How is this war about oil?

Great Debates
1

Crude oil goes for about $25 a barrel

It supposedly costs about $1.50 to make a barrel.

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/taylor-000814.html

The US imports about 11 million barrels a day

http://www.apiinformation.org/factsheets/oil_imports.html

this war will cost about $80 billion dollars.
So, assuming we end up getting oil that we’d normally pay $25 for for $1.50, we would still need to import 4 billion barrels worth to break even with the costs of war. Even if we imported 100% of our oil from Iraq, and obtained it at the lowest price possible ($1.50), it would still take a little over a year to break even for the cost of a war.

Besides, i thought the US was trying to make sure oil profits went into a UN approved trust fund that would pay for Iraqi reconstruction.

So what is the argument that this war is about oil?

2

From the radical pinko journal Newsweek.

3

  1. Given current rates of petroleum consumption, within 30 years the United States will need to import over two-thirds of its oil.

  2. Accomplishing #1 would require the U.S. buying oil from nations that may be hostile to us.

  3. To avoid #2, the solution is to secure a foreign source of oil and maintain control of it.

  4. The first candidate for #3 is Iraq, since it is currently held by a non-US-friendly government, and the Persianl Gulf War/UN resolution violations can be used as a pretext.

All of this was outlined in an energy policy report written by Dick Cheney back in 2001. Search the internet for “The Cheney Report” for lotsa links.

Also, invading Iraq and securing Iraqi oil would help reinforce America’s status as the world’s sole superpower for the forseeable future. This is a policy advocated by neo-conservative groups, such as the Project for a New American Century. The PNAC even wrote a letter to Bill Clinton back in 1998, advocating an Iraqi invasion for this purpose. Many of the signers of the letter are folks who are now serving in the Bush White House.

Finally, if the oil contracts for a post-war Iraq go to American petroleum companies, they’ll (naturally) reap the financial rewards. I personally wouldn’t be surprised if, after Dick Cheney is finished at the White House, he jumps back to Haliburton into the waiting arms of a generous compensation package.

(Message originally from this thread)

4

Who do you think will be pumping that oil? The remnants of smashed Iraqi industry or US based international conglomerates?

So who exactly will be making the most profit? Either directly or indirectly the US will be cashing in at both ends of the supply chain and President Bush wins every way up, politically, commercially and personally.

5

What would Bush care about our oil demand 30 years from now? He won’t even be in office then.

It’s a rediculous argument.

I suppose if we went to war with Holland, it would be for all of their beautiful tulips. It just happens to be an oil-rich region. We’re not invading Saudi Arabia or Kuwait et al. But all you conspiracy theorists must think they’re on the plate, too.

6

At the rate of oil consumption now, there may be NO oil left in 30 years- and what is left will become extremely costly to process and distribute; alternative forms of energy will almost certainly dominate within 30 to 40 years. I think in reguard to oil that we arent looking too far to the future because of this fact…

7

what ever happened to the oil in alaska?

8

To the extent that regular Iraqis distrust the U.S. and Britian, oil IS most certainly a factor. While no news program I’ve seen during the war coverage has discharged its public responsibility and explained a bit of Iraqi history outside of Saddam’s brutual rise to power, prior to the revolution in the late 50s, Iraq was basically the playground of… Britian and the U.S., both of whom spent the first half of the century vying for control of Middle East oil reserves for their respective home-based corporations. Iraqis hated their treatment by both of us then: that’s why they revolted in the first place (indeed, Eisenhower was preparing to crush the revolt militarily when other problems made that unfeasible).

Interesting trivia: the first use of poison gas on the Kurds, indeed, was by the British, in 1925.

I’m not saying that these things mean our motives today aren’t very different: in fact I’m convinced that they are (they seem to be honestly motivated by particular neocon philosophies about regional control in the Middle East, not the needs of oil service companies (though that is attractive bonus)). But it does explain why Iraqis are less than enthusiastic about it being U.S. and Britain, in particular, who are “securing their oil for them.” Despite wide hatred for Saddam, people haven’t forgotten who their previous dictators were, and they don’t trust our intentions now.

9

Caribou like to reproduce where the oil is in Alaska. How would you like someone drilling for oil in your bedroom? :smiley: [sup]Not that kind of drilling.[/sup]

10

Gary Becker wrote this article explaining that the war is not about oil. Bush would be better off leaving the Middle East alone and not creating risks that will raise oil prices.

11

:smiley: Best one yet!

12

The chance that in 30 years oil will be as prominent a resource as it is now is close to nil. We know how hard they’re working towards alternative fuels; surely putting $100 billion towards fuel R&D would be more intelligent than spending it on war with Iraq.
And it’s already been stated that there probably won’t be much oil left anyway.

It’s also quite a stretch to say that the new, U.S.-friendly regime will be around in 30 years, or G-Dubya for that matter.

13

Alternative fuel r&d doesn’t put money in Halliburton/Cheney’s or the rest of Bush’s cronies pockets. Get it while the gettings good.

14

This war is not at all about oil. Its about creating the first arab democracy and eliminating the base of terrorism. I can’t possibly understand why people think the war is just about oil. President Bush is even risking his re-election opportunity to change oppressive regimes and societies in the middle east so that America can be a safer place, and he would definitely not do this if it was only about oil.

15

Base of terrorism? Boy you have swallowed the propaganda hook, line and sinker haven’t you? To be honest, I truly hope you are right. But I fear you are wrong.

16

Weren’t they saying this 30 years ago?

17

The OP and the Becker article treat oil in simple economic terms, totally ignoring its strategic importance (there is a lot of overlap, to be sure, but they are not equal). Assuming “success” in Iraq, the US will soon have bases in the two most important oil-producing nations. What kind of message do you think this sends to our adversaries, real and potential?

18

Let me bring in some quotes to support my view. President Bush is very direct and is not known for saying one thing and doing another thing. Basically, whatever he says is exactly what he intends to do and everything he has said in his press conferences and speeches is in support of my view.

President Bush:
“We will bring food, supplies, and more importantly… freedom to the Iraqi people…”
“Democracy is a beautiful thing…”
“We will bring peace and stability to the region…”

Prime Minister Tony Blair:
“Iraq’s natural resources will remain with the Iraqi people.”

President Bush has not made one mention of oil and if that were his true intentions, I don’t think he would be able to conceal it. Also, President Bush’s roadmap for peace between Israel and the Palestinians is in no way related to oil and he should get ample credit for that.

Finally, President Bush is very sincere about this war and by examining his expressions and emotions during press conferences, you can discern his motives. Although many people have a pessimistic view of western leaders, I believe that they really do know what they are doing.

19

And you believe that? :eek: You don’t want to read this, then.

Democracy Domino Theory "Not Credible"
Los Angeles Times, March 14, 2003, page 1

"WASHINGTON – A classified State Department report expresses doubt that installing a new regime in Iraq will foster the spread of democracy in the Middle East, a claim President Bush has made in trying to build support for a war, according to intelligence officials familiar with the document.

"The report exposes significant divisions within the Bush administration over the so-called democratic domino theory, one of the arguments that underpins the case for invading Iraq.

"The report, which has been distributed to a small group of top government officials but not publicly disclosed, says that daunting economic and social problems are likely to undermine basic stability in the region for years, let alone prospects for democratic reform.

"Even if some version of democracy took root – an event the report casts as unlikely – anti-American sentiment is so pervasive that elections in the short term could lead to the rise of Islamic-controlled governments hostile to the United States. …

“…Some officials said the classified document reflects views that are widely held in the State Department and CIA but that those holding such views have been muzzled in an administration eager to downplay the costs and risks of war.”

What Oil Wants
Newsweek, March 24, 2003

"THE JOCKEYING HAS already begun, and the race seems likely to be won by American and British firms: ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, Shell and BP. According to industry insiders, these giants are now the front runners in part because British and American troops are likely to end up in control of Baghdad, which can’t help but influence Iraq?s choice of business partners…

“To protect the tens of billions they will need to pour into a postwar Iraq, the oil giants are likely to push a controversial form of contract that gives them an ownership stake in the oilfields and guaranteed relief from national tax and environmental laws for the life of the project… Often adopted as law by the host country?s Parliament, these deals override domestic environmental, tax and safety laws for years?sometimes for more than half a century. If conflicts arise between the companies and the government, they?re decided by private arbitrators in London or Paris, circumventing the local courts. Best of all for the company, the contract gives them an ownership stake that can be booked as an asset on their balance sheet, which tends to push up their stock price. …”

Ah, to be young and innocent once again… :wink:

20

I’m sorry but you cannot seriously quote the words of liars as evidence. Deal with the arguments put forward, particularly the documents cited that demonstrate oil is a strategic concern to those now sitting in government.