Architect of Iraq War Back in Bush Adminstration

[wkmac]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/73273

 

[diesel96]

They re-hired the man who said the war would pay for itself from the oil profits. The man who loves Isreal more than the U.S. Does his girlfriend and Mr. Perle come with the package deal. Never mind Bush, Instead of damage control, he puts out his middle finger to America: I am the decider, and I have decided Condie can hire who ever she wants! Now if they can only find another position for Scooter Libby and Gonzalez. It must be getting hard to find willing participents to assosiate themselves to GW's final year.

 

[brett636]

If diesel so vehemetly hates him he must not be all that bad. Nobody in our government would be foolish enough to believe the Iraq war would be paid for by the oil profits. If oil was the reason we are in Iraq then why are oil price and gas prices so high? The answer is because we are not in Iraq for the oil.

 

[diesel96]

If diesel so vehemetly hates him he must not be all that bad. Nobody in our government would be foolish enough to believe the Iraq war would be paid for by the oil profits. If oil was the reason we are in Iraq then why are oil price and gas prices so high? The answer is because we are not in Iraq for the oil.

The cost to pull oil out of the ground has not increased dramatically. Oil companies record profits have little to do with increased cost but rather decreased supply and increased demand. The war in Iraq has a direct relationship with the rise in oil prices. We are also running a deficit to conduct this war. Some people have been hurt by the financial effects of the war, such as the American Consumer. Some people have benefited from the war such as the oil companies. some or all of these profits are directly related to a situation that is imposing huge sacrifices—financial and otherwise—from others; that is, the Iraq war.

Because of the war, the government is adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the burden of debt that all taxpayers, including other businesses, will have to pay off. Because of the war, American soldiers by the hundreds, and Iraqis by the thousands, are paying the ultimate tax of death by government policy. And because of the war, American oil companies are raking in extra billions of dollars of profits.

 

[brett636]

The cost to pull oil out of the ground has not increased dramatically. Oil companies record profits have little to do with increased cost but rather decreased supply and increased demand. The war in Iraq has a direct relationship with the rise in oil prices. We are also running a deficit to conduct this war. Some people have been hurt by the financial effects of the war, such as the American Consumer. Some people have benefited from the war such as the oil companies. some or all of these profits are directly related to a situation that is imposing huge sacrifices—financial and otherwise—from others; that is, the Iraq war.

Because of the war, the government is adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the burden of debt that all taxpayers, including other businesses, will have to pay off. Because of the war, American soldiers by the hundreds, and Iraqis by the thousands, are paying the ultimate tax of death by government policy. And because of the war, American oil companies are raking in extra billions of dollars of profits.

Is rhetoric all you really know? Do you get your information straight from the democrats head office?

War is never pretty or perfect, but sometimes it is necessary. Whether you agree with why we are there or not there is a job that must be finished. We are winning, Iraq is stabilizing, and we are closer to reaching our goals now than we ever have been. This may be bad news for the democrats, but it is a reality and despite all their efforts to discredit General Patraeus he is managing this war effectively.

When it comes to oil and gas prices please understand supply and demand is what makes up the free market. When people demand more oil and the supply doesn't change the price has to rise otherwise we use up what little supply we have. Its not the cost of pumping it, but rather the cost of keeping oil flowing to everyone who needs it without running out. With the price rising it creates an incentive for oil companies to explore areas for oil that otherwise would be too costly to reach. It also creates an incentive for the auto industry to begin serious research into alternative forms of energy to power our cars and trucks so we aren't so dependent on oil.

Big oil is a term regularly used by you liberal loons in order to demonize the very capitalistic principles that make our country great. Please keep in mind that the oil companies earn less profit per gallon of fuel than the federal government who is doing nothing to help ease the pain of energy prices in this country. Perhaps the government should tax our fuel less so we can better afford it.

 

[diesel96]

Is rhetoric all you really know? Do you get your information straight from the democrats head office?
Not rhetoric my friend, it's called truth, which obviously you can't handle because your head is so far up GW's butt it's clogging your abililty to factor in outside elements in your perfect world economics lecture.

War is never pretty or perfect, but sometimes it is necessary. Whether you agree with why we are there or not there is a job that must be finished. We are winning, Iraq is stabilizing, and we are closer to reaching our goals now than we ever have been. This may be bad news for the democrats, but it is a reality and despite all their efforts to discredit General Patraeus he is managing this war effectively
Once again, you buy into this neo-con garbage of this war in Iraq was neccessary. Not only does the majority of America have a 180 degree difference of opinion than you, but you discredit and ignore the opionion's of other current and retired US Generals who disagrees with this Administration's war policy.

When it comes to oil and gas prices please understand supply and demand is what makes up the free market. When people demand more oil and the supply doesn't change the price has to rise otherwise we use up what little supply we have. Its not the cost of pumping it, but rather the cost of keeping oil flowing to everyone who needs it without running out. With the price rising it creates an incentive for oil companies to explore areas for oil that otherwise would be too costly to reach. It also creates an incentive for the auto industry to begin serious research into alternative forms of energy to power our cars and trucks so we aren't so dependent on oil.

Big oil is a term regularly used by you liberal loons in order to demonize the very capitalistic principles that make our country great. Please keep in mind that the oil companies earn less profit per gallon of fuel than the federal government who is doing nothing to help ease the pain of energy prices in this country. Perhaps the government should tax our fuel less so we can better afford it.

Spare us your economic's lesson 101 and your namecalling.
The war in Iraq has disrupted World oil mrkts leading to increased prices. The circumstances surrounding the Iraq war and the increasing demand for oil as well declining excess production capacity have direct effects as well as the effect the war has in reducing Iraq oil production and the created instability in the Middle East can act to increase oil prices. Small increases can have substanstial economic effects. With Iraq's production down approx 1 million BPD. These shortfalls impact world oil prices. Today with rapid increase in demand, a threat of a few hundred thousand BPD causes sharp fluctuations in prices, also concerns of wider regional conflict, increased threat of terrorism in the region's pipelines and oil fields all have effects.
Perhaps you should read this link and re-educate yourself on the pitfalls and long lasting effects this "neccessary war" as you like to refer to it has on all of us.

http://jec.senate.gov/Documents/Reports/11.13.07IraqEconomicCostsReport.pdf

 

[Sammie]

I thought we were in Iraq to protect its oil fields and their profits from being used by terrorists, making it more difficult for them to finance attacks and use Iraq as a base for recruiting and training recruits.

We didn't fight the Spanish American War, or WWI or WWI or the Vietnam War because of oil. Nor are we now. I will admit that this administration undoubtedly underestimated the war's cost and
difficulties and probably assumed that this war would be quickly won, a democracy would be easily installed, Iraq would function well and we could get on with other things. But you cannot fully blame everything on the Bush team.

Have we not made mistakes in other wars? Yet these mistakes can't be blamed a one man and his advisors alone. Maybe the Spanish American war should never have happened. Maybe President McKinley should have kept his nose out of Cuba's and Spain's business. WWI led to WWII and maybe our involvments were a mistake as the Germans reacted to the Russian Revolution. Italy's Mussolini wanted to create a new Roman empire. Maybe we should blame Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Roosevelt for getting involved.

Admittedly, this administration has not done a perfect job of winding its way through this brand new path of terrorism. They may not be experts on military science or war or the Middle East, but neither were members of past administrations. And that is a difficult part of the world with little peace ever since Cain killed Abel,

So I won't dwell too long on what has been accomplished in Iraq since we've been there, like freeing an oppressed country from a despicible dictator who thought nothing of torturing, raping and murdering untold numbers of his own countrymen. We have crippled Al Qaeda.

At this moment, Iraqi's can say and do what they want, when they want without having their tongues cut out. Iraq is slowly stabilizing and more of it's children are attending school now than at any point in this country's history. Iraqi women have played key roles in revitalizing their country and no longer hide under veils of shame because they're women. Hospitals are up and running. People are voting.

So what's so difficult to comprehend? It's our troops who are keeping those heads from coming over here and doing away with the people you love. I assume you enjoy leaving your home every day minus fear and a weapon but if you're incapable of acknowledging the good our troops have done in Iraq, you never will. Continue with the closed mind, complain to *itch about how this country conducts business, and continue to enjoy all of your freedoms.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Is rhetoric all you really know? Do you get your information straight from the democrats head office?

War is never pretty or perfect, but sometimes it is necessary. Whether you agree with why we are there or not there is a job that must be finished. We are winning, Iraq is stabilizing, and we are closer to reaching our goals now than we ever have been. This may be bad news for the democrats, but it is a reality and despite all their efforts to discredit General Patraeus he is managing this war effectively.

When it comes to oil and gas prices please understand supply and demand is what makes up the free market. When people demand more oil and the supply doesn't change the price has to rise otherwise we use up what little supply we have. Its not the cost of pumping it, but rather the cost of keeping oil flowing to everyone who needs it without running out. With the price rising it creates an incentive for oil companies to explore areas for oil that otherwise would be too costly to reach. It also creates an incentive for the auto industry to begin serious research into alternative forms of energy to power our cars and trucks so we aren't so dependent on oil.

Big oil is a term regularly used by you liberal loons in order to demonize the very capitalistic principles that make our country great. Please keep in mind that the oil companies earn less profit per gallon of fuel than the federal government who is doing nothing to help ease the pain of energy prices in this country. Perhaps the government should tax our fuel less so we can better afford it.

Carefull there....telling the truth tends to upset Liberals. Brace yourself for impact. LOL!

 

[brett636]

Not rhetoric my friend, it's called truth, which obviously you can't handle because your head is so far up GW's butt it's clogging your abililty to factor in outside elements in your perfect world economics lecture.

Truth? You put a lot of stuff into your posts, but little, if any of it is truth. Some are half truths, other statements are flat out lies, but very little content could be classified as truth.

Once again, you buy into this neo-con garbage of this war in Iraq was neccessary. Not only does the majority of America have a 180 degree difference of opinion than you, but you discredit and ignore the opionion's of other current and retired US Generals who disagrees with this Administration's war policy.

Once again you buy into this liberal nonsense that we must pull out of this war without victory. We are there, and we must finish what we started. When this war began the vast majority of the U.S., including the congress, supported it. Even your hero Hillary Clinton voted for war. What you don't understand is the very politicians that you support who claim they want to end the war are not saying so out of principle, but out of lust for political power. During a democratic presidential debate last Sept. all the candidates were asked if they could promise to have all of our troops out of Iraq by the end of their first term. Not a single democratic candidate would make this promise.

Finally, despite the disagreements from former U.S. Generals the President's war strategy is working. Have you read the all the good news coming from Iraq lately?

Spare us your economic's lesson 101 and your namecalling.
The war in Iraq has disrupted World oil mrkts leading to increased prices. The circumstances surrounding the Iraq war and the increasing demand for oil as well declining excess production capacity have direct effects as well as the effect the war has in reducing Iraq oil production and the created instability in the Middle East can act to increase oil prices. Small increases can have substanstial economic effects. With Iraq's production down approx 1 million BPD. These shortfalls impact world oil prices. Today with rapid increase in demand, a threat of a few hundred thousand BPD causes sharp fluctuations in prices, also concerns of wider regional conflict, increased threat of terrorism in the region's pipelines and oil fields all have effects.
Perhaps you should read this link and re-educate yourself on the pitfalls and long lasting effects this "neccessary war" as you like to refer to it has on all of us.

http://jec.senate.gov/Documents/Reports/11.13.07IraqEconomicCostsReport.pdf

This is a good example of the half truths you post. Your comment on Iraq's oil output would be true if this were 2005, but a quick search on google turns up this article from the BBC, published in June of 2006, stating how Iraq's oil output is starting to near their pre-invasion averages.

What you did get right was your comment on the sharp increase in demand. Countries like India and China, who have large populations, are seeing double digit growth in their economies causing a strain on the oil supply. This proves you have atleast a rudimentary understanding of the free market economy. Our best chance from getting away from this madness is to tap into our own oil reserves right at home, while simutaneously weening ourselves off of oil alltogether by getting technologies such as the hydrogen fuel cell into the mainstream market.

The report you posted had some largley exaggerated numbers, but the basic premise of it was to state that war is expensive. Those of us living in reality already understand this concept, so I fail to see your point in posting it.

 

[wkmac]

Plans to exploit Iraq's oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world's largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show.

The papers, revealed here for the first time, raise new questions over Britain's involvement in the war, which had divided Tony Blair's cabinet and was voted through only after his claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

The minutes of a series of meetings between ministers and senior oil executives are at odds with the public denials of self-interest from oil companies and Western governments at the time.

The documents were not offered as evidence in the ongoing Chilcot Inquiry into the UK's involvement in the Iraq war. In March 2003, just before Britain went to war, Shell denounced reports that it had held talks with Downing Street about Iraqi oil as "highly inaccurate". BP denied that it had any "strategic interest" in Iraq, while Tony Blair described "the oil conspiracy theory" as "the most absurd".

But documents from October and November the previous year paint a very different picture.

Five months before the March 2003 invasion, Baroness Symons, then the Trade Minister, told BP that the Government believed British energy firms should be given a share of Iraq's enormous oil and gas reserves as a reward for Tony Blair's military commitment to US plans for regime change.

The papers show that Lady Symons agreed to lobby the Bush administration on BP's behalf because the oil giant feared it was being "locked out" of deals that Washington was quietly striking with US, French and Russian governments and their energy firms.

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq

And Curveball has already exposed his own lie to the other excuse, you know the one we were assured was the truth!

 

[wkmac]

Not that we didn't already know, with the recent accusations against the Syrian gov't alleging the use of chemical weapons, seems another player in that region has a long history of actually being a user/enabler of such type attacks.

When a known liar accuses others of lying, it's wise to not take them at their word.

 

[roadrunner2012]

Surely not that the in house publication of the Council on Foreign Relations would have a vested interest.

​

 

[wkmac]

Surely not that the in house publication of the Council on Foreign Relations would have a vested interest.

​

Some of us actually subscribe too!

 

[roadrunner2012]

Some of us actually subscribe too!

I prefer The Economist.