no its not absurd...its just a pretty big misconception that we are going to gain large amounts of oil if we do goto war with iraq. the venezualan (sp?) crisis is having a hell of a lot bigger effect on oil prices than iraq is and you don't see us talking about going in an taking over that country. we have quickly shifted our oil consumption from the iraq to other countries like russia and so on. its not as if there isn't an abundant amount of oil and an abundant number of producers in the world.
Of all the crackpot X-Files conspiracy mumbo jumbo I've seen on here, this takes the cake. Maybe my sarcasm and farce meter is malfunctioning, but it sounds like you're serious. p.s. How can you be "found missing"?
i hate how everyone says this is about oil....was what we did in kosovo about oil? no....its because it was the right thing to do. saddam is a bad guy who is doing bad things. he should not be in power. the reason we have not gone to war yet is because of oil. most of the nations holding off (russia, france, china) on war have huge business contracts with saddam himself and if he loses power then they lose a lot of money.
I was just throwing that comment out there because too much info from me can get me in trouble if the right person sees the messages. Of course, I would not say anything past my limits.
Rezdawg: It's irrelevant whether we consume Iraq oil or not. Robbie: But what you don't understand is that the global supply is what's relevant, not what particular nation we import from. Jeez... where's Trader_Jorge when you need him.
you have already exceeded those limits ...just run...run fast and run hard...but most importantly, RUN. God speed!
Read this and it will give you an idea of why we are doing what we are trying to do in Iraq.... http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf
Rezdawn are you on probation or just super paranoid? No one gives a damn about what we are saying on clutchcity.
Interesting article on the conflicts of interest regarding Russia and France, some excerpts: This idealistic view that the U.N. will do the "right thing" about Iraq, fails to recognize the realities of international politics and the impact that national self-interest has on the decision making process in the U.N.... Since 1996, Russia has ranked first among nations doing business with Iraq under the oil-for-food program with sales exceeding $4 billion, and Russia still hopes to collect the $12 billion in cold-war-era debt owed by Iraq. In 1997, a consortium led by Russian giant Lukoil signed a contract worth an estimated $4 billion to develop the massive West Qurna oil field in southern Iraq. A contract Lukoil cannot start work on until the U.N. sanctions are lifted. Last year under the oil-for-food program, France sold $1.5 billion worth of goods to Iraq, the most of any nation. Major French companies like communications giant Alcatel and automakers Peugeot and Renault have landed lucrative deals in Iraq. France's Total Fina Elf has exclusive rights to develop the Majnoon and Bin Umar oil fields which are believed to be the largest in the world and estimated to hold 35 billion barrels of oil; more than three times Total Fina Elf's current reserves.... Much to the ire of Baghdad, Russia and France finally succumbed to pressure from the U.S. and Great Britain and supported resolution 1441 which requires Iraqi disarmament and cooperation with U.N. weapons inspections. On December 8, 2002, Iraq sent both Russia and France a message when it cancelled the $4 billion contract with Russia's Lukoil to develop the West Qurna oil field. French oil firms, fearing they were next, began pressuring the French government to force the U.N. to resolve the Iraq crisis peacefully and Total Fina Elf demanded assurances its oil contacts in Iraq will be protected in the face of a possible U.S. attack. Chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix says Iraqi cooperation is lacking and they failed to meet their obligations under resolution 1441 to provide a full and accurate declaration of their weapons of mass destruction. This is a direct violation of resolution 1441 which states "false statements in the declaration" submitted by Iraq, "shall constitute a further breech of Iraq's obligations." On January 16, in direct contradiction of Blix's statements, the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister met with the Iraqi government and praised "the positive spirit of cooperation from Iraq" on the weapons inspections. On January 17, the Russian oil company Lukoil "miraculously" announced that it had "persuaded" Baghdad to reverse the decision made on December 8th to cancel the contract with Lukoil to develop the giant West Qurna oil field. Later that day, it was announced that Iraq and Russia had signed three new oil accords to explore and develop oil fields in southern and western Iraq. The first of the three new accords was to develop the Al-Rafidain oil field in southern Iraq by Russia's Sayunefte company. The second covers exploration and development of a concession in Iraq's western desert by Russia's Stroyangaz. The third provides for future plans and projects to be implemented by Russian companies in Iraq. One oil industry source described the deal as; Iraq holding out a what could turn into a $40 billion carrot for Russian oil exploration in Iraq's western desert. What an amazing coincidence; Russia starts praising Iraqi compliance and criticizing any potential U.S. military action and the next day Iraq reverses its cancellation of the Lukoil contract and awards Russian firms additional contracts that could be worth up to $40 billion. http://usainreview.com/1_21_Security_Council.htm
Like I said, you seem to believe everything you read. Although this may be 90% of what we are trying to do in Iraq, it happens to leave out the remainder.
Robbie: But even that wasn't relevant. Incidentally, the "bad man" analysis fails because it can be proven immediately to be non-determinative. There are many "vile dictators" around the planet doing things far worse than is Saddam... without the US threatening invasion. There are many factors that influence the possible invasion of Iraq. Oil is one of them. Terrorism is another. The regional security of the ME is yet another (though, that ties back into oil). US credibility is also at stake. One could persuasively argue that the reason we're so close to war with Iraq is a peculiar alignment of many circumstances, rather than just one.
If this war was ONLY about terrorism, I have no problems with it. But because it isnt, I do have problems with it. Innocent people will die so that certain people can experience economic gains. That is wrong.
Absolutely right. Just another reason why there's no "one-size-fits-all" approach to foreign policy. Libya is not Iraq is not North Korea is not China, etc.... Thanks for the link re: N. Korea and the Agreed Framework of '94. Haven't had a chance to read it yet.
Yes there are many terrible dictators on the planet but this is one that we can do something about. It falls in line with the US national security strategy. Also I love this new article that I just saw.... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030122/wl_nm/iraq_russia_dc_4 It is about how America just plans to take control of Iraqi oil fields and not really to overthrow Saddam. It basically goes completely against what Bush has said the stated goal of a war is....regime change. We don't need Iraqi oil....it is just getting silly. Other nations need it a hell of a lot more than we do.
