psych wrote:
There were never any WMDs. (In any case, Countries like USA & UK ALREADY have large stockpiles of illegal missiles and a MUCH worse history of hostile foreign interventions). The sole reason Iraq was invaded was the recent switch from US$ to Euros as the currency in which to trade oil. This threatened US$ hegemony and if left in place, could have started a domino effect amongst other OPEC nations, hastening the day when the USA will become liable for its 7trillion* dollar trade deficit.
*can never remember whether it was 7billion or 7trillion... either way it sounds like a lot!
Ugh...enough about the oil theories for the war. We knew going in that it was going to take billions of dollars to fund the war and thousands of lives. But, Iraq is only capable of producing about 2.5 million barrels of oil a day (if that). And when we talk about oil we talk about net profit, not gross profit. After refining costs, transportation costs, etc, the net profit is substantially less than gross profit. The biggest oil companies make only about 25 billion dollars of profit a year, and this is producing millions upon millions of barrels of oil in different countries. Iraq produces and profits substantially less than this, and consider the fact that even if the US would be able to monopolize the entire Iraq oil trade (although, the world would not allow it, and neither would the US consider it, because it would only further enhance the illusion that the war was about oil), the financial rewards would still be far far below even breaking even, so this argument holds no merit.
The US will never be held totally responsible for its trade deficit at once, like it will never be totally responsible for its national debt at once. To do so would throw the entire world economy out of whack. These deficits are simply factored in now into standard operating procedures and costs.
So, after war costs, fallen soldiers, angry constituents, thinking that the US will be liable for a one time bill of its debts, etc, there is no way that invading Iraq would be better for us financially, it would have been cheaper to eat the rising costs of oil (if they are rising at all, after adjusting for inflation, the price of oil is cheaper than it was 20 years ago). The war is obviously not about oil. Yes, the first gulf war perhaps was about protecting oil in Saudi Arabia, but THIS war is not about oil. Iraqs oil production was far below other countries before the war anyway, and was projected to be so after it. If you want to oppose the war, thats totally fine, but oppose it on some sane logical grounds (fallen soldiers, world anger, etc), don´t jump onto some convenient band wagon and be part of the herd.
psych wrote:
In any case, Countries like USA & UK ALREADY have large stockpiles of illegal missiles and a MUCH worse history of hostile foreign interventions).
Arghhhhhhhhhh.....another convinient faulty argument. I suppose that we should shut down all of the police stations because they have a huge stockpile of weapons, and have broken into more homes than any gang by carrying out search warrents. The policemen of the world will always have the weapons, thats what keeps the order. It may be true that they may be corrupt, but this is an entirely seperate argument from just having weapons and carrying out interventions. It needs to be stated HOW these acts are corrupt, not simply state that they occur.
22 Jun 2006, 11:09 pm
