Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.  
User currently offlineMx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 4 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3041 times:

Guys,

I suspect a few people would assume I would be rather left wing on this issue which is NOT THE CASE. Cynical yes, left wing NO.

This is all about securing the Middle East and making sure our oil supplies are not compromised by a recalcitrant Iraqi regime or others.

This war was decided and acted upon MONTHS AND MONTHS ago by our Allied leaders.

Our leaders were hoping to cash in on the *war on terror* and the Bali incident as public favour rather than the fervour that is happening in no US allied countries.

The A-Typical war protester has good intentions but would be the first to bitch and moan to the government if a nasty ass Iraq decided to disrupt oil supplies that all our countries economies rely on if they were forced to pay $4.00 a litre for fuel.

The failing American and UK economies will get a boost with goverment aided re-construction projects of Iraq that should bring their economies on-line.

The share market hates indecision and a direct strike should boost it substantially generating liquidity and certainty.

The reason the French, Russian and Germans were against a war was because they will miss out on the bounty on rebuilding and running Iraq.

It brings to the bone the terrorists who need no reason to attack, to do so and expose themselves for us to iliminate these bozo's.

Finally, the Iraqui people who no-one has given two hoots about will be democratically free finally from a nasty despot.

What is wrong with this? Multinational companies behave badder than the Allied forces in poor countries every day?

We want capitalism in our western countries and why should we be afraid?

No one wants to see our servicemen and women dead or tortured, but isn't this the reason we have armed forces?

If anyone wants to scream about it then think of your sovreignity of your own countries and the economic safety that the Allied forces are trying to uphold, as tasteless as it is.

mb

45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (11 years 4 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3008 times:

The reason the French, Russian and Germans were against a war was because they will miss out on the bounty on rebuilding and running Iraq.

This argument makes no sense. If that was true, it was easy to join the "party" just to benefit from that reconstruction, and then these countries would have been pro-war.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 4 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3006 times:

Sebolino, wake up. The French and Russians (and others) wanted to have a quasi-monopoly position, without having to worry about competition from English or American companies. They have no wish to see Saddam go, sanctions or not, because they know Saddam cannot and will not give business to Americans or British companies. They don't care if he attacks someone again.

Charles


User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (11 years 4 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2997 times:

Cfalk, wake up.

Iraq is much closer from Europe than it is from the USA. It's much easier for Bush to destabilize this region by a war than it would be for the Europeans, he won't face the immediate consequences, and as we all see they were not long to come: Turkey is messing all up, and it was expectable.
Bush will face terrorism though.

Bush wanted a total monopoly position on Iraq oil, and he will nearly have it (he will have to share with UK).
USA were already buying 60 % of Iraq's oil. Now they will produce 100%.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 4 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2999 times:

So you still buy this oil arguement? Do you really believe that the US and UK will pay something other than world market price for Iraqi oil 5 or 10 years from now? I don't.

Face it, France and Russia were only interested in making money. The "Whores of Babylon" indeed!

Charles


User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (11 years 4 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2992 times:

You didn't read my posts did you ?

It was easier to enter into this war and to take part on that big cake of reconstruction. It would have been much more profitable than to have a simple agreement to exploit Iraq's oil and pay it.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 4 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2989 times:

It was easier to enter into this war and to take part on that big cake of reconstruction. It would have been much more profitable than to have a simple agreement to exploit Iraq's oil and pay it.

Hmm... Your math skills seem to be highly suspect. Can you reveal how you get to this conclusion? Please use numbers. Assume that this whole thing will cost $100 billion or more in direct costs, plus a lit of intangible costs. What kind of profits do you see?

Charles


User currently offline9V-SVE From Singapore, joined Nov 2001, 2066 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (11 years 4 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2981 times:

Long-term profits...?

User currently offlineADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (11 years 4 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2978 times:

Face it, France and Russia were only interested in making money. The "Whores of Babylon" indeed!

and that's different from Americas "liberation of Iraq by giving Americans all the contracts & oil" attitude? 2 contracts before the war is even over, both to big american "suck up" companies .. all the proof we need is there.





ADG


User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 4 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2967 times:

Do you really believe that the US and UK will pay something other than world market price for Iraqi oil 5 or 10 years from now? I don't.

Jesus, Charles...you backed up the oil argument yourself by using the phrase "world market price".

By controlling Iraq's reserves, the United States can all but set world market price for 20 years.

Assume that this whole thing will cost $100 billion or more in direct costs, plus a lit of intangible costs.

Yesterday the President asked Congress for 80 billion. That'll pay they price tag. For 30 days. Beyond that, the White House is still recklessly using the "who knows" method of budgeting.

If you think we're flirting with deficit disaster simply for principle and to take out a few chemical weapon artillery shells, you're nuts.

It's about oil.


User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 4 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2965 times:

This is all about securing the Middle East and making sure our oil supplies are not compromised by a recalcitrant Iraqi regime or others.

And, uh, what is the problem with that?  Smile

The reason the French, Russian and Germans were against a war was because they will miss out on the bounty on rebuilding and running Iraq.

Actually, that's part of it Mx5_boy. The other part was that they had a lot of $$ tied up in contracts signed with Saddam Hussein that will now be null and void, most likely, with the soon-to-be new government there. It's a double whammy.

I had thought, up till recently, that Russia would be allowed to participate in the reconstruction, as well as Germany, and the UN. But if these assertions about GPS jammers are true, and if Putin doesn't squash that one, they'll be left in cold just as I'm sure France willl be.

Yesterday the President asked Congress for 80 billion. That'll pay they price tag. For 30 days. Beyond that, the White House is still recklessly using the "who knows" method of budgeting.

If you think we're flirting with deficit disaster simply for principle and to take out a few chemical weapon artillery shells, you're nuts.


Agree with both those points, Heavymetal. The idiotic stance of the President and the GOP to "pay" for this war by piling up more deficits was a political move, meant to appease the maniacle "no-new-taxes" nuts of the far right. Yet it will further damage the economy, which, in the long run, could seal Bush's fate if it doesn't improve.

As for the second question, I don't have any illusions like the French that they were in this ONLY out of love and concern for the Iraqi people. There are ALWAYS lots of other motives involved.

It's about oil

Again, Heavymetal, if it were about oil, we'd have taken the whole region intact in 1991. It's partly about oil-the fact tht oil prices haven't skyrocketed is that Iraq wasn't able to destroy most of the wells there. So in that context, it is about oil.


User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (11 years 4 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2942 times:

Is it true that only american companies are going to get contracts in Iraq during the rebuilding?



User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (11 years 4 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2941 times:

Staffan,

If a certain country will be paying for reconstruction work, that money should morally be spent on contracts to either local Iraqi companies (if the skills and equipment are available locally), or to companies from the country who is paying for the reconstruction. Why should French companies benefit from British or US-taxpayer-funded contracts to benefit Iraqis?

Charles


User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (11 years 4 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2933 times:

I assumed that Iraqi money will pay for the reconstruction since they do have a lot of money and oil resources in the country, isn't that correct?

Reason I asked, was because I read that there are 8 major contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, and that all these are reserved for american companies, and 3 of them have allready been given to US companies. First one was apparently given already a month ago...

Anyway, I found it strange that nothing seems to be going to be given to other countries actively participating in this.

Staffan


User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 4 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2923 times:

Again, Heavymetal, if it were about oil, we'd have taken the whole region intact in 1991

That argument doesn't hold weight, Alpha. We took what we needed in 1991....the oil soaked sliver known as Kuwait. We needed no more for the immeadiate future.

In fact, I'll toss conservatives here a juicy morsel...and see if they bite. Part of the reason we enjoyed the good times of the 90s under Clinton was the predictability and (relative) stability of the world oil markets and the low price of a gallon of gas......an economic state achieved by the debt and gratitude of a grateful Kuwait, liberated by King George I.

Of course, if you believe that....and I do.....you can't have your cake and eat it to. The liberation of Kuwait promised us ten years(or longer) of oil economy equillibrium. The occupation of Iraq could theoretically promise us 50 years(or longer) of that equillibrium. That's a good thing, right? One less worry. I'm not sure I disagree.

Except it proves one thing.

It's about oil.


User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 4 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2928 times:

By the way, Alpha....that 74 billion and change the President asked for was to run the war for thirty days. Then again, look where the money's going:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21766-2003Mar24.html


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (11 years 4 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2918 times:

Steffan,

Bush has already requested $8 billion from Congress for direct aid for the reconstruction of Iraq. If I were a U.S. taxpayer, I'd be pretty pissed if that money landed in a country other than Iraq or the U.S., as I said before. I'm sure that British unilateral aid will be under the same terms.

If the UN gets involved, I would expect that the distribution of contracts should reflect roughly the partition of sourcing of the reconstruction funds (although I expect that there will be some variations).

Once Iraq starts getting back on its feet, of course they will be free to hand out contracts to whoever it wishes, using the proceeds from oil. The U.S. government has announced that they will request that the U.N. drop all non-weapons related sanctions immediately following the conflict.

Charles


User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (11 years 4 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2920 times:

If I were a U.S. taxpayer, I'd be pretty pissed if that money landed in a country other than Iraq or the U.S.

Charles...

Click on the above link. And see why I'm pissed.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (11 years 4 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2911 times:

Heavymetal,

I agree that the deficit spending is getting a little out of hand. Deficit spending is a good thing in a recession, but this is getting ridiculous.

On the other hand, WWII was also funded by deficit spending.

Charles


User currently offlineJetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (11 years 4 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2905 times:

The $75 Billion also includes the reconstruction and humanitarian aid. Just wanted to point that out.

There may be some expensive real estate available to sell in Iraq. Of course they will be 'fixer-uppers'.



"Shaddap you!"
User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (11 years 4 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2898 times:

Cha-ching.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/25/news/companies/war_contracts/index.htm

Maybe Red Adair should run for Vice President.



User currently offlineEg777er From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 1836 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (11 years 4 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2893 times:

So.........if a country signs an exclusive agreement with anyone not to the US's satisfaction, they can expect a pre-emptive attack in return? Gosh - wonder what that'll do to Airbus sales!!!  Smile  Smile  Smile

The US are not fighting for the oil - they're fighting for the freedom to buy it, almost as important as the oil itself. (This negates Alpha's argument of 'if we wanted it, we'd take it all'). If Saudi Arabia becomes hostile (Islamic Revolution anyone?) they wouldn't sell oil to the US. So another supply has to come from somewhere.

Personally, it doesn't bother me. We need these resources. However, what pisses me off is that the US is cloaking it up as a crusade of liberation when it's not. If they are so worried about 'freedom', why do they continue to support Saudi, a totalitarian, autocratic, quasi-police state? (Small word, three letters).


User currently offlineJetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (11 years 4 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2884 times:

Eg777er, quiz question: Where does the US get most of its oil? No cheating.


"Shaddap you!"
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (11 years 4 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2875 times:

This is not about oil. If the war costs a $100 billion + and then Iraq must be rebuilt using its- you guessed it- oil. Any expenses on top of that will likely come out of the US treasury. That really does not make for good business for the US of A. Potential savings in energy costs will be lost through increased defense and other costs. The war for oil argument makes no economic sense whatsoever.

HM,

I do not buy your theory you posted in reply 14. Sure Cheney and rest had a grudge against Iraq for a while. But it does not follow that this why we are at war now. If we had put oil uber alles, we could have acted like France and dealt with Saddam while inventing reasons about what a nice guy he actually is along the way.

9/11 blew open the door on what consititues potential threats to national security. Like I have said before. on 9/10/01 4 overnighted Boeings were not considered an imminent threat to our security nor were 19 Arab men traveling on 4 separate flights.

After 9/11, tons and tons of bio and chem weapons held by this particular dictator look a helluva a lot more dangerous than they did the day before. Particularly since he starved his country to hang onto them. Although I do not believe that Saddam is linked to al-Qaeda, I think he may support other malcontents who hate us. As I posted elsewhere, no one knew that East
Germany was supporting the IRA, Carlos the Jackal, and other unsavory characters until after the regime fell. I suspect we will find that Saddam is a patron to a lot of bad groups.




User currently offlineEg777er From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 1836 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (11 years 4 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2863 times:

Um......I believe it's Canada, with 667m barrels of crude/products in 2001. Second is Saudi Arabia with 606m barrels of crude/products. The US gets 25% of all its crude/products from the Persian Gulf. I know what you're suggesting, but you're wrong.

Over the next 30 years the only places in the world that will have oil will be Iraq, Saudi, the UAE and Kuwait. That's why Iraq needs to be invested in now, so by 2060 it will be able to fuel the US economy that is still not interested in conserving energy......


(Sorry, had to cheat a little for the numbers. From the US DoE website).


25 Yyz717 : Over the next 30 years the only places in the world that will have oil will be Iraq, Saudi, the UAE and Kuwait. Not true. If you consider Canada's so-
26 Mx5_boy : Alpha Says: """And, uh, what is the problem with that?""" I haven't a problem with the war per se', except with our politicians who are treating us wi
27 Yyz717 : Read the following article. This war is NOT about oil. Do the math: It's not about oil William Watson National Post Wednesday, January 29, 2003 Living
28 ADG : So the fact that the people are frightened is justification? ADG
29 Mx5_boy : ADG, You, myself, the Australian public and probably the rest of the Western World besides many of the yanks *know* what this war is about. And it has
30 Cfalk : No, ADG. It concerns Bush's promise days after Sept.11th that he would not allow such an event to ever happen again. Prevention, not punishment. And a
31 Mx5_boy : Cfalk, I have never read such bollocks in my life. It's all about money and economies. The sad fact is the USA is hated now across the planet and our
32 Cfalk : I have never read such bollocks in my life. It's all about money and economies. Something tells me that you did not read, or at least did not understa
33 Mx5_boy : Cfalk, No dogma mate. Look at what the rest of world thinks? Some of you guys are so brainscrubbed by the Bush administration. So be it. mb
34 Krushny : Conclusion: It's not about oil. It's not about profits. It's about Sept. 11, 2001 . It's NOT about Sept.11 2001, no involvement of Iraqi Govt has been
35 Cfalk : It's NOT about Sept.11 2001, no involvement of Iraqi Govt has been proven and there is no way this campaign prevents similar terror attacks in the fut
36 Krushny : This article tries to dismount the "It's all about oil theory". But what I do not understand, and is not even explained, is the giant leap from the 9
37 Cfalk : 9/11 was the trigger, but not the cause. As a result of 9/11, The U.S. has decided that it will no longer tolerate loose canons in the world - i.e. or
38 Schoenorama : "As a result of 9/11, The U.S. has decided that it will no longer tolerate loose canons in the world - i.e. organizations that use terror or who supp
39 Heavymetal : Does this mean a sort of Pax Americana in the works? Probably, yes. And what Pax, Charles, has ever lasted? "It is a day when we honor all the men fro
40 Cfalk : ...organizations the US wasn't affraid of of supporting not too long ago! You want perfection? Mistakes are made sometimes. there is still no link bet
41 Mx5_boy : Oh, the Bush administration actually has forgotten about Afghanistan... Shame about that. mb
42 Krushny : Does this mean a sort of Pax Americana in the works? Probably, yes. Charles, you got it... The terrorism USA suffered on 9/11 has opened an opportuni
43 Yyz717 : Oh, the Bush administration actually has forgotten about Afghanistan... Shame about that. The Americans liberated Afghanistan. Shame on the rest of th
44 Post contains images 747-451 : Does this mean a sort of Pax Americana in the works? as opposed to what? a Pax Taliban, Pax Francias, Pax Alemaneia or perhaps a radical Islamicist su
45 Post contains links Klaus : Yyz717: The Americans liberated Afghanistan. Shame on the rest of the world for leaving this to the Americans. I just couldn´t say it better than thi
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A Marine's Report On The War In Iraq posted Thu Nov 17 2005 04:47:22 by PROSA
The War In Iraq And What You Dont See On Foxnews posted Fri Feb 27 2004 20:49:58 by Zak
In The Shadow Of War On Iraq: OBL Is Safe posted Sat Feb 15 2003 17:50:28 by NoUFO
US Report About The War In Iraq posted Mon Sep 25 2006 10:03:18 by Sebolino
War On Iraq - An A.net Opinion Poll posted Wed Dec 21 2005 02:34:41 by Jean Leloup
The Bush Administration Presents The War On Porno posted Wed Sep 28 2005 02:51:28 by Garnetpalmetto
6 In 10 Americans Oppose The War In Iraq posted Wed Jun 22 2005 00:07:33 by Greasespot
Winning The War On Terror: Fantasy Vs Facts posted Tue Apr 26 2005 16:22:24 by Schoenorama
The U.s. Have Lost The War In Iraq Irreversably posted Sun Sep 26 2004 15:38:36 by Zak
My Biggest Problem With The War In Iraq posted Mon Sep 6 2004 20:53:33 by Tbar220