I believe it would be ignorant to so quickly surrender your willingness to question Iraq's weapons programs. While evidence of possible Iraqi nuclear weapons development may be deficient we do however have evidence that Saddam isn't modest when it comes to exterminating people with weapons that are just as morally reprehensible such as chemical weapons. We know he won't hold back if he has such weapons in his possession. I don't understand how people could so volitionally accept Saddam as someone who they can trust to keep their wellbeing in mind. It seems these days the people who should had been tried in a war crime tribunal years ago are heros and the presidents who act in the favor of humanity are the criminals. Then again this is the same mentality that claims the scuffle in Iraq is but a war for oil. I don't know a person who argues this point that drives a vehicle which is not powered by banana peels and milk shakes, surprisingly I know, but one that operates on OIL. Not to say this is a war for only oil but getting it out of the wrong hands would be favorable to the Iraqi people who could therefore benefit of an economy that is not being held hostage by a dictator.
I remember various times over the past twenty years when we have had $10-$15/bbl oil. It was not a good thing for Houston, Texas and the U.S. domestic production industry. You might be thrilled about the thought of $10/bbl oil...............I am not. From what I have read, the Iraqi fields are going to need some significant capital investment to ramp up production to higher levels. Between, raising the funds and doing the work, it will be a while before there will be enough extra oil to <i>leverage</i> the market as you envision. Then there are the political, social and economic considerations: Venezuela has economic problems at current crude prices.......sustained prices in the $10/bbl neighborhood are beyond scary. Russia has problems with cheap oil because of higher costs than Middle East oil and would probably have to reduce production with $10/bbl in force. Saudi Arabia has economic problems and sustained low price would create even more havoc. <A HREF="http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/business/articles/eav112601.shtml">BIG DECISIONS LOOM FOR RUSSIAN OIL PRODUCTION</A> In summary, I have a hard time believing that the United States has a goal of $10/bbl crude because of the problems that it would create elsewhere.
Problem if Bush does he is not saying. But he is blabbering about the escalating Iraqi threat, Iraqi ties to terrorists, Iraqis will have the bomb by Xmas, ad nauseum. These truths were never proven (despites Bush and Blair promises) and now can be seen as nothing more than bold face lies to achieve political goals. Another problem with Bush (as well as Clinton btw) is the US intellegence is not helping the UN weapons inspectors. If the US has proof of Iraqi WMD, why oh why is this information being withheld? It is like if the UN inspection team does not find WMD, Bush Admin can fall back on its own, uncorroborated intellegence "evidence" to provoke a regime change war. The botton line as I see it is that Bush is pursuing a political agenda versus Iraq. He wants to see a regime change. And he is looking to trump up any excuse he needs. BTW, didn't you find it interesting when the UN inspection team got unfettered access to one of Iraqi's presidential palace sites, Bush Admin puts out a story the same day that they have complete faith that Saddam will not comply and that the US military will have to act? Bush must really be sweating it out now, hoping the UN inspection team can do what they have not been able to do yet this go around: find WMD.
IMO, there is no moral dilemna. Iraq poses a threat to the US. I say we use nukes to burn Iraq into the ocean.
The Bush Admin was likely waiting for Iraq to file the required paperwork before taking the next step of sharing with the UN inspection team.
He isn't going to tell the public all that they know. That would be incredibly irresponsible. The UN largely does not want this info. What they want is to send in a half assed attempt at inspections and when Iraq refuses access to certain locations or moves them in the dead of night...the UN will be more than happy to assume he doesn't have them. You don't want to provide all of your info right off the bat because if you do you have nothing else to give them later. I'll go ahead and lop you in with the "I need Iraq to detonate a nuke in my backyard before I believe they have them" crowd.
Never had they approached the President regarding US intelligence nor Blair regarding British intelligence. That's not a guess.
The nation of Exxon Mobile (4th GDP) will never allow $10 a bbl to happen. Control of the oil producing market will bring price increases and more profit to the oil giants.
That isn't the way oil is priced. The price of oil is driven by futures trading. It is an open market and any of us could buy in. We get oil from so many sources that without collusion by the Saudis, Venezuelans and Canadians, the Iraqi production could not alone broadly influence price.
The oil companies also own the distribution channels (regional and international) for the oil, and lately they've cut back housing the oil to very short time tables to increase profits. But on the other end, if there is a refinery malfunction (like one that occured last year in the California Bay Area) prices will skyrocket out of seasonal demand for the region. They don't pay for the shortened supplies, rather they profit from it and escape accountability from their horizontal oligopoly. Therefore, having increased supplies of oil could lower the prices overall, but not as dramatically as some would expect because the oil companies still own several key bottlenecks (such as refineries, distribution, and local competitive pricing controlled by their distribution routes).
I'm thinking more along the lines of influence in my post. If Iraqi oil production is increased then other oil producing regions can then be scaled back to keep the prices constant. As Invisible Fan states the previous post refining, distribution, storage, etc. are powerful means to control the overall prices per barrel. There is also incredible political pressure placed on governments from the oil giants who often have more wealth to throw around than the countries they are influencing. When I last saw overall economic stats the top four were: United States, Japan, China, and Exxon Mobile (I believe Russia was 6th). That says a great deal about the power this one oil company possess.
Not to be overly technical, but isn't it just about supply (which is artificial in this industry) and demand? If you buy a future and your spot price turns out to be less than the true future price (less transaction and holding costs, of course), don't you just make a profit on the future's transaction, irrespective of what happens to the underlying commodity? Expected supply/demand drives futures prices. Actual supply/demand determines the price of the commodity and whether futures traders win or lose, not the other way around, no?
They asked the President to draft a resolution. At no time during the public hearings did they request any intel info. Unless you were lurking behind the scenes...then YOU are the one guessing.
I agree. Look I'm for removing Saddam. But part of that, at least for me...is to liberate the Iraqi people. It wouldn't benefit them to be dead.
Here let me misspell your delusions: http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/dailynews/iraq021206.html Waiting for the Weekend All Eyes on Iraq Weapons Declaration By Edith M. Lederer The Associated Press U N I T E D N A T I O N S, Dec. 6 — On the eve of Iraq's declaration of its weapons programs, chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix said today that U.N. experts will keep secret all sensitive material on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in the massive report — even from the United States and other Security Council members Iraqi Ambassador Mohammed Al-Douri said today his government will hand over the declaration to inspectors in Baghdad at 8 p.m. local time on Saturday. He reiterated Iraq's claim that the country is now free of weapons of mass destruction, but said the declaration would contain "new elements." The U.N. Security Council empowered the two main U.N. inspection bodies to take charge of the Iraqi declaration and eliminate sensitive weapons-related material before it is made public. Blix told a news conference that he understood the Iraqi report would be in Arabic and English and contain more than 10,000 pages, which would require translation before an initial assessment could be made on which material is sensitive. He said he would brief the council early next week on the contents of the report. The sheer length of the report would mean that it will take time to release the details. Concerns Over ‘Huge Amount of Information’ "All the governments are aware that they should not have access to anything that everyone else does not have access to," Blix said after discussing the handling of the declaration with the 15 council members at a closed-door meeting. Council diplomats said Russia and other council members were concerned that the declaration might contain "recipes" for chemical and biological weapons, and other information that could lead to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Al-Douri said the declaration contains "a huge amount of information," some of which would not be made public. Both the Iraqi envoy and the chief inspector addressed charges by the United States that Saddam Hussein's government is hiding weapons of mass destruction. "We said again and again that we have no more destruction weapons at all, everything has been destroyed and we have no intention to do that again," the Iraqi envoy said. "If the Americans have this evidence, they have to tell the inspectors in Iraq to go find this evidence." Blix denied that he was under any pressure from the United States, but stressed that Resolution 1441, adopted Nov. 8 to toughen U.N. inspections, asks all 191 U.N. member states to provide information to help inspectors search for banned weapons. "We want to have recommendations from member governments what we should do," Blix said. Blix: Not a Defection Agency The chief inspector was asked about reports that the United States was pressing for the inspectors to question Iraqi scientists outside the country. "We are not going to abduct anybody, and we're not serving as a defection agency," Blix said. Under Resolution 1441, Iraq has until Sunday to submit a full and complete disclosure of its chemical, biological and nuclear programs. Blix updated the council today on the work of his inspection teams so far in Iraq. Inspectors returned to Iraq last month after nearly four years. "They have done a good professional job," he said. Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
