Is the war really about oil?

Question

Is the war in Iraq all about oil because that is all I hear from the left. I talked to my friend Jason about this because it left me very perplexed....The lefts argument makes no sense AT ALL. He made some very good points. If all we wanted was the oil where is the sense in occupying the entire country? It would be much ceeper both pollitically and ecconomicly to just lift the embargo. Why invade Iraq, and take on the largest army in the region over a
difficult supply line, when superior results could be achieved with less risk by simply invading Qatar and the UAE? Why not invade Saudi Arabia? Why not invade Venezuela, for that matter - which would be much, much easier than supporting an army in Iraq? That is why this argument seem pretty stupid to me. I'd like to know what you think (and back it up with facts).

Answer 1

The war is obviously not about oil. The left only chooses to portray the war that way because they think they can more easily capture the attention and support of the American population as a whole using an easy-to-understand subject. By proclaiming to the people that the war is all about oil and backing their argument up with un-researched facts, the vast majority who cannot think for themselves are easily swayed (this of course, is why the vast majority of liberals cannot think for themselves).

And of course, when an unpatriotic soldier says that the war MUST be about oil because the first thing the troops did was head for the oil fields, this soldier must be absolutely brainless. The soldier does not realize that, 1) the borders are completely covered in oil fields and the country could not have been invaded without passing through them at some point, and 2) this action was taken to prevent what happened last time (e.g. the oil fields being set on fire, causing a massive loss of oil and resulting in negative health effects in a wide area).

Also, the liberals need to take some time to sit down and think logically. Oil prices in the United States have been on a constant rise since before the war started. If the U.S.'s purpose in invading Iraq was to gain a monopoly on the oil market, then reserves would be greater and prices would be lower. Don't try to argue this fact with stupid liberal logic, the fact of the matter is, you're wrong and all of this is elementary.

The war, obviously, began as an attempt to strike back at terrorism and to secure the safety of the U.S. and its allies after the events of 9/11. Liberals can make biased, unintelligent statements such as "Saddam didn't crash the planes into the twin towers" or "The ones we are fighting are just citizens defending their country", but people who make such statements are completely wrong in several aspects. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the planners and executers of the attacks, had/have strong ties in Iraq. Saddam, although he may not have been directly involved, was guilty of harboring terrorists and committing acts of terrorism himself (mass murder to name one).

As a result of invading Iraq, many terrorist connections have been broken and leaders of terrorist organizations have been captured. This is fact, not biased speculation. Saddam's regime, which was guilty of many terrorism-based acts, has been eliminated for the most part, and Iraq's people are much safer. The remaining organized terrorism is still fighting, and the U.S. is fighting back hard. Many previously-deprived citizens of Iraq now have access to food, water, medicine, and transportation. Over 25 million people have literally been rescued by the noble actions of the United States, actions that perplexingly divide the opinions of the nation. Liberals need to realize that the war may be costly and that many of the reasons originally given for its initiation were unsupported by fact, but that more good has come out of the war than bad. Liberals whose beliefs are so heavily anchored in human rights and the greater good should have no problems accepting these facts, and should keep their fat mouths shut for once in history.

None of these opinions and facts discussed are biased, simply logical. I'm not asking liberals to become republicans, just to look logically at the war in general and to see which side really is biased and unsupported by fact. If you can't see the logic in the war, then just don't say anything at all, and stop trying to treat this war like another Vietnam.

The salvation of 25 million innocent people has been gained at the price of between 2 and 3 thousand lives of U.S. soldiers. Yes, their lives were important, but personally I think that's a really good deal. Think about it.

Answer 2

I don't necessarily think that the whole thing was just about oil, but it did play a big factor in the decision to invade. Even more than the oil, Bush wanted to do something about Saddamn Hussein's regime, and he attempted to use the September 11th attacks as provocation, even though there was no hard evidence supporting that claim.

Experts in the U.S. having been claiming for years that our country is on the verge of a major energy crisis because of our dependency on fossil fuels, and specifically our continuing reliance on the importing of fossil fuels. In fact, the production of fossil fuel in the U.S. has been declining steadily since 1986. With the invasion, occupation, and creation of a friendly government in Iraq (with the world's second largest oil reserves), the U.S. can ensure that it has a constant supply of cheap oil.

It is true that Iraq's military was still the largest in the region, but it had also not recovered from the pounding it took from Desert Storm and Operations Northern Watch and Southern Watch (enforcement of the no-fly zones in the northern and southern parts of the country), and there's also the fact that Bush wanted to use bases in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait to help ease the burden of supporting the invasion and occupation forces.

Now, doing something like invading Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela wouldn't have been possible because those are our allies, although many people (mostly conservatives) would argue that Hugo Chavez, the current president of Venezuela, isn't because of accusations made by many U.S. leaders of racism, electoral fraud, human rights violations, political repression, and rampant corruption. And even if they weren't allies, the political backlash of such a move would only serve to isolate the U.S. and the government even more.

Answer 3

Because they didn't have any reason for us to invade. They had no boogie man like Saddam, who was an easy mark as a BAD MAN who must be taken out! Albeit illegally!!

No, All the 3 major contracts that the US had with Saddam were taken from the US. Two went to Russia , 1 went to France. We would not get a drop!

We found from Kuwait that Saddam's army was a bunch of runners. They didn't fight. Iraq was an easy army yo wipe out!

Saudi Arabia was Bush's friends and have had close ties with them for a long time. It would have made more sense as that is where the terrorist of 9/11 came from, not Iraq!!

We had TO HAVE A REASON to invade someone without the appearance of oil. We just can't unilaterally go around taking peoples oil fields!!

If you don't know it was for oil, and almost everyone does, why else. All Bush's other alleged reasons were not genuine and in fact he knew they weren't! He can make some buy anything!

Answer 4

In simple economic terms, Iraq is an ideal "oil provider" as it literally floats on the stuff, having the World's 2nd largest oil reserves.

Currently the no. 1 oil supplier to the USA is Saudi Arabia, which currently produces around 80% of the World's oil. The big problem with Saudi Arabia is that it is becoming increasingly unstable with many of its population openly hostile to the USA (like most other Arab countries). You might remember that 11 of the 19 highjackers on 9/11 were Saudi nationals.

If Saudi Arabia goes the same way as other Arab countries, then oil supplies to the USA could be cut, forcing higher gas prices and crippling US production as most goods and services require oil somewhere in the production or distribution.

Therefore the USA has been looking for other "potential" suppliers of oil in order to have an alternative source should the current Saudi royal family be deposed or a democratic government elected (similar to Hamas).

The USA could try and lift the embargo on Iraq, but that would require UN agreement. It also doesn't ensure continued oil supplies as Saddam wasn't pro-US. He was more likely to refuse to sell oil to the USA (as Iran does at present).

Therefore, the US needed a pro-US government elected in Iraq. The original Iraqi government formed after Saddam's downfall was installed by the USA, and they signed an agreement to allow US oil corporations permission to excavate oil from the Iraqi oilfields at a very cheap rate. This is one of the reasons why France complained to the World Trade Organisation as Elf Aquitaine, the French national oil company was excluded from the deal as France refused to take part in the Iraq Invasion.

Anyway, the bottom line is that the USA has now secured an alternative supplier of oil, although it will take several years before it produces anything like the US requirements.

In addtion, the fall of Saddam removes a potential threat to Israel, in that Iraq still had a large military presence, but I think that many people agree that oil played a more important role in the invasion of Iraq that the safety of Israel.

Answer 5

The answer to the question is YES, and also no.

The YES part is that OIL was DEFINITELY THE MAJOR REASON:

Not only does Iraq have vast quantities of easily accessible oil, but its oil is almost untouched. "Think of Iraq as virgin territory ....This is bigger than anything Exxon is involved in currently .... It is the superstar of the future," says Gheit, "That's why Iraq becomes the most sought-after real estate on the face of the earth."

You should, also, be aware NO AMERICAN COMPANY HAD BEEN ALLOWED TO DO BUSINESS IN IRAQ SINCE 1972. All the GOOD CONTRACTS had been signed, by the Iraqi's with FRANCE, RUSSIA AND CHINA. This meant $Billions to these countries - none to US companies. Also Iraq has ONE QUARTER OF ALL PROVEN KNOWN RESERVES. These are needed by the US Military - to conduct operations - otherwise the US Military Machine comes to a grinding halt.

The 'no' part is you have to remember that George Bush was 'targeted' by Saddam Hussein for 'assassination'. That rankled with his son George W. You need to look into the PAST HISTORY OF THE BUSH FAMILY - and their connections (through Prescott Bush - Grandfather) to the NAZI PARTY in Germany (BEFORE & DURING WW2).

I think you'd be smart enough to know what 'old Adolf' - and his crew (Goebells, Himmler, etc) would do in such a case? Well just look at the likes of Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeldt, etc - they're NOT UNLIKE THE CREW HITLER HAD AROUND HIM.

The main difference is that Hitler was (in reality) a reasonably smart cookie. NO-ONE (not even Laura) would say that about George W (and his alcohol-destroyed) brain.

Answer 6

First off, W didn't have any good excuses to invade Iran or Argentina when 9/11 happened. But he did have a good way to make it look like Iraq was involved, if only vaguely. If you remember he blamed Iraq for hiding terrorist, even though it wasn't true.

If he would have made the excuse to the American people that we were just going to capture and control the oil, they never would have gone for it. But I remember one of his earliest speaches after we started the invasion and how he talked about securing the oil, then nothing was ever said again about it.

Plus, Iraq would never let us just go in and take over the oil, they would have faought for it tooth and nail and we would have had to take the country anyway with a very poor excues (Oil instead of democratising).

Also, can't you tell W and the Neocons are all about making money, holding power and making their big business friends richer? Can't you see that? He has not a humanitarian bone in his body.

Answer 7

The war isn't "about" oil as much as it is about a broader strategy that isn't going to well, and that would be expanding democracy in the middle east. Remeber that we don't get oil from Iran but evertime they make some sort of threat about oil the prices go up. Oil is a commodity and its price is based on availability worldwide. So even if we got all the oil in Iraq it would necessarily drop prices down if they were exporting at max capacity.
Oil definately plays a role in our involvement in the middle east and therefor Iraq, because it is a strategic resource. It is this reason that we pay much more attention and take a much more proactive role in the region than we do in Africa. The oil draws our attention to the area and the terrorism and instability factors compel much of the policy that we see, such as the Invasion of Iraq, and push for democratic reforms.

Answer 8

I doubt anyone on the left can make an argument against the war in Iraq without mentioning the word "oil." As you've said, it doesn't make sense to invade the country over oil. The United States has access to some huge oil reserves and only needs advances in technology to reach them (deep, deep, deep underwater reserves). Also, why is it that liberals complain about the US going to war in Iraq for oil...preach about oil dependency...and then refuse to let the government drill for oil in the United States? This oil problem is going to be solved within a decade or two and oil-rich nations are going to find themselves in trouble.

Answer 9

Predicting what the subject concerns of the following day are going to be is often confusing, yet water is a commodity that anybody needs, there is no substitute and starting to be inhabitants concentrations are making the accessible substances of water greater troublesome. From the Aral Sea, to the Danube, to the Colorado River, the Yellow River, the Amu Darya, the Tigris River, the Jordan, all of those rivers are working decrease. however the main concern might actually be the drawdown of the aquifers, the underground swimming pools of water that farmers are pumping as much as irrigate their vegetation. Irrigated vegetation multiply the quantity of nutrition you may advance by potential of a great volume, and whilst those farmers empty the aquifers, their nutrition production will plummet and nutrition expenditures will skyrocket. sounds like a outstanding explanation for a war.

Answer 10

Bringing Iraq's vast oil wealth under the control of foreign multinationals -- with U.S. firms the best positioned to develop it -- was always central to U.S. plans for Iraq. That Iraq's oil will continue to be "owned" by the "Iraqi people" is what differentiates classical 19th-century colonialism practiced by British officers in pith helmets from the neocolonialism the United States perfected in the second half of the 20th century. The newer brand can be summed up like this: We'll respect your sovereignty and abide by your domestic laws -- as long as we can help you write those laws to guarantee our firms' profits.

That's the central tenet of corporate globalization. Trade deals like NAFTA -- and the agreements implemented by the WTO -- are designed to "harmonize" countries' domestic laws regulating everything from capital flow to food safety to the environment in order to make them friendly to international investment. In Iraq, that philosophy was taken to an extreme, at gunpoint and with disastrous consequences.

Oil -- the engine that drives Iraq's potentially rich economy -- was the prize that made it worth a full-scale commitment of American armed forces.

Here's another pretty good reason:

U.S. Contractors Reap the Windfalls of Post-war Reconstruction
http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/report.aspx?aid=65