The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Blood for oil > Comments

Blood for oil : Comments

By Lyn Allison, published 12/7/2007

Brendan Nelson’s admission that Australia has to help secure oil supplies brings some honesty into the debate.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. All
Apart from extracting laughter from me about the notion of any honesty in Australian politics this item is simply a waste of space.

Honesty? What next? Integrity? From Howard or Rudd? Give me a break.
Posted by pegasus, Thursday, 12 July 2007 10:02:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Holy mackerel, pegasus.

We spend endless hours complaining about heartless, brainless politicians. Yet when a pollie with both a heart and brain steps up to the plate - er, you complain! Please explain.

(Disclaimer: I am not a member of the Democrats, nor even a Democrat voter. But I do receive Lyn's E-mailouts and they make good reading. Highly recommended)
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Thursday, 12 July 2007 10:51:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part of the subject matter for historians is to argue over the precise causes of a particular conflict. We know for a fact that centuries after the event there will be no academic consensus.

Philosophically the reasons for going or not going to war can be placed into three broad groupings: Realism, Just War Theory, and Pacifism.

Pacifists argue that war is always morally wrong or else the consequence of war is always bad. Pacifism is a respectable position, although how well it would have worked against Nazi Germany or Al qaeda is open for discussion.

Realists argue that there are no moral principals apart from national interest. Realists may dress their arguments in just war theory to get public support.

Just war people argue long the lines: cause must be just, the aggressor must have the right intention, the decision to go to war is made by a proper authority, war is a last resort, must have high probability of success, benefits must outweigh the cost.

An extension is the concept of a “legal war.” Were the resolutions of the Security Council sufficient justification or otherwise?

To an extreme realist the UN is a dysfunctional body and the Security Council a farce. Legal opinions, untested in proper court are two a penny. The international court of justice would to some be a proper judicial body capable of adjudicating the rival claims. To others it is another three ringed circus as demonstrated by the Slobodan Milosevic trial.

If, oil was the main cause of the war, a deal with Saddam would realistically have been the most cost effective path. Now we are in Iraq, realism suggests we should stay in an endeavour to stabilise the region, attempt energy security. It is likely that world peace and prosperity and the end to the Islamic terrorist threat is dependent on a successful outcome in the Middle East. Unfortunately success is not guaranteed.
Posted by anti-green, Thursday, 12 July 2007 11:12:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have a better idea. What if all those involved in making the decision to go to war had to fall upon their swords as a consequence of their failed diplomacy in avoiding war?

Sure would sort out the chicken hawks who conspire to send other people's kids to war.
Posted by Cornflower, Thursday, 12 July 2007 11:27:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From Cheney's speech to the London Institute of Petroleum in 1999 when he was chairman of Haliburton:

"From the standpoint of the oil industry...obviously for over a hundred years we as an industry have had to deal with the pesky problem that once you find oil and pump it out of the ground you've got to turn around and find more or go out of business. Producing oil is obviously a self-depleting activity. Every year you've got to find and develop reserves equal to your output just to stand still, just to stay even. This is true for companies as well in the broader economic sense as it is for the world. A new merged company like Exxon-Mobil will have to secure over a billion and a half barrels of new oil equivalent reserves every year just to replace existing production. It?s like making one hundred per cent interest discovery in another major field of some five hundred million barrels equivalent every four months or finding two Hibernias a year.

For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from?

Governments and the national oil companies are obviously controlling about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world?s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow."

Seems that, when he became vice-president, he tried to solve the access problem.
Posted by michael_in_adelaide, Thursday, 12 July 2007 2:29:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
See the following site for maps of Iraq's oil fields and details of "foreign suitors" (i.e. US competitors) drawn up by Cheney's Energy Task Force six months before the 911 attacks:

http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/04-12-05/discussion.cgi.46.html

That site contains an excerpt from "It's the Crude, Dude: War, Big Oil and the Fight for the Planet" by Linda McQuaig,

"What makes these documents particularly striking is the fact that, as we now know from several insider accounts, the Bush administration was actively focused from its first days in office on overthrowing Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. So, at the same time that the White House was considering toppling Saddam, it was also keenly studying Iraq's oil fields and assessing how far along foreign companies were in their negotiations with Saddam for a piece of Iraq's oil. Dick Cheney, former CEO of oil services giant Halliburton Company, was masterminding both the task force deliberations and the push to invade Iraq.

Cheney's central role in these two initiatives both launched with a sense of urgency almost immediately after the Bush administration took office is noteworthy, particularly given Cheney's extremely influential role within the administration. The fact that Cheney is focused on both invading Iraq and, at the same time, energy policy, is certainly suggestive of a possible connection between the invasion and adesire for Iraq's oil the very thing that is always vehemently denied."
Posted by michael_in_adelaide, Thursday, 12 July 2007 2:39:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy