a three-day visit by the Iranian foreign minister, Kamal Kharazi, the new Shi'ite-led Iraqi government said that Saddam Hussein, the overthrown Iraqi leader, and other officials in his government must be put on trial for committing "military aggression against the people of Iraq, Iran and Kuwait," as well as crimes against humanity and war crimes.

It was an effort to bring to a close the bitter legacy of the war in which nearly a million people were estimated to have died and tens of thousands more were displaced as refugees.

An Iraqi Foreign Ministry official who helped write the communiqué, Labeed Abbawi, said the admission was intended not as an acknowledgement of guilt on the part of the Iraqi state or people, who also suffered staggering casualties in the war. Rather, he said, it was meant to lay the responsibility for the war squarely on Mr. Hussein and other leaders of his government, many of whom face trials later this year for their roles in the killing of Iraqis.

"The file of the war, we want to put it behind us," he said. "We want to open a new path of cooperation."

Even so, it was a gesture of warmth toward Iran, which has long sought formal recognition of Iraq's use of chemical weapons against it during the war, and underscored how the political landscape here has shifted, with Iraqi Shi'ites, many of whom spent years in exile in Iran, now running the government.

The statement is not likely to sit well with Iraq's Sunni Arabs, who ran the country for decades but have been largely left out of the National Assembly, which will draft the new Iraqi constitution, since boycotting national elections in January. Shi'ites control the government for the first time in modern Iraqi history, and Sunni Arabs, isolated politically, have begun to chafe under their rule.

Sunni resentment has hardened recently, with a leading Sunni cleric accusing a government militia, made up largely of Shi'ites, of carrying out mosque raids and killings. On Thursday, two Sunni groups called for the temporary closing of dozens of Baghdad mosques as a protest.

"People will not accept it," said Saleh Mutlak, a member of the National Dialogue Council, a coalition of Sunni Arab political leaders, of the admission of responsibility for the war. "It looks like these people want to pay back the favor that Iran did for them," he said, referring to Iraq's new government.

Historians still debate the precise reasons for the start of the war between the two countries in 1980. It began during the Iranian revolution, and some experts say the new Iranian leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, agitated for a religious war to incite Iraq's large Shi'ite population to rebellion.

Others have accused Mr. Hussein of starting the war, saying he was seeking to capitalize on the chaos in Iran to overturn a 1975 agreement that fixed what he considered an unjust border in the Shatt al Arab, the waterway the two countries share at its southern end, and to seize the oil-rich Iranian province of Khuzestan.

A United Nations investigation after the war effectively assigned responsibility for the start of the war to Mr. Hussein, said Farideh Farhi, a professor of Iranian politics at the University of Hawaii, but Iran's claims of huge sums in war reparations [remain] unresolved.

Ms. Farhi said the statement Thursday appeared to be directed more at Mr. Hussein's use of chemical weapons against Iran, an issue very important to Iranians. As the Iraqis drew up guidelines for the trials of Mr. Hussein and other Baath Party leaders, they decided not to extend prosecution to any crime perpetrated outside Iraq's borders, and Iranians want international recognition that they suffered under Iraqi gas and chemical weapons attacks.

"The issue for Iranians is not whether or not Iraq is identified as the aggressor," she said. "That was something that had been settled before. The issue that is not settled for them is the issue of war crimes. During the time the Iraqis were using chemical weapons on Iran, the international community was not willing to take a side on that issue."

Underscoring Iran's ties to the religious leadership in Iraq, Mr. Kharazi called on the Shi'ite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in the holy city of Najaf on Thursday. The Iranian minister's visit began on Tuesday, just two days after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Iraq.

The UN findings referred to here are apparently the result of a special UN investigation in 1991, at which time then UN Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar declared Iraq the aggressor.

Cito Pelon

08-29-2006, 09:14 PM

The policy was to project US power. And build fortunes. Short-term fortunes were a given. Then it would "trickle-down" to us Great Unwashed, and everybody is happy.

Spider

08-29-2006, 11:40 PM

2 problems with invading South America ........
1. that jungle makes Nam look like a desert ,and it is crawling with gorillia fighters ......
2. is the terrain , every kind of lethal bug known to man can be found there , too damn hard to set up logistics ( supply routes) ........

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-30-2006, 03:33 AM

Sorta like the faith of so-called "progressives" in the all-knowing all-powerful State. Despite Mao and Stalin, they still believe in it.

:stupid:

There you go with your usual Coulter-esque hyperbole and disinfo again.

Progressives don't advocate an "all-knowing, all-powerful" state - they advocate a state that provides regulations, checks, and balances. They see the role of government as similar to the role of refs in a football game. They believe government can be a positive force in people's lives.

Take away regulations, checks and balances, and you get the sort of failed state your hero President Katrina has created here in America.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-30-2006, 03:38 AM

Sorta like the faith of so-called "progressives" in the all-knowing all-powerful State.

It's evident from the manner in which you have chosen sides here that you support the establishment of an "all-knowing" and "all-powerful" state; it's just that the state you support is one in which multinational corporations are in charge and are all-powerful.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-30-2006, 04:15 AM

http://www.bartcop.com/cheney-pinup.jpg

W*GS

08-30-2006, 11:02 AM

There you go with your usual Coulter-esque hyperbole and disinfo again.

Keep dancin'.

Progressives don't advocate an "all-knowing, all-powerful" state[...]

:bs:

Every aspect of our lives is to be infiltrated by the State, for our own "good" (of course!).

Take away regulations, checks and balances, and you get the sort of failed state your hero President Katrina has created here in America.

Speaking of disinformation...

W*GS

08-30-2006, 11:16 AM

It's evident from the manner in which you have chosen sides here

As if there are only two choices - your "progressive" crap and neo-fascist crap. I reject both.

that you support the establishment of an "all-knowing" and "all-powerful" state; it's just that the state you support is one in which multinational corporations are in charge and are all-powerful.

:bs:

You just cannot fathom a State that isn't omnipotent; your ideology keeps you in that cage. Thus, you project your totalitarian State onto everyone.

BZZZNT. Try again.

Rohirrim

08-30-2006, 11:21 AM

As if there are only two choices - your "progressive" crap and neo-fascist crap. I reject both.

:bs:

You just cannot fathom a State that isn't omnipotent; your ideology keeps you in that cage. Thus, you project your totalitarian State onto everyone.

BZZZNT. Try again.

So I guess you would support the dissolution of the SEC and the revocation of the Sherman Act? If not, why not?

W*GS

08-30-2006, 11:34 AM

So I guess you would support the dissolution of the SEC and the revocation of the Sherman Act? If not, why not?

When I put on my uber-libertarian hat, the only roles in the economy the State should play are enforcement of legitimate contracts, and serving as a mediator in disputes.

When I'm feeling less doctrinaire, there are other reasonably moral roles the State could play - however, there are many (many!) things the State is doing now that are completely immoral. And no, the war in Iraq is not the only example.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-30-2006, 07:39 PM

You just cannot fathom a State that isn't omnipotent; your ideology keeps you in that cage. Thus, you project your totalitarian State onto everyone.

Knock down that straw man, O'Liely!

W*GS

08-31-2006, 10:48 AM

Knock down that straw man, O'Liely!

Your own words bely your hankerin' for an all-powerful State.

Unless you're putting on a big act and don't actually believe the stuff you put up.

Actually, you're both a proto-totalitarian and a known liar. 'Nuff said.