Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ageofreason2000 · 03-18-2003, 08:12 AM

I posted the following on another thread but it was not really appropriate so I post it again (in slightly altered form).

With the war likely to kick of in the next few days, the rights and wrongs are now largely academic but I still think their is some mileage in looking at the rationalization for the war and looking ahead to when the dust settles (assuming of course it all goes according to the white house plans).

In my mind their are several REAL reasons for Bush's desire for war.

1. Bush's (and others) desire to be rid of Saddam because it is perceived Saddam "got away" with it 12 years ago and has been a thorn in the USA's side ever since. Tied to this is Bush junior�s possible desire to show his Pa exactly what he can do by finishing of Papa's "unfinished business",

2. Bush is a xian (born again no less), a condition offering a fair likelihood that his desire to oust Saddam is in Bush�s his eyes, really a Battle between Good versus evil - he is doing gods work (he has said as much on several occasions, but I concede it is possible he could be playing to the American majority). However the problem with morality is it is only in the eye of the beholder. The US has performed many questionable activities in its history (as have all Nations), to wage war on moral grounds is, well, theistic.

And, in my view, the major reason

3. The USA's need for oil and their increasing reliance on foreign oil, whilst Bush is perhaps motivated more by 1. and 2. I doubt the real policy makers behind the Bush figurehead see these as the primary goals. In the glory days of the late 70's and 80's it seemed new and larger reserves of oil would be discovered all the time and advances in technology would make economically un-extractable oil attainable. Oil is constantly being discovered or old reserves made accessible but for the last decade or so in the US at least the trend has been for less to be made available than is actually used.
The USA currently has reserves to last it some 6-9 years at current levels, this will force it to be more reliant on foreign oil and as the largest reserves are in the Middle East eventually forced back in to the 1970's dependence on Arab oil again. If the USA is to avoid being held economically hostage once again. I think The Bush Gov�t is monopolising on an opportunity created by 9/11 to ensure the oil flows from the ME deserts free from Arabic political agendas.

Seems pretty clear to me what this war is REALLY about

Some further info
The USA uses over 7 billion barrels of fuel a year, this figure is generally rising every year, estimates I�ve read say it will have risen by some 30% by 2020. Of those 7 billion barrels just under half is provided by the USA itself, the rest is imported (and of the amount imported some 20% is from the Gulf).
However it only has some 20-30 billion barrels of known economically extractable oil, simple maths shows there to be only 6-9 years left at current supply levels. The US will continue to find new reserves and find new technologies to get at formally prohibitively expensive known reserves, but measured over decades, there has been a slow decline in the US reserves.

Compare this to Iraq, which has some 112 billion barrels of known economically extractable reserves (2nd only in the world to Saudi Arabia).
Further the USA is quiet heavily exploited for potential oil fields where as Iraq has much land untested (why should it waste the money, when it currently holds 4-5 times USA reserves), needless to say ALL the worlds oil co's are fair falling over themselves to get the rights to unexplored Iraq. If heard it said that if the US so wanted the oil why not just start trading again with Iraq. I don�t see this as an option, Saddam will hardly be pleased with his treatment over the last 12 years (not to mention Gulf War part 1) and any sign of deal making by the US would be seen (rightly) as a weakness, Saddam would drive a hard bargain, perhaps wanting the annexation of Kuwait thrown in as an appetiser.
But Iraq is only half the story, with a US gov't or US puppet on the throne of Baghdad and the oil of Iraq flows aplenty, then the US has a permanent no questions asked, no deals or compromises to be made, military base in the Middle East. If one of its new neighbours - lets say Iran - gets stroppy, they can �sort them out� (and its already on the Axis of evil so it shouldn't be too hard to sell this to Jo public - Oh and did I mention Iran is sat on 90 billion barrels of oil). If another of it's new neighbour's � Saudi Arabia perhaps - tries to be funny with its oil flows, they can �sort them out� too (and Saudi is the daddy of oil with some 270 billion barrels of the stuff).
Oddly Iran and Saudi Arabia are more justifiable targets in the war on Islamic terror, but as America gets most of its ME supply from Saudi, knocking on their door before another oil supply (Iraq) is secure would be unwise.

If The US does not take a controlling hand in the Middle East then it has to continue to barter and compromise with the Arab states. In the next decade with an increasing demand for probably decreasing reserves of oil this will result in much strife and possibly a new world order.

By coincidence! France has various contracts with Iraq worth some $3.5 Billion last year and one of its oil co's was negotiating rights to exploit some of Iraq.

France wants to use diplomacy and coercion to have at Iraqi Oil, the US seems to have decided a more pro-active solution is in order.

The bad (amoral) thing is I find myself agreeing with Bush's conquest of Iraq because without it, our lifestyles may take a serious downturn. I'm British but as the saying goes "if America sneezes the world catches a cold".

But innocent people will die to protect the USA�s "king of the castle" position, we (and American's in particular) will get to keep their comfortable lifestyles and hopefully indirectly some injustices will be ousted in the Arab states.

But don't kid yourself this has little to do with the war on terror and NOTHING to do with doing the morally right thing.
Economic survival pure and simple

Bush and his cronies must "praise the lord" for 9/11 for giving them an excuse to interfere in the Middle East (lets face it would the general public swallow a war to protect oil interests?).

All of course IMHO

Age

To add further, so called �green� fuels may eventually replace our reliance on oil, however even optimistic estimates don�t predict this to happen in the next 20 years, and with Bush�s lacklustre commitment to alternative fuels it is likely to take longer still. A future oil crisis will likely happen some time before then.

HaysooChreesto! · 03-18-2003, 09:11 AM

While it may be romantic to shout "no blood for oil" and all that, the fact is that an economy runs on petroleum products. I agree that there is a definate need for some type of alternative fuel resource, but the fact is there just aren't any right now. At least none that can step in and fill the void for oil.

The bigger picture in all this is that we do rely too much on foreign oil, but more to the point we rely to much on Saudi oil. IIRC, we import over 20% of our foreign oil from there (if I'm wrong, please correct me). Remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis.
So why aren't we invading Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq? First, Saddam has violated the rules time after time. His non-compliance is well documented. He, like Bin Laden is a case of unfinished business that will fester and get worse should the course of things remain the same. He's also an easy villain with myriad past atrocities so there's less resistance to taking him out.
Second, and more importantly, it's unthinkable to invade the Islamic homeland. We can't just roll M1 tanks through Mecca and Medina and establish a Marshall Plan. At that point, the empty rhetoric from Muslim Fundies about the US being at war with Islam would be given a lot of creedence. Not a good thing.

So, with a US friendly government in Iraq, America would have a steady supply of sweet and cheap crude oil. The US would then not have to worry about buying from the Saudis unless they crack down on the radical elements in that country. If they don't crack down, the US won't buy their oil. It's called leverage.

IMO, there's elements of the "War on Terror" at work here that provide not only pressure on the ME fundies but also provides the US with all the oil it needs.
Wars have fought for worse reasons.

In large part I agree with the OP. I just more or less wanted to add my two cents to an already sound post by ageofreason.

wdog · 03-18-2003, 09:14 AM

Oil, Oil, Oil- damn stuff

No question that we currently need it, but we always forget the other side of the coin. People think this is a one sided greedy affair, but it just isn't so. Does anyone think that Saudi Arabia or Kuwait would rather not sell their oil? Consider the following:

1> all 6 previous US presidents have tried to wean the US off imported oil, all 6 have failed. In 1973 nixon pledged to end oil imports by 1980. In 1979 Carter tried to stop the rising imports. Bush is touting hydrogen cars.

why? OPEC and saudi arabia, thats why. If you believe that all OPEC members simply want to sqeeze the highest price, you're wrong. The eightees price crash of oil was engineered by saudi and kuwait to grab market share and keeep competing technologies at bay. Why do you think Saudi is currently pledging to step up production?

see this for how the saudi oil minister feels:

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=8054

quote ""Technology is a real enemy for OPEC. Technology will reduce consumption and increase production from areas outside OPEC."

Yamani also said in 1981 that reduced dependence jeopardizes Saudi interests.

also some interesting items from:

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/p.../nawafexec.htm

Quote:

The United States. Oil is one of the two pillars of the U.S.-Saudi "special relationship," the other being security. The United States, which consumes 25 percent of the world's average daily output of oil, imports more than half of its oil. Saudi Arabia is determined to remain a large supplier to the U.S. market; in most years, it is the single largest, just ahead of Venezuela. The United States is a vital market for Saudi Arabia, accounting for 22 percent of all its exports. Saudi Aramco is partners with Texaco and Shell in Motiva Enterprises, which owns thirteen refineries among its $13 billion in assets. With the invitation to U.S. oil companies to reenter the kingdom's energy sector and the general opening of the Saudi economy, the two countries' economic interrelations seem poised to grow.

Quote:

Should the kingdom work to maintain prices through global production management, or should it instead focus on increasing its market share, regardless of price? A policy of high production levels would drive prices down. That would have several advantages over the long term. Lower prices would put high cost competitors such as Britain and Norway out of business in the long term, and would spell the end of new oil development such as that planned in Central Asia. It would also slow the ultimate adoption of emerging non-oil energy technologies such as the electric car or the hydrogen fuel cell. But the disadvantage of a high-production, low-price policy would be that, in the early years, Saudi Arabia would lose tens of billions of dollars in revenue, because prices would fall immediately while production levels would increase only over time. To prevent severe economic dislocations and social unrest, the Saudis would have to raise substantial funds to cover the gap. One way to mobilize that revenue would be to move forward with the long planned sell-off of state enterprises.

The saudis and others need western oil dependence, and the special oil co-dependence is why we will not go after saudi, the US will not have to anyway since the moderate Saudis realize that saudi terrorists are cutting their own throat so to speak.

I do not think this war is entirely about oil partly since the US could get all it needs from Saudi arabia and kuwait anyway, but it indirectly is about how saddam could threaten saudi arabia and kuwait.

let's all hope that the war planners are correct about the prospects of a short and easy war and the high priced weapons were worth the money, what else is there at this point?

03-18-2003, 08:12 AM	#1
ageofreason2000 Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: UK (London) Posts: 103	For God, Country and Oil I posted the following on another thread but it was not really appropriate so I post it again (in slightly altered form). With the war likely to kick of in the next few days, the rights and wrongs are now largely academic but I still think their is some mileage in looking at the rationalization for the war and looking ahead to when the dust settles (assuming of course it all goes according to the white house plans). In my mind their are several REAL reasons for Bush's desire for war. 1. Bush's (and others) desire to be rid of Saddam because it is perceived Saddam "got away" with it 12 years ago and has been a thorn in the USA's side ever since. Tied to this is Bush junior�s possible desire to show his Pa exactly what he can do by finishing of Papa's "unfinished business", 2. Bush is a xian (born again no less), a condition offering a fair likelihood that his desire to oust Saddam is in Bush�s his eyes, really a Battle between Good versus evil - he is doing gods work (he has said as much on several occasions, but I concede it is possible he could be playing to the American majority). However the problem with morality is it is only in the eye of the beholder. The US has performed many questionable activities in its history (as have all Nations), to wage war on moral grounds is, well, theistic. And, in my view, the major reason 3. The USA's need for oil and their increasing reliance on foreign oil, whilst Bush is perhaps motivated more by 1. and 2. I doubt the real policy makers behind the Bush figurehead see these as the primary goals. In the glory days of the late 70's and 80's it seemed new and larger reserves of oil would be discovered all the time and advances in technology would make economically un-extractable oil attainable. Oil is constantly being discovered or old reserves made accessible but for the last decade or so in the US at least the trend has been for less to be made available than is actually used. The USA currently has reserves to last it some 6-9 years at current levels, this will force it to be more reliant on foreign oil and as the largest reserves are in the Middle East eventually forced back in to the 1970's dependence on Arab oil again. If the USA is to avoid being held economically hostage once again. I think The Bush Gov�t is monopolising on an opportunity created by 9/11 to ensure the oil flows from the ME deserts free from Arabic political agendas. Seems pretty clear to me what this war is REALLY about Some further info The USA uses over 7 billion barrels of fuel a year, this figure is generally rising every year, estimates I�ve read say it will have risen by some 30% by 2020. Of those 7 billion barrels just under half is provided by the USA itself, the rest is imported (and of the amount imported some 20% is from the Gulf). However it only has some 20-30 billion barrels of known economically extractable oil, simple maths shows there to be only 6-9 years left at current supply levels. The US will continue to find new reserves and find new technologies to get at formally prohibitively expensive known reserves, but measured over decades, there has been a slow decline in the US reserves. Compare this to Iraq, which has some 112 billion barrels of known economically extractable reserves (2nd only in the world to Saudi Arabia). Further the USA is quiet heavily exploited for potential oil fields where as Iraq has much land untested (why should it waste the money, when it currently holds 4-5 times USA reserves), needless to say ALL the worlds oil co's are fair falling over themselves to get the rights to unexplored Iraq. If heard it said that if the US so wanted the oil why not just start trading again with Iraq. I don�t see this as an option, Saddam will hardly be pleased with his treatment over the last 12 years (not to mention Gulf War part 1) and any sign of deal making by the US would be seen (rightly) as a weakness, Saddam would drive a hard bargain, perhaps wanting the annexation of Kuwait thrown in as an appetiser. But Iraq is only half the story, with a US gov't or US puppet on the throne of Baghdad and the oil of Iraq flows aplenty, then the US has a permanent no questions asked, no deals or compromises to be made, military base in the Middle East. If one of its new neighbours - lets say Iran - gets stroppy, they can �sort them out� (and its already on the Axis of evil so it shouldn't be too hard to sell this to Jo public - Oh and did I mention Iran is sat on 90 billion barrels of oil). If another of it's new neighbour's � Saudi Arabia perhaps - tries to be funny with its oil flows, they can �sort them out� too (and Saudi is the daddy of oil with some 270 billion barrels of the stuff). Oddly Iran and Saudi Arabia are more justifiable targets in the war on Islamic terror, but as America gets most of its ME supply from Saudi, knocking on their door before another oil supply (Iraq) is secure would be unwise. If The US does not take a controlling hand in the Middle East then it has to continue to barter and compromise with the Arab states. In the next decade with an increasing demand for probably decreasing reserves of oil this will result in much strife and possibly a new world order. By coincidence! France has various contracts with Iraq worth some $3.5 Billion last year and one of its oil co's was negotiating rights to exploit some of Iraq. France wants to use diplomacy and coercion to have at Iraqi Oil, the US seems to have decided a more pro-active solution is in order. The bad (amoral) thing is I find myself agreeing with Bush's conquest of Iraq because without it, our lifestyles may take a serious downturn. I'm British but as the saying goes "if America sneezes the world catches a cold". But innocent people will die to protect the USA�s "king of the castle" position, we (and American's in particular) will get to keep their comfortable lifestyles and hopefully indirectly some injustices will be ousted in the Arab states. But don't kid yourself this has little to do with the war on terror and NOTHING to do with doing the morally right thing. Economic survival pure and simple Bush and his cronies must "praise the lord" for 9/11 for giving them an excuse to interfere in the Middle East (lets face it would the general public swallow a war to protect oil interests?). All of course IMHO Age To add further, so called �green� fuels may eventually replace our reliance on oil, however even optimistic estimates don�t predict this to happen in the next 20 years, and with Bush�s lacklustre commitment to alternative fuels it is likely to take longer still. A future oil crisis will likely happen some time before then.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-18-2003, 09:11 AM	#2
HaysooChreesto! Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: SoCal USA Posts: 7,737	While it may be romantic to shout "no blood for oil" and all that, the fact is that an economy runs on petroleum products. I agree that there is a definate need for some type of alternative fuel resource, but the fact is there just aren't any right now. At least none that can step in and fill the void for oil. The bigger picture in all this is that we do rely too much on foreign oil, but more to the point we rely to much on Saudi oil. IIRC, we import over 20% of our foreign oil from there (if I'm wrong, please correct me). Remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. So why aren't we invading Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq? First, Saddam has violated the rules time after time. His non-compliance is well documented. He, like Bin Laden is a case of unfinished business that will fester and get worse should the course of things remain the same. He's also an easy villain with myriad past atrocities so there's less resistance to taking him out. Second, and more importantly, it's unthinkable to invade the Islamic homeland. We can't just roll M1 tanks through Mecca and Medina and establish a Marshall Plan. At that point, the empty rhetoric from Muslim Fundies about the US being at war with Islam would be given a lot of creedence. Not a good thing. So, with a US friendly government in Iraq, America would have a steady supply of sweet and cheap crude oil. The US would then not have to worry about buying from the Saudis unless they crack down on the radical elements in that country. If they don't crack down, the US won't buy their oil. It's called leverage. IMO, there's elements of the "War on Terror" at work here that provide not only pressure on the ME fundies but also provides the US with all the oil it needs. Wars have fought for worse reasons. In large part I agree with the OP. I just more or less wanted to add my two cents to an already sound post by ageofreason.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.