It's not about the oil...

boldgardener93 said:So, you're suggesting Americans are actually losing money in Iraq? Come on, be real—do you seriously believe that? Like, the idea that Americans are just being their usual selfless, wonderful selves, staying in Iraq at their own massive expense just to defend democracy? I think Little Red Riding Hood is a more believable story than that.

The whole point here isn't really about whether Americans are "good and kind," but rather whether this was an oil war or not. Others have already laid out the numbers quite clearly, and I was simply building on those points...........😲🙄

And just for your information, the US is running a massive budget deficit.

http://nationalpriorities.org/index....per&Itemid=182

And the count continues............🙄🙄

Nancy Hall4 said:But look, we aren't even debating what the actual price was back then—neither you nor I are making claims about historical reality here. We just simplified the math using hypothetical numbers based entirely on your own logic:

If you're just trying to be difficult, please stop grasping at straws to save face. Instead of muddying the waters and trying to act brilliant with unverifiable figures, why not just admit when the math doesn't track? Honestly, I couldn't care less.

Wait, I'm the one trolling???? You've got it all wrong! I was calculating for 2006, when the average price of oil was actually right around $60. That definitely doesn't apply to the whole four-year stretch.
So, quit acting like you know everything!

Roger Robinson682 said:The whole point here isn't really about whether Americans are "good and kind," but rather whether this was an oil war or not. Others have already laid out the numbers quite clearly, and I was simply building on those points...........😲🙄

And just for your information, the US is running a massive budget deficit.

http://nationalpriorities.org/index....per&Itemid=182

And the count continues............🙄🙄

Well, you were actually the one who mentioned oil wasn't the reason, arguing that they spend more on the war than they get from oil. Sure, people can spin it however they want, but common sense suggests otherwise.
Even if it's true that they're losing money right now, it's pretty certain things will look different in the long run. Is that even debatable?

boldgardener93 said:Well, you were actually the one who mentioned oil wasn't the reason, arguing that they spend more on the war than they get from oil. Sure, people can spin it however they want, but common sense suggests otherwise.
Even if it's true that they're losing money right now, it's pretty certain things will look different in the long run. Is that even debatable?

It is absolutely worth questioning...😲

With the daily violence unfolding in Iraq, coupled with the announced surge in American troop numbers, the costs are inevitably going to climb. What’s truly unsettling is that there doesn't seem to be any sign of de-escalation on the horizon. Even if the Americans were to pull out tomorrow, I suspect the Iraqis wouldn't be in any position to establish a government that holds even a shred of actual relevance...😲

Linda Hughes88 said:Wait, I'm the one trolling???? You've got it all wrong! I was calculating for 2006, when the average price of oil was actually right around $60. That definitely doesn't apply to the whole four-year stretch.
So, quit acting like you know everything!

Here he goes again. So you calculated based on just one single year, claiming a loss of roughly 45 billion—which is more or less accurate if we assume two million barrels, though I have my doubts about that number too—and then you jumped into an argument with boldgardener93, who claimed a staggering 300 billion over a four-year span. It’s not like oil production only happened in 2006, nor is it going to suddenly stop tomorrow, right? You're comparing apples to oranges and just muddying the waters here.
If you actually have the full figures, why not just lay them out? Not even for my sake, but for the sake of clarity.

Nancy Hall4 said:Here he goes again. So you calculated based on just one single year, claiming a loss of roughly 45 billion—which is more or less accurate if we assume two million barrels, though I have my doubts about that number too—and then you jumped into an argument with boldgardener93, who claimed a staggering 300 billion over a four-year span. It’s not like oil production only happened in 2006, nor is it going to suddenly stop tomorrow, right? You're comparing apples to oranges and just muddying the waters here.
If you actually have the full figures, why not just lay them out? Not even for my sake, but for the sake of clarity.

See, this is what happens when people don't actually read for comprehension. Obviously those weren't exact figures, because that wasn't even the point. I was just trying to show that the math used in the original post doesn't hold water, which is exactly what I did. And that 175 billion figure you threw out? It's wrong again. The actual number is much lower, like, significantly lower...
And we're talking about the price of the oil produced in Iraq. Since Iraq has its own national oil company, the revenue isn't even that high, let alone the actual profit.

So, if we look at Stiglitz's estimate—where the cost of the war isn't just what Congress approves, measured in hundreds of billions, but includes all the other stuff too—then we're looking at total costs exceeding 2 trillion dollars...
So go ahead, do the math and tell me how many years it'll take them to finally break even.

You're making two pretty massive mistakes here. First off, you’re focusing way too much on such narrow objectives; you aren't looking past those hypothetical 45 billion for 2006.
Controlling oil essentially means controlling the entire global economy. It’s easily the most vital strategic resource we have today, just as it was before World War II and will continue to be well into our future. Every major economy on the planet runs on oil—almost everything that drives, flies, or sails depends on it. And let's not forget that oil isn't just about fuel; it’s the backbone of plastics, synthetic fertilizers, and countless other industries. Naturally, the scarcer it gets, the more sky-high the prices climb.

Your second error lies in how you're calculating the cost of the war in Iraq. You're citing 2 trillion dollars, yet the US military budget for 2006 sits at around 419 billion dollars. I won't even get started on what else that budget covers besides the conflict in Iraq. Truth be told, the Iraq war is definitely being funded through channels outside the standard military budget, but that 2 trillion figure? It seems totally out of touch. It feels like Stiglitz is speculating heavily there, only seeing one side of the coin.

Then there's a third mistake, though it's much smaller: you're guessing at extraction rates. Those numbers could easily swing higher or lower than what you've suggested. We don't have clear data on offshore platform extraction or onshore production, and you haven't even mentioned gas.

In short, Joe Biden, my friend, while your specific math for oil in 2006 might hold up, focusing solely on these tactical goals—especially just this one single goal—is probably the biggest blunder you could make.

Look, I’m just sticking to the topic at hand here. You’re the one going off on tangents... In that first post, you brought up stuff that just doesn't make any sense if you use common sense, and that's all I was calling out.

Another thing—since you wanted to bring it up—is how much oil actually matters. Sure, it’s huge, but that doesn't really change the conversation we're having because, let's be real, anyone can just go out and buy it on the open market. If you've got the cash, you get the oil. It's that simple.

When Stiglitz talks about the actual cost of the war, he's factoring in everything from insurance to healthcare and all that extra stuff too.

Linda Hughes88 said:Look, I’m just sticking to the topic at hand here. You’re the one going off on tangents... In that first post, you brought up stuff that just doesn't make any sense if you use common sense, and that's all I was calling out.

Another thing—since you wanted to bring it up—is how much oil actually matters. Sure, it’s huge, but that doesn't really change the conversation we're having because, let's be real, anyone can just go out and buy it on the open market. If you've got the cash, you get the oil. It's that simple.

When Stiglitz talks about the actual cost of the war, he's factoring in everything from insurance to healthcare and all that extra stuff too.

That’s fair enough.

On a second note, since we're already touching on it, let's talk about how vital oil really is. It's undeniably crucial, but honestly, that doesn't change much regarding our current topic because oil is just as easy to pick up on the open market. If you have the cash, you get the oil. It's as simple as that.

But I think you're mistaken there, and don't you see why? You won't always be able to just walk in and grab it. Even right now, OPEC members are pumping at their absolute maximum capacity. They don't have any wiggle room left to ramp up production, nor can they afford to scale it back. They've lost that leverage. That's one thing. But even more importantly, oil is a strategic resource, which means it's always going to be at the mercy of political maneuvering and military decisions. Just look at history: Japan couldn't secure its oil needs before WWII, or consider the massive fallout from the 1973 oil crisis. (And I won't even get started on Germany from 1941-1945, South Africa during apartheid, or the situation in Mexico back in the 90s). Now, Iraq holds the third-largest oil reserves in the world, sitting right behind Saudi Arabia and Iran—though depending on who you ask, they might be second or fourth, since it all depends on how much of those reserves are actually profitable to extract. Sure, Canada has larger reserves than Iraq, but they're tied up in shale, which is much more expensive to pull out. If Saddam Hussein's regime had stayed in power in Iraq and decided to cut off American Oil to the USA while only selling to, say, China or India, wouldn't that have caused absolute chaos? There is no way America would ever allow that to happen. Whoever holds the keys to those reserves holds the leash on both their own economic growth and that of their competitors, both now and far into the future. That is the heart of the matter. Though, if you want my personal take, I still think Americans are probably the least of the evils among all these folks trying to play world ruler.

When Stiglitz writes about the costs of war, he includes things like insurance and healthcare expenses and so on.

I know. He factors in the indirect costs, but he ignores the indirect benefits. He tends to wander a bit wide with his scope, too. (And by the way, don't go thinking he's doing that just for his own sake!)

You're getting sidetracked here.

As you wish. I suppose the big picture isn't really what we're focusing on here, is it?

I was just scrolling through this old link to the Economic Hit Man confessions, and man, it really hits home how much of our history is shaped by these massive corporate interests behind the scenes. It’s kind of wild to think about how much influence companies like Halliburton or Bechtel actually have over global policy and how they basically steer entire nations toward their own goals.

So, I was just thinking about how Share International explains the whole "Economic Hit Man" (EHM) thing—it’s honestly pretty wild how that entire system actually functions.
John Perkins basically laid it out for us—our whole job was to build an empire, and honestly, we pulled it off.
It’s kind of wild to think about, but we're basically looking at the birth of the first truly global empire in all of human history.
We basically built it without any kind of military, which is pretty wild because it’s unique in that it just doesn't have one.
It’s all about who's actually pulling the strings, you know? Instead of having a real leader, we just end up with what I like to call...
"Corporatocracy"—just this group of guys and a handful of women who...
They’re basically pulling all the strings when it comes to our biggest corporations, the major banks, and even our own government.
We’ve built up this empire using all sorts of different methods, though I guess the most classic way is probably...
Maybe we should just look for some developing nation that's sitting on exactly the kind of resources we're after—you know?
Take a look at how American Oil works. After that, we can work on getting the World Bank or one of its affiliates involved.
That branch ends up lending that country a massive amount of cash, and honestly, most of it just flows straight out.
You know, when you look at big American corporations like Bechtel or Halliburton, it really makes you think about how much influence they actually hold.
So, I was just thinking about how Ston & Webster would even go about building out those massive infrastructure projects...
We're looking at massive infrastructure stuff, you know, like power plants, shipping ports, industrial parks, and all that kind of thing.
It’s basically just projects designed to line the pockets of the ultra-wealthy in those countries, and then we just leave the nation itself hanging out to dry.
We're talking about massive debts here, honestly, the kind of overwhelming amounts that just feel impossible to ever actually pay back. It's a total economic nightmare.
Then the killer just circles back around and goes, "Look, you guys owe us..."
When you're drowning in cash but still can't actually pay off what you owe, you just kind of decide to lean into it instead.
Let's just make a deal where you do us a little favor—you just sell your oil to our guys.
It’s honestly such a bargain for the big oil companies, just let us build the military bases ourselves.
If you've got bases set up in your neck of the woods, you really ought to show up and vote during the next critical session at the UN.
Either you send your troops over to Iraq or some other conflict zone to make things work in our favor.
It's basically that spot where we really need everyone to have our backs. Something like that, anyway. That's how we're gonna make it happen.
They actually managed to pull it off and build that massive empire.

Could someone please help me make sense of how corporate rule and terrorism actually tie together?
Back when you guys were working for EHM over in Saudi Arabia.
John Perkins: Back in the early 70s, OPEC was really starting to change everything.
Basically, what those OPEC guys did was just squeeze us by putting a cap on the oil supply.
It totally knocked them to their knees, honestly. You’d see these massive lines snaking out of the gas stations for blocks.
We were all just driving around, honestly pretty terrified that we were about to see a total repeat of the Great Depression from 1929.
Back in the day, someone from the Department of the Treasury actually reached out to me and one other person.
EHM basically told us, "OPEC can't hold us hostage like that," which kind of means we really need to start brainstorming some new moves.
We really wanted to make sure that kind of thing doesn't ever happen again, you know? We all realized that the absolute key to making any plan actually work was...
It was all about Saudi Arabia because they had more oil there than anywhere else on the planet, you know?
Basically, the government could have totally kept a lid on the oil supply. At the same time,
Their royal family, the Sauds, was basically always open to being bribed. Just saying.
So, we ended up heading out to Saudi Arabia, and just to give you the short version of what went down: we wrapped things up.
So, there was this whole deal where the royal family actually agreed to cough up the lion's share of the cash.
What exactly did they gain by shipping all that oil from around the world straight back to the USA?
Thinking about putting some money into US Treasuries lately... honestly, those interest rates are looking pretty decent right now.
It feels like the Department of the Treasury should probably just step in and hire some Americans to get this moving.
Companies that would eventually step in to rebuild Saudi Arabia using a Western model—
Desalination plants, highways, ports, power stations, and just everything else.
They're building these massive cities right out in the middle of the desert. It’s honestly wild how much Saudi Arabia is changing lately.
Just some Westernized country.
Part of the whole deal was that Saudi Arabia would agree to keep prices in line.
We just need to keep the oil within borders that actually work for us, and then we'll be all set.
Basically, the Saudi family will keep holding onto power as long as they play ball.
It all comes down to the agreement they made, and honestly, everything’s still holding up just fine today. But, you know,
That basically triggered what the CIA calls a "blowback," which is really just their own doing.
It’s that one specific term you use when someone’s pulling strings behind the scenes and somehow actually manages to pull it off successfully.
But honestly, it ends up triggering some pretty heavy unintended consequences, you know? There's just...
There’s just this massive, deep-seated resentment toward the Saudi family within the Islamic world because of how things have played out.
It all went down in Saudi Arabia because the locals there just aren't happy when they see their own kind being treated like that.
The holiest cities, Mecca and Medina, just sitting there surrounded by all those Westernized urban hubs.
It’s all just massive petrochemical plants and McDonald's franchises at this point, honestly. Right now, the House of Saud is basically calling the shots.
It’s honestly just so unstable over there; that whole country has dealt with way too much violence and constant assassination attempts.
There’s just so much unrest right now, and honestly, unemployment is hitting people really hard. It's like everything is falling apart, especially with how oil prices are behaving...
In so many other countries out there, it’s just not serving the majority of people like it actually should.
It was all framed as some kind of curse, you know? But honestly, looking back, that whole thing just paved the way for creating this massive...
There’s just so much simmering resentment rippling through the Muslim world right now, whether you look at the stuff happening on the surface or all those deeper, more subtle layers that people tend to overlook.
It basically just paved the way for Al-Qaeda and all those other terrorist movements to take off.

What kind of future do you guys see unfolding for the Middle East?
I honestly feel like we’ve ended up creating something really intense over in the Middle East—I’m pretty much convinced that's what happened.
Things are getting pretty sketchy and unstable out there right now, and honestly, one of the main reasons we decided to go through with it was...
Of course, we're looking to keep a lid on China, Japan, and Korea, and then there's those other guys too.
A lot of countries pull a huge chunk of their oil straight from the Middle East, and when you look at our situation...
We aren't nearly as hooked on the Middle East for our oil as they are on us, which honestly makes the whole dynamic feel pretty different when you really look at it.
It’s just part of how our politics works, really. We'd much rather have control over the oil coming out of Iran and Iraq.
We were dealing with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, but honestly, we just ended up stuck in Iraq.
They somehow managed to stir up way more resentment than they ever intended to, honestly.
Things were different before 9/11, you know? Now, there's just this massive wave of terrorism running wild in Iraq.
A huge chunk of them aren't even actually Iraqi. If the US administration recently...
It feels like they’re just gonna try to use those elections—which honestly look like a total wash by now—as some kind of excuse.
They’re talking about pulling out of Iraq, and honestly, I can't help but wonder what on earth is actually going to happen once everyone leaves.
What happens to those terrorists we actually funded and trained, the ones who are absolutely losing their minds right now? Where do they go?
You think they're actually gonna show up?

Anything else going on lately?

I haven't had a chance to read through all your posts yet—I just wanted to mention there's this documentary called "The War on Iraq" (if I remember the title right—it was showing at a festival here in the States) that might be worth a watch for anyone who thinks there was actually a solid reason for the invasion...
And honestly, even without the film, it seems pretty obvious—but, you know, maybe it helps round out the whole picture regarding the situation.

Brendan Nelson, the Australian Defense Minister, just claimed that Iraq is a critical energy hub—specifically regarding oil—which he says is a major reason why Australia isn't pulling its troops out of there. Nelson tried to walk it back a bit, though, suggesting oil isn't the only factor and that they're actually staying to prevent clashes between Sunnis and Shias. Prime Minister John Howard, who happens to be a close ally of Bush, went ahead and shut down Nelson's reasoning, likely to avoid fueling more anti-war protests. Naturally, the opposition is already calling him a hypocrite.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/...ticle_continue

It’s definitely not about the oil...👎

Former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan just dropped his long-awaited memoirs, and they’ve sent shockwaves through the White House. Even though he's a Republican, Greenspan uses the book to take aim at President Bush and the GOP, specifically targeting the war in Iraq, which he claims was really all about securing oil interests. "It’s honestly pathetic how politically inconvenient this fact is; people refuse to admit it even though everyone knows it's the truth," Greenspan remarks.

I don't know, I don't think it was about the oil...

northernheron97 said:I completely agree that the invasion of Iraq was hands down one of the biggest blunders in American history, and honestly, Bush was an absolute clown of cosmic proportions; the whole neoconservative crew was just a massive collection of amateurs who were totally out of touch with how the post-Cold War world actually works, but don't you really see that the true killers in Iraq are the religious fundamentalists from both the Sunni and Shia sides?

For instance, the real killer is someone like al-Baghdadi, who declared something like nineteen new Islamic dogmas, claiming that Christians and Jews living among Muslims aren't even protected as dhimmis anymore, and that any Sunnis participating in the Iraqi government are apostates—basically marked for death right alongside the Shias.

The actual engine of this slaughter is al-Qaeda and those Sunni fundamentalists who kicked this whole bloodbath off by destroying the mosque in the Samara Desert.

And it’s the exact same story with the Shias and their various vampiric, messianic cults that preach death and chaos as a necessary precursor to the arrival of the Mahdi; their leaders are simultaneously leading special death squads for the Mahdi's army, and their worst psychopathic killer, al-Dera, is currently hiding out in Iran (which explains why even Ahmadinejad seems to believe that chaos is a prerequisite for the Mahdi's return).
The atrocities committed by the Mahdi's army have become so extreme that even Muqtada al-Sadr is starting to purge movement leaders—like Hasan Salih, the leader of the Mahdi's army in Baghdad—because they are just too deeply mired in bloodshed.

Americans essentially found themselves in a helpless situation because of their own incompetence and the sheer failure of their analysts to predict what would happen, but blaming them directly for the deaths isn't quite right—the responsibility lies with the ones doing the killing, and those killers are the Iraqis themselves, specifically the extreme Sunni and apocalyptic Shia movements.
The Americans are guilty of opening Pandora's box on a massive scale, but that is still a lesser evil compared to the darkness lurking within the extremist factions of the Iraqi people.

How on earth do you know who blew up that mosque in the Samara Desert?👎 Couldn't that have been some third party just pretending to be in Arab uniforms? Or are you one hundred percent certain?😲 🤣

hiddengardener84 said:How on earth do you know who blew up that mosque in the Samara Desert?👎 Couldn't that have been some third party just pretending to be in Arab uniforms? Or are you one hundred percent certain?😲 🤣

Of course he did; George W. Bush orchestrated the whole thing himself. It’s almost funny how naive we can be. I mean, really, who do we think carried out that terrorist attack in Algeria just ten days ago? I suppose we're meant to believe it was George W. Bush again! 😂 😂 🤣 🤣

goldenmason172 said:Of course he did; George W. Bush orchestrated the whole thing himself. It’s almost funny how naive we can be. I mean, really, who do we think carried out that terrorist attack in Algeria just ten days ago? I suppose we're meant to believe it was George W. Bush again! 😂 😂 🤣 🤣

These clowns are truly unbelievable; do they honestly think anyone here is actually buying their cheap propaganda?
Just the other day, Osama bin Laden—with his beard freshly dyed, mind you—was basically saying they were the ones who brought down the skyscrapers and how he came up with the idea, yet these people are still rambling on about CIA conspiracies, babbling away and worshipping Loose Change videos, effectively calling their own idol a liar.

I bet next you'll try to tell me it wasn't even bin Laden because his beard was dyed.

northernheron97 said:These clowns are truly unbelievable; do they honestly think anyone here is actually buying their cheap propaganda?
Just the other day, Osama bin Laden—with his beard freshly dyed, mind you—was basically saying they were the ones who brought down the skyscrapers and how he came up with the idea, yet these people are still rambling on about CIA conspiracies, babbling away and worshipping Loose Change videos, effectively calling their own idol a liar.

I bet next you'll try to tell me it wasn't even bin Laden because his beard was dyed.

Michael Moore and those of his ilk have crawled out of their holes for one reason only: to make millions of dollars off of fools. Honestly, when have Americans ever missed an opportunity to turn something massive into a profit? 🤔 🤔 😂 😂

Richard Wilson4 said:I honestly don't get how oil has anything to do with suicide bombers.
Look, they're killing themselves—and their own civilians too. They couldn't care less about oil. All they want is to wipe out anyone who's different, and Americans are just an easy excuse.👎

This is the truth right here. Suicide bombers? Please. Most of those stories are just blatant lies cooked up by Zionist American propaganda. I was talking to a guy from Baghdad, and he told me straight up that at least 70% of these so-called "suicide bombers" have absolutely no clue their car is going to blow up in a few minutes. Who exactly is planting the dynamite in these cars and trucks? It’s the Americans. It’s simple: the US military keeps warehouses full of dynamite and all sorts of explosives everywhere they go. 😬 Alright, let's get back to talking about suicides.

Honestly, you guys don't have a clue what's going on in your own backyard, let alone what's actually happening in the USA or Iraq. Most people just swallow whatever the news media feeds them without thinking twice. Don't be one of them; start asking yourself what’s actually plausible and what’s just pure fiction. If we're supposed to believe the American narrative that Bin Laden was behind everything, then where's the proof? Where are those tapes the CIA supposedly snatched from that hotel right across from the Pentagon? I mean, come on. What kind of pilot could pull off those impossible maneuvers and hit those buildings with that kind of surgical precision? And look at the damage—which building collapses all the way down to its foundation just from fire like the WTC did? None of them. Even the Empire State Building wasn't leveled by a smaller plane hitting it. On 9/11, two planes were spotted and recorded near the Pentagon—one identified as a C-180 and another unidentified passenger jet. What were those planes doing in the air when every single flight in the entire USA was supposed to be grounded? And why isn't there a single wing fragment or any significant piece of debris left on the Pentagon's facade before it took the hit? Same thing goes for United Airlines 93—why haven't they found any substantial wreckage? Until someone actually provides some real answers to these questions, I'll pass on believing this whole Bin Laden story.