Jump to content

Us Was Ready To Use Force In '73 Oil Crisis


Recommended Posts

US was ready to use force in '73 oil crisis

The top-secret document says that President Richard M. Nixon was prepared to act more aggressively than previously thought to secure America's oil supply if the embargo, imposed by Arab nations in retaliation for America's support for Israel in the 1973 Middle East war, did not end.

Ya know, I don't mind if the US wants to use force in this and other situations. I just get aggravated when they put on sheep's clothes and say it's for "the better good", rather than for "the American good".

Not saying that's what they did here, but this article reminded me of it, and I felt it needed saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was the familiar refrain when the war started, and for the life of me I could not make any sense of it.

In 1973 there was an embargo. In 2003 there was no embargo...not even an itty bitty hint of one.

America did not need Iraq's oil in 2003 and if America would have needed it, Saddam would sell oil to them in an insta-second.

Saddam liked the sound of money going into his Swiss bank accounts, don't you know.

It would have been a whole lot cheaper to buy oil from Saddam than to invade Iraq and pay for its reconstruction.

America's main suppliers today are not the Middle Eastern countries. In 2003 America's main suppliers are Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezula keep America well supplied. Only Saudi Arabia is in the ME last I heard.

If America wanted to take over a country's oil resources, it would have been easier to invade Canada. There would be no fight, no military,no guns in homes, most people are in a socialist stupor anyways. Easy pickings. Just let CBC do its evening news every night and no Canadian would know the Americans had taken over the country. Yawn...zzzz.

The countries that were desperate for Iraq's oil in 2003 and forever more are France and Germany. Those were the 2 countries who did not want Saddam removed, if you will recall. Those are the 2 countries whose economies are in the toilet now. So sad. Those are the 2 wolves in sheep's clothing who sad "Give Saddam 3000 more chances. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the price of oil is not jsut based on the current flow of oil, it is dependent on the stability of oil. like the declassified documents tell, the US gov started looking at a 6 month supply left and they knew the entire american economy would collapse if they ran out of oil.

its basically the same thing now, a 40% reduction in oil flow does not mean a 40% decrease in productivity. the resulting instability would have profound effects in the entire american economy. people greatly underestimate the USs demand for resource stability from the middle east. that is why crazy fanatical suadi terrorists who are not elected and fund terrorists have been close "allies" for 50 years. nobody in thier right mind would send billions of $$ to those crazy backwards bastards if they had a choice.

and the taliban suddenly became evil, and saddam suddenly became evil, and iran and north korea, but saudi arabia? nope, not evil, not at all. in fact, close allies. no talk about democracy or human rights. how interesting.

if you look at the 1953 coup in iran

if you look at the 1973 coup in chile

if you look at US support for the pre taliban during the 80s

if you look at US support of iraq during the 80s

if you look at US selling weapons to iran during the 80s

THEN you see the true colors of america. in true, america has a well oiled government machine which does whatever it takes to perpetuate itself. cheap oil is the blood of the american economy and there is no morality if they really wanted to get it.

sirriff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you look at the 1953 coup in iran

if you look at the 1973 coup in chile

if you look at US support for the pre taliban during the 80s

if you look at US support of iraq during the 80s

if you look at US selling weapons to iran during the 80s

THEN you see the true colors of america. in true, america has a well oiled government machine which does whatever it takes to perpetuate itself. cheap oil is the blood of the american economy and there is no morality if they really wanted to get it.

sirriff

You fail to look at what was going on in history then, especially with us supporting the "pre taliban," they became enemies when they knew where Osama was, hid osama and basically told america to buzz off, even when we helped them with the soviet invasion of afganistan in the 80's.

Just because we support a country then we attack it doesn't mean it was for oil. (unlike the tunnel vision liberal thinking: everything bush does is for oil...)

We were enemies with France, then allies during the independence. We were enemies with britian then gradually became allies.

See every country does something like that throughout its history...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You fail to look at what was going on in history then,

basically what you are implying, is that anything can be explained away by circumstance. aiding murderers and rapists is immoral, and nothing can ever change that. you notice that american news NEVER scratched the surface of the former US-afganistan and US-iraq relationships. nobody ever mentioned that the entire reason 9/11 happened is that the US and russia sowed the seeds of misery in afganistan then left for 20 years.

Just because we support a country then we attack it doesn't mean it was for oil. (unlike the tunnel vision liberal thinking: everything bush does is for oil...)

did you even read the orignal post? the US was absolutly prepared to attack non-agressive arab states FOR OIL. my god man, how more clear can it be? why is the suadi royal family called a strong ally of america? they are among the most corrupt nation on earth, no democracy, no human rights, funding terror for 20 years. the fact that the US hasnt said a peep about saudi arabia in public, but has labeled as "evil" similar states like Iraq, Iran, and north Korea is because the US has a deal with suadi arabia- we wont call you out on being bastards, and you keep the oil flowing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SirRiff seems to have summarized the situation correctly.

I understand that the US has to act in its own interests to keep its economy going, and I even understand why politicians need to whitewash the dirty deeds of their dirty friends. But I don't understand why seemingly intelligent people feel a need to repeat the mistruths of those above them.

In order to preserve his belief that the US acts for the global good, Morgan has convinced himself that the US doesn't really need oil and that invading Canada would be "easier" than invading Iraq....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What support do you have for your theory that the Iraq War was about the US wanting to possess Iraq's oil?

Last I heard the US taxpayers are ponying up $80 Billion for re-construction costs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore the Iraq War does not sound like a very "lucrative" venture to me for American taxpayers. Last I heard the US is wanting Iraq to own the oilfields to pay for their future and have ongoing "dividends" coming to each Iraqi family like what's happening for Alaskans.

Last I heard the French and the Russians did not want Saddam deposed because of oil. They even signed contracts with Saddam to access Iraq's oil.

Ever heard of Totalfinaelf, Hardner? It signed a contract with Saddam shortly before the war. It's the 4th largest oil company in the world, and the Paul Desmarais and his 2 sons[one of whom is Jean Chretien's son-in-law]are the largest individual stockholders in that FRENCH oil company. In fact, last I heard Totalfinaelf was still whining and weasling to have its Saddam signed oil contracts honoured by the temporary Iraqi government.

Get a clue. France and Germany's economies desperately need oil from Iraq. And Russia needed oil as payback for the debts Saddam owed for weapons he bought from them.

The US had as much oil as it needs. Since 1973, oil refineries built in Venuzuela, Mexico, Nigeria make things very comfy for the USA, not to metion the great supply in Alberta.

And you also forget the USA's own oil generating potential. But for the tree hugging Democrats, the USA would be drilling for more oil in Alaska and off the coast of California. For the time being, this potential is off limits due to partisan politics, but the oil is there for the taking.

But if for some unforseen reason, the USA ever desperately needed Iraq's oil, why not just pay for it ? What makes you think waging a war and re-construction is cheaper than just paying Saddam the money?

My comment about Canada was said tongue-in-cheek, Hardner. I didn't realize you needed to have humour explained to you.

Speaking of jokes, Hardner, you're pretty good yourself:

SirRiff seems to have summarized the situation correctly.

But setting aside humour, Alberta is alot handier to the US for oil than Iraq. And at the rate Western alienation is going, IMO, Alberta would be immensely better off leaving Canada and hitching its future to the USA, either as a state for a protectorate like Costa Rica.

Calgarians have alot more in common with Americans than they do with Quebecers, Newfoundlanders, or Torontonians. Face it. Plus the USA would treat Alberta a lot more fairly than Ottawa does. This re-distribution of wealth crap that Chrtien has saddled Alberta with is not a short term measure. Alberta will have the albatross of Quebec and the other have not provinces on its back indefinitely.Not too mention that EEE senate will forever remain a dream, never a reality.

But tell me, Hardner, what evidence do you have that the US wants to take over Iraq's oil?

P.S. Communist China-is projected to be the world's biggest oil guzzler of the near future.

Oops,did I say China...not the USA? And let's see, China was one of the UN Security Council nations to vote against the war in Iraq. China has also signed oil contracts with Saddam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you also forget the USA's own oil generating potential.

Here's a question for all of you, I don't care if you're liberal or conservative. Why does Middle Eastern oil seem to mean so much to America? Is it because there isn't enough oil at home? Or is it just an excuse the "neo-cons" tell themselves every night before they go to bed for why they invaded Iraq? I mean, I'm not saying the US does or does not need M.Eastern oil, but everyone seems to make a big deal of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's stability. Factories do not place all their eggs in one basket, they get their supplies from different sources. That way they are not subject to the whim of any individual company or unexpected shortages due to whatever reason. It's business sense.

For example a nickle mine also buys scrap metal so that when productin is down they can meet demand by smelting a few cars to guarantee demand is met. If they become unreliable suppliers then the customer will find another source.

Nobody wants a glut nor a shortage and so production is divesified throughout the globe. Without the ME America would have less sources for their oil and then be dependant on their own, Canada's and South Americas. Less supplieers means less margin for error and the potential for disaster.

I suppose that it is comfort level as America could do without ME oil if given the opportunity and time to adjust. However, this would upset a very carefully structured world market and for decades the price of oil would skyrocket one week and plumet the next. A market where the price is porposing would quickly go out of control with each swing taking the pendelum further and further off center. Very uncomfortable for all involved.

There is a few other factors, one is that world oil reserves are somewhere between a trillion and two trillion barrels. Sounds like a lot but remember that it used to be three trillion (at that time we didn't know it, hence a precieved world shortage in the 70s) and so far we have used a trillion. That's a lot and we are using 5% more every year.

The big problem comes here: the oil that we are taking out of the ground now is the easy stuff. Takes something like one barrel to get twenty energy wise. It used to be one for fity. It is supposedly going to peak in about five years then it will get worse and worse until it takes one to get one. A point of interest so you can look this up yourself, that point is called the "Hubbard Peak." What that means is that there may be a half trillion barrels under the ground that will never be pumped out.

Scary, isn't it?

So, all the oil that America has it would like to keep for later. Arabs may be rich now but sooner or later they will be poor. Hence, America places an overt importance on other people's oil and those who posess oil place an overt importance on American Money and have no qualms about selling their children's resources. A modern Arab saying is "My father drove a camel, I drive a car and my son flys an airplane. My Grandson will drive a camel."

So, scince America likes to use other's oil and they in turn wish to sell it there must be stability otherwise the deal is not on for anybody. Hence, Military and Political involvement to ensure the flow goes smooth.

It sounds brutal but it is business. You would hardly hire an employee that you could never depend on nor would you deal with a bank that may or may not keep your money safe so why would anyone expect America to not protect her suppliers and the means to transport the product?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

udwag,

ME oil for America means alot to liberals not to neo-cons. It's only liberals who chant this mantra though it does not make sense. America gets most of its oil from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Niger. Saudi Arabia is its only ME supplier.

You say that you're not sure if the US invaded Iraq for oil, but you're rather self revealing when you say:

Why does Middle Eastern oil seem to mean so much to America? Is it because there isn't enough oil at home? Or is it just an excuse the "neo-cons" tell themselves every night before they go to bed for why they invaded Iraq?

One more time...repeat after me...the US was well supplied with oil. It has its own syupply that it could rachet up if it so desired. The US does not need Iraqi oil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

udawg,

What are you talking about?

So I guess all the liberals must be just thinking of what they would have done when they accuse Bush & Co. of invading Iraq for oil.

I said that the liberals' favourite mantra is that the Iraq War is all about oil. Neocons are not saying that because it is not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not about oil Udawg. I am sorry if you got that from what I posted. Oil is a factor in that it is what make the AREA geographicly important to the west and the US. If there were simply millions of miles of sandy tundra then it would be of no interest to anybody, including Arabs. It is not the oil of Iraq that is important nor is it the oil of any of the nations of that region. It is the WHOLE oil region that is important to the world, including the US. If that region falls under the rule of any one person or screwed up Medival group then the rest of the world will spend the next fifty years reinventing the wheel while the ME starves to death. That is the alternative to doing nothing.

In order to stabilise the ME an example of Democracy needed to be made. Iraq was it. A central location to use a springboard for US troops for any future needs, a dictator the provided legitimacy to intervention and would not be missed by his nighbors, a population that would not be too hostile to having a government change and a lot of natural resources to pay for their rebuilding and modernisation of their country. Iraq was perfect.

The need was so important to the goal of providing a stable modern society in the heart of the ME so that it would be one place where others could see that life has hope and prosperity is possible that theyare willing to spend over $500 Billion on this.

If they were ever going to get the money back using oil it just won't work.

Oil is $30 a barrel. It costs about ten to fifteen to pump it, store it and transport it leaving $15 a barrel tops. Iraq will peak production in a couple years at 3 million barrels a day. Dollarwise that's $45 million a day profit. Over half of that will go to building the oil infastructure and then some will go to the Iraqi people themselves, otherwise why bother doing it at all? I would say that at best the US could get $5 million a day out of them in repayment. Remember though, oil is pretty much the only thing these people have at the moment and they owe France, Germany and Russia tens of Billions of Dollars too.

Anyhow, at five million a day you could pay off $150 million out of $500,000 million (500 billion) a year. At that rate it would take over three hundred years to break even and if any interest is attatched it would never be paid off.

I think Morgan said that if this was about Iraqi oil then it would certainly have been cheaper to buy the stuff off Saddam for five times the market value. Hence, it is not about oil.

Scince the war, the following has occured.

IRAQI OIL SHIPMENTS AND CONTRACTS

On June 5, 2003, SOMO issued its first oil sales tender since the war started, for 8 million barrels of Kirkuk crude stored in tanks at Ceyhan and 2 million barrels stored at Basra. Dozens of companies placed bids for the oil, with winners including ChevronTexaco, Cepsa, ENI, Repsol, Total, and Tupras. Bids for the Kirkuk oil reportedly ranged around $2.70-$3.30 per barrel below dated Brent (f.o.b. Ceyhan). On June 22, a tanker arrived at Ceyhan to load the first oil since March 20, 2003, when the 600,000-barrel tanker "Caithness" completed loading one day after the outbreak of war. On July 3, SOMO issued its second spot tender, for 8 million barrels of Basra Light. At the time, SOMO stated that it was not yet ready to resume term sales, which generally require a certain level of stability, certainty, and predictability.

In late July 2003, however, SOMO signed its first term contracts since the war, for Basra Light oil from Iraq's southern fields. Exports of about 650,000 bbl/d were anticipated through the rest of 2003. Major purchasers included BP, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Marathon Oil, Mitsubishi, Brazil's Petrobras, Repsol, Shell, Chinese trader Sinochem, and Vitol. However, with difficulties at the southern port of Mina al-Bakr (see below), Iraq has only been averaging exports of 545,000 bbl/d or less since the restart of term contracts.

Although some seemed like they were US companies do not forget that in this day and age they can be internationally owned. The main thing I was demonstrating is that it is a pretty fair shake internationally wise for the purchasing of Iraqi Oil AT FAIR MARKET VALUE.

The left's oil argument is crap. They know it, and so do we. In fact, you won't see one Leftist make any counter argument of substance on this thread reguarding this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But tell me, Hardner, what evidence do you have that the US wants to take over Iraq's oil?

As SirRiff stated, and you missed, it's not about taking over as much as it is about ensuring stability - political stability and supply stability.

What kind of proof would you like ? I'm sure I can't provide enough, in any case.

I don't care whether the US persues policies in its self-interest. In fact, in whose interest SHOULD it persue policies ?

But the idea that the US is engages in world-wide policing on an even-handed basis for the sole purpose of international justice is naive.

Why would they support the Saudis ? Is Saudi Arabia a democracy ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US is not "supporting" the Saudis. It buys oil from the Saudis like Europe and China do. The USA had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia to protect the Saudi oilfields from invasion from a certain wack job in Iraq, but the US has withdrawn many of its troops from Saudi Arabia recently and will probably not have US troops there at all in the near future.

You still don't get it. The US did not need to invade Iraq for oil. The US could have bought as much as it wanted from Saddam. It had been buying a small portion from Iraq already. It could have just upped the amount it wanted. Saddam was not reluctant to sell the US oil.

Actually the US has scaled back its dependence on Saudi Arabia since 1991 which was a high point in dependence. Since then, as Krusty said, the US became more careful about becoming dependent on ME oil, so it spread its business to sources closer to home. The US now imports double the Saudi oil from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela.

But the biggest source country of oil for Americans is the USA. Bet you didn't realize that, did you?

You have no evidence that the US needed Iraqi oil do you. Face it. The left is on the wrong side of the Iraq War and this is the only myth they can promote. The so called bleeding hearts are P.O.'d that it's a Republican President who removed a psychopathic dictator, while their President lobbed bombs at an aspirin factory and went back to "business as usual."

Here's what the Left supported...more ineffectual inspections while Saddam brutalized his people, best symbolized by Scott Ritter, inspector turned peacenik:

''The prison in question was inspected by my team in January 1998,'' he told Time magazine, a propos one grisly institution. ''It appeared to be a prison for children -- toddlers up to pre-adolescents -- whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually, I'm not going to describe what I saw there, because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace.''
per Mark Steyn,"Don't leave Saddam Trial to the Jet Set"Jan.04/04.

The US went into Iraq to remove Saddam because he was like a bomb waiting to explode. After 9/11, the US could not take anymore chances. Terrorists were coming out of the ME and they needed to take the war to the terrorists' backyard.The US also needed to get a "footprint" in the ME as a preventative measure against terrorism in the future. The US also hoped an liberated Iraq might have a domino effect in the ME. The dictatorships might become more benign and the Arab people would get more from their leaders and have less "hate" in their hearts.

Are these nefarious goals?

The world will benefit from the US going into Iraq. Especially the EU because they are desperate for ME oil and wacky dictators like Saddam are bad to do business with long term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you understand the difference between "getting" Iraqi oil and ensuring stability in the region. Stability in the region (including protecting Saudi oilfields as you admit) means stable prices.

I don't think the US "wants" Iraqi oil, nor do I think that there's some kind of oil conspiracy happening. It's in the US interests to promote stability in the region and especially to act against rogue states that challenge regional peace and stability.

Yes, I was against the war in Iraq on principle. But I can't deny reality and I don't - which is why I can see that the US acts in its own interests.

The world will benefit from the US going into Iraq.

You are correct with this. Even though I was against the war in Iraq, I think that Iraq is far better off now than it was under Saddam and I'm hopeful that Iraq will form a bridge to a new stable secular and democratic middle east.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...