Was Iraq about oil?

[demagogic_schizoid]

There's a lot of confusion on this issue. Well at least, I'm confused. Now I realise it's not a black and white question, that you can say the war wasn't directly about oil, but that the only reason we were intertwined with Iraq was because it had oil etc. But I'll refer you to just some of the arguments I've heard:

On the one hand, Argument 1:

In September 2002, Iraq stopped trading it's oil in Dollars, and switched to the Euro. Within a year, it had been invaded.

This looks quite compelling. But I've also heard that there were plans for the war in Iraq long before that date. Was that because the knew Saddam was planning this, or was this simply a reactive measure by him?

Also, does the US now control Iraqi oil? I thought the Iraqi economy was being privatised. If so, why would multinational companies necessarilly do what the American govt. wants? It's not like they act as a block - each one is out to gain an advantage over the other. Despite what many people think, is there any evidence that corporations would work together on this and with the US govt. rather than simply making as much money as possible in the short-term? Would it be in their interests to trade oil in dollars or Euros? What are the reasons for and against this?

Also, who DOES actually control Iraqi oil right now?

Can the US actually stop the current Iraqi govt. trading oil in Euros?

You could say they are a puppet govt. but if they think Iran can provide them more effective help than the US (and they do seem to be getting close to Iran) then they will surely follow the Iranian policy of moving towards the Euro.

On the other hand, Argument 2:

If the US was only interested in oil, it had two options. It could have
a.) launched an expensive (on all counts) war to bring about regime change and hope it was succesful in bringing the country under control and making sure the new regime was favourable to it's interests and strong enough to serve them and remain in power

OR

b.) cut a deal with the Saddam Hussein to loosen sanctions on Iraq, help his govt. etc., in return for cheap oil. - Which do you think would be more effective.

Was option b.) open to the US? In the long term, is it plausible that they saw option a.) as more beneficial to their long-term interest? Is the argument invalidated by the fact that the US administration simply didn't know how hard the war in Iraq would be? Also, if the war wasn't about oil, what WAS it about?


Now, note that I'm not asking was the war right or not. I'm asking if it was about oil. So address these arguments or bring in any new arguments/evidence about the oil factor as you wish. If only to educate me a bit on this issue.

[nfinityi]

Put it this way, North Korea doesn't have oil, but Iran does. Which one are we almost certain to invade before the end of Bush's presidency?

[htb]

Was option b.) open to the US?Of course it was, and yes, it was the most pragmatic course of action; which is why successive Russian and French governments, Saddam's chief weapons suppliers and principal trading partners for decades, chose it.

Sudan has oil, and Russia and China want it, so Khartoum's sponsorship of extermination in Darfur is something that Moscow and Beijing would rather not discuss.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Put it this way, North Korea doesn't have oil, but Iran does. Which one are we almost certain to invade before the end of Bush's presidency?

North Korea has nukes. Even Bush isn't dumb enough to attack them.

Also, Serbia didn't have oil did it, and the evil empire struck there too.

[nfinityi]

North Korea has nukes. Even Bush isn't dumb enough to attack them.
Please. North Korea isn't dumb enough to strike against the US, when it and its allies have enough nukes to destroy the world about 40 times over.

Also, Serbia didn't have oil did it, and the evil empire struck there too.
I'm not familiar with the Serbian incident, but wasn't that a different administration altogether?

[demagogic_schizoid]

Please. North Korea isn't dumb enough to strike against the US, when it and its allies have enough nukes to destroy the world about 40 times over.

I don't know, Kim Jong Il is an old man, after seeing what happened to Saddam, if the US attacked him, he might decide to go out with a bang. In any case, he wouldn't be choosing to strike the US, he would be acting in self-defence. Back a tiger into a corner...


I'm not familiar with the Serbian incident, but wasn't that a different administration altogether?

Yes but usually the argument is that American foreign policy is only interested in oil. This is usally used to explain the US's agenda agianst Saddam, which Clinton continued ruthlessly. Also, the Democracts largely supported the Iraq invasion, so if the war is about oil, then they are also tainted by this corruption. If so, why would they have been any different when they were in power under Clinton?

[nfinityi]

I don't know, Kim Jong Il is an old man, after seeing what happened to Saddam, if the US attacked him, he might decide to go out with a bang. In any case, he wouldn't be choosing to strike the US, he would be acting in self-defence. Back a tiger into a corner...
Try a tabby cat. And I'm sure we have the technology to destroy nukes before they make it here.

Yes but usually the argument is that American foreign policy is only interested in oil. This is usally used to explain the US's agenda agianst Saddam, which Clinton continued ruthlessly. Also, the Democracts largely supported the Iraq invasion, so if the war is about oil, then they are also tainted by this corruption. If so, why would they have been any different when they were in power under Clinton?
I don't see why securing the current life-blood of this nation is viewed as corruption. If they went in for oil, that's fine. Just be honest about it. Don't put up this bullshit front about spreading democracy and whatnot. Does that mean I'll be gung-hoe no matter how badly it's handled? Absolutely not. But I realize that we need cheap oil to survive as a country.

[booyalab]

no.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Try a tabby cat. And I'm sure we have the technology to destroy nukes before they make it here.


I don't know. I don't know if anyone does. I doubt the American govt. would risk it. Anyway, he could use radioactive technology on American troops. He could nuke South Korea, there's any number of depserate and damaging things he could do, really, it's stupid to specualte. My point is America is probably too scared to attack him because he has nukes, and they simply don't know what he might do or when exactly he might do it.


don't see why securing the current life-blood of this nation is viewed as corruption. If they went in for oil, that's fine. Just be honest about it. Don't put up this bullshit front about spreading democracy and whatnot. Does that mean I'll be gung-hoe no matter how badly it's handled? Absolutely not. But I realize that we need cheap oil to survive as a country

Well if you hadn't noticed the Iraq war has pushed oil prices up, so that would hardly be a plausible justification.

[demagogic_schizoid]

no.

Do you know why though? I want some arguments from some people who know more than me, so I'll be able to have an informed opinion on the matter rather than just guessing. Because on other forums and blogs, it's something I talk about quite a lot. If you've got a good argument, don't be shy.

[MacGuffin]

You have failed to realize just how idealistic the neo-cons are/were. They really believed they could bring democracy to the Middle East and preserve the long term fate of Israel.

[Jennywocky]

You have failed to realize just how idealistic the neo-cons are/were. They really believed they could bring democracy to the Middle East and preserve the long term fate of Israel.

I agree with Darth. I really think it was mostly misplaced idealism by a bunch of people who aren't very good with iNtuitive thought.

Maybe oil was a secondary concern, but Bush actually believes in what he's doing and is too stubborn to accept that the strategy was flawed and real-time tactical decisions cannot overcome an inherently bad situation.

[demagogic_schizoid]

You have failed to realize just how idealistic the neo-cons are/were. They really believed they could bring democracy to the Middle East and preserve the long term fate of Israel.

I was just asking. I actually tend towards agreeing with this. But I want to be sure that I'm not missing any good evidence that it was about oil before I make a decision about it.

[htb]

You have failed to realize just how idealistic the neo-cons are/were. They really believed they could bring democracy to the Middle East and preserve the long term fate of Israel.Idealism in foreign policy is negotiating or otherwise engaging with dictators or authoritarian parties as if they were honest brokers, let alone those who share the same interests as elected leaders. No dictator has ever abided by an agreement that was not his own compelled surrender; never. There are some who believe in negotiating in vain anyway, and call it "realism."

As for democracy, there were three fair elections in Iraq, which inspired liberal movements of varying size and momentum in neighboring countries -- including the Lebanese Cedar Revolution in early 2005. Evasion or omission of this leaves one with your assertion.

[Carebear]

This matter is way too complex to answer in a single post. Yes, it was about oil, but no, it wasn't primarily (or at least only) about oil. Idealism, the project for a new american century, corruption, Halliburton, arrogance, incompetence, the lack of the red threat, peak oil, military needs for increased funds, Israel, Lockheed Martin, all these and many more enter into the equation and books upon books have been written on the subject, none of which manages to give a 100% explanation of what happened.

The short of it is: Yes, it was about oil and getting a foothold in the middle east (look at the bases from Kirgisistan to Saudi Arabia), but oil alone doesn't explain much at all without taking all the other factors into consideration.

[sorabji_66]

this is the INTP forum?

conspiracy theories???

okay, must still be in school or unemployed.

[cold]

x

[cold]

x

[zhang_bob]

I believe the Iraq war was about regime change, and G. W. Bush being far more stupid than his dad. Precisely the reason Saddam Hussein was still in power after the first Gulf War was because America did not want to happen what is happening now. Regime change is illegal under international law.

[firch]

I tend towards argument 1 because Saddam first suggested switching to the Euro currency back in the year 2000, a long enough time to plan an invasion, plus America wanted no doubt, a military presence on the borders of Iran and Syria rather than having those troops stationed in Saudi Arabia defending the oil.

If access to Iraqi oil was the goal (argument 2) then all America needed do was relax the oil for food sanctions. It should be noted that Iraqi oil production plummetted following the invasion and subsequent occupation.

[HilbertSpace]

We expect a fair amount of the oil trade may start moving into Euros. The problem for Middle Eastern nations is very much the same as the problem China's facing - they're holding a lot of dollars, which places all of their eggs in one basket. They want to diversify into Euros and gold, but cannot do so quickly because 1) the dollar is still worth holding, and 2) you can't dump large reserves all at once without devaluing your own holdings. A secondary factor is the low interest rates in the US relative to the other currencies.

[Huston]

Why would the U.S. go to war with Iraq because of the Euro. As it is now, most oil is going to Europe, just like before.

[Prothero]

Considering who benefits the most from mid-east oil:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/pgulf.html

and who provides oil to the US:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

and what's done with it (partial list):

http://www.beloit.edu/~SEPM/Geology_and_the_enviro/Petroleum_need.html

and whether it's a non-renewable resource:

http://www.rense.com/general63/staline.htm

it seems like the first question should be: "Are oil supplies worth fighting a war to maintain?" From the answer we can determine if the second question matters. If it does, it still seems like the original question needs to ask: "Was oil the only reason we waged war against Iraq?"

I would answer sometimes on the first, and no on the second (I'd be lost without faucet washers and LP records), but can understand why others may choose to answer no and yes. Some do so simply from their hatred of Bush, while many others have thought it through and come to a different conclusion than my own.
I might be wrong, but it appears the US didn't really need Iraq's oil and the invasion, both during and after, increased the risks for maintaining the supply. The US hasn't disrupted the distribution to its favor, pays for anything it does receive and has put its reputation with mid-east countries at risk.
Since Republicans and Democrats voted for the war there is reason to believe they saw it as a necessary gamble. That more than 40 countries joined the coalition forces tends to support this belief:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq

I also find hope in the number of military reserve personnel who continue to volunteer for duty over there. Those I know who have been there (more than once in some cases) tell a different story than we hear from the media and seeing a picture of an Iraqi woman with a purple finger offers hope for the future.

[firch]

Why would the U.S. go to war with Iraq because of the Euro. As it is now, most oil is going to Europe, just like before.
If oil is only traded in dollars it creates demand for dollars thus countries will want to trade with the US in order to get hold of dollars in order to buy oil.

If euros will do just fine it can make US trade somewhat irrelevant to many third world nations thus making US access to their economies and natural resources more difficult since reciprocal trade deals with the US that favour the US will no longer be essential. This in turn puts the US at a competitive disadvantage in the world economy when having to pay full market price for raw materials from abroad and with the possibility of having to pay trade tariffs in order to access foreign markets when selling finished goods.

When you see it like that the cost of invading a mid size country in the middle east doesn't seem so high, although with hindsight....

[Ferrus]

Undoubtedly such oleaginous concerns were a constitutive element in the rationale behind the decision of the US to attack Iraq. Indeed Saudi Arabia feared its domination of the oil market may be hindered by an occupied Iraq. However to assert that it was the lone motive is the apogee of facileness. A great many other strategic concerns undoubtedly precipitated the US government's decision. Public opinion, the need to have a strong base in the Middle East and the desire to show certain messages and spread 'American values' into the world were all a part of the horrific farrago of events that lead to this folly. In international realist terms it was a miscalculation of the highest order that will redound erratically for many years hence.

[nfinityi]

I don't know. I don't know if anyone does. I doubt the American govt. would risk it. Anyway, he could use radioactive technology on American troops. He could nuke South Korea, there's any number of depserate and damaging things he could do, really, it's stupid to specualte. My point is America is probably too scared to attack him because he has nukes, and they simply don't know what he might do or when exactly he might do it.
Yes. This is completely supported by how we treated Iraq. We weren't told we were going in because he had weapons of mass destruction or anything like that :joft:

Well if you hadn't noticed the Iraq war has pushed oil prices up, so that would hardly be a plausible justification.
Oil prices have gone up because China and Russia have been buying it in bulk left and right.

I was just asking. I actually tend towards agreeing with this. But I want to be sure that I'm not missing any good evidence that it was about oil before I make a decision about it.
As evidenced by your myriad threads on Iran lol.

[meanlittlechimp]

I think it's about oil AND China. The wolfowitz papers written in I think 1992 basically predict Chinese growth rates at 10% a year (which turned out to be amazingly accurate). The right wing think tanks and policy makers solution to this (opposed to strengthening the economy through education and other means) decided we should take it by force. Their plan of action was to maintain strength through military muscle than economic fairplay. If you read the policy papers they wrote, everything was about how to combat Chinese demand and subsequent rise in raw materials and how it affect the US economy.

In other words, they correctly assumed that an economy growing at that rate would put so much pressure on the price of natural resources and specifically oil, their would be catastrophe eventually. If the chinese are bidding for oil in a free market because they need it to produce goods to sell to other nations and we (the US) are buying the oil to drive SUVs, and fill out fighter plans with gas - they will eventually outbid us (since none of the above activities produces wealth). So they were trying to figure out an excuse to go into Iraq since 1992!!!

I think their analysis of the problem is correct but their solution is short sighted and in the long run detrimental to US interests.

The Bush administration doesn't attack North Korea, cause it's worried about North Korea. They don't attack because of Japanese, Chinese and South Korean retaliation and the fact it would force a detente amongst them to deal with a menacing US who is going in their backyard again to stir trouble.

[darlets]

no.

A retire american General and this Pomish Guy wrote a book on the Iraq War and their reasoning for the invasion went something like this.

A) The military intelligence(M.I) they had before the first invasion in 1990(?) suspected Saddem had a certain level of technology. After they invaded they found that he had a more advanced level of technology than the M.I suspected.

B)Saddem was getting cash from the Oil for Food program and he was going to have another source of income soon. (I'll have to look up the details)

C) The -> FRENCH <- were alledged to be willing to sell Saddem Nuclear technology. Saddem could also get weapons from the Russian Black Market

So the powers that be saw a potential supplier, a source of cash for the purchase and were worried about how far along he currently was and how well they could keep informed on it.

________________________________________________________________________________
Some background.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

______________________________________________________
Slightly OT
It's well worth reading about the history of Iraq over that last 100 years.
You'll see this isn't the first time the Iraq area has been invaded and the "Birth" of the country Iraq was far from peaceful.
http://lexicorient.com/e.o/iraq_5.htm

[meanlittlechimp]

You have failed to realize just how idealistic the neo-cons are/were. They really believed they could bring democracy to the Middle East and preserve the long term fate of Israel.

I doubt that. The Neo Cons were the same people working in the Nixon and Ford administrations. Just think about all the democracies the US has instituted. Then list all the democracies that we're overthrown and replaced by a dictatorship the US either supported or funded.

- Jacobo Arbenz (democratically elected president overthrown by the CIA)
- Salvador Allende (won through democratic election, overthrown and replaced with Pinochet)
- Mohammed Mossadegh (first constitutional democracy in Iran -which was a very west leaning secular government - overthrown and replaced with the Shah)
- Walter Rodney Assasinated (by the CIA) before he was going to be democraticaly elected to become Prime Minister of Guyana

There is a lot more than listed above. but I'm hard pressed to recall a dictactorship which is then replaced by democracy (with the exception of Japan/Germany during WWII). There is a recurring pattern here, and it's not some idealistic notion about spreading democracy.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Firch, if you tend towards argument one, then can you explain how exactly the US was hoping to ensure that after the war Iraqi oil would be traded in USD?

[MacGuffin]

I doubt that. The Neo Cons were the same people working in the Nixon and Ford administrations. Just think about all the democracies the US has instituted. Then list all the democracies that we're overthrown and replaced by a dictatorship the US either supported or funded.

- Jacobo Arbenz (democratically elected president overthrown by the CIA)
- Salvador Allende (won through democratic election, overthrown and replaced with Pinochet)
- Mohammed Mossadegh (first constitutional democracy in Iran -which was a very west leaning secular government - overthrown and replaced with the Shah)
- Walter Rodney Assasinated (by the CIA) before he was going to be democraticaly elected to become Prime Minister of Guyana

There is a lot more than listed above. but I'm hard pressed to recall a dictactorship which is then replaced by democracy (with the exception of Japan/Germany during WWII). There is a recurring pattern here, and it's not some idealistic notion about spreading democracy.
The neocons were frustrated back then. We are not talking about the Cheney wing of the executive branch. Those are the ones you are talking about above. Look up what Wolfowitz did to get the Reagan administration to stop supporting Ferdinand Marcos.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Yes. This is completely supported by how we treated Iraq. We weren't told we were going in because he had weapons of mass destruction or anything like that :joft:

You can't see the difference between the broad category "weapons of mass destruction", and "nuclear weapons":huh:


Oil prices have gone up because China and Russia have been buying it in bulk left and right.

Yeah, nothing to do with the war that crippled Iraq's economy and destabilized the middle east.:joft:

[intpgolfer]

Is the war on terror - the leading cause of world wide terrorism?

[demagogic_schizoid]

Is the war on terror - the leading cause of world wide terrorism?

Not a cause of it, as it started AFTER an act of terrorism. Perhaps it's a stupid response which has exacerbated it.

[Wolf]

Also, Serbia didn't have oil did it, and the evil empire struck there too.
That was the fault of you dirty Europeans and your UN.

[nfinityi]

You can't see the difference between the broad category "weapons of mass destruction", and "nuclear weapons":huh:
I can. I can also remember the word NukUlAR coming out of George W. Bushes mouth, but I can't remember how many times.

Yeah, nothing to do with the war that crippled Iraq's economy and destabilized the middle east.:joft:
That would cause prices to drop *refrains from derrogatory insult*

[demagogic_schizoid]

I can. I can also remember the word NukUlAR coming out of George W. Bushes mouth, but I can't remember how many times.

I don't know, I don't believe they thought he had nuclear technology anywhere near on a par what North Korea is suspected of having, or else I doubt they would have attacked him


That would cause prices to drop *refrains from derrogatory insult

Phew, I don't mind you insulting me, as long as it's not derogatory.

Anyway, no it wouldn't. And, it didn't. If they produce less oil, then it costs more you see. If the region is unstable, then prices will go up because buyers will be keen to hoard oil in case of future disruptions to the supply. (Quite apart from this is the fact that if the US pisses off the country's who sell them oil, they have the power, as part of the international cartel OPEC, to raise prices above market price anyway).

Did you fall asleep in Economics 101?

[demagogic_schizoid]

ah come on people we can do better than this. someone who thinks it was about oil could at least have a shot at answering the questions in the OP!

And I don't mean was it about oil in the way everything could conceivably have something to do with oil along the line. I mean was it about oil in the way that people who say "it's all about oil" mean.

[nfinityi]

What exactly was your motivation for creating this thread?

[demagogic_schizoid]

Well Nemesis, if you read the original post I think I made it pretty clear. However for you to actually read the words in front of you and work out what they mean is apparently asking too much, so I don't expect this to happen. I know it's hard for you, but this is an INTP forum, so one would think you could at least show us the courtesy of trying to use a little T from time to time before you jump into threads with pointless questions which the author went out of their way to answer in the introductory post. Besides, my motivation is quite irrelevant - if you simply can't hold a rational argument based on facts and logic, then I don't know what you're doing here.

[nfinityi]

Well Nemesis, if you read the original post I think I made it pretty clear. However for you to actually read the words in front of you and work out what they mean is apparently asking too much, so I don't expect this to happen. I know it's hard for you, but this is an INTP forum, so one would think you could at least show us the courtesy of trying to use a little T from time to time before you jump into threads with pointless questions which the author went out of their way to answer in the introductory post. Besides, my motivation is quite irrelevant - if you simply can't hold a rational argument based on facts and logic, then I don't know what you're doing here.
I meant what are you trying to prove, smartass, and I think you know that.

[demagogic_schizoid]

On the one hand, Argument 1:

In September 2002, Iraq stopped trading it's oil in Dollars, and switched to the Euro. Within a year, it had been invaded.

This looks quite compelling.


THEREFORE I want to find out more. It looks dodgy, but it's not enough on it's own for me to conclude that it was a cause of the war. I wanted to know more about this.
And then there's this:


Also, does the US now control Iraqi oil? I thought the Iraqi economy was being privatised. If so, why would multinational companies necessarilly do what the American govt. wants? It's not like they act as a block - each one is out to gain an advantage over the other. Despite what many people think, is there any evidence that corporations would work together on this and with the US govt. rather than simply making as much money as possible in the short-term? Would it be in their interests to trade oil in dollars or Euros? What are the reasons for and against this?

Also, who DOES actually control Iraqi oil right now?

Can the US actually stop the current Iraqi govt. trading oil in Euros?

You could say they are a puppet govt. but if they think Iran can provide them more effective help than the US (and they do seem to be getting close to Iran) then they will surely follow the Iranian policy of moving towards the Euro.

On the other hand, Argument 2:

If the US was only interested in oil, it had two options. It could have
a.) launched an expensive (on all counts) war to bring about regime change and hope it was succesful in bringing the country under control and making sure the new regime was favourable to it's interests and strong enough to serve them and remain in power

OR

b.) cut a deal with the Saddam Hussein to loosen sanctions on Iraq, help his govt. etc., in return for cheap oil. - Which do you think would be more effective.

Was option b.) open to the US? In the long term, is it plausible that they saw option a.) as more beneficial to their long-term interest? Is the argument invalidated by the fact that the US administration simply didn't know how hard the war in Iraq would be? Also, if the war wasn't about oil, what WAS it about?


Now, note that I'm not asking was the war right or not. I'm asking if it was about oil. So address these arguments or bring in any new arguments/evidence about the oil factor as you wish. If only to educate me a bit on this issue

These arguments also look very compelling, and these questions seem pretty pertinent to me. But lots of people still say the war was about oil. So I wanted to see how they would debunk these arguments. It hasn't happened. Therefore I'm thinking right now that the whole "it's all about oil" refrain is something like recieved wisdom. No-one seems quite able to explain it. But despite what you may think, I'm not closed-minded. I thought I might be missing some crucial evidence or theoretical perspective, so I started this thread so I could be surer of my opinion - whatever that would be by the end of it. I'm not trying to be rude to you, but any INTP would know this is why I started this thread, because it's our nature. You've been on this site a long time, so I'm surprised you haven't figured that out by now.



and I think you know that.

This is something you have always accused me of. I can tell you in all honesty, I don't understand you at all, and I barely ever know what you really mean. This isn't your fault, it's my own lack of Fe. My Ne allows me to be diplomatic, so a lot of NF's I meet think I am somehow on their wavelength. I always get accused of "playing dumb" when I take them at face value. However, I can assure you I'm not. It's just that I really am that dumb, you have to spell things out for me. I'm flattered that you thought otherwise though.

[nfinityi]

Oh. I'm so terribly sorry, I didn't see this response.

I don't know, I don't believe they thought he had nuclear technology anywhere near on a par what North Korea is suspected of having, or else I doubt they would have attacked him
Ah. Sooo. Are you saying that the administration openly lied in its buildup for war? Because.... That's kinda what it sounds like you're saying.

Phew, I don't mind you insulting me, as long as it's not derogatory.
I don't mind insulting you either. We'll have to do this again sometime :)

Anyway, no it wouldn't. And, it didn't. If they produce less oil, then it costs more you see. If the region is unstable, then prices will go up because buyers will be keen to hoard oil in case of future disruptions to the supply. (Quite apart from this is the fact that if the US pisses off the country's who sell them oil, they have the power, as part of the international cartel OPEC, to raise prices above market price anyway).

Did you fall asleep in Economics 101?
I've never taken any economics classes. You never said that oil production was lowered, you said that it threw the region into chaos. Well, uh. Normally when your currency drops (further in this case), I was under the impression that your goods drop in price as well. I'm pretty sure during the Great Depression, we were still pumpin' out steel and other things of an American nature.

[nfinityi]

THEREFORE I want to find out more. It looks dodgy, but it's not enough on it's own for me to conclude that it was a cause of the war. I wanted to know more about this.
And then there's this:



These arguments also look very compelling, and these questions seem pretty pertinent to me. But lots of people still say the war was about oil. So I wanted to see how they would debunk these arguments. It hasn't happened. Therefore I'm thinking right now that the whole "it's all about oil" refrain is something like recieved wisdom. No-one seems quite able to explain it. But despite what you may think, I'm not closed-minded. I thought I might be missing some crucial evidence or theoretical perspective, so I started this thread so I could be surer of my opinion - whatever that would be by the end of it. I'm not trying to be rude to you, but any INTP would know this is why I started this thread, because it's our nature. You've been on this site a long time, so I'm surprised you haven't figured that out by now.




This is something you have always accused me of. I can tell you in all honesty, I don't understand you at all, and I barely ever know what you really mean. This isn't your fault, it's my own lack of Fe. My Ne allows me to be diplomatic, so a lot of NF's I meet think I am somehow on their wavelength. I always get accused of "playing dumb" when I take them at face value. However, I can assure you I'm not. It's just that I really am that dumb, you have to spell things out for me. I'm flattered that you thought otherwise though.
So it was a FranG thread in the 2nd degree? Okay. I can deal with that. However, why would you ask it here? Why not people who you know in real life who know their international politics?

In all honesty, the cause of the war at this point is not what matters. And the cause of the war, if it was oil, doesn't bother me, as I've lost some of the irrational levels of idealism I had. We need oil for the time being. I just don't like being lied and pandered to by an administration who thinks I can't handle the truth.

If it was about oil, that's not what upsets me. What upsets me is how terribly it was handled, and what matters at this point is how do we get ourselves out of this mess without leaving a bigger disaster than we found there.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Ah. Sooo. Are you saying that the administration openly lied in its buildup for war? Because.... That's kinda what it sounds like you're saying

Probably. I don't know for sure. It's not really the point I'm trying to make. I'm trying to establish the validity of the oil argument.




I've never taken any economics class.

I can tell.


You never said that oil production was lowered, you said that it threw the region into chaos.

So you are commenting on the Iraq war being about oil, and you didn't even know that oil production decreased enormously as a result of the war? Then let me spin this question round - what is your reason for posting here? I made this thread to ask questions of people who know more than me, not to answer questions from people who know less than me.


Well, uh. Normally when your currency drops (further in this case), your goods drop in price as well. I'm pretty sure during the Great Depression, we were still pumpin' out steel and other things of an American nature

The Iraqi Dinar quadrupled in value after the invasion. It's now kept at just over 4 times it's value before the invasion at the behest of the IMF. Now if you look through history, every time there is a crisis in theMiddle East, oil prices rocket. I'd have thought you could have researched it a bit seeing as it's obviously something you are interested in.

[demagogic_schizoid]

In all honesty, the cause of the war at this point is not what matters. And the cause of the war, if it was oil, doesn't bother me, as I've lost some of the irrational levels of idealism I had. We need oil for the time being. I just don't like being lied and pandered to by an administration who thinks I can't handle the truth.

If it was about oil, that's not what upsets me. What upsets me is how terribly it was handled, and what matters at this point is how do we get ourselves out of this mess without leaving a bigger disaster than we found there

That's great dude. but this thread is about whether or not it was about oil. It's not about making a value judgement of the war based on that fact. It's just something I'm interested in. If you have another agenda, start another thread.

[nfinityi]

Probably. I don't know for sure. It's not really the point I'm trying to make. I'm trying to establish the validity of the oil argument.

I can tell.

So you are commenting on the Iraq war being about oil, and you didn't even know that oil production decreased enormously as a result of the war? Then let me spin this question round - what is your reason for posting here? I made this thread to ask questions of people who know more than me, not to answer questions from people who know less than me.

The Iraqi Dinar quadrupled in value after the invasion. It's now kept at just over 4 times it's value before the invasion at the behest of the IMF. Now if you look through history, every time there is a crisis in theMiddle East, oil prices rocket. I'd have thought you could have researched it a bit seeing as it's obviously something you are interested in.
Hm. Where do you find this information? Also, wouldn't big American oil companies benefit from this? Also, in the long run, despite the prices of oil now, wouldn't it just open up the door to more sources of oil, thereby prolonging the dominance of oil based industry in the United States?

[demagogic_schizoid]

Hm. [QUOTE]Where do you find this information?

I readnewspapers, watch tv etc. The exchange rate used to be about 4000 dinars to one dolalr I believe, now it's about 1500, and relatively stable.


Also, wouldn't big American oil companies benefit from this?

That's what I'm trying to establish. I can't see how they specifically benefit from this above other policies. Why wouldn't America just cut a deal with Saddam, as I suggested earlier, if all it wanted was cheap oil? Plus you talk about american oil companies, but what about The Royal Dutch Shell company, one of the companoes accused of greedily eyeing up Iraqi oil, and their headquarters are split between The Hague and London. I'm not denying they have huge interests in the US as well, but my point i that a.) these companies are multinational and not loyal to the interests of the US govt. and b.) they compete with each other and do not operate as a unified block.

Also, when you ask this question, you see corporations as proactive rather than reactive. Well of course they lobby etc., but there is no evidence that they are so significant at calling the shots on governemnt policy that they could decide whether or not the US goes to war..No govt. can favour all large corporations or even all it's backers all the time, sometimes it's backers interests will clash. It seems to me that the succesful corporations are the ones which find a way to benefit from government policy, and they will adapt to pretty much any environment. Look how many corporations are loving the Chavez govt. right now. He might be "anti-business", but when a businessman gets a chance to make a killing from the growing economy in Venezuela, they go for it.

My point is, you are discounting the possibility of unintended consequences, or the fact that oil companies will simply find a way to operate in whatever political climate they find themselves. There's no reason I can see, or that has really been put forward on this thread, why invading Iraq should be a favoured course of action for any given oil company. Of course, once they know it's going to happen, they will lobby for contracts. But this is a different matter.


Also, in the long run, despite the prices of oil now, wouldn't it just open up the door to more sources of oil, thereby prolonging the dominance of oil based industry in the United States?

I can't see how it's opening up the door for more sources of oil. The US does not now control Iraqi oil. Iraq is now pumping slightly more than they were before the invasion, but I don't see why this couldn't have been better acheived through co-operation with Saddam (and the slight increase in production hardly seems enough to justify the rise in prices which the instability of the ongoing civil war is causing), as well as the general increase in prices in the region. So in short, no, I don't think that's correct.

[cjs55]

Doesn't the Bush family have (or rather, didn't they have) a vendetta against Saddam? I sorta thought it was some male chest-pounding going on.

[zhang_bob]

Also, in the long run, despite the prices of oil now, wouldn't it just open up the door to more sources of oil, thereby prolonging the dominance of oil based industry in the United States?

When was the last time you read a history book?

First of all, the US is not very good at picking her friends. Secondly, you should not be arrogant and assume Iraq will always support the US from here on in. That's what the United Kingdom and the United States thought that about Iran after Operation Ajax, in August 1953. The coup what established a royal autocracy, what firmly committed Iran to the West. We all know what happened to Iran on the 12 of February 1979.

Why are you so sure Iraq will not tell the US to fuck off one day, once the US army have left and Iraq has a real opposition party?

I am convinced one day in the near future Iraq will tell the US it is renegotiating all her oil deals, and also tell the US it has to outbid China if it wants her oil. When this prediction comes true, I will have a massive smile on my face.:)

[demagogic_schizoid]

I am convinced one day in the near future Iraq will tell the US it is renegotiating all her oil deals, and also tell the US it has to out bid China if it wants her oil. When this prediction comes true, I will have a massive smile on my face.:)

Erm no you won't, because we'll be screwed too.

[zhang_bob]

Erm no you won't, because we'll be screwed too.


[Idealistic mode]
You seem to have forgot that I'm a left wing vegetarian closeted environmentalist. So I world be happy for China to take a bigger share of the world oil market, as it would force the big oil corporations into to investing more time and money into ways of changing over to renewable energy. Therefore countries would not have to fight over oil, and it would be good for the environment. [/Idealistic mode]