Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 78
  1. #1
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    War for oil? SUPPORT IT.

    We hear it all the time from the anti-war crowd. We just never see any support. Please do so now. Be sure to include your argumentation, not just links for all to go elsewhere to read.

    Couple questiosn while you are at it:
    1. Saddam already was selling us oil, why go to war over it? He had plenty of oil to sell, if we wanted more, why didn't we just buy more?
    2. The % of oil the US uses from Iraq, is very small. Only 10% of US oil consumption comes from ALL of the Persian Gulf area. Why go to war over it when we use other primary sources?
    3. I know the conspiracy theorists love the idea that the US will install a 'puppet government' in Iraq...but how will that benefit the US? Lowering the cost of oil for us? So we went to war for a 'discount' now?

    I find the whine "We only did it for oil" to be an absolutely absurd and naive objection. However, this is where the conspiracy theorists will be given their opportunity to shine.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: War for oil? SUPPORT IT.

    OIL - Operation Iraqi Liberation

    This article makes the case nicely. No proof unless you are on the "inside" - we are all outsiders here.

    In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue
    U.S. Drillers Eye Huge Petroleum Pool

    By Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Sunday, September 15, 2002; Page A01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule
    A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition.
    Although senior Bush administration officials say they have not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, American and foreign oil companies have already begun maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world outside Saudi Arabia.

    The importance of Iraq's oil has made it potentially one of the administration's biggest bargaining chips in negotiations to win backing from the U.N. Security Council and Western allies for President Bush's call for tough international action against Hussein. All five permanent members of the Security Council -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- have international oil companies with major stakes in a change of leadership in Baghdad.

    "It's pretty straightforward," said former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Hussein from power. "France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them."

    But he added: "If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them."

    Indeed, the mere prospect of a new Iraqi government has fanned concerns by non-American oil companies that they will be excluded by the United States, which almost certainly would be the dominant foreign power in Iraq in the aftermath of Hussein's fall. Representatives of many foreign oil concerns have been meeting with leaders of the Iraqi opposition to make their case for a future stake and to sound them out about their intentions.

    Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, companies from more than a dozen nations, including France, Russia, China, India, Italy, Vietnam and Algeria, have either reached or sought to reach agreements in principle to develop Iraqi oil fields, refurbish existing facilities or explore undeveloped tracts. Most of the deals are on hold until the lifting of U.N. sanctions.

    But Iraqi opposition officials made clear in interviews last week that they will not be bound by any of the deals.

    "We will review all these agreements, definitely," said Faisal Qaragholi, a petroleum engineer who directs the London office of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella organization of opposition groups that is backed by the United States. "Our oil policies should be decided by a government in Iraq elected by the people."

    Ahmed Chalabi, the INC leader, went even further, saying he favored the creation of a U.S.-led consortium to develop Iraq's oil fields, which have deteriorated under more than a decade of sanctions. "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil," Chalabi said.

    The INC, however, said it has not taken a formal position on the structure of Iraq's oil industry in event of a change of leadership.

    While the Bush administration's campaign against Hussein is presenting vast possibilities for multinational oil giants, it poses major risks and uncertainties for the global oil market, according to industry analysts.

    Access to Iraqi oil and profits will depend on the nature and intentions of a new government. Whether Iraq remains a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, for example, or seeks an independent role, free of the OPEC cartel's quotas, will have an impact on oil prices and the flow of investments to competitors such as Russia, Venezuela and Angola.

    While Russian oil companies such as Lukoil have a major financial interest in developing Iraqi fields, the low prices that could result from a flood of Iraqi oil into world markets could set back Russian government efforts to attract foreign investment in its untapped domestic fields. That is because low world oil prices could make costly ventures to unlock Siberia's oil treasures far less appealing.

    Bush and Vice President Cheney have worked in the oil business and have long-standing ties to the industry. But despite the buzz about the future of Iraqi oil among oil companies, the administration, preoccupied with military planning and making the case about Hussein's potential threat, has yet to take up the issue in a substantive way, according to U.S. officials.

    The Future of Iraq Group, a task force set up at the State Department, does not have oil on its list of issues, a department spokesman said last week. An official with the National Security Council declined to say whether oil had been discussed during consultations on Iraq that Bush has had over the past several weeks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Western leaders.

    On Friday, a State Department delegation concluded a three-day visit to Moscow in connection with Iraq. In early October, U.S. and Russian officials are to hold an energy summit in Houston, at which more than 100 Russian and American energy companies are expected.

    Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) said Bush is keenly aware of Russia's economic interests in Iraq, stemming from a $7 billion to $8 billion debt that Iraq ran up with Moscow before the Gulf War. Weldon, who has cultivated close ties to Putin and Russian parliamentarians, said he believed the Russian leader will support U.S. action in Iraq if he can get private assurances from Bush that Russia "will be made whole" financially.

    Officials of the Iraqi National Congress said last week that the INC's Washington director, Entifadh K. Qanbar, met with Russian Embassy officials here last month and urged Moscow to begin a dialogue with opponents of Hussein's government.

    But even with such groundwork, the chances of a tidy transition in the oil sector appear highly problematic. Rival ethnic groups in Iraq's north are already squabbling over the the giant Kirkuk oil field, which Arabs, Kurds and minority Turkmen tribesmen are eyeing in the event of Hussein's fall.

    Although the volumes have dwindled in recent months, the United States was importing nearly 1 million barrels of Iraqi oil a day at the start of the year. Even so, American oil companies have been banished from direct involvement in Iraq since the late 1980s, when relations soured between Washington and Baghdad.

    Hussein in the 1990s turned to non-American companies to repair fields damaged in the Gulf War and Iraq's earlier war against Iran, and to tap undeveloped reserves, but U.S. government studies say the results have been disappointing.

    While Russia's Lukoil negotiated a $4 billion deal in 1997 to develop the 15-billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern Iraq, Lukoil had not commenced work because of U.N. sanctions. Iraq has threatened to void the agreement unless work began immediately.

    Last October, the Russian oil services company Slavneft reportedly signed a $52 million service contract to drill at the Tuba field, also in southern Iraq. A proposed $40 billion Iraqi-Russian economic agreement also reportedly includes opportunities for Russian companies to explore for oil in Iraq's western desert.

    The French company Total Fina Elf has negotiated for rights to develop the huge Majnoon field, near the Iranian border, which may contain up to 30 billion barrels of oil. But in July 2001, Iraq announced it would no longer give French firms priority in the award of such contracts because of its decision to abide by the sanctions.

    Officials of several major firms said they were taking care to avoiding playing any role in the debate in Washington over how to proceed on Iraq. "There's no real upside for American oil companies to take a very aggressive stance at this stage. There'll be plenty of time in the future," said James Lucier, an oil analyst with Prudential Securities.

    But with the end of sanctions that likely would come with Hussein's ouster, companies such as ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco would almost assuredly play a role, industry officials said. "There's not an oil company out there that wouldn't be interested in Iraq," one analyst said.
    Last edited by Snoop; February 17th, 2005 at 03:18 PM.
    While laughing at others stupidity, you may want to contemplate your own comedic talents. (link)
    Disclaimer: This information is being provided for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Hampshire, UK
    Posts
    88
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: War for oil? SUPPORT IT.

    I think it's a pretty big leap from saying companies have financial interest in the oil to saying it was the reason behind the war.
    - Mike
    MAKEPOVERTYHISTORY
    "Overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is an act of justice." - Nelson Mandela, 2005

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: War for oil? SUPPORT IT.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike
    I think it's a pretty big leap from saying companies have financial interest in the oil to saying it was the reason behind the war.
    What if it was not "the" reason, but among the reasons - does that justify anything?
    While laughing at others stupidity, you may want to contemplate your own comedic talents. (link)
    Disclaimer: This information is being provided for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: War for oil? SUPPORT IT.

    Quote Originally Posted by SnoopCitySid
    OIL - Operation Iraqi Liberation
    Clever, but doesn't prove anything.

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Hampshire, UK
    Posts
    88
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: War for oil? SUPPORT IT.

    Quote Originally Posted by SnoopCitySid
    What if it was not "the" reason, but among the reasons - does that justify anything?
    Possibly...it would have to be a very small reason though. I expect the war cost much more money than we would gain in terms of oil.
    - Mike
    MAKEPOVERTYHISTORY
    "Overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is an act of justice." - Nelson Mandela, 2005

  7. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: War for oil? SUPPORT IT.

    I expect the war cost much more money than we would gain in terms of oil.
    You're missing the thrust of the argument. By the moonbats' logic, Bush wouldn't care about the cost of the war, caring only for his own financial success.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  8. #8
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: War for oil? SUPPORT IT.

    So then Snoop seems to be in the corner of those who believe we went to war for a discount?

    btw, the article didn't address the questions in the op. Also, you seem to have missed where I stated: Be sure to include your argumentation, not just links for all to go elsewhere to read.

    Copy/paste, is the same as linking.

    Please provide a cogent argument.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  9. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: War for oil? SUPPORT IT.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    So then Snoop seems to be in the corner of those who believe we went to war for a discount?

    btw, the article didn't address the questions in the op. Also, you seem to have missed where I stated: Be sure to include your argumentation, not just links for all to go elsewhere to read.

    Copy/paste, is the same as linking.

    Please provide a cogent argument.
    OK, the oil companies were in bed with Cheney; the energy task force meetings were never made public. The rebuilding of oil pipelines goes to a Haliburton Subsidiary .... it's all circumstantial, but I believe the oil reserves played a big part in the post invasion strategy. ALl those tanks and hum v's need diesel fuel - what better way to fuel a war than at its' source? Yes we expected a discount.
    While laughing at others stupidity, you may want to contemplate your own comedic talents. (link)
    Disclaimer: This information is being provided for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only.

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    117
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: War for oil? SUPPORT IT.

    Going to war over oil seems like a foolish thing at best. Oil will run out eventually ( some say within the next 50-60 years). What do you think will happen when car fuel is replaced with hydrogen? There are already hydrogen cars out there, and the only thing stopping immediate wide-scale distribution is lack of required effisciency, and lack of enough hydrogen stations around the world. When everything is ready though, oil will sharply drop in value, and will only remain for other uses, instantly becoming not nearly as important, and not nearly as expensive. If the United States decided to go to war chiefly because of oil, it would have to make enough money to cover all the debts from the war and generate a profit, which does not seem feasible to me.
    By all means marry; if you get a good wife, you'll be happy. If you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher.
    Socrates
    A bank is a place that will lend you money if you can prove that you don't need it.
    Bob Hope

  11. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Grinnell, IA
    Posts
    4,460
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: War for oil? SUPPORT IT.

    Proof? I don't think there is proof for motives, especially those that are well guarded by a fascade. We can speculate however. According to the CIA Word Factbook, the US recieved 40.9% of Iraqi exports (crude oil). Currently, the US recieves 48.8% of Iraqi exports (still crude oil). Basically it provides us with greater power over oil production in an OPEC nation. This helps provide US oil companies with some of the record profits that they have been recording recently. Of course, oil is not the only motive; that would be rather silly. There are political motives. If you watch polls, you will notice that Bush's declining approval rating jumped after the war started. Wars have a mystical quality that suppresses self-critical thinking in a country and promotes nationalism.

    There were very good political and economic reasons for this administration to go to war, and I don't think the Democrats would have handled it much differently were they in power. Now, I cannot say what was going through the minds of administration officials when they decided to go to war, so I cannot say that this is definitely their prime reasoning, but it would make sense if they were smart political card players, which I think they are.
    孟柏民
    Formerly Neverending (for all you old-timers)

  12. #12
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: War for oil? SUPPORT IT.

    Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
    http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

    Signed by Donald Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.

    Bush, Chenney, Rice... all of them have ties to oil. Bush ran oil companies and his father & grandfather were both in the oil business. Chenney was CEO of Haliburton which is one of the world's biggest oil distributing companies and Rice sat on the board of Chevron and has an oil tanker named after her. So, it's clear that the administration is in bed with big oil. Six of the ten biggest Bush supporters are big oil or have obvious links to big oil.

    Some other considerations:

    1) Saddam was trading oil in Euros. If everyone started doing this, the U.S. would be in serious trouble. If you do not understand the threat this poses to our economy I shall summon PIBs to explain it to you. He knows it better than I.

    2) Iraq represents the last "low-hanging fruit" as far as oil goes. The cost of getting oil is rising as oil companies have to go to greater and greater extremes to get at supplies of oil. Sure, there's oil under the Northern Sea in the scandanavian region of the world, but enduring the weather there makes it more expensive to drill for it. Iraq's oil is the last untapped "easy-to-get-at" source of oil.

    3) Most all conservatives I talk to seem to be of the opinion that Bush was specifically going after Iraq's oil. He was, but there's an angle you're definately missing. The PRICE of oil has gone up. That's good for people with oil. the FEAR OF SHORTAGE of oil has sparked $2.00 gas prices in America / $50.00 per barrell prices all over. Overall, war never leaves a country with a surpluss of money; quite the opposite... but when you're a corporation that gets to increase the price of its product... well, you come out sitting pretty.

  13. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: War for oil? SUPPORT IT.

    Chenney was CEO of Haliburton which is one of the world's biggest oil distributing companies and Rice sat on the board of Chevron and has an oil tanker named after her.
    Okay, with you so far...

    So, it's clear that the administration is in bed with big oil.
    What? That's the logic behind "No War For Oil!" protests? Well, I'm convinced! (Look, ma, no periods!)
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  14. #14
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: War for oil? SUPPORT IT.

    Clive: Which part of three generations of Bush males have been in business with Oil and 6 of the biggest 10 campaign contributors for the Bush campaign are Big Oil / linked to Big Oil are you grappling with?

  15. #15
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: War for oil? SUPPORT IT.

    You guys really need to quit listening to Michael Moore. He's been debunked so many times it's pitiful...I don't know what is worse, him being so slammed around, or his worshippers plugging their ears and covering their eyes and pretending that Moore can still stand straight.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  16. #16
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: War for oil? SUPPORT IT.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    You guys really need to quit listening to Michael Moore. He's been debunked so many times it's pitiful...I don't know what is worse, him being so slammed around, or his worshippers plugging their ears and covering their eyes and pretending that Moore can still stand straight.
    I certainly hope that wasn't directed at me.

  17. #17
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: War for oil? SUPPORT IT.

    That's directed at ANYONE who still believes in Moore's rhetoric and claims.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  18. #18
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: War for oil? SUPPORT IT.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    You guys really need to quit listening to Michael Moore. He's been debunked so many times it's pitiful...I don't know what is worse, him being so slammed around, or his worshippers plugging their ears and covering their eyes and pretending that Moore can still stand straight....


    ...That's directed at ANYONE who still believes in Moore's rhetoric and claims.
    Fallacy: Poisoning the Well (from the Nizkor project)

    Quote Originally Posted by Nizkor
    This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

    1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
    2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

    This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this sort of "reasoning" is quite poor.
    Emphasis mine.

    You know better, hoss.

  19. #19
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: War for oil? SUPPORT IT.

    Wrong again. The reason why it is NOT fallacious, is because people often use Moore's 'evidence' as the basis for the argument. This specific argument (the oil connection) has already been shown to be false. Thus, when someone USES the false argument, it is untrue. Basic logic stuff here Zhav.

    It isn't unfavorable info about the person, but rather the ARGUMENT. Moore's argument has been refuted and shown to be false. When I say that Moore has been debunked, it isn't meant literally. You do not "debunk" a person...you debunk a person's arguments. Thus, if I were to say that Zhav has been debunk, the context of argumentation must be adhered to. It would mean that Zhav's argument concerning X (to which the statement infers) is false and should not be considered as evidence.

    The first statement is the subject line. It defines Moore's argument. The rest is an attack on Moore's Lemmings...which is an ad hom.

    Right to point out the fallacy, you just are confused as to which and why. You baffoon.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  20. #20
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: War for oil? SUPPORT IT.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverending
    We can speculate however. According to the CIA Word Factbook, the US recieved 40.9% of Iraqi exports (crude oil). Currently, the US recieves 48.8% of Iraqi exports (still crude oil).
    You are stating it correctly, but drawing the wrong conclusion. Iraq sells 40% to US, but in all of US's imports, it makes up less than 10%.

    It is that less than 10% that is important here. You could take 99% of all my money, yet my money could be only 1% of all that which you bring in as a source of income. My point is, what we make from Iraq is so negligible is ridiculous. THEY need us more than we need them. The same is for oil. We use very little of Iraqi oil in our overall oil use in this country.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




 

 
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Support the troops but not the war: Where is the line drawn?
    By Apokalupsis in forum International Affairs
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: July 6th, 2005, 12:48 PM
  2. Liberal Media distorts Iraq War
    By Apokalupsis in forum International Affairs
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: February 2nd, 2005, 04:30 AM
  3. Nuking Japan
    By Telex in forum History
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: January 28th, 2005, 01:01 PM
  4. What would you do if a draft came along?
    By Iluvatar in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: January 6th, 2005, 01:47 PM
  5. Was Jesus a Pacifist?
    By 3rdPersonPlural in forum Religion
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: August 15th, 2004, 04:47 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •