Before the war, we easily could have bought the oil in the open market. And that would be a fraction of the cost that we have incurred with the war. Please try to explain why in the world do you believe that, or is that just an empty battle cry of the left?
2007-10-04 13:23:55 · 13 answers · asked by estimator01 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
very few are staying with the question. Shocker. The price of oil has gone up because of global demand. Please try to stay with the question. If you believe it is ALL ABOUT OIL> then defend it.
2007-10-04 14:04:36 · update #1
Yep, just an empty battle cry of the left. One of many. You've got to many facts in there for them.
2007-10-04 13:27:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 8⤋
It was about -control- of the oil. This is not oil for energy, it's oil for -power-.
Buying the oil on the open market was the LAST thing Bush's buddies in the oil business wanted. Oil is getting more and more rare, and just like any scarce resource, the scarcer it gets the more valuable it is. Every barrel of oil you pump out of the ground makes the remaining supply that much more valuable. Whoever controls the oilfields will reap HUGE rewards in years to come, much bigger than the actual projected wealth based on current prices. And this is especially true if we delay developing alternative energy sources (as Bush is doing) and don't recognize the dangers posed by global warming (as Bush doesn't).
We don't even really -need- that oil. We just want to control it so Europe and China and Japan will have to pay more when the price go up.
If you don't believe the war was about oil, Google 'production sharing agreements'. These are the agreements for oil production that we got the Iraqis to sign. They basically put the oil in the hands of the multinational corporations Bush picked. They prevent the possibility of the Iraqi people getting control of their own oil, keeping more of the wealth in the country to rebuild their infrastructure or raise their standard of living. Any future Iraqi president who decides to take the oil back, to keep the wealth in the country, will be branded as a 'communist' (like Hugo Chavez) and probably deposed by the US--as we tried to do with Chavez and -did- do with Mossedegh in Iran.
2007-10-04 20:34:15 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 1⤋
Part of the Bush sales job to Congress was that Iraqi oil would be used to pay for the war and the reconstruction.
Halliburton has its fingers in the Iraqi pie.
Its easy to see how much Iraqi oil figures into the equation, but of course the Iraqi people have been doing a pretty thorough job of stopping the oil from flowing.
Maybe that and the fact that Bush is hanging in there so hard means he is after the oil.
2007-10-04 20:38:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Think long term. Control of the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world, much of it still uncapped, to the big 4 oil companies in the world, 3 of which are US based.
The cost of a 5 year war, maybe $800 billion that really US citizens paid for through our taxes, versus long term 30 year plus control of a huge oil reserve that could net 1000 times that.
Yes I do believe, without doubt, that the major factor in going to war in Iraq was economic based not militarily based.
2007-10-05 00:29:37 · answer #4 · answered by ndmagicman 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Maybe there was some sort of stability in the area before that there isn't anymore. Is not about oil to make it cheaper what kind of stupid business transaction is that? If is about oil is because they want the most profits from it. If we stay all they need to do is get black water to blow up some stuff and boom prices go up. Blame Al qaida.
2007-10-04 20:54:41 · answer #5 · answered by Jose R 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
er.... have you noticed that the cost of oil has gone up since the war?
and oil companies are having record profits due to it?
NO ONE CARES ABOUT BUYING OIL...
but it could be about increasing oil prices by destabilizing an oil rich area... putting the supply in doubt...
EDIT: the price has gone up only due to global demand?
so if you invade an oil rich nation... it has no effect on the market?
a Republican doesn't have a clue about economics or the simple laws of supply and demand... shocker
2007-10-04 20:43:41 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Really? Saddam the dictator whose government owned and operated everything in Iraq was going to sell cheap oil to the US? If it's not true, then why wouldn't George W. Bush let the Iraqi people repay the cost of the war through the sale of their oil? WHO has been pumping their oil and WHERE has it been going? There's a reason the orginal name of the invasion was called "Operation Iraqi Liberation," and it wasn't because we cared about the freedom of the Iraqi people.
2007-10-04 20:40:21 · answer #7 · answered by It's Your World, Change It 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Oil, at this point in time, is absolutely necessary to our existance. There is an increasing market for it to include China and India. While I don't believe we went there to make profits on Iraq's oil, I don't believe we would be there if Iraq didn't have a huge amount of it. You don't see us in Darfur or Burma.
2007-10-04 21:18:54 · answer #8 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ok,people are looking at this in the wrong context. two factors,Saddam was going to sell oil for euros,the same thing Iran is saying now. the other in the words of Golda Meir,
Let me tell you something that we Israelis have against Moses. He took us 40 years through the desert in order to bring us to the one spot in the Middle East that has no oil! 1973
2007-10-04 20:37:07 · answer #9 · answered by here to help 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
A part of this has to do with manipulating markets, controlling access and driving up the cost so that Chevron, Exxon and BP can make obscene profits. Why did we occupy and invade that weakly defended country otherwise?
2007-10-04 20:47:14 · answer #10 · answered by planksheer 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's about CONTROLLING the WHOLE of the OIL-RICH Middle East. Iraq is just a piece in the puzzle.
Look at the big picture, man.
2007-10-04 20:27:48 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 2⤋