What, if anything, did oil have to do with the 2003 invasion of Iraq?

Question

I would really like to have sources for your information so that I know it is credible. The more sources, the better. 'I think so' is not the kind of answer i want and no short stubby answers that only ger you points or i will report you without hesitation.

basically im looking for bare bones economic and/or historical factors leading up to the declaration of war.

does anyone actually cite sources or do you just come up with your own opinions and call it fact? what i need are web sites because common sence is far more likely to be fallable than a reputible news web site.

Answer 1

Iraq had just started to sell their oil in Euros instead of dollars.
You can verify that anywhere.
This would have weakened the dollar in the long run and might have had a "domino effect" (see Vietnam war propaganda) on other oil producers, and the US oil companies would have had much more to pay for the oil.

I hope this helps to clarify the issue in your mind. Ask any economist whether that's not the case. If they are honest they have to confirm it.

Answer 2

as far as actually cited sources of someone saying "that's why we're there"... I'm afraid if those were in existence, there could be impeachment charges... so no one would be stupid enough to admit it outright...

but, just because they aren't stupid enough to say it, doesn't mean it didn't happen... but then it doesn't mean that's why we're there either...

we are left in a fact less gray area... where many believe it, but there are few facts besides circumstantial that we know of...

Cheney, on meet the press before the war, did state that Iraq could sell oil to pay the U.S. back for the war and it would cost the U.S. nothing, but to my knowledge, this has not occurred yet and it's cost billions...

but all we really have are the facts that the reasons given for the war seem to be false, WMD made post gulf war weren't there... the president and his family had many oil ties... and the obvious fact that if you invade an oil producing region, the supply will be in question and the price will rise.. which will make many billions of dollars for those in the industry...

but was it intentional... or all just a big accident... "whoops we thought they had WMD and my friends made billions as a result accidentally"... we may never know... but at the very least, it seems painfully convenient...

Answer 3

The geo-political significance of the Middle East is all about oil and the Suez Canal - ie transportation routes for the oil. Though the significance of Suez is declining in the age of super tankers. Without mid east oil the US is brought to its knees very very rapidly. It is like the sword of damocles hanging over our heads. Unless there is some scientific breakthrough in the medium term there will be intense global competition for dwindling natural resources - and the first to reach 'critical' condition will undoubtedly be oil. Whoever controls the bulk of oil reserves will most likely effectively control the world. It had better be 'us' rather than 'them' so the reasoning goes. So our goal has always been to maintain a client states in the Mid East which allows us to project power into the region and thus influence what happens there. Israel and the Saudi's the Emirates have and still are to a great extent our client states. Who when it suits them will act as our proxies when we need to apply pressure. However both the Saudi's and the Israel have been unreliable clients, we cannot depend on them. The Saudi's are vulnerable to internal insurrection in the long term and their oil reserves are dwindling, and additionally have a nasty habit of looking out for their own self interest. Israel is not perfectly suited to projecting power in the region. With Iran cosying up to Asian countries - the only major oil reserve left 'up for grabs' was Iraq. Certainly this kind of reasoning was one major factor if not the predominant one in the US decision to go to war. We were giving ourselves an insurance policy in the form of another more directly controlled client state which had some serious oil, in addition to providing ourselves with 'forward operating base' from which we could project power into the region militarily and implicitly threaten uncooperative regimes.

This reasoning has ALOT of merit IF you can ignore the fundamental immorality of essentially subjugating nations for the purposes of securing their natural resources and also ignore the possibility of using alternative strategies.

We are seeing the consequences of this geo-political strategy gamble now.

The sad thing is that if we had spent the half a trillion dollars so far that we have tossed into the sink hole called Iraq into a Manhattan Project type of research project focussed on the gamut of alternative type fuel sources (which we are going to need ultimately anyway) it is very possible that we may have so minimized the importance of oil as a strategically significant resource that the geo political significance of the middle east would become far less important if not negligable. However this strategy is as much a gamble as the one that the current administration took action on. But it is certainly a more morally defensible one and potentially less costly. But of course the decison makers were oil men not scientists and to pursue the alternative strategy would be biting the hand that has fed them.

What a delicious irony would it have been if we had focussed on 'defeating' the radical muslims by driving them into relative poverty and insignificance by making their only wealth lose significant value.

Answer 4

In order to be credible, you must accept that the supply of oil on the planet is finite, and that the supply is quickly being depleted.

If you accept this premise, logic follows that as supply diminishes price will go up. The USA as the larges consumer of oil on the planet is dependent on oil. The american people complain to the government each time oil goes up. Iraq has the second largest known supply of oil on the planet. The Bush family is highly connected in the oil business, and war with Iraq to guarantee the supply to the USA to maintain it's supremacy is not a huge leap. We could have attacked the largest supply, but not only were they already allies, but the holiest city in the world to Islam is within their borders. Attacking Arabia would have set the world on fire. We already had a movement here to attack, I'll remind you of t-shirts and hats that proclaimed "Nuke their *** and Take their Gas!" Bush may have felt there was unfinished business to complete there.

I admit it it's all speculation, but circumstances support the conclusion.

Answer 5

What do you think it's about?

Acquiring sand to make concrete? To give our armed forces something to do to earn their pay? Religion? Did Iraq declare war against us? Your definitely not paying attention young man!!

Were over there for American Oil Interests--PERIOD!!!

Saddam Huessin threatened to increase Oil production and change the currency standard from the dollar to the Euro. Do you know the implications to the U.S. economy of those two actions? If not, then forget it, cause your out of the loop and anyone willing to spend the time informing you is wasting their time cause it seems your already a willing, ignorant, neocon puppet type that needs a direct negative action on their personal being in order try and get informed. Good luck pal.

Answer 6

It actually is not just a simple yes or no answer. And love it or hate it, each party has a different story. Republicans and Bush say that they went into Iraq for Saddam and WMD's so there is no oil there. The Democrats say otherwise. A lot of other Bush skeptics say that the war was just for oil and not for WMD's or terrorists or Saddam or any of that. There really is not an answer, only really Bush knows why Bush invaded Iraq.

Answer 7

Here's the link to a decent analysis of the parts of the recent Iraq Study Group report that relate to the oil interests driving U.S. policy towards Iraq. The author cites to the ISG report which notes that "Iraq is vital to regional and even global stability and is critical to U.S. interests,” it says on page one. Two sentences later, the report notes that Iraq “has the world’s second-largest known oil reserves,” a fact that opponents of this war tried to surface all along."

Here's the link. http://www.progressive.org/node/4300

(from Progressive magazine)

Answer 8

Nothing at all.... What you need is proof of the opposite... Proof... not feelings... bumper sticker slogans... rantings of lunatics and propagandist like Michael Moore....
Sociopathic hate of George Bush, Oil Companies, or anyone that has more than you do is not proof.
Opinion is not proof.

Answer 9

I think that's the belief when all others fail. If you buy into the whole "wmd, terrorist" excuse than you won't believe that. But I personally do not believe ANY of the reasons the government has said, I don't know if it was about oil but it does seem to be more about money than any other reason to me..

Answer 10

It had NOTHING to do with the war in Iraq. People say that because...well...I'd say, but I'd probably get reported.