Was the Iraq war about oil all along?

kgun · #1 (**permalink**) 07-01-2008, 10:50 AM

Cnn's Jack Cafferty is a brave man:

Cafferty File: Tell Jack how you really feel Blog Archive - Was the Iraq war about oil all along? « - Blogs from CNN.com

John Kitchling · #2 (**permalink**) 07-01-2008, 03:35 PM

This is news? IN 2003 it was about oil, in 1991 it was about oil. IN 1941 when the UK and Soviet Union invaded Iran, it was.....about oil.

kgun · #3 (**permalink**) 07-01-2008, 04:03 PM

Oh my God.

GoogleBot and Google AdSense Bot you are fast my friends.

Online 5 minutes ago The green revolution: Allr84U.com and the Ad is already showing up.

jabo · #4 (**permalink**) 07-02-2008, 02:24 AM

Everything is about oil??? so, was WW1 and WW2 about oil as well?

kgun · #5 (**permalink**) 07-03-2008, 11:10 AM

IMO, no.

I only posted the link to Cafferty's blog since I think he touches an interesting topic.

cw1865 · #6 (**permalink**) 07-03-2008, 11:36 AM

The basic premise of US engagement/involvement/intervention in the Middle East is the very fact that oil IS there. The proportionality of the response is clearly influenced by oil. Notwithstanding, one must remember that prior to the 2003 invasion, the UN Oil for Food Program (problematic in itself), was ensuring that Iraqi oil satiated its share of world demand (whether that oil gets to the US, China, France is irrelevant inasmuch as oil is a world commodity.) - So, I think its safe to conclude that the US did not invade for purposes of ensuring the continued flow of Iraqi oil onto the world markets. The question now is who is going to control the oil fields themselves. Currently the Iraqi government is putting out some fields to bid. The accusation is that the US invaded (using our tax dollars) for corporate interests.....We'll see who gets control of those oil fields.

kgun · #7 (**permalink**) 07-03-2008, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cw1865

The question now is who is going to control the oil fields themselves. Currently the Iraqi government is putting out some fields to bid. The accusation is that the US invaded (using our tax dollars) for corporate interests.....We'll see who gets control of those oil fields.

You know Norway is an oil producer too, so may be Statoil is also interested in participating. I do not know anything about that and that is their and not my business.

When I talk to my children that think that Norway will get richer and richer I say this (with this iTulip.com - Know Your Mania story in my backhead).

There is most probably a bubble in oil prices. Nobody knows when a fiancial bubble burst aside from Robert J. Shiller (Irrational Exuberance) / Dider Sornette (Stock market crashes are predictable). As far as I know, professor Shiller timed the march 2000 correction exactly.
I remember when oil was less than USD 10 a barrel. When the bubble burst, the price may drop to USD 1 a barrel in the most extreme case. The green revolution seems to take a quantumn leap. Wind energy in Denamark and Spain is now a very important energy source. Germany is in the lead on solar energy, and that energy is my private favourite.
As economists we know that prices are set at the margin. The combination of a small recession (weak demand and growth) and increased and acellerated use of alternative energy can start the decline (bubble burst) in oil prices. Note that the United Arab Emirates and other oil producing countries in that region are investing heavily in renewable energy. China is picking up. What surprises me, even if there are green projects in your cites like Chichago, is that USA is lagging in this sector while you are among the leaders in the digital and other industries. (Is the reason that you have a president from the "oil state", Texas?).

That may be a strong argument for modernising the Iraqy oil fields and letting foreign companies with their modern energy in. Hopefully most of the revenue go tho the Iraqy people that has suffered enough.

cw1865 · #8 (**permalink**) 07-03-2008, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun

You know Norway is an oil producer too,

Yes, and note the difference in how Norway invests its oil wealth vis-a-vis Iraq under Sadaam Hussein. You have created an endowment....seriously nice job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun

so may be Statoil is also interested in participating. I do not know anything about that and that is their and not my business.

Anybody with the ability to pull oil out of the ground would be interested. Exxon, ConocoPhilips, Total, BP, you name it, they will want in. And why wouldn't they? The profit from being in the oil industry is pulling the oil out of the ground for $10 (Saudi Arabia) - $50 (West Texas) and then selling it on the market for $140+

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun

When I talk to my children that think that Norway will get richer and richer I say this (with this iTulip.com - Know Your Mania story in my backhead).

As long as Norway continues to turn its oil wealth into a diversified endowment (which it is doing) and as long as Norway continues to invest in its people (which it is doing), why wouldn't Norway continue to prosper?

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun

There is most probably a bubble in oil prices. Nobody knows when a fiancial bubble burst aside from Robert J. Shiller (Irrational Exuberance) / Dider Sornette (Stock market crashes are predictable). As far as I know, professor Shiller timed the march 2000 correction exactly.

They have been discussing this in the US as well that speculators, driven by a weak dollar and a volatile stock market, were seeking to store value in commodities, so you had a lot of demand for commodities driven by people with no intention of actually turning that commodity into something useful (ie. refining oil, turning wheat into bread, turning oranges into orange juice, etc.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun

I remember when oil was less than USD 10 a barrel. When the bubble burst, the price may drop to USD 1 a barrel in the most extreme case. The green revolution seems to take a quantumn leap. Wind energy in Denamark and Spain is now a very important energy source. Germany is in the lead on solar energy, and that energy is my private favourite.

They have been discussing how $4 gas has altered Americans habits, ie. they drive less. Problem is that the price doubled and driving decreased 3% (remember when I said that in the short term demand for oil would be inelastic?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun

As economists we know that prices are set at the margin. The combination of a small recession (weak demand and growth) and increased and acellerated use of alternative energy can start the decline (bubble burst) in oil prices.

Yes, and if you recall when we were discussing whether to have a subsidy or a tax on carbon emissions (in the context of global warming), this was the factor which made me feel that a tax would be necessary.....the very fact that oil prices can slide creates a disincentive to the renewables industry....ie. we're competitive today, but if we're successful, we will be creating the market conditions for our own demise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun

Note that the United Arab Emirates and other oil producing countries in that region are investing heavily in renewable energy. China is picking up. What surprises me, even if there is green projects in your cites like Chichago is that USA is lagging in this sector while you are among the leaders in the digital sector.

Why would this surprise you? Europe made the decision to tax gas, the price of gas is obviously much higher than the US. The European governments that mandated these taxes were sending price signals to the market - 'energy is at a premium, act accordingly' - I was watching Bruce Willis' Die Hard which takes place in California and was filmed in 1988. In one of the scenes, they show a picture of the tower and in the foreground is a gas station sign reading '$0.74' (for a gallon, in Europe, the price is per liter)....clearly the market signal in the US as of 1988 was much different, 'Energy is cheap, don't worry about it'

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun

That may be a strong argument for modernising the Iraqy oil fields and letting foreign companies with their modern energy in. Hopefully most of the revenue go tho the Iraqy people that has suffered enough.

Well, its their single most important asset as of today. If they want to figure out what to do with it, I strongly recommend that they talk to you guys in Norway because if you leave it up to us, our answer will be to make it cheap so that we can stick it into SUVs for another 15 years!

kgun · #9 (**permalink**) 07-03-2008, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cw1865

As long as Norway continues to turn its oil wealth into a diversified endowment (which it is doing) and as long as Norway continues to invest in its people (which it is doing), why wouldn't Norway continue to prosper?

Personally, I don't like that we are too dependent on that energy source. Better to depend on our fjords to produce fish

And we are more passive on renewable energy sources than our European neighbours. We are giving away NOK 3 billion / year to save the rain forest. We can not save it alone. Hopefully the money will be used on what it is targeted at. There is an alternative: use some of the income investing in infrastructure and technologies to exhaust alternative renewable energy resources. Solar panels (e.g. also used to heat water or other forms of storage, when there is surplus production) is as mentioned above, my personal favourite. One hour sunlight hitting the earth is enough to cover one year global energy consumption.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cw1865

They have been discussing this in the US as well that speculators, driven by a weak dollar and a volatile stock market, were seeking to store value in commodities, so you had a lot of demand for commodities driven by people with no intention of actually turning that commodity into something useful (ie. refining oil, turning wheat into bread, turning oranges into orange juice, etc.)

A classical element in any speculative bubble. It is mentioned above extremely difficult to time when a speculative financial bubble bursts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cw1865

They have been discussing how $4 gas has altered Americans habits, ie. they drive less. Problem is that the price doubled and driving decreased 3% (remember when I said that in the short term demand for oil would be inelastic?)

Yes and I agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cw1865

Why would this surprise you? Europe made the decision to tax gas, the price of gas is obviously much higher than the US. The European governments that mandated these taxes were sending price signals to the market - 'energy is at a premium, act accordingly' - I was watching Bruce Willis' Die Hard which takes place in California and was filmed in 1988. In one of the scenes, they show a picture of the tower and in the foreground is a gas station sign reading '$0.74' (for a gallon, in Europe, the price is per liter)....clearly the market signal in the US as of 1988 was much different, 'Energy is cheap, don't worry about it'

At present it costs nearly NOK 14, (a little less than USD 3) / litre. It is about NOK 1 cheaper / liter in non oil producing Sweden.

Some environmentalist say the it should cost NOK 50=USD 10 / liter if the commodity should pay for the external effects on the environment

. Then a lot of people have to sell one or more of their n cars and start walking with positive external effects for our health

Moralism. People from Western Norway are specialists

Quote:

Originally Posted by cw1865

Well, its their single most important asset as of today. If they want to figure out what to do with it, I strongly recommend that they talk to you guys in Norway because if you leave it up to us, our answer will be to make it cheap so that we can stick it into SUVs for another 15 years!

What is SUV's?

cw1865 · #10 (**permalink**) 07-03-2008, 02:21 PM

SUV = Sport Utility Vehicle which I derisively term the 'Suburban Assault Vehicle' - think GMC Yukon, Ford Explorer, Jeep Commander, Honda Ridgeline, Toyota Highlander and of course the 'must have' Hummer.

The United States had its energy wake up call in the 1970s.....what did we do? zzzzzzzzzzzz (sleep)

kgun · #11 (**permalink**) 07-03-2008, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cw1865

The United States had its energy wake up call in the 1970s.....what did we do? zzzzzzzzzzzz (sleep)

And seemingly sleep well.

cw1865 · #12 (**permalink**) 07-03-2008, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun

Personally, I don't like that we are too dependent on that energy source. Better to depend on our fjords to produce fish

Yes, and you're smart enough to invest the proceeds into a diversified endowment. Compare this with Sadaam Hussein's investment in T-72 tanks....

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun

And we are more passive on renewable energy sources than our European neighbours. We are giving away NOK 3 billion / year to save the rain forest. We can not save it alone. Hopefully the money will be used on what it is targeted at. There is an alternative: use some of the income investing in infrastructure and technologies to exhaust alternative renewable energy resources. Solar panels (e.g. also used to heat water or other forms of storage, when there is surplus production) is as mentioned above, my personal favourite. One hour sunlight hitting the earth is enough to cover one year global energy consumption.

Ahhh, but in the same manner that the price of oil is dependent on world demand, the solution also demands a global solution. Neither the US, nor the EU, nor Norway (which is of course a much smaller entity), can be the solution ALONE. When we were discussing education you bemoaned the fact that apparently Finnish children scored higher in mathematics at some high school test (or something like that). The point is that knowledge is no longer truly 'nationally based' - I see that right here in NJ. NJ is at the 'forefront' of pharmaceuticals (and so are other places as well), but for some reason pharmaceutical companies congregate here, but that also includes Hoffman-LaRoche (a Swiss company) and literally pharmaceutical companies from all over the world (including US based ones as well). So, its not the 'New Jersey pharmaceutical industry' per se, its an industry that sells its knowledge and expertise to the global marketplace, which, when the patent expires gets copied by generic manufactureres world wide....same for energy...if the Finns discover a super-efficient solar panel, I assure you Nokia will sell it to you! And after 15 years, they will make them everywhere, under license in Mexico, by a factory owned by Nokia in China, by Fiat in Italy....

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun

A classical element in any speculative bubble. It is mentioned above extremely difficult to time when a speculative financial bubble bursts.

Like a forest fire, it must run out of fuel....the fuel being the speculative money being invested.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun

Yes and I agree.

[with respect to the short term inelasticity of oil] - which is putting some people into a real bind, its very much akin to a regressive tax, as a percentage of income its devastating lower income tiers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun

At present it costs nearly NOK 14, (a little less than USD 3) / litre. It is about NOK 1 cheaper / liter in non oil producing Sweden.

Some environmentalist say the it should cost NOK 50=USD 10 / liter if the commodity should pay for the external effects on the environment

. Then a lot of people have to sell one or more of their n cars and start walking with positive external effects for our health

Moralism. People from Western Norway are specialists

I knew the externalities were coming. Its probably a lot more because if you think about it, you would have to actually calculate the cost of removing the CO2 from the atmosphere which probably isn't feasible AND EVEN IF IT WERE would cost somewhere in the trillions (its exceedingly difficult to do), essentially from what I read you would have to supercool the air so that the CO2 would freeze out, let the rest of it go and then sequester the CO2 underground...at present that would be a Herculean task and would obviously take more energy to perform than you would ever get out of the oil to begin with.[/quote]

At the end of the day, I don't think you can divorce 'oil' from US involvement in the Middle East. If the boats stop bringing oil TOMORROW, the US would be in a lot of trouble, so would Europe for that matter....but the difference is that the US has structured itself since the end of WWII on the premise that oil would remain cheap in perpetuity.

cw1865 · #13 (**permalink**) 07-03-2008, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun

And seemingly sleep well.

And now we're at an inflection point and where are we?

Bush politely asking the Saudis for more production? [and being refused]

McCain talking offshore drilling

McCain/Obama both talking ethanol, as if we can just grow enough corn to fuel the entire country (we can't)...this, by the way, is tossing a bone to the powerful farm lobby.

I don't believe either have the necessary vision, consequently, as of today I will NOT vote.

kgun · #14 (**permalink**) 07-03-2008, 03:21 PM

Found this Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Energy link while working on my new The green revolution: Allr84U.com site.

Proposal: Look to Germany how they develope some of their towns based on solar energy. I think they are in the lead on solar energy research and development.

cw1865 · #15 (**permalink**) 07-03-2008, 03:48 PM

John McCain 2008 - John McCain for President

and those are McCain's proposals.....I see from both - words, words, words, designed to get votes sufficient to obtain the White House.

Guess what? Neither is running for dictator....President needs to set the goal, the Congress needs to define the plan. Problem is that no matter what plan you have, the other party will sit there with a DIFFERENT agenda.

John McCain Will Commit $2 Billion Annually To Advancing Clean Coal Technologies.

Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund: Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years.

I'm just curious, since when did the President have the power of the purse?

AVC · #16 (**permalink**) 07-03-2008, 03:55 PM

Yes, the Iraq war was planned by the Corrupt Houston Oil criminals lead by DicK Cheney and Ken Lay's energy task force that the US Supreme court covered the records of by sealing the minutes of this criminal operation.