Do you agree with Mr. Putin that the invasion of Iraq was an attempt to secure control of oil reserves?

Question

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2687252.ece

He also called on the US to set a date for withdrawal of troops from Iraq, adding that the 2003 invasion had been an attempt to secure control of its oil reserves.

WMDs!!!!!!!! LOL

Answer 1

If you look at the neocon writings prior to 9/11 - the main reasons are two;

1. Securing the oil supply.
2. Protecting Israel.

He's half right.

Answer 2

Remember when Bush looked into Putin's eyes saw that he was a "good man". I think that was because he saw a mirror image. So when Putin says the US is in Iraq for the oil, he's correct, but he's also projecting his own geopolitics on the Bush and the US. It's likely that Putin has a personal as well as a political interest in the oil and gas from the Caspian basin. Stupid US neocons aren't playing this game very well at all.

I read the article on the missile defense shield issue. One thing I don't hear in the US is debate on whether Bush's shield against Iran is needed or whether these weapons work. Aren't they the star wars weapons of the Reagan era? Also, I don't see much mention of the fact that Russia has been helping Iran with nuclear technology,and that Bush's posturing on both the Iranian nuclear issue and the missiles in Europe are clearly helping to re-start the cold war.

Answer 3

"Iraq doesn't even have that much oil. We went to Iraq based on circumstantial evidence which turned out to be faulty."

LOL. That answer gave a good laugh. Iraq still has a large oil reserve. The second largest KNOWN oil reserve after Saudi Arabia. Oil exploration is expensive, risky and dangerous. You can't just go out there and at some point say "ah ha! found it!".

You see, the thing is that Iraq was weak, that is why Bush and his henchmen went there. Sure, Canada has a lot of oil reserves, and the reason why US is not treating Canada the same as Iraq is because it is a vital trade partner. Invading Canada "Iraq style" would be national suicide for the US.

I know that neocons are evil and stupid, but not that stupid as far as I know.

Russia is not the same as Iraq. And yes, Russia has many natural resources including oil. I think that Putin is unhappy about the fact that Bush and his administration blocked Russia's entry into the WTO.

The US has too much influence in too many affairs, even in the "World trade organization". Maybe it should be named the "American trade organization" (snicker snicker).

I know that Russia is not as economically strong as the US and certainly is no angel (nobody is 100% perfect), but I will show my support for whatever Russia believes in for the sake of world peace and prosperity.

And the US economy is fragile and has been fluctuating quite a bit over the years.

Me lost faith in US politicians (hypocrites).

Answer 4

What are the other possible reasons?

1) Revenge for 9/11? Bush himself admits that Sadaam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.

2) WMDs? Bush kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq because they were proving there were none. Better to send in 150,000 soldiers than 150,000 more inspectors, right?

3) Sadaam Hussein was a bad person. Worse than Usama bin Laden? Apparently bin Laden was not important enough to capture at Tora Bora because the troops were more urgently needed to save the Iraquis from enduring one more month of misrule. And now they are so much better off!

4) The Middle-East needs an example of a democracy? Turkey is not good enough, so why not Iraq?

The idea of a democratic Iraq is incredibly stupid. Given a representative six inhabitants of Iraq, there will be approximately four Shi’ites, one Kurd, and one Sunni. For historical and cultural reasons, that Sunni is now being hounded and hunted to death by the other five inhabitants and would always lose a democratic election. The Shi’ites, who would win every such election, now have de facto independence in an oil-rich region, “Shiastan”. The Kurds, who are not Arabs and who would always lose such an election, naturally want and actually have de facto independence in an oil-rich region, “Kurdistan”. Thus, because of ethnic and religious conflicts, Iraq is politically unstable and is not a viable nation. To end the war, Iraq must be partitioned into three totally independent and stable nations. Actually, that partition is occurring naturally despite Bush’s attempt to prevent it. Without a US presence, the Shi’ites would drive the Sunnis into their oil-poor desert, “Sunnistan”. And Bush’s “surge” to allow reconciliation is a bloody hoax: the Shi’ites have no reason to give one shekel of oil revenue to the Sunnis.

And none of the three new nations will be democratic, either.

I can't think of another reason. I guess it must be the oil.

Answer 5

He's merely reiterating what former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan had stated a few weeks ago. Taking over and securing oil reserves was a major underlying motive for invading Iraq, though not the sole motive. The fake Downing Street Memo regarding "yellow-cake" and a personal vendetta on Bush's part were at play as well.

Plans to invade Iraq were drawn up long before 9-11-01 so the premise of using terrorism as a rationale to forcibly invade and occupy Iraq is a false one.

Answer 6

i trust it become mandatory because contained in the lengthy run the in basic terms way we will be secure is that if a democracy of varieties is ordinary and spreads contained in the middle east. Why Iraq? because Iraq become more suitable knowledgeable than the different usa contained in the region, non secular zealots did not administration the rustic (Hussein turned right into a dictator, yet in truth secular.) And, by technique of all alerts Iraqis were keen for a regime replace and (we regardless of the truth that) might want to welcome our troops with open fingers. blunders were made, the biggest become eliminating the Iraqi military, and that created a secure practices vacuum and allowed insurgents to verify themselves. yet another mistake is that our legislators see short-time period political benefit in opposing the warfare (because the polls say so) and that easily emboldens the insurgents because what they are doing appears to be like operating. I nonetheless help the operation, and trust it may go. At some threat of turning this into an endorsement of a particular candidate, if McCain does win the insurgents can ought to imagine about waiting yet another 4 years to effect the american elections.

Answer 7

Getting control of the oil reserves was the only reason that ever made sense to me, so I use to believe that. If we controlled Iraqi oil we could break the OPEC cartel and protect our oil supply from disruption in case of trouble in other oil producing states. I sat in the gas lines in 1973 so it seemed like a rational but immoral foreign policy objective to me. In addition the only WMD we had any real evidence that Iraq had was poison gas , which never seemed a sufficient cause for the war. But after watching what has happened in Iraq since the invasion I no longer think our policy was rational, so I don't really believe it anymore.

Answer 8

Yes, I toally agree with Mr Putin's observation that the invasion of Iraq was an attempt to secure control of oil reserves.

Answer 9

Oil is a fungible commodity, which means it is all one global market. Iraq is chump change in the oil market. We have enough oil reserves within our borders to last us quite a long time.

Putin is probably the world’s most dangerous man and also one of the least stable. Someone needs to stand up and smack that little man upside the head.

Answer 10

Probably Putin was upset that he didnt get control of Gulf oil routes himself. Russia has always wanted ports that dont freeze in winter.
Or maybe he was upset at the feeble performance of all those Russian tanks that he equipped Saddams army with?
Anyway, am I the only person here who sees nothing wrong with fighting wars for economic reasons? The alternative is fighting wars for fun. Is that would people would prefer?

Answer 11

Greenspan does, as do I...

Not necessarily limited to only exploiting Iraq's reserves, this is about maintaining a regional presence in order to influence the general oil flow from the Mid East. Given that we have to remove military personnel from Saudi Arabia (for various reasons), the US needed another base of operations. Further, it was probably a flawed strategy designed to keep Iran subdued (oops).

Our naval fleets are adequate for projecting air power, but, land bases provide a means to put ground troops in combat as well as to organize covert activities. Iraq is a great location for this...