Hussein info....

[MrVicchio]

Gortha,

You base your decisions on feelings, you feel passionate about the thought of dead Iraqi Civilians... you buy into this kooky theroy of WAR FOR OIL! Cause it sounds, on the face of it, like it might be real. So it gives you a "good" feeling to "hate" Dubya.

I don't see why you do.... If it was Algore in office, we'd have been attacked several times by now because, and be honest here, do you REALLY think he would have done what Dubya did and remove the Taliban from power thus send Al-Quada running?

Why War With Iraq Is Not About The Oil

By Gary S. Becker

A number of leaders of the antiwar movement have been loudly proclaiming that a war with Iraq would be all about America's desire to gain control of oil supplies there and elsewhere in the Middle East. In a recent BusinessWeek story, a German Green Party opponent of war was quoted as saying: "Saddam is no saint, but to me the whole thing smells of...oil." This economic argument, popular in Europe, makes little sense. If oil were the driving force behind the Bush Administration's hard line on Iraq, avoiding war would be the most appropriate policy.

Iraq, along with other important producers, must export its oil to gain the resources to buy goods, including weapons. Since oil is sold in a fluid world market, any nation, including the U.S., can get pretty much all the oil it wants by paying world prices. So the U.S. would be better off if it encouraged Iraq to export more, not less, oil because that would lower oil prices. Yet America has not done this. Since the Persian Gulf War, it has led the international community in restricting Iraqi production as a means of pressuring Saddam Hussein to dismantle his weapons of mass destruction.

Outbreak of a war in Iraq would cost the U.S., not save it, large sums of money. Already the runup to war has sent oil prices spiraling upward, imposing, in effect, a large tax on all energy consumers. War would initially cause prices to escalate further, as happened in the early days of the Gulf War. The largest estimates of the cost of a conflict with Iraq--estimates above $150 billion, or 1 1/2% of U.S. gross domestic product--are based on the assumption that oil production facilities in Iraq, and possibly elsewhere in the Middle East, would be destroyed or put out of commission for a considerable period of time.

Even if all Iraqi production capacity were to be destroyed, world oil output for a year would fall by less than 4%. Such a cutback in supply for that year, it is estimated, could raise oil prices by as much as 40%. That would mean a jump in price from about $35 a barrel now to a little less than $50 a barrel--a significant increase but still far smaller than the tripling of prices after the first oil shock in 1973. Oil might spike temporarily to $50 a barrel. I should add, however, that a price very far above $50 a barrel is highly unlikely.

Moreover, in the event of a war, oil is likely to remain below $50 a barrel since much of the war premium has already been priced in. Also, other producers could be expected to expand output to take advantage of the higher prices, and America should use some of its strategic oil reserves to get more oil into the marketplace.

The developed economies are also considerably less dependent on oil today than after previous oil price shocks--when OPEC was formed in the 1970s and when Iraq attacked Iran in the 1980s. These economies have learned to economize on oil and other fossil fuels by developing new technologies, including more efficient automobiles and airplanes. As a result, the share of income spent on oil has declined by more than half in the U.S. and other rich economies. So an upward boost of oil prices of even 50% would have a significantly less disastrous effect on the U.S., Europe, and Japan than similar price jumps have had in previous decades.

Today, Middle Eastern nations are far less important to world oil production than they were immediately after the formation of OPEC. Their share of world oil production has fallen from almost 40% then to less than 30% now. In order to raise the global price of oil, the OPEC cartel, led by Saudi Arabia, had to restrict its members' production. This raised prices, encouraging non-OPEC nations, including Russia, to expand production. Also, oil companies have made greater efforts to find new deposits deep in ocean waters, in the frozen tundra of Siberia, and in China and elsewhere.

Saudi Arabia tries to create the impression that it produces more oil than it would like in order to keep world prices from rising further, and in this way, it curries favor with America and Europe. Indeed, there may be an element of political accommodation. But mainly the Saudis are helping themselves. They know that forcing prices still higher with additional cuts in their production and that of neighboring Persian Gulf states would accelerate the erosion of demand for Mideast oil as other producers expand output and industrial nations further economize on the use of oil.

Consequently, if the major driver of American policy toward Iraq were concern about oil and its cost, it would be best to avoid a Middle East conflict and the risk of much higher prices. A war with Iraq is not about oil. It is about Saddam Hussein and the threat he poses to his neighbors, his people, and to nations around the world. Critics might argue against that position, but they only confuse the issue by once again trotting out the oil card.

Gary S. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate, teaches at the University of Chicago and is a Fellow of the Hoover Institution

[Gortha]

http://www.systranlinks.com/systran/...n_f=1047383722


read this page...very interesting.... it is translated.

Update :

Here is Part 2 translated:

http://www.systranlinks.com/systran/...n_f=1047384487

[MrVicchio]

They are quoting CYNTHIA McKinney? The same idiot that said

'"we should investigate what bush knew(in reguards to 9/11) and when he knew it, no I don't have any evidence that he let the attacks happen, bu if we investigate we might..."

The SAME idiot that asked for the 20 million dollars Rudy Guilliani refused from that Saudi Prince after the attaks....


The same one ousted in the 2002 elections?


Look, you have to look at the source, and that woman is has been repeatedly discredited for her lack of any semblance of integrity.

[Lexington_Steele]

Viccio, Gary S. Becker obviously has an uninformed opinion, or he is spouting half truths to argue against oil being a motivation for war.

A good portion of the Iraqi oil has already been promised out to oil companies. They have exclusive rights.

GB and the US are the two main countries that have been excluded from these deal.

Yes we could buy Iraqi oil, but we would likely be buying it from French, Russian or German oil companies, not from Iraq.

US Officials have also stated that they are likely to pay for the war with Iraqi oil.

I am not saying that oil is the only reason for war, however it is very easy to make the connection.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by MrVicchio

I don't see why you do.... If it was Algore in office, we'd have been attacked several times by now because, and be honest here, do you REALLY think he would have done what Dubya did and remove the Taliban from power thus send Al-Quada running?

How do you know what Gore would have done? For all you know, Gore might have have captured Bin laden by now.

How do you figure that we would have been attacked many times by now if under Gore? What information are you basing that on?

How can you attack someone for something they didn't do and for things didn't happen?

You don't see me making silly comments like "If Gore was elected president, 9/11 would never have happened."

[MrVicchio]

Algore would have signed the Kyoto accords

Algore would have signed the USA on to the World Court

Algore is much like Clinton in that he had a disdain for the military

Algore was MORE dangerous then Clinton, cause unlike Clinton, Algore actually belived in more then fame and power... that is scary

BTW incase you missed that part:

Gary S. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate, teaches at the University of Chicago and is a Fellow of the Hoover Institution

Yes, I would say he is a very uniformed person with no crediblity at all.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by MrVicchio


Gary S. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate, teaches at the University of Chicago and is a Fellow of the Hoover Institution

Yes, I would say he is a very uniformed person with no crediblity at all.

Then tell me how Professor Becker would refute my points?

btw, he got his nobel prize"for having extended the domain of microeconomic analysis to a wide range of human behaviour and interaction, including nonmarket behavavior."

He is a social scientist that studies human behavior and its effects on the economy.

His award and status do not put political science or macro economics into his domain.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by MrVicchio
Algore would have signed the Kyoto accords

Algore would have signed the USA on to the World Court

Algore is much like Clinton in that he had a disdain for the military

Algore was MORE dangerous then Clinton, cause unlike Clinton, Algore actually belived in more then fame and power... that is scary

I am not sure that Gore would have signed the Kyoto accords. I am not sure that He would have signed us to the World court.

Even if he did, why does that mean that Gore would have done nothing after 9/11? Why does that mean that Al-Quada would have launched more attacks than they did?

[MrVicchio]

Go read "Earth in the Balance"

According to its author (algore) the most dangerous threat to man kind is the internal combustion engine... he stated he WOULD sign the Kyoto accords, that the World Court was "good idea and he fully supported it"

HE would NOT have launched a full scale invasion of Afghanistan.. I just cant see him doing that. Thus Al-Quada would still have a country to operate from, and would have attacked again.. thats just common sense man.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by MrVicchio


Go read "Earth in the Balance"

According to its author (algore) the most dangerous threat to man kind is the internal combustion engine... he stated he WOULD sign the Kyoto accords, that the World Court was "good idea and he fully supported it"

HE would NOT have launched a full scale invasion of Afghanistan.. I just cant see him doing that. Thus Al-Quada would still have a country to operate from, and would have attacked again.. thats just common sense man.

How do you know he would not have gone into afganistan?

and

He would have needed congress's support to sign the Kyoto accords.

[Navaron]

We don't know that he wouldn't have gone into afghanistan, but we can infer that he would take the same action as his last office did, which was to lob 560 million dollars of tomahawks at nothing. I guess it made it look like retaliation.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
We don't know that he wouldn't have gone into afghanistan, but we can infer that he would take the same action as his last office did, which was to lob 560 million dollars of tomahawks at nothing. I guess it made it look like retaliation.

????? ?????

I fail to see the concetion from that to responding to the 9/11 incident?

Different actions call for different responses. The Clinton administration did not experience anything like 9/11. How is it that you can infer the action's Gore would have taken when there is nothing similar to compare it to?

[Navaron]

In '98 when Bin Ladin attacked the US embassies in Africa, Clinton fired 560,000,000 dollars worth of cruise missiles into afghanistan (remember one hit pakistan) over 50 days.

[Lexington_Steele]

Are you trying to tell me there was not a big difference between the embasy incident and 9/11?

[MrVicchio]

There was a huge difference, one was on foriegn soil, the other on US Soil, that makes a world of difference.