[Cain]

Ok..now I have had this argument in a college classroom and on a MUD games forum I also frequent. Also in reg political convo in the bar.

Let me set something straight here to all the Libs.

No.

We did not invade Iraq for Oil. In Bill O'Rielly's words, you are a "Loon" if you think so.

Why?

1. Just put on your thinking caps for about 2 micro seconds and look at the United States gas prices.

2. Notice how you have heard of no huge contracts coming through for KBR and Halli for Oil deals.

3. Ask any Economic Major if it is a particularly brilliant Idea to invade a country that has neighboors who will be pissed off you did so whom already provide you with said resources. Or have the potential to.

4. I was there. I sat there, bodyguarding KBR contractors whom tried to negotiate an Oil deal with the South Oil Companies Shieks in Basra who flat out said, "No, our Oil is going to the Egyptians and Russians."

Basically there is enough for you right there, but if you want some more perfectly logical reasons why we did NOT invade Iraq for Oil just go ahead and let me know.

[Obdigore]

How about this: Bush is an idiot, decided to finish daddy's war, and wanted to extend american influence in the middle east.

Just because his plan failed to secure cheap/better oil does not, in any way, mean that was not one of the aims of said plan.

[Tiger_sword]

Or "Jesus" told him to. Idiot, roll on next year when he is gone

[Cain]

Obdigore;314157 said:

How about this: Bush is an idiot, decided to finish daddy's war, and wanted to extend american influence in the middle east.

Just because his plan failed to secure cheap/better oil does not, in any way, mean that was not one of the aims of said plan.

Alas another one of the type of people that thinks that Bush is the reason for:


(supposed) Global Warming

Our market crisis

That he single-handedly led us to war with Iraq and Afhganistan (Not that a bunch of angry Americans after 9/11 wanted it so, or that most if not all of the senate and congress Approved and allowed him to do so)

The Fonz jumping the shark in that episode that ruined Happy Days forever

My athletes Foot

That itchy Rash

The burning sensation when you pee

Your shoe-lace coming untied at the most in-Opportune times

"Damn you Bush for this terrible breakfast! I want my money back!"

[Goaswerfraiejen]

The problem is that that argument usually gets thrown around because no dissent is expected; it's a facile analysis, and far too narrow. On the other hand, Iraqi oil supplies are certainly important, and very likely factored into the decision, although perhaps not directly. Large reservoirs of an expensive commodity in a troubled region makes for a very interesting geopolitical terrain.

While it's childish to assume that the oil was an end in itself, it would be equally childish to disregard it as a factor, or a means to another end. There are a number of reasons for the U.S. to want some kind of foothold in the middle east (other than Israel); presenting a counterpoint to Iran, for one. Controlling (or exerting influence over) an important East-Asian oil supply, for another (particularly with regards to China, for example, whose consumption is growing through the roof, and whose economy needs to accomplish its ends and achieve stability before the country feels the repercussions of its one-child population control policy).

Likewise, the fact that oil was not an end in itself does not mean that the attack on Iraq was substantiated or even laudable, and we shouldn't lose sight of this fact.


As for your points, however, I'm not convinced that they present the strongest kind of argument, although I do agree, generally, with your conclusion. I'll point out a few things, point by point:

1.) Gas prices are irrelevant. Even if the U.S. controlled all the crude oil in the world, they'd be as high as they are (if not higher); we're being gouged at the pump worldwide because of corporate greed. It has very little to do with the supply, the demand, or the gas tax. They've started to figure out that we'll keep paying for gas no matter the price they charge, so they've been steadily jacking up the price for the last few years. Even if I was wrong, however, gas prices are a poor indicator of motivation or lack thereof.

2.) On April 28, 2008, it was announced by Iraqi Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani that a number of oilfield service contracts will be signed in June and the months thereafter. Specifically, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobile, Chevron, Total, and BP are involved in negotations for the Kirkuk, Maysan, Zubair, West Qurna, and Rumaila field contracts. Besides, the reconstruction contracts were rather lucrative, and guess which American (with a smattering of "coalition of the willing") companies got those?

3.) When you can crush those neighbouring countries and it's a profitable geopolitical situation, sure, why not? Rome did it, Prussia did it, Britain did it, France did it, etc.

4.) Eyewitness testimony is good, but hardly sufficient.


So, you see, there is no logically necessary connection between your premises and your conclusion. That, however, does not mean that you are necessarily wrong, or that your points are necessarily invalid.

[Aptorian]

This is nonsense. We all know General Motors have the blueprints to the motor that runs on water.

General Motors who controls the puppet government of america sabotaged the oil market so that when it crashes in a few years, they will make MILLIONS ON WATERCARS!!!

RABLE RABLE RABLE RABLE!!!

[Shinrei]

I have to call BS on #1, Goas. That's purely your own speculation and you know it. There's much more going on than just "oil companies started jacking the prices".

[Goaswerfraiejen]

Shinrei no Shintai;314238 said:

I have to call BS on #1, Goas. That's purely your own speculation and you know it. There's much more going on than just "oil companies started jacking the prices".

It is partly speculation, yes. On the other hand, gasoline companies here were recently called upon by the provincial government to account for the current price at the pump, and no adequate answer was given. The gas tax does not account for the current hike, nor does the current price of the barrel or the world market, particularly for a large oil-producing country such as ourselves.

Regardless, that is not the point. The point of my observation in #1 was and is that the price of gas at the pump is in no way a credible indicator for or against US motivations in the declaration of war against Iraq. Just as I speculated as to the fact that the price of gasoline would remain high regardless, the OP was speculating that the price would go down if the US controlled Iraqi oil. You can't call BS on my speculation without calling BS on the OP's speculation. That, in turn, would seem to confirm my point: the price of gasoline is a poor (even useless) indicator of US motives in Iraq.

[Cause]

Cain;314209 said:

Alas another one of the type of people that thinks that Bush is the reason for:


(supposed) Global Warming

Wether global warming is a crisis, even whether man is causing it or if its part of a natural eart cycle is up for a debate. The fact the worlds mean temprature is going up is irrefutable. Its a fact not supposed.

[MrXIII]

Goaswerfraiejen;314259 said:

It is partly speculation, yes. On the other hand, gasoline companies here were recently called upon by the provincial government to account for the current price at the pump, and no adequate answer was given. The gas tax does not account for the current hike, nor does the current price of the barrel or the world market, particularly for a large oil-producing country such as ourselves.

I caught a clip of that on the news, lots of questions about moral duty very little about market factors, looked like a scene out of Atlas Shrugged to be honest.

Look at the cost of the war with Iraq if you want an argument why Oil isn't the reason we went to war, nor as I've heard were big companies pushing for it no capitalist wants war it's bad for the market. In fairness we probably went in because it was perceived initially as an easy target to play up morally (look at the language choice in the run up.). Given the so called war on terror it makes little sense we attacked Iraq over a great many of other countries.

[Obdigore]

Cain;314209 said:

Alas another one of the type of people that thinks that Bush is the reason for:


(supposed) Global Warming

Global Warming is a fact, it is humankinds effect on it that is in debate.

Quote

Our market crisis

this market crisis has been building for years. It is not, nor will it be, as bad as people think

Quote

That he single-handedly led us to war with Iraq and Afhganistan (Not that a bunch of angry Americans after 9/11 wanted it so, or that most if not all of the senate and congress Approved and allowed him to do so)

As president, he has access to information the rest of us don't. I have no problem with him going into a country harboring those that did 9/11. I DO have a problem with him going into Iraq. I know the senate, congress, and many idiots in this country supported, and continue to do so, this war. Frankly, US needs to stay in now, to get the Iraqi's back on their feet, I wish the politicians would back off and let the military do their job., but that is another story.

Quote

The Fonz jumping the shark in that episode that ruined Happy Days forever

And I claim you are responsable for Bob Crane's death.

Quote

My athletes Foot

Peeing in a public shower before you step on the tile will take care of that

Quote

That itchy Rash

No, unless you had sex with 'W'. Did you?

Quote

The burning sensation when you pee

I don't have one. Do you? That sucks.

Quote

Your shoe-lace coming untied at the most in-Opportune times

Sounds like a personal problem.

Quote

"Damn you Bush for this terrible breakfast! I want my money back!"

Did Bush cook my breakfast? If not, I hardly think it is fair to blame him.

This is not the normal idiotic internet forum, people here (generally other than me) think things through. Your rediculous and inflammitory (like your athletes foot) accusations are annoying and infantile. Also, my spelling sucks.

I do notice you didn't bother to attempt to refute much of anything I said, and instead decided to attempt to throw up a Straw-Man by putting words in my mouth.

[Skywalker]

Wow... this thread is like a menagerie of near-extinct species - Republicans, war supporters, and Ayn Rand fans.

Jokes apart...

As someone who is not American, but belongs to the world's largest working democracy (India) I have to say Bush's war always seemed to be about:

a) The misguided belief that the job was 'half-done' in 92, father/ son issues, the even more misguided belief that Saddam was a threat, pissed off hawks who wanted his head on a platter etc.

The 'Bush Doctrine' that wanted to set up a democracy in the Middle East as some sort of long term precedent. The completely misguided belief that i) democracy is the one size fits all governance model, and ii) free democractic elections will necessarily produce a free-market, consumerist paradise whose citizens shower benedictions on the US. (Hamas, anyone?)

Oil is like the cherry on top to keep the military-industrial complex happy - I think

[Goaswerfraiejen]

MrXIII;314821 said:

I caught a clip of that on the news, lots of questions about moral duty very little about market factors, looked like a scene out of Atlas Shrugged to be honest.

Look at the cost of the war with Iraq if you want an argument why Oil isn't the reason we went to war, nor as I've heard were big companies pushing for it no capitalist wants war it's bad for the market. In fairness we probably went in because it was perceived initially as an easy target to play up morally (look at the language choice in the run up.). Given the so called war on terror it makes little sense we attacked Iraq over a great many of other countries.

You seem to be implying that I think the US went to war with Iraq for oil. I do not. I do think, however, that oil had an indirect role to play in setting up an irresistable geopolitical target.

Also, I was under the impression that war (abroad) gives a short-term economic boost, since the demand for supplies increases dramatically. Not being an economist, I claim no authority here, but that was always my understanding.

[caladanbrood]

Petrol in the US was still about half the price that it is over here, last time I checked. You've got it easy.

[Obdigore]

Yes, but that is due, from what I understand, to the taxes on your oil from your government, for roads and whatnot.

We are taxed for roads in other ways than just straight taxes on oil.

[caladanbrood]

Yeah, a considerable amount of it is tax, certainly. And beside that, the blatant profiteering from the oil companies seems almost tame;)

[paladin]

Skywalker;314975 said:

Wow... this thread is like a menagerie of near-extinct species - Republicans, war supporters, and Ayn Rand fans.

Jokes apart...

As someone who is not American, but belongs to the world's largest working democracy (India) I have to say Bush's war always seemed to be about:

a) The misguided belief that the job was 'half-done' in 92, father/ son issues, the even more misguided belief that Saddam was a threat, pissed off hawks who wanted his head on a platter etc.

The 'Bush Doctrine' that wanted to set up a democracy in the Middle East as some sort of long term precedent. The completely misguided belief that i) democracy is the one size fits all governance model, and ii) free democractic elections will necessarily produce a free-market, consumerist paradise whose citizens shower benedictions on the US. (Hamas, anyone?)

Oil is like the cherry on top to keep the military-industrial complex happy - I think

i think this is sensationalist, but close. saddam was a political threat and possibly more(as hes proven in the past), but i think we probably rushed into it too fast without thinking it through enough.

i think they felt good with how well afghanistan went and decided to push the issue in iraq. there are a whole myriad of reasons why, but i think you touched on some eventhough i dont necessarily agree with how you reasoned your answers

[MrXIII]

Goaswerfraiejen;315048 said:

You seem to be implying that I think the US went to war with Iraq for oil. I do not. I do think, however, that oil had an indirect role to play in setting up an irresistable geopolitical target.

Also, I was under the impression that war (abroad) gives a short-term economic boost, since the demand for supplies increases dramatically. Not being an economist, I claim no authority here, but that was always my understanding.

Well what I had been trying to say was that I think the oil had very little role to play in fairness, I think I worded it a little badly, sorry about that.

Thankfuly I am an Economist:) (well, I should have my degree next month all things being equal) and yes there traditionally is an associated short term boost, but it is only maintainable through constant military expansion and it tends to be of a bigger benefit to economies with a bigger public sector. War hammers the private sector, makes things unreliable in the long term. Didn't hurt Halliburton mind.

[JoJo]

Bush and his handlers have never given a reasonable explanation as to why the Iraq invasion was necessary. They gave a bunch of excuses, but no real reason.

• WMD (let the inspectors finish before invading)
  
• Saddam's involvement in 9/11 (bin Laden and Hussein hated each other, neither would have helped the other)
  
• Saddam tried to kill my pa (yawn)
  
• Saddam is a big meanie! (Robert Mugabe, Kim Jong Il, and the Myanmar Junta are bigger meanies than Saddam ever dreamed of being)

Since no real reasons for Bush's Iraqi Adventure are obvious, people came up with guesses for possible reasons. Since Iraq has large oil reserves and both Bush and Cheney were in the oil business, suspecting that oil was a reason for invading wasn't too much of a stretch.

We'll probably never know why Bush and the Boys deemed it necessary to invade Iraq. Given the Bush administration's love of secrecy, their distrust of the American people, and especially since it's turned into an unpopular war, any paperwork giving actual reasons for the Iraq Invasion will be buried deeply.

[deegee]

The United States went ahead despite the vote of the United Nations. Disgraceful. Nuff said