We've used a billion gallons of gas in Iraq.

[Gregorian]

One might ask how much fuel is being used, in the name of trying to get more fuel. This all started when I mentioned in a post, that we had probably used a billion gallons of fuel already. We feed, clothe, drive, fix, and fly support.

I did a little research. Here's what I have found. I'm making quite a few assumptions. Most of them conservative. And for brevity's sake, I won't bother with showing the details, especially considering this post will sink into oblivion before anyone ever sees it.

One C5 Galaxy uses 51,000 gallons on one 3400 mile flight. Assuming 1000 flights from the US to Iraq (which may be one of my less conservative guesses), that would be 1/4 billion gallons right there.

This website has some interesting facts-

http://www.vcorps.army.mil/news/2004/jan30_coscom.htm

Such as-

In its year of service in Iraq, Boles added, 3rd COSCOM has issued more than 53 million meals, almost 8 million pieces of mail, 186 million gallons of fuel...

Fuel the unit delivers every day would fill the tanks of 40,000 cars.

This last one amounts to 1/2 billion gallons of fuel. (Two years of war, and 20 gallon gas tanks. Not bad assumptions.)

So there's close to a billion gallons. And that does not include a lot of things not mentioned here.

Just something to think about.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Forget the oil. I used to think about the oil. The oil is irrelevant.

In the best case, the oil is just a means to an end, namely profit for those who control it and resell it.

The real name of the game is redistribution of wealth. What if that can be accomplished without oil as an intermediary repository of value? Think about it:

....tax breaks for the rich
....duffel bags of cash going missing
....no-bid contracts for well-connected coroporations

It's all oil-free transfer of wealth (from us).

[indepat]

6. Looting unparalleled in any empire which did not fail IMHO

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. 8 billion cash unaccounted for from 2003 in Iraq.

[enigma000]

2. So when does this operation start to make money? n/t

[Gregorian]

9. I'm not qualified to answer. But I can take a guess.

When India and China start asking for fuel.

The problem with that is, we have to have control over the oil, which may never happen. And I doubt developing countries will continue to go down the path of internal combustion as their primary method of personal transportation.

I think the answer is, never.

[Tower]

3. It's about *controlling* oil. That's the same as controlling the market.

[BlueEyedSon]

4. Yeah, that's working out well (no pun intended)

[Tower]

11. For the few at the top it is.

Same old imperial bullshit. It's bad for everybody but the few who occupy the top of the pyramid. That's why I'm always blown away by that "kick their ass and take their gas" attitude. The people with those ridiculous bumper stickers just don't get it.

Empire means that peons like them (and us) get to send their children and tax money off to hurt other peons and further the goals of the tremendously wealthy assholes in charge. So we all get to make big sacrifices to further the goal of undermining our own standards of living. It's a big scam.

[theboz]

5. Bad Assumption

The war is not about oil, in any real sense. If you think it is, then you give too much credit to the neocons. The war is about money, period. If you look at business from their perspective, it makes sense to actually not bring back any oil.

First of all, you have to look at pure profit as your motivator. Ignore selling more product, ignore providing a quality product, and ignore doing anything other than making a profit. The way these guys have chosen to make a profit is two-fold. The first is to make gasoline scarce, in order to raise prices. This is genius, because it means that they can do less work and make more money. This is why the oil companies fight the idea of building more refineries. They want gas to be difficult to find. It lowers expenses as well as prices, which adds to the bottom line of profit from two directions. From a business perspective, it's the best thing you can hope for.

The second thing that they do is to take our money, and return nothing in exchange. Halliburton is supposed to be over there supporting our troops by doing mundane stuff like serving meals and driving cargo trucks. They are taking this money from us taxpayers, and serving a war most of us are against. The net gain for our nation is absolutely nothing. They also are supposed to be helping Iraq set up their oil industry. If this does not happen, or happens slowly, they get paid, and don't really need to spend the money to accomplish anything because they are unaccountable. They get away with it, drop the money in the bank and collect interest.

There are a few more areas where they make money from us without giving us anything in return, but I think you get the idea here. That is the motivation of the war. Profit, profit, profit.

[Gregorian]

8. I changed the subject line. That was a bit misleading.

I am fully aware of what is going on. I should not have used that subject line.

I like to think of things in absolute terms. You are right about the purpose of this evil venture we're on. For a multiplicity of reasons, the decision was made to attack.

It's like a discussion I have with a friend. I like owning my house without a mortgage. He wants to borrow and spend. There are good reasons for both.

For someone who cares, and who thinks, a billion gallons of gas could have done more to make this country independent of oil than this war will.

And then there is the ecological ramification.

But everyone on this forum knows what is really going on. The gas that it takes to gain control over the Middle Eastern oil fields is like a mortgage. Borrow a little and make a lot. And it stinks in every possible way.

And in a way, it's almost meaningless. Compared to the lives lost and lives ruined, a billion gallons is nothing.

[knitter4democracy]

10. This is a good point in these times.

I'm going to use that one, if you don't mind.