Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iraq was never about oil said ministers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by machiavillain View Post
    I still think its a bit naive to say fossil fuels are not a big part of it. None of us really know the internal petro-politics that dictates the global oil markets, but even unclassified reports allude to an overall strategy in securing what is left in the region, and helping the GCC which is really part of "the West".
    It's very naive of you to ignore Canada and Mexico, not to mention Texas and Alaska.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
      It's very naive of you to ignore Canada and Mexico, not to mention Texas and Alaska.
      I think naive was the wrong word i to use, but there is a big factor you haven't taken into account, and that's Capitalism and its role in the oil market's impact on the rest of economy.

      It's true that the reserves and production in the Americas combined are almost equal to their OPEC counterparts, but its safe to say that Canadian and Mexican petrol will always belong to "the West" whereas the GCC will always be under attack not just from aggressors be it insurgencies and other nations forces, but economically.

      China for example, loves to create tension, because its the main buyer of Iranian oil, therefore making it discounted which is advantages considering its massive population. But if WE didn't secure that whole area, and continue to do so since 100 ago, it would have been China that was the GCC backers and not "the West".

      We don't just need Canadian and Mexican, we need it all, because who ever get the rest wins in the economic tug of war between China, America, and Russia (which is a whole other story).

      Its also important to not that Venezuela is troublesome, one would assume that it wont become another Cuba, especially with Chavez now gone. But economically it makes sense to secure the safety of the GCC, Saudi Arabia especially.

      The problem was always the approach, we approached it wrong.

      "Thus in the military one has heard of foolish speed,
      But has not observed skillful prolonging." bing fa
      One cannot but examine it.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
        Namely because Saddam could not be trusted with the knowledge on how 11 Sept was done, not after how he tried to assassinate George Bush Sr.
        That does not sound very logical to me.

        After 911 a lot of security measures were put in place, making it almost impossible to repeat that attack.

        And if Saddam was a guy that could "learn" then what would he learn from the US attack on Afghanistan? Perhaps that hitting the US is a very very bad idea and most likely will get you killed. Dictators all over the world tend to have one thing in common; a strong survival instinct.

        Some people say Saddam was considering to switch from USD to Euro for his oil and that this was one of the reasons. I dont' know, sounds strange to me.

        Oil can be used as a weapon, and although it's just a few years ago, at that time I think nobody knew that the US would increase oil output so much today. Also, did people know at that time how much Canada could increase her oil output, and at what price level?

        The problem with Canadian oil is that it's very expensive to produce. The great thing about oil from the ME is that it is very cheap to produce.

        Comment


        • #49
          Americans alone wasted more money on the deployment in Iraq then the worth of oil beneath Iraq.
          No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

          To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Loke View Post
            Some people say Saddam was considering to switch from USD to Euro for his oil and that this was one of the reasons. I dont' know, sounds strange to me.
            Im no economist, but that doesnt sound right.

            Originally posted by Loke View Post
            The problem with Canadian oil is that it's very expensive to produce. The great thing about oil from the ME is that it is very cheap to produce.
            But also expensive to transport. Where as Canada is right there.

            Again, you shouldn't think of consumption only, in fact RESERVES are more important. Even the slow shift towards less dependence on foreign oil is dependent on oil, economically. If there are investments in innovations in solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, that investment is facilitated economically, usually funded by oil companies which are fully aware that the stuff isn't gonna be around forever.

            Its also worth mentioning that oil isn't just used to make a honda civic go or a c-130 fly, its essential to modern chemistry.

            We don't just turn on the switch from this to that, it takes time, and oil facilitates the future of the future.
            One cannot but examine it.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by machiavillain View Post
              I think naive was the wrong word i to use, but there is a big factor you haven't taken into account, and that's Capitalism and its role in the oil market's impact on the rest of economy.
              All that means is that oil would be expensive, not a stranglehold.

              Originally posted by Loke View Post
              That does not sound very logical to me.

              After 911 a lot of security measures were put in place, making it almost impossible to repeat that attack.
              It's not the specifics, it's the idea that you don't need traditional methods to hurt the US. Halifax Harbour comes to mind. I can think of at least a dozen other ways of doing something really, really big and without bringing munitions from outside the country.

              Originally posted by Loke View Post
              The problem with Canadian oil is that it's very expensive to produce. The great thing about oil from the ME is that it is very cheap to produce.
              At $100 a barrel, it becomes very economical and there is still Mexico and Texas and Alaska.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                Americans alone wasted more money on the deployment in Iraq then the worth of oil beneath Iraq.
                But its not just oil underneath Iraq, its also the security of the region, and the long term exponential effect that oil has on the rest of the world.

                Although ill agree that our enemies have made us waste far more than initially planned.
                One cannot but examine it.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                  All that means is that oil would be expensive, not a stranglehold.
                  One of the liberties of getting to live in "the West" is it secured better living standards for our parents, for us and for our children, the rest of the world is a shithole and expensive oil is more than just a stranglehold.

                  I disagree in that a speculative market can cause considerable damage.
                  One cannot but examine it.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by machiavillain View Post
                    One of the liberties of getting to live in "the West" is it secured better living standards for our parents, for us and for our children, the rest of the world is a shithole and expensive oil is more than just a stranglehold.

                    I disagree in that a speculative market can cause considerable damage.
                    Then we move off to something cheaper like Shale. The ALTERNATIVES are there. It just need the upfront investment to get it out and we're moving towards that. What happenned when oil got too expensive the last time? We stayed home. We dropped our consumptions by 10% and OPEC howled at the lost revenue.

                    It is not a stranglehold by any means.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      Then we move off to something cheaper like Shale. The ALTERNATIVES are there. It just need the upfront investment to get it out and we're moving towards that. What happenned when oil got too expensive the last time? We stayed home. We dropped our consumptions by 10% and OPEC howled at the lost revenue.

                      It is not a stranglehold by any means.
                      Yes but the point im trying to make is that its not a stranglehold for us because we've been there 100 years ago, we've been there when Hitler was after it and Russia for a long time after that, and now we're there fighting the Shiia and as of late Sunni extremists.

                      We live comfortably while the others don't, because were there.
                      One cannot but examine it.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Oh come on. I can say the same thing about the Ottomans, the Mings, and the Mughals.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                          Oh come on. I can say the same thing about the Ottomans, the Mings, and the Mughals.
                          Yes except they weren't there during the industrial revolution. I guess its more of an agree to disagree thing...
                          One cannot but examine it.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            No. They just had the world's supply of gold and silver.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                              Loke,
                              Long story short, Americans wanted Hussein gone and were blinded by their desire.
                              I agree with you totally. I argued this in another thread with the Col. There is nothing that could have stopped America taking out Saddam. Saddam miscalculated badly and tried to tap dance with the wrong man.
                              Last edited by Zinja; 11 Apr 13,, 23:54.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X