If there was peace in Iraq, would Bush & Co be able to take the oil?

Question

It seems easier to take their oil when there is a mess, I am not sure sure it would be possible if there was peace there.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-huntdeal_11bus.ART0.State.Edition1.363542e.html

Explore is a nice way to say steal...the US government has been trying to convince the corrupted Iraqi government that they will take majority of the oil for themselves (private companies).

Fallen have you ever considered that the saudis are in on this?

dez604 where is the oil going then? Why has the price skyrocketed, making everyone happy including Saudis...it isn't paying for occupation looking at your debt thats for sure.

Begoña R Saudis give a lot of money to the US, that is why they are untouchable even though they habour terrorists.

Answer 1

Why do we need their oil anyway? Why can't we work on developing feasible alternatives & in the meanwhile use our stockpiles and/or purchase oil from venezuela & canada, use oil from alaska & other areas? Why can't we mind our own business & why do we have to make war with everyone?
Why can't we just live in peace with the rest of the world?

Answer 2

Truth is that the establishment of a client state subservient to the Washington Consensus in the Middle East would do more to line the pockets of US/UK oil companies than an unstable Iraq. My guess is that the original intention of the Bush regime in invading Iraq was not to depose Hussein's dictatorship but rather to exchange an unruly client for a subservient state.

I believe the US will not treat Iraq in the way it did Viet Nam. The purpose of invasion is not to strengthen its allies, but rather to strengthen itself in a time of perceived weakness. I believe that the word colonization may be legitimately used to describe the current process in Iraq.

I don't see US companies rushing to steal Iraqi oil. The fact is that the US is not in a hurry to pass the Oil Law. What we will all see in our lifetime is the colonization of Iraq through the apparatus of privatization. Most people say paying market prizes is not stealing. Look at Latin America, where the elites were showered in gifts in order to keep the population from getting a hand in the exploitation of their national resources.

The US wants to latinamericanize the MiddleEast. Theft will be legitimized by contracts. The Sunni minority will return to its position of privilege and democracy will likely be a sham.


I guess I am saying I disagree with your premise. The US is in no hurry.

Answer 3

No. If there was actual peace, Iraqis themselves would have some say in how much of the share of revenues they will receive. In times of crisis, the costs of production would certainly go up, but it also gives producers a valid excuse to arbitrarily inflate the price of crude, giving them a bigger profit margin which Iraqi citizens would see little of, if any at all. There is simply more money to be made due to continued strife rather than from stability.

Answer 4

If the US were most interested in oil from Iraq, the best course of action would have been to work to lift the sanctions on Iraq in exchange for favorable contracts from Saddam.

Those who remember back to the years before the war will recall mounting pressure on the US to use its international leverage to lift the oil-for-food sanctions. People were saying that we were starving thousands of Iraqis a month because Saddam was not using the proceeds from oil sales for food. We could have gotten a sweetheart deal from him - in essence, blackmail him for favorable contracts by holding the sanctions over his head.

This we did not do. Instead the US and the coalition stopped ignoring the many cease-fire violations and invaded. This has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars and many lives. And in the end, we will NOT own Iraq's oil - even though many Americans think we should be paid back out of the oil revenues for our huge costs in liberating the country.

Thinking as a businessman, I find the argument that we invaded Iraq to get cheap oil to be very unpersuasive.

One could argue that leaving such a large oil supply in the hands of someone like Saddam, and allowing him to use those revenues for whatever he wished (including weapons), was not in the interests of America or the free world. But that's a somewhat different point.

Answer 5

That's why we are really there to make sure SOME of the surrounding countries DO NOT GET TOTAL CONTROL of the oil in Iraq. We really do need to start taking care of HOME first--We carry the burden for the largest number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, Why?.....This is not right, but what the hell MOST, I repeat MOST of our leaders have no relatives there...That's why they can't relate to how MOST Americans feel about this unnecessary war..

Answer 6

I see your point - the war is a cover up and while everyone is looking in one direction, magician hides a rabbit under his tall hat.

But oil is no rabbit, you can't just put it in your pocket and run. I am sure it would become known if someone was exploring the oil. However whoever came up with such brilliant deception, will be able to figure out the way....

Answer 7

Some typical redneck/hiljack answers above.

Big Oil and Corporate America wants a military strong hold in the Middle East, like a little "USA East". The US military protects the interests of big business all over the world, and it doesn't cost corporate America a cent. The American taxpayers are paying for all the wars and police actions all over the globe, not to bring freedom and democracy to people everywhere, but to protect companies who take natural resources for their own profit. Saddam Hussain/911/ WMD were convenient reasons to invade a country rich with oil. It's the imperialist way.

Answer 8

IF this is all about oil, then if there had been peace in Iraq to begin with; if a fascist Muslim dictator wasn't killing people by the hundred thousands, if he wasn't threaten oil supplies in the region, then:
1) we wouldn't have had the food for oil debacle, and-
2) we wouldn't be in Iraq in the first place. There would be no need.
Like it or not our economy is very much based on oil. Without it we become a third world nation.

Answer 9

They'll be out of government by then.

Ours, at least.

After such time, if any of them want to run for the position of Minister of Oil, or any Iraqi governmental position, I -- and I suspect millions of my compatriots -- would happily pay their plane tickets.

Answer 10

I see the same old mindless dribble is still being posted here as when the last time I visited this section. Well, back to a category that is at least interesting.