• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study

calamity said:
Thanks, George. The war to nowhere has cost us $2 Trillion and will probably cost us several more before all is said and done. And people wonder why the economy tanked, the deficit is so high and then they blame Obama for the fact that we have no money now.


That $6 Trillion could have bought us lots of bike paths, solar panels and high speed rail lines. But, no. Bush and his supporters had to start a war with a country that never did us any harm.


Dolts.
Click to expand...

I'm waiting on your thread that blames Pres Obama for raising the debt with his almost 6 year war in Afghanistan..........
 
calamity said:
The war in Afghanistan began in 2001...12 years ago, not 6.
War in Afghanistan (2001
Click to expand...
Yes, but Pres Obama will have presided over 6 years of that war and he doubled down on it with his troop surge much like Pres Bush did on Iraq. So, still waiting on that thread instead of ridiculous deflections...........
 
Muhammed said:
So your evidence is simply the words of wikidiots? Regardless of the documented evidence?

LOL
Click to expand...
You mean the fact that the first Iraq war officially ended in 1995? Like I said, hurling a cruise missile or two does not constitute a war.

If the war was "ongoing" then why did Bush need to have Congress vote on it in 2002?
 
MarineTpartier said:
Yes, but Pres Obama will have presided over 6 years of that war and he doubled down on it with his troop surge much like Pres Bush did on Iraq. So, still waiting on that thread instead of ridiculous deflections...........
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges. Afghanistan wasn't started under false pretense. But, I will say this: Obama better pull troops out in 2014, as promised.
 
calamity said:
Apples and oranges. Afghanistan wasn't started under false pretense. But, I will say this: Obama better pull troops out in 2014, as promised.
Click to expand...
It became a false pretense a long time ago and you know it. I agree with the last statement.
 
calamity said:
Thanks, George. The war to nowhere has cost us $2 Trillion and will probably cost us several more before all is said and done. And people wonder why the economy tanked, the deficit is so high and then they blame Obama for the fact that we have no money now.


That $6 Trillion could have bought us lots of bike paths, solar panels and high speed rail lines. But, no. Bush and his supporters had to start a war with a country that never did us any harm.


Dolts.
Click to expand...

Israel, among other countries in the Middle East, should have to pay us back, considering what we've done for them.
 
calamity said:
Thanks, George. The war to nowhere has cost us $2 Trillion and will probably cost us several more before all is said and done. And people wonder why the economy tanked, the deficit is so high and then they blame Obama for the fact that we have no money now.


That $6 Trillion could have bought us lots of bike paths, solar panels and high speed rail lines. But, no. Bush and his supporters had to start a war with a country that never did us any harm.


Dolts.
Click to expand...



Yeah, but look at all the benefits to US citizens from the $6 trillion dollars of debt for the Iraq war..............................

Oh yeah there are none................never mind.........
 
dirtpoorchris said:
I really dont even know what Al Queda is. Perhaps it is propagandized soldiers trained through capture in secret detention facilities all headed by the CIA? Or is it some super sect of cult like pissed off arab civilians? What the heck is Al Queda?
Click to expand...

al Qaeda was the boogeyman that the neocons needed to gin up the fear necessary to carry out there plans to make the middle east once again accessible for exploitation of their oil resources.
 
Catawba said:
al Qaeda was the boogeyman that the neocons needed to gin up the fear necessary to carry out there plans to make the middle east once again accessible for exploitation of their oil resources.
Click to expand...

:lol: yeah. Because we colonized Iraq and are currently exploiting their oil :lol:


woops? :)
 
When we talk about the costs of wars, calculation of actual campaign expenses and accrued liabilities is not enough. Every reservist pulled out of the workforce and sent abroad represents a drain on the economy, every dollar spent on munitions has been diverted, with a negative multiplier, from something else. Opportunity costs are tremendous.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
:lol: yeah. Because we colonized Iraq and are currently exploiting their oil :lol:


woops? :)
Click to expand...

Big oil is back in Iraq for the first time in 35 years. Could not have happened without our war.
 
Catawba said:
Big oil is back in Iraq for the first time in 35 years. Could not have happened without our war.
Click to expand...

Total S.A. was making deals with the Baath. Total S.A. is making deals with the current Iraqi government. Things are exactly as they were 35 or 25 or 15 years ago.
 
Cyrylek said:
Total S.A. was making deals with the Baath. Total S.A. is making deals with the current Iraqi government. Things are exactly as they were 35 or 25 or 15 years ago.
Click to expand...

Big oil was kicked out of Iraq when they nationalized their oil in the 1970's, and was not allowed to return until our 2003 war on Iraq.
 
that's cute. he cites particulars and you cite bumper stickers.

regardless, those companies are from all sorts of nations (we didn't even get the best spots), and we did not attempt to seize direct or exercise indirect control over the iraqi oilfields. reality continues to disprove the thesis that the United States went into Iraq after their oil
 
Catawba said:
Big oil was kicked out of Iraq when they nationalized their oil in the 1970's, and was not allowed to return until our 2003 war on Iraq.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. In 2002 alone, Saddam had signed agreements with Total, Eni, Repsol, and Tatneft ("Tat" stands for "Tatarstan", "neft" is "oil" - Russians). The socialist economy of the Baathist Iraq did not mean that the 'Big Oil' is kept out; only that the State controls the situation and takes the biggest cut - just as it is now. (The oil industry is still nationalized, of course; the "Big Oil" is still operating under licenses from Baghdad).
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
that's cute. he cites particulars and you cite bumper stickers.

regardless, those companies are from all sorts of nations (we didn't even get the best spots), and we did not attempt to seize direct or exercise indirect control over the iraqi oilfields. reality continues to disprove the thesis that the United States went into Iraq after their oil
Click to expand...



It wasn't about seizing their oil. It was about getting big oil back in Iraq. If you had read Cheney's task force recommendations in 2001, you would know that the plan was to remove Saddam's regime which kicked big oil out of Iraq in the 70's when they nationalized their oil. They said Saddam was a destabilizing force in middle east oil prices, withholding oil, driving up costs, and they recommended a military option, all before we were attacked on 9/11.

Now, thanks to our war, big oil is back in Iraq for the first time since the 1970s. Mission accomplished!
 
Cyrylek said:
Nonsense. In 2002 alone, Saddam had signed agreements with Total, Eni, Repsol, and Tatneft ("Tat" stands for "Tatarstan", "neft" is "oil" - Russians). The socialist economy of the Baathist Iraq did not mean that the 'Big Oil' is kept out; only that the State controls the situation and takes the biggest cut - just as it is now. (The oil industry is still nationalized, of course; the "Big Oil" is still operating under licenses from Baghdad).
Click to expand...

None of those companies are big oil and none western. Saddam let in the companies of those he was friendly with like Russia and the French, but the big mega oil companies from the US and England were locked out from the 1970s until our 2003 war.
 
your argument literally makes no sense. Of course the recommendation was to remove the Saddam Regime. The recommendation from the Clinton Administration was the same. You continue to fail to demonstrate that the Iraq war was fought because we were after their oil.
 
cpwill said:
your argument literally makes no sense. Of course the recommendation was to remove the Saddam Regime. The recommendation from the Clinton Administration was the same. You continue to fail to demonstrate that the Iraq war was fought because we were after their oil.
Click to expand...

Its not my argument, it was the plan from: "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century" (before the 9/11 attack)

Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis
Sunday Herald, The, Oct 6, 2002 by Exclusive By Neil Mackay

"President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that "Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East" and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US "military intervention" is necessary.

Vice-president Dick Cheney, who chairs the White House Energy Policy Development Group, commissioned a report on "energy security" from the Baker Institute for Public Policy, a think-tank set up by James Baker, the former US secretary of state under George Bush Snr.

The report, Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century, concludes: "The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a de-stabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/ diplomatic assessments.

"The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies."

Baker who delivered the recommendations to Cheney, the former chief executive of Texas oil firm Halliburton, was advised by Kenneth Lay, the disgraced former chief executive of Enron, the US energy giant which went bankrupt after carrying out massive accountancy fraud.

The other advisers to Baker were: Luis Giusti, a Shell non- executive director; John Manzoni, regional president of BP and David O'Reilly, chief executive of ChevronTexaco. Another name linked to the document is Sheikh Saud Al Nasser Al Sabah, the former Kuwaiti oil minister and a fellow of the Baker Institute."


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20021006/ai_n12580286/
 
""Prior to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, US and other western oil companies were all but completely shut out of Iraq's oil market," oil industry analyst Antonia Juhasz told Al Jazeera. "But thanks to the invasion and occupation, the companies are now back inside Iraq and producing oil there for the first time since being forced out of the country in 1973."

Western oil firms remain as US exits Iraq - Features - Al Jazeera English


MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
 
cpwill said:
your argument literally makes no sense. Of course the recommendation was to remove the Saddam Regime. The recommendation from the Clinton Administration was the same. You continue to fail to demonstrate that the Iraq war was fought because we were after their oil.
Click to expand...

Getting rid of Saddam was a priority interest, having Iraqi oil fields being tapped by certain businesses, that was an interest too. Are you under the false impression that we don't map out interests? If you're further unaware, we're also involved in the mapping out of our allies interests. See: "A Clean Break"
 
Prelude

"From 1961, when the revolutionary regime of Abdel Karim Qasssim passed a law depriving the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC) of the right to prospect in 99.5% of Iraqi territory, Iraq envisaged the creation of a nationally owned and run oil industry. The creation of the Iraq National Oil Company (INOC) in 1964 confirmed this, even if the INOC was originally set up with limited powers[2]

Expropriation of IPC assets

During the late 1960s and early 1970s Iraq continued to be dissatisfied with the way the IPC managed production levels in Iraq based on their commercial interests elsewhere, and there were various disputes about pricing[3]. Iraq also demanded a 20% equity stake in IPC, something which the San Remo Conference of the great powers in 1920 had envisaged but which the international partners in the IPC had denied them.[4]

On the back of the rising tide of economic nationalism in Iraq and more broadly across the Middle East, the IPC offered in May 1972 to increase the Iraqi state's profits, raise production, and agree to some advance payments on royalties.[5] But the offers did not prove enough and on the 1 June 1972 the Iraqi government expropriated all of the IPC's assets in Iraq. Saddam Hussein, then formally vice-president to Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, led the nationalisation process for the Baath Party.[6] Only the parent company IPC was affected by this move. Neither the Mosul nor the Basrah companies were included.[7]

In 1973, Iraq and the IPC settled their claims and counter-claims. The IPC agreed to pay nearly US $350 million to Iraq as compensation for revenue lost to Iraq over the years when IPC was selling Iraqi oil. In return, the government agreed to provide to IPC 15 million tons of Kirkuk crude free of charge, valued at the time at over $300 million, in a final settlement of IPC claims. The Mosul Petroleum Company surrendered its concession to the government.[8]

Nationalisation of the Basra Petroleum Company

Even following the outbreak of the 1973 Yom Kippur war, Iraq did not nationalise the entire Basra Petroleum Company (BPC). On the 7 October the government announced that it had nationalised the shares of the American companies (Exxon and Mobil) in retaliation for the United States' support of Israel, and later that month it also nationalised the shares of Royal Dutch Shell for similar reasons. However in December 1975 President Bakr announced the complete takeover of foreign interests in the BPC, completing the nationalisation process."

Nationalisation of Iraqi Oil Industry - Oil4All
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom