NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22428044-5012748,00.html

AMERICA'S elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published today, Greenspan says: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.


What? Someone actually has the balls to admit the truth? :eek:

The word "DUH!!!" comes to mind...

Total bullshit, and this false illusion of "WE WENT TO IRAQ FOR TEH OILZ!!!" pisses me off like no other.

If you havn't noticed, we (America) aren't terribly popular in the world, especially in the Middle East.

This of course, wasn't always the case. Way back in the 1970s, out puppet Shah in Iran was a good buddy of ours, but things went to shit ever since the crazy radicals and the Ayatollah took control.

Then of course, the Iran-Iraq war broke out so our beloved Ronald Reagan took the liberty of supplying the very country that we would invade twice over the course ten years with the biological and chemical weapons that we supplied him with. Hey look, he's our buddy! (http://cedarlounge.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg)

The prime purpose of invading Iraq was to gain a major ally in the region with the hope of it spreading to other surrounding nations, or at least something similar to that effect.

Of course, the excuse was to, "Get rid of Saddam Hussein and establish a Democratic government in Iraq." True, but all in the name of creating a government that could manipulate to serve our own purposes. Of course, I'm sure oil is apart of this, but that's just icing on the cake.

We did not go to Iraq primarily for oil.

Israel says hi.

Total bullshit, and this false illusion of "WE WENT TO IRAQ FOR TEH OILZ!!!" pisses me off like no other.

If you havn't noticed, we (America) aren't terribly popular in the world, especially in the Middle East.

This of course, wasn't always the case. Way back in the 1970s, out puppet Shah in Iran was a good buddy of ours, but things went to shit ever since the crazy radicals and the Ayatollah took control.

Then of course, the Iran-Iraq war broke out so our beloved Ronald Reagan took the liberty of supplying the very country that we would invade twice over the course ten years with the biological and chemical weapons that we supplied him with. Hey look, he's our buddy! (http://cedarlounge.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg)

The prime purpose of invading Iraq was to gain a major ally in the region with the hope of it spreading to other surrounding nations, or at least something similar to that effect.

Of course, the excuse was to, "Get rid of Saddam Hussein and establish a Democratic government in Iraq." True, but all in the name of creating a government that could manipulate to serve our own purposes. Of course, I'm sure oil is apart of this, but that's just icing on the cake.

We did not go to Iraq primarily for oil.


We had an ally til we backstabbed Saddam in GW1. Democracies make terrible allies, they're fickle. Dictatorships, much more solid.

Total bullshit, and this false illusion of "WE WENT TO IRAQ FOR TEH OILZ!!!" pisses me off like no other.

If you havn't noticed, we (America) aren't terribly popular in the world, especially in the Middle East.

This of course, wasn't always the case. Way back in the 1970s, out puppet Shah in Iran was a good buddy of ours, but things went to shit ever since the crazy radicals and the Ayatollah took control.

Then of course, the Iran-Iraq war broke out so our beloved Ronald Reagan took the liberty of supplying the very country that we would invade twice over the course ten years with the biological and chemical weapons that we supplied him with. Hey look, he's our buddy! (http://cedarlounge.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg)

The prime purpose of invading Iraq was to gain a major ally in the region with the hope of it spreading to other surrounding nations, or at least something similar to that effect.

Of course, the excuse was to, "Get rid of Saddam Hussein and establish a Democratic government in Iraq." True, but all in the name of creating a government that could manipulate to serve our own purposes. Of course, I'm sure oil is apart of this, but that's just icing on the cake.

We did not go to Iraq primarily for oil.

the only reason to create a wonderful new friend in a major oil producing country in the middle east is so we can get their OIL.


the only reason we give that disaster of a region the time of day is because of OIL. if they didnt have oil, we would leave them to kill each other.

So none of our NSG Bushevik regulars are going to try and shout down Alan Greenspan as a DummycratLiberalCutAndRunIslamoFascistHomosexualistDhimmiTraitorToTheCountryWhoNeedsToBeLockedUpInGi tmo yet?

the only reason to create a wonderful new friend in a major oil producing country in the middle east is so we can get their OIL.


the only reason we give that disaster of a region the time of day is because of OIL. if they didnt have oil, we would leave them to kill each other.

Yup. Who cares about a pile of sand or the suckers who live there?

Well he does have to sell some books. Not to shocked, however is he going to also spill the beans how he spurred the housing bubble? I mean if one is bent on telling the truth maybe he should about everything.

We had an ally til we backstabbed Saddam in GW1. Democracies make terrible allies, they're fickle. Dictatorships, much more solid.

Saddam crossed that invisible line in the sand. What happens when you train a pitbull to attack and then it turns on you or your friends? You destroy it....

Saddam crossed that invisible line in the sand. What happens when you train a pitbull to attack and then it turns on you or your friends? You destroy it....

And like Michael Vick, the United States is just now learning about the long term consequences of training such a pit bull in the first place.

And like Michael Vick, the United States is just now learning about the long term consequences of training such a pit bull in the first place.

Well hopefully it is a lesson learned. I hope.....

Saddam crossed that invisible line in the sand. What happens when you train a pitbull to attack and then it turns on you or your friends? You destroy it....

He asked our permission to attack Kuwait, never got a response so he took it as tacit approval. Gave us an excuse to get rid of him.

Kuwait isn't our friend, they're just a tool.

Total bullshit, and this false illusion of "WE WENT TO IRAQ FOR TEH OILZ!!!" pisses me off like no other.

If you havn't noticed, we (America) aren't terribly popular in the world, especially in the Middle East.

This of course, wasn't always the case. Way back in the 1970s, out puppet Shah in Iran was a good buddy of ours, but things went to shit ever since the crazy radicals and the Ayatollah took control.

Then of course, the Iran-Iraq war broke out so our beloved Ronald Reagan took the liberty of supplying the very country that we would invade twice over the course ten years with the biological and chemical weapons that we supplied him with. Hey look, he's our buddy! (http://cedarlounge.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg)

The prime purpose of invading Iraq was to gain a major ally in the region with the hope of it spreading to other surrounding nations, or at least something similar to that effect.

Of course, the excuse was to, "Get rid of Saddam Hussein and establish a Democratic government in Iraq." True, but all in the name of creating a government that could manipulate to serve our own purposes. Of course, I'm sure oil is apart of this, but that's just icing on the cake.

We did not go to Iraq primarily for oil.

Well, I know this is a terrible way to look at it but it seems like this: "My name is George Dubya Bush. You killed mah daddy. Prepare to die."

Yup. Who cares about a pile of sand or the suckers who live there?

exactly.

if it werent for oil we would treat the middle east the same way we treat africa.

Well he does have to sell some books. Not to shocked, however is he going to also spill the beans how he spurred the housing bubble? I mean if one is bent on tell the truth maybe he should about everything.

ive been hearing some reviews. he doesnt take credit (or blame) for the housing bubble.

he dissed both bushes and praises clinton.

i guess he is most pissed that those in his own party werent slaves to his economic plans.

exactly.

if it werent for oil we would treat the middle east the same way we treat africa.

Circle gets the square.

the only reason to create a wonderful new friend in a major oil producing country in the middle east is so we can get their OIL.

the only reason we give that disaster of a region the time of day is because of OIL. if they didnt have oil, we would leave them to kill each other.
QFT!!

Well, I know this is a terrible way to look at it but it seems like this: "My name is George Dubya Bush. You killed mah daddy. Prepare to die."

OUCH! :p

Kuwait isn't our friend, they're just a tool.

Now I know you probably do not like other people using your tools now do you?

What? Someone actually has the balls to admit the truth? :eek:

What? Someone actually read this guy's memoir? :eek:

OUCH! :p

Indeed.

What? Someone actually read this guy's memoir? :eek:

Sadly as people would read the memoirs of Paris Hilton it shouldn't come as any surprise that some poor reporter has either flipped through the memoirs of Greenspan....or copy/pasted a press release about the book :p

He asked our permission to attack Kuwait, never got a response so he took it as tacit approval. Gave us an excuse to get rid of him.

Kuwait isn't our friend, they're just a tool.

IIRC many with in Iraq at that time viewed Kuwait as 'part of Iraq' so it wasn't necessarily seen by some as in invasion, more of a reclaiming.

With that being said, I find it funny that the very Neo-Cons who run around proclaiming 'democracy and freedom' in the middle east were more than happy to shake hands with Saddam and call him the US's greatest ally in the middle east.

In the 500-page book, "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," Greenspan describes the Bush administration as so captive to its own political operation that it paid little attention to fiscal discipline, and he described Bush's first two Treasury secretaries, Paul O'Neill and John Snow, as essentially powerless.

Bush, he writes, was never willing to contain spending or veto bills that drove the country into deeper and deeper deficits, as Congress abandoned rules that required that the cost of tax cuts be offset by savings elsewhere. "The Republicans in Congress lost their way," wrote Greenspan, a self-described "libertarian Republican."

"They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose" in the 2006 election, when they lost control of the House and Senate.

Sounds about right... (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/16/business/greenspan.4-134747.php)

In the 500-page book, "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," Greenspan describes the Bush administration as so captive to its own political operation that it paid little attention to fiscal discipline, and he described Bush's first two Treasury secretaries, Paul O'Neill and John Snow, as essentially powerless.

Bush, he writes, was never willing to contain spending or veto bills that drove the country into deeper and deeper deficits, as Congress abandoned rules that required that the cost of tax cuts be offset by savings elsewhere. "The Republicans in Congress lost their way," wrote Greenspan, a self-described "libertarian Republican."

"They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose" in the 2006 election, when they lost control of the House and Senate.

Sounds about right... (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/16/business/greenspan.4-134747.php)

Hmph. There's one thing that always bothers me. If conservatives are interested in conserving money, why isn't Bush doing so? Answer: Because he's a neocon, not a true conservative, and probably wouldn't know the answer to this question. (I kid on the last one.)

Hmph. There's one thing that always bothers me. If conservatives are interested in conserving money, why isn't Bush doing so? Answer: Because he's a neocon, not a true conservative, and probably wouldn't know the answer to this question. (I kid on the last one.)

Good question; the Republicans used to be like the National Party in New Zealand; individual choice, personal responsibility - low taxes, small government and individual freedom.

Good question; the Republicans used to be like the National Party in New Zealand; individual choice, personal responsibility - low taxes, small government and individual freedom.

That pretty much died after Goldwater. Actually, it died after Roe v. Wade.

Look, Iraq was not primarily about oil. Yes, that was part of it. I will separate reasons for going in from Executive bullshit.

We did not go in to:
colonize (we have plenty of colonies already, and a Middle Eastern colony would not stay as our colony for very long.)
gain another ally (I do not know why that was brought up)
spread democracy
end tyranny
bring a genocidal madman to justice (all three Everest-sized piles of shit. We knew he was doing that when he was our ally, and we just ignored it. If we really cared about that, we never would have allied ourselves with him.)

We DID go in to:
give no bid contracts to Halliburton, Blackwater, oil companies, in general all of Bush and Cheney's former corporate friends, so they would profit. The fact that it's at the expense of soldiers, taxpayers, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and what little stability the Middle East had, did not perturb of deter the administration in the least.

It's a duh.:headbang:

Total bullshit, and this false illusion of "WE WENT TO IRAQ FOR TEH OILZ!!!" pisses me off like no other.

If you havn't noticed, we (America) aren't terribly popular in the world, especially in the Middle East.

This of course, wasn't always the case. Way back in the 1970s, out puppet Shah in Iran was a good buddy of ours, but things went to shit ever since the crazy radicals and the Ayatollah took control.

Then of course, the Iran-Iraq war broke out so our beloved Ronald Reagan took the liberty of supplying the very country that we would invade twice over the course ten years with the biological and chemical weapons that we supplied him with. Hey look, he's our buddy! (http://cedarlounge.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg)

The prime purpose of invading Iraq was to gain a major ally in the region with the hope of it spreading to other surrounding nations, or at least something similar to that effect.

Of course, the excuse was to, "Get rid of Saddam Hussein and establish a Democratic government in Iraq." True, but all in the name of creating a government that could manipulate to serve our own purposes. Of course, I'm sure oil is apart of this, but that's just icing on the cake.

We did not go to Iraq primarily for oil.
That's absurd. "We went to Iraq because it would be a fun place to set up a nation sim, and maybe get some oil too." Uh no, that's fucktarded. Oil would be the primary reason, going around overthrowing governments in the Middle East isn't going to win us any friends and we have no other purposes there but oil and maybe military staging areas, but we can bribe people for those so that reason is really moot.

exactly.

if it werent for oil we would treat the middle east the same way we treat africa.
What's Africa?


And Existing reality has it right on reality...

---------

1. Invade Iraq
2. Blow up ****
3. Occupy nation.
4. Give out contracts.
5. ????
6. Leave puppet Government
7. PROFIT!

Puppet government?!? WHAT PUPPET GOVERNMENT?!?!?:confused::confused::confused:

Total bullshit, and this false illusion of "WE WENT TO IRAQ FOR TEH OILZ!!!" pisses me off like no other.

If you havn't noticed, we (America) aren't terribly popular in the world, especially in the Middle East.

This of course, wasn't always the case. Way back in the 1970s, out puppet Shah in Iran was a good buddy of ours, but things went to shit ever since the crazy radicals and the Ayatollah took control.

Then of course, the Iran-Iraq war broke out so our beloved Ronald Reagan took the liberty of supplying the very country that we would invade twice over the course ten years with the biological and chemical weapons that we supplied him with. Hey look, he's our buddy! (http://cedarlounge.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg)

The prime purpose of invading Iraq was to gain a major ally in the region with the hope of it spreading to other surrounding nations, or at least something similar to that effect.

Of course, the excuse was to, "Get rid of Saddam Hussein and establish a Democratic government in Iraq." True, but all in the name of creating a government that could manipulate to serve our own purposes. Of course, I'm sure oil is apart of this, but that's just icing on the cake.

We did not go to Iraq primarily for oil.

"I reject reality and substitute my own...as it was told to me by Bush, Cheney, Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Drudge, Lars Larsen, etc.. etc."

Swing and a gigantic fucking miss.

That's absurd. "We went to Iraq because it would be a fun place to set up a nation sim, and maybe get some oil too." Uh no, that's fucktarded. Oil would be the primary reason, going around overthrowing governments in the Middle East isn't going to win us any friends and we have no other purposes there but oil and maybe military staging areas, but we can bribe people for those so that reason is really moot.

So then, why don't you tell me how long it would take to get enough oil to make up for the thousands of jets, humvees, Abrams Tanks, armored striker vehicles, etc, that we have had to fuel.

"I reject reality and substitute my own...as it was told to me by Bush, Cheney, Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Drudge, Lars Larsen, etc.. etc."

Swing and a gigantic fucking miss.

Did I ever say I liked any of the dipshits that run our country?

So then, why don't you tell me how long it would take to get enough oil to make up for the thousands of jets, humvees, Abrams Tanks, armored striker vehicles, etc, that we have had to fuel.

You're confusing who is making the money and who is spending money.

Total bullshit, and this false illusion of "WE WENT TO IRAQ FOR TEH OILZ!!!" pisses me off like no other.

If you havn't noticed, we (America) aren't terribly popular in the world, especially in the Middle East.

This of course, wasn't always the case. Way back in the 1970s, out puppet Shah in Iran was a good buddy of ours, but things went to shit ever since the crazy radicals and the Ayatollah took control.

Then of course, the Iran-Iraq war broke out so our beloved Ronald Reagan took the liberty of supplying the very country that we would invade twice over the course ten years with the biological and chemical weapons that we supplied him with. Hey look, he's our buddy! (http://cedarlounge.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg)

The prime purpose of invading Iraq was to gain a major ally in the region with the hope of it spreading to other surrounding nations, or at least something similar to that effect.

Of course, the excuse was to, "Get rid of Saddam Hussein and establish a Democratic government in Iraq." True, but all in the name of creating a government that could manipulate to serve our own purposes. Of course, I'm sure oil is apart of this, but that's just icing on the cake.

We did not go to Iraq primarily for oil.
oh, of course. I mean, what would Greenspan know, huh? It's not like he had any knowledge about what was going on behind the closed doors of power or had any connections within Washington. Nor did he have any knowledge as to the economic reasons. Why would he?

His new book launch explains now why the Wall Street Journal did a hatchet job on him last week. Spent a whole page detailing why they thought he was the worse Fed Reserve chairman. Guess they must have caught whiff of what was in his book and decided to do some spin attack before-hand.


Anyone else think that guy yelling in the photo in the OP looks like a howler monkey?

Hmph. There's one thing that always bothers me. If conservatives are interested in conserving money, why isn't Bush doing so?
leaving aside your answer in white, I was under the impression that they were delibrately running up a huge debt with the theory being that it would force future presidents/congress/senates into being extremely fiscally conservative and would force them to cut Social Spending.
Then again, that's prob crediting them with too much foresight and intelligence.

What's Africa?
I'd guess Nigeria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_in_Nigeria).

An lo, another buttraped for oil(tm) 3rd world country.

[i]AMERICA'S elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.
...

Did we need Mr.Greenspan to tell us that?

59985
http://steelturman.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/25/captain_obvious_rescue.jpg


Or... has Greenspan suddenly turned COMMIE?

Could THIS be the REAL face of Alan Greenspan?

59986

Well if the US invaded Kuwait to 'liberate' the Kuwaitis, why didn't they set up a democratic government after they pushed the Iraqis out? Why did they just reinstall the same monarchical dictator?

I always considered the Iraq war to be an example of "short victorious war", the primary motivation not being oil (though it might have been a nice bonus, opting for Iraq instead of other countries), but a desire to boost up popular support by continuing the "war on terror". It was visible from the beginning of the affair, that Bush is clearly looking for someone to bully. However, I wonder whether Saddam was cynically appointed from the very beginning (in this case all the stuff with inspections and Saddam's reaction to them must have been foreseen), or it was poor intelligence reports about WMDs that made Bush to take action.

Of course, "short victorious wars" always end up being wars long and anything but victorious. Too bad for Bush and his pals for not paying attention to history.

Everybody knows that US invade Iraq for tourist issues.

Lots of Americans wanted to go to Iraq on holiday but they were afraid from Saddam.

A tourist think-tank was created and received the necessary influence in the Black House.

A little later, a war was announced. Misses President could return to his golf terrain, the army could play with their toys, some backward inbreeded ‘proud to be Texan’ farm boys had the opportunity to kill some 'dirty' Arabs and the tourist business…well they have to wait for a while due some little problems...

But hey, we get rid of Saddam, isn’t? Damn, I’m proud!

So then, why don't you tell me how long it would take to get enough oil to make up for the thousands of jets, humvees, Abrams Tanks, armored striker vehicles, etc, that we have had to fuel.
What does that have to do with the price in tea in China?
The point is controlling the oil, not taking it for 'free.' Again, we can bribe people for that.

leaving aside your answer in white, I was under the impression that they were delibrately running up a huge debt with the theory being that it would force future presidents/congress/senates into being extremely fiscally conservative and would force them to cut Social Spending.
Then again, that's prob crediting them with too much foresight and intelligence.

That's extremely evil. Would they think of that?

Good question; the Republicans used to be like the National Party in New Zealand; individual choice, personal responsibility - low taxes, small government and individual freedom.

Yeah. In the near future, I might vote Republican if they run candidates who aren't neocons.

Well if the US invaded Kuwait to 'liberate' the Kuwaitis, why didn't they set up a democratic government after they pushed the Iraqis out? Why did they just reinstall the same monarchical dictator?

Just wait. Iraq's looking fabulous right this season.

That's extremely evil. Would they think of that?

That's one of the cornerstones of Conservative philosophy known as "Starving the Beast."

That's one of the cornerstones of Conservative philosophy known as "Starving the Beast."

Hmph.

So none of our NSG Bushevik regulars are going to try and shout down Alan Greenspan as a DummycratLiberalCutAndRunIslamoFascistHomosexualistDhimmiTraitorToTheCountryWhoNeedsToBeLockedUpInGi tmo yet?

Dhimmi?

This great man has been reduced to a husk of his former self; he appears to be laboring under the intractable burden of senility and regurgitating talking points reminiscent of bin Laden's latest speech. It is a pity that he is mindlessly blathering when once his words were perceptive and his manner ingenuous.

This great man has been reduced to a husk of his former self; he appears to be laboring under the intractable burden of senility and regurgitating talking points reminiscent of bin Laden's latest speech. It is a pity that he is mindlessly blathering when once he words were perceptive and his manner ingenuous.

This one is pretty good I have not seen you around for awhile lol

Dhimmi?

You called for a Bushevick and Dun du dun da!!!! FAG! Try not to summon trolls when once they have died on the cross they pretend to carry.

Does he explain why it was because of oil? The actual plan according to which invading Iraq would be good to reduce the price of oil? A reason why a working Iraqi government wouldn't have joined OPEC?

If he doesn't, he's no better than all the other silly people who yell "no blood for oil" but couldn't explain the first thing about what they mean.

Iraq was invaded because it had been a neocon project ever since the first Gulf War. The perfect test case for the regime change program. There was a brutal dictator with the coldest of relationships with the US. I assume the neocons actually believed he posed a threat through the WMDs (even though they didn't have the clear evidence, to them it would have been obvious). And yes, he was in a strategically important place in the world, not just because of oil but also because of the role of international political Islam and the whole Israel thing.

Did oil form part of the reason for some of the support for the war? Definitely. Was it the "prime motive" for the war? No.

Does he explain why it was because of oil? The actual plan according to which invading Iraq would be good to reduce the price of oil?

why would that be the goal?

I wonder why the Freedom Torchbearer USA doesn't invade and install democratic government on says

- Yugoslavia
- South Africa pre-Mandela
- Nicaragua (during Contra days)
- Chile (Augusto Pinochet days)
- Vietnam
- Cambodia

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22428044-5012748,00.html

AMERICA'S elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published today, Greenspan says: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.


What? Someone actually has the balls to admit the truth? :eek:

So where is the oil?

why would that be the goal?
Then what would be? Nobody ever sat down and explained this "war because of oil" argument to me. It's like everyone sort of assumes it must be true, without thinking about it.

Then what would be? Nobody ever sat down and explained this "war because of oil" argument to me. It's like everyone sort of assumes it must be true, without thinking about it.

The idea is that the US invaded not to ensure that Joe Sixpack has cheap gas, but to secure lucrative contracts in the Iraqi oil industry for Western corporations. Or something to that effect, anyway.

Then what would be? Nobody ever sat down and explained this "war because of oil" argument to me. It's like everyone sort of assumes it must be true, without thinking about it.

That's because all the critics of the "War For Oil" theory almost always include the false scenario of reduced petroleum prices as a stipulation for the proven existence of an actual "War For Oil" scenario, i.e. "If we invaded Iraq for the oil, why haven't gas prices gone down?"

Anyone who's kept up with current events within the last few years would know that the petroleum industry has absolutely little to no incentive to reduce the price of petroleum for the average consumer; Exxon reported tremendous profits the last summer or so and that didn't include the tax breaks they were granted until recently.

In my opinion, if there was an actual "War For Oil" motive behind the invasion of Iraq, the motive would be simply about gaining control of a resource that is simply not in the hands of OPEC. You can gouge the consumers for the same amount of obscene profits, but with the added bonus of taking away leverage from OPEC and not having to rely on its member states as much for the petrodollars.

The idea is that the US invaded not to ensure that Joe Sixpack has cheap gas, but to secure lucrative contracts in the Iraqi oil industry for Western corporations. Or something to that effect, anyway.
Yeah, but that turned out to be true for reconstruction moreso than the oil industry. I've been trying to do a little research, and the problem is that it always just says "foreign oil companies". That makes it quite hard to test the hypothesis...if the foreign firms are mainly BP, Total, Shell, SaudiAramco or PDVSA, Qatar Petroleum et al it's wrong; if it's Exxon, Chevron and ConocoPhillips, maybe it isn't.

Still, I think if the US government were that beholden to the interests of the supermajors, the lass it passes would look different. Of course there would have been a partnership based on common interests between some of the supermajors and the neocons - but I still maintain that it's absurd that it was the major motivation.

In my opinion, if there was an actual "War For Oil" motive behind the invasion of Iraq, the motive would be simply about gaining control of a resource that is simply not in the hands of OPEC. You can gouge the consumers for the same amount of obscene profits, but with the added bonus of taking away leverage from OPEC and not having to rely on its member states as much for the petrodollars.
They were only excluded from quotas in '98 because of Saddam and the sanctions. Officially I think they're still members, and I think Maliki will try to properly rejoin OPEC as soon as the chance comes up - an opportunity to gain some independence from the US and perhaps access to the important help they'll need to get their oil company up and going again, and to keep it running.

Total bullshit, and this false illusion of "WE WENT TO IRAQ FOR TEH OILZ!!!" pisses me off like no other.

If you havn't noticed, we (America) aren't terribly popular in the world, especially in the Middle East.

This of course, wasn't always the case. Way back in the 1970s, out puppet Shah in Iran was a good buddy of ours, but things went to shit ever since the crazy radicals and the Ayatollah took control.

Then of course, the Iran-Iraq war broke out so our beloved Ronald Reagan took the liberty of supplying the very country that we would invade twice over the course ten years with the biological and chemical weapons that we supplied him with. Hey look, he's our buddy! (http://cedarlounge.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg)

The prime purpose of invading Iraq was to gain a major ally in the region with the hope of it spreading to other surrounding nations, or at least something similar to that effect.

Of course, the excuse was to, "Get rid of Saddam Hussein and establish a Democratic government in Iraq." True, but all in the name of creating a government that could manipulate to serve our own purposes. Of course, I'm sure oil is apart of this, but that's just icing on the cake.

We did not go to Iraq primarily for oil.

But it did sort of help the decision to visit Iraq, no?

*snip*

Oh, I agree that oil wasn't the primary motivation for the war. I'm also of the opinion that it was conservatism's first big chance. While I think oil may have been part of it, I think it was one of a number of factors, and certainly not the strongest.

Although, if you haven't watched this, comedian Robert Newman proposes an interesting theory. I haven't had the ambition to research it, but it's intriguing nonetheless. If you want to skip ahead, his theory really starts in part 3.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9Ecd6361Ls&mode=related&search=

what greenspan actually said was it was about CONTROLLING the oil for the sake of the economy. so it isn't exactly about GETTING the oil. though this distinction may be somewhat in the nature of a quibble, depending upon one's perspective.

(and yes of course there were a multitude of other factors, but the out of control doomsday machine of self serving fanatical corporate shock/disaster capitolism is essentially the driving force behind all of them. and of course people buying into the deception that the artificial reality of symbolic value is a default condition of anything is what makes THAT possible)

but this does give me an opportunity to voice a couple of my own humble obsrvations:

yes, oil would be over $150.00 a barrel if sadam had not been removed from power. (this was something greenspan also mentioned). my own feeling though, is that this would be a GOOD thing!

the worst possible thing for this world, even and america itself was preventing this. even if doing so hadn't involved destroying other nations infrasturcture and wantonly killing hundreds of thousands, now nearing a million, of their civilian population.

the real and present danger was not and is not forign terrorism, but the collapse of the web of life, driven by the use of combustion to generate energy and propell transportation, and the excessive birthrate of the human species.

=^^=
.../\...

Total bullshit, and this false illusion of "WE WENT TO IRAQ FOR TEH OILZ!!!" pisses me off like no other.

If you havn't noticed, we (America) aren't terribly popular in the world, especially in the Middle East.

This of course, wasn't always the case. Way back in the 1970s, out puppet Shah in Iran was a good buddy of ours, but things went to shit ever since the crazy radicals and the Ayatollah took control.No. The Ayatollahs took control exactly because and after things went to shit with the US puppet Shah. The so called Islamic revolution was mainly a reaction to the Shah's government.

We did not go to Iraq primarily for oil.Yes, you did. Everybody outside the US and UK knew that from the get go.