was the war on Iraq for fuel?

Question

was the war on Iraq for the greed and hunger of fuel

Answer 1

Yes it was. The US economy is built around oil but more importantly the US economy operates using the so called petro dollar. The Oil industry is the only thing that gives any strength to what in reality is a weak dollar. Now Iraq has one of the top five oil reserves in the world. Everything was going fine until Saddam began to sell his oil in Euros and not dollars. This was a huge threat to the US economy. This was the tipping point on whether Iraq would be invaded or not. When oil was being sold in Euros that essentially made it more expensive for the US to buy and thus threatened the economy. Britain was OK because it gets more Euros for the pound but as 1 dollar is worth less than 1 Euro oil became more expensive for America.

The excuse was then formulated that there was a threat from Saddam. Yes there was a threat... to the US economy but no physical threat. The threat was economic but in a capitalist world you simply have to live with that. Unfortunately the US backed by Britain (because the UK economy is reliant to an extent on the US economy) changed the rules and married war with capitalism.

If the war wasn't about oil why have the US not invaded N. Korea when they actually do possess and have tested the WMDs that Saddam supposedly possessed... the amswer is simple. There is no oil there.

Answer 2

Oil is THE most valuable commodity in the world market. A large share of it is in the hands of some rather unstable people as the world views it. How to add some stability to the region is the question of the age,because the oil from there will affect the world's economy for rich AND poor nations for the next 100 years. Different nations see different ways to get to a stabile point. Bush sees the menace of radical islamic jihadists and devises a strategy to anchor Iraq and encourage regional control of these radical destabilizing forces that fund world-wide terror. The terror of course drives up the oil prices. The main beneficiaries still remain those in control of the oil money (Saudi's, Iran, Qatar, Venezuela, etc). So, while those nations are enriched by the West's thirst for oil, they still benefit when the West is terrorized because oil prices go up with terrorism. They are not greatly inspired to put a stop to terrorisism among some of their fellow Muslims. The race for oil profits for some radicals is driving a move toward nucelar power for purposes other than peaceful ones. Thus the Iraq problem. Add to that some poor exectution of the tactics and the strategy begins to look not so good. Other people have different ideas on how to appraoch the problem - but in any case the idea is to eventually get to a stabil point for the middle-east. Sometimes the best solution is simply the lest worst solution. Maybe there is no solution.

Answer 3

Iraq wasn't to take the fuel; it is more to control the oil market. Nations like China can only grow & challenge US industry if they have access to cheap oil.

He who controls the oil, controls international commerce and who does or does not succeed.

Iraq is also part 1 of an Anglo-American imperial project to create a new Empire. Iraq was supposed to be a quick win and launching base for further missions (Iran, Syria etc.) However, it's been totally mismanaged and a total disaster. Afghanistan was just a stepping-stone into Iraq and has also been a total disaster.

So it's not to steal the oil, but part of a plan to control global oil and therefore control (or limit) foreign industrial growth.

Answer 4

1) Is oil a part of the purpose of the war? The war is in the Mid-east where 60% of known reserves are. Whether it was overtly part of the rationale it is unavoidably part of the equation. That said, it's not US oil that it's got to do with. We don't buy oil from Iraq. We buy it from Saudi Arabia, but only about 20% of what we do buy. The issue is Japan and China and India and Russia--all developing economies, junable to skip generations of development who are going ot have to have access to certain supplies of oil or stall their development. Stalling their development would have international economic consequences. Worse, some of those countries named might just find themselves willing to have a war that was actually for oil. If we needed to guarantee oil supplies for ourselves, the logical and logistical choice, hands down, would have been an invasion of Venezuela.

2) Those who oppose the GWOT have not thought very far ahead and missed the same historical moment that Bill Clinton and to a lesser extent, George HW Bush did earlier. Prior to 1990, our Middle-East pollicies, were justifiable only so far as they supported the containment of Soviet Communism and avoidance of direct conflict between the USA and USSR. Since then, the continuance of those policies--supporting or ignoring non-Communist dictators and the persuit of stability above all, was, at the very best and most gracious, myopic and perhaps amoral.

Change is painful. That's what's happening now. It also isn't instantaneous.

Here's some perspective: In the 18th Century, far less infrastructure was required. Cleared land, dirt roads, a few canals.... Colonial America was in better shape economically, and regard to trade and infrastructure as a realative matter than Afghanistan and to a lesser extent, Iraq. Our War for Independence begain in 1775. It took 8 years to complete that effort. It took an additional 11 years to produce, first, a working government and then a defense establishment capable of protecting from continental and external threats. In that 19 years, there was a failed government, one foiled military coup, two rebellions, an insurrection and the threat of war from European powers all through. And somehow people expect Iraq and Afghanistan, who need so much more to catch up to modern standards (electricity, sewage/sanitation, telephony,...).

Perhaps that doesn't grab you. How about this one? South Korea announced recently that they thought they'd be ready to take over responsibility for thier own defense in 2012. Bravo. That's only taken 59 years.

Answer 5

Think this one through. America wants to start a war in Iraq ... so it gets a bunch of Saudis and a few Egyptians based in Afghanistan to commit terrorist attacks and goes to war in Afghanistan ... and then many months later, presents evidence to the UN that Iraq has violated UN Security Council Resolutions on disarmament ... and the UN team that goes into Iraq agrees ... so America goes to war in Iraq. Does that make ANY sense at all??? 1. If we wanted war with Iraq, why would we have used a non-Iraqi terrorist outfit based in Afghanistan of all places in this supposedly manufactured terrorist attack? Why not blame the Iraqis from the beginning? 2. If we wanted war with Iraq, why would we have committed so many forces to Afghanistan, instead of putting them in the Middle East in preparation for the attack on Iraq? 3. If 9/11 was supposed to spark war with Iraq, why did we get all those UNSC resolutions that had nothing to do with 9/11? Why not get the UN to say that Iraqis were behind 9/11 and use that as the casus belli? 4. If we wanted war with Iraq, why did we spend so much time on diplomacy with them? Why not skip the negotiations and dealmaking and just invade? "is it so ridiculous to believe Americas leaders could kill so many of its people in order to line their own pockets?" Maybe it is ridiculous, maybe it isn't. But you haven't provided any evidence or even a remotely plausible theory. (It's ridiculous, btw. It's just another broken window fallacy.)

Answer 6

The war in Iraq has several causes, and yes, one of those causes was the drive to control oil resources. Many wars in history are resource wars. After all, we all share this planet, and there is not enough food, water, and fuel for all of us. However, there are other reasons for the war in Iraq, and some of them are more terrifying than the idea that we only want oil. For instance, what if Bush wants revenge for his father's failed attempts in the Middle East? I think that would be much worse. We need oil, we don't need racism or unnecessary hatred.

Answer 7

Th US because it uses so much of the world's oil needed to make sure that in the future when oil became harder to find and more expensive it would have an easy source of oil. There idea is what better way to invade a country with a crazy despotic leader but which also had plenty of oil, defeat Saddam and install a puppet government in his place which would rely for it's existence on US goodwill.

So in short yes the war was for oil

Answer 8

I believe the only fuel involved was Saddam Hussein. How he thought that he and his family would get away with treating his people like that beggars belief.

Anti-arab people the world over decry Iraq Two but it was necessary to free the people from the evil dictatorship and establish a democracy of the people in that area of the world.

Sadam Hussein was a greedy man who deprived his people of fuel, water and electricity to allow him, his family and his cronies to live in sumptuous luxury. From Gold plated taps to ornamental lakes.

It appears that people don't care about the people of Iraq - they seem to have wanted them to suffer under an evil dictator.

Answer 9

The war (regime change) in Iraq was not specifically about oil. But obviously if Iraq did not have oil, who would give a damn about who ruled the country?

Answer 10

Of course it was!
it is said it was justification for the people of Iraq and Weapons of Mass Distruction, that have never been found!
Well, if our governments are so concerned about the way people are treated in this type of country, why has Mugabie been getting away with it after all these years in Zimbabwe?
Could it be there is no oil here?