Was The Iraq War All About Oil?

[konradv]

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.

We haven't invaded North Korea, so it can't have been about freedom, right? Just using your logic.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

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.

We haven't invaded North Korea, so it can't have been about freedom, right? Just using your logic.

Right. We didn't invade Rwanda in 1994 or Darfur in 2003, either.

The U.S. doesn't give a shit about people suffering under dictatorships or genocide. It cares about power and control of resources.

But you add on to that a blithering idiot who has Dick Cheney in his ear and that's a recipe for disaster.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

We haven't invaded North Korea, so it can't have been about freedom, right? Just using your logic.

I never claimed it was about freedom Mr. Strawman. I've told you over and over what is was all about.

 

[konradv]

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

We haven't invaded North Korea, so it can't have been about freedom, right? Just using your logic.

I never claimed it was about freedom Mr. Strawman. I've told you over and over what is was all about.

You must be confused. This thread has been about the choice between freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam or trying to insure the oil supply. If you've been blabbering about something else, it's just an attempt to hijack the thread.

 

[dilloduck]

We haven't invaded North Korea, so it can't have been about freedom, right? Just using your logic.

I never claimed it was about freedom Mr. Strawman. I've told you over and over what is was all about.

You must be confused. This thread has been about the choice between freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam or trying to insure the oil supply. If you've been blabbering about something else, it's just an attempt to hijack the thread.

You better read it again---nothing about anyone's freedom in the OP

 

[Londoner]

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?

You should read the most intelligent policy paper written by members of the Bush defense team. Bill Clinton was persuaded by it, which is why he made regime change in Iraq an official policy of the United States Government in the late 90s.

Here is the paper.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

It's not simply about oil. Why would we ever give our enemies the ability to use their control over global energy supplies as a weapon to shut down the global economy? We have no choice but to use our military to prevent the wrong people from taking over the region.

Do you understand things like oil currency which is priced in dollars? Do you know how much oil would cost if oil wasn't priced in dollars? This is not a partisan issue; in fact Right leaning commentators are more vocal about it than your enemies on the Left. The USA benefits immensely when there is a demand for dollars. Do you realize that Hussein was leading a move to abandon the dollar for the Euro? This isn't merely about some Texas oilman in the White House trying to steal oilfields, this is about the global and US economies. Oil is an important piece of the puzzle.

The US economy is the most oil dependent in history. It has the most spread out constellation of highways on planet earth. When the price of oil goes up, consumers have less money to spend on Main Street, and the effect is devastating. Our desire to stabilize the middle east on behalf of our financial interests isn't evil, it is rational. Are you aware of the Carter Doctrine? He identified the importance of the region to our economy and said that the US would defend its interests by force.

Keep in mind that the Russian Threat during the Cold War gave the US a context for intervening in resource-rich parts of the 3rd world, i.e., places that could satisfy capitalism's immense need for resources. When we lost our Cold War enemy, we lost a long-standing context for intervention in vital regions. Meaning: we needed the War on Terrorism which replaced the Cold War and allowed us to increase our military footprint across the globe. Our economy is dependent on global resources. It is dependent on more than just the flow of oil. The threat of terrorism allows us to send troop to vital supply chains. Geopolitics is a contact sport. Own it. We use 25% of the world's resources yet we have less than 5% of its population. You don't sustain this kind of imbalance without the occasional use of force. If we didn't do it, someone else would. Welcome to life on planet earth.

Read this if you want to see what motivated Chaney, Bolton, et al.
http://home.aubg.bg/faculty/kpetrov/other/Textbook Downloads/Clark - Petrodollar Warfare.pdf

 

[kaz]

I think the neocons are still running the show but oil and pipelines certainly don't hurt.
Israel is safer.

Are you using words you don't understand, or do you realize Obama is a neocon?

I don't buy that for a second. They just tell him how high to jump. He hasn't a clue and Irsael, the neocons best friend, knows it.

Learn the definition of the word "neocon" and then compare it to Obama's policies.

 

[kaz]

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?

Of course it was. We are not in other hell holes in the world, just the middle east. You can obscure it by talking about the proximate causes of the war, but the only reason we are there the way we are is oil.

You might want to read about how Iraq was created in Paris in 1919.

Nice to see stupidity is not contained to those on the LEft. Although I frequently consider libertarians to be leftists as well.
It would be like saying we went to war in Japan because of oil.

It wouldn't be like that at all, that's retarded. Japan has no oil. They import it all. You didn't learn how Iraq was formed in 1919 in Paris, did you?

Tell me you believe without oil in the middle east we would be in Iraq so everyone with a brain can laugh at you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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:



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.

The Iraq War began in 1991, yes. I posted President Bush's 1990 case for the war,

which was, unequivocally and his own words, primarily about the oil.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

At least you admit we are spending blood and treasure to secure a natural resource that we believe we need from foreign nations.

Tell your pals like Rabbi to sign the confession as well.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Bush invaded on the pretense that Iraq's violations of the ceasefire agreement made invasion necessary, but,

had we not invaded in 1991 - BECAUSE OF THE OIL - there would have been no ceasefire agreement to violate.

 

[Mr. H.]

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?

Bush invaded on the pretense that Iraq's violations of the ceasefire agreement made invasion necessary, but,

had we not invaded in 1991 - BECAUSE OF THE OIL - there would have been no ceasefire agreement to violate.

New York should be invaded for it's shale oil. And natural gas.

End the fracking ban, you morons.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

So if all we care about is oil, why did we go into Afghanistan at all?
And of course your premise is wrong. The Afghanistan War started in Oct 2001, the Iraq War in 2003. Libs are bad at history and math!

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Was there some point you were trying to make there, s0n? You really think Bush said "Let's wage a huge war in Iraq, spend billions of dollars and countless American lives, which will make Republicans real popular at home, so we can take over Iraq's oil fields, which the Iraqis will then lease to the Chinese." And no one bothered to tell him "Mister President, wouldn't it be easier just to lift sanctions?"
Is that what you think happened?

 

[The Rabbi]

Of course it was. We are not in other hell holes in the world, just the middle east. You can obscure it by talking about the proximate causes of the war, but the only reason we are there the way we are is oil.

You might want to read about how Iraq was created in Paris in 1919.

Nice to see stupidity is not contained to those on the LEft. Although I frequently consider libertarians to be leftists as well.
It would be like saying we went to war in Japan because of oil.

It wouldn't be like that at all, that's retarded. Japan has no oil. They import it all. You didn't learn how Iraq was formed in 1919 in Paris, did you?

Tell me you believe without oil in the middle east we would be in Iraq so everyone with a brain can laugh at you.

Of course not. It's hummus. The US developed an insatiable desire for hummus and we need Iraqi recipes to slake it. Go ahead, prove that's wrong.
Again, if we wanted Iraqi oil all we had to do was relax sanctions. So why didnt we?

 

[The Rabbi]

Are you using words you don't understand, or do you realize Obama is a neocon?

I don't buy that for a second. They just tell him how high to jump. He hasn't a clue and Irsael, the neocons best friend, knows it.

Learn the definition of the word "neocon" and then compare it to Obama's policies.

If you think Obama is a neocon you're too far gone in the kool aid.

 

[Charles_Main]

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 Question is so Childish it's almost not worthy of reply. To try and reduce such a complex situation to one trivial Reason is Laughable.

 

[Charles_Main]

I don't buy that for a second. They just tell him how high to jump. He hasn't a clue and Irsael, the neocons best friend, knows it.

Learn the definition of the word "neocon" and then compare it to Obama's policies.

The Definition of the word Neocon. lol It simply means new Conservative. Any other interpretations you may have come up not withstanding.

 

[candycorn]

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?

Yes.

We wouldn't have been there had it not been for 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.

So if all we care about is oil, why did we go into Afghanistan at all?
And of course your premise is wrong. The Afghanistan War started in Oct 2001, the Iraq War in 2003. Libs are bad at history and math!

Now you're just playing games. Bush put Afghanistan on the back burner because it didn't have oil. I know the timeline. Why didn't he finish the one job before starting another, OIL? As I was saying before , if you're right that it wasn't about oil then Bush was doubly stupid, because Saddam's treatment of Iraqis was the Iraqis problem, NOT ours. If you say it was, you'll have to explain why we haven't invaded North Korea. I'm waiting. Don't try to "cut and run".