McCain says Iraq war is to secure Mideast oil

[Fear_Itself]

At a Denver town hall meeting this morning, John McCain admitted we are fighting in Iraq to secure Mideast oil for America:

"My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will – that will then prevent us – that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East,” McCain said.

Now that it is out in the open, is going to war for oil justified by our own energy needs?

[Euphonious_Polemic]

<cynic>Well his energy policy better not involve me having to drive ONE less mile, or turn my thermostat down ONE degree, or do ANYTHING that might inconvenience myself in ANY way whatsoever.</cynic>

[XT]

That’s not what it says…and John McCain has (afaik) no personal knowledge (aside from being a Senator) as to why the attack did or didn’t happen. In other words he is simply speculating and spinning things to go with his own message. Being a politician and all that is hardly surprising.

Now that it is out in the open, is going to war for oil justified by our own energy needs?

Well, leaving aside the out in the open part, I would have to say that resources are pretty much the justification for war since cavemen were banging each other on the head with rocks for chicks and snacks. Certainly the US has a vital strategic need for oil…just like ever other industrialized nation on earth.

Is that what you were looking for answer wise?

-XT

[Fear_Itself]

@xtisme

I would have to say that resources are pretty much the justification for war since cavemen were banging each other on the head with rocks for chicks and snacks.

So that free market crap is just a lot of hot air? There was no shortage of oil before we went into Iraq; there was a shortage of cheap oil (which, ironically is now much more expensive). Are you saying we can take by force that which we find too expensive to buy on the open market?

[Squink]

"My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will – that will then prevent us – that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East,” McCain said.

This is going to be about powering our homes with generators hooked up to the water mains, isn’t it?

[XT]

@Fear Itself

So that free market crap is just a lot of hot air? There was no shortage of oil before we went into Iraq; there was a shortage of cheap oil (which, ironically is now much more expensive). Are you saying we can take by force that which we find too expensive to buy on the open market?

No…I’m not saying that at all. Sheesh. You asked “is going to war for oil justified by our own energy needs?” And I responded that this was pretty much why folks have gone to war since war was invented…because of a need for resources.

You are reading in WAY to much into McCain’s little blurb there. He’s simply saying that he wants to push through some energy initiative that will magically free us from foreign oil so that we never have to send troops anywhere again…because the whole sending troops to the ME for oil is a meme that is firmly entrenched in the collective consciousness of Americans (and others) at this point. Hell, it’s even true, though it’s not the only reason…we DID go to war in Iraq partly to secure the oil we need from what we considered an unstable regime.

This is news to you?

-XT

[Renob]

@Fear Itself

So that free market crap is just a lot of hot air? There was no shortage of oil before we went into Iraq; there was a shortage of cheap oil (which, ironically is now much more expensive). Are you saying we can take by force that which we find too expensive to buy on the open market?

It is both correct and simplistic to say that we are in the Middle East for oil. We certainly would not be interested in the Middle East if there were nothing under its sand. We have a national interest in affordable petroleum that is pumped by nations ruled by men friendly to us. So, yes, we are at war in Iraq for oil.

However, to think we went to war for the US to take over Iraq’s oil and give it to American companies is fairly ridiculous. There are much broader issues at work, and at the root of all of them is the Mid East oil, but it’s not as simple as many anti-war folks make it out to be.

So this is no “Aha!” moment. Everyone – left, right, middle – with any sense knows that if oil did not power our economy we would not have any (or at least many) troops in the Middle East. It would interest us as much as, say, the Congo does.

[Squink]

@Fear Itself

Now that it is out in the open, is going to war for oil justified by our own energy needs?

Now that it is out in the open, McCain’s trying to put it back in hiding:
McCain clarifies remark about oil, Iraq war

“My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East,” McCain said.
The expected GOP nominee sought to clarify his comments later, after his campaign plane landed in Phoenix. He said he didn’t mean the U.S. went to war in Iraq five years ago over oil.

“No, no, I was talking about that we had fought the Gulf War for several reasons,” McCain told reporters.

One reason was Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, he said. “But also we didn’t want him to have control over the oil, and that part of the world is critical to us because of our dependency on foreign oil, and it’s more important than any other part of the world,” he said.

“If the word `again’ was misconstrued, I want us to remove our dependency on foreign oil for national security reasons, and that’s all I mean,” McCain said.

Apparently he’d have us believe that only the next US invasion of the Middle east will be about oil.
That sounds pretty wacky to me. I think he just didn’t think before opening his mouth the first time, and is now trying to cover for himself.

[Zoe]

McCain seems to misspeak a lot, doesn’t he?

During World War II I know that one way that people conserved gasoline was to drive slower. Two people that I know met on a Greyhound(?) bus that could go only 35 miles an hour, if I am remembering correctly. Why aren’t speed limits being lowered now as a conservation effort?

[Little_Nemo]

That seems a pretty broad policy statement - that the only justification for sending American troops to the Middle East is to secure our oil supply. If that were the case then we wouldn’t have sent our troops to Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks - Al Qaeda wasn’t threatening our oil supply.

I’m going to have to assume Senator McCain “misspoke” on this one.

[Little_Nemo]

It is both correct and simplistic to say that we are in the Middle East for oil. We certainly would not be interested in the Middle East if there were nothing under its sand. We have a national interest in affordable petroleum that is pumped by nations ruled by men friendly to us. So, yes, we are at war in Iraq for oil.

However, to think we went to war for the US to take over Iraq’s oil and give it to American companies is fairly ridiculous. There are much broader issues at work, and at the root of all of them is the Mid East oil, but it’s not as simple as many anti-war folks make it out to be.

So this is no “Aha!” moment. Everyone – left, right, middle – with any sense knows that if oil did not power our economy we would not have any (or at least many) troops in the Middle East. It would interest us as much as, say, the Congo does.

This is a pretty confusing post. In your opinion, is oil the main reason we’re in Iraq or isn’t it?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

If he misspoke, he was misspeaking on the square.

[John_Mace]

Eh. We go to war when our interests are at stake. If that weren’t the case, we’d be at war all over the world for humanitarian reasons. What do you think the first Gulf War was about-- saving Kuwait for monarchy?

[Kimstu]

@John Mace

Eh. We go to war when our interests are at stake. If that weren’t the case, we’d be at war all over the world for humanitarian reasons. What do you think the first Gulf War was about-- saving Kuwait for monarchy?

Hmm.

@John Mace on 03-10-2003

I don’t buy the “the was is about oil” slogan either, other in the broadest sense of mideast stability.

This nonchalant “well duh” acceptance of the notion that oil was indeed a major factor in the 2003 decision to invade Iraq seems to be a comparatively recent phenomenon. Around the time of the invasion itself, a lot more people seemed to be substantially more skeptical or dismissive of that notion.

[John_Mace]

@Kimstu

Hmm.
This nonchalant “well duh” acceptance of the notion that oil was indeed a major factor in the 2003 decision to invade Iraq seems to be a comparatively recent phenomenon. Around the time of the invasion itself, a lot more people seemed to be substantially more skeptical or dismissive of that notion.

Those two posts say exactly the same thing. We go to war when our interests are at stake. The post you linked to was a reference to US grabbing Iraq oil-- which we didn’t do. You edited out the part that explained that. Here’s the whole post:

I don’t buy the “the was is about oil” slogan either, other in the broadest sense of mideast stability. However, the more relavent question here would be “how much oil COULD we get from Iraq” if the invasion went well and a pro-American gov’t were installed. I’ll give you an answer: A lot. Iraq has some of the largest proven oil reserves in the world.

[Sam_Stone]

@Fear Itself

At a Denver town hall meeting this morning, John McCain admitted we are fighting in Iraq to secure Mideast oil for America:Now that it is out in the open, is going to war for oil justified by our own energy needs?

You’re making a big leap here. McCain isn’t saying that the U.S. went to war to grab Iraqi oil. The way I read it is that the world’s dependence on oil coming from an unstable and dangerous region results in America having to send soldiers there.

If Saddam didn’t have oil, he wouldn’t have been able to build up a huge military. If Saudi Arabia didn’t have oil, it wouldn’t be able to fund Madrassas throughout the Islamic world, buy influence in the west, and siphon money to terrorist groups. If countries had energy indepdendence, wars in the middle east wouldn’t have the potential to economically shock the world, and therefore the U.S. would have far less interest in stabilizing the region.

The fact is, conditions in the middle east affect the whole world. A major war there could cripple other economies. The billions of petro dollars floating through the region prop up dictators, eliminate the need for economic reform, and fund terrorists. That’s why America sends soldiers there.

[Kimstu]

@John Mace

The post you linked to was a reference to US grabbing Iraq oil-- which we didn’t do. You edited out the part that explained that.

Well, here’s the post I linked to, in its entirety:

@John Mace

I don’t buy the “the was is about oil” slogan either, other in the broadest sense of mideast stability. However, the more relavent question here would be “how much oil COULD we get from Iraq” if the invasion went well and a pro-American gov’t were installed. I’ll give you an answer: A lot. Iraq has some of the largest proven oil reserves in the world.

I fail to see any part of that post (and I notice you yourself didn’t quote any) that explains it as a reference to the US grabbing Iraq oil. The part I quoted seems to be a very straightforward downplaying of the importance of the oil motive as a factor in the invasion. And the part I didn’t quote seems to be a tangential speculation about what the best-case future consequences of the invasion might be in terms of oil availability.

@Kimstu

and I notice you yourself didn’t quote any

I wrote this message before your edit of the message I was responding to, in which you did quote the whole post. However, my point still stands that I don’t see any reference in that post to the issue specifically of “grabbing” Iraqi oil.

[Tuckerfan]

@Zoe

McCain seems to misspeak a lot, doesn’t he?

During World War II I know that one way that people conserved gasoline was to drive slower. Two people that I know met on a Greyhound(?) bus that could go only 35 miles an hour, if I am remembering correctly. Why aren’t speed limits being lowered now as a conservation effort?

We tried that from the 1970s - 1990s and you remember the results of that, don’t you? Disco, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. I don’t think that America can afford to make that kind of mistake again, do you?

[Kimstu]

@Sam Stone

The way I read it is that the world’s dependence on oil coming from an unstable and dangerous region results in America having to send soldiers there.

This interpretation would be more plausible if it appeared that America’s sending soldiers to this region actually succeeded in making it less unstable and dangerous.

[rock_party]

Of course it’s about oil. Oil is the “crack” and americans are “crack addicts”.

Yes it helps our economy, just like crack can keep you up and roaming the street all night long.

Going into Iraq is about the equivalent of busting into the dealers pad to grab his stash.