Iraqi Oil

[--Pete]

Hi,

pretty easy to simply take what you can and vacate the premises

Yep. And the giving of short term stock options exacerbates the problem. Give the officers stock options that can't be exercised for twenty years and I'm sure that all of a sudden they'll "discover" the wisdom of the long view :)

half the world can't even figure out the magical properties of a condom?

What's really scary is that that half will be the ancestors of most of the next generation. Breeding for stupidity?

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Yeah, I looked for a link that was not so "watered down". IIRC, their paranoia and miscalculations regarding the danger of the hydrogen bubble is what led them to turn off the cooling system, which led to the core overheating.

[TriggerHappy]

Out of the entire US electric industry, coal-fired power plants contribute 96% of sulfur dioxide emissions (SO2), 93% of nitrogen oxide emissions (NOx), 88% of carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) and 99% of mercury emissions.

These statistics, if correct, are insane.

Why aren't coal-fired plants being converted into more enviromentally friendly ways of producing energy? Such as, for example, nuclear power.

Are these same people that oppose nuclear power due to it's enviromental pollution (just how much do nuclear reactors pollute compared to other means?) simply blind to other, much more dangerous sources of pollution?

You'd think with coal plants contributing that much pollution, their replancement would go along way towards creating an enviromentally friendly economy.

Is this a political issue? Is it simply impossible to "touch" coal plants?

*shakes head*

Or this simply not that big a deal and the entire US electrical industry just doesn't contribute all that much pollution (especially compared with automobiles)?

Would love if someone helped me understand just what is going on in the US in regards to the above statistics.

[--Pete]

Hi,

The history of nuclear power in the united states is complex. To a large extent, we are where we are because of ignorance. Ignorance of the politicians who put us in a position where we cannot process nuclear waste in a reasonable manner. Ignorance of the media who stressed the problems at Three Mile Island but never stressed that no one was injured. The ignorance of the environmental movement who actively demonstrated against the best realistic solution to clean power. Ignorance of the common population, 96% of whom do not distinguish between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. And, finally, ignorance on the part of the nuclear industry who failed to get their side of the story put before the public.

The details of all this would (and do) fill volumes. And everything you'll find on the topic is polarized, balance went out thirty years or more ago. So, there is no simple short answer. Some of the other posts on this thread have addressed some of your questions, for the rest I'd suggest searching the web. One place I found with a quick search is http://pw1.netcom.com/~res95/energy/nuclear.html It presents the story somewhat from my perspective. A number of the sites linked to from this one will help round out the picture.

And, no, it is not that coal power (or oil, gas, hydro, wind) etc, have that much power. It is that the anti-nuke forces have done such a good job of making nuclear power almost impossible to implement. The public distrust and the environmental requirements alone have made it impossible to get approval for new plants.

--Pete

[TriggerHappy]

One place I found with a quick search is http://pw1.netcom.com/~res95/energy/nuclear.html It presents the story somewhat from my perspective. A number of the sites linked to from this one will help round out the picture.

Thank you.

And, no, it is not that coal power (or oil, gas, hydro, wind) etc, have that much power. It is that the anti-nuke forces have done such a good job of making nuclear power almost impossible to implement. The public distrust and the environmental requirements alone have made it impossible to get approval for new plants.

--Pete

*Sigh* figures.

Will go read the link, hopefully it'll answer the questions i was going to ask (such as if the above situation shows any sign of changing).

[Quark]

From what I remember, they shut off the cooling system before they knew about the hydrogen bubble.

The accident wasn't just from a faulty valve. They were also getting faulty readings from their equipment. Those readings are what lead them to shut off the cooling.

[ak404]

While the planned actions of the US may not be about oil (there are layers upon layers here, but without information, without a government that trusts its public to know how to sift through the tons of papers that would justify an invasion sans mass patriotism, how are people supposed to know what the hell is going on, or even trust or respect their government?), when the smoke clears, I've little doubt that the oil fields are going to be the first things those little oil-mongers will be divvying up amongst themselves.

[Nystul]

when the smoke clears, I've little doubt that the oil fields are going to be the first things those little oil-mongers will be divvying up amongst themselves.

Yeah, it will be just like Desert Storm, when we invaded Iraq and seized all of the oil fields, which now freely pump oil throughout the world at the profit of American corporations.... Hmmm, but it didn't actually happen that way, did it? Based on the start of this thread, it seems that almost the exact opposite happened, with Iraqi oil actually being cut off to the western world by all of the sanctions against Iraq.

Could it be possible that the government is not willing to declassify certain documents simply because they don't want to compromise human intelligence in Iraq?

[Taeme]

Yeah, it will be just like Desert Storm, when we invaded Iraq and seized all of the oil fields

Yeah, this is EXACTLY like Desert storm, all the goals are EXACTLY the same. The conflict is IDENTICAL! Notice how Iraq just laid waste to vast stretches of Kuwait? Yeah? Right? Amazing! All this discussion of taking out Hussein and so on, which was precisely not the goal last time around, is just a smokescreen for destroying an invader's army, one that apparently no one in all of Western media has seen.

Hello? Reality calling. These two conflicts have nothing to do with each other. If you're going to beat people in the head an argument, you can at least light the straw on fire before you start swinging.

American companies are very likely to gain access to those oil fields. The change in government will be American sponsored and you can bet they'll deal with the Americans in a much better way than the current Iraqi government will, since the Americans involved will be seen as liberators instead of their current not so beloved status.

Could it be possible that the government is not willing to declassify certain documents simply because they don't want to compromise human intelligence in Iraq?

I can prove George W Bush is a war-criminal. But I can't reveal my sources, as that would get them killed. Wait, I can't show the documents either. Yeah, same thing. Ok. Believe me, please? UN, please believe me, please please please?

[--Pete]

Hi,

These two conflicts have nothing to do with each other.

Other than the fact that Saddam has failed to observe the conditions the he agreed to in order to end the other, you are right. Of course, his failure to observe those conditions are what this war is about. So maybe you aren't right. Or, in other words, your are totally wrong.

I can prove George W Bush is a war-criminal. But I can't reveal my sources, as that would get them killed. Wait, I can't show the documents either. Yeah, same thing. Ok. Believe me, please? UN, please believe me, please please please?

Of course, the information that Powell gave to the UN doesn't count, right? Because, after all, you wouldn't want to admit to facts that blow your opinion away, would you? Not even the facts coming out of the inspectors the UN sent in -- yeah, sure. Obviously they are in the pay of the American oil companies. Again, everything points to you being totally wrong. But I guess your propaganda source is more reliable than either Powell or the inspectors.

--Pete

[Taeme]

Other than the fact that Saddam has failed to observe the conditions the he agreed to in order to end the other, you are right. Of course, his failure to observe those conditions are what this war is about.

It still doesn't make this one somehow the same conflict with the same nature as the previous Gulf War. Yes, this war is about enforcing resolutions. But oil wise, presenting the fact the American forces did not take the oil fields in the previous conflict has nothing to do with anything in reality. They have stated there will be an American sponspored government put in power and the line of thinking does hold.

Did you read the chain of discuss you are replying to, or did you just go off at me because you were too lazy to do so?

Of course, the information that Powell gave to the UN doesn't count, right?

We'll put it in big bold letters for you, Pete :

WHAT, DOES WHAT POWELL SAID, HAVE TO DO WITH THE "WE CAN'T DECLASSIFY THE DOCUMENTS" DEFENCE NYSTRUL USED?

[--Pete]

Hi,

But oil wise, presenting the fact the American forces did not take the oil fields in the previous conflict has nothing to do with anything in reality. They have stated there will be an American sponspored government put in power and the line of thinking does hold.

Right. Because the Americans have taken over so many countries. You know, Germany which is still under American domination. Italy, ditto. Hell, we still run Panama and Granada. And we're expanding our empire into the Balkans and Africa even as we prepare to invade Iraq.

If a century of American behavior isn't enough to put aside your foolish paranoia, then nothing I say will convince you. Fine, have it your way. And when your predictions don't come true. I'm sure you'll have equally puerile arguments why we're so evil.

WHAT, DOES WHAT POWELL SAID, HAVE TO DO WITH THE "WE CAN'T DECLASSIFY THE DOCUMENTS" DEFENCE NYSTRUL USED?

Nothing. It has everything to do with your reply to him, you know the "I have proof positive that Taeme is a paranoid idiot jerk but I can't show it to you" parody that you used. Except in this case, I don't need to demonstrate it, it is self evident.

Perhaps you should try to follow your own advice and read the thread.

--Pete

[loonygloss]

Pete's points in the post below regarding deaths prompted me to add this;  Most people do not think about the pollution we take for granted with coal fired plants.  While the releases Pete speaks of were bad, the radiation is traceable, and therefore removeable.  The heavy metals from coal fired plants literally rain down on us daily, have no half-life and are hard to detect and impossible to remove from the environment.

Not to mention the fact that coal-burning power plants release significantly more radioactive waste into the ecosystem than nuclear power plants of comparable power output, due to traces of thorium and uranium in coal.

But whoever said that lobby groups had to be logical?

[Nystul]

It still doesn't make this one somehow the same conflict with the same nature as the previous Gulf War.

In many ways, it is exactly the same conflict, under continuation after a long ceasefire. Since the Hussein regime has never been willing to comply to the terms they agreed to in ending the previous conflict, that ending is looking more like an intermission. And also since the Hussein regime has never been willing to comply to the terms they agreed to in ending the previous conflict, it seems unlikely that this conflict can ever end with the Hussein regime in power.

But oil wise, presenting the fact the American forces did not take the oil fields in the previous conflict has nothing to do with anything in reality.

It has a great deal to do with reality. This is essentially the same conflict, the general motivations and objectives are closely related to those in Desert Storm, and the current foreign policy team in the U.S. is very closely related to those who made the decisions in Desert Storm. If oil had been the primary motivation the first time around, the U.S. could have and would have gone all the way to Baghdad, made the regime change then, and seized the oil fields in the way you suggest they might. It did not happen. What did happen instead was pretty clearly presented at the start of this thread, is absolutely contradictory to the idea of a grab at Iraqi oil, and has not really been refuted to any degree by anyone in this thread. So now, following our original motives from Desert Storm, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight about how Saddam handles international law, the path to Baghdad may be the only way to successfully achieve our primary objective from Desert Storm. Should we then forego a crucial mission on the basis that somehow it may be feasibly possible for U.S. corporations to end up benefiting?

They have stated there will be an American sponspored government put in power and the line of thinking does hold.

It holds in the same way that most conspiracy theories hold, with a lot of speculation and not a shred of supporting evidence.

WHAT, DOES WHAT POWELL SAID, HAVE TO DO WITH THE "WE CAN'T DECLASSIFY THE DOCUMENTS" DEFENCE NYSTRUL USED?

I was providing justification for not disclosing certain information. Pete's reply suggests that evidence to make the case for war has been disclosed to the people who need to know. That counters your implication (through a hypothetical) that the U.S. intelligence could claim anything. They can claim anything, but they can't act on those claims without providing evidence to those who should know. But that does not mean that full disclosure has to be made to the public, which would essentially render our intelligence organizations absolutely useless.

[Taeme]

edited

[Quark]

Pete ... I have no wish to address your points, you need to calm down and shut up, no one is interested in your childish hawk drivel.

Maybe you have no wish to address his points because you *gasp* don't have a response to them. I find it funny how you seem to be getting ticked at Pete for showing the same exact attitude you show - only he has arguments to go with the opinion.

The first Gulf War was really about Kuwait and Saddam's regime gaining control over much of the oil supply. As Occhi made reference to, oil embargos are dangerous, life threatening things. 'No blood for oil' is an ignorant statement and I'm not attacking you from that angle. (Which is why Pete's tripe annoyed me so much, he seems to forget how he's talking to) However, the then current adminstration did not see the termination of Saddam's regime as all important or, even as a goal. Otherwise they would have supported the rebellions in the north and south and so on.

Alright, let's get something straight here. The Gulf War, as successful as it was, was not even close to being a textbook campaign. Baghdad was left pretty open, and a textbook campaign would have shown troops rushing in, taking over, and demanding peace. Why didn't they do this? At the time, it wasn't a 'not important / not a goal' issue with the regime. They were afraid of the results of Saddam falling from power. There is no clear successor in Iraq. Iran is a nice, hostile country right next door. How many bad scenarios can you get out of that situation? Bush's policy was made to avoid further consequences/problems rather than force fixes on the current ones. Given the state of the inspections/sanctions, we now know this policy failed.

We know that the current Iraqi adminastration is anti-American and has made deals with several other nations to sell their oil. Are you saying I need evidence to prove this? This has been clearly addressed in other threads on this board.

Yes, and yet you conveniently ignore the fact that those exact threads showed how those other nations were financially benefitting from a non-war position. Funny how the US position for war is oil based yet the French position for peace is purely humanitarian.

[Taeme]

edited

[Taeme]

Here, just for you Quark.

Because the Americans have taken over so many countries.

Mis-representation of argument, straw man, whatever. Military governship of Iraq is already in the plans, it's supposed to last one to two years. The opposition has to be American sponsored to gain power.

And when your predictions don't come true. I'm sure you'll have equally puerile arguments why we're so evil.

1) Never said America was evil. Feel free to quote where I did. I'm not sure what 'liberating' means in your head, heh.

2) My predictions are that American oil companies will be given a better chance of dealing for Iraqi oil than otherwise.

3) I can give lots of arguments why American is 'evil'. Main one would be, it's human nature to do both good and bad things. This has nothing to do with the thread at hand.

Nothing. It has everything to do with your reply to him

Misunderstanding of intent. Essentially here you assume I am addressing him based on lack of evidence rather than the core argument that undisclosed information should be addressed as a credible argument.

Strawman, strawman, misunderstanding. Essentially because I sound a little like a peacenik, I'm being addressed as though my entire argument is that of a peacenik, even if I'm pro-war and pro-american. Good way to win arguments, Pete, go after the people on your side.

[Nystul]

My feeling is that AK404's point was actually refuted by Occhi's original post, which AK's post does nothing to refute. If we have an ultimate motivation to go into this war other than stealing Iraq's oil, does it follow that the first thing we would do in Iraq would be to seize the oil fields? Of course not. If our ultimate motivation is Iraq's oil, does it make sense for us to be enforcing sanctions that keep Iraq's oil from getting to us? Of course not. Would a regime change in Iraq mean more flow of Iraqi oil into the United States? Yes, if for no other reason than finally lifting the economic sanctions, but that is a far cry from the suggestion I was interpreting in AK404's post.

Which do you think is most responsible for lack of oil trade between the U.S. and Iraq right now: U.S. enforcing sanctions against Iraq, or Iraq not wanting to do business with the U.S.? If the former, does that not strike you as inconsistent with the sentiment of AK404's post?

[Taeme]

Actually I'm not sure AK404 was attempting to debate anything. Hence, his post, without the nutty huge ( ).

While the planned actions of the US may not be about oil, when the smoke clears, I've little doubt that the oil fields are going to be the first things those little oil-mongers will be divvying up amongst themselves.

Maybe I'm being idealistic, but I don't think he said it was about oil. He just said people are going to be interested in the oil afterwards. Now, seriously, people are interested in the oil. I know I would be.

U.S. enforcing sanctions against Iraq, or Iraq not wanting to do business with the U.S.?

As far as I know (and I'm stressing this because my reading is a few monthes out of date), Iraq oil is sold right now through the UN*. The deals with France and Russia do not actually pump oil, they can not until the sanctions fall. So I would assume given deals do exist but don't pump oil except to the UN, that if the Iraqis were willing to deal with American companies such deals would exist all the same.

Which has nothing to do with the rest of the American populace, by the way. Oil companies are definitely not a group of people I would say are of the same moral fibre as the rest of America.

Either way our side of the argument seems to be me being idealistic about AK404's implications.

*=Some people have said the UN wishes to sustain the inspections because it is in their fiancial interests to do so. Scary thought, eh.