Sunil - I could probably buy the negative oil flow theory if it we not
for the fact that Iraqi oil has, for the past dozen years, contributed
less than 10% of the total OPEC output. Long before the US
invasion, Iraq had been struggling without success to increase
production above 2 million barrels per day, largely due to technical
problems in pipelines, and other petroleum-based infrastructure,
problems in accessing Iraqi oil fields, and the continued refusal of the United Nations to provide Iraq
with
equipment it has requested. So despite the "threat" of increased
production Iraqi officials continue to proclaim, the ability is just
not there.<br>
<br>
It's also hard to buy into this theory considering the US blessings on
Saudi Arabia's projected increase of over 3 million barrels per day by
2010. This, coupled with the fact that a majority of this "new"
oil will be making its way to the rapidly growing Asian markets, and
that OPEC itself recognizes that decreased production is a bad thing
from a global economic perspective, suggests to me that the Iraqi
conflict is not about oil in any flavor.<br>
<br>
GS<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/17/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Sunil Ramalingam</b> <<a href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com">sunilramalingam@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I disagree Glenn. I think that many advocates for the war did think it<br>would benefit Israel (though there are many Israelis who disagree with their<br>position) but I don't think this was the main reason for the war, though
<br>some in the administration may have viewed it as a side benefit.<br><br>I used to think the war was launched in order to control Iraq's oil reserves<br>to boost production, but now I'm more persuaded by Greg Palast's argument
<br>that the reason was to control Iraq's reserves to prevent Hussein from<br>producing more and destabilizing the market. For me this comes closer to<br>answering the question 'Why did Cheney change his mind about invading Iraq?'
<br>than the other theories.<br><br>Ted's comments about the press failures prior to launching the war against<br>Iraq are equally true when it comes to uncritical coverage of the current<br>statements about Iran.<br>
<br>Sunil<br><br><br>>From: "Glenn Schwaller" <<a href="mailto:vpschwaller@gmail.com">vpschwaller@gmail.com</a>><br>>To: <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Federal Reserve Head Greenspan: Iraq Invasion
<br>>ForOil<br>>Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:55:13 -0700<br>><br>>The US net petroleum imports for 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 amounted<br>>to 4208, 4476, 4811, 5055, and 4968 million barrels per year, and 2454
<br>>million barrels from January through June of 2007. Over the same period of<br>>time the Iraqi contributions were 168, 176, 240, 194, and 202 million<br>>barrels per year, and 86 million barrels from January through June of 2007.
<br>>(<br>><a href="http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm">http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm</a><br>>). This constitutes 4%, 3.9%
, 5%, 3.9 % 4.1% and 3.5% of our total oil<br>>imports. A case for going to war if I've ever seen one.<br>><br>>The current cost of the war is around $455 billion give or take, and if we<br>>were to defray this cost by levying an excise tax on Iraqi oil imports from
<br>>2003 to the present, it would amount to around $507 a barrel. Assuming oil<br>>imports remain steady over a 10 year period this would be about $51 a<br>>barrel, and over 25 years, a little more than $20 a barrel. How can anyone
<br>>possibly justify paying an excise tax of $20 per barrel for 25 years simply<br>>to ensure a cheap supply of oil from Iraq? Ludicrous! War for oil – total<br>>nonsense. War for Israel – the real fulcrum of the Iraqi conflict.
<br>><br>>"The United States is strongly committed, and I am strongly committed, to<br>>the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state. . . By defending the<br>>freedom and prosperity and security of Israel, (we are) also serving the
<br>>cause of America." (President Bush: address to the American Israel Public<br>>Affairs Committee, Washington DC, May 18, 2004).<br>><br>>We have paid a high price in dollars, international prestige and in the
<br>>lives of our soldiers for the interests of a foreign state, and we will<br>>continue to do so until the Jewish-Zionist hold on US political life is<br>>finally broken.<br>><br>> GS<br>><br>><br>
>On 9/17/07, Ted Moffett <<a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> ><br>> ><br><br><br><br>=======================================================<br> List services made available by First Step Internet,
<br> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br> <a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================
<br></blockquote></div><br>