Iraq: Is it really all about oil?

[Oblivia]

Alot of people are saying that the reason we're in Iraq is because of oil and then saying that is where we are getting most of our oil. Think again!
The Website: http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn14777.ht m made a percentage of how much oil were getting from our selves and other countries.

>Supplied Domestically 38.2 %< That's how much were getting from ourselves!
Canada 9.2 %
Saudi Arabia 8.0 %
Venezuela 7.8 %
Mexico 7.0 %
Nigeria 4.5 %
>Iraq* 3.7 % < Looky Here!
United Kingdom 2.9 %
Norway 2.4 %
Colombia 2.7 %
Angola 2.0 %
All Other Countries 11.6 %

3.7%! How the hell is that going to supply all the transportation and gas guzzlers in our country?

What I'm saying is that you can stop blaiming Bush now about the war if involves the oil!

[Elfer]

Yes, as though 3.7% of the oil consumption annually in America isn't worth a ridiculous amount of money.

[Oblivia]

Tell me about it, I think the problem with America is that the Liberals are getting to much power and that most people are getting too lazy to do anything about.

[AdamRice]

At 11/13/06 08:56 PM, Oblivia wrote: Tell me about it, I think the problem with America is that the Liberals are getting to much power and that most people are getting too lazy to do anything about.

Because the republicans have certainly been doing a fantastic job these past 6 years!

And no Iraq wasn't about oil. Everyone with a brain stem should know that.

[Oblivia]

At 11/13/06 08:58 PM, fasdit wrote:

At 11/13/06 08:56 PM, Oblivia wrote: Tell me about it, I think the problem with America is that the Liberals are getting to much power and that most people are getting too lazy to do anything about.

Because the republicans have certainly been doing a fantastic job these past 6 years!

And no Iraq wasn't about oil. Everyone with a brain stem should know that.

Not to be rude, but are being Sarcastic? If not, then yes I believe the party we had some up and downs, but we can't get much done with a war going on and Bin Laden still on the run.

[Draik50th]

Well to go to war to increase oil trade is a theoretically flawed idea. You end up using more resources to get it if that was the goal.

For:
1. The US trades for oil from many countries, yes, we use our economy for exports, imports and buying goods like oil.

2. If you wanted to invade a country for oil, Mexico makes a far more higher target to get oil from (predicted reserves by major oil companies is massive, it makes the Middle East look like nothing, of course there are many surveys saying why "this" country should get more oil trade but this one has to be of some merit) and is a hell of a lot closer and situation size is much more stable than the Middle East.

3. We have a national oil reserve anyway to prevent us from being fucked again by the Middle Eastern countries "saying, O no, you can't have OUR oil you dirty Americans." Well they can also NOT have the American trade market, which without it, WILL cripple their economy.

-Any person on the left will disagree with something that is completely out-of-the blue randomness and stupid only imaginable by them. This fact a given. Of course the other will always complain the opposite then when it comes down to the real writing of a rebuffal they will write like this: (quote), 1 original sentence, (quote), (quote), (quote), (quote), (quote), (quote), another original sentence (rare), then another (quote),(quote), then for a change (quote).

[Draconias]

It nevers has made sense to claim that we invaded iraq for anything to do with oil. Saddam was a reliable source of oil, had many major oil deals with the Western world, and traded oil through the UN "Food For Oil" program. America, and Bush, didn't attack for oil.

[Nicholas-Caniglia]

Iraq was never totally about oil, per say. Oil was certainly an incentive that existed for an occupation for the country. More of the invasion of Iraq was really involved in Sadam Husein and the dictator that he was during the 1990s. Bush did/has a personal vendetta agasint Sadam that existed back from when his father was president (on a side note: I've had the pleasure of meeting Bush Sr. and he is a really funny and charming fellow). Iraq was always a challenge situation that very late 20th century American politics focused upon to distract the general public. Look at Clinton and what he did when he bombed Iraq to distract us. American policy has always been too used to just hit and runs, and not care about a general occupation. That is not to say that I advocate a generalized occupation, but we were never really prepared for it. This is just a tough, confusing, and binding situation that we are presented. This is very similar to Vietnam in which everything is crumbling down, just waiting for total control from a nation that is nearby. The only problem there isn't a direct desire for unity under one nation in Iraq. There are numerous sentiments that exist, and it's all mixed worse with the precense of Iran.

[Oblivia]

That's a great description and I too think that the Iraq war is a possible repeated Vietnam Scenario. Though there is one thing that the Bush Administration should have done, stuck with the Powell Doctrine which is "if an enemy nation or someone like Al Queda were to be attacking us, we blow the living s#!% out of them to the point where the enemy and people around the them would never want to f^&$ with the United States of America".

[JudgeDredd]

At 11/13/06 11:50 PM, Oblivia wrote: the Powell Doctrine which is "if an enemy nation or someone like Al Queda were to be attacking us, we blow the living s#!% out of them to the point where the enemy and people around the them would never want to f^&$ with the United States of America".

o_O

sauce plz.

[Demosthenez]

At 11/13/06 09:26 PM, mofomojo wrote: I'm not sure what precise corporations have investments in Iraq, but at any rate, any corporation that does is wholly evil.

You made me laugh : )

If you are going to make an argument for profit, do it about engineering firms like Bechtel and Halliburton. That is where the money in this invasion is, recounstruction, not oil. If you are going to make an argument for oil, do it stating that it was a chess piece move to protect our sphere of influence in the oil rich Middle East which will continue to become increasingly important as petroleum becomes less plentiful.

At least get the arguments right.

At 11/13/06 08:53 PM, Elfer wrote: Yes, as though 3.7% of the oil consumption annually in America isn't worth a ridiculous amount of money.

Hundreds of billions, thousands of lives, the total defeat of the ideology they are supposed to cash in on? Indeed. What an ingenious plan.

[Alphabit]

Um, George Bush, being born to a wealthy oil-tycoon family went to war in Iraq for his personal benefit. as it would increase the price of his oil (which it did).

Doesn't it seem odd to you that the only Americans who went to war in Iraq were from the Bush family and that the main topic concerning these wars was oil? (George Bush Senior in "The Gulf War," and Bush Junior with "War on Terrorism..." Terrorism my ass!

[Alphabit]

They should rename teh wars Oil War I and Oil war II

[Rottrevore]

MAN, shut yo mouth! I know wat this shit iz really about! Itz about the hot Arabian POnannY!Yes indeed! All the army boyz want to get sum hot azz, and where better than Iraq, and they also want that BOMB Ass middle eastern Hashish! Thats right, ass n hash! Dont belive me, ask our prez him self, he loves middle eastern ass, and theyr hash! Its so DANK! We just want it all for us and its kool with me as long as i get my fine ass and bout a key of some fresh pressed hash.

[Jose]

At 11/14/06 03:01 AM, Rottrevore wrote: Dont belive me, ask our prez him self, he loves middle eastern ass, and theyr hash! Its so DANK! We just want it all for us and its kool with me as long as i get my fine ass and bout a key of some fresh pressed hash.

You make me laugh.

If you're going to Iraq for ass, get ready to get stoned to death.

[bakem0n0]

At 11/14/06 02:57 AM, LolOutLoud wrote: Um, George Bush, being born to a wealthy oil-tycoon family went to war in Iraq for his personal benefit. as it would increase the price of his oil (which it did).

Oh, why thank you for explaining that so eloquently, how could there be any doubt?
But seriously, without any explanation of now this was to his personal benefit, nor any evidence that increasing the price of oil was his goal, I cannot view this as anything but either ignorant ranting or trolling.
Also, I'd like to point out that adding "(which it did)" to the end doesn't count as proof . . . it only enhances the image of someone trying to force his opinion without bothering with facts.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that the only Americans who went to war in Iraq were from the Bush family

Really? I had heard that there were thousands of American deaths, and all from the Bush family! My heart goes out to the poor dieing Bush clan.

and that the main topic concerning these wars was oil? (George Bush Senior in "The Gulf War," and Bush Junior with "War on Terrorism..." Terrorism my ass!

And what evidence do you have to support this belief that the main reason was oil. Saying a thing does not prove it.
On a side note, thank you for correctly placing your ellipsis, few here actually do, though they are incorrectly written, and you forgot your closing parenthisis.

I do however agree with some portion of you post; the War on Terror has utterly failed to combat terrorism, and the war in Iraq still flounders due to terrorist activity, which is my primary concern with the war as it stands. I respect that Saddam needed to be removed from power, but invading was not an effective way to do so.

And an exit strategy would've been nice a few years ago . . . heck, it'd be nice now . . .

[cellardoor6]

At 11/14/06 02:57 AM, LolOutLoud wrote: Um, George Bush, being born to a wealthy oil-tycoon family went to war in Iraq for his personal benefit. as it would increase the price of his oil (which it did).

Um, actually president Bush hasn't been in the oil business for over 20 years. Even then, all he did was own a small oil DRILLING company. He didn't own any company distributed or sold oil on the world market. Therefore getting oil from another country would have had no benefit to HIS company that made its money from DRILLING oil. Therefore president Bush had no personal incentives to invade Iraq in terms of his own financial gain.

You are a shining example of someone who is misinformed and/or so incredibly biased that they intentionally distort reality to serve their views.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that the only Americans who went to war in Iraq were from the Bush family and that the main topic concerning these wars was oil? (George Bush Senior in "The Gulf War," and Bush Junior with "War on Terrorism..." Terrorism my ass!

Your logic is weak and laughable.

[TheMason]

I've recently read American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips (who worked for Nixon in the 70s). So this coupled with topics covered in several graduate courses in Intl Relations...

Oil was not THE reason we into Iraq, but it was a major reason and it wasn't about securing a supply of oil but rather securing the value of the US $ in the international money market. The $ is no longer based upon Gold, and HS history teachers teach us that it is valued on the faith other countries have in the US dollar.

However, the reality is that the US dollar is based upon the post-WWII Marshall plan in which the dollar's value is derived from it being the currency in which oil is traded. The ONLY currency in which oil is traded.

So then what does this have to do with Iraq? Starting in the late 1990s France, Russia, China and Germany started talking with Hussein about selling oil in Euros. This would devalue the US $ in international finance and presented an accute danger to our economy and being the materialistic country we are; our way of life. In fact, Clinton even pondered going to war over this issue. However, it was close enough to the end of his term that out of deference to his successor he defered the decision to the next President.

So it is deeper than merely securing the supply (if it was invading Iran makes much more sense...), but rather it is about how oil can influence the value of our currency for better or worse.

[bcdemon]

I'm sure oil was a part of it. Maybe not in the sense of how much oil USA gets out of the deal, but more about Bushies buddies in the oil industry who get to set up shop in Iraq. Haliburton being one of them. And then there are the numerous permanent US military bases being set up in Iraq, something Bush would have never gotten with Saddam in power. But just be careful, military bases in Saudi Arabia got 3000+ innocent US civilians killed, Iraq could be a whole new can of worms.

[AdamRice]

At 11/13/06 09:07 PM, Oblivia wrote:

At 11/13/06 08:58 PM, fasdit wrote:

At 11/13/06 08:56 PM, Oblivia wrote: Tell me about it, I think the problem with America is that the Liberals are getting to much power and that most people are getting too lazy to do anything about.

Because the republicans have certainly been doing a fantastic job these past 6 years!

And no Iraq wasn't about oil. Everyone with a brain stem should know that.

Not to be rude, but are being Sarcastic? If not, then yes I believe the party we had some up and downs, but we can't get much done with a war going on and Bin Laden still on the run.

I'm not being sarcastic. The Iraq war was not about oil, as far as I can tell it was about jack shit and a big fucking waste of money.

[Empanado]

At 11/13/06 08:26 PM, Oblivia wrote: Alot of people are saying that the reason we're in Iraq is because of oil and then saying that is where we are getting most of our oil. Think again!

>Iraq* 3.7 % < Looky Here!

I'd just like to point out that the fact that the U.S. gets 3.7% of its oil from Iraq does not imply in any way that Iraq has 3.7% of the total oil reserves in the world.

Not that I actually believe that the war was (mainly) about oil, but that argument of yours doesn't really mean anything.

[AdamRice]

At 11/14/06 09:09 PM, Empanado wrote:

At 11/13/06 08:26 PM, Oblivia wrote: Alot of people are saying that the reason we're in Iraq is because of oil and then saying that is where we are getting most of our oil. Think again!

>Iraq* 3.7 % < Looky Here!

I'd just like to point out that the fact that the U.S. gets 3.7% of its oil from Iraq does not imply in any way that Iraq has 3.7% of the total oil reserves in the world.

Not that I actually believe that the war was (mainly) about oil, but that argument of yours doesn't really mean anything.

This guy is absolutely right, Iraq actually has a large reserve of oil in the ground. Political instability and fighting in the region has prevented it from being harvested to its full potential.

[bcdemon]

At 11/14/06 09:37 PM, fasdit wrote: This guy is absolutely right, Iraq actually has a large reserve of oil in the ground. Political instability and fighting in the region has prevented it from being harvested to its full potential.

Let's not forget a decade of harsh sanctions and constant bombing by US and UK military. Call me silly, but those two things may have had something to do with Iraqs oil output.

[Brick-top]

At 11/13/06 08:26 PM, Oblivia wrote: Alot of people are saying that the reason we're in Iraq is because of oil and then saying that is where we are getting most of our oil. Think again!
The Website: http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn14777.ht m made a percentage of how much oil were getting from our selves and other countries.

>Supplied Domestically 38.2 %< That's how much were getting from ourselves!
Canada 9.2 %
Saudi Arabia 8.0 %
Venezuela 7.8 %
Mexico 7.0 %
Nigeria 4.5 %
>Iraq* 3.7 % < Looky Here!
United Kingdom 2.9 %
Norway 2.4 %
Colombia 2.7 %
Angola 2.0 %
All Other Countries 11.6 %

3.7%! How the hell is that going to supply all the transportation and gas guzzlers in our country?

What I'm saying is that you can stop blaiming Bush now about the war if involves the oil!

Ok your saying America is a gas guzzler yes? Your telling us America consumes alot of crude oil. Wouldnt that 3.7% be a small percentage but a large amount? And besides 61.8% of it you use is from other countries so i'm not surised.

And Bush trying to say Iraq is American soil had absolutly nothing to do with it he just wanted to use the country as a holiday home.

[Jesus-made-me-do-it]

The first time I saw I coulsnt stop laughing
Bair Rap

[Draik50th]

Interesting fact: the government has PLENTY of money and doesn't not even have to go war to get more money if that was the goal.

-They get it by taxing the living shit out of Americans. Surpringly it isn't as bad as other countries' taxes though.

The gas tax (passed quite a whiles back as this is not a new tax at all) already rakes in innumerable amounts of money for the government

Something along the lines of:
10 cents profit for oil companies per gallon of gas purchased
-versus the government's 40 cents profit per gallon of gas purchased

Yeah I don't think anyone in the government like Bush needs to worry about getting more money AS THEY ALREADY HAVE PLENTY! Our government getting more money is as easy as getting a fat person to eat more food.

[Kev-o]

It was to benefit the Multinational companies that support the Bush administration.

[RedSkunk]

The fact that the US itself doesn't rely heavily on Iraq oil doesn't mean the invasion wasn't about oil.