• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Was Iraq about oil?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
The war was about protecting Israel. The threats against Iran are for the same reason.
Click to expand...

Iran is another story, but their acts of war and threats of such with nuclear proliferation on the table are the reasons I care about.

Iraq, we were horribly wrong about the chemical weapons. That was the reason, on top of Saddam and the constant violations of the first Gulf War cease fire. To say it is about Oil you have to look at who purports such stories. Anti War proponents with an agenda to defame America by calling it such.

Oil would not just be a wrong reason, it would be an evil reason. I do not believe that is why we invaded Iraq.
 
Just today there's a news story about Alan Greenspan's new book answering that question, with "yes".

THE US went to war in Iraq motivated largely by oil, former US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan says in a memoir to be released today.

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil," he writes...

The 81-year-old, a lifelong Republican, claims Mr Bush has abandoned fiscal discipline and put politics ahead of economics.

Denouncing the tax cuts brought in by Mr Bush, Mr Greenspan says the Republicans deserved to lose the congressional elections last November because they abandoned fiscal discipline and hugely swelled the US budget deficit.
Click to expand...

link
 
Originally posted by: Jaskalas


I do not believe that is why we invaded Iraq.
Click to expand...

You really should tell NASA about that bubble you are in, I am sure it would be great thermal shielding on the space shuttles.
😀
 
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
The war was about protecting Israel. The threats against Iran are for the same reason.
Click to expand...

Iran is another story, but their acts of war and threats of such with nuclear proliferation on the table are the reasons I care about.

Iraq, we were horribly wrong about the chemical weapons. That was the reason, on top of Saddam and the constant violations of the first Gulf War cease fire. To say it is about Oil you have to look at who purports such stories. Anti War proponents with an agenda to defame America by calling it such.

Oil would not just be a wrong reason, it would be an evil reason. I do not believe that is why we invaded Iraq.
Click to expand...

Alan Greenspan, a lifelong republican and a senior official close to the top people in government for decades, is an anti-war proponent with an agenda to defame America?

Thank you for the fine example of radical cult thinking, where you invent the facts to fit the ideology.

But we need to cut you some slack, as a young guy who has little but 9/11 for the basis of your entire world view, as I read your posts.

It's funny how close you come - yes, it is not just 'wrong', but 'evil'. One day you might not follow that with 'but you don't think it's the situation', and then you can be a proud liberal.

I've seen you do that more than once recently - display fine logic for part of the argument and then negate it with a silly ideological counter - maybe it's a phase towards improving.

It suggests to me an increasing cognitive dissonance where you are noticing the 'other side'. If all goes well, you reach a point that you see the errors you have been making.
 
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
The war was about protecting Israel. The threats against Iran are for the same reason.
Click to expand...

Iran is another story, but their acts of war and threats of such with nuclear proliferation on the table are the reasons I care about.

Iraq, we were horribly wrong about the chemical weapons. That was the reason, on top of Saddam and the constant violations of the first Gulf War cease fire. To say it is about Oil you have to look at who purports such stories. Anti War proponents with an agenda to defame America by calling it such.

Oil would not just be a wrong reason, it would be an evil reason. I do not believe that is why we invaded Iraq.
Click to expand...

What makes you so sure America won't be wrong this time?

I find it hard be believe than the CIA did not know that Iraq never had weapons. They spend billions of dollars on spies and probably had a few in the top circle. It was just a way to misguide the people in order to invade Iraq. I will say America's policy of divide and rule to protect Israel has worked. Iraq has all the makings to start a major muslim civil war. Once the US leaves, Iran might invade Iraq and they WILL be treated as liberators by the Shiahs. And then the Saudi Arabian wahabis might go for revenge forcing the muslim world to chose size and in doing so massive civil violence will break out.

I really can't understand why America does not befriend Iran in trying to destroy Alqaeeda. Iran hates Alqaeeda far more than any American. The Wahabis are hated by all shiahs for destroying the Shrine of the prophet that stood for more than 1000 years. The Wahabis of Saudi Arabia are the ones breeding suicide bombers not Iranians! Alqaeeda is a wahabi orgnaization; it's a bigger threat to moderate muslims than to America. Shiahs hate wahabis far more than they hate Americans. If muslims resort to violence over cartoons, would they not resort to full scale war over this? And America has such double standards. S.A should be the real target. It is the reason for the spread of cancer that is causing terrorism. But I really wonder whether what America calls "the war on terror" is for a greater strategic reason trying to eliminate anyone hostile to Israel.

Do any here believe than once America withdraws their support for Israel, it can survive for a permanent period?
 
Seeing as how Greenspan alone has more mental capacity than the entire Bush administration, I would say the motives behind this was have been "confirmed".
 
It wasn't about acquiring the Iraqi oil, but certainly oil was involved. What I mean is that the Middle East matters at all because of it. Iraq is smack dab in the midst of our energy equivalent of heroin. Almost every action taken by the US in the ME was/is done with the protection of petroleum as a first consideration.
 
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
The war was about protecting Israel. The threats against Iran are for the same reason.
Click to expand...

I got a good chuckle (no pun intended) out of that one...

...I'm really not a big Israel supporter, I don't even agree the creation of present day Israel was warranted, but to say we went into Iraq because we wanted to ensure defense of Israel is laughable.

If it wasn't for the US, Israel would have bounced a few countries much harder than the little Lebanon operation they conducted a little while ago.

Don't think for a second Israel couldn't waste just about every country over there...militarily, they're by far the strongest next to us in the ME.

Chuck
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If Iraq was about oil then the US wouldn't have given control of it back to the Iraqis.
Click to expand...

Does this argument escape the libs? "But Greenspan said so" doesn't really compare, unless they've opened up a new church for these unfounded beliefs.
 
Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
The war was about protecting Israel. The threats against Iran are for the same reason.
Click to expand...

I got a good chuckle (no pun intended) out of that one...

...I'm really not a big Israel supporter, I don't even agree the creation of present day Israel was warranted, but to say we went into Iraq because we wanted to ensure defense of Israel is laughable.

If it wasn't for the US, Israel would have bounced a few countries much harder than the little Lebanon operation they conducted a little while ago.

Don't think for a second Israel couldn't waste just about every country over there...militarily, they're by far the strongest next to us in the ME.

Chuck
Click to expand...

With Iraq supporting so many anti Israeli movements, I'm sure they were hurting them in the same way Iran is hurting Israel. And I'm sure that Israeli wouldn't want to invade its larger neighbors by itself and risk bringing more countries into the war. You decide what it was about. Surely, it was for a greater strategic reason and not just oil.
 
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If Iraq was about oil then the US wouldn't have given control of it back to the Iraqis.
Click to expand...

Why?
Click to expand...

We'd have to own/control the oil to make use of it? Seems obvious enough...
Click to expand...

Control is quite possible without ownership. First of all, we removed a politically hostile government and installed one friendly to us, which gives us influence over the country's oil. Second, we set an example for other countries in the region, and especially OPEC, that we won't tolerate anybody messing with our supply.
 
I doubt Iraq was about the oil. Its more about GWB's urge to get back at Saddam for trying to assassinate his daddy.
 
Originally posted by: The Green Bean

With Iraq supporting so many anti Israeli movements, I'm sure they were hurting them in the same way Iran is hurting Israel. And I'm sure that Israeli wouldn't want to invade its larger neighbors by itself and risk bringing more countries into the war. You decide what it was about. Surely, it was for a greater strategic reason and not just oil.
Click to expand...

I say again, all the US would have had to do to stop either of those was to go hands off on Israel and wait for them to get sick and tired of losing civs to wackos/gov. sponsored wackos, and Israel would have taken care of the problem themselves...no need for us to get involved.

The reasons were more likely what Saint Michael lists, WMD concern, and I think long term (50+ years), to start changing the ME from fanatical supporting to one of more moderation. I don't like the Syrian or Iranian governments, but I don't cheer and celebrate in the streets when their civs get killed, for any reason.

When you have whole towns going Super Bowl happy balastic because the US just took one in the nuts on 9/11, you don't have a few extremists problem in the ME, you have a pandemic that needs immediate attention.

JHMO's....

Chuck
 
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If Iraq was about oil then the US wouldn't have given control of it back to the Iraqis.
Click to expand...

Why?
Click to expand...

We'd have to own/control the oil to make use of it? Seems obvious enough...
Click to expand...

No, your logic is off again. There are lots of things to do with oil besides use it right now.

One other is, as Greg Palast reports, to keep the oil largely off the market for the benefit of certain groups.

Another is the simple fact that now the oil is much more available for American oil companies to profit from than it was, with the contracts with China, France, etc. voided.

It's not done the same way anymore where the US invades and puts in a ruler for decades and simply seizes the oil - that's politically (and probably militarily) not too feasible now.
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If Iraq was about oil then the US wouldn't have given control of it back to the Iraqis.
Click to expand...

Why?
Click to expand...

We'd have to own/control the oil to make use of it? Seems obvious enough...
Click to expand...

No, your logic is off again. There are lots of things to do with oil besides use it right now.

One other is, as Greg Palast reports, to keep the oil largely off the market for the benefit of certain groups.

Another is the simple fact that now the oil is much more available for American oil companies to profit from than it was, with the contracts with China, France, etc. voided.

It's not done the same way anymore where the US invades and puts in a ruler for decades and simply seizes the oil - that's politically (and probably militarily) not too feasible now.
Click to expand...
Contacts with China and France were voided? Hmmm. Weren't they two of the countries opposed to the invasion? Didn't Russia have contracts too? So three of the four major countries opposed to the invasion had oil contracts with Saddam?

What an amazing coincidence.
 
This whole ?it?s about oil? BS is pathetic.

We could have just bought their oil for far less money, time and effort.

And what exactly is it about the oil that we are trying to accomplish? What did we do via invasion that we could not have done without invading? Are we currently stealing their oil and sending it back to the states cheap?

Some far left crazies will tell you that Afghanistan was about oil as well.

As for the Greenspan comments: he is an economist, not a member of Bush?s foreign relations council nor does he have any special training in foreign policy nor has he ever been apart of the decision making policy on Iraq. And the idea that he is some ?high ranking Republican? is pathetic. He is the chairman of an independent commission. He does not go to cabinet meetings to discuss policy with the President; I doubt he has much contact with the President at all.

Again: if it was about the oil then why didn?t we just loosen up the sanctions and buy the oil like everyone else was doing?
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If Iraq was about oil then the US wouldn't have given control of it back to the Iraqis.
Click to expand...

Why?
Click to expand...

We'd have to own/control the oil to make use of it? Seems obvious enough...
Click to expand...

No, your logic is off again. There are lots of things to do with oil besides use it right now.

One other is, as Greg Palast reports, to keep the oil largely off the market for the benefit of certain groups.

Another is the simple fact that now the oil is much more available for American oil companies to profit from than it was, with the contracts with China, France, etc. voided.

It's not done the same way anymore where the US invades and puts in a ruler for decades and simply seizes the oil - that's politically (and probably militarily) not too feasible now.
Click to expand...
Contacts with China and France were voided? Hmmm. Weren't they two of the countries opposed to the invasion? Didn't Russia have contracts too? So three of the four major countries opposed to the invasion had oil contracts with Saddam?

What an amazing coincidence.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point. The war was effective in its increasing US control of the oil at the expense of those economic competitors.

And remember, the original US planners had grand ideas, with their puppet Chalabi taking control and far greater control of the oil. The military disaster prevented that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top