Was The Iraq War All About Oil?

[zeke]

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?

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.

If we wanted petroleum to flow from Iraq all we had to do was lift sanctions. It would have flowed just fine.
Next.

Silly rabbit. It is not that we wanted the actual OIL from the oil fields of Iraq. Though we don't have any problem with running their drilling operations and oil shipping terminals etc etc. I do believe that all the huge oil companies get pretty good contracts to produce oil for the Iraqi government.

No, what our invasion did for ALL the oil companies was drive the price of oil, no matter where it was produced to the point where the oil companies have been able to book record profits quarter after quarter, almost since the invasion.

Any time the mid east is disrupted, the price of ALL oil goes crazy. Why you think gas prices have been fluctuating like they have? ISIS and our re intervention. Watch the future prices of oil. War in the ME, whether it be Iraq or not, is like Christmas to the oil companies.

War war war = profit profit profit.

 

[kaz]

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?

Once again you don't read what I write and you inanely equate me with the liberals, who are morons. Even when they are right they are wrong.

You did not ask and I did not say we invaded to control Iraqi oil. You asked if the war was over oil and I said we are in the middle east for oil. It's the reason we are there in their back yard all over their business. I also said oil was not the proximate cause of the war, you can google what that means.

 

[kaz]

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.

Just like the liberals you won't look at what the word means and show where he isn't a neocon, you just say what, of course he's not? LOL. You can't show where he's not because he is. He's a tax and spend liberal obviously, and he freely uses the military to drive countries to the form of government he chooses. That ... is a neocon.

 

[kaz]

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.

"New Conservative" is not a definition. It's another term for it. Do you know why they are called "new" conservatives? That's the key question, homey.

 

[Figaro]

I think, that Iraq is an indicator. Some kind a large and clear indicator of American foreign policy. 11 years of continuous deaths of our guys. For what? To prevent the terrorist threat to the whole world. Yeah, that's it...But wait, why the US has assumed the duties of world policeman? Awkward question...

 

[konradv]

I think, that Iraq is an indicator. Some kind a large and clear indicator of American foreign policy. 11 years of continuous deaths of our guys. For what? To prevent the terrorist threat to the whole world. Yeah, that's it...But wait, why the US has assumed the duties of world policeman? Awkward question...

Initiated by a guy that ran on a "no nation building" plank. There was no smoking gun like in Afghanistan, just a ginned up claim of an "immediate threat" and fantastical visions of mushroom clouds that were totally imaginary.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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 about oil (heh.) Iraq annexed Kuwait, a major oil producer. With hungry eyes on KSA, and in order to sustain the status quo, the region united behind the biggest oil gluttons and kicked them out. Was no thought then of poor little Christians or other groups being threatened, it was purely about oil.

 

[Mr. H.]

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 about oil (heh.) Iraq annexed Kuwait, a major oil producer. With hungry eyes on KSA, and in order to sustain the status quo, the region united behind the biggest oil gluttons and kicked them out. Was no thought then of poor little Christians or other groups being threatened, it was purely about oil.

U.S. Imports from Iraq of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products (Thousand Barrels)

Bitch

Slap

 

[Penelope]

Making the mid east a safer place for Israel.

Context of 'July 8, 1996: Neoconservative Think Tank Advocates Aggressive Israeli Foreign Policy

Some will later suspect that Cheney and others were actually implementing Lewis’s idea by invading Iraq. Chas Freeman, former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, will say in May 2003, just after the invasion, “The neoconservatives’ intention in Iraq was never to truly build democracy there. Their intention was to flatten it, to remove Iraq as a regional threat to Israel.” [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 330-337]

Context of 'July 8, 1996: Neoconservative Think Tank Advocates Aggressive Israeli Foreign Policy'

That's exactly right.

 

[Impenitent]

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 about oil (heh.) Iraq annexed Kuwait, a major oil producer. With hungry eyes on KSA, and in order to sustain the status quo, the region united behind the biggest oil gluttons and kicked them out. Was no thought then of poor little Christians or other groups being threatened, it was purely about oil.

U.S. Imports from Iraq of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products (Thousand Barrels)

Bitch

Slap

Couldn't have done that without Haliburton, who Dick Cheney guided out of bankruptcy with. 39 billion in contracts.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

So why didnt Bush simply lift sanctions and buy oil like everyone else?

 

[The Rabbi]

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".

You get your ass handed to you and I'm playing games? No. Your point was refuted by the facts.
Saddam's treatment of Iraqis was also not the cause of the war. Please start paying attention. This has been gone over many times.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Once again you don't read what I write and you inanely equate me with the liberals, who are morons. Even when they are right they are wrong.

You did not ask and I did not say we invaded to control Iraqi oil. You asked if the war was over oil and I said we are in the middle east for oil. It's the reason we are there in their back yard all over their business. I also said oil was not the proximate cause of the war, you can google what that means.

The Middle East represents an area of interest to us because of oil, OK I can buy that. But the Iraq war was not caused by the US wanting oil. WHich is what libs consistently seem to believe.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Just like the liberals you won't look at what the word means and show where he isn't a neocon, you just say what, of course he's not? LOL. You can't show where he's not because he is. He's a tax and spend liberal obviously, and he freely uses the military to drive countries to the form of government he chooses. That ... is a neocon.

No, he does not. He shied away from engaging in Libya, leaving a mess. He was absent during the Arab Spring. He didnt take sides in Egypt. He supportd Morsi until he opposed Morsi. He did next to nothing on Ukraine. He has disengaged from South America, except the incudent in Honduras where he supported the Chavez wannabe. He refused to lead on any number of international issues. He is the opposite of a neo-con. He is a lot closer to what libertarians want than anything neo con.

 

[konradv]

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".

You get your ass handed to you and I'm playing games? No. Your point was refuted by the facts.
Saddam's treatment of Iraqis was also not the cause of the war. Please start paying attention. This has been gone over many times.

You're willing to twist any argument to fit your own bias, so pardon me, if I take your analysis with a rather large grain of salt. If it wasn't about how Saddam treated the Iraqis, why was it called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" or was that as bogus as the claim that there were masses of WMDs? I AM paying attention. That's why I can so easily call you on all your double talk.

 

[The Rabbi]

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".

You get your ass handed to you and I'm playing games? No. Your point was refuted by the facts.
Saddam's treatment of Iraqis was also not the cause of the war. Please start paying attention. This has been gone over many times.

You're willing to twist any argument to fit your own bias, so pardon me, if I take your analysis with a rather large grain of salt. If it wasn't about how Saddam treated the Iraqis why was it called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" or was that as bogus as the claim that there were masses of WMDs? I AM paying attention. That's why I can so easily call you on all your double talk.

Wow, pointing out you were wrong on the facts is now twisting the argument. I dont suppose you could juts admit you were wrong and go one, right?
It doesnt matter what it was called. What matters were the stated reasons for the war, as laid out in the COngressional resolution. Yeah, among them was ending the tyranny of Saddam, but that was one reason among many. And that's why we dont go into North Korea.
I realize the idea that there are multiple reasons for something is too complicated for you to grok. That's why you're a lib.

 

[BlindBoo]

Overall, yes. It was a combination of getting the oil flowing into the world market, and also Saddam threatening to sell oil in Euros.

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.

Iraq's oil was nationalize. After the war they were not and multi-national oil companies got contracts to develop them.

 

[The Rabbi]

Overall, yes. It was a combination of getting the oil flowing into the world market, and also Saddam threatening to sell oil in Euros.

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.

Iraq's oil was nationalize. After the war they were not and multi-national oil companies got contracts to develop them.

And none of those contracts went to American companies.
But so what? If we wanted oil, all we had to do was lift sanctions. The oil would have flowed.

 

[BlindBoo]

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?

If it wasn't about oil, what was the point? ... .

The Point was to remove from power, the world's most prolific promoter of international Islamic Terrorism, particularly as proxy fighters to attack the US, her interests and allies, who was in the post 9-11 paradigm in whole breach of its obligations to the international community and a clear and present danger to the people of the United States.

BS, Iraq had not been involved in international terrorism against the USA since at least 1993. and only supported a small group of fighters inside Palestine as well as a group inside of Iran. Iraq was no threat to the worlds remaining superpower.

 

[konradv]

You get your ass handed to you and I'm playing games? No. Your point was refuted by the facts.
Saddam's treatment of Iraqis was also not the cause of the war. Please start paying attention. This has been gone over many times.

You're willing to twist any argument to fit your own bias, so pardon me, if I take your analysis with a rather large grain of salt. If it wasn't about how Saddam treated the Iraqis why was it called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" or was that as bogus as the claim that there were masses of WMDs? I AM paying attention. That's why I can so easily call you on all your double talk.

Wow, pointing out you were wrong on the facts is now twisting the argument. I dont suppose you could juts admit you were wrong and go one, right?
It doesnt matter what it was called. What matters were the stated reasons for the war, as laid out in the COngressional resolution. Yeah, among them was ending the tyranny of Saddam, but that was one reason among many. And that's why we dont go into North Korea.
I realize the idea that there are multiple reasons for something is too complicated for you to grok. That's why you're a lib.

I mentioned WMDs, didn't I? I notice you wouldn't touch that one with a ten foot pole, proving you'd rather play games with the facts than confront the truth. Why should we believe your contention that oil wasn't the number one reason. You've proven yourself to be unreliable at every turn. You'd rather just just make snide comments about libs. Intellectually dishonest, IMO.