Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

What would it take to dispel paranoia about America's intentions in Iraq ? (re : oil)

  1. Oct 13, 2005 #1

    Curious3141

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Specifically pertaining to the oil resources in the country.

    How about the US allowing a special UN appointed team of international oil/energy experts into Iraq (under full American military protection to ensure their peace of mind) ? The inspectors would take full stock of existing oil resources in the territory, thereby arriving at a reasonably accurate estimate of current and potential resources, and current and projected plausible production of oil out of Iraq. These figures would have to be made completely public. All actual details of oil production and export out of Iraq would have to remain public while under occupation by foreign forces. The figures should be scrutinised by an independent committee (free of pressure from Americans and OPEC) to ensure that no unfair hoarding of oil resources is being effected by any one party. There should be a full public accounting of the money side of things, to ensure that the oil is being sold at fair market value on a fair basis (with no monopolisation), and all net proceeds are going directly to Iraq's economy (which is to be administered by whatever indigenous government is in place in Iraq). The US and its allies should get no proceeds whatever from the sale of this resource, and should be expected to pay a fair price for it like everyone else.

    This arrangement should go on until sovereignty of Iraq has been completely passed over to a government democratically elected by the Iraqi people, and every last American/allied soldier has left Iraq's soil. After that, what they do with their oil is their business.

    In a sense the UN inspectors would be playing a much similar role to nuclear inspections carried out on Saddam's regime, which I'm sure the US heartily supported. These oil inspections, too, are indispensable to convince the world that the primary wealth of Iraq is going to the people who rightfully deserve it, viz. the innocent civilians in Iraq.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 14, 2005 #2
    Whew, Curious - and everyone accuses *me* of being an idealist! Good luck with seeing anything close to this proposal happening: it's not going to happen because (guess what) it *is* largely about oil resources (and the strategic location of Iraq - have a look at a world map of where Iraq is, and how close to the Caspian Sea oil reserves; also, read 'Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict' by US academic analyst Michael T. Klare).

    alex
     
  4. Oct 14, 2005 #3
    They should allow Free elections, and when i say FREE i mean not banning any candidate.

    Once there is an elected goverment if it decides they will nationalize OIL, and not allow any foreing corporation to participate in the rebuild of irak or in the oil bussines. Then Usa should do NOTHING. Then i will belive USA only wanted to find WMD, sorry i mean get ride of a dictator...
     
  5. Oct 14, 2005 #4

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Aboslutely nothing. If the fact that we haven't stolen it doesn't convince people that we won't, nothing will.

    Not even every last troop leaving or "free elections" will help: the paranoid will still believe we are pulling the strings from behind the scenes.
    I suppose that might help the paranoid, but do we really want the UN to manage Iraq's oil resources after what happened with the Oil for Food scandal?
     
  6. Oct 14, 2005 #5
    That chain of events would convince me.... that would completely blow my mind actually.

    I might even start questioning the fact that Bush is the anti-christ.
     
  7. Oct 15, 2005 #6
    Waht could change history?

    Absolutely nothing. The fact that the US used the majority of the exported Iraqi oil before and during the oil for food program and later invaded when Saddam threatened this situation by substituting Dollars for Euros to pay for the black gold, is history now and cannot be changed anymore. That the Americans now try to hide behind the UN for something they controlled all the way is of an unspeakable hypocrisy.
     
  8. Oct 15, 2005 #7

    Curious3141

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    And how are you so unshakeably convinced that you (your government) hasn't been stealing the oil already ? Say-sos don't mean much where oil is concerned. The plain fact of the matter is nobody trusts America anymore, and that's not without reason : your President lied, or at least misled the world in order to invade another country.
    Perhaps the Tin Foil Hat Brigade will still be going strong and strident after a full (and continuing) public audit, but most rational people (including myself) would be satisfied with that. As it stands, all we have at most is your government's word that they are not touching the oil (did they even make any overt assurances to that effect ? I forget). Your government's word is not worth much at the moment.

    The UN did certainly prove to be corrupt, but the US has not flinched to use their services in the past. I don't think another pair of eyes looking at Iraq's oil will hurt; at any rate, the US will be able to call the UN if the latter is being dishonest about it, and vice versa. A mutual failsafe of sorts.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2005
  9. Oct 15, 2005 #8

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    [sarcasm]
    It would scare the hell out of me ! If the US didn't do this for oil, then this would be the biggest catastrophy I could imagine, because that would mean that they REALLY bombed a country for non-existing WMD, or to impose their views on how internal politics would have to be done, and are willing to pay tons and tons of money and soldier lives to do so.
    Then ANYBODY can be on their list ! Paris could be on their list, Berlin could be, Peking could be... it is sufficient that they think that somewhere, something is fishy with a political system, and KABOOM they come in with a big army ! Or worse, they have non-existent intelligence about something non-existing like WMD, and KABOOM !
    At least, let us hope that the goal was to secure the oil flow (ok, it failed, but that's because of naivety and incompetence), and NOT because they didn't like the local political system, or that they made up themselves non-existent intelligence about non-existing weapons systems (or bubble gum factories, why not?)
    [/sarcasm]
     
  10. Oct 15, 2005 #9
    This sounds familiar, do you remember what happened the last time that we pulled out too early on such a matter and let the country do it themselves?
     
  11. Oct 15, 2005 #10
    I don't understand the connection. There's no "North Iraq" communist movement this time.

    Oh wait... maybe you think there will be a "terrorist state" set up if you leave :rofl:

    *sigh*
     
  12. Oct 15, 2005 #11
    I'm curious as to just what some of think the US Government even has to do with oil? What part of our government can do anything if it did "steal" oil from anyone? Our government is not a seperate entity from the American public. All positions are filled by the public. We have the US Dept of Energy and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. They don't need to steal oil from anyone and if they did, they would have a hard time hiding it from anyone. You can learn about the SPR here: http://people.howstuffworks.com/question478.htm

    Claims about oil theft by the government just demonstrates ignorance on how our government works in the US.
     
  13. Oct 15, 2005 #12
    It is not about stealing the oil. The oil itself, in the ground is not very valuable. Oil companies make their money by extracting ,refining and distributing the oil. Iraq will be paid for their oil. The invasion was to gain access to the oil, not to steal it.
     
  14. Oct 15, 2005 #13
    What kind of access? It's for sale right? Did they have exclusive contracts with other countries and therefore we had to make it to where they would sell to us?

    I'm curious, where is Iraqi oil going right now? Where had it been going?

    Sorry, that's alot of questions :yuck:
     
  15. Oct 16, 2005 #14
    i don't think it's paranoia, for me anyway there has simply been nothing that has convinced me that the US is really honest about their intentions in iraq. on the contrary there is much more that convinces me otherwise. example: youssef ibrahim is a senior fellow of the council on foreign relations & has been a middle-east correspondent for the new york times & washngton post for decades. you can't find someone much more respectable than that; he's hardly some extremist 'wimp' or 'commie' or 'liberal'. anyway here's what he had to say about the iraq ataq in the international herald tribune in november 2002:
    http://www.iht.com/articles/2002/11/01/edyous_ed3_.php
    (the stuff about the election didn't turn out to be true but it's it strange that someone so respectable is so agitated over this?)
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2005
  16. Oct 16, 2005 #15

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Former and future key positions of their members in oil companies ? Names of tankers ?
     
  17. Oct 16, 2005 #16

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    :smile: I think so much is clear for about 90% of the world (admittedly, a statistic made up right here, as are 73.4% of all statistics :biggrin:). As I said, I even HOPE that they did it for oil, that would at least mean that there was some rational thought behind it (even though misguided by lack of knowledge in the field). It would really be scary if they did it for the reasons they stated.
     
  18. Oct 16, 2005 #17
    I would ask the French. They were the ones most invested in Iraq before the invasion.

    I would also like to know where Iraqi oil is going but I don't need to know the details.

    I just need to see who in power benefits, from there I can discern motives. It would be terribly naive of me to believe that the presently stated motives for the war are any more credible than the originally stated motives the war.

    Why would any rational person believe someone who lied to go to war?

    War is inhumane, Clinton lied for an immoral act, but Bush lied for an inhumane one!

    Why would anyone trust anything this administration says.
     
  19. Oct 16, 2005 #18
    You are dancing around the question. Nobody says the US stole oil. But that the Iraq invasion is ABOUT oil is without question. Some hardheads keep on accusing the French and others of dirty deals under the oil for food program, while the volumes of Iraqi oil that ended in France and Germany are about ONE TENTH OF WHAT THE US IMPORTED. Check your oil import figures, do some homework before you make the ridiculous claim that this was NOT about oil. And before the obvious response comes again: I DO NOT state that the French and Germans and Russians etc... are clean. But the US and a few others in the coalition of the "willing to make a buck" INVADED a country for it under a false pretext, made Iraq a bigger mess than it already was and in the process helped terrorism to a cause and made the world a much more dangerous place. I rest my case: the damage is done and you cannot repair it, not with seven constitutions. The best that can happen is that Iraq soon will be controlled by a Chalabi or similar, bad news is that it will be just another Saddam. But it can be much worse if the Iranians get their say. Thanks Neo-cons (and that last word to be interpreted in the French way)
     
  20. Oct 16, 2005 #19
    “Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas -- reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to……”
    Speech by Kenneth T. Derr, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Chevron / Texaco Corporation November 5, 1988
     
  21. Oct 16, 2005 #20
    French diplomatic sources said that according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), minus interest charges, Iraq owes around $1.7 billion to France, $2.2 billion to the United States and $2.25 billion to Germany.
    This is of course not what these countries invested in Iraq, but it gives a idea about the relative interests in Iraq by these three countries.
    http://www.mondopolitico.com/discus/messages/68/919.html?1050091694
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: What would it take to dispel paranoia about America's intentions in Iraq ? (re : oil)
  1. What to do about Iraq (Replies: 426)

Loading...