[Morgoth]

I find a good portrayal of Bush and his administration's take on Iraq to be aptly described by the Economist. The Economist makes no secret of supporting the Republican line of thinking when it comes to economic and military policies, but they still describe the administrations handling of Iraq as criminally incompetent. Considering how conservative the language of this magazine tends to be, and including their political leanings, those are harsh words indeed.

We will probably never know why Iraq was invaded, and as many have said before, there was most likely not a single deciding factor. However, to claim that oil had nothing to do with it, as if you know this to be true, is utterly ridiculous. We don't know. It's possible, but we don't know.

[phart]

Cain;314147 said:

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.

I have never thought it was for oil, though it wasn't for the reasons stated (by the American government)either. We all must admit though what a brilliant idea it was.

[phart]

Goaswerfraiejen;314218 said:

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.

Well i would say why?, because it kills people. I known its a quirky idea but maybe better not leaving depleted uranium shells everywhere, having thousands of maimed US and UK soldiers. So kids can have their mum and dad at home. Now having terrorism rife in the country, completely destabilise the region (Turks and Iranians are shelling northerm Iraq to kill the Kurds), mass poverty, not to mention the death of untold iraqi's and Iraq's descent into a haven for terrorism. Churchill would have gassed the Iraqi's in 1922 which would have went one further but we didn't have a delivery system, that it is a fact is no logical reason to emulate it.

Its infanticide masquerading as "real politiks" in my opinion. I am not ignorant of global politics in this manner i just don't agree with them.

What neighbouring countries Iraq borders Kuwait,Saudi, turkey, Iran, Jordan and Syria. Only Turkey was in the "willing". The main propents travelled many time zones to get there.

[Danyah]

Well, just before 9/11 there were negotiations between Enron/Halli/US governemnt and the Taliban for a connection in the gas pipelines between Pakistan and Turkey, which had to pass through indeed. After 9/11, they invade Afghanistan to catch Bin Laden. And probably to build their pipeline when everything was pacified.
And yes, many of Bush' biographers mention him doing it for humanitarian reasons, but as mentioned above, why attack the countries that are rich in fossil fuel resources and not North Korea, Chili under Pinochet, Libia (the Lockerby terrorism?), ....

Maybe we can't tell for sure, but these things are more then suspicious, especially since America is known for it's strong lobby/government ties...

[phart]

Danyah;325204 said:

Well, just before 9/11 there were negotiations between Enron/Halli/US governemnt and the Taliban for a connection in the gas pipelines between Pakistan and Turkey, which had to pass through indeed. After 9/11, they invade Afghanistan to catch Bin Laden. And probably to build their pipeline when everything was pacified.
And yes, many of Bush' biographers mention him doing it for humanitarian reasons, but as mentioned above, why attack the countries that are rich in fossil fuel resources and not North Korea, Chili under Pinochet, Libia (the Lockerby terrorism?), ....

Maybe we can't tell for sure, but these things are more then suspicious, especially since America is known for it's strong lobby/government ties...

That was a gas pipeline (source: http://news.bbc.co.u...sia/2608713.stm)

Hamid Karzai the Afghan president was consultant for UNOCAL (Union Oil Company of California) so i can see it as one of the reasons, i'm not saying bush did it for humanitarian reasons at all, to the contary he's a puppet idiot.

Israeli influence is involved they wanted Hussien out American and by extension UK, AUS complied.

http://www.lrb.co.uk...06/mear01_.html

it's a huge article but gives an insight into the "Israel Lobby"


In no way did i think he did it for the good of the people, any people but his own.

[Mezla PigDog]

It's a shame that the day the tanks rolled in to Baghdad, the politicians didn't stand up and say "We're just gonna fuck 'em up and then go home". The combined might of the USA and UK could have achieved that with some aplomb.

[Mushroom]

Related reading

Iraq for Oil: The Truth

Just about how a few big oil companies have secured some minor oil deals Iraq. Which are supposedly the biggest so far.

[Cold Iron]

Just caught up on this thread and I would like to add that it doesn't matter who the oil goes to as long as it comes out of the ground. Supply and demand. Whoever you sell it to stops competing with me for suppliers.

Coupled with the US administration's oil ties, we have the fact securing the oil fields was priority 1 from the first day of the invasion.

I for one don't understand the need to speculate about other possible causes when there is one that fits like a glove.

[paladin]

securing the oil fields is generally the priority because of what iraq did in kuwait, setting them on fire.. generally not a good idea not to set a pressurized well full of oil and natural gas together on fire

[Cold Iron]

paladin;341294 said:

securing the oil fields is generally the priority because of what iraq did in kuwait, setting them on fire.. generally not a good idea not to set a pressurized well full of oil and natural gas together on fire

Yeah, good thing they were there to prevent that from happening.

[paladin]

well im just saying, securing the oil fields is the obvious priority because its the only real international commodity iraq possesses.. makes up a huge part of the country's GDP. no matter if you were there to steal it(as some suggest) or if you were there to setup the country to run on its own, that is the one thing you would want in good operating shape otherwise the country would suffer from lack of the enormous economic benefit oil brings in. its the same boat venezuela and iran are in if anyone ever tried to invade because the economies are propped up by oil over everything else. good intentions or not, its what you have to go after.

[Cold Iron]

paladin;341303 said:

well im just saying, securing the oil fields is the obvious priority because its the only real international commodity iraq possesses.. makes up a huge part of the country's GDP. no matter if you were there to steal it(as some suggest) or if you were there to setup the country to run on its own, that is the one thing you would want in good operating shape otherwise the country would suffer from lack of the enormous economic benefit oil brings in. its the same boat venezuela and iran are in if anyone ever tried to invade because the economies are propped up by oil over everything else. good intentions or not, its what you have to go after.

Your logic is hard to follow. You're saying locals would burn their only resource in order to prevent the invading force from having it? That's suicide. This is not the same situation as kuwait.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

They did in fact set fire to their own wells once the war turned against them, Iraqi wells not just those in Kuwait.

[Cold Iron]

Perhaps they thought the US would push the borders back even further.

[paladin]

throughout history you have various examples of people doing this CI. some burn their crops so invaders cant forage. some blow up bridges/destroy airports/destroy rail so the invaders are slowed down. some poison wells so the invaders dont have water(and that is duplicated in the chain of dogs as well, to quote relevant literature). i believe the typical feeling would be if we cant beat them, lets not make it easy for them to rule.

[HoosierDaddy]

Necessary disclaimer: I am liberal. Very, very liberal. I don't despise Bush, but I do despise Cheney and Karl Rove. Bush is just fucking retarded. Misguided and retarded, but not evil.

That being said, I agree with those who said that we went to war in Iraq mainly due to Bush's desire to build a democracy to "be a bright shining beacon of democracy in a sea of theocracys." Or some other bullshit language like that. Mission Accomplished. Hahahahahahahahahaha.

Plus, Bushy boy had some Daddy issues and wanted to prove: 1, he could get 2 terms, and, 2, that he could do what Daddy didn't in 91 and pull Hussein from power.

The total and complete lack of a plan as to what to do when the government fell by the Bush administration will go down in history as one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in American history.

It just so happens to turn out that every reason the Bush administration gave us for going to war was WRONG. No nuke program. No WMD's. The only reasons left are: Hussein is a bad guy and the Mid-East needs a democracy because that'll show'em what we got goin on over here in Western Civ.

Finally, the ONLY bright spot I can find is if gas somehow goes up to $15.00 a gallon, Haliburton and the other oil co's get brought before congress for price jacking, and lots of those greedy fuckers go to jail.

Just think what kind of clean, efficient energy's we could have been working on with that $1,000,000,000,000 dollars we are spending in Iraq. Lot of zeroes, yes?

PS: This administration will also go down as the most corrupt since Harding from 1918 to 1922. How people can vote republican for any issue other than religious or because they got lots of money I'll never know.

Rant off.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

HoosierDaddy;341790 said:

that he could do what Daddy didn't in 91 and pull Hussein from power.

Bush Sr. could have gotten Hussein, knew it, but chose not to. I wish I had the quote on hand, but he basically said he didn't remove him from power becasue it would create a power vacuum, chaos in Iraq, and suck the USA into a horrible situation of trying to occupy and govern a very hostile country. Hmmmm, someone should have listened to daddy.

[Obdigore]

Well Corn-boy , I do like McCain's view on the economy over Obama's.

But then I like that Obama will get out of Iraq and stay out of Iran.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Invading Iran is the worst possible thing we could do as a country.

[Obdigore]

I would think Invading England or China might be worse... but Iran is an idiotic idea.