Why are American lives worth more than Iraqi's

[Das Om3n]

Recent Production in Iraq. After the regime change, production — which
virtually halted during the fighting — began to increase. Deferred maintenance and
damage to wells, gathering facilities, refineries, and mainline transport facilities slowed
the effort to restart production. Security issues and difficulties with electric power supply
have proven to be hindrances. Some oil — about 200,000 to 300,000 barrels per day —
is being re-injected into wells because of local refining and transport constraints in the
northern fields around Kirkuk. In some instances refineries were stripping gasoline and
propane fractions from crude and re-injecting the leftover petroleum. Among other
considerations, this unusual measure poses a difficulty in determining how much net
production is taking place.
There are several sources of data on Iraq’s oil output and exports, which are
discussed below. They show somewhat differing amounts, suggesting some uncertainty
about exactly how much is being produced and how much is being sold internationally
for cash earnings.

source 1

The Department of State’s Iraq Weekly Status Report for March 23, 2005, reports
mid-month production of 2.05 mbd, slightly below earlier months; the illustration
containing this figure suggests that production averaged about 2.1 mbd during early 2005.
State also notes that the Ministry of Oil’s production goal is 2.5 mbd and that the recent
pre-war peak output was 2.67 mbd.4 State has export figures — accompanied by export
revenues — that appear very precise; they are shown in Table 1, below.

Table 1. Iraq Crude Output and Revenues — Early 2006
Month Exports (mbd) Revenues (billions)
January 1.05 $1.84
February 1.47 $2.16
March 1.41 $1.82
Source: Department of State, Iraq Weekly Status Report, p. 21. Note that revenues are reduced by 5%,
reflecting war reparations to Kuwait.

source 1

With the current situation, production virtually halted during the hostilities but began
to recover after the fighting stopped. During 2005, stated output varied between 1.9 and
2.4 mbd; exports were as high as 1.6 mbd but averaged considerably less, as year-end
difficulties reduced the flow to just over 1.0 mbd.

source 1

source 2

Iraq’s Domestic Fuel Needs. Domestic consumption in Iraq averaged about
500,000 barrels per day (b/d) before the most recent conflict, but current internal demand
may be at least 100,000 b/d less. The domestic consumption picture is clouded by refineries’ inability to produce needed fuels, making it necessary to import gasoline and
propane from other countries.
Iraq reportedly has nearly 600,000 b/d of refining capacity at eight facilities.8 But
because of looting, sabotage, deferred maintenance, and unreliable electric power
supplies, refinery operations are insufficient for domestic needs. EIA notes that Iraqi
refined product imports are costing the country $200-$250 million per month, not
including government subsidies that result in a 10-cent-per-gallon pump price. DOE
estimates that direct and indirect fuel subsidies cost Iraq $8 billion per year, “with no
indication as to when this problem might be resolved.”


With the exception of kerosene and diesel, more than half the fuel consumed was
imported.
Long lines at gas stations are common, compounded by subsidized prices. Prices at
government-owned stations are set at about 10 cents per gallon. Prices this low result in
higher gasoline demand than would be seen were prices to be unregulated. And the
combination of politically unpopular long lines and low “official” prices results in a
thriving black market. Since much of this fuel is imported by the government, the cost
of subsidizing fuel prices may well be a genuine, out-of-pocket cost to the Iraqi
government.

source 1





Lots of stats in there… enjoy and make of it what you will… I think it means that whoever operates these wells basically ends up with a revenue of about $2 billion (is that per month or per day?) (from “Table 1”)
And that company is also better off than the local government considering the cost of IMPORTING refined products…

Anyway that’s my simplified analysis.. could easily be wrong.. maybe im not seeing something there… but both sources are reliable.


The question here however is not ‘what are the current facts and figures of Iraqi oil production’ but instead ‘what was the intention of the US when it planned the invasion, regarding iraqi oil’… so ITN, your demanding these figures doesn’t really change Juan’s point.

Things are obviously not going as intended in iraq in almost every aspect… oil production included. I wont bother quoting more .. but the rest of the articles basically talk about how the US officials are disappointed in the oil outputs and how Cheney’s “Pipe dream” (no pun intended ^_^) about Iraqi oil paying for a large fraction of war costs, has been totally unrealistic. But the fact remains that it was expected that the output would be many times what it actually is and obviously the revenues would be much much higher for the party controlling the wells. See what I mean?

Source 3

Source 4

but theres not that much ACCURATE data that I can find on the production, exports and profits made by Halliburton et al from iraq….. this could be due to the same reason theres no accurate body count of civilians/fighters/both killed by US troops in the invasion….. i.e.: because the US didn’t want to keep/reveal records of these figures.

But US gov. reports aren’t the ONLY reliable source of info in the world… Iraq Body Count.Org basically works by tallying the reported violent deaths of civilians, in newspapers and just doing basic adding.

However a lot of the people killed by the invasion would not be included in this either, as many children and hospitalized people have died due to lack of supplies and the destruction of infrastructure (which previously worked just great) like power cuts causing respirators and incubators to become virtually useless…. These things need a constant supply of power to hospitals etc… which they don’t get.

Current tallies indicate something between 38786 to 43215 civilian deaths… obviously not included are the deaths of militants and fighters… (or even alleged “militants” and “fighters”) who were killed in the initial bombing “Shock and Awe” campaign… who can say now if the people bombed were 100% of the time professional, trained fighters and militants or not?

100,000 is an extreme guess… but still…. Even forty thousand is an unjustifiable number of civilians compared to the 3000 deaths of American armed forces… it is important to note that an insignificant number of American civilians were killed (hostages etc.) and that the number of dead iraqi militants would be many times the American deaths. I don’t consider this anything close to balanced… what I cannot understand is how it is even remotely acceptable and how an operation such as this can be considered ‘complete’ when tens of thousands of families have lost something more valuable and more irreplaceable to them than anything else that the US invasion has taken/stolen from them… (economy, oil, stability, a feeling of security, to name a few)

plus… at least in Baathist times, you could keep your head down, not oppose the government and live peacefully as long as you minded your own business…. But now with insurgency and terrorism showing itself for the first time in Iraq, they cannot know even a single moment when they feel SAFE and not even one way they can be SURE to avoid a violent death. The recent blast in the Baghdad market that killed dozens, testifies to this fact.

Anyway… you want names? Here's a meager Three Thousand of them…. These alone take 160 pages to document. The rest (thanks to the policy of “We don’t do body counts”- General Tommy Franks, US Central Command) are yet unnamed and remain only statistics.
Or just go to the database to see each and every single death’s report and see if it matches up to the estimates given eh? Database

at what point is the cost just Too Damn High for something to be considered successful, lawful or even barely Tolerable? yet we just sit by and watch...


Now that you have your stats… I want to make a point here ITN… that thou truly thinks not at all….
Once you decide to quit gurgling about exact figures and begin to see THE POINT (which is the DISPROPORTIONATE number of Iraqi civilian casualties compared to the American military casualties…. And the questionable MOTIVE behind the war, not how successful they were in those motives – oil or votes or whatever) then there might be some minute level of credibility to your arguments. or are you telling me that less than 3000 iraqi civilians have died? or that it doesnt matter how many have died because we know whats important .. that 3000 americans have died and that justifies every single thing done in their name. (despite the fact that they were military recruits and the iraqi deaths we speak of were simple civilians)

Haggling over little discrepancies is like me telling mogz that everything he says is wrong and stupid just because he spells Baath Party differently…. in which case I would be wrong.

~Om3n

 

[Das Om3n]

RE: Why are American live

ah yes... ba'ath party.. my mistake too haha ^_^

but im lazy about punctuation so ill pretend i just left it out due to a visit of 'Sloth' =)

now time to indulge in some 'Gluttony'... i need a snack after these long posts... sheesh.

 

[I think not]

plus… at least in Baathist times, you could keep your head down, not oppose the government and live peacefully as long as you minded your own business…. But now with insurgency and terrorism showing itself for the first time in Iraq, they cannot know even a single moment when they feel SAFE and not even one way they can be SURE to avoid a violent death. The recent blast in the Baghdad market that killed dozens, testifies to this fact.

You're out of your freaking mind. I don't even know how to answer this.

BTW, the POINT is when you increase the number of casulaties for political gain, very common with radical elements, they use lies and deceit to make their point. After all, 100,000 dead sounds alot more troubling than 40,000 don't you think?

And the oil is being pumped, if you haven't been kept up to date on news, the issue with the oil has always been the US stealing Iraq's natural resources. What I never understood is why spend $1 trillion to create ill will, a huge deficit to buy oil the US could have bought and was buying anyway under the UN for food program. Can you explain that part to me?

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Why are American live

I watche a cowboy and indian movie the other day, and found myself disgusted by the similarity in attitudes the US Army had in it to the nazi's...once again, centuries of that type of believe in superiority brought about world war 2.....and perhaps the Iraq and Afghan wars.

I hope you realize how idiotic you sound turning a movie into documentary evidence. Then again, probably not.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

RE: Why are American live

Just an example my man, please dont call me an idiot...or was I somehow "wrong" in thinking that the push for the wild west involved removing natives from their land and treating them as sub-humans?.

Simply put, one could argue that an example like that, or indeed the whole colonisation of hundreds of year led up to a pinnicle of white racial superiority like WW2?...Just an example, I could use many on the UK too, but what I'm saying is that "traditionally" the middle east has been seen as weak and not up to much, and I think this extends to the belief in racial superiority of most white christian society.

again, just an example in the microcosim that is this crazy world. But it's true, they clearly didnt think of the resulting actions of their moves (jointly) over many years now, and now it's starting to bare fruit, could Alexander beat the afghans....could the british?...3 times!!!....no, and if they looked at the situation objectivly they would know they just look like another white colonial power trying to show the natives how "wrong" they are and how "right" they are.....and a cowboy and indian movie is a perfect example actually.

 

[I think not]

Daz_Hockey

Everytime I hear someone reference an American made movie and use it in a serious conversation I have no choice but to laugh. When I lived in Europe, I encountered this all the time. This is where most of the world has "learned" about American society. Ya, it sounds idiotic, and I never called you an idiot.

You are not wrong about the Indians however, they were treated as sub-humans you are right. What I don't understand is why you use contemporary viewpoints to look back into history, when at the time, even women were considered trash. I never understood why people view history with a contemporary eye.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

RE: Why are American live

I dont know perhaps it's because history doesnt repeat itself, but it does ryme.

Besides, you know as well as I that there was more than a grain of truth in those movies, and it's still simmering below the suface with the native tribes anyway. Sorry, perhaps everyone in europe does use these examples, but unlike most, you know I've travelled your country (or perhaps its Aristotle I'm reading and am still in shock at it's relevance to today )

 

[I think not]

Yeah but Aristotle was a philospher. I'll give you an example of what I am trying to say. Thomas Jefferson, great guy eh? But he had slaves. Bad guy really. Well not really, because we have to view history with the social "acceptances" of the time. Jefferson from a contemporary view can easily be seen as a hypocrite, but at the time, it was common for people (white) to consider blacks as sub-humans, like the Indians. You getting my drift Daz?

 

[Daz_Hockey]

RE: Why are American live

I am indeed, that's why I get a bit mad when people bang on about "colonial" britain, it's wrong now, but it was'nt then. I guess it will be up to history to judge the wars in Afghanisthan and Iraq, I just hope that the co-illition forces visit the thousands of victorian graves there and understand the big job of at the least keeping the peace.

but yes, what is deemed "wrong" now should be put in the right context, but I just feel that both the UK and the US havent considered what a bloomin near impossible job they have on their hands....because I fear they have underestimated the situation, through what Aristotle would discribe as an "ignorance of the resulting actions".

 

[I think not]

Ok, you do get my drift.