USA did NOT invade Iraq for oil

Roland_Deschain

Roland_Deschain

Transcending what is, with what could be.
Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
613
Age
38
Location
Currently working in China, born in the U S of A (
Gil
0
Ok now I am deciding to make this thread on account of the many iggnorant claims I have heard from people who say that America just goes to war in the middle east for oil. I am sorry if it sounds a little like a rant but I have heard it so many time from both both Americans and other foreigners. Honestly I am tired of idiots spouting that, and I want to see if anyone else kind of gets tired of hearing it also... or even begs to differ. Read through an tell me if you feel the same way.

First I would like to clear some things up. I am not saying that America is perfect by any means. And I am not saying that going to war in Iraq was a good idea, in fact I think it was one of the worst military moves America has made imo.

However, saying that America invaded Iraq for oil is short sighted and it does not add up by any means. Its just nonsense spouted by people who want to put the country down for no real justified reason other then that they don't like America that much.

first of all OPEC sets the oil prices for the whole mid east, its an anti trust thats been fought and lobbied agaisn't in many different ways and has been challenged by many countrys, but its a delicate and complicated situation.

OPEC regulates and controls all sales of 13 middle eastern countries. So if Saddam threatened to stop selling oil to America he would be cutting his own throat and OPEC would have booted him from it altogether if he tried. Also even if America was succesful in creating a democracy in Iraq... we would still be buying the oil all the same (from OPEC) as before we went to war. I mean venisuala was saying "no oil for America"... while OPEC was distributing. I think you catch my drift though.

Second of all, the oil we could gain does not outweigh the cost of the war even in the slightest... EVEN IF we could gain oil from it in the first place, which we don't.

There is a difference between trying to be the world police and fighting terror... and being low life bandits and thieves. I personally do not take well to being labled a theif, especially by my own people who are too ignorant to do their own research. I mean America spent so much time and money in Isreal and we didn't gain a drop of anything out of it.

I agree that its a bad move on America's behalf, but a bad move for different reasons. I think people should stop blurting out because of oil when they don't really know... they just want to press blame in a negative way agaisn't the country. Does anyone feel me on this? Please share your opinions and what you have to say on the matter.
 
Last edited:
Iraq was invaded the first time...

to force Saddam out of Kuwait and remove him as a threat to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Iraq was invaded the second time to remove Saddam..
so the US would have access to its oil.Iraq has larger oil reserves than Saudi Arabia and as Bush family revenge because Saddam had threatened the Bush family.
The wmd stuff was made up/phonyed up to justify the invasion. True that Saddam wouldn't give a straight answer as to whether he had wmd but that was to deter aggression against him and not to perform aggression against his neighbors.There was plenty of evidence out there that he didn't have them but Bush, Cheney and their cronies wanted an excuse to invade so they used the myth of uranium in Niger and the tall tales of the cab driver turned informant curveball to justify their actions.
But they really wanted access to Iraqi oil.
The problem was that it was much more difficult to manage the country once the invasion was over than they thought it would be.Rumsfeld did the invasion on the cheap and Cheney and others in the administration thought the Iraqi people would welcome the USA with open arms which as we know didn't happen.
The so called Operation Iraqi freedom was a cluster you know what.A big mess up and a terribly tremendous error that wasted billions of dollars and cost the lives, unnecessarily of American, British and other alliance soldiers as well as hundreds of thousands of civilians.

That's my opinion.

If the tc doesn't like it that's too bad.

shrugs.:bored:
 
See, this isn't something you can have an "opinion" on. You either know the truth, that is, what happened and what everyone was thinking when they did it, or you don't know anything and you make your best guess. That's exactly what both of you just did. There's no way to know what Bush was thinking at the time and there's no way to know Saddam's true intentions.

So arguing about this is pointless. We're kept in the dark about the majority of things like this, because we're peasants. The news glosses over a lot of stuff and usually only reports the bad things, or whatever will give them ratings. Just stop acting like you know what you're talking about, because unless you were there, you only have your best guess.
 
I like the US but let's face it; no government gets involved in any military conflict without something to make it worth their while. If the US invaded Iraq to put an end to the tyranny, why didn't they sort out the Ugandan genocide? Or any number of perceived injustices the world over?

It's all well and good saying oil is regulated but if America want to take millions of gallons of it back home with them who's going to regulate them? Saddam could've easily threatened to stop selling and make good sales to any number of countries who didn't want the transaction regulated in order to get a cut price deal.

The problem here isn't why they invaded, but our society believing it operates on altruistic values that aren't really there. Perhaps we do care about Iraqi freedom, but not enough to put our lives on the line for it. But how about a valuable resource to prop our ailing economy back up? Or another democratic ally in an unstable anti western area?
 
There's one significant aspect to this that you're missing, Roland. Let's see if we can connect the dots.

- The Bush family founds Zapata Oil Company in NYC in 1953.

- Zapata Petroleum merges with South Penn to become Pennzoil in 1964.

- Pennzoil drills in the Middle East, and secures oil rigs in the same area.

- The DoD contract of securing oil rigs in Iraq after the Iraq War was given to Halliburton.

- Halliburton has direct ties to Dick Cheney.

So who stood to make the most profit out of getting the oil market out of the hands of Saddam Hussein? The Bush family and Halliburton, i.e. Dick Cheney.

Moreover, it's the only reason left after you eliminate the falsehoods surrounding the stated reasons. For example, ties to Al-Qaida: Hussein and bin Laden hated each other, so that's crap. WMDs: They had none. Humanitarian reasons: Why not Sudan or North Korea?

So was it the stated goal? Certainly not. But it would be naive to think that there was nothing going on behind the scenes, and that that wasn't revolving around oil.
 
I can kind of see what TTT is talking about. However, I insist to know how in the hell America stands to gain anything out of this? First of all the war is brutally expensive. second of all, nobody reported us stealing oil from under their noses... and the whole UN was watching. Third of all, OPEC controls the entire sales of oil in the middle east, and they fluxuate the costs themselves. Saddam stands to profit from oil being sold in his country, however OPEC controls all of those sales, and not just from his own country. I think there would have been a swell of international news proving we were stealing anything.

America stands to gain nothing unless they were just stealing it. like I said, a Democracy planted in Iraq would result in us buying oil the same exact way... and with the extensive enormous cost this war has resulted in, I do not think we were planning the worlds greatest heist in the expectation that it would be "worth it"... while we were already being crucified to the world for going in the first place.

So I guess my opinion has not changed much, it seriously does not add up that we would start the war because of oil.
 
I agree with TTT here, with the notation of the ultimate costs of the war weren't known when Bush and company decided to invade Iraq.

As ANGRYWOLF noted, the whole invasion was a giant mess. It was done improperly, with Bush and company underestimating everything. I think they thought they were just going to waltz in there, be done in a month or two, get some vengeance and make some profit while doing something to placate the hordes of hysteric masses post/911. But it didn't work out the way; America could not find a way to leave and just take the oil, and as a result, the costs escalated hugely.

There is a lot more to it than that, certainly, as you have noted. But we must not overestimate the intelligence of the people who declared the invasion of Iraq "won"....eight years ago. It was really extreme arrogance and idiocy and greed that caused the invasion, linking with oil. There was likely minimal consideration for trivial matters like "war costs" (good for the economy and we'll make it back quadruple fold!) or OPEC, or the lives of countless Iraqi civillains and ally soldiers.

Hindsight is 20/20, very sadly in this case considering what it caused.
 
I do not think any of these explanations make any sense, perhaps it was idiocy... but you can not mean to tell me that Americans intended to sweep through Iraq and just steal the oil and transport it back to America with the whole world watching? The world is not so stupid, besides we didn't steal a drop.

And unless you are saying that previous bit, then it does not add up. OPEC is in charge of the oil, not Iraq. OPEC is going to moniter and control all of those oil fields, both tapped and untapped. So really it makes no difference and no sense. The result of the war wether win, lose, forced democracy... it does not matter. It still means we are buying our oil the same way just like everyone else.

I am not saying the war was not a result of pure greed, nor am I saying that it was not out of an atttempt to fight terror. What am saying... is that they did not invade for oil. It may have been a tiny conributing factor, but its naive to think it was for oil.
 
Roland_Deschain said:
I do not think any of these explanations make any sense, perhaps it was idiocy... but you can not mean to tell me that Americans intended to sweep through Iraq and just steal the oil and transport it back to America with the whole world watching? The world is not so stupid, besides we didn't steal a drop.

And unless you are saying that previous bit, then it does not add up. OPEC is in charge of the oil, not Iraq. OPEC is going to moniter and control all of those oil fields, both tapped and untapped. So really it makes no difference and no sense. The result of the war wether win, lose, forced democracy... it does not matter. It still means we are buying our oil the same way just like everyone else.

I am not saying the war was not a result of pure greed, nor am I saying that it was not out of an attempt to fight terror. What am saying... is that they did not invade for oil. It may have been a tiny conributing factor, but its naive to think it was for oil.
Click to expand...

Use spell check ;)

So then how do you explain Sadam in the past burning oil fields and such? We've seen this before, and no one was able to prevent it. As far as securing oil fields.. I think that was all about hidden agendas. No offense.. but even I like paying lower gas. So if it means taking it out from an immoral tyrant like Sadam, no qualms here. Did I know the dude personally before he died? No. Have I read up on enough to brand him with the label I gave? Yes.

I don't think the sole intent was to invade for oil, it just looked bad that we stayed in for as long as we did. No offense, but again Iraqi Freedom or any other types of governmental reform is fruitless to me. We can't expect people to be forced into democracy. It'll happen if it happens, but Iraq/Afghanistan are known for quite of bit of drug trade with all the poppy plants. Sometimes it's the farmers only source of revenue. I can't say much since I'm sitting fat and happy over here in America, and they are poor and having to deal with droughts and people who can brain wash them to believe anyone who is not Muslim, is scum.

US did not invade solely for oil, but just like in the past 60 years, we've seen what happens when US's balls are squeezed with low oil from the Mid East. We'll do whatever it takes to fuel our Hummers/Expeditions/Escalades. As a side note, I am pro America.. I just am from here, so I can be extremely over critical of my own country. We have a lot to improve on.. and we've always had oil.. so it always makes you think.
 
From what I've learned, we invaded Iraq because Dick Cheney was a retard and told everybody that Saddam was working with bin Laden and that they attacked the world trade center together and the press and the rest of the country bitched at them to do something about it. So they sent troops to the wrong place. Because Dick Cheney is stupid. But of course it probably wasn't all him or his choice. As TTT said, Hussein and bin Laden hated each other. Their families hated each other. Hussein's family was Suni Muslim and very liberal, while bin Laden was Shiit Muslim and very conservative and religious, on the brink of extremist. So did we go in for oil? Of course not. Did we go in for Iraqi freedom? No. We went in because the country was misinformed by our idiot vice president at the time to get back at them for the 9/11 attacks. The Iraqi freedom came in after we were in Iraq if I remember correctly.
 
So then how do you explain Sadam in the past burning oil fields and such? We've seen this before, and no one was able to prevent it. As far as securing oil fields.. I think that was all about hidden agendas. No offense.. but even I like paying lower gas. So if it means taking it out from an immoral tyrant like Sadam, no qualms here. Did I know the dude personally before he died? No. Have I read up on enough to brand him with the label I gave? Yes.
Click to expand...

Thats the reason the price of oil went up during the war, one of them anyhow. Saddam was tampering and destroying the oil fields so we couldnt have at it (as if we were gonna), also to make a martyr of himself. Even if the war went smoothly, it does not mean the price of oil was going to go down, and we knew that.

And about your agendas theory, that does not add up for oil, perhaps making a democracy or overthrowing a dictator... but not oil. Its just like other countries with bad dictators. They can hate as much as they want, but the anti trust coorperation OPEC, mandates the prices and rates of oil costs, and the sales. We stand to gain the same thing as far as oil goes even with him gone.


From what I've learned, we invaded Iraq because Dick Cheney was a retard and told everybody that Saddam was working with bin Laden and that they attacked the world trade center together and the press and the rest of the country bitched at them to do something about it. So they sent troops to the wrong place. Because Dick Cheney is stupid. But of course it probably wasn't all him or his choice. As TTT said, Hussein and bin Laden hated each other. Their families hated each other. Hussein's family was Suni Muslim and very liberal, while bin Laden was Shiit Muslim and very conservative and religious, on the brink of extremist. So did we go in for oil? Of course not. Did we go in for Iraqi freedom? No. We went in because the country was misinformed by our idiot vice president at the time to get back at them for the 9/11 attacks. The Iraqi freedom came in after we were in Iraq if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...


This. This is probably one of the best explanations possible. I actually was hoping somebody would get into this.

As for Iraqi freedom... I think it was a concept pushed later on, but I know a lot of "citizens" agreed with the war for only this reason among the lot of the bullshit. Actually I remember we did research papers back in highschool when the war started. The task of the paper was to explain reasons for war, or not to go to war. I actually pressed my paper among the concept of torture and power abuse within the country. So I guess if a 9th grader can care about such things before the government starts selling it... hopefully some adults can also.


So who stood to make the most profit out of getting the oil market out of the hands of Saddam Hussein? The Bush family and Halliburton, i.e. Dick Cheney.
Click to expand...

Like I said, nobody stood to profit more, because the oil market was not in Saddams hand in the first place. The country is... sure. However the oil that is in the country controlled by OPEC. As much as we don't care for OPEC, I think its better hands. At least with OPEC controlling the oil for the middle east, everyone can buy it, and the prices can be set somewhat fairly before it is taxed in our own countries.
 
Last edited:
Here's the Opec wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC

I am not sure your view of Opec is valid.
Opec doesn't control the oil.Iraq belongs to Opec and apparently has agreed to abide by it's terms.
However Iraq has agreed, I believe to repay some of the cost of the war in Oil or oil revenues.

Google this:
iraq agrees to repay gulf war

and you'll see.They owe money to Kuwait and have agreed to pay at least some of it.
They have agreed to pay the US for Americans held hostage by Saddam and for the damage to the USS Stark.


Like I have said before it is projected that Iraq has the largest oil reserves in the middle east and one of the largest in the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Iraq

If those fields are developed and the new platforms built.old ones repaired and as you can see that US companies are bidding for the rights to do this along with some foreign companies the results could be quite profitable:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106077283

More reasons for a war.:jon:
 
I am not sure your view of Opec is valid.
Opec doesn't control the oil.Iraq belongs to Opec and apparently has agreed to abide by it's terms.
However Iraq has agreed, I believe to repay some of the cost of the war in Oil or oil revenues.
Click to expand...

I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that my view was not valid, I mean you can not tell me that this view does not make more sense then America just barging in for oil that they cannot have in the first place.

I guess I do not see how this point illustrates that we would be going to war for oil. You just said yourself that Iraq belongs to OPEC, along with the other oil bound countries in the middle east. So in a sense what I said is about the same thing correct? The fact of the matter is that OPEC "could" alternate the prices, and thats one of the reason OPEC is such a feared anti trust to begin with. However with the world consuming from them, they are not likely to raise it too much. Following is several articles, including a country member list.

Definition of OPEC = Global organization dedicated to stability in and shared control of the petroleum markets.

http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/about_us/25.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC < this might even be the same article you threw at me? It states rather directly that OPEC has the task of stabalization and control of the oil to keep from harmful fluctuations. This would include terrorist acts and war.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/opec.asp#axzz1Y6gHU3kD
OPEC is a cartel that aims to manage the supply of oil in an effort to set the price of oil on the world market, in order to avoid fluctuations that might affect the economies of both producing and purchasing countries.
Click to expand...

The word manage, and the word control, have very little difference in this case.


Google this:
iraq agrees to repay gulf war

and you'll see.They owe money to Kuwait and have agreed to pay at least some of it.
They have agreed to pay the US for Americans held hostage by Saddam and for the damage to the USS Stark.
Click to expand...

I find this point kind of off topic on the whole "did America go to war for oil" debate. Also you must realize that almost anyone can make Wiki articles and anyone can post subjects and conversations on the internet without sources. I say this not to rebuttal this specific point, but in general speaking.


Like I have said before it is projected that Iraq has the largest oil reserves in the middle east and one of the largest in the world:
Click to expand...

Iraq has the third largest oil reseves in the middles east, and not one of the largest in the world by many that have over double it quantity. This is one of the many sources that states that information.

http://middleeast.about.com/od/oilenergy/a/me080207d.htm


If those fields are developed and the new platforms built.old ones repaired and as you can see that US companies are bidding for the rights to do this along with some foreign companies the results could be quite profitable
Click to expand...

The thing is man, we cannot tap reserves in the middle east and stake control over them. It just does not work like that.

If you do a ton of research on the subject whilst trying to prove America went to war for oil, you will just keep running into walls and corners, because like I said it just does not add up.

I think you are getting a little lost in the debate. I never once said that America does not want oil, or that they dont have an intrest in future involvment. Its obvious that every country wants oil. The point of this debate is to point out that we did not go to war for oil.
 
Last edited:
Most people believe the US was partially motivated by

the need for oil in the invasion of Iraq.

If you feel differently that's fine.

You haven't explained why you feel differently.

Are you a Republican and /or a supporter of the Bush administration ?

If so that's fine as well.

I don't get too excited about political differences anymore.Been there and done that and I am way too old and feeble to argue anymore.

One argument you have sought to make sounds like Condi Rice.That the world is better off without Saddam.Of course that is true but the same argument could be made that the world would be better off without Kim IL Sung, the Clerics in Iran, the current ruler of Syria and other despots.
The USA and the western allies aren't the world's policeman nor should be we be.

shrugs.

Anyway, at some point Iraq will considerably increase its production of oil over what it was doing during Saddam's reign and the USA will probably be a major customer.
One thing you said that I don't believe is that because a country belongs to Opec that OPEC controls their oil.That's too rigid a stance.Countries can and do cheat and overproduce and sell oil when it suits them.Plus there are a lot of countries not in OPEC. Mexico, Canada and Russia are examples and of course those countries are trying to increase their oil production as well and they aren't bound by OPEC.

So OPEC isn't the monolith you seem to believe it is.

shrugs.:jon:
 
ANGRYWOLF said:
the need for oil in the invasion of Iraq.

If you feel differently that's fine.

You haven't explained why you feel differently.
Click to expand...

Most people does not mean that it is correct by any means. I don't know if you have notice but most people do not even know anything on the matter. I know that lots of people don't even know enough outside of their own box to know that OPEC even exsists. People are ever so quick to blame the government and think the worst of the worst without any actual data.

Your right, I have not explained why we did not go to war for oil. I have however pointed out a very good point as to how it makes absolutely no sense when people say we charged in there for oil. The fact of the matter is, when you look as an outsider from the governement, and every single thing that ever happened before the war, during the war, and after the war, that this claim makes no sense. There is a stronger point point to suggest the war was for different reasons, a much stronger one.

America has just become this face of something that people like to blame, even if its incorrect.


Are you a Republican and /or a supporter of the Bush administration ?

If so that's fine as well.

I don't get too excited about political differences anymore.Been there and done that and I am way too old and feeble to argue anymore.
Click to expand...

I am not a reblican or a democrat. When you lean too much on either side of polotics you are bound to be thrown into a bunch of biast nonsense. Politics has turned into a monster.

I do not like Bush by any means. However I would not be quick to say that America invaded for oil... because it does not add up, does not make sense, and the world outside of America realizes that, yet so many Americans do not. There were stupid reasons to invade no doubt, but for different bad reasons. (I would like to point out what Drak said again.)


One argument you have sought to make sounds like Condi Rice.That the world is better off without Saddam.Of course that is true but the same argument could be made that the world would be better off without Kim IL Sung, the Clerics in Iran, the current ruler of Syria and other despots.
The USA and the western allies aren't the world's policeman nor should be we be.

shrugs.
Click to expand...

I actually feel you on this one. However I was not trying to debate Saddam was bad or evil. I was only saying that its better for OPEC with him being out of the picture. I do not think America should be the world police, but at the same time when you look at other acts of genocide that went without action such as Rowanda and in Europe in the 90's... then people say somebody should have acted.

The world contradicts itself in that manner. I mean we are finishing intervening in Libya and thats not a problem for many. Anytime it works out for the worlds benifit then the world says hooray. Anytime it does not the world say boo.

I would just as assume we mind our own business as well, but sometimes its hard. Iraq could have been avoided definately (and should have), but that does not mean there will not come other times when the world will want America to act... even after being crucified.


Anyway, at some point Iraq will considerably increase its production of oil over what it was doing during Saddam's reign and the USA will probably be a major customer.
One thing you said that I don't believe is that because a country belongs to Opec that OPEC controls their oil.That's too rigid a stance.Countries can and do cheat and overproduce and sell oil when it suits them.Plus there are a lot of countries not in OPEC. Mexico, Canada and Russia are examples and of course those countries are trying to increase their oil production as well and they aren't bound by OPEC.
Click to expand...

I never said OPEC was an angel man. However you cannot prove they are cheating us anymore then I can prove they are. With OPEC around we are customers of the countries that hate us anyway. With them not around, we are not buying oil from the country if they hate us... so 2+2 equal 4 because we are buying oil from countries that hate us... same as the rest of the world.


So OPEC isn't the monolith you seem to believe it is.
Click to expand...

You did not tell me why, or prove that it is not. I mean I can at least show you there websites, their information, and their history, and at least somewhat believe that is what they stand for. While you can only assume that everything is corrupt and say it is not, based on nothing.

However in the end, what is said is done. I think our points have been made. So agree to disagree man. Just make sure you know why you disagree.
Click to expand...
 
Whether or not the US invaded Iraq for the oil or not you still gained in killing 100's of thousands of innocent Iraqi people and escalating now what is a never-ending conflict even with the two boogeyman Osama and Saddam gone.

Saddam and his WMD + the war on terror/ was the public motivation for this war. Behind the scenes it was for their natural resources and revenge for 9/11.

Now the USA's 9/11 is the middle easts 24/7.

But hey no one cares do they?
 
Crunchy Moogle said:
Watch your tongue. I have friends that are risking their lives to protect more than themselves and their country.
Click to expand...

Quoted for how damn truthful this is.

My Sister and her Husband served over in Iraq for four years. My sister hit a road side bomb.

you don't know how much was on the line if that wasn't a dud. she helped so many people in Iraq. It's Astounding. Her Husband served as a general over there as well. There were shoot outs. People die over there.

You basically just called any army over in Iraq Stupid. if it's so stupid. would you like to join?

Sorry for Ranting but I find quotes like these not only offensive. by Imature and Disgusting.

Watch your mouth.
 
You can't really tell someone to watch their mouth for stating their opinion.

Just because people serve in the military doesn't mean they are fighting for their country. I have a friend in the marines who is on his third tour who will tell you the same exact thing. You fight for your own reasons but don't assume the war revolves around the reasoning of "defense". If anything, we've defended our country and if that's the only reason we went there it's now time to pack up and go home.

(Which we have not done, btw)

If you can't take how "offensive" someones opinion is then I would not advise going in search of topics like this one as quite a few Americans will argue it's not "for our country" anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top