4 ms·

Please do not forget to mix oil in the ratio.

by oaiey 5y ago

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
Please cite a source for that claim.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- afavour 5y ago
  “Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will.” Richard Perle, chair The Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board July 11, 2002 https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/who-said-war-would-pay-itself-they-did/ https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/who-said-war-would... "Iraq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets. This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a pan-Arab leader... and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime. The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments. The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/m...
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    That's a source that Iraq has oil. What is your claim? I often see it claimed that the US for some reason wanted Iraqi oil. I just haven't seen evidence for this.
    - afavour 5y ago
      I've added a second quote that more directly addresses the question. But even the first one clearly points to the role of oil in deciding the invasion: there's no need to price the thing out because Iraq has more than enough oil to pay for any and all reconstruction itself. Of course that's going to be a factor in any invasion decision. In any case, further quote from the second one: > To this end, as Whitehall documents obtained by the Independent show, the US and British sought to privatise Iraqi oil production with a view to allow foreign companies to takeover. Minutes of a meeting held on 12 May 2003 said: "The future shape of the Iraqi industry will affect oil markets, and the functioning of Opec, in both of which we have a vital interest." > A "desirable" outcome for Iraqi's crippled oil industry, officials concluded, is: "... an oil sector open and attractive to foreign investment, with appropriate arrangements for the exploitation of new fields." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/m...
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
        Interesting. So just oil in a general sense but also Iraq as a destabilizing entity in the area where oil is a primary natural resource. We have to be careful not to be confused with the common conspiracy theory that the US wanted to steal Iraqi oil. I can buy that. This also needs some context though. Meeting minutes can be seen as brainstorming ideas. Having oil is huge though- having a good natural resource cash cow helps you pay/feed your military and fund an economy- something we see Afghanistan lacked. Good point though, noted. Thanks.
        nicoffeine 5y ago
        > We have to be careful not to be confused with the common conspiracy theory that the US wanted to steal Iraqi oil Under Saddam, Iraq's oil was nationalized, and most of the profits went to Iraq's government, with Chinese and Russian companies taking less than 10%. After the invasion, the US pushed for a law that would allow no-bid contracts to western oil companies[1]. It never passed because that would have been the end of Maliki's government. So, to be fair, we wanted to steal the profits from Iraqi oil production, and secure access to the 3rd largest reserves on earth. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_oil_law_(2007) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_oil_law_(2007)
queuebert 5y ago
The interest in regional stability is probably rooted in oil. The U.S. hasn't taken any captured oil fields and sold the oil for themselves, as far as I know, so I think they just want the region to be a stable, predicable marketplace for dead dinosaurs.
- calsy 5y ago
  And blowing up major cities, destroying basic utilities like power and water and creating a situation thats lead to civil war involving factions from neighbouring countries is 'creating stability'. This is some bizarro world logic.
  - queuebert 5y ago
    They already had a civil war. Saddam quelled a big uprising among Shi'a and Kurds. Unity among the Muslim factions is stronger than national unity, so your proposed consequence already existed for 1000 years.
    - calsy 5y ago
      Yeah difference being those conflicts didn’t involve raining 1000s of bombs down over major cities. The situation for civil war already existed, so the best option is to light the fuse by bombing the place and leaving a power vacuum? Not a great plan to eliminate terrorism or promote stability. It’s not hard to think of better ways to spend tax dollars and avoid the emotional toll of losing many good people.

Please do not forget to mix oil in the ratio.

by oaiey 5y ago

Please do not forget to mix oil in the ratio.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

Please cite a source for that claim.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
afavour 5y ago
“Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will.” Richard Perle, chair The Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board July 11, 2002 https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/who-said-war-would-pay-itself-they-did/ https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/who-said-war-would... "Iraq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets. This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a pan-Arab leader... and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime. The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments. The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/m...
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  That's a source that Iraq has oil. What is your claim? I often see it claimed that the US for some reason wanted Iraqi oil. I just haven't seen evidence for this.
  - afavour 5y ago
    I've added a second quote that more directly addresses the question. But even the first one clearly points to the role of oil in deciding the invasion: there's no need to price the thing out because Iraq has more than enough oil to pay for any and all reconstruction itself. Of course that's going to be a factor in any invasion decision. In any case, further quote from the second one: > To this end, as Whitehall documents obtained by the Independent show, the US and British sought to privatise Iraqi oil production with a view to allow foreign companies to takeover. Minutes of a meeting held on 12 May 2003 said: "The future shape of the Iraqi industry will affect oil markets, and the functioning of Opec, in both of which we have a vital interest." > A "desirable" outcome for Iraqi's crippled oil industry, officials concluded, is: "... an oil sector open and attractive to foreign investment, with appropriate arrangements for the exploitation of new fields." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/m...
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
      Interesting. So just oil in a general sense but also Iraq as a destabilizing entity in the area where oil is a primary natural resource. We have to be careful not to be confused with the common conspiracy theory that the US wanted to steal Iraqi oil. I can buy that. This also needs some context though. Meeting minutes can be seen as brainstorming ideas. Having oil is huge though- having a good natural resource cash cow helps you pay/feed your military and fund an economy- something we see Afghanistan lacked. Good point though, noted. Thanks.
      - nicoffeine 5y ago
        > We have to be careful not to be confused with the common conspiracy theory that the US wanted to steal Iraqi oil Under Saddam, Iraq's oil was nationalized, and most of the profits went to Iraq's government, with Chinese and Russian companies taking less than 10%. After the invasion, the US pushed for a law that would allow no-bid contracts to western oil companies[1]. It never passed because that would have been the end of Maliki's government. So, to be fair, we wanted to steal the profits from Iraqi oil production, and secure access to the 3rd largest reserves on earth. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_oil_law_(2007) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_oil_law_(2007)

queuebert 5y ago

The interest in regional stability is probably rooted in oil. The U.S. hasn't taken any captured oil fields and sold the oil for themselves, as far as I know, so I think they just want the region to be a stable, predicable marketplace for dead dinosaurs.

calsy 5y ago
And blowing up major cities, destroying basic utilities like power and water and creating a situation thats lead to civil war involving factions from neighbouring countries is 'creating stability'. This is some bizarro world logic.
- queuebert 5y ago
  They already had a civil war. Saddam quelled a big uprising among Shi'a and Kurds. Unity among the Muslim factions is stronger than national unity, so your proposed consequence already existed for 1000 years.
  - calsy 5y ago
    Yeah difference being those conflicts didn’t involve raining 1000s of bombs down over major cities. The situation for civil war already existed, so the best option is to light the fuse by bombing the place and leaving a power vacuum? Not a great plan to eliminate terrorism or promote stability. It’s not hard to think of better ways to spend tax dollars and avoid the emotional toll of losing many good people.