Iraq

[Terrance]

vze422fs at verizon.net wrote:
> 
> on 2/8/03 7:29 PM, Terrance at lycidas2 at earthlink.net wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > "calbert at hslboxmaster.com" wrote:
> >> "You can't take
> >> the energy out. You can't take the terrorists out."
> >>
> >> Here again we must distinguish between the UN and US. I don't see the UN
> >> having any axe at all in the "energy" debate, at least with respect to Iraq.
> >
> > I say the oil is a bigger ax for the UN than the USA. The USA wants
> > Saddam out.
> > Most of the rest of the UN could care less about Saddam and his weapons,
> > but they care about the oil. The USA doesn't care about the oil.
> 
> The USA has vast oil reserves. They are strategically important. You can
> power a hybrid Corolla on hydrogen, but not an F-16. It's cheaper in the
> long run to buy, or take, oil from assholes in the ME than to deplete our
> own reserves. If we run low, we HAVE to go to them. That is not an
> acceptable situation. The USA does care about oil. Look at our P and VP.


What does the US want? More oil from Iraq or less? Higher prices? Higher
production? What? Explain this to me. I can't follow the reasoning.
Everyone knows that Iraq is 98% dependent on its oil for foreign
exchange. That's a given. You can't take oil out of the equation.
Everyone knows that the US needs oil to run its huge economy. But
everything the US has done thus far, including backing Iraq in the
Iran-Iraq war, leading a coalition to remove Iraq from Kuwait, leading
the UN on the sanctions  and inspections, has been been
counterproductive (assuming as you do that the US has an interest in
Iraq's oil). In fact, it has cost the USA huge. When the US kicked Iraq
out of Kuwait the Japanese paid for half of the cost of the war effort.
Why? Because the US needs Iraq's oil? Explain this to me. Why is Germany
(despite its public peace mongering) bending over backward to support
the US in the current crisis? Why are the French holding back and
playing there ace in the hole (the Veto powers)? Why are the 	Russians
willing to let the US do the dirty work again as long as it can recover
some of its huge losses on investments in Iraq? Isn't it a fact that the
US doesn't have any real interest in Iraq's oil. Isn't it a fact that
the UN has an interest in Iraq's oil and not the US? Yes,  it is. Look
at the president and the vice president? No, you look at them. I'll look
a the facts. The US will buy oil if Iraq can produce it and sell it at
the world market price. The US will buy oil from anyone that can do
this. Other nations are in a very different situation. Some have no oil
of their own (i.e., Japan, Germany). Some have huge investments in Iraq
(Russia, France). Some have so called ethnic ties (Turkey, Iran). Some
have borders with Iraq, and so on. The US has other interests. No, the
USA is not all that interested in saving the Marsh Arabs or the Kurds.
But it is interested in getting rid of Saddam. Why? Because the US is
interested in power, in maintaining its hegemony (and yes, the the USA
is hegemonic and not a Nation in decline) in the world and growing the
global economy to get richer. Oil hasn't been important to getting rich
in the global economy since W.W.II. Look at Japan and Germany. Neither
has any oil and both have gotten quite rich without it.