There can be no question that the geopolitical equation for Iraq is inextricably tied up in it’s oil production and proximity to the Persian Gulf. And it might even be that Bush and Cheney’s business dealings in the oil business made them overly sensitive to that part of the equation. There’s also no doubt that Bush and some members of his cabinet wanted to invade Iraq (9/11 or no 9/11). But even if you take the straght PNAC line, that wasn’t about grabbing oil. It might have been about securing the flow of oil, which the US and the develped world has a vested interest in, but that’s still different from the conspiracy theories that **Ravenman **brought up.
[/QUOTE]
Thin line there, John, between “grabbing” and “securing.” Meaning that they could have done the latter (or at least tried to) without a war. But yes, I quite agree with the overall tenor of your post.
As for Ravenman and whatever “conspiracy theories” he’s on about, gotta be honest, didn’t care for the overall tone of his post and knowing what forum we’re in, I chose not to respond in the manner that I felt would be fitting.
Hamsters are bad enough as is. No need to overburden them with cautionary words from the Almighty, i.e. Tom or Buckner.
The difference isn’t much of a fine line, at leAst the way I’m USing the terms. Grabbing means “all your oil wells are belong to us” in doper-speak. Securing means: we don’t care who gets the oil so much as it keeps flowing. And it’s not even just about Iraq’s oil, but about what Iraq could do to the whole region to disrupt the flow (form other countries, too). Either way, though, we’re taking it upon ourselves to force those M.E. countries to behave in such a way that we in the west benefit. If we could do that without causing so much death and destruction, I’d have an easier time getting on board with the program-- it’s not like those regimes have a legitimate right to govern in the sense of having the consent of those they govern. Still, you can’t solve all the word’s problems with bombs, as Bush is beginning to learn (I hope).
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Either way, though, we’re taking it upon ourselves to force those M.E. countries to behave in such a way that we in the west benefit. If we could do that without causing so much death and destruction, I’d have an easier time getting on board with the program-- it’s not like those regimes have a legitimate right to govern in the sense of having the consent of those they govern.
[/quote]
Understood. At first glance even I might have “an easier time getting on board” as well. But I can’t. Why? Simple. I’m sure you and I could come up with quite an impressive lists of countries, we in The West deal with on quite friendly terms, yet they too lack the consent of those they govern.
Maybe I’m too idealistic? Perhaps you’re more pragmatic? Or is it best to just become a cynic and leave it at that?
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
You know, this whole idea that keeps coming up that the “real” reason for war in Iraq was oil just really bothers me. I have never once seen anything from one of the masterminds of the war talk about the need for war to use Iraqi oil for American benefit, it is a notably undiscussed justification for war among those who supported it, and finally, those who keep talking about it can’t seem to get their conspiracy theories straight.
Some say that the neocons wanted all the oil in Iraq for ourselves, so the US could have an endless supply of oil cheaper than what the rest of the world would get. (Nevermind that this idea is complete nonsense, because macroeconomics 101 would teach anyone that in a global market for oil, every country is going to pay just about the same price.) Others say that the forces of darkness wanted to invade Iraq to drive up oil prices so Exxon and Shell could profit more. Well, which is it?
And don’t get me started on that flat-out dumb blog entry provided by **antechinus **about how the neocons wanted to privitize Iraq’s oil industry but were stymied by the guy Jay Garner put in charge of the Oil Ministry. Puh-leeze. Garner was driven out of his job in a matter of weeks, if the shadowy overlords wanted to privatize the oil industry, they could have done it.
I fully agree with most of the others here that there were multiple reasons why war supporters wanted to invade Iraq. WMD, 9/11, hating Saddam, radical Wilsonian liberalism, and even human rights concerns were all valid reasons that can be sourced and cited to war supporters. (Note for the record that I disagreed with all of those reasons as justifying war.) However, this oil business is just a piece of truthiness contrived by a small number of anti-war people who, for some reason, can’t grasp that the whole war wasn’t just a terrible blunder, embarassment, and stain on our country, but rather are convinced it just had to be part of a larger, more nefarious plan.
[/QUOTE]
Do you disagree that one of the reasons for the invasion was to stabilise world oil prices by having Iraq act as a counter to OPECs power over oil production?
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
If we wanted to control oil, why wouldn’t we invade Iran, a place from which we get ZERO oil, rather than Iraq, a place from which we bought as much as we wished?
[/QUOTE]
Because part of PNAC was denying oil to other nations, like China. From that viewpoint, it’s just as useful having the oilfields shut down by the resistance as it would be if we had full control.
I also remember Cheney’s “energy task force” well before the war that spent a lot of time looking at maps of Iraq oil fields.
As I see it, there were many reasons we went to war against Iraq. Control of the oil, either to sell ourselves or keep from others. To use Iraq as a military base for the eventual conquest and/or intimidation of the rest of the middle east. To safeguard Israel. Because we were manipulated by Iran. Because we wanted revenge, and didn’t care who was killed in the process or if the guilty parties prospered. Corporate givaways for groups like Haliburton. Militaristic masturbation; by slaughtering people who can’t fight back, we feel pride in America. To settle our feud with Saddam. To stroke Bush’s ego.
Wasn’t Saddam able to export (smuggle) oil for money, even when the “oil for food” sanctions were in effect? He could fund terrorism and other nasty actions with the proceeds from these sales. Iraq’s oil gave Saddam muscle and leverage.
[QUOTE=rock party]
Wasn’t Saddam able to export (smuggle) oil for money, even when the “oil for food” sanctions were in effect? He could fund terrorism and other nasty actions with the proceeds from these sales. Iraq’s oil gave Saddam muscle and leverage.
[/QUOTE]
He wasn’t funding terrorism against America; the most he did was pay for the funerals of Palestinian suicide bombers against Israel.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Because part of PNAC was denying oil to other nations, like China. From that viewpoint, it’s just as useful having the oilfields shut down by the resistance as it would be if we had full control.
[/quote]
[QUOTE=chappachula]
(my bolding.) this sums up the difference between the two different philosophies about the Iraqi war. The pro-war side wants to fight terrorism; the anti-war side wants to arrest individual terrorists.The pro-war side sees Iraq as a base, from which the war against terror will continue. The anti-war side thinks that there can be no war against terror–only police actions to arrest individual people who happen to be terrorists.
[/quote]
There are so many errors in this war equation that even the court jester of the emperor that hired Sun Tzu would give you an F.
Virtually all anti-Iraq war people were (some reluctantly, but nevertheless) in favor of the war in Afghanistan, because the Taliban government was protecting the perpetrators of 9/11.
No, I can not speak for many that opposed the Iraq war, but I knew Saddam hated the guts of Osama, and Osama hated Saddam, all for the silly reason that Saddam was a secular dictator.
Hello? Iraq was the most secular country in the region.
Well, I can grant you that Bush managed to put a square peg into a round hole, the problem is that the broken toy is not particularly useful in the TWAT.
(The War Against Terror! I’m not talking about a broken dildo)
Since anti-Iraq war people approved of the war in Afghanistan, this assumption is silly.
It was supposed to be a clash, but instead we got the 4th crusade; you know, the one were the crusaders got together to fight the Muslims in the Holy land but got short on funds and so they came with the plan to pillage (Christian!) Istanbul that was then Constantinople.
To the OP; it is a misunderstanding to think of the invasion as the final stage in a clear sequence of logical steps. I think most people have pointed that out.
Instead, the invasion was the point from which all thought started and arguments were assembled to lead from the present to that point.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Virtually all anti-Iraq war people were (some reluctantly, but nevertheless) in favor of the war in Afghanistan, because the Taliban government was protecting the perpetrators of 9/11.
[/quote]
that actually supports my original statement. I bolded the word “Base” , because the pro-war side saw the Iraqi war as a base to begin and continue the war against terrorism. The anti-war side only supported a limited war in Afganistan, as a police action to punish specific individuals (Taliban), and then quitting the fight.
yes, and it was controlled by a ruthless dictator who used chemical weapons freely against his own people, and proudly threatened to use them against his neighbors. The fact that it was a secular country is why it was a good place to start the war on terror–there was good reason to hope that destroying Saddam’s government would enable a stable society to develop , based on the Iraqi people’s own western-educated professional classes.
No, it’s not silly. The people who approved (often reluctantly) of the war in Afghanistan always said that they did not want to be seen as fighting the whole Muslim world, just those few terrorists in Afghanistan. They were using the police/criminal model of thought. They refused to see the struggle against jihad as a global issue and a clash of civilizations. I call that “appeasement”. It’s an attitude that says “-let them teach jihad as much as they want , in madrassas from Mecca to Amsterdam to London, and we won’t object to it, unless a few individuals try to hijack a plane or two. And even then, it is a police issue , not a military/political one.”
Notice how the whereabouts of Osama’s question was deftly skipped in the last reply…
[QUOTE=chappachula]
that actually supports my original statement. I bolded the word “Base” , because the pro-war side saw the Iraqi war as a base to begin and continue the war against terrorism. The anti-war side only supported a limited war in Afganistan, as a police action to punish specific individuals (Taliban), and then quitting the fight.
[/quote]
You need a cite for that silliness. There is still a true coalition still willing to give their lives (like Spain) in Afghanistan.
That was not the main reason why we invaded. And there were good reasons to assume the Shiite majority had other ideas.
It still is.
Tap dancing time, the invasion in Afghanistan was not just that, give it up.
I call that idea just a useful tool for justifying unrelated wars.
The latest attempt against America was stopped by police work, there is evidence the orders came from north of Pakistan, were Osama is suspected to be, us being in Iraq was not a factor in stopping the plot.
If the current dictator of Pakistan (freedom is on the march, get him!) still shows unable or incompetent in capturing the Al-qaeda leaders, then he must be dealt with like Afghanistan was, but never mind that, Musfarat has nukes and we are boggled down in [del]Constantinople[/del] Iraq.
[QUOTE=chappachula]
I bolded the word “Base” , because the pro-war side saw the Iraqi war as a base to begin and continue the war against terrorism.
[/quote]
Garbage. Iraq simply wasn’t a major source of terrorism - until we took over. The pro war side has never really cared about terrorism except as a political tool to shout down their opponents. Attacking Iraq never had anything to do with the “War on Terrorism”, assuming there actually was one.
[QUOTE=chappachula]
The anti-war side only supported a limited war in Afganistan, as a police action to punish specific individuals (Taliban), and then quitting the fight.
[/quote]
No, the pro war side never even wanted to fight terrorism, just to attack Iraq. Afghanistan was a distraction; Iraq was the target. It wasn’t the evil anti war folks who let Bin Laden escape, and have given up even trying to get him.
[QUOTE=chappachula]
The fact that it was a secular country is why it was a good place to start the war on terror–there was good reason to hope that destroying Saddam’s government would enable a stable society to develop , based on the Iraqi people’s own western-educated professional classes.
[/quote]
No, there wasn’t. It was well known before the war that Iraq was highly unstable, and likely to fall into chaos without Saddam. And once again, invading Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism.
[QUOTE=chappachula]
No, it’s not silly. The people who approved (often reluctantly) of the war in Afghanistan always said that they did not want to be seen as fighting the whole Muslim world, just those few terrorists in Afghanistan. They were using the police/criminal model of thought. They refused to see the struggle against jihad as a global issue and a clash of civilizations. I call that “appeasement”. It’s an attitude that says “-let them teach jihad as much as they want , in madrassas from Mecca to Amsterdam to London, and we won’t object to it, unless a few individuals try to hijack a plane or two. And even then, it is a police issue , not a military/political one.”
[/QUOTE]
So you want to destroy their civilization ? You want to conquer all of Islam, no doubt killing hundreds of millions in the process ? You want to declare a Crusade against Jihads, and pretend you are somehow better than your enemies ?
You call my attitude appeasement; I call yours monstrous. Your attitude is a throwback to the days of genocidal imperialism.
[QUOTE=RedFury]
As for Ravenman and whatever “conspiracy theories” he’s on about, gotta be honest, didn’t care for the overall tone of his post and knowing what forum we’re in, I chose not to respond in the manner that I felt would be fitting.
[/QUOTE]
Well, let me step back and apologize if my getting riled up over this issue was causing offense to you. I’ll choose my words more carefully so as not to appear so overzealous. I enjoy this debate and honestly do not mean to cause any personal offense, and looking over some of my posts, I should have watched my own language better.
For the Cheney thing on the energy task force: I meant to address that earlier, if I had not gotten the green light to leave work early yesterday. A couple of points come to mind: it could be that this is a piece of a puzzle, but by itself, what does it really mean when this secretive task force looks at maps of oil sites in not just Iraq, but Saudi and the UAE? That’s interesting and all, but what does it show? There’s no indication that I saw that war was discussed. If “securing oil supplies” had been talked about in the fall of 2002 or spring of 2003 as a reason for war, then it would all make sense. But it wasn’t.
There’s one other reason why I just don’t buy into any of this. There have been a lot of good investigative books written about the Iraq war by journalists who actually spoke to those in power: I’m thinking of Woodward, General Trainer, and a number of others. I don’t think I’ve seen a single serious discussion of oil being a cause of war in any of those accounts. Why do you suppose that is? The conlcusion I’ve come to, and that I have a high degree of confidence in, is that the Bush people, as a whole, were obsessed with the boogiemen of WMD and terrorism, and that’s pretty much it.
Yes, I disagree. I think there was a temporary flirting with the idea knowing that we were going to war over WMD anyway, but I do not believe that breaking OPEC was a cause for the war. Just like if I go to a baseball game, I get a beer and a hot dog, but I don’t go to a baseball game because I want a beer and a hot dog.
What is the mechanism for denying oil to China? Even if we had control of Iraqs oil fields doesn’t mean that China would get less oil. Countries buy oil on a world market. Invading Iraq doesn’t influence another country’s access to oil, because other countries will continue to supply the market. Just like when Saddam put that temporary embargo on selling oil to the US, what happend to our gas prices? Pretty much nothing.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
For the Cheney thing on the energy task force: I meant to address that earlier, if I had not gotten the green light to leave work early yesterday. A couple of points come to mind: it could be that this is a piece of a puzzle, but by itself, what does it really mean when this secretive task force looks at maps of oil sites in not just Iraq, but Saudi and the UAE? That’s interesting and all, but what does it show? There’s no indication that I saw that war was discussed. If “securing oil supplies” had been talked about in the fall of 2002 or spring of 2003 as a reason for war, then it would all make sense. But it wasn’t.
[/QUOTE]
PNAC was founded in 1997; that’s earlier than 2002-2003.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
The conlcusion I’ve come to, and that I have a high degree of confidence in, is that the Bush people, as a whole, were obsessed with the boogiemen of WMD and terrorism, and that’s pretty much it.
[/QUOTE]
Well, you’re wrong. They’ve never put serious effort into doing anything about either. They let Osama escape, and have not seriously tried to catch him since. They ignored Saddam’s supposed WMD sites, and even conventional armories, (and most eveything else for that matter ), and sent troops straight for the Oil Ministry and oil fields.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
What is the mechanism for denying oil to China? Even if we had control of Iraqs oil fields doesn’t mean that China would get less oil. Countries buy oil on a world market. Invading Iraq doesn’t influence another country’s access to oil, because other countries will continue to supply the market. Just like when Saddam put that temporary embargo on selling oil to the US, what happend to our gas prices? Pretty much nothing.
[/QUOTE]
If we had been able to use Iraq as a foothold for the conquest of the entire region, we’d have control over a major chunk of the world’s oil. Even more if we started grabbing oil rich countries elsewhere. Iraq was only supposed to be the beginning.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
PNAC was founded in 1997; that’s earlier than 2002-2003.
[/quote]
Yes, yes it is. I can’t argue with you there. But surely things can change in 5 years. For years, Wolfowitz wanted to seize parts of Iraq to make them a haven for anti-Saddman insurgents. That doesn’t mean that plan has anything to do with what actually happened in 2003, does it?
I’m wrong? All those speeches about “don’t let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud” and those WMD delivering UAVs were just a figment of my imagination?
And there’s a very good reason – actually, a very BAD reason – why all the WMD sites were not secured. Rumsfeld cut the number of troops so much that there was no way to secure these possibly dangerous sites and have enough troops to take Baghdad. And it is also well known that the Administration was counting on Iraqi oil revenues to pay for most of the reconstruction. Those two facts seem to explain events quite well, as opposed to proving the war was for oil.
Yes, but I still don’t understand what you mean by control. Do you mean that we sought to take over Iraq and other oil-rich countries so that the US could have endless supplies of cheap oil? Deny oil to other countries? Simply to make sure the taps stay on and the oil gets to the world market? By what means would this control be exercised, and why hasn’t it happened?
