• 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?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Syringer

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
19,333
2
71
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
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
Can you please turn your "Iraq is about oil" bot off now? I think I've heard enough of it.

And uh, are you completely oblivious to what Saddam did to the Kurds not too long ago?
What Saddam has done affects his neighboring countries, and a good part of the world. What happens in Africa is largely domesticated, and none of them have any relation to the US whatsoever. That does not mean we shouldn't take care of them too, but if we had to place priorities, the choice is obvious.
 

Zrom999

Banned
Apr 13, 2003
698
0
0
And uh, are you completely oblivious to what Saddam did to the Kurds not too long ago?
The Kurds got what they deserved in my opinion. They were insurrectionist and rebels. They fight everyone. They got run out of Turkey and Iran even gased them one time in 1988. They fight with Iranian resistance groups based in Iraq and have several warring factions among themselves, some of which have ties to al-Qaeda. The Kurds rebelled and were crushed. Nothing wrong with that.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Generally how long would the oil supplies in Iraq last?
Good question . . . I believe best case scenario is pumping 6 million bpd from 112 billion proven reserves is 52 years. Advances in exploration/recovery may double the reserves and production capacity. America has a perpetual shortage of natural gas. Iraq has at least 112 trillion cubic feet. Unfortunately, it's hard to transport.

It will take tens of billions of dollars and quite a few years before Iraq is pumping at capacity . . . but I can't imagine any US corporation would risk it's own resources to exploit those fields. Wait a minute . . . it appears the US taxpayer has decided to foot that bill.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Stolen from an earlier thread....

<<Say that I currently distribute and sell widgets that I buy from other people (who, in turn, make the widgets). Would I better off or worse off if I were also to own the means of producing those widgets?>>
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: Syringer
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
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
Can you please turn your "Iraq is about oil" bot off now? I think I've heard enough of it.

And uh, are you completely oblivious to what Saddam did to the Kurds not too long ago?
What Saddam has done affects his neighboring countries, and a good part of the world. What happens in Africa is largely domesticated, and none of them have any relation to the US whatsoever. That does not mean we shouldn't take care of them too, but if we had to place priorities, the choice is obvious.
If you look at my first sentence in this thread, I stated that it was not about oil in a commonly described here. I do not think, and never did that some secret gathering of business men told Bush to go to war to steal oil. I did say that it was a factor though because oil is so important.

Are you saying that the fact that there is oil in the Middle East has absolutely no bearing on this?

Yes or no?
 

Syringer

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
19,333
2
71
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

If you look at my first sentence in this thread, I stated that it was not about oil in a commonly described here. I do not think, and never did that some secret gathering of business men told Bush to go to war to steal oil. I did say that it was a factor though because oil is so important.

Are you saying that the fact that there is oil in the Middle East has absolutely no bearing on this?

Yes or no?
If there were no oil in the Middle East then none of the countries would have any sorts of resources to them that would allow them to be as prosperous as they are that then allows them to train and grow a high population of terrorists.
 

Bigdude

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,087
0
0
Why don't we just drill in Anwar, and in the Gulf offshore of Florida? We have plenty of oil in the US, but the democRATs would rather pay Arab's for their oil, so they can then fund terrorist's that attack the USA!
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Why don't we just drill in Anwar, and in the Gulf offshore of Florida? We have plenty of oil in the US, but the democRATs would rather pay Arab's for their oil, so they can then fund terrorist's that attack the USA!
Considering the US has poor proven reserves of crude why not save our limited supply for future Americans? It's much easier to exploit . . . I mean purchase Canadian, Venezulan, and Gulf crude. Every American would rather pay Arab's for their oil b/c the direct costs are quite cheap . . . or as Wolfie would say, "they are floating in a sea of oil."

We are not drilling off the shore of Florida b/c Jeb asked his big brother to cut him some slack . . . plus it's really hard to get crude stains out of a thong. No one in their right mind goes to the LA or MS coast to take in the sights but in FL, NC, and CA . . . tourism is king.

 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,905
10
81
First you getta the oil, then you getta the power, then you getta the women. :)
 

Dudd

Platinum Member
Aug 3, 2001
2,865
0
0
If it was about the oil, it cannot be about simply grabbing control of Iraq's oil reserves. It would be much more efficient to simply trade with Saddam. We all know that oil is the Middle East's only bargaining chip. Iraq was a rogue nation, and they had the ability and the history that proves that they are willing to disrupt their neighbors. Any disruption would have major affects on the price of oil, which is tied in heavily with western economies. So, rather than wait for him to take another swing at Kuwait or even potentially go for a large scale attack and hit Saudi Arabia, either of which would have disasterous consequences for the world economy, Bush decided to take him out him, getting rid of a potential threat. The simplistic "we're here to take the Iraqi oil" simply doesn't make any sense, IMO.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,497
1
81
I thought the war was about:
1. Establishing a military base, presence, in that region.
2. Stabiliziling and protecting oil supples
3. Supporting Israel
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,979
1
0
Some obvious points that I think many people miss about oil in the Iraq equation.
We have taken Iraq out of OPEC. This not only weakens OPEC from the loss, but provides leverage against it if we call the shots with Iraqi oil.
Controling Iraqi oil provides us with leverage against Europe.
As far as many Republicans are concerned it is not meerly the particular candadates for government offices, it is the conservative agenda that is of utmost importance. The energy companies contributed an incredible amount of money to Bush and friends. Awarding open-ended contracts, weakening OPEC, etc., are payback for these political investments that guarantee future investment in the party and its agenda.
I have wondered if the use of military force was not discussed during the secret energy policy meetings conducted by our illustrious VP.
 

LeadMagnet

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,348
0
0
I think is it about OIL (for the GOP's friends), ARMS (for the military and thier suppliers) , and power (for administration)
 

EpsiIon

Platinum Member
Nov 26, 2000
2,351
0
0
My roommate said something before the war that made a lot of sense to me. It was something along the lines of:

"We're going in to take out a man who kills innocent civilians, probably has WMD, and ignores the treaties he signs. If we get cheaper oil on the other side of it, so much the better."

Whether or not we were there for the oil, Saddam had to go. The oil may have been an added incentive, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
EpsiIon

Bush kills innocent civilians, has WMD, and ignores treaties. You've made quite a case.
Right because there's so many paralllels that can be drawn between Bush and Saddam. Way to go, you really discredited his argument. Nice job.



 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,979
1
0
Ultra Quiet

Overly simplistic data lead to overly simplistic conclusions. The points stated by EpsiIon do not constitute a logical argument for war on their own. They are the equivalent of a salesman getting the customer to say yes to several simple questions so it seems that yes is always the next answer. The salesman's last question is "So, are you going to take the red one or the blue one home today?". This is the same thing. "Is it bad to kill civilians?" "Yes!" "Is it bad to have WMD?" "Yes!" "Is it bad to break treaties?" "Yes!" "Should we start a war to kick his ass?" "Yes!" This technique is pure manipulation and does not require any critical thinking on the "yes" man's part. An easy way to lead the lemmings to the sea. My Bush parallel shows just how silly it is. I guess I was just hoping that I was being more obvious than I appearently was.
 

Phuz

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2000
4,349
0
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
EpsiIon

Bush kills innocent civilians, has WMD, and ignores treaties. You've made quite a case.
Right because there's so many paralllels that can be drawn between Bush and Saddam. Way to go, you really discredited his argument. Nice job.



Was his statement true or false?

 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Phuz
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
EpsiIon

Bush kills innocent civilians, has WMD, and ignores treaties. You've made quite a case.
Right because there's so many paralllels that can be drawn between Bush and Saddam. Way to go, you really discredited his argument. Nice job.



Was his statement true or false?
False
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Bush is by no means comparable to Saddam . . . but by the criteria given by EpsiIon; Bush doesn't exactly smell like a rose.

Bush, the Lesser, launched an attack on Iraq's civilian leadership/military infrastructure that certainly minimized civilian casualties with the notable exception of several 'decapitation' attempts that were guaranteed to kill more innocent than targeted foes. Civilian casualties were not the intent but they were certain to be the outcome. Under our criminal justice system (and the ICC) that would be a crime against humanity.

WMD is an arbitrary term used by major powers to describe weapons they prefer NOT to use. Granted, the US wants to actively research the 'possibility' of using low-yield nukes so I guess the caveat will be removed soon.

Bush did not violate any treaties he signed. He did violate, nullify, and/or otherwise disavow treaties signed by predecessors . . . START I/II, Kyoto, and ICC. He also continued the deplorable behavior of US leadership when it comes to a global landmine treaty. I may be mistaken but I belief Bush rejected the most recent version of the global chemical weapons ban as well. The only global agreements this administration has shown any eagerness for have been targeted to industrial/commercial concerns (copyrights, etc) . . . oh and the coalition of the willing.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,905
10
81
Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
I thought the war was about:
1. Establishing a military base, presence, in that region.
2. Stabiliziling and protecting oil supples
3. Supporting Israel
I thought one of our military officials said we wanted to take out Saddam so we wouldn't NEED a military presence in that area. Our having troops in Saudi Arabia is one thing that pisses Arabs off so much.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY