Quick war will boost US economy

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
61

Someone should ask Bush why he purchases oil from the country that is supposedly one of the most dangerous on earth?

US buys up Iraqi oil to stave off crisis, Faisal Islam and Nick Paton Walsh
The Observer, 26 January 2003

Facing its most chronic shortage in oil stocks for 27 years, the US has this month turned to an unlikely source of help - Iraq.

Weeks before a prospective invasion of Iraq, the oil-rich state has doubled its exports of oil to America, helping US refineries cope with a debilitating strike in Venezuela. After the loss of 1.5 million barrels per day of Venezuelan production in December the oil price rocketed, and the scarcity of reserves threatened to do permanent damage to the US oil refinery and transport infrastructure. To keep the pipelines flowing, President Bush stopped adding to the 700m barrel strategic reserve.

But ultimately oil giants such as Chevron, Exxon, BP and Shell saved the day by doubling imports from Iraq from 0.5m barrels in November to over 1m barrels per day to solve the problem. Essentially, US importers diverted 0.5m barrels of Iraqi oil per day heading for Europe and Asia to save the American oil infrastructure.

62

Nadia please,how can i help but be a little cynical,when i ask what is a serious question,i get the same old responses.

The US this the US that,if you really dont like Saddam as you profess you dont,only when pushed of course,then how can you just disregard what this madman has done and will do in the future.

Industrial pollution is one thing and tanker accidents another,neither is acceptable but turning the taps on to allow millions of gallons of crude oil into the sea and torching the oil wells,how can you possibly defend that sort of thing,surely the security of the oil wells,is of paramount importance to the whole world.

If the only thing that is important to you is bashing the US and scoring browny points,then so be it,i thought you were bigger than that.

63

BraveHeart, that really hurt. What am i supposed to do to convince you? Lay out my entire biography? Here it is - my family and i were in Abu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates, when Hussein ordered the invasion of Kuwait. My parents have only one son, and he was five months old when Kuwait was invaded. We bought tickets to go to Pakistan incase of a chemical attack, but my father wasn’t allowed to leave by his bank. The smoke that you are referring to, yes caused by Iraq’s torching of Kuwaiti oil wells, drifted over the UAE for weeks. Governmental orders - we had to stock up on water, masking tape, gas masks. Thanks but i don’t need to be reminded of what Saddam is and is not, and i don’t appreciate constantly having to state that i hate him. It detracts from the main discussion.

Please answer my query in your next post - do you believe that the US is involving itself in this war for solely altruistic reasons?

>>Industrial pollution is one thing and tanker accidents another,neither is acceptable but turning the taps on to allow millions of gallons of crude oil into the sea and torching the oil wells,how can you possibly defend that sort of thing,surely the security of the oil wells,is of paramount importance to the whole world.<<
Please read this article and please let me know your thoughts regarding it… The environmental damage of war in Iraq, Duncan McLaren and Ian Willmore
The Observer, 19 January 2003

64

That is called the Helsinki Syndrome or was it Stockholm.

65

Well i certainly didnt mean to hurt you but at least i got a more honest answer thanwhat about the USandblame it on bush`.

I will also say that you are right war does cause lots of grief,in lots of different ways,however this is where we have to differ,because i blame Saddam for bringing us to war and therby causing all the grief that comes from war.

I would much rather he left his people and everyone else in peace and went into exile but he wont because he doesn`t care about you or me or anyone else.

It seems a lot better to me to make sure Saddam can not pollute the area again,in making sure they are secured before he can.

66

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Braveheart:

Look N and M,i understand that there are companies etc. that pollute the atmosphere but i am not talking about which country happens to pollute the atmosphere the most.

[/QUOTE]

Why, because is that to difficult for you to answer? When asking someone as you did what are your feelings regarding the polution of this planet? what do expect people to say? They will ask you which country in the world is by far the biggest polluter in the world, and which continues to quite knowingly pollute the earth like no other country in the world.

67

Sorry, Braveheart, i know you didn't mean to hurt me - but for goodness' sake i would like for all of us to get past this you-love-Saddam business.

Don't you believe that, if the US goes into war, there will be greater stress placed upon the regional (and therefore global) environment than if the US chose not to provoke a conflict? War isn't the only option here.

68

N,i dont even believe that the US is provoking a war here,Saddam has to disarm,15 countries,ie the UN security council,have told him he has to disarm,he clearly does not want to do that,so in the end he will be disarmed.

Sure,if there were no war,there would be less damage to the enviroment but i dont believe that is a good enough reason to postpone one either.

You are right,war isn`t the only option here,because Saddam could always go into exile.So here we differ again.

69

Braveheart, exile is an interesting option. Wouldn't that signify that Pres. Hussein is getting off scot-free as some govts. have all along maintained that he is a dictator, butchering his own people - if he is granted exile, how would he still be indicted at the Hague?

Sorry for diverting this topic, back to my original query - do you believe the US is engaging in this war with Iraq exclusively for altruistic motivations?

70

If he is left in power do you think he will ever get taken to the hague? no

So if exile is the only way,apart from going to war,then i am for it,war is not something i would choose,if there was another way.

No i would rather he went into exile,even if he doesn`t get indicted.

As to your question,i have to say i dont know,if they are being entirely altruistic,as i dont get around the corridors of power in the US.I think only time will tell if that is so or not.

I do know that if Bush is going to send young men and women halfway across the world to fight and die,he had better have a damn good reason,if he hopes to win the next election,i have seen what the US citizens can do to their leaders who send them to war for the wrong reasons.

71

>>As to your question,i have to say i dont know,if they are being entirely altruistic,as i dont get around the corridors of power in the US.I think only time will tell if that is so or not.<<
Braveheart, Thanks for trying to answer it:~)
i doubt any of us get around the corridors of power in the US; was just wondering what your personal opinion is. Do you mind if i ask that, since you seem to be uncertain, does that signify that you think there IS a possibility that the US is heading into war for reasons other than altruism? i know i am being intrusive and annoying with this question. All i can say is i am sorry.

Surprise surprise - i agree with the rest of your reply in your last para. regarding there being the necessity of there being a valid reason for going to war. The only difference is that i believe the US has already decided it wants war, whether or not all diplomatic avenues have been exhausted. Thus this makes it very difficult for one party (Iraq) to negotiate in such a no-win situation.

72

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
*>>As to your question,i have to say i dont know,if they are being entirely altruistic,as i dont get around the corridors of power in the US.I think only time will tell if that is so or not.<<
Braveheart, Thanks for trying to answer it:~)
i doubt any of us get around the corridors of power in the US; was just wondering what your personal opinion is. Do you mind if i ask that, since you seem to be uncertain, does that signify that you think there IS a possibility that the US is heading into war for reasons other than altruism? i know i am being intrusive and annoying with this question. All i can say is i am sorry.

Surprise surprise - i agree with the rest of your reply in your last para. regarding there being the necessity of there being a valid reason for going to war. The only difference is that i believe the US has already decided it wants war, whether or not all diplomatic avenues have been exhausted. Thus this makes it very difficult for one party (Iraq) to negotiate in such a no-win situation.
[/QUOTE]

Well at last we are getting somewhere,when we can at least agree on something N.In answer to your question,nothing is ever certain in this world,so i guess we ordinary mortals,sometimes just have to put our trust in the people we put into power.Of course,and i am not trying to be flippant here,that depends on wether we have put them into power ie been able to vote them in,in which case,if they screw us we can always take them out of power again.
This is the reason why i would never want to live outside a democracy,i have traveled a lot of this world,i have seen what totalitarian regimes do to peoples spirit and my fervant wish is for all of the countries of this world to become democratic,that doesnt mean i would sanction indescriminate underminning of countries that are not,it`s a wish not a demand.
So i would find it hard to believe that Bush and Blair are on a personal crusade against all muslims in this world,or that it is some kind of conspirisy by the jews and christians against the muslims.They both know they would never be reelected,even to the dogcatchers job again.

73

Another analysis which suggests that a short war will be a definite boost for the US economy. There is a flip side that a long war would be damaging but with the puny Iraqis likely to put up little resistance in the face of over-whelming odds, there’s not much chance of that. So I predict a sharp upturn for US and UK economies following the capture of the oil fields.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=373099

Short conflict ‘better than none’
By Nigel Morris, Political Correspondent
27 January 2003

Business leaders warned yesterday that the British economy could be hit hard by a prolonged war in Iraq.

But a more optimistic scenario, envisioning a short, successful war, was more likely and would be better economically than no war at all, the Institute of Directors said.

That scenario forecast that, after a brief spike, oil prices would quickly fall to $20 a barrel and the US economy would grow by 2.9 per cent. “In economic terms, a short war is better than no war, or no regime change, because of the removal of uncertainty,” the institute’s report said.

“US economic prospects will be maximised if President Bush swiftly takes both Baghdad and opposition to his [tax cuts] on Capitol Hill.”

However, if military action were to drag on for months, oil prices could remain high, with damaging knock-on effects for the West. Under that scenario, the cost of oil could leap to $80 (£49) a barrel, the US stock market could fall by 30 per cent and America’s gross domestic product could contract by 2 per cent.

Graeme Leach, the report’s author, said business should be aware of the impact of war on the US economy, Britain’s largest export market.

The Chancellor, Gordon Brown, already forced to revise his economic forecasts, is anxious to assess the economic side-effects of any conflict.

74

Thanks for your reply, Braveheart. i guess we will continue to disagree on the aspects we have always disagreed upon, with a few odd issues here and there which we see eye to eye on. Thanks for your reply.

75

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Judge^MentuLL: *
...with the puny Iraqis likely to put up little resistance in the face of over-whelming odds, there's not much chance of that. So I predict a sharp upturn for US and UK economies following the capture of the oil fields.
[/QUOTE]

True.
In the above case i wonder what the effects will be upon the surrounding regional economies.

76

ahhh… Good 'ol Haliburton, Dick Cheney’s former love - always seems to come up in these types of discussions.

US ‘awarding contracts’ for Iraq, BBC, 10 March 2003

The US government has plans ready to award contracts worth up to $900 million for immediate reconstruction needs in post-war Iraq, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal.

The United States Agency for International Development is said to have discreetly sent out requests for proposals from at least five companies involved in infrastructure and engineering. The newspaper said the plan for rebuilding Iraq was detailed in a privately distributed USAID document, called “Vision for Post Conflict Iraq”.

The Wall Street Journal said the plan would include rebuilding of roads, schools, bridges and parts of the electricity network.

Among the companies mentioned is the Texas-based Halliburton, where the American vice president Dick Cheney served as chief executive officer from 1995 to 2000.

Halliburton has already been reported to have acquired a contract to oversee firefighting operations at Iraqi oilfields after any invasion.

Many more contracts will have to be awarded after any possible war.

77

Their stocked hasn't moved positive even with this news in the last couple of days. Asbestos litigation still hanging over them partly, but still.

78

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Their stocked hasn't moved positive even with this news in the last couple of day.
[/QUOTE]

Perhaps, time alone will tell...?

79

I’m glad you are finding stuff to read regarding the post-War reconstruction efforts that the US is planning. I trust you are not opposed to the “rebuilding of roads, schools, bridges and parts of the electricity network.”

I also trust you wouldn’t oppose someone putting out the oil well fires that Saddam will no doubt start to destroy Iraq’s natural resources as his final defiant act. If Haliburton is the best company for the job, what’s the problem? Would it be better if it were a company with affiliations to a liberal democrat?

Here’s some more on US rebuilding plans.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2363693

Sounds like lots and lots of money going out of the US to support the reconstruction effort. Little of what I read suggests the US is in for any kind of an economic bonanza regardless of the duration of the war.

80

myvoice.. and im not surprised with your reaction to Haliburton a company linked to a huge corporate scandal being awarded contracts by the Bush Administration.. to refresh your memory a short excerpt is below.

New corporate scandal engulfs Bush deputy](New corporate scandal engulfs Bush deputy) Sydney Morning Herald

The corporate scandals preoccupying the United States moved ever-closer to the White House with the news that Vice-President Dick Cheney had been party to allegedly illegal accounting practices by his oil company. Mr Cheney has remained resolutely silent on the issue of corporate wrongdoing and has refused to answer all inquiries about his tenure as CEO of the oil services company Halliburton up to 2000.

Senior Halliburton executives had suggested Mr Cheney was unaware of an accounting formula that counted projected revenue as profits, thereby obscuring the true picture of the company’s finances from shareholders. But David Lesar, the CEO and Mr Cheney’s successor, told Newsweek Mr Cheney had been fully conversant with Halliburton’s accounting methods.“The Vice-President was aware of who owed us money and he helped us collect it. We stand behind the accounting treatment.”