Here’s a bunch from other Dubya officials, oddly not including Cheney though.
I do recall that. However, if they really intended to steal the oil they went about it in a pretty stupid way. If you really had that as a goal, then we would have seized the oil fields and sent in the logistics to start getting it out, basically putting all our forces on area security and letting the rest of the country hang, not attempting to put in a new government or rebuild, just looting. None of the moves really seem to indicate an intent to seize the oil, but instead seems to be what you are saying…that the Iraqi’s would fall over themselves in their happiness, that we’d rebuild them a la Germany and Japan after the second world war, and that it would install a new, strong ally for the US in the region sort of like Israel, just closer to the oil. And that by doing so it would stabilize the region and give the US more bases to oversee the rest of the region and ensure that the oil kept flowing (mainly for Europe, since the US doesn’t actually get that much oil from the ME), making the world safe for the US and the American way! Gods bless America!
I didn’t ask what you didn’t believe, I asked what you did. I suspect you believed what you were told to believe, in the order in which you told to believe it. You could have corrected me on this matter by answering my question. Ah well, no matter; it’s all Iraqi corpses floating under the bridge at this point anyway.
Let’s just review this debate, because once again it is getting silly. TheTooth said that the US attempted to “commandeer” Iraq’s resources. Shodan and I, in a rare meeting of the minds, argued back that there was no such plan. Then you contribute quotes from Bush Administration officials that generally state that Iraq should be able to pay for its own reconstruction.
As vulgar as those quotes are (“Sure, I’m going to come to your house and smash things up; you’re rich and can afford to fix it all without me having to pay anything for my misdeeds!”), there’s a substantial difference between “US attempted to steal Iraq’s oil” and “Iraq is wealthy because of all its oil so American taxpayers won’t be left on the hook for nationbuilding.”
The latter assertion, as I said before, is vulgar and also severely delusional. The former assertion about “commandeering” just isn’t accurate.
This is where we come to the point in the debate where I have to ask, “Just what the fuck is the point you’re trying to make?”
Simple: Shodan’s dodging the question, but since the war has come and gone it’s not all that important. No one is going to change their mind at this point anyway.
Not sure if you are moving the goalposts or just forgotten which sport you are playing.
What’s the problem? I asked why he thought the US invaded Iraq if not for the oil, he didn’t answer. No goalpost moving here. Since no minds have really changed about this in the past 15 years, I’m happy to say “oh well” and leave it at that.
But ‘for the oil’ is pretty ambiguous. What do you mean by that, exactly? For the US to get the oil? Then you are simply wrong. We didn’t and don’t get much oil from Iraq. To secure the region ‘for the oil’, installing a presumably friendly regime to ensure that the global supply of oil wouldn’t be disrupted or that the US could influence the region? Then you are correct…that’s exactly why we did what we did. Part of the US overarching strategy to have bases and friendly regimes in all the hotspot regions, and the ME is definitely one of them.
Probably not in reality, no. But there was certainly rhetoric to that effect, most probably IMHO lies told to help sell the invasion to the US public.
Wait…are you saying…gasp…that Bush LIED!!! Whoa, that’s a pretty bold position to take…
And the weapons and the freedom and the Operation Human Shield were all lies. Glad we agree. I don’t think it was to ensure the world had oil so much as to ensure the right people were selling it, though.
Cheney & Co. certainly did, but to a large degree I think Bush actually believed it, not possessing the curiosity or skepticism or sense of gravity of the average adult.
I don’t remember that kind of rhetoric being told to us. Can you quote some?
Link already provided. Scroll up.
Those links do not show that the oil of Iraq would be commandeered. See my earlier post on “commandeered” versus “Iraq’s oil makes it a wealthy country.”
Were you both just not alive yet then? Did you ever hear of Paul Wolfowitz or Karl Rove? How about PNAC?
Not doing homework for either of you, friends. You need to take an active role here.
The issue is that just because someone says, “Oil is worth money,” does not mean that the US was literally planning to steal all of Iraq’s oil. Just because Paul Wolfowitz used the word “oil”, does not mean that you can fill in the rest of his sentences with whatever words you may come up with.
I don’t at all disagree with your general point (I’m as contemptuous / skeptical of ‘democracy promotion’ / ‘freedom agenda’ as you can get), but it’s not true that most African countries are “now brutal dictatorships”. More than half of them are either full or flawed democracies of one variety of another. Even prior to 1990 when most African countries were authoritarian, some of them were ‘brutal’, but most of them weren’t particularly so.
A lot of Americans seem to think that every African country is an incipient Central African Republic or Liberia, but they really aren’t.
I don’t think they said directly that they were going to take the oil, but they did say that the oil would let Iraq pay us for the invasion. Which is close to the same thing. And it wasn’t just oil, it was nation building also. And revenging Saddam’s attack on Shrub’s dad. And making Iraq a showcase of Republican style capitalism.
It would have worked except for those damn Iraqis.
I could be wrong, but I don’t remember them saying “Iraq would pay us for the invasion”. As noted, “pay for their own reconstruction” is not “paying us”. It’s always best in these instances to quote directly, so you don’t end up misstating what was actually said. Here’s the quote from Elvis’ link:
One month before the war, then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said Iraq “is a rather wealthy country. … And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.”