Invading Iraq for oil?

Clawdeeus

Hello everybody, just wanted to bring this up for discussion.

If the ultimate goal of the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq was either securing oil for big companies in the US/ securing strategic rescources for the US people, do these new developments mean the strategy has failed?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8312249.stm

Or were the nay sayers wrong to begin with, and the invasion's aim actually to oust Sadam Hussein. and secure a democracy in the region ( I think everyone can disregard the WMD argument,

Or perhaps the US's control of these regions go beyond business, ie. bases in Iraq etc. (although I find this argument weak, given the speed with which the US can deploy forces, should securing these areas become necessary.)

Just to state my own views, I was originally against the war in Iraq, (despite being very pro-american in general), however my reasons for opposing it had nothing to do with a belief that the US's intentions were less than honorable, rather that I did not believe the country was worth trying to liberate. It just did not seem like a western problem at the time.

Looking forward to hearing other peoples views,

Regards
Claw-dee-us

Manic Moran

I think it is probably fair to say that if the primary export of the region were oranges, there would be a lot less interest in the place.

However, those who say that it was simply a direct grab for the oil fields to put them under American control and thus guarantee cheap oil for the US are, I think, overly conspiratorial.

As long as the oil flowed efficiently and was available on the open market for everyone (including the Americans) to buy, that would have been good enough. So if you wish to subscribe to the theorem that the sole cause of the invasion was access to oil, then no, the events in the BBC article are not evidence of 'failure.'

However, I do not believe that the oil itself was the sole reason. Saddam was not the most stabilising influence in the region, even after the 1991 war he never truly settled down. He certainly was not the best thing sinced sliced bread for the Iraqi people as a whole, and it is possible that the invaders did really believe that there was a WMD threat. All those factors as a whole, and yes, the fact that he could affect the world's oil supply, all contributed to the decision that it was probably in the overall better interest to get rid of him.

And, in all honesty, I don't think the world is a worse place for his removal.

NTM

MeatProduct

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think it is probably fair to say that if the primary export of the region were oranges, there would be a lot less interest in the place.

Hi Manic Moran,
You have put forward a few of reasons for the invasion in your post there; 1) oil, 2) regional stability and 3) Sadam wasn't good for his people.

Can we both agree that the US has no interest in the welfare of the Iraqi people and get rid of reason 3? The notion that the US has any interest in the livelyhood of people is frankly laughable.

Obviously option 2 is based on oil and the ME/Israel situation.

So its looks like the main reasons given here are generally oil-based. Did I miss something from your comment or was there another reason why the US would go into Iraq. We can just ignore the WMD bit and pretend you didn't mention that.

I don't believe oil is the only reason like yourself though. War is very profitable, so why not start one off to turn some coin, which also requires oil so the two go hand in hand really.

Believe me I'd love it to be true that governments cared enough about people's welfares enough to have that as the primary driver for initiating a war but that's just not the case.

Was there another reason as you see it?

Nick

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

However, I do not believe that the oil itself was the sole reason.

Who said that a picture was worth a thousand words?

Former oilman Bush never forgot his roots (or was it strings?).

Overheal

MeatProduct wrote: »

Can we both agree that the US has no interest in the welfare of the Iraqi people and get rid of reason 3? The notion that the US has any interest in the livelyhood of people is frankly laughable.

Yes, our leaders are baby eating demons from the 4th level of hell.

MeatProduct

Overheal wrote: »

Yes, our leaders are baby eating demons from the 4th level of hell.

Are you implying that the leaders in the US have an interest in the welfare of the Iraqi people?

Nick

Black Swan

MeatProduct wrote: »

I don't believe oil is the only reason like yourself though. War is very profitable, so why not start one off to turn some coin, which also requires oil so the two go hand in hand really.

Just like Bush was a former oilman, Cheney was Halliburton's former CEO. Of course, these are just coincidences...

Overheal

MeatProduct wrote: »

Are you implying that the leaders in the US have an interest in the welfare of the Iraqi people?

Nick

You said 'People' not 'Iraqi People'. And as far as the Iraqi people go the US learned hard some Cold War lessons about ignoring civilian livelihood. Its what happened to Afghanistan: we gave them the tools to repel the Soviets, and then we left them holding the pieces. We never gave them another worthwhile dime.

It also wasnt the first time we went into Iraq, and that was not to do with Oil either. Im not saying oil has not been a factor in the last 5-10 years, as NTM said. I stand by that. But to imply we would sooner napalm a litter of kittens just to save a buck, well I think you can gtfo.

Manic Moran

Can we both agree that the US has no interest in the welfare of the Iraqi people and get rid of reason 3?

No, I do not think that we can so agree. The US military routinely spends millions of dollars on an altruistic basis to help others. It wasn't Japanese, German, Irish or Red Cross helicopter carriers that showed up to do search-and-rescue and aid delivery this month after the tsunami, for example.

Certainly, we cannot realistically just look at the concern for the people of a nation as a sole criterion for going to the length of invading another country: After all, it's not as if the US is beating down the doors of Chad and Sudan, for example. The closest I can think of which involved military force for no particular direct gain to the US was the military assault on Serbia, but even that was to the benefit of the US's allies as such an unstable country in Europe wouldn't have been good for Europe as a whole. However, there is nothing to say that the oppression of the Iraqi people cannot have been just one more contributing factor to the decision, further affecting the scales.

NTM

MeatProduct

Overheal wrote: »

You said 'People' not 'Iraqi People'. And as far as the Iraqi people go the US learned hard some Cold War lessons about ignoring civilian livelihood. Its what happened to Afghanistan: we gave them the tools to repel the Soviets, and then we left them holding the pieces. We never gave them another worthwhile dime.

Overheal, I think you have misunderstood my comments, to quote myself:

Can we both agree that the US has no interest in the welfare of the Iraqi people and get rid of reason 3? The notion that the US has any interest in the livelyhood of people is frankly laughable.

So I was directing your attention to "Iraqi" people but I would still have great difficulty that believing that the US admin has the interest of any people close to their hearts (other than what serves them of course).

Overheal wrote: »

It also wasnt the first time we went into Iraq, and that was not to do with Oil either. Im not saying oil has not been a factor in the last 5-10 years, as NTM said. I stand by that. But to imply we would sooner napalm a litter of kittens just to save a buck, well I think you can gtfo.

Excuse me? Who implied this? These comments are loaded. Forgive me for not knowing what "gtfo" means, please elaborate.
I have put forward that war is a very profitable industry so it serves governments and their cohorts to have wars, simple business really. Like anti virus companies having an interest in new viruses being created to keep people buying their products.

'Tis basic human nature really.

Please clarify your comments please.

Nick

Overheal

MeatProduct wrote: »

Overheal, I think you have misunderstood my comments, to quote myself:

No I think you've misunderstood mine. When we left Afghanistan it breeded political resentment toward the american people for abandoning them after we all but promised to free them from Soviet oppression. If thats still too hard to grasp, rent Charlie Wilson's War. Quick snippet of modern history for you, plus Tom Hanks. I like Tom. He's a good guy.

So I was directing your attention to "Iraqi" people but I would still have great difficulty that believing that the US admin has the interest of any people close to their hearts (other than what serves them of course).

Well NTM was thinking in ways I wasn't even: In fact the US donates more in Aid around the world than any other country.

Excuse me? Who implied this? These comments are loaded.

Im pretty sure you did when you insinuated that the US had zero interest in the wellbeing of the Iraqi people so long as it could get its hand on that sweet texas tea.

I have put forward that war is a very profitable industry so it serves governments and their cohorts to have wars, simple business really. Like anti virus companies having an interest in new viruses being created to keep people buying their products.

'Tis basic human nature really.

That is certainly a factor, but hardly all encompassing. Again you are making a blanket statement saying that profit is the only cause for war.

Forgive me for not knowing what "gtfo" means, please elaborate.

google it.

MeatProduct

Manic Moran wrote: »

No, I do not think that we can so agree. The US military routinely spends millions of dollars on an altruistic basis to help others. It wasn't Japanese, German, Irish or Red Cross helicopter carriers that showed up to do search-and-rescue and aid delivery this month after the tsunami, for example.

I genuinely wish I shared your optimism of the world's leaders. Time and again I have seen that there is usually a hidden motive or some other self-serving act.

As you have probably noticed from past comments of mine I believe in the fractal nature of reality and behavior which is something that is directly measurable in biological systems. Basically, this mean that an analysis of the components of a system reveals the behaviour of the overall system.

I'll leave it at that but I have concluded that until the microcosm has solved it's issues of greed, power and conflict then it will not be resolved in the macro scale.

Nick

MeatProduct

Overheal wrote: »

No I think you've misunderstood mine.

Please clearly state how I have misunderstood you, I paid you the same courtesy. I do no believe I have misunderstood you.

When we left Afghanistan it breeded political resentment toward the american people for abandoning them after we all but promised to free them from Soviet oppression. If thats still too hard to grasp, rent Charlie Wilson's War. Quick snippet of modern history for you, plus Tom Hanks. I like Tom. He's a good guy.

Look Overheal, if you believe they went in there for the good of the people that is great. I utterly disagree.

Well NTM was thinking in ways I wasn't even: In fact the US donates more in Aid around the world than any other country.

Good for them, proves they are angels.

Im pretty sure you did when you insinuated that the US had zero interest in the wellbeing of the Iraqi people so long as it could get its hand on that sweet texas tea.

So when I said

Can we both agree that the US has no interest in the welfare of the Iraqi people and get rid of reason 3? The notion that the US has any interest in the livelyhood of people is frankly laughable.

I meant to imply

we would sooner napalm a litter of kittens just to save a buck, well I think you can gtfo.

Fair enough, don't think I need to give that anymore of my time.

Again you are making a blanket statement saying that profit is the only cause for war.

Again, please clearly point out where I state this. If you can't I would appreciate if you stopped misrepresenting me.

Thank you,

Nick

Overheal

We'll agree to disagree. I'm not going to sit here and believe that since overthrowing Saddam in 2003 that the only reason we are still there going into 2010 and 2011 and beyond is so we can get oil.

MeatProduct

Overheal wrote: »

I'm not going to sit here and believe that since overthrowing Saddam in 2003 that the only reason we are still there going into 2010 and 2011 and beyond is so we can get oil.

Good, since I am not either and never stated that they are there just for oil. Clearly you have misunderstood me and have also misrepresented my comments by not correnting yourself and giving clarity where I asked.

I'd like to engage in a cogent debate with you as I rarely have the opportunity to debate these days with someone with views such as yours. I would like to increase my understanding.

Nick

bobbyjoe

I read that part of it is also currency. Oil is traded in Dollars. Iraq changed to the euro. Other countries were thinking of doing the same. Countries wouldn't need stocks of dollars which would be very bad for the US economy.

Nodin

Overheal wrote: »

Yes, our leaders are baby eating demons from the 4th level of hell.

Bit of an overreaction. The fact is the US will -as all powers do - sit down and deal with whoever suits it, openly or otherwise, in pursuit of its interests. It doesn't hop about the world saving folk via massive military invasion on a regular basis. The idea that this realpolitik was somehow abandoned because of the Iraqi people (as I call it, the 'Cuddly Iraqi' theory) is just nonsense.

Victor

Oh, there was one tenuous AL Qaeda / Taliban / Mujihadeen / September 11th link.

While Saddam was in power, the Americans had to stay in Saudi Arabia. This was a bugbear with Bin Ladin* and others who didn't like infidels in the Islamic homeland. With the formal war over in Iraq, the Americans removed all the most obvious military bits in Saudi Arabia.

Iraq was invader to satisfy Bin Laden.



* Note Bin Laden offered to do the 1991 Kuwait job, but Saud got the Americans in.

stevedublin

Victor wrote: »

Oh, there was one tenuous AL Qaeda / Taliban / Mujihadeen / September 11th link.

While Saddam was in power, the Americans had to stay in Saudi Arabia. This was a bugbear with Bin Ladin* and others who didn't like infidels in the Islamic homeland. With the formal war over in Iraq, the Americans removed all the most obvious military bits in Saudi Arabia.

Iraq was invader to satisfy Bin Laden.



* Note Bin Laden offered to do the 1991 Kuwait job, but Saud got the Americans in.

never heard that perspective before. Hard to believe that the US would be so scared of Bin Laden as to invade Iraq to appease Al Quaida!