They played Bush big - he guaranteed them a huge chuck of money. Too bad we have to pay for it, and our children, and our children's children and so on.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Turkey's reluctance to send troops to Iraq without clear support from U.S.-installed Iraqi leaders could deal a major blow to U.S. efforts to attract other countries' help against an increasingly deadly resistance.

Tuesday's statements by Turkey's ambassador explaining the decision to stay out made clear that Pentagon officials, lacking any fresh infusion of allied troops, will have to send thousands more U.S. reservists to Iraq early next year...

...Turkey's ambassador to the United States, Osman Faruk Logoglu, said his country will not send troops without an explicit invitation from the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, some of whose members, particularly Iraqi Kurds, vigorously oppose the idea. (Full text here (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAQ_TROOPS?SITE=MDFRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)) Glad to see all that diplomacy and bribery is paying off.

:m: Peace.

Meanwhile, in the US, draft board vacancies are quietly being filled.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/03/draft/index_np.html

From what I heard the Turks aren't going because the Iraqi's aren't going to accept them. Only logically of course, why would a country who has committed countless atrocities against the Kurdish people and what makes us think that Turkey won't play around in Kurdistan in Iraq? Also a Turkish presence will be greeted with more hostility then the Americans I would imagine up north. Turkey rather wisely is trying to go around this disaster.

And why did they not wisely go around before getting their loan guarantees?
...draft board vacancies are quietly being filled.Well, if you are forced to feed the sausage grinder with fresh young bodies, Selective Service is the only way to go. On the other hand, I'm not sure this will help us in Iraq. How long does it take to adequately train a soldier - compounded by the time it would take to ramp up the Selective Service sytem?

:m: Peace.

With a much larger pool of “soldiers,” training won’t be as important. To ensure his re-election, Bush can't start a draft before Dec. 2004, so there's one year to ramp up the system.

Unless other countries send troops to Iraq we will be in a bind next spring. When the one year rotations are completed 30 of our 33 combat ready brigades will either be in Iraq or will have just arrived home from Iraq. 20,000 reservists and national guard members will also need replacements.

http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/6857211.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

No, training is the most vital aspect of a successful modern military. With little training, these men would not be able to handle the stresses, and the physical stress Iraq provides. Vietnam should have dis-spelled any belief in a "draft" army, to fight these un-organized and deadly wars.

Whether the men can handle the stresses or survive is a lower priority than whether they are cost effective. They won’t get any more training than needed to maximize overall profit, which is what the Iraq war is all about.

I see where you are coming from, but we concede that the occupation would dis-integrate even faster with an amateur force? And thus the "profit" made from war would be lost rather quickly.

If you have two soldiers to replace one, to maintain par the replacements combined need only be as effective as one soldier. The training will be less.

Sure maybe back in WWI, not now. You cannot have a soldier drafted like you used to it's impossible in today's modern army. SO many hi-tech gadgets, and in Iraq it's even more dangerous then in Vietnam in the sense that your enemy is organized internationally, I mean you can't bomb Hanoi (Baghdad). No I strong suggest that you avoid the draft, then certainly the war would be such a issue that the US would have to leave.

Will Bush be in danger? No, so danger is not an issue. Bush wins if he keeps the oil pumping. That requires only lots of soldiers each with a decent gun. They don’t need a lot of hi-tech gadgetry. Some of them will be picked off each day and be replaced. The goal is still met.

No your mistaken Bush is losing as it is, and the oil is pumping already to the US. By the time the US even gets the amount necessary Bush would probably either be in his last year or even out of office so the oil aspect is laughable at best. Secondly you put un-trained and dis-enfranchised men on the Ground in Iraq you are bound to have a quagmire, most of us here would agree with that assessment. They need hi-tech know how to use some basic US systems. This is not the US military:

http://www.yarramalong.net/images/soldier.jpg

Most Americans care about their men not oil. Most hardly even know where Iraq is on a map. But they know where their boys are they aren't home.

The only thing a draft will bring is fierce resistance and, most likely, fire in the streets.

It could also be the benchmark: If the Bush administration cracks down in an attempt to suppress protest against a draft, and the people buy it, we can fairly say that the American people have forfeited the redeeming value of common sense.

If you're turning 18 in the US, scrawl an anarchy symbol, a gay symbol, or perhaps a hammer and sickle in the corner of the Selective Service form before you send it in.

If you're of draft age, start subscribing to Communist, homosexual, and other such-oriented publications.

If you're turning 18 and wish to volunteer, volunteer so they don't have to draft. If you're of draft age and don't mind being drafted, why aren't you there already?

Originally posted by nico
No your mistaken Bush is losing as it is, and the oil is pumping already to the US.

How is he losing? Oil companies are posting unprecedented profits and Bush has more campaign money than all opponents combined. Methinks he measures success differently than you imply.


By the time the US even gets the amount necessary Bush would probably either be in his last year or even out of office so the oil aspect is laughable at best.

The amount necessary for what?


Secondly you put un-trained and dis-enfranchised men on the Ground in Iraq you are bound to have a quagmire, most of us here would agree with that assessment.

A quagmire is not Bush’s concern.


Most Americans care about their men not oil.

Most Americans are not Bush’s concern. He will already have been re-elected before a draft is implemented.

How is he losing? Oil companies are posting unprecedented profits and Bush has more campaign money than all opponents combined. Methinks he measures success differently than you imply.


You do realize why they are making profits, if anything it's not because of Iraq. Right now Iraq is a money losing proposition. Oil companies are making profits for two reasons:

i) Higher oil prices.
ii) Higher demand.

In no way does Iraq fit into "profits" for oil companies, and since most aren't even in Iraq that assertion is incorrect. As for his campaign it is well funded, why? Because unlike the democrats he is one person, once a democratic candidate is found the situation will change.


The amount necessary for what?


What am I your teacher? Necessary for the American public, or economy to actually feel any good effects from there perceived lower oil prices.

A quagmire is not Bush’s concern.


Not at home, but when Iraq collapses. Then surely it would be his concern (don't ask me WHYZ IRAQK IS GOIGN TO COLLAPSE) that is easy to find out here on sci, look it up yourself.

Most Americans are not Bush’s concern. He will already have been re-elected before a draft is implemented.

Bush's approval ratings are below 50% in Iraq and just a bit better on the economy. With a good democrat he doesn’t stand a chance.

Originally posted by nico
You do realize why they are making profits, if anything it's not because of Iraq. Right now Iraq is a money losing proposition.

Iraq is not a money-loser for the oil companies. Presumably they get the oil for pennies on the dollar now. They have blanket immunity; no liability for spills, etc. The oil prices are artificially inflated because people will pay it during wartime. Taxpayers pay the costs, oil companies and the military machine get the profits. A win-win for Bush.


In no way does Iraq fit into "profits" for oil companies, and since most aren't even in Iraq that assertion is incorrect.

All the major US oil companies are in Iraq. In 2002 the US bought 90% of Iraq’s production. Production is being ramped up to further increase profits.


As for his campaign it is well funded, why? Because unlike the democrats he is one person, once a democratic candidate is found the situation will change.

His campaign is well-funded more because he is enriching big corporations and their wealthy who return the favor. He enriches them with tax cuts and by keeping the oil pumping.


What am I your teacher? Necessary for the American public, or economy to actually feel any good effects from there perceived lower oil prices.

Neither the American public nor the economy is Bush’s concern, obviously.


Not at home, but when Iraq collapses.

A quagmire doesn’t imply collapse. The oil will still flow during a quagmire.


Bush's approval ratings are below 50% in Iraq and just a bit better on the economy. With a good democrat he doesn’t stand a chance.

He hasn’t started advertising yet. He hasn’t yet bribed the voters with another tax refund. With healthy chunks given to Ralph Nader and others to split the left, he doesn’t need 50% of the vote. He’s likely to win I think.

For the next4-6 years it is, there is no way they can make money in a country whose entire oil infrastructure is destroyed. Billions of dollars of investment will be needed to go into that. Also I am certain that rebels will strafe these operations making it a even more money losing operation. And once the Iraqi government collapses, these oil companies will most likely be ejected from Iraq.

Presumably they get the oil for pennies on the dollar now.

So? They aren't pumping enough to make a decent buck at the moment, so pump away for a penny. You still not are making any money.

Taxpayers pay the costs, oil companies and the military machine get the profits. A win-win for Bush.


Oil companies need to have a working system in Iraq to begin with. That won't happen before at least 2008.

All the major US oil companies are in Iraq. In 2002 the US bought 90% of Iraq’s production. Production is being ramped up to further increase profits.

And with a "Iraqi government" if it were elected democratically before it fails will accept this? Iraqi's will accept this? This will only add fuel to the fire of hatred.

His campaign is well-funded more because he is enriching big corporations and their wealthy who return the favor. He enriches them with tax cuts and by keeping the oil pumping.


Your assertions that the "oil is pumping" is wrong. It's barely producing enough to reach pre-war levels. That wasn't exactly mind boggling. Also the Dean campaign did very well by funding his campaign on the internet, also I am certain Bush will have more money. But I don't think he will spend it to wisely.

Neither the American public nor the economy is Bush’s concern, obviously.


You live in a "democracy". Do I need to expand?

A quagmire doesn’t imply collapse. The oil will still flow during a quagmire.


No you’re confused, for America it's a quagmire, for Iraq it's a collapse. Remember that Iraq's oil is entirely dependant on extremely vulnerable pipe lines. So again the assertion that "oil flowing" is highly primitive.

He hasn’t started advertising yet. He hasn’t yet bribed the voters with another tax refund. With healthy chunks given to Ralph Nader and others to split the left, he doesn’t need 50% of the vote. He’s likely to win I think.

I think the American people realize that his economic policies have largely failed. No new jobs, and that the occupation of Iraq is a un-winnable prospect.

Originally posted by nico
For the next4-6 years it is, there is no way they can make money in a country whose entire oil infrastructure is destroyed.

The oil infrastructure is not destroyed.


From here (http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=8318):
[In August 2003], Iraq exported an average of 709,000 bpd of Basra Light from the southern port of Mina al Bakr, compared with 1.2 mln bpd before the war.


Billions of dollars of investment will be needed to go into that.

To increase production well beyond 2002 levels, yes. The current target is 300% of 2002 levels.


Also I am certain that rebels will strafe these operations making it a even more money losing operation.

They will certainly try. It’s more like mosquito bites though.


And once the Iraqi government collapses, these oil companies will most likely be ejected from Iraq.

Collapse is unlikely. The US has firm control. The daily deaths of soldiers (the apparent quagmire) is largely a cost-saving issue. For example, most of those killed by roadside explosives were in unarmored vehicles. They won’t get armored vehicles because their lives are not worth the money.


So? They aren't pumping enough to make a decent buck at the moment, so pump away for a penny. You still not are making any money.

They were producing about $60 billion in annual revenue as of September. That’s after subtracting for pipeline sabotage.


And with a "Iraqi government" if it were elected democratically before it fails will accept this? Iraqi's will accept this? This will only add fuel to the fire of hatred.

Their acceptance isn’t an issue, because they won’t have democracy. The additional hatred is a price Bush is willing to make the American public pay.


You live in a "democracy". Do I need to expand?

If you’re implying that the public will see through Bush’s ruse, even if 55% do, that may not be enough.


I think the American people realize that his economic policies have largely failed. No new jobs, and that the occupation of Iraq is a un-winnable prospect.

You overestimate the intelligence of the average American. Just yesterday the Republicans won 2 more governorships.

For the most part yes, the oil fields haven't been serviced in about 10 years. Those are minor increases in Iraq's overall oil infrastructure, and exportations are still small. Not able to sustain a profitable venture until 2008. Also to counter that obviously propaganda machine:



Oil production in Iraq seen not to recover until late 2004
24-09-03 Security problems and dilapidated equipment will prevent Iraq's oil production capacity regaining levels seen before the US occupation until at least the second half of next year, according to a poll of energy analysts. In the poll of 13 analysts, the mid-range forecast saw Iraqi output capacity restored to a pre-war 2.8 mm bpd in the fourth quarter of 2004. However, estimates ranged from mid-2004 to not before 2006.
"I don't see why Iraq shouldn't get back to 2.8 mm by the end of 2004 on pure technical ability but a lot depends on the ongoing political situation," said Mehdi Varzi at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein in London.

As well as looting of equipment, a major problem is the pipeline connecting the northern Kirkuk oilfields to Turkey. Sabotage has kept it out of action since the March occupation.
"Parts of it run above ground. A pipeline like that is very vulnerable," said George Beranek at PFC Energy in Washington. The pipeline could carry 900,000 bpd before the war and is due to re-open in three weeks, barring further sabotage.
Extra power generators have improved production in the south, which is now nearing pre-war output. Before the war, Iraq exported around 2.2 mm bpd and used 0.5 mm bpd. Those polled were more pessimistic than the United States, which says output could reach 3 mm bpd by mid-2004. Net of crude re-injected into northern reservoirs, production averaged 1.05 mm bpd in August.

The poll's median forecast put capacity at 1.8 mm bpd by the end of this year. By the end of 2004, it was expected to rise to 2.8. Most analysts thought the 3.5 mm bpd level, Iraq's capacity before the 1990-1991 Gulf war, was at least two years away and possibly as far out as 2008.
"It hinges entirely on the security situation in Iraq," said John Waterlow at Wood Mackenzie in Edinburgh. Frederic Lasserre at SG Securities in Paris added, "There is no way they can do it by just fixing the existing facilities here and there. They need new technology. They need to revamp most, if not all, of the existing infrastructure."

After the Gulf war, UN sanctions forced Iraq to slash production, leading to years of underinvestment in the industry. Exports resumed in 1996 under the UN oil for-food-scheme. Under the programme Iraq can claim some $ 1.7 bn in oil equipment but greater investment is needed.
At around 112 bn barrels, Iraq's proven oil reserves are second in size only to Saudi Arabia, so production could eventually go far higher.
"They need some new fields to get to the 4.5 to 5 (million level)," said Leo Drollas at the Centre for Global Energy Studies, "They have those new fields lined up but that needs a different environment and foreign investment and that's down the line -- 2007, about that sort of time frame."


So who am I to believe? This:


To increase production well beyond 2002 levels, yes. The current target is 300% of 2002 levels

or:


Iraq's capacity before the 1990-1991 Gulf war, was at least two years away and possibly as far out as 2008.


:confused:

Nice try my friend, but as I have shown the Iraqi oil situation is beyond repair for a long while.

They will certainly try. It’s more like mosquito bites though

Yes of course this is a mosquito bite:


s the main pipeline from the northern oilfields to Turkey remains out of action following earlier sabotage attacks.

Oil officials in Baghdad have said that it will take at least another five weeks for the pipeline to be repaired.

$7 million a day being lost, what is that a annoyance or what :rolleyes:

Collapse is unlikely. The US has firm control.

When the US leaves, Iraq the end will appear.

They won’t get armored vehicles because their lives are not worth the money

Oh of course not! (http://www.aeronautics.ru/img/img006/coalition_hardware_losses_iraq/web_gal/hardware/gallery/images/abrams_005.jpg)

They were producing about $60 billion in annual revenue as of September.

Who was? The oil companies? Or the Iraqi venture? What are you talking about, because if it's Iraq it’s impossible when you consider that the GDP per war was around $58 billion, unless there is some unseen growth in the Iraqi economy that would make it bigger then Saudi Arabia’s?

Their acceptance isn’t an issue, because they won’t have democracy. The additional hatred is a price Bush is willing to make the American public pay.

Even if they have pseudo-democracy it's of no concern civil war will ensue. It's a foregone conclusion; there is only one possible answer in Iraq for a election result, a theocracy. If they don't win everyone will know the votes are rigged.

you’re implying that the public will see through Bush’s ruse, even if 55% do, that may not be enough.

It may not, true. But I do believe that Bush will lose the next election. The US is going to be in Iraq for years now... and the attacks are only getting worse and worse and worse. It's not going to get better, get over the fantasy America.

You overestimate the intelligence of the average American. Just yesterday the Republicans won 5 more governorships.

A governorships and the presidency are two totally different spheres of influence over the electorate. It's a illogical comparison.

Originally posted by nico
So who am I to believe?

The 2 quotes do not contradict each other. I correct the figures in my last post: the site I linked to above says Iraq exported 709K barrels per day in August from the southern port. At $30 a barrel, that’s $8 billion annually.


Nice try my friend, but as I have shown the Iraqi oil situation is beyond repair for a long while.

$8 billion annually does not indicate “beyond repair” to me.


$7 million a day being lost, what is that a annoyance or what :rolleyes:

That’s 32%. It is an annoyance, but mansions will still get built on the remainder.


When the US leaves, Iraq the end will appear.

With a proven 112 billion barrels, the US won’t leave for a long time.


Oh of course not!

All I saw was a picture of an armored vehicle. What does it mean?


Who was? The oil companies? Or the Iraqi venture?

My calculation was wrong. As of August it’s a rate of $8 billion annually. Iraq makes the revenue, but Iraq is a US territory. Presumably US oil companies will get a decent chunk of the $8 billion in the form of discounts. As your figures above show, the median forecast is a rate of $20 billion annually by the end of the year. Even 5% of that is reason to invade when someone else pays the bills.


Even if they have pseudo-democracy it's of no concern civil war will ensue.

Hard to have civil war when you’re occupied by a force many times more powerful. They have rocket launchers. We have daisy cutters (http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,588916,00.html). There will be no civil war.


It's a foregone conclusion; there is only one possible answer in Iraq for a election result, a theocracy. If they don't win everyone will know the votes are rigged.

Who knows? The people's voice has not been heard there in generations. If they could vote anonymously and safely, the leader they choose may not be a religious figure. Also their Constitution would have separation of church and state, ultimately enforced by our daisy cutters.


It may not, true. But I do believe that Bush will lose the next election. The US is going to be in Iraq for years now... and the attacks are only getting worse and worse and worse. It's not going to get better, get over the fantasy America.

It’s a war on terrorism. Bush is fighting the axis of evil. The patriot card works like magic.

The 2 quotes do not contradict each other. I correct the figures in my last post: the site I linked to above says Iraq exported 709K barrels per day in August from the southern port. At $30 a barrel, that’s $8 billion annually

Well the difference is that the quote I quoted was talking about is that 2002 numbers are largely irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. The pre-1991 numbers are the numbers that really count. Once those levels of production reach those levels and exceeded then we would have a truly profitable situation, that would survive swings in oil prices.

$8 billion annually does not indicate “beyond repair” to me.


For a country who used to export more then $40 billion a year in oil... yes, yes it is. Then the Iraq the prices are totally dependant on oil prices, with a Iraqi oil glut then prices would collapse and so would profits.


That’s 32%. It is an annoyance, but mansions will still get built on the remainder.


Do you actually believe that these attacks will decrease in number?

With a proven 112 billion barrels, the US won’t leave for a long time.


Militarily it will eventually before the 2008 date for certain. Economically no, but when a civil war happens then all bets are off.

All I saw was a picture of an armored vehicle. What does it mean?


You asserted that they won't attack an armored vehicle; I have obviously proved you wrong.

My calculation was wrong.

I don't believe you calculated, how can you go from $60 billion, to $8 billion. Either you're lying or not even aware of what your posting.

the median forecast is a rate of $20 billion annually by the end of the year.

This year or 2004? Because production will not get up until 2004 at least. $20 billion is quite a bit, and that is totally dependant n highly fluctuating oil prices. These projections are totally based on today's numbers. The future of oil prices lays with the Saudis and Russians not the US.

Hard to have civil war when you’re occupied by a force many times more powerful.

Anyone with any form of military knowledge will tell you that masse power means nothing when you’re dealing with a small hidden enemy. Alas Afghanistan 1980's.

There will be no civil war.


Not while the US is militarily in Iraq no, but once they leave, and "democracy" comes in then yes.

Who knows? The people's voice has not been heard there in generations.

I know, and many others here know what will happen. You should learn about Iraqi demography and tell me what you think after. (The onus is on you not me).

Also their Constitution would have separation of church and state, ultimately enforced by our daisy cutters.


The constitution that is being made is even by the US is only a interim measure, until the new government gets into power. Daisy cutter away, the more you do that the more 9/11's you'll have.

It’s a war on terrorism. Bush is fighting the axis of evil. The patriot card works like magic

Yes, for the rather ignorant American people yes, but what is more important and always is, is the economy.

On the issue of Turkish troops; I think we are better off with out them in Iraq. I do not trust the decendants of the Ottoman Empire in view of their treatment of the Kurds in Turkey.
I would like to see the establishment of a Kurdish state in part of what was Iraq. The area under Kurdish control has done fairly well in recent years and does not require much of an international presence to maintain the peace. The Kurdish area could hold elections and be self governing within the year. The Bathist strong holds will need help in controlling the violence for quite some time.
As to the oil that is Iraq's economic underpinning it is still there under the ground. It did not disappear.

Originally posted by nico
For a country who used to export more then $40 billion a year in oil... yes, yes it is [beyond repair].

That’s irrelevant. If you were unemployed and I offered you a job with a starting salary of $400 million a year, doubling by the end of the year, and oh by the way you don’t even have to show up at the office, would you think that offer was beyond repair?

US oil companies were getting 0% of $30 per barrel before the invasion. Now they might be getting 5% of $8 billion annually, 5% of $20 billion annually by year’s end. For doing nothing different. Why would they care that Iraq used to export $40 billion a year? They would care only as it foretells what future increase in profits they might get in addition to the incredible giveaway they’re getting now. Rather than beyond repair, it’s the deal of a lifetime to them.


Then the Iraq the prices are totally dependant on oil prices, with a Iraqi oil glut then prices would collapse and so would profits.

It would be in OPEC’s best interest to cut production to match increases in Iraqi production, to prevent a price collapse (and “collapse” is relative; it’s still profitable). They want to maximize profit like anyone else.


Do you actually believe that these attacks will decrease in number?

The attacks on the pipelines will decrease because they will be increasingly secured. Profit is maximized that way.


Militarily it will eventually before the 2008 date for certain. Economically no, but when a civil war happens then all bets are off.

I’d be surprised if Iraq became a sovereign nation inside of 20 years. There’s too much money on the table for that to happen sooner.


You asserted that they won't attack an armored vehicle; I have obviously proved you wrong.

I said the soldiers won’t get armored vehicles because their lives aren’t worth the cost. Big difference.


I don't believe you calculated, how can you go from $60 billion, to $8 billion. Either you're lying or not even aware of what your posting.

I linked to a source didn’t I? I multiplied the figures in the source wrong. It happens.


This year or 2004? Because production will not get up until 2004 at least. $20 billion is quite a bit, and that is totally dependant n highly fluctuating oil prices.

This year; I used the figures in your source:


The poll's median forecast put capacity at 1.8 mm bpd by the end of this year.

(1.8 million barrels * $30/barrel * 365 days) = $20 billion annually.

Whether they can export at that same rate by the end of the year, or whether the price drops to $15/barrel, or whether some pipelines are out of commission on any given day, it’s still free money for US oil. Remember they were getting 0% of the price per barrel before the invasion.


Anyone with any form of military knowledge will tell you that masse power means nothing when you’re dealing with a small hidden enemy. Alas Afghanistan 1980's.

As long as Bush keeps the oil pumping, he wins. So far so good. Billions of dollars worth is flowing despite the small hidden enemy. The Russian soldiers died while trying to gain control of Afghanistan (probably for their oil, incidentally). The US already has control of Iraq. You can have control even as soldiers die daily.


I know, and many others here know what will happen. You should learn about Iraqi demography and tell me what you think after. (The onus is on you not me).

I wouldn’t assume to know the opinions of long-oppressed people. They are used to showing fervent support only to avoid being shot. Religious figures probably still oppress locally.


The constitution that is being made is even by the US is only a interim measure, until the new government gets into power. Daisy cutter away, the more you do that the more 9/11's you'll have.

We won’t allow religion to decrease profits, whatever it takes. Bush should like 9/11’s; after all, that’s what gave him the opportunity to invade Iraq and a scapegoat on which to blame the economy. As long as the White House isn’t hit, he’ll find a way to make a buck off of it.


Yes, for the rather ignorant American people yes, but what is more important and always is, is the economy.

I’m convinced that 45% of the population would vote for Bush even he dragged us into a global depression. When the video of him landing on the USS Lincoln is heavily advertised, tears will shed across America. The economy will be blamed on 9/11 and other factors out of his control. I hope you are right though.

Maybe here is a nice EXIT strategy: retreat american troops within Kurdish terrytory, make a deal with the kurds to have large permanent american millitary bases overthere (very central location in middle-east!) in guarantee for protecting the independance of kurdish area. This will ensure loyalty of the average kurdish citizen towards the americans, peoples support is really what is missing to make the iraqi invasion a succes.

From this point, Watch how the civil war unfolds in middle-south iraq, use a sniper-rifle or terrorist lookalike attack or makeitlooklikanaccident here and there to pick off unwanted wannabee "new iraqi leaders: and secretely promote puppets..

American army is very well equipped to deal with othewr large armies but you got to beat terorists with their own weapons...

If you were unemployed and I offered you a job with a starting salary of $400 million a year, doubling by the end of the year, and oh by the way you don’t even have to show up at the office, would you think that offer was beyond repair?


I am not talking about US companies, I am talking about Iraqi oil infrastructure, I don't know where you are getting the idea that I, in this particular issue am I talking about US companies. All I asserted was:

i) Iraqi oil infrastructure, largely inept.
ii) Profits remain low, or even a deficit.

Why would they care that Iraq used to export $40 billion a year?

What I was saying was that Iraqi oil industry is not even close to being where it once was, and profits neither.

Now they might be getting 5% of $8 billion annually, 5% of $20 billion annually by year’s end.

Subjective aren’t we, take away the amount of money needed to re-build Iraq. Then you are left with a HUGE deficit. Also let's look at your assertions shall we, what I like to call reality vs. perception:


Reality:

As America toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, Vice President Dick Cheney and Pentagon officials offered this good news to U.S. taxpayers: The lucrative Iraqi oil industry would quickly recover from war, generating $20 billion to $30 billion a year for rebuilding. Six months later, occupation officials have told reporters that oil revenue this year could be as low as $4 billion, and the Bush administration is seeking $20 billion in new U.S. funds to pay for reconstruction of Iraq.


So I guess this assertion of:


$20 billion annually by year’s end

Is as good as a crock of shit.


The independent reports warned that Iraq's oil industry was slowly choking from more than 20 years of poor maintenance and damaging practices.

---

Even without the looting and sabotage, analysts said, the United States would have had trouble fulfilling Washington's prewar promise to quickly boost Iraq's oil production to nearly all-time highs. On April 9, the day Hussein's regime fell, Cheney declared: "With some investment, we ought to be able to get their production back up in order of 2.5, 3 million barrels a day within, hopefully, by the end of the year."

That prediction was close to what Iraq said it was producing before the war. But it exceeded what a secret Pentagon study said was Iraq's actual production -- 2.1 million to 2.4 million barrels per day -- according to a report by the New York Times. Cheney's maximum figure roughly matched Iraq's highest production ever.


Source (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/05/MNGBD2QHKK1.DTL)

So my friend do we see the overt lies you are propagating?


The attacks on the pipelines will decrease because they will be increasingly secured. Profit is maximized that way.


Highly unlikely to ever work, the vast majority of these pipe lines are exposed, and in the middle of no where. It would be beyond simple to sabotage one of them. Unless you are actually going to build walls around these pipelines, or build new one's which would need massive political wrangling and more investment then already needed. This is going to make profits rather at stake of being deficits.

I’d be surprised if Iraq became a sovereign nation inside of 20 years. There’s too much money on the table for that to happen sooner.

I would be shocked if the US can last in Iraq for another 2 years.

I said the soldiers won’t get armored vehicles because their lives aren’t worth the cost

Oh that's even more of a questionable statement, you’re telling me that these men aren't going to be in armored vehicles? So you’re going to have a half drafted army let's say incapable of having or even driving a tank, or APV? I don't think so.

It happens.


A $52 billion mistake. Sounds like Bush economics to me.

(1.8 million barrels * $30/barrel * 365 days) = $20 billion annually.

Again like I said, if America gets her way, the $/barrel will be down to at least $16, then with minimal profits how can Iraq even start to service it's debt? How can these companies even make money? It takes btwn 5-7 years to turn reserves into production, and in some instances in Iraq you'll have to totally re-invest in it.

some pipelines are out of commission on any given day

Iraq has 4 major pipelines, one going to Turkey (that was sabotaged against), One to Syria (you're obviously not going use that one), one to Umm Qasr area easily sabotaged, and one to Saudi Arabia which is the safest, with 3 out of operation at the same time, at any given time you aren't making a shit load of anything but debt.

Remember they were getting 0% of the price per barrel before the invasion.


And now they can get (-) after the invasion as well.

As long as Bush keeps the oil pumping, he wins.

Wins money yes, not votes.

The Russian soldiers died while trying to gain control of Afghanistan (probably for their oil, incidentally).

There is no oil in Afghanistan. :bugeye:

The US already has control of Iraq.

That is subjective; no one can say that with any sense of certainty.

I wouldn’t assume to know the opinions of long-oppressed people. They are used to showing fervent support only to avoid being shot. Religious figures probably still oppress locally.


I beg you don't talk about things you know nothing about.

We won’t allow religion to decrease profits, whatever it takes.

I think that you can't go too far, the international community still has sway, lest we forget you’re not the only country in the world.

I hope you are right though.

One can only hope to god.

Originally posted by nico
I am not talking about US companies, I am talking about Iraqi oil infrastructure, I don't know where you are getting the idea that I, in this particular issue am I talking about US companies.

As I saw it we were discussing whether Bush is winning or losing. I said I think Bush measures success differently than you imply. By your measurement he’s losing. By the method I see him measuring it (more money and power), he’s winning. Bush is winning big time despite the Iraqi oil industry being not even close to where it once was.


Subjective aren’t we, take away the amount of money needed to re-build Iraq. Then you are left with a HUGE deficit.

Since when does Bush care about deficits? He loves deficits! Of course US taxpayers will pay for the rebuilding. If they don’t then US Oil might have to forego some profits. Why do you think Bush insists that the latest $87 billion requested from taxpayers for rebuilding be all a grant rather than a partial loan? It’s simple; the loan payments would cut into US oil profits. To see through the lies, follow the money.


So I guess this assertion of: ... Is as good as a crock of shit.

“oil revenue this year could be as low as $4 billion” is not inconsistent with “$20 billion annually by year’s end”. It’s a rate of $20 billion annually; if the rate is maintained, then in the following year you’d expect to generate $20 billion.


Highly unlikely to ever work, the vast majority of these pipe lines are exposed, and in the middle of no where. It would be beyond simple to sabotage one of them.

At the current rate of sabotage, there’s still $8 billion annually running through the pipes and Bush is winning.


Unless you are actually going to build walls around these pipelines, or build new one's which would need massive political wrangling and more investment then already needed. This is going to make profits rather at stake of being deficits.

If it takes building a wall around it, they’ll build it. US oil companies get the profits, taxpayers get the deficits.


I would be shocked if the US can last in Iraq for another 2 years.

It’s a bet then!


Oh that's even more of a questionable statement, you’re telling me that these men aren't going to be in armored vehicles? So you’re going to have a half drafted army let's say incapable of having or even driving a tank, or APV? I don't think so.

Not all the soldiers on patrol have armored vehicles. The ones who don’t are at higher risk of death by roadside explosives and snipers. Given that the US is rich and could afford armored vehicles for all soldiers, I consider it likely that the money savings is the main advantage that offsets the disadvantage of the higher risk of death.


Again like I said, if America gets her way, the $/barrel will be down to at least $16, then with minimal profits how can Iraq even start to service it's debt?

What Iraq doesn’t pay for, US taxpayers will. Nobody has a vested interest in $16/barrel. OPEC will likely cut production to keep prices higher.


How can these companies even make money?

It’s free money. If oil is selling for $30/barrel, and US Oil gets it for $28, then they can make $2 immediately without even refining it (by selling it for $30). The $28 goes into the coffer for rebuilding.


It takes btwn 5-7 years to turn reserves into production, and in some instances in Iraq you'll have to totally re-invest in it.

I suppose you’re talking about the time between drilling and refining. The free money is flowing out of the pipe now.


Iraq has 4 major pipelines ... with 3 out of operation at the same time, at any given time you aren't making a shit load of anything but debt.

Debt payable by US taxpayers. US Oil will just make less free money.


And now they can get (-) after the invasion as well.

As long as the oil flows and US Oil gets any discount at all, they profit.


Wins money yes, not votes.

He can buy votes, by funneling soft money to Ralph Nader others who will split the left’s vote. That reduces the size of the plurality Bush needs to win, to the size of the pool of ignorant voters. Once re-elected the goal’s all money, baby.


There is no oil in Afghanistan. :bugeye:


From here (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html):
Besides oil and natural gas, Afghanistan also is estimated to have 73 million tons of coal reserves...


The Soviets may have also sought control of a nicely profitable oil pipeline across Afghanistan (to be built).


I beg you don't talk about things you know nothing about.

Neither of us knows what Iraqis think. You need at least an unbiased opinion poll for that.


I think that you can't go too far, the international community still has sway, lest we forget you’re not the only country in the world.

No doubt Bush is now negotiating how much of the spoils he’ll exchange for international troops. All the players are in it for the money though, so they’ll all have the same opinion about a religious government.

Yes I have to agree with some of your assertions no matter how sick it is. That the American administration rather doesn’t seem to care about what I think is relevant. I agree Bush is using the taxpayer’s money to prop up the oil company’s et al.




This year or 2004?
---

This year; I used the figures in your source...

in contrast to this:

oil revenue this year could be as low as $4 billion” is not inconsistent with “$20 billion annually by year’s end”. It’s a rate of $20 billion annually; if the rate is maintained, then in the following year you’d expect to generate $20 billion.


Obviously that rate is totally inconsistent with reality; it's far below $20 billion. At this moment in time these figures were supposed to be at those levels of development. Going through a logical view on this situation, next year should be less then what? $15 billion, not $20 billion, with increasing volatility in Iraq we could see much worse projections then $15 billion.

At the current rate of sabotage, there’s still $8 billion annually running through the pipes and Bush is winning.


With three pipes gone at once? With only 2 of the 3 now serviceable, (I don't believe the one to S.A is in service due to 10 years of neglect). With one gone, and only one left, (one that is easily sabotaged) the US is playing a game. A big game at that.

Not all the soldiers on patrol have armored vehicles.

True, but all use them.

It’s free money. If oil is selling for $30/barrel, and US Oil gets it for $28, then they can make $2 immediately without even refining it (by selling it for $30). The $28 goes into the coffer for rebuilding.


No, if there is $30 made, then most of it will go to the oil companies I would fathom. The amount that is given to Iraq would barely be enough to service it's non-American debts.

I suppose you’re talking about the time between drilling and refining. The free money is flowing out of the pipe now.


But not enough is flowing to make it a truly profitable venture at this moment. Past 2008 ok, but to cut that in half is the very real and very much inevitable possibility of a chaotic, and even war state like Iraq. The US is going to have to leave 2008, current estimates say by what? 2005 Americans will be largely gone. The US cannot pick sides in a civil war because the oil in Iraq is split almost evenly among the three major groups. Favor one and back stab the other two, and with that oil.

As long as the oil flows and US Oil gets any discount at all, they profit.


With Billion possibly even the 100's of billions needed to re-build Iraqi oil infrastructures? Profit is a long way off, the government can't do it all, rest assured of that.

The Soviets may have also sought control of a nicely profitable oil pipeline across Afghanistan

There still is no oil in Afghanistan look for yourself:

Oil - proved reserves:
0 bbl (January 2002 est.)
Oil - production:
0 bbl/day (2001 est.)



http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/af.html#Econ

Now Soviets went into Afghanistan for so many reasons, the pipe line could have been one, but a minor one at that. The USSR had enough natural gas...

Neither of us knows what Iraqis think. You need at least an unbiased opinion poll for that.


I don't believe in polls myself, due to the fact that it is largely fallacious in nature. And it's really a logical fallacy unto itself. If you want to know things investigate them yourself. I suggest as I did earlier to look at the demographics of Iraq and tell me the obvious answer as to why a theocracy is inevitable. See you don't know...

No doubt Bush is now negotiating how much of the spoils he’ll exchange for international troops. All the players are in it for the money though, so they’ll all have the same opinion about a religious government.

I don't see any deals or troops.... I think now or never Bush.

Really, theres little need for Nico and Zanket to be arguing. Nico, dont you rememebr that one way of looking at it is the reconstruction of Iraq is about transferring USA taxpayers money into the pockets of corporations?

I thought russias was in Afghanistan partly for macho reasons and partly because its a small step beyond that to a blue water southern port, as well as of course doorstepping the middle east.

i) I agree.
ii) I am not arguing I am actually having a discussion.

Nico, dont you rememebr that one way of looking at it is the reconstruction of Iraq is about transferring USA taxpayers money into the pockets of corporations?

Oh this has always been happening just now to levels not seen before. I agree totally with this assertion, but I don't believe that the American tax payer will pay for everything.

I thought russias was in Afghanistan partly for macho reasons and partly because its a small step beyond that to a blue water southern port, as well as of course doorstepping the middle east.

See I never understood this assertion of the USSR getting a port, they would have to go through Balochistan in Pakistan, and thus nuke war, and Iran? But I think it had more to do with setting up shop to stop Islamic fundamentalism from Iran, and growing fundamentalism from the Pakistani Pashtun communities. It was a very dangerous thought for the Soviets to have the Muslim S.S.R's near to a Iran, or Islamic Afghanistan. Also I think it was important to repress the importance of Pakistan, to have a Soviet and Indian pressure cooker on Pakistan.

nico - Yep, it's a discussion. I won't have time for a better reply soon. You might be right on Afghanistan. We've probably taken the rest of it as far as we can. You are a sharp cookie.

No it's ok... I think we both get our points not much to discuss, we're both right. :D