Of course it's about oil.

What the idiotarians who proclaim this to the rooftops don't understand, though, is that, despite the President's and Vice President's backgrounds, it's not about oil companies.

All this braying does is betray their fundamental economic ignorance. How does opening up a major new source of oil on the market, and thus dropping prices, help oil companies? If anything, this is one of Russia's concerns about the Iraq invasion--that her oil will suddenly become worth much less in a newly glutted market.

So how is Iraq about oil? Oil is probably the reason that we continue to treat the Saudi thugs with kid gloves. We need to get control of Iraqi oil to a) no longer have to worry about the Sauds cutting off the supply (though in current market conditions, they probably need dollars more than we need the oil) and b) allow us to threaten to flood the market with cheap Iraqi oil, thus wiping out their current income stream, and perhaps causing their downfall.

And of course, the Iraqi oil will pay the expenses of setting up a demonstration libera Arab state in the fertile crescent that will be used to undermine the rest of the Arab world over the next few years.

C'mon Rand, It's not THAT stupid. Oil prices might go down if, say, several million barrels of oil come down the pike all of a sudden. But wouldn't you agree that for say, ChevronTexaco to suddenly acquire several billion barrels of reserves that have already been explored and drilled, and are thus very cheap to produce, that would be a GOOD thing for that company? Also, it would allow them to stop paying a third party for their crude, or to stop funneling $$ into Saddam's weapons program to get at his crude (not CT specifically, but it was in Newsweek). I always hear this argument, and I really don't understand it. How can an oil company getting massive amounts of free oil by force be a bad thing for them?? It might be bad for their competitors, though...

Free oil, huh? Paul, are you thinking once Saddam's gone the entirety of Iraq is going to be wide open and empty for American oil companies to just waltz in and plunk down a sign on all these suddenly UNOWNED oilfields and refineries that says, "THIS IS MINE"?

How's about I wait until you and your family go away for the holidays, then I come in and claim your house? That's about as likely.

Paul, maybe you'd like to explain to the rest of the class how having one of the largest OPEC nations suddenly become the de facto property of the US...is supposed to be GOOD for ChevronTexaco? If supply is cheaper, if there no longer is the wrangling with OPEC about price-per-barrel, what happens to price at the pump...and therefore Chevron's profit margin?

The same goes for Mexico. Bush's policy there is less influenced by the demand of Texans for lawn mowing services than their oil reserves. The Nigerians and Venezuelans should not draw any conclusions from the fact that Bush et al are otherwise occupied with Iraq. Their turn will come. Their choice will be stick or carrot.

There is already talk of voiding contracts w/ Russian Oil Co (I can't remember the name) and TotalFinaElf, the French conglomerate. Some of you may recall that both of these countries were major obstacles to the UN resolution. This may indicate some presence of oil as an economic issue.
Here is the explanation for the class. 1) Iraq becomes "de facto US property". 2) Major oil contracts are voided, bringing major capacity under the control of the US government. 3) The rights to this capacity are distributed in some fashion to US and other Western oil companies. 4) They know control a major, cheap, supply of crude, and therefore have PRICING POWER. 5) The oil co's in question (CT was just an example, I am not suggesting ANY sort of conspiratorial doings) reap profits by having greater control over the price of crude, as well as a LARGE source of very cheap crude that they can refine or sell as that price dictates.

I really don't see why this is such a difficult concept. If oil companies don't want to increase their supplies, why do they keep drilling for the damned stuff?

A follow up, for Kevin. I am sure you know this, and I don't, but who exactly owns all of those oil fields? I am sure it is just regular folks like you and me, running a tiny little Middle Eastern petroleum fueled dictatorship. Perhaps you could enlighten us? Don't be surprised if a lot of them have the last name "Hussein"...

Seems to me the major owner of oil properties in most countries in that region is the government in that region. And since what you're calling de facto U.S. property would still be de jure Iraq, which would still have to have its own government...

You still haven't explained how U.S. oil companies are getting this oil "free."

Look, I will explain it in the smallest words possible. The US government, if it invades Iraq, will control that country. If we then set up a government led by our favorite Iraqi dissident, that person (I read something about Chalabi (sp??) recently, and I think he is, in fact, an oil man) will owe our govt a LOT. If the US govt asks him to give favorable contracts to US companies, he will. I am sorry, I was using "free oil" as a shorthand. I didn't literally mean that they wouldn't have to pay ANYTHING for it, just that they would not have to explore for it, or drill for it, and conceivably could lock in very low prices for it in various stages, allowing them to drive the market in a very real way. Of course, they MIGHT get "free oil", but what they really get is an opportunity to control the spigot on the second largest oil reserves in the world. Why that's enough to get you to forget ANWR!!
By the way, what makes you think that Iraq will still be Iraq after we invade it? It seems very possible that it becomes a de facto US protectorate (much more so than Afghanistan, which we seem not so interested in anymore), and its government will be utterly beholden to the US for some time. Do you have reason to believe that the resources of Iraq will remain in Iraqi hands after any invasion? I have heard no such thing.

As Bill Quick explained months ago, Iraq's oil can easily pay for Iraq's rebuilding, the US occupation, the war, and other measures.

The Iraqis will be better off, the US will be better off, and Saudi Arabia becomes someone else's problem.

I sure hope that the Euros are up to it.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Paul, you're one of those "This is IMPERIALISM!!!!" types. Now I get it.

If that makes you sleep better at night, fine. I don't have time, or the inclination, to explain it to you over and over again.

Iraqi oil is not exactly a new source. UN sanctions prohibit bringing production back up to pre-Gulf War levels. And cheap oil would help the economy and increase demand. Saudi Arabia is THE low-cost producer and would win any price war. The losers would be US domestic producers. But there is also the development of the untapped oil. Saddam has been currying favor by awarding contracts on favorable terms to companies from France, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Russia, China, India, and the Netherlands. UN sanctions prohibit these from being exploited. Bringing additional cheap oil online could be accomplished by the lifting of UN sanctions. But doing so with Saddam still in power pretty much leaves the US out of the lucrative development picture. Any new regime installed by the US would certainly 'restart' the bidding process, although Putin has been negotiating to have Russian contracts honored. And if Saddam leaves a scorched-earth, oil fields will need to be rehabilitated. One company that specializes in that is Halliburton. UN inspectors coming back empty-handed is not in the best interests of the US.

Didn't we try the setting up of a pro U.S. govt with IRAN? For us to think that the Iraqi people will run to us with open arma is naive'. We need to learn for the lessons of the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future.

One could argue that this is not nearly the only
administration; which had an overly oleo-genic
orientation. Take the preceding administration;
They had a little campaign mishap with a fellow
named Roger Tamraz ; Roger was connected to Kamal
Adham, former Saudi spy chief connected with BCCI;
loosely affiliated with Saudi super banker Khalil
Mahfouz, who at different times; has funded our
president's former ventures (a decade ago) & Bin
Laden's.In addition, Roger had a bank in Beirut that failed on his watch; and Interpol swore out a
warrant on him. For that reason, plus Roger's connection with the former Turkish prime minister,
arranged by the neo-fascist Grey Wolves, with a
former Turkish 'pharmaceutical distributor'. Roger also had a deal, where he sold Amoco's Italian gas stations to the Libyans; He had this
idea; see if this sounds familiar; for an oil pipeline from Azerbaijan to Turkey; for reasons
mentioned above; he was on a Secret Service watch
list; yet 300,000 to the DNC, bought his access to
the President. The NSC chief, who ultimately cleared the path for him; had 90,000 in Exxon stock; his wife had a similar amount in Mobil;
remember they merged; Curiously enough, he is
one of those people who was in charge of the
campaign against Al Queda, and presumably Saddam
Hussein
that reason, along with

Folks,

I think Paul had a valid question. There are really 2 ways to make serious money: jack up the selling price (ahem, Microsoft), or buy well (ahem, Wal-Mart). Paul is saying the post-war contracts could allow US companies to buy well, and so benefit even if the overall price drops. This strikes me as at least possible, and I don't think it's a bad thing.... the French and Russians SHOULD be made to pay for their mischief, and the pocketbook of their major national firms is a good place to start the lesson.

Maybe then their local oil interests will impress upon their governments the importance of not getting in your way.

The world's economy depends upon the free flow of oil from the middle east. Without it, mass misery everywhere, especially 3rtd world countries. Getting rid of Saddam helps keep it flowing and helps the world's economy benifiting almost all of us.

The control of oil is indeed an issue, but not to supply us with more of it. Rather, the purpose of the control is to keep us from having it and from benefitting from it in any way. Such is the conspiratorial nature of our gubmint in Washington D.C., which is controlled from New York City.