They say the war was oil driven ! Guess what ?

Question

We aren't guaranteed a drop of it....go figure?

Answer 1

It's not for the U.S.

It's for U.S. oil companies.

Big difference.


Anyone who thinks that the decision to attack Hussein and the fact that Iraq sits on the second largest proven reserve of oil in the world had nothing to do with one another is naive.

Answer 2

We haven't gotten any so far. But aren't iraq's oil reserve going to be tapped? Even if they aren't given to US companies and sold cheaply to US citizens, ensuring that the oil reserves were in the hands of a friendly government undoubtedly is a concern. When the whole world is hungry for oil, can you really say that there is no incentive to have an oil market in friendly hands? Even if the US does not get a discount, the US still benefits. The US is the world's largest oil consumer, and Iraq has one of the world's largest oil reserves. Even if that oil just goes straight to the market, with no preferential treatment given to the US, the US still gains just by having oil on the market and a friendly supplier.

By the way, Bush actually said that oil was a consideration in the war: "... they (terrorists) will be in a position to use oil as a tool to blackmail the West. People say, 'What do you mean by that?' I say, 'If they control oil resources, then say they pull oil off the market in order to run the price up, and they will do so unless we abandon Israel, for example, or unless we abandon allies."

So yes, the war could be about oil without any guarantees of contracts, reduced prices, etc.

Answer 3

"iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas--reserves i'd love Chevron to have access to."- Kenneth Derr Halliburton director and retired CEO of Chevron. (11/12/98)

Previous qoute aside, It wasn't about oil exactly... it was about control of the region, which has huge implications on the oil market. Saddam was strong enough that he was gaining influence in the region and his dislike for america would have meant that he'd probably end up selling his oil to Russia, Germany, and France... hmmmm... which in turn would lesson the United States control over the single largest market in the world. Had Bush said that this was his reason for going to war, I would still not support it, but at least it's much more respectable.. (and somewhat in the interest of the American people)... than his bold faced lie, and fear mongering.

Answer 4

Oil driven?

Why didn't we simply crush OPEC when they damned near crippled our economy in 1974 with their embargo?

Why didn't we just keep Kuwait after we drove the Iraqis out?

Why have we made the Arabs so damned rich by always paying dearly for their oil?

We've had plenty of conflicts and wars in recent history - repressed people, stop the spread of communism, prevent euthanasia and so on - it's just plain faulty logic to not connect the cause of this war to the Islamic terrorists.

Answer 5

You can thank the Bush Administration and Halliburtan for that one. You know what the real ***** is, that well American's gas prices were going through the roof, the United States Government was sitting on the largest oil reserve in history.

You know why George W. Bush did not order the tapping of this reserve? It's because He was artificially inflating the gas price, so that Halliburtan profits.

Answer 6

We don't deserve a drop of it. We are out of there! Without The Nazi control anymore, American can and will handle the phony gas shortage , no problem! By the way the occupation of Iraq and Afiganistan was nothing but greed driven. The Driver was the Decider, and they are all rich enough now.

Answer 7

Sure you do. Every time you go to the pump you get your share as long as you pay dearly for it. They dropped it for the elections but it will go up again soon. it's all controlled by the oil men like daddy Bush and the other Texans who are running the White House.

Answer 8

Yes,nothing different. Every war or conflict has some immediate or remote financial reasons.But to get broader support from Public some emotional reason is wrapped around basic intetions.

Answer 9

It wasn't.

Saddam broke the conditions of the armistice, and then proceeded to bribe the leaders of France, Germany, Russia and the UN to prevent getting busted for it.

He needed to be taken out.

We don't get oil from there, and the contracts with Halliburton & KBR have little to do with oil, and were contracts carried over from the Clinton Administration.

Answer 10

Sorry I think Bush read this map wrong, I thought Bush went to war to rid the world of the taibain. As far as I know Iraq was not have any taibian, in fact Bin whats-his-names hates Saddam as much as Bush for what he has done to the muslim people. Maybe he should check his dictonary as well, W.M.D does not stand for oil fields either.

Answer 11

Unless of course we're able to set up a government that is US-friendly, like we've done in Afghanistan. Simply because the plan didn't work doesn't mean it wasn't their plan all along. They just didn't think ahead that perhaps the Iraqis wouldn't want to be occupied by our armies.