Why doesn't Iraqi oil pay for war?

[spanone]

Could be a dupe, if so sorry. How much are we spending to revitalize oil fields and why don't we use the oil to offset cost of war? I can't seem to find an answer. We were told that the oil would pay for war. This is not Halliburton oil or the Vice Presidents to dole out as he sees fit.

[Kamika]

1. from what i can gather

Terrorists blow up any oilpipe we build

[Dookus]

2. from what I can gather

The Iraqi resistance blows up any oilpipe we build.

[sujan]

26. terrorists?

you are speaking from down below.

They are Iraqi Nationalists fighting for their sovereignty and rightly so.

[arcane1]

3. it seems to me...

that using Iraqi oil to pay for the war, is nothing short of stealing. It's their oil, for them to sell to whomever they choose. It seems extremely cold-hearted to invade a country, then make them pay for the invasion with their own resources...

[spanone]

6. I don't believe George & his minions are ever gonna turn the

oil over to the Iraqis. There is no one to give it to.

[bearfartinthewoods]

17. i heard today that it's illegal via international laws to use the resource

to pay for war. you can use the resources to rebuild the country.

of course, the bathist holdovers keep blowing up the pipelines,

[TheBigGuy]

4. Actually thats a good question.

I can see a good argument being made that Iraq oil sales could be used to pay for infrastructure reconstruction and redevelopement.

Interesting enough Iraq, prior to the later days of the Saddam regime, had a pretty good record of using oil revenue for the benefit of its people in the way of funding infrastructure and irrigation projects and such.

[NNN0LHI]

5. Perhaps the Iraqi people don't want someone to steal their oil?

Have you even considered that?

Don

[spanone]

9. It's already gone

[NNN0LHI]

10. Where did it go? n/t

[Resistance]

13. consider the Iraqi people?

now there's an original concept.

[Uzybone]

7. Using Iraqi oil to pay for war

would be like a thief and murderer using the dead victims cell phone to call 911.

[arcane1]

8. exactly... smash my door in and steal my tv

but show your generosity by selling my tv to buy a new door

thanks but no thanks, George. That oil isn't ours...

[spanone]

11. I know that's not our oil. Halliburton is already putting new labels

on the barrels.

[DrDan]

12. I looked this up not long ago

Iraq oil exports were less than $20B last year. It seems they were around $12B - far less than the costs of rebuilding Iraq.

Another of junior/rummy/cheney's lies.

[uptohere]

14. oil for food, not selling all they might, only what was allowed

and that doesn't count the under the table exports.

[quilp]

15. Iraqi oil is less than 20 billion a year. It is not near enough.

Or so I hear from the pundits.

[chadm]

16. Because the oil revenue goes to *'s freinds.

Are you suggesting we raise their costs and cut into their profits? No. It's much easier just to get the taxpayers to subsidize them for doing business.

[leftofthedial]

18. it allegedly does not have enough capacity to pay

yeah right.

[Skittles]

19. HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHAT WOULD BE OUR REASON FOR BEING IN IRAQ THEN ?????????

[dudeness]

23. Hello times 2

C'mon people..lets not forget this oil belongs to Iraq not the US industrial /military complex..the reality is that Iraqis have been paying for war since 1991..a substantial share of the oil for food income..that being the oil Iraq was ALLOWED to sell..was used as war repatriations through the UN..this was an illegal war under international law..if my opinion the coalition of the willing OWE Iraq repatriations..immediate withdrawal and an apology..

[alcuno]

20. I'm sure that was the immoral plan.

I mean, how immoral would it be to invade a country and then make them pay for the occupation? Not the rebuilding, but the occupation. We broke it, we own it, as they say.

[spanone]

22. The rebuilding. not the occupation. agreed.

[Francis]

21. They will

I seem to remember someone, could have been the president saying Iraq was a rich country and could pay for itself
I think these sums requested will be loans, repayable out of future oil revenues.
They aslso want to privatise the oil fields

[bearfartinthewoods]

24. i've never heard anyone in authority say the oil would offset the cost

of the war. do you have a reference?

[alcuno]

25. It was certainly suggested before and they are saying it now.

Senator Hutchinson (Texas) was talking just yesterday about loans to Iraq that would have to be paid back. Not the rebuilding, but the occupation. It's the occupation that is so costly.

[cthrumatrix]

27. they have openly stated that iraq oil could bring in $12-$14B/yr.

However....that going full flow. I remember that number becuase our costs were $4B * 12 mos = $48B...and we can get back less than 1/2.

[spanone]

28. I didn't say anyone in authority said it. I raised the question.

[NNN0LHI]

30. Here is a reference

Bush Says Can't Count on Iraqi Oil Revenues

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030906/pl_nm/iraq_oil_bush_dc&cid=615&ncid=1473

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Despite prewar assurances by the White House, President Bush acknowledged on Friday that the United States cannot count on Iraqi oil revenues in the short-term to cover the country's reconstruction needs.

Bush, in an interview with CNBC, said he would "look at" one congressional proposal under which Washington would be paid back with future Iraqi oil revenues.

"But first of all, the oil revenues in Iraq really aren't as steady as they will be in the future. I mean I don't think we can count on much in the short term," Bush said.

The Bush administration is putting together a massive spending package for postwar Iraq expected to total about $65 billion, though sources said the final number was still in flux. One source said it could be expanded to $80 billion.

The White House asserted in the run-up to the war that Iraqi oil reserves would pay for reconstruction, but critics said Bush's budget office was overly optimistic.

more

[NNN0LHI]

31. Hey BFT. Thought you asked for a reference? Still interested or not? n/t

[bearfartinthewoods]

34. sorry, i lost the thread

i knew about the idea of the loans for recontruction. i'm looking for someplace where they actually said iraq oil money could go for war costs. that's illegal if what i heard is true.

[NNN0LHI]

35. No problem, Sir. I lose threads all the time myself too

The problem here is how does a country that is more than half a trillion dollars in debt itself begin taking out loans on someone elses property at the end of a bayonet? Almost sounds a little Enronish to me. If not downright illegal on the face of it.

Don

[bearfartinthewoods]

39. i think that's the hold up....end of the bayonet

it really requires a recognized Iraqi governmrnt to authorize loans.
i'm not opposed to the loan concept since a good part of the 'reconstuction' will be to counter the effects of santions and neglect of the previous decade.

i'm looking for info the the Marshall plan and the post WWII era rebuilding right now, to see if their was any attaempt to get payback from Germany or Japan

[Trek234]

29. WTF???

You are kidding right? I saw TONS of these posts at Free Republic the other day.

These ignorant republican warhawks in this nation wanted this war AND THEY CAN DAMN WELL PAY FOR IT! The Iraqis didn't ask them in.

The Iraqis owe them NOTHING. It was all "WAR WAR WAR NOW!" but once they figure out they might have to sacrifice some money for it it's "GET OUT OF IRAQ".

Too god damn bad. I can't wait for the next dem president to tax the hell out of them.

[OHdem10]

32. the oil fields and equipment were found in almost shambles

Since the sanctions had been on Iraq for so long apparently Saddam just let everything go unmaintained. Moneyline said it will take l7 billion daollars and a long long time to get things up and running.
I think he just kept a couple of sites so he had oil when he would get the waivers oil for food program. Futher it seems he kep a lot money as personal fund and the infrastructure in general has been horribly neglected. It seems our peoplewere stunned when they finally saw inside Iraq and what it is they are up against. I find it confusing that they did know how bad things were. now the story is those few sites --oil--have been the terrorists object of destruction because they seek failure on our part.

[Sterling]

33. Why should Iraq pay for the war and why do you think

it's our oil?

[greatauntoftriplets]

36. The midadministration expected oil revenues...

,,,to total $100 billion immediately. Instead, they will only be $12 - $20 billion for the next several years. More fuzzy math, in other words.

[CWebster]

37. For the life of me

I can't understand how people just accept that it is okay to TAKE Iraqi oil to pay for our invasion and destruction of their country. That people accept this without even questioning it, gives evidence to just how perverted this entire undertaking is.

[NNN0LHI]

38. That makes two of us. Some people who I once considered rational too. n/t

[Yupster]

40. I agree

A very odd thread.

[ProfessorGAC]

41. In Today's Chicago Tribune, The Front Page. . .

. . .story was about this issue of Iraqi oil and the $87B.

It turns out that, once again, the Bushites lied about the Iraqi oil. They "predicted" (lied about) $100 Billion worth the oil pumped in the first year.

Now, they are admitting that it will be more like $12B in year one, and $20B for the next 2 years. That's about half, in 3 years, than they predicted (lied about) for one!

So, the best answer is simple: There's not enough infrastructure to pump enough oil to pay for this adventure.

These dumbasses must be made to pay in 2004. They all need to be removed from office, and then prosecuted for malfeasance.
The Professor