Hitchens: "Iraqi auction disproves war-for-oil thesis"

[Orphia Nay]

IF the intervention in Iraq was indeed a war for oil, some of that war's more positive consequences were to be seen in Baghdad last week. The country's oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, presided over an auction at which development rights for seven major oil fields were awarded in competitive bidding among several international consortiums.
Three features of the outcome were worthy of note. The auction was to award service contracts rather than the production sharing agreements that the major corporations prefer.

The prices were set at less than half the $US4 ($4.50) per barrel that the bidders originally proposed. And corporations from the US were generally not the winners in an auction in which consortiums identified with Malaysia, Russia and even Angola did best. (ExxonMobil and Occidental Petroleum have, in previous negotiations, been awarded contacts in other Iraqi oilfields.)

Thus, the vulgar and hysterical part of the war-for-oil interpretation has been discredited: Iraq retains its autonomy, the share awarded to outsiders in development is far from exorbitant and there is no real correlation between US interests and the outcome. Except that we do have a genuine interest in the success of this endeavour as it unfolds.
[...]


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/iraqi-auction-disproves-war-for-oil-thesis/story-e6frg6zo-1225811867893

The main winners in the auction were:

Russia's Lukoil and Gazprom
Malaysia's Petronas
Royal Dutch Shell
Norway's Statoil
China's National Petroleum Corp.
Angola's Sonangol.

[Skeptic]

Oh, the horror! A bid for getting oil from Iraqi oilfields were won BY OIL COMPANIES!!!

Unless the rights to get oil from the next field is awarded to a bakery, it was WAR FOR OIL!

War for oil by noble, philanthropic American oil companies, I should add, who just couldn't stand the fact that they are winning so many contracts, and wanted to liberate Iraq so that foreign oil companies will get into the action, too.

[Orphia Nay]

Oh, the horror! A bid for getting oil from Iraqi oilfields were won BY OIL COMPANIES!!!

Unless the rights to get oil from the next field is awarded to a bakery, it was WAR FOR OIL!

Angola and Malaysia sent troops to Iraq to win their contracts?

I think Hitchens is saying that it was not a US war for oil.

War for oil by noble, philanthropic American oil companies, I should add, who just couldn't stand the fact that they are winning so many contracts, and wanted to liberate Iraq so that foreign oil companies will get into the action, too.

Could you translate that from Sarcasm to English please? :confused:

[scratchy]

I dont see how the result of an auction can be interpreted either way on this question. That there was an auction in the first place might carry some weight though. But it seems a bit far fetched, with all these years since the war began.

ETA: If oil hade any role i would expect it to more complicated than just grabbing it and setting up an auction. What i would like to know: without oil, would there have been a war? I dont know, but i suspect it wouldnt.

[SezMe]

I'm with scratchy in that the internal logic here fails. Just because an auction was eventually held and other-than-USA companies were successful has no bearing on whether the original effort had oil as one its roots.

[Orphia Nay]

I don't understand how the perpetrators (and who exactly are they?) of this conspiracy could have been so powerful that they could get multiple countries to go to war for the sole purpose of oil, and yet have no successful plan to obtain that oil.

[gtc]

I don't understand how the perpretrators (and who exactly are they?) of this conspiracy could have been so powerful that they could get multiple countries to go to war for the sole purpose of oil, and yet have a successful plan to obtain that oil.

Did you mean:

and yet <not> have a successful plan to obtain that oil.

[Skeptic]

Angola and Malaysia sent troops to Iraq to win their contracts?

I think Hitchens is saying that it was not a US war for oil.

I wasn't sarcastic at you, I was making fun of the "US started the war for oil" conspiracy theories, who would surely use this fact, too, to "prove" their thesis.

[Orphia Nay]

Did you mean:

Yes, something like that. I just edited it before I saw your reply. Cheers.

I wasn't sarcastic at you, I was making fun of the "US started the war for oil" conspiracy theories, who would surely use this fact, too, to "prove" their thesis.

Ah. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Puppycow]

ETA: If oil hade any role i would expect it to more complicated than just grabbing it and setting up an auction. What i would like to know: without oil, would there have been a war? I dont know, but i suspect it wouldnt.

Did Vietnam and Korea have oil?
Did Bosnia or Kosovo?

[Upchurch]

I have no particular opinion on the issue of this being a "war for oil", but I fail to see how this auction that took place over a year after the people who started the war in the first place speaks to their motivations.

Did the Bush administration have plans for this in place before it ended? More importantly, did they have plans for this sort of thing before they started the war, or only after it turned into such a PR mess and they had to re-think their approach?

[Puppycow]

Oh, I know! All these companies are sekritly owned by the Masonic Jewish Illuminati! They're just pretending to bid against each other.

[scratchy]

Did Vietnam and Korea have oil?
Did Bosnia or Kosovo?

No, no, no and no.

[Skeptic]

Ah. Thanks for clearing that up.

I keep forgetting sarcasm doesn't work on the internet...

[Puppycow]

No, no, no and no.

So. . . Does that change your mind about this?

without oil, would there have been a war? I dont know, but i suspect it wouldnt.

[Skeptic]

I have no particular opinion on the issue of this being a "war for oil", but I fail to see how this auction that took place over a year after the people who started the war in the first place speaks to their motivations.

True, of course, but the problem is that the "war for oil" meme was never more than a "activists"' demonstration slogan that morphed into a conspiracy theory due to the lack of any credible evidence for it; it from that start had about as much "evidence" for it as the "Afghan pipeline" conspiracy theory did.

Hitchens merely notes that we've got yet another reason to distrust this conspiracy theory.

[Bikewer]

If the so-called "Neo-Con agenda" was in any way true, then oil would only have been a secondary (but desirable) effect.
That notion, that Iraq would rapidly convert itself into a functioning, secular democracy which could then stand as a shining example of same in the area...Has not exactly materialized.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I have no particular opinion on the issue of this being a "war for oil", but I fail to see how this auction that took place over a year after the people who started the war in the first place speaks to their motivations.

Did the Bush administration have plans for this in place before it ended? More importantly, did they have plans for this sort of thing before they started the war, or only after it turned into such a PR mess and they had to re-think their approach?

Good point.

Also, I'm not sure the "war for oil" theory is as simple as formulated by Hitchens' argument. (That is, I think Hitchens is arguing against a particularly oversimplified and weak version of the argument. If U.S. oil companies didn't win the auction, then it proves the war wasn't partly motivated by concerns about the price and supply of oil.)

But Hitchens seems to be aware of this point, and admits that (only) "the vulgar and hysterical part of the war-for-oil interpretation has been discredited".

Isn't $4.50 per barrel an extremely low price? (It's selling for $70+ right now, and these companies aren't building the infrastructure to get the oil out of the ground from scratch.)

By the way, I don't understand how this could be an "auction" if the price was "set". (And why weren't Exxon and the others interested in buying at this price or bidding the price up? Ignoring the fact that, as Hitchens also admits, some of these U.S. companies already have contracts that give them access to the oilfields in Iraq.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

Did Vietnam and Korea have oil?
Did Bosnia or Kosovo?
Did anyone allege that those were wars also motivated by oil?

The reasoning that says for the invasion of Iraq to have been motivated by oil the U.S.'s military interventions in all these other countries must also have been motivated by oil is not logical.

[Distracted1]

I never felt that "war for oil" was a statement that the U.S. was invading to steal the oil in Iraq- or to make oil exceedingly cheap.

I have had discussions with those who have disagreed with me, and it often seems they think I am implying just that when I assert that I think we went to war on behalf of oil companies.

What purpose would it serve the "oil-lobby administration" of Bush and Co.to LOWER the price of oil?

Our war for oil was to take greater control of the price of oil- Saddam could not be allowed to open the spigots all at once flooding the market and making the oil already controlled by the U.S. oil companies worth less than the cost of extracting it.

The American people were fine with a war for oil when they think it was to lower the cost at the pump. The part that really stings is when one considers that ones' own government went to war to raise those prices.

[Dragoonster]

Perhaps the Iraqi government is less compliant than they'd envisioned going in, and they were hoping the contracts would either be no-bid, or favor US corporations. Maybe we intended contracts to go out prior to full soverignty, but resistance to other attempts to decide the future or Iraq prematurely stopped us.

Or perhaps US oil companies are in a worse bidding position than prior to the war, so their expected contracts were outbid?

I don't think oil is the main reason we went in, but it's the greatest value of that region, as far as our strategic foreign policy. Certainly in planning the invasion the US made estimates on what would happen to the Iraqi reserves. And it's not crazy to think that they also may have hoped/planned for favorable contracts. And that the mess the war became made them back off on the more ambitious plans they had for oil, as they have for other things.

Hitchin's argument is poor. IMO he has a logical blind spot when it comes to Iraq and much of our foreign policy.

[I Ratant]

without oil, would there have been a war? I dont know, but i suspect it wouldnt.
.
Without oil, no war.
But obviously lacking was any after-war considerations.

[I Ratant]

..

Isn't $4.50 per barrel an extremely low price? (It's selling for $70+ right now, and these companies aren't building the infrastructure to get the oil out of the ground from scratch.)
...
.
That's the price for the production control. There will be add-ons in the refining and distribution processes to get to the market value per barrel.

[Igopogo]

I'm one of those crazies who think the Iraq invasion was primarily about oil, (I still do). Not the getting wealthy off it, but the overall control of it.

I didn't always believe this, I recall when protesters showed up with 'no blood for oil' signs on the news during the build up, and Bush Sr. swore up and down it was about the standing up to aggression and had absolutely nothing to do about oil, I thought they were completely out to lunch, just like anyone in the press and about anyone else you talked to.

I caught a TV show years later (before 9-11), where Brent Scowcroft was asked what the invasion achieved and his answer was along the lines of 'well first and foremost we made the flow of oil safe for the west', - the interviewer was unfazed, but I almost fell off my chair. I'm paraphrasing, as I can't find the original quote I heard, but this one from a Frontline show give you the general idea:


Q: Did you think the invasion of Kuwait mattered? If so, why?

Scowcroft: Yes, I thought it mattered, a lot.

Principally because there was a struggle and had been a struggle going on within OPEC over, if you will, control of OPEC and it was struggle basically between Saudi Arabia and the radicals, over keeping production flowing and keeping prices reasonable or trying to squeeze, if you will, the industrialised world.

And the notion of Iraq, which was an oil powerhouse in itself, acquiring the Kuwaiti resources and thus perhaps of being able to dominate, OPEC was a tremendous danger to the United States and to the industrialised world.

I thought it made a lot of difference, aside from the issue of flat naked aggression in and of itself.

Q: ... At the heart of this ... was oil ...

Scowcroft: No, at the heart was naked aggression against an unoffending country, that was the firm and legal position, but what gave enormous urgency to it was the issue of oil. Yes that transformed it.

from here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/scowcroft/1.html

I'm sure this doesn't sound incendiary to most readers here. You have to take it in the context that at the time you were considered absolute looney-toons to suggest oil played any part in the invasion in the first place, (hey, just like now).

[Pardalis]

Not the getting wealthy off it, but the overall control of it.

Yes, like taking the control away from the madman Saddam Hussein?

What's wrong with that?

[Igopogo]

...if only the ethics of international politics were as black & white as that...

[Pardalis]

I keep noticing everytime there is a discussion about Iraq, the Saddam Hussein factor is always conveniently left out, as if the 30 years of dictatorship never happened.

[I Ratant]

Yes, like taking the control away from the madman Saddam Hussein?

What's wrong with that?
.
Saddam could be bought. And was, any number of times.
What he did to his country, not our problem!
What he tried with Kuwait became our problem, due to the oil situation.
Once out of Kuwait, it became again, not our problem.

[Pardalis]

.
Saddam could be bought. And was, any number of times.
What he did to his country, not our problem!
What he tried with Kuwait became our problem, due to the oil situation.
Once out of Kuwait, it became again, not our problem.

And with 9/11, it became ever more apparent that he was indeed "our" problem. If you're trying to argue that the removal of Hussein was long overdue, I agree.

[JoeTheJuggler]

.
That's the price for the production control. There will be add-ons in the refining and distribution processes to get to the market value per barrel.

I thought the $70+ per barrel was the current price for crude oil. That's why $70+ for ~50 gallons is nowhere near the price for refined gasoline at the pump.

But if the companies that get Iraq's oil only have to pay $4.50 per barrel, they should stand to make a fortune. (But, of course, maybe that's the norm in the oil biz?)

[Igopogo]

I keep noticing everytime there is a discussion about Iraq, the Saddam Hussein factor is always conveniently left out, as if the 30 years of dictatorship never happened.

Funny, I noticed that too.

Like when the US decided to invade Iraq over hiding 'weapons of mass destruction' instead of something along the lines of 'crimes again humanity'. It's unfortunate, for as a result there wasn't a single official debate on removing Sadam on these grounds. Why did they not frame the war that way? Perhaps they were afraid they're past involvement with him muddies the water, or worse implicates themselves, (no one is clean). Who knows, they may have gotten a different coalition if they approached it this more noble way.

Of course, either of these reasons are still strawmen if the overriding objective is to reign control of the oil reserves.

Can you think of a reason why it may not be seen as the most honorable gesture for the west to take the oil reserves from the undoubtedly tyrannical Saddam Hussein?

[SezMe]

But if the companies that get Iraq's oil only have to pay $4.50 per barrel, they should stand to make a fortune. (But, of course, maybe that's the norm in the oil biz?)
That's the point of the auction as I understand it. The bid is not over the price of oil, but what kind of profit sharing the winning company is willing to engage in with the host country. This could include royalties, further exploration rights, volume pumped, in-country employment, etc., etc., etc.

[Pardalis]

Of course, either of these reasons are still strawmen if the overriding objective is to reign control of the oil reserves.

And who now "reigns" control again?

Can you think of a reason why it may not be seen as the most honorable gesture for the west to take the oil reserves from the undoubtedly tyrannical Saddam Hussein?

Nobody said there would be honor involved.

[I Ratant]

And with 9/11, it became ever more apparent that he was indeed "our" problem. If you're trying to argue that the removal of Hussein was long overdue, I agree.
.
There were NO Iraqiis on the planes on 9/11.
Repeat.
There were NO Iraqiis on the planes on 9/11.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11/.
Repeat.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
.
Osama was upset at the presence of US troops in Arabia after the Gulf War.
Osama is not an Iraqi, but a very rich and crazy Saudi.
Al Quaeda had no presence in Iraq prior to the invasion by the US in 2003.
Our cluster f**k of the handling of the criminal invasion on March 20, 2003 from the git-go is responsible for the continuing problems we have there.
.
As for removing Saddam, in the normal course of events (for that section of the Middle East), a member of the armed forces would organize a coup and kill him.
Or his kids would organize a coup and kill him.
That's the way power is transferred in the Middle East.
Our lame-brained excuse of WMDs were just a facade for W getting to be the "war president", even better than Daddy.

[Igopogo]

And who now "reigns" control again?

I don't know. Do you?

Nobody said there would be honor involved.

I phrased that rather weakly, maybe I can do better. Why do you think the west is justified to take over the oil reserves of Iraq?

[Darth Rotor]

Two points.

1. This attempt by Hitchens appears to be post hoc reasoning.

2. Oil's involvement in policy in the Middle East is as old as, at least, FDR. That has never been in question for anyone who bothers to take a serious look at US foreign policy. Oil was the indispensible commodity of the 20th century.

The irresponsible assertions that Bush's war was primarily about seizing Iraqi oil assets that attended a variety of objections to Bush, personally, and Bush, his policy on Iraq, were never worth responding to thanks to their lack of coherence in the first place.

Getting Iraqi oil back into the global marketplace wasn't the sole motivator, since all that had to be done was drop the embargo. Politically, that wasn't tenable for a number of reasons specific to America and its politics.

IMO, the Kurds ought to fight tooth and nail for the oil in Northern Iraq, even if it means breaking up Iraq as we know it. Those lines on the map are no more valid than the lines that defined Yugoslavia in 1919. That would most certainly be a war for oil, and a rational one, as it's aim would be the enabling of a Kurdish homeland with a viable, in the near term, economic basis for its support.

DR

[GreNME]

I keep noticing everytime there is a discussion about Iraq, the Saddam Hussein factor is always conveniently left out, as if the 30 years of dictatorship never happened.

I keep noticing that every time there's a discussion of Iraq, the fact that the CIA played a role in the Ba'ath party getting into power (in the 1960's) and the US supplied Iraq militarily (in the 1980's) isn't mentioned, conveniently leaving out of their "Saddam Hussein the dicatator" outrage the fact that we supported him when it seemed opportune (to some) to do so. It's as if US support for Hussein's dictatorship never happened. I also notice how the complete lack of WMD-- and the fact that the US government championed claims to knowing what was there, where it was located, and how much there was as the primary case of urgency-- gets played down when the faults of US actions toward Iraq start getting brought up.

Dictatorship? Saudi Arabia has been a dictatorship for far longer, yet we're not attacking them. Human rights abuses? Kim Jong Il not only fit that bill, but actually had a real nuclear program, yet we never invaded them; Burma never had nukes, but the human rights abuses are a-plenty and no invasion seems likely. Attempted genocide? Hell, Turkey is a member in good standing of NATO, and is currently taking point for the NATO nations this coming year-- no invasions there. Ah, support for terrorists? Um, yeah-- which is why we've avoided invading Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Pakistan.

You ever stop to consider the policy of "we oppose it strongly... except where we don't" might have some cause for criticism?

And with 9/11, it became ever more apparent that he was indeed "our" problem. If you're trying to argue that the removal of Hussein was long overdue, I agree.

Oh my goodness. Iraq had jack and squat to do with 9/11. How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi? That's right: none. How many were financed by Hussein? That's right: none. How does the US invasion of Iraq, including the arguments used by the US government about the urgency to do so (the non-existent WMDs), highlight anything positive about US policy in the region? How does that show anything but the piss-poor intelligence, paranoid justification, and deferral of responsibility on the part of the United States with our invasion of Iraq when the Afghanistan mission wasn't even close to being complete?

And before you jump on the obvious strawman: I would have preferred the US finished the job it started back in 1991 in removing Hussein, but Bush Sr. deemed it as being not politically prudent at that juncture-- thus the ten years of blockades and sanctions can be attributable to US failure to complete the job back in 1991. No one here is attempting to legitimize the position Hussein held in power in Iraq, so beating that drum would simply be more goalpost-moving. The fact is that we didn't take him out of power, and 9/11 didn't change the circumstances in Iraq that were in place after 1991. The only justification used to attack Iraq was the pre-emption doctrine, and that doctrine failed miserably.

[Pardalis]

I don't know. Do you?

I know for sure who doesn't anymore at least. ;)

I phrased that rather weakly, maybe I can do better. Why do you think the west is justified to take over the oil reserves of Iraq?It was an amalgame of reasons that made it an imperative to remove this guy, including his sitting on the world's oil reserves and using it as a weapon.

[Darth Rotor]

I keep noticing that every time there's a discussion of Iraq, the fact that the CIA played a role in the Ba'ath party getting into power (in the 1960's) and the US supplied Iraq militarily (in the 1980's) isn't mentioned, conveniently leaving out of their "Saddam Hussein the dicatator" outrage the fact that we supported him when it seemed opportune (to some) to do so. It's as if US support for Hussein's dictatorship never happened.
That's rather below your standard. It's also a rather glib attempt to characterize the US / Iraq diplomatic relationship as "US support for Hussein's dictatorship." That support was OBE when Saddam decided to become John Galt, via Kuwaiti oil.

Context matters. You might note that US "support" for Iraq didn't help Saddam when Osirik got whacked.

Support to Iraq was eaily linked to Iran being a significant US political foe in the region once the Islamic Revolution occurred. It was useful for the US to offer a modest amount of aid (not to mention forgiveness for USS Stark later on) to the enemy of our enemy in the region.

The predominant supply of equipment to Iraq in the 80s was not the US, which arguments like what you just tossed out there typically gloss over or ignore. The predominant support and hardware was Soviet and French.

If you are going to argue about hidden assumptions in an argument, have a care as you make your own.

Dictatorship?
Saudi Arabia has been a dictatorship for far longer, yet we're not attacking them.
Funnily enough, the Saudi Royal family has been a bit more clever than the man from Tikrit in managing international friends and foes.

Human rights abuses? Kim Jong Il not only fit that bill, but actually had a real nuclear program, yet we never invaded them;
This is weak tea. The problems in Korea are not the problems in the middle east, pleast don't play that fool's template game. Also, in Korea, Japan, China, and South Korea, all critical powers or trading partners in the region, have a say in that game, most notably South Korea. No cookie cutters, thanks.

Burma never had nukes, but the human rights abuses are a-plenty and no invasion seems likely.
Why should there be?
Attempted genocide? Hell, Turkey is a member in good standing of NATO, and is currently taking point for the NATO nations this coming year-- no invasions there. What genocide has Turky been involved in as a NATO member?
Ah, support for terrorists? Um, yeah-- which is why we've avoided invading Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Pakistan.
You don't need to invade people to get them to change or adapt a policy that you can live with. Recall what Khadafi did after we invaded Iraq? What program he stopped promoting?
You ever stop to consider the policy of "we oppose it strongly... except where we don't" might have some cause for criticism?
Politics isn't that simple, and I know darned well that you know that.

And before you jump on the obvious strawman: I would have preferred the US finished the job it started back in 1991 in removing Hussein,
Bad idea. Bush senior was keenly aware of the political continuum, and did precisely what he promised the allies (oil wells) in the region he'd do. Knock Iraq down a peg, then leave. Keeping Iraq as a foil to Iran was a useful strategic move, regionally, and one the Arabs in the region could live with. As to the failures of sanctions, that entire UNSC, to include the US, is to blame for the spaghetti spines it took to screw that up.

DR

[Skeptic]

I keep noticing everytime there is a discussion about Iraq, the Saddam Hussein factor is always conveniently left out, as if the 30 years of dictatorship never happened.

So much harder to blame the eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil G. W. Bush if you DO mention it, you see.

Besides, what is good and evil anyway? Who decides? What are you, some kind of essentialist of something? Who says using nerve gas on one's own citizens is worse than, say, liberating Kuwait?

[GreNME]

That's rather below your standard. It's also a rather glib attempt to characterize the US / Iraq diplomatic relationship as "US support for Hussein's dictatorship." That support was OBE when Saddam decided to become John Galt, via Kuwaiti oil.

Context matters. You might note that US "support" for Iraq didn't help Saddam when Osirik got whacked.

Support to Iraq was eaily linked to Iran being a significant US political foe in the region once the Islamic Revolution occurred. It was useful for the US to offer a modest amount of aid (not to mention forgiveness for USS Stark later on) to the enemy of our enemy in the region.

The predominant supply of equipment to Iraq in the 80s was not the US, which arguments like what you just tossed out there typically gloss over or ignore. The predominant support and hardware was Soviet and French.

If you are going to argue about hidden assumptions in an argument, have a care as you make your own.

I don't think we need to get into this round robin again. However, your very carefully worded statements about the nature of the support are simply avoiding that while the US government didn't ship any Abrams or F-14's to Baghdad, plenty of money was heading that way (used to pay the French for aircraft), plenty of support vehicles were sent (that could be retrofitted), and a buttload of normally regulated materials managed to find their way over to Iraq via US companies during the 80's, including the precursor chemicals for mustard gas. The point, however, isn't in how complicit was the US, but that there was complicity at all to begin with considering the level of outrage when it came time for the pre-emptive justifications in 2002-2003. The prevailing fact is that there was enough complicity to make the outrage used to justify the pre-emption seem quite a bit two-faced.

As for your point-by-point on the other nations I listed: yes, I'm aware (as you already know) of many of those prevailing factors. However, when black-and-white arguments are made in the attempt to justify the pre-emption doctrine, it's important to bring up the fact that things are never quite so black-and-white to begin with. Many of the same political and tactical considerations for not invading, say, North Korea or Libya, also applied to Iraq. I would submit that the fallout since we first entered Iraq-- namely the quadrupling of terrorist ranks, greater destabilization that ensued, and the displacement of millions of Iraqis, which is now meeting with backlash in several countries (not just in Jordan and Syria)-- underscores just how unwise a tactical decision the war actually was in the first place. Beating the "Saddam was a dictator" drum falls way short of addressing any of those prevailing issues, and falls way short of justifying the war effort.

Bad idea. Bush senior was keenly aware of the political continuum, and did precisely what he promised the allies (oil wells) in the region he'd do. Knock Iraq down a peg, then leave. Keeping Iraq as a foil to Iran was a useful strategic move, regionally, and one the Arabs in the region could live with. As to the failures of sanctions, that entire UNSC, to include the US, is to blame for the spaghetti spines it took to screw that up.

Yes, I'm aware of that as well, which is why I wasn't opposed back when Bush Sr. did pull out. However, again we're getting back to that context you (rightly) stated was so important, and as such it's worth noting that there was a contextually relevant reason to not invade that had not in reality changed in any meaningful fashion after 9/11. Again, this brings us back to the poor planning and consideration put into the pre-emption doctrine and the consequences of having executed it in the manner it was. It was never a matter of "could we do it?"-- our military is second to none and outmatches pretty much everyone else-- the question that was ignored by the pre-emption doctrine was "will it reap a net benefit?" and the answer has shown to be pretty equivocally in the negative so far. I hardly think that you or I would be willing to accept that those pushing the pre-emption doctrine were logically looking past 5-10 years as their goal for the pre-emption, since none of the partisan politicizing nor Hitchens' own arguments on the matter since it started have focused on that type of long-term thinking to justify the actions.

The point, DR, is that the "Saddam was a dictator" arguments are weak, poorly-thought-out, and ultimately the type of justifications we shouldn't be expecting our leaders to be focusing on as a motivation for invasion. I think you can appreciate what I'm pointing out in that context, since I don't think we disagree all that much on the broader political implications (regardless of whether we agree or not on the path to take).

[funk de fino]

I think this is more a slap for those morons who say it was a war so that the US could steal the oil. Truthers and the like.

[Whiplash]

I never felt that "war for oil" was a statement that the U.S. was invading to steal the oil in Iraq- or to make oil exceedingly cheap.

I have had discussions with those who have disagreed with me, and it often seems they think I am implying just that when I assert that I think we went to war on behalf of oil companies.

What purpose would it serve the "oil-lobby administration" of Bush and Co.to LOWER the price of oil?

Our war for oil was to take greater control of the price of oil- Saddam could not be allowed to open the spigots all at once flooding the market and making the oil already controlled by the U.S. oil companies worth less than the cost of extracting it.

The American people were fine with a war for oil when they think it was to lower the cost at the pump. The part that really stings is when one considers that ones' own government went to war to raise those prices.


This smacks of goalpost shifting to me.

"It really was a war for oil and people were fine with that because they thought it would be cheaper." But now that it's been proven that it really wasn't a war for oil, because oil didn't get cheaper, it got (or will get) more expensive.. Then suddenly it really was still a war for oil all along, we just didn't understand the ultimate goal or outcome! "To raise the cost!".

It reminds me of that UFO hunters show where they were examining some supposed "starchild" skull. The most "woo" guy on the show was convinced it was real. Then the DNA tests came back proving it had at least a human mother, but inconclusive on the father (not because the DNA was odd, it just wasn't possible to get a good reading on it).

Suddenly, this actually helps to PROVE his point! Of course.. it was a hybrid! The inconclusive paternal DNA was obviously alien. And of course the evidence of alien DNA is nonexistent because this was probably several generations later! It all made perfect sense to him.

I'm always amazed when people get news that goes completely against what they thought, and they find a way to spin it into actually being exactly what they thought after all.

[BenBurch]

Well, it's leap of logic Hitchens is making. It only would prove that IF the war was an oil grab, it FAILED to work. (And give the record of that Administration, Failure seems to not be unlikely.)

[corplinx]

Thus, the vulgar and hysterical part of the war-for-oil interpretation has been discredited

Minor nit with Hitchens. The claim was never credible. Thus it cannot be discredited. It was merely confirmed to be hogwash.

[Whiplash]

Well, it's leap of logic Hitchens is making. It only would prove that IF the war was an oil grab, it FAILED to work. (And give the record of that Administration, Failure seems to not be unlikely.)


I kind of feel the same about this Ben. (that it's rationalizing or goalpost shifting, etc).

People had alot invested in the idea of it being a war for oil. But some apparently don't want to entertain the idea that that could have been wrong. It's simply that we misunderstood, or failed to achieve what we wanted.

Next it'll be that they purposely let these oil contracts go to others, etc, in order to disprove the entire "war for oil" idea. The "our bringing it to the attention of the world forced them to abandon the idea!" mentality often seen in CT's and Woo.

[Distracted1]

This smacks of goalpost shifting to me.

"It really was a war for oil and people were fine with that because they thought it would be cheaper." But now that it's been proven that it really wasn't a war for oil, because oil didn't get cheaper, it got (or will get) more expensive.. Then suddenly it really was still a war for oil all along, we just didn't understand the ultimate goal or outcome! "To raise the cost!".

It reminds me of that UFO hunters show where they were examining some supposed "starchild" skull. The most "woo" guy on the show was convinced it was real. Then the DNA tests came back proving it had at least a human mother, but inconclusive on the father (not because the DNA was odd, it just wasn't possible to get a good reading on it).

Suddenly, this actually helps to PROVE his point! Of course.. it was a hybrid! The inconclusive paternal DNA was obviously alien. And of course the evidence of alien DNA is nonexistent because this was probably several generations later! It all made perfect sense to him.

I'm always amazed when people get news that goes completely against what they thought, and they find a way to spin it into actually being exactly what they thought after all.
It seems you may be misunderstanding my post?

I have asserted since the run up to the invasion that it was indeed a war for oil- namely to elevate the price and gain further control of the supply.

People who agreed with me at the time usually did not find that they wanted to debate- because they did agree that it was for oil.

Some disagreed with me about the reason for the invasion- often they believed the WMD threat, or the "fight them over there so we don't fight them over here argument"

Many, however, expressed to me that they thought oil was a perfectly good reason to invade- pointing out its' importance to the U.S. economy, and its' strategic value. These represented a large number of those with whom I debated- as I said ,I thought early on that it would be silly to think the Bush admin would be interested in making the oil under its' control less valuable.

The administration took advantage of this misunderstanding on behalf of many of its' citizens. And many of the "no war for oil" protestors failed to grasp that they could get more traction by helping people to see the invasion would actually cost our economy- I think because they were too wrapped up in the "immorality" of killing over a commodity to care whether it was to make the commodity more or less precious.

I have maintained this position since the run up to the invasion- I am offended that you accuse me of "moving goalposts"- We went to war to increase the profits of the oil companies to whom EVERY major player in the Bush admin. was tied (even to the point of recieving income from them while in office) Mission Accomplished


In fact, the more I consider your statement, it is you who are shifting goalposts.
Had anyone in the past suggested that the invasion had oil at its' heart, you would have assumed that you were both thinking of the same use for that oil- and argued that the war was about other things, like WMD's. When the oil companies post profits never befor realized in human history, you say "no..no...no...you were saying we invaded to lower the price of oil- since it went up we did'nt invade for it"

[The Fool]

Iraqi oil is now still traded in US dollars. This is one consequence of the war that seems to go over the head of a lot of people. Saddam was pretty keen on undermining the US dollars "oil voucher" status by switching to trade his oil in euros.

[funk de fino]

I have asserted since the run up to the invasion that it was indeed a war for oil- namely to elevate the price and gain further control of the supply.

Then you were wrong then and are still wrong.

[GreNME]

I think this is more a slap for those morons who say it was a war so that the US could steal the oil. Truthers and the like.

Well, sure it is (I would agree). However, it doesn't address those who criticize that oil as a commodity was a (not the) primary motivating factor. It certainly couldn't be said that a number of administration-friendly private interests weren't profiteering with their involvement.

I don't know, Hitchens' argument just seems to smack of being a red herring for the more valid criticisms involving oil as a motivating factor, choosing to use the simplistic, somewhat ridiculous arguments as a red herring.

[Orphia Nay]

We went to war to increase the profits of the oil companies to whom EVERY major player in the Bush admin. was tied (even to the point of recieving income from them while in office) Mission Accomplished

Did you miss this part of the OP?:

"The main winners in the auction were:

Russia's Lukoil and Gazprom
Malaysia's Petronas
Royal Dutch Shell
Norway's Statoil
China's National Petroleum Corp.
Angola's Sonangol."

[Travis]

I have maintained this position since the run up to the invasion- I am offended that you accuse me of "moving goalposts"- We went to war to increase the profits of the oil companies to whom EVERY major player in the Bush admin. was tied (even to the point of recieving income from them while in office) Mission Accomplished

First off, the degree to which the Bush Admin was tied to oil is often misrepresented in the same way that their ties to PNAC are.

Secondly, do you have any evidence that it was the invasion of Iraq that led to those profits? I seem to recall them being pretty profitable even before the war you know. Heck, Google is pretty profitable now too. Did we go to war for Google?

[Distracted1]

First off, the degree to which the Bush Admin was tied to oil is often misrepresented in the same way that their ties to PNAC are.

Secondly, do you have any evidence that it was the invasion of Iraq that led to those profits? I seem to recall them being pretty profitable even before the war you know. Heck, Google is pretty profitable now too. Did we go to war for Google?
Truly, one need only google something about the price of oil to find a plethora of articles which link middle east instability to increased oil prices- linked with supply side discussions about the diminished production capacity of Iraq and the impact that has on the price of crude.

Had oil companies not been profitable prior to the invasion, they would not have had the ability to influence policy- are you suggesting (by pointing out that they were already making money) that they would turn away from an opportunity to enourmously increase their revenue because they were already "pretty profitable"?

Oil from Texas is the same as oil from Saudi Arabia, one need'nt steal Iraqi oil in order to make ones' own supply more valuable. Simply disrupting production there makeseverybody's worth much more.Once the price has doubled- who cares who wins the bid to extract whats in the war zone.

[Skeptic]

The "war for oil" folks, as we can see, claim they are right by the usual conspiracy-theory shifting of goalposts.

If it were a war for oil, you'd expect the USA to say so, for oil reserves to come under the control of the US companies, and for those companies to make a profit by getting control of the oil fields.

In reality, the USA declared the reasons for war were totally different; the oil industry was severely damaged during the war; and now, finally, the oil reserve control is given to foreign companies -- not by the USA, but by the new government of Iraq.

In short, nothing the "war for oil" folks said came true.

So what do they do? They claim the usual conspiracy theory claims: that their thesis being thoroughly disproven by events is just evidence how the war REALLY WAS for oil, but was either a "coverup" or "failed" or that it is some sort of "subtle conspiracy".

For example:

1). The US said the war is for other reasons? Ah, "Bush lied"!

2). Iraq's oil wells were, actually, damaged during the war and supply became lower? Ah, that raised the price of oil, so American companies made more profit, so it was "war for oil" after all!

(You got to admire the logic: if Iraq oil supply had gone up due to the war, the production of more oil would be "proof" it was a "war for oil". If it went down, the rise in global prices is offered as "proof" it was a "war for oil".)

(By the way, if the oil price had stayed the same, well, that too would just show how the "control of Iraqi oil" had gone smoothly, just like the evil Bush administration wanted: "amazingly, despite the war, the price of oil didn't even change. This proves everybody knows the was is just an excuse for USA gaining control of oil and are not excited about it, and... [blah blah blah].")

3). The Iraqi government gives all the oil contracts to foreign companies? Ah, the war was "for oil" NOT in the sense of "making a profit off it", but in the sense of "controlling it", whatever that means.

In short, as usual, when reality doesn't fit with the theory, reality is wrong, and pathetic excuses are made. But, as Hitchens notes, why SHOULD a "theory" that never was more than a stupid slogan by angry "activists" be remotely true, anyway?

[Darth Rotor]

The point, however, isn't in how complicit was the US, but that there was complicity at all
No. You are out of context. Iran was then, and is now, the biggest strategic problem for US and allies in the PG region. Saddam as a dictator became a problem of a larger sort when he chose to bust a move and invade Kuwait. That made previous American support OBE, which means, Overcome By Events. The ensuing 12 years were exacerbated by his actions, as well as UNSC being a collective load of counts (absent the o) regarding enforcement of the 1991 cease fire agreement.

In many ways, bringing up the politics makes strange bedfellows argument, in re Iraq in the 80s, in other than utilitarian terms (was it in American interest at the time? Yes) is foolish.

Objecting to using Iraq as a tool versus Iran is as silly as objecting to our getting in the face of the Sovs in the fifties -- since we had supported them versus Germany in the 40's.

The continuum of politics means that your allies shift over time, depending upon your interests. That politics as the big boys play it.

With that preface, one of my biggest worries about invading Iraq and taking Saddam down was that it did Iran a favor, and was likely to break up Iraq in a way that would make the break up of Yugoslavia, which at the time we still had troops in Europe dealing with, seem like childs play. My worries are both come true.

I think this is more a slap for those morons who say it was a war so that the US could steal the oil. Truthers and the like
Someone who gets it. How nice.

DR

[Dragoonster]

The continuum of politics means that your allies shift over time, depending upon your interests. That politics as the big boys play it.

And as the small boys die for it.

[Darth Rotor]

And as the small boys die for it.
It has ever been thus.

Anyone who tells you otherwise isn't somebody you should buy property from ...

[Dragoonster]

more on topic:

In many ways, bringing up the politics makes strange bedfellows argument, in re Iraq in the 80s, in other than utilitarian terms (was it in American interest at the time? Yes) is foolish.

It's past as prologue, evidencing that current decisions are also made primarily for American interests. And perhaps that rhetoric doesn't equal actual motivation, not for 80s Iraq-Iran, not for 00's Iraq. It's more to America's interest, or perhaps was prior to invasion, for the US to be the primary beneficiaries of freed Iraqi oil post-regime change.

[Distracted1]

The "war for oil" folks, as we can see, claim they are right by the usual conspiracy-theory shifting of goalposts.

If it were a war for oil, you'd expect the USA to say so, for oil reserves to come under the control of the US companies, and for those companies to make a profit by getting control of the oil fields.

In reality, the USA declared the reasons for war were totally different; the oil industry was severely damaged during the war; and now, finally, the oil reserve control is given to foreign companies -- not by the USA, but by the new government of Iraq.

In short, nothing the "war for oil" folks said came true.

So what do they do? They claim the usual conspiracy theory claims: that their thesis being thoroughly disproven by events is just evidence how the war REALLY WAS for oil, but was either a "coverup" or "failed" or that it is some sort of "subtle conspiracy".

For example:

1). The US said the war is for other reasons? Ah, "Bush lied"!

2). Iraq's oil wells were, actually, damaged during the war and supply became lower? Ah, that raised the price of oil, so American companies made more profit, so it was "war for oil" after all!

(You got to admire the logic: if Iraq oil supply had gone up due to the war, the production of more oil would be "proof" it was a "war for oil". If it went down, the rise in global prices is offered as "proof" it was a "war for oil".)

(By the way, if the oil price had stayed the same, well, that too would just show how the "control of Iraqi oil" had gone smoothly, just like the evil Bush administration wanted: "amazingly, despite the war, the price of oil didn't even change. This proves everybody knows the was is just an excuse for USA gaining control of oil and are not excited about it, and... .")

3). The Iraqi government gives all the oil contracts to foreign companies? Ah, the war was "for oil" NOT in the sense of "making a profit off it", but in the sense of "controlling it", whatever that means.

In short, as usual, when reality doesn't fit with the theory, reality is wrong, and pathetic excuses are made. But, as Hitchens notes, why SHOULD a "theory" that never was more than a stupid slogan by angry "activists" be remotely true, anyway?
Many discussions I had regarding the invasion demonstrated that some Americans were certainly allright with a war for oil- even if they would'nt advertise it that way. ( due to those pesky good and evil definitions you feel are so important) Would you really expect the government to "say so" when it intends to invade a sovereign nation because of the impact that nation has on the price of a commodity?

My thesis has not been disproven, in fact over the last [B]six yearsthe price of oil has increased so much that ExxonMobil has made profits unprecedented in human history- you can claim this disproves that the invasion was motivated by oil which I find laughable.

Then you present scenarios which did not happen, and attribute to me imaginary reactions to the imaginary scenarios.

To top it off- you accuse me of being the one to move the goalposts. Yes, of course- I suggest that an administration laden with oil industry lobbyists has used 911 as an excuse to invade a foreign nation to benefit those same oil companies a "war for oil" if you will.
The war takes place, the oil companies spend the last six years reaping the benefits- but because they don't (after six years) maintain a some iron-fisted control over a few oil-field maintenance contracts I am moving the goalposts.
Somehow I don't feel quite as guilty of that as you seem to think I should.

[Dragoonster]

It has ever been thus.

Anyone who tells you otherwise isn't somebody you should buy property from ...

My motivation was your characterization of objection to getting in bed with Iraq for temporary gain as "silly", and referring to the truth of realpolitik as justification for that characterization. As if that should be the decision calculus of each of us, broadly. But it's not silly to object to cases where that leads to hypocricy, immoral regimes, and so on. At least, not if a person objecting has a bit of idealism about the honesty, consistency, and moral value of foreign policy. Yes, that's a silly liberal dream and we should all accept and trust in our various states and their corporations, and ignore history when they come up with arguments today for action that conflict with previous stances. But some of us just can't let go of our fantasies.

[Skeptic]

Would you really expect the government to "say so" when it intends to invade a sovereign nation because of the impact that nation has on the price of a commodity?

Would you really expect the government to "say so" when it intended to blow up the twin towers?

My thesis has never been disproven

Neither had the thesis that the government blew up the twin towers ever been disproven -- not had astrology, for that matter.

But that's because both theses cannot be disproven: no matter how strong the evidence to the other side, one can always claim it's a coverup, or a "subtle" way of gaining the goals they wanted, or rationalized away in some other manner.

"My thesis has not been disproven" is the sine qua non of a conspiracy theorists. It's not for us to disprove anything. You need to prove it with positive evidence. There isn't any.

[Distracted1]

Do you pay attention to what you post?, it was you-in post #54 who suggested that the Gov. would have announce that it was going to war for oil if that were the case.

Why don't you go back and read what you wrote.


You also imply that my belief in "war for oil" has been disproven and that is why I have to "move the goalposts" in order to continue. My statement that it has not been disproven is in direct response to that assertion.

In fact, you also claim in that post that my thesis has been disproven, now claim that it is impossible to disprove it.

I realise, of course, that I have'nt proven it to your satisfaction, the way the existence of Iraqi WMDs was proven , for example.

[Skeptic]

Do you pay attention to what you post?, it was you-in post #54 who suggested that the Gov. would have announce that it was going to war for oil if that were the case.

So why do you even care what the government says? Clearly for you, no matter WHAT the government says, it "proves" it is a war for oil: if the government says it is a war for oil, it is a war for oil. But if the government says it is NOT a war for oil, they are just lying, and it STILL IS a war for oil.

Obviously, it is also true that you think that whomever got the contract for Iraq's oil is also irrelevant to whether this is a "War for oil" or not. If American companies have gotten it, that would prove it was a war for oil all along. Now that foreign companies gotten it and the US companies were more or less cut out of the deal, that too "proves" it's a war for oil -- the evil Bush intended the evil oil companies to get the contracts, but unexpectedly failed, you see.

If what happens proves your "war for oil" thesis, it is evidence. If what happens disproves your thesis, it is explained away. Since just about EVERYTHING that happened disproves the "war for oil" thesis, all you are left with is explaining away everything -- and then gloating that, since you managed to your own satisfaction to explain away the total lack of positive evidence for your view, your view has "never been disproved".

That is true... but it is also completely irrelevant, much for the same reason the "9/11 attack was by Bush" had "never been disproved".

[Orphia Nay]

Good posts, Skeptic.

Distracted1, just because your theory hasn't been "disproved" doesn't mean you are not wrong.

[Skeptic]

In fact, you also claim in that post that my thesis has been disproven, now claim that it is impossible to disprove it.The 'it is war for oil' thesis was disproved: namely, total lack of evidence for it, tons of evidence against it.

The 'it is a secret war for oil that Bush tried to create by lying and failed' thesis is impossible to disprove, since all the evidence against it being a war for oil is part of the "lies", and all the total lack of evidence for it being a war for oil is part of the "failure" or the "secrecy".

You might have started out with the first thesis, once upon a time, but when it was disproved, you moved on to the conspirational second thesis, in order to keep the "it's for oil! it's for oil!" belief from falsification.

[GreNME]

No. You are out of context. Iran was then, and is now, the biggest strategic problem for US and allies in the PG region. Saddam as a dictator became a problem of a larger sort when he chose to bust a move and invade Kuwait. That made previous American support OBE, which means, Overcome By Events. The ensuing 12 years were exacerbated by his actions, as well as UNSC being a collective load of counts (absent the o) regarding enforcement of the 1991 cease fire agreement.

I know the rhetoric. I know about the strategic use of Iraq against Iran as well. However, the justification for the strategic use-- while being worthy of a separate (and likely longer) thread in its own right-- is less concrete. Iran was definitely a strategic unknown and was definitely a threat to Saudi Arabia and Iraq, but the "problem" for the US and its allies? Come on, don't be coy-- you know what that was about just as much as I do. The transparency of those motivations are as plain to most of the rest of the world as they are to you and me. While political pragmatism certainly supplies the logic behind the actions, the justification isn't quite so simple.

In many ways, bringing up the politics makes strange bedfellows argument, in re Iraq in the 80s, in other than utilitarian terms (was it in American interest at the time? Yes) is foolish.

Nonsense. It goes a long way toward pointing out the "war for oil" arguers' arguments. After all, what other "interests" were there? I guess you could bring up Israel, which again is a whole other can of worms (and probably several long threads' worth). Still, it winds up coming down to the Western powers exerting influence through force over the resources of others. That tends to piss people off, and has done so, progressively exacerbating the problem and further muddling the justifications until neither side comes off as rosy or even in the right.

Objecting to using Iraq as a tool versus Iran is as silly as objecting to our getting in the face of the Sovs in the fifties -- since we had supported them versus Germany in the 40's.

The continuum of politics means that your allies shift over time, depending upon your interests. That politics as the big boys play it.

Nothing silly about objecting to the obvious shortsightedness of foreign policy, particularly with regard to a region where there's been a pretty constant stream of unrest for the last century. That isn't to say that there aren't irrational or silly objections to be had on the subject, but objecting to the general shortsightedness of the foreign policies isn't silly.

With that preface, one of my biggest worries about invading Iraq and taking Saddam down was that it did Iran a favor, and was likely to break up Iraq in a way that would make the break up of Yugoslavia, which at the time we still had troops in Europe dealing with, seem like childs play. My worries are both come true.

Very valid worry on your part. We've now got a greater unknown quantity in the Mid-East than prior to the invasion. Does that coming true seem worth the justifications put forth going in?

[Travis]

Distracted1, you say you have a theory. I would like to know how it is falsifiable. What series of actions could the US have taken during and after the invasion that would not have led you to believe that it was "for oil?"

[GreNME]

Distracted1, you say you have a theory. I would like to know how it is falsifiable. What series of actions could the US have taken during and after the invasion that would not have led you to believe that it was "for oil?"

I don't agree with what Distracted1 is claiming, but your question is disingenuous. The answer would be to not have invaded in the first place, and that answer is pretty obvious. A better way to ask the type of question you're going for would be to ask whether there were any other motivations that would seem plausible for the invasion, and how they would have been different than what had actually happened.

[Ryokan]

With all the money the US have used on the war, I suspect it would've been cheaper to buy it at triple price instead.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think this is more a slap for those morons who say it was a war so that the US could steal the oil. Truthers and the like.
Yep. That's pretty much what I said before, and pretty much what Hitchens said too--that he is only discrediting "the vulgar and hysterical part of the war-for-oil interpretation".

By the way I define it, this makes Hitchens' position a strawman argument. He's only going against the weakest and most easily defeated version of a more general position.

Well, it's leap of logic Hitchens is making. It only would prove that IF the war was an oil grab, it FAILED to work. (And give the record of that Administration, Failure seems to not be unlikely.)
Good point. Just because Dubya's policies failed doesn't prove that they weren't also corrupt.

Minor nit with Hitchens. The claim was never credible. Thus it cannot be discredited. It was merely confirmed to be hogwash.
Again, only a weakened version--even a caricature--of the actual position. Remember, the story we were being fed was that it was all about WMDs even though the case for them was weak at the very best. Since the news media was pretty much running with whatever came from the Bush administration, many of us took to the streets to express our opposition to this ill-conceived invasion and occupation of Iraq. I, and many others, tried our best to give a nuanced argument for why we were opposed, but pretty much all you can fit on a sign was something like "No blood for oil" or some such.


First off, the degree to which the Bush Admin was tied to oil is often misrepresented in the same way that their ties to PNAC are.
Would you say the following (from PBS) is a misrepresentation?
During his first month in office, President George W. Bush appointed Vice President Dick Cheney to head a task force charged with developing the country's energy policy. The group, which conducted its meetings in secret, relied on the recommendations of Big Oil behemoths Exxon Mobil, Conoco, Shell Oil, BP America and Chevron. It would be the first of many moves to come during the Bush administration that would position oil and gas companies well ahead of other energy interests with billions of dollars in subsidies and tax cuts—payback for an industry with strong ties to the administration and plenty of money to contribute to congressional and presidential campaigns.

During the time that Bush and Cheney, both of whom are former oil executives, have been in the White House, the oil and gas industry has spent $393.2 million on lobbying the federal government. This places the industry among the top nine in lobbying expenditures.
Linky (http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/347/oil-politics.html).

[JoeTheJuggler]

With all the money the US have used on the war, I suspect it would've been cheaper to buy it at triple price instead.
Actually, under the sanctions we were getting the oil already and effectively controlling it.

And again, many of us were pointing out that this war would be a huge waste of money and resources. This doesn't prove that such short-sighted and ill-begotten ideas weren't part of what motivated the Bush administration. (Also the "war for oil" thesis isn't necessarily about getting the best deal for the U.S. taxpayer or end-consumer of petroleum.)

I think the PNAC document shows that the motivation was largely ideological, though.

But I'll bet none of Bush or Cheney's friends in the oil industry suffered!

[Distracted1]

So why do you even care what the government says? Clearly for you, no matter WHAT the government says, it "proves" it is a war for oil: if the government says it is a war for oil, it is a war for oil. But if the government says it is NOT a war for oil, they are just lying, and it STILL IS a war for oil.

Obviously, it is also true that you think that whomever got the contract for Iraq's oil is also irrelevant to whether this is a "War for oil" or not. If American companies have gotten it, that would prove it was a war for oil all along. Now that foreign companies gotten it and the US companies were more or less cut out of the deal, that too "proves" it's a war for oil -- the evil Bush intended the evil oil companies to get the contracts, but unexpectedly failed, you see.

If what happens proves your "war for oil" thesis, it is evidence. If what happens disproves your thesis, it is explained away. Since just about EVERYTHING that happened disproves the "war for oil" thesis, all you are left with is explaining away everything -- and then gloating that, since you managed to your own satisfaction to explain away the total lack of positive evidence for your view, your view has "never been disproved".

That is true... but it is also completely irrelevant, much for the same reason the "9/11 attack was by Bush" had "never been disproved".
Once again, I refer you to your own post #54- wherein it is YOU who assert that the Government would have said so if the war was for oil. Prior to your introduction of that argument I had made no claims regarding the administrations justification for invading Iraq (would I be correct in assuming that you believed it was to eliminate the supposed threat posed by Husseins' WMDs?)

You made the claim- I disputed it
- your response to having made a stupid claim that the Gov. would have flatly stated that it was invading Iraq for oil, was to say "why would you even care what the gov. says?" then you suggest that I am using what the government said to support my argument, when the whole concept was your assertion.

You made the claim that the "war for oil thesis has been totally disproven" (followed by an assertion that such a claim cannot be disproven BTW)
-when I deny that it has been disprove, you claim that I am making some sort of appeal analogous to "you can't prove that unicorns don't exist"- when my statement that my thesis is not disproven was a direct reply to your assertion that it was, nothing more.

To paraphrase a film I am fond of- If you are going to argue
my case for me, I sure wish you would get it right.

Are you suggesting (in your second paragraph) that had U.S. companies profited from Iraqi maintenance contracts since the invasion you would consider it evidence that the invasion was for oil? if that is the case you may benefit from some research.
Or are you stating that if it is the case it was still not for oil because the admin said it was not?

P.S. no fair claiming Halliburton is not a U.S. company since they have since relocated to Dubai

[Distracted1]

With all the money the US have used on the war, I suspect it would've been cheaper to buy it at triple price instead.
You illustrate with this post a claim that I made earlier- namely that many assumed that war for oil could only mean some type of effort to steal the oil in the invaded country. Since this seemed like something potentially beneficial to many of my fellow Americans, some of them choose to be allright with the invasion because the Admin. was able to concoct a cover story.

Kind of like believing that an African Prince wants to you to help him move his millions into the country-
one wants to believe this claim on shaky evidence- because of the potential finders fee.

The flaw in the logic was that they never asked themselves " why would an oil company want the price of oil to go down?"

In spite of Sceptics' claims that this is a new argument to cover an old one- I have asserted this since the run up to the invasion. The war for oil was won when the price per barrel doubled.

[Distracted1]

Actually, under the sanctions we were getting the oil already and effectively controlling it.

And again, many of us were pointing out that this war would be a huge waste of money and resources. This doesn't prove that such short-sighted and ill-begotten ideas weren't part of what motivated the Bush administration. (Also the "war for oil" thesis isn't necessarily about getting the best deal for the U.S. taxpayer or end-consumer of petroleum.)

I think the PNAC document shows that the motivation was largely ideological, though.

But I'll bet none of Bush or Cheney's friends in the oil industry suffered!
What you stated in your fourth sentence (in parentheses) is what I have been trying to convey.

[SezMe]

In reality, the USA declared the reasons for war were totally different; the oil industry was severely damaged during the war; ...
Please say how the oil industry was "severely" damaged and give some examples.

[Upchurch]

Hitchens merely notes that we've got yet another reason to distrust this conspiracy theory.
Then he would be wrong. This auction says nothing about the motivations of the people who started the war.

Hitchens' logic is flawed. He's being partisan rather than rational.

[WildCat]

Isn't $4.50 per barrel an extremely low price? (It's selling for $70+ right now, and these companies aren't building the infrastructure to get the oil out of the ground from scratch.)
Then how does the infrastructure get there?

[SezMe]

I think the operative phrase is "from scratch". Meaning the prewar existing infrastructure is being upgraded, repaired, etc., not being created ex nihlo.

[Skeptic]

My thesis has not been disproven, in fact over the last six yearsthe price of oil has increased so much that ExxonMobil has made profits unprecedented in human history- you can claim this disproves that the invasion was motivated by oil which I find laughable.

You are missing the point. I don't need to disprove it. The whole point is that it is impossible to disprove, because, no matter what happened, you would consider it "proof" it is "war for oil".

If oil supply would have gone up during the war, well, that proves it was "war for oil": there is more oil produced! Now that oil supply had gone down during the war,that, naturally, also "proves" it was a war for oil: the price of oil is higher!

Your argument can't lose. But you can't win, either. When everything is evidence for your thesis, then nothing is.

[Corsair 115]

I'm one of those crazies who think the Iraq invasion was primarily about oil, (I still do). Not the getting wealthy off it, but the overall control of it.


The problem with that thesis is that the U.S. then did not exercise the control you contend it went to war to gain. Check out the percentage of total U.S. crude oil imports and the actual number of barrels (in thousands) of crude oil imports that came from Iraq before and after the war:

Calendar Year | Pct. of Imports | No. of Barrels
1998 | 3.9% | 122,518
1999 | 8.3% | 264,764
2000 | 6.8% | 226,804
2001 | 8.5% | 289,998
2002 | 5.0% | 167,368
2003 | 5.0% | 175,663
2004 | 6.5% | 239,758
2005 | 5.2% | 192,524
2006 | 5.5% | 201,959
2007 | 4.8% | 176,709
2008 | 6.4% | 229,300

The peak year for both the number of barrels imported and the percentage of U.S. imports was 2001. It hasn't reached the same total since. This would tend to argue against the idea that the war was waged for control of Iraqi oil since the U.S. is apparently not exercising control over that oil by having it go to the United States.

On the other hand, over that same period, U.S. crude oil imports, in thousands of barrels, from Canada went from 462,228 (14.6% of total U.S. imports) in 1998 to 715,982 (20.0%) in 2008.

[Skeptic]

Ah, but Corsair, there you go again with your evidence. It only has three flaws.

1). We all know the USA is an evil imperialistic nation out to control everything oil supplies. You stupid tables with so-called 'facts' doesn't disprove it.

2). If your table had shown the US increased its "overall control" of oil, it is evidence the US started the war to increase it. Now that it doesn't, it just prove the evil USA started the war for increasing overall control of oil and failed. You just showed the USA is both evil and incompetent! It's worse than we thought.

3). Anyway, "overall control" of oil has nothing to do with oil supply, price, import, export, production, profits, or anything. Just ask the people who rant about "US increasing its overall control of oil" about what the term actually means and see.

It is a vague, meaningless term that the conspiracy theory can attach to any event whatever in the oil industry than can be seen as beneficial to the USA (or to US oil companies) while shouting, "See? SEE?? It was a war for oil after all!"

[Igopogo]

The problem with that thesis is that the U.S. then did not exercise the control you contend it went to war to gain. Check out the percentage of total U.S. crude oil imports and the actual number of barrels (in thousands) of crude oil imports that came from Iraq before and after the war:

You misunderstand. The US (& allies) controlling the flow of oil doesn't necessarily mean consuming it themselves, but that they control how and to whom it's sold.

[GreNME]

The problem with that thesis is that the U.S. then did not exercise the control you contend it went to war to gain. Check out the percentage of total U.S. crude oil imports and the actual number of barrels (in thousands) of crude oil imports that came from Iraq before and after the war:

Calendar Year | Pct. of Imports | No. of Barrels
1998 | 3.9% | 122,518
1999 | 8.3% | 264,764
2000 | 6.8% | 226,804
2001 | 8.5% | 289,998
2002 | 5.0% | 167,368
2003 | 5.0% | 175,663
2004 | 6.5% | 239,758
2005 | 5.2% | 192,524
2006 | 5.5% | 201,959
2007 | 4.8% | 176,709
2008 | 6.4% | 229,300

The peak year for both the number of barrels imported and the percentage of U.S. imports was 2001. It hasn't reached the same total since. This would tend to argue against the idea that the war was waged for control of Iraqi oil since the U.S. is apparently not exercising control over that oil by having it go to the United States.

On the other hand, over that same period, U.S. crude oil imports, in thousands of barrels, from Canada went from 462,228 (14.6% of total U.S. imports) in 1998 to 715,982 (20.0%) in 2008.

Nice table. Would you switch that around to what percentage of overall exports from Iraq to the US the number of barrels were each year? I suspect those percentage points would show as being significantly higher and startlingly lopsided.

Really, I'm not even all that big on the "war for oil" side of things (though I think oil flow was and remains a primary reason for US intervention in the Mid-East in general), and I'm seeing plenty of red herrings going on here. Let's face the reality: the invasion of Iraq was heavily influenced by the presence of oil in the country. That doesn't mean that there were some Mr-Burns-like people clasping hands and preparing to count direct profits, nor is it even physically possible for Iraq's oil to provide anything close to a majority of the massive amounts of crude the US consumes each year. What it does mean, though, is that the presence of the oil in Iraq and the interests in getting it on the market and available played and continues to play a large role in US foreign policy in Iraq and many of its neighbors. To avoid admitting such a thing borders on stupidity.

[Skeptic]

I must be psychic!

Me:

Anyway, "overall control" of oil has nothing to do with oil supply, price, import, export, production, profits, or anything. Just ask the people who rant about "US increasing its overall control of oil" about what the term actually means and see. It is a vague, meaningless term that the conspiracy theory can attach to any event whatever in the oil industry than can be seen as beneficial to the USA (or to US oil companies) while shouting, "See? SEE?? It was a war for oil after all!"Igopogo:

You misunderstand. The US (& allies) controlling the flow of oil doesn't necessarily mean consuming it themselves, but that they control how and to whom it's sold.See, Corsair? Told ya.

[Skeptic]

Nice table. Would you switch that around to what percentage of overall exports from Iraq to the US the number of barrels were each year

Since US imports remained more or less stable, of course a mathematical inversion would mean that the less oil Iraq produces, the more of it, percentage wise, went to the USA.

Of course, this means that the USA, in order to evily control Iraq's oil exports and "who it goes to", should limit production of oil in Iraq -- preferably, have Iraq produce only for the US market.

But for some reason the USA is doing everything to increase oil production in Iraq, and therefore lower the percentage of the oil revenues Iraq sells to the USA.

Strange way to get "overall control" of oil, that!

[The Fool]

Since US imports remained more or less stable, of course a mathematical inversion would mean that the less oil Iraq produces, the more of it, percentage wise, went to the USA.

Of course, this means that the USA, in order to evily control Iraq's oil exports and "who it goes to", should limit production of oil in Iraq -- preferably, have Iraq produce only for the US market.

But for some reason the USA is doing everything to increase oil production in Iraq, and therefore lower the percentage of the oil revenues Iraq sells to the USA.

Strange way to get "overall control" of oil, that!
what currency was used to pay for this oil Iraq is now selling? Hint...it wasn't Euros.

[Igopogo]

I must be psychic!

Hey, a broken clock is right twice a day.

I'm not the brightest guy in the room, and I don't have any special inside knowledge of what goes on in the halls of power - but I'm also certain you don't either.

To think oil one way or the other isn't at the root of the conflict is naive. Empires don't go in for wars for regime change unless that regime has something - or stands in the way of something that the empire wants. It's the way it's always been.

I'm old enough to remember how OPEC wreaked havoc to the west during the oil crises of the 70's - it felt like the west was being held captive. It stands to reason that power brokers would sooner or later have to jockey for stability in the markets of the life blood of power - oil. It's that simple really. Though I'm sure there's people that profited off the war, (that also always happens in reality land too), there's no need to trump it up for more than it is. No need for nefarious scenarios and conspiracies as motivation for the actions. You can knock down strawmen all day long, and in the end you're left with just one conclusion, it's still all about oil at the root of it.

Empires also can't go into a conflict calling it as what it is, a power play for their side in a type of commodities colonialism, no one would ever stand for it, so instead it's prudent to supply an alternative reason. You get a taste of it in the Scowcroft quote I gave before on the first Gulf War - "...at the heart was naked aggression against an unoffending country, that was the firm and legal position, but what gave enormous urgency to it was the issue of oil. Yes that transformed it."

Why would Wolfowitz say, "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason," - if they were so adamant that that was the major underlying reason? (For anyone with half an ounce of sense, it was a pretty weak reason at that, even if some weapons would have been found).

Now, can you suggest to me why the west would spend so much blood and treasure in that region if it wasn't for something that rhymes with tin-foil. I'm all ears...

[Skeptic]

Now, can you suggest to me why the west would spend so much blood and treasure in that region if it wasn't for something that rhymes with tin-foil. I'm all ears...Nononononononono.

That's not the way it works.

YOU made the claim, YOU supply the evidence. I don't have to disprove anything.

You have no evidence, now do you?

But what the heck -- I'll give it a shot, anyway. Since you asked a question that's so easy to answer.

Iraq was a distant sixth in oil supply to the USA -- after Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia. This is the situation for at least the last ten years, and the supply at oil from it before, during, and after the invasion remained stable -- about 5% or so, with small fluctuations, and would undoubtedly remain similar even after the US leave.

So there was simply no motivation at all, no benefit at all, for the USA to invade Iraq if oil was the reason, because it had practically no effect at all on the amount of oil the US gets from Iraq. If anything it made things worse for the USA, by raising the price of oil.

So while we might not know what the real reason is, we can tell for sure that it was not oil -- because if that were the reason, the US just spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives to achieve exactly nothing in terms of US imports of oil from Iraq, either in absolute terms or percentage-wise.

There. That wasn't hard, now was it?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Nononononononono.

That's not the way it works.

YOU made the claim, YOU supply the evidence. I don't have to disprove anything.


Well--it depends on who is making what claim. When I read the title of this thread it sure looks like Hitchens is claiming that he has disproved a proposition.

If my counter claim is not something about the blood-for-oil thesis, but merely that Hitchens has failed to disprove a proposition, I needn't prove the proposition.

ETA: However, see my several observations where I acknowledge that Hitchens is only claiming to have disproved an extremely weak proposition--only "the vulgar and hysterical interpretation". Even so, BenBurch's point remains: proving that the war failed to achieve what this "vulgar and hysterical interpretation" says was the motive for the war doesn't prove that this wasn't the motivation--only that if it was, it failed.

[JoeTheJuggler]

So while we might not know what the real reason is, we can tell for sure that it was not oil -- because if that were the reason, the US just spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives to achieve exactly nothing in terms of US imports of oil from Iraq, either in absolute terms or percentage-wise.
Was Hitler's goal to conquer all of Europe and eliminate all the Jews from Germany?

Was the South's participation in the Civil War motivated by a desire to maintain the Confederate States of America and keep slavery legal there?

The fact that these examples were failures doesn't prove that these things weren't the motivation for fighting.

[Darth Rotor]

more on topic:



It's past as prologue, evidencing that current decisions are also made primarily for American interests. And perhaps that rhetoric doesn't equal actual motivation, not for 80s Iraq-Iran, not for 00's Iraq. It's more to America's interest, or perhaps was prior to invasion, for the US to be the primary beneficiaries of freed Iraqi oil post-regime change.
The oil being available was, I repeat, more easily achieved by simply dropping the sanctions and writing off the previous twelve years of UN (and US was a big part of this) screwing off and up.

That was not politically tenable, or perhaps, was not perceived as politically tenable. There was always the risk of screwing the whole thing up, which in many respects was realized, the cock up, hinging upon IMO three different pivot points: the assumption that decapitation strikes would get Saddam; the assumption the Turkey would play, and then doing it anyway when they didn't, and the assumption that firing baathists as far DOWN the heirarchy would be anything other than futile and counterproductive. Firing one of the few organized organs in the society, and turning much of it into an armed guerilla force was a strategic blunder of epic proportions, and enabled by a profound ideological myopia. (See also why General Patton was fired, post war, to grasp how myopic American ideology can be in a post war scenario).

DR

[Darth Rotor]

My motivation was your characterization of objection to getting in bed with Iraq for temporary gain as "silly", and referring to the truth of realpolitik as justification for that characterization. As if that should be the decision calculus of each of us, broadly. But it's not silly to object to cases where that leads to hypocricy --
Spare me the altruism, if you please. We are speaking of real world politics here. The playing field of real world politics is filled with a myriad of actors, savory and unsavory. The play most resembles a free for all game, 170 versus 170, of Starcraft, with each side having its own victory conditions internally determined.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

With all the money the US have used on the war, I suspect it would've been cheaper to buy it at triple price instead.
Nope.

Different pots of money.

[Darth Rotor]

Still, it winds up coming down to the Western powers exerting influence through force over the resources of others. That tends to piss people off, and has done so
Since long before Bush was president, so what? People were already pissed at the US, all he did was give them a different reason to be pissed, and perhaps be pissed to a greater degree.

As I noted, this habit goes back to at least FDR, but in this particular region of the world, Versailles and Wilson.

DR

[Skeptic]

Was Hitler's goal to conquer all of Europe and eliminate all the Jews from Germany? .

If, in the decade before 1933, a million Jews committed suicide anyway every year for some reason... or if Congress declared in 1858 that abolition is illegal and the rights of people to own slaves will never be revoked... then I certainly would look for other goals to explain Hitler's or the South's behavior, since it is rather obvious there is no point in going to war to achieve what simply doing nothing would.

Let me ask you this. Does it make sense to you that the USA went to a "war on oil" in a country that supplies about 5% of the USA's oil? AND then not only did that, but had not managed to change the amount of oil it gets from the place at all?

[JoeTheJuggler]

If, in the decade before 1933, a million Jews committed suicide anyway every year for some reason...

And, in the same decade, hundreds of thousands of Jews were leaving Germany anyway every year for some reason...

...then, no, under those circumstances, I probably would say Hitler probably did not have killing and expelling the Jews as a goal merely because they continued to do so under his rule.


Awright, then consider whatever you think was Hitler's motivation for the war he started. He failed. Does his failure prove that that wasn't his motivation? (In fact, by your reasoning, you could only conclude that he had no motivation for starting the war.)


Because it would make no sense for him to use the power of the state just to achieve by force and war just what was going on anyway by him doing nothing.
Why do you rule out the possibility that he would do something that made no sense?

ETA: Remember, people who were making one version or another of the "blood-for-oil" thesis were in fact claiming that it was an unreasonable justification for the invasion of Iraq, (though perhaps the more important point was that it was a rejection of the rationale we were being given--that it was over WMDs and the threat Iraq posed to the U.S.).

[Praktik]

Spare me the altruism, if you please. We are speaking of real world politics here. The playing field of real world politics is filled with a myriad of actors, savory and unsavory. The play most resembles a free for all game, 170 versus 170, of Starcraft, with each side having its own victory conditions internally determined.

DR

Looking at oil exports in a given year just from Iraq is missing the forest for the trees.

Let's remember the original idea: transforming Iraq woud transform the region. In the minds of the starry-eyed dreamers running policy Iraq was the key to safeguard the American interest across the wider Middle East.

There's a reason everyone is playing there. The US, the EU, China, India, Russia - the Midde East is perhaps the world's most important strategic resource and has been for some time.

So oil was at the root of it, but moreso at the level of grand strategy and balance of power, and not so much in the "oh boy I can get x thousand more barrels out of Iraq for the next while."

This is just one example of how the political debate gets abstract and loses its grounding in fact. People simplifying things to "war for oil" and the people reacting to that share one thing in common: they both miss the Great Game underneath.

The reason America spends billions and committs men to the Middle East is the same reason all the other powers are doing so: to see to their self interest and prevent it from being eroded. And none of them would be there if there wasn't something worth spending that much for.

[Distracted1]

Nononononononono.

That's not the way it works.

YOU made the claim, YOU supply the evidence. I don't have to disprove anything.

You have no evidence, now do you?

But what the heck -- I'll give it a shot, anyway. Since you asked a question that's so easy to answer.

Iraq was a distant sixth in oil supply to the USA -- after Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia. This is the situation for at least the last ten years, and the supply at oil from it before, during, and after the invasion remained stable -- about 5% or so, with small fluctuations, and would undoubtedly remain similar even after the US leave.

So there was simply no motivation at all, no benefit at all, for the USA to invade Iraq if oil was the reason, because it had practically no effect at all on the amount of oil the US gets from Iraq. If anything it made things worse for the USA, by raising the price of oil.

So while we might not know what the real reason is, we can tell for sure that it was not oil -- because if that were the reason, the US just spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives to achieve exactly nothing in terms of US imports of oil from Iraq, either in absolute terms or percentage-wise.

There. That wasn't hard, now was it?
You post an assertion that the U.S. invasion led to an increase in the price of oil- massively benefiting the oil companies to whom every major player in the Bush admin. was tied. And scream "preposterous" to any assertion that this was a determining factor in the decision to invade.

The U.S., as I am sure you would admit, is hardly homogeneous, whats benefits one segment often harms another- do you not remember "whats good for G.M. is good for America"?

Are there not some who think that the invasion was a tremendous success because of what you refer to as "making things worse in the U.S.A."? If those people exist who might they be?

[Cain]

Iraq was a distant sixth in oil supply to the USA -- after Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia. This is the situation for at least the last ten years, and the supply at oil from it before, during, and after the invasion remained stable -- about 5% or so, with small fluctuations, and would undoubtedly remain similar even after the US leave.

Why do so many people resort to such nonsense? Suppose the United States got zero of its oil from Saudi Arabia. Now suppose Saudi Arabia's oil suddenly vanishes. Does that mean the U.S. is unaffected since, hey, we never got any of our oil from there in the first place? Of course not. We're talking about a global marketplace, and prices everywhere would skyrocket. Now suppose Canada's oil disappeared over night. This would also send global markets into a tizzy, and it would harm the U.S. in the short-term, but the long-term outlook would not be nearly as bad. Iraq's especially important because of just how much oil it possesses (second to Saudi Arabia by many reports). Now remember that oil is the life-blood of the world economy and it's controlled by a cartel.

Oil's strategic value cannot be understated and anyone who says it was not a critical component in our decision to invade is a *********** fool. I vaguely recall quotes from State Department documents describing Middle Eastern oil as "the most stupendous material prize" in history. Look at the behavior of past empires and get real.

Nixon had a quite good op-ed in the NYT on the cusp of the first Gulf War. He quickly dismissed the talk about Saddam being "another Hitler" and the crazy idea of bringing Iraqis democracy. He said the war could be reduced to two reasons: 1) Vital energy resources. Dick Cheney has said countries can use oil as instruments of "intimidation and blackmail". Oh, what, the U.S. would never do the same?? 2) Nixon said it's good to have a show of force in order to intimidate others who might oppose us. Think "Shock and Awe," or circa Mission Accomplished when all the neo-conservatives bragged that N. Korea and Iran were ready to bend over for us.

To think black gold is anything other than the driving factor for U.S. policy in the region is hopelessly naive. In the 80s, a murderous Saddam used chemical weapons and attempted to invade his neighbor. Don Rumsfeld shook his hand.

Over a hundred thousand U.S. troops in the country and Hitchens contends "Iraq retains its autonomy"? This doesn't even pass the giggle test.

[Dragoonster]

Spare me the altruism, if you please. We are speaking of real world politics here. The playing field of real world politics is filled with a myriad of actors, savory and unsavory. The play most resembles a free for all game, 170 versus 170, of Starcraft, with each side having its own victory conditions internally determined.

DR

Since long before Bush was president, so what? People were already pissed at the US, all he did was give them a different reason to be pissed, and perhaps be pissed to a greater degree.

As I noted, this habit goes back to at least FDR, but in this particular region of the world, Versailles and Wilson.

DR

I don't get your angle. Yes, obviously real world governments act out of self-interest, and don't care who they piss off or annihilate if the reward is worth the risk--but it seems you're saying that because this is normal, no one should criticize it. Or want it to change, or at least lessen in severity.

Do you think embezzlers should be jailed? Or should everyone should simply accept it and let it go on, because it's how the real world operates?

[Skeptic]

Looking at oil exports in a given year just from Iraq is missing the forest for the trees.

No. It's just one of those pesky facts that don't fit with the "EVIL BUSH STARTED WAR FOR OIL!!!!" thesis, so it is ignored.

[Skeptic]

You post an assertion that the U.S. invasion led to an increase in the price of oil- massively benefiting the oil companies to whom every major player in the Bush admin.

As I said, you're using the conspiracy theorists heads-I-win, tail-you-lose logic: if oil production INCREASES because of the war, then, of course, it is "war for oil". If oil production DECREASES because of the war, therefore increasing oil prices, that, too, is "war for oil". And if oil production stayed the same? Well, in THAT case, it just shows that "the evil Bush administration killed thousands but took care not to hurt oil production, showing what their priorities REALLY are".

(And yes, I've heard all three arguments from "no war for oil!" nuts).

So, as usual, no matter what happens to oil production in Iraq, it will "prove" to you that it is "war for oil".

You keep telling me to "look at the facts". But the truth is the facts do not matter to you at all -- no matter what the facts are, you would claim they are "proof" it was a war for oil.

[Skeptic]

As usual with conspiracy theorists -- all the actual facts (how much oil is imported, or exported, or who won the contracts, etc.) that do not fit with the "war for oil" thesis are completely ignored, instead speaking in generalities about "the importance of oil for empires", etc.

Just like all the actual facts about 9/11 -- who did what -- are completely ignored by 9/11 conspiracy theorists, instead speaking in generalities about the evil "new world order propaganda", etc.

[GreNME]

Still, it winds up coming down to the Western powers exerting influence through force over the resources of others. That tends to piss people off, and has done so...
Since long before Bush was president, so what? People were already pissed at the US, all he did was give them a different reason to be pissed, and perhaps be pissed to a greater degree.

As I noted, this habit goes back to at least FDR, but in this particular region of the world, Versailles and Wilson.

Sure it goes back that far, I agree. What pissed many off about Bush-- and Reagan, and in part Bush Sr. and others-- was the rather cavalier attitude going into it and simplistic framing of the issue as justification, even in the face of evidence that such an approach was part of the problem (though, admittedly, Bush did tone way down from 2006 forward). This was actually a lesson Kennedy learned the hard way, with the fate of much of the Free World hanging as a consequence-- learn to deal less with absolutes and don't be afraid to back off the bravado and bluster-- that it can still be argued today that Bush (Jr) didn't learn, or perhaps couldn't due to the lack of advisers who had the guts or sense to say "no" once in a while.

To the principle, though, saying that we've been doing it for nigh on a century now doesn't really make the fact that it's being done any less bad, it just goes to show that it's been bad for a lot longer than is commonly accepted in the general political discourse today. But that's not a justification, it's simply circular reasoning.

That said, I don't think there's a politician on either side of the aisle who has what it takes to really try a different direction with intellectual and ethical honesty. And even if there were one (or even two), the other politicians and the culture of punditry, lobbyists, and short-attention-span media would tear them to pieces and devour them in an instant. That makes for a very cynical outlook of foreign policy, and it plays a large part in fueling the outrage expressed by these "no war for oil" types, regardless of the flaws in their arguments.

[Skeptic]

That said, I don't think there's a politician on either side of the aisle who has what it takes to really try a different direction with intellectual and ethical honesty. And even if there were one (or even two), the other politicians and the culture of punditry, lobbyists, and short-attention-span media would tear them to pieces and devour them in an instant. That makes for a very cynical outlook of foreign policy, and it plays a large part in fueling the outrage expressed by these "no war for oil" types, regardless of the flaws in their arguments.

I agree with the first part of what you say, but I don't think that is the reason conspiracy theorists of the "no war for oil" type are outraged.

Many studies show conspiracy theories stem from other psychological reasons -- the need to feel important, to feel above the "sheeple" who buy the "government propaganda", etc.

They are usually precisely the same sort of short-attention-span, facts-ignoring, insensate-rage-expressing folks that the cynical media and politicians exploit.

Remember the bumper sticker, "if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention!"? What it really means is, "because I am outraged, I am smarter than you."

Not true.

[GreNME]

What color is the sky in the world you live in, Skeptic? It's like you picked something I wrote talking about one thing and used it as a disconnected segue into a strawman of your own making that I didn't even come close to referencing. What I like best about DR's responses to me is that he and I are quite clearly having the same conversation about the same topic. While I understand the topic you seem to be railing on might be simpler than the conversation I'm having, it has little to no bearing on what I actually said.

[Skeptic]

Huh? I agreed with what you said in general. I just noted that your view of why conspiracy theorists are conspiracy theorists is flawed.

Yes, I replied to a minor point you were making, not the main point. Sheesh.

[Travis]

I don't agree with what Distracted1 is claiming, but your question is disingenuous. The answer would be to not have invaded in the first place, and that answer is pretty obvious. A better way to ask the type of question you're going for would be to ask whether there were any other motivations that would seem plausible for the invasion, and how they would have been different than what had actually happened.

My point is that I was very much for the war and oil had no part in that motivation (and as I've noted before I was pushing for the invasion back in the 90's). Now if it is possible for me to be so motivated it is possible that Bush was too. Pretending that oil just had to be, in some way, responsible for the decision to invade ignores that.

That is all.

[Darth Rotor]

Looking at oil exports in a given year just from Iraq is missing the forest for the trees.
Yes.
Let's remember the original idea: transforming Iraq woud transform the region. In the minds of the starry-eyed dreamers running policy Iraq was the key to safeguard the American interest across the wider Middle East.
Yes. Upon this foundation was the strategies of pre-emption, and evangelizing democracy at the point of a bayonet, built. Since Saudi was no longer a viable key to US interests, as an ally, another ally was "chosen" by the Bush crowd ... whether they wanted it or not. :p

So oil was at the root of it,
And I repeat, for about the fiftieth time, or the hundredth, that oil, in general, has been the root of US Mid East policy since about the time of FDR, even Wilson. It become significantly more important since the 1973 oil embargo, which led to Carter's Standing up the RRF that later turned into CENTCOM.

It is worth recalling that about the time of the 1991 war, about 80-90% of oil imports into Japan came from the Persian Gulf region. Japan had an interest in that war, but chose to simply send cash. (IIRC, about five billion, but I may not recall correctly).

Nothing has changed since then, materially, concerning the criticality of oil to the global economy.

DR

[JoeTheJuggler]

My point is that I was very much for the war and oil had no part in that motivation (and as I've noted before I was pushing for the invasion back in the 90's). Now if it is possible for me to be so motivated it is possible that Bush was too.

It's also possible that the Bush administration's motives were different from yours.

Pretending that oil just had to be, in some way, responsible for the decision to invade ignores that.

Again, the title of this thread reports that Hitchens claims to have disproven the war-for-oil thesis. He has not. It's not necessary to prove or support the war-for-oil thesis to show this.

In Hitchens' own words, he only attempted to disprove a strawman version of the thesis (the "vulgar and hysterical interpretation").

Even as far as that argument goes, BenBurch's point stands: proving that something failed doesn't prove that that wasn't the intent or motivation.

See my expansion above, whatever motivation Hitler had in mind also failed, but that doesn't prove those motives didn't exist. Ditto the South in the Civil War.

[Darth Rotor]

I don't get your angle. Yes, obviously real world governments act out of self-interest, and don't care who they piss off or annihilate if the reward is worth the risk--but it seems you're saying that because this is normal, no one should criticize it.
No. If your problem is hypocrisy, then your critique of what went into the Iraq decision is rather shallow, even useless. The hypocrisy isn't the problem. The actual problems that arise in breaking a country to fix it is the problem, and the decisions taken in that aim are the problem.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

To the principle, though, saying that we've been doing it for nigh on a century now doesn't really make the fact that it's being done any less bad,
No, I didn't say "we've been doing it" for a century, I am saying that thanks to our being an industrial power, and being allied with such, our policy is informed and influenced by it, oil's, real importance to the global, and our own, economy. To pretend it isn't important is ludicrous. To pretend that, as American dependence upon imported oil grew, and that of our trading partners grew, and that of our allies grew, that our policy would not take that into account would be inane.

Oil being there doesn't create a need to invade Iraq. It never did.

DR

[Travis]

It's also possible that the Bush administration's motives were different from yours.

So you are willing to admit that there are people who were supporters of the war that were not about getting oil/revenge/wmd's?

That's some small victory, I guess.

[Distracted1]

So you are willing to admit that there are people who were supporters of the war that were not about getting oil/revenge/wmd's?

That's some small victory, I guess.
There were, perhaps, supporters who believed it would bring about Armageddon, and other supporters who might have thought Osama Bin Laden was hiding out in one of Husseins' palaces.

These people were not acting as agents of the people of the United States, Bush and Cheney were- and they actually claimed to be invading because of WMD's.

Does your post suggest that you supported the invasion- but not because of WMD's ?

If so, why did you want us to invade?

As a side note, if you are claiming that you did'nt think we should invade over WMD's, are you subject to the same accusations that Sceptic is throwing at me? Namely, that since there were no WMD's you changed your rationale to something else to make your support for invading fit the evidence that they were'nt there.

[JoeTheJuggler]

So you are willing to admit that there are people who were supporters of the war that were not about getting oil/revenge/wmd's?

That's some small victory, I guess.

I have no reason to think you're lying, and you said you didn't have those motives, so yeah.

ETA: There were also people who supported the invasion because they hold the incorrect position that it is the duty of every U.S. citizen to support any military action ordered by the Commander in Chief. (I remember hearing a radio caller express exactly that position.)

I'm merely pointing out that the fact that it's possible for someone (such as yourself) to have supported the war for other motives is irrelevant to the claim that this auction disproves that oil was a motive of the Decider to make the decision to invade Iraq.

[Orphia Nay]

Sigh. I guess this needs to be reposted.

I keep noticing everytime there is a discussion about Iraq, the Saddam Hussein factor is always conveniently left out, as if the 30 years of dictatorship never happened.

[Corsair 115]

Nice table. Would you switch that around to what percentage of overall exports from Iraq to the US the number of barrels were each year? I suspect those percentage points would show as being significantly higher and startlingly lopsided.


Considering what really matters, in terms of 'controlling' oil, is from where the U.S. gets its crude oil imports, anything else is ultimately irrelevant. And the U.S. import figures clearly show Iraq still has yet to reach a level of importance in U.S. imports that it had back in 2001.

In 2008, the #1 source of crude oil imports for the U.S. was Canada. Some 20% of U.S. imports were from Canada, and the number of barrels of crude oil from Canada was more than three times that received from Iraq. Canada also has the advantage of being a long-time ally of the United States, it's located right next door to the United States, and the U.S. has guaranteed access to Canadian energy thanks to NAFTA.

And yet, for some reason which seems rather obscure to me, the U.S. spends trillions of dollars waging war to control Iraqi oil but never exercises any meaningful control over that oil by increasing the reliance on that oil as a source of U.S. imports. One can only imagine, if energy was the key concern, why those trillions of dollars weren't instead spent in Canada to increase the oil production in Canada since, as mentioned previously, Canada is a long-time ally located conveniently close by and with whom the U.S. has a trade agreement which grants it certain energy supply guarantees.

But I guess the NWO moves in mysterious ways...

[Corsair 115]

Iraq was a distant sixth in oil supply to the USA -- after Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia. This is the situation for at least the last ten years, and the supply at oil from it before, during, and after the invasion remained stable -- about 5% or so, with small fluctuations, and would undoubtedly remain similar even after the US leave.


Here's a curious fact: The number of barrels of U.S. crude oil imports coming from the Persian Gulf (defined as including the nations of Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates) peaked in 2001 and thereafter declined considerably before rebounding somewhat in 2008. The year-by-year tally of U.S. crude oil imports coming from Persian Gulf nations from 1993-2008, both in terms of the number of barrels in thousands and the percentage of total U.S. imports:

Calendar Year|Pct. of Imports|No. of Barrels
1993|24.12|597,629
1994|22.86|589,460
1995|20.45|539,682
1996|19.81|544,426
1997|19.88|596,852
1998|23.47|745,881
1999|27.03|861,282
2000|26.56|881,741
2001|28.56|972,479
2002|24.21|807,640
2003|25.09|884,998
2004|23.79|878,510
2005|21.08|805,653
2006|21.35|788,432
2007|21.08|771,943
2008|23.92|856,329

The peak year, both in terms of barrels received and as a percentage of total imports, was 2001. Even 2008, which saw 10.9% rise in barrels imported from the Persian Gulf compared to 2007, was still 11.9% lower than the peak year.

[JihadJane]

I don't understand how the perpetrators (and who exactly are they?) of this conspiracy could have been so powerful that they could get multiple countries to go to war for the sole purpose of oil, and yet have no successful plan to obtain that oil.

The US lost the war.

[NWO Sentryman]

The US lost the war.

No, the US won the war when Saddam was caught and the Iraqi government surrendered. It's now the occupation and the US has to fight insurgents, who have the same morality as the Draka.

[JihadJane]

No, the US won the war when Saddam was caught and the Iraqi government surrendered. It's now the occupation and the US has to fight insurgents, who have the same morality as the Draka.

:confused:

[NWO Sentryman]

:confused:

The war in iraq ended with saddam's capture. It's the occupation now.

And the Draka are a fictional nation in S M Stirling's book series called The Domination. They believe that they should rule the world and that any non-draka are scum, thus should be enslaved.

[JihadJane]

I see - the poor, long-suffering United States (and its weeny, post-imperial UK side-kick) selflessly carries the White Man's burden once more, teaching savages morality with violence and abuse.


When did wars between occupiers and the occupied stop being called wars?

And who, in this conflict, is actually in a position to attempt rule the world via military dominance? Who has a vast network of military bases all over the globe? (Clue: not Iraq.)

[NWO Sentryman]

I see - the poor, long-suffering United States (and its weeny, post-imperial UK side-kick) selflessly carries the White Man's burden once more, teaching savages morality with violence and abuse.

After the liberation of Iraq (LBH it was liberating the people from a horrible tyrant.), the baathists set to work trying to restore the ancien regime. they have regularly been brutal and beheading as well as stirring up hatreds the Us have been trying to contain.

When did wars between occupiers and the occupied stop being called wars?

WW2 ended with the defeat of Japan, yet the Werwolves were still active in Germany for a while, was that a war?

And who, in this conflict, is actually in a position to attempt rule the world via military dominance? Who has a vast network of military bases all over the globe? (Clue: not Iraq.)

non-sequitur. If the Middle East were to go to hell, then the world economy would collapse. The entire world depends on oil, and if a major oil producing region were to collapse then there would be mass famines.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The war in iraq ended with saddam's capture.

Mission Accomplished, eh?

[NWO Sentryman]

Mission Accomplished, eh?

well, it did. However, the insurgency is a separate matter.

[Igopogo]

Sigh. I guess this needs to be reposted.

And again I'll say that international politics is not that simple. The powers that be went to war not on the justification of Hussein's crimes against humanity, but on his alleged hiding of WMD's.

Had they used crimes against humanity as a justification, they may have made a more credible case in one sense, but I think we would have found out just how complicated International politics is. It's an important distinction - think about how court cases vary depending on what the charges are, or what's admissible as evidence. If you are angry that "but Saddam is a tyrant" argument isn't being heard, then you should be angry with the Bush administration for keeping the issue off the table, not the people questioning the motives of the government.

Ulterior motives aside, how do you make the case that someone else's country should be invaded for their own good? How do you justify the invading should be done by your country? How would you feel if Russia of China invaded Iraq instead?

It's not such a simple black and white issue is it?

[JihadJane]

After the liberation of Iraq (LBH it was liberating the people from a horrible tyrant.), the baathists set to work trying to restore the ancien regime. they have regularly been brutal and beheading as well as stirring up hatreds the Us have been trying to contain.

The invasion and destruction of Iraq's civil society unleashed hatreds with no apparent plan to contain them. Eventually death squads, ethnic cleansing and bribery have been used to squash them temporarily back into the box.

Divide and Rule is an old favorite.

Are you suggesting that the occupiers' higher tech, less hands-on methods of violent intimidation are somehow more moral and wholesome than beheadings?


WW2 ended with the defeat of Japan, yet the Werwolves were still active in Germany for a while, was that a war?

A somewhat over-optimistic comparison...

Why didn't WW2 stop being called a war when Germany occupied France?



non-sequitur. If the Middle East were to go to hell, then the world economy would collapse. The entire world depends on oil, and if a major oil producing region were to collapse then there would be mass famines.

How can a question be a non-sequitur?

How has the Middle East moved nearer to heaven since the UK, the US and others started interfering in the region?

In what way was Saddam Hussein's regime threatening to bring about the collapse of the region?

[NWO Sentryman]

The invasion and destruction of Iraq's civil society unleashed hatreds with no apparent plan to contain them. Eventually death squads, ethnic cleansing and bribery have been used to squash them temporarily back into the box.

The US has got a few problems in iraq yes, but they've been largely contained. Any evidence for the US committing Ethnic cleansing and creating death squads?

Divide and Rule is an old favorite.

The US had always planned to withdraw from Iraq, and had no intention of annexing it.

Are you suggesting that the occupiers' higher tech, less hands-on methods of violent intimidation are somehow more moral and wholesome than beheadings?

Excuse me, using UAVs to take out terrorist cells with the intent to minimise civilian casualties is not the same as taking a man outside and beheading him.

A somewhat over-optimistic comparison...

Why didn't WW2 stop being called a war when Germany occupied France?

Because Britain was still in the game, as were the British Commonwealth. Get your military history right.

How can a question be a non-sequitur?

Don't play that "Just asking questions" routine on me.

How has the Middle East moved nearer to heaven since the UK, the US and others started interfering in the region?

Not exactly heaven, but the situation has improved.

In what way was Saddam Hussein's regime threatening to bring about the collapse of the region?

saddam was a wildcard and he was funding terrorists in Palestine. As well as that, he had links with Hamas and Hezbollah.

[GreNME]

Considering what really matters, in terms of 'controlling' oil, is from where the U.S. gets its crude oil imports, anything else is ultimately irrelevant. And the U.S. import figures clearly show Iraq still has yet to reach a level of importance in U.S. imports that it had back in 2001.

Nonsense. The US consumes so much oil that no single nation on the planet could supply enough for it alone. Using numbers working from such a premise is faulty from the get-go. Instead, looking at how much the supplying nation is selling to the US compared to everyone else is a good indication of the dominance of US policy toward a given nation has to do with oil as a resource (reliance on the US as a market). Example: below is a list of some of the world's top oil exporters and their reliance on the US market.

Country | Net Oil Exports | U.S. Imports | Reliance on U.S. Market
Saudi Arabia | 8.7 | 1.27 | 15%
Russia | 6.6 | 0.047 | <1%
Norway | 2.9 | 0.1 | 3%
Iran | 2.5 | 0 | 0%
Venezuela | 2.3 | 1.01 | 44%
UAE | 2.3 | 0.021 | <1%
Kuwait | 2.2 | 0.27 | 12%
Nigeria | 2.1 | 1.16 | 55%
Mexico | 1.8 | 1.66 | 92%
Canada | 1.8 | 1.8 | 99+%
Algeria | 1.6 | 0.26 | 16%
Iraq | 1.4 | 0.57 | 41%
Libya | 1.3 | 0.051 | 4%
Kazakhstan | 1.0 | 0 | 0%
Qatar | 1.0 | 0 | 0%

In 2008, the #1 source of crude oil imports for the U.S. was Canada. Some 20% of U.S. imports were from Canada, and the number of barrels of crude oil from Canada was more than three times that received from Iraq. Canada also has the advantage of being a long-time ally of the United States, it's located right next door to the United States, and the U.S. has guaranteed access to Canadian energy thanks to NAFTA.

The US also sells (exports) 20,000 barrels a day to Canada. There's a similar trading game with Mexico, though to a lesser degree. Additionally, Canada and Mexico import oil from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, and others, all of which essentially is part of the pot from which they export to the US. Hailing Canada and Mexico as top exporters to the US doesn't mean that all that oil coming into the US from Canada and Mexico was acquired in Canada or Mexico-- at least not by using the sources out there that give raw barrels per day/month/quarter/year from the exporter to the consuming country.

And yet, for some reason which seems rather obscure to me, the U.S. spends trillions of dollars waging war to control Iraqi oil but never exercises any meaningful control over that oil by increasing the reliance on that oil as a source of U.S. imports. One can only imagine, if energy was the key concern, why those trillions of dollars weren't instead spent in Canada to increase the oil production in Canada since, as mentioned previously, Canada is a long-time ally located conveniently close by and with whom the U.S. has a trade agreement which grants it certain energy supply guarantees.

Canada has an almost 100% reliance on the US market for their oil export market-- there's no need for military action. Canada and the US are so intricately tied economically (and not just through oil) that there's no reason to invade. The US gets what it wants already, through sheer dominance as a consumer. It's been an extremely beneficial type of relationship, and not just with Canada-- China since at least the 1980's, India since 1999/2000, Mexico for a good long while, and other nations have been involved in somewhat-mutually-beneficial-but-more-beneficial-to-the-US types of economic relationships, and you can bet your patootie that those relationships are why the US is not hawkish toward them. Even Venezuela, at whom the US has had some pretty strong words and chastisements against over the last few years, hasn't seen much of a peep from the US government in terms of hawkish language, and the fact that the US could damage their oil export market pretty seriously in just a few days of embargo is one of the reasons why. This is the key to market reliance and economics as a tool of the "stick" type of diplomacy.

But I guess the NWO moves in mysterious ways...

It's bad faith comments like that which lower the level of discourse and keep the politics section here looking more like a place primarily for trolling. I've already stated equivocally that I don't subscribe to the "war for oil" simplistic arguments, but my criticisms of the arguments against them in response are valid, as are the points I've been making that there are very real and clear precedents from which the "war for oil" arguments have sprung, and that those bases are worth examining in criticism of US foreign policy.

[Orphia Nay]

And again I'll say that international politics is not that simple. The powers that be went to war not on the justification of Hussein's crimes against humanity, but on his alleged hiding of WMD's.

That's what much of the media would have you believe.

Had they used crimes against humanity as a justification, they may have made a more credible case in one sense, but I think we would have found out just how complicated International politics is. It's an important distinction - think about how court cases vary depending on what the charges are, or what's admissible as evidence. If you are angry that "but Saddam is a tyrant" argument isn't being heard, then you should be angry with the Bush administration for keeping the issue off the table, not the people questioning the motives of the government.

No, I'm annoyed at the media for hyping up the WMD story both before and after it was found to be a myth, and ignoring Saddam's crimes.

Ulterior motives aside, how do you make the case that someone else's country should be invaded for their own good? How do you justify the invading should be done by your country? How would you feel if Russia of China invaded Iraq instead?

It's not such a simple black and white issue is it?

I'm not American. And if Russia or China invaded Iraq to depose Saddam, stop tyranny and corruption and instil democracy, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

[GreNME]

The media didn't hype the WMD story, the Bush administration did. Their press secretaries fed the media statements and sound bytes, Powell was sent before the UN general assembly to make the case about the WMDs, and the VP appeared on several outlets championing the supposed imminent threat due to WMDs. Claiming that this was media hype is incredibly disingenuous and remarkably creative selective memory.

[Skeptic]

Canada has an almost 100% reliance on the US market for their oil export market-- there's no need for military action.Yes, the ONLY REASON Canada is not invaded by the USA is that it sells it enough of its oil.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Anyway, as is rather obvious, Iraq sold more or less the same amount of oil to the USA -- for over a decade before the US invasion. If the % of the oil that went to the USA rose, that's because total production went down due to the war, as it was bound to do. When you reduce the denominator of a fraction and hold the numerator stable, the value of the fraction goes up (well, if it's a positive fraction...). What did you expect?

It's a statistical artifact -- unless we are supposed to believe the "real reason" the USA invaded Iraq is to destroy its oil production capacities (ideally, all but those who produce for the USA), so as to make the "% of oil imported to the USA" look good. And in any case, in that case, why is the USA doing its best now to increase oil production in Iraq -- and lower, therefore, the % of the oil that will go to the USA?

It's the usual conspiracy theory thinking:

First, look at the data until you find something that looks like it supports your thesis. Iraq's actual oil production, it's actual exports, the contracts it awarded, etc., etc., etc., all point to the obvious conclusion that the war had nothing to do with oil. However, there is one statistic -- % of Iraqi oil that goes to the USA -- that you think supports your "war for oil" thesis, so that is magically the one statistic that really matters.

Second, ignore all more reasonable explanations of counter-evidence. Never mind that it is a statistical artifact; never mind that the USA is doing everything (by increasing oil production in Iraq) to lower this %; it (apparently) benefited the USA -- though how exactly (as it is just an artifact having nothing to do with amount of oil bought or sold) is left rather nebulous, with vague talk about "control" -- so it must be the real reason for the war.

Third, in any bunch of statistics about a complicated international industry that changes over time, you will find some statistic somewhere (meaningful or not) that benefits the USA. To claim this is the "real reason" for the Iraqi war is like looking at the bible, finding some string of letters somewhere that makes a prediction that came true, and claim that is the "real reason" the bible was written.

Fourth, it's heads-I-win, tails-you-lose reasoning. Canada and Mexico export a lot more of their oil to the USA. So this proves "war is not necessary". But what if tomorrow some Islamic loony takes over Canada in a coup and the USA invades it? Well, that too will be a "war for oil", of course, because, overnight, the 99% of oil Canada sells to the USA would not be evidence "war is not necessary", but evidence that the USA "went to war to protect its monopoly on Canadian oil exports". You don't expect us to really believe a war with a country that exports 99% of its oil to the USA had nothing to do with oil, now do you?! LOOK AT THE FACTS!!!

Essentially the reasoning boils down to this: if the USA is ever involved in any conflict with a country that has some export/import relationship with it in the international oil market, it is war for oil. If the USA is ever involved in a any conflict with anybody in "the Middle east" (using the term very loosely, to include anybody from Morocco to Afghanistan), even if they don't have much oil (e.g., Afghanistan), then, that too is a war for oil. Because one can blabber vaguely about "control of the middle east", "imperialism", "securing the frontiers for oil production", "exploiting untapped oil reserves", blah blah blah.

Hey, we all know those Arabic-sounding places (never mind if they're not actually Arabic) and Arab-looking folks (never mind if they're not actually Arab) have something to do with the middle east (never mind if Afghanistan, or Iran, etc. aren't really there) and the middle east has something to do with oil (never mind that we don't have a clue which nations there produce oil, or how much), and that is all the proof that is needed that the USA is engaged in an imperialistic war for oil.

[Skeptic]

saddam was a wildcard and he was funding terrorists in Palestine. As well as that, he had links with Hamas and Hezbollah.

Ah, but they are just freedom fighters, you know. All together now: "one maaaan's terrorist is another maaaaaaaan's freedom fighter", blah blah blah.

It never ceases to amaze me the support and cheering some people express for murderous Jihadis who would kill them as infidels, enslave them for being female, and jail and execute them for daring to criticize the least bit of their dark-ages dogma if they only could.

[GreNME]

Yes, the ONLY REASON Canada is not invaded by the USA is that it sells it enough of its oil.

:words:

http://image.grenme.com/thread/StrawMan.jpg

It's like you didn't bother to read what I wrote, and instead kept right on going with your own conversation that was barely tangentially related to what I said.

Canada and Mexico ship more than their own oil to the US, they also ship oil they import from elsewhere. The number of barrels they extract daily versus their own consumption plus the export levels are simple enough math to work that out. The entire concept of trying to delegate whose oil any given country is buying falls flat on its face when looking at the overall oil market, where everyone's oil is basically trading like shares in one huge pot where everything is mixed. Why do you think the US is selling tens of thousands of barrels a day to Canada, and at least thousands a day to Mexico? Because the US doesn't need it?

Simply put, the argument about political influence, aggression, and the flow of oil is just not as simple as who is buying it and who is selling it. That's where Hitchens' argument falls flat on its face, and that's where your arguments are shown as the strawmen they are, Skeptic.

[Skeptic]

Simply put, the argument about political influence, aggression, and the flow of oil is just not as simple as who is buying it and who is selling it.

It's always "not that simple" when all the simple facts seem to disprove your thesis.

[Corsair 115]

Nonsense. The US consumes so much oil that no single nation on the planet could supply enough for it alone.


So? Recall the point under discussion: the Iraq war was waged as a means for the U.S. to control Iraqi oil. To support that assertion would require some sort of proof of that control being exercised.

The official oil importation figures do not support the assertion; in fact, they contradict it. Iraqi oil is no more important a share of U.S. crude oil supplies than it was prior to the war; in fact, it's a smaller share. If the U.S. seized Iraq to control its oil, why is the U.S. not benefitting directly from that control? Why is Iraqi oil a smaller share of U.S. imports rather than a larger share? For that matter, in the eight years since 9/11, the U.S. has been decreasing its reliance on oil from the Persian Gulf as a whole while increasing its reliance on crude oil from non-Perisan Gulf nations.


Canada has an almost 100% reliance on the US market for their oil export market-- there's no need for military action. Canada and the US are so intricately tied economically (and not just through oil) that there's no reason to invade.


But there is need for investment to increase the production capacity of the Alberta oil sands. Is spending trillions waging war in Iraq a more sensible use of U.S. funds (and lives) than spending that money as an investment in Alberta to get even more oil from a trusted neighbour and ally? Where is the sense on going half-way around the globe in a military (mis)adventure when you can get the same end result (crude oil) by going next door? It's far less risky militarily, economically, and politically.


I've already stated equivocally that I don't subscribe to the "war for oil" simplistic arguments, but my criticisms of the arguments against them in response are valid, as are the points I've been making that there are very real and clear precedents from which the "war for oil" arguments have sprung, and that those bases are worth examining in criticism of US foreign policy.


Please fulfill this simple request: if the war in Iraq was ultimately waged for control over Iraqi oil, then please provide the evidence which proves U.S. control over Iraqi oil is being exercised and how that control is benefitting the United States.

[Corsair 115]

The entire concept of trying to delegate whose oil any given country is buying falls flat on its face when looking at the overall oil market, where everyone's oil is basically trading like shares in one huge pot where everything is mixed.


I would think there are country of origin rules which determine which country is the source. There are such rules for other products.


Why do you think the US is selling tens of thousands of barrels a day to Canada, and at least thousands a day to Mexico? Because the US doesn't need it?


That's due to economic factors where it's more efficient in Canada to do north-south trading rather than east-west. It's often more economical to get oil from nearby U.S. states than it is to have it transported all the way across the continent.

And in any case, the amount of crude oil (as opposed to finished petroleum products) exported by the U.S. is trivial. In 2008, the U.S. exported some 10.46 million barrels of crude oil (all of which went to Canada) as compared to imports of 3.58 billion barrels. In other words, imports outnumbered exports by some 342:1.

[The Fool]

So? Recall the point under discussion: the Iraq war was waged as a means for the U.S. to control Iraqi oil. To support that assertion would require some sort of proof of that control being exercised.

The official oil importation figures do not support the assertion; in fact, they contradict it. Iraqi oil is no more important a share of U.S. crude oil supplies than it was prior to the war; in fact, it's a smaller share. If the U.S. seized Iraq to control its oil, why is the U.S. not benefitting directly from that control? Why is Iraqi oil a smaller share of U.S. imports rather than a larger share? For that matter, in the eight years since 9/11, the U.S. has been decreasing its reliance on oil from the Persian Gulf as a whole while increasing its reliance on crude oil from non-Perisan Gulf nations.





But there is need for investment to increase the production capacity of the Alberta oil sands. Is spending trillions waging war in Iraq a more sensible use of U.S. funds (and lives) than spending that money as an investment in Alberta to get even more oil from a trusted neighbour and ally? Where is the sense on going half-way around the globe in a military (mis)adventure when you can get the same end result (crude oil) by going next door? It's far less risky militarily, economically, and politically.





Please fulfill this simple request: if the war in Iraq was ultimately waged for control over Iraqi oil, then please provide the evidence which proves U.S. control over Iraqi oil is being exercised and how that control is benefitting the United States.

Is Iraqi oil now securely being sold in US dollars rather than Euro as Saddam planned?

[GreNME]

So? Recall the point under discussion: the Iraq war was waged as a means for the U.S. to control Iraqi oil. To support that assertion would require some sort of proof of that control being exercised.

Indeed it would (http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/oilinfra.html) (don't worry, sources are linked on the page). After all, if the US were waging a war to re-establish Western control over Iraqi oil, then surely there would be things out there (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html) that heavily imply the Western powers were gaining control, wouldn't it? Surely there would be some whistleblowers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunnatine_Greenhouse) who have fanned the ideas of public/private malfeasance, right? And with the deals that did happen with Iraq, surely one would have to show some type of evidence of US government involvement (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/world/middleeast/30contract.html?_r=4&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=login) in the establishment of the contracts.

But would those things add up to a conspiracy? No, of course not. They add up to nepotism, corruption, and an improper level of collaboration between public servants and the private sector. What's more, a great deal of improper behavior was headed off by whistle-blowing or investigative journalists covering bad behavior in the media. If anything, despite what a conspiracy theorist might wish to believe, it shows that the (mostly) free press still serves at least some role in checking the over-reaching of individuals for profits while working in politics. Sure, it shows that there is greed, but it also shows that the public has historically shown moral outrage enough to keep it in check through the press (as it did that time (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/world/middleeast/11iraq.html)).

The official oil importation figures do not support the assertion; in fact, they contradict it. Iraqi oil is no more important a share of U.S. crude oil supplies than it was prior to the war; in fact, it's a smaller share. If the U.S. seized Iraq to control its oil, why is the U.S. not benefitting directly from that control? Why is Iraqi oil a smaller share of U.S. imports rather than a larger share? For that matter, in the eight years since 9/11, the U.S. has been decreasing its reliance on oil from the Persian Gulf as a whole while increasing its reliance on crude oil from non-Perisan Gulf nations.

Well, first off I believe you're mistaking "the US" with "those driving policy in the US" in the beginning of this quote. Regardless, what you're driving at is making the same mistake the "war for oil" argument winds up making with the information that is known, you're just taking the mistake in the opposite direction of the "war for oil" argument. In the real world, government corruption and greed doesn't always follow the "Nancy Drew investigatory flowchart" of tying points A through Z in some sort of "this happened, then this happened" manner. There certainly has been plenty done by the previous administration to give the impression that the war was primarily for oil-- frankly, were there no more oil in the Mid-East tomorrow most interest in the region would wane quickly-- and the number of US-based or Western-controlled companies involved in managing the oil flow (thus profiting from it) has grown exponentially since the 2003 invasion, back to the high degree of Western involvement back in the 1980's (at least as far back as 1984 (http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/112684/841126008.html)). Asking why "the US" isn't benefiting using the table you provided ignores who is managing the infrastructure for obtaining the oil in the first place, the answer to which has been primarily US-based or Western-run contractors since the invasion for the most part. There are nearly as many contractors in Iraq as there are US soldiers right now (if not more), many of them involved in some fashion in building, rebuilding, or running the supply lines of oil infrastructure in Iraq. "Benefiting" in this sense is a difficult term to quantify, but the contracting that's been done in the oil sector in Iraq since the invasion has clearly been handled quite predominately by US and Western sources to an overwhelming degree. Since, as your argument seems to be implying, the ~10% of exports coming to the US is of little overall importance, then why are US-based private companies handling a lion's share of the duties (and receiving the pay) for the oil flow, and why has this been the case from pretty much as soon as private contractors were brought into Iraq following the invasion? The realistic answer is some semi-altruistic "you break it you fix it" mentality, but considering the number of US-based companies that have jacked reconstruction funds (example (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0416-02.htm)), the amount of money (cash) that has gone unaccounted for and bled out to who-knows-where (example (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/)), and the documented cases of graft and outright corruption with US-based groups (example (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/world/middleeast/15iraq.html)), I'd say that there's plenty of wealth that flowed pretty broadly and that there are quite a few that make up "the US" who benefited to a notable degree. None of that profiteering is accounted for in your table, and the vast majority of it deals primarily with oil-- extraction, transportation, mining rights, facilities construction, and so on. And by "benefiting" we're talking hundreds of millions (if not somewhere in the billions) in contracts and "unaccounted for" reconstruction funds. It's that profiteering that feeds the "war for oil" arguments that abound.

But there is need for investment to increase the production capacity of the Alberta oil sands. Is spending trillions waging war in Iraq a more sensible use of U.S. funds (and lives) than spending that money as an investment in Alberta to get even more oil from a trusted neighbour and ally? Where is the sense on going half-way around the globe in a military (mis)adventure when you can get the same end result (crude oil) by going next door? It's far less risky militarily, economically, and politically.

You have a distorted idea of how much oil can be had from the sand fields in Alberta compared to the deep wells in Iraq. The Mid-East in its entirety holds the majority of the world's available crude, and Iraq holds a substantial portion of the oil in the Mid-East. As scarcity and the cost of extraction (like in Alberta) increases, it stands to reason that those companies who are managing the supply lines in the largest-flowing areas on the planet stand to gain much. Further, US companies are already involved in the extraction and supply lines in Canada, while in Iraq they'd been largely locked out due to sanctions in the decade prior to the invasion (despite the UN resolution to allow limited exports). Iraqi oil production (https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/images/ch2_anxD_img04.jpg) was a wealth fountain just waiting to be re-tapped, and everyone already knew what was there. From the years between 2003 and 2006, the US controlled Iraq's flow of oil, and while the US-based companies have had to jockey more for contracts since around 2007, they're still highly entrenched (and making big bank for it).

Please fulfill this simple request: if the war in Iraq was ultimately waged for control over Iraqi oil, then please provide the evidence which proves U.S. control over Iraqi oil is being exercised and how that control is benefitting the United States.

Please fulfill my request first: read what I'm writing. I've already stated (more than once) that I don't agree with the "war for oil" thesis, but I understand the basis for the thesis and I agree that oil is the primary motivator for pretty much all of the US military action in the Mid-East for the past sixty years. Iraq is tactically almost useless except for the oil in the Mid-East.

I would think there are country of origin rules which determine which country is the source. There are such rules for other products.

Then feel free to find them and show them to me. I can find no such thing except for tracking direct imports from one country to another. As far as I can find, there's no tracking of which barrels get loaded onto different cargo containers and which stay in-country once they've shipped someplace as far as tracking country of origin. Considering the economics of oil as a commodity market, it would seem to be a pointless process to follow anyway, since it's light sweet crude that's important, not the country it's coming from (unless we're talking pointless political rhetoric).

That's due to economic factors where it's more efficient in Canada to do north-south trading rather than east-west. It's often more economical to get oil from nearby U.S. states than it is to have it transported all the way across the continent.

It's due to refinery locations, plain and simple. There's no need to try to over-complicate the reason. I already knew the answer. Oil is a commodity, and as such its value is in how quickly the commodity can be made use of, because holding on to it risks it losing value and money to be lost. This is also why the country of origin is not bothered with as far as tracking, because the country of origin adds no intrinsic value on the commodities market.

And in any case, the amount of crude oil (as opposed to finished petroleum products) exported by the U.S. is trivial. In 2008, the U.S. exported some 10.46 million barrels of crude oil (all of which went to Canada) as compared to imports of 3.58 billion barrels. In other words, imports outnumbered exports by some 342:1.

You're dodging. The point is that the US exports oil as well in notable objective (not relative) amounts. Thus, this shows the benefit of oil as a commodity and not simply as a resource to consume and be done with. This highlights what I was explaining about having an exporter with market reliance on a specific importer, and why the economics of such a situation are politically important in determining foreign policy. This same concept applies to China and the US, though not with oil. The existence of market dependency, particularly when that dependency is greater than a third of the market, is a big deal in terms of position and influence from a political perspective.

[GreNME]

Is Iraqi oil now securely being sold in US dollars rather than Euro as Saddam planned?

Well-put.

[JihadJane]

The US has got a few problems in iraq yes, but they've been largely contained. Any evidence for the US committing Ethnic cleansing and creating death squads?

Dream on!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x694419

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/apr/14/comment.iraq

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/articles/iraqs-death-squads



The US had always planned to withdraw from Iraq, and had no intention of annexing it.

The US intends to control Iraq.

The US will be in Iraq for decades or as long as its crumbling economy allows.



Excuse me, using UAVs to take out terrorist cells with the intent to minimise civilian casualties is not the same as taking a man outside and beheading him.

"Terrorist cells"... and their families and whoever else happens to be in the neighborhood.

Death and mutilation is death and mutilation, however it is justified. Killing people is immoral, even by remote control.



Because Britain was still in the game, as were the British Commonwealth. Get your military history right.

Iran is still in the game. So is "al Qaeda". So are a lot of other players in the region.

Millions of Iraqis have fled the country and do not feel it is safe to return.



Don't play that "Just asking questions" routine on me.

Don't play that "refusing to answer the question" routine on me. :)



Not exactly heaven, but the situation has improved.

How?



saddam was a wildcard and he was funding terrorists in Palestine. As well as that, he had links with Hamas and Hezbollah.

"Wildcard"? You mean he stopped being completely subservient to the the will of the US?

Can you explain how Saddam Hussein's support for the Palestinian resistance could have brought about the collapse of the Middle East?

[PixyMisa]

And again I'll say that international politics is not that simple. The powers that be went to war not on the justification of Hussein's crimes against humanity, but on his alleged hiding of WMD's.
WMDs were only one of the items on a long list of casus belli. WMDs were heavily pushed because Britain wanted a(nother) UN resolution against Iraq before committing to an invasion, and WMDs were a clear violation against the ceasefire agreement, and would have been grounds for such a resolution. Of course, this failed, and no WMDs of any significance were found in any case.

Had they used crimes against humanity as a justification, they may have made a more credible case in one sense, but I think we would have found out just how complicated International politics is.Well, they did, and we did. Here's the details of the House and Senate resolutions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_Resolution) WMDs are a significant part, but so are Saddam's support for terrorism and his oppression of the Iraqi people.

It's an important distinction - think about how court cases vary depending on what the charges are, or what's admissible as evidence. If you are angry that "but Saddam is a tyrant" argument isn't being heard, then you should be angry with the Bush administration for keeping the issue off the table, not the people questioning the motives of the government.But they didn't.

You can blame Tony Blair for the particular emphasis on WMDs, but you can't say that human rights weren't an issue.

[Darth Rotor]

Is Iraqi oil now securely being sold in US dollars rather than Euro as Saddam planned?
The Fool, a Conspiracy theorist? I'd not have seen that one coming.

Since it was previously sold in dollars, your "now securely being sold in dollars" is a bit dishonest of you.

DR

[Skeptic]

Don't you understand?

If oil was sold in Euros and is now sold in dollars, that is evidence it was war for oil for obvious reasons.
If oil was sold in dollars and is now sold in euros, that is evidence that it was war for oil that simply failed to "stop the decline of America".
If oil was sold in dollars and is still sold in dollars, that is evidence that Saddam planned to sell it is Euros but the war stopped him, so it is once more war for oil.

Simple, isn't it?

[NWO Sentryman]

Jihadjane

The Articles talks about death Squads in Iraq and US inaction over them, not about US control of them.

If the US wants control of iraq, then how come there have been plans for withdrawal rather than plans for making it the 51st state?

as for the UAV comments, you seem to imply the US is committing genocide in Iraq. Show evidence for that. Not some crazy Conspiracy theory site. Hard evidence.

The US is NOT at war with Iraq anymore, and the insurgency is a separate war from the liberation of Iraq

That question was a non-sequitur

There have been elections in Iraq, with a parliament and all that.

And if saddam was in the US's control, then why did they let him buy Russian or Chinese or french Hardware? And any US support for Saddam was a means to an end - namely, containment of Iran. Saddam was more into the Soviet SOI.

"Palestinian resistance?"

:dl:

If Holocaust Deniers and driving your enemy into the sea is your defintion of resistance, then yeah, they are a threat to stability in the middle east.

Saddam was an antisemite and hated Israel, and to that end he sought its destruction. Such actions would have led to war sooner or later.

[GreNME]

Saddam was an antisemite and hated Israel, and to that end he sought its destruction. Such actions would have led to war sooner or later.

That's a very good point. I would also add that in the years prior to 2001 Hussein was also growing increasingly antagonistic of the no-fly-zone boundaries and had already opened fire on coalition aircraft. He also intentionally stonewalled investigations into the country's weapons capabilities in the run-up to the war to appear more well-positioned against attack than the country was. Saddam Hussein (and his ruling party) wasn't exactly an innocent victim in this case.

[PixyMisa]

That's a very good point. I would also add that in the years prior to 2001 Hussein was also growing increasingly antagonistic of the no-fly-zone boundaries and had already opened fire on coalition aircraft. He also intentionally stonewalled investigations into the country's weapons capabilities in the run-up to the war to appear more well-positioned against attack than the country was. Saddam Hussein (and his ruling party) wasn't exactly an innocent victim in this case.
Yep. The US already had legitimate reasons under existing UN resolutions to resume hostilities and remove Saddam. Pushing the WMD angle so hard and ignoring the human rights angle was probably not a good idea at the time, and of course we all know how that turned out in hindsight.

Also shows what can happen when you try to bluff America with a pair of fours. We'll never know exactly what Saddam was thinking, but I doubt it worked the way he expected.

[Skeptic]

I don't see why people are so surprised at the crocodile tears shed in this thread by about the poor, poor Saddam and his poor, poor Palestinian terrorist groups, now no longer getting $15,000 (IIRC) from the great Iraqi leader for every one of their members blowing up Jews in a suicide bombing. No longer getting Iraqi money for blowing up Jewish schoolchildren! One's heart bleeds for them.

Supporting the murderous dictator du jour merely because he is against the USA is S.O.P. for many people, who usually call themselves as "radicals" or "progressives" or some other honorable name, but whom Lenin - with much more accuracy - called "useful idiots".

These folks did the same with the Ayatollahs, Castro, Mao, Chavez, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, PLO, Hamas, Che Guevara... you name it. All were supported in their turn. Why should Saddam be the only anti-American murderous thug not on their Christmas list?

Just to give an example: Humeini killed more people in the first month he was in power (about 20,000) than the Shah killed in 38 years in power. Yet in that month, and long after, the Iranian "revolution" (in reality a group of thugs being replaced by a far worse group of much more evil thugs) was hailed as a "liberation" from the "human rights violating" Shah's regime. But the Shah was pro-American, you see, so he was eeeeeeeeeeeevil, and why not give this Humeini guy a chance?

[NWO Sentryman]

Skeptic, perhaps people's attitudes to the dictators du jour may be due to their wearing of rose tinted glasses?

04IfpCGX61s

Most notably Pilger's attitudes to Saddam.

But back to the topic, i think the War for Oil Canard has been truly and completely debunked. One reason: Halliburton did not get all or most of the contracts.

[isaone]

The war was not started as a conspiracy for oil. Those guys in the Bush administration were no where near competent enough to pull something off like that .

[The Fool]

Don't you understand?

If oil was sold in Euros and is now sold in dollars, that is evidence it was war for oil for obvious reasons.
If oil was sold in dollars and is now sold in euros, that is evidence that it was war for oil that simply failed to "stop the decline of America".
If oil was sold in dollars and is still sold in dollars, that is evidence that Saddam planned to sell it is Euros but the war stopped him, so it is once more war for oil.

Simple, isn't it?
sorry, it is just possible that you are too limited to comprehend the importance to the US of the continued Denomination of oil sales in US dollars. And Americas obvious preference in keeping oil trade securely denominated in US Dollars.

[The Fool]

The Fool, a Conspiracy theorist? I'd not have seen that one coming.

Since it was previously sold in dollars, your "now securely being sold in dollars" is a bit dishonest of you.

DR
you are not aware of Saddams decision to switch to selling Iraqi oil in euro's?? Maybe you should read up on it and review your decision to call my post "dishonest"

[Skeptic]

sorry, it is just possible that you are too limited to comprehend the importance to the US of ...

Classical conspiracy theory thinking: those who disagree with your completely unfalsifiable claim are just too limited to understand what is really going on.

[The Fool]

Classical conspiracy theory thinking: those who disagree with your completely unfalsifiable claim are just too limited to understand what is really going on.
Lol... Unfalsifiable claims? What claim is that? That it is important to the US that Oil is sold in US dollars?

please tell me you are not yet another person who has no Idea of the importance of the currency oil is traded in?

No son...the reason you are too limited to comprehend its importance is mainly that you don't have a clue what it is all about. What currency oil trading is denominated in??? shucks...why should anyone care about that?

you can go back to sleep now.

[FedUpWithFaith]

Did Vietnam and Korea have oil?
Did Bosnia or Kosovo?


Have you ever taken a close look at the complexion or felt the hair of a Bosnian?

Until you do, don't tell me there's no oil there.

[theprestige]

you are not aware of Saddams decision to switch to selling Iraqi oil in euro's?? Maybe you should read up on it and review your decision to call my post "dishonest"

I was not aware of this decision. So I Googled "Saddam's decision to switch to selling Iraqi oil in euros". Here's the top result: Iraq: Baghdad Moves To Euro (http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1095057.html).

But analysts say the political message Baghdad is sending is largely symbolic because the currency switch offers no gains or losses for any of the states involved except Iraq.

If the US isn't harmed by the decision, it's hardly a reason to go to war, don't you think? But please feel free to cite your own preferred source of analysis on this subject.

[Skeptic]

It's the usual conspiracy theory thinking "proof-by-retrofitting".

Take the last five (say) years before the invasion. Saddam did some things that hurt USA's oil interests, some thing that helped USA oil interests, and some things that had no effect on USA oil interests.

In reverse order:

1). Ignore the last group.
2). Claim the second group is proof the USA and Saddam were allies and buddies, so the real reason for the war could not possibly be Saddam's aggression.
3). Claim the first group is proof the USA and Saddam were rivals.
4). Since (2) proved the real reason for the war couldn't possibly be the claimed one, say that (3) proves the real reason for the war is "oil".
5). Call your nonsense "looking at the big picture" or "in-depth look at the root causes".

Oh, the last five years aren't enough? No matter -- go back 10, 15, 30, or 100 years until you find someone in the area who did things the USA liked and things the USA didn't like about oil. Repeat steps 1-4. In step 5 call what you do "historical analysis of imperialism".

Now you are officially so much smarter and morally superior to the sheeple, it's a wonder you can pass a mirror without kissing it. Mission accomplished -- because, after all, narcissistic self-praise is the real reason for most conspiracy theories.

[JihadJane]

Jihadjane

The Articles talks about death Squads in Iraq and US inaction over them, not about US control of them.

Google "School of the Americas".

If the US wants control of iraq, then how come there have been plans for withdrawal rather than plans for making it the 51st state?

Is this a serious question?

as for the UAV comments, you seem to imply the US is committing genocide in Iraq. Show evidence for that. Not some crazy Conspiracy theory site. Hard evidence.

I said ethnic cleansing not genocide.

The US is NOT at war with Iraq anymore, and the insurgency is a separate war from the liberation of Iraq

If you say so!



There have been elections in Iraq, with a parliament and all that.

A puppet regime, supported by a massive foreign military occupation...

And if saddam was in the US's control, then why did they let him buy Russian or Chinese or french Hardware? And any US support for Saddam was a means to an end - namely, containment of Iran. Saddam was more into the Soviet SOI.

Saddam was useful to the US, then his sell-by date arrived.

"Palestinian resistance?"

:dl:

If Holocaust Deniers and driving your enemy into the sea is your defintion of resistance, then yeah, they are a threat to stability in the middle east.

Saddam was an antisemite and hated Israel, and to that end he sought its destruction. Such actions would have led to war sooner or later.


It's apt that you use a child's cartoon to represent your political analysis.

[NWO Sentryman]

1. Not relevant. We are talking about Ira, not the Cold War in Latin America.

2. yes.

3. goalpost move checked.

4. A popularly elected government, with an occupation that's getting smaller and smaller.

5. No, Saddam was in the KGB's hands. and he got his T-72s, Mirages, Type X tanks and T-55s before 1983.

6. Ad Hominem.

[JihadJane]

1. Not relevant. We are talking about Ira, not the Cold War in Latin America.

It's entirely relevant. Why should US change its MO? The same people who organized Soth American death squads were also busy in Iraq. e.g , the US Ambassador in Baghdad, John Negroponte (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article410491.ece)

"THE Pentagon is considering forming hit squads of Kurdish and Shia fighters to target leaders of the Iraqi insurgency in a strategic shift borrowed from the American struggle against left-wing guerrillas in Central America 20 years ago." The Times, 2005.

'El Salvador-style 'death squads' to be deployed by US against Iraq militants'


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article410491.ece


Some background

Proof of US orchestration of Death Squads Killings in Iraq (http://www.brusselstribunal.org/FullerKillings.htm)

Crying Wolf: Media Disinformation and Death Squads in Occupied Iraq
(http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1230)


2. yes.

It's inconceivavble that the US would make a sovereign nation thousands of miles away a US state.

3. goalpost move checked.

Where did I say anything about genocide?

4. A popularly elected government, with an occupation that's getting smaller and smaller.

Only at least 200,000 US personnel and mercenaries to go!

5. No, Saddam was in the KGB's hands. and he got his T-72s, Mirages, Type X tanks and T-55s before 1983.

I suggest you study Iraq's war with Iran.

6. Ad Hominem.

:dl:

[NWO Sentryman]

1.

oh joy, Brusselstribunal. Biggest bunch of Milosevic/saddam apologists.

And Global research.ca is as reliable as thirdworldtraveler and prisonplanet.

The Times link said it was considered, and does not say whether or not it was used. As well as that, their goal was not to kill civilians but to assassinae insurgency leaders.

2. You said the US was going to control iraq. They are not. Why else have they allowed free elections?

3. You hinted at it.

4. The US will withdraw from iraq by 2020, but the timetable needs to be drawn up first.

5. The US did give some support, but that was nothing compared to other nations' support.

[imjohn]

I have always thought that if the war had just been about oil, that paying Saddam off would have been cheaper than war.

[FedUpWithFaith]

Canada has an almost 100% reliance on the US market for their oil export market-- there's no need for military action.Yes, the ONLY REASON Canada is not invaded by the USA is that it sells it enough of its oil.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

There are plenty of good reasons to invade Canada other than taking it's oil. We should steal it's healthcare system too.

Plus less face it, Canadians are smug pricks always thumbing their noses at us, especially the French ones. They all deserve an ass-whooping.

The real reason we won't invade that country is because then we'd have to occupy it. And who wants to live in that cold s**thole with all those damn Canadians?

[JihadJane]

1.

oh joy, Brusselstribunal. Biggest bunch of Milosevic/saddam apologists.

And Global research.ca is as reliable as thirdworldtraveler and prisonplanet.

The Times link said it was considered, and does not say whether or not it was used. As well as that, their goal was not to kill civilians but to assassinae insurgency leaders.

That was also the excuse for murdering civilians in South America.

What are the reliable sources that have made you believe that the US does not run death squads?

The American Elite (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24342.htm)

2. You said the US was going to control iraq. They are not. Why else have they allowed free elections?

Because "democracy" is the preferred window dressing for garrisoning.

3. You hinted at it.

In your imagination/wishful thinking.

4. The US will withdraw from iraq by 2020, but the timetable needs to be drawn up first.

I bet you it won't!

Why has the US wasted all that money building huge, permanent military bases in Iraq?

5. The US did give some support, but that was nothing compared to other nations' support.

So what?

[Praktik]

There are plenty of good reasons to invade Canada other than taking it's oil. We should steal it's healthcare system too.

Plus less face it, Canadians are smug pricks always thumbing their noses at us, especially the French ones. They all deserve an ass-whooping.

The real reason we won't invade that country is because then we'd have to occupy it. And who wants to live in that cold s**thole with all those damn Canadians?

The great thing about living next to America, beyond the nice export market for our fantastic pot, is that when you're feelin down you can just look south, and instantly feel better about yourself and your country.

[NWO Sentryman]

That was also the excuse for murdering civilians in South America.

Em, no it was central America. Get your facts straight. And it was about fighting KGB backed marxists who sought to set up a totalitarian state.

What are the reliable sources that have made you believe that the US does not run death squads?

The Times, the Guardian etc. They all said about Hit squads that were codenamed the El Salvador Option. None of them said about massacring civilians

The American Elite (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24342.htm)

Oh Joy, Information Clearing House, a truther source. the very title itself suggests something conspiracy related. Listen, it has as much credibility asa infowars or Lew Rockwell. Guess Who wrote it? William Blum, an unrepentant Stalinist who cheerleaded the Soviet invasion of afghanistan. His credibility takes a nose dive when he compares the cold war to the Holocaust and smashes godwin's law to a thousand pieces.

As for cuba having the best human rights record: http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=384&key=199&parent=19&report=79

Because "democracy" is the preferred window dressing for garrisoning.

Em, free and fair elections setting up a legitimate constitutional government is somehow window dressing?

In your imagination/wishful thinking.

No, you implied they were committing genocide.

I bet you it won't!

How much are you willing to bet?

Why has the US wasted all that money building huge, permanent military bases in Iraq?

It's part of an agreement to site military bases there to ensure Al-Qaeda does not return.

So what?

i disproved the claim that America was the main armer of Saddam.

[JihadJane]

Em, no it was central America. Get your facts straight. And it was about fighting KGB backed marxists who sought to set up a totalitarian state.

It was Central and South America.

I'll refrain from laughing dogging your second sentence ...



The Times, the Guardian etc. They all said about Hit squads that were codenamed the El Salvador Option. None of them said about massacring civilians

Is that as far as of your curiosity takes you?



Oh Joy, Information Clearing House, a truther source. the very title itself suggests something conspiracy related. Listen, it has as much credibility asa infowars or Lew Rockwell. Guess Who wrote it? William Blum, an unrepentant Stalinist who cheerleaded the Soviet invasion of afghanistan. His credibility takes a nose dive when he compares the cold war to the Holocaust and smashes godwin's law to a thousand pieces.



You sure love your ideological security blankets!


Em, free and fair elections setting up a legitimate constitutional government is somehow window dressing?

A country under massive foreign military occupation cannot be a democracy.



No, you implied they were committing genocide.

Where?



How much are you willing to bet?

One trillion US dollars.

(Not payable if withdrawal is precipitated by the collapse of the US economy)



It's part of an agreement to site military bases there to ensure Al-Qaeda does not return.

Ha ha!

"Al Qaeda" wasn't even in Iraq until the US "liberated" it.




i disproved the claim that America was the main armer of Saddam.

So what? I never said America was.

[NWO Sentryman]

It was Central and South America.

You said only south America. Look at the previous comments.

I'll refrain from laughing dogging your second sentence ...

In the book The Mitrokhin Archive II: The KGB and the world, it proves that the KGB founded the Sandinistas and after their coup in 1979, they began supporting the FMLN in El Salvador. The KGB and the DGI (Cuban Intelligence) as well as the German Stasi (:eek:) were helping the Sandinsitas consolidate their control of Nicaragua and stir up trouble in El Salvador.

Is that as far as of your curiosity takes you?

I read the Article, and nothing

You sure love your ideological security blankets!

Em, no, I had a good discussion with some very good people who know about the author on another forum, althouhg it's in the member's only section. The Author is an unrepentant Stalinist who went out of his way to portray the Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan in very colonialistic terms. This, combined witht he Article being hosted with a very unreliable website as well as some disproval of its claims means that it is an unreliable source.

A country under massive foreign military occupation cannot be a democracy.

Germany and Japan.

Where?

I'll Show you

Are you suggesting that the occupiers' higher tech, less hands-on methods of violent intimidation are somehow more moral and wholesome than beheadings?

Which implied the US was committing genocide.

One trillion US dollars.

(Not payable if withdrawal is precipitated by the collapse of the US economy)

Sorry, not going to agree to such a bet because i don't have that high level of money. I don't think even you have that sort of money.

"Al Qaeda" wasn't even in Iraq until the US "liberated" it.

So you think Al-Qaeda never existed?

The US did liberate Iraq from an awful tyrant who murdered millions.

So what? I never said America was.

Em you aid they controlled him, which implied they gave him all his toys

[Skeptic]

The great thing about living next to America, beyond the nice export market for our fantastic pot, is that when you're feelin down you can just look south, and instantly feel better about yourself and your country.

And to think I thought many "progressives" are "progressives" mostly due to social snobism of wanting to seem smarter than others.