War for oil??? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

BENZ-LGB · #1 05-24-2007, 12:25 PM

For those of you who still naively believe that we went to war in Iraq for their oil, the charts and statistics belwo should provide some food for thought.

Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries
March 2007 Import Highlights: Released on May 16, 2007
Preliminary monthly data on the origins of crude oil imports in March 2007 has been released and it shows that four countries have each exported more than 1.10 million barrels per day to the United States. Including those countries, a total of five countries exported over 1.00 million barrels per day of crude oil to the United States (see table below). The top five exporting countries accounted for 67 percent of United States crude oil imports in March while the top ten sources accounted for approximately 87 percent of all U.S. crude oil imports. The top sources of US crude oil imports for March were Canada (1.776 million barrels per day), Mexico (1.621 million barrels per day), Nigeria (1.290 million barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1.231 million barrels per day), and Venezuela (1.036 million barrels per day). The rest of the top ten sources, in order, were Angola (0.696 million barrels per day), Iraq (0.523 million barrels per day), Algeria (0.501 million barrels per day), Kuwait (0.158 million barrels per day), and Brazil (0.178 million barrels per day). Total crude oil imports averaged 10.348 million barrels per day in March, which is a increase of 1.299 million barrels per day from February 2007.

Canada remained the largest exporter of total petroleum in March, exporting 2.297 million barrels per day to the United States, which was a slight decrease from last month (2.448 thousand barrels per day). The second largest exporter of total petroleum was Mexico with 1.747 million barrels per day.

Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Mar-07 Feb-07 YTD 2007 Mar-06 Jan - Mar 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CANADA 1,776 1,840 1,823 1,716 1,732
MEXICO 1,621 1,358 1,475 1,697 1,722
NIGERIA 1,290 1,061 1,156 1,114 1,191
SAUDI ARABIA 1,231 1,185 1,330 1,322 1,356
VENEZUELA 1,036 1,115 1,033 1,183 1,197
ANGOLA 696 451 570 510 465
IRAQ 523 325 464 476 487
ALGERIA 501 392 484 281 228
KUWAIT 288 158 208 111 111
BRAZIL 209 103 174 123 114
RUSSIA 193 49 92 34 25
ECUADOR 179 178 210 242 281
COLOMBIA 108 73 107 170 156
LIBYA 105 63 59 40 45
CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE) 79 41 58 0 10

Total Imports of Petroleum (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Mar-07 Feb-07 YTD 2007 Mar-06 Jan - Mar 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CANADA 2,297 2,448 2,404 2,254 2,276
MEXICO 1,747 1,507 1,610 1,801 1,823
VENEZUELA 1,285 1,359 1,277 1,530 1,516
SAUDI ARABIA 1,259 1,207 1,348 1,364 1,393
NIGERIA 1,346 1,102 1,198 1,195 1,249
ALGERIA 727 555 691 404 523
IRAQ 523 325 464 476 487
ANGOLA 708 464 586 522 477
VIRGIN ISLANDS 349 312 363 299 297
ECUADOR 179 185 213 242 287
RUSSIA 455 241 351 221 246
UNITED KINGDOM 288 268 249 299 231
NORWAY 164 131 133 209 205
COLOMBIA 121 85 119 170 178
BRAZIL 234 151 214 193 166

Note: The data in the tables above exclude oil imports into the U.S. territories.

The actual link can be found here:

Sources of foreign oil

If securing sources of crude oil was our goal, then it would have been easier to invade Canada and Mexico.

Canadians are already almost like Americans. Call Canada "America light." The major differnece is that: 1. Canadians are generally more polite and 2. highway speed signs are in kilometers and not miles.

If we invade Mexico and make it the 51st or 52d state we would kill two birds with one stone: 1. ready access to plentiful crude oil and 2. overnight we fix the illegal immigration problem by making ALL Mexicans U.S. citizens.

Zeus · #2 05-24-2007, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

If securing sources of crude oil was our goal, then it would have been easier to invade Canada and Mexico.

Canadians are already almost like Americans. Call Canada "America light." The major differnece is that: 1. Canadians are generally more polite and 2. highway speed signs are in kilometers and not miles.

Hey, hey, hey....them's fightin' words boyo!!!

You forgot: differences in attitude towards government, guns, better beer, social spending, healthcare, marijuana use and acceptance, better beer, bigger land mass, cooler looking money, topless babes at the beach, harvesting seal pups with clubs, cottage season with topless babes at the beach, better beer and you can light up a reefer and smoke it beneath the Peace Tower at Parliament.

Medmech · #3 05-24-2007, 12:51 PM

It does not matter if we don't receive a drop of oil from the ME, the cost oil is based on world market price. If we only bought oil from Canada and Canada olny sold to us or all oil was produced here with no exports you might have a case.

case closed.

Chas H · #4 05-24-2007, 12:52 PM

So why did we invade Irag?

BENZ-LGB · #5 05-24-2007, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howitzer

It does not matter if we don't receive a drop of oil from the ME, the cost oil is based on world market price. If we only bought oil from Canada and Canada olny sold to us or all oil was produced here with no exports you might have a case.

case closed.

Not talking about cost. I am talking about invading a country in order to secure crude supplies.

BENZ-LGB · #6 05-24-2007, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

So why did we invade Irag?

I don't know. You tell me.

I am merely pointing out (and commenting on) the logical fallacy (and naivete) reflected by the view that we invaded Iraq for their oil.

jlomon · #7 05-24-2007, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

Canadians are already almost like Americans. Call Canada "America light." The major differnece is that: 1. Canadians are generally more polite and 2. highway speed signs are in kilometers and not miles.

Zeus already pointed it out, but it bears repeating. Our attitudes towards social issues are widely disparate. And not only disparate, but are also diverging. I read a very interesting book a few years back called "Fire and Ice", written by one of the principals of Environics, a major market research firm. It showed how even the most "conservative" regions of Canada don't even come close to the level of conservatism found in the most "liberal" regions of the US, and how this gap was widening. An interesting read.

Aside from that, I would offer this idea when trying to counter the "war for oil" argument. I agree with you that the idea of going to war directly for oil is ludicrous and overly-simplistic. GWB and company didn't invade Iraq to steal their oil resources and anyone who claims they did isn't worth arguing with. The stats you posted illustrate a point that many people have known for a long time, that Canada and Mexico are the top individual suppliers.

However, when you look at the larger geo-political context it is very important for the US to have a strong and stable influence in the Gulf region. 40% of the world's crude supply moves through the Straits of Hormuz. Saudi is the world's largest independent supplier and if I remember correctly Iran is either number two or number four. US military action to stabilize that region keeps the oil supply flowing, which keeps prices down and world supply met. This protects the integrity of the US economy by making sure that the supply keeps happening. Every barrel of oil that Saudi, Kuwait, Iran, Iraq, UAE, etc sells to someone else keeps world demand met, which keeps the price of Canadian and Mexican oil at a reasonable level. I agree with the war for oil argument when you consider the integrity of the global market, not on the tactical "steal it from Iraq" argument. If it wasn't for the oil there, the US wouldn't have any reason to be interested in the region.

BENZ-LGB · #8 05-24-2007, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlomon

However, when you look at the larger geo-political context it is very important for the US to have a strong and stable influence in the Gulf region. 40% of the world's crude supply moves through the Straits of Hormuz. Saudi is the world's largest independent supplier and if I remember correctly Iran is either number two or number four. US military action to stabilize that region keeps the oil supply flowing, which keeps prices down and world supply met. This protects the integrity of the US economy by making sure that the supply keeps happening. Every barrel of oil that Saudi, Kuwait, Iran, Iraq, UAE, etc sells to someone else keeps world demand met, which keeps the price of Canadian and Mexican oil at a reasonable level. I agree with the war for oil argument when you consider the integrity of the global market, not on the tactical "steal it from Iraq" argument. If it wasn't for the oil there, the US wouldn't have any reason to be interested in the region.

I agree with your point. We have, in fact, become the Saudi's polilce force. That may be a more accurate reason for our presence in Iraq.

The Saudis have been scared off by all the rhetoric coming out of D.C. lately (about pulling out of Iraq). The Saudis are afraid that an Iran-Iraq axis will spell doom for the Saudi rulling family. They better get it together and start doing something about militant Muslims.

BTW, I think that Chris (Zeus) was writing partially tongue in cheek. He knows, in his heart of hearts, that he wishes he was anAmerican.

Medmech · #9 05-24-2007, 01:15 PM

I have no problem with a war over oil, I have no problem with a war to kill our enemy, I have no problem with a war to stop genocide.

Iraq meets that criteria.

jlomon · #10 05-24-2007, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

The Saudis have been scared off by all the rhetoric coming out of D.C. lately (about pulling out of Iraq). The Saudis are afraid that an Iran-Iraq axis will spell doom for the Saudi rulling family. They better get it together and start doing something about militant Muslims.

I'll return the favour of your good book recommendation (I'm halfway through Enduring Passion right now). If you want to know just how much of a mess KSA is, pick up Robert Baer's Sleeping With The Enemy. A real eye-opener.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

BTW, I think that Chris (Zeus) was writing partially tongue in cheek. He knows, in his heart of hearts, that he wishes he was anAmerican.

Now *those* are the fighting words

GermanStar · #11 05-24-2007, 01:25 PM

If you've been paying close attention, I believe GW has spelled out his reasons for going along with this invasion. But they really aren't important, since this isn't GW's war. It's Cheney's war, and his reasons for promoting this invasion remain considerably more mysterious, and probably more nefarious.

BENZ-LGB · #12 05-24-2007, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GermanStar

...It's Cheney's war, and his reasons for promoting this invasion remain considerably more mysterious, and probably more nefarious.

It took only what, ten posts (not counting the initial thread starter) before the conspiracy theorists chimed in.

Not bad...

Zeus · #13 05-24-2007, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

BTW, I think that Chris (Zeus) was writing partially tongue in cheek. He knows, in his heart of hearts, that he wishes he was anAmerican.

lol, yeah I was.

Chas H · #14 05-24-2007, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

I don't know. You tell me.

I am merely pointing out (and commenting on) the logical fallacy (and naivete) reflected by the view that we invaded Iraq for their oil.

Just about every other excuse has been used by the administration for invading Iraq, maybe oil was chosen by elimination.

GermanStar · #15 05-24-2007, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

It took only what, ten posts (not counting the initial thread starter) before the conspiracy theorists chimed in.

Not bad...

I'll take it even further. I don't believe GW Bush was the real acting president of this country (at least in regard to foreign policy) until he finally made a stand. By firing Rumsfeld, GW decided to stand up to Cheney and declare to him and the world "now I am a man".

And of course it was Cheney's war. GW didn't know a Sunni from a Shiite, and Cheney was the Defense Sec. under Bush I. Besides, a lot of insiders have confirmed that very thing. Were you paying attention to details released at the Libby trial?