Why Isn't Kuwait And Saudi Footing The Bill....

[Bushmustgo]

Saddam will never attack his neigbors again.

Going to war with Iraq was consisted of the following:

WMD

Imminent Threat

Attacked his Neighbors

Gased his own people

"Nothing to do with oil and American contract in that market"......(yeah right).

If we're going to use the neighbor attack as an excuse, you would figure that the wealthy country, Kuwait, who was attacked, should foot a good portion of the bill, afterall, we are claiming to rid that area of the guy who attacked them and we're doing THEM a favor...

[SirRiff]

if i was a corrupt saudi prince, i wouldnt want to strengthen teh precedent of toppling oppressive middle east regimes.

else they will be next.

SirRiff

[KrustyKidd]

if i was a corrupt saudi prince, i wouldnt want to strengthen teh precedent of toppling oppressive middle east regimes.

else they will be next.

SirRiff

Got that right Riff.. Although relieved to have him taken out the Saudi and Kuwaiti rulers are also quaking in their boots as they know that once a prosperous, democratic Iraq is established their respective populations will begin to look at them as somewhat redundent and even oppressive. Lots of problems for the house of Saud in the next few years comming up.

[nova_satori]

WMD

Imminent Threat

Attacked his Neighbors

Gased his own people

"Nothing to do with oil and American contract in that market"......(yeah right).

Hmmm....

No WMD or anything close: The US has one of the largest WMD arsenals in the world.

Attacked his neighbors allows us to attack almost everyone

Gassed his people:

Point: REBELLING kurds. The US released biological and chemical agents into the US, peaceful populations via operations 112 and SHAD.

HMMMM...name me something we went to war on that the US hasn't done itself.

[ETCAP]

"Nothing to do with oil and American contract in that market"......(yeah right).

Of course it had something to do with oil. As it should have. Everyone complains about Americans reliance on Saudi oil and now we have done something about it. Was it wrong to invade Iraq for its oil? No, I believe it was not, if you add that to all the other variables then the conclusion is clear. The export of oil will help Iraq just as it has Saudi Arabia and Kwuait. Once Iraq begins exporting enough oil, we can ease off saudi Arabia.

[nova_satori]

Ever notice how the right-wing cannot refute that we went to war for oil?

[ETCAP]

Ever notice how the right-wing cannot refute that we went to war for oil?

why would we want to. Its not a bad thing. Its one of the many motivations. What I deny is that it was too line Bush and his friends pockets. Instead it was to provide some security for you.

[Hugo]

It's been refuted. Do the math! The left loves to gloat that the war and occupation are costing $1bn per week or something - do you see the US recouping $1bn per week in oil profits? I don't think so.

The war-for-oil argument just doesn't make sense. If the US wanted cheaper oil, an investment of $1bn per week in Russian oil would have yielded far, far better results without any bloodshed.

[ETCAP]

It's been refuted. Do the math! The left loves to gloat that the war and occupation are costing $1bn per week or something - do you see the US recouping $1bn per week in oil profits? I don't think so.

The war-for-oil argument just doesn't make sense. If the US wanted cheaper oil, an investment of $1bn per week in Russian oil would have yielded far, far better results without any bloodshed.

no sorry. Thats got nothing to do with my argument. One billion a week is nothing comapared to the 6 Billion a day the government spends. But anyway, the point was to say that Iraq will allow us to loose our reliance on Saudi Arabia. And that is just one of the many reasons

[nova_satori]

Hugo: No it hasn't.

One ministry building was defended as the rest of the minsitry buildings, holding valuable information burned to the ground.

The first takeovers were of large oilfields by special opps troops then relived by large amounts of marines.

Us's first order of business was to get the oil production back into pre-war lines.

The left loves to gloat that the war and occupation are costing $1bn per week or something - do you see the US recouping $1bn per week in oil profits? I don't think so

The US will save BILLIONS, upon BILLIONS, upon BILLIONS of dollars in the future, (if not trillions) by directing controlling a vast oil producing country. Special trade agreements between the future Iraqi government, US oil companies and the US gov't will allow the US to buy oil at cut rate prices. The ability to dictate a large oil reserve is something the US misses.

The war-for-oil argument just doesn't make sense. If the US wanted cheaper oil, an investment of $1bn per week in Russian oil would have yielded far, far better results without any bloodshed.

Hardly. The Russian federation is a sham. The russian mafia essentially controls a large portion of Russia. Any large sum of US dollars will easily be sliced up and taken by those in the mafia. Also, much of the oil is in Siberia. The logistics of massive production and movement of that oil is mind boggling. Also, Russia's reserves are signifigtently less then Iraq's, nor will the US be able to dictate Russian crude. Russia in the short term would be more profitiable, but not even close to a US puppet state in Iraq.

[Hugo]

Us's first order of business was to get the oil production back into pre-war lines... directing controlling a vast oil producing country.

What you are assuming is that the US is going to set up shop in Iraq as the British did in India in the 19th Century, and frankly, it's Grade-A Bullplop. Even in the countries that were nothing but satellites of the US, the level of control and economic exploitation was never, ever, at the level that the British had over their colonies or that the Soviets had over the COMECON countries.

When the US becomes a 19th-Century Colonial power, I'll eat my words. Until then, please exercise some common sense. It's been made clear that the "liberation" of Iraq will be like the US/UK liberation of France, not the Soviet liberation of Poland.

Also, Russia's reserves are signifigtently less then Iraq's, nor will the US be able to dictate Russian crude.

First of all, the fact is that at the Northern end of the Urals there is more oil believed to exist than has ever been discovered in the whole Middle East.

Secondly, mafia or not, Russian oil companies have already dragged their prices down to within a couple of cents per barrel that the Saudis are. It wouldn't take much investment to bring production costs down further and make that oil far more competitive.

You're suffering from media stereotypes of Russia, I'm afraid. Go research Russian oil reserves and Russian oil companies such as Lukoil.

[Craig Read]

Well Nova we actually agree on a little bit of something. I work in Russia [have an office there] and yes Mafia is everywhere [i am actually there next week but don't worry i will find an Internet cafe to torment you].

Putin has tried to quiet dissent and media opposition and has forced out of business some anti-government leaders.

That being said, Oil in Russia has great potential and is not that difficult to process. The Caspian and the Caucasus have huge reserves, are close to major transport routes and links and are cheap to drill and process. Many of these firms are privately run, most on the Stock market and fairly well capitalised and all have US or European partners to help with development.

They are in short not controlled by mafia interests but by capital and gov't interests.

The mafia control smaller enterprises, illegal business, restaurants, and have many businesses doing legal business through which money is laundered. This is easier to handle, out of the spotlight and not subject to as much scrutiny.

They are rather vicious, i had a worked stabbed 34 times as he withdrew a few grand from a bank once. Mafia traces bank transfers and are rather ruthless in stealing from the small fry.

There is probably some mafia tie ups with the oil firms, but in no sense are they controlled by the mafia. This would be akin to stating that the Dutch mafia runs Shell.

[nova_satori]

What you are assuming is that the US is going to set up shop in Iraq as the British did in India in the 19th Century, and frankly, it's Grade-A Bullplop.

Just like the proof of WMD.

Until then, please exercise some common sense. It's been made clear that the "liberation" of Iraq will be like the US/UK liberation of France, not the Soviet liberation of Poland.

Because Bush is such a reliable, honest, trustworthy, genernous, selfless person!

If he wanted to not take over the oil, he would have started iraqi oilfirms. Do you see any of that happening? No, he initally gave a huge contract to dear ol' Cheney's company! HMMMMMM.

First of all, the fact is that at the Northern end of the Urals there is more oil believed to exist than has ever been discovered in the whole Middle East.

And the oil thought to be in the ANWR is more then Prudhoe bay. Your point?

However, the greatest amount of oil is thought to be underwater.

Secondly, mafia or not, Russian oil companies have already dragged their prices down to within a couple of cents per barrel that the Saudis are. It wouldn't take much investment to bring production costs down further and make that oil far more competitive.

Because they have no choice. Oil has become one of Russia's lifelines. If they had their way, they would be charging us a arm and a leg. The way to cut down the costs is to lean on OPEC. Russia's oil prices flucutate with OPEC production. Making Iraq a huge supplier will force OPEC to drop their prices, if not shatter OPEC itself, which in turn would allow the US to save trillions of dollars.

i am actually there next week but don't worry i will find an Internet cafe to torment you

And i'll get Greg to delete your flamer posts

There is probably some mafia tie ups with the oil firms, but in no sense are they controlled by the mafia. This would be akin to stating that the Dutch mafia runs Shell.

If you had ties to large oil corps, wouldn't you siphon off millions?

[Hugo]

Just like the proof of WMD.

Not really. WMD once existed and there's no proof that they stopped existing.

Because Bush is such a reliable, honest, trustworthy, genernous, selfless person!

I would say so. So far, President Bush has actually done what he said he would do, or at least tried to, every time.

If he wanted to not take over the oil, he would have started iraqi oilfirms.

Yeah, OK, and in a bankrupt and impoverished nation where is the capital going to come from for Iraqi oilfirms? The only way to get Iraqi oil production started again is with US investment and involvement. So, you can accept US involvement, or you can damn the Iraqi people to eternal poverty.

Making Iraq a huge supplier will force OPEC to drop their prices, if not shatter OPEC itself, which in turn would allow the US to save trillions of dollars.

Iraq is and will be a member of OPEC. My point stands. If the US wanted cheaper oil, there were far better ways to get it. They could have invested in domestic or foreign oil, instead of which they launched a costly war, after which they still have to invest in foreign oil. Doesn't make sense, does it?

[Nuclear]

Hey Nova, yeah the US has one of the largeest WMD arsenals. Key point is, the only time in history we ever used them was to end one of the bloodiest wars in the history of mankind.(Using the A-bombs on Japan actually killed less Americans AND Japanese than an invasion would have)

Also, the deterrent of weapons we have kept this country safe for the last 60 years because there was a time, probably before you were born, that the Russians didn't like us and had weapons aimed at us. So now the weapons sit there to ensure peace. Saddam, he fired at his own people. This would be like if California doens't vote for Bush in the reelection, he uses nukes in North Dakota to vaporize LA and San Fran.

And you say that we should know history better....what a hypocrit.