Iraq to buy F-16's

**Castellano** · 21 Apr 09,, 02:28

Originally Posted by xerxes

So, what does compensate for the cost of the Iraq War for the US Government, in your view, if it is not the US establishement in Iraq?

Allow me to argue my opinion that the Iraq War has been the most idealistic enterprise in the US History.

Which doesn't mean there is no Realpolitik or commercial considerations involved.

For example: we all heard the theory which at least over here in Europe wasn't taken as theory, but assumed as matter of fact, that the Americans went to Iraq to steal the oil. "No blood for Oil" and all the rest of it. Strange that nobody stopped to think that the Americans could simply have bought it...

In any case, those accusations have been proved to be completely baseless. But in a way I think Oil was one of the factors deciding the invasion. Only not because the Americans wanted to steal it, but to make sure it was not the private property of a deranged crime family with a serial history of conflict with the US.

So if a dictator as brutal as Saddam existed in a god-foresaken country, he probably wouldn't be toppled, but not because that dictator doesn't have anything of value to be stolen, but because that dictator wouldn't have resources to be a credible threat.

Besides that, the other important rationale for invading Iraq is to allow an opportunity to change the dynamics in the entire Middle East by removing the worst troublemaker in the region and establishing some sort of Democracy in a crucial country. I believe the Bush Administration was really sincere about it. Because this is based not merely in idealism but hard Realpolitik. The Middle East simply cannot continue the way it is, and the cure to its pathologies has got to be something like what is being tried in Iraq.

**xerxes** · 21 Apr 09,, 03:36

I hold somewhat similiar views.

It was not to steal oil or anything of like, though oil was a factor.

Rather, it was bold attempt by Bush Admin to re-shape that whole area for ideoligical and economic reasons and squarely put America on the map in the middle east. Ideally, the target nation would have been a country that would be much more friendier toward U.S. (in the long term) than Saudi Arabia (ala Bin Laden), yet it would have been a middle-eastern nation which was the easiet to beat, and had the most cases against it, thus making the job of legalizing the war much easier.

For my part, I do think that The Plan may have looked a bit as naive at times.

One thing is for certain, no one in the right mind in the 21st century, commits, mobilize, feed, transport and army of over 130,000 men just for the sake of liberating a few millions Iraqi that until than meant nothing to them.

Oil played a factor in a sense that the whole region is oil rich and therefore of relatively higher importance than say Antarctica. So oil was relevent in the planning of Middle East Map v2.00 from a global view that the whole middle east is important, rather than because it was Iraq that was oil rich.

**NUS** · 21 Apr 09,, 10:31

Originally Posted by Castellano

Allow me to argue my opinion that the Iraq War has been the most idealistic enterprise in the US History.

Which doesn't mean there is no Realpolitik or commercial considerations involved.

For example: we all heard the theory which at least over here in Europe wasn't taken as theory, but assumed as matter of fact, that the Americans went to Iraq to steal the oil. "No blood for Oil" and all the rest of it.

So who is pumping Iraqi oil? Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP. I'm sure those noble Iraqi companies are eager to share with Iraq government! There is no stealing at all...

Strange that nobody stopped to think that the Americans could simply have bought it...

With anti-Saddam sanctions in place? Someone need a history lesson.
Also, last summer oil price was 147$ per barrel. Let's make a guess how high would it be without several millions barrels Iraq oil per day. And all those profits would not fall in hands of aforementioned companies! Ze horror!

In any case, those accusations have been proved to be completely baseless.

How so?
Just to let you know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_oil_law_(2007)

But in a way I think Oil was one of the factors deciding the invasion. Only not because the Americans wanted to steal it, but to make sure it was not the private property of a deranged crime family with a serial history of conflict with the US.

So if a dictator as brutal as Saddam existed in a god-foresaken country, he probably wouldn't be toppled, but not because that dictatpumpingor doesn't have anything of value to be stolen, but because that dictator wouldn't have resources to be a credible threat.

Yeah, nuclear armed North Korea is not a credible threat at all. Because... you know... it is nuclear armed!

**cirrrocco** · 21 Apr 09,, 10:43

How so?
Just to let you know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_oil_law_(2007)

Fixed your link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_oil_law_(2007))

**xerxes** · 21 Apr 09,, 13:34

Originally Posted by NUS

So who is pumping Iraqi oil? Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP. I'm sure those noble Iraqi companies are eager to share with Iraq government! There is no stealing at all...

In all fairness, of the companies you listed only Exxon Mobil is a true American company - a direct heir of the glorious Rockefeller's Standard Oil.

Originally Posted by NUS

With anti-Saddam sanctions in place? Someone need a history lesson.
Also, last summer oil price was 147$ per barrel. Let's make a guess how high would it be without several millions barrels Iraq oil per day. And all those profits would not fall in hands of aforementioned companies! Ze horror!

OPEC as a whole was not able to stop the price from rising for six months in 2008. Oil went up because oil contracts became a great parking place for banks with tons of cashes as the US dollar detoriated when intrest rate were getting cut every two months. Therefore, the price had little to do with the reallity of supply-and-demand back in 2008 IMO, and therefore presence of Iraqi oil would not have changed much. Also, there is so much OPEC can do as a whole. Today, it controls only 40% of the oil reserve in contrast to 80% that it controlled in the mid/late-70s.

**Castellano** · 21 Apr 09,, 14:21

Originally Posted by NUS

So who is pumping Iraqi oil? Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP. I'm sure those noble Iraqi companies are eager to share with Iraq government! There is no stealing at all...

I didn't know pumping and stealing were synonyms.

I notice Total is in the conspiracy though. The french must be really smart to oppose the War in Iraq and share the looting at the same time...

Iraq has opened the necessary reconstruction of its oil industry to all kinds of companies, including the French and the Chinese. A proof in itself of a sovereign decision.

And BTW, "Iraq" means the sovereign government of Iraq as elected by its people, not installed from Washington.

With anti-Saddam sanctions in place? Someone need a history lesson.

Don't tell me....I'm gonna get it from you.

Alright then, I wanna know everything about the Oil-for-Food program that put Iraqi oil in the market....

And don't forget to explain me the role of the notorious "peace" and "no-blood-for-oil" activist George Galloway in all this.

Also, last summer oil price was 147$ per barrel. Let's make a guess how high would it be without several millions barrels Iraq oil per day.

It seems that you don't realize that the 147$ per barrel is a devastating argument against the conspiracy to steal the oil.

By the way, the Iraqi output is negligible to irrelevant for determining the price. That was the case in 2003 as it is now.

And all those profits would not fall in hands of aforementioned companies! Ze horror!

So let me get this right. The aforementioned companies have managed to hijack the US government, and forced it to fight a War in which billions and billions of US treasury have been poured, so that they could get some tens of millions.

Correct?

How so?
Just to let you know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_oil_law_(2007)

The genesis of the Iraq hydrocarbon law proves conclusively that it wasn't about stealing the oil.

The Americans pressed hard the Iraqis from the get go to produce a law that ensured Iraqi Oil to be the property of Iraqi people, and not the private property of a sociopath.

If hawkish foreign policy thinkers in the US have arrived to the conclusion that some sort of socialism is good for US interest and security, you can call it the paradoxes of History or poetic justice. It doesn't make it any less true.

Yeah, nuclear armed North Korea is not a credible threat at all. Because... you know... it is nuclear armed!

The nuclearization of N Korea came a bit too soon for the changes of paradigms after 9/11 in US foreign policy.

Also, conflict there has been wargamed over and over again, and estimates calculate millions dead north and south of the DMZ, even if no WMD are used.

Moreover, when you are talking of N Korea you are also talking of China, which is no small actor.

And in any case, your remark doesn't prove my observation wrong.

**Oscar** · 21 Apr 09,, 16:23

Yeah no more war for oil!!!

Having said that, one tends to forget that the oil lobby in Washington would prefer a more pro arab US policy since half of the oil reserves in the world are in the ME, add to that the connection they have with the Saudis...