PDA

View Full Version : The end of OPEC ?



Qtec
06-12-2003, 08:38 PM
It has just been announced that IRAQ intends to withdraw from OPEC. Is this for the benefit of IRAQ.?


Q

Vapros
06-12-2003, 11:14 PM
That's pretty interesting. I'm not aware that Iraq has any government at all, of its own, to make such a decision or to issue such an announcement at this time.

Qtec
06-17-2003, 06:06 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Philip Carroll, the senior U.S. adviser to the Iraqi Oil Ministry, said Monday he believed Iraq would remain a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries for "the foreseeable future" but that the country should be exempt from quotas limiting production so it can pay for reconstruction costs <hr /></blockquote>

???
Q

highsea
06-17-2003, 02:39 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Philip Carroll, the senior U.S. adviser to the Iraqi Oil Ministry, said Monday he believed Iraq would remain a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries for "the foreseeable future" but that the country should be exempt from quotas limiting production so it can pay for reconstruction costs <hr /></blockquote>

???
Q <hr /></blockquote>

Is that the announcement you were referring to? http://www.smilies.org/basesmilies3/1033463433.gif

-CM

Qtec
06-17-2003, 03:49 PM
What do you think this means ?

Q

highsea
06-17-2003, 04:36 PM
Well, I certainly don't read into it all that you do. Come on now, your post said: "It has just been announced that IRAQ intends to withdraw from OPEC."

You back that up with a statement from Phillip Carroll that says the exact opposite! "Iraq will remain in OPEC for the foreseeable future, but limits should be lifted in order to aid the reconstruction."

Are these really the same to you?

Whatever permanent decision Iraq makes about OPEC membership will have to be made by a government elected by the Iraqi people. I imagine they will stay in the cartel, if for no other reason, than to keep the peace with their neighbors.

Do I like OPEC? No, I don't. Does that surprise you? It is an organization whose sole purpose is to excersize collusion between it's members in order to the control the world market price of crude oil. Much like the DeBeers Cartel uses it's stranglehold on production and distribution to artificially inflate world diamond prices.

This practice is illegal in the US, because it imposes unnatural restraints on the free market system. We have antitrust laws to protect the consumer from these practices.

You apparently didn't like the term "forseeable future" To me, the term means "that part of the future that we can predict with some level of confidence." I wonder what it means to you. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

I saw nothing ominous in the announcement, actually it sounded more like a statement intended to pacify the member states, and assure them that we were not just going to open the taps and try to depress oil prices. (Which wouldn't be possible, anyway, considering the state of their production facilities)

-CM

Qtec
06-17-2003, 05:27 PM
When i made my first post ,it was just something that was on the news. I looked all over and just today i found this.
I am just bringing it to your attention because i think its pretty important.
Its not an announcement its a threat.
The only official building that wasnt ransacked in Baghdad was the Ministry for Oil.
How long do you reckon America will stay in Iraq?


Ask anybody you know if they have heard this announcement.

Her,s another thing . Tell me if you think this is logical .
America in 91 wasnt sure if Saddam had WMD or not .If they continued on to Baghdad there could have been many casualties. Wouldnt it be better to wait until you were sure that he didnt and then attack him.?

I am glad he is gone [S]although he still might be around.If they dont find him it could be a mistake to think he is not threat.

Q

highsea
06-17-2003, 06:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> When i made my first post ,it was just something that was on the news. I looked all over and just today i found this.
I am just bringing it to your attention because i think its pretty important.
Its not an announcement its a threat.
The only official building that wasnt ransacked in Baghdad was the Ministry for Oil.
How long do you reckon America will stay in Iraq?


Ask anybody you know if they have heard this announcement.

Her,s another thing . Tell me if you think this is logical .
America in 91 wasnt sure if Saddam had WMD or not .If they continued on to Baghdad there could have been many casualties. Wouldnt it be better to wait until you were sure that he didnt and then attack him.?

I am glad he is gone [S]although he still might be around.If they dont find him it could be a mistake to think he is not threat.

Q <hr /></blockquote>

I'm not criticizing you for posting the news. But I do think you're intruducing some bias in your post. Was the headline of the story "Iraq announces withdrawal from OPEC"?

I don't know how long we will stay in Iraq. My guess is not long enough to do the job right. What is really needed is a long term strategy such as we had with Germany and Japan after WW2. Christ, we are still in those countries 60 years later. Not as occupiers, now, but as allies. Most Americans want us to remove our bases from Europe, now that the cold war threat is over.

I expect the political pressure for us to leave Iraq will force us out before a stable democracy can be established, and the country will sink into chaos. Of course, if that happens, the US will be blamed. I pray I am wrong about this, and that we stay until there is some stability.

As to going into Baghdad in 91, I think I covered this in another post. We could have easily gone to Baghdad and deposed Sadddam, but politically, it was not feasable. I don't think there would have been that many casualties, because they were in complete disarray. It would have been a duck shoot.

The Iraqi generals were in shock, when after they surrendered they asked about a POW exchange. I can't remember how many Americans they had captured, around a dozen or so. We had 80,000 of their guys. They thought we were kidding. We just took their guns away and sent them home. That turned into a tragedy also, as Saddam mutilated and murdered thousands of them for being deserters.

I agree Saddam is still a threat, both to our forces and to the Iraqi people. The chaos in the Sunni triangle around Baghdad shows that he still has some support in that part of the country. I hope he is tracked down, and I hope it is the Iraqi's that get him, rather than us. I'd like to see him stand trial in an Iraqi court.

-CM

Qtec
06-17-2003, 06:34 PM
If they find Saddam ,they will shoot him. I would .

Q

highsea
06-18-2003, 03:48 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> If they find Saddam ,they will shoot him. I would .

Q

<hr /></blockquote>

Oh, you would not...any more than I would. But GW would!
http://www.freeadpower.org/~mrsmiles/contrib/drowned/tank.gif

I want the Iraqi's to have him, let them decide...

-CM

highsea
06-18-2003, 04:00 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> As to going into Baghdad in 91, .... duck shoot.
<hr /></blockquote>

I want to clarify this. What I meant was that there would not have been many US casualties. The Iraqi casualties would have been off the charts.

-CM