• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

How was the war in Iraq about oil?

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,626
3
81
I do not agree with this war, for several overlapping reasons, but I am finding it harder and harder to believe that the sole motivation was "oil". The only plausible link I can see is between Cheney and Haliburton, but even that is tenuous.

Thoughts?
 

BarneyFife

Diamond Member
Aug 12, 2001
3,878
0
76
Are you kidding me? You have a tough time finding a link between Oil, Haliburton, Bush? Did you have difficulty connnecting the dots as a child?
 

Spyro

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2001
3,366
0
0
Iraq has oil. We need oil. Other people want oil too. They buy oil. We make money. :p
 

jeremy806

Senior member
May 10, 2000
647
0
0
It's not about oil.

For the amount of $ spent on the war and now the never ending occupation, we could have bought all of the oil already.

jeremy806
 

jeremy806

Senior member
May 10, 2000
647
0
0
The costs of the war and occupation are grossly underestimated, and all of us here in the US are footing the bill.

We could be buying oil for a long time instead.

On a separate note, Saddam appears to have no value for human life. A person like that has to go and that is that.

All I am saying, is that the war was intended to remove a person from power that cannot be left in power and not about oil.

Jeremy806

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: jeremy806
The costs of the war and occupation are grossly underestimated, and all of us here in the US are footing the bill.

We could be buying oil for a long time instead.

On a separate note, Saddam appears to have no value for human life. A person like that has to go and that is that.

All I am saying, is that the war was intended to remove a person from power that cannot be left in power and not about oil.

Jeremy806
Yes it would have been much cheaper to drop sanctions and just buy oil from iraq.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
All I am saying, is that the war was intended to remove a person from power that cannot be left in power and not about oil.
Dude, I don't remember Bush ever saying that at the UN or on the stump in late 2002 to early 2003. Weapons of mass destruction . . . Bush to be explicit . . . "this is not about inspections this is about disarmament". I guess it was another malapropism. Bush meant to say "dismemberment".
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
All I am saying, is that the war was intended to remove a person from power that cannot be left in power and not about oil.
Dude, I don't remember Bush ever saying that at the UN or on the stump in late 2002 to early 2003. Weapons of mass destruction . . . Bush to be explicit . . . "this is not about inspections this is about disarmament". I guess it was another malapropism. Bush meant to say "dismemberment".
Dismemberment was a good one. Remember when he was going to persecute Saddam, when he supposedly meant prosecute. Just a hairs difference in Bushspeak perhaps, but it was an interesting slip.


I really do not believe this war was for oil in the sense many mean, but oil was a factor nonetheless. Given that oil is lifeblood for our economy, our government was more keenly aware of potentially disruptive forces in the middle east as compared to say, Africa. Although many parts of Africa are far more hellish than anything the Iraqis went through (which was a lot), we choose to act against Saddam instead. Why? As someone said, It is about the control of oil. If not for oil, Americans in general would not have cared about Iraq any more than Indonesia.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Yeah but you just wait . . . when Israel gets pissed and starts dropping nukes in the Middle East . . . America will get a lot more interested in Indonesia and Africa. Damn Canadians are sitting on significant oil as well . . . if it's in French-speaking provinces we may need to liberate it.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
I believe we get more oil from Canada than anyone, do we not? You are right to point out the French speaking types. What more do we need? After all, petroleum products have the potential to become WMD's. Ok, I'm in, goosestepping with the rest!
 

Syringer

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
19,333
2
71
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Given that oil is lifeblood for our economy, our government was more keenly aware of potentially disruptive forces in the middle east as compared to say, Africa. Although many parts of Africa are far more hellish than anything the Iraqis went through (which was a lot), we choose to act against Saddam instead. Why? As someone said, It is about the control of oil. If not for oil, Americans in general would not have cared about Iraq any more than Indonesia.
What the f*ck ever. Do any of those countries have any sort of global influence? Have we ever been involved with any of those countries? Do any of them have any sort of possibility of killing half a million people with a flip of a switch?

I mean geezus, the next person that thinks Saddam is in any way comparable to any African dictator needs to get a clue..

And plus, it's impossible to say whether or not we'd be at war with Iraq if they didn't have oil, because the country would be completely different than it is now if it didn't.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: Syringer
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Given that oil is lifeblood for our economy, our government was more keenly aware of potentially disruptive forces in the middle east as compared to say, Africa. Although many parts of Africa are far more hellish than anything the Iraqis went through (which was a lot), we choose to act against Saddam instead. Why? As someone said, It is about the control of oil. If not for oil, Americans in general would not have cared about Iraq any more than Indonesia.
What the f*ck ever.

Do any of those countries have any sort of global influence? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------No, they dont have oil



Have we ever been involved with any of those countries? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Not really, they dont have oil


Do any of them have any sort of possibility of killing half a million people with a flip of a switch? --------------------------------------No and neither did Iraq



I mean geezus, the next person that thinks Saddam is in any way comparable to any African dictator needs to get a clue.. --- No, the African situation is much worse


And plus, it's impossible to say whether or not we'd be at war with Iraq if they didn't have oil, because the country would be completely different than it is now if it didn't. --- That's special
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Have you heard anything uttered by Bush or Blair in the past two months? We took out Saddam primarily b/c he was a bad man . . . not the WMD . . . well at least not just the WMD . . . well it was part WMD and part bad man. The only country around the Gulf capable of killing 500K is Israel. Once you leave the Holy Land your next option would be close ally and regional terrorist hotbed, Pakistan. India also has nukes but much of their intellectual talent is forming a line around the US consulate trying to get H1-B visas.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
There's actually a lot of oil in Africa but extraction costs aren't nearly as favorable as the Gulf. Not to mention the fact that a lot of Africans live in Africa and the last time US troops tried to run that show we got run out of town.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
There's actually a lot of oil in Africa but extraction costs aren't nearly as favorable as the Gulf. Not to mention the fact that a lot of Africans live in Africa and the last time US troops tried to run that show we got run out of town.
Depends where in Africa too. In any case, oil production is nil compared to the Middle East. I suppose that once the fields are tapped out there, we will liberate Africa;
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,626
3
81
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Are you kidding me? You have a tough time finding a link between Oil, Haliburton, Bush? Did you have difficulty connnecting the dots as a child?
Connect the dots for me. Cheney's position within Haliburton does not depend on new business, he doesn't earn anything more than they already give him. Or am I wrong?
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,708
1
0
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Are you kidding me? You have a tough time finding a link between Oil, Haliburton, Bush? Did you have difficulty connnecting the dots as a child?
Connect the dots for me. Cheney's position within Haliburton does not depend on new business, he doesn't earn anything more than they already give him. Or am I wrong?
oh sure,
the first contract in iraq goes to the vice presidents former emplyer.... coincedences happen like that every day
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Connect the dots for me. Cheney's position within Haliburton does not depend on new business, he doesn't earn anything more than they already give him. Or am I wrong?
Cheney's compensation is arguably below the mean for corporate greed in America so there's no explicit evidence of quid pro quo. Yet even the most dense member of the GOP fan club must admit that Halliburton expected to have an empathic ear when it comes to the Bush administration. Do you think Halliburton was NOT a part of Cheney's energy task force?
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,626
3
81
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Are you kidding me? You have a tough time finding a link between Oil, Haliburton, Bush? Did you have difficulty connnecting the dots as a child?
Connect the dots for me. Cheney's position within Haliburton does not depend on new business, he doesn't earn anything more than they already give him. Or am I wrong?
oh sure,
the first contract in iraq goes to the vice presidents former emplyer.... coincedences happen like that every day
That is a separate issue, I think, and one that should be under investigation. I am having trouble seeing how Cheney or Bush profit from this.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,626
3
81
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Connect the dots for me. Cheney's position within Haliburton does not depend on new business, he doesn't earn anything more than they already give him. Or am I wrong?
Cheney's compensation is arguably below the mean for corporate greed in America so there's no explicit evidence of quid pro quo. Yet even the most dense member of the GOP fan club must admit that Halliburton expected to have an empathic ear when it comes to the Bush administration. Do you think Halliburton was NOT a part of Cheney's energy task force?
I am still failing to see how a single oil contract that means very little, overall, for Haliburton and amounts to little to no personal gain for either Bush or Cheney qualifies as being "all about the oil."
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I am still failing to see how a single oil contract that means very little, overall, for Haliburton and amounts to little to no personal gain for either Bush or Cheney qualifies as being "all about the oil."
I know I've never said it was all about the oil. But if there's no oil there . . . do you think we would be there? At this point in time it certainly looks like this war was more about controling the oil (UN resolution) than relieving Iraqi suffering (can you say Occupation sux) or WMD (which way did it go)?

As for Halliburton, the contracts are open-ended. The future may prove me wrong but the odds are that Halliburton will largely act as a pass through for subcontractors (including Halliburton subsidiaries). Halliburton will get paid to do what the UN would do for free (not counting US dues). Until Iraq runs dry there will always be billions to be made finding, pumping, transporting, and refining petroleum. Bfore this contract Halliburton relied on illegal contacts/overseas subsidiaries . . . now they can get mad bank right now and a permanent advantage over competition.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS