According to a MSNBC article from last year, the War in Iraq is costing the United States around $255 million per day. Iraq's sustainable oil production capacity is almost 3 million barrels per day. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Iraqi ground holds more than 112 billion barrels of oil—the world's second largest proven reserves— and unexplored regions could yield an additional 100 billion barrels. One million barrels of oil a day, is either 1/20 of the United States daily gas consumption or 100 Million dollars (calculated at $100 a barrel). America has liberated Iraqi’s from the torture chambers of Saddam, but in doing so we have gone billions of dollars further in debt.
The month that President Bush was sworn into office, gas was averaging $1.70 a gallon. Now, after five years of war in Iraq, gas is $3.60 a gallon. That is two dollars more to pay—because of the war on terror. Iraqi oil should be used to pay America back. It is a little known fact, but Kuwait (think Desert Storm) paid the United State $36 billion for its liberation. Iraq should do the same.
19 comments:
War is expensive. How much is freedom worth?
In the old days, there was a concept of the spoils of war going to the victor. I guess we can't declare victory yet but, as long as everybody's accusing us of waging war for oil, anyway, maybe we should start thinking about at least covering our costs...
By asking for oil as a reward, the U.S. would only verify the accusations that we went in only to protect our interests (whether it is true or not). You have also got to consider all of the damage we have caused over there. We have a lot to rebuild, and that obviously costs money, which we can't take from them. To truly liberate them, we shouldn't view them as or make them our debtors.
Yeah, GREAT idea...
We invade, tear a country apart and spark a civil war... and they give us their oil as a thank-you.
Typical dumb, uneducated, selfish American outlook. No wonder the world hates us.
I can't wait until gas hits $10 a gallon...hell, $20 a gallon. And who will be to blame? The Democrats of course.
In the meantime, enjoy your troop-guzzling vehicle while you can.
Let's crank open our history books. Remember WW I? We "charged" Germany for that. WW II? We "charged" the Axis countries for that. War cost money. Saddam was waging a war against his own people. Regardless of why we're in Iraq, the fact of the matter is, we are in Iraq. Some people have estimated that the total cost of the war will be $1 trillion. We are already in debt billions and billions of dollars. We simply cannot afford the additional debt. We liberated Iraq, as we liberated Kuwait. Kuwait paid. Iraq should, too.
I do not think it would be a great idea to ask for payment, however, I think that the Iraqis might want to offer to give us payment if they ever have the means, I do think that the Kurds for example, or at least those who survived and who have witnessed hundreds of thousands of their friends, family, and other Kurds die torturous deaths from mustard gas courtesy of Saddam Hussein, would probably be happy to recompense the US for its sufferings, I doubt if really cared if there was UN approval to stop hundreds of thousands of their kindred from being murdered, either. And that is just one example, I don't think that the people who had their tongues cut off, or the people who were stuck in shredders feet first after watching their wives raped multiple times, cared about UN approval either. I think gas prices and low approval ratings aren't such high prices to pay to stop those atrocities.
Oh and btw crallspace, it's actually (dare I say) "typical dumb, selfish" "Americans" like Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Jane Fonda, Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, and all those other celebrities, politicians, and media who go around preaching hate and anti-American sentiment, who make the rest of the world hate us.
It's interesting that everyone complains about rising gas prices here... This time last year, I was in Germany for a short time and prices are considerably higher (can't remember off the top of my head). In fact, the U.S. has some of the lowest gas prices on the planet among industrialized nations. That said, we need to learn to sip and savor rather than bloat ourselves in excess...
Roy g. Biv, while in germany did you notice the amount of nuclear energy resources being used? I am sure you are right that prices are higher, but it is my belief that Germany has relied heavily on Nuclear Energy to power there country. I wish the US would of continued to research the idea of Nuclear energy, but research was stopped in the last 70's I believe.
AJ526,
Yes, you're right. All the military bases, economic and foreign policies and over-consumption have nothing to do with it.
It's all the crafty work of Michael Moore and Al Gore... their secret ploy has worked. The world LOVED us before then.
They do make better use of nuclear energy resources. They also have better public transportation (they have bike paths going through the entire country. You can literally bike around the country.). Both os these are no doubt due to the fact that the U.S. pays for most of their defense (something that started following WWII). They obviously have the money to do so...
*Not that the U.S. doesn't or hasn't in the past had money. I'm sure it'd be crazy expensive to try and get nuclear energy in the U.S. Germany is a much smaller country, and thus easier to power. I think the U.S. needs to make use of all energy possibilities (wind, water, solar, etc)... One resource alone will not do it (unless we figure out how to attain fusion with water. That'd solve everybody's energy problems...)
Roy,
Better yet, we need to drop this false sense of entitlement and quit wasting so much energy.
I'm right there with you...
We need to utilize all energy resources possible, hydro, solar, wind, bio-fuels, nuclear, AND we should use our own oil (ANWR etc.)instead of getting it from foreign countries who hate us. I don't think we should be making countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela rich when we could just use our own oil.
If energy independence is the biggest issue, Hilary Clinton seems to have a plan. I heard her speak, and she spoke very strongly on that point. I'm not sure what the other candidates say, but she plans to work towards energy independence if she is elected...
Did any of you hear about the oil discovered in Argentina? It is estimated to be the world's 3rd largest known oil reserve. I wonder how are diplomatic ties are to Argentina... lol.
I agree with AJ526 about energy independence. If I can credit Putin for one thing, he made sure Russia was energy independent (it helps when you've got huge oil reserves in your borders too)...
I've got news for you Roy, all the candidates will say they plan to work towards energy independence (except maybe Obama, who is just going to hope for energy independence), may I ask you what she plans to do?
Putin made his country energy independent because they actually use their own resources.
Using your own resources is the definition of "energy independence"... just so you know :-)
It is generally accepted that political candidates will focus on their strong points in their speeches whenever given the chance. Throughout the speech, she came back to energy independence and the environment at least 3 times as I remember. This is evidence of the above theory of behavior.
Sure, every candidate will say that they have a plan for everything. Why would we elect them if they didn't? I say that tongue in cheek, but they attempt to convince us that they have the answer for everything. What I found when I attended Clinton's rally was that a real time venue truly helps flesh out the candidates strengths and weaknesses concerning the issues. This cannot be ascertained by simply visiting their website or hearing of their views second hand from the media. As I mentioned, she spoke strongly to energy independence and the environment, which would lead me to guess she has a plan for these issues as well as the initiative to at least start it...
From the rally, here is what she planned to do concerning energy independence and the environment...
Energy Independence:
I. Cut oil imports 2/3.
II. 25% of electricity from renewable sources by 2025
III. Higher fuel efficiency standards
How is she paying for it?
-By taking away tax subsidies from oil companies
The Environment:
I. Cut greenhouse emissions by 80%
II. Invest in green manufacturing ($6.5 million in Oregon alone)
Create
III. Create 3 million green jobs
Now, don't get me wrong, I am by no means a Hillary supporter. My comment was simply an observation...
Exactly! We NEED to use our own resources, but we don't.
Clinton talked so much about energy independence and the enviroment because she was in Oregon,those are important issues there, go to a campaign stop in Pennsylvania and you will hear her Exactly! We NEED to use our own resources, but we don't.
Clinton talked so much about energy independence and the enviroment because she was in Oregon,those are important issues there, go to a campaign stop in Pennsylvania and you will hear her talk about cheesesteak sandwiches more than the enviroment.
Energy Independence:
1. Cut oil imports, good idea, how is she going to replace them? not by using our own (she voted against drilling in ANWR).
2. Also a good idea, does she have any evidence of how that will work?
3. Companies should be able to make their own standards, and let the free market decide.
Typical Democratic candidate rhetoric will not pay for it. What she means is that they will raise taxes.
Enviroment:
1. How does she plan to do that? Banning most cars?
2. That is called pandering. You just go to a state and say you will throw many at an issue important (supporting farm subsidies in Iowa for example).
3. Once again pandering, what green jobs is she going to create? Is she just going to put the US in more debt?
Energy Independence:
1. We don't necessarily need to use oil. Solar, wind, and water energy could be better utilized. There's also a newer form of hydroelectricity being explored called "tidal energy". It uses the fluctuations of the tides to create energy (a great idea in theory I think). Sure, we can't go cold turkey when it comes to our consumption of oil, but we can begin weaning ourselves.
2. The answer is essentially found in the above explanation about oil imports. Less oil usage, better usage of other energy sources...
3. I don't believe you can leave companies solely with the decision when it comes to fuel efficiency standards. A company's goal at the end of the day is to make profit. Related to that, Intel has the ability to make solar energy very cheap (affordable for everyone), but they choose not to because, at the end of the day, business is about profit. Companies will take the same approach concerning fuel efficiency. Why do you think Detroit keeps buying out and shelving better designs to make automobiles more fuel efficient?
The Environment:
1. This comes back to alternative fuels. Sure, you are not going to see this change happen in the 1st year or in any short period of time. The point is to start working on it. If we don't, our entire economy and the very functioning of this country will be held hostage to oil-rich countries.
2. Sure, this is pandering, but only to a point. Once a candidate starts putting figures on something ($6.5 million for green manufacturing in Oregon), they have crossed the line and will have to to in some part fulfill their promises.
3. I'm not sure I see how this would put the U.S. in more debt (except in, perhaps, initial start up costs). Again, this all starts with better use of alternative fuels. Production, transportation, marketing, etc of green fuels, electricity, and such takes people to do the job. Thus, you have creation of more green jobs...
*As I said at the end of my last comment, I do not support Hillary. However, I do note her focus on the environment and energy independence, and I think it is an important issue that requires attention.
** The environmental stances of a candidate will not be the deciding factor for me though in November. Energy independence might...
Now that they are explained, I agree with most of those, providing the goverment doesn't get too involved (which is sadly very likely). Here is one exception:
Energy Independence
3. You should leave it to the free market (though I know Clinton isn't such a big fan of the free market). The American people are not dumb, nor are companies (at least usually not), consumers will by more from companies who increase fuel efficiencies, people definitely feel the cost of high gas prices, and I don't think the goverment needs to get involved.
Yes, the enviroment and energy independence are VERY important issues (I think energy independence is part of the ar on terror, if we were energy independent it would fix a lot of problems). If you go to any other campaign rallies, I am sure they will talk about that as well
(particularly Dems in Oregon).
I think energy independence will likely be a deciding issue, especially with gas prices so high (no there not as high as in Europe, but we are also not socialist or a lot of other things that a lot of Europe seems to be).
Post a Comment