Why do certain liberals believe we entered Iraq for oil?

Question

It makes no economic sense if Bush is pals with all the US oil producers. Crude oil is a commodity, the prices are established based on supply and demand and takes factors that may affect those two into consideration.

Iraqi oil was only avavilable through the corrupt Foor-For-Oil program, limiting thew world's supply of oil and driving the prices up. (Limit supply without altering demand equal higher prices for the commodity.) So the price of US crude would go up benefitting Bush's oil baron buddies.

By freeing Iraq and having the UN to remove the oil sanctions that created an much greater supply which would (theoretically) drop. The price drop would hurt Bush's oil buddies. The cost of producing the oil is constant, the cost of the price of worldwide crude is the variable that determines profit.

So if Bush went into Iraq for oil the result would have been to drive down world crude prices. How exactly does that benefit the US oil producers as many people here speculate?

So the first 10 people to answer either ignore the question or say, because they can't think of any other reason. If you think the US started a war for oil state a reason.

Everyone in congress believed there were WMDs. http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

JWAV: you always say the same thing under your different aliases, I've got 4 on the list, this one makes 5.

Tom-SJ: We've got more troops in Europe and Asia, that excuse doesn't fly.

Answer 1

I think most well informed liberals would not agree with the assertion that the PRIMARY impetus behind the Bush administration’s incursion into Iraq was for the purposes of securing oil profits. I will grant it is ONE of factor, but it certainly is not the sole reason for our invasion.

You rightly stated that an increase in the supply of oil, in the market, would merely drive down oil prices due to the basic principles of supply and demand. However, profits from oil production come from more than the mere selling of this lucrative commodity. Businesses involved in the oil industry, also profit immensely from the construction and maintenance of the infrastructure and logistical efforts necessary to extract, refine, and ship oil. The oil drilling enterprise after all does encompass more than just a few simple wells and drilling equipment.

The endeavor to extract oil relies heavily upon ancillary businesses that don’t have oil as their first line of revenue. Construction companies, engineering firms, IT deployment, sanitation maintenance, and medical facilities are all supportive organizations that are necessary in such a complex enterprise as the oil business. Bush, and his cronies have their tentacles in all these types of business, just as much as the Democrats do.

Who do you think is maintaining the vast oil reserves in Iraq? Whose engineers do you think are involved in the day-to-day processes that transpire at these drill sites? Who do you think will be constructing more drill sites? Who do you think will be equipping these areas of extraction with equipment and heavy machinery? Who will be in charge of the clean up and extensive waste management that is necessary in this type of business? Who will be involved in the trucking and shipping of this resource? Who will ensure that proper medical care is given to all personnel working at these sites? Etc, etc, etc. The answers to the aforementioned questions aren’t Ali Baba Corporation or any other native Iraqi business. No, hardly. It will be companies with, you guessed it, American sounding names; companies who are all too familiar to Bush, Cheney, and Condi, other Republican cohorts, and yes, many liberal Democrats.

So yes, I believe that the argument propounded by some liberals, stating PART of the incentive to go into Iraq was in fact oil, is in fact a valid point once we include within that assertion the qualifier that what should be underscored is that corporate America will reap the benefits not by the direct sale of oil, but instead by monopolizing all the business support that is required for the extraction and sale of crude oil.

To use a crude analogy (excuse the pun), it’s a lot like the Mafia and their influence in corporate real estate. They will muscle into a construction business by coercing the owner. Will they be able to directly sell the building for profit? No. However, they can control the shipment of supplies and the use of labor at the construction site, thus profiting off of the real estate without being directly involved in the real estate business.

The truth is the groups opposed to this war are insinuating more to Bush’s ulterior motives than just making his oil corporate buddies richer. We also know there is a strategic rationality for us to be there, and a means to garner political brownie points for an administration who is an abject failure on the domestic front. So liberals don’t make this an issue exclusively about oil, but even if they did, they have a valid contention.

Answer 2

The invasion had to do with oil to some extent. The invasion had alot to do with the decline of the U.S dollar. In 2000 Iraq started demanding the euro for oil payments and Iran and N. Korea also considered the transition. If middle eastern countries demanded the euro for payments you would see inflation or possibly hyperinflation in the U.S. The invasion quickly stopped the country from demanding the euro and other countries were scared to make the same mistake. The invasion also probably had alot to do with the proposed oil pipeline. It is quite odd how our bases are located very close to the oil fields. The Project for a New American Century document lays the plan out pretty clearly. The Grand Chessboeard by Brezenski was certainly influential as well.

Answer 3

No he wants to. The iraqi government IS CONTROLLED by us anyway, so giving control to the iraqi government is in essence pointless. Of course we wont just seize their oil. This is the game, they take military control, install a government to rule over their people and serve US (Western) interests. Besides its not really about controlling iraqs oil for todays markets anyway. It is however very much about the fact that the middle east region hold a huge amount of the discovered oil in the world. It is also known that the world output of oil is going to start declining around 2015-2030 and the Big money interests that have many many friends in washington DC want to be sure that we control that ENTIRE region by the time that happens.

Answer 4

Why does the United States military have such a huge presence in and around the Middle East?

Qatar, Kuwait, the former King Kahlid air force base in Saudi Arabia, as well as leasing an air base at Diego Garcia.
Not to mention the US Navy 6th Fleet, based in the eastern Mediterranean.

Clue: it's not because we are protecting the world's supply of kitty litter to reach global markets.


Ignorance can be cured by reading current events.
Here are some books:

The Prize : The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Powerl. Daniel Yergin
Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq by Thomas Ricks
Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq by Michael R. Gordon

Answer 5

One reason we went to war was to drive up price of crude Saddam was only one undercutting OPEC Price. Another reason may have been to cover all the money USA Oil Importer did not pay to Food for Oil Program. According to Wall Street Journal On of the heads of Bushes Energy Department ran oil from Iraq to beat the first sanctions.

Answer 6

If you think back, im sure you remember when after the invasion they thought all was going well, they began to threaten all who didnt support the invasion with withholding oil contracts; which infuriated some because contracts were already in place with the government before the invasion.

Money is made on the front, back and in the middle, not just with the price of crude.

Answer 7

It's always funny when an intelligent individual poses a question and presents information relevant to the question, and is invariably called lacking in intellect, lame, and the like.

You raise an excellent point and from what I've seen of your other questions/answers, you are a free-thinking informed individual. You don't pick sides and argue mindlessly for it. You pick from the best ideas (or propose your own), and state your reasons why you think that way.

Oh yeah, that's very, very lame of you, isn't it?


I think it's probably because they can not grasp the idea that negotiations and UN sanctions are not going to work on these people. So it must be that Bush wants in there for his own personal gain, and since he's from Texas, oil's the first thing that they think of.

Answer 8

It's very convenient to attempt to pin that badge on Bush, since he came from an oil background. An attempt to sully his personal honor. The liberals ignore the times Saddam threw out the U.N. inspectors. The times he absolutely refused to obey U.N. directives. That he sponsored terrorism. Oh gosh, I just don't have enough crayolas to help the liberals grasp reality.

Answer 9

Can you blame them? I can't find a different reason?

WMD's? There aren't/weren't any. The intelligence committee has now admitted that.

Torture? There's more torturing now than before.

Bad Leader? The country is now under constant attacks. There are around 900 reported insurgent attacks on the US army every week. Don't forget 6/10 Iraqis now support attacks on our troops.

I really don't see a reason. Even if it really was torture, WMD's or a bad leader there's Kim Jong-Il who is worse than all of that. Not only that but he's a much bigger danger to the world! If we attack Iraq for WMD's... why not Kim Jong-il?

Don't use 9/11 either. Iraq had no ties to Al Queda and 9/11.

Answer 10

Nothing about Iraq makes sense. If we had not been attacked and Bush was like "free iraq" then maybe, but how do you decide to "help" another nation when yours has just been bombed (in a sense).

Please, do tell us the good reason we are there, because OIL makes just about as much sense as anything else.