Is the war on Iraq about oil?

Great Debates
41

Thanks for your prompt reply. You raise some interesting points, but most of them don’t argue in favor of oil being the primary motive for a projected US invasion, and thus are outside the scope of this discussion. I’m not going to address the ones that are off-topic, as I don’t have unlimited time.

Under “Costs”, you have not demonstrated how Cheney (your example) benefits, except to make a vague statement about him taking care of his buddies in the oil industry. Officials high in US government are not permitted to have investments that could pose a conflict of interest, so I’m still waiting to hear what Cheney and other administration officials get out of this. OK, if you want to say one cannot apply logic, fine, but you haven’t answered the question of how specific administration officials would directly benefit from this gesture. In particular, why would administration officials who have worked for one oil company or another throw this windfall to their competitors?

Under “Influence”, you say that the US needs cheap oil. Well, the US already has cheap oil, and if the government wanted US oil companies to ahave access to Iraqi oil, it could do so by the simple, low-cost expedient of lifting the sanctions. So again, and I promise for the last time, why not just lift the sanctions if we want US oil companies to have access to Iraqi oil?

Anyway, as I said, your other points are interesting. They sort of make the case, however, that the proposed military action is less about oil than other matters.

42

The magic word is “reparations”. Say the magic word and the duck will come down and give you a gazillion dollars.

Day One of the American Protectorate (or perhaps the Greater Middle Eastern Co-Prosperity Sphere? something like that…)

Kuwait announces its utter jubilation as regards American victory over Iraq, and regrets that it could not mobilize its crack team of disco dancers in time to be relevant. Alas! However, Kuwait would like to point out that reparations from Iraq have been explicity spelled out in previous accords, and sanctioned by the UN. And when, they ask, can we expect the first payment?

Then someone rises in the Senate. All very well to give payment to the Kuwaitis. Certainly no one can doubt they deserve it. But what about the American soldier, his widow and orphans? Surely they deserve compensation as much as the Kuwaitis?

And what of the burdened American taxpayer, who has so selflessly, so nobly placed his treasure in harms way? Isn’t he due some compensation, some relief from his burden of international generosity?

In a less than startling development, the recently installed government of Iraq, proposes a three step program.

  1. Iraq shall fling itself, prostate, and beseech forgiveness. As a gesture, it offers all of its oil revenue beyond such meager scraps as are required for its creature needs.

  2. As proof of its sincerity, Iraq offers to maintain and sustain such American military presence as might be required to insure such worthy and needful compliance.

  3. America graciously accepts.

Or, in a word…oil.

43

Uh, cite, or something like that?

And could you please have a little mercy on us poor shmoes who are trying to find your point amid all the filigree?

44

Why would you ask for a cite for a point you claim has eluded you?

45

Sauce for the goose, Latro. I recently wrote something in a similar style (though with a lot less exclamation points) in another thread, and elucidator criticized me for “rhetorical nonsense.” Yet apparently, he believes that he can write in the same manner that he criticizes in others.

I was confused by the dichotomy.

Sua

46

Um, elucidator? If the US were going after reparations, don’t you think we would have demanded them after the first Gulf War? Same issues, same facts, same oil, same evil family in as President.

Hell, for that matter, why didn’t we demand reparations after WWII? Screw it, why did the US explicitly reject reparations after WWI, even as our allies took them.

Maybe it’s because acceptance of reparations hasn’t been US policy this entire freaking century?

The guy who wants reparations is on the grassy knoll. :rolleyes:

Sua

47

So I’m a hypocrite. Big deal. I’m a Dad, its a required skill.

Tell you what, Sua. My name is posted right there at the top, if you find my rhetoric and/or personality tiresome, you need go no futher, simply pick up your little basket and skip along, skip along…

48

elucidator, you have the same right. Me, I’m going to continue to respond to your posts, because the purpose of these Boards is to fight ignorance.

Sua

49

Well, son of a gun! Talk about timing! This just popped on Buzzflash.

Ask and it shall be given, it seems! Serendipitous!

(Oh, I’m sorry, EK. It means “timely”.)

NOTE: the article in question refers to an unnamed source, and hence is a “cite lite”.

50

I’m asking you one more time, politely, to can the sarcasm, m’kay?

Here’s a point for you: not everyone is as much in love with your posting style as you are, sunshine. There are plenty of times when you could just make a statement, but you, for some reason, choose instead to bury it under what most would consider excessively flowery verbiage.

Enough of that.

OK, so your position is that we’re going to steal oil from Iraq, under the guise of reparations. Fair (or rather unfair) enough.

Any reason why you couldn’t have said that three or four responses ago? Any reason why you have to be asked to back up an assertion with a cite?

Oh, and BTW, if you think I’m somehow in opposition to your position, I’ll be happy to set you straight.

51

So Cheney and his cronies are speaking out of their asses again. Stop the presses.

They have had their heads handed to them on a platter every step of the way on Iraq policy, and it will happen again on the reparations “issue.”

Sua

52

Just before you get too high and mighty there buddy with your “provincial profiling” - let’s just stop and consider something. Australia has a totally, vigorous, and HEALTHY Westminster system of democratic government. Everyday, whether he likes it or not, Prime Minister John Howard get’s questioned by the Leader of the Opposition on matters relating to Australia’s position on Iraq, and whether Australian troops and resources are going to get sent blah blah blah blah.

Well, the bottom line is that an amazing amount of Australian equipment and personnel is already in the region - indeed, Australia is the lead controller of the “embargo enforcement” flotilla in the Gulf, and US, Canadian, and British support ships actually ANSWER to Australian orders on that particular matter.

My point is this, Australia is an ally of the US - a very loyal ally, and we have two-way defence treaties in place which OBLIGATE us to at least consider offering assistance to the US in such a campaign.

What I’m pissed off about in the above display of “high moral ground” is this - right now, in Kuwait, there are German specialists in Chemical Warfare washdowns - as well as Chezch soldiers training with US troops. And don’t forget the 20,000 British Troops mobilised recently. This is HARDLY a US only affair - although it has to be said that the US is driving the party, sure.

But, nonetheless, I’m gonna take you to task here pal, because your post above implies the worst sort of arrogance of all - that we Australians, or any other ally of the US, are happy to throw young men to their deaths on a whim just to be part of a fun fest - and that’s a really sucky assertion if you ask me.

The World Trade Centre bombing of '93, and the 9/11 attacks prove conclusively that distance is not an issue at all in regards to these matters. The US suffered dreadfully in a car bombing in Beirut in '83, and it was hoped that less exposure would stop it from happening again, but terrorists have shown they’re quite happy to travel any distance to come after you.

The single greatest failing regarding 9/11 was the “intelligence failure”. The CIA had a grand total of 4 Arab speaking specialists at the time - according to Time Magazine. The Sudan goverment was trying to do everything in it’s power to aid and assist the US regarding al-quaida movements into and out of Sudan and that intelligence went into a black hole. All of it added up to an “intelligence failure” which had nothing to do with distance.

To draw a parrallel between the Israel/Palestinian conflict and this thread is somewhat of a low blow it seems to me. The Israeli’s have Palestinians living AMONGST them… different ball game. But they’ll work it out. They’ll work out a way to scan every person in the country for explosives tied to their body.

As for American presence in Iraq? It can only help with intelligence gathering it seems to me - which is a good thing. Forewarned is forearmed isn’t it?

53

Oh, heck, I agree that it’s a factor – heck, it’s there! My point is that there just isn’t a body of evidence that it’s “all about the oil” or even primarily about the oil – oil only becomes involved because it happens to lie below the territory of Hussein.

The U.S. does lots of things “because of the oil.” The first that comes to mind is allow the continuation of the evil Saudi state. Another was the prevention of Iraq’s physical expansion in the first Gulf War (in fairness, we might have helped another ally in a similar, non-oil part of the world, but to deny that part of our mission there was to prevent Saddam from controlling more oil than he does is incomplete at best). But Afghanistan was not “about the oil” and neither is Iraq II.

54

Well, Manny you seem to be breaking this down into percentages. Clearly, you agree that oil is a factor, but you deny that its the primary factor. Have you some percentage in mind? You are forceful in your disdain of the opinion that the war is mostly about oil, that much is clear. So is it 5% of the reason? 51%? Isn’t this a bit like the old story about Churchill and the young woman, where the punch line is “we’ve established what you are, now we are haggling over price.”

At the very least, you should indentify what factor you regard as more important than oil. After all, if oil is 40% and there are four others of 15% each, the dominant factor is oil.

I suspect that in the mind of the strategic policy men, those men who pride themselves on being hard-headed and realistic but whose policies can’t be distinguished from cynicism…I think oil is secondary to those men in comparison to perceived strategic advantages. Oil is a tasty bonus, oil is money, money is power and power, to these men, is what America is about.

The irony is such men regard themselves as patriots.

55

In fact I have not broken anything down into percentages.

It doesn’t work like that, of course.

It works more like “what justifies hostile action” and then “what else might come from this if we do it right.”

For example, Afghanistan:

“What justifies hostile action?”

The persons ruling Afghanistan are harboring Al Qaeda and refused our demand to cough them up: 100%

What else might come from this if we do it right?

Overthrow evil and oppressive regime.

Free Afghanistani people, whom we owe a solid in the first place from way back in the
cold war.

Bring a friendly government to a regional hotspot.

Improve relations with Pakistan, a nuclear power.

Scare the bejeezus out of other States or quasi-states thinking of harboring terrorists.

&ct., &ct.
You can’t really assign percentages to the second part – one wants to accomplish what one can once one has determined that hostile action is justified and necessary.

So to Iraq:

“What justifies hostile action?”

Following the declaration of the war on terror, Iraq continued to support international terrorist groups, including the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, the Palestine Liberation Front, the Abu Nidal organization and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. 100%.

Iraq continually violated agreements it made following the last war against them, including the development of weapons of mass destruction: 100%

What else might come from this if we do it right?

Overthrow evil and oppressive regime.

Free Iraqi people, whom we owe a solid in the first place from way back when we supported that psycho Hussein against even more-psycho Iran.

Bring a friendly government to a regional hotspot.

Increase oil flow to, say, 3 mm bbl/day from 2.3ish.

Scare the bejeezus out of Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Eradicate Al Qaeda camps in Iraq (if it turns out Iraq was supporting those camps, as opposed to not knowing about them or being unable to oppose them, then this would move up to the justification section).

Maybe do something for the Kurds.

&ct., &ct.
Again, the second set of goals is so secondary that one can’t assign a percentage to them – they come only after war is justified, and one wants to accomplish as many of them as possible.

But I was really more curious to know the thinking process of those who claim it’s “all about oil.” Spavined made his case – to him it’s not but that oil can’t be ignored as a factor in some sense. Broadly, I agree with that, subject to my prior post and this one. Perhaps he’ll disagree as to degree and we can discuss that. But what about the “all about oil” crowd?

56

You are welcome to believe that we have done a splendid job in the liberation of Afghanistan. To this jaundiced eye, we have installed a rather decent human being to control Kabul and some minor percentage of the surrounding countryside. The rest of Afghanistan is in the hands of thugs, as compared with before, when the countryside was controlled by thugs and religious zealots. Perhaps you have some evidence to offer that the lives of the ordinary Afghans are greatly improved. To date, I’ve not seen it. Last I read about the Afghans, and they arent much in the news anymore, they were huddling in ruins praying for a mild winter. The extent of thier gratitude for thier liberation is uncertain. Thier prayers are, presumably, raised to Allah, rather than to the US. That is most likely a realistic assessent.

You base your justification for war with Iraq on two premises, one unproven, the other faulty. As I’m sure you know, no evidence linking Iraq to 9/11 has been found. Evidence firmly linking Iraq to these other organizations exists to your satisfaction. I’ll take your word for it.

But unless this justification extends to any other state so involved, it is not a justification at all, it is an excuse. Surely you aren’t suggesting we go to war with any country with similar connections? Surely you don’t mean to suggest we obtain Iraqi territory with a wider war in mind?

Whether or not Iraq has violated agreements is an arguable point. I suspect likely so. But the agreements were made with, and under the auspices of, the United Nations. Determing whether or not such violations have occured, and, most importantly, what to do about them is up to the UN. The UN has not, to my knowledge, deferred and delegated all such responsibility to the US.

57

We have no legitimate beef with Iraq (except that Shrub the First screwed up).

This “we do it for the Kurds” is pure, unadulterated horseshit - we didn’t mind when nasty ol Saddam gassed them, so let’s not be coy. And - how much are we helping the Turks build up their ability to suppress the Kurds in Turkey, just in case the Kurds get restless when Saddam is gone? Duplicity, much?

This impending slaughter by Shrub (“I’ll find a justification yet!”) II is about:
a) Winning elections during economic depression - a President at war is guaranteed a 60% approval rating - see Nixon, 1972 for a glorious example of this.
b) Payback for his family’s oil buddies (as is the continuing occupation of Afghanistan - Karzai worked for which oil company, again?).
c) Payback for his defense buddies (Cheney is a double-dipper, IIRC)
(and the Palestinians are no more “terrorists” than the were Jews who established Israel)

(and agreements entered into at gunpoint are not usually enforceable - the “agreements” and “restrictions” on Iraq from Shrub I’s botched effort cannot be given a whole lot of credence).

Yes, it’s about oil - if we want to worry about hotheads with nukes, I suggest both Pakistan and Israel are more pressing matters than Iraq. And I’m enjoying how His Shrubbery’s “Axis Of Evil” inanity is playing out re. North Korea.

58

Was that by Thomas Hardy as well ?

I’m not here 'til next week but for me it’s more about control - the US has control of the quantity hitting the market place / the market price while the Saud’s control OPEC (as they currently do) and the Rooskies see an angle on being the main non-OPEC supplier to the US…but the supply - none of it - is controlled by the US directly; A whole lot of wheeling-dealing at the moment in these particularly volatile times…what happens, say, if a fundamentalist bomb accidently blows up the whole Saud family. Whoops…the Rooskies have the US over a barrel…at the moment, there are to many variables, uncertainties, etc. Almost any scenario unfolding from where we are just now is unfavourable to the US…it needs to manipulate / re-shape the game…needs space and options.

  • whole context of that must include the four-fold increase in barrel price in '73 and the blackmail the West was held to by OPEC

Since 9/11, Bush recognises the US needs better control of the tap itself to avoid blackmail, being forced to do stuff it doesn’t want, etc.

Then there’s this major deal developing that highlights the really big more-than-empire thing this administration is angling for but is being resisted pretty much across the world (different groupings) - interesting moves just now: I don’t think this administration even thinks in terms of old fashioned land mass type empire / imperialism…there’s a new-ish game in town…and lots of folks don’t wanna play the hard-core US Republican version of the rules…

59

The United States has the eleventh largest proven oil reserves in the world. It has more oil reserves than several members of OPEC. The U.S. produced in 2002 11.98% of the oil pumped in the world.

Sua

60

That’s true as far as it goes. But you’ve run up against a fact that has broken the hearts of many a Texas oil man. Travel through Texas and OK and you will see thousands of oil wells. Trouble is, its not the right kind.

Gasoline has gotten very fancy since the early days, when just about any combustible product would work. Crude engines would run on crude gas, easily refined.

What the Arabs got is “light, sweet crude”, that is, oil that is relatively easy to refine into pure product and doesn’t leave behind nearly as much useless dreck.

Otherwise, it would make no sense at all to send a boat halfway around the world to haul back oil to be refined here.