What if we pull out quickly, butwithout our strong policing Iraq degenerates into a huge Lebanon? Then we will still be blamed and the world will ultimately judge it a political failure...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The current price of oil
- Thread starter billyboy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What if we pull out quickly, butwithout our strong policing Iraq degenerates into a huge Lebanon? Then we will still be blamed and the world will ultimately judge it a political failure...
Ok, but what if we hadn't gone in there and in 10 years, the nuclear capable iraq, launches a nuke at Tel Aviv and goes to invade saudi arabia. All of you are weill aware of the dangers of acting but don't seem to think about the dangers of not acting. By the way, last time I checked China, North Korea and China all had their presidents. North Korea is a danger because if let lose it would invade Japan as retribution for WW2. China, we don't have a choice but to be friends with because they make things cheap. The only reason the border with Cuba isn't open to Americans is that any US politician that decides to open that border will lose the Cuban vote, hense lose Florida in the next election and will cease to be president. The hatred for Castro is very much alive in this city.
Also, billyboy, I suppose since terrorists and rogue dictators that we unfortunately supported during the Reagan era are excusable? Apparently you would like to be blown up on a bridge on the way to work. No one said we're invading Iran, we just don't like them.
Also, billyboy, I suppose since terrorists and rogue dictators that we unfortunately supported during the Reagan era are excusable? Apparently you would like to be blown up on a bridge on the way to work. No one said we're invading Iran, we just don't like them.
Sorry, can you explain this.
In the 80's the US supported Iraq against Iran. If Saddam is the rogue dictator you are referring to, I made it perfectly clear his actions are inexcusable.
I dont want to be blown up on a bridge, no.
I never understood all the problems people have with a war that might help oil supplies thus lowering gas prices in the future. I am not saying I believe in Blood for Oil, but if lower oil prices come out of this, who is complaining? I would love a cheap tank of fuel!
Exactly, but if gas goes down to a $1 a gallon all the anti-bush people will be like..."see, we told you so , this war was all about oil" and the economics of such an arguement are just absurd.
Personally I'd have more respect for Bush if he had said 'Look we don't like this b*stard and we want his oil' rather than his 'He's a nasty man with nasty toys and he hurts people' routine. Yes he hurts people but we sold him or helped him get what he's got and we never gave a damn how bad he treated people until he invaded Kuwait.
Exactly! It's not the war that so many folks have a problem with, it's the disengenuous nature of our government. We're over there to secure a massive oil reserve, pure and simple. Sure, we get to take a nasty little man out of power, but it's mostly about oil. Saddam is an afterthought. I realize that no politician has ever been accused of being completely honest, but Bush could have come up with a better lie this time. No WMDs, no Saddam. Just oil, that's all there is. It's really quite sad.
And?
Really?Thats retarted. Would it not be that they are a powerful country and they match the USA?
Buddy, perhaps you didn't read... THE OIL RESERVES IN IRAQ WILL NOT PAY FOR THE WAR FOR ANOTHER 30 YEARS. Maybe you do stupid things like that, but I highly doubt the US, English, and Austrailian governments do.
I agree with you here. Gas prices will never be naturally down to $1.20 again. The world is simply running out of cheap-to-pump-oil.
People don't understand that even if we found an island right off the coast of California today that could produce unlimited amounts of oil for us, if it cost $50 a barrel to pump that endless oil supply, we wouldn't see a drop of that oil until world oil prices hit $65/barrel and we'd be just as dependent on foreign oil as before. (Unless we were bold and chose to set up a nationalised oil system like Canada and a few other nations have done.)
Hey Navy, two things.
First, stop treating people like they're all inferior to you in every conceivable way just because they say something you don't like or agree with, regardless of the accuracy of your position. It makes you seem kind of like an ass. I'm not trying to start any ****, just trying to be friendly and let you know that it is quite detrimental to your cause.
Second, I understand the economics of world oil production and consumption. That said, I also know the tremendous amount of money to be made by companies like Haliburton from contracts to repair and administer Iraqi oil wells and refineries. And let's also admit right now that just because something (like the possibility of a war just to control an oil market) sounds overtly stupid doesn't mean it's not true. It's not like the US government has NEVER done anything dumb.
First, stop treating people like they're all inferior to you in every conceivable way just because they say something you don't like or agree with, regardless of the accuracy of your position. It makes you seem kind of like an ass. I'm not trying to start any ****, just trying to be friendly and let you know that it is quite detrimental to your cause.
Second, I understand the economics of world oil production and consumption. That said, I also know the tremendous amount of money to be made by companies like Haliburton from contracts to repair and administer Iraqi oil wells and refineries. And let's also admit right now that just because something (like the possibility of a war just to control an oil market) sounds overtly stupid doesn't mean it's not true. It's not like the US government has NEVER done anything dumb.
Well I don't know, if Iraq oil becomes available to us there is a chance that supply will go up and in that case it may reflect at the pump. There is not one person on these boards or anywhere else in this country that actually likes paying expensive prices for gas. Even the people that run after Bush and say the only reason he is doing this is for oil would secretly love having lower prices at the pump. They would never say this because they don't want people to think they might support what is going on over there.
It is funny to see Hollywood actors that say this is blood for oil and then they drive off in a Hummer H2. HELLO? That thing might get 10MPG with a wind at it's back.
Look I am a Democrat that supports this war. I don't care for a lot of things Bush has done and unless things change on the domestic front and he starts to care about home he will not get my vote. I am, however, behind him on the war and I think this time he did make the right decision. Look at many polls out right now. There are a lot of Democrats that are not big Bush supporters, but they are behind him on this one. I am behind him and the troops (as I am in the National Guard myself).
Oh and this is kind of unrelated, but it is nice to finally see our Senator Tom Daschle come around. He has proposed a bill that would provide Tricare (health insurance) to the Guards and Reserves for a small amount monthly, like the active duty gets. Finally somebody is proposing something we have been trying to get for years and years. I have a lot of young troops under me that have no health insurance. I hope congress will pass this, it would be GREAT!
It is funny to see Hollywood actors that say this is blood for oil and then they drive off in a Hummer H2. HELLO? That thing might get 10MPG with a wind at it's back.
Look I am a Democrat that supports this war. I don't care for a lot of things Bush has done and unless things change on the domestic front and he starts to care about home he will not get my vote. I am, however, behind him on the war and I think this time he did make the right decision. Look at many polls out right now. There are a lot of Democrats that are not big Bush supporters, but they are behind him on this one. I am behind him and the troops (as I am in the National Guard myself).
Oh and this is kind of unrelated, but it is nice to finally see our Senator Tom Daschle come around. He has proposed a bill that would provide Tricare (health insurance) to the Guards and Reserves for a small amount monthly, like the active duty gets. Finally somebody is proposing something we have been trying to get for years and years. I have a lot of young troops under me that have no health insurance. I hope congress will pass this, it would be GREAT!
Maybe not. Quite a lot of the Gulf states seem pretty well off from selling oil so there must be money in it somewhere. Besides it's always nice to have more oil you can rely on when your country uses a quarter of the world's supply...
$1.20!!!! In the UK petrol/gasoline costs over $5 a gallon. Admittedly nearly all of that is tax.
Good call, man. Good call indeed. We here in the US so often forget that we are by far the largest consumer of petroleum in the world. This war isn't about oil prices, it's about oil control.
30 years to pay off the war.
Pre invasion, Iraq was exporting 2 million barrels a day. If that is the basis of this payback period (for infrastructure reconstruction of the Allied forces' making) then that infers there will be absolutely zero investment in developing the primary source of income for Iraq ie the oil industry. Very humanitarian.
And even if no amount of no strings attached investment can increase oil revenues for Iraq, and it does take 30 years to pay off the Allies with the Iraqi oil industry in pre invasion "full swing", how does anyone justify such destuction and inherent indebtedness as a humanitarian move.
It could reasonably be argued that the Iraqi oil industry only produces the equivalent of 10% of the US daily needs, so what the hell go creating mayhem over that? The economy works on a mix of hard facts and confidence. Cheney recognised that oil production had peaked in 2000, (the Hubbert's peak). World supplies have been dropping consistently since then. The SPR manipulations pushed domestic prices up further. The US economy was shaking before 9-11. In the short term if the US Administration could convince industry that it has secured other sources of energy, without having to go against Kyoto and rip up Alaska, even though the US says it doesn't need Iraqi oil, it has access to it. That would add to short term business confidence. Using new oil reserves to buy time when an economy is seriously shaking is not an original move. Thatcher did it.
The confidence comes in the short term, the actual revenues or crude oil wont take long to follow. Iraq has over 100 years of reserves at those daily rates of 2m barrels, but the potential to get those reserves out the ground quicker is enormous. Iraqi oil lies only 600m under the surface. It is why the French and Russians' had expectations for hundreds of billions of dollars - revenue that would not begin only in the long term.
Pre invasion, Iraq was exporting 2 million barrels a day. If that is the basis of this payback period (for infrastructure reconstruction of the Allied forces' making) then that infers there will be absolutely zero investment in developing the primary source of income for Iraq ie the oil industry. Very humanitarian.
And even if no amount of no strings attached investment can increase oil revenues for Iraq, and it does take 30 years to pay off the Allies with the Iraqi oil industry in pre invasion "full swing", how does anyone justify such destuction and inherent indebtedness as a humanitarian move.
It could reasonably be argued that the Iraqi oil industry only produces the equivalent of 10% of the US daily needs, so what the hell go creating mayhem over that? The economy works on a mix of hard facts and confidence. Cheney recognised that oil production had peaked in 2000, (the Hubbert's peak). World supplies have been dropping consistently since then. The SPR manipulations pushed domestic prices up further. The US economy was shaking before 9-11. In the short term if the US Administration could convince industry that it has secured other sources of energy, without having to go against Kyoto and rip up Alaska, even though the US says it doesn't need Iraqi oil, it has access to it. That would add to short term business confidence. Using new oil reserves to buy time when an economy is seriously shaking is not an original move. Thatcher did it.
The confidence comes in the short term, the actual revenues or crude oil wont take long to follow. Iraq has over 100 years of reserves at those daily rates of 2m barrels, but the potential to get those reserves out the ground quicker is enormous. Iraqi oil lies only 600m under the surface. It is why the French and Russians' had expectations for hundreds of billions of dollars - revenue that would not begin only in the long term.
With all these allegation of this war being for Oil or not, I now know, that I my next car WILL be an alternative fuel car...I'm tired being taken advantage of at the pumps....I pay right now 2.07 for gas, at this little unknown station, you know, the ones you never go to because you think the gas sucks?...Well, just across the street, freaken Shell is charging 2.15 for the same gas...WTF? A couple of blocks down, cheveron is 2.17, but Costco gas is 2.06...WTF!
The only reason the GOP congress passed an ethonal bill is to support the corn/soy lobby. Ethonal is the stupidest choice for an alternate fuel. Hydrogen cumbustion is here today, take a look at the BMW webpage if you do not believe me. Guess what, hydrogen cumbustion uses the same infrasructure that fuels sell cars will need. Too bad that 1.2 billion went to automanufacturers instead of a hydrogen infrastructure. Face it our president is an idoit, especially when talking non-oil issues.
I like the soy lobbyists. They lobby for those who make biodiesel, which is renewable, environmentally friendly, 100% homegrown and can run in any modern diesel vehicle on the road today, including my TDI Golf.
More importantly, it's available today, requires no massive infrastructure investment or technological breakthroughs.
Put another way, it's here, it's cheap and it can be done today with today's technology.
Hydrogen combustion and ethanol are both fantastic leaps forward in alternative fuel technology. They both have tremendous upsides as well, and it's good to know that auto manufacturers are finally taking alt fuel as seriously as scientists and environmentalists. I think ethanol might end up being the standard simply because its use would support major agricultural segments both in the US and abroad, thus providing a dual economic stimulus. Hydrogen combustion is far cooler, though.