Why do people keep saying the War in Iraq is for oil/halliburton/cheney&co?

Question

I dont know the exact amount we've spent so far but i would say its 500+ billion.......

why would bush admin spend all that plus more to come of tax payers money just so private companies can make a few billion a year or whatever they make? doesnt make sense.

and what about this for oil reason? gas prices is has been high 2's low 3's for years. if its really for oil shouldnt we be enjoying cheap gas? i dont get it someone explain please.

Answer 1

try to follow ...

Other nations' surpluses are the mirror image of our deficits.
Now that nations have mountains of US Dollars, there's less and less demand for USD, which is why the dollar is tanking.

One way to keep up the worldwide demand for US Dollars, is to make sure that ME oil is sold ONLY FOR USD. It's all about keeping up worldwide demand for USD, and keep our party going a bit longer.

Answer 2

People believe what they want. And Halliburton is the only company of it's kind, who else would get the contract? The reason gas prices are so high is hurricanes, The oil rigs do suffer great damage during these storms. The cost of a barrel of crude, then there is refining it. And most especially, state taxes. We could have drilled in Alaska where we have a lot of oil, but the tree huggers voted that down due to endanger the moose. As it turns out the moose are loving the warmth of the Alaska pipeline and have increased in population. So, there goes that argument.

Answer 3

Almost all of the money spent has been borrowed money. I suppose that the Bush administration actually believed that Iraqi oil would pay for the war along with a half a dozen other assumptions that proved to be faulty....not that they weren't warned. But if you recall, anyone who brought up these bogus assumptions was called un-American, a Saddam lover and a surrender monkey. It's possible that huge profits for certain industries close to the Bush administration had no imput into the decision to go to war, but nobody so far has turned down any money. Billions of borrowed dollars have been spent for 're-construction', and not much to show for it. At some point there will have to be an investigation...such as the secret talks that Dick Cheney had with his friends in the oil business just prior to the start of the invasion of Iraq. As far as 'cheap' gas is concerned, there never was a consideration of 'cheap gas'....the consideration was two fold...one is control of middle east oil for strategic purposes, and the other was to insure large profits for the producers after Iraq privatized its oil industries. We're in the middle east ONLY because that's where the oil is, and we've been there for that reason since the end of WW1. If you recall the first gulf war we went after Saddam's invaders because his forces had secured the Kuwaiti oil fields and threatened the Saudi oil fields. I hope that explains both questions.

Answer 4

Oil and corporate profits are part-but not all--of the reason for the Iraq war. But don't underestimate it. First--remember that the money spent actuallly goes mostly to buy all the things the military has to have--that's a LOT of business. And the profits--not grooss revenues--from increases in oil prices are roughly $40 B annually. That's serious money--even by Washington standards! Also rember that the money that's being spent on the war isn't their (corporate, Bush, etc) money--its taxpayer money. No skin off their butts, in other words.

A second factor--political power. The"war on Terrorism" gave the GOP a lock in 2004 on the election--and enabled theBush regime to secure the virtually religious support of their "base."

But there is a third factor. That is, quite simply, that the plans of Cheney, Bush, etc. haven't worked as they expected. Remember, they invaded Iraq (not hard)--and expected to simply set up shop and start exportig oil. Instead--tey found themselves facing a determined resistance, complicated by internal strife--and then further complicated by the incursions of al-Qaida, Iran, etc. So instead of a docile satellite/colony in Iraq--they have a fiasco.

And that has led to a political disaster for the GOP--the Americaan people have thoroughly rrejected the war--and as the corruption of the GOP has become evident, have also rejected the neoconservatives.

There are other factors as well. But bottom line--this is about power, not jsut oil and profit. And--it has backfired on the right-wing cabal that has (and at this point still) been controlling the Republican Party.

Answer 5

What do you think the war is for, to help the Iraqi's. Let's be real, they were actually doing much better under Saddam, no matter how strange that may sound. They weren't asking for our help. The war is for us, not for them, the war is to get a strong hold on their oil, it is to help people like Cheney, who despite being VP was supposed to cut his ties with Halliburton has far from done so. Cheney is one of the creepiest politicians going. The only less clean politician we have had was Agnew and he knew when to get the hell out of the White House, he had the balls to resign. Cheney and Bush are out for themselves and not out for the people. if you think these people are good for the country it's time for you to wake up and stop being part of the 28% who are pro Bush. He has the lowest rating of president ever. Think that tells you something. Over 75% of the people in the US can't all be wrong. That means that there are a lot of Republicans have seen through the flim flam. Seems like only a number of people on here are Bush lovers, but that doesn't make it right.

Answer 6

I agree. The number one argument for the war is that it was to "make US safe". How are WE safe if we have troops (Americans!) overseas under mortar fire everyday? How are we safe if convoys are still being attacked? How are we safe when a large majority of our "NATIONAL" Guard is elsewhere? As for killing a "whole section of the population like Saddam did" that makes us the same as Saddam. I don't pretend to have the correct solution but in November i will vote for a man with a different solution than the one George W. McCain has. Mustangirl - I know John W. and he's not the guy you should be encouraging your brother to fight. Trust me. Just leave it at verbal exchanges.

Answer 7

It is not about the immediate supply of petroleum to U.S. consumers.

It is about the geopolitical need for access to natural resouces: #1 is Oil. Dick Cheney drew up maps of Iraq to partition the oil fields in March of 2001 (months before 9/11!)

The one benchmark that Neo-Cons like Bush and Neo-Liberals like Hillary agree on with Iraq is the "Hydrocarbon Law" which would allocate 80% of Iraq's Oil fields to Foreign Oil Corporations. This is why they have lost patience with Iraq's leaders.

Answer 8

The Great Iraq Swindle
How Bush Allowed an Army of For-Profit Contractors to Invade the U.S. Treasury
--From Issue 1034

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swindle

Answer 9

Yep. I mean i doubt it's to artificially boost the economy as a wartime economy generates jobs creating munitions and jobs in uniform to make the numbers look good at election time.

War profiteering where people close to the administration are making money off the war seems unlikely

The whole just stamping the name "George Bush" in the history books as the guy that started the war to end peace and freedom on the planet just seems silly.

And it couldn't be racism or the fact that the religious right hates muslims and wants to crush muslim countries for the sake of preserving their own prestige in the world.

Me... I say somebody lost a bet.

Answer 10

What oil are they talking about?Do they think that congress would also connive with Bush as well as many other nations,Just for such a petty cause.People shall realize the importance of this action of USA in the years to come.

Answer 11

A history lesson.... In the 60's Kennedy, a democrat, took us to The Nam (Vietnam). Once the media became involved in the war, the hippies (radicals who were too afraid to fight) began claiming the war was being fought to benefit large corporations like Coca Cola Fast forward a few years, President Bush takes us to Iraq. The media gets involved in the war, the liberals (hippies) begin claiming the war is being fought to benefit large corporations. The part the liberals fail to mention is Haliburton has those contracts because Clinton made the deals, not the President. Oops, that just don't work does it.....