This is an interview with Dr. David Swann, he opposes the war but also agrees that Saddam is a terrible dictator. He also still feels the war could be about oil although we have been told it isn't.

http://www.macleans.ca/xta-doc2/2003...QA/56831.shtml

His idea for an alternative.

So if we don't impose sanctions or threaten military force, how do we deal with him?

There are alternatives. It's been shown that he can be contained, though at a high price to his people. Sanctions should continue on military weapons, but be lifted on the staples of life. Let the country get back on its feet, let the people return to their jobs, let them rebuild their health care and education infrastructure. Let's provide some support for a civil society there and hope they can emerge with some alternatives to the way Saddam is governing the country.

You don't spend 10 of billions of dollars to go to war for oil unless you plan on taking the oil rich property for your own, and that is not the case here. Keeping Iraq is not a part of the equation, and why would we bother with that ridiculously expensive method? If you want oil, you buy oil. If for no other reason, then you do it because it's cheaper that way. ;)

Now you do go to war to ensure the free flow of something as vital as oil, but that isn't the case today either. There is no problem with the extraction, production, or distribution of oil from the Middle East. They may not like us very much, but they are very happy to take our money for their oil.

Yes this is a repeat of an earlier episode of "Ronn says the war isn't about oil". :D

If Saddam however has WoMD he becomes the most powerful force in the middle east. He has shifted the balance of power there in his direction and then there will be a problem not with the extraction or production of oil.. but with the distribution of it.

The ability for the west to do business there will be majorly affected. So while you can say the war is not for oil.. i would say you are right: it is about Business.

Possibly, but the business aspect is a side effect of disarming him, just as the great deal of humanitarian aid that will come afterwards. Extremely import, but not the cause for action. ;)

His eventual control of the Middle East if left unchecked, is one of those "if and could be" situations we aren't suppose to consider. [img]tongue.gif[/img] :D

[ 03-13-2003, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Lol i knew you were going to say that! :D

But the question is if it is a side effect of disarming like you said.. or a cause.

You say a side effect. Others say a cause.

It is a handy side effect and not a very lofty cause.

I agree Ronn, and would add that *if* this was about oil, and basically Bush "helping out his cronies in the oil business", merely look at the trend from the Gulf War. True they briefly surged, and then oil got as cheap as fifteen dollars per barrel. Or in essence, Bush's "cronies in big oil" took a fricking bath. They lost their collective asses. That same argument was used then if you recall, "no war for oil".... hey-hey ho-ho Bush is gotta go... haddy-haddy hoil no war for oil, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...... Is it any wonder a large percentage of us dont take them seriously? They dont even bother to come up with new material! LOL!!! Not to mention they dont bother to come up with new argument pieces.

Assertion:
"The war is all about oil"---1990.
Fact:
Kuwait hold deed, title and usage of all their fields. The very field extinguished by US citizens specializing in fighting oil fires. Oh, did I mention that Sadam set them on fire in the first place?

Assertion:
""The war is all about oil"---2003
Fact:
The existing fields will be owned and controled by the new Iraqi government. Just as is the case of Kuwait it will be a viable piece for their rebuilding after Sadam's actions destroyed said country. Oh, did I forget to mention that Sadam is currently "wiring" his own facilities, as he did in 1990?

If this was amusing at all, I'd have to say its a classic idea for the Twilight Zone.

[ 03-13-2003, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: ElricMorlockin ]

Fact: Right now American based oil companies cannot buy Iraqi Oil.

Fact: After the war American based oil companies can buy Iraqi Oil.

Actually, right now, the US buys about half the oil Iraq exports. ;)

Fact: Ronn just set me straight! :D

Fact: American oil companies are buying it at say $35.00 per barrel, when the price drops to fifteen, they will still have contracts and existing inventories they have to utilize that they paid $35.00 a barrel for. Its a mad dash by competitors to buy at $15.00 in order to royally screw the next guy over. ie.
I am BP: "HA-HA! We just nailed the Shell guys, at $25.00 per barrel refining etc."

Your second "fact" is a good thing. Since Iraq will need cash, and we will need oil. We both win, whilst we buy less from the our so called "friends" the Saudi's. Wait to see how much they are our "friends" when we finally develop hydrogen based fuel cells as well.
Prediction: We will once again be accused of "abandoning" a country, when thats not the case. They will still need alot of water, and we will have an enourmous surplus of such. Can you imagine them pulling up oil tankers, and leaving with our "waste product", good ole H2O? It will be a thing of beauty.