How valid is the "War for Oil" Argument?

Judgement

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
3,815
0
0
Although I never truly believed that the US being in Iraq had much to do with oil, after reading this which was emailed to me earlier today my opinion strengthed on the subject. Although the article is written in 1990 and is actually describing the first Gulf War, I don't see why for the most part it wouldn't hold up today.

I haven't read anything else about the subject so I'm not in any position to argue that this is absolutely true, I just found it interesting.


For those of you who think oil is or isn't an influence on the war, what sways your opinion?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,812
6,520
126
Naturally oil is a consideration, particularly so it doesn't interfere with the develompent of the Chinese solar tank, but the totality of reasons for Iraq can be lumped under the New American Century scenario, which I think better explains our invasion. There are lots of reasons encluding oil.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Bush et al tried to deny OIL had anything to do with this invasion . . . but even stalwarts at places like the American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation would concur that oil was a factor due to our strategic needs.

The denials were a poor strategy unless WMD is "discovered" relatively soon in Iraq . . . any appearance of WMD in May or June will clearly have difficulty passing a sniff test.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Bush et al tried to deny OIL had anything to do with this invasion . . . but even stalwarts at places like the American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation would concur that oil was a factor due to our strategic needs.

The denials were a poor strategy unless WMD is "discovered" relatively soon in Iraq . . . any appearance of WMD in May or June will clearly have difficulty passing a sniff test.


BBD, the first inspectors did not find much for the first four or five years on inspections. Your petty attempt to say that any WMD found in Iraq is planted is rather sick and twisted.

Go sniff something else.
 

Judgement

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
3,815
0
0
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Bush et al tried to deny OIL had anything to do with this invasion . . . but even stalwarts at places like the American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation would concur that oil was a factor due to our strategic needs.

The denials were a poor strategy unless WMD is "discovered" relatively soon in Iraq . . . any appearance of WMD in May or June will clearly have difficulty passing a sniff test.


BBD, the first inspectors did not find much for the first four or five years on inspections. Your petty attempt to say that any WMD found in Iraq is planted is rather sick and twisted.

Go sniff something else.


They are leaving themselves another argument to fall back on for when the "no WMD" one fails like all of their past ones have.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
I would not like to even think that Maybe this had anything to do with OIL.

After all we didn't seem to really care about their History, Museums, Librarys, or Culture.
They were just distractions from the oil.

And don't forget - lots of WMD and deadly petrochemicals are based on oil, got to keep them away from that too.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Judgement
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Bush et al tried to deny OIL had anything to do with this invasion . . . but even stalwarts at places like the American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation would concur that oil was a factor due to our strategic needs.
The denials were a poor strategy unless WMD is "discovered" relatively soon in Iraq . . . any appearance of WMD in May or June will clearly have difficulty passing a sniff test.
BBD, the first inspectors did not find much for the first four or five years on inspections. Your petty attempt to say that any WMD found in Iraq is planted is rather sick and twisted.
Go sniff something else.
hey are leaving themselves another argument to fall back on for when the "no WMD" one fails like all of their past ones have.

A debate on this issue ought to first establish an important concept. Those who have faith that anything uttered by US government officials is the truth without exception and those who do not accept that anything uttered etc.etc.. It then boils down to having proof before an accepted third party. This is the only way the US can hope to convince all the people all the time. That won't happen, I don't think. So when and if they find something that justifies WMD few will fully accept it who doubt the word of the teller.
But, I feel steered toward a criteria for justification and I still can't get past the legal right to invade... once I can pass that then I'll consider the rest... perhaps. I think if it was lawful then I don't care what is found or unfound.. the invasion was legal!
 

Helenihi

Senior member
Dec 25, 2001
379
0
0
What do you mean by "war for oil?" Meaning we fought the war for the soul reason to enrich oil companies? No, that's stupid. Meaning, the regions natural resources make it an important strategic location and vital to our security so that we cannot afford for it to become destabilized or dominated by a single hostile power? Probably. Not the whole reason, it's a complex issue with a lot of different justifications that all relate to eachother, and anyone who tells you there is a simple and singular explanation for the war is an idiot.
 

glugglug

Diamond Member
Jun 9, 2002
5,340
1
81
The most plausible theory I've seen is this one that the war is not about the oil itself, but the currency the oil is traded in. (Providing stability to the dollar because other nations must have Dollars rather than Euros to buy oil).
 

Helenihi

Senior member
Dec 25, 2001
379
0
0
Originally posted by: glugglug
The most plausible theory I've seen is this one that the war is not about the oil itself, but the currency the oil is traded in. (Providing stability to the dollar because other nations must have Dollars rather than Euros to buy oil).

I don't know how this became trendy to float around as a reason for the war, but it's simply not realistic. Paul Krugman, one of the world's top economists, had a short article as to why it was bunk.

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/oildollar.html
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
BBD, the first inspectors did not find much for the first four or five years on inspections. Your petty attempt to say that any WMD found in Iraq is planted is rather sick and twisted.

If I remember correctly the first inspectors were a UN bunch working under the supervision of Iraqi officials . . . US troops move at will throughout Iraq. If WMD was used, found last month, last week, or even by the end of the month . . . I would have NO doubt it was authentic. Curiously we can embed 400-500 reporters but we cannot manage to find space for UN weapons inspectors?

What my post addressed . . . exists in EVERY situation with significant geopolitical consequences. When the pressure mounts to produce SOMETHING . . . it usually comes along . . . say anodized aluminum tubes or Nigerian nuke memos. Sometimes it's just over-eagerness and sometimes it is clearly fabricated.

Your petty attempt to attach my name to a statement that 'any WMD found in Iraq is planted' is rather weak . . . try again though . . . practice makes perfect.;)
 

RossGr

Diamond Member
Jan 11, 2000
3,383
1
0
Ask a yourself this simple question, would we have invaded Iraq if there had been no oil?

Since we have lived with a not so nice dictator 90miles off of our coast for nearly 50yrs I think the answer is obvious.

How long would we have allowed Fidel Castro to remain in power if Cuba had had even a small oil field?
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Helenihi
Originally posted by: glugglug
The most plausible theory I've seen is this one that the war is not about the oil itself, but the currency the oil is traded in. (Providing stability to the dollar because other nations must have Dollars rather than Euros to buy oil).

I don't know how this became trendy to float around as a reason for the war, but it's simply not realistic. Paul Krugman, one of the world's top economists, had a short article as to why it was bunk.

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/oildollar.html[/q

linked

Glad someone took the time to debunk that foolish thought.
 

oscoyle

Junior Member
Feb 21, 2003
14
0
0
When Fidel Castro wanted to set up nuclear weapons in Cuba the United States was well on its' way to war with them until the weapons were
withdrawn. I don't think they had oil then. The United States can buy all the oil they need from other countries or if worse comes to worse tap
into our own reserves and drill in Alaska. The war in Iraq is a direct result of 9/11. This administration is determined to convince other countries
that terrorism will not be an option unless you don't mind having a target on your back.

As a side benefit of this, the people of Iraq are rid of Saddam. Hopefully they can install a more stable and peaceful government. I think if an Arab country
can prosper under a stable democratic government some of the other governments in the middle east will be in serious trouble ten years from now. Rest assured
they do not want a new form of government "for the people" in that area.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Helenihi
Originally posted by: glugglug
The most plausible theory I've seen is this one that the war is not about the oil itself, but the currency the oil is traded in. (Providing stability to the dollar because other nations must have Dollars rather than Euros to buy oil).

I don't know how this became trendy to float around as a reason for the war, but it's simply not realistic. Paul Krugman, one of the world's top economists, had a short article as to why it was bunk.

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/oildollar.html[/q

linked

Glad someone took the time to debunk that foolish thought.

Well.... if The EEC becomes a significant consumer of OPEC oil versus the US the leverage moves toward the euro because EEC members would want to buy oil with out the worry of economic strength versus the US dollar. The Link above is hard to agrue with and I agree in principal but the ability to control the underlying issues of why the dollar is the currency used can switch based on who holds the bigger stick. EEC wants to become the worlds major commercial entity and until the US gets back its MFG base the threat exists. No entity can forever maintain the ability to remain strong economically with out controlling the cost of imported goods and if we dont have mfg we will be importing... (again a gross example)
 

Tiger

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,312
0
0
When Fidel Castro wanted to set up nuclear weapons in Cuba the United States was well on its' way to war with them until the weapons were
withdrawn. I don't think they had oil then. The United States can buy all the oil they need from other countries or if worse comes to worse tap
into our own reserves and drill in Alaska. The war in Iraq is a direct result of 9/11. This administration is determined to convince other countries
that terrorism will not be an option unless you don't mind having a target on your back.
Well said and the truth with one exception. It was the USSR who wanted nukes in Cuba not Castro.

Some people just can't accept the fact that we did this so that the weapons everybody with a brain stem admits Saddam has don't end up in a container on some non-descript ship in L.A. Or N.Y.
They also can't believe we did this to free the Iraqi people of a tyranical dictator who was just as happy to starve his people as build himself a new palace. What's one more as long as Saddam and his 40 thieves have full belly's right?
I haven't decided yet if the people looking for an excuse to jump on the US are doing this for political reasons or sheer ignorance.
I suspect a few in this thread would have thought this action was just fine and dandy if Gore had been the president. Personally I don't think he'd have had the cojones for it.
So which is it, sour grapes or ignorance?
 

RyanM

Platinum Member
Feb 12, 2001
2,387
0
76
Originally posted by: Tiger
When Fidel Castro wanted to set up nuclear weapons in Cuba the United States was well on its' way to war with them until the weapons were
withdrawn. I don't think they had oil then. The United States can buy all the oil they need from other countries or if worse comes to worse tap
into our own reserves and drill in Alaska. The war in Iraq is a direct result of 9/11. This administration is determined to convince other countries
that terrorism will not be an option unless you don't mind having a target on your back.
Well said and the truth with one exception. It was the USSR who wanted nukes in Cuba not Castro.

Some people just can't accept the fact that we did this so that the weapons everybody with a brain stem admits Saddam has don't end up in a container on some non-descript ship in L.A. Or N.Y.
They also can't believe we did this to free the Iraqi people of a tyranical dictator who was just as happy to starve his people as build himself a new palace. What's one more as long as Saddam and his 40 thieves have full belly's right?
I haven't decided yet if the people looking for an excuse to jump on the US are doing this for political reasons or sheer ignorance.
I suspect a few in this thread would have thought this action was just fine and dandy if Gore had been the president. Personally I don't think he'd have had the cojones for it.
So which is it, sour grapes or ignorance?

A little from column A, a little from column B.

A well-stated and terse response to a complex issue, btw.
 

RossGr

Diamond Member
Jan 11, 2000
3,383
1
0
To my mind the Iraq war has 3 basic rationals. 1. WDM 2. Terrorism 3.Oil It is a combination of those that made it happen. I wish oil was not on the list, I would rather that we has specified that we were simply going to rid the world of a bad dictatorship. But that was never but forward as a reason. Perhaps the reason for that is that we have to many bad dictatorships, in that region and around the world, whom we consider allies, therefore could not send a message which threatend their position.

A question I frequently ask myself is this: "If Saddam Hussain had at his disposal the US technology and armed forces, what would he do with it?"
 

Nemesis77

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2001
7,329
0
0
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Bush et al tried to deny OIL had anything to do with this invasion . . . but even stalwarts at places like the American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation would concur that oil was a factor due to our strategic needs.

The denials were a poor strategy unless WMD is "discovered" relatively soon in Iraq . . . any appearance of WMD in May or June will clearly have difficulty passing a sniff test.


BBD, the first inspectors did not find much for the first four or five years on inspections. Your petty attempt to say that any WMD found in Iraq is planted is rather sick and twisted.

Go sniff something else.

To my knowledge, the inspectors found quite alot of stuff, even though (according to USA) the Iraqi leadership did it's best to hife everything and move stuff around. And how many inspectors were there?

Now we don't have that uncooperative leadership anymore, we have entire US intelligence at our disposal, we have 100.000 soldiers going through the country, we have informants, spy-satellites, spies etc. etc.... And they have found nothing. Nada. zilch. Oh, they found few barrels of ordinary pesticides, but that's it.

EDIT: and yes, I do think that if US doesn't find any WMD's they will propably try to plant some there and then "find" them. Do you think that US would admit that it started a war, invaded and occupied a sovereign nation for reasons that simply aren't true? They would never admit that.

EDIT2: It has been suggested that now that the war is over, they let the inspectors back in and let THEM find the alleged WMD's. US doesn't like that suggestion. Why?
 

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
This is Iraki Freedom, that is what it is all about, liberty for all Irakis, nothing else...
 

RyanM

Platinum Member
Feb 12, 2001
2,387
0
76
Originally posted by: Nemesis77
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Bush et al tried to deny OIL had anything to do with this invasion . . . but even stalwarts at places like the American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation would concur that oil was a factor due to our strategic needs.

The denials were a poor strategy unless WMD is "discovered" relatively soon in Iraq . . . any appearance of WMD in May or June will clearly have difficulty passing a sniff test.


BBD, the first inspectors did not find much for the first four or five years on inspections. Your petty attempt to say that any WMD found in Iraq is planted is rather sick and twisted.

Go sniff something else.

To my knowledge, the inspectors found quite alot of stuff, even though (according to USA) the Iraqi leadership did it's best to hife everything and move stuff around. And how many inspectors were there?

Now we don't have that uncooperative leadership anymore, we have entire US intelligence at our disposal, we have 100.000 soldiers going through the country, we have informants, spy-satellites, spies etc. etc.... And they have found nothing. Nada. zilch. Oh, they found few barrels of ordinary pesticides, but that's it.

EDIT: and yes, I do think that if US doesn't find any WMD's they will propably try to plant some there and then "find" them. Do you think that US would admit that it started a war, invaded and occupied a sovereign nation for reasons that simply aren't true? They would never admit that.

EDIT2: It has been suggested that now that the war is over, they let the inspectors back in and let THEM find the alleged WMD's. US doesn't like that suggestion. Why?

Less than a week. We finished up the major ground campaign less than a week ago.

According to your statements (not specifically your statements, but those made by the same people saying what you're saying now) a week and a half ago, we were entering a "quagmire" (good word, btw) which would make us long for the easy days of Vietnam.

But we proved you (again, not specifically you) wrong. And suddenly, we're just supposed to kick over a few rocks, and say, "Hey, look at all these banned weapons!"

Be realistic. Period.

Give the US 3 months. 1/4 of a year. 1/72nd the time given to the UN Inspectors. And we'll find PLENTY.

And I'll bet dinere to donuts lots of it says "Made in France."
 

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
Originally posted by: MachFive
Originally posted by: Nemesis77
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Bush et al tried to deny OIL had anything to do with this invasion . . . but even stalwarts at places like the American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation would concur that oil was a factor due to our strategic needs.

The denials were a poor strategy unless WMD is "discovered" relatively soon in Iraq . . . any appearance of WMD in May or June will clearly have difficulty passing a sniff test.


BBD, the first inspectors did not find much for the first four or five years on inspections. Your petty attempt to say that any WMD found in Iraq is planted is rather sick and twisted.

Go sniff something else.

To my knowledge, the inspectors found quite alot of stuff, even though (according to USA) the Iraqi leadership did it's best to hife everything and move stuff around. And how many inspectors were there?

Now we don't have that uncooperative leadership anymore, we have entire US intelligence at our disposal, we have 100.000 soldiers going through the country, we have informants, spy-satellites, spies etc. etc.... And they have found nothing. Nada. zilch. Oh, they found few barrels of ordinary pesticides, but that's it.

EDIT: and yes, I do think that if US doesn't find any WMD's they will propably try to plant some there and then "find" them. Do you think that US would admit that it started a war, invaded and occupied a sovereign nation for reasons that simply aren't true? They would never admit that.

EDIT2: It has been suggested that now that the war is over, they let the inspectors back in and let THEM find the alleged WMD's. US doesn't like that suggestion. Why?

Less than a week. We finished up the major ground campaign less than a week ago.

According to your statements (not specifically your statements, but those made by the same people saying what you're saying now) a week and a half ago, we were entering a "quagmire" (good word, btw) which would make us long for the easy days of Vietnam.

But we proved you (again, not specifically you) wrong. And suddenly, we're just supposed to kick over a few rocks, and say, "Hey, look at all these banned weapons!"

Be realistic. Period.

Give the US 3 months. 1/4 of a year. 1/72nd the time given to the UN Inspectors. And we'll find PLENTY.

And I'll bet dinere to donuts lots of it says "Made in France."

So you are saying that inspections take time? Even when you have hundreds of thousands of soldiers all over the country?

And would it take more or less time than a couple of hundreds of inspectors? How much time do they need?
 

RyanM

Platinum Member
Feb 12, 2001
2,387
0
76
So you are saying that inspections take time? Even when you have hundreds of thousands of soldiers all over the country?

And would it take more or less time than a couple of hundreds of inspectors? How much time do they need?

Yes, inspections take time. Even with 50 to 75,000 soldiers (not quite 100,000). It would certainly take less time than several hundreds inspectors who were denied access and given the run around through approximately 7 years of actual inspections.

Keep in mind not all of those soldiers will be inspecting. A large portion of that will be needed to prevent civil unrest in the highly populated areas and sniff out the remaining Saddam loyalists.

I would guess 3 months is all the time we'll need to turn up irrefutable evidence. Would you be willing to give them 3 months before complaining that we haven't found anything yet?