Let's settle it: Stance concerning the current occupation of Iraq (1 Viewer)

[dapperdan]

There are economic alternatives other than foreign oil. But even if I were to agree with this mirage that the current US energy policy is doing enough to wean the country off fossil fuels, my question still stands:

Before invading Iraq, the United States had enough foreign sources of oil, how much sense does it make to open up a region for its oil which is in a tinderbox? Again, let's say for the sake of argument that Iraq stabalizes enough to start the pumping and refining? Whose to guarantee that 7 years down the road the violence and chaos emerges again. Al-Queda, the insurgency, sectarian conflict--all potential disruptions to a supply of oil which Iraq is important to.

It's not so much I wanting a fuel alternative. I recognize that it can't happen overnight, but I see pouring potentially--potentially--trillions of dollars to keep a region stable because the US depends on an oil supply from Iraq as just simply ludicrous.

So let's say, for example Iraq becomes a big supplier of oil, and the region succumbs to violence and chaos again. There's your $125 per barrel price of oil which will disrupt the American economy.

All I'm arguing is that maybe, just maybe that money can be invested in finding a more stable source for oil and work more towards weaning the country off fossil fuels.

Well, you've got to look at what has caused oil prices to more than double in the past 7 years. I would agree that our invasion in Iraq has caused some supply concerns due to instability in the region. But Nigeria has been extremely volatile as well, that's a major concern. And, the truth is, Russia has stepped in and filled any supply void.

Have supply concerns affected prices? Sure. But frankly, the elephant in the tent that is being ignored, the trend that won't go away, the factor that is really driving oil pricies higher, is the economic development of China and India. It is the development of those two countries, not Iraq, that has caused oil prices to march steadily higher. In that respect, you could make the argument that Global Crossing has had a much more profound effect on the world economy, and world oil prices, than the Iraq war.

My argument is, mainly, that what we are living through is simply a progression of events that you really can't, or shouldn't, try to preplan through centralized government policy. And that is the false lure of a centralized government, that somehow the government is all knowing, can plan perfectly, can see the future, better than private industry. And what history demonstrates is that this view is completely and utterly false. What is an economically attractive alternative at $90 per barrel may be complete economic idiocy at $30 per barrel. Free up the capital, allow the capital to flow to where it is going to be most profitable. I do believe that the government can work with industry, realistically the two need to work together on areas such as energy policy, essentially quasi-public goods. But don't discount the importance of the private market, and it's impact on the future of energy policy. Both public policy and private markets are going to play important roles in the future of energy policy.

 

[DadsDream]

I'd just like to say... :all_coholic:

 

[RebSaint]

Well, you've got to look at what has caused oil prices to more than double in the past 7 years. I would agree that our invasion in Iraq has caused some supply concerns due to instability in the region. But Nigeria has been extremely volatile as well, that's a major concern. And, the truth is, Russia has stepped in and filled any supply void.

Have supply concerns affected prices? Sure. But frankly, the elephant in the tent that is being ignored, the trend that won't go away, the factor that is really driving oil pricies higher, is the economic development of China and India. It is the development of those two countries, not Iraq, that has caused oil prices to march steadily higher. In that respect, you could make the argument that Global Crossing has had a much more profound effect on the world economy, and world oil prices, than the Iraq war.

All supports my point. Why open Iraq, a region with a history of being a tinderbox and a problem area--to becoming a major supplier. It's throwing good money after bad. More dependency on foreign oil will continue to be costly by way of military expenditures, future wars, occupations, incursions--and I'm not talking about the present-day Iraq, I'm talking about Iraq as a major supplier when and if the country becomes stable

After all, if we admit that the goal of IRaq is to be an ally, and a major oil-supplier, we'd better be prepared for the consequences if that supply is disrupted. And of course, my argument does hinge on Iraq even becoming a stable supplier of oil, which isn't a sure thing either.

That stability isn't gauranteed to last--and will invariably cause signficant fluctiations in the supply--and potentially it might damage the US economy. Invading Iraq may have very well opened up pandora's box for future economic disasters. It's not worth the risk in human life or from a rational economic standpoint. Get Iraq going as a major supplier of oil, and 10 years down the road up pops Al-Queda or an insurgency, or some other potential disruption of the supply.

Back in the US military goes, this time, because they have no choice. In that respect, I'd have to support a war or military incursion because the American economy depends on Iraq's oil supply.

No thanks.

Here's a startling admission.

My dad worked in Nigeria, I'm well aware of not only this industry, but am the son of a full-fledged employee of an oil company. He did 40 years with Chevron and still works in the gulf--not for Chevron anymore, though. I'm familiar with the power and influence of oil companies, and despite benefiting from it personally, I think as a nation, we need to change our policy here, or we'll suffer consequences.

I can tell you right now that Nigeria and Russia are resort islands compared to Iraq.

 

[gumbeau]

I agree with 90% of what RebSaint has to say about our dependence on Oil and by extension dependence on ME oil.

But I'll go a little further.

The US isn't in Iraq for Iraqi oil. It is in Iraq to provide a base of operations from which to protect the transportation infrastructure that gets ME oil to the rest of the world.

Iraqi oil is part of the equation of course but the US has taken on the role of world's defender of free trade. By free trade I mean un-threatened with disruption.

If the world did not depend on oil I'd be extremely opposed to the original invasion.

But the world depends on oil. Without ME oil many nations would struggle economically. The US would manage to get by. We have close neighbors with oil and plenty of untapped oil ourselves. But the world situation would deteriorate dramatically if the US stepped away from it's lone Hyperpower responsibilities. We would quickly see real wars of conquest again instead of low grade regime change and COIN ops.

I love to see the US embark on an national emergency level commitment to make our electricity 100% nuclear and pushing hard for cold fusion. I'd pump ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico dry of every drop as fast as possible to fight the ME economically.

But the US population is not interested in a massive industrial effort to build nuclear plants, clean coal, mass transit systems. The US population isn't interested in sacrificing entitlements. Europe is in a little better shape with regards to oil dependence but they are even more addicted to nanny state government.

The west has turned a corner. We aren't interested in survival, just in being comfortable. The US is powerful enough to react when we are finally pressed but that just means one massive conflict that could be avoided.

Thats why I continue to support GWB. He understands the threat is a very long term one. And I'm not talking about radical Islam. Neither is GWB. Radical Islam is just a spinoff of the larger conflict.

 

[RebSaint]

The US isn't in Iraq for Iraqi oil. It is in Iraq to provide a base of operations from which to protect the transportation infrastructure that gets ME oil to the rest of the world.

There's overwhelming evidence which supports the argument that the U.S. is most definitely interested in Iraqi oil. I've already provided the evidence that oil companies are lining up to get in on the piece of the action.

What transportation? There aren't any American oil pipelines or oil fields in Iraq to protect, and it wasn't necessary to invade and occupy Iraq to protect existing transportation links and pipelines--which aren't even in Iraq.

In other words, although we agree on other points, I don't see how you can claim that the U.S. is in Iraq for bases alone. It's simply not true. It wasn't necessary to invade Iraq to protect current ME oil interests to the United States. The invasion of Iraq unequivocally was done so that American oil interests can get a piece of the pie once the country was sufficiently stable. It's already happening.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JB16Ak05.html

If the U.S. isn't interested in Iraq's oil, why continue the occupation? Of course, the reason the U.S. hasn't been in any hurry to leave has been that sticky "political solution" of who controls Iraq's oil and how much U.S. influence will be a factor.

http://www.upi.com/International_Se.../analysis_oil_not_part_of_new_iraq_laws/1063/

From the above article:

"The Oil Ministry is negotiating the transfer of equipment and training to increase production at five key oil fields with Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron and Total. Those fields and others will be included in a bidding round for longer-term contracts later this year."

So it's already happening. To claim the US isn't interested in Iraq's oil is just patently false.