Was The Iraq War All About Oil?

[LeftofLeft]

Here's a chance fro the left to show how truly stupid and dysfunctional they are. Many commentators have written that "of course the war was primarily about getting Iraqi oil." (Go Google it if you dnt believe me).
Do you agree with that?

It is as much about Oil then as it is now. WE are an OIL DRIVEN ECONOMY. The Left knows this but like to appease their base about hating it. OIL WORKS.

 

[blackhawk]

Here's a chance fro the left to show how truly stupid and dysfunctional they are. Many commentators have written that "of course the war was primarily about getting Iraqi oil." (Go Google it if you dnt believe me).
Do you agree with that?

The current crude oil and gas prices say no to that theory.

 

[dilloduck]

Here's a chance fro the left to show how truly stupid and dysfunctional they are. Many commentators have written that "of course the war was primarily about getting Iraqi oil." (Go Google it if you dnt believe me).
Do you agree with that?

It is as much about Oil then as it is now. WE are an OIL DRIVEN ECONOMY. The Left knows this but like to appease their base about hating it. OIL WORKS.

Partially but is oil the reason the neocons pushed for attacking Iraq? If so could you link that please ?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Here's a chance fro the left to show how truly stupid and dysfunctional they are. Many commentators have written that "of course the war was primarily about getting Iraqi oil." (Go Google it if you dnt believe me).
Do you agree with that?

It is as much about Oil then as it is now. WE are an OIL DRIVEN ECONOMY. The Left knows this but like to appease their base about hating it. OIL WORKS.

When you look at a map, it also had a lot to do with logistics. Keep Iraq in chaos with any silly notion, say trying to instill democracy in a 1000-year-old sheikdom for instance, and you can physically disrupt any kind of monopoly on oil production from the most prolific oil producing area of the world dominated by a people who don't care much for Christians and the West.

Iraq is literally in the middle of all of this, geographically speaking.

 

[konradv]

The far left revisionist history on this subject will be one of it was about the oil, 100%.

Anyone that lives reality knows that is not true.
(snippage)
The Iraq people have been enslaved and ruled by dictators for a very long time, to get them to rise up is not an easy task. Although they did try and rise up against Saddam after the Cease Fire agreement. However the might of Saddam is was still powerful. He was able to use attack helicopters to put down any resistance.

No if you go back before the discovery of OIL, you notice that this region has always been a violent region, OIL did play a part. However the role of OIL was very low compared to the far left propaganda.

The region will stay violent even if there was no OIL.

You're not too bright, are you? If there was no oil, we wouldn't have bothered in the first place. Bush proved that we aren't about freeing people or he would have made sure Afghanistan was done fiist. Why didn't he? NO OIL.

There are plenty of places with oppressive governments. Why go into Iraq? Your analysis is simplistic and shows it's all about toeing the party line and has very little to do with reality.

 

[konradv]

If we wanted to get Iraq's oil flowing to world markets all we had to do was lift sanctions.
So that's a fail.

The war began in 1991. Because of the professed threat to 'our' oil.

The war ended with the ceasefire in 1991. Why did Bush invade Iraq in 2001? Was it because of Iraq's oil? If he wanted Iraq's oil wouldn't it have been cheaper just lift sanctions and buy it like everyone else?

Maybe it wasn't about oil, but by saying that you're admitting Bush was as stupid as many said. You can't have it both ways, son.

 

[dilloduck]

The far left revisionist history on this subject will be one of it was about the oil, 100%.

Anyone that lives reality knows that is not true.
(snippage)
The Iraq people have been enslaved and ruled by dictators for a very long time, to get them to rise up is not an easy task. Although they did try and rise up against Saddam after the Cease Fire agreement. However the might of Saddam is was still powerful. He was able to use attack helicopters to put down any resistance.

No if you go back before the discovery of OIL, you notice that this region has always been a violent region, OIL did play a part. However the role of OIL was very low compared to the far left propaganda.

The region will stay violent even if there was no OIL.

You're not too bright, are you? If there was no oil, we wouldn't have bothered in the first place. Bush proved that we aren't about freeing people or he would have made sure Afghanistan was done fiist. Why didn't he? NO OIL.

There are plenty of places with oppressive governments. Why go into Iraq? Your analysis is simplistic and shows it's all about toeing the party line and has very little to do with reality.

Saudi Arabia and Iran have oil and we didn't invade them. Maybe it's NOT all about oil.

 

[konradv]

The far left revisionist history on this subject will be one of it was about the oil, 100%.

Anyone that lives reality knows that is not true.
(snippage)
The Iraq people have been enslaved and ruled by dictators for a very long time, to get them to rise up is not an easy task. Although they did try and rise up against Saddam after the Cease Fire agreement. However the might of Saddam is was still powerful. He was able to use attack helicopters to put down any resistance.

No if you go back before the discovery of OIL, you notice that this region has always been a violent region, OIL did play a part. However the role of OIL was very low compared to the far left propaganda.

The region will stay violent even if there was no OIL.

You're not too bright, are you? If there was no oil, we wouldn't have bothered in the first place. Bush proved that we aren't about freeing people or he would have made sure Afghanistan was done fiist. Why didn't he? NO OIL.

There are plenty of places with oppressive governments. Why go into Iraq? Your analysis is simplistic and shows it's all about toeing the party line and has very little to do with reality.

Saudi Arabia and Iran have oil and we didn't invade them. Maybe it's NOT all about oil.

Then the invasion was doubly stupid. Thanks for confirming what I've been saying since '03.

 

[Kosh]

The far left revisionist history on this subject will be one of it was about the oil, 100%.

Anyone that lives reality knows that is not true.
(snippage)
The Iraq people have been enslaved and ruled by dictators for a very long time, to get them to rise up is not an easy task. Although they did try and rise up against Saddam after the Cease Fire agreement. However the might of Saddam is was still powerful. He was able to use attack helicopters to put down any resistance.

No if you go back before the discovery of OIL, you notice that this region has always been a violent region, OIL did play a part. However the role of OIL was very low compared to the far left propaganda.

The region will stay violent even if there was no OIL.

You're not too bright, are you? If there was no oil, we wouldn't have bothered in the first place. Bush proved that we aren't about freeing people or he would have made sure Afghanistan was done fiist. Why didn't he? NO OIL.

There are plenty of places with oppressive governments. Why go into Iraq? Your analysis is simplistic and shows it's all about toeing the party line and has very little to do with reality.

Yes I know far left propaganda and programming rules your life, and yes to you the history of Iraq did not start until 2003.

Here is the part of my original post you snipped out:

Since to the far left the History of Iraq began in 2003, it will be hard for them to comprehend this post.

And you just proved my comments!

 

[Rikurzhen]

There is one cold fact of life on planet Earth.....That is the economy of the entire world depends upon the free flow of petroleum.

This condition is in the national interest of every modern country on the planet.

The problem for America is that most of the world are free riders and don't pay their fair share for the military presence needed to keep oil transit routes free from military intervention.

 

[Bfgrn]

Here's a chance fro the left to show how truly stupid and dysfunctional they are. Many commentators have written that "of course the war was primarily about getting Iraqi oil." (Go Google it if you dnt believe me).
Do you agree with that?

Hey are you trying to prove you are a turd brain?

Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq

Paul O'Neill, Bush's first treasury secretary


And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

"The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election."

CBS News
The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.
But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, Suskind writes that O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

"Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand," says Suskind. "He says, 'You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.' … O'Neill is speechless."

 

[MaryL]

Good question. Bin Laden wasn't ever there. The people that attacked us on 9/11, not there. BUT, I am seeing a trend here. Can you spot it? oil? NOPE. They build stuff, light rail, airports, highways. They make good money and they are running the place, not the people that vote. don't kid yourselves, follow the money.

 

[konradv]

The far left revisionist history on this subject will be one of it was about the oil, 100%.

Anyone that lives reality knows that is not true.
(snippage)
The Iraq people have been enslaved and ruled by dictators for a very long time, to get them to rise up is not an easy task. Although they did try and rise up against Saddam after the Cease Fire agreement. However the might of Saddam is was still powerful. He was able to use attack helicopters to put down any resistance.

No if you go back before the discovery of OIL, you notice that this region has always been a violent region, OIL did play a part. However the role of OIL was very low compared to the far left propaganda.

The region will stay violent even if there was no OIL.

You're not too bright, are you? If there was no oil, we wouldn't have bothered in the first place. Bush proved that we aren't about freeing people or he would have made sure Afghanistan was done fiist. Why didn't he? NO OIL.

There are plenty of places with oppressive governments. Why go into Iraq? Your analysis is simplistic and shows it's all about toeing the party line and has very little to do with reality.

Yes I know far left propaganda and programming rules your life, and yes to you the history of Iraq did not start until 2003.

Here is the part of my original post you snipped out:

Since to the far left the History of Iraq began in 2003, it will be hard for them to comprehend this post.

And you just proved my comments!

Sorry, but you haven't proven it wasn't all about oil. TRY AGAIN!!!

 

[Kosh]

You're not too bright, are you? If there was no oil, we wouldn't have bothered in the first place. Bush proved that we aren't about freeing people or he would have made sure Afghanistan was done fiist. Why didn't he? NO OIL.

There are plenty of places with oppressive governments. Why go into Iraq? Your analysis is simplistic and shows it's all about toeing the party line and has very little to do with reality.

Yes I know far left propaganda and programming rules your life, and yes to you the history of Iraq did not start until 2003.

Here is the part of my original post you snipped out:

Since to the far left the History of Iraq began in 2003, it will be hard for them to comprehend this post.

And you just proved my comments!

Sorry, but you haven't proven it wasn't all about oil. TRY AGAIN!!!

And once again you prove my comments:

Since to the far left the History of Iraq began in 2003, it will be hard for them to comprehend this post.

Yep would never be in Iraq, but for some reason we were involved with Iraq since the 60's, but then again who cares about History. Certainly not the far left.

Here some more history that the far left will ignore since dates back further than 2003:

American commercial interaction with the Ottoman Empire (which included the area that later became modern Iraq) began in the late 1700s

.

Iraq?United States relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And all the far left talking points and propaganda shot down.

 

[konradv]

Since to the far left the History of Iraq began in 2003, it will be hard for them to comprehend this post.

Yep would never be in Iraq, but for some reason we were involved with Iraq since the 60's, but then again who cares about History. Certainly not the far left.

Here some more history that the far left will ignore since dates back further than 2003:

American commercial interaction with the Ottoman Empire (which included the area that later became modern Iraq) began in the late 1700s

.

Iraq?United States relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And all the far left talking points and propaganda shot down.

All I see is a failure to confront the fact that the war was about oil, while providing us with cites that prove the area is awash in oil. I think you need to take a break. You're over your head, son.

 

[dilloduck]

You're not too bright, are you? If there was no oil, we wouldn't have bothered in the first place. Bush proved that we aren't about freeing people or he would have made sure Afghanistan was done fiist. Why didn't he? NO OIL.

There are plenty of places with oppressive governments. Why go into Iraq? Your analysis is simplistic and shows it's all about toeing the party line and has very little to do with reality.

Saudi Arabia and Iran have oil and we didn't invade them. Maybe it's NOT all about oil.

Then the invasion was doubly stupid. Thanks for confirming what I've been saying since '03.

So what was your final answer as to why the US invaded Iraq ?

 

[Kosh]

Since to the far left the History of Iraq began in 2003, it will be hard for them to comprehend this post.

Yep would never be in Iraq, but for some reason we were involved with Iraq since the 60's, but then again who cares about History. Certainly not the far left.

Here some more history that the far left will ignore since dates back further than 2003:

American commercial interaction with the Ottoman Empire (which included the area that later became modern Iraq) began in the late 1700s

.

Iraq?United States relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And all the far left talking points and propaganda shot down.

All I see is a failure to confront the fact that the war was about oil, while providing us with cites that prove the area is awash in oil. I think you need to take a break. You're over your head, son.

I see the far left would much rather let the world burn than admit they were wrong.

Once again proving my original comments:

Since to the far left the History of Iraq began in 2003, it will be hard for them to comprehend this post.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991

Senate Joint Resolution 2 was approved in the United States Senate on January 12, 1991 by a vote of 52 to 47.

<...snipped in several places...>

Approved 52-47 at 2:44 PM EST on Saturday, January 12, 1991. Democrats: 10-45. 10 (18%) of 56 Democratic Senators voted for the resolution: John Breaux, Richard Bryan, Al Gore, Bob Graham, Howell Heflin, Bennett Johnston, Joe Lieberman, Harry Reid, Chuck Robb, Richard Shelby

House Joint Resolution 77 was approved in the United States House of Representatives on January 12, 1991 by a vote of 250 to 183

Democrats: 86-179. 86 (32%) of 267 Democrats voted for the resolution

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

The far left revisionist history on this subject will be one of it was about the oil, 100%.

Anyone that lives reality knows that is not true.
(snippage)
The Iraq people have been enslaved and ruled by dictators for a very long time, to get them to rise up is not an easy task. Although they did try and rise up against Saddam after the Cease Fire agreement. However the might of Saddam is was still powerful. He was able to use attack helicopters to put down any resistance.

No if you go back before the discovery of OIL, you notice that this region has always been a violent region, OIL did play a part. However the role of OIL was very low compared to the far left propaganda.

The region will stay violent even if there was no OIL.

You're not too bright, are you? If there was no oil, we wouldn't have bothered in the first place. Bush proved that we aren't about freeing people or he would have made sure Afghanistan was done fiist. Why didn't he? NO OIL.

There are plenty of places with oppressive governments. Why go into Iraq? Your analysis is simplistic and shows it's all about toeing the party line and has very little to do with reality.

Saudi Arabia and Iran have oil and we didn't invade them. Maybe it's NOT all about oil.

We didn't invade Canada either, and that's where 25% of our crude comes from.

 

[Indofred]

Here's a chance fro the left to show how truly stupid and dysfunctional they are. Many commentators have written that "of course the war was primarily about getting Iraqi oil." (Go Google it if you dnt believe me).
Do you agree with that?

No, it was about massive profits for the U.S. arms industry and doing Israel a few favours, as well as oil.

 

[dilloduck]

You're not too bright, are you? If there was no oil, we wouldn't have bothered in the first place. Bush proved that we aren't about freeing people or he would have made sure Afghanistan was done fiist. Why didn't he? NO OIL.

There are plenty of places with oppressive governments. Why go into Iraq? Your analysis is simplistic and shows it's all about toeing the party line and has very little to do with reality.

Saudi Arabia and Iran have oil and we didn't invade them. Maybe it's NOT all about oil.

We didn't invade Canada either, and that's where 25% of our crude comes from.

Exactly-----it wasn't about oil. The Neocons had it all worked out.