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




You mean Saddam against the Kurds with chemical weapons?

No where near 100,000 were killed when Saddam used the weapons we gave him for his war with Iran against the Kurds. The homicidal nut was GW Bush

The attack killed between 3,200 and 5,000 people, and injured around 7,000 to 10,000 more, most of them civilians;[1][2] thousands more died of complications, diseases, and birth defects in the years after the attack.[3] The incident, which has been officially defined as an act of genocide against the Kurdish people in Iraq,[4] was and still remains the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history.[5]

Halabja poison gas attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
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.

Great insight on the subject. Your theory is backed up by Richard Clarke who has stated that GW wanted to "get Saddam" from his 1st day in office. According to him, in early 2001 Bush also said he did not want to hear Bin Laden's name and ordered Clarke to find a way to invade Iraq instead of pursuing Alqeada . The rest is history.
 
Last edited:
No where near 100,000 were killed when Saddam used the weapons we gave him for his war with Iran against the Kurds. The homicidal nut was GW Bush

The attack killed between 3,200 and 5,000 people, and injured around 7,000 to 10,000 more, most of them civilians;[1][2] thousands more died of complications, diseases, and birth defects in the years after the attack.[3] The incident, which has been officially defined as an act of genocide against the Kurdish people in Iraq,[4] was and still remains the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history.[5]

Halabja poison gas attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Are we going to count the approximate one and a half million or so killed or wounded in the Iran-Iraq War? Poison gas was used there too.

The war, of course, started by Saddam.
Wiki:
The Iran–Iraq War was extremely costly in lives and material, one of the deadliest wars since World War II[citation needed]. Both countries were devastated by the effect of the war. It cost Iran an estimated 1 million casualties, killed or wounded, and Iranians continue to suffer and die as a consequence of Iraq's use of chemical weapons[citation needed]. Iraqi casualties are estimated at 250,000–500,000 killed or wounded. Thousands of civilians died on both sides in air raids and ballistic missile attacks.[155]
Self-righteousness really gets to me.
 
Last edited:
Poll: Iraq. What was the war about?
This poll will close on 02-10-12 at 10:07 AM

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

I do not believe that the US went to war for any 1 of these reasons. We may have gone to war for several of these together or even other reasons. Democracy, fighting terror abroad, waking giant syndrome, oil/economy, perceived threat, world political posturing, cover-up, profit - a lot of factors made it possible and potentially desirable. To think that there was one conspiracy theorist's reason is, respectfully, absurd.
 
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.

Ah, so this is one of those "Bush is a war criminal" bitch threads then. Carry on.

:coffeepap
 
But Saddam too, right?



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

He did not use anthrax at Halabja. It was some kind of mustard type, and we sold him the precursors. I believe it was Saint Ronnie or GHWBush that sold it.
 
Ah, so this is one of those "Bush is a war criminal" bitch threads then. Carry on.

:coffeepap

Gee, who'd a thunk it? He does come off as a war criminal. Not to worry, he'll stay out of Switzerland, and probably Spain, and perhaps a few other foreign countries that would like to prosecute.
 
He did not use anthrax at Halabja. It was some kind of mustard type, and we sold him the precursors. I believe it was Saint Ronnie or GHWBush that sold it.

He did not only use chemicals against Kurds in one place or time. The mustard was also weaponized post-import. Your original terminology was ignorant or dishonest, thus the backpedal.
 
Last edited:
He did not only use chemicals against Kurds in one place or time. The mustard was also weaponized post-import. Your original terminology was ignorant or dishonest, thus the backpedal.

No back pedal.. GWBush is responsible for the deaths of 100,000+ Iraqis. Bush1 or Saint Ronnie sold Saddam the chemicals that Saddam used to kill thousands. I have never seen any info that suggested Saddam used anthrax against Iraqis. This is the same Saddam that was never a threat to the USA. I never said Saddam was a good guy. The implication is that GWBush and Saddam are about the same! That is backed by the number of dead.
 
More specifically, I think Iraq was about settling a vendetta for the Bush family, but it did come attached to highly lucrative oil and infrastructure contracts whose acquired wealth has not trickled down to the American economy.

I think invading Iraq really called into question everything about 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan and made the world's faith in our nation seriously decline.

I can't look at American foreign policy anymore without drawing the conclusion that our government is becoming increasingly clandestine.
 
No back pedal.. GWBush is responsible for the deaths of 100,000+ Iraqis. Bush1 or Saint Ronnie sold Saddam the chemicals that Saddam used to kill thousands. I have never seen any info that suggested Saddam used anthrax against Iraqis. This is the same Saddam that was never a threat to the USA. I never said Saddam was a good guy. The implication is that GWBush and Saddam are about the same! That is backed by the number of dead.
Are we going to count the approximate one and a half million or so killed or wounded in the Iran-Iraq War? Poison gas was used there too.

The war, of course, started by Saddam.
Wiki:
The Iran–Iraq War was extremely costly in lives and material, one of the deadliest wars since World War II[citation needed]. Both countries were devastated by the effect of the war. It cost Iran an estimated 1 million casualties, killed or wounded, and Iranians continue to suffer and die as a consequence of Iraq's use of chemical weapons[citation needed]. Iraqi casualties are estimated at 250,000–500,000 killed or wounded. Thousands of civilians died on both sides in air raids and ballistic missile attacks.[155]
Self-righteousness really gets to me.
 
Are we going to count the approximate one and a half million or so killed or wounded in the Iran-Iraq War? Poison gas was used there too.

The war, of course, started by Saddam. [...]
Debatable... from your source:

Initially, the Iraqi government welcomed the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1978–79, having had a common enemy with them in the deposed Shah.[30] The call, first made by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in June 1979 for Iraqi Shias to overthrow the Ba'ath regime was therefore received with considerable shock in Baghdad.[30] On 17 July 1979, despite Khomeini's call, the Iraqi President Saddam Hussein gave a speech praising the Iranian revolution, and called for Iraqi-Iranian friendship based upon non-interference in each other's internal affairs.[30] When Khomeini ignored Hussein's overture, and continued with his call for a Shia revolution in Iraq, the Iraqi regime was seriously alarmed.[31] [...]

The repeated calls for the overthrow of the Ba'ath regime and the support extended to Iraqi Shia groups by the new regime in Iran led Hussein to increasingly perceive the Iranian regime as a mortal threat that if ignored, might one day overthrow him.[32]
And who was supporting Saddam during that poison gas use you spoke of?


rumsfeld_saddam.jpg
 
#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.

Yes Oil had NOTHING to do with it? Are you serious? I hope you don't vote. People like you might be the very reason why an electorial college is in place.
 
Last edited:
I believe that many factors played a role in our invasion of Iraq. One factor that I believe is largely ignored or discarded but I believe was a key reason was the defense contractors and the government officials that had ties to them. I believe defense lobbyists had been pushing the US war machine into more conflict for many years. Once GB was elected president knowing well the conflict between the Saddam family and the Bush family they found their golden egg. When a weak intelligent report came in that Saddam may have WMDs they (and our leaders with strong ties) pushed hard for action knowing full well it would mean billions in their pockets.
 
Some Iraqis deserve Saddam. **** em.

No one deserves Anyone like Saddam. But, we should nto eb so arrogant as to think we have the right to invade countries and impose our will on others without just cause. And we should never tell others what they should be thankful for, especially something that cost them in excess of 100,000 lives.
 
The US didn't get any oil or even any contracts regarding oil. Why do people still claim it was about oil.

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
 
If we invaded Iraq for its oil, we did a very bad job at it. The Iraqis don't seem to be favoring Western contractors any more than Chinese or Russian ones. The claim also ignores the fact that there were far easier ways of getting Iraqi oil than flattening the country and trying to rebuild it. Such as, lifting sanctions in exchange for increased economic ties. Now, was the Bush Administration concerned about Saddam threatening his neighbors' oil trade? Probably. Was opening up Iraq's nationalized, isolated oil industry a bonus? Probably. Was the war still unnecessary and based on poor planning? Again, probably. However, the notion that we invaded Iraq for its oil is nothing more than a conspiracy theory.
 
If we invaded Iraq for its oil, we did a very bad job at it. The Iraqis don't seem to be favoring Western contractors any more than Chinese or Russian ones. The claim also ignores the fact that there were far easier ways of getting Iraqi oil than flattening the country and trying to rebuild it. Such as, lifting sanctions in exchange for increased economic ties. Now, was the Bush Administration concerned about Saddam threatening his neighbors' oil trade? Probably. Was opening up Iraq's nationalized, isolated oil industry a bonus? Probably. Was the war still unnecessary and based on poor planning? Again, probably. However, the notion that we invaded Iraq for its oil is nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

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?

1030-02.jpg
 
Last edited:
I could make an informed asessment of what, I think, were the motivations behind the Bush administrations' occupation of Iraq, and we could debate that. What is incontrovertible is that the official reasons (The first being the supposed 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', then, once that was no longer credible, 'creating democracy.') were completely bogus.
 
then, once that was no longer credible

Liberating the Iraqis, ending policies of genocide and removing a threat from the region were reasons in every single speech from the beginning.
 
Last edited:
Liberating the Iraqis was in every single speech from the beginning.

But it wasn't the primary reason. The reason why we had to invade Iraq was because Iraq had 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' that represented an existential threat. Once it became clear that Iraq did not have the destructive capabilities the administration claimed, and, furthermore, that the Bush administration had been aware of this from the beginning, then 'democracy creation' became the new primary motivation. This, of course, is just as manifestly false.
 
I could make an informed asessment of what, I think, were the motivations behind the Bush administrations' occupation of Iraq, and we could debate that. What is incontrovertible is that the official reasons (The first being the supposed 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', then, once that was no longer credible, 'creating democracy.') were completely bogus.

Agreed.........
 
Liberating the Iraqis, ending policies of genocide and removing a threat from the region were reasons in every single speech from the beginning.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom