Can someone explain to me what's wrong with a war for oil policy?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Originally posted by: etech
If you want to make this for a war for oil than please answer these questions.

What country in the world would not have an economic collapse if the price of oil tripled?

What would the world economy be if the price of oil tripled?

How many people worldwide would die if the world economy went into a depression that rivaled that of the thirties?

So are you saying that for the hypothetical possibilities above, we have the right to invade a sovreign nation?

No, my argument has always been that UN resolution 687 gave sufficient justification to remove Saddam if he did not follow the agreements he signed.

What I am saying is that if certain people are going to say that it was just a war for oil than they should use a factual argument. It's their argument, not mine, but I think that they should fully explore the ramifications of that argument.



 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
A war for oil is pretty stupid from a country that purports to be the leader of the free world. The movement through history toward civilization has been a movement to rule of law. Just as we believe that what you own cannot be taken away simply to enrich another, countries should have the same security. Just as we feel that no one should be allowed to punch us in the nose because they can, a country should should feel that no bully will will start a war if they do not. A pre-emptive war based on the idea that another country is "evil", or may pose a threat in the future, is a significant step away from a civilized world. Now any country can use these same justifications to invade another. The U.S. has not admitted to "a war for oil", but I suspect it is partly true. But if any of you think war for economic gain is OK, you should be comfortable with N. Korea invading the south; China invading Taiwan, Argintina invading Brazil, and on and on. This is not civilized behavior by any definition.
 

joohang

Lifer
Oct 22, 2000
12,340
1
0
Originally posted by: etech
joohang

Just give a best guess based on what knowledge you have of world econmics. How many economies would survive a sudden upwards rise in price of oil?

How does oil affect the price of every good on the market in many of the world's countries economies? You have seen the effects of the economic slowdown that started in 1999 on the US. It's actually fairly minor in the context of history. Do a little research on the depression of the 30's. Project what those effects would have not just on the economy but worldwide stability. Now take your best guess, would worldwide economic depression lead to more wars and more deaths from starvation?

Had Saddam ever proposed a oil embargo as a weapon against the US? Yes or no? Would the complete collaspe of the US economy lead to a worldwide depression? Hint, look at trade figures for an answer.

Your point is more clear now.

Yes, I agree that the collapse of the American economy would be catastrophic. And if the oil price does go up, it could definitely knock out quite a few major economic powers.

But we are arguing on different grounds here, and I think I misread your post.

I am not convinced by those people who argue that this war is for oil, although I do think that there is a possibility of it as a factor, but not the most dominant one.

And I see where you are coming from, but I am not convinced that those are possible reasons to justify the war even if it were for oil. (If I understand your intention correctly.) I do not recall any serious recent (over the past year) attempts by Saddam to use oil as a weapon against the US, but correct me if I'm wrong. And I am not sure if the war on Iraq saved oil prices from shooting up. But if there is strong evidence that suggests that Saddam did attempt such thing, I will agree with you.

Either way, I think that our disagreement actually reinforced that the war for oil argument does not have a strong ground.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Saddam couldn't use his oil as a weapon, he was limited to 4% production, the sale of which was "strictly" controlled.

The rise in prices you saw leading up the war was fear about the possiblity of the Iraqi reserve being destroyed, or interrupted flow from instabilioty in the region due to the war, once the fields were secure and shipping was not slowed by the action prices began falling.
 

LilBlinbBlahIce

Golden Member
Dec 31, 2001
1,837
0
0
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
A war for oil is pretty stupid from a country that purports to be the leader of the free world. The movement through history toward civilization has been a movement to rule of law. Just as we believe that what you own cannot be taken away simply to enrich another, countries should have the same security. Just as we feel that no one should be allowed to punch us in the nose because they can, a country should should feel that no bully will will start a war if they do not. A pre-emptive war based on the idea that another country is "evil", or may pose a threat in the future, is a significant step away from a civilized world. Now any country can use these same justifications to invade another. The U.S. has not admitted to "a war for oil", but I suspect it is partly true. But if any of you think war for economic gain is OK, you should be comfortable with N. Korea invading the south; China invading Taiwan, Argintina invading Brazil, and on and on. This is not civilized behavior by any definition.

What he said.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
A war for oil is pretty stupid from a country that purports to be the leader of the free world. The movement through history toward civilization has been a movement to rule of law. Just as we believe that what you own cannot be taken away simply to enrich another, countries should have the same security. Just as we feel that no one should be allowed to punch us in the nose because they can, a country should should feel that no bully will will start a war if they do not. A pre-emptive war based on the idea that another country is "evil", or may pose a threat in the future, is a significant step away from a civilized world. Now any country can use these same justifications to invade another. The U.S. has not admitted to "a war for oil", but I suspect it is partly true. But if any of you think war for economic gain is OK, you should be comfortable with N. Korea invading the south; China invading Taiwan, Argintina invading Brazil, and on and on. This is not civilized behavior by any definition.

You are right, but then it was not a war for oil so who cares?

 

LilBlinbBlahIce

Golden Member
Dec 31, 2001
1,837
0
0
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
A war for oil is pretty stupid from a country that purports to be the leader of the free world. The movement through history toward civilization has been a movement to rule of law. Just as we believe that what you own cannot be taken away simply to enrich another, countries should have the same security. Just as we feel that no one should be allowed to punch us in the nose because they can, a country should should feel that no bully will will start a war if they do not. A pre-emptive war based on the idea that another country is "evil", or may pose a threat in the future, is a significant step away from a civilized world. Now any country can use these same justifications to invade another. The U.S. has not admitted to "a war for oil", but I suspect it is partly true. But if any of you think war for economic gain is OK, you should be comfortable with N. Korea invading the south; China invading Taiwan, Argintina invading Brazil, and on and on. This is not civilized behavior by any definition.

You are right, but then it was not a war for oil so who cares?

Come on now, it might not have been the primary reason, but it definetly was a major one.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Just as we believe that what you own cannot be taken away simply to enrich another

Myth. Look how the tobacco companies, gun makers, automakers, smaller copyright holders are being raked over the coals. Taxes ring a bell? What matters in the REAL WORLD is who is willing to spend the most money convincing they are "right" to the public or a jury. Bush was/is very seccessful in proving he was right in America at least.

Think of Iraqs contracts to American firms as reparations for a) being a part of a monopoly b) repayment for all the actions we have taken over 15 years to control its crimminality c) for it's rehab center
 

B00ne

Platinum Member
May 21, 2001
2,168
1
0
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
It would be nice if the whole world would share . . . but what share of the world's resources do American consumers deserve?

Hehe, we use around 50% resources and have 5% population. Resources are finite in thier economically feasable for production form. IE bauxite to aluminum is much cheaper than gathering the scrap and recycleing it and seperating the various alloys to pure production capable aluminum again. Oil is'nt even considered for recyling. So it's down to mining and drilling and production of these finite resourses.

Sure we *could* share
rolleye.gif
, but 99% of us are unwilling to live as they do in China, india or Shi Lanka in order to make this guesture of shared resourses. could you regress? No you still drive that nice car, buy those mexican and Chinese electronics/home appliances (don't kid yourself about sony being japanese made, it's all outsourced to third world today but the very high-end) We can buy it, they can't. We perserve our buying power and monopoly on the worlds resourses with careful pro-western political leadership in those countries we got the resourses from. Can you imagine how much trouble China would be in if we one day cut all imports to ZERO. All hell would break loose politically over there, so they are our bitch, and thier populations support our way of life while they live in sqauler. Our policy on most counties is don't ask, don't tell about human rights, slavery, etc send me the money and we'll send the goods. Same goes for any western democracy however we are about 27 more aircraft carriers more influentual. The peaceniks are hypocrites.

Wow, you're evil. That's the only word I can think of to describe you.

No he is not evil at all, just one of the few realizing and describing reality

 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
I do not recall any serious recent (over the past year) attempts by Saddam to use oil as a weapon against the US, but correct me if I'm wrong. And I am not sure if the war on Iraq saved oil prices from shooting up. But if there is strong evidence that suggests that Saddam did attempt such thing, I will agree with you.

Iraq halts oil shipments

"April 8, 2002: 4:35 PM EDT

Iraq suspended oil exports Monday to protest U.S. support of Israel, causing a spike in crude prices on the same day the U.S. government predicted record summer demand for gasoline.

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein said in a televised speech Monday that its embargo will be in effect for 30 days or until Israeli forces withdraw from Palestinian territory. Iraq exports about 1.5 million barrels of oil a day, nearly a million of which go to the United States. "


LilBlinbBlahIce
If your argument for the "war was about oil" means that Saddam should not have control over the economy and the lives of every other person on the planet than I can agree, the war was about oil.
If you are taking the stance that the US is going to take over the oil fields just to secure cheap oil for the US than I don't agree with you.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Wait a minute . . . outside of the US threat to invade Iraq . . . the most significant shocks to world crude prices was the failed coup in Venezula . . . which the US supported and then quietly backed away from.

Don't you think it is wrong that President Bush can institute a policy which negatively affects the economy and the life of every person on the planet?!