Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

Thoran · 03-27-2003, 09:06 AM

Barden I'm not going to quote your post but address a few points...

I highlighted your "knockdown price" line becuse that is exactly the reasoning that the vast majority of people bringing up the "war for oil" concept are using. They're seeing the most simplistic reasons for this war, AND I might add the ones that do indeed show the US as being "below rapist level", and they're running with it. IMO, the only valid reason that Oil can be included as a causal factor in this war is within the framework of "increased world stability". Stabalizing the oil supply could effectively be argued to improve the stability of the world economy, and a nutcase in Iraq is certainly a risk factor.

As I stated before, I disagree with "war for oil" because it's a straw man, the opposition has set up a US that wants to CONTROL Iraqi oil and resources... and then points to this imaginary US and tells the world how horrible it is. It's a popular concept because it's so simplistic that everyone can easily latch onto it.

With regards to buying Saddam's oil... EVERY country that's a player in this debate (except perhaps Russia) are guilty of buying Iraqi oil over the last 12 years, all of them full well knowing that many of the proceeds of these purchases have financed rearming the Iraqi military. Just because Saddam is a bad guy don't believe that the rest of the world hasn't been very willing to do business with him.

As far as influencing the global markets, Iraq's influence in the oil supply has been marginal since the gulf war (accounting for a few percent of international oil shipments). There are a number of other countries that quickly (and happily) increased production to offset the drop in Iraqi production. Long term the reserves in Iraq are important (due to the volume) but if we were taking a "long view to get control of Iraqi oil" we could just as easily waited out Saddam... he wouldn't have lived forever. Again IMO the oil argument as it is being forwarded by most proponents (they say it's about control, not stability) is a poor argument based on numerous invalid or weak assumptions.

I additional disagree that the war was intended to stabilize the US economy (which is a different subject in and of itself). Again if anything the risk of a large land war far outweighs the potential benefits. The relatively low spending required (a few percent of GDP) means there will be little direct economic stimulation in the mil/ind complex, and the uncertainty of a large land war again will cause much more economic uncertainty (BAD) than anything else. If Bush had wanted to improve the economy (something he doesn't seem to be particularly interested in), he'd have been better off spending that 75 billion domestically.

Regional stability will no doubt suffer in the short term, but long term there is much to be gained by removing a high risk dictatorship from the region. Global economic stability cannot be achieved without regional stability. Or to put it another way, we shouldn't put the cart in front of the horse here... regional stability will lead to a stable oil supply, which will positively impact global stabilty (and the global economy). You can't have a stable oil supply in a region that is a powder keg. Of course this brings up then next logical target in this effort... Israel/Palestine. This problem will need to be resolved for the pressures in the middle east to have any chance of easing.

(edited to correct analogy mayhem)

[ 03-27-2003, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

03-27-2003, 09:06 AM	#19
Thoran Galvatron Join Date: January 10, 2002 Location: Upstate NY Age: 57 Posts: 2,109	Barden I'm not going to quote your post but address a few points... I highlighted your "knockdown price" line becuse that is exactly the reasoning that the vast majority of people bringing up the "war for oil" concept are using. They're seeing the most simplistic reasons for this war, AND I might add the ones that do indeed show the US as being "below rapist level", and they're running with it. IMO, the only valid reason that Oil can be included as a causal factor in this war is within the framework of "increased world stability". Stabalizing the oil supply could effectively be argued to improve the stability of the world economy, and a nutcase in Iraq is certainly a risk factor. As I stated before, I disagree with "war for oil" because it's a straw man, the opposition has set up a US that wants to CONTROL Iraqi oil and resources... and then points to this imaginary US and tells the world how horrible it is. It's a popular concept because it's so simplistic that everyone can easily latch onto it. With regards to buying Saddam's oil... EVERY country that's a player in this debate (except perhaps Russia) are guilty of buying Iraqi oil over the last 12 years, all of them full well knowing that many of the proceeds of these purchases have financed rearming the Iraqi military. Just because Saddam is a bad guy don't believe that the rest of the world hasn't been very willing to do business with him. As far as influencing the global markets, Iraq's influence in the oil supply has been marginal since the gulf war (accounting for a few percent of international oil shipments). There are a number of other countries that quickly (and happily) increased production to offset the drop in Iraqi production. Long term the reserves in Iraq are important (due to the volume) but if we were taking a "long view to get control of Iraqi oil" we could just as easily waited out Saddam... he wouldn't have lived forever. Again IMO the oil argument as it is being forwarded by most proponents (they say it's about control, not stability) is a poor argument based on numerous invalid or weak assumptions. I additional disagree that the war was intended to stabilize the US economy (which is a different subject in and of itself). Again if anything the risk of a large land war far outweighs the potential benefits. The relatively low spending required (a few percent of GDP) means there will be little direct economic stimulation in the mil/ind complex, and the uncertainty of a large land war again will cause much more economic uncertainty (BAD) than anything else. If Bush had wanted to improve the economy (something he doesn't seem to be particularly interested in), he'd have been better off spending that 75 billion domestically. Regional stability will no doubt suffer in the short term, but long term there is much to be gained by removing a high risk dictatorship from the region. Global economic stability cannot be achieved without regional stability. Or to put it another way, we shouldn't put the cart in front of the horse here... regional stability will lead to a stable oil supply, which will positively impact global stabilty (and the global economy). You can't have a stable oil supply in a region that is a powder keg. Of course this brings up then next logical target in this effort... Israel/Palestine. This problem will need to be resolved for the pressures in the middle east to have any chance of easing. (edited to correct analogy mayhem) [ 03-27-2003, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: Thoran ]