Iraq and OIL. What was the war about?

Boo Radley · Jan 18, 2012

Catawba said:
The Iraqis did not ask to be "liberated" as you put it, and most of the genocide in Iraq occurred when Saddam was our ally, and Reagan had them removed from the Terrorist's Nations listing. So it wasn't that.

This is largely true.

Hatuey · Jan 18, 2012

ecofarm said:
The US didn't get any oil or even any contracts regarding oil. Why do people still claim it was about oil.

Hahaha... the "US"? We didn't get anything. If you honestly think Joe the Plumber was going to get cheaper oil you're being uncharacteristically naive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/business/energy-environment/15iht-srerussia15.html?pagewanted=all

But read the fine print of those contracts, and companies more familiar to Americans are now poised to benefit handsomely as the oil business picks up in Iraq.

The oil services companies Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Weatherford International and Schlumberger already won lucrative drilling subcontracts and are likely to bid on many more in one of the world’s richest markets for companies that drill oil wells. These days, that is not the oil majors.

Halliburton and Baker Hughes are American, while Schlumberger is based in Paris though its drilling subdivision is headquartered in Houston. Weatherford, though founded in Texas, is now incorporated in Switzerland. “Iraq is a huge opportunity for contractors,” Alex Munton, a Middle East analyst for Wood Mackenzie, a research and consulting firm based in Edinburgh, said by telephone. “There will be an enormous scale of investment.” Mr. Munton estimated roughly half of the expected $150 billion the international majors will spend in capital outlays at Iraqi oil fields over the next decade will go to drilling subcontractors, most of them American.

Halliburton has won drilling and well refurbishment contracts at three of the six major fields, Weatherford International, Schlumberger and Baker Hughes at two others. One Chinese oil-services company is also working on these projects, as is a domestic Iraqi subcontractor, the Iraq Drilling Co.

Iraq signed the production contracts with international oil companies with the goal of increasing its oil output from about 2.4 million barrels a day in 2009 to as much as 12 million barrels a day within six years. So far, output has risen to 2.7 million barrels of oil per day.

beerftw · Jan 18, 2012

watch robert newmans the history of oil and you all will have your answer.you will find that not only was iraq a blood for oil war,so was word war one.the first battles of world war one were fought in mesopotamia,aka iraq.its funny though that ww1 is one of the least covered wars in history yet involved enough people to be claimed a world war.iraq switched to euros threatening our dollar system after he followed irans doing the sameiraq and iran werent enough to damage the dollar but both of them inspired other countries to follow suit,so americas choice was to leave an example of what would happen to any other oil country that abandoned the dollar for oil trading.

if any of ya'll get the chance watch robert newmans the history of oil,not only is it informative but its done by a comedian so you wont fall asleep while he explains everything.

DrunkenAsparagus · Jan 18, 2012

Catawba said:
We did a good job, it just took us years longer than the cakewalk we thought it would be. After the Persian Gulf war and our 10 years of sanctions, Iraq was one of weakest countries on the planet.

What good job? The Iraqi government has given no preference to Western contractors. Instead they've grown ties with Russia, China, and Iran. Oil production took years to reach pre-war levels. If it was all for Bush's oil buddies in Texas, where's the pot of black gold?

Catawba said:
Iraq kicked big oil out of their country when it Nationalized its oil 35 years ago. The only way to get big oil back in was invasion, regime change, occupation and a new oil law, which we accomplished.

Or we could have offered to lift those pesky sanctions in exchange for opening up trade. Seems a whole lot simpler to me.

Catawba said:
Did you miss the banner?

Is this some attempt at a dig or something? I agree that the Iraq War was colossally wasteful, poorly planned, and unnecessary. If the war was over Iraq's oil, it would have been far, far more so. The causes of the war were complex and don't fit into neat little slogans like "Remember 9/11" or "Bush died, a million died."

Catawba · Jan 19, 2012

DrunkenAsparagus said:
What good job? The Iraqi government has given no preference to Western contractors. Instead they've grown ties with Russia, China, and Iran. Oil production took years to reach pre-war levels. If it was all for Bush's oil buddies in Texas, where's the pot of black gold?

Its not about Western contractors, oil is a global commodity, it is about getting big oil back into Iraq for the first time in 35 years, so those who have invested in the global oil market, can continue to rake in record profits, and assure as uninterrupted supply of middle east oil to the US and our partners in the invasion. Read about the perceived necessity of the war spelled out in Cheney's Task force report.

Or we could have offered to lift those pesky sanctions in exchange for opening up trade. Seems a whole lot simpler to me.

The same Nationalized oil law that kept big oil out of Iraq before the sanctions would still have been in place after the sanction. The Iraqi oil law had to be changed and that required a regime change that was US friendly that would agree to change the oil law.

Mission Accomplished!

Peter Grimm · Jan 19, 2012

People really believe that this was about oil assets?

If that were true, why doesn't the United States control Iraqi oil assets today?

If you ask me, I have half a mind to agree with Donald Trump's position - Iraq should have to pay us back the full cost of the Iraq war. We did them and the region a favor by democratizing them. We put our young men at risk and spilled our blood. They SHOULD give us some of their oil. It's the least they can do.

Catawba · Jan 19, 2012

Peter Grimm said:
why doesn't the United States control Iraqi oil assets today?

Why don't people read a thread before they pipe in?

drz-400 · Jan 19, 2012

Catawba said:
Its not about Western contractors, oil is a global commodity, it is about getting big oil back into Iraq for the first time in 35 years, so those who have invested in the global oil market, can continue to rake in record profits, and assure as uninterrupted supply of middle east oil to the US and our partners in the invasion. Read about the perceived necessity of the war spelled out in Cheney's Task force report.

The same Nationalized oil law that kept big oil out of Iraq before the sanctions would still have been in place after the sanction. The Iraqi oil law had to be changed and that required a regime change that was US friendly that would agree to change the oil law.

Mission Accomplished!

The law in Iraq had to change due to a regime change, congratulations at pointing out the obvious. Oil was a huge priority due to a fact that it is 70% of Iraqs income. Believe it or not, without 70% of their income, people will begin to riot and a country will quickly break down, making any sort of military/diplomatic victory impossible. Whether the war was about oil or about fuzzy pink pandas both of these things would have happened. What you have shown in no way proves the Iraq war was fought for big oil companies. And regardless of if or if not it was, why would you be against these things AFTER the invasion, considering that not making the necessary changes to oil laws and not allowing further oil investment in the country by these companies would only prolong and make worse the war you are already against. Either way, your views are completely irrational.

MusicAdventurer · Jan 19, 2012

drz-400 said:
Oil was a huge priority due to a fact that it is 70% of Iraqs income. Believe it or not, without 70% of their income, people will begin to riot and a country will quickly break down, making any sort of military/diplomatic victory impossible.

This seems clear

drz-400 said:
Whether the war was about oil or about fuzzy pink pandas both of these things would have happened.

Right..

drz-400 said:
What you have shown in no way proves the Iraq war was fought for big oil companies.

Are you saying you think that big oil had nothing to do with it, or are you just disagreeing with Catawba?

drz-400 said:
And regardless of if or if not it was, why would you be against these things AFTER the invasion, considering that not making the necessary changes to oil laws and not allowing further oil investment in the country by these companies would only prolong and make worse the war you are already against.

OK, you made a huge jump here ... you may need to explain yourself more clearly... are you saying that involvement in this war was inevitable?

Catawba · Jan 19, 2012

drz-400 said:
The law in Iraq had to change due to a regime change, congratulations at pointing out the obvious. Oil was a huge priority due to a fact that it is 70% of Iraqs income. Believe it or not, without 70% of their income, people will begin to riot and a country will quickly break down, making any sort of military/diplomatic victory impossible. Whether the war was about oil or about fuzzy pink pandas both of these things would have happened. What you have shown in no way proves the Iraq war was fought for big oil companies. And regardless of if or if not it was, why would you be against these things AFTER the invasion, considering that not making the necessary changes to oil laws and not allowing further oil investment in the country by these companies would only prolong and make worse the war you are already against. Either way, your views are completely irrational.

No, I didn't prove it was about oil. Cheney's report Energy Challenges for the 21st Century together with the most powerful country on the planet invading and occupying for almost a decade one of the weakest countries on the planet is what proves it. Without our regime change and the new oil law we wrote for them and propped them up to support, big oil would still be locked out of Iraq today.

Some evidently think property rights stop at the US borders.

drz-400 · Jan 19, 2012

MusicAdventurer said:
Are you saying you think that big oil had nothing to do with it, or are you just disagreeing with Catawba?

Disagreeing. I didn't make the claim.

OK, you made a huge jump here ... you may need to explain yourself more clearly... are you saying that involvement in this war was inevitable?

I am saying, given a situation where we had already invaded Iraq, not changing the oil laws or not allowing investment by big oil companies in Iraq would have made the war longer and worse. Whether you are for or against the invasion, you would want to support changing the oil laws and allowing big oil investment for those reasons.

drz-400 · Jan 19, 2012

Catawba said:
No, I didn't prove it was about oil. Cheney's report Energy Challenges for the 21st Century together with the most powerful country on the planet invading and occupying for almost a decade one of the weakest countries on the planet is what proves it.

Iraq was thought to be in violation of NPT and producing nuclear weapons. That would be another reason.

Without our regime change and the new oil law we wrote for them and propped them up to support, big oil would still be locked out of Iraq today.

No ****, but if this war was about oil or not we would have done the same things, as I have explained numerous times.

Catawba · Jan 19, 2012

drz-400 said:
Iraq was thought to be in violation of NPT and producing nuclear weapons. That would be another reason.

No they were not, our own intelligence agency confirmed they were not, not to mention the 700 inspections by the UN, which is why the UN would not authorize use of force against them.

No ****, but if this war was about oil or not we would have done the same things, as I have explained numerous times.

If Iraq did not contain the 2nd largest oil reserves left on the planet and wasn't just about the weakest military power on the planet, we would have never have invaded and occupied their country for almost a decade. There was absolutely no other reason, which has become clear to most these days.

Even a majority of the Vets from that war say it wasn't worth it.

Peter Grimm · Jan 19, 2012

Catawba said:
Why don't people read a thread before they pipe in?

Do you grasp that some American oil companies in Iraq does not mean that the US controls Iraq's oil assets?

A. US companies are not controlled by the US, they are independent

B. Does the article mention other nation's oil companies in Iraq?

C. Does all the Iraqi oil go directly to the US, or does it get sold on the open market?

Catawba · Jan 19, 2012

Peter Grimm said:
Do you grasp that some American oil companies in Iraq does not mean that the US controls Iraq's oil assets?

A. US companies are not controlled by the US, they are independent

B. Does the article mention other nation's oil companies in Iraq?

C. Does all the Iraqi oil go directly to the US, or does it get sold on the open market?

This was already addressed here:

DaveFagan said:
Western Oil Firms Remain as US Exits Iraq | Truthout

""Only a naïve child could believe the Americans came here for something besides our oil," Ahmed Ali, an unemployed engineer, told Al Jazeera. "Nor can we believe their being here has anything to do with helping the Iraqi people."

Basim al-Khalili, a restaurant owner in Baghdad's Karada district, agrees.

"If Iraq had no oil, would America have sacrificed thousands of its soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars to come here?"

Oil analyst Juhasz also agrees.

"The US and other western oil companies and their governments had been lobbying for passage of a new national law in Iraq, the Iraq Oil Law, which would move Iraq from a nationalised to a largely privatised oil market using Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs), a type of contract model used in just approximately 12 per cent of the world's oil market."

She explained that this agreement has been summarily rejected by most countries, including all of Iraq's neighbours, "because it provides far more benefits to the foreign corporation than to the domestic government".

But it has not been an easy road for the western oil companies in Iraq."

This is an Al Jazeera (Arab/MidEast) view of the Iraqi situation. Is it accurate? Is it lies? Is it propaganda? Why is the popularized USA view of spreading democracy so widely believed in the USA? Do OIL corporations have enough power in our USA gov't to initiate asset wars? Did you vote for that?

Catawba said:
That doesn't fly, as Iraq did better than most Middle Eastern countries though the 35 years of their nationalized oil policy.

Antiderivative said:
Oil played a role, but the war was primarily about nation building. Here it is, straight from the neocons' mouths.

At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible.

Under the section of Army: To ‘Complete’ Europe And Defend the Persian Gulf , you will find explicit statements such as, In short, the value of land power continues to appeal to a global superpower, whose security interests rest upon maintaining and expanding a world-wide system of alliances as well as on the ability to win wars. While maintaining its combat role, the U.S. Army has acquired new missions in the past decade – most immediately, missions associated with completing the task of creating a Europe “whole and free” and defending American interests in the Persian Gulf and Middle East.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Catawba said:
As made clear in the recommendations in Cheney's Task Force Report, before the 9/11 attack, together with the complete lack of evidence of WMD, the primary purpose of the our war on one of the most defenseless countries in the planet was getting big oil back into Iraq for the first time since Iraq nationalized their oil 35 years before.

Catawba said:
"defending American interests in the Persian Gulf and Middle East."

That's what it all comes back to, our dependence on others property.

"Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis

President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that "Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East" and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US "military intervention" is necessary.

Vice-president Dick Cheney, who chairs the White House Energy Policy Development Group, commissioned a report on "energy security" from the Baker Institute for Public Policy, a think-tank set up by James Baker, the former US secretary of state under George Bush Snr.

The report, Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century, concludes: "The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a de-stabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/ diplomatic assessments.

"The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies."

Baker who delivered the recommendations to Cheney, the former chief executive of Texas oil firm Halliburton, was advised by Kenneth Lay, the disgraced former chief executive of Enron, the US energy giant which went bankrupt after carrying out massive accountancy fraud.

The other advisers to Baker were: Luis Giusti, a Shell non- executive director; John Manzoni, regional president of BP and David O'Reilly, chief executive of ChevronTexaco. Another name linked to the document is Sheikh Saud Al Nasser Al Sabah, the former Kuwaiti oil minister and a fellow of the Baker Institute.

Official: US Oil at the Heart of Iraq Crisis

Catawba said:
Because, we understand that oil is bought and sold on the world market and that Iraq (with the second largest reserves of easily accessible oil in the world) had kept big oil out of Iraq for the last 35 years since they nationalized their oil. It was made very clear in the recommendations in Cheney's Task Force Report - Energy Challenges in the 21st Century:

March, 2001

"RECOMMENDATIONS

"Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to U.S. allies in the Middle East, as well as
to regional and global order, and to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a “Pan-Arab” leader supporting the Palestinians against Israel, and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime.

The United States should conduct an immediate policy review towards Iraq, including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments."

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:n9QA06M1LE0J:www.rice.edu/energy/publications/docs/TaskForceReport_Final.pdf+energy+challenges+for+the+21st+century&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgPiyWd-kdPtlvusqyxa-BerdVeIUFokHuuK_yCuNcSjfgohNRA3dP8hC1iRiObdDd3upopLlvylUX01NlyfOJR6e8D2XXZCevqnXBqQrxJjS4x6-9ISBPNC66CpyLXe0I3vRLA&sig=AHIEtbRQsurUNtQUJZ9tDfdt1T9dm0A_PA

Catawba said:
We did a good job, it just took us years longer than the cakewalk we thought it would be. After the Persian Gulf war and our 10 years of sanctions, Iraq was one of weakest countries on the planet.

Iraq kicked big oil out of their country when it Nationalized its oil 35 years ago. The only way to get big oil back in was invasion, regime change, occupation and a new oil law, which we accomplished.

Did you miss the banner?

Catawba said:
Its not about Western contractors, oil is a global commodity, it is about getting big oil back into Iraq for the first time in 35 years, so those who have invested in the global oil market, can continue to rake in record profits, and assure as uninterrupted supply of middle east oil to the US and our partners in the invasion. Read about the perceived necessity of the war spelled out in Cheney's Task force report.

The same Nationalized oil law that kept big oil out of Iraq before the sanctions would still have been in place after the sanction. The Iraqi oil law had to be changed and that required a regime change that was US friendly that would agree to change the oil law.

Mission Accomplished!

Peter Grimm · Jan 19, 2012

Catawba said:
This was already addressed here:

Again, we don't control Iraqi oil. Nowhere do you make this case.

StillBallin75 · Jan 19, 2012

I'm going to say I don't really ****ing know.

But from the information that is available to me - I'd probably say it was more about incompetence than anything else.

Catawba · Jan 19, 2012

Peter Grimm said:
Again, we don't control Iraqi oil. Nowhere do you make this case.

Our mission was to get big oil back in Iraq for the first time in 35 years which had been kept out by Iraq's Nationalized oil law.

Mission Accomplished!

Boo Radley · Jan 19, 2012

StillBallin75 said:
I'm going to say I don't really ****ing know.

But from the information that is available to me - I'd probably say it was more about incompetence than anything else.

I really don't know either, but I do think it had more with wanting a presence there, as we couldn't be in SA, than anything like oil. But I wouldn't rule out incompetence playing a role.

DrunkenAsparagus · Jan 19, 2012

Catawba said:
Its not about Western contractors, oil is a global commodity, it is about getting big oil back into Iraq for the first time in 35 years, so those who have invested in the global oil market, can continue to rake in record profits, and assure as uninterrupted supply of middle east oil to the US and our partners in the invasion. Read about the perceived necessity of the war spelled out in Cheney's Task force report.

How has the Iraq War affected the price of oil? How have our partners benefited compared to countries like China?

Catawba said:
The same Nationalized oil law that kept big oil out of Iraq before the sanctions would still have been in place after the sanction. The Iraqi oil law had to be changed and that required a regime change that was US friendly that would agree to change the oil law.

No it didn't. It required something called negotiations. We could have called for opening up the country's oil trade in exchange for lifting sanctions. It would have been far easier, orderly, and predictable than a war. Yes, American foreign policy has often used regime change and other less than savory means to secure important US business interests. I have no problem with accepting this premise. However, in most of these cases we lacked substantial leverage over these countries. With Iraq we did, in the form of sanctions and no-fly zones.

Catawba said:
Mission Accomplished!

What mission? The Iraqi government privatized some of 2% of the world's oil production. Iraq was seen as a threat to the rest of the Middle East's oil trade.

Catawba · Jan 19, 2012

DrunkenAsparagus said:
How has the Iraq War affected the price of oil? How have our partners benefited compared to countries like China?

We don't have $5 gal. gas and we haven't had any gas shortages. Those are what Cheney's Energy Task Force suggested could happen without military intervention in Iraq.

No it didn't. It required something called negotiations. We could have called for opening up the country's oil trade in exchange for lifting sanctions. It would have been far easier, orderly, and predictable than a war. Yes, American foreign policy has often used regime change and other less than savory means to secure important US business interests. I have no problem with accepting this premise. However, in most of these cases we lacked substantial leverage over these countries. With Iraq we did, in the form of sanctions and no-fly zones.

We tried that for 10 years, remember? Iraq would not agree to allow exploitation of their oil by the big oil companies.

What mission?
The Iraqi government privatized some of 2% of the world's oil production. Iraq was seen as a threat to the rest of the Middle East's oil trade.

STRATEGIC ENERGY POLICY CHALLENGES FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

REPORT OF AN INDEPENDENT TASK FORCE - 2001 (before our invasion of Iraq)

"U.S. energy independence is not attainable."

"Persistently tight crude oil markets highlight the concentration of resources in the Middle East Gulf region and the vulnerability of the global economy to domestic conditions in the key producer countries. The Gulf nations have one major asset – their oil and gas reserves. They, like Russia, Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria, Venezuela and some other oil producing nations, depend heavily on hydrocarbons to support their citizens. If the current regimes in the Gulf cannot deliver a better standard of living for rapidly increasing populations, social upheaval could result, and anti-Western elements could gain power. Similar concerns exist with respect to some other oil-producing countries outside the Gulf."

"Some of the real costs, such as the high-cost U.S. military presence in the Middle East, are already accepted and forgotten by the public."

RECOMMENDATIONS

"Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to U.S. allies in the Middle East, as well as
to regional and global order, and to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a “Pan-Arab” leader supporting the Palestinians against Israel, and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime.

The United States should conduct an immediate policy review towards Iraq, including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments."

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...I3vRLA&sig=AHIEtbRQsurUNtQUJZ9tDfdt1T9dm0A_PA

DrunkenAsparagus · Jan 19, 2012

Catawba said:
We don't have $5 gal. gas and we haven't had any gas shortages. Those are what Cheney's Energy Task Force suggested could happen without military intervention in Iraq.

Of course this is all speculation, and since Iraqi oil production has not really been higher than before the war, it is based on poor speculation at that.

Catawba said:
We tried that for 10 years, remember? Iraq would not agree to allow exploitation of their oil by the big oil companies.

When, and how far did our attempts actually go?

Catawba said:
STRATEGIC ENERGY POLICY CHALLENGES FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

REPORT OF AN INDEPENDENT TASK FORCE - 2001 (before our invasion of Iraq)

"U.S. energy independence is not attainable."

"Persistently tight crude oil markets highlight the concentration of resources in the Middle East Gulf region and the vulnerability of the global economy to domestic conditions in the key producer countries. The Gulf nations have one major asset – their oil and gas reserves. They, like Russia, Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria, Venezuela and some other oil producing nations, depend heavily on hydrocarbons to support their citizens. If the current regimes in the Gulf cannot deliver a better standard of living for rapidly increasing populations, social upheaval could result, and anti-Western elements could gain power. Similar concerns exist with respect to some other oil-producing countries outside the Gulf."

"Some of the real costs, such as the high-cost U.S. military presence in the Middle East, are already accepted and forgotten by the public."

RECOMMENDATIONS

"Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to U.S. allies in the Middle East, as well as
to regional and global order, and to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a “Pan-Arab” leader supporting the Palestinians against Israel, and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime.

The United States should conduct an immediate policy review towards Iraq, including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments."

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...I3vRLA&sig=AHIEtbRQsurUNtQUJZ9tDfdt1T9dm0A_PA

I said that Washington viewed Iraq as a threat to the Middle East and world oil trades. I only attacked the notion that we invaded Iraq for its oil.

Catawba · Jan 19, 2012

DrunkenAsparagus said:
Of course this is all speculation,

It was the collected wisdom of the Cheney's Energy Task Force, which included oil company experts from around the world. As they noted (from above),
"U.S. energy independence is not attainable." and "Persistently tight crude oil markets highlight the concentration of resources in the Middle East Gulf region and the vulnerability of the global economy to domestic conditions in the key producer countries."

and since Iraqi oil production has not really been higher than before the war, it is based on poor speculation at that.

What you talking about Willis??? "Iraq has already signed 11 deals with foreign oil companies which will see its production quintuple to about 12 million barrels per day (mbpd) by 2017."

Can Iraq become world

When, and how far did our attempts actually go?

Well, we killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions during the Gulf war and sanctions. How much more convincing do you think they needed???

I said that Washington viewed Iraq as a threat to the Middle East and world oil trades. I only attacked the notion that we invaded Iraq for its oil.

Give me a reason we had to invade and occupy one of the least powerful countries on the planet for almost a decade that didn't involve oil, or that represented a threat to the US?

drz-400 · Jan 20, 2012

Catawba said:
No they were not, our own intelligence agency confirmed they were not, not to mention the 700 inspections by the UN, which is why the UN would not authorize use of force against them.

Good point. Actually that was why I disagreed with military action (their compliance with UN inspectors). However, we had other (faulty) intelligence that was showing otherwise as well.

If Iraq did not contain the 2nd largest oil reserves left on the planet and wasn't just about the weakest military power on the planet, we would have never have invaded and occupied their country for almost a decade. There was absolutely no other reason, which has become clear to most these days.

Even a majority of the Vets from that war say it wasn't worth it.

Well, personally I think if there was no suspicion of nuclear weapons we would not have invaded. Not saying it was worth it. My opinion is that oil just happens to be there and it makes for all sorts of good stories like the one you are telling.

Catawba · Jan 20, 2012

drz-400 said:
Good point. Actually that was why I disagreed with military action (their compliance with UN inspectors). However, we had other (faulty) intelligence that was showing otherwise as well.

Well, personally I think if there was no suspicion of nuclear weapons we would not have invaded. Not saying it was worth it. My opinion is that oil just happens to be there and it makes for all sorts of good stories like the one you are telling.

We knew we destroyed their military capacity in the Gulf war and that 10 years of sanctions didn't let them rebuild, and you are ignoring Cheney's energy task force report in 2001 that outlined the importance to us of military action to remove the instability with Iraq oil supplies.

Iraq and OIL. What was the war about?

Iraq. What was the war about?

The USA was spreading democracy

The USA OIL corporatocracy was acquiring assets

Saddam was a big threat and had to be taken out

none of the above

Rule of Two

proud ammosexual

Devourer of Poor Children

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Salty Specialist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Devourer of Poor Children

Disappointed Evolutionist

Devourer of Poor Children

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist