President Bush wants the oil in Iraq

[ryan7962]

Is it me or is it pretty clear that the war in iraq is for the oil? Its kinda weird when president bush goes from finding wmd to freeing Iraq. If Iraq has all these chemical weapons and wmd why arent they using them? Maybe they dont have them, and why cant the US find them? And after the war is over I wouldnt doubt the US sending its own chemical weapons and wmd to Iraq and basically framing Iraq.

[mr krinkle]

ryan7962 its not you,,They said the first Gulf War was Not about Oil but we know better than that now.

And I would not put anything past the corrupt potus we have in DC right now to make his case that the War was just.

[trulad]

YES! It' about oil. Oil for France. They signed an 8 Billion dollar oil deal for oil that was illegal for Iraq to export under the sanctions. President Chirouk of France considers Saddam a personal friend and has even had him as a house guest. Now we know why France wouldn't help us get rid of this monster. They will now have to pay the same price as the rest of us. We will never forget the thousands of white crosses of Americans that died in France liberating them in two World Wars. Screw France.
Trudy

[not important]

Was there ever any doubt? It's always about the oil (money) with republicans.

[Tiretool]

That's any easy scapegoat for all the people against military action to blame this war on. It's simply not true. Sure, we will be able to have better access to the oil if there's not a madman at the helm in Iraq. That's a benefit of having a "new improved" Iraq with a sensible government of the people of Iraq. But are we there for that reason exclusively? If you believe that... it's a sad day for you.

[TimPoet]

Originally posted by ryan7962 Is it me or is it pretty clear that the war in iraq is for the oil?

It's you.

[Kubie]

mr krinkle,

They said the first Gulf War was Not about Oil but we know better than that now.

Any proof???

Carl

[padawan]

I think there are like 4,000 other threads that say this exact same thing. I guess gassing your own people and trying to aquire nuclear weapons isn't abig enough deal, it must me for the oil. How was I so blind...

Show me proof, then I will believe this war for oil propaganda.

[Tuf]

Where is all this cheap oil?

[Kubie]

Tuf,

There is quite a bit up in Alaska. Sure is something that the liberals won't let us drill in Alaska for fear of harming a frozen plant, but the "only reason" they are against the war is because Bush wants the oil.
The statement "but now WE know better" must come from the 25% against the war. Most of those must read the placards used by the professional protesters and won't go any further to find the truth for themselves.

Carl

[avx]

No war in HISTORY has ever been fought with just one motive to do so, there are many motives in this war...revenge, money, freeing the world of an evil dictator...all kinds...are you really gonna be upset if the US government gets control of over 8trillion dollars worth of oil??? Do you know what that would do for our economy???? Entrepreneurship is not a 21st century concept...all wars are fought with both righteous and evil intentions behind them, why people make a big deal out of something that could bring the American Society into a golden era(Oil) I will never understand....

[TimPoet]

1) The only oil America would take would be enough to pay for the cost of prosecuting the war.

2) The primary reason for prosecuting the war is to remove the threat to our vital national interest: Saddam's desire and increasing ability to obtain WMDs and the high likelihood of making them available for state sponsored terrorism.

3) We are the good guys, they are the evil guys.

[sleepypost]

I don't think all those hippies are very well grounded when they claim Bush is only after the oil. You see, if we wanted oil that badly, we would have done SOMETHING when we were sitting on a gold mine of it in Kuwait. When you tell that to a liberal they just have to stop, think, and take another drag from the j... in their hand.

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by Kubie Tuf, There is quite a bit up in Alaska. Sure is something that the liberals won't let us drill in Alaska for fear of harming a frozen plant, but the "only reason" they are against the war is because Bush wants the oil. The statement "but now WE know better" must come from the 25% against the war. Most of those must read the placards used by the professional protesters and won't go any further to find the truth for themselves. Carl

Actually, there's not very much oil in the Alaskan refuge; the total amount of oil in Alaska would be about one year's worth of oil at the current rate of consumption, and the economically feasible oil is only about half that (the other half would cost more to extract than it could be sold for). So all this debate is over 6 months worth of oil -- not a trivially tiny amount, but not enough to really justify the operation.

[avx]

I saw this great picture one time of this relaxed, clean shaving, decent lookign guy, holding a sign that said "We tried this with Hitler" and then these 2 hippies in his face looking all dirty and dingy, and arguing, and hes just sitting there like hes chilling on a corner or something, I laughed for like 5 mins...It was great, wonder if I saw it hear...?

[Nuclear Krusader]

Wars have been fought for a lot of reasons throughout the history of mankind.

The reason is always the same one: power.

As for this specific war being fought for freedom that is BS. There are many nations and ppl opressed in the world by rulers worse than Saddam and they don't get a bit of attention. Why? Easy: because they have no resources that can be exploited and used to increase the economical power of a nation.

War is a business. It has always been and it will always be.

[Tuf]

Originally posted by Paul Victorey Actually, there's not very much oil in the Alaskan refuge; the total amount of oil in Alaska would be about one year's worth of oil at the current rate of consumption, and the economically feasible oil is only about half that (the other half would cost more to extract than it could be sold for). So all this debate is over 6 months worth of oil -- not a trivially tiny amount, but not enough to really justify the operation.

Those certainly aren't the figures quoted by the American Petroleum Institute. There are plenty of companies chomping at the bit to extract that trivial amount.

Of course seeing how I work in the Energy Industry I will reserve my opinion as to whether or not we should drill in Alaska, you probably know what it is anyway.

We have three choices as of now Oil, Coal or Nuclear Energy. Personally I think they are all viable and think we are foolish to not be using them all for their strong points.

[drisley]

Its a tad interesting how the war-for-oil folks who started this thread have failed to back up their claim with anything.

[mr krinkle]

Its far more difficult than to just Say"We are the good guys, they are the evil guys." Like some simple people here say

,And statements like that and "the Ant-War people are Hippies" BS Just shows the childish mindset of some people in here

Kubie,The Gulf War was indeed about Oil,Why do you think Iraq invaded Kuwait? To gain access to there Corn Fields? If it wasnt about Oil what the hell was it about?

Sure Saddam was a brutal dictator who killed his own people but remember We were in bed with him and backing him in the 80's,,How soon Americans forget.

[mr krinkle]

drisley There are two sides to every story and arguement,,These are just my opinions and observations,I dont know of anyone who can back up what they say in most cases which can satisfy there doubters.

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by Tuf Those certainly aren't the figures quoted by the American Petroleum Institute. There are plenty of companies chomping at the bit to extract that trivial amount. Of course seeing how I work in the Energy Industry I will reserve my opinion as to whether or not we should drill in Alaska, you probably know what it is anyway. We have three choices as of now Oil, Coal or Nuclear Energy. Personally I think they are all viable and think we are foolish to not be using them all for their strong points.

From Yahoo News:

How much oil can be recovered from the refuge is a contentious point in the debate. [Interior Secretary Gale] Norton told the committee that government estimates range from 5.7 billion to 16 billion barrels of oil within Area 1002, with the mean value of technically recoverable oil coming in at 10.4 billion barrels. But the term "technically recoverable" is not the same as "economically recoverable," which many believe is a more accurate figure. This figure takes into account the cost of finding, developing, producing and transporting the oil to market based on a 12 percent return on investment after taxes. For example, using 1996 dollars, the USGS [United States Geological Survey] estimated that at $24 per barrel, there is a 95 percent chance that at least two billion barrels can be economically recovered and a five percent probability that 9.4 billion barrels are economically recoverable.

So, we're looking at something between 2 billion and 9 billion barrels of oil. The US uses 19.6 million barrels of oil per day, which comes out to 7 billion and change per year. So we're looking at somewhere between 3 months to 15 months of oil. 6 months of oil (approx. 3.5 billion barrels) works out to be the 50% probability point -- i.e. every barrel of oil beyond the 3.5 billion mark has less than a 50% chance of being economically recoverable.

[Tuf]

I don't doubt you could find some projections even worse than that. The fact is any multi billion barrel discovery is significant. A large percentage of the gasoline you consume today is from wells that have been considered salvage by the major oil companies and have been sold off to independant oil companies that will continue to produce them for another twenty plus years.

The real truth is nobody knows how much oil is in any field until it is completely depleted and the wells are plugged. Estimates of reserves are simply that ... estimates. They are very seldom accurate.

But if those formations do produce like the ones near them have they will produce significantly more oil and gas than your Yahoo articles would indicate.

[Paul Victorey]

Those were government estimates, and they took into consideration the surveys and the nearby production, so I think they're probably quite accurate.

Considering that 95% of the oil fields in Alaska are already open to drilling, this isn't going to make much of an effect on the oil production of the US. And it would be nice if we leave at least one place on earth that we won't destroy for its resources.

[avx]

Originally posted by mr krinkle Its far more difficult than to just Say"We are the good guys, they are the evil guys." Like some simple people here say.

They attacked us for no other reason other than they consider us to be evil. We waited, put the situation into scope, found out who did this, why they did this, and if they are planning to do it again, then we asked our allies to please back us while we go into Iraq to do what we feel is necessary to protect the US from ever suffering like that again. Do you think Sadaam, or Osama will ask the UN for its approval before they attack again? Do you think they will single out soldiers only, and leave innocent civilians unharmed? Its not complicated, they are the psychos, we just want to protect ourselves. Its not rocket science

And statements like that and "the Ant-War people are Hippies" BS Just shows the childish mindset of some people in here

Hippie or hippy(n)(pl.)hippies - A person who opposes and rejects many of the conventional standards and customs of society, especially one who advocates extreme liberalism in sociopolitical attitudes and lifestyles. By definition, if you are a peace activist, you are doing exactly what is defined here. So you aren a hippie..Its not a childish mindset, its just a fact...

Kubie,The Gulf War was indeed about Oil,Why do you think Iraq invaded Kuwait? To gain access to there Corn Fields? If it wasnt about Oil what the hell was it about?

Let me use an argument out of a hippies own handbook here. Its not "Iraq" that invaded Kuwait, it was Sadaam and his army.Just like the US Military is not attacking Iraq, we are attacking Sadaam and his army. The guy is a power hungy maniac, do the names Alexander the great, Ghangis Kahn, Hitler...any of them ring a bell...He wants nothing but power and will go to any lengths to get it.

Sure Saddam was a brutal dictator who killed his own people but remember We were in bed with him and backing him in the 80's, How soon Americans forget

You say brutal dictator who killed his own people so litely, as if it really makes no big deal... And yet you jump on Bush because he is trying to protect us from becomming a society ruled by fear of terrorism...And yes we were in bed with him in the 80's, I dont see how you say "we forget" I hear it mentioned atleast 10 times a day on any news station. Back then he was "playing ball" he worked with is, seemed like he would be just the right person to establish diplomatic, equally beneficial treaties with, but they he went on his power trip...The man is worshiped like a god over there...His mind has taken a serious walk off the map, how can you reason with that???

[shazam]

From what i remember about history, all most[if not all] wars are fought for economical reasons.

[avx]

While there is many reason for this war, more than I think we could all give credit and reason too in 1 day. You are right, this war does have a major economical motive...we win the war, people stop being so afraid and paranoid, new confidence in the average american, economy bounces back...all is well...Thats the ideal outcome.

[Nuclear Krusader]

Well, people will be even more afraid and paranoid because of this war. Terrorism will be far from over when Saddam is dead.

And I don't think it's fair to compare Alexander the Great to Saddam. Alexander strove for the unity of people along with his hungry for power. He never exterminated the persians; in fact, when the persians were defeated he married lots of persian princesses to his generals. He was an honorable man and shouldn't be compared to Hussein. He leaded his army to battle and fought on the front lines, he was wounded many times but still he had the courage to present his face to the enemy. I don't see Saddam doing this, or even Bush for that matter.

OK. The coallition is attacking Saddam's army, yet it is the iraqi ppl who are dying and the country of Iraq what is being destroyed. Conclussion: Iraq is being attacked.

I agree Saddam wants nothing but power, yet Bush wants the same. Everyone wants it. Saddam wants power for himself, Bush wants power for his country. But it comes down to the same reason wars have always been fought for: power.

[avx]

I knew I was thinking of the wrong person when I said Alexander the great...I just couldnt think of the right name, you win, bad example I need to brush up on my hostory, cause I know there was another one I am thinking of who you would have no problem trying to compar to Hussien...

[mr krinkle]

avx487 are you trying to be cute? It Ain't working!

But again like others you say that somehow Iraq=Saddam were somehow responsible for 9-11 but you have no proof of that do you? I never said Saddam was a nice guy,He is,Or Was I should say a two-bit dictator But if thats the sole reason besides the 9-11 myth that the USA attacked Iraq then by rights we should have attacked Saudi Arabia. Isnt that where most of the 9-11 Killers came from?

As far as your "Hippy" babble is you better go find that dictionary and look up "Fact", avx487,If you want to stick with the Hippy analogy than I guess the Pope ands tens of thousands of members of the Clergy are hippies too eh?LOL

[Kubie]

Saddam wants power for himself, Bush wants power for his country. But it comes down to the same reason wars have always been fought for: power.

What happened to ridding Iraq of a brutal dictator, or did you miss that?

Power? Bush risks a short political career (8 years maybe) by doing this honorable thing and you say he wants power?

No, I will NOT be paranoid or more scared of terrorism. I sure would be if we did NOTHING. And talking for 12 more years would be doing NOTHING!!

Carl