With the cost of the war in Iraq being put at over $2 trillion (old link but relevent):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1681119,00.html

And the price of oil in non war time averaging around $20 a barrel, (includes extraction costs etc)

http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

And Iraq having proven reserves of around 100 billion barrels, (5% chance of another 100 billion)

http://www.runet.edu/~wkovarik/oil/2worldoil.mideast.html

My question is would it not have been cheaper, in the long run, to simply BUY the oil many claim the war is for ?

Some would rather think like this:

Why bother paying for the oil when we can attempt to gain control over the area (and the oil that it produces) by waging a war to topple the old government and put in it's place a puppet government of our own?

3000+ american families, 130+british families and god only knows how many iraqi families may have preffered that the oil had been paid for. Then you got all the injured, reconstruction, diplomatic fallout etc. This also assumes control will be gained sometime and a steady stream of oil will be available which seems unlikely at the moment and that it is given to the states by the puppet government for free, which would be their entire economic future gone. I just think that it doesn't make sense for the war to be for the oil, there was no real connection between Iraq and the 'war on terror' so what is it all about ?

Having a foothold in the middle east gives you a lot of power in the regeon. Iraq is nearly dead center of the area. Large rivers, lots of flat land for airfields, resaonable climate, (much like the American south west), oil right under the ground. These are pretty good reasons to want a friendly, stable government there. Also, whenever Iran acts up, we'll already have forces in the area. In a few years, China is going to want to get a hand in on the oil there. If we're already entrenched, it will be a little harder for them to hold sway over the regeon.

So, in a sence, I think that it is about oil, as well as the future wellbeing of the free world. As dumb as the phrase "War For Oil" sounds, we've fought many fights for things even dumber sounding; gold, revenge, religeon, the honor of the King/Queen......

Of course buying oil is preferrable to war. Who ever said Iraq was about oil?

With that said, Wars have begun over oil and other resources in the past.

It's about the military industrial complex DUH!!!

Oh,it's not just about oil.Bush Jr. mainly wanted to get rid of Saddam for the failed attempt at the assassination of "daddy".

But,one needs to look at a few other little things.

A: Installing a puppet government in Iraq will not only give the U.S. easier access to the oil produced there,it will also give the U.S. yeat another place to install military installations.

B: If military installations are allowed to be set up in Iraq,this means that we are within easy striking distance of Iran,which is on the list of the possible "next strikes" Bush and his cronies have.

C: Bush and his cronies would love nothing more than to have wars going on for a while.Why? Because they are all for a huge military complex...which means more and more of our tax dollars go to.Many of Bush's big supporters make and supply *most* of the things that the military uses.Since they can no longer charge the government $300 for a toilet seat that goes into a cargo plane,they need to make their money somehow.

D: If the war manages to instigate more terrorist attacks...especially those that happen on U.S. soil,it would give Bush the push to declare Martial Law within the nation,effectively giving him total power until he is taken down in some way.

wow............you people really are nuts arent you ?

You think these responses ae nuts ? On another site I was advised that within the next few months over 90% of the world population is to be wiped out by a new virus concocted by the NWO ( as AIDS didn't do the job it was intended to do , due to a pesky Japanese scientist isolating the virus too soon, and the Nazis showed that a holocaust the war they did it is too slow ) and therefore they need to be in control of a large operating oilfield before this happens as all other avenues for oil will be in mayhem and anarchy. Now thats nuts !

As for the military base thing, they have use of Diego Garcia, Saudi and Kuwait, could base in Israel, Afghanistan, huge aircraft carrier fleets, use of NATO bases in Turkey all more than enough for strikes on Iran. A base in Iraq as a stepping stone for a ground war into Iran is nonsensical given the trouble seen in maintaining useful feet on the ground and 'control' in Iraq. That would take an army of around a million to conduct and hold, and a hell of a lot more expense ( for a hell of a lot more oil ?)

Very true,yet with Iraq and Afghanistan both being directly connected with Iran (land-wise),it makes it much easier to divide Iran's forces by forcing them to fight on two fronts (Divide and Conquer).Add in the possible use of Pakistan,as well as Saudi Arabia and Turkey,you now have all borders (and waterways) controlled except for Turkmenistan.This is an effective means to keep the country being surrounded from gaining any help from other areas (total siege warfare).

Now...haven't you been paying attention to the news of late? Bush wishes to expand the amount of military personnel.How is he going to do this? If there are not enough volunteers (which our military is made up of),then he will have to do something other than wait for volunteer recruits.One possibility is to call for a reinstatement of the "Draft",yet he would have to have a very reasonable and imperative excuse for doing so...since most of the population (including much of Congress) would be against it.

China's already there with oil investment, Iran especially and increasingly in Africa. They've been trumped by force of arms in Iraq, but not yet swayed from the M.E. region. Link
And the Russians are happy to help with gas. Link
But the US is the true protector of the world's oil supply Link
Yet the Chinese have the advantage of appearing to be a lot less threatening to resource rich nations. The US needs to be careful not to bomb it's bridges.
Link

Surely what Bush "wishes" to do is still a rumour or theory, I have seem a few threads about this but no cold hard facts. Don't get me wrong, I believe anything is possible with this guy, surely time is running out for him though, even a draft tomorrow would require time for round up, basic training, increase of supplies and deployment ? We will have to see the excuse soon.

As for the seige of Iran, what you posted makes sense however you are talking about troops on the ground, whereas the same outcome (a seige) can be provided from the air a la the no-fly zones from the bases and fleets mentioned earlier. Iran is quite isolated anyway and has been for a while, and quite self sufficient. Do you think the occupation of Iran is in anyway possible having seen the results in Iraq and, again, if it is only strikes on Iran that are being considered then the bases in Iraq are well within range of Iran strikes whereas the long arm of the US airforce based further afield would be the equivalent of holding a short guys head and pucnching him at will while he swings wildly and continually misses.

There have been at least a few news articles over the past few years about how the amount of military personnel has become so low.In more recent news however,Bush has stated that he wants to build up the amount of personnel.We can easily see why,due to the fact that many of those who have been serving overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan have come home to the states...just to end up getting shipped right back overseas.

As for what I had posted,yes...it's only simple logic.

Yes,the no-fly zones work,but the air coverage can only do so much.You would still need ground troops guarding all of the land-access routes into or out of Iran.This is needed to stop the possible smuggling of extra weaponry into the country,as well as keeping any people who could fight for Iran from getting in.The same goes for the military presence on the water.If you cover all aspects,land + sea + air,you will completely beseige the area.For such a scenario,you would need to reduce the power of Iran by attrition.

Truthfully,after the debacle in Iraq,I doubt an occupation of Iran would be feasible or possible under the current lack of military forces available.Yet,if Bush were to somehow expand the amount of personnel,it would become possible.I don't say feasible,for if an occupation began in Iran,this would foster much more anti-Americanism than we have seen due to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush's time is running out,yes.But f he were able to declare a state of national emergency,he could easily declare Martial Law and reinstate the Draft,citing a "need" of some sort.The "Selective Service" system was set up to provide manpower for the military in case of an emergency.All citizens are supposed to register with the Selective Service if they are between 18 - 25 years of age.If an emergency arose and a Draft were reinstated,Bush could easily send out Military personnel to gather up all eligible persons quickly.The military would also have the help of State and local law enforcement officers in this case,due to *all* of them being pieces of the whole under Martial Law.It would take a bit of conniving in order to get this all to work though,thanks to several court rulings and Congressional Acts.Yet,it could be done if the right things were done at the right time.

And remember,if Bush was able to sucker Congress into giving him the power to declare Martial Law without placing limits on his power...then he could possibly circumvent court rulings and/or Congressional Acts...especially if he could get his opponents in Congress jailed for some reason.

...

I just like to look at all possibilities.It's in my nature to observe and say "What if...?".

I think most of the untapped reserves are out in the western desert where there is no legal mandate to drill there , plus the oil companys wont send anybody because its just not safe for anybody to go there anyway. A legal black hole for any long term contracts without a sovereign government's signature to do so in place.

you want a chill to go down your spine read this ..


http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...2_microbio.html

**shudder** or highly coincidental (not familiar with the site, is it respected and have its stories corroberated ?)

This was one of the links I was pointed to when I asked this question elsewhere( good story whatever you make of it):

http://www.sciforums.com/An-obstragite-Vie...on-t-57803.html

And this story raised its head for a few moments recently:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1979880,00.html

Like Wolf said it does make you wonder .."What if....?"

Interesting to see the Iranian bourse will be trading their oil in euro's now. It's only a small hole in the oil dollars bucket, but should russia follow suit ..that hole might get big enough for your mr bush to start playing his war games again. Probably not enough euro's in circulation anyway for any immediate threat.

Dollar dropped in Iran asset move

I like to be prepared for any eventuality...which is why I try to look at all possibilities.Even though some "possibilities" may seem a bit odd or ridiculous to some people...you can't always rule out everything which doesn't fit in with straight-line thinking.Things can get quite chaotic when you least expect it,and usually in such a way that proves that things aren't always going along the straight & narrow path.

Thats why I always have plenty of water and stored up food in my basement just think if anything happened how many people would be prepared I have at least enough food amd water for a month I figure this should get my family through the worst part before things return to some order .
what if the stock market would crash all of a sudden how many people in this country would be prepared for such an event most people are so in debt its disscusting I have no credit card debt just my house .
I urge people to get out of debt as quick as possible .