Jump to content
Baghdadee بغدادي
baghda

Why do the Americans liberate Iraqis and occ

Recommended Posts

Guest vanyogan

Americans and oil.

 

For 150 billion dollars, you can buy about, 5,000,000,000 bbls of oil, at $30 a bbl. Strategically, about 30% of our imported oil is from the Middle East. So 30% of about 9,000,000 bbl/day is 2.7 million bbls a day. 5 billion bbls of oil in reserve equals a 5-YEAR supply of Middle East oil. These numbers are rough estimates but at 30 dollars a bbl, we are talking about a 4 -5 year reserve of Middle East oil hedged for $150 billion, approximately the cost of the Iraq war to date including the 87 billion, I'm guestimating here.

 

This is PROOF, of why the "no war for oil" mantra is so stupid. The COMPELLING argument for continuing to buy Middle East oil in the short and medium term is socioeconomic for the Arab people. These regimes are basically oil welfare states. If we were to drastically reduce consumption and thus revenue to these regimes, we would cause a lot moref animosity toward the U.S., due to INCREASED economic strife, so the reality in the medium term is that we should maintain the status quo of oil revenue to these regimes until something concrete is done to create market economies in these otherwise stagnant economies. It's true that Al Qaeda is not about economics. But their ability to recruit and sustain support in the Muslim countries is VERY much about economics. This has everything to do with the new policy toward democracy and market economies in Iraq and the other Middle Eastern countries. So what we really need to beat terrorism is a sustained policy, world wide, over several decades. We will also need an economy to pay for it!

 

Our biggest short term challenge in the oil equation is to effectively increase Iraqi oil revenue, by increasing market share without conditionally reducing price/revenue. This means that hopefully demand will pick up and other OPEC nations will make room for a larger Iraqi quota.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the #1 reason for the Iraqi invasion is that Saddam was threat. It was easier to just do it than to wait the years it will take to unravel the details of Irqai involvement with Al qaeda, 9/11. blah, blah. It's there, but will take time to unravel it. Just consider Ramsi Yusef, who entered under that name, planned the 1993 WTC bombing, left under another name, which was Kuwaiti, but had been altered during the gulf war and now that guy and his family don't exist. Nonsense. Saddam was a threat so Bush took him out of the equation. WE HAD TO START SOMEWHERE, to dismantle state sponsors of terrorism. Hopefully others will get the message.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think maybe the least discussed but most important reason has to do with Saudi oil and U.S. dependence on it. This represented leverage that Saudis used to keep U.S. pressure off them for supporting, or not cracking down on the Saudi elements of Al Qaeda. The Saudis represent an oil valve that can be opened or closed to affect the oil markets(and the U.S. economy). Iraq has the second largest reserves. A U.S. friendly Iraq represents a second valve of equal importance. THIS SECOND OIL VALVE, that a free and prosperous Iraq will construct, eliminates Saudi leverage and I think you can already see the results of U.S. pressure to get more Saudi cooperation. THIS I THINK IS THE #1 SECURITY reason for attacking Saddam over other potential state sponsors of terrorism. Logistically and tactically it's strategic on a map. The humanitarian element of liberating Iraq made it the easiest to occupy thus the least likely to cause mass casualties of either Iraqis or Americans.

 

Finally I do believe that some Bush people believe that Iraq could be a catalyst for freedom and free markets in the Middle East. In the long war against terrorism, it will require improvement in ME people's lives. The oil welfare states of the current status quo will only get worse absent some structural change. Iraq is it, though it's important that Iraq develop a diverse market economy that can spread to other ME countries. If there was an MEU like the current EU, we would not have the same problems that exist tioday. Hopefully this will help slow recruitment of the next generation of radical terrists.

 

This I believe is the true justification for invading Iraq. The Saudi portion is quite compelling yet could not be argued for obvious reasons.

 

Vann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah your Carolina "Kittys" stuck it to the Cowboys good last week !

I'm a Panther fan now and my hub is an ardent Cowboy fan.

 

Aw yeah, that's what I like to hear, betsy. I am the only Carolina fan in Seattle, other than the manager at the local sports bar, who's from Charlotte. I'm from Winston-Salem (hmmm, Moravian Sugar Cake - drool). If you were going to have just one other Panther fan in town, it's not bad to get the bar manager! He gives me free beer when the Panthers are ahead! Can Carolina shut down Faulk? Can you say Peppers? Might'nitbe Green Bay at Carolina for the NFC championship!? :)

 

Glad to hear they're getting more fans. NE and Car for the big game!

 

cheers,

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey .. go Cats! and Pack! I sent you an email on that topic, Rob. Hope you don't mind. If you do, it's ok if you don't answer .. *grin* .. I do have a question for someone living in Iraq, please - I've been chatting with a friend about the prices of things since the "official" end of the war (mainly in Baghdad, I guess) and she says everything has gone up dramatically. I had a quote from her I copied but it won't print out, so I'll go back and see about getting the actual figures she quoted. From other sources my impression was that prices on food, gas, etc. (not counting the black market, etc) had gone down. Or prices may remain higher in Baghdad than the out-lying cities? Thank you. I'll see about those figures.

 

Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 2:

 

Here are the figures from my friend:

 

.."The food costs continue to rise on nearly a daily basis. Here is a short list of price comparison from before the War to now, on basic food and fuel supplies: Sugar 1 kg 150 ID (Iraqi Dinars) 750 ID, Tomatoes 1 kg 100 ID 750 ID, Rice 1 kg 150 ID 600 ID, Gas cylinder 300 ID 5000 ID, Diesel 1 ltr. 20 ID 300 ID, Benzene 1 lt. 20 ID 500 ID. Please tell me why diesel fuel is 10 times more expensive, or that gas cylinders are 15 times more expensive."

 

Are these correct? Thank you for your input!

 

Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Betsy about my comments of Iraqi bloggers;

What do you mean by "probable changes" in current bloggers? That's an odd thing to say. There have been bunches added constantly as new ones join in, I know that. So many now I'm having trouble keeping up with all of them!

My observation of "probable changes" was the Humor in Salim Pax.( the 1st I stumbled on )

Yes,

It was about this time last year.His humor was very entertaining. He seemed to blog and write for the shear wit and one liners he could post.

I suspect due to external conditions beyond his control....

ie the war...

his humor faded. I wasn't the only one to notice it. It vanished for awhile.

 

In a nutshell,;they are just people going through the situation we call "life" :huh: . Life can make you moody at times. :o :blink: :angry: :rolleyes: ect.

 

:angry: So don't read to deep into my posts! :angry: LOL

 

On the cost of living;

... my impression was that prices on food, gas, etc. (not counting the black market, etc) had gone down. Or prices may remain higher in Baghdad than the out-lying cities?

Betsy,

you may be "barking" up the wrong tree asking the Iraqi input on prices other than to confirm that the socialist market of Saddam 's price fixing has given way to a free market supply/demand price floating.

Everything is on the table.

The market will set the price,not the states planning commisions of the past. They do have an unemployment rate that screams "welfare subsidies" just the same.

 

What I found Ironic was that Iraq was importing oil from Jordan ! ? ! ?

go figger ( I understand they don't have oil wells )

 

 

=======

 

من بتسي عن تعليقاتي للبلوجيرز العراقيّ, [ سعر ] ماذا تعنيه بالتّغييرات المحتملة في بلوجيرز حاليّ ؟ ذلك شيء غريب للقول . قد كان هناك مجموعات إضافيّة باستمرار بينما (كما) تشارك الجدد في, أعرف ذلك . كثير من الآن أشعر مشكلة تدركهم كلّ ![ / سعر ]

كانت ملاحظتي للتغييرات المحتملة الدّعابة في سليم باكس .( الأوّل تعثّرت على )

نعم,

كان عن هذه المرّة العام الماضي .كانت فكاهته ممتعةً جدًّا . بدا إلى بلوج و يكتب لليجزّ الفطنة و بطانات واحدة التي كان يمكن ان يرسل لها .

أشكّ بسبب ظروف خارجيّة بعد سيطرته ....

الحرب لآي إي ...

تضاءلت دعابته . لم أكن الوحيد لملاحظته . اختفى للحظة .

بإيجاز,, هم فقط ناس تعاني من الوضع الذي نسمّيه حياة :هاه : . يمكن أن تجعلك الحياة عصبيّ أحيانًا . :أو :الطّرفة : :غاضب : :رولييس : إكت .

 

:غاضب : لذا لا يقرأ إلى بعمق في بريدي ! :غاضب : لول

 

على نفقات المعيشة, [ سعر ] ... كان انطباعي ذلك الأسعار على الطّعام, الغاز, إلخ ( ليس يعدّ السّوق السّوداء إلخ ) قد نزل . أو الأسعار قد تبقى أعلى في بغداد من المدن البعيدة ؟[ / سعر ]

بتسي,

أنت قد تخطئ الهدف تطلب المدخل العراقيّ على الأسعار بخلاف لتأكيد أن السّوق الاشتراكيّ تثبيت أسعار صدام قد أفسح مكانًا لسوق حرّة كمّيّة / سعر المشتري تطفو .

كل شيئ على المائدة .

سيضع السّوق السّعر, ليس الدّول التي تخطّط كومميسيونز الماضي . فعلاً لديهم معدّل بطالة يصرخ دعم الرّاحة فقط نفس الشيء .

 

ما وجدته ساخر كان أنّ العراق كان يستورد الزّيت من الأردنّ ! ? ! ?

اذهب فيجر ( أفهم أنّ ليس لديهم آبار بترول )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, Airedale (cool name!), but my friend's hollering that her "figures" prove she is right about the suffering in Iraq because the prices have gone up so high .. so I'm looking for help in a rebuttal .. "everything's on the table" doesn't surprise me but where did she get those numbers? <_<

 

Haha, sorry, didn't mean anything heavy by the question about the bloggers. Healing Iraq is in a bit of hot water right now and your statement just made me wonder. If you like humor, do you read "Allah"? Or The Mesopotamian is eloquent today. I know many have their own agendas, etc. but it's all interesting! Thanks for your input :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do the Iraqis on the list think of Paul Bremer's Order 39

which allows foreign investor to buy state-owned Iraqi assets and

take one hundred per cent of the profits out of the country - BEFORE

the Iraqi people even have a chance to vote on this issue??

 

(I could post or send the entire article to anyone who's interested.

The Guardian/Observer also had some articles on this).

 

 

NEW YORK TIMES

ARTS & IDEAS/CULTURAL DESK | January 10, 2004, Saturday

Free-Market Iraq? Not So Fast

 

By DAPHNE EVIATAR (NYT) 1699 words

Late Edition - Final , Section B , Page 9 , Column 3

ABSTRACT - Article on concerns being raised by legal scholars that US-led Coalition Provisional Authority, seeking to help rebuild Iraqi economy, may be violating longstanding international laws governing military occupation by instituting rules allowing foreign investors to own Iraqi companies and sell state-owned enterprises; coalition authority officials insist UN Security Council Resolution 1483 specifically authorizes it to wipe out Saddam Hussein's entire economic system and institute economic reforms; photos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Gunny

Interesting thread. Couple of questions...

 

1. Are any Iraqis participating in this discussion? By the third page there was more chatter about the NFL than the latest news from Baghdad.

 

2. Other than George B., the group here seems pretty conservative. Is there some connection other than pure curiosity that brought you all here?

 

3. Does anyone else here wonder what the heck we (the U.S.) is doing in Iraq? We hear a lot of rhetoric about "democracy" and "self-government" but the goals seem to change every time the CPA puts out a news release. I'm confused, but then I'm also stuck out here on the far upper left end of CONUS. I know what we didn't want - Saddam (though we were okay with him when he was pounding Iranian ass for us in the 80s) - but what do we really want? Does anyone out there think we'd be okay with Iraqi democracy if that democracy wanted to be an Islamic Republic a la Iran? If it voted to send troops to help Pakistan regain the Kashmir? If it sided with Syria over the Golan? It it had an independant foreign policy that conflicted with ours ar all?

 

A confession - I also spent a bunch of time in Panama, Hondo and similar tropical vacation spots during the 80's, hauling water for our little wars in Nicaragua and El Sal, so I'm a little sceptical of any government doing good for goodness sake. In my experience, nations and governments, even our own Fair Columbia, have interests, not friends. I suspect that we'd be perfectly happy with a friendly autocrat in Baghdad. It's working for us in Pakistan and Egypt, right?

 

But I'm not on the scene there. What's the "street level" feeling - is there any indication of a plan for setting up a system that will get Iraq to a functional, representative society and keep it that way? And if so - what the heck is it, and how workable does it look?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
By the third page there was more chatter about the NFL than the latest news from Baghdad.

 

You might also need to go through other threads on this site to follow with some Iraqis input..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Achillea
1. Are any Iraqis participating in this discussion? By the third page there was more chatter about the NFL than the latest news from Baghdad.

 

2. Other than George B., the group here seems pretty conservative. Is there some connection other than pure curiosity that brought you all here?

 

3. Does anyone else here wonder what the heck we (the U.S.) is doing in Iraq? We hear a lot of rhetoric about "democracy" and "self-government" but the goals seem to change every time the CPA puts out a news release.

 

1. I couldn't care less about the NFL.

 

2. Curiousity, for me. I read the various Iraqi blogs, and found Baghdadee back when it was one, 'following' along when it became a bboard.

 

3. I can't speak for Iraqis, but as to why I believe my country is doing the right thing, whatever wrongs we might have done in the past --

"Sixty years of Western nations' excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because, in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty,"

Doing this good for Iraq does good for us. Would we be happy with an 'Islamic democracy' in Iraq? No, but if such a thing could exist, it wouldn't exist long. It would either devolve into a dictatorship like Iran, or evolve into something like the 'Judeo-Christian-flavored' democracy of the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest_Tom Penn

Must we really rehash every cold war conflict? Funny how the US is constantly held accountable for all the coldwar bloodshed, yet given no credit for winning it. Funny how the US is held accountable for Vietnam and Korea, but the UN, Soviets, Chinese, the French, Ho Chi Minn, and Pol Pot all get a pass. Suddenly, the Socialists have rewritten history and the US tramped around the world boxing shadows from WWII to the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the Soviet Union wasn't so bad after all. Nevermind the history of communism, the Americans are the barbarians. What a comfortable place you people must live in!

 

To debunk a myth, the US sold Hussein a tiny fraction of his weapons from 1981 on. Look up the real numbers. Those are not American planes hidden in the sand. James Baker is not spending most of his time standing in front of our Congress begging the forgiveness of 5% of my GDP to write off Hussein's debts. Hussein always had better friends than us.

 

On the contrary, my money, our national efforts, and the blood of my contrymen is being spent in Iraq to pick these people up, help them dust themselves off, and prepare them for self-rule. Building schools, hospitals, roads, infrastructure, encouraging a free press, holding local elections. Now, if that is such a terrible thing, why don't you really put your money where your hypocritical mouth is and immigrate to North Korea? I did not hear such outrage about how Iraq managed Kuwait during THAT occupation. Can you not see the difference? Are you blind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Shi'a Pundit:

 

can liberty be imposed?: The Islamic Republic of Iraq is inevitable.

 

can liberty be imposed?. an essay in The New Yorker relates a historical parallel to our Iraq adventure - that of French Algieria:

 

Unlike the French mission in Algeria, Washington’s goal in Iraq is not to prevent the people from governing their own country but to help them to do so. Presumably, the insurgents—about whose politics, allegiances, organization, and objectives shockingly little is known—also want to see Iraqis in power, if not the same ones that Washington might favor. The question “Is America to remain in Iraq?� would ultimately receive the same negative answer from the occupiers as from the guerrillas. But, as the Bush Administration pushes for speedy elections and a speedy exit, Algeria’s example is again worth bearing in mind. In the early nineties, an Islamic fundamentalist party won elections in that country by a solid majority but was prevented from taking power by the secular military, which refused to accept the democratic election of an anti-democratic government. As a result, the country descended into a civil war that is reported to have claimed a hundred thousand lives.

 

 

This really is the nub of the question - are we seeking to give Iraq democracy, or liberty? Both are important and idealistic concepts. Democracy is the will of the people, and is more universal a human desire. Liberty is a freedom to dictate the circumstances of your personal life, such that you can achieve the pursuit of happiness (as defined by our American founding documents) and rests solidly upon the First Amendment - freedom of speech and religion.

 

I am confident that democracy can be imposed, but the outcome is not guaranteed to be liberty. People don't, as a rule, understand liberty as a concept until they actually have to fght for it, to earn it - as our Founders said, the tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots. Can liberty be given? I don't think so. It has to be won, not gifted.

 

I don't doubt that we will succeed in gifting democracy to Iraq. But my prediction is that the result will be a Shi'a theocracy, though unlike Iran the true political clerical leadership of Iraq's Shi'a are more open to the concepts of liberty than the fundamentalists who imposed theocratic rule in Iran were (with the people's democratic blessing).

 

Ayatollah Sistani will be better than Saddam in all respects - and the true villains remaining on the field are those on the Interim Governing Council who are taking note of Bush's plan to cut and run in time for election 2004, and moving to cement their positions accordingly.

 

Given a choice between the imposed rule of the IGC and the democratic groundswell of the Shi'a majority, what seems inevitable? Democracy is as desirable, if not more, than liberty, and of the two concepts, only one is within the reach of th emajority of people in Iraq. They will harvest that fruit soon enough.

 

The Islamic Republic of Iraq is inevitable.

 

posted by Shi'a Pundit | 21.12.03 | Comment (2)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Penn,

 

It is your ignorance, naiveté, or your total self-denial that allows our government to get away with the things they got away with during the Cold War. People strive for independence in spite of the interventions of other Empires, American or Soviet.

 

The road to freedom begins with honesty, ….you obviously do not wish to take the journey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest_salim

Quoting from the link

Ayatollah Sistani will be better than Saddam in all respects - and the true villains remaining on the field are those on the Interim Governing Council who are taking note of Bush's plan to cut and run in time for election 2004, and moving to cement their positions accordingly.

 

Given a choice between the imposed rule of the IGC and the democratic groundswell of the Shi'a majority, what seems inevitable? Democracy is as desirable, if not more, than liberty, and of the two concepts, only one is within the reach of th emajority of people in Iraq. They will harvest that fruit soon enough.

 

The Islamic Republic of Iraq is inevitable.

 

Seems the writer is not aware about what is realy happening in Iraq.. I suggest all those who are trying to analyze the future of democracy in Iraq, to read the article by Basim A "The other Khumaini..." on this web site..

 

Systani is not asking for Islamic state.. He is gainst it.. His ask for the UN judge on the possibility of election , is just another proof for it..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...