# The "Oil" argument **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 11, 2002, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-oil-argument/141994 "2002-12-11T13:53:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-oil-argument/141994/1 "2002-12-11T13:53:35Z")
I;ve heard until recently many people (poster included) who have lamented the “obvious” fact that the entire yet-to-be-declared US/Iraq war will be about Oil. Likewise the Afgan conflict back in Sept, 2001. What bothers me about this is two things: 1. Neither country has much oil, compared to the stocks already available. Granted, its not inconsiderable, but still not worth a war over. 2. It isn’t even in Bush’s personal interest to have low foreign oil available. Why did this even become a viewpoint? Its totally inconsistant with logic, unless one proceeds from the position that Bush is an idiot, and possibly insane. ---
**Author:** ![mack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@mack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mack)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-oil-argument/141994/2 "2002-12-11T15:40:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by smiling bandit \* > **Neither country has much oil** from: [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html](http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html) > [@](#): > > Iraq contains 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the second largest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia) along with roughly 220 billion barrels of probable and possible resources. Iraq’s true resource potential may be far greater than this, however, as the country is relatively unexplored due to years of war and sanctions. Deep oil-bearing formations located mainly in the vast Western Desert region, for instance, could yield large additional oil resources (possibly another 100 billion barrels), but have not been explored. Iraq’s oil production costs are amongst the lowest in the world, making it a highly attractive oil prospect. You’re right, I would classify this as not inconsiderable. And while oil may not be the sole guiding principle of Bush’s Iraq policy, it’s certainly being used for a not inconsiderable amount of arm-twisting. from: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A18841-2002Sep14¬Found=true](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A18841-2002Sep14¬Found=true) > [@](#): > > The importance of Iraq’s oil has made it potentially one of the administration’s biggest bargaining chips in negotiations to win backing from the U.N. Security Council and Western allies for President Bush’s call for tough international action against Hussein. All five permanent members of the Security Council – the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China – have international oil companies with major stakes in a change of leadership in Baghdad. > > “It’s pretty straightforward,” said former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Hussein from power. “France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we’ll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them.” > > But he added: “If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them.” Kind of sounds like dialogue from The Sopranos, actually. ---
**Author:** ![Azael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a8b319/32.png) [@Azael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Azael)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-oil-argument/141994/3 "2002-12-11T15:48:38Z")
It is about oil, just don’t let **that** make you think that it isn’t important. After all, the Japanese bombed pearl harbor after we cut off their oil supply. Economic power, that kind that oil has for example, often translates into political power. Why do you think we are being so nice to the Saudi’s? If the US can do something about the potentially dangerous state Iraq is in today (with a leader that doesn’t play nice) while further diluting the oil power base that many middle eastern countries enjoy, then he has done a good thing. Try explaining all that when the body bags start coming home though. ---
**Author:** ![mack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@mack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mack)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-oil-argument/141994/4 "2002-12-11T16:01:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mack \* > **it’s certainly being used for a not inconsiderable amount of arm-twisting.** Let me rephrase that - it certainly _could_ be used… ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-oil-argument/141994/5 "2002-12-11T21:41:56Z")
But what would the US have to gain in a war for oil with Iraq. I heard somewhere that Iraqi oil is below market price as it is. And although we _do_ get someoil from them, the amount is miniscule compared to the amount of oil we do import. Other nations have alot more interest in Iraqi oil than we do. And the arguements presented here, that we can use that excuse for arm twisting, seems a bit far fetched to me. Why would we need to twist arms. Sure it may be used to get the UN to follow us into a war, but that does not explain why we want to go to war. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Azael \* > \*\*It is about oil, just don’t let **that** make you think that it isn’t important. > > After all, the Japanese bombed pearl harbor after we cut off their oil supply. > > \*\* I highly doubt that Saddam can cut off our oil supply. Especially anywhere near as much as the US effected the supplies the Japanese needed. ---
**Author:** ![MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bb73d2/32.png) [@MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MC_Master_of_Ceremonies)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-oil-argument/141994/6 "2002-12-11T21:52:49Z")
The oil in Iraq is worth trillions of dollars, If American companies can secure the drilling rights, because the extraction costs are relatively low, they will be laughing all the way to the bank whether or not they import it into the US (remember oil from Iraq would bring the world oil price down). ---
**Author:** ![Ulterior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/85f322/32.png) [@Ulterior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulterior)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-oil-argument/141994/7 "2002-12-11T22:01:36Z")
Right. Well, as with most things, calling oil the only reason the US would go to war is absurd; not calling it a reason at all is equally absurd. I’m sure it factors in there, but I think that in the end, regional security (and NOT the “war on terror”) will probably be the prevailing casus belli. Ulterior ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-oil-argument/141994/8 "2002-12-11T22:06:17Z")
So your supposition is that Bush wants to go to war so the American oil companies can “laugh all the way to the bank”? That would be subtle, to say the least. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bb73d2/32.png) [@MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MC_Master_of_Ceremonies)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-oil-argument/141994/9 "2002-12-11T22:13:00Z")
Did I say that Saen? :rolleyes: No I didn’t. Oil is a large factor, but not the only factor. If anything the main factor is that Bush needs to be seen to be pro-active after 9/11. ---
**Author:** ![Azael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a8b319/32.png) [@Azael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Azael)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-oil-argument/141994/10 "2002-12-11T22:24:31Z")
> [@](#): > > I highly doubt that Saddam can cut off our oil supply. Especially anywhere near as much as the US effected the supplies the Japanese needed. I never said that Saddam was going to cut off our oil supply; in fact UN sanctions have been trying for the past 10 years to cut him off from supplying. > [@](#): > > Right. Well, as with most things, calling oil the only reason the US would go to war is absurd; not calling it a reason at all is equally absurd. I’m sure it factors in there, but I think that in the end, regional security (and NOT the “war on terror”) will probably be the prevailing casus belli. Exactly, saying that oil is the only reason is an oversimplification. Yet it is also an oversimplification to not want to go to war because oil is involved. Oil is a source of power in this world, we don’t want others to have too much of it. ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-oil-argument/141994/11 "2002-12-11T22:37:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MC Master of Cermonies \* > \*\*Did I say that Saen? :rolleyes: No I didn’t. Oil is a large factor, but not the only factor. If anything the main factor is that Bush needs to be seen to be pro-active after 9/11. \*\* Unless I am mistaken, you _did_ insinuate that a cause for Bush to go to war was for the benefit of the companies. Unless you were just stating it would be a benefit of going to war and not a cause per se. If so I degress. 🙂 > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Azael \* > **I never said that Saddam was going to cut off our oil supply; in fact UN sanctions have been trying for the past 10 years to cut him off from supplying.** So what does the comparison of Japans reasons, that they went to war with us because they needed oil. We do not need Iraqi oil. And, I agree, oil has been reason to go to war before. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Exactly, saying that oil is the only reason is an oversimplification. Yet it is also an oversimplification to not want to go to war because oil is involved. Oil is a source of power in this world, we don’t want others to have too much of it. \*\* So stability of oil, and not the greed for it then? I would agree. And so would Bush. He has stated stability in the region as a major factor all along. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-oil-argument/141994/12 "2002-12-11T22:45:05Z")
Human nature, being what it is, we tend to overlook the subtlety with which self-interest influences our affairs. When you level the charge at our leaders, that this is all about oil, they are insulted and dismayed, as well they should be. Very few of us look in the mirror and see an evil, venal creature grasping for money and power. Neither do they. They see sternly realistic men, doing what needs be done. Of course, there are enormous advantages to American interests if Iraq should become, essentially, an American protectorate. Post-war Iraq will need considerable assistance in rebuilding its infrastructure, and advice and expertise in making the best economic decisions. Who should a grateful and adoring people look to but thier liberators for such advice and expertise? Who is better equipped to provide such than the down-to-Earth thinkers at Exxon, British Petroleum, and GASPROM? And surely a grateful people, recently liberated from the grasp of a fiend, will wish to compensate American for the expense of its liberation, will make great pains not to be stingy in its relationship with its new best friend. Well, what’s wrong with that? Iraq’s oil is the elephant in the living room, that no one talks about, even as it thunderously farts clouds of peanut scented methane, its there, but its not. Its about regional stability, not American hegemony. Though, of course, American influence will certainly be central to such stability. Its about protecting the fragile world economy and protecting American interests, not about rooting out a hostile regime, and seizing control of its resources. Our leaders look in mirrors every day, and, people being people, they never see a hypocrite staring back. Of course they are aware of the enormous advantages for American power, American influence, and the American economy. But each and every one could look you square in the eye and say “Its not about the oil!”. And beleive every word. Such is the delicate and seductive power of self interest: it often comes in the guise of stern duty and moral burden. ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-oil-argument/141994/13 "2002-12-11T23:03:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*Human nature, being what it is, we tend to overlook the subtlety with which self-interest influences our affairs. When you level the charge at our leaders, that this is all about oil, they are insulted and dismayed, as well they should be. Very few of us look in the mirror and see an evil, venal creature grasping for money and power. Neither do they. They see sternly realistic men, doing what needs be done. Of course, there are enormous advantages to American interests if Iraq should become, essentially, an American protectorate. > > Post-war Iraq will need considerable assistance in rebuilding its infrastructure, and advice and expertise in making the best economic decisions. Who should a grateful and adoring people look to but thier liberators for such advice and expertise? Who is better equipped to provide such than the down-to-Earth thinkers at Exxon, British Petroleum, and GASPROM? And surely a grateful people, recently liberated from the grasp of a fiend, will wish to compensate American for the expense of its liberation, will make great pains not to be stingy in its relationship with its new best friend. Well, what’s wrong with that? > > Iraq’s oil is the elephant in the living room, that no one talks about, even as it thunderously farts clouds of peanut scented methane, its there, but its not. Its about regional stability, not American hegemony. Though, of course, American influence will certainly be central to such stability. Its about protecting the fragile world economy and protecting American interests, not about rooting out a hostile regime, and seizing control of its resources. > > Our leaders look in mirrors every day, and, people being people, they never see a hypocrite staring back. Of course they are aware of the enormous advantages for American power, American influence, and the American economy. But each and every one could look you square in the eye and say “Its not about the oil!”. And beleive every word. Such is the delicate and seductive power of self interest: it often comes in the guise of stern duty and moral burden. \*\* Nice speech, But it doesnt show evidence of it being “all about oil”. The Evil That Men do is not a compelling reason. Especially when there or plenty more comelling reasins that have yet to be proven false. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-oil-argument/141994/14 "2002-12-11T23:07:23Z")
::Puts down can of peanuts in disgust:: ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-oil-argument/141994/15 "2002-12-11T23:08:37Z")
I kant spel, but I swear I graduwated on my own volishion and graides. Honest i did. ---
**Author:** ![bizzwire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/958977/32.png) [@bizzwire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bizzwire)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-oil-argument/141994/16 "2002-12-11T23:48:13Z")
Wouldn’t it be easier and cheaper just to _buy_ the oil we need? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2002, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-oil-argument/141994/17 "2002-12-12T00:14:58Z")
It isn’t about cost and difficulty so much as it is about security. Saudi Arabia is a revolution waiting to happen, a regime waiting to die. Venezuela shows a number of unfortunate signs of poor political judgement, electing the wrong sort of people, that kind of thing. America doesn’t care if Saudi Arabia is governed by Muslims or Mormons, so long as the flow is uninterrupted. Hence, security and stability, oh, yes, _stability_ is of the highest importance. ---
**Author:** ![Azael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a8b319/32.png) [@Azael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Azael)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2002, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-oil-argument/141994/18 "2002-12-12T00:27:58Z")
> [@](#): > > So what does the comparison of Japans reasons, that they went to war with us because they needed oil. We do not need Iraqi oil. And, I agree, oil has been reason to go to war before. You are asking a question but I think you already got the point. > [@](#): > > So stability of oil, and not the greed for it then? Greed, economics, whatever you want to call it. Fact is I’d rather not have Saddam making billions on oil and plowing it into weapons research. ---
**Author:** ![akrako1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@akrako1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/akrako1)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2002, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-oil-argument/141994/19 "2002-12-12T00:31:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bizzwire \* > \*\*Wouldn’t it be easier and cheaper just to _buy_ the oil we need? \*\* Are you kidding? Wouldn’t you think we’d rather sell oil and actually make the profits? Instead of buying from an undesirable foreign government and putting $ is Saddam’s pocket…?? Also, no one has mentioned Caspian Sea oil in relation to Afghanistan. Though this tends to be a highly debated topic, there is a strong feeling in the world that Unocal has been planning for many years to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan, to a Pakistan port. Rumors are the Caspain Sea has huge oil deposits that almost dwarf Saudi Arabia. Regional instablity is one of the counterpoints that opponents mention. Why would anyone want to build a pipeline through war-torn Afghanistan? Well, our buisnesses and government (is there a difference) can see the benefits of long term investment. Put a friendly government in place, and see how things work out. Anyone else heard the Hamid Karzai is an ex-Unocal consultant? Hmmm… Condoleeza Rice an ex-Exxon executive. Bush and Cheney, Halliburton, energy-policy meetings with Enron and pals, etc, etc… I think there isn’t really any doubt that we have some oil men in the White House. But seriously, I’m sure these oil execs were really trying to free the oppressed women of Afghanistan. Yeah, right. Oh well, there’s Osama. Anybody remember with the Tabiban offered to turn over Bin Laden if we stopped bombing their country? No thanks. We’d rather just take over. While oil is a crucial ingredient to our current woes, one must never forget Opium. But shit, I’m sure George and his boys would have nothing to do with drugs right? Remember Iran-Contra? How about the fact that the Bush family owns over 80% of the banks in Columbia… ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2002, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-oil-argument/141994/20 "2002-12-12T00:38:27Z")
> [@](#): > > Anybody remember with the Tabiban offered to turn over Bin Laden if we stopped bombing their country? Nope. Refresh my memory. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-oil-argument/141994.md?page=2)