Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

BAGHDAD —


A wave of at least 14 bombings ripped across Baghdad Thursday morning, killing at least 60 people in the worst violence Iraq has seen for months.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Jihadin wrote:
UN has no say in who we go to war with.

Yes it does. Just as it had a say in Iraq invading Kuwait and that being ignored being the cause of the first Gulf War, you don't sign up to a club, tout the club's rules and then decide to ignore them when they are no longer convenient because you believe you're above it but others aren't.

You must be living in a fantasy world. The UN has exactly zero say in whether or not its member states go to war, especially if said member is on the Security Council with veto power.

The most that the UN can do is declare a particular invasion, or war, illegal. This could be interpreted as "having a say", but it certainly isn't much of one.

The UN truly is the successor to the League of Nations.

Forgive the crudity but its about as much say as a rape victim gets.

Orlanth wrote:
Most oil countries want to slow production, to save some for later.

That's incorrect. No nation on the planet attempts to "save some for later" when considering oil. Production is increased, or decreased, according to the overall market price in attempt to obtain the highest possible return for the commodity, or at least a return that is considered sufficient. The exceptions to this rule are, universally, major oil consumers that depend more on low oil prices in order to insure the smooth functioning of the economic sectors upon which they do depend (consumer spending), the United States being a perfect example.

Orlanth wrote:
Iraq is being pumped as fast as possible to help float the western and in particular the US need for oil while minimising home production for future proofing. Infrastructure is being placed to up Iraqi oil production to an estimated 12 million barrels a day by 2017, which would outstrip US oil production by 250%. This cannot be for Iraq's benefit, Iraq given a choice would be better off capping. Iraq is the only OPEC country not to have a production quota, it mines what it can. Admittedly this started with Saddam in 98, but Saddam was income starved by other means by repeated sanctions.

Iraq is being pumped as fast as possible because the state requires the ensuing revenue in order to enrich itself as ~20 years of sanctions have effectively destroyed all other sectors of the Iraqi economy, and much of the oil industry as well.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Most oil countries want to slow production, to save some for later.

That's incorrect. No nation on the planet attempts to "save some for later" when considering oil. Production is increased, or decreased, according to the overall market price in attempt to obtain the highest possible return for the commodity, or at least a return that is considered sufficient.

Indeed, however you may have contradicted yourself there. Capping wells to save some for later also means having oil when the price will be higher because supply is lessened. Saudi Arabia has capped whole fields on this principle. The US has also capped some field on this principle. OPEC has built in capping mechanisms, and yes those are mostly driven by market control, but resource management also has a lot to do with it.


The only time it is not a good idea to leave the option to delay drilling is with a shared oil field, the North Sea being a good example. Reducing drilling is missing out not stocking the larder.

dogma wrote:
The exceptions to this rule are, universally, major oil consumers that depend more on low oil prices in order to insure the smooth functioning of the economic sectors upon which they do depend (consumer spending), the United States being a perfect example.

A company will want profits now, you are entirely correct in that. Some government, admittedly not many, think long term. Saudi Arabia understands that they have oil and little else. Thats one of the advantages of an absolute monarchy, the rulers tend to think in dynastic terms and therefore have a longer scale of thinking than a democracy normally works to..

AustonT wrote:So by your measure sectarian violence in Iraq is the sole responsibility of the US and her allies?
That doesn't make you a lefty, that makes you delusional.

Before, even though Saddam was a detestable leader, at least there was a level of security in the country. And, like I have pointed out a relative level of prosperity which has been lost since the invasion. The economy has dropped through the floor, the industry of the country has been wrecked, and this will now no doubt continue in a cycle - leading on to more strife and civil unrest. We have seen it so many times in history before - remove the strong central power, and the factions who would otherwise have been at each other's throats are given free reign.

So yes, the US and her allies are to blame for not foreseeing something that would have been obvious to anyone who has studied history to even a rudimentary level, and putting safeguards in place to prevent it. Or more likely, as the example of Rumsfeld dropping the report on post-invasion Iraq into the bin shows, they didn't give a damn.

I wonder if this current surge of killings is passing. Very much like a fireworks celebration, all at once. Make a point for the world media.

After that settle down for a long deliberate campaign at a slower pace.

I just hope we don't end up with a "killing Fields" type of scenario.

AustonT wrote:So by your measure sectarian violence in Iraq is the sole responsibility of the US and her allies?
That doesn't make you a lefty, that makes you delusional.

Well we did take out the guy that kept all the lower forms of scum in check. If we hadn't been there arguably these people wouldn't be out on the streets killing each other.

I'm not sure what kind of population death toll there was under Saddam, but i'll stab a guess that it was lower than what we achieved.

Medium of Death wrote:

I'm not sure what kind of population death toll there was under Saddam, but i'll stab a guess that it was lower than what we achieved.

Ahh, but now they have 'democracy'.

It seems like everyone is getting sick of each other over there.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45774871/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/

AustonT wrote:

Joey wrote:
No one really cares about the Iraqi people.
But the price of petrol at the pump IS important. We need stability in oil producing areas, until the Canadians start churning out those oil sands so we can just build a massive wall around Europe and let them all go to hell.

Ahh yes the "Price of Oil" argument. Here's a chart point to the place where the war in Iraq lowered oil prices.
If anything the war in Iraq was one of many factors in oil prices skyrocketing. But you are right no one cares about the Iraqi people, if they want to butcher each other in the streets:Let em. It can be 2006 all over again and this time no one will stop them. Maybe with Sunni butchers in charge the price of oil will go below $35 a barrel...ahh, Progress.

Incorrect sir. According to your chart the war in iraq ended in 2008. Oil prices went up with increased consumption in africa, india, china, and most importantly in america consumption rose with the sub prime bubble. The price of oil then burst with the bubble. Sorry you are wrong about what was causing oil to rise, but you can correctly blame the sub prime collapse on W.

Orlanth wrote:OPEC has built in capping mechanisms, and yes those are mostly driven by market control, but resource management also has a lot to do with it.

Ultimately we're just going to disagree on this, as I don't consider resource management to enter into the conversation independent of market control. If the Saudi state could drain the entire country of oil, and then liquidate that stock at $400 bbl, they would do it in a heartbeat.

Orlanth wrote:
The only time it is not a good idea to leave the option to delay drilling is with a shared oil field, the North Sea being a good example. Reducing drilling is missing out not stocking the larder.

Any instance in which the economic requirements of the state outstrip the need to maintain a stock of physical assets it becomes a bad idea to delay drilling, as is the case with Iraq.

Orlanth wrote:
A company will want profits now, you are entirely correct in that. Some government, admittedly not many, think long term. Saudi Arabia understands that they have oil and little else. Thats one of the advantages of an absolute monarchy, the rulers tend to think in dynastic terms and therefore have a longer scale of thinking than a democracy normally works to..

Its not so much a matter of differing government types, as fundamentally distinct economies. The United derives its prosperity from it ability to produce, consume, goods. Saudi Arabia, as a rentier state, maintains its economic position almost solely as a result of state owned mineral assets. The United States avoids pumping both in order to insure it can influence oil prices such that fuel costs remain conducive to high consumer demand, Saudi Arabia avoids pumping so that oil prices remain high enough to insure profit.

For Iraq the concern of profit is important, but not nearly as compelling as the fiscal requirements of the present government and the larger (largely non-existent) economy.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:OPEC has built in capping mechanisms, and yes those are mostly driven by market control, but resource management also has a lot to do with it.

Ultimately we're just going to disagree on this, as I don't consider resource management to enter into the conversation independent of market control. If the Saudi state could drain the entire country of oil, and then liquidate that stock at $400 bbl, they would do it in a heartbeat.

I think the reality of the situation is all oil producing nations both in OPEC and out of OPEC got a taste of $140/barrel oil and want more. They are probably just trying to ride out the world wide recession until the world's economy picks up. Why should they bust their ass to sell us cheap oil now when they can work harder 10 years down the line selling out for 2-3 times as much as it goes for now?

Medium of Death wrote:

AustonT wrote:So by your measure sectarian violence in Iraq is the sole responsibility of the US and her allies?
That doesn't make you a lefty, that makes you delusional.

Well we did take out the guy that kept all the lower forms of scum in check. If we hadn't been there arguably these people wouldn't be out on the streets killing each other.

I'm not sure what kind of population death toll there was under Saddam, but i'll stab a guess that it was lower than what we achieved.

You'd be wrong. We've danced this merry jig before.

AustonT wrote:Stanford's Ronald Hilton came up with an average of 70-125 deaths per day under Saddam.
I sat here with my Calcumalator and Came up with a few tenths under 60 per day since the US invasion.

schadenfreude wrote:

AustonT wrote:
If anything the war in Iraq was one of many factors in oil prices skyrocketing. But you are right no one cares about the Iraqi people, if they want to butcher each other in the streets:Let em. It can be 2006 all over again and this time no one will stop them. Maybe with Sunni butchers in charge the price of oil will go below $35 a barrel...ahh, Progress.

Incorrect sir. According to your chart the war in iraq ended in 2008. Oil prices went up with increased consumption in africa, india, china, and most importantly in america consumption rose with the sub prime bubble. The price of oil then burst with the bubble. Sorry you are wrong about what was causing oil to rise, but you can correctly blame the sub prime collapse on W.

AustonT wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:

AustonT wrote:So by your measure sectarian violence in Iraq is the sole responsibility of the US and her allies?
That doesn't make you a lefty, that makes you delusional.

Well we did take out the guy that kept all the lower forms of scum in check. If we hadn't been there arguably these people wouldn't be out on the streets killing each other.

I'm not sure what kind of population death toll there was under Saddam, but i'll stab a guess that it was lower than what we achieved.

You'd be wrong. We've danced this merry jig before.

Show me to the dance floor...

I already provided the numbers, don't be obtuse.

Where?

I see figures relating to oil prices and OPEC, but nothing on casualty comparisons.

If you would be so kind as to link me to this post that i'm missing, i'd be much obliged.