Iraq’s Future

Iraq is like fire burning in the Arab neighborhood. And Arabs are ``as usual`` watching Tamasha (circus) as if they are watching WWF wrestling on satellite TV. Princes and Princesses ``Tell`` Americans where things are wrong. All the while terrorists and criminals spill innocent blood in the streets of Bag-Dad or Bugh-Daad.

This is very similar to a hypothetical scenario, where Margla hills are on fire. But the people in Islamabad are cursing the winds doing nothing to stop the fire from reaching their homes and businesses.

Ultimately the whole city or neighborhood goes up in flames just because people around the fire didn`t care to extinguish it.

Sure all these Mullahs and all their himayti Arabs (and not-so much Arabs) love to blame Americans.

Worst case scenario! If Americans leave, the same Arabs and Iranians will be pulled into the death and destruction. Then there will be no Prince, Princesses, the Ayatullahs, and their marble floor castles. Only then they will realize their susti and kahili. Unfortunately it would be too late.

Oh Well what`s new in the Middle East. This gad-Awful place has seen so much death and destruction for 1000`s of years.

You ever wonder why they call them ``Middle`` Easterners? Because just like ``Hazrat Mukhannas``, they are (intellectually) neither ``he``, nor ``she``.

Utterly & Completely respected Masadi Sahib,

Your fans are waiting for pearls of wisdom from you on the Musharraf Board.

Please return there at the earliest.

#30 by mehrozsiraj731

Thanks for your response Mehroz. First I complement your efforts in trying to unravel the mess which is Iraq, and next I look forward to your further articles in this series.

Our disagreement comes mainly from two points i.e. (1) Whether or not Iraq war was a mistake; and (2) Whether or not the impact on US economy has been adverse because of the Iraq war.

Let`s examine these:

(1) Iraq war may have gone against the best expectations of US, but that doesn`t mean they lost their `objectives` in such policy failures. That `objective` was always to establish a permanent presence in Iraq, which they have done. The Iraqi civilians and the bloodshed amongst them are of-course of no consequence to that objective which US has achieved.

The key permanent bases with the lead role in future US presence in Iraq are the Green Zone in Baghdad and the Camp Anaconda in the midst of the so-called Sunni Triangle.

The Green zone, mind you, is not just a fortified diplomatic enclave; the green zone is a 7 sq. mile area in Bagdad, that looks like downtown NY or downtown NJ: pizza parlors, 7-11`s, massage parlors, shops and botiques, bowling allies; sports bars; exercise centers; music stores; coffee/latte shops; catalog stores; ethnic restaurant cuisine; fast food; movie theaters etc., you name it. It is permananent. For more info go here.

Camp Anaconda, 50 miles north of Baghdad in Balad, with 14,000 troops, facilities and location make it more than just an ideal base from which to fight just the insurgents in Iraq. It is perfectly positioned to project U.S. power throughout the Middle East, and it will likely do so for many years to come. This camp too has much of the facilities as the Green zone including its own water supply. Six major U.S. bases in Iraq are producing their own drinking water. Camp Anaconda is the first base to produce its own drinking water, followed in short order by Camp Victory, Speicher, TQ, Q’-West and Al Asad.

The point is, such facilities are hardly those of a kind required in a temporary war zone. These are permanent facilities designed to continue occupation and to project it further.

(2)....total war expenditures have seemingly crossed $300billion. Oil revenues are not being of benifit to America as a whole. ... why are the American taxpayers paying such a high price???

The point is they are not. The expenidutures may be anything and compensated to whatever extent by the Iraqi oil, but the american taxpayer is not being made to suffer for it. The US economy is booming to the extent that the Fed has had to raise rates since the past 19 months or so to cool it down. The consumer confidence is high. Retail sales are up. Housing market though cooled still shows healthy new home sales. For a clear idea of whether the ordinary US citizen is worse-off or better-off, do check the economic statistics on United States Bureau of Labor Statistics

As for where the extra money, if any, for war is coming from, it is quite simple. The Fed can print as many dollars as it wants. No problem at all and with no harmful effects to US domestic economy. All these are financed by US debt held by foreign exporters to US, but that`s another story!

Regards.

Re: # 31

While all this might be true, my point was slightly different. In May, The Economist had published a detailed research telling about how the growing inequalities in the United States are harming that country`s citizens. Though it identified that not more than a million jobs have been outsourced, but in the end it came to the conclusion that the current conflict in Iraq and as to how the current people are managing the economy in Washington, America`s future is not good. Pay differentials are rising and so is poverty. The war in Iraq has drained America`s currency reserves so much so that Health care benifits and Social Security has been slashed and the No Child Left Behind act has not moved forward for implementation because of the purported lack of finances. The Bush Administration is engaged in the development of a near four hundred billion dollar global missile defence project. IT is similar to the Star Wars project of Ronald Reagan. The funding is being done through taxpayers money and they are being made to suffer.

John Kerry had a solid position on economic issues during the 2004 election campaign. He had been claiming that tax reliefs given to top officials and bureaucrats, i.e. the richest one percent of the Americans (all of them supported the Iraq war) had cost the American economy one trillion dollars during Bush`s first term. Bush has given the Americans their highest ever trade deficit in their more than two hundred years history.

The handling of the economy is the only thing that differentiates Bush and Reagan is the ay they handled the American economy. Bush`s over-occupation into Iraq has drained American taxpayers money in the sense that America`s middle class is constricting. The rich gets richer. Poverty today in the United States is around 13.7%, up from two percentage points at the time Bill Clinton left! Social and economic issues of home have been ignored by Bush because of his occupations abroad.


Invading Iraq was surely not a wise decision.....

In an investigative article in Newsweek in June 2006, Fareed Zakaria had shown that how quickly was America losing its edge over commerce, science and technology to Europe and Asian countries like China, India and to an extent, Pakistan. Home grown issues need to be addressed by this lame duck President before he packs up and leave in 2008. Home grown issues will require solid funding and that can only be done when the issues of terrorism, Middle East conflict, Iraq, etc are resolved politically and the manpower of the military and the money that would be saved shall be employed on other things of more concern!

Zeemax,

``Your entire thesis is that USA has made terrible mistakes in Iraq and USA needs to correct them. You are wrong on both counts. USA did exactly what it wanted to do and the results are exactly what USA wants.``

Yes indeed! Invading Iraq was a mistake. Yes, I know about America`s aims and objectives of controlling all the natural resources and political activities in Central Asia and the Middle East in order to keep China, Russia, Europe and Pakistan in check, but the way it is being pursued, needs an introspection. America`s invasion of Iraq has been backfiring all throughout. If you have read (if you have not, then read it) Bob Woodward`s Plan of Attack, you would surely come to know about how America planned the invasion and as to how was it meddling into Iraqi affairs after Operation Desert Storm! I will not go into the details about how the occupation/invasion and how it has been carried out, for I leave it for detailed analysis in the next part of this series of essays about Iraq on which I am working now adays!

``The international community has had to bear the brunt of high oil prices but not the Americans because gas at $3 a gallon is well within reach when family incomes in USA have grown by 5%+ every year, and now gas is back to previous levels. In the meantime, Exxon Mobil posted the largest quarterly profit in US history of $9.9bn. Plus there`s a fire-sale of Iraqi assets going on.``

All this might be true, but your arguement that the Americans are getting all the richer after this war might not be true if you venture out of the oil and defence industries and the Jewisdh lobby. I mean, look at the masses. Unemployment is rising, inflation has shown a rise recently, yeah, taxes might not be rising, but certainly the middle class is under increasing strain when it comes to paying the bills and the oil prices. This is not only because of the overall higg prices, but also because of reduction in the purchasing power of the dollar in the domestic and international market.


Hurricane Katrina was the one that informed the American masses that how much is their administration pre-occupied with the war in Iraq that it does not have the time to deal with emerging and evolving problems at home. America`s financial treasury is being emptied. Bill Clinton left in 2000 with a surplus of $5.6trillion and Bush so far has given in a budget deficit of $4.6 trillion. This means that the Bush administration`s spending has been at around $10.2 trillion! That surely is the size of China`s and India`s total GDP, perhaps much more than that!

According to Newsweek, the revenues coming in from oil, are less than ten percent of the total war expenditures which have seemingly crossed $300billion. Oil revenues are not being of benifit to America as a whole. I mean like if oil is coming in so cheap, then why are the American taxpayers paying such a high price???

#27 by rf786

Okay rf. Next time, kindly ensure you have facts to back up your statements. Thanks.

Re: # 28

Many thanks for the kind words, have a nice life...

#25 by rf786

Finished village idiot? At-least you`re down from $283 billion to $172 billion. Keep going ...!

Re: # 26

Calling ppl names is your only escape cause u have nothing meaningful to add....why dont u give yourself a break and stop embarrasing your heritage.....

Ref: 24 Contd:

Data released by DOE a US Govt agency is considered to be the least reliable since it does not have the same credibility as that of the IEA which is an independent agency. More importantly, it is on the interest of the US Govt to paint a rosy picture of Iraq.

Numbers we have assumed for our analytical purposes ignores the fact that Iraqi oil proceeds did not accrue any benefit to the US in the year 2003 as the war continued till the end of year. Niether does it include costs paid for extracting oil and shipment cost. We have made exceptions for these important factors to satisfy Zee`s anti-US paranoia.

Having calculated revenues collected and cost incurred we still have a shortfall of US$172Billion.

As for the refining side of the business, well if US forces can guard Iraqi oil fields with such diligence then why not iraqi refineries? After all, refining is the downstream business which has been a great source of increased revenues in this tight gasoline market. Fact is, ppl like Zee and Dr Dread have no fkng idea of economics, politics or anything else. These kinda ppl are a pack of drones who are brainwashed because of their inadequate existence and jaundiced view of life.

The end....

ZeeTv & Dr Dread (Hum pyala, hum niwala)

According to International Energy Agency (IEA) and OPEC, Iraq was producing 2.48MMB/D in February of 2003, invasion statrted on 20th March 2003. As of August 2006, Iraqi oil production is 1.94MMB/D ie a shortfall of 540K/D. These numbers can be verified through IEA website or Bloomberg sources.

According to US Govt released data and reported by mainstream press, war effort from 2003-2006 has incurred cost of US$283Billion. Now let us re-examine Zee`s thesis and I quote:

``However my contention is that all the war expenses including imports for domestic consumption is being met from Iraqi oil, while you have said the war is being financed through debt. How so? Where have the $200 billion+ oil revenues in 4 years been spent?``

In order to ascertain actual revenues generated oneneeds to know the real production numbers and oil prices. Listed as follows data provided by IEA:

Production Oil Price Days Revenues (Ann)
2003 1431 x 31 x 240 = 10,646,640
2004 2034 x 42 x 360 = 30,754,080
2005 1813 x 57 x 360 = 37,202,760
2006 1906 x 70 x 240 = 32,020,800

TOTAL REVENUES Generated by Iraqi oil production 110,624,280
US Govt Spending for same period 283,000,000

Net Shortfall: (172,375,720)

#22 by DrDr

One factor is that Iraqi oil is the cheapest in the world to extract at less than $5 a barrel, while refining is the expensive part. Americans don`t want to refine Iraqi oil in Iraq. They`re making money left right and centre ... i.e `loot mar at an unimaginable scale`.

zeemax, u`r absolutely right that iraqi oil is shipped out of basra while oil for domestic consumption is imported. Theres a severe shortage of gasoline domestically & theres a thriving black market.
The oil revenues r supposed 2 be spent on infrastructure development but instead its going to service debt, pay 4 security & food subsidies, ngo`s etc.

#17 by DrDr

Thanks for bringing up the point of imports for domestic consumption. Actually it appears the refineries are not functional and all the oil is being shipped in crude form by the contractors, while refined products are being imported from Kuwait. That is why there was the big scandal of Halliburton ripping off Pentagon with highly inflated prices for Kuwaiti petroleum.

In fact immediately after the occupation, the oil shipped out of Iraq was not even metered. Just pumped and sent off.

However my contention is that all the war expenses including imports for domestic consumption is being met from Iraqi oil, while you have said the war is being financed through debt. How so? Where have the $200 billion+ oil revenues in 4 years been spent?

#16 by radio-fraud786

Ok watch my lips:

I said: Iraq is pumping oil at pre-war levels.

You challenged: ``Iraqi oil is pumping at pre-war levels? For starters do u even know how much oil Iraq was producing pre-invasion?``

I proved: ``Iraq is not only back to producing at pre-war levels but in fact producing more than pre-war levels.``

You backtracked with: ``Iraqi production was lets be generous and assume ....blah blah`` But then started to chase your tail trying to clutch at straws by surmising how much revenue would have been generated, when that was not the debate.

So, it is clear that you are an un-informed ignoramus. You should stick to your area of expertise in being the head-gofur for some ABCXYZ Corp Inc in hicksville.

As for my lack of `basic manners of debate`, it is just that I respect informed debate but do not suffer fools gladly who do not even know the basic facts of what they`re arguing about!

Re: # 18

Hey HotLips
I hope u dont mind me calling u hotlips cause Iam simply following your given directions: ``Ok watch my lips``....

Your statement, the basis of debate:

``Do you see taxes going up in the US to fund their war effort through taxpayer money? The answer is no. Iraqis paid for their destruction and they will pay for their reconstruction``

Now go back to your supporting theory and suck on it....cause its not worth discussing anymore with a imbecile, blunderbuss....