[Vision2020] RE: Why Invading Iraq Makes "Oil" Sense

[Phil Nisbet]

Ted

I am sorry I got so absorbed in the fascinating discussion with Nick that I 
put this on the back burner.  This discussion with you is also of a high 
degree of interest and very worthy of continuation.

Ted writes

“The tar sands oil in Alberta are difficult to extract and turn into usable 
energy forms, and will probably not be extensively developed until after the 
cheaper and easier to access oil reserves in the world are more depleted, 
unless global military and/or political problems deny the US and its allies 
access to Middle East and other sources of oil.  New technology may change 
this picture.  From Forbes.com:

http://www.forbes.com/energy/2005/02/17/cz_0217oxan_canadaoil.html “

Phil:  Forbes and others were dealing with oil at a price in the mid 20’s 
and prior to recent developments in putting oil sands on line.  You might 
want to note the following, http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/89.asp , which shows 
that oil sands in 2005 will account for half of all Canadian production and 
10% of the oil production in North America.  That number will no doubt grow 
with the current high price of oil.



"Also, in spite of recent technological advances, extracting oil from the 
tar sands remains a slow process. Oil from the tar sands cannot be extracted 
and refined into useable oil quickly enough to replace other readily 
accessible sources from elsewhere in the world. In 2004, oil from the tar 
sands accounted for just over 1% of global oil production. Further 
technological advances will be necessary to close this gap."

Phil: As I noted Forbes underestimates what they will be doing.  At the rate 
they expect to produce from tar/oil sands this year, Alberta will be turning 
out about the same amount of production at Iraq.

Invading Canada of course is a joke.  But consider that even if the US 
wanted to invade Canada to protect the tar sands oil reserves, why bother?  
We already have a huge military presence here in the USA protecting 
"friendly" Canada anyway.  And besides, the oil reserves of Iraq and Saudi 
Arabia are larger than Canada's, easier to extract and of higher quality.  
And unlike Canada's oil reserves, they are clearly under threat of control 
by ideologies and potential future regimes in the Middle East hostile to the 
US and its allies, such as the funding from the extreme Wahhahism in Saudi 
Arabia for Islamic terrorism, which had far more to do with the 9/11 attacks 
than the fantasies of Saddam's involvement.

Phil:  Ted go back to the figures I provided earlier.  If you do you will 
have to note that Canada is number two in reserves and has 50% greater 
reserves than Iraq.  They are smaller than the Saudi’s, and their production 
is only about 30% of that coming out of Saudi Arabia, but its growing.  The 
truth of the matter is that we get more oil imported from the Brits than we 
get from Iraq and our chief imports are Canada (17%) Saudi Arabia (14.5%) 
Mexico (13%) Venezuela (11%).


>From Ted:

There is the potential for cutting off Middle East oil supply to the US and 
other allies under some future scenarios.  For example, again, the Wahhabism 
in Saudi Arabia is a threat to the stability of the Saudi government, and to 
US interests in Saudi oil reserves, which could result in Saudi Arabia 
turning against US oil interests, that a US military presence in Iraq can 
guard against:

Phil:  Saddam was a destabilizing force as large as Islamic fundamentalism.  
We have dealt with allowing regimes with totalitarian leadership in the ME 
for one heck of a lot of years and all it has done is act as a source of 
global tension and warfare, not counting the untoward death of millions.  
Sucking up to people like Saddam simply because he had oil had to stop, 
because the policy was not only economically bankrupt, it was morally 
bankrupt.

>From the Council On Foreign Relations web site:


http://www.cfr.org/pub6178/michael_mandelbaum/us_faces_dilemma_on_saudi_policy.php

"But the rule of the Saudi royal family rests on another, internal bargain.  
The regime has embraced as its official ideology a radical form of Islam 
known as Wahhabism, which preaches intolerance for, indeed hatred of, all 
others - Muslim and non-Muslim alike - who do not subscribe to its precepts. 
It is as if, says the eminent historian of the Mideast Bernard Lewis, the 
U.S. government were promoting the ideas of the Ku Klux Klan.   "

>From the point of view of using military force to protect the largest and 
>highest quality oil reserves in the world, both for the energy needs of the 
>US and its allies, and to prevent these oil reserves serving the ends of 
>ideologies or governments opposed to the USA, the US invasion of Iraq and 
>building military bases there makes sense, if only the Iraqis and the rest 
>of the world would cooperate with our agenda as we wish.

Phil:  Ted, Oil funding not only of a radical fanatic religious sect, but 
also funding of radical Pan Arabist Neo-Nazis.  Saddam was a Baathist and 
that party is nothing more than a Hitlerite front.  It is racist with the 
same sort of ideology as the German version, including the cult of 
personality for the leader.  How can you sit and support something like 
invading Serbia, which is exactly what we did in bombing them to free Kosovo 
based on Human Rights abuses carried out by Slobo and not support bringing 
down a mass murder like Saddam?

Gaining some stability in that region when they have radical nuts from the 
extreme racist Nazi types and raging fanatic bomb throwing religious nuts, 
seems to me to be in the best interests of even the locals.  The area is 
Balkanized and a danger to lasting world peace.  Cleaning it up simply makes 
sense in terms of global security, even if there was no oil that stood as a 
means of funding dangerous radical ideologies.

Then Ted says:

In saying this I am not supporting the invasion and occupation of Iraq, but 
only pointing out the logic involved in the invasion from the point of view 
of protecting US energy interests and global political/economic hegemony 
regarding the largest, highest quality and easily accessible oil reserves in 
the world, those in the Middle East.

Phil:  Ted, with oil prices having moved ahead, we will start to forge a 
more logical energy policy.  That will slowly place the problem of ME oil 
off the world’s economic scope.  In the mean time, allowing mad men to hold 
huge economic power and use it willy nilly both to terrorize their own 
populations and threaten global war and terrorism is simply silly.  Not 
acting was no different than the actions of Chamberlain at Munich, something 
that was not going to bring us peace in our times, just strengthen the vile 
buggers in the region.

And all joking aside, Canada, our own Natural gas and new technology are 
more likely than not going to be providing the solution longer term on the 
energy front.  Yet even without worries about ME oil, the world will not be 
safe without stable sane governments in the Middle East

Phil Nisbet

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/