Need help in an argument over the US/Iraq/Oil

[rjx]

I said
"I don't like how we can just go into a Country thats weaker than us and TAKE their resources and blow up anything we want."

He said
"How can you be this misinformed and still walk around? We have not TAKEN resources from Iraq, and in fact buy all the oil we get from them. And we have taken great pains to NOT 'blow up anything we want', even though people were using those very things to hide in and shoot our men."

I thought we pretty much secured the oil Fields first off, leaving ammo dumps and other important areas unprotected? Haven't we been taking their oil? My brain is toast right now, but I just can't leave the discussion at this point.

thx for any help.

[rjx]

1. on 2nd thought

I'm not even going to respond to his entire post that was in his reply to me since I know that I had good points. My response to him will just be stuff he has heard before, and then he will just respond back to me with stuff that i have heard before.

But I am a little stumped on the response he gave ""How can you be this misinformed and still walk around?...."

[BeFree]

5. Stumped?

Don't ever let a statement like that get to ya. It's just a cheap shot used when the shooter has no game.

Oil: The price has doubled since we invaded Iraq. Any economic argument backing up our invasion is trashed when one considers that.

Saddam had better control over the pipelines and fields than us, why is that? Is it because the people know we are there to steal as much as we can before they kick us out?

The only reason we bother with Iraq is their oil. It's a shame that we couldn't do a fair business deal, instead we used our military force. It's called stealing.

[FloridaPat]

2. I think we're paying for it, but the money is disappearing somewhere.

Another black hole in the desert. Actually we want the wells. To get the wells sold to American companies, insurance companies have to come in and insure the wells. To get the insurance in you need a stable country. Then you need a government that has the authority to sign the sales papers and a stable country. Just watch the bottom line of the sales agreements.

You are right about us securing the oil fields and leaving everything wide open. However, flatening almost entire towns and killing 100,000 civilians should mean something to people everywhere. Genocide by the US government and the American press and people sit in their RV's or watch reality shows.

[Nite Owl]

3. You are right we did secure the oil first

and let the weapons be stolen. They are now killing our soldiers. The oil was also 'privatized', put in the constitution, it no longer belongs to the people of Iraq.

[applegrove]

4. Ask them if the Iraqi people got the chance to get a bidding war going

for the Oil. (You know - a market). Were the Germans & Chinese & French invited?

[Donna Zen]

6. Let's see.

We secured the oil fields first--you are correct. And we secured the oil ministry while letting the museum get looted.

Bremmer's last deed was making sure that any oil contracts that we have are secure.

The war is not necessarily about oil as we think of it. It is about controlling the oil as in the Great Game II. PNAC believes the big war will be with China and wants that control.

Iraq is currently the only country where foreign entities can take as much $$$ as they want. (see Milton Friedman's wet dream.)

Iraqi oil was NATIONALIZED. The money that WE pay for oil is going to foreign companies... who can take it all out of the country. The oil companies want Iraq to remain in Opec, thus we will be a player at the table and drive the cost up.

What things do WE want that we have not blown up? We blew up electical and water companies... against international law.

Okay.. my suggestion, start with Blind Into Baghdad, a great article by James Fallows that he wrote for the Atlantic. Well sourced.

[Jokinomx]

7. Its is all about the oil......

Saddam Hussein had signed over 12 billion dollars in contracts with Putin. All that needed to be done was to have the weapon inspectors verify that Iraq did not have WMDs. As Maj. Ritter (the top U.S. inspector) has stated... it looked as though Saddam was correct... they had dismantled all the weapons and discontinued their programs.

Saddam turned over all the documents, allowed all the inspectors to go anywhere and everywhere. He had realized that his countries infrastructure was in shambles, the electrical grid was about to collapse and if he DIDN'T co-operate tens of thousands of his people would die.

Chimp and associates couldn't allow the inspectors to verify that Saddam actually was telling the truth. For if the U.N. had lifted santions.... ALL Iraqi oil would be heading north instead of west.

So... that is why the U.S. had to attack Iraq. We use more oil than any other nation. For those that think we aren't concerned about the world oil supply running out or being drastically depleted... I suggest doing some research on the subject.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

and

http://www.copvcia.com

[IDemo]

8. Quote from Paul Wolfowitz

"Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil." - US deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in Singapore, May 31-June 01, 2003

[alcuno]

9. It's not the oil, it's the oil infrastructure.

The pipelines, the oil fields, the refineries, the ports. I always said it had nothing to do with the oil and everything to do with the oil infrastructure. Why else did Bremer make an edict about "privatizing" Iraq's industries.