War for Oil?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by spacecowboy
And killing people to lower gas prices is the most disgusting comment I've heard in this thread, maybe on the whole board.

---

Good.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tracer
How much does Blood cost? How much does Oil cost? I think blood cheaper than Oil these days so we're getting a hellava deal!

---

With Blood prices this low now is the time to invest.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by spacecowboy
Stone, your post just said it was about oil. You talk about numbers on oil revenue. If this isn't about oil then why do you speak about oil prices in relation to US involvement. I think your argument backfired on you. From your post, I get that this war is all about oil.

And killing people to lower gas prices is the most disgusting comment I've heard in this thread, maybe on the whole board.

SC

---

Hm, hard topic, I guess I wasn't clear enough.

What I was trying to imply was that IF the war was about oil, then it'd be a really really bad investment. IF the war was about oil, and IF our goal was to own Iraq, then we'd be idiots - the war is just going to be too damn expensive to justify whatever potential reward.

It's NOT about oil, of course.

What I was trying to show was that the argument that Bush and Cheney are doing this for this oil doesn't make sense, because the money would be better spent somewhere else. Bush and Cheney could put more money into the pockets of the rich by giving a $120 billion tax cut and dealing with Saddam, than by spending $120 billion on a war and hoping to colonize Iraq. Okay?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by StriderKyo
Sorry man, sggg won this round. You can spin numbers any way you want, but if a guy from the US naval war college says it's about something, I'll take his analysis over yours.

---

Well, that's fine, Strider, but you do admit that the article didn't actually ARGUE anything. It just contained a bunch of people SAYING they believed it was a war in Iraq, without backing it up.

If I were you, I wouldn't take any quote provided at face value until you either saw the source text (the actual text where the US naval war guy said that, the context of the statement), or saw some verifiable numbers to back it up.

If you want to say that you're unconvinced by either, that's fine - sggg provided baseless quotes, and I'm out of my league when it comes to providing that sort of analysis. But, to say that "SGGG won this round" indicates I would've been better off writing:

"The war can't possibly be about oil - the return on the cost of the war will never be high enough to justify attacking for the oil", said Sgt. R. Hacker, US Naval College. (a quote I'm sure I could find)

-than-

Giving a mathematical breakdown of the most-profitable, least-probable post-war economic situation in Iraq, based on fairly clear facts taken from 1.) a Department of Energy website and 2.) a Liberal British Newspaper.


I would really, really love to see someone try to provide an economic breakdown of the war that shows how it makes economic sense for Bush and Cheney to attack Iraq, even if they're only interested in benefitting a small cabal of Rich Americans. (I haven't seen one)

(Strider - The other reasons you gave for the US attacking hold more water, definitely. The "blood for oil" argument just bothers me because it's not grounded anywhere near reality.)

Stone, you're looking at it from a monetary point of view. From what I understood of his post, sggg was showing the political advantage to war. The US would kind of be like the Microsoft of the political world. Willing to take a financial hit for long-term political gain.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone

I would really, really love to see someone try to provide an economic breakdown of the war that shows how it makes economic sense for Bush and Cheney to attack Iraq, even if they're only interested in benefitting a small cabal of Rich Americans. (I haven't seen one)

---

Okay, look at it from this angle then - attack Iraq for 'justice', and let them have complete control over their oil reserves, and keep giving sweetheart deals to the Russians and Germans. Advantage to US: nothing. You've floated the entire cost of the war, thrown your economy trillions into deficit, lost a ton of political goodwill not to mention American lives, with nothing in particular to show for it other than reducing the threat of terrorist anthrax attack by 0.5%.

Or, attack Iraq and put in a government that is at first run by your military, then later exiled Iraqis who owe the US big favours. Like I said in my previous post, as uneconomical as you make it sound, not having any access to that oil at all is even more uneconomical. The less oil there is available to you, the more and more expensive it'll become over time. If the US controls (or has great influence) over that supply, you avoid that problem, as well as giving yourself a major political edge over the 21st century's budding super powers, not to mention a great bargaining chip to hold over the Saudi's heads. Advantage to US: far more.

Come on, man, aren't you in law school? You know how the game is played. I'm sure the republicans do think they're doing the world a favour, but politics and business are also opportunistic affairs. As leaders of your country, they have a duty to maintain its hegemony, otherwise they've failed the American people.

That article - which isn't from some wacked-out left wing source, it's from Canada's largest urban daily - has direct quotes from the very thinktanks the Bush cabinet is drawing from. You simply can't tell me they're unaware of the long-term strategic advantage of controlling a major oil reservoir, and what it means for America's future. The war may run at a loss in the short term, but the longterm economic stability that would result from it would more than offset the cost over time.

And besides that, the cost of the war isn't entirely a cost - much of the money you're spending is going to the industrial-military complex, which is esentially a military reinvestment to some degree. Remember what a great advertisement the Gulf War was for Patriot missiles?

Urm what about the points I made?
A war is payed for by the public in the form of taxes, loans and what have you not, costs to Haliburton for instance just a few million they invested in guys like Powell and Cheney, profits for halliburton billions in contracts for rebuilding the country(not even counting the actual oil).

Bush, Cheny, Powell, Halliburton, Boeing, Martin etcetera will profit greatly from war.
Screw the billions its gonna cost, those billions are not payed by them, the profits of selling missiles, airplanes, rebuilding, supplies etcetera however will line up their pockets quite nicely.