RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


New topic - Guess who wants Iraq's oil?(18 posts)

New topic - Guess who wants Iraq's oil?Live Steam
Oct 29, 2003 4:14 PM
The Dumocrats are now saying we should take Iraq's oil as payment for the war. Now isn't that hoot? Wasn't it the Dumocrats that said the war was all about oil and how the Bushies were going to go in and steal it? Isn't that what the French and co. were saying too? Wasn't the Domocrat's slogan "No blood for oil."? Inquiring minds want to know - what's with that? :O)

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20031027-083101-4576r.htm
who doesn't?mohair_chair
Oct 29, 2003 8:23 PM
Sounds like the Dumocrats are a lot smarter than the Bush folks, who want to give away $87 billion of American tax dollars and get nothing for it, except the satisfaction of a job poorly done. Besides, if we get oil from Iraq, Bush won't be able to rationalize drilling in Alaska and off the coast of California. Sounds like a win-win to me.
fully agree on that one.sacheson
Oct 29, 2003 9:13 PM
Plus, regardless of why we started the war, we should at least do something right.
But that wouldn't be good for Halliburton war profiteering.critmass
Oct 29, 2003 10:50 PM
The average price for Mideast gasoline is 71 cents a gallon(3.7 liters). The Iraqi National Oil Company SOMO pays 97 cents a gallon for its gas imports from Kuwait to Baghdad. Halliburton, the only supplier to the U.S. in Iraq under no-bid contracts, is charging the U.S. $1.62 to $1.70 for the same Kuwait to Baghdad gasoline and the only source for their gasoline sales to the U.S. To make this even more ridiculous the U.S. is selling the Halliburton gas for 4 cents to 15 cents so we are heavily subsidizing Iraqi gasoline purchases while giving large war profits to Halliburton.
But then maybe Halliburton needs the 1.4 billion they made so far this year in Iraq as they need to still pay Cheney his deferred payments and keep his stock options healthy.

The number of US soldiers killed in Iraq is now above the number killed before May 1, the day Dubya declared victory.
But that wouldn't be good for Halliburton war profiteering.critmass
Oct 29, 2003 10:56 PM
The average price for Mideast gasoline is 71 cents a gallon(3.7 liters). The Iraqi National Oil Company SOMO pays 97 cents a gallon for its gas imports from Kuwait to Baghdad. Halliburton, the only supplier to the U.S. in Iraq under no-bid contracts, is charging the U.S. $1.62 to $1.70 for the same Kuwait to Baghdad gasoline with that being their only source for their gasoline sales to the U.S. To make this even more ridiculous the U.S. is selling the Halliburton gas for 4 cents to 15 cents so we are heavily subsidizing Iraqi gasoline purchases while giving large war profits to Halliburton.
But then maybe Halliburton needs the 1.4 billion they made so far this year in Iraq as they need to still pay Cheney his deferred payments and keep his stock options healthy.

The number of US soldiers killed in Iraq is now above the number killed before May 1, the day Dubya declared victory.
But that wouldn't be good for Halliburton war profiteering.Tri_Rich
Oct 30, 2003 8:32 AM
According to the AP Haliburton's no bid contract was extended today.
Washington Times! Yellow rag journalism! Why should I believeOldEdScott
Oct 30, 2003 5:48 AM
this rag? This is nothing but right wing Moonie rag yellow journalism! etc etc
Because it's true. What do you take issue with?Live Steam
Oct 30, 2003 6:01 AM
Dumocrats have said that the assistance should be through loans. The only export that the Iraqis have that can cover that nut is oil. They would be severly hamstrung with that much debt hanging on their balance sheets. It's hypocritical to look at this any other way. Clinton wanted to give massive amounts of grants to ME countries. Now we are doing that, but we also got rid of an enemy of the state and sponsor of terrorism at the same time.
Just teasin you, Steam. 'Yellow' and 'rag' are your favoriteOldEdScott
Oct 30, 2003 6:07 AM
epithets whenever someone posts a newspaper piece that doesn't praise Republicans and bash Dumocrats.
Because it's true. What do you take issue with?filtersweep
Oct 30, 2003 6:19 AM
I'd be able to take your posts a bit more seriously if just once you could refrain from using the word "dumocrats."

Steam, don't you think this "those who fail to plan, plan to fail" of a president (who really didn't think this war/reconstruction out very well) has been making it up as he goes? Sure, when we dipped our toe into the pool, nobody was really talking about the billions and billions of dollars necessary for reconstruction- people were more worried about the costs of the actual war itself. Now we are up to our necks in Iraq- and since there never really was a plan in the first place, what is your problem with using "loans."

Frankly, and as a neo-con, you surely understand this concept: people don't usually properly appreciate "things" (including entitlements) that are just given to them.

Finally, we really have not "got rid of an enemy of the state and sponsor of terrorism." That is a rather rosy assessment on your part- and there are those that might argue we have created even more terrorists. Frankly, I'm half-convinced it is a zero-sum game. Like tearing down a "ghetto" to gentrify a neighborhood... it merely displaces the ghetto to a different neighborhood.

You must be a big fan of deficit spending? I guess we should expect this from a president who never achieved any success in life on his own merit ;) Didn't GW go bankrupt a few times? Oh well...
he also seems a big fan of welfare...........rufus
Oct 30, 2003 7:55 AM
for iraqis. let's build them entire suburban sprawl housing developments and just hand them to them for nothing, meanwhile he screams about people who collect food stamps or unemployment in this country.

sure, let's just hand everything right to them, don't expect them to work for any of it, make them totally reliant upon the US government handout. sound familiar?
when did you become tax and spend?mohair_chair
Oct 30, 2003 7:25 AM
Since when are you so gung ho to hand out my money? $87 billion can fix a lot of potholes in my neighborhood, build a lot of schools, fix a lot of infrastructure, etc., right here at home.

Seems to me that the people like me who paid their taxes should see that money go to improve this country before all others. I have no problem with shifting priorities to help others in need, but a country like Iraq that is sitting on tremendous wealth doesn't need $87 billion of handouts. I don't pay my taxes so Iraq can rebuild it's ministry of information.

The oil is worth money, and we need to use it as collateral for loans. Tough luck about being saddled with debt. I don't like having a mortgage either, but no one is lining up to give me a handout.

We've spent billions on the war already, and we've lost over 300 troops, and now we want to throw away $87 billion more dollars? Why aren't you ranting against this????
Grants or Loans ???????MR_GRUMPY
Oct 30, 2003 7:44 AM
My first thought is "screw them" "lets take all 87 Billion back, in oil."
My second thought was about how German war reparations, after the first world war, directly caused the second world war.
Maybe the idea of loans AND grants, isn't so bad. 20 Billion in loans is not going to destroy the Iraqi economy, while 87 Billion in grants MAY destroy ours.
I actually didn't say one way or the other ...Live Steam
Oct 30, 2003 10:31 AM
how I feel about this. We helped Japan too, after WW2. I could be fore taking the oil too. What the heck, but I think it's interesting to see where everyone comes down on this issue. I'd be willing to bet $1000 that if GWB had said we will issue loans to Iraq rather than grants, the Dems would take the opposite position and say "I told you so. It was blood for oil." I imagine that Bush wants to show a sign of good will in this by not further burdening Iraq with huge debt. They will still have a ton of it even after our $87billion. Not all the debt that they had owed to France, Russia and germany for doing illegal business of course. That debt was signed for by Saddam and that of course was against UN trade sanctions. That debt is null and void. I'm happy to see they got burned. So if part of the money is debt, I'm fine with that.
I think the main causal force is the people.dr hoo
Oct 30, 2003 2:36 PM
The people of the united states have spoken strongly on this one, and a strong majority is in favor of loans. Blaming politicians when they jump on a bandwagon is like blaming a cat for killing a bird.

The demos have been touting the deficit as a problem for a while. Clinton attacked it. Bush exploded it (so they have been claiming, right?). Their current position is consistant with this, in that they are looking for ways to trim the deficit. ~20B in loans vs. grants ain't much, but 20B here, 20B there and pretty soon you have REAL MONEY! (enough to cover national health insurance, for example).
When did "the people" get a chance to ....Live Steam
Oct 31, 2003 5:52 AM
"voice their opinion" on this? Polls show they supports the war with a pretty good majority, but I haven't seen any polls that show oneway or the other about granys vs loans.

So politicians can't help themselves? It's their nature hey? I agree. But I can still hold their feet to the fire to see if they are still paying attention. I don't see how the deficit has effected anything as of yet. This country runs the same whether it is under a deficit or at a surplus. If national health "insurance" was the consensus, it would happen, deficit or not. I read this the other day ( link below ) and think it has some validity here. I also think that Clinton took way too much credit for the state of the economy. After all it was a Republican Congress that passed all the legislation that brought a balanced buget and lower taxes. (see second link)

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200310151115.asp

http://rpc.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/TPBUDRES.2.htm
There is this fancy technology called...dr hoo
Oct 31, 2003 7:58 AM
... the telephone. E-mail. Hand written letters. People use them and representatives respond. Amazing how that works.
Then I guess the will of the people is being carried outLive Steam
Oct 31, 2003 8:02 AM
Isn't that a good thing?