Why this is not about oil/money

US taxpayers are paying $80B initially for war costs and probably much more later on as reconstruction costs

Iraq's current oil revenues stand at about $10B per year. If the US were even able to get a 50% monopoly over those oil fields, it would take 16 years to just finance the initial cost of the war. The additional bill of reconstruction could take 3 times longer to show returns. And by that time, Iraq probably wouldn't have any oil left.

How can the US possibly economically benefit from this war??

I'm not sure where you are headed here. The cost is born by the US tax payers, while the profit will be realised by US corporations primarily. Since the one receiving the benefit will not bear the cost, why should they care about the cost. The individuals who made the decision will see the benefit, but will not pay the cost. Therefore, why shouldn't it be about oil?

All the more reason to be afraid! Why then? For the pure pleasure of it?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
I'm not sure where you are headed here. The cost is born by the US tax payers, while the profit will be realised by US corporations primarily. Since the one receiving the benefit will not bear the cost, why should they care about the cost. The individuals who made the decision will see the benefit, but will not pay the cost. Therefore, why shouldn't it be about oil?

---

If $260B is coming from the treasury, and corporations only benefit by say $100B in deals, who is paying the other $160B??

The whole 260 billion is coming from the treasury. Where else would it come from? Well, I suppose some will come from the corporations, but the bulk comes from the treasury. Counting projected revenue against cost only works when it is one entity doing both. In this case we are seeing "they spend y, and we make x". The bulk of the cost is spread across the tax base of the US. The entire profit is spread across the bottom lines of a few companies. Interestingly, those companies appear tied to the White House.

If the money wasnt spent on the war it'd been spent on something else... It's not like you pay any more or less taxes wether we went to war or not.

In this case, I disagree. The financing is clearly being done by deficit spending. While I won't pay more taxes in the next year because of borrow and spend policies, somebody will pay, eventually.

However, I don't disagree with the cost of the war, I just can't quite understand the intent of the original post. Was it to say that the war was not about oil, because the cost doesn't balance, or was it to say that it shouldn't have been about oil because the cost doesn't balance?

Either way, I think the point should be that we don't all equally pay, nor do we all equally benefit from the oil (whether or not the war was about oil). Looking at the net cost/benefit for the entire US is a mistake in this case, since individuals made the decision, and individuals (not necessarily the same ones) will benefit.