What will the hawks say if it turns out to be about the oil?

We storm Iraq, blow the crap out of what is left of the infrastructure from ’91, and get the evil dictator. Hooray!

Two years later, still see a heavy occupation of Iraq. The new government sees little real power outside of Baghdad, other that the American occupied oil fields. US oil companies flock in and start reaping huge profits with little relief on the US consumer due to “increased risk to oil company personal and equipment.”

The standard of life for the average citizen in Iraq remains the same or less. Their newfound freedoms are ignored by the power lacking government.

What will all of the pro war hawks say? Will they ignore the situation and point to the very small improvements, if any, and inflate them to mask out the true status? Will they say, oh, holy shit, I was wrong? Will they say see, we have not had another major terrorist attack since?

Keep in mind, this is just my ponderings. In my opinion, if the above comes to fruition, the government will simply find some other focus for the sheep like citizens to stare at. Another travesty sent to the white washed history books that no one will read.

If the US doesn’t establish a democratic government in Iraq, then I vote for Bush’s opponent. Simple enough.

But, speaking of not reading history books, why the two year time limit? US/allied governance of both Germany and Japan lasted considerably longer than that, and in both circumstances the task was actually easier.

If in two years, the US is still occupying Iraq, I wouldn’t be very surprised. If in two years, the US hasn’t taken positive and considerable steps towards establishing a democratic government (constitutional convention, municipal-level elections, etc.), I’d be pissed.


I find your situtation to be very unlikely.

If it were to happen I would be very upset. However, I see no evidence that anything of the kind will happen.

You might as well say “What will all you anti war folks say when Iraq nukes the ten largest cities in the United States? Will you wish we had gone to war then?”

You left out the part where the Republicans all take turns kicking Iraqi puppies…


You aren’t, by any chance, against the war in Iraq are you? Just a wild guess on my part.

Two years is far too short of a time. The US occupied Japan for decades. The economic and political reform of the former Soviet states didn’t happen overnight, and led many activists in the early 90’s to point and shout, “see? Capitalism and democracy won’t work!”

If we invade Iraq, the sanctions will be lifted. If you believe the propaganda that millions of children have died because the sanctions have kept food out of their mouths, then an invasion can only serve to raise standards of living.

Uh-huh. Just like the Iraq war is just a distraction to keep the sheeple from noticing our complete lack of success at attacking Al-queda.

Pull your head out of your butt for a moment. “George W. Bush, World Dictator”? If that’s what you see you need to quit watching cable. Why the hell not get rid of Saddam Hussein? Just my opinion.

The occupation of Japan by the US started in August 1945 and ended in April 1952. That’s a few years short of 1 decade, let alone decades. At least back your opinion with facts.

Well of course they will. Like, duh.

Now, to play devil’s advocate for a moment:

Oil companies cannot and do not control the prices paid by the market for petroleum products, so you’ve sort of led off with a false premise there.

BTW, with this supposed massive windfall so near at hand, why has the Motley Fool rated stocks in the petroleum sector (producing and service companies) at or near the bottom in market performance since the beginning of the year? I mean, with all the gazillions of dollars US companies are gonna make in Iraq you’d think all my fat cat buddies in the industry would be loading up on Halliburton and ChevronTexaco right about now.

Oops. The horror of editing one’s writing. I meant the U.S. occupied Germany.

(In the sense of stationing troops there, not having absolute power over the government.)

Really? I thought it was a distraction to keep the sheeple from noticing the economy. Or a distraction to keep the sheeple from focusing on Enron. I can never keep my conspiracy theories straight, you know? :slight_smile:

Seriously, I agree that in two years, it’s pretty much guaranteed that you’ll see a heavy military occupation of Iraq. And it’s quite possible that you’ll see American companies in Iraq, employing Iraqis, and helping Iraq as a nation realize the profits from their own oil supply. I don’t see that as nefarious, I see that as a win for everyone. And even if the oil bit works out to be highly profitable for us, that doesn’t mean it was all done for the oil. I mean, if my wife is in an accident and becomes a vegetable with no hope of recovery, and I opt to have them shut off the machines, I may get a hefty life insurance payoff. That doesn’t mean that’s why I had the machines shut down, does it?

Well, I have some stock in oil companies, so I’d be happy. :slight_smile:

Now now people, I stated in my OP that it is all just a big if.

I gave an example that I thought up, nothing more. I can’t simply say, well, what if it was just for the oil, then give a rosy example of what might happen.

I think most of you missed my original question so I will restate it:

"What if the future circumstances point to this war being not for the war on terror or the liberation of the Iraqi people, but for the acquisition of Iraq’s natural resources? What would the pro-war folks say?”

Consider it a thought exercise into the hypothetical.

For the questions asked of me:

Why yes, I am against the impending war with Iraq

Why two years? Okay, make it 10 then, big whoop.

BTW Hail Ants, I thought republicans already kicked puppies.

Okay. If it turned out it was all just for oil? I would think that the people who orchestrated it for that purpose (ie, those for whom it was just about the oil, not those who were following along because they thought it was good for “noble” reasons) were shallow and detestable. However, I would be still glad that it was done, as I feel it needs to be, for reasons not related to oil. If someone swerves their car to avoid hitting you because they didn’t want to spoil their new paint job with blood and guts, that’s shallow, but you’re still glad they swerved, right?

I’ve never quite understood the anti-war argument that it’s “about oil.” Let’s assume, for the moment, that it is. So what?

Now it is certainly true that the U.S. ought to be taking steps to move away from oil dependence. Nonetheless, the U.S. – and the West in general – have an overriding geopolitical interest in maintaining a steady supply of oil. You think you’re hearing complaints now, wait until the world economy grinds to a halt because some Gulf state decides to stop selling oil to the corrupt West.

This isn’t a very unlikely scenario, either. Saudi Arabia is responsible for about 16% of world production. They’re the West’s buddy today, but that could change in the blink of an eye. Saudi society is far too well primed for the overthrow of the monarchy and the institution of an “Islamic state” which will almost certainly be extremely hostile to the west in general and the U.S. in particular. I, for one, am not all that comfortable about letting the West’s economic well-being ride on the ability of a corrupt and repressive oligarchy to keep its increasingly radicalized citizenry from seizing political power.

So where does the oil come from if the Saudi monarchy is replaced by bin Laden sympathizing radical clerics? Iran? Putting Iraq back on the board as a major oil producer is a very sound geo-political strategy. Obviously, that can’t happen if Hussein is still running the show.

This is all very unpleasant and I certainly don’t relish the thought of a war, especially for purely economic reasons. At the same time, I recognize that, as a practical matter, governments take steps to protect their vital interests. Policy makers in Washington, or Paris, for that matter, don’t sit around saying. “Yes, our economy will collapse if we do X. But X would violate the U.N. charter so I guess we can’t do it. We’ll just have to suck it up.”

All this is to say that the cynical comment, “It’s about the oil.” is wide of the mark. Even if it is, U.S. policy makers have a strong interest in protecting the oil supply. Whether that interest is best served by invading Iraq is a separate issue.


What will the peace-at-all-cost anti-war protestors do when the US Military find several mobile laboratories of biological warfare weapons hidden in the residential areas of Iraq?

Would they change their minds if the US Army finds all the need parts to make enriched uranium except the fuel.

What will France say when invoices from all these parts, supplies and laboratory equipment are all recently written in french with a few in german.


meh… its all about oil…we should drop 100% of oil and leave the middle east with no economy what-so-ever… that would improve things for them, right? then we should turn africa into the new middle east once we get dependent of platnum to make fuel cells, right?

He’s not entirely wrong; the US still has troops stationed permanently on Japanese soil. Sure, they are not obviously poised to attack them, but if the government had turned militant in the 60’s, or if it did so now…

The threat is implied, but real.

This hawk would be pissed we wasted so much time. I mean we had all of Kuwait and Iraq oil under our control in 1991, no? It would have been a simple matter to grab the Saudi fields too, correct? But we put out the fires and gave it all back, go figure. You guys are absolutely right. You’ve convinced me, it’s all about oil.

Devil’s advocate here. Then wouldn’t a ‘hawk’ (to use the OP’s term) agree with this sentiment: I think it’s worth it to kill innocent Iraqi moms and dads and babies to maintain a steady supply of oil for the U.S.