Which wars that America has fought were over oil?

Question

We hear a lot lately about how America always goes to war for oil, and that it's ludicrous to think otherwise. People claim that the current Iraq War is "obviously" for the oil. However, since it was America that was the driving force behind banning Iraq oil exports from 1991 to 2003 (and could have easily gotten the sanctions lifted and bought cheap oil for as long as we wanted it - Saddam was dying to sell us oil), wouldn't it have been easier to just make a deal with Saddam to get the oil at a cheap price rather than spend a trillion dollars on it?

That being said, what wars besides the Iraq War, were fought over oil? And please state the basis for your belief and whether we did, in fact, steal the oil.

To the anti-Bush people posting.... please list the wars that were fought for oil. I understand you think he's incompetent, or a liar, which is fine. But the question stands - which wars?

One responder said only that "it could be argued" that Vietnam was a war for oil. He then said, without explaining how it was proved, that the Gulf War (over Kuwait) and the current Iraq War were proven to be about oil. Is that the total list? If so, how can he call a future war in Venezuela (which hasn't even happened) "just another war for oil." Seems like it would best be discribed as possibly the first war for oil (with some people speculating that the gulf war and the Iraq war were for oil.

And the Japan/WWII argument is simply wrong. That doesn't make WWII "about oil." WWII was about fascism. The US did not fight Japan for oil, it went to war against Japan because it was attacked by Japan and Japan was allied with Germany. And if you're suggesting that the US was to blame for cutting off Japan's oil (thereby hurting Japan's ability to retain its stranglehold over places like Nanking (ever hear of the Rape of Nanking?), Korea (ever hear of Japan's mass rapes and murders of Koreans by the hundreds of thousands?), Phillipines (hundreds of thousands murdered by Japan), etc. etc. etc., I suggest that you are misinformed or not thinking critically about the information you are receiving.

Answer 1

you could make the arguement that vietnam was the first war fought for oil. some think it was the domino theory. both valid. royal dutch shell had proved there were significant oil deposits off shore of vietnam. iraq one and iraq two were the first to be provable, (look at the investments of the elite repubs). venesuala will be next, not iran or n.korea.
oil is a fixed commodity, someday it will run out. until then, there's alot of money to be made.

to respond to the additional comments, i believe i think critically and with an open mind. perhaps i misspoke about iraq II being provable. it certinly wasn't about al quaida or wmd's.
all wars are fought for many reasons. not only american ones.
before 7 december 41 most americans wouldn't give a fig for all the tea in china what japan was doing in asia.
however, their sphere of influence was troubling to american interests. war was probably inevitable. the blockade of japan forced their hand.
i think it is self evident that all wars are fought for a combination of wealth and power. (even the insane roman emperor caligula "fought" neptune to seize control of the sea and it's bounty.) america entered wwII in europe because the fascists became to powerful. if they had defeated england, it would have given them a european "fortress" as well as influence in ireland, jamaica, etc. not to mention germany's control of middle eastern oil.
the american occupation of iraq was not so much an attempt to grab the oil, but to keep hussein from profitting from it and thus becoming more powerful. it is in america's strategic interest to prevent one powerful country from controlling persia's oil.
i do have faith that haliburton/KBR and the rest of the companies there will plunder iraq as they have the american tax payer (of which i am one).
granted, i am not a historian, i studied chemistry in college and was taught to look at a problem from several perspectives.
i fully support the troops. i am a former marine sergeant and have a daughter currently training in army flight school. however, i don't support the lies that got us into iraq nor the civilian leadership's lack of diplomacy, military experience, and knowledge of history that has kept us there.
semper fi
ps. sorry, i somehow deleted the venesuala paragraph. i've tried to restore it but it may not be verbatum.


almost forgot, WW11 (pacific) was about oil too, america embargoed japan's oil because japan was colonizing asia. japan had (and still has) no natural resources. pearl habor was a desperate stab to retain their colonial empire. venesuala will be next. iran and korea can hurt us with their nuclear programs (dirty weapons), venesuala can't. just another bloody war for oil. (chavez just built an ak-47 factory capable of 100,000 rifles a month and established a militia.)

I'll send you the web sites/references if you'd like

Answer 2

You need to pay close attention to the individuals who throw around the terms. Often, they themselves have given many reasons why they voted to go to war with these nations. One person that comes to mind is Senator Hillary Clinton of NY. There is actually a movie coming out, that is no more then her making these kind of comments, followed up by her making directly opposing comments.

The only war for Oil that I am aware of is the one at home regarding the Fields in Alaska that remain untapped.

Answer 3

When u say we spent a TRILLION dollares to get it, you have to remember that the lying criminals in the WHite House said the Iraq war would be free and paid for by the Iraq's.

Whatever you think Bush's War in Iraq is about, it CERTAINLY was not about what Bush claimed. EVERYTING he said has turnd out to be a lie. Such an incompetent LIAR should no longer be running the policy in Iraq.....its a hopeless situation as long as Bush is allowed to be in charge. ANYONE who still supports Bush after all his EVILNESS is anti-American.

Answer 4

There are no less than 2 approaches of watching at something. Is the oil jar part empty or part complete? If you wish to feel we're combating to get oil, might be it's due to the fact that who controls the oil controls the appearance of WW3. Or might be you feel we are attempting to seize it so we will be able to burn it in our vehicles. If you feel the latter, we certain spent plenty more cash doing it this manner.

Answer 5

If we were willing to send troops for oil, why haven't we invaded ANWAR and the gulf of Mexico? they would be much easier to secure and have as much known oil as any country we have sent troops to. If we went to Iraq for oil, why are the oil fields the only place troops are NOT dying? If oil was the reason, just let the rest of the country blow itself up.

Answer 6

We haven't fought any wars for oil . Conspiracy theorist,far lefties and greenies chant that mantra in a desperate fit for attention. They cant back any of it up because it isn't true.

Answer 7

no i dont think itsever been a war over oil. its just this war

Answer 8

None of them.

The 'war for oil' comments are just empty slogans.

Answer 9

Zip zero nada.