Only Bush's most extreme critics think the coming war with Iraq is about oil.
It's not!
Even if the U.S. was to seize Iraq's oil fields, the expense of the war and of occupation would far exceed any benefit from Iraq's 2.5 million barrels a day of production.
And a two-term presidency would be long over before Iraq's desperate economy could realize it's full capacity.
Yes, oil companies would love to get production-sharing agreements in Iraq, but they haven't even been allowed to participate in post-war planning. There are too many issues such as antitrust, competition law and international law.
In post-war Iraq Bush has been very public in saying that oil would continue to be funneled through the U.N. Oil-for-food Program.
If you recall, the U.S. returned Kuwaiti oil back to Kuwait over a decade ago.
If America simply wanted cheap oil, Bush could cut a deal with Saddam which would be far easier and cheaper than going to war.
While there are many reasons for war with Iraq, particularly humanitarian reasons, the top reason Bush wants it is because by ousting Saddam and establishing a democracy in Iraq will send a strong message to other autocrats in the region.
First, that pursuing development of WMDs will not be tolerated.
Second, that other leaders need to reform their political systems.
For lack of a better word, an ice breaker is needed to address and unravel the Islamic world's frozen mass of dysfunction. Backward autocratic regimes like Saudi Arabia only foster Islamist radicalism.
Since 9/11 we've done quite bit to diversify our oil supplies beyond the middle east. We've got new sources in Africa, Alaska, Russia, etc. In fact, Europe is more dependent on Middle Eastern oil than the U.S.
Oil in this war is one thing: black gravy.
It's not!
Even if the U.S. was to seize Iraq's oil fields, the expense of the war and of occupation would far exceed any benefit from Iraq's 2.5 million barrels a day of production.
And a two-term presidency would be long over before Iraq's desperate economy could realize it's full capacity.
Yes, oil companies would love to get production-sharing agreements in Iraq, but they haven't even been allowed to participate in post-war planning. There are too many issues such as antitrust, competition law and international law.
In post-war Iraq Bush has been very public in saying that oil would continue to be funneled through the U.N. Oil-for-food Program.
If you recall, the U.S. returned Kuwaiti oil back to Kuwait over a decade ago.
If America simply wanted cheap oil, Bush could cut a deal with Saddam which would be far easier and cheaper than going to war.
While there are many reasons for war with Iraq, particularly humanitarian reasons, the top reason Bush wants it is because by ousting Saddam and establishing a democracy in Iraq will send a strong message to other autocrats in the region.
First, that pursuing development of WMDs will not be tolerated.
Second, that other leaders need to reform their political systems.
For lack of a better word, an ice breaker is needed to address and unravel the Islamic world's frozen mass of dysfunction. Backward autocratic regimes like Saudi Arabia only foster Islamist radicalism.
Since 9/11 we've done quite bit to diversify our oil supplies beyond the middle east. We've got new sources in Africa, Alaska, Russia, etc. In fact, Europe is more dependent on Middle Eastern oil than the U.S.
Oil in this war is one thing: black gravy.
FUCK Saddam and the camel he rode in on!
fuck bush
Comment