The war in Iraq.....

Fromthetrees

Obama Welcomes Home Troops To Mark End Of Iraq Warhttp://www.rferl.org/content/obama_welcomes_iraq_troops_home/24422153.html
Casualties of the Iraq Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Was the war in Iraq just about oil?
I don't understand why Ireland's favorite two countries in the world were the chief architects of this war. Look at how we welcomed the queen and Obama over with a céad míle fáilte that no other head of state in the world would have gotten from us. I know we need the US and the UK financially but why can't we act more like a neutral country with a few principles? Are we not truly a neutral country anymore? I personally think the Iraq war was an abomination.

Denerick

I agree that the Iraq war was an abomination and a (failed) attempt to secure one of the great relatively untapped oil producing regions of the world for western interests.

Queen Elizabeth II was welcomed so warmly to this country because it marked a symbolic end to the Troubles that gripped this island for so many decades. It mightn't mean a lot to the average southerner, but those of a certain age and those who grew in the north/along the border can appreciate the significance of this event. I was in Dublin that day (going for a job interview) and although the inconvenience caused by the massive security operation was slightly annoying, my heart melted when I saw the Queens motorcade emerge from Trinity College Dublin. It signified so much, and the gathering people were in such an optimistic and genuinelly happy mood. It marked a new epoch in Anglo Irish relations, and hopefully the end of neanderthal Republicanism and the quasi fascist militaristic elitism it represents.

Obama was so welcomed because he is a black American President who says inspiring things and because he wasn't a hideous conservative.

Jonny7

The war in Iraq was about many things, one of those factors was oil (long term strategic)

Around 100,000 Irish people marched against the war in Dublin, that's a relatively high proportion of the population for such a small country. Millions all over the world marched. Bush was one of the most unpopular US presidents, esp. outside the States.

Presidents are popular (or unpopular) on their own merit and not on that of their predecessors. There is a undeniable strong link between the US and Ireland that goes beyond politics.

matthew8

Jonny7 wrote: »

Bush was one of the most unpopular US presidents

Nah, Bush was more popular than every one term president there has ever been, going by the fact that he won 2 elections. However the controversial nature of one of those makes him maybe one of the most unpopular 2 term presidents.

DB21

Jonny7 wrote: »

The war in Iraq was about many things, one of those factors was oil (long term strategic)

What I want is cold hard evidence from an independent source stating that oil was the reason the US was in Iraq. Because the usual thing with America bashers is "I don't know, therefore oil.".

Jonny7

matthew8 wrote: »

Nah, Bush was more popular than every one term president there has ever been, going by the fact that he won 2 elections. However the controversial nature of one of those makes him maybe one of the most unpopular 2 term presidents.

Extraordinarily unpopular abroad. Which has been rare for a US president.

Jonny7

DB21 wrote: »

What I want is cold hard evidence from an independent source stating that oil was the reason the US was in Iraq. Because the usual thing with America bashers is "I don't know, therefore oil.".

The reason or a reason?

It was one of many factors, and certainly wasn't near the top of the list.

Norwayviking

DB21 wrote: »

What I want is cold hard evidence from an independent source stating that oil was the reason the US was in Iraq. Because the usual thing with America bashers is "I don't know, therefore oil.".

Judge for yourself:D:D:D

http://www.smh.com.au/world/memos-show-oil-motive-in-iraq-war-20110419-1dnkf.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-memos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html



http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp

http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/afghanistan.asp

Victor

DB21 wrote: »

What I want is cold hard evidence from an independent source stating that oil was the reason the US was in Iraq. Because the usual thing with America bashers is "I don't know, therefore oil.".

Aren't you being just a tiny bit hypocritical? Surely it is for the proponents of a war to demonstrate what the war is for and to do so conclusively?

snafuk35

A give the floor to the late Christopher Hitchens on Iraq. He can express it better than can I:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcvgAMnMne0

Only an utter moral coward or a credulous moron would doubt the wisdom of overthrowing Saddam and liberating Iraq from fascism.

The case for war against the utterly depraved and evil dictator Saddam Hussein was unanswerable.

Norwayviking

Doesnt make sense to me though

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jul/31/bp-stranglehold-iraq-oilfield-contract

Suryavarman

snafuk35 wrote: »

A give the floor to the late Christopher Hitchens on Iraq. He can express it better than can I:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcvgAMnMne0

Only an utter moral coward or a credulous moron would doubt the wisdom of overthrowing Saddam and liberating Iraq from fascism.

The case for war against the utterly depraved and evil dictator Saddam Hussein was unanswerable.

Overthrowing Saddam was definitely worth hundreds of billions of dollars, up to a million lives and throwing a country into chaos? Never mind the fact that the actions of the US now makes it more likely to be the victim of a terrorist attack in the future and has done huge damage to America's image around the world. I really do wonder about people who continue to support the Iraq war.

snafuk35

Suryavarman wrote: »

Overthrowing Saddam was definitely worth hundreds of billions of dollars, up to a million lives and throwing a country into chaos? Never mind the fact that the actions of the US now makes it more likely to be the victim of a terrorist attack in the future and has done huge damage to America's image around the world. I really do wonder about people who continue to support the Iraq war.

So by definition you would prefer Saddam Hussein was still in power?
I frankly don't care that WMD did not exist or that the motives of the US/UK shall we say were less than pure - their obvious motivation was oil and their strategic control of the Middle East.
The pay off of overthrowing Saddam outweighs the bad in my opinion - even though tens of thousands died in sectarian bloodletting among the Shia and Sunni tribes.
Iraq was freed from one of the most remorselessly evil regimes of history - put in place with the help of the world superpowers.
But today Iraqis have an imperfect democracy but a democracy nonetheless and a chance at carving out a future.
The fact that this evil man was tried and convicted of crimes against humanity in an Iraqi court and seen to be given a fair trial speaks volumes.

If the morons and moral cowards of the Left and the disgraceful anti-war movement had been listened to today the tyrants we see also succumbing like Saddam and indeed Saddam himself would be securely in power.

I quite frankly do not give a damn who overthrew Saddam or why.

The Iraqi people in their millions have voted in democratic elections, they have an elected government, a representative parliament and while violence continues the jihadist fanatics and baathists are yesterday's men.

Corruption is rife, poverty is immense and other problems persist but compared to where they were under Saddam's sadism, his gassings, his genocides, Iraqis are better off.

You can't overthrow dictators without bloodshed and civilians will tragically perish. That's just reality.

I am through with the utter imbecility of the anti-war left, their total denial of reality and their total abandonment of responsibility and their pathetic jingles and pathetic tantrums.

Obama quite right welcomed home the men and women of the US military who fought self-lessly and suffered so much for the freedom of Iraqis. The overwhelming majority of those servicemen and women did not fight for oil - they fought multiple tours because they saw that the plight of the ordinary Iraqi people demanded it.

The rich and powerful have profited as they do in all wars - but that does not negate the justice and wisdom of overthrowing an evil man and making Iraqis a free people.

RichieC

matthew8 wrote: »

Jonny7 wrote: »

Bush was one of the most unpopular US presidents

Nah, Bush was more popular than every one term president there has ever been, going by the fact that he won 2 elections. However the controversial nature of one of those makes him maybe one of the most unpopular 2 term presidents.

Carter is remembered fondly. you have to remember the chicanery involved in unseating him. the iranian hostages were released immediatley after bush won tbe election. how convenient!

he gets a lot of stick for his so called malaise speech but he got a significant bump in the polls after that.

ive no doubt father bush and carter would trounce gwb in a popularity poll today.

Suryavarman

snafuk35 wrote: »

So by definition you would prefer Saddam Hussein was still in power?
I frankly don't care that WMD did not exist or that the motives of the US/UK shall we say were less than pure - their obvious motivation was oil and their strategic control of the Middle East.
The pay off of overthrowing Saddam outweighs the bad in my opinion - even though tens of thousands died in sectarian bloodletting among the Shia and Sunni tribes.
Iraq was freed from one of the most remorselessly evil regimes of history - put in place with the help of the world superpowers.
But today Iraqis have an imperfect democracy but a democracy nonetheless and a chance at carving out a future.
The fact that this evil man was tried and convicted of crimes against humanity in an Iraqi court and seen to be given a fair trial speaks volumes.

If the morons and moral cowards of the Left and the disgraceful anti-war movement had been listened to today the tyrants we see also succumbing like Saddam and indeed Saddam himself would be securely in power.

I quite frankly do not give a damn who overthrew Saddam or why.

The Iraqi people in their millions have voted in democratic elections, they have an elected government, a representative parliament and while violence continues the jihadist fanatics and baathists are yesterday's men.

Corruption is rife, poverty is immense and other problems persist but compared to where they were under Saddam's sadism, his gassings, his genocides, Iraqis are better off.

You can't overthrow dictators without bloodshed and civilians will tragically perish. That's just reality.

I am through with the utter imbecility of the anti-war left, their total denial of reality and their total abandonment of responsibility and their pathetic jingles and pathetic tantrums.

Obama quite right welcomed home the men and women of the US military who fought self-lessly and suffered so much for the freedom of Iraqis. The overwhelming majority of those servicemen and women did not fight for oil - they fought multiple tours because they saw that the plight of the ordinary Iraqi people demanded it.

The rich and powerful have profited as they do in all wars - but that does not negate the justice and wisdom of overthrowing an evil man and making Iraqis a free people.

Yes I would prefer if Saddam was in power. It is highly likely that, if Iraqi people hated him so much, he would have been overthrown this year like other middle eastern dictators.

The US has left behind a highly fragile country at risk of civil war. 1 in 3 young Iraqi males wish to emigrate. The Iraq war was an abysmal failure and it is an adventure that will come back to haunt the US.

snafuk35

Suryavarman wrote: »

Yes I would prefer if Saddam was in power. It is highly likely that, if Iraqi people hated him so much, he would have been overthrown this year like other middle eastern dictators.

You have no basis to believe that whatsoever.
But unsurprisingly you think the West should just sit on its hands and do nothing about swine like Saddam?
Saddam would have had no hesitation in massacring anyone who opposed him.
He faced no consequences for his massacres in the past so why would he care about world opinion?
With no military intervention on the cards why would the Iraqi people or any other Arab people stick their necks out?
The Syrians who are in revolt at the moment are screaming for NATO to help them and the anti-war left are opposed to any intervention.
The Arab Spring would have been unthinkable before the overthrow of Saddam.
For years since the Arab governments have been dreading the spread of democratic ideas across the Middle East.
There are surprisingly few Western leftist protests in support of the Arab uprisings..
100,000s marched in opposition to the overthrow of Saddam and no similar numbers have turned out to support the Libyans or the Syrians.
The international left seems to care more about lifting the Gaza blockade so that missiles can be shipped to Hamas lunatics who want to massacre Jews.

The US has left behind a highly fragile country at risk of civil war. 1 in 3 young Iraqi males wish to emigrate. The Iraq war was an abysmal failure and it is an adventure that will come back to haunt the US.

Europe in 1945 wasn't a very nice place either was it? Does that mean WW2 should never have been fought?

Anyway all these pathetic arguments trotted out with wearisome predictability by anti-war leftists are simply another denial of reality and on going stubborn attempt to avoid any moral obligation or responsibility whatsoever.

Suryavarman

snafuk35 wrote: »

You have no basis to believe that whatsoever.
But unsurprisingly you think the West should just sit on its hands and do nothing about swine like Saddam?
Saddam would have had no hesitation in massacring anyone who opposed him.
He faced no consequences for his massacres in the past so why would he care about world opinion?
With no military intervention on the cards why would the Iraqi people or any other Arab people stick their necks out?
The Syrians who are in revolt at the moment are screaming for NATO to help them and the anti-war left are opposed to any intervention.
The Arab Spring would have been unthinkable before the overthrow of Saddam.
For years since the Arab governments have been dreading the spread of democratic ideas across the Middle East.
There are surprisingly few Western leftist protests in support of the Arab uprisings..
100,000s marched in opposition to the overthrow of Saddam and no similar numbers have turned out to support the Libyans or the Syrians.
The international left seems to care more about lifting the Gaza blockade so that missiles can be shipped to Hamas lunatics who want to massacre Jews.

Considering that there have been uprisings throughout the middle east and a few overthrows of unpopular dictators there is plenty of reason to believe the same would be done in Iraq.

Europe in 1945 wasn't a very nice place either was it? Does that mean WW2 should never have been fought?

It would be better if WWII was never fought.

Anyway all these pathetic arguments trotted out with wearisome predictability by anti-war leftists are simply another denial of reality and on going stubborn attempt to avoid any moral obligation or responsibility whatsoever.

The people of the United States have no obligation to go around fighting other peoples fights.

matthew8

RichieC wrote: »

Carter is remembered fondly. you have to remember the chicanery involved in unseating him. the iranian hostages were released immediatley after bush won tbe election. how convenient!

he gets a lot of stick for his so called malaise speech but he got a significant bump in the polls after that.

ive no doubt father bush and carter would trounce gwb in a popularity poll today.

Carter is not remembered fondly at all. One could say he is hated. He took over from Ford in 1976 after a big victory, and was deemed so bad by the public that he lost in a landslide and left such a bad taste in their mouths that the dems lost landslides in the next 2 elections.

But that is not the point. If GWB had lost to Kerry in 2004 he would've been remembered as a good pres, better than his dad. But he won 4 more years because he was popular.

RichieC

carter is hated by the right in the US. as is every democratic president.
its not the left or the right that wins elections in the US. It is the the moderates. they dont decide national sentiment towards their ex presidents either.
I think you should diversify your reading Matthew.

Bush won his second term more because Kerry was disliked. mostly imo because Rove is a campaigning genius. and lets not forget the swift boat vets for truthiness. War time president too lets not forget. Bush wasnt polling all that great at the end of his first term. Infact I had a safe as houses bet on at the time that kerry would win. I was as smugly expecting the ousting of Bush as the right are expecting Obama to be.

Victor

RichieC wrote: »

Carter is remembered fondly. you have to remember the chicanery involved in unseating him. the iranian hostages were released immediatley after bush won tbe election. how convenient!

Reagan, not Bush.

amacachi

Victor wrote: »

Reagan, not Bush.

Shush Liberal! :pac:

RichieC

silly me. indeed reagan.

Jonny7

Suryavarman wrote: »

Yes I would prefer if Saddam was in power. It is highly likely that, if Iraqi people hated him so much, he would have been overthrown this year like other middle eastern dictators.

Highly unlikely. Saddam had extreme control of all faucet of internal security and the military, the only hope would've been some sort of coup or assassination but from past attempts that too was next to impossible.

snafuk35

RichieC wrote: »

carter is hated by the right in the US. as is every democratic president.
its not the left or the right that wins elections in the US. It is the the moderates. they dont decide national sentiment towards their ex presidents either.
I think you should diversify your reading Matthew.

Bush won his second term more because Kerry was disliked. mostly imo because Rove is a campaigning genius. and lets not forget the swift boat vets for truthiness. War time president too lets not forget. Bush wasnt polling all that great at the end of his first term. Infact I had a safe as houses bet on at the time that kerry would win. I was as smugly expecting the ousting of Bush as the right are expecting Obama to be.

In 2004 when Bush won, it was the largest voter turn out in US history and Bush won by the widest margin and with the greatest number of votes of any US President in history.

Jonny7

snafuk35 wrote: »

In 2004 when Bush won, it was the largest voter turn out in US history

I'm sure someone can correct me but

"Voter turnout was unusually high. American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate reported a record turnout of 60.7% of eligible voting-age citizens, 6.4% higher than turnout in the previous election and the highest since 1968.[35]" from Wiki

and Bush won by the widest margin

Apparently it was one of the smallest.

"Bush's absolute victory margin (approximately 3 million votes) was the smallest of any sitting president since Harry S. Truman in 1948." from Wiki.

and with the greatest number of votes of any US President in history.

More a population thing, e.g. Obama received more than Bush did.

If its electoral votes, Reagan has that.

Again I am no expert on this, so can stand corrected :P

RichieC

neither of snafuk's fact are even remotely true. turn out was higher in 2008. the 60's also saw larger turn outs as a %. of population.

as for the widest margin stuff I can only assume he's on drugs as it is no where close to the truth.

funnily enough I've seen the same "facts" regurgated by internet regressives before and have read same on the website conservapedia.

remember when spreading lies that people also have google.

Im scarlet for you.

Orizio

Could the opening two posters (or anyone else) please explain in detail how the war 'was all about oil'.

Thank you.

smurgen

Orizio wrote: »

Could the opening two posters (or anyone else) please explain in detail how the war 'was all about oil'.

Thank you.

here you go fill you boots buddy : http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-memos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html


as an athiest i sometimes hope hell exists so that Blair & Bush end up there.

The Outside Agency

Orizio wrote:

Could the opening two posters (or anyone else) please explain in detail how the war 'was all about oil'.

Thank you.

You don't deserve an explanation.

How would it affect your life if Ireland was unable to import anymore oil?

The country would eventually collapse.

US has been a net importer of oil since the 70s.

Orizio

You don't deserve an explanation.

Excuse me? This is a debate forum, people make a statement, that statement is argued and sources are provided then someone else counter-argues. Explaining things is the whole point of this forum.

How would it affect your life if Ireland was unable to import anymore oil?

Awfully, but please explain what this has to with the war in Iraq?

The country would eventually collapse.

It would immediately collapse but what does this have to to do with the war in Iraq?

US has been a net importer of oil since the 70s.

I know I did a Masters on modern American history...but again what does this have to do with the war in Iraq?

Could you please make a coherent argument. Ireland is irrelevant in international affairs.

Orizio

smurgen wrote: »

here you go fill you boots buddy : http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-memos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html

Firstly, I asked for your argument, not a solo link from the Independent and nothing else.

Secondly, did you even bother reading that link? It says nothing more then that the British oil companies lobbied the British government for investment opportunities in Iraq - none of the quotes from the meetings in the article provide anything beyond that. This lobbying has been well known information for years - could you please explain how this one point proves the war in Iraq 'was for oil'? Do you believe BP and Shell dictate British foreign policy?

The Outside Agency

Orizio wrote:

It would immediately collapse but what does this have to to do with the war in Iraq?

You might be interested to watch Robert Newmans History Of Oil, then check out End Of Suburbia or Crude Impact ( on Youtube probably ) .

Could you please make a coherent argument. Ireland is irrelevant in international affairs.

The point I'm trying to make is Ireland like any other industrialized nation needs oil in order to maintain a high standard of living and will most certainly go to war in order to secure it.

Before oil, there was the horse and cart and I don't think anyone wants to go back to that, do you?

Ireland like other EU nations with the US and developing countries like China and India must import most of their oil and that usually comes from the Middle East where coincidentally, Iraq just happens to be smack bang in the middle of 3/4 of the worlds oil reserves.

People who believe the US and EU would not go to war for oil are just plain ignorant.

If you're gonna tell me Shale technology or tar sands will solve our problems, you're only deluding yourself.

It only takes $1 to extract a barrel of oil from a desert in Libya or Iraq and up to $100 for Shale...you tell me which one you'd rather buy.

Other jokes are Ethanol and Hydrogen, both examples of where you invest more energy than you get back..

Nothing can currently replace oil and gas, absolutely nothing..not even Nuclear.

Orizio

You might be interested to watch Robert Newmans History Of Oil, then check out End Of Suburbia or Crude Impact ( on Youtube probably ) .

Do these programmes say something regard oil and the war in Iraq?

The point I'm trying to make is Ireland like any other industrialized nation needs oil in order to maintain a high standard of living and will most certainly go to war in order to secure it.

Obviously, but since oil is a commodity to be bought and sold on the world market there is no need to go to war to 'secure it'. And again, you are failing to talk about Iraq in any specific way.

Before oil, there was the horse and cart and I don't think anyone wants to go back to that, do you?

...what does this have to do with the war in Iraq?

Ireland like other EU nations with the US and developing countries like China and India must import most of their oil and that usually comes from the Middle East where coincidentally, Iraq just happens to be smack bang in the middle of 3/4 of the worlds oil reserves.

The US does not get the majority of its oil from the Middle East, it get it from Canada and Mexico. Your final point is circumstantial and doesn't prove anything.

People who believe the US and EU would not go to war for oil are just plain ignorant.

No need to be insulting - I mean I'm trying to get you to make a decent argument (rather then just random unconnected points), hence I am humouring you a bit (since clearly you don't know how to argue in anything other then talking points).

If you're gonna tell me Shale technology or tar sands will solve our problems, you're only deluding yourself.

More gibberish - who exactly are you arguing with?

It only takes $1 to extract a barrel of oil from a desert in Libya or Iraq and up to $100 for Shale...you tell me which one you'd rather buy.

Uh k.

Other jokes are Ethanol and Hydrogen, both examples of where you invest more energy than you get back..

Uh k.

Nothing can currently replace oil and gas, absolutely nothing..not even Nuclear.

Uh k.

You are beginning to waste my time - can you please make an coherent argument explaining what you mean by saying the war in Iraq is all about oil, rather then spouting random 'facts', misinformation, red herrings and circumstance.

RichieC

amazing how sketical folks are when it comes to oil for war. I wish people were as skeppers when it comes to us excuses for wars.

alas.. it doesnt work like that.

The Outside Agency

Orizio wrote: »

Do these programmes say something regard oil and the war in Iraq?



Obviously, but since oil is a commodity to be bought and sold on the world market there is no need to go to war to 'secure it'. And again, you are failing to talk about Iraq in any specific way.



...what does this have to do with the war in Iraq?



The US does not get the majority of its oil from the Middle East, it get it from Canada and Mexico. Your final point is circumstantial and doesn't prove anything.



No need to be insulting - I mean I'm trying to get you to make a decent argument (rather then just random unconnected points), hence I am humouring you a bit (since clearly you don't know how to argue in anything other then talking points).



More gibberish - who exactly are you arguing with?



Uh k.



Uh k.



Uh k.

You are beginning to waste my time - can you please make an coherent argument explaining what you mean by saying the war in Iraq is all about oil, rather then spouting random 'facts', misinformation, red herrings and circumstance.

Your response is precisely why I refuse to give you a decent rebuttal.

"Uh k" -- type of response i'd expect from a 5 year old who watched too much American soap opera.

Absolute waste of time, yes you definitely are.

Orizio

The Outside Agency wrote: »

Your response is precisely why I refuse to give you a decent rebuttal.

"Uh k" -- type of response i'd expect from a 5 year old who watched too much American soap opera.

Absolute waste of time, yes you definitely are.

The 'uh k' response was to points you made that had absolutely nothing whatsoever with oil and the war in Iraq. Basically you were and are wasting my time. And I've never watched a 'soap opera' in my life.

But if you are finished posting your inane ramblings, then I can't complain.

Orizio

RichieC wrote: »

amazing how sketical folks are when it comes to oil for war. I wish people were as skeppers when it comes to us excuses for wars.

alas.. it doesnt work like that.

Please explain. 'Oil for war' - what does that mean? Are you going to provide a intelligent coherent argument explaining why you believe the war in Iraq was all about oil (assuming you believe that of course)?

Jonny7

Wow if this gets you riled, you should have seen all the posters claiming Libya was all about oil :P

You are right to an extent, however, like Kuwait, the administration (well more specifically the oil industry executives) wanted to secure strategic long term access to challenge OPEC.

As I said before the singular reason they went to war in Iraq was certainly not oil, but it was a minor reason, esp. when it came to the hurried planning.

One of the hawks of the administration also let slip that one of the reasons for invading Iraq was because it was on a sea of oil or words to that effect.

smurgen

Orizio wrote: »

Firstly, I asked for your argument, not a solo link from the Independent and nothing else.

Secondly, did you even bother reading that link? It says nothing more then that the British oil companies lobbied the British government for investment opportunities in Iraq - none of the quotes from the meetings in the article provide anything beyond that. This lobbying has been well known information for years - could you please explain how this one point proves the war in Iraq 'was for oil'? Do you believe BP and Shell dictate British foreign policy?

1. The OP asks is the war about oil.Myself and many other posters say it is and provide links which hint towards such a claim. You ridicule us and more anoyingly fail to provide an alterior reason. If you say we are wrong you need to provide evidence which says we are wrong.

2.The excuse for the war was the WMD's. None were found. Therefore either a) the evidence put forward to Bush was incorrect and the spies/intelligence officers/whoever should go to jail for criminal negligence or b) this evidence was fabricated to achieve a reason for war.

3. You are correct in a sense that if wasn't just for oil the war was started but it was the major deciding factor in my opinion. Here is a wiki link to an interesting theory called petrodollar warfare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare#cite_note-2 . In my opinion Saddam switching to trading oil in Euro's was sending alarm bells to the US and they feared the dollar slipping out if its position as the world reserve currency. However there were other lucrative contracting deals to be one out of the invasion; http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1599682,00.html .

But the links between Bush ,Cheney and the oil firms in a little too close for my liking. http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9HM532G3.htm Haliburton/Shell developing oil fields(Haliburton is the company Dick Cheney was head of of and President Bush was director of Dresser Industries which is now owned by Haliburton).

The Outside Agency

Jonny7 wrote:

As I said before the singular reason they went to war in Iraq was certainly not oil, but it was a minor reason, esp. when it came to the hurried planning.

Please enlighten everyone about the major reason. (won't hold my breath)

Honestly Jonny7, sometimes I think you're posting this stuff to deliberately annoy people.

Intellectually dishonest is what I call it... presumably you do this for your own amusement ...I have to admit, it amuses me at times too.

Orizio

Myself and many other posters say it is and provide links which hint towards such a claim.

I want you to provide an coherent and detailed explanation baked up by sources regarding your argument that the war in Iraq was for oil - no one has even attempted to do this, will you?

And no, I don't care about 'hinting' towards 'claims' (whatever that means) or posts with solitary links and nothing else.

You ridicule us.

:rolleyes:

and more anoyingly fail to provide an alterior reason

I'll provide this when you and others fulfil your part of the bargain - i.e. making a coherent and detailed argument regarding the war in Iraq being about oil.

If you say we are wrong you need to provide evidence which says we are wrong.

You obviously have no idea how debating works - no one in this thread has put forward a worthy argument for the idea that the war was for oil so how am I supposed to rebuke such an argument? How can I debate and attack something that hasn't been made? The above is akin to a Gawd-botherer saying to an atheist 'God exists, now prove that I am wrong'. The onus of proof is on you and the others, not me.

2.The excuse for the war was the WMD's. None were found. Therefore either a) the evidence put forward to Bush was incorrect and the spies/intelligence officers/whoever should go to jail for criminal negligence or b) this evidence was fabricated to achieve a reason for war.

This is red herring - you seem to want people to think along the false dichotomy of the war being either for oil or for WMDs when people fail to contemplate that it could be about neither. This obsession with these two talking points has largely ruined debate about the Iraq war for the past decade.

Regarding WMD, I largely think this justification for war was put forward to the American public (a) as a successful and fear-inducing PR campaign to ensure the American public supported the war and (b) because WMD's was a useful catch-all justification that a divisive American administration could unite behind (this point was actually publicly stated by a number of American officials iirc). I can provide quotes and references regarding these two points and any others btw, just ask, although it'll mean trawling through my old history books. :pac:

However, and most importantly I do not accept this widely put forward (probably unintentionally) dichotomy that the war was either for oil or WMD. I don't think either is relevant, and don't want to get bogged down discussing either in more detail then is necessary.

3. You are correct in a sense that if wasn't just for oil the war was started but it was the major deciding factor in my opinion. Here is a wiki link to an interesting theory called petrodollar warfare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare#cite_note-2 . In my opinion Saddam switching to trading oil in Euro's was sending alarm bells to the US and they feared the dollar slipping out if its position as the world reserve currency. However there were other lucrative contracting deals to be one out of the invasion; http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1599682,00.html .

Could you provide a link regarding the part in bold please?

The wikipedia article is just bad and full of assumptions, as you can see its bereft of many citations, including its one of two mentions of Iraq. Its not a good source - wikipedia in general is worthless because anyone can edit it (afaik). However, the theory is correct to the extent that oil prices are linked to the American economy and thus American prosperity, both of which American foreign policy seek to protect. From here things become problematic however - first, the decision to switch from euros to dollars by Iraq was purely a political one (it damaged Iraq's economy severely) - an attempt to divide Europe and the US and curry favour with the European nations (this had been Saddam's plan to break or weaken sanctions since the early 90s). The problem is that if the US decides to invade Iraq purely or largely because of its switch from euros to dollars then Saddam wouldn't have done so in the first place - if he thought such an action would elicit such a strong response, out of the self-interest of the nation-state, he wouldn't have made the switch. Very simply, fragile powerless states don't typically give powerful states reasons to invade them. Of course, Saddam may have overplayed his hand but it was clearly a self-defeating decision, assuming your theory is correct. And states act rationally out of self-interest.

Secondly, are we to assume that any state that switches from euros to dollars for its oil sales are going to be invaded by the US?

Third, iirc the invasion of Iraq drove up the price of oil creating considerable economic instability. As such, the invasion had at least partly the opposite effect your theory proposes - i.e. stable, low and balanced oil prices. The invasion of Iraq in general was exceedingly damaging to the American economy which is why I find any economy based explanation hard to make sense of. In general historically wars tend to be fought primarily for realist reasons of self-interest and the growth of power. Economic reasons for war are secondary and linked to the primary political reasons.

So I don't know how well your theory stands up, although I'm interested in reading my articles from reputable sources on the subject if you have them. As an aside, if the theory is correct (a) I doubt the people that talk about 'war for oil' have such a subtle concept in mind and typically mean something very different and (b) if punishing Saddam for switching from euros to dollars was one of the primary reasons for the invasion then to me its another realist decision to protect American power, not to simply invade Iraq for oil. The distinction is important.

Regarding the Time article, once again are you trying to say the US invaded Iraq to increase the profits of Blackwater? No where in the article is any such thing said - the reason these companies was given such contracts was because the US was overstretched both militarily and administratively. I don't really get this line of arguing, it seems so weak and irrelevant to the world of international affairs.

But the links between Bush ,Cheney and the oil firms in a little too close for my liking. http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9HM532G3.htm Haliburton/Shell developing oil fields(Haliburton is the company Dick Cheney was head of of and President Bush was director of Dresser Industries which is now owned by Haliburton).

Once again this is purely circumstantial - lobbyists, corporations and politicians being close is a constant refrain in modern politics, you are simply putting 2 and 2 together and getting 7. Also you are being vague - are you suggesting Haliburton and Shell have the power to coerce/bribe American (and British) politicians into invading foreign countries to improve their own profit margins?

Thank you however for finally putting forward a detailed if slightly all over the place argument. Hopefully RichieC and others will follow suit.

The Outside Agency

Orizio wrote:

I'll provide this when you and others fulfil your part of the bargain - i.e. making a coherent and detailed argument regarding the war in Iraq being about oil.

Haha...you have to admit, you're funny.

It's a moronic request that nobody should waste time answering.

Initially you post a question which would appear sincere on the surface, but it's completely dishonest and I saw it a mile away.

It's dishonest question...you've made your mind up but want to engage in argument with anyone that disagrees with you.

Been there, done that...it's a boring and rather predictable strategy for discussion.

Evidence the invasion was motivated by oil is overwhelming yet you can't seem to see it anywhere and you're a history student..I'd say you were robbed by whatever college you attended and should demand a refund.

I'll bet you didn't even watch 'History of Oil' by Robert Newman which I recommended further demonstrating your true motives...you've no interest in actually educating yourself about the situation over there, just regurgitate garbage you heard from some ultra-conservative chickenhawk news pundit.

Jonny7

I have keenly followed the Iraq (and Afghanistan) situation for over a decade.

There weren't so much "key reasons" as there were "key people" involved in the decision to invade Iraq.

One of these key people was Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of Defense under the GW Bush admin from 2001. He was under Rumsfeld (secretary of defense at the time, since "retired", mid-office) and the two held very similar views (along with e.g. Rove and Cheney).

It's fairly common knowledge (even at the time) their views on Iraq post 911.

e.g. from Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz

The terrorist attack of 9-11 was a turning point in administration policy, as Wolfowitz later explained: "9/11 really was a wake up call and that if we take proper advantage of this opportunity to prevent the future terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction that it will have been an extremely valuable wake up call," adding: "if we say our only problem was to respond to 9/11, and we wait until somebody hits us with nuclear weapons before we take that kind of threat seriously, we will have made a very big mistake."[36]

In the first emergency meeting of the National Security Council on the day of the attacks, Rumsfeld asked, "Why shouldn’t we go against Iraq, not just al-Qaeda?" with Wolfowitz adding that Iraq was a "brittle, oppressive regime that might break easily—it was doable," and, according to John Kampfner, "from that moment on, he and Wolfowitz used every available opportunity to press the case."[37] The idea was initially rejected, at the behest of Secretary of State Colin Powell, but, according to Kampfner, "Undeterred Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz held secret meetings about opening up a second front—against Saddam. Powell was excluded." In such meetings they created a policy that would later be dubbed the Bush Doctrine, centering on "pre-emption" and the war on Iraq, which the PNAC had advocated in their earlier letters.[38]

As for the key reasons, briefly, the job was unfinished in '91, Saddam was left in power, crushed the uprising, emerged stronger than before, thus seen as a victory in Iraq and the wider area. The US is not too keen in Iran at the moment, it was a lot less keen on Iraq, esp. after 911 - Saddam himself paid tribute to the 911 attacks, not many leaders did that, didn't sit well with the US.

There was the constant Israeli angle - most, if not all, Israeli lobbies pushed for the war in Iraq (obv because of the threat on their doorstep)

Saddam was a brutal leader, gross human rights violations, seen as far worse than the likes of Gaddafi or Gbagbo, many atrocities attributed to him and his regime.


As I said there were many reasons (valid or not) the Iraq war took place, not just oil (which I would class as a minor reason, and only in the long-term sense)

snafuk35

What do opponents of a war for oil hope that we will heat our homes or run out cars? Magic? As I see it there is shedloads of oil the Middle East and the Arabs haven't invented anything since the camel saddle. What do they need it for? And why the hell should we allow them to call the shots?

The Outside Agency

@Jonny7,

I agree Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Perle and the whole PNAC (Project For New American Century) are bunch of nutjobs with a lot of power in Washington during Bush presidency but what are the true motives for invasion? ...

Let me bring your attention to speech Cheney gave in 1999 to Institute of Petroleum.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/559

In it he states:

"By 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from?... Oil is unique in that it is so strategic in nature. We are not talking about soapflakes or leisurewear here. Energy is truly fundamental to the world’s economy."

Further into his speech, he states:

While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow.

At this time, he was CEO of Halliburton, the the worlds second largest oil field services company.

Then he becomes Vice President to George Bush in 2000 and in early 2001 is appointed chairman of Energy Task Force.

In March 2001, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham told an Energy Summit:

"America faces a major energy supply crisis over the next two decades,”

"The failure to meet this challenge will threaten our nation’s economic prosperity, compromise our national security, and literally alter the way we lead our lives."

Then 9/11 happens and all of a sudden Saddam Hussein is a threat to the west with WMD that were never found after the invasion.

I agree Wolfowitz and that whole lobby group of you know who.. have their own interests but the primary concern for the US right now isn't idealogical in nature, it's simply the need for cheap energy to keep it's economy and way of life going, most of the oil is found in the middle east...

Short analysis but there's so much evidence out there that proves this was mainly about access to cheap energy like oil and gas.

The Outside Agency

snafuk35 wrote:

What do opponents of a war for oil hope that we will heat our homes or run out cars? Magic? As I see it there is shedloads of oil the Middle East and the Arabs haven't invented anything since the camel saddle. What do they need it for? And why the hell should we allow them to call the shots?

In 1973, arab members of OPEC placed an embargo on oil exports to the US because of their support for Israel.

What followed was an economic recession in the US and this is pretty much when the US started to take an aggressive role in Middle East.

Yes, oil is very important and I understand this so I know that if oil stopped flowing from the middle east, our entire way of life would collapse tomorrow, that's why the military are there, to ensure that doesn't happen.

I'm very aware of the consequences of no oil being available to industrialized nations which is maybe why we should be looking for ways to stop being so dependent on it..instead of fighting endless wars for it and other resources.

I'm not saying OPEC should be calling the shots but it's not like industrialized nations couldn't develop some new energy that would stop us being dependent on OPEC, the alternative is endless wars in OPEC nations.

Orizio

Wow if this gets you riled, you should have seen all the posters claiming Libya was all about oil :P

Ah jaysus thats even more ludicrous. Unfortunately human beings have little to no imagination and are prone to thinking in dualistic and simple terms - hence this oil/WMD stuff.

You are right to an extent, however, like Kuwait, the administration (well more specifically the oil industry executives) wanted to secure strategic long term access to challenge OPEC.

IIRC the Gulf War was down (a) to the US making it clear it was the pre-eminent power in the post Cold war world and ensuring aggression was punished in an American dominated world and (b) to ensure Iraq couldn't leverage oil prices to effect the world, and US, economy. The second point is linked to American power and prosperity, not the profits of oil company executives.

As I said before the singular reason they went to war in Iraq was certainly not oil, but it was a minor reason, esp. when it came to the hurried planning.

How do you mean?

One of the hawks of the administration also let slip that one of the reasons for invading Iraq was because it was on a sea of oil or words to that effect.

Link? Can't remember any such quote.

Orizio

Evidence the invasion was motivated by oil is overwhelming yet you can't seem to see it anywhere

Shame you are completely incapable of providing any such evidence.

and you're a history student ..I'd say you were robbed by whatever college you attended and should demand a refund.

More insults.

I'll bet you didn't even watch 'History of Oil' by Robert Newman which I recommended further demonstrating your true motives..

No, as I asked you if it said anything about the war in Iraq. You didn't bother to rpely.

you've no interest in actually educating yourself about the situation over there, just regurgitate garbage you heard from some ultra-conservative chickenhawk news pundit,

Yet more (bizarre) insults.

The Outside Agency

I'd say they're more accurate than bizarre.

FreudianSlippers

Orizio wrote: »

Link? Can't remember any such quote.

The Guardian has removed this article from their website and has posted the following:

A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil" misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that. He said, according to the Department of Defence website, "The ... difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq."

The sense was clearly that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed.

Easy mistake to make by the OP.

Orizio

The Outside Agency wrote: »

I'd say they're more accurate than bizarre.

How are they accurate? I was against the war, and I don't watch American news.