Possible Benefits: - A democracy in Iraq which does have underlying Islamic principles is viewed by other countries in the region and democracy and freedom begin to spread throughout the region because of American intervention. - Muslims worldwide see the freedoms of choice and free speech available to Iraqi's and they attempt to have their dictatorships follow the same course. - Israel has actually implemented some serious steps, much of it based on the pressure from the US to follow the Roadmap. - Muslims rejoice and disdain for the US in the muslim world (which has been there since the creation of Isreal and moreso in the 60's/70's) begins to decline. - The possible elimination of a future muslim/judeo-christian struggle I think Bush has a chance to be a great President from a historical standpoint if he is able to have some of these events take place.
if i am naive then you are a sheep for just believing we went in there for oil. if we went there for oil then where the f__k is it? explain how america is going to nationalize this oil for only our use. you can't because it can't happen and won't happen. if anything you should be arguing that this war hurt the supply of oil for america since sabotage is running rampant. invading iraq for oil is one of those things people just say but have no basis for saying it other than the fact that iraq has oil.
Another thing that totally debunks the left's constant claim that Bush and the Oil companies are all part of some conspiracy to rule the world and make higher profits w/ higher prices: Before and During the Bush election, why were oil prices rising and rising? I would imagine this is a negative pinch that every American feels weekly, when filling up their gas tank?? If Bush is with the oil companies, why didn't they lower the price to make Bush look better and give him a higher chance of victory. If the US and Bush help to create a free, democratic Iraq that HAS Islamic principles and helps push for more peace and a state in Palestine, then I feel terrorism and anti-american sentiment will decline abroad as well as will give us access to Oil sources which will take some of the risk premium off of oil prices. If this happens we have a threat that was neutralized (Iraq), a people that are not (as) displaced (Palestine), a more free-flow of oil which leads to lower prices, and less reasoning for groups like Al-Queda to exist. I wonder what the big conspiracy the left would talk about if that happened.
I believe you mean some on the left. I've never made that claim. However your memory is faulty regarding prices during the election. The Saudis actually did lower prices during that time.
look child...now i have to explain it to you. Iraq, oil and U.S. world hegemony (II) http://www.iwa-ait.org/iraq-II-e.html The U.S. world hegemony is based on military and economical power. By attacking Iraq, the U.S. can fulfil their goal of controlling the entire Middle East, but the outcomes are dependent on what will happen with the war. The U.S. goal is clearly to obtain a “quick victory” scenario lasting only one or two months, and this explains why the U.S. is threatening Turkey. They need to attack Iraq on at least two fronts, from Kuwait in the South and the Kurdish areas in the North. On the other hand, the U.S. fears a “prolonged conflict” lasting three to six months with combinations of burning Iraqi oil-fields, urban fighting, heavy casualties, pictures of a humanitarian disaster on the news, massive foreign denouncements of the U.S. policy. These fears are not humanitarian, but economical. Given the fact that the trend of the slow U.S. economical growth in the fall of 2002 continues or even increases, a war against Iraq can be triggering a serious economical recession or crisis. The dictator Saddam Hussein stated as a propaganda effort during the Gulf War I that he would be longer in power than President Bush Sr. He was right as burning oil -fields in Iraq and Kuwait, a rise and drop of oil prices and a sharp U.S. and world economic decline followed the war, and President Bush wasn’t re-elected. Today Saddam Hussein says he will win the war. This seems unlikely, as the U.S. killing machine is ready for attack in order to implement a regime change. But does Saddam Hussein have a “secret weapon”? This question makes it necessary to look upon a mechanism in which the U.S. economical hegemony is established, and in this mechanism oil is central. The oil industry was born in the United States, and both the prices and payments of oil are dominated in dollars. Nations buy and hold dollars like they buy and hold gold because they can`t purchase oil without dollars. It is estimated that as much as two-thirds of central banks official foreign exchange reserves are denominated in dollars. Similarly the oil- exporters keep their huge profits in the currency in which they receive the payments. Investing these dollars (called petrodollars) back in the U.S. economy is possible at zero currency risk. Norway, the third largest oil exporter, has invested tens of thousands of millions of dollars in stocks and U.S. government bonds. Russia, the second largest exporter does the same. Saudi Arabia, the largest oil exporter and producer might have as much as 700 000 000 000 dollars invested in the United States. This system of the dollar acting as world (reserve) currency in oil trade and most of the world trade, keeps the demand for the dollar “artificial” high. As no other nation it enables the United States to carry out printing dollars at the price of nothing, to fund tax cuts, increased military spending and consumer spending on imports. This is shown by the figures of the United States net debt accumulated over years to the rest of the world: In 2002 it was as enormous as 2800 000 000 000 dollars, a level more than double that recorded in 1999. Any other nation would have seen its currency and stock market crash hard. (Compare Argentine in 2001!) The U.S. foreign dept increases as the expansion goes on. As long as the U.S. has no serious challengers and the other nations have confidence in the dollar and U.S. policy, the system functions. But, as we know, capitalism can`t exist without competition and imperialist struggle about control of territory, resources and other nations` economies. We see this clearly in the Middle East today. Iraq and the Middle East is an imperialist battleground about access to present and future oil supplies, of implementing free trade zones and of controlling and undermining competitors. And additionally it brings us to a very important and untold root of the war: It`s a currency war between the dollar and the euro that in fact can undermine the economical foundation of the U.S. hegemony! This brings us back to the so-called “secret weapon” of Iraq. In the end of the 2000, Iraq switched its oil denomination from “the enemy currency” dollar to euro. When Iraq switched to euro, the value was low compared to the dollar, and it was considered as a political move with no economical sense. But the alarm bells were ringing in Washington, and the crucial question was: Who will follow next? After the September 11th 2001, we know more of what has happened. The Afghanistan war became “a war against terrorism”. President Bush declared Iraq, Iran and North Korea as «Axis of Evil States». We have seen a further U.S. militarization of Colombia, and the important U.S. oil supplier Venezuela suffered a coup attempt in April 2002 etc. We must also remember that a report to the U.S. Congress January the 8th 2002 outlined that the Pentagon should be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. No wonder, that the alarm bells were ringing in these countries! Today we know that the dollar dropped 15% last year towards the euro, and 5% so far in 2003. The Iraqi switch to euro, the expected move by Iran and the strengthening of the euro, have put a pressure on OPEC and other main oil-exporters to drop the dollar as transaction currency. And as the future prospects show a looming oil marked, consuming nations must switch currencies when oil producing states do so. The Iraqi trade partner Jordan did this in 2000. If we take the largest oil exporters, the third largest Norway is traditionally tied to the United States as a strategically important country with borders to Russia. Norway is not a political member of the EU, but now the public opinions polls show that a majority is in favour of the European Union. If Sweden and Denmark decide to accept euro as their currency, Norway might join the EU and it is unlikely to think that oil transactions can be kept in dollars. If Norway switches to euro, Great Britain has to follow as both produces the oil from the North Sea. Contrary, if Britain implements the euro currency, Norway will have to follow. Both countries are today in fact squeezed between the United States and the EU. Russia, the second largest oil exporter, has according to an article of “The Observer” on the February 23rd, recently discussed to adopt the euro for oil sales. Russia acts in an alliance with France and Germany and (partly) China against the U.S. It is important for the U.S. to try to split Russia from Old Europe (Germany and France) since Russia has oil. And when it comes to Saudi Arabia, beyond doubt he largest producer and exporter, we will mention an event that shows how vulnerable the U.S. is. In the aftermath of September 11th more and more tracks went towards Saudi Arabia. 15 of the 19 terrorist hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and an extensive research was (and is) made by the U.S. and Israel to reveal Saudi terrorist connections. On August the 6th 2002 the Washington Post described a report prepared by the Consultation Council of the U.S. Defence Department (the Pentagon). The report, which was extended by a researcher at the Rand Corporation, reflected views of the growing trend inside the U.S. Administration, which classifies Saudi Arabia as an enemy. It also called for targeting the Saudi oil - fields and investments in the United States, unless the Saudis stopped their support to terrorism. The Financial Times reported the August 20th that the Saudis had withdrawn tens of thousands of millions of dollars from the United States in protest against the accusations, and the article indicated that the Saudi money shifts may have contributed to the downward pressure on the dollar. Later, it became silent about this “intermezzo”. The U.S. denied that the report reflected official views and the Saudis denied the withdrawing of investments from the U.S.A. We wrote in part I that it seems to be a matter of U.S. National Security of not talking about oil in the Iraq conflict. This is partly because a regime change would benefit U.S. and U.K. oil companies, and not the Russian, Chinese, French etc. companies that have made contracts with the Iraqi dictatorship. The reason is further highly that the U.S. is dependent on Saudi Arabia until the job is done in Iraq. They need military bases in Saudi Arabia, their oil and continued Saudi petrodollar investments in the U.S. A “quick victory” scenario against Iraq can fulfil the U.S. goal of controlling the entire Middle East. After the war, one of the first priorities of the planned U.S. military junta will be to switch Iraqi oil transactions back to dollars showing the neighbouring countries Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran the price of challenging the Empire. They will also implement a free trade zone for the Middle East and an increase the Iraqi oil production in order to decrease oil prices, and by this undermine oil exporters as Saudi Arabia. (See part I) A “prolonged conflict” scenario, and even an intermediate one, can create major economical problems for the U.S. and the world economy. The U.S. will be dependent on Saudi Arabia spare oil production capacity and they can’t, as the time goes on, rely on releasing their own Strategic Petroleum Reserves to adjust prices. The oil prices are in this scenario expected to rise from today’s already high price of 35$ to 40$ per barrel. This price rise can, as shown in the past, be followed by an economical recession. It must be noticed that Japan is very vulnerable as they get as much as 70% of their oil imports from the Middle East. If a crises starts in Asia, it can be triggering a major economical world recession and crisis. Investments can be withdrawn from the U.S. and switched to euro as the dollar value drops. These are desperate scenarios, but we are living in desperate times of the global capitalism. Some facts for you: - U.S. gasoline consumption of 320,500,000 gallons per day (March 2005) works out to about 3700 gallons per second - US OIL DEMAND, 2004: Over 20 million barrels per day, up from January 2002, when demand was about 18.5 million barrels per day, = 777 million gallons. If lined up in 1-gallon cans, they would encircle the earth at the equator almost 6 times (about 147,000 miles of cans) — every day. Here's another image: EVERY DAY, the US consumes enough oil to cover a football field with a column of oil 2500 feet tall. That's 121 million cubic feet. 55-60% of US consumption is imported at a cost of $50 billion+ per year, amounting to the largest single element of our trade deficit. In summer 2004, thanks to higher prices, increased demand, and lower production, record trade deficits of more than $50 billion per month were recorded, with approximately 30% of that attributable to imported energy costs. In September 2004, the US reported its lowest montly oil production in 55 years, at an average of 4.85 million barrels per day.
That is simply untrue: Recent and Historical Global Oil Prices http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...troleum_status_report/current/pdf/table13.pdf An article about prices: http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3238988 I just want to know that if Iraq has a viable representative democracy that incorporates islamic elements (islam is a way of life and not just a means to pray) which has a snowball effect and the freedom and democracy spreads through the middle east, will you give the credit to Bush? If these actions increase the freedom abroad and it spreads to other islamic nations and they see that we were not just there to steal oil and put in a puppet government, I think they would realize that and couple that with the continuing progress in Isreal, I feel the US has a chance to change its persona w/ the Islamic world for the first time in over 30 years. If this happens I just want to know if you'll give the President his due?
If you honestly feel burning a few oil wells in Kuwait created the economic bear market of the early 90's, then you really have no idea of the scope of the global oil market. I have no doubt in my mind that a free, democratic Iraq and middle east is a benefit economically to the US. We get the risk premium lowered on oil prices (its estimated at $7-$10 a barrel), we get a turnaround of negative sentiment against the US, which will lead to US investment and consumption of its products. The reason we are the most powerful country in the world is not because we are christian or white or whatever, but because we are a productivity per capita machine that creates taxes that can spend on research and development and use means like the IMF and World Bank to make countries go along with us. I don't know if you want to realize this, but: Money makes the world go round.
More Data on Bush Era Oil Prices and 2004 Oil Prices http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_price_increases_of_2004_and_2005
being a Christian or white ...what the hell you talking about???...and you are reiterating b.s you learn in school…if you lived in a poor country you would know….. IMF and World Bank are a huge problem IMF and World Bank to make countries go along with us. [/QUOTE] buddy my dad is a (petroleum engineer) has worked in 4 ME oil producing countires as well as in Venezuela...i think i know how 'the scope of the global oil market' is....oil is money!....Iraq has oil in the TRILLIONS...the war cost BILLIONS....and its not only the oil you create revenue from....reconstructing a country can be very beneficial in other ways...stablility is also important... you don't know how rich Iraq is....too bad its been run into the ground by friggin Saddam...if you only knew how wealthy that state is....plus Iran and Syria are also neighbors which have the same ol'.....
buddy my dad is a (petroleum engineer) has worked in 4 ME oil producing countires as well as in Venezuela...i think i know how 'the scope of the global oil market' is....oil is money!....Iraq has oil in the TRILLIONS...the war cost BILLIONS....and its not only the oil you create revenue from....reconstructing a country can be very beneficial in other ways...stablility is also important... you don't know how rich Iraq is....too bad its been run into the ground by friggin Saddam...if you only knew how wealthy that state is....plus Iran and Syria are also neighbors which have the same ol'.....[/QUOTE] By using "Christian and White", I just wanted to state that the US is dominant because of economics and not our religion/race. The economic system here breeds a culture of productivity and consumerism which allows the government funding to build the best weapons and buy the most support. BTW, The IMF and World Bank LEND money. They don't have to be a problem, just don't borrow money from them!! But everyone wants to borrow money, and then expect there not to be terms on the repayment. I agree with the investment into the third world and that these people are our future consumers and that gains in the third world reflect back to the US. BTW, I am in agreement that Iraq has an immense amount of oil and wealth and that the US will gain from contruction, investment and limitations of the risk premium on Oil if Iraq is stable and their oil is on the market. I just don't think there is anything wrong with that. We're not STEALING oil, we're simply bidding on their projects, in which they can reject us and go with French oil companies; the key factor is Iraqi stability will bring down prices and the constitution is a step towards that stability.
just a personal Libya Example: When Ghudafi took over from King Idris, the first thing he did was get rid of U.S oil companies.... these companies were taking resources and making more money than what the local government was making (Legally however, because Idris made a bad deal)....the public was FURIOUS...they saw it as stealing (oh yeah i know cause i have lived in Libya for 3 years...not in those days...but my parents friends were there at that time......believe me if you want...but i know its the truth)....anyway most of the public was pro Mummar.....it was obvious...BUT the U.S who had excellent intelligence played a game of ‘commi’...the U.S oil companies had gone home crying that they had been thrown out after making great amounts of investments in capital…...by April 15, 1986 they bombed that country...it was amazing to see the exact intelligence the Americans had..therefore they must have known how the people felt about the U.S and their Socialist gov……….anyway they bombed a gas station in Benghazi which closed just a week ago....and they made bullet holes all over buildings which were to be occupied a few days later....that's amazing intelligence...they did everything to minimize the damage(human life….intimidation)....also they played the media into announcing that Mommar was going to be assassinated by a rival party…to make Mommar attack the rival party and thus have a change in leadership…they were saying there was going to be a civil war…however that was all false..acts like these just create questions of U.S’s credibility….and if they played the media once they can play them again and again and again……… I don’t think there is anything wrong with what the U.S is doing……its just that the whole cover up is funny to me….the game that is played in politics is hilarious....the weak are meant to be used in this world…so if the U.S can get away with taking advantage of situations…then more power to em…it’s a realist world we live in.
Actually it did happen, and it happened even after there were stories about it happening. This is only a part of the story, but it enough to show that there was a story about the Saudis increasing production to help Bush earlier, and then sure enough the Saudis increased production during the campaign season. As this article states the real effect might be minimal, but that doesn't change the fact that the effort was made. Despite this side issue I never have been and never will be in the camp that beleives it was all done just for oil.
C'mon Franchise, I give you graphs with US and global energy prices after you stated that Bush's control over the oil 'cartel' forced prices down to win the election which was an incorrect fact. Then you give me an article saying the largest oil producer in the world tried to lower oil prices for Bush bud didn't accomplish it?? If we don't pull out too early and we finish the job and the country still turns out to have a civil war, hatred to the US in the region grows etc., then I will be the first person to state that Bush was wrong and that my assumptions were wrong as well. Can you not do the same if he is successful?? If not, then this whole anti-Iraq nonsense is political pandering.
Like I said I dont' believe that oil was the sole reason for going into Iraq, and I never have made that claimed. But it is true the Saudis tried to effect the price of gas in an effort to help Bush out, but it wasn't successful. It wasn't just one report either. There is actually report after report about it. I don't think the fact that it happened has anything to do with Fighting a war for oil in Iraq or not for oil in Iraq, just that we shouldn't pretend that it didn't happen. As far as Bush being successful, he already isn't successful. There were no WMD's found. Now if he is successful on some of the johnny come lately rationale I will admit that he was. I already admitted that Bush handeled the I raqi elections better than I would have thought possible.
hatred towards the US has already grown and dominates the region right now.. are you ready to say Bush and all you war mongering chicken hawks were wrong?
And why would you say that? - Because Libya has given up its weapons program? - Because Egypt is having elections for virtually the first time? - Because a constitution is being created in a country ruled by a sole dictator for decades? - Because there are regional elections in Saudi Arabia for the first time ever? - Because Israel is giving back land for the first time in over 30 years? These are all results of US actions and pressures. I am a muslim and I like the change. I feel the people are being empowered, not oppressed. I believe OBL and others are the offspring of totalitarian regimes in which the people do not have a voice. If freedom is there and capitalism is there then people will have more opportunities and choices in life and will not have to turn to terrorism. I look at Iran and though many will not admit it, it has become more democratic and modern over the last decade and there is an elected body of people that provide representation. Though the theocrats still maintain veto power, they continue to lose public support and power, and I believe the next generation will further that minimization of power to just an influence. If you give the people a voice, then they will yearn for freedom.
