BP

[s.a.f]

Obviously I cant even begin to go into details about what governments strategies are. But in quick summary the common sense view shared by nearly 100% of the population here in the U.S and just about everywhere else in the world is: That Iraq is sitting on massive oil reserves whilst the west is the biggest user of this finate natural resource. Makes sense for them to take action now to do whatever it takes to safeguard their future accessability to it. Before it gets to the position where the middle east has them literaly over a barrel.
Now I'm sure that an intelligent guy like yourself can provide 100's of pages of excuses contrary to that. But to the rest of the world it looks just as big a coincidence as the fact that Halliburton was awarded the Iraq rebuilding contracts.
If not for oil what exactly was the reason for our invasion of Iraq? :dunno:
In 1990 they gifted us an excuse with Iran, but the last time?
Funny how we dont see any need to impose regime changes in Burma, China, Korea or Zimbabwe.

 

[Boondock]

The thing that's always surprised me about the Iraq War is that if, as many claim, the US/UK force was so corrupt and deceitful, why didn't they just fake a few findings of WMDs?

Who claims that the US/UK force was "corrupt and deceitful"?

Almost by definition, anybody who claims that the real motives for the war were oil and economic benefit as opposed to the stated, official objectives.

 

[Bryan]

Obviously I cant even begin to go into details about what governments strategies are.

You mean, not like my sister did?

But in quick summary the common sense view shared by nearly 100% of the population here in the U.S and just about everywhere else in the world is: That Iraq is sitting on massive oil reserves whilst the west is the biggest user of this finate natural resource. Makes sense for them to take action now to do whatever it takes to safeguard their future accessability to it.

Oh, do we now have "accessibility" to all their oil? Have we taken it away from them? Have we backed-up a giant US oil tanker to one of their oil ports, and told them (as Glen Beck, a right-wing talk-show host childishly suggested recently) to "Fill 'er up!"?

Now I'm sure that an intelligent guy like yourself can provide 100's of pages of excuses contrary to that. But to the rest of the world it looks just as big a coincidence as the fact that Halliburton was awarded the Iraq rebuilding contracts.
If not for oil what exactly was the reason for our invasion of Iraq? :dunno:

My sister already explained to you the reasons for our invasion.

Funny how we dont see any need to impose regime changes in Burma, China, Korea or Zimbabwe.

I've already explained THAT several times in the past, too! Look, we just don't have the wherewithal to go all around the world imposing regime change, wherever we think it's needed. For God's sake, what do you think would happen if we tried to invade China?? Can you say THERMONUCLEAR WAR?! :shock:

We have to pick our battles VERY CAREFULLY. We have to pick the battles WE THINK WE CAN WIN, and Iraq was one of them. China and North Korea? No, sorry...

 

[Bryan]

Almost by definition, anybody who claims that the real motives for the war were oil and economic benefit as opposed to the stated, official objectives.

Okay, but I think that's been nicely explained by my sister.

 

[s.a.f]

Oh, do we now have "accessibility" to all their oil? Have we taken it away from them? Have we backed-up a giant US oil tanker to one of their oil ports, and told them (as Glen Beck, a right-wing talk-show host childishly suggested recently) to "Fill 'er up!"?

Oh I'd say having a occupying military force in the country pretty much guarantees us accesability to it. I did'nt say we were stealing it but with us being a controlling force in the country (and I'm guessing the refineries ect are probably now under control or at least working with the U.S oil companies now)I'd say when we want to trade with them we'll be more than able.

Think about the alternative scenario about 30 yrs in the future and the west having used up all their reserves calls up the current dictator Saddams grandson. "hello its America here we're running kinda low on gas supplies and were wondering can we buy some of your oil please"?

We have to pick our battles VERY CAREFULLY. We have to pick the battles WE THINK WE CAN WIN, and Iraq was one of them. China and North Korea? No, sorry...

So you're actually admitting that we started the whole war? Or dont you mean we have to invent our reasons for invasion very carefully?

 

[Bryan]

Oh I'd say having a occupying military force in the country pretty much guarantees us accesability to it.

Uh-huh. So we invaded a country at ENORMOUS cost to us in lives, materiel, and money, just so we could have "accessibility" to their oil in the future. Yeah, right.

I did'nt say we were stealing it but with us being a controlling force in the country (and I'm guessing the refineries ect are probably now under control or at least working with the U.S oil companies now)I'd say when we want to trade with them we'll be more than able.

If and when we trade with them, you can bet your sweet patootie that it'll be AT THE FULL WORLD MARKET PRICE FOR OIL.

We have to pick our battles VERY CAREFULLY. We have to pick the battles WE THINK WE CAN WIN, and Iraq was one of them. China and North Korea? No, sorry...

So you're actually admitting that we started the whole war? Or dont you mean we have to invent our reasons for invasion very carefully?

Huh?? OF COURSE we started the war, and for the reasons that have already been explained. How many times do we have to go over this?

 

[s.a.f]

Oh I'd say having a occupying military force in the country pretty much guarantees us accesability to it.

Uh-huh. So we invaded a country at ENORMOUS cost to us in lives, materiel, and money, just so we could have "accessibility" to their oil in the future. Yeah, right.

Err yeah :hump: thats exactly what we did!!! A few thousand soldiers, (none of them sons of the politicians) billions of dollars (but we own the companies manufacturing the arms anyway). Yes its a high price to pay but to ensure the future of the oil dependant U.S economy its a price the government is willing to pay. This was just forward thinking. I'm not complaining as a westerner I'll benefit but at least I'm being honest about it.

If and when we trade with them, you can bet your sweet patootie that it'll be AT THE FULL WORLD MARKET PRICE FOR OIL.

[/quote]
Obviously since we probably control the companies that will be refining/selling it, and set the market price.

But think of the other scenario that I mentioned in the previous post they would have been in a position to charge whatever the hell they liked (literally have us over a barrel.)

 

[Bryan]

Err yeah :hump: thats exactly what we did!!! A few thousand soldiers, (none of them sons of the politicians) billions of dollars (but we own the companies manufacturing the arms anyway). Yes its a high price to pay but to ensure the future of the oil dependant U.S economy its a price the government is willing to pay. This was just forward thinking. I'm not complaining as a westerner I'll benefit but at least I'm being honest about it.

Oh, well. You can believe any naive thing you want, but it's been explained to you by somebody who knows better.

 

[Nene]

The thing that's always surprised me about the Iraq War is that if, as many claim, the US/UK force was so corrupt and deceitful, why didn't they just fake a few findings of WMDs? It would've been easier to do this than to deal with the political fallout from them being wrong.

I've often wondered why they didn't plant it myself.

 

[Nene]

Err yeah :hump: thats exactly what we did!!! A few thousand soldiers, (none of them sons of the politicians) billions of dollars (but we own the companies manufacturing the arms anyway). Yes its a high price to pay but to ensure the future of the oil dependant U.S economy its a price the government is willing to pay. This was just forward thinking. I'm not complaining as a westerner I'll benefit but at least I'm being honest about it.

Oh, well. You can believe any naive thing you want, but it's been explained to you by somebody who knows better.

It's not naive at all. It's well documented that Cheney and co created their own intelligence dept, and coerced the CIA to fabricate evidence of weapons of mass destruction being in Iraq. All the info that Colin Powell took to the UN for that presentation was bogus. Why did the entire U.N not seem concerned about the WMD? They knew Iraq was no threat. Bush himself is on video saying something along the lines of, "war is the health of the nation," in Oliver Stone's new movie. Then this war became the most privatized war in history and companies such as Halliburton made billions upon billions. So lets see, no one was worried about WMD except Bush's administration, Bush's friends made billions from the war and then low and behold no WMDs were found after all and this country just happens to be sitting on a black gold mine. Just a big coincidence right? I think it's naive to actually believe we thought there were weapons of mass destruction!

 

[Nene]

Additionally pre-emptive war is not ok and was never a policy of our country. As S.A.F has pointed out there were countries that were much more dangerous such as North Korea. However, as you imply, we only want to kick *** if it's easy to kick. If we were truly trying to take out dangerous leaders, we should have went to North Korea because they are by far a bigger threat. If a country is easy to beat up on I think that shows that it is not much of threat at all.

 

[somone uk]

In all fairness the US and the UK have acted with impunity before for the sake of oil and the wealth it brings (such as supporting the 1953 Iranian coup)
if the iraq invasion was for the sake of oil money than at least it brought democracy rather than taken it away
although the us usually uses the CIAs books on political engineering if they had such an intention i somehow don't see that to be the reason

this seems newspaper article and 2 youtubes seem to reflect the true reason i think we went to iraq
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa
[youtube:1ekpqj5v]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw4Bhmm22xo[/youtube:1ekpqj5v]
[youtube:1ekpqj5v]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8OszuZOXSU[/youtube:1ekpqj5v]

 

[The Gardener]

In all fairness the US and the UK have acted with impunity before for the sake of oil and the wealth it brings (such as supporting the 1953 Iranian coup)

We put the House of Saud into power in Arabia... because they were willing to give Aramco a sweet deal. Most all oil exporting countries have been victim to our heavy hand. Consider Suharto in Indonesia, the military junta in Nigeria, the "Caudillos" in Venezuela, etc. Everywhere there is black gold, Uncle Sam's got a strongman or strings attached, in one form or fashion or another.

 

[Bryan]

Oh, well. You can believe any naive thing you want, but it's been explained to you by somebody who knows better.

It's not naive at all. It's well documented that Cheney and co created their own intelligence dept, and coerced the CIA to fabricate evidence of weapons of mass destruction being in Iraq. All the info that Colin Powell took to the UN for that presentation was bogus. Why did the entire U.N not seem concerned about the WMD? They knew Iraq was no threat. Bush himself is on video saying something along the lines of, "war is the health of the nation," in Oliver Stone's new movie. Then this war became the most privatized war in history and companies such as Halliburton made billions upon billions. So lets see, no one was worried about WMD except Bush's administration, Bush's friends made billions from the war and then low and behold no WMDs were found after all and this country just happens to be sitting on a black gold mine. Just a big coincidence right? I think it's naive to actually believe we thought there were weapons of mass destruction!

When I said it was "naive", I was specifically referring to the belief that the war was over OIL. There were additional factors (besides just the WMDs) that they wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

 

[Nene]

Oh, well. You can believe any naive thing you want, but it's been explained to you by somebody who knows better.

It's not naive at all. It's well documented that Cheney and co created their own intelligence dept, and coerced the CIA to fabricate evidence of weapons of mass destruction being in Iraq. All the info that Colin Powell took to the UN for that presentation was bogus. Why did the entire U.N not seem concerned about the WMD? They knew Iraq was no threat. Bush himself is on video saying something along the lines of, "war is the health of the nation," in Oliver Stone's new movie. Then this war became the most privatized war in history and companies such as Halliburton made billions upon billions. So lets see, no one was worried about WMD except Bush's administration, Bush's friends made billions from the war and then low and behold no WMDs were found after all and this country just happens to be sitting on a black gold mine. Just a big coincidence right? I think it's naive to actually believe we thought there were weapons of mass destruction!

When I said it was "naive", I was specifically referring to the belief that the war was over OIL. There were additional factors (besides just the WMDs) that they wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

Oh. Well I agree with you, there were certainly more reasons besides Oil and WMDs (which I think they may have believed were there but they never had enough evidence.)

 

[Bryan]

Oh. Well I agree with you, there were certainly more reasons besides Oil and WMDs (which I think they may have believed were there but they never had enough evidence.)

Oil wasn't a factor.

 

[s.a.f]

Oh. Well I agree with you, there were certainly more reasons besides Oil and WMDs (which I think they may have believed were there but they never had enough evidence.)

Oil wasn't a factor.

Lol well since the WMD were 'invented' what was?

 

[HughJass]

Bryan, I noticed in your sister's email that her opinion that the Iraq invasion had nothing to with oil was based on 'her own sources' and 'books/articles/research papers that have been written on the internal decision-making process within the USG prior to the invasison'

Her own sources could be just hearsay and as for research papers- what about all the unofficial conversations that went on behind closed doors? For example, and I could be wrong, but I don't remember PNAC and all the other neocons rallying for the war mentioning anything in public about the invasion being to protect Israel, yet some of the neocons like Phillip Zelikow have more than hinted that it was high up on the list of priorities.

So it begs the question what else was spoken about off the record? Is corporate lobbying (from oil companies in particular) in your country done behind closed doors?

 

[Bryan]

Aussieavodart, I'll email your post to my sister, and see if she has any further comments to make about it!

 

[HughJass]

sounds good Bryan, will be interesting to hear what she says