For all the Iraq war critics, please explain the logic to me of how the war was created strictly for oil?

Question

We seem to have less oil now then before the war. Basic economics dictates that increased supply can only drop the price.

Also, I never expected the oil companies to be benevolent to the common man, but I still believe the whole cry of "war for oil" is oversimplistic at best.

Answer 1

the people that think this war was about oil are the same people who think that 9/11 was engineered by our federal govt. this war was about many things. not just oil, not just terrorism, not just WMD's, not just Saddam being a murderer and oppressor, not just Saddam breaking just about every sanctioned treaty stipulation after the 1st gulf war... it was ALL of this. that's where people are wrong and get caught up in saying... "well, it's just about the oil", or "Bush lied about WMD's, i thought that's the reason we're there"... we're there for MANY reasons. people need to stop this bandwagoning and having non-realistic approaches to world affairs. and besides,, so what if it was about oil?? i wouldn't care if Bush came out and said it. oil IS the life-blood of the world. and where do MOST of it come from?? that area has been gauging us with oil prices for decades. and they do it because the western world uses the most. if these STUPID extreme environmentalist wackos would get of the feds' backs about drilling on our own land, oil prices and conspiracies theories would be a thing of the past. i'm sick of it. thank you for asking your question. i ask the same one just about every day to my nutjob leftist friends. and not one of them have given me an educated answer.

Answer 2

I in my view suppose Bush had a couple of matters on his time table to obtain within the IRAQ warfare. First it used to be to get revenge on Saddam for nearly killing his father, the first George Bush. Next, I feel after nine/eleven, Bush desired to set up an discipline where he might battle the terrorist and all might flock to as a substitute of heading into the US straight. That means, should you had been a terrorist, you would pass to IRAQ as a substitute of US place of origin, cuz' it is less difficult to assault American pursuits and troops. Another rationale used to be to wish to create like a democratic executive there in which this might be the first and all Arabic governements there might look to comply with. Create like a domino have an impact on or whatever. Those are the motives I think why we're in IRAQ. However, I do feel we must have not ever invaded IRAQ, I feel we might have persevered containing Saddam like we did and he did not also have the chemical guns we concept he had. It's worst now, again then Bush had a alternative, hold Saddam, the satan, or now face with a brand new satan. The terrorist & Iranians.

Answer 3

You ask your question as if the lack of success proves the intention false...which it does not, given the incompetence this administration has shown.

The primary intent was to re-open the Gulf war and take out Saddam Hussein by George W Bush's cabinet members - Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearle...most of them also members of George H W Bush's cabinet during that time.

Their plan to pay for the cost of the war by nationalizing the Iraqi Oil reserves and selling them to the highest bidder was a plan that only an oil executive could think workable....and has led to the belief that the invasion was about oil. Halliburton has been at the front of every handout of cash and had this sale gone off, there is no doubt that they would have gained ownership of the Iraqi Oil wells.

Even as things now stand Halliburton has done very well for themselves - as Barbera Bush would say - haven't they?

Answer 4

It wasn't created primarily for oil; the invasion of a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 and was no threat to us, was done so that a borderline moron draft dodger could pretend to be a macho "war President" for the 2004 election cycle. And unfortunately for America and Iraq, although it accomplished the re-election of Bush, like most things done by morons, it ultimately didn't exactly pan out as planned.

Answer 5

I think to believe that we invaded a country who had never attacked us just for their oil is to belittle the Bush family business. Yes, it is true that he and his cronies are big oil people, but there are also myriad other no-bid contractors that were allowed to dip deeply into the Clinton surplus with no oversight at all. Then there is the other Bush family business, the Carlyle Group, which among other "commodities" it markets weapons, weapon systems, and other tools of war. Blaming Dubya himself is like executing the retarded, he's a sock puppet for much smarter men and this adventure has been one huge money grab. That's why his administration couldn't care less about the damage they have done and continue to do to his own party. It was never about anything other than Enronning the country out of the surplus.

Answer 6

I don't think it was strictly for oil, but that was a part of it. This country should spend the 150 billion dollars on science projects to find an alternative to using foreign oil. We are spending all that money and Iraq is likely to end up an enemy of this country in the long run. Why not spend it on the many out of work chemists to create an alternative the harmful effects of buying all that foreign oil?

Answer 7

you have a point in that it's an over simplified reasoning behind the war in iraq. while I do not support the war, there are many, many more reasons why president bush invaded, most of which have very little to do with oil. however, president bush is infamous for having connections with oil companies all over the world, as well as the US. one of the main ones happens to be the leader of saudi arabia, whom he has been criticized for having ties with due to S.A.'s support for terrorism. but to answer your question, the main reasoning is the theory that president bush wanted the oil in iraq to put himself, and the US, ahead of the game and to take it for himself, with the intent of not dispursing it to other nations. his 'reasoning' being if the US invaded a country that was suspicious in the past, and revive the urgency among the nation to convert them to a democracy and in doing so, rid the world of terrorism. with iraq known to have large amounts of untapped oil, and his connections, he would have that much more power and control over the international oil industry. one of the bigger plusses (sp?) for him was that he would have it, and the insurgents wouldn't, so they couldn't retaliate. however, by the time the oil fields were burned by hussein in iraq, we had gotten in over our heads enough for the threat of even more attacks to occur if we tried to pull out (similar to intentionally wounding an already sensitive area and just leaving it). put quite simply, the theory is that he wanted more control over the oil industry, but the plan backfired so now he's trying to recover the situation and play it off as a war on terrorism.

Answer 8

just look at the stock price of Halliburton before March 2003, and compare the price to what it is today. Also, look at the profits of oil companies since 2003. Connect the dots, follow the money. This isn't rocket science.

Answer 9

Didn't you listen to Wolfowitz when he said that the entire war could be funded by Iraqi oil. We thought we could walk in there and steal all there oil while they gave us flowers and candy. It is obvious that they know where to get the good stuff to smoke.

Answer 10

Agreed. Not to mention the fact that the U.S. hasn't seen a drop off oil from Iraq but China, Japan, and Korea are stock piling reserves. People are too quick to believe Bush for Oil conspiracy theories.