backtop

Gadgets OLPC Raises Laptop Price to $175
Michael Hoffman (Blog) - April 28, 2007 4:55 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 52 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on May 1 at 5:25 PM
Even though the price of the OLPC has risen to $175, it is still cheaper than alternative projects

The One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) group recently announced that its low-cost laptop would be raised from $100 up to $175, but the group is still confident that enough orders will be placed for the group to begin mass production before September.  The goal behind the project is planning to offer inexpensive notebook computers to school children in developing nations.

Even with an increased price tag of $175, the notebooks are still much cheaper than what the computer industry has traditionally offered.  OLPC founder Nicholas Negroponte previously stated the price of the notebooks could drop almost 25 percent per year.

A number of factors have caused the increase in the laptop, including design costs and a raise in price of nickel.

"We are perhaps at the most critical stage of OLPC's life," said Negroponte.

Using a modified version of Red hat Linux, the Quanta Computer-built laptop offers users an interface that has pictographic icons instead of traditional windows and folders.

OLPC reportedly already has 2.5 million unit orders, but has to reach the 3 million order mark before May 30, or the group's hardware suppliers will not have enough time to get parts ready, according to Negroponte.

OLPC officials said on Thursday that it may offer laptops to U.S. schools, even though the group previously said that the laptops would be for foreign children only.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Anti-OLPC
By Dactyl on 4/29/2007 1:36:52 AM , Rating: 5
On the news of price increases, children across the third world rioted today, demanding the OLPC project be scrapped in favor of the OPPEFK plan:

One PS3 Per Every Four Kids

Considering that most of them have 3 or more siblings, OPPEFK would mean a Cell Broadband Engine-based Linux machine in most homes. It would provide greater computational resources to the third world (and help cure cancer). Edu-tainment software would take place in a 3D world and instructional videos would be rendered in glorious 1080p.

And no one would make fun of them for having something that looks like a toy.

We're going to need programmers who can handle multithreading. Getting the next generation of youths in Africa started on CBE machines will do more for us in the long run than giving them oversized Tamagotchi machines.

Plus, Sony will make a killing selling them wireless internet add-ons and HDMI cables.




RE: Anti-OLPC
By sulo251 on 4/29/2007 2:04:23 AM , Rating: 3
I fully support this plan! Where do I sign up?!


RE: Anti-OLPC
By Fenixgoon on 4/29/2007 5:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
and how are they going to afford all this electricity that the PS3 consumes by being on and folding?


RE: Anti-OLPC
By KaiserCSS on 4/29/2007 9:14:56 PM , Rating: 3
Did you hear that 'whooshing' sound over your head just now? No?

Well, I suppose that explains it.


RE: Anti-OLPC
By kristof007 on 4/30/2007 3:38:47 PM , Rating: 2
Oh man thanks for the laugh. That's an amazing post.

On a more serious note props to the guys who created the modified Linux OS with an easier navigation interface than windows.


Updates on the article ....
By crystal clear on 4/29/2007 4:58:11 AM , Rating: 5
OLPC has named its laptop as -"Children's Machine 1 (CM1)".

Then comes this-

Update: It looks like the branding is evolving as rapidly as the hardware. MIT media lab faculty member and OLPC project participant Walter Bender replaced every instance of "CM1" in the OLPC wiki with 2B1, the same name used by a tax-exempt non-profit organization founded by Dimitri and Nicholas Negroponte in the '90s. The 2B1 Foundation was re-launched earlier this month with little notice from the press. Sources within the OLPC project have confirmed the 2B1 branding change, but it hasn't yet been officially announced.

The specifications(updated)-

CM1/2B1 features a 400mhz AMD Geode processor (the original prototypes had a 366mhz processor), 128MB of DRAM, built-in wireless support, and 512MB of flash memory for internal storage.

In addition to a faster processor, the CM1 sports several other new features not found in the original prototypes, including an SD card slot, microphone and speaker jacks (potentially for rumored VoIP support), and a digital camera capable of capturing video and still images

The display will feature 1200x900 resolution.

Nicholas Negroponte reveals that the CM1 display "has higher resolution than 95 percent of the laptop displays on the market today.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060825-7593...

Now a simple question-this laptops targeted use is in the UNDERDEVELOPED WORLD, then why do you need to upgrade.

Example-
quote:
a digital camera capable of capturing video and still images


quote:
1200x900 resolution


I ask WHY ?

This drives up the COST-they need something very basic.

Sorry OLPC dont upgrade rather downgrade & stick to the
$100 barrier & logo.




RE: Updates on the article ....
By Spoelie on 4/30/2007 7:16:57 AM , Rating: 3
You cannot deprive third world children of a myspace! how else would they take pictures/webcam vids :'(


RE: Updates on the article ....
By zsouthboy on 4/30/07, Rating: 0
ebooks
By feelingshorter on 4/29/2007 2:46:13 AM , Rating: 2
One good use for this in the USA (as well as other countries) would be digitizing paper books. I'm tired of paying 120 bucks for a book + 60 dollars for "chem/bio/skillbuilder" or "MyMathLab", on top of your actual lab book. Heavy to carry around too. If they make a OLPC with ebooks, students will be able to carry around all their books (and more) in one package.

Why not laptops? Laptops are bigger, heavier and overpowered. You don't need a C2D for a basic ebook reader/word processing program. I want something that can boot up really quick, and don't have any moving parts inside so it will be rigid. I know SSD hard drives are going to replace regular hard drives somewhere in the future but what I'm saying is that we don't need a lot of space. Make OLPCs strictly for educational purposes. Make it so that they can combine, for example, a chemistry book w/ chemskillbuilder and lab book all into one. That way, a student can read, do his/her homework, and turn it in wirelessly either at school or at home. Forgot what you were problems you were assigned in the book for homework? No problem, if someone designs a simple scheduler that shows you all your assignments from all your classes. Each OLPC can be identified by the student id number, with a database to keep records of all the classes that student is taking. Maybe even make it download your homework automatically once you step onto school campus.

As for the screen? High resolution but doesn't need a lot of color dept (since its mostly text).

Laptops are used for a variety of reasons, from gaming (a little) to word processing. But if there is a OLPC designed for educational purposes only, it can use hardware that doesn't need to handle everything, and therefore can be ultra low voltage and slow (how fast can you read :P).

Maybe I'm dreaming, but just as the newspaper industry is suffering, the book industry might follow. Ebooks/audiobooks are the way to go. Journalist are in the business of news reporting, so even if newspaper dies, they still have jobs. Books and education will always be needed, and OLPCs are just a new means of delivery.

but... one thing does bother me... All these guys pushing OLPCs are saying they are doing it for the "3rd world countries" when I can see many benefits for the USA. I can see Carlos Mencia saying "Waaitt a minnuuute" in a retarded person's voice. Its like they are saying "we're helping people in other countries" until someone in the USA realizes the light and pushes the idea through our education system. Companies aren't stupid, so I see it as a hoax to take the moral high ground. They know the massive benefits and will make tons of money in the USA sooner or later.




RE: ebooks
By Dactyl on 4/29/2007 4:17:36 AM , Rating: 2
We will get eBooks as soon as the content owners figure out how to DRM them into uselessness.

For instance, you will be able to buy your textbooks for $60 instead of $80-120, but they will disappear after 1 semester.


RE: ebooks
By michal1980 on 4/29/2007 9:37:13 AM , Rating: 1
already out there, safarix i belive is the sight.


RE: ebooks
By eman 7613 on 4/29/2007 7:12:47 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't matter, its called the PrintScrn button, you can download (or code easily enough) applications that will take a pic of the screen and auto save it into a pdf, jpg, what ever and be done with it.


Why Windows?
By themadmilkman on 4/29/2007 5:31:32 AM , Rating: 2
It's interesting that Windows eventually ended up on the machine. Negroponte was initially very adament that the project use an open-source operating system. He even very publicly turned down Apple's offer of a free OS for the project. At the same time, Bill Gates was publicly opposed to the OLPC project, essentially calling it a waste of time and resources.

And now the OLPC project is using Windows. Does anybody else find that odd?




RE: Why Windows?
By wien on 4/29/2007 8:39:15 AM , Rating: 2
Ummm, what?
quote:
Using a modified version of Red hat Linux, the Quanta Computer-built laptop offers users an interface that has pictographic icons instead of traditional windows and folders.


RE: Why Windows?
By themadmilkman on 4/29/2007 1:16:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, Negroponte disclosed that XO's developers have been working with Microsoft so a version of Windows can run on the machines as well. It could be the $3 software package that Microsoft announced last week for governments that subsidize student computers. It includes Windows XP Starter Edition and some of Microsoft's "productivity" software.


Maybe I've read a little too far into this, but we all know Microsoft's history in allowing competing operating systems to exist. How long until this machine ONLY comes with Windows? How many potential buyers are going to demand that it comes with Windows now that it's a possibility, since "Windows is the standard, and our kids need to learn standards."? My high school did this. Want to take a guess at how useful my classes using Windows 95 were ten years later?

More importantly, it shows a fairly dramatic shift in Negroponte's stand, and one that I don't particularly like.


Whats the point?
By ChipDude on 4/29/2007 12:16:42 PM , Rating: 2
3 million orders is simply too small an order to get economies of scale.

Also whats the point of giving kids in developing countries a PC? It makes good media for this silly fool, but another fine example of pulling on guillible peoples heart strings for a useless cause. Take the 175 bucks and invest that in local infrascture like teachers, buildings, water, food, eletricity will help these children far more then have this silly little laptop that can't even run the programs and applications that 99% of the world use.

If you can't see the motives behidn this silly politicians effort then you have no business commenting on this and spewing BS about gambling, porn, bush and foreign aid.




RE: Whats the point?
By zsouthboy on 4/30/2007 10:44:16 AM , Rating: 2
Nice.

What's the point in giving kids paper and pencils? We could spend that money on more important things!

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps giving millions of children worldwide, most of whom would never come in contact with a computer, much less one that allows them to grasp basic computing concepts on their own time, might somehow be beneficial?


RE: Whats the point?
By mindless1 on 5/1/2007 5:25:47 PM , Rating: 2
When you put it like that, no it won't be beneficial. If this is their ONLY exposure to computers, the skills they learn are completely wasted.

This whole project is about thrusting ideology onto cultures while the ideologists have been making basic presumptions that the quality of life for these people is equivalent to those in 1st world countries who are merely "poor".

If you don't even have an effective enough power grid to run computers, thinking about wind-up toys as being a benefit (instead of, oh, how about A POWER GRID for their basic standards of living increase?) is just crazy.


Now its hard to believe you(OLPC)
By crystal clear on 4/29/2007 3:21:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A number of factors have caused the increase in the laptop, including design costs and a raise in price of nickel


Not convincing-Not acceptable-Stick to your budgets.

Afterall you (OLPC) constantly advertised it as a $100 a piece.

Looks like the $100 a piece was a marketing gimmick.

Publish your COSTING details-Something doesnt smell good here.

Result-Loss of confidence in you OLPC !




By themadmilkman on 4/29/2007 1:19:00 PM , Rating: 2
The extra cost appears to come from the new ability to run Windows. Extra RAM, a higher-resolution screen, etc. Are these things really needed to run a Linux variant? Not really, since a custom variant would be designed for the screen, not the screen designed to contain the interface.


Now it's OLPEOC
By devolutionist on 4/29/2007 12:16:33 PM , Rating: 3
One Laptop Per Every Other Child. $100 is the mark and they should've kept it there.




By xspsi on 4/29/2007 9:32:23 PM , Rating: 2
The specs of this laptop should be on the lines of this:

-333-400mhz cpu (the one chosen isn't bad or they could go with the mobile processors in the PocketPC/Smartphones such as the TI omap or the Intel Xscale processors. Those processors would more efficient and they could make smaller batteries which in turn will make the computer cheaper.) If they are going with a slower processor they could add a video co-processor like the one in the Dell Axim 51v's which will help to accelerate Video and graphics.
-512-1024mb of embedded ROM which will be used to store the OS and any apps although you will probably not have that much left space for a lot of apps. It could be shared Ram/Rom like PPC's so they wouldn't have to spend much money on having additional Ram.
-Compact flash expansion slot. One of the cheapest per MB expansion cards out there. It can even come with a 1 gig CF card for space for apps, pics, docs...etc. I found one for $15 retail.
-Wifi
-800x600 LCD screen. That's all you need. The users are not going to be doing can CAD or Graphics Design on this system.
-Camera should be an attachment....not standard to keep costs down.
-Also if they were trying to cut costs would be to not include a battery but have a port/slot for one.

I'm sure with specs like this and a professional looking case not the Fisher Price my first Calculator look. they can keep in within the original price range and this thing would sell like hot cakes.




By crystal clear on 4/29/2007 5:15:16 AM , Rating: 1
1)Intel has targeted schools in developed countries incl the U.S. with its "Classmate PC".

2) With twice as much memory, twice as much storage capacity, and a significantly faster processor, the Classmate PC outstrips the 2B1 in terms of specs, and manages to do so for just over $100 more. Although some might say that the Classmate PC is a better value than the 2B1 given the pricing.

Plus-

Classmate PC features a 900 Mhz Intel Celeron M processor, 256 MB of RAM, and an embedded version of Windows XP.

3) The Classmate PC's ability to run mainstream commercial software marks a different approach than the One Laptop Per Child project. One hopes Intel will create strong relationships with independent software vendors and get free academic software licenses so that quality applications can be shipped with the machine at no additional cost.

4)Consumers are more interested in affordable computers that can run mainstream desktop software.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060929-7864...




slashdot
By perrywilson78 on 4/29/2007 7:59:18 AM , Rating: 1
This is old news slashdot posted this on the 26th.




Stop bickering
By nitrous9200 on 4/29/2007 4:55:46 PM , Rating: 1
Who really cares how much gets donated or whatever else you guys are talking about? Everybody is entitled to their own opinion but you don't need to start a fight on a news post about a laptop. The article doesn't say anything about tax dollars in any case. The computer sounds like a great idea to bring technology in to countries that don't have it and, hopefully, give them a better education. Maybe they will be able to make their countries better!




175$ becomes the price
By nerdye on 4/29/07, Rating: -1
RE: 175$ becomes the price
By Oobu on 4/29/07, Rating: 0
RE: 175$ becomes the price
By nah on 4/29/07, Rating: -1
RE: 175$ becomes the price
By masher2 (blog) on 4/29/2007 10:45:11 AM , Rating: 5
> "Americans spend 100 billion USD on gambling...yet the US spends less than 14 billion in aid to other countries."

According to USAID.gov, total foreign assistance in 2005 was $34.360 Billion. That's over twice the amount of the next highest country, and includes only government sums. The figure is dwarfed by private contributions from US citizens, corporations, and institutions, which annually give over 3.5 times as much as does the federal government.


RE: 175$ becomes the price
By nah on 4/29/07, Rating: -1
RE: 175$ becomes the price
By creathir on 4/29/2007 3:17:19 PM , Rating: 5
What does is matter that we spend $100 billion in gambling? So we gamble. Your point? We can spend our money how we like to. We are not REQUIRED to be the world's charity.
The fact that we give more than any other nation on the planet is a testament to how big our hearts are, yet it is just not enough, is it? What would be enough for you? 25% of our GDP? 50%? 75%? What do you want exactly? Why not talk about the utter WASTE in the rest of the world? This really aggravates me when we are chastised for giving, giving, and giving, yet it is never enough.
Why don't you step up if you are so concerned about it, instead of berating us. You certainly have managed to find a way to post on the Internet, a luxury in many societies. You could have spent the money on that computer of yours by donating to a charity.

The point is, it is your money. You spend it like you want to. It is the gambler's money. He spends it as he wants to. It also, is the philanthropists money, and they spend it like they want to.

Stop whining.

- Creathir


RE: 175$ becomes the price
By Oobu on 4/29/2007 5:14:01 PM , Rating: 2
Well said, thank you.


RE: 175$ becomes the price
By nah on 4/30/2007 4:29:36 AM , Rating: 2
I do spend money on charity--as a rule of thumb--10 % of my income is spent on charity--and, yes, i have donated the last five computers that i have possessed to charity--

It's not a question of whining but about making a point--as an economist i understand the basics of aid--aid has been described by critics like Susan George as a 60 bn jetsetting industry. In her words too--never before have so many suffered for the works of so few--a quote which she used to decry the tremendous amount of waste in the aid industry--if 75 % of money which is given in aid is gone to the donor country, i fail to see how aid can be relevant--this is why organisations like the grameen bank have won the Nobel--the greatest aid to poverty has come rom the Third World itself--in the form of micro-credit


RE: 175$ becomes the price
By masher2 (blog) on 4/29/2007 3:24:35 PM , Rating: 5
> "you make no comment about the fact that money is spent on gambling or porn..."

So you feel people shouldn't have the right to spend their own money on whatever they choose? Its even more hypocritical when I'm confident you yourself spend the majority of your own income on yourself, rather than donating it to charitable causes.

> "...or the fact that 2/3rds of aid is tied aid"

2/3 of government aid...or less than 1/5 of total US aid. And I still fail to see the relevance here. If the US government writes a check for someone to buy food with, is it too much to ask that they require the food to be bought from US farmers? You make it sound as if tied aid shouldn't be counted at all. Remember, the dollars may eventually come back to the US...but the products and services purchased with those dollars do not.

> "or the fact that private financial contributions are mostly temporary..."

A statement which is both incorrect and irrelevant. Aid is aid, period. Per capita and in gross totals, US private donations are the largest in the world. Whether that aid is spent on "temporary" food and shelter to keep a person alive after a natural disaster, or "permanent" aid such as building hospitals or water-processing plants, matters not at all.


RE: 175$ becomes the price
By nah on 4/30/2007 4:33:09 AM , Rating: 1
I do spend money on charity--as a rule of thumb--10 % of my income is spent on charity--and, yes, i have donated the last five computers that i have possessed to charity--if you think that money spent on porn is Ok--well ,wonderful

It's not a question of whining but about making a point--as an economist i understand the basics of aid--aid has been described by critics like Susan George as a 60 bn jetsetting industry. In her words too--never before have so many suffered for the works of so few--a quote which she used to decry the tremendous amount of waste in the aid industry--if 75 % of money which is given in aid is gone to the donor country, i fail to see how aid can be relevant--this is why organisations like the grameen bank have won the Nobel--the greatest aid to poverty has come from the Third World itself--in the form of micro-credit


RE: 175$ becomes the price
By othercents on 4/30/2007 1:48:23 PM , Rating: 2
You give someone food you feed them for a day. You teach someone how to farm you feed them for a lifetime.

No matter how much money and food we throw at the problem the problem is still going to exist until someone teaches them how to take care of themselves. If you had a friend that was in need of food, clothing, and a place to stay you would probably invite them over to your place, but if after 6 months they are still in the same situation or worse what would you do? Give them more money and hope it fixes the problem?

Granted there are extenuating circumstances that aid is needed for the short term, but we should also be looking at the long term solutions otherwise we might be paying to feed our friend for a lifetime.

Other


RE: 175$ becomes the price
By Talcite on 4/29/07, Rating: 0
RE: 175$ becomes the price
By masher2 (blog) on 4/29/2007 3:48:03 PM , Rating: 5
> "Ahh yes, the US gave alot of money, but what percentage of the US GDP is that figure?"

If you consider private donations, the US leads the world, both in total dollars and as a percentage of GDP. If you consider public donations only, the US is still first in total dollars, but ranks 20th as a percentage of GDP.

However, that figure doesn't reflect spendings such as the US's financing the lion's share of the UN, the World Bank, and similar organizations. It also doesn't reflect how those aid dollars are spent. France's foreign aid, for instance, is spent almost totally as a lever to advance French foreign interests, or to promote sales of French arms or other products overseas.

Furthermore, it doesn't reflect the disastrous effects of European agricultural subsidies, upon which the EU spends over $40B/year, subsidies which countless organizations have identified as exerting a crushing cost on developing nations, by preventing their primary exports from competing fairly within the EU.

Finally, I have to point out an inherent flaw in your reasoning, that the donating of huge sums to money to corrupt regimes in third-world nations is a moral imperative...or even that its to be desired. Quite often the results of such aid are more negative than positive, and appears to be given more to ease the "white guilt" of the donor rather than to perform any useful purpose. The costs of denying a regime MFN trading status due to human rights violations, or enforcing a trade embargo are never counted as 'foreign aid', but quite often they are far more valuable to the people of that nation than simply writing a check and hoping some small portion of it actually makes it way into their hands.


RE: 175$ becomes the price
By mthambi on 4/29/2007 11:26:22 AM , Rating: 1
I bet that figure includes billions in military aid to Israel, Egypt etc. and reconstruction funding (aka subsidies for Haliburton) for Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

I compiled the per-capita non-military govt aid some years back. The US came at the bottom of the top 20 wealthy countries in the world. (It makes no sense to compare absolute aid. Is it surprising that say Denmark gives a smaller absolute amount of aid than the US?).


RE: 175$ becomes the price
By awer26 on 4/29/2007 1:51:08 PM , Rating: 2
Absolute aid given is just as important as the % given. No, Denmark shouldn't have to give as much as us, and we should definitely give more than them, but we shouldn't have to match percentages. If a person with $1,000,000 gives $500,000 in charity I think it is better than a poor person with $10 gives $5. Recouping the $5 is going to be much easier than the $500k (yes that's an extreme example, but its the same principle)


RE: 175$ becomes the price
By mthambi on 4/30/2007 11:15:58 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think you understand. The comparison is not between a person with $1000000 giving $500000 and one with $10 giving $5. It is between 100 people having $10 each ($1000) giving $500 vs 1 person having $10 giving $5.

To look at it another way, I am sure EU gives a lot more in absolute aid than the US.


RE: 175$ becomes the price
By nerdye on 4/29/07, Rating: -1
RE: 175$ becomes the price
By Oobu on 4/29/07, Rating: 0
RE: 175$ becomes the price
By Samus on 4/29/2007 6:32:05 AM , Rating: 3
dude, didn't you get the memo? you don't need to bother axing people anymore...

NOBODY. LIKES. BUSH.


RE: 175$ becomes the price
By ss284 on 4/29/2007 2:01:53 PM , Rating: 2
As a healthy young male I would have to object to your statement. I like bush. I would even go as far as to say I LOVE bush.


RE: 175$ becomes the price
By creathir on 4/29/2007 3:25:03 PM , Rating: 4
I like Bush. There are some things as a conservative I do not agree with him, but I like Bush.

It could have been worse...
Gore...
*shudders*
or even worse...
Kerry...
*shudders even more*

But, to counter your statement... I like Bush.

Also, it is aSKing, not axing.

Axing is the action used when using an ax, though I would describe it at hacking, or some other verb.

"axing" people would be like cutting them apart.

ASKing is the act of putting a question forth to people.

There is a HUGE difference between the words ask and ax. Just because it is popular in the urban subculture to misuse the phrases, does not make it acceptable in normal everyday language for the rest of the world.

- Creathir


RE: 175$ becomes the price
By dandres87 on 4/29/2007 1:39:26 AM , Rating: 4
Presidents are worthless, merely icons, criticizing "their policies" is pointless. Politicians are puppets for business', such as the ones developing the OLPC. They get positive publicity and politicians get bad publicity when its all business fault. Yes there has been better icon's than Bush, but really, is an icon really worth spending your time criticizing?


RE: 175$ becomes the price
By themadmilkman on 4/29/2007 5:27:06 AM , Rating: 3
The President controls 1/3 of the Government's balance of power. He IS the Executive Branch. Whether he is a mere 'icon,' as you say, or not, his policies can and should be criticized since they play an important role in the development of the country as a whole.

If you really want to argue something, argue how the executive branch has slowly eroded the control that Congress was originally intended to have over the affairs of the country. The Founding Fathers created a government with a relatively weak presidency, because they feared placing too much power into the hands of one man. Or argue that the Supreme Court shouldn't have the powers that it has been granted, how Marbury v. Madison was a poor decision. But please, argue something RATIONALE, not some cockeyed conspiracy theory about how big business controls the government from behind their desks.


RE: 175$ becomes the price
By Spoelie on 4/29/2007 10:48:12 AM , Rating: 2
And those that like punctuation instead of reading something that sounds like gibberish if only in the form of a continuous stream of fanciful words drenched in political correctness and written with little or no effort to sound even slightly cohesive but only work on people's guilt to get a higher rating questionmark


RE: 175$ becomes the price
By joust on 4/29/2007 3:53:39 AM , Rating: 2
Your criticism of US policy seems problematic in a quite a few ways.

First off, you ignore the possibility that other countries act in their own interests. That the US acts in it's own interests as well is no travesty here.

Secondly, presumably you're referring to Iraq here with all this talk of civil wars and oil. You infer, perhaps misguidedly, that the US went to war for oil. You seem to miss very real possibility that the US chose to forsake oil to install a democracy.

Let's assume oil is the main driver behind our policy. We will choose the options that will get us the most oil from as many countries as possible for the least cost.

Had the US truly been so keen on oil at any cost, why didn't the US simply cut a deal with Saddam? I think it quite possible that the US could have simply said, "Alright Saddam, in exchange for not destroying you, just pump us your oil at a nice $.50 a barrel."

For one thing, the French were in favor of dropping sanctions, having funnelled billions of dollars to Saddam in the oil-for-food program. Certainly the Russians would have also agreed, as they love purchasers for weapons and nukes.

For that matter, were the US so hellbent on getting oil, as you presume, why doesn't the US give whatever Iran wants in exchange for oil? Hell, we could give the Iranians the bomb in exchange for oil. What about getting oil from Sudan? We could just let their little genocide go unnoticed.

Clearly, the courses of action I listed are completely ludicrous. Why are they so ludicrous? Because the US values oil much less than you presume. Your assumption is taken to absurdity if actually applied. That the US will start a war (the highest price you can pay for something) mostly for the sake of oil, when other cheap oil-optimizing alternatives exist, is absurd.


RE: 175$ becomes the price
By themadmilkman on 4/29/2007 5:37:49 AM , Rating: 1
No, given the evidence that has come to light, it would appear that we went to war with Iraq because our President wanted to finish what his father did not, namely take Saddam Hussein out of power. The whole process has been littered with examples of the government ignoring facts, promoting lies, and other foolishness. And all for what? A move from a relatively stable, but unfriendly regime, to what now essentially appears to be a turf war between various Iraqi factions, with the unfortunate side effect of killing American soldiers.

But no, we definitely didn't go to war over oil, at least not as a primary concern. Please. There are plenty of oil sources that would have been much easier to capture than Iraq.


"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments







botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki