NationStates Jolt Archive

First of all, i would like to point out that I am against the war in Iraq. I was not always, but reading these forums convinced me it was wrong. What I want to know is why everyone is so convinced that the hidden reason was to go in for the oil. I don't think it was, but I try to be open minded, so I would like someone to prove me otherwise. Of course, if you agree with me, post as well.

Basically, the reasons I don't think the war is for oil are:
As far as I know, the US did not trade oil with Iraq because the government of the US decided not to. However, if the current administration decided it does need oil from Iraq it seems to me it would have been much easier for them to convince the American people to approve of trading with Iraq, than convincing the whole world to go war with Iraq. We are, after all, trading oil with Iraq (or so I believe), not just taking going in and pumping out oil.

Also, the economic benefits of the oil now acquired from Iraq don't seem to come even close to equaling the economic difficultiesthe war has caused the US economy.

Some people say the war was started just to benefit the very wealthy people who deal with the oil industry. People close to Bush I guess. As much as you all think that Bush is evil, I seriously doubt that he and everyone of some importance in the administration would be willing to go to war just to benefit a few friends of Bush.

I think you will find all answers here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Note the signatories.

Sorry, but which report specifically?

Kevin Phillips, a noted conservative commentator, makes the case that it's a war about oil in his book American Theocracy. He says it's a war over (among other things) the last really sizeable but largely untapped oil reserves in the world.

Sorry, but which report specifically?
The Statement of Principles.

It's an organisation committed to get the US out of its "isolationist" foreign policy. They believe that democracy is the only valid form of government, that it is the default form of government and that all democracies are good friends that never go to war with each other.

Since they believe that democracy is the default state of society, any dictatorship is only a dictatorship because it has a dictator in power. Remove the dictator and democracy ensues immediately, as any natural state would.

Iraq was one of their targets for a long time. The planning and execution of the war bears their watermark - all the way down to using so few troops. Afterall, democracy would happen by itself, and US troops would leave in a few months.

And then you note the signatories of this statement of principles, and you spot (besides Jeb Bush) Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. As well as Ambassador Khamilzad...

Bush has virtually nothing to do with all this. He's little more than a puppet in this game, and at times I feel almost sorry for him.

Ok, I am not so sure that Bush is a puppet, though he may not play a as big a role as a president should. Dick Cheney defenitely has too much power in the administration; he shouldn't have any power. However, how does that prove that the war is for oil. As much as I dislike Cheney and Rumsfeld, I don't think they would go to war to benefit a few wealthy people.

And of course their theory of democracy being natural is bullshit. If democracy was such a natural thing, there would have been way more of them, and they would have started a long time ago. IF anything, a dictatorship is natural.

And just saying there is a person who wrote a book arguing one way does not prove anything. I am sure there are millions more who think what he does, and many people whoa ctually published books. I would like to hear those arguments.

However, how does that prove that the war is for oil.
No. Those that say that it was have no idea what they're talking about.

The war was for ideological reason to begin the great age of American hegemony under the banner of neoconservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism) ideology.

Business interests supported it of course, but they weren't the reason it started.

It wasn't about oil, it was about the power oil has. By having a strong, independent and "democratic" ally with large proven and unproven oil reserves the US would gain valuable leverage in both OPEC and the Middle East, with the result being that America's hegemony in the region and by extent the world would become much more secure and permanent...it was ideologically driven primarily.

By the way, the price of oil is due to supply and demand factors that are generally unrelated to the Iraq war; in fact, if the risk premium due to terror and supply disruptions (not Iraq, actually...the risk premium comes from other places) and the depreciation of the dollar since early 2000 is removed, oil prices today are only 28% higher than they were in 2000.

That equates to a yearly rate of only 4.2%, barely higher than the rate of general inflation. If general inflation is subtracted, oil is only up 9% since 2000...it is barely changed in real terms, which has a lot to do with why higher oil prices have not caused a recession or severe inflation despite rising 600% nominally since 1999. Also, the economy is becoming less and less energy intensive, so rises in prices have a much smaller effect than they did in the past; furthermore, much m.

Cheney would go to war for the rich, I mean look how much money Hallibutan is making from the Iraq war. What do you think he's going to do after 2008?

Go back to being the CEO of Hallburtian of course.

No, the war in Iraq is to prove that Bush Jr. has a bigger penis than both his dad and Saddam Hussien.

I have hard evidence that this war was for oil here (http://www.breakfasttacos.com/conspiracy.jpg).

Kevin Phillips, a noted conservative commentator, makes the case that it's a war about oil in his book American Theocracy. He says it's a war over (among other things) the last really sizeable but largely untapped oil reserves in the world.

The others are in Iran, Russia, and Africa...all of which are not exactly the most American-friendly places of production. In fact, a huge chunk of the undiscovered oil is in Iran and Iraq, to say nothing of proven reserves.

The only other major options are oil shale, oil sands, C02 injection and the offshore Continental Shelf...all of which are either difficult to get the license for or are expensive to produce. Those places mentioned above are the last remaining bastions of ultracheap oil, and securing them would be a windfall for American influence.

The conflict taking place in the Middle East is being fought for corporate and foreign interests while the American troops are being used as cannon fodder for the neoconservative war effort.

In essence the war in Iraq was never about spreading Democracy. Anyone who believed this lie even for a second is a complete imbecile.

Ok, I see your point now. I do believe that is one reason the administration ahs gone to war Neu Leonstein.

Vetalia, that defenitely could be true. One of the reasons maybe. I never actually heard anyone argue that.

The Lone Alliance, common, you base your beliefs on way too many assumptions in my opinion. One being that Cheney is so evil he is willing to let thousands of people die so he can make a buck.

Proof, where is the proof? Everyone seems to say its for corporate's benefits, and yet you do not present any proof. It seems to me like some of you heard someone say that once, and you just went along.

Anyone who believed this lie even for a second is a complete imbecile.
That's quite a word to use, Mr. "The Holocaust is a Zionist Conspiracy".

At any rate, your statement contradicts itself. Neoconservatism is democracy's Trotskyism, and all about spreading democracy.

You need to see this film, if you are really interested in why we went to war.

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/

It argues that our causes and incentives for war aren't about just Bush or just 9/11 - the turning point was the start of the cold war, and the creation of an American Imperialism. Just like our torture practices were formulated in the 1950's (the techniques of which you can see in the released prison photos - I'd be happy to explain, but I don't want to hijack the thread without your consent), so were the executive ties to the defense industries, and so was the secret betrayal of America's democracy. Jarecki's (the directors) clarity is astounding in this film, and he does it the hard way - through interviews with republicans, with facts and dates and citations, and with footage of Ike Eisenhower's farewell address. Watch this film!

edit: the different sections of the film are online (almost the entire film, just not in order). Just click "enter site" after the initial preview, and it will take you to Ike's speech, with links on either side.

This film is basically what Eisenhower said in his farewell address? That address is actually one of the reasons I do suspect some corporate involvement in the war. I mean he was the president after all, he must know the reasons behind American policy.

This film is basically what Eisenhower said in his farewell address? That address is actually one of the reasons I do suspect some corporate involvement in the war. I mean he was the president after all, he must know the reasons behind American policy.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. Ike's address is the first one played - it's one of 19 shorts from the film itself.

That's quite a word to use, Mr. "The Holocaust is a Zionist Conspiracy".

At any rate, your statement contradicts itself. Neoconservatism is democracy's Trotskyism, and all about spreading democracy.

Are you daft?

Its a LIE. They use these lies to cover their real reasons for invading foreign regions.

Any idiot would have figured that out by now, they dont care about Democracy(even if they say they do)

Its a LIE. They use these lies to cover their real reasons for invading foreign regions.
And what are their "real reasons", then?

You've spent months on NSG now, and you still don't think ideologies can make people do things?

The war in Iraq:

Causes:

1) Persian Gulf War
2) Sadaam tried to kill Big Bush (not Burnin' Bush)
3) Oil
4) Uhh... camels?
5) Oil
6) Dirt

:mp5: :sniper: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

The war in Iraq was meant to be a twin pronged attack...
1. The United States as a whole was seeking a stable relationship with the Middle East, and under the theories, at the very core, of Neo-liberalism (I mean this in the most technical sense), it dictates that a more peaceable relationship is achieved when a democracy interacts with another democracy.

2. A little support is better than none at all. An occupation has even less chance of achieving anything if there is absolutely no gains to be made in the occupied country. Oil became a very convenient economic bait to bring in the support of those that need a vested economic interest in doing anything.

3. It is logical with 1 and 2 in mind that, by achieving a democracy in Iraq, the United States can hope for a secure oil provider to the West that wouldn't go Jihad on them on a whim... moreover, a clear-cut democracy is a rather transparent government compared to just about any other form of government. Despite the secretive tendencies of the current administration, there's very little they can do about the constant stream of leaks, news, and whatnot. Nonetheless, a democratic government does make it easier for a country, like the US, to look over and see what's going on and react, or pre-empt, in the most effective manner.

3. It is logical with 1 and 2 in mind that, by achieving a democracy in Iraq, the United States can hope for a secure oil provider to the West that wouldn't go Jihad on them on a whim... moreover, a clear-cut democracy is a rather transparent government compared to just about any other form of government. Despite the secretive tendencies of the current administration, there's very little they can do about the constant stream of leaks, news, and whatnot. Nonetheless, a democratic government does make it easier for a country, like the US, to look over and see what's going on and react, or pre-empt, in the most effective manner.


In other words, Imperialsim makes us happy and our lives easy.

While it is true that Halliburton has/close ties with members of the current administration, they are in fact the few companies that had experience providing such massive military support. Halliburton also provided the same support roll for the military action in Bosnia, the first gulf war and many others.
I respect Bush because he does stand up for his convictions, and I still support him, but nit as much as I use to. The problem I have with the current administration is the fact the they did not have a complete plan, they did not think about what would happen once Sodom was out and his government was gone. There is also no exit plan, and they allowed things to deteriorate into what we have now “mob rule” and that is what is going on there now.
As for the war being for oil, no it was not, if it was where is the oil now?????

In other words, Imperialsim makes us happy and our lives easy.

In short, absolutely. Access to natural or political resources is the motivation for most of the strategic wars since the rise of civilization...and a secure supply of resources means faster growth, a more powerful economy, and a more secure nation or territory.

However, the downside of imperialism is that in the long run it is unsustainable and inevitably results in some kind of backlash against the imperial nation, with the severity dependent on a number of factors. It could be economic, political, social, or cultural but it does happen inevitably; the moral crisis felt in many of the old colonial powers in postwar Europe is a classic example of this backlash.

Sorry, I haven't read most of the thread, just the original post.

First, I think that it's key to recognise this, in respect of cost and profits:
You say that profits from oil won't off-set costs for war. This may or may not be correct.

But it is not relevant. This isn't a game of Command and Conquer.

My point is that the people paying the expenses of war are not necessarily the same people reaping the profits of oil, are they?

If it costs quarter of a billion people a hundred dollars each to fight the war in year X, and a hundred people make a hundred million dollars each, the cost is $25bln and the profits are $10bln, but the idiocy of tax payers has never stopped capitalists from getting personally richer.

(Of course those aren't actual figures, but that doesn't matter.)

Second, the simple fact of taking out of the ground and being rich as a result is over-simplified, isn't it? If going to simply steal a resource for its own sake were the motive, America would have done it a long time ago, because nobody would be able to stop it.

But that's not how the American economy works. It needs petrodollars, it needs everyone to be buying and selling oil in American dollars. Iraq wanted to sell in Euros. Wham, it was invaded by the US and the UK, while Euro-zone nations like France and Germany were shouted-down as old-European traitors. The first thing that the new American-lead government did was to return to selling in dollars, even though it wiped a big chunk out of the Iraqi economy, which obviously was contrary to the best interests of national reconstruction.

The physical oil itself may not have been a direct motive, but the ribons and bells attached to it by the American-lead global marketplace can still could be.

Finally, it maybe isn't all about the oil. It wasn't in Yugoslavia, though there's significant similarities. Maggie and Ronnie in the eighties, if not someone prior to that, got this whole free-market-or-death thing into everybody's heads, and now it doesn't matter if you vote Labour or Tory, Democrat or Republican, you still get someone prepared to commit war crimes to ruin a country and send in the cowboy private contractors to fix it up and divide the productive energies of its people amongst themselves as profit, oil or no oil.

Re.Lander's three points: Well, in the nicest possible way, that's nonsense, isn't it? I mean, for all its wars and strife, Iraq was more stable under the Ba'ath Party than it is right now, with talk of [sigh] 'Balkanisation' in the air; and Iraq wanted to export oil, obviously, it was a cornerstone of the economy and Saddam's power, no? It's just that they maybe didn't want to export it in US dollars anymore, when they could make money-for-nothing by exporting in a stronger currency.

But that's not how the American economy works. It needs petrodollars, it needs everyone to be buying and selling oil in American dollars. Iraq wanted to sell in Euros. Wham, it was invaded by the US and the UK, while Euro-zone nations like France and Germany were shouted-down as old-European traitors. The first thing that the new American-lead government did was to return to selling in dollars, even though it wiped a big chunk out of the Iraqi economy, which obviously was contrary to the best interests of national reconstruction.

I personally doubt that the Iraqi desire for selling its oil in Euros was a motive behind the invasion of Iraq; the volume of world trade is so great that the value of the oil trade is only a moderate portion of the world total, and of that total the vast majority of it is denominated in dollars and will not change unless China, India, or the US suffer serious economic collapses.

A switch by all of OPEC might have a moderate impact on the dollar, but it would still be modest due to the amount of non-oil trade with oil producing nations that would remain denominated in dollars; in fact, until 1999 the US was running a trade surplus with Saudi Arabia, our biggest source of Middle Eastern oil. Also, Iraq was not trading normally with the US or other nations; it was still under sanctions so the effect would be even more limited. The same is true of Iran, with whom the US has no direct and official trade relations; the bulk of their trade is already with Asia, Russia, and the EU so it would not really affect the dollar if Iran went with the Euro.

A far bigger effect would be had if a nation like China or Japan decided to replace dollars in its reserves with Euros, but since the dollar is still considerably more attractive compared to the Euro as a reserve currency such a move is impossible and would hurt the world more than it would help the EU, the US or the nations that undertook such a diversification.

The war is for oil? Howzat? America hasn't imported one drop of oil form Iraq. They aren't going to lower their prices for us because we invaded them. We used a lot of oil as it is to fuel things, like tanks in Iraq. If we did import oil, Bush sure-as-hell wouldn't get any, the goverment would. So if he is doing it for oil, he's doing for America, And if he isn't then...

snip


But Saudi Arabia is thinking about selling in Euros, when Iran gets its plans off the ground and makes that possible. Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Iran all selling in Euros would have been serous. Iraq's down, Iran's on the chopping-block, and Saudi will either get the message or the fact that it's a hideous example of a country and all the House's money is in one American account will probably have something to do with their position in a way that remains currently beyond my full understanding.

And again, the point is that America isn't an equal or democratic society, and the American economy generally isn't always what matters in the decision-making process. It doesn't matter precisely how important oil is to a national economy, but to the personal interests of those through whose hands power runs thickest.

The war is for oil? Howzat? America hasn't imported one drop of oil form Iraq. They aren't going to lower their prices for us because we invaded them. We used a lot of oil as it is to fuel things, like tanks in Iraq. If we did import oil, Bush sure-as-hell wouldn't get any, the goverment would. So if he is doing it for oil, he's doing for America, And if he isn't then...

Iraqi oil doesn't have to go to America if it is sold in American dollars. Everyone else who buys it -or Iranian or Saudi oil if they're discouraged from selling in Euros after seeing what happened to Saddam- needs to get American dollars, where America can print... American dollars. If the Saudis sell their oil in dollars, they make many dollars, and they stick them in their account in America. Then they buy things from America, in American dollars. If Iraq sells its oil in Euros, nobody cares what America does... until it starts bombing Iraq.

We are NOT in iraq for oil! For those who say that we are, how do you explain rising gas prices? Are we having a hard time stealing this oil? If we were only in their for oil, we'd be shipping tons over to the US and gas prices would b lowering, definetly not rising to record highs.

We are NOT in iraq for oil! For those who say that we are, how do you explain rising gas prices? Are we having a hard time stealing this oil? If we were only in their for oil, we'd be shipping tons over to the US and gas prices would b lowering, definetly not rising to record highs.

I won't criticise right away, because I myself have skipped ahead from the original post to make a reply, but, just to inform you, recent posts in this thread are significant to your ridiculously over-simplified take on things.


Edit because I just thought I'd say that I'm on my way out and may well forget that I was ever here, so that's my advance apology if I fail to reply. Bye!

I wish we WOULD take a little oil, and lower the gas prices...:(

Now this is just my kind of war:

1. Invade a country, on the basis of your Human Rights for Oil.
2. Drop a few bombs on civilians. *This will annoy the terrorists.*
3. Torture a few more. *This will get terrorists angry.*
4. Execute some civilians. *Terrorists will be furious.*
5. Kill a couple of POWs. *Terrorists will be enraged.*
6. Announce to the world you need to end your oil addiction. *Terrorists begin planning attacks on your homeland.*
7. Develop technology and announce the end of your oil addiction. *Terrorists continue their planning.*
8. Leave the country. *Terrorists' plan is executed*