News War may be criminal - GOP Sen Smith

[Gokul43201]

The cynical could argue Iraq's oil was the real motivation for the invasion, but whatever the motivation, there hasn't been a positive return from Iraq in any form, whether diplomatically, strategically, or monetarily.

Not so sure the oil companies would agree with that (ask this one, for instance).

 

[BobG]

Not so sure the oil companies would agree with that (ask this one, for instance).

Possibly. Prior to the invasion, French and Russian companies owned most of the contracts for Iraqi oil and I don't know who has the contracts, now. Overall, the invasion has reduced Iraqi oil production and reduced US oil imports from Iraq, in spite of sanctions being in place before the invasion.

Annual oil production rates since 1972: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t41a.xls (interesting, since you can track the effect of the Iraq-Iran war, the Kuwait invasion and sanctions, the easing of sanctions in the 'Oil-for-Food' program.

Monthly oil production rates since 2001: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t11a.xls (drastic drop when US invaded, rose somewhat close to pre-invasion levels, but has been up and down, never reaching pre-invasion levels)

US oil imports since 1993: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t410.xls (2004 had been the only year to match US imports from Iraq during the last years of the pre-invasion sanctions with 'Oil-for-Food'.)

US oil imports 2005/2006: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t37.xls (finally, in 2006, US imports from Iraq seem to be stable at pre-invasion levels, at least for now)

Who gets oil from Iraq since 1992: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t417.xls (US isn't getting any more oil than before the invasion, but France and most other European countries are getting much less. Russia isn't listed.)

So it's possible some US oil companies are profiting, but it isn't providing a stream of cheap oil for the American people.

 

[ptabor]

Well, according to the CIA factbook, one of the world's major producers of marijuana, methamphetamine, hallucinogens, and one of the major money-laundering centers, has been under US control since 1776.

Technically, 1783.

 

[Severian]

Afghanistan has been a major narco-state for a long time.

No it hasn't. The removal of the drug trade was the one good thing that the Taliban did for Afghanistan (since drugs are very much taboo in islam).

 

[Futobingoro]

Gokul, if you are implying that Exxon's profits are excessive, you are mistaken. I have read many articles which trumpet Exxon's $36 billion profit as proof of price gouging. Not one has mentioned the $334 billion in taxes and expenses Exxon incurred while earning that $36 billion. In other words, Exxon's profit margin was roughly 10% over that period. Compare that to other corporations (namely: Google, Coca-Cola and Merck) and you might find that Exxon isn't so bad after all.

 

[ptabor]

Not so sure the oil companies would agree with that (ask this one, for instance).

This is misleading. Exxon's profit margin has been fairly consistent from 2003 - 2005 (url below) at 8 - 10%. Thus, they have not really profited off the war in iraq. When they release their statements at the end of this year, perhaps a different picture will be painted - I really can't say.

Certainly the stock price has outpaced the DJIA, but this does nothing for exxon itself. The only time a company makes money on its stock is its IPO - after that its the shareholders that rake in the loot. Might I remind you that had you had the foresight to purchase some exxon stock in 2002, you could be raking in the dough.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM&annual

 

[Gokul43201]

This is misleading. Exxon's profit margin has been fairly consistent from 2003 - 2005 (url below) at 8 - 10%. Thus, they have not really profited off the war in iraq.

But all three of those years are AFTER the war started. In 2002, their profit was about 5.5%.

Nevertheless, (and I admit I was loose with my wording) the point I'm making is a rebuttal to what seemed like a claim that there has been no monetary benefit to Americans, from the war.

Might I remind you that had you had the foresight to purchase some exxon stock in 2002, you could be raking in the dough.

This is presumptuous, and totally irrelevant to the discussion. Besides, I'm not complaining that Exxon's stock is soaring. I'm merely pointing out there might very easily be lots of people profiting monetarily from the war.

Futo, I never suggested that their profits are excessive, did I?