Iraq casus belli was Saddam wanting oil to be traded in euros

I was speaking to a guy on Sunday who stated that the real reason for the Iraq War was that Saddam was agitating to get oil to be traded in euros. I was thinking about it and I am not sure I agree with him on that. First of all, would Saddam have the clout to push something like that? Would other countries have gone along with it? Would countries who thought that it was a good idea back down from it because of the Iraq War? Also, that comes back to a question I had before about why was Tony Blair on our side. Would the UK care if oil is traded in dollars or euros?

What do you think?


Total and complete nonsense. There are folks who simply refuse to believe the plain reasons for things. Saddam did indeed insist for euro payments for Iraq’s oil beginning in 2000, and Iran seems to have made a similar conversion in 2007. Who cares? It’s just more conspiracy theory nonsense.

Everyone knows why Bush invaded Iraq.

to get to the other side?


Conspiracy- yes.
Theory- of course.
Nonsense- not so sure.

In 2002 Iraq produced less than 3 million barrels per day. Total production was almost 65 million barrels per day. Most of the major players in the oil market have a heavy stake in the dollar not collapsing, so I doubt if this a big motivator.

You think the British contingent in Iraq cared about whether oil was traded in one of two foreign currencies? How about the Australians?

I sure don’t. I don’t believe the reasons were the ones Powell gave to the UN – I didn’t find that very convincing, and if I were a high school teacher I’d have awarded him a C+, feeling generous. I don’t believe even he believed his arguments.

My best theory is that it was due to what economists call "energy intensity"of the US economy (the cheaper energy is, the better our economy) coupled with high inelasticity in the oil market, where getting Iraqi oil back on the market would reduce prices dramatically even though the output isn’t that big compared with the total. (Inelastic markets respond more dramatically to smaller changes in supply.)

That and Dubya had his mind set on it, for who knows what reasons.

I’m still confused as to why all the Dems (but 1) voted in favor of the Iraq war. (No doubt it’s been discussed here; please feel free to post a thread.)

The currency the oil is traded in makes no difference. All major currencies are floating versus the other currencies so they can easily be exchanged for one another. Oil is priced in dollars to keep things simple but it conveys no benefit for the USA for this to happen except it saves American purchasers the hassle of a simple bank transaction.

You’re not so sure if upon hearing that Iraq wanted to trade it’s oil in Euros in 2000 Bush did what - set in motion the 9/11 attacks to bring down the WTC using controlled demolitions while fabricating the plane hijacking in order to whip up a national frenzy that he could then use to invade Iraq? Seriously?

Neither Iraq nor Saddam made any contribution to 9/11. Period.

Iraq was invaded because of the imperialistic plans of PNAC, and pushed by their rag the Weekly Standard. It was a silly idea that kept finding excuses, from a delusional man who claimed the Iraqis wanted him to take over from Saddam, to ecological destruction in the marshlands, to supposed nuclear tech, to claims that the chemical weapons Saddam had already destroyed were hiding somewhere.

You’re confused allright, because that’s not correct. About half the Senate Democrats voted for the Iraq AUMF. Biden was one of them. I think it was about the same in the House, maybe less.

All the House Republicans (but 6) voted for the AUMF. Guess who was one of the nays?

Ron Paul.

All the Senate Republicans (but 1) vote for it, too. Chaffee of RI voted against.

Spill it! And please inform Richard Haass, Rhodes scholar, President of CFR, and leading advisor to the GWB Administration, who has been quoted as not knowing why :

Why did so many Democrats vote for the war? They remembered back to the first Gulf War, when they voted against the war and it turned out to be short and victorious. Then they spent the rest of the 90s having to explain why they voted against a short popular victorious war. So when Gulf War II rolled around, they didn’t want to spend another decade being demogogued for voting against another short popular victorious war, so they decided to vote for it this time. Too bad this war turned out to be long, unpopular and inconclusive.

I’ll say up front I’m a “truther”, but I have to know.

Why did Bush invade Iraq?

Because he’s an idiot.

I see, so basically if you even ask questions now it will be reduced to joke, or you’ll be put in the moon landings were fake, alien cover-up tin foil hat group.

It can never be believed that the most powerful country in the world would be involved in a conspircy to controll one of the most important natural resources known to man.

Even though they plainly stated that was their goal, on paper.

No that’s crazy.

You seem to be conflating various issues.

The Neo-Cons believed Wolfowitz’s idiotic and historically inept term paper that claimed that the U.S. invasion of Iraq would lead to a rejuvenated country along the lines of Japan and Germany with strong ties to the U.S. It was also supposed to provide a beacon of democracy that would lead the rest of the Middle East to become democratic.

They also believed the utter nonsense (from what source I am not sure) that they could use Iraqi oil to have the war pay for itself, even though every responsible economist and financial expert pointed out that Iraq’s oil production capacity was not even able to pay for Iraq’s debt to the other Gulf countries for the First Gulf War.

Following that nonsense, the Bush administration used the fact that a totally different bunch of terrorists successfully harmed the U.S. to pull a bait-and-switch argument to lead us into an invasion of Iraq.

Your language suggests that you think the Bush administration had a hand in planning or executing the WTC/Pentagon attacks. THAT is nonsense.

The euro?

WMDs were one of the major issues. Iraq had a chemical weapons program, was widely suspected of having a biological program, and some suggested a supposed nuclear program.

Clearly Iraq had chemical weapons at one time and used them in genocidal attacks against the Kurdish minority.

That nugget of truth could be exploited by those seeking justification for war.