Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

giuliano · Dec 27, 2004, 10:05 am

they didn't 'submit'. in fact they did their part in starting an uprising after gulf war 1. unfortunately the help promised by the US never materialised and they all got slaughtered.

rmnunez · Dec 27, 2004, 07:20 pm

So they were repressed into submission.

bullshitdetector · Dec 27, 2004, 07:57 pm

Iraq was a source of oil for the US of about what, 3%? and about how much for Germany, France and China?

This whole "war for oil" argument is ridiculous, if the US wanted to OWN the oil, we would already own it.

Some just like it when the oil money is controlled by dictators like Saddam and his pals from France and Germany. :rolleyes:

rmnunez · Dec 27, 2004, 08:21 pm

The oil motivator is a bit more sophisticated than that. The idea is that securing Iraqi oil relieves dependance on the Saudi crude, thus enabling the gringoes to pressure them more than was previously possible. The EU does import much more oil from the Arabs than the US.

Scribbler1 · Dec 27, 2004, 08:42 pm

Add to that if we just TAKE control of the oil we will undoubtedly look to the whole world like we not only invaded Iraq, we looted and pillaged it as well.
Much more defensible to simply BUY the stuff after making sure we have influence over who SELLS it to us.

Technosoul · Dec 27, 2004, 09:01 pm

Basically we will find out if our private influence is effect (most likely under a sub-company parented by Halliburton) if the new consitution drafted by the new Iragi government is designed to advocate democratic capitalism by making the oid industry and other things like that all private instead of one designed (as it was under Saddam) with more socialistic concepts. The removal of most of the food for oil also would mean that their government would not control or mangage the food supply with possible exception of limited welfare or emergency needs that might come up. If the oil becomes private under that new consitution then the (wanna be) government leadership would only tax the income of the private company (assuming they do not cook the books ) for purposes of reconstruction and other types of governmental busness. It the new government were to claim the right to manage the oil sales and profits then the leaders would soon taste of wealth and they would not want to step down when their terms run out (along with the oil income they paid their self with) and so we would end up with of "Saddam-like people" instead on just the one that was removed from office in violation of international policy. Technosoul.

bullshitdetector · Dec 27, 2004, 09:13 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Scribbler1

Add to that if we just TAKE control of the oil we will undoubtedly look to the whole world like we not only invaded Iraq, we looted and pillaged it as well.
Much more defensible to simply BUY the stuff after making sure we have influence over who SELLS it to us.

Oh yea, if we buy it we are back door thugs and if we don't buy it we are forcing them to starve through a boycott. :rolleyes:

You people have it all figured out, don't you. No matter what the US is fucking no good.

Do you actually sleep or do you take no doze and stay up all night dreaming up this shit?

Scribbler1 · Dec 27, 2004, 09:32 pm

Quote:

Quote by: bullshitdetector

Oh yea, if we buy it we are back door thugs and if we don't buy it we are forcing them to starve through a boycott. :rolleyes:

You people have it all figured out, don't you. No matter what the US is fucking no good.

Do you actually sleep or do you take no doze and stay up all night dreaming up this shit?

I never suggested we not buy it and I'm wondering why you think we shouldn't have any influence with who sells the oil.

giuliano · Dec 27, 2004, 09:41 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Scribbler1

Add to that if we just TAKE control of the oil we will undoubtedly look to the whole world like we not only invaded Iraq, we looted and pillaged it as well.
Much more defensible to simply BUY the stuff after making sure we have influence over who SELLS it to us.

exactly - they push it as far as they can without being labelled imperialists (at least by the majority of people).

anyone who believes this war has nothing to do with energy strategy is naive. it doesn't have to be the sole reason, and it doesn't have to involve snatching all the oil while giving an evil laugh.

bullshitdetector · Dec 27, 2004, 10:04 pm

Quote:

Quote by: giuliano

exactly - they push it as far as they can without being labelled imperialists (at least by the majority of people).

anyone who believes this war has nothing to do with energy strategy is naive. it doesn't have to be the sole reason, and it doesn't have to involve snatching all the oil while giving an evil laugh.

Funny you people never think it was about oil for France or Germany, but here you are damning the US. :rolleyes:

Yea, it's all about oil but Bush and Co, are going to be discreet about it so the lefties don't catch on. :confused:

giuliano · Dec 27, 2004, 10:15 pm

iraq was about oil for *everyone*

do you see people talking about human rights in burma or bangladesh? why not?

bullshitdetector · Dec 27, 2004, 10:25 pm

Quote:

Quote by: giuliano

iraq was about oil for *everyone*

do you see people talking about human rights in burma or bangladesh? why not?

Anyone as in the left too, you say? Why aren't the anti war talking about the human rights in Burma or Bangaladesh? That is a wide brush you're painting with there, isn't it? "Oil* is for everyone in this point you are making until it's for you or anyone who is american who depends on it, then its about the the US and what SOBs we are. Everyone, then THAT (*@!(*^!#(*^#@ UNITED STATES!!! :rolleyes:

giuliano · Dec 27, 2004, 10:29 pm

groups like Amnesty Intl. have been on about those other places for ever and a day.

the debate that exists over iraq is more about the US's new doctrine of war than it is about concerns it may be taking more than its fair share of oil, which it is doing as well.

france and russia were in iraq for the oil, but they didn't set up a global doctrine of pre-emptive war to justify it. this is what makes the US a special case.

bullshitdetector · Dec 27, 2004, 10:32 pm

Quote:

Quote by: giuliano

groups like Amnesty Intl. have been on about those other places for ever and a day.

the debate that exists over iraq is more about the US's new doctrine of war than it is about concerns it may be taking more than its fair share of oil, which it is doing as well.

france and russia were in iraq for the oil, but they didn't set up a global doctrine of pre-emptive war to justify it. this is what makes the US a special case.

They (France and Germany) loved Saddam, they were getting billions in oil vouchers, why fight that? I can't make up my mind whether the US has a bad history of war monguering or if this is "The US's new doctrine of war"......If the US is taking more than it's share of oil when then why is it paying more for Iraqi oil now then it did when Saddam ran the show?

giuliano · Dec 27, 2004, 10:37 pm

you can beat on france and germany. they deserve criticism, you make a mistake trying to place them with the left. they aren't.

the global oil price is influenced by many factors. you can't pin it down with one factor. however if you want a simple answer, it would be that the US has failed to take control of iraq and allow for a steady and increased supply of oil. yet.

bullshitdetector · Dec 27, 2004, 10:49 pm

Quote:

Quote by: giuliano

you can beat on france and germany. they deserve criticism, you make a mistake trying to place them with the left. they aren't.

the global oil price is influenced by many factors. you can't pin it down with one factor. however if you want a simple answer, it would be that the US has failed to take control of iraq and allow for a steady and increased supply of oil. yet.

The US has failed to take full control over Iraq because of politics, we should stop screwing around and get busy. We wasted our time pandering to the UN in the begining and we are being to passive, it's time to get serious and cut through the chase.

I only pin the oil situation down to one factor where the war is being pinned down to the opposing factor. You know what they say, "when in Rome...."

giuliano · Dec 27, 2004, 11:03 pm

wow i thought most conservatives had stopped the whole 'we need to fight harder' line by now and slowly realised it's not about killing people, but winning hearts and minds.

'getting serious' will just bury yourself deeper into the shit i'm afraid.

bullshitdetector · Dec 27, 2004, 11:07 pm

Quote:

Quote by: giuliano

wow i thought most conservatives had stopped the whole 'we need to fight harder' line by now and slowly realised it's not about killing people, but winning hearts and minds.

'getting serious' will just bury yourself deeper into the shit i'm afraid.

No, not at all, that is the new leftie approach to undermine the effort. I think we should forge on ahead and not listen to the mal-contented screed coming from the left and get it over and done. They'll never be happy no matter what is done so why pander anymore to the politics of it and just get the job done. Let the crybabies cry a river when the effort has been brought to fruition, the terrorists have been put in their place, and Iraq has the benefit of a new democracy.

giuliano · Dec 27, 2004, 11:40 pm

Quote:

Quote by: bullshitdetector

They'll never be happy no matter what is done so why pander anymore to the politics of it and just get the job done. Let the crybabies cry a river when the effort has been brought to fruition, the terrorists have been put in their place, and Iraq has the benefit of a new democracy.

because it's first and foremost a political task, not a military one.

there are no terrorists in iraq, other than those who have turned to terror as a response to the US occupation.

ignoring the politics will doom the mission to failure. the same mistake was made in vietnam. even uncle rummy talks openly about winning hearts and minds.

Rainbow · Dec 28, 2004, 12:34 am

Quote:

Quote by: Technosoul

Following the election who should control the oil money and the oil operations in Irag.

The new Iraqi government.
The oil is one of the Iraqi national resources, then it must be handled by Iraqi government.

View Poll Results: Who should control the oil money and oil co. in Iraq after the elections?
The new government of Iraq	15	78.95%
The United Nations	0	0%
Halliburton	1	5.26%
Private Iraqi busness men with help of Halliburton	1	5.26%
The United States government	2	10.53%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 19. You may not vote

Dec 27, 2004, 10:05 am	#41 (permalink) (top)
giuliano Tres COOL Location: melbourne australia Posts: 819	they didn't 'submit'. in fact they did their part in starting an uprising after gulf war 1. unfortunately the help promised by the US never materialised and they all got slaughtered. sheik's progressive islam online* *with editorials by bishop

Dec 27, 2004, 07:57 pm	#43 (permalink) (top)
bullshitdetector BANNED Posts: 598	Iraq was a source of oil for the US of about what, 3%? and about how much for Germany, France and China? This whole "war for oil" argument is ridiculous, if the US wanted to OWN the oil, we would already own it. Some just like it when the oil money is controlled by dictators like Saddam and his pals from France and Germany. :rolleyes: Last edited by bullshitdetector; Dec 27, 2004 at 07:59 pm.

Dec 27, 2004, 10:15 pm	#51 (permalink) (top)
giuliano Tres COOL Location: melbourne australia Posts: 819	iraq was about oil for everyone do you see people talking about human rights in burma or bangladesh? why not? sheik's progressive islam online* *with editorials by bishop

Dec 27, 2004, 10:29 pm	#53 (permalink) (top)
giuliano Tres COOL Location: melbourne australia Posts: 819	groups like Amnesty Intl. have been on about those other places for ever and a day. the debate that exists over iraq is more about the US's new doctrine of war than it is about concerns it may be taking more than its fair share of oil, which it is doing as well. france and russia were in iraq for the oil, but they didn't set up a global doctrine of pre-emptive war to justify it. this is what makes the US a special case. sheik's progressive islam online* *with editorials by bishop

Dec 27, 2004, 07:20 pm	#42 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	So they were repressed into submission.

Dec 27, 2004, 08:21 pm	#44 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	The oil motivator is a bit more sophisticated than that. The idea is that securing Iraqi oil relieves dependance on the Saudi crude, thus enabling the gringoes to pressure them more than was previously possible. The EU does import much more oil from the Arabs than the US.

Dec 27, 2004, 08:42 pm	#45 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,837	Add to that if we just TAKE control of the oil we will undoubtedly look to the whole world like we not only invaded Iraq, we looted and pillaged it as well. Much more defensible to simply BUY the stuff after making sure we have influence over who SELLS it to us.

Dec 27, 2004, 09:01 pm	#46 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,936	Basically we will find out if our private influence is effect (most likely under a sub-company parented by Halliburton) if the new consitution drafted by the new Iragi government is designed to advocate democratic capitalism by making the oid industry and other things like that all private instead of one designed (as it was under Saddam) with more socialistic concepts. The removal of most of the food for oil also would mean that their government would not control or mangage the food supply with possible exception of limited welfare or emergency needs that might come up. If the oil becomes private under that new consitution then the (wanna be) government leadership would only tax the income of the private company (assuming they do not cook the books ) for purposes of reconstruction and other types of governmental busness. It the new government were to claim the right to manage the oil sales and profits then the leaders would soon taste of wealth and they would not want to step down when their terms run out (along with the oil income they paid their self with) and so we would end up with of "Saddam-like people" instead on just the one that was removed from office in violation of international policy. Technosoul.

Dec 27, 2004, 10:37 pm	#55 (permalink) (top)
giuliano Tres COOL Location: melbourne australia Posts: 819	you can beat on france and germany. they deserve criticism, you make a mistake trying to place them with the left. they aren't. the global oil price is influenced by many factors. you can't pin it down with one factor. however if you want a simple answer, it would be that the US has failed to take control of iraq and allow for a steady and increased supply of oil. yet. sheik's progressive islam online* *with editorials by bishop

Dec 27, 2004, 11:03 pm	#57 (permalink) (top)
giuliano Tres COOL Location: melbourne australia Posts: 819	wow i thought most conservatives had stopped the whole 'we need to fight harder' line by now and slowly realised it's not about killing people, but winning hearts and minds. 'getting serious' will just bury yourself deeper into the shit i'm afraid. sheik's progressive islam online* *with editorials by bishop