Gas costs $1.93 in PA. Anyone still think the war was about oil?

Great Debates
21

I won’t get into whether or not the war is about oil, but i can give my theory on why gas and oil prices are so high.

The oil companies are an oligarchy. They can pretty much do anything they want with the price of oil. The only thing stopping them is the American people. If Big Oil tries to raise the price too much, the American people will demand that the government do something about the oil companies. Therefore, Oil must be sneaky when it raises prices, so they don’t draw too much attention to themselves.

Ever notice that during any crisis, such as Gulf War I, Nine Eleven, Afghanistan, and Gulf War II, oil prices rise? That’s because they have an excuse. Then when the crisis is over, prices may drop a bit, but never back to pre-crisis levels. In this manner, they can raise prices to non-capitalistic levels without causing a major outcry from the American people.

In my opinion, though, they are really toeing the line with these frequent increases. It will be interesting to see how much they will rise before The People make a huge outcry. But to Oil’s advantage, they have the Bush administration in office, which is oil-friendly. I predict a major drop in prices (about 20 cents per gallon) starting in late August, running to November. Although prices tend to drop in these months, Oil will go a little extra, to give Bush a little push come elections.

22

Oil is certainly a strategic resource. If there are sufficient quantities of extractable oil in Iraq, surely this was at least one of the reasons for desiring to control the area. I don’t see what current gas prices have to do with that.

I am not clear about the future of Iraq. Will we maintain bases there indefinitely? Is that the current idea?

23

Halliburton instigated a war for $78 million? Heck, Dick Cheney doesn’t even get out of bed for $78 million.

24

I think rjung dropped off a zero or three.

80% of $5.5 bn is $4.4 bn, and that’s just in a single quarter. If they keep it up at that rate, it’s $17.6 bn pa.

25

You really haven’t the slightest notion of what you are talking about, do you?

26

Well if the Iraqis hadn’t been such spoil sports then the Iraqi oil would be flooding the market and dropping prices too ?

Its about the oil anyway. No one cares what happens in Rwanda… Iraq they do because its in the Middle East… and that is where the biggest oil deposits are. So no oil… no strategic relevance for the region.

27

Oh c’mon. You don’t seriously believe that, do you? If the raison d’être for the Bush presidency was to simply enrich his cronies, don’t you think they could have found an easier and less objectionable method than invading Iraq? Something that would have been far easier to conceal from the American public? Remember, now, that the Republican party controls both houses of Congress AND (supposedly) the Supreme Court. Wouldn’t it have been ever so much simpler to use the time-honored method of enriching one’s cronies—pass some goddamned legislation? What you propose is simply preposterous.

Wait. I thought that was the reason we went into Afghanistan?

28

And further, what about those near record prices at the pump? If this whole thing was designed by the Bush administration to enrich his cronies, why is the price of gas so high so near to the election? Shouldn’t the prices be much lower in order to curry favor for Bush with as many voters as possible? Your beliefs defy any logical support.

29

Gas prices closer to the election will be much much more important than many months before…

30

I call this the “Alderaan” theory of invasion -

PRINCESS RICHARD CLARKE: The more you tighten your grip, Rumsfeld, the more rogue states will slip through your fingers.

GRAND MOFF RUMSFELD: Not after we demonstrate the power of this station. In a way, you have determined the choice of the planet that’ll be destroyed
first. Since you are reluctant to provide us with the location of the
terrorist base, I have chosen to test this station’s destructive power…
on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

CLARKE: No! Iraq is peaceful. They have no weapons of mass destruction or, more importantly, ties to 9/11

RUMSFELD: You would prefer another target? A terrorist target? Then name
the country!

Rumsfeld waves menacingly toward Clarke

RUMSFELD: I grow tired of asking this. So it’ll be the last time. Where
is the terrorist base?

CLarke overhears an intercom voice announcing the approach to
Iraq.

CLARKE: (softly) Al Qaeda

Clarke lowers his head.

CLAKRE: They’re in Afghanistan

RUMSFELD: There. You see Lord Cheney, he can be reasonable. (addressing
Franks) Continue with the operation. You may invade when ready.

CLARKE: What?

RUMSFELD: You’re far too trusting. Afghanistan is too remote to make an effective demonstration. But don’t worry. We will deal with your Al Qaeda
friends soon enough.

31

Your question defies any logical answer. Reeder said “The oil was not to make gas cheaper for us. It was to enrich the oil corporations.”

Reeder seems to be proposing that it was never intended that oil should be cheap for Joe Public. Your response is that oil isn’t cheap for Joe Public, therefore Reeder is wrong.

I’m not buying into Reeder’s particular argument, but your purported logical analysis of it is complete and utter crap.

32

Not so fast, Jackson. Reeder’s argument seems to be that the Bush plan was/is to enrich the oil corps by any means possible. My contention is that there are myriad ways of doing that; invading a sovereign country would seem to be the most troublesome manner of doing this, as well as the method guaranteed to generate the most public scrutiny possible. And if you wanted to generate the largest profits possible, getting your patron unelected just ain’t logical.

So, if we don’t see a significant drop in prices in the next several months, you’ll be admitting this stupid and illogical conjecture was mistaken?

33

Right. But see, if Bush did it to enrich his oil company buddies, it was through all those government contracts he’s endlessly banging on about (and UncleBeer is right…there are a hell of a lot easier ways for Bush to have done this than invading Iraq, if this was his goal)…not through gas prices at the pump. See, logically ( :wink: ), if Bush REALLY was in it to enrich his buddies, they’d be in on it too. And they wouldn’t want the gravy train to end. So, logically, they wouldn’t be gouging up oil prices because this would tend to sour the huddled masses against the President and lead them to consider their alternatives…namely Kerry. Can’t have THAT.

Actually, I think we are talking about rjung, but they are cut from much the same clothe.

Not sure how you came to this conclusion…did you use tarot cards? I admit, that his logic was a bit simplified, and doesn’t follow through, nor is it fully supported…but ‘utter crap’? I’d think that would be more aptly applied to Reeder/rjungs ‘logic’.

And here is the possible flaw in the logic, pointed out by RM. Its not outside of the realm of possibility, that as we get closer to the election prices could very well drop artificially so that Bush looks better. Personally I don’t think that this is happening (i.e. that the war was all about enriching Bush’s buddies, they are gouging the price of gas to squeeze some additional profits out of the American people, blah blah blah), but at least this isn’t into tinfoil hat territory and COULD be true.

-XT

34

Boy, you got us! Is our face red! We of the unpatriotic lefty hive-mind, who share but a single thought amongst us, were wrong. It wasn’t about oil.

Of course, it may have been about oil tomorrow, as motivations are shuffled off into the memory hole. What it was about, at the time, was prying those dreadful WMDs from the hands of a tyrant. The complete and utter success of that mission can hardly be doubted, Saddam has no WMDs. He may have a toothbrush. Pretty sure he has a toothbrush. About as sure as he had no WMDs to begin with.

Perhaps the intent of the war was to foster the security of Isreal. Perhaps it was to protect the habitat of certain avian species in the marshes of southern Iraq. Perhaps it was to transform Iraq into a nation of small shopkeepers and Starbucks entreprenuers.

The effect of this bold exercise was to squander a gazillion bucks, alienate our friends, enrage and encourage our enemies, needlessly sacrifice our soldiers, offer ourselves as the number one international pariah, and offhandedly slaughter an unknown number of innocent Iraqis (10,000, is it? Don’t know. Do you?)

This may not be the intent. Almost certainly not. This may matter to you. Doesn’t matter to me. Today, I am too heartsick to care whether it was about oil or not. Today, the world sees my beloved country as a vicious, diseased and deranged whore - cruel, ignorant and heartless.

I know it isn’t true. And I know it isn’t what we intended. So if it comforts you to reflect that some of us who opposed this horror did so for illogical reasons, fine. We all need some comfort these days, take it where you can. But when the Support Our President and Re-Elect Our Troops rally comes to town, would you mind using some other flag? Mine has been abused quite enough of late.

35

Most of xtisme’s last post seems reasonable, but I have to take issue with this:

Really? Could someone explain the mechanism by which this might happen? The major US oil companies are going to go to their stockholders and say “Sorry, folks, but we want to re-elect Bush, so we’re going to set gasoline prices lower for the next few months, even though that will cut into your equity for the next few quarters.” Who’s gonna do the lowering, exactly, the US oil companies who do the pruchasing and refining (presumably acting as an illegal cartel), or the (mostly foreign) suppliers of crude?

Perhaps someone here would care to make a minimal effort to understand something about the market:

Gasoline prices explained:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/primer_on_gasoline_prices/html/petbro.html

Oil markets explained in 500 words or less (BBC):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/904748.stm

Detailed but somewhat technical explanation of markets for crude and refined petroleum products:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/intro.htm

Or y’all are welcome to keep on blithering on in blissful ignorance. It’s up to you.

36

What was the war about? It was about Saddam.

Let’s not forget the words of George W. Bush

“After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad.”

How did we know he had WoMD?

“After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad.”

How did we know Saddam was in cahoots with Al Queda?

“After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad.”

Did oil play any part? Sure. It was going to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq. This was part of Bush’s fantasy world of post-invasion Iraq that also included Iraqis showering our troops with flowers and chocolates. Haliburton making a mint in the process was just gravey. Everyone was going to win - except the guy who tried to kill his dad.

37

If this is directed to me, what in the name of bloody fuck are you babbling about? There isn’t a single damned thing in there that is even remotely related to anything I’ve typed in this thread. If it ain’t directed to me, well, then don’t bother explaining your “viewpoint;” I ain’t interested.

38

Saudis deny secret oil deal to help Bush

39

Well, I said it wasn’t outside of the realm of possibility…I didn’t say I thought it was likely, nor that I believe it will happen. However, it COULD happen, therefore its within the realm of possibility…sort of like a giant meteor COULD crash into the earth shortly after I win the lottery while being struck by lightning.

As to who would be doing the lowering, I’d say that, if you REALLY thought this likely, it would be the US oil companies taking a short term loss (or simply leveraging the price) to get their buddy who skated them big contracts and put billions ( :rolleyes: ) in their pockets by trumping up a war.

I think you are reading seriousness into my previous response that wasn’t intended.

-XT

40

It’d be horrible if this aspect weren’t seriously considered at all levels of planning.
As an aside, I expect we could’ve gone a long way toward alleviating a dependency on petro by spending the hundreds of billions of dollars and countless man-hours and national attention seeking acceptable alternative fuel sources. The results aren’t guaranteed just because you throw money at it of course. However, you have the intentional guidance of these efforts by human minds, so the results aren’t entirely random either. The same can be said for the invasion of Iraq as well, of course. Each are signifigant gambles. One big difference being that the potential pay-off for developing the next big energy source, ('cause, oil as we know it, is a limited commodity), is that the US’d have a position similar to what of OPEC has now, in addition to it’s other attributes. We could become the “OPEC” of energy technologies.
Somebody is going to do this at some point in the not so distant future. Why not the USA?

I too agree that the pols would’ve found a way to enrich themselves regardless of what policy was. It does give the appearance of wrongdoing when certain influential persons may benefit subtantially from the heightened USG spending in various ways. While I’m certain no one capable of rising to such a position of influence could be unaware of the business opportunities presented by increased USG spending, I’m not convinced that the main motivations were mere profit motives.
I suspect that desire for profit figured more prominently in the calculations of some people than in others’. Perhaps in some cases entirely and in others, none at all.

That the meme of “The ‘Real’ Reason We Went to War,” in its myriad and varied manifestations exists with such vigor is telling.