George Bush nearly pelted with shoes

[Gandalf]

No,because it was just about the only thing keeping the Iranians from rolling over his eastern border.
It was the only cards he was holding in that game of poker

So if Iran rolled into Iraq we wouldn't help?


OK miles, many people thought I was fair in my view of the situation.

#1 We (the US and England and our Allies) begged for democratic elections and we got them but our buddies didn't win.

#2 Hamas won the election meaning we SHOULD recognize them as democratically elected BUT Hamas also needs to recognize Israel and be prepared to "play ball" in politics and not support terrorist actions such as lobbing missles into Israel and suicide bombings.

....same deal goes for Hezbollah, they were elected but they are not going to make any headway by continuing to act as militant organizations. And of course Israel needs to ease back on the way they act but if people were suicide bombing where you live I would bet the security would be just a tad harsher but then again that kind of action does tend to be returned to you....golden rule and all

Israel has done an awful lot of bad shit in that region. Its no small wonder that you have disgruntled people wanting to hurt the Israeli state. I certainly have empathy with the view that Israel shouldnt even be there anyway, regardless of what crap has gone on since its formation. But that isnt constructive and Israel is there and to stay, and so I wont go into that.

Anyway, this is the wrong place to be debating this. The other thread is there and Im more than happy to keep that one occupied for what its worth. Though occupy probably isnt the most apt word to use right now.

[Trainer Monkey]

No,because it was just about the only thing keeping the Iranians from rolling over his eastern border.
It was the only cards he was holding in that game of poker

So if Iran rolled into Iraq we wouldn't help?


OK miles, many people thought I was fair in my view of the situation.

#1 We (the US and England and our Allies) begged for democratic elections and we got them but our buddies didn't win.

#2 Hamas won the election meaning we SHOULD recognize them as democratically elected BUT Hamas also needs to recognize Israel and be prepared to "play ball" in politics and not support terrorist actions such as lobbing missles into Israel and suicide bombings.

....same deal goes for Hezbollah, they were elected but they are not going to make any headway by continuing to act as militant organizations. And of course Israel needs to ease back on the way they act but if people were suicide bombing where you live I would bet the security would be just a tad harsher but then again that kind of action does tend to be returned to you....golden rule and all

Israel has done an awful lot of bad shit in that region. Its no small wonder that you have disgruntled people wanting to hurt the Israeli state. I certainly have empathy with the view that Israel shouldnt even be there anyway, regardless of what crap has gone on since its formation. But that isnt constructive and Israel is there and to stay, and so I wont go into that.

Anyway, this is the wrong place to be debating this. The other thread is there and Im more than happy to keep that one occupied for what its worth. Though occupy probably isnt the most apt word to use right now.

Its more or less what I said in the first place,since its our money funding it,we should grab both of them by the back of the neck like two kids in the schoolyard and tell them to knock it the hell off. Every time we have taken that attitude,they chill the hell out for awhile,both sides. Every time we take an attitude of,"Israel right or wrong" all hell breaks loose

[Gandalf]

So if Iran rolled into Iraq we wouldn't help?


OK miles, many people thought I was fair in my view of the situation.

#1 We (the US and England and our Allies) begged for democratic elections and we got them but our buddies didn't win.

#2 Hamas won the election meaning we SHOULD recognize them as democratically elected BUT Hamas also needs to recognize Israel and be prepared to "play ball" in politics and not support terrorist actions such as lobbing missles into Israel and suicide bombings.

....same deal goes for Hezbollah, they were elected but they are not going to make any headway by continuing to act as militant organizations. And of course Israel needs to ease back on the way they act but if people were suicide bombing where you live I would bet the security would be just a tad harsher but then again that kind of action does tend to be returned to you....golden rule and all

Israel has done an awful lot of bad shit in that region. Its no small wonder that you have disgruntled people wanting to hurt the Israeli state. I certainly have empathy with the view that Israel shouldnt even be there anyway, regardless of what crap has gone on since its formation. But that isnt constructive and Israel is there and to stay, and so I wont go into that.

Anyway, this is the wrong place to be debating this. The other thread is there and Im more than happy to keep that one occupied for what its worth. Though occupy probably isnt the most apt word to use right now.

Its more or less what I said in the first place,since its our money funding it,we should grab both of them by the back of the neck like two kids in the schoolyard and tell them to knock it the hell off. Every time we have taken that attitude,they chill the hell out for awhile,both sides. Every time we take an attitude of,"Israel right or wrong" all hell breaks loose

The Americans have never taken Israel aside and shows little prospect of doing so now. You are right, the terror has been subsidised by US taxes and the US governments of yesterday and today should therefore take some responsibility for this ever continuing situation.

Anyway, Im sticking to the other thread now as far as Israel is concerned. The only thing I will say more is that Bush should be pelted with more than shoes. He should be held accountable for crimes commited against humanity. But again, just a blind hope in a world that doesnt hold the almighty and powerful accountable for anything much. You hold Bush responsible and then you have a lot of the worlds leaders responsible for atrocities. Its just that Bush's blood is more, but you cant go around comparing measuring jugs of blood, can you?

[Kirkland Laing]

You've given some pretty good reasons why a country might want to control Iraq, but that don't make it so. You say maintaining it's position as the world's pre-eminent econmy is a prime motivator, but let's just call it maintaining enough oil supply to keep things running.

I find it hard to argue againt your position. And you should find it hard to argue for it. It's not like we have proof of US/Britain motives for the invasion. You have taken a bunch of facts and built a somewhat logical argument. But I don't see a whole lot of evidence or proof. I'll give you credit for at least coming up with some kind of analysis, which is better than the knee jerk crowd who cry out "oil control" without much in the way of critical thought.

As I understand it the Iraq war has cost the US a couple trillion dollars so far. That kind of negates the economic benefit gained from this supposed control or Iraq oil, wouldn't you say? And then there is the human and political costs of the war. Sorry, but I'm sure even George W. Bush can see that this war is costing him, and the US, dearly.

OK, ostensibly Iraq was about the WMD thing, and maybe there was some issues about support of terrorism. Let's not get into whether or not there is any justification for terrorism. And let's assume without arguing that if Iraq has nukes, then the US has reason to be concerned. I do not think the US lied outright to the UN, as well as it's closest allies, about Iraq developing nukes. As I recall there was evidence that Iraq was trying to acquire technology to develop nuclear weapons. As it turned out, no physical evidence of this activity found. Myself, I consider it entirely possible that Hussein has stashed whatever he had in Syria. Why do you suppose Hussein put the UN and the Atomic Energy Commission off for so long? And I don't know about you, but with all due respect, to suggest as some have that Hussein would cease and desist from anything just because the UN told him to is kind of naive. I am quite sure that Hussein would try to develop or acquire wmds if it was within his power to do so.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a supporter of the Iraq war. I myself sided with the UN position on the issue, as did the Canadian government, against our closest ally and friend, the USA. I just think the USA deserves a little more credit than saying, they just want to control Iraq's natural resources (oil).

It's nothing to do with maintaining any supply. Since oil was discovered in the region we've manipulated the supply of oil to suit our needs. When oil was first discovered in Iraq the quantities involved were so huge that putting it on the market would have caused a collapse in the price of oil so the wells were capped and not tapped for a couple of decades. We've kept the supply of oil moving in the Middle East in the same way that the Mafia have kept the construction industry in New York working smoothly without disruptions. Similarly our security agreements with the dictatorships running oil-rich countries in the region have guaranteed their security and freedom to do business in much the same way that five Sicilian immigrant families have guaranteed the security and freedom to operate of New York's shopowners and businesses.

There is a great deal of proof. Bush's Secretary to the Treasury, a man obviously handpicked by Bush and famous for getting a tax rebate on his corporation's $1 billion yearly profit was a member of Bush's national security cabinet, and he tells us that the first item on the agenda of the first US national security cabinet meeting Bush held after taking office -- eight months before 9/11 -- was the invasion of Iraq :

Advocating "going after Saddam" during the January 30 meeting, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, according to O'Neill, "Imagine what the region would look like without Saddam and with a regime that's aligned with U.S. interests. It would change everything in the region and beyond. It would demonstrate what U.S. policy is all about." He then discussed post-Saddam Iraq -- the Kurds in the north, the oil fields, and the reconstruction of the country's economy. (Suskind, p. 85)
Among the relevant documents later sent to NSC members, including O'Neill, was one prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). It had already mapped Iraq's oil fields and exploration areas, and listed American corporations likely to be interested in participating in Iraq's petroleum industry.
Another DIA document in the package, entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," listed companies from 30 countries -- France, Germany, Russia, and Britain, among others -- their specialties and bidding histories. The attached maps pinpointed "super-giant oil field," "other oil field," and "earmarked for production sharing," and divided the basically undeveloped but oil-rich southwest of Iraq into nine blocks, indicating promising areas for future exploration. (Suskind., p. 96)



The second meeting was devoted exclusively to Iraq.




Iraq contains somewhere in the region of five hundred trillion dollars of oil, or about 300x US GDP. A couple of trillion to get at it is an investment any bunch of war criminals running a country would be happy to make. And don't forget they thought they were just going to swan in there and put their handpicked guys in charge of everything and that Iraq would then pay them back for the cost of the invasion. Human costs historically are never a calculation in these things, the politicians always claim that they'll do everything for the men and women there to "protect" us but there are plenty of homelesss Iraq vets right now and they're cutting Veterans' healthcare.


Before the war Bush's limited "evidence" was almost all exposed as bs by the only US media organisation who bothered to investigate it, Knight Ridder. Bush now claims that Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in and that everybody thought he had weapons but this was all more lies. Saddam did let the inspectors in and France, Russia etc. all claimed they'd seen nothing that persuaded them Saddam had any weapons. Even people like Colin Powell, Condy Rice had said Iraq was no threat.


After the war Bush sent his handpicked weapons inspectors into Iraq and they confirmed that Saddam had stopped all WMD programs and destroyed all his equipment in 1991. The Syria thing is the last desperate claim by fring rightwing loonies with no basis in fact -- Iraq didn't have any weapons to export, Syria have their own "WMD" and would never have let anything dangerous over the border as it would have given the US a chance to bomb/invade them too. Even Bush admits there weren't any WMDs now. When Iraq did have "WMD" capability it was just battlefield munitions that could fire chemical weapons (made in factories we built for him), not missiles which could travel even 100 miles.

Ok, for now let's focus on just how much oil we are talking about.

You have claimed Iraq oil reserves estimated at 500 trillion dollars, or 300 times US GDP.

My source, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iraq/Oil.html puts recoverable Iraq oil reserves somewhere around 200 billion barrels, and that is one of the more optimistic estimates. That is an estimate of proven and unproven reserves.

Right now oil is priced at about $47/barrel on world markets. Last year it was at an all time high of about $140. Lets pick a price somewhere in the middle of $100 barrel. That makes a total value of Iraq oil reserves of 20 trillion dollars, not 500 trillion dollars.

I also have US GDP at about 14 trillion dollars according to U.S. Gross Domestic Product GDP Forecast That means that the total value of Iraq oil reserves would be about 1.5x US GDP, not 300x US GDP.

Any comment? Does this have any effect on your claims of economic motivation for war?

Iraq has never had its oilfields mapped or quantified. There are huge areas of Iraq that have never been seismically tested. Since oil was first found in Iraq there have been less than 200 drills in various areas. To put that in perspective there have been well in excess of 20 million drilled in Texas.

As part of my job I get access to various economic data. As far as oil data goes the company with the most accurate name is a firm in Geneva called petroconsultants. Their reports change hands for over a million dollars a copy, and Petroconsultants' conservative estimate of Iraq's oil wealth based on the projected size of their known geological formations is $500 trillion. Certainly that's the figure that was in discussion in various meetings of financial institutions I attended on both sides of the Atlantic in 2002/3 before we invaded. Although it was never openly discussed from the various comments made it was clear that the participants at those meetings certainly seemed to think the war was all about oil. They were all people like me, who'd absorbed the distilled wisdom of 400 years of British/US mercantalism/imperialism/capitalism over decades working in the financial industry. And I can tell you that the firms they work for, their jobs, status, income etc. was built on us having done similar stuff for hundreds of years and depends today on the same thing. It's hard to overstate the importance of oil to the global economy or the existance of a country where there's huge potential to increase oil production -- only one such country exists. If I'd have stood up and claimed that i was worried about Saddam's WMD they would have looked at me like i had two heads.

[Kirkland Laing]

No,because it was just about the only thing keeping the Iranians from rolling over his eastern border.
It was the only cards he was holding in that game of poker

So if Iran rolled into Iraq we wouldn't help?


OK miles, many people thought I was fair in my view of the situation.

#1 We (the US and England and our Allies) begged for democratic elections and we got them but our buddies didn't win.

#2 Hamas won the election meaning we SHOULD recognize them as democratically elected BUT Hamas also needs to recognize Israel and be prepared to "play ball" in politics and not support terrorist actions such as lobbing missles into Israel and suicide bombings.

....same deal goes for Hezbollah, they were elected but they are not going to make any headway by continuing to act as militant organizations. And of course Israel needs to ease back on the way they act but if people were suicide bombing where you live I would bet the security would be just a tad harsher but then again that kind of action does tend to be returned to you....golden rule and all

Iran are already in Iraq, they're in power in baghdad after George Bush cleared the way for them to take over the country. Americans are currently fighting and dying to keep them in power.

Hezbollah got elected entirely because they resisted Israel. The thing you're not doing here is seeing this from the other side's point of view. If you'd been stuck in a refugee camp in a corner of America since 1948 and somebody had some success in fighting back against the people who were brutally militarily occupying even your small corner and who stole the land you originally came from, don't you think you'd support them? how do you think Hezbollah/Hamas got elected?

[CGM]

It's nothing to do with maintaining any supply. Since oil was discovered in the region we've manipulated the supply of oil to suit our needs. When oil was first discovered in Iraq the quantities involved were so huge that putting it on the market would have caused a collapse in the price of oil so the wells were capped and not tapped for a couple of decades. We've kept the supply of oil moving in the Middle East in the same way that the Mafia have kept the construction industry in New York working smoothly without disruptions. Similarly our security agreements with the dictatorships running oil-rich countries in the region have guaranteed their security and freedom to do business in much the same way that five Sicilian immigrant families have guaranteed the security and freedom to operate of New York's shopowners and businesses.

There is a great deal of proof. Bush's Secretary to the Treasury, a man obviously handpicked by Bush and famous for getting a tax rebate on his corporation's $1 billion yearly profit was a member of Bush's national security cabinet, and he tells us that the first item on the agenda of the first US national security cabinet meeting Bush held after taking office -- eight months before 9/11 -- was the invasion of Iraq :

Advocating "going after Saddam" during the January 30 meeting, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, according to O'Neill, "Imagine what the region would look like without Saddam and with a regime that's aligned with U.S. interests. It would change everything in the region and beyond. It would demonstrate what U.S. policy is all about." He then discussed post-Saddam Iraq -- the Kurds in the north, the oil fields, and the reconstruction of the country's economy. (Suskind, p. 85)
Among the relevant documents later sent to NSC members, including O'Neill, was one prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). It had already mapped Iraq's oil fields and exploration areas, and listed American corporations likely to be interested in participating in Iraq's petroleum industry.
Another DIA document in the package, entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," listed companies from 30 countries -- France, Germany, Russia, and Britain, among others -- their specialties and bidding histories. The attached maps pinpointed "super-giant oil field," "other oil field," and "earmarked for production sharing," and divided the basically undeveloped but oil-rich southwest of Iraq into nine blocks, indicating promising areas for future exploration. (Suskind., p. 96)



The second meeting was devoted exclusively to Iraq.




Iraq contains somewhere in the region of five hundred trillion dollars of oil, or about 300x US GDP. A couple of trillion to get at it is an investment any bunch of war criminals running a country would be happy to make. And don't forget they thought they were just going to swan in there and put their handpicked guys in charge of everything and that Iraq would then pay them back for the cost of the invasion. Human costs historically are never a calculation in these things, the politicians always claim that they'll do everything for the men and women there to "protect" us but there are plenty of homelesss Iraq vets right now and they're cutting Veterans' healthcare.


Before the war Bush's limited "evidence" was almost all exposed as bs by the only US media organisation who bothered to investigate it, Knight Ridder. Bush now claims that Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in and that everybody thought he had weapons but this was all more lies. Saddam did let the inspectors in and France, Russia etc. all claimed they'd seen nothing that persuaded them Saddam had any weapons. Even people like Colin Powell, Condy Rice had said Iraq was no threat.


After the war Bush sent his handpicked weapons inspectors into Iraq and they confirmed that Saddam had stopped all WMD programs and destroyed all his equipment in 1991. The Syria thing is the last desperate claim by fring rightwing loonies with no basis in fact -- Iraq didn't have any weapons to export, Syria have their own "WMD" and would never have let anything dangerous over the border as it would have given the US a chance to bomb/invade them too. Even Bush admits there weren't any WMDs now. When Iraq did have "WMD" capability it was just battlefield munitions that could fire chemical weapons (made in factories we built for him), not missiles which could travel even 100 miles.

Ok, for now let's focus on just how much oil we are talking about.

You have claimed Iraq oil reserves estimated at 500 trillion dollars, or 300 times US GDP.

My source, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iraq/Oil.html puts recoverable Iraq oil reserves somewhere around 200 billion barrels, and that is one of the more optimistic estimates. That is an estimate of proven and unproven reserves.

Right now oil is priced at about $47/barrel on world markets. Last year it was at an all time high of about $140. Lets pick a price somewhere in the middle of $100 barrel. That makes a total value of Iraq oil reserves of 20 trillion dollars, not 500 trillion dollars.

I also have US GDP at about 14 trillion dollars according to U.S. Gross Domestic Product GDP Forecast That means that the total value of Iraq oil reserves would be about 1.5x US GDP, not 300x US GDP.

Any comment? Does this have any effect on your claims of economic motivation for war?

Iraq has never had its oilfields mapped or quantified. There are huge areas of Iraq that have never been seismically tested. Since oil was first found in Iraq there have been less than 200 drills in various areas. To put that in perspective there have been well in excess of 20 million drilled in Texas.

As part of my job I get access to various economic data. As far as oil data goes the company with the most accurate name is a firm in Geneva called petroconsultants. Their reports change hands for over a million dollars a copy, and Petroconsultants' conservative estimate of Iraq's oil wealth based on the projected size of their known geological formations is $500 trillion. Certainly that's the figure that was in discussion in various meetings of financial institutions I attended on both sides of the Atlantic in 2002/3 before we invaded. Although it was never openly discussed from the various comments made it was clear that the participants at those meetings certainly seemed to think the war was all about oil. They were all people like me, who'd absorbed the distilled wisdom of 400 years of British/US mercantalism/imperialism/capitalism over decades working in the financial industry. And I can tell you that the firms they work for, their jobs, status, income etc. was built on us having done similar stuff for hundreds of years and depends today on the same thing. It's hard to overstate the importance of oil to the global economy or the existance of a country where there's huge potential to increase oil production -- only one such country exists. If I'd have stood up and claimed that i was worried about Saddam's WMD they would have looked at me like i had two heads.

OK, you are talking about figures that were in discussion. Can you provide some kind of reference, or industry organization website that supports your numbers? I have provided my sources, another sourse is something called the Oil and Gas Journal. The numbers I quoted were estimates of proven and unproven reserves. Unproven reserves would deal with unexplored areas. And you know what? Even allowing for error, 20 trillion is so far away from 500 trillion that something is very wrong somewhere.

Saudi arabia has at 267 billion barrels known reserves. Saudi Arabia has 1/5 of the worlds known reserves.

According to my calculations, your figures imply that Iraq's potential supply exceed total known reserves in the world by a factor of around 4x. Tell me where my figures are wrong.

We are talking about whether or not the war is all about the economy of oil. I'd say that makes the value of oil under discussion relevant. If we can't come any closer than a factor of 25x then we our discussions won't mean a whole lot.

I intend to respond to other points you make, but I first want to get some kind of agreement about the value of the oil in question.

[Kirkland Laing]

Ok, for now let's focus on just how much oil we are talking about.

You have claimed Iraq oil reserves estimated at 500 trillion dollars, or 300 times US GDP.

My source, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iraq/Oil.html puts recoverable Iraq oil reserves somewhere around 200 billion barrels, and that is one of the more optimistic estimates. That is an estimate of proven and unproven reserves.

Right now oil is priced at about $47/barrel on world markets. Last year it was at an all time high of about $140. Lets pick a price somewhere in the middle of $100 barrel. That makes a total value of Iraq oil reserves of 20 trillion dollars, not 500 trillion dollars.

I also have US GDP at about 14 trillion dollars according to U.S. Gross Domestic Product GDP Forecast That means that the total value of Iraq oil reserves would be about 1.5x US GDP, not 300x US GDP.

Any comment? Does this have any effect on your claims of economic motivation for war?

Iraq has never had its oilfields mapped or quantified. There are huge areas of Iraq that have never been seismically tested. Since oil was first found in Iraq there have been less than 200 drills in various areas. To put that in perspective there have been well in excess of 20 million drilled in Texas.

As part of my job I get access to various economic data. As far as oil data goes the company with the most accurate name is a firm in Geneva called petroconsultants. Their reports change hands for over a million dollars a copy, and Petroconsultants' conservative estimate of Iraq's oil wealth based on the projected size of their known geological formations is $500 trillion. Certainly that's the figure that was in discussion in various meetings of financial institutions I attended on both sides of the Atlantic in 2002/3 before we invaded. Although it was never openly discussed from the various comments made it was clear that the participants at those meetings certainly seemed to think the war was all about oil. They were all people like me, who'd absorbed the distilled wisdom of 400 years of British/US mercantalism/imperialism/capitalism over decades working in the financial industry. And I can tell you that the firms they work for, their jobs, status, income etc. was built on us having done similar stuff for hundreds of years and depends today on the same thing. It's hard to overstate the importance of oil to the global economy or the existance of a country where there's huge potential to increase oil production -- only one such country exists. If I'd have stood up and claimed that i was worried about Saddam's WMD they would have looked at me like i had two heads.

OK, you are talking about figures that were in discussion. Can you provide some kind of reference, or industry organization website that supports your numbers? I have provided my sources, another sourse is something called the Oil and Gas Journal. The numbers I quoted were estimates of proven and unproven reserves. Unproven reserves would deal with unexplored areas. And you know what? Even allowing for error, 20 trillion is so far away from 500 trillion that something is very wrong somewhere.

Saudi arabia has at 267 billion barrels known reserves. Saudi Arabia has 1/5 of the worlds known reserves.

According to my calculations, your figures imply that Iraq's potential supply exceed total known reserves in the world by a factor of around 4x. Tell me where ny figures are wrong.

We are talking about whether or not the war is all about the economy of oil. I'd say that makes the value of oil under discussion relevant. If we can't come any closer than a factor of 25x then we our discussions won't mean a whole lot.

I intend to respond to other points you make, but I first want to get some kind of agreement about the value of the oil in question.

I could have gone with the Janet and john numbers that show Iraq with the second/third largest oil reserve in the world and my argument is still valid -- that Iraq is the only country where oil production could be quickly and cheaply increased by a significant enough quantity that, produced by the right people and sold to the right people under the right conditions would greatly benefit certain economys. But Iraq really does contain untold quantities of oil. The numbers from people who know what they're talking about show that Iraq could easily have more oil than the rest of the world put together*. It's certainly the largest single oil reserve in the world.

*When firms like Petroconsultants make estimates like $500 trillion that includes the expected increases in the price of oil over decades of production. Oil was $10 a barrel just over a decade ago and would currently be over $200 and climbing had the current financial meltdown not happened. The bottom line with Iraq though is that it's the only country capable of significantly increasing its oil production in a world where under normal circumstances supply has recently equalled demand for the first time ever. And while oil companies are reduced to drilling holes under 20000 feet of seawater for relatively small deposits these days at production costs of $20-30 a barrel, Iraq's oil costs about a dollar a barrel to produce. When the Iraq war happened half a dozen Baghdadis did a Jethro Clampett in their back gardens while digging air-raid shelters. Iraq really is the world's most valuable real estate. And oil really does make the global economy go round. After two decades working in the financial industry and learning how the world works from the people who make it work I can tell you that unquestionably we invaded Iraq for the oil, just like we did in the 1920s. I'm no wild-eyed lefty, I'm probably Sunderland's only Margaret Thatcher supporter who's spent his career working in the money industry. (Although having seen the results I probably wouldn't support her again.)

[OumaFan]

Iraq has never had its oilfields mapped or quantified. There are huge areas of Iraq that have never been seismically tested. Since oil was first found in Iraq there have been less than 200 drills in various areas. To put that in perspective there have been well in excess of 20 million drilled in Texas.

As part of my job I get access to various economic data. As far as oil data goes the company with the most accurate name is a firm in Geneva called petroconsultants. Their reports change hands for over a million dollars a copy, and Petroconsultants' conservative estimate of Iraq's oil wealth based on the projected size of their known geological formations is $500 trillion. Certainly that's the figure that was in discussion in various meetings of financial institutions I attended on both sides of the Atlantic in 2002/3 before we invaded. Although it was never openly discussed from the various comments made it was clear that the participants at those meetings certainly seemed to think the war was all about oil. They were all people like me, who'd absorbed the distilled wisdom of 400 years of British/US mercantalism/imperialism/capitalism over decades working in the financial industry. And I can tell you that the firms they work for, their jobs, status, income etc. was built on us having done similar stuff for hundreds of years and depends today on the same thing. It's hard to overstate the importance of oil to the global economy or the existance of a country where there's huge potential to increase oil production -- only one such country exists. If I'd have stood up and claimed that i was worried about Saddam's WMD they would have looked at me like i had two heads.

OK, you are talking about figures that were in discussion. Can you provide some kind of reference, or industry organization website that supports your numbers? I have provided my sources, another sourse is something called the Oil and Gas Journal. The numbers I quoted were estimates of proven and unproven reserves. Unproven reserves would deal with unexplored areas. And you know what? Even allowing for error, 20 trillion is so far away from 500 trillion that something is very wrong somewhere.

Saudi arabia has at 267 billion barrels known reserves. Saudi Arabia has 1/5 of the worlds known reserves.

According to my calculations, your figures imply that Iraq's potential supply exceed total known reserves in the world by a factor of around 4x. Tell me where ny figures are wrong.

We are talking about whether or not the war is all about the economy of oil. I'd say that makes the value of oil under discussion relevant. If we can't come any closer than a factor of 25x then we our discussions won't mean a whole lot.

I intend to respond to other points you make, but I first want to get some kind of agreement about the value of the oil in question.

I could have gone with the Janet and john numbers that show Iraq with the second/third largest oil reserve in the world and my argument is still valid -- that Iraq is the only country where oil production could be quickly and cheaply increased by a significant enough quantity that, produced by the right people and sold to the right people under the right conditions would greatly benefit certain economys. But Iraq really does contain untold quantities of oil. The numbers from people who know what they're talking about show that Iraq could easily have more oil than the rest of the world put together*. It's certainly the largest single oil reserve in the world.

*When firms like Petroconsultants make estimates like $500 trillion that includes the expected increases in the price of oil over decades of production. Oil was $10 a barrel just over a decade ago and would currently be over $200 and climbing had the current financial meltdown not happened. The bottom line with Iraq though is that it's the only country capable of significantly increasing its oil production in a world where under normal circumstances supply has recently equalled demand for the first time ever. And while oil companies are reduced to drilling holes under 20000 feet of seawater for relatively small deposits these days at production costs of $20-30 a barrel, Iraq's oil costs about a dollar a barrel to produce. When the Iraq war happened half a dozen Baghdadis did a Jethro Clampett in their back gardens while digging air-raid shelters. Iraq really is the world's most valuable real estate. And oil really does make the global economy go round. After two decades working in the financial industry and learning how the world works from the people who make it work I can tell you that unquestionably we invaded Iraq for the oil, just like we did in the 1920s. I'm no wild-eyed lefty, I'm probably Sunderland's only Margaret Thatcher supporter who's spent his career working in the money industry. (Although having seen the results I probably wouldn't support her again.)

I'm far far far from anything close to being an oil expert but, what about Brazil? They have recently discovered pretty hefty reserves unless I'm mistaken. A matter of production costs?

Anyway that's just technical, of course oil is the be all end all as to why the middle east is so important.

[CGM]

Iraq has never had its oilfields mapped or quantified. There are huge areas of Iraq that have never been seismically tested. Since oil was first found in Iraq there have been less than 200 drills in various areas. To put that in perspective there have been well in excess of 20 million drilled in Texas.

As part of my job I get access to various economic data. As far as oil data goes the company with the most accurate name is a firm in Geneva called petroconsultants. Their reports change hands for over a million dollars a copy, and Petroconsultants' conservative estimate of Iraq's oil wealth based on the projected size of their known geological formations is $500 trillion. Certainly that's the figure that was in discussion in various meetings of financial institutions I attended on both sides of the Atlantic in 2002/3 before we invaded. Although it was never openly discussed from the various comments made it was clear that the participants at those meetings certainly seemed to think the war was all about oil. They were all people like me, who'd absorbed the distilled wisdom of 400 years of British/US mercantalism/imperialism/capitalism over decades working in the financial industry. And I can tell you that the firms they work for, their jobs, status, income etc. was built on us having done similar stuff for hundreds of years and depends today on the same thing. It's hard to overstate the importance of oil to the global economy or the existance of a country where there's huge potential to increase oil production -- only one such country exists. If I'd have stood up and claimed that i was worried about Saddam's WMD they would have looked at me like i had two heads.

OK, you are talking about figures that were in discussion. Can you provide some kind of reference, or industry organization website that supports your numbers? I have provided my sources, another sourse is something called the Oil and Gas Journal. The numbers I quoted were estimates of proven and unproven reserves. Unproven reserves would deal with unexplored areas. And you know what? Even allowing for error, 20 trillion is so far away from 500 trillion that something is very wrong somewhere.

Saudi arabia has at 267 billion barrels known reserves. Saudi Arabia has 1/5 of the worlds known reserves.

According to my calculations, your figures imply that Iraq's potential supply exceed total known reserves in the world by a factor of around 4x. Tell me where ny figures are wrong.

We are talking about whether or not the war is all about the economy of oil. I'd say that makes the value of oil under discussion relevant. If we can't come any closer than a factor of 25x then we our discussions won't mean a whole lot.

I intend to respond to other points you make, but I first want to get some kind of agreement about the value of the oil in question.

I could have gone with the Janet and john numbers that show Iraq with the second/third largest oil reserve in the world and my argument is still valid -- that Iraq is the only country where oil production could be quickly and cheaply increased by a significant enough quantity that, produced by the right people and sold to the right people under the right conditions would greatly benefit certain economys. But Iraq really does contain untold quantities of oil. The numbers from people who know what they're talking about show that Iraq could easily have more oil than the rest of the world put together*. It's certainly the largest single oil reserve in the world.
.
.
.

OK mon, I read your post carefully. Duly noted about distilled wisdom of the ages, and comanies with a vested interest, and your horseshit about Janet and John. I guess my sources must not have a clue. You know, I'm starting to think you didn't look to closely at my numbers, if at all. You couldn't have looked too closely judging by the elapsed time between our posts. And if you won't give my posts due consideration, then I'm just wasting my time.

You're the guy who is so big on facts and evidence. You're the stats guy. You're the guy who started quoting the numbers. I would have preferred some kind of support to your claims, but ok we'll disregard claims about the actual value of the oil, and just say that it's "a lot". I'll go back to your big post of a day or two ago, and address some of your other points, sometime today.

I know one thing for sure, even if I take your figures at face value, your claim of 300x US GDP is off by a factor of 10, approximately.

[Kirkland Laing]

OK, you are talking about figures that were in discussion. Can you provide some kind of reference, or industry organization website that supports your numbers? I have provided my sources, another sourse is something called the Oil and Gas Journal. The numbers I quoted were estimates of proven and unproven reserves. Unproven reserves would deal with unexplored areas. And you know what? Even allowing for error, 20 trillion is so far away from 500 trillion that something is very wrong somewhere.

Saudi arabia has at 267 billion barrels known reserves. Saudi Arabia has 1/5 of the worlds known reserves.

According to my calculations, your figures imply that Iraq's potential supply exceed total known reserves in the world by a factor of around 4x. Tell me where ny figures are wrong.

We are talking about whether or not the war is all about the economy of oil. I'd say that makes the value of oil under discussion relevant. If we can't come any closer than a factor of 25x then we our discussions won't mean a whole lot.

I intend to respond to other points you make, but I first want to get some kind of agreement about the value of the oil in question.

I could have gone with the Janet and john numbers that show Iraq with the second/third largest oil reserve in the world and my argument is still valid -- that Iraq is the only country where oil production could be quickly and cheaply increased by a significant enough quantity that, produced by the right people and sold to the right people under the right conditions would greatly benefit certain economys. But Iraq really does contain untold quantities of oil. The numbers from people who know what they're talking about show that Iraq could easily have more oil than the rest of the world put together*. It's certainly the largest single oil reserve in the world.
.
.
.

OK mon, I read your post carefully. Duly noted about distilled wisdom of the ages, and comanies with a vested interest, and your horseshit about Janet and John. I guess my sources must not have a clue. You know, I'm starting to think you didn't look to closely at my numbers, if at all. You couldn't have looked too closely judging by the elapsed time between our posts. And if you won't give my posts due consideration, then I'm just wasting my time.

You're the guy who is so big on facts and evidence. You're the stats guy. You're the guy who started quoting the numbers. I would have preferred some kind of support to your claims, but ok we'll disregard claims about the actual value of the oil, and just say that it's "a lot". I'll go back to your big post of a day or two ago, and address some of your other points, sometime today.

I know one thing for sure, even if I take your figures at face value, your claim of 300x US GDP is off by a factor of 10, approximately.

The facts and the evidence say that Iraq has the only oil reserve capable of significant -- many millions barrels per day -- production increase. I'm well aware of your numbers, the numbers the media use to quantify Iraq's oil reserves and the numbers that the oil industry thinks Iraq has. Intimately aquainted with them, have been for years. I've forgotten more than most people know about oil and the Middle East due to my job and I also spend every day analysing hundreds of pages of quite complex financial data, so even if I'd worked out the numbers without having seen them before it honestly would take me only a fraction of the time you might think it would.

I'll just point out a couple of things about numbers from groups like the EIA. If you check their numbers going back a few decades you'll see huge increases in the estimated reserves of all major OPEC producers over a period starting in the eighties. This was when various changes were made to the OPEC quota system that allowed production based on known reserves. All OPEC countries suddenly discovered they had double the oil reserves that they'd previously had. The whole reserves thing is a big game of smoke and mirrors and for various reasons Iraq is possibly the only country thatdoesn't play them, or at least not to the same extent as others. Organisations like the EIA take these bs numbers at face value.

I'm willing to do that for the purpose of my argument too. Let's say that the EIA are right. Iraq is still the only country in the world with significant production upside. And do you know how valuable this is? Just look at Saudia Arabia. Over half of Saudi's 10+ million barrels per day (bpd) comes from one oilfield. And right now they're having to pump ten million barrels per day bpd of seawater into the field to maintain pressure, a sign that the field's production is going to start dropping soon. Over 75% of the region's oilfields areover 50 years old which means they're all going to move out of peak production to a more mature, slow level of production over the next decade or two. And this region holds over half the world's oil. The Saudis claim that they can maintain and increase production but their most recent big investment is to apply billions of dollars of new technology to a field that was exhausted just after WW2. If they've got so much easily recoverabl oil, why bother with expensively producing high sulphur stuff that the market is already well supplied with? The future guarantee of oil supplies for western economys at even current levels is shaky to say the least.

There's a good reason why Iraq's oilfields were topic number one of the last president's US National Security Council.

[Kirkland Laing]

OK, you are talking about figures that were in discussion. Can you provide some kind of reference, or industry organization website that supports your numbers? I have provided my sources, another sourse is something called the Oil and Gas Journal. The numbers I quoted were estimates of proven and unproven reserves. Unproven reserves would deal with unexplored areas. And you know what? Even allowing for error, 20 trillion is so far away from 500 trillion that something is very wrong somewhere.

Saudi arabia has at 267 billion barrels known reserves. Saudi Arabia has 1/5 of the worlds known reserves.

According to my calculations, your figures imply that Iraq's potential supply exceed total known reserves in the world by a factor of around 4x. Tell me where ny figures are wrong.

We are talking about whether or not the war is all about the economy of oil. I'd say that makes the value of oil under discussion relevant. If we can't come any closer than a factor of 25x then we our discussions won't mean a whole lot.

I intend to respond to other points you make, but I first want to get some kind of agreement about the value of the oil in question.

I could have gone with the Janet and john numbers that show Iraq with the second/third largest oil reserve in the world and my argument is still valid -- that Iraq is the only country where oil production could be quickly and cheaply increased by a significant enough quantity that, produced by the right people and sold to the right people under the right conditions would greatly benefit certain economys. But Iraq really does contain untold quantities of oil. The numbers from people who know what they're talking about show that Iraq could easily have more oil than the rest of the world put together*. It's certainly the largest single oil reserve in the world.

*When firms like Petroconsultants make estimates like $500 trillion that includes the expected increases in the price of oil over decades of production. Oil was $10 a barrel just over a decade ago and would currently be over $200 and climbing had the current financial meltdown not happened. The bottom line with Iraq though is that it's the only country capable of significantly increasing its oil production in a world where under normal circumstances supply has recently equalled demand for the first time ever. And while oil companies are reduced to drilling holes under 20000 feet of seawater for relatively small deposits these days at production costs of $20-30 a barrel, Iraq's oil costs about a dollar a barrel to produce. When the Iraq war happened half a dozen Baghdadis did a Jethro Clampett in their back gardens while digging air-raid shelters. Iraq really is the world's most valuable real estate. And oil really does make the global economy go round. After two decades working in the financial industry and learning how the world works from the people who make it work I can tell you that unquestionably we invaded Iraq for the oil, just like we did in the 1920s. I'm no wild-eyed lefty, I'm probably Sunderland's only Margaret Thatcher supporter who's spent his career working in the money industry. (Although having seen the results I probably wouldn't support her again.)

I'm far far far from anything close to being an oil expert but, what about Brazil? They have recently discovered pretty hefty reserves unless I'm mistaken. A matter of production costs?

Anyway that's just technical, of course oil is the be all end all as to why the middle east is so important.

They found a field tha contains 5-8 billion barrel of recoverable oil, which is quite a hefty field but only a couple of percent of Iraq's very low-end estimate of reserves.

But in these days of demand catching up with supply for the first time ever, it's not how much oil is in the field, it's how much you can pump out of the ground every day that counts. And pumping oil miles to shore from under tens of thousands of feet of seawater is a tricky, expensive business. Which means low levels of production and actual profitability. ANWR in Alaska for instance holds twice the amount but the estimated peak production would be 750 000 bpd falling to less than 500 000 bpd in a few years. And it would take a decade to produce the first barrel if you started work tomorrow, by which time domestic oil demand even in the US would have jumped by millions of bpd. So if both the Brazil/ANWR field went into full-scale production tomorrow by the time they came onstream they'd only cover part of the increase in expected US demand between then and now, never mind the rest of the world.

[CGM]

I could have gone with the Janet and john numbers that show Iraq with the second/third largest oil reserve in the world and my argument is still valid -- that Iraq is the only country where oil production could be quickly and cheaply increased by a significant enough quantity that, produced by the right people and sold to the right people under the right conditions would greatly benefit certain economys. But Iraq really does contain untold quantities of oil. The numbers from people who know what they're talking about show that Iraq could easily have more oil than the rest of the world put together*. It's certainly the largest single oil reserve in the world.
.
.
.

OK mon, I read your post carefully. Duly noted about distilled wisdom of the ages, and comanies with a vested interest, and your horseshit about Janet and John. I guess my sources must not have a clue. You know, I'm starting to think you didn't look to closely at my numbers, if at all. You couldn't have looked too closely judging by the elapsed time between our posts. And if you won't give my posts due consideration, then I'm just wasting my time.

You're the guy who is so big on facts and evidence. You're the stats guy. You're the guy who started quoting the numbers. I would have preferred some kind of support to your claims, but ok we'll disregard claims about the actual value of the oil, and just say that it's "a lot". I'll go back to your big post of a day or two ago, and address some of your other points, sometime today.

I know one thing for sure, even if I take your figures at face value, your claim of 300x US GDP is off by a factor of 10, approximately.

The facts and the evidence say that Iraq has the only oil reserve capable of significant -- many millions barrels per day -- production increase. I'm well aware of your numbers, the numbers the media use to quantify Iraq's oil reserves and the numbers that the oil industry thinks Iraq has. Intimately aquainted with them, have been for years. I've forgotten more than most people know about oil and the Middle East due to my job and I also spend every day analysing hundreds of pages of quite complex financial data, so even if I'd worked out the numbers without having seen them before it honestly would take me only a fraction of the time you might think it would.

I'll just point out a couple of things about numbers from groups like the EIA. If you check their numbers going back a few decades you'll see huge increases in the estimated reserves of all major OPEC producers over a period starting in the eighties. This was when various changes were made to the OPEC quota system that allowed production based on known reserves. All OPEC countries suddenly discovered they had double the oil reserves that they'd previously had. The whole reserves thing is a big game of smoke and mirrors and for various reasons Iraq is possibly the only country thatdoesn't play them, or at least not to the same extent as others. Organisations like the EIA take these bs numbers at face value.

I'm willing to do that for the purpose of my argument too. Let's say that the EIA are right. Iraq is still the only country in the world with significant production upside. And do you know how valuable this is? Just look at Saudia Arabia. Over half of Saudi's 10+ million barrels per day (bpd) comes from one oilfield. And right now they're having to pump ten million barrels per day bpd of seawater into the field to maintain pressure, a sign that the field's production is going to start dropping soon. Over 75% of the region's oilfields areover 50 years old which means they're all going to move out of peak production to a more mature, slow level of production over the next decade or two. And this region holds over half the world's oil. The Saudis claim that they can maintain and increase production but their most recent big investment is to apply billions of dollars of new technology to a field that was exhausted just after WW2. If they've got so much easily recoverabl oil, why bother with expensively producing high sulphur stuff that the market is already well supplied with? The future guarantee of oil supplies for western economys at even current levels is shaky to say the least.

There's a good reason why Iraq's oilfields were topic number one of the last president's US National Security Council.

OK man, seeing as how you already know it all, I'm a gonna save my breath. I will say this though, not much in your posts is proof of anything, basic logic will tell you that. And you still have refused to back up your figures with anything anyone can substantiate. And your numbers are still far out of whack with what is available in the "media" and official sources you obviosly have so much disdain for.

Most of your arguments fall short because of logic. You present a set of facts or circumstances, and you come up a story that is consistent with those facts. But your arguments aren't proof of anything, cause there is more than one story that fits (is consistent with) those "facts" you choose to present. You don't really prove anything, despite your reams of words and unsubstantiated numbers.

In other words, suppose there was another reason for the war. Besides Oil control. The US/Britain would still have to take the same sort of action about the oil. They'd have to discuss it and deal with it. Unless you think they should have to just forget about the oil and just get on with the war.

seeya, I'm movin on.

[Kirkland Laing]

OK mon, I read your post carefully. Duly noted about distilled wisdom of the ages, and comanies with a vested interest, and your horseshit about Janet and John. I guess my sources must not have a clue. You know, I'm starting to think you didn't look to closely at my numbers, if at all. You couldn't have looked too closely judging by the elapsed time between our posts. And if you won't give my posts due consideration, then I'm just wasting my time.

You're the guy who is so big on facts and evidence. You're the stats guy. You're the guy who started quoting the numbers. I would have preferred some kind of support to your claims, but ok we'll disregard claims about the actual value of the oil, and just say that it's "a lot". I'll go back to your big post of a day or two ago, and address some of your other points, sometime today.

I know one thing for sure, even if I take your figures at face value, your claim of 300x US GDP is off by a factor of 10, approximately.

The facts and the evidence say that Iraq has the only oil reserve capable of significant -- many millions barrels per day -- production increase. I'm well aware of your numbers, the numbers the media use to quantify Iraq's oil reserves and the numbers that the oil industry thinks Iraq has. Intimately aquainted with them, have been for years. I've forgotten more than most people know about oil and the Middle East due to my job and I also spend every day analysing hundreds of pages of quite complex financial data, so even if I'd worked out the numbers without having seen them before it honestly would take me only a fraction of the time you might think it would.

I'll just point out a couple of things about numbers from groups like the EIA. If you check their numbers going back a few decades you'll see huge increases in the estimated reserves of all major OPEC producers over a period starting in the eighties. This was when various changes were made to the OPEC quota system that allowed production based on known reserves. All OPEC countries suddenly discovered they had double the oil reserves that they'd previously had. The whole reserves thing is a big game of smoke and mirrors and for various reasons Iraq is possibly the only country thatdoesn't play them, or at least not to the same extent as others. Organisations like the EIA take these bs numbers at face value.

I'm willing to do that for the purpose of my argument too. Let's say that the EIA are right. Iraq is still the only country in the world with significant production upside. And do you know how valuable this is? Just look at Saudia Arabia. Over half of Saudi's 10+ million barrels per day (bpd) comes from one oilfield. And right now they're having to pump ten million barrels per day bpd of seawater into the field to maintain pressure, a sign that the field's production is going to start dropping soon. Over 75% of the region's oilfields areover 50 years old which means they're all going to move out of peak production to a more mature, slow level of production over the next decade or two. And this region holds over half the world's oil. The Saudis claim that they can maintain and increase production but their most recent big investment is to apply billions of dollars of new technology to a field that was exhausted just after WW2. If they've got so much easily recoverabl oil, why bother with expensively producing high sulphur stuff that the market is already well supplied with? The future guarantee of oil supplies for western economys at even current levels is shaky to say the least.

There's a good reason why Iraq's oilfields were topic number one of the last president's US National Security Council.

OK man, seeing as how you already know it all, I'm a gonna save my breath. I will say this though, not much in your posts is proof of anything, basic logic will tell you that. And you still have refused to back up your figures with anything anyone can substantiate. And your numbers are still far out of whack with what is available in the "media" and official sources you obviosly have so much disdain for.

Most of your arguments fall short because of logic. You present a set of facts or circumstances, and you come up a story that is consistent with those facts. But your arguments aren't proof of anything, cause there is more than one story that fits (is consistent with) those "facts" you choose to present. You don't really prove anything, despite your reams of words and unsubstantiated numbers.

In other words, suppose there was another reason for the war. Besides Oil control. The US/Britain would still have to take the same sort of action about the oil. They'd have to discuss it and deal with it. Unless you think they should have to just forget about the oil and just get on with the war.

seeya, I'm movin on.

Define "proof." I don't have video evidence of George bush and Dick Cheney discussing getting their oil war on with Iraq, but I have showed you a copy of a document released to the public by the former US National Security Council member and US Treasury Secretary who was at the first NSC meeting that dealt with Iraq, so Iraq was definitely high on the agenda of the Bush/Cheney administration when they came to power. I don't think you'll deny that.

And we know they made up "intelligence" to go to war with Iraq. When the world struggled to get enthused over bombing Iraq and didn't believe a threat existed the British government released a dossier of "new evidence" that war criminal Tony Blair said was "compelling". However a member of the media made a google search of the document and it turned out it was a 1991 California University student's thesis on Saddam's possible WMD in 1990. The US intel was even more unbelievable. They set up an office of staff to make stuff up and put it in the media. So I think we can agree that they really really wanted to go to war with Iraq.


But why? What does Iraq have that's worth invading for? Controlling Arabian oil has been the number one foreign policy/military priority of the Brits and the US for over a century now. There's a century's worth of evidence for this, often written by the guys who were running the show at the time. Nobody running the British empire was shy about describing exactly what they did in their memoirs. It was only around the time we renamed the Ministry of War the Ministry of Defence that people started talking about how we were bringing freedom and democracy to the world. Arabian oil was unquestionably the number one foreign priority of both the British and American governments, as told by the members of the government themselves, from the time it was discovered until now. Only a few decades ago the left wing socialist Jimmy Carter said

An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.


So what is it that's so vital there? What's so strategically important there? Of the world's 190 countries, the US has military bases in 130 of them. But nearly a third of all that air, land and sea firepower is concentrated in and around the five countries that hold all that oil. Why is that?