• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iraq and OIL. What was the war about?

Iraq. What was the war about?

  • The USA was spreading democracy

    Votes: 2 6.1%
  • The USA OIL corporatocracy was acquiring assets

    Votes: 15 45.5%
  • Saddam was a big threat and had to be taken out

    Votes: 4 12.1%
  • none of the above

    Votes: 12 36.4%

  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .

DaveFagan

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,056
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
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?
 
Last edited:
#3 comes the closest to being true, but doesn't quite get there. The War in Iraq was about one thing and one thing only..... The attempted plot by Saddam Hussein and several other groups in the Middle East to assassinate the FIRST President Bush. It was about Junior protecting Daddy, and that's pretty much it.
 
#3 comes the closest to being true, but doesn't quite get there. The War in Iraq was about one thing and one thing only..... The attempted plot by Saddam Hussein and several other groups in the Middle East to assassinate the FIRST President Bush. It was about Junior protecting Daddy, and that's pretty much it.

Wowser, I'm lovin' that answer. So GWShiiteForBrains wasted a Trillion dollars of our hard earned shekels to smite that no-good, evil, scumsuckin' Saddam and not to make his war makin' goombahs billions of dollars. Is ol' GW from an Oil State? He wouldn't personally profit from oily deals, would he? I mean he was workin' in the Oil Patch for years. He never learned anything and would have no personal interest or profit motived then? Who'd a thunk it? Just a high-minded idealist who couldn't generate profits for his company in the Texas Oil Patch. That doesn't mean ol' GW didn't profit. There's always salary and fringe, eh?
 
Dave, I'm not suggesting that there were not additional benefits to carrying out the operation; but it is my belief, from what I have read over time, that GW was looking for any excuse possible (9/11) to attack Iraq because Hussein and several other entities inside Iraq had been involved in the planning of an assassination attempt against GW's father. If 9/11 hadn't happened, or if all the oil in Iraq had dried up overnight, GW would STILL have found a reason to invade Iraq and ensure Hussein's death. That is what I believe on this topic.
 
Dave, I'm not suggesting that there were not additional benefits to carrying out the operation; but it is my belief, from what I have read over time, that GW was looking for any excuse possible (9/11) to attack Iraq because Hussein and several other entities inside Iraq had been involved in the planning of an assassination attempt against GW's father. If 9/11 hadn't happened, or if all the oil in Iraq had dried up overnight, GW would STILL have found a reason to invade Iraq and ensure Hussein's death. That is what I believe on this topic.

I don't agree. I think it is possible that GWShiiteForBrains thought his Dad made a mistake by not going all the way into Iraq in Gulf War One. He was going to show the whole world how much smarter than his daddy he was by going in there and kickin' butt in a couple of weeks and with his ace advisor Darth Cheney, who surely wouldn't profit from an oil war. By the way, wars run on energy. So energy Corporations are the first guaranteed profits from a war. Weapons and ammunition next. All followed by the "spoils of war" and that would be OIL in Iraq. GW had been Oil Patch executive, so he's supposed to know sumpin' 'bout sumpin', and Darth was Haliburton leader and owner of lots of Haliburton stock. Now the fact that both are positioned to profit handsomely from a war with Iraq is coincidental and is really a result of "bon chance" and Divine Providence, just like the old British Aristrocracy. That's why the rich got money is because God gave them the good genes to know what to do with it, you know, like startin' wars and enhancing poverty and destroying infrastructure. They just lots smarter than us ol' peons. Don't ya' think?
 
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?

I bet the Iraq war is for oil people are the same idiots who have the nerve to make fun of birther-tards and trufer-tards. Its like the pot calling the kettle black or the guy who believes Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill JFK mocking the guy who believes in big foot.
 
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?



Without the US protection of big oil in Iraq, I wonder how long it will be before we start seeing foreign contractors being beheaded again and oil facilities being blown up?
 
Without the US protection of big oil in Iraq, I wonder how long it will be before we start seeing foreign contractors being beheaded again and oil facilities being blown up?

The question you have never asked yourself is, without big oil in Iraq what is the chance of sucess (military, diplomatic, etc) in Iraq? The answer is 0.
 
The question you have never asked yourself is, without big oil in Iraq what is the chance of sucess (military, diplomatic, etc) in Iraq? The answer is 0.

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

Well considering we took out the nation that nationalized and formed that oil policy it kinda does... Simple fact, it is and was imperative to our mission in Iraq that its oil industry functions well. Not doing so would have only prolonged the conflict and costed more Iraqi and American soldiers lives. Sorry your partisan eyes cannot see the obvious truth.
 
80% about oil and profits
20% about military bases
 
Sadam was viewed as a thread and that's why the Iraq war was started. He was a crazy dictator in a hostile and fragile part of the world.
 
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
 
Last edited:
Geopolitics, petrodollars, spreading democracy, removing dictators, WMD's, 9/11 preemptive strikes, padding defense contracts, avenging daddy. I'm sure it was all factored in the decision.
 
Well considering we took out the nation that nationalized and formed that oil policy it kinda does... Simple fact, it is and was imperative to our mission in Iraq that its oil industry functions well. Not doing so would have only prolonged the conflict and costed more Iraqi and American soldiers lives. Sorry your partisan eyes cannot see the obvious truth.

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.
 
Last edited:
Sadam was viewed as a thread and that's why the Iraq war was started. He was a crazy dictator in a hostile and fragile part of the world.

Saddam was viewed as a threat to the region back when the US was his ally and Reagan removed Iraq from the Terrorist Nations listing. When we invaded after the Persian Gulf war and ten years of sanctions, Saddam was just a fat old man with a shotgun.
 
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

"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
 
Sadam was viewed as a thread and that's why the Iraq war was started. He was a crazy dictator in a hostile and fragile part of the world.

The crazies would be the ones who killed over 100,000 Iraqis. That'd be mostly women and children just because of population demographics. That would identify the real threat or crazy leader.
 
The US didn't get any oil or even any contracts regarding oil. Why do people still claim it was about oil.


The crazies would be the ones who killed over 100,000 Iraqis. That'd be mostly women and children just because of population demographics. That would identify the real threat or crazy leader.

You mean Saddam against the Kurds with chemical weapons?
 
Last edited:
"Spreading Democracy" ???
How silly !
And this making war , IMO, is the totally wrong way to go about this..
Likely that Bush and his supporters were stupid enough to think that Saddam Hussein was a threat.
Fear, greed, and ignorance will do strange things to man.
For instance, I admit that I have little trust in these big oil companies ...
 
Last edited:
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?
I am much more prone to believe this man than I am the conservatives in our nation.
But, of course, he is NOT totally correct..
Americans are far better than is dictated.
 
The reason that seem most logical to me was put out by the Straffor group, and it was that we wanted a base in Iraq because we couldn't stay in SA. Now, I have no idea if this was true or not, but it seem more likley than either for oil or that Saddam was a threat. Both of those seemed illogical and that you had to willing suspend a lot of disbelief to accept them as legitimate reasons for invading Iraq.
 
No, I mean GW Bush. That was that famous US TV show entitled "Shock and Awe" instead of death and destruction. It was live on all channels with lots of bright fires and bombs as Baghdad, a cosmopolitan city of 4 million helpless citiziens, was bombed. Lots of dead people ignored as collateral damage. The demographics would indicate the population to be mainly children and women, ergo they are the highest percentage of the casualties. I did not think it was very funny that we sold Saddam the chemicals for the poison gas either.
 
Reposted to include the fact it was intended as reply with quote.Quote"The US didn't get any oil or even any contracts regarding oil. Why do people still claim it was about oil. Originally Posted by DaveFagan The crazies would be the ones who killed over 100,000 Iraqis. That'd be mostly women and children just because of population demographics. That would identify the real threat or crazy leader.You mean Saddam against the Kurds with chemical weapons?"End Quote
No, I mean GW Bush. That was that famous US TV show entitled "Shock and Awe" instead of death and destruction. It was live on all channels with lots of bright fires and bombs as Baghdad, a cosmopolitan city of 4 million helpless citiziens, was bombed. Lots of dead people ignored as collateral damage. The demographics would indicate the population to be mainly children and women, ergo they are the highest percentage of the casualties. I did not think it was very funny that we sold Saddam the chemicals for the poison gas either.
 
No, I mean GW Bush.

But Saddam too, right?

I did not think it was very funny that we sold Saddam the chemicals for the poison gas either.

The US (the West) sold him anthrax vaccinations for cattle, else millions of cows would die. He weaponized it (the cows died).
 
Back
Top Bottom