• 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!

It was all about Oil

Do you believe that U.S intervention in the Middle East, Asia and Europe is Oil motivated?


  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .

stan1990

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2018
Messages
875
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It's always about oil, gas. Why do some people think that the United States invaded Iraq to topple a regime that is described as a dictator even though during the 1980s, it was supplying that regime with weapons and ammunition? Weapons of mass destruction are only a pretext because it was supplied by Western countries such as the United States and Britain, and Iraq didn't have the technology to produce them. It is naive to think that the United States resembles the big heart cowboy who helps the inhabitants of isolated towns get rid of the bad guys because they don't know how to use weapons, and he demands no money.

Countries like the United States and Britain are known to have supported dictatorships such as Augusto Pinochet in Chile and Argentina's military regime. Before that, the United States supported all coup attempts in Latin America. It started with the 1954 coup in Guatemala because President Jacob Arbenz had nationalized part of the United Fruit Company's unused land. Propaganda against Guatemala, which focused on being a state ruled by a communist president, was carried out by the famous propaganda tycoon Edward Bernays. But what the United States did there would not be surprised when everyone recognizes the names of the United Fruit Company owners. All the crimes committed by the military regimes in Latin America were not enough to provoke humanity and human rights sentiment with successive US administrations.

Oil is the primary reason behind every conflict from Europe to Latin America and the Middle East. Even in Asia, in Burma, a country important to China as a potential transit area for oil pipelines. The conflict over the South China Sea fueled by US interventions in Asian affairs has to do with oil. The US worried about the growth of Chinese military power and the economy is seeking to block it off from its energy sources. A new Cold War in Asia with China not the Soviet Union as the peer and, of course, the United States, a country addicted to wars and proxy intervention in other countries' affairs. The conflict in Ukraine over the region known Dneiper-Donets is only another chapter of the world's oil wars. The region bordering Russia is floating on an enormous oil reserve estimated at billions of barrels of oil in an unconventional area for oil deposits. In Syria, Western countries such as the United States, Britain, France and Arab allies have financed terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda and ISIS to topple a regime they describe as bloody and dictatorial. But these organizations, bragging about their crimes and publishing videos in which Syrian civilians are beheaded, is nothing but a tool in Western countries to use in proxy wars that have been linked in one way or another to oil.

To conclude the thread by talking about Iraq as it began, there is a number of facts confirming American intentions to invade Iraq, which is floating on the second oil reserves after Saudi Arabia. First, Halliburton, whose former director, Dick Cheney, US Vice President George W. Bush, published a report in October 2002 on the control of oil fields and refining facilities after the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The American occupation forces took control of the Iraqi Oil Ministry even before its military deployment in Baghdad was completed. Second, in the weeks following the invasion, the US deputy defense secretary admitted that oil was the cause, not the fight against terrorism. Third, the United States has tried hard to find even weak evidence linking the Iraqi regime to fundamentalist Islamist organizations such as al-Qaeda but failed. Finally, no weapons of mass destruction have been discovered in Iraq and turned out to be fabricated and false reports by Iraqi opposition and citizens who wished their refugee applications accepted in Western countries by fabricating fictitious stories of chemical and biological weapons in mobile trucks roaming the various regions of Iraq for camouflage.

All these wars, which killed hundreds of thousands of dead, wounded and missing, massive destruction of infrastructure, and economic collapse have only one reason: the US desire to control the sources of energy and its transmission lines for geopolitical goals within the framework of the new Cold War and its conflict with Russia. And China.

End
 
It's always about oil, gas. Why do some people think that the United States invaded Iraq to topple a regime that is described as a dictator even though during the 1980s, it was supplying that regime with weapons and ammunition? Weapons of mass destruction are only a pretext because it was supplied by Western countries such as the United States and Britain, and Iraq didn't have the technology to produce them. It is naive to think that the United States resembles the big heart cowboy who helps the inhabitants of isolated towns get rid of the bad guys because they don't know how to use weapons, and he demands no money.

Countries like the United States and Britain are known to have supported dictatorships such as Augusto Pinochet in Chile and Argentina's military regime. Before that, the United States supported all coup attempts in Latin America. It started with the 1954 coup in Guatemala because President Jacob Arbenz had nationalized part of the United Fruit Company's unused land. Propaganda against Guatemala, which focused on being a state ruled by a communist president, was carried out by the famous propaganda tycoon Edward Bernays. But what the United States did there would not be surprised when everyone recognizes the names of the United Fruit Company owners. All the crimes committed by the military regimes in Latin America were not enough to provoke humanity and human rights sentiment with successive US administrations.

Oil is the primary reason behind every conflict from Europe to Latin America and the Middle East. Even in Asia, in Burma, a country important to China as a potential transit area for oil pipelines. The conflict over the South China Sea fueled by US interventions in Asian affairs has to do with oil. The US worried about the growth of Chinese military power and the economy is seeking to block it off from its energy sources. A new Cold War in Asia with China not the Soviet Union as the peer and, of course, the United States, a country addicted to wars and proxy intervention in other countries' affairs. The conflict in Ukraine over the region known Dneiper-Donets is only another chapter of the world's oil wars. The region bordering Russia is floating on an enormous oil reserve estimated at billions of barrels of oil in an unconventional area for oil deposits. In Syria, Western countries such as the United States, Britain, France and Arab allies have financed terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda and ISIS to topple a regime they describe as bloody and dictatorial. But these organizations, bragging about their crimes and publishing videos in which Syrian civilians are beheaded, is nothing but a tool in Western countries to use in proxy wars that have been linked in one way or another to oil.

To conclude the thread by talking about Iraq as it began, there is a number of facts confirming American intentions to invade Iraq, which is floating on the second oil reserves after Saudi Arabia. First, Halliburton, whose former director, Dick Cheney, US Vice President George W. Bush, published a report in October 2002 on the control of oil fields and refining facilities after the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The American occupation forces took control of the Iraqi Oil Ministry even before its military deployment in Baghdad was completed. Second, in the weeks following the invasion, the US deputy defense secretary admitted that oil was the cause, not the fight against terrorism. Third, the United States has tried hard to find even weak evidence linking the Iraqi regime to fundamentalist Islamist organizations such as al-Qaeda but failed. Finally, no weapons of mass destruction have been discovered in Iraq and turned out to be fabricated and false reports by Iraqi opposition and citizens who wished their refugee applications accepted in Western countries by fabricating fictitious stories of chemical and biological weapons in mobile trucks roaming the various regions of Iraq for camouflage.

All these wars, which killed hundreds of thousands of dead, wounded and missing, massive destruction of infrastructure, and economic collapse have only one reason: the US desire to control the sources of energy and its transmission lines for geopolitical goals within the framework of the new Cold War and its conflict with Russia. And China.

End

I've been saying it from the very beginning, it's always about the oil.
 
Just one question... where is the oil? The middle east has never been a primary source of oil. Today, the middle east is not a primary source of oil (we get most of our oil from South America and Canada, though these days we have our own oil)... so, what is the issue? We don't get much oil at all from the middle east (we get some because oil is traded as a commodity throughout the world)... what is the actual argument here?
 
Just one question... where is the oil? The middle east has never been a primary source of oil. Today, the middle east is not a primary source of oil (we get most of our oil from South America and Canada, though these days we have our own oil)... so, what is the issue? We don't get much oil at all from the middle east (we get some because oil is traded as a commodity throughout the world)... what is the actual argument here?

"Control the oil, control the world."
 
It's always about oil, gas. Why do some people think that the United States invaded Iraq to topple a regime that is described as a dictator even though during the 1980s, it was supplying that regime with weapons and ammunition? Weapons of mass destruction are only a pretext because it was supplied by Western countries such as the United States and Britain, and Iraq didn't have the technology to produce them. It is naive to think that the United States resembles the big heart cowboy who helps the inhabitants of isolated towns get rid of the bad guys because they don't know how to use weapons, and he demands no money.

Countries like the United States and Britain are known to have supported dictatorships such as Augusto Pinochet in Chile and Argentina's military regime. Before that, the United States supported all coup attempts in Latin America. It started with the 1954 coup in Guatemala because President Jacob Arbenz had nationalized part of the United Fruit Company's unused land. Propaganda against Guatemala, which focused on being a state ruled by a communist president, was carried out by the famous propaganda tycoon Edward Bernays. But what the United States did there would not be surprised when everyone recognizes the names of the United Fruit Company owners. All the crimes committed by the military regimes in Latin America were not enough to provoke humanity and human rights sentiment with successive US administrations.

Oil is the primary reason behind every conflict from Europe to Latin America and the Middle East. Even in Asia, in Burma, a country important to China as a potential transit area for oil pipelines. The conflict over the South China Sea fueled by US interventions in Asian affairs has to do with oil. The US worried about the growth of Chinese military power and the economy is seeking to block it off from its energy sources. A new Cold War in Asia with China not the Soviet Union as the peer and, of course, the United States, a country addicted to wars and proxy intervention in other countries' affairs. The conflict in Ukraine over the region known Dneiper-Donets is only another chapter of the world's oil wars. The region bordering Russia is floating on an enormous oil reserve estimated at billions of barrels of oil in an unconventional area for oil deposits. In Syria, Western countries such as the United States, Britain, France and Arab allies have financed terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda and ISIS to topple a regime they describe as bloody and dictatorial. But these organizations, bragging about their crimes and publishing videos in which Syrian civilians are beheaded, is nothing but a tool in Western countries to use in proxy wars that have been linked in one way or another to oil.

Cite your sources for that claim, please.

To conclude the thread by talking about Iraq as it began, there is a number of facts confirming American intentions to invade Iraq, which is floating on the second oil reserves after Saudi Arabia. First, Halliburton, whose former director, Dick Cheney, US Vice President George W. Bush, published a report in October 2002 on the control of oil fields and refining facilities after the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The American occupation forces took control of the Iraqi Oil Ministry even before its military deployment in Baghdad was completed. Second, in the weeks following the invasion, the US deputy defense secretary admitted that oil was the cause, not the fight against terrorism. Third, the United States has tried hard to find even weak evidence linking the Iraqi regime to fundamentalist Islamist organizations such as al-Qaeda but failed. Finally, no weapons of mass destruction have been discovered in Iraq and turned out to be fabricated and false reports by Iraqi opposition and citizens who wished their refugee applications accepted in Western countries by fabricating fictitious stories of chemical and biological weapons in mobile trucks roaming the various regions of Iraq for camouflage.

Question: If the United States government was and remains so monstrously corrupt, cynical and ruthless, as you claim, why would they not have fabricated reports of finding Weapons of Mass Destruction and perhaps have planted evidence of such weaponry being found in order to maintain an airtight casus belli? I mean, might as well go all the way, right? Wouldn't that have been the FIRST thing that a bunch of evil war profiteers with half a brain have thought to do?
 
Last edited:
It's always about oil, gas. Why do some people think that the United States invaded Iraq to topple a regime that is described as a dictator even though during the 1980s, it was supplying that regime with weapons and ammunition? Weapons of mass destruction are only a pretext because it was supplied by Western countries such as the United States and Britain, and Iraq didn't have the technology to produce them. It is naive to think that the United States resembles the big heart cowboy who helps the inhabitants of isolated towns get rid of the bad guys because they don't know how to use weapons, and he demands no money...

...All these wars, which killed hundreds of thousands of dead, wounded and missing, massive destruction of infrastructure, and economic collapse have only one reason: the US desire to control the sources of energy and its transmission lines for geopolitical goals within the framework of the new Cold War and its conflict with Russia. And China.

End

The US has a long legacy of promoting national control of strategic resources and championing its corporations, economic and geopolitical interests, regardless of the cost to the countries its interventions result in, or their liberty, with democracies proving as disposable in pursuit of these interests as dictatorships. In fact, friendly dictatorships were often preferred to the messiness and unpredictability of democratic governments. This was doubly true during the Cold War; Kissinger was perhaps the most notorious promulgator of such realpolitik foreign policy which, in the long run, more often than not featured disastrous or averse unintended consequences for the States and others involved.

Foreign interventions by the United States - Wikipedia

In Iraq specifcally, I don't find that it was solely about oil, but it was overwhelmingly about advantaging perceived American interests, oil control of which was a major one, and its core motive was most certainly not to 'liberate' the Iraqi people, or eliminate any kind of real existential threat.
 
Last edited:
It's always about oil, gas. Why do some people think that the United States invaded Iraq to topple a regime that is described as a dictator even though during the 1980s, it was supplying that regime with weapons and ammunition? Weapons of mass destruction are only a pretext because it was supplied by Western countries such as the United States and Britain, and Iraq didn't have the technology to produce them. It is naive to think that the United States resembles the big heart cowboy who helps the inhabitants of isolated towns get rid of the bad guys because they don't know how to use weapons, and he demands no money.

Countries like the United States and Britain are known to have supported dictatorships such as Augusto Pinochet in Chile and Argentina's military regime. Before that, the United States supported all coup attempts in Latin America. It started with the 1954 coup in Guatemala because President Jacob Arbenz had nationalized part of the United Fruit Company's unused land. Propaganda against Guatemala, which focused on being a state ruled by a communist president, was carried out by the famous propaganda tycoon Edward Bernays. But what the United States did there would not be surprised when everyone recognizes the names of the United Fruit Company owners. All the crimes committed by the military regimes in Latin America were not enough to provoke humanity and human rights sentiment with successive US administrations.

Oil is the primary reason behind every conflict from Europe to Latin America and the Middle East. Even in Asia, in Burma, a country important to China as a potential transit area for oil pipelines. The conflict over the South China Sea fueled by US interventions in Asian affairs has to do with oil. The US worried about the growth of Chinese military power and the economy is seeking to block it off from its energy sources. A new Cold War in Asia with China not the Soviet Union as the peer and, of course, the United States, a country addicted to wars and proxy intervention in other countries' affairs. The conflict in Ukraine over the region known Dneiper-Donets is only another chapter of the world's oil wars. The region bordering Russia is floating on an enormous oil reserve estimated at billions of barrels of oil in an unconventional area for oil deposits. In Syria, Western countries such as the United States, Britain, France and Arab allies have financed terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda and ISIS to topple a regime they describe as bloody and dictatorial. But these organizations, bragging about their crimes and publishing videos in which Syrian civilians are beheaded, is nothing but a tool in Western countries to use in proxy wars that have been linked in one way or another to oil.

To conclude the thread by talking about Iraq as it began, there is a number of facts confirming American intentions to invade Iraq, which is floating on the second oil reserves after Saudi Arabia. First, Halliburton, whose former director, Dick Cheney, US Vice President George W. Bush, published a report in October 2002 on the control of oil fields and refining facilities after the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The American occupation forces took control of the Iraqi Oil Ministry even before its military deployment in Baghdad was completed. Second, in the weeks following the invasion, the US deputy defense secretary admitted that oil was the cause, not the fight against terrorism. Third, the United States has tried hard to find even weak evidence linking the Iraqi regime to fundamentalist Islamist organizations such as al-Qaeda but failed. Finally, no weapons of mass destruction have been discovered in Iraq and turned out to be fabricated and false reports by Iraqi opposition and citizens who wished their refugee applications accepted in Western countries by fabricating fictitious stories of chemical and biological weapons in mobile trucks roaming the various regions of Iraq for camouflage.

All these wars, which killed hundreds of thousands of dead, wounded and missing, massive destruction of infrastructure, and economic collapse have only one reason: the US desire to control the sources of energy and its transmission lines for geopolitical goals within the framework of the new Cold War and its conflict with Russia. And China.

End

Strange then that the bipartisan declaration of war on Iraq in 2002 did not list oil among the 12 reasons given for the invasion.
 
I've been saying it from the very beginning, it's always about the oil.

Oil has much to do with the U.S policy in the Middle East. However it is much more complex than just oil. Arms sales to to ME are in the billions, and help to prop up the military industrial complex since the end of the end of the Cold War. In addition the U.S support of everything Israel has done the U.S no favors with the rest of the Middle East. You throw in the War on Terrorism and it is a complex question, with many moving parts, oil being one of those. Our reliance on ME oil has decreased as the U.S pumps more of its own so I do not believe it is the driving factor as it once was.
 
Just one question... where is the oil? The middle east has never been a primary source of oil. Today, the middle east is not a primary source of oil (we get most of our oil from South America and Canada, though these days we have our own oil)... so, what is the issue? We don't get much oil at all from the middle east (we get some because oil is traded as a commodity throughout the world)... what is the actual argument here?

You should redirect this question to your government or your congressman, not me.
 
Of course it's about the oil.

I would love to be alive the day the world runs out of oil (or finds a viable alternative to oil)

I would gleefully watch as the U.S. withdraws from the area, and various Middle Eastern nations kill each other over sand dunes.
 
Cite your sources for that claim, please.



Question: If the United States government was and remains so monstrously corrupt, cynical and ruthless, as you claim, why would they not have fabricated reports of finding Weapons of Mass Destruction and perhaps have planted evidence of such weaponry being found in order to maintain an airtight casus belli? I mean, might as well go all the way, right? Wouldn't that have been the FIRST thing that a bunch of evil war profiteers with half a brain have thought to do?

And what is the point of citing known facts? Does Hilary Clinton admit hanging out with ultra-orthodoxy Islam since cold war days?
 
"Control the oil, control the world."

images
 
I've been saying it from the very beginning, it's always about the oil.

War is almost always about major economic interests, which in the ME happens to be oil, but oil is not the only major economic interest that wars are fought over.
 
War is almost always about major economic interests, which in the ME happens to be oil, but oil is not the only major economic interest that wars are fought over.

Yep, what happens when the oil is gone?
 
It's always about oil, gas. Why do some people think that the United States invaded Iraq to topple a regime that is described as a dictator even though during the 1980s, it was supplying that regime with weapons and ammunition? Weapons of mass destruction are only a pretext because it was supplied by Western countries such as the United States and Britain, and Iraq didn't have the technology to produce them. It is naive to think that the United States resembles the big heart cowboy who helps the inhabitants of isolated towns get rid of the bad guys because they don't know how to use weapons, and he demands no money.

Countries like the United States and Britain are known to have supported dictatorships such as Augusto Pinochet in Chile and Argentina's military regime. Before that, the United States supported all coup attempts in Latin America. It started with the 1954 coup in Guatemala because President Jacob Arbenz had nationalized part of the United Fruit Company's unused land. Propaganda against Guatemala, which focused on being a state ruled by a communist president, was carried out by the famous propaganda tycoon Edward Bernays. But what the United States did there would not be surprised when everyone recognizes the names of the United Fruit Company owners. All the crimes committed by the military regimes in Latin America were not enough to provoke humanity and human rights sentiment with successive US administrations.

Oil is the primary reason behind every conflict from Europe to Latin America and the Middle East. Even in Asia, in Burma, a country important to China as a potential transit area for oil pipelines. The conflict over the South China Sea fueled by US interventions in Asian affairs has to do with oil. The US worried about the growth of Chinese military power and the economy is seeking to block it off from its energy sources. A new Cold War in Asia with China not the Soviet Union as the peer and, of course, the United States, a country addicted to wars and proxy intervention in other countries' affairs. The conflict in Ukraine over the region known Dneiper-Donets is only another chapter of the world's oil wars. The region bordering Russia is floating on an enormous oil reserve estimated at billions of barrels of oil in an unconventional area for oil deposits. In Syria, Western countries such as the United States, Britain, France and Arab allies have financed terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda and ISIS to topple a regime they describe as bloody and dictatorial. But these organizations, bragging about their crimes and publishing videos in which Syrian civilians are beheaded, is nothing but a tool in Western countries to use in proxy wars that have been linked in one way or another to oil.

To conclude the thread by talking about Iraq as it began, there is a number of facts confirming American intentions to invade Iraq, which is floating on the second oil reserves after Saudi Arabia. First, Halliburton, whose former director, Dick Cheney, US Vice President George W. Bush, published a report in October 2002 on the control of oil fields and refining facilities after the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The American occupation forces took control of the Iraqi Oil Ministry even before its military deployment in Baghdad was completed. Second, in the weeks following the invasion, the US deputy defense secretary admitted that oil was the cause, not the fight against terrorism. Third, the United States has tried hard to find even weak evidence linking the Iraqi regime to fundamentalist Islamist organizations such as al-Qaeda but failed. Finally, no weapons of mass destruction have been discovered in Iraq and turned out to be fabricated and false reports by Iraqi opposition and citizens who wished their refugee applications accepted in Western countries by fabricating fictitious stories of chemical and biological weapons in mobile trucks roaming the various regions of Iraq for camouflage.

All these wars, which killed hundreds of thousands of dead, wounded and missing, massive destruction of infrastructure, and economic collapse have only one reason: the US desire to control the sources of energy and its transmission lines for geopolitical goals within the framework of the new Cold War and its conflict with Russia. And China.

End

It will always be about oil. Why is this a surprise, or a problem?
 
War is almost always about major economic interests, which in the ME happens to be oil, but oil is not the only major economic interest that wars are fought over.

Correct, oil is a part of the reason, but I think the main reason is political mainly. We should never have politically or militarily involved ourselves in the ME like we have.
 
Correct, oil is a part of the reason, but I think the main reason is political mainly. We should never have politically or militarily involved ourselves in the ME like we have.

The MIC is an extremely powerful political player because it relies 100% on the federal government for its quite substantial funding. You may note that the MIC has some foreign governments as its "customers" as well, but that too relies on gaining the express approval of our own federal government.

The market demand for the many goods/services provided by the MIC is very dependent on having constant global conflicts "requiring" the involvement of the US military and/or its other foreign government "customers". Having declared wars (or what passes for them) is crucial to keeping the MIC (constantly?) in a highly profitable position of power.
 
Oil has much to do with the U.S policy in the Middle East. However it is much more complex than just oil. Arms sales to to ME are in the billions, and help to prop up the military industrial complex since the end of the end of the Cold War. In addition the U.S support of everything Israel has done the U.S no favors with the rest of the Middle East. You throw in the War on Terrorism and it is a complex question, with many moving parts, oil being one of those. Our reliance on ME oil has decreased as the U.S pumps more of its own so I do not believe it is the driving factor as it once was.

The US is offering weapons and military protection to Saudi Arabia because they're the biggest exporter of crude oil to the US, S.Korea, Japan and India. The US dollar is backed by the petrodollar and every country trades in petrodollars. Countries which have attempted to leave the petrodollar system by trading oil in other currencies (Iraq and Libya) have shortly afterward been targeted by the US in military interventions. The collapse of the petrodollar system would be very damaging to the US economy.
 
Back
Top Bottom