War on Iraq Coming

[Texan]

Resolution 1441 says Iraq shall provide "a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration" of its weapons programs. Mr. Blix says Iraq has not provided one. The resolution says "false statements or omissions" constitute material breach. Mr. Blix says there are probably false statements and certainly omissions. The resolution says this is a "final opportunity" for Iraq to disarm. Mr. Blix says Saddam has not taken up that opportunity.

[Leshy]

War on Iraq coming

And where have you been the past few months?

[bobble]

George W Bush in "Going to Slaughter Some Towelheads" shocker.

[Marilyn Manson]

I'm 20 in a month. What a great time to have a birthday.

[Bloomers III]

Apparently the best time to launch a war is mid-february. more specifically 14th february. VALENTINES day! also a day before my birthday, what a present. I like wars, they look good on the news.

[Texan]

I plan to marry my beloved Raphaela on February 14 of this year; however, I have read that U.S. and allied forces will not be ready until March. The liberation of Iraq would have been a wonderful marriage present, but I suspect it is not meant to be.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Texan
The liberation of Iraq

Liberation to what?

What makes you sure that any post-Saddam regime will be democratic, or if it is democratic, that that democracy will be sustainable? (In social and economic settings such as Iraq's, it is almost never sustainable for extended periods.)

[Texan]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Liberation to what?

What makes you sure that any post-Saddam regime will be democratic, or if it is democratic, that that democracy will be sustainable? (In social and economic settings such as Iraq's, it is almost never sustainable for extended periods.)

Nothing leads me to that belief. We can only try. The Iraqi people are responsible for their own actions after their current government goes down.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Bloomers III
Apparently the best time to launch a war is mid-february. more specifically 14th february.

Dont know where you heard that. If the US goes into Iraq, they will go either first week in February, around Feb 3rd or 4th, or first week in March, around March 1st or 2nd. Every military campaign the US has launced in recent memory (panama, desert Storm, Kosovo, etc) all happen within 4 days after a new moon, at night. Preferably when the evening is overcast but with a high ceiling.

February 14th has too bright a moon for the US to attack, they give up one of their main technological advantages. If they get to pick their date (IE somebody does not force the issue) I bet 5 bucks on Feb. 4th or March 2nd. No later as it gets into high season, and far to hot for coalition troops.

[Radical Edward]

It'll be over by Christmas.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Texan
Nothing leads me to that belief. We can only try. The Iraqi people are responsible for their own actions after their current government goes down.

So we are responsable for destroying their current regime, but its their responsability to come up with the next one?

Please be aware that without heavy western post-war involvement, the next Iraqi government will either be (30% chance) exactly like this one, or (70% chance) an Islamic regime, likely backed by Saudi Arabia. Either way can spell nothing but bad for the US and the West. To say its 'Their problem what government comes next' is terribly myopic.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Liberation to what?

What makes you sure that any post-Saddam regime will be democratic, or if it is democratic, that that democracy will be sustainable? (In social and economic settings such as Iraq's, it is almost never sustainable for extended periods.)

apparentlyin the north and south no-fly zones, the people there have set up semi autonomous democratic-type states*. so anything's possible.

*some slap head historian said so on TV this morning, I've never heard of this before though

[Marilyn Manson]

The more I think about it, the more utterly and completely twatish and pointless this war becomes.

[Texan]

Originally posted by Vermillion
So we are responsable for destroying their current regime, but its their responsability to come up with the next one?

Please be aware that without heavy western post-war involvement, the next Iraqi government will either be (30% chance) exactly like this one, or (70% chance) an Islamic regime, likely backed by Saudi Arabia. Either way can spell nothing but bad for the US and the West. To say its 'Their problem what government comes next' is terribly myopic.

It is not myopic. It is letting the people choose what they want. Choice is something the Iraqi people have not enjoyed for a long time.

[Dibdevlin]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Liberation to what?

What makes you sure that any post-Saddam regime will be democratic, or if it is democratic, that that democracy will be sustainable? (In social and economic settings such as Iraq's, it is almost never sustainable for extended periods.)

Well last I heard that was an Iraqi shadow democratic govenment set up in London. Haven't heard anything about it in a while but it got a bunch of press around the same time President Bush gave his UN speech.

While you might be correct on the social settings in Iraq. Economically speaking the country has a lot of wealth. In short order they can get back to exporting 3 million barrels of crude oil a day getting them around $20 a barrel. Nice $60 million a day to help pay your governmental bills.

And thats just the short term. They can probably double that amount of exports over the next year or two.

[Caesar2]

Originally posted by Texan
It is not myopic. It is letting the people choose what they want. Choice is something the Iraqi people have not enjoyed for a long time.

did your country asked the people of iraq if they want to be 'liberated'?

[Dibdevlin]

Originally posted by Caesar2
did your country asked the people of iraq if they want to be 'liberated'?

There was a referendum. Where have you been?

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Texan
It is not myopic. It is letting the people choose what they want. Choice is something the Iraqi people have not enjoyed for a long time.

It is not only myopic, it is dangerous.

Do you believe that if the US eliminated the Hussein regime and then leaves, that the people will really be able to 'choose the government that they want'?

And here is the much trickier question. Do you believe that 'the government that they want' will be more or less hostile to the US? When the almost ineviatble islamic regime takes over in this circumstance, allied with saudi Arabia, what do you think will happen to the world price of oil?

Right now the only thing OPEC hates more than the US is each other, the Middle east is fractional and divided. By unifying 2 of the three groups under and Islamic regime, how can you possibly think things will improve for the US or the West?

[len!n]

Originally posted by Texan
It is not myopic. It is letting the people choose what they want. Choice is something the Iraqi people have not enjoyed for a long time.

As the Iraqi don't have any democratic structures through which to make any choices, I think it's likely that the power will be snatched by those with the biggest guns. And they will propably use it in a way that is not quite what the majority of the Iraqi people would prefer.

[wu_trax]

iran needs a permanent seat in the secuity council

and vermillion ill tell you what will happen:
iraq will loose the war within a few weeks, then the us will set up a puppet goverment (surprise, surprise, no democracy), then the iraq will sell lots of oil, so that the price drops to something around 15$. that wont be too difficult, because the opec-country have to increase their production aswell, just to keep their income as it is atm. after that the world-,especially the us, economy will recover and everyone will be happy (except those few 100,000 dead iraqies, those people in the opec-countries and all these new recurited terrorists, but you cant have everything :/

[Leshy]

Originally posted by Texan
The Iraqi people are responsible for their own actions after their current government goes down.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA

[W]

I've no problem with learning arabic, or not shaving.




On the other hand, I've no problem with gas prices going up either. We've survived without oil before, we can do it again.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by wu_trax

and vermillion ill tell you what will happen:
iraq will loose the war within a few weeks, then the us will set up a puppet goverment (surprise, surprise, no democracy), then the iraq will sell lots of oil, so that the price drops to something around 15$. that wont be too difficult, because the opec-country have to increase their production aswell, just to keep their income as it is atm. after that the world-,especially the us, economy will recover and everyone will be happy (except those few 100,000 dead iraqies, those people in the opec-countries and all these new recurited terrorists, but you cant have everything :/

Or:

Iraq will fight fairly hard, but as before be utterly outclassed, and will collapse in about 5 weeks, fewer than 800 US casualties. It will take another 6 weeks to determine the fate of Hussein, who went to ground, and sent his 45 duplicates to all corners of the world.

The US will set up a nominal Iraqi state, with one of the laughable opposition groups, and will have to support it both militarily and economically just to get it to remain in power for more than 24 hours.

The oil contracts are currently mostly owned by Russia and nations of the EU, and they will launch many a diplomatic protest before they will relinquish these contracts, in the end a compromise will be reached under the table.

The price of oil will stay exactly the same, maybe grop a few token cents to please the plebes (I mean honestly, price of oil drop dramatically? NEVER happen.)

None of this will help the domestic economy, Bush II will go the way of Bush I in the next election. Iraq puppet government will last 3 years until constant civil unrest, support of Islamic rebels from all other ME countries, and the diversion of the attention of the US to other pastures causes a small coup d'etat, and a moderate sounding Islamic leader takes over, playing down his very strong ties to Saudi Arabia.

Oil goes up in price by 15%, enough to scare people but not panic them, and the Middle East begins to consolidate under the influence of the hause of Saud, with only Iran, Egypt and Turkey being on the outside.

West = fooked.

[wu_trax]

ofc the opil price will go down, thats the idea of this whole thingy. if there is a puppet goverment in iraq that ignores the opec and listens to the us they can easily ruin the prices.
but there will be more than 800 casulties, maybe not in the war directly but afterwards, during the occupation and the terrorism that will follow

[Azof]

Mr. Bush's popularity is declining, and we'll see how it is after tonight's State of the Union address, if he doesn't lay down some hard facts (assuming he has any).

[Mushroom]

Originally posted by wu_trax
ofc the oil price will go down

Not if war breaks out. Oil prices will go up, especially if Saudi objects to the war and stops producing/selling to the west.

[Azof]

Originally posted by Mushroom
Not if war breaks out. Oil prices will go up, especially if Saudi objects to the war and stops producing/selling to the west.

It would be quite difficult for Saudi Arabi to simply stop selling to the US (assuming you are referring to the US when you say "the west").

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Mushroom
Not if war breaks out. Oil prices will go up, especially if Saudi objects to the war and stops producing/selling to the west.

thats already priced, because everyone is already expecting a war, so it wont rise any further, it will drop a lot if a war is avoided now, but noone really wants that (except most of the populations of almost every western country, but who cares about them, unless there is an election )
ofc, it wont fall directly after the war started or after the war is over, but 6-12 month after the war is over it will be at about 15$ or less

PS and saudi arabia doesnt really care about the war, the population is against it, but the goverment doesnt care much about their opinion. they simply dont want to become part of the next axis of evil.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by wu_trax
ofc the opil price will go down, thats the idea of this whole thingy. if there is a puppet goverment in iraq that ignores the opec and listens to the us they can easily ruin the prices.

I am sorry, but there is no chance at all that oil prices will go down except for, as I said, a few cents to please the plebes. And oil prices going down is most certainly NOT the idea of the whole thing.

There is an argument to be made that oil control is one of the main reasons for US action, though how important it is is under debate, but that has NOTHING to do with lowering oil prices.

Why would a puppet government in Iraq lower oil prices, when it will be their main and possibly only source of evenue for rebuilding? Why would any oil-producing nation in the world, including the US, want oil prices to go down? What makes you think that any lowering in the price of a barrel of oil will be passed onto the consumer?

Take this and bet on it. When the war starts, oil prices will go up. When the war ends, they will go back down to about 10-20% above what they were before the war started.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Vermillion
And here is the much trickier question. Do you believe that 'the government that they want' will be more or less hostile to the US? When the almost ineviatble islamic regime takes over in this circumstance, allied with saudi Arabia, what do you think will happen to the world price of oil?

If the US "liberates" Iraq they are not going to hold elections the next day--precisely because there would be no one to vote for. A pro-western interim government will be installed, using the most credible anti-Saddam individual(s) that can be scrapped up (ala Afghanistan). Sometime later, elections can be held. I expect the first constitution will be along the lines of a secular republic, if only to accomodate the Kurdish and Sunni minorities.

If the people of Iraq do eventually opt for some sort of Islamic government, I would expect the Shia majority would choose to be more closely aligned with Iran rather than Saudi Arabia; but with sizable Sunni and Kurdish minorities, I don't see Iraq being anybody's model client state.

Right now the only thing OPEC hates more than the US is each other, the Middle east is fractional and divided. By unifying 2 of the three groups under and Islamic regime, how can you possibly think things will improve for the US or the West?

I haven't seen anything to suggest we're simply going to turn Iraq over to Saudi Arabia. That would be rather short-sighted--even for the US. Of course, Saudi Arabia will undoubtably try to influence the future government of Iraq, as will Iran, Syria, Turkey, Jordan, the US, etc.

I think you are too obsessed with Saudi Arabia taking over Iraq.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Vermillion
I am sorry, but there is no chance at all that oil prices will go down except for, as I said, a few cents to please the plebes. And oil prices going down is most certainly NOT the idea of the whole thing.

There is an argument to be made that oil control is one of the main reasons for US action, though how important it is is under debate, but that has NOTHING to do with lowering oil prices.

for what do you need control of oil if you dont want to influence the prices?

Why would a puppet government in Iraq lower oil prices, when it will be their main and possibly only source of evenue for rebuilding?

because its a puppet goverment and its not up to them to decide ?

Why would any oil-producing nation in the world, including the US, want oil prices to go down?

the us imports SLIGHTLY more than it produces on its own and quite a lot of it comes from the middle east. if they have iraq under control, they can do whatever they want there.

What makes you think that any lowering in the price of a barrel of oil will be passed onto the consumer?

i didnt say that, but the lower the price the better for the economy, quite simple.

Take this and bet on it. When the war starts, oil prices will go up. When the war ends, they will go back down to about 10-20% above what they were before the war started.

maybe it will rise a little more once the war is started, but after the war is over production in iraq will be increased and the prices will drop.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by wu_trax
for what do you need control of oil if you dont want to influence the prices?

To ensure that it's available. The price isn't especially important, at least as long as they're willing to accept dollars for it.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Tactitus
[b]If the US "liberates" Iraq they are not going to hold elections the next day--precisely because there would be no one to vote for. A pro-western interim government will be installed, using the most credible anti-Saddam individual(s) that can be scrapped up (ala Afghanistan). Sometime later, elections can be held. I expect the first constitution will be along the lines of a secular republic, if only to accomodate the Kurdish and Sunni minorities.

And what will the people of Iraq be doing during all of this? What makes you think they will in any way even remotely accept any kind of government the West sets up? The options currently available for opposition are laughable, and completely unsupported by the people. If you try and force the people to acceept the new pro-us government... well, I suggest you examine Afganistan under the USSR, when they did pretty much EXACTLY this.

The people may not be anywhere near as supportive of Hussein as he would have the west believe, but to take that and assume they would allow a pro-US puppet government is a silly leap in logic.

If the people of Iraq do eventually opt for some sort of Islamic government, I would expect the Shia majority would choose to be more closely aligned with Iran rather than Saudi Arabia; but with sizable Sunni and Kurdish minorities, I don't see Iraq being anybody's model client state.

The Shia are a minority, not a majority, and they are mostly geographically isolated in the SE. Iraq is far more likely to go to civil war than have any kind of functional democracy.

I think you are too obsessed with Saudi Arabia taking over Iraq.

And I think the USA has an unbelievable blind spot when it comes to Saudi Arabia. More despotic than Iraq, with a worse catalogue of human rights violations and a MUCH worse record of supporting international terrorism. So why are they the 'good guys'? SA is also the only nation to have taken a serious interest in the post-Hussein state. Their choice for leader is far more resonable than the running-joke of a shadow government in London. SA has put enormous amounts of money into having a stake in the post-war Iraq.

I am not worried about it, the world is worried about it, and the world is unable to comprehend why the US is not worried about it. Its not an obsession, its a realistic concern which gets brought up in the UN and by Europe, but Bush seems unwilling to address.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by wu_trax
for what do you need control of oil if you dont want to influence the prices?

Think about that for a bit.

because its a puppet goverment and its not up to them to decide ?

So this puppet government will act directly against the interest of its own state, crippling its own economy and destroyong the welath of the country for the sake of the US SUV driver? And how do you think that will make the Middle east, not to mention the people of Iraq, feel? This is why wars start 10 years down the road.

A Puppet government that would do that would not only fall in weeks, but would alienate the few allies the US has managed to garner in the Middle east.

Again, think about that for a little bit.

maybe it will rise a little more once the war is started, but after the war is over production in iraq will be increased and the prices will drop.

The day the US goes into Iraq, the price of a barrel will go up by at least 4 dollars. It will go up by an additional dollar for every week the war is on. Thats at a minimum. Write that down, and check it against what happens when it happens. After the war, the price will drop down (slowly) to about 20% above where it was the day before the war started.

Stop assuming that production is immediatly linked to price. OPEC is a monopoly, thats the whole point, and by eliminating the fractionalisation in OPEC by elimiating the current Iraqi regime, it will only get worse.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Vermillion
Think about that for a bit.

its not like they boycott the us or something, they dont even do that now, with saddam in power.

So this puppet government will act directly against the interest of its own state, crippling its own economy and destroyong the welath of the country for the sake of the US SUV driver? And how do you think that will make the Middle east, not to mention the people of Iraq, feel? This is why wars start 10 years down the road.

A Puppet government that would do that would not only fall in weeks, but would alienate the few allies the US has managed to garner in the Middle east.

Again, think about that for a little bit.

yes, i asume thats exactly the plan. if they produce a lot of oil they wont cripple their own economy, they would simply sell more oil for the same money, theyve got quite a lot of it, so that doesnt really matter (at least on the short sight)

The day the US goes into Iraq, the price of a barrel will go up by at least 4 dollars. It will go up by an additional dollar for every week the war is on. Thats at a minimum. Write that down, and check it against what happens when it happens. After the war, the price will drop down (slowly) to about 20% above where it was the day before the war started.

i guess thats already priced in, i dont think much more will happen. but maybe you are right, but why does it matter? the prices will fall afterwards to compensate the damage.

Stop assuming that production is immediatly linked to price. OPEC is a monopoly, thats the whole point, and by eliminating the fractionalisation in OPEC by elimiating the current Iraqi regime, it will only get worse.

ofc the price is linked to the production, to what else ??
i think the plan is to weaken the opec even more as it is now. if the iraq does what the us wants the whole opec is extremly weak, because iraq has lots of oil.
if this all happens obviously terrorism will increase, which might end up for the us-troops like for the SU-troops in afganistan, especially if the whole opec is annoyed and supports the terrorism, but, well, no plan is perfect


PS no, i dont support the whole idea, i just show my asumptions about the plan the us-goverment has.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Vermillion
And what will the people of Iraq be doing during all of this? What makes you think they will in any way even remotely accept any kind of government the West sets up? The options currently available for opposition are laughable, and completely unsupported by the people. If you try and force the people to acceept the new pro-us government... well, I suggest you examine Afganistan under the USSR, when they did pretty much EXACTLY this.

Why should we look at Afghanistan under the USSR and ignore present-day Afghanistan that has just such a coalition-installed interim government? The Karzai government has been been fairly well accepted by the Afghan people--far better than the pundits were predicting (so far, anyway--granted, it could all blow up tomorrow, I suppose, but I don't see any reason to share your nationbuilding-can't-possibly-work worldview at this point).

The people may not be anywhere near as supportive of Hussein as he would have the west believe, but to take that and assume they would allow a pro-US puppet government is a silly leap in logic.

And yet the Afghan people appear to have done just that. Curious. They must just be biding their time.

The Shia are a minority, not a majority, and they are mostly geographically isolated in the SE.

I think I'll go with the ol' CIA World Factbook on this:

From the CIA World Factbook, http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/iz.html
Religions
Muslim 97% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%

And I think the USA has an unbelievable blind spot when it comes to Saudi Arabia. More despotic than Iraq, with a worse catalogue of human rights violations and a MUCH worse record of supporting international terrorism. So why are they the 'good guys'?

I have no great love for Saudi Arabia, but neither do I see them as the Evil Empire. They're not big on democracy or personal liberties, but they don't drop poison gas on villages or invade their neighbors. Remarkably, that actually puts them near the front of the line as mideast regimes go.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Tactitus
Why should we look at Afghanistan under the USSR and ignore present-day Afghanistan that has just such a coalition-installed interim government? The Karzai government has been been fairly well accepted by the Afghan people--far better than the pundits were predicting (so far, anyway--granted, it could all blow up tomorrow, I suppose, but I don't see any reason to share your nationbuilding-can't-possibly-work worldview at this point).

lol, you are kidding, arent you? since when does kazai have any power at all outside kabul ??

And yet the Afghan people appear to have done just that. Curious. They must just be biding their time.

no, far away from it. you cant just bomb the **** out of them and then think they will love you for it.

I have no great love for Saudi Arabia, but neither do I see them as the Evil Empire. They're not big on democracy or personal liberties, but they don't drop poison gas on villages or invade their neighbors. Remarkably, that actually puts them near the front of the line as mideast regimes go.

another lol

[ParraCida]

Last gulf war the second the first plane left the ground the stock markets went up.
In six weeks the markets gained 20-30%, all this 'pre-war gloom' will be lifted as soon as they fly in the air. Oil prices won't matter sh*t, its the sentiment just like the last time.

Kill iraq, bring back world economy.

[Torz]

Originally posted by wu_trax
[b]lol, you are kidding, arent you? since when does kazai have any power at all outside kabul ??
[b]
no, far away from it. you cant just bomb the **** out of them and then think they will love you for it.


another lol

cute how you don't respond to where he completely shoots down your stats.

[Nusselt]

lets get back to the important matters, what odds are william hill giving for the first week of march????


even if they dont give me any odds, im sure i can find an idiotic friend to make a drunken bet with.


vermillion, you are sure about these dates, yeah?

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Torz
cute how you don't respond to where he completely shoots down your stats.

and where would that be?

[Torz]

Originally posted by wu_trax
and where would that be?

I think I'll go with the ol' CIA World Factbook on this:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the CIA World Factbook, http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...ok/geos/iz.html
Religions
Muslim 97% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%

[wu_trax]

im not vermillion i didnt say anything about any ethical groups in iraq, because i honestly have no idea about that topic

[acropolis]

Originally posted by wu_trax
im not vermillion i didnt say anything about any ethical groups in iraq, because i honestly have no idea about that topic

problem is all the ethical groups have been killed off already.

so what's left is just unethical barbarians to take control. no good can come of it I say!

(ps, point of fact, there is no valid comparison between iraq and afghanistan. iraqis are educated. iraqis have an economy. iraqis are secular. neighboring countries don't control iraqi politics. mullahs giving kill-jew speeches don't control iraqi politics. terrorists don't have any....)

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by wu_trax
lol, you are kidding, arent you? since when does kazai have any power at all outside kabul ??

A weak government isn't necessarily a bad one--especially for an interim government. No one's going to come in and rule Afghanistan with an iron fist; not without a lot more guns than Karzai and the US has (and the Soviets had--for that matter). At least most of the factions aren't shooting at each other, or us.

If you look only for problems in Afghanistan you will certainly find them; but if you compare the current "occupation" to the Soviet one, it doesn't look so bad at all.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Tactitus
If you look only for problems in Afghanistan you will certainly find them; but if you compare the current "occupation" to the Soviet one, it doesn't look so bad at all.

no its not, but you almost sounded like the whole thing is fixed yet, its not, its far away from that.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by acropolis
ps, point of fact, there is no valid comparison between iraq and afghanistan. iraqis are educated. iraqis have an economy. iraqis are secular. neighboring countries don't control iraqi politics. mullahs giving kill-jew speeches don't control iraqi politics. terrorists don't have any....

maybe our universities are not world class anymore, but you certainly cant say the terrorists, who flew into the wtc were uneducated. as far as i know they were not even poor, they just didnt like the western world. if you now run around and throw bombs even more people wont like the western world, which means more terrorism :/

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by wu_trax
maybe our universities are not world class anymore, but you certainly cant say the terrorists, who flew into the wtc were uneducated. as far as i know they were not even poor, they just didnt like the western world. if you now run around and throw bombs even more people wont like the western world, which means more terrorism :/

he never said they were uneducated. Also, the truth is this:

The only thing the US interferes with in the middle east is the arabs ability to slaughter jews wholesale. Osama started because he felt americans on Saudi soil was blasphemy. He wanted us to save the day then leave.

Most terrorists hate us regardless because islam preaches death to infidels (anyone who says different is a fking liar, read the koran yourself sometime). If it wasn't one thing, it would be another, and the US--as the icon of the west--represents 1000's of years of bloodshed in all it's glory..even if it was Europe doing most of it.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by wu_trax
no its not, but you almost sounded like the whole thing is fixed yet, its not, its far away from that.

No; I was just trying to address Vermillion's an-Iraq-occupation-will-never-work-because-look-what-happened-to-the-Soviets-in-Afghanistan line of reasoning. If the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan doesn't even apply to the current occupation of Afghanistan, then it probably won't apply to Iraq either.

That was my point, anyway.

[Hicks]

Why on Earth are so many people convinced that oil prices drop so much ?

Iraq's oil pumping infrastructure is laughable (Two major wars and ten years of sanctions have taken their toll), even if Saddam decided not to scorch the oil fields it will take a decade of work and around $40 billion to bring Iraqi output back above 4.5 million barrels a day, this is assuming that rebuilding the oil sector was the number one priority of a civilian government (Which I doubt it would be considering the lack of food and democratic infrastructure in Iraq).

The Iraqi government would still inherit the $100 billion of debts the country currently has and I find it difficult to believe that America will personally bankroll the reconstruction of the Iraqi oil industry especially as much of the oil has already been contracted to companies from France, China and Russia who are unlikely to simply surrender it. Once all the arguing between lawyers and rebuilding is done we'll be into about 2020, if this is a war simply about lower oil prices then the American government is looking very long term, something I assumed it had little motivation to do.

Also you reasoning about an Iraqi puppet state flooding the world market with oil to topple Saudi Arbia and OPEC is flawed, Saudi would simply flood the market themselves, it's better to settle for mediocre profits than low profits. Which country do you think can sustain the high output, the world's largest producer of oil (Saudi produces in excess of 8.5 million barrels a day) or Iraq ? In short they’d lose it quicker than it will take American tanks to reach Baghdad.