France-USA : All about money/weapon/oil sales, economic war?

[r2200t]

na

 

[freeandfun1]

Please note: This discussion is for those who know that the war in Iraq is for oil. If you still think that this was about freedom for Iraqis or about all the people saddam killed in the 80's while the US was allies with Iraq..., you shouldn't reply to this msg. We are on different wavelengths.
cheers,

You want no differing opinions? Wow, how open minded you are. Typical of the left. You know you can't win the argument, so at least up front you admit you want no dissenting voices. How enlightened.

 

[insein]

I iraq war was for oil in the French's eyes. They lost their Back door Oil through the corrupt "Oil for Food" program that was sponsored by the UN. They got Oil, Saddam got money, but the Iraqis didnt seem to get any food.

So yes you are correct. Except that the war itself was fought to prevent any further terrorist links to Saddam and on a slightly minor note of freeing you know 30 million people from a tyrannical dictator. You know just minor.

 

[NightTrain]

Only 9% of U.S. imported oil came from Iraq in 2001. The majority of U.S. imported oil comes from the Western Hemisphere.

Recent world events have once again focused attention on sources of imported oil. Such events can affect both the prices and availability of crude oil. The U.S. imported 54 percent of its petroleum supply in 2001. Petroleum imports averaged 10.6 million barrels per day (b/d) in 2001 to meet a total U.S. demand of 19.6 million b/d. The balance of supply was from domestic oil production, ss can be seen in the following table. Canada, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela are the top three sources of oil imports. The average Refiner Acquisition Cost (RAC) of imported crude oil was $22.01. Based on imports of 10.6 million b/d, the total cost of oil imports to the U.S. averaged $233 million per day. Total world crude oil production averaged an estimated 76.8 million b/d in 2001.


During 2001, about 48 percent of U.S. crude oil imports came from the Western Hemisphere (19 percent from South America, 15 percent from Mexico, and 14 percent from Canada), while 30 percent came from the Persian Gulf region (18 percent from Saudi Arabia, 9 percent from Iraq, and 3 percent from Kuwait).

In general, OECD Europe depends far more heavily on the Persian Gulf and North Africa for oil imports than does the U.S. During 2001, about 35 percent of OECD Europe's net oil imports came from the Persian Gulf (mainly Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and Kuwait), around one-third from Africa (mainly Libya, Algeria, and Nigeria), and much of the remainder from Russia. Japan receives over three-quarters of its oil supplies from the Persian Gulf (mainly the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, and Qatar), with the remainder coming from Indonesia, China, and other sources.

http://www.cis.state.mi.us/mpsc/reports/energy/02summer/oilimports.htm

Again, Russia France and Germany .. does this ring a bell? all 3 were against the war in Iraq. was saddam a weapons client?\

Here's a nifty graph that should explain why France & Russia were against removing a very profitable customer.

 

[freeandfun1]

Left? i don' pick sides...i'm picking reality.

I'm open for discussion on the mixed conclusion i reached, i'm looking for help strengthening it with more facts/information.

I've researched enough information from many sides and read things from around the world to know that the war in Iraq is about OIL. And i'd like to have one discussion without this getting in the way. If you want we can discuss the oil issue on a different thread. Having said that, this discussion is about why France wants to prevent the US from having that control of oil (or something similar).. and how media has turned France into a villain. Is it jsutified? Is there something bigger going on? When did the cold war with France start.

That is a better way of putting it. Thanks for the clarification.

I agree the war is about oil. But not about Bush making money off oil. Whoever controls the oil, controls the direction of the world.

I have long said that there is, in many ways, a bigger war taking place and that war does not involve the terrorists. It is a war between two competing economic and political idealolgies. The Europeans (less Great Britian and a couple of other nations) are forming an alliance against the US in terms of an economic war. Even some within the US are joining the Euros as this is really more about idealogies and power than it is about economics. Economics (oil, hightech, etc.) are the weapons being used. Now, while the US is engaged in it's war on terrorism, the Euros and some within the US are using that JUSTIFIED war to build resistance against the USA. The war in Iraq is a just a battle in the WoT albeit a battle that serves at least three purposes.

1) It gives us a launching pad within the Middle East from which we can launch future attacks on terrorists and terrorist sponsoring nations

2) It provides the USA with a steady oil supplier.

3) It gives the US the most influence within the region.

I don't know about you, but I am glad we have an administration in office that is willing to fight both wars. Bush knows about the "other" war, just as many of us do. But it is not a war that is easily understood by most, so it is not talked about.

Although oil is a major part of what is happening now (and anybody that denies that is living in a fantasy world), it is not the only reason (and anybody that thinks that it is, is also living in a fantasy world.).

Lastly, while you and others like to trumpet this as only being about oil, you totally ignore the increasing strength that Russia is playing in this arena. Right now, the Russian oil companies have more oil in reserve than Exxon, Texaco and Bp combined. Perhaps should be made more about their reasons for wanting us out of the ME. They want to force us to have to buy oil from them so they are supporting the Euros in their "war" against us.

JMHO on the matters.

 

[freeandfun1]

If you wanted to know what kind of weapons Iraq had, all you had to do was ask a Gulf War vet such as myself. Most of the tanks, artillery pieces, etc. captured by us were Russian made. Most missiles, AA systems, etc. captured by US during the Gulf War were North Korean made.

 

[NightTrain]

Nice Graph, without picking sides, I had a hard time believing it, Since 1973 The US represents only 1% of weapon imports in Iraq? I thought the US was the #1 seller to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, and Russia was supplying Iran? 1%? it's gotta be more than that! I mean Rummy shook hands with saddam twice for only 1%? So i did some more research and concluded: Rummy is a poor salesman. Most Iraqi weapons are soviet made: migs, AK-47 etc...

More accurately, we didn't think it prudent to sell U.S. weaponry to Iraq.

You are correct in that our aid to Iraq during the Iran / Iraq War was battlefield intelligence, many libs are convinced somehow that we were providing missiles, tanks & aircraft. Instead, we provided perishable intel when it was obvious that Iraq was going to lose the war, and it balanced it out so that neither side made any massive gains.

As far as the handshaking bit that libs love to trot out, it's customary for leaders & diplomats to shake hands when meeting. Granted, a punch to the mouth would have been satisfying, but that would hardly be statesmanlike.

Also, the US never seemed to get into the Iraq market as far as weapon sales...So by removing Saddam will the US gain a new weapon client with a pro-US installed president? I'm sure this is something the Russians and France were trying to avoid.

There is no shortage of countries around the world wanting to buy weapons from America. We've got the best toys by a long shot and can name our price if we so desired. How many despots would sell their mother into slavery for a stealth bomber? Or a handful of M1-A1 Abrams Battle Tanks? Phoenix batteries? All of them, I'm sure. We have the best systems & any country around the world would pay top dollar for them.

No, the weapons customers are there, but they won't be worthy of recieving them. It's foolhardy to arm anyone with the latest and greatest without being damn sure that you won't have to fight against the very items you sold to Achmed two years down the road. The countries that we do sell arms to are nations that can be trusted to possess them.

France, on the other hand, couldn't care less. They've been selling & arming morally bankrupt leaders for decades, a prime example is the nuclear facilities they were merrily building Saddam in the '80s that Israel had to destroy prior to completion.

 

[freeandfun1]

I Completely Agree , it's like a cold economic war. the loser goes into recession and becomes powerless.

Yes "Steady" is the magical word here, steady energy is crucial for economic certainty

Well, this is where my opinion differs from yours, i don't like millitary wars, people die and i don't think it's fair. I'm always for a peacefull solution or a military coup...

What i meant about iraq when i was saying it is about the oil, is that it's not about freedom for Iraqis or much about terrorism. your 3 points come to mind.

Also exporting media to a free Iraq is a huge business in itself. 25 million new customers.

cheers

I can appreciate your position on warfare but but sorry, I do not hold the same position. As a veteran (infantryman during Gulf War I and 8 years Army) I have been deployed all over the world in hot spots. Therefore, although I have seen first hand the horrors of warfare and civil unrest, I do know that boots on the ground is the only way to truly change the "culture" of a country. Without a direct American presence in the Middle East (not like in SA where the troops are basically locked down onto bases) where the troops (Americans) are able to personally interact with the citizenry, the region will never truly become "Americanized". Therefore, we had to go in the manner we did.

I agree that war often generates extra "benefits" such as new markets, etc. Hey, as they "say, to the victors go the spoils." We had the balls to go, so we should benefit the most in my opinion. Nothing wrong with that.

I further agree to the statement that a steady flow of oil is needed for economic dominance. As good as our economy is, we have not really been able to feel its full impact due to the costs of fuels. Fuel costs directly affect EVERY product we buy (unless you grow it or build it on your own property without any power) so it is very vital to sustaining economies.

Two of them cover the war on terrorism and one covers the "economic" war. So as I see it, it is more about the WoT than anything. But as I said, there are "extra" benefits that we can reap from our action.

As for your initial question regarding when this "cold economic war" started, I would say that it started in the 70's when France pulled out of NATO in an attempt to give the USA a black-eye by giving them the ability to negotiate directly with Russia. That began the Franco/Russian pact that still stands today.