In Iraq For Oil

[humvee2800]

Okay, trillions of times now I have heard people mention the Iraq war as if bush is sneaking around iraq stealing oil and putting it in his pocket. It seems upon further investigation the closest thing is ensuring the security of the oil, as one can by no means say they are stealing or even forcing favouritism towards americans as buyers. Also if this is the case is the stability of a resource important to a countrys basic functioning not in american defensive interests?

Discuss

[Gelgoog]

uh oh....humvee why did you have to let the genie out of the bottle.

[bushbush]

i dont really give a damn if they went there for oil or not...the problem right now is that they need to UTILIZE the oil in Iraq soon to pay for the damn war.

trillions of US dollar are coming out of American tax payers while the US troops are fighting for the Iraqis. They should pay for their own war and re-construction.

[Gelgoog]

i dont really give a damn if they went there for oil or not...the problem right now is that they need to UTILIZE the oil in Iraq soon to pay for the damn war.

trillions of US dollar are coming out of American tax payers while the US troops are fighting for the Iraqis. They should pay for their own war and re-construction.

ah the "live off the land" ala sherman march to the sea approach huh? I dont think that would go over so well.

[Farnan]

They could have gone in because Bush had his time of the month for all I care. It is irrevelant.

What matters is the situation now, and it is our moral duty to fix it and leave Iraq stable.

[NaptownKnight]

I believe we are just doing whats best for us as a country, a secure, vast oil supply is needed in order to meet this country's huge demand. Anti War protesters, and most Liberals, tend to whine about how human lives are being lost for a natural resource, but these same people complain about gas prices. What do they think they would be paying a gallon if we hadn't invaded Iraq? Hypocrites, they are numerous in politics.

And I agree Bush Bush, what is this big stigma about using Iraq's spoils for our own? To the victors go the spoils, this is a universal rule of war, and has been for thousands of years. I also believe we should start shopping Iraqi oil, especially to the EU where I hear their gas is quite expensive. We had record lows in demand for gas last month I believe, so obviously the American public is slowly starting to drive less. The surplus gas should be put to good use, as I fear this deficit could be the end of our economic dominance world wide. We obviously don't want that .

[mongrel]

I believe we are just doing whats best for us as a country, a secure, vast oil supply is needed in order to meet this country's huge demand. Anti War protesters, and most Liberals, tend to whine about how human lives are being lost for a natural resource, but these same people complain about gas prices. What do they think they would be paying a gallon if we hadn't invaded Iraq? Hypocrites, they are numerous in politics.

And I agree Bush Bush, what is this big stigma about using Iraq's spoils for our own? To the victors go the spoils, this is a universal rule of war, and has been for thousands of years. I also believe we should start shopping Iraqi oil, especially to the EU where I hear their gas is quite expensive. We had record lows in demand for gas last month I believe, so obviously the American public is slowly starting to drive less. The surplus gas should be put to good use, as I fear this deficit could be the end of our economic dominance world wide. We obviously don't want that .

fatsheep, that is an interesting point. If we were not so concerned oil, as it is a rapidly depleting resource, and helped research alternate sources of power we would be in a good situation.

But you have to realize that there can be no sudden change, there has to be a slow change from oil to a new power source. We would not make advances that quickly, and I truly believe it would have taken at least five years to get a reliable, efficient system installed across the U.S. You have to understand with the type of fuel you choose, you have to build and supply filling stations across the U.S., you have to ensure that millions of cars are not rendered useless by the changes (we aren't even at this point, so in actuality it would take longer than I stated before), and you have to ensure that you have a steady and massive supply.

If we didn't have the Iraqi oil we would have already faced to much pressure from our citizens, Bush would not have been re-elected (you have to consider this factor also, no leader is self less, Bush may well have realized his mistake far earlier than many of us would presume, but he could not make such a massive policy change without a strong chance of not getting re-elected). Do you really think American's would put up with $8.00 and up gas prices? We barely put up with $3.00-$4.00 gas prices.

Bush did the right thing, we have to ensure a supply of oil to our public, while slowly researching and integrating alternate fuel types into our economy. I have heard that Oil will be depleted somewhere around 2020, that gives us a good 12 years at least to research alternate fuel types, we needn't rush.

$3 trillion dollars could buy enough oil for a generation without recourse to an embarrassing war, don't you think?. And I would rather walk than murder people in order to fill up my car with petrol. That is what being civilised does for you.

Stealing resources would undermine the world markets upon with our economies and way of life are based. Are you suggesting that the USA, casually throw away the capitalist model and become a rogue kleptocratic command economy? I thought communism was dead in the US.

If oil was required why not lean on Saudi, they have enough don't they?

The oil thing is just another fig leaf to cover for the fact that the USA has been lead into an indefinite war by someone who should not have been given the privilege of being the CinC, let alone be re-elected.

[Squier]

They should pay for their own war and re-construction.

Dear Iraq
Bill for services rendered: $More money than we have sense

Yours, Government of the United States of America

[fatsheep]

Okay, trillions of times now I have heard people mention the Iraq war as if bush is sneaking around iraq stealing oil and putting it in his pocket. It seems upon further investigation the closest thing is ensuring the security of the oil, as one can by no means say they are stealing or even forcing favouritism towards americans as buyers. Also if this is the case is the stability of a resource important to a countrys basic functioning not in american defensive interests?

Discuss

Well if you're suggesting that the monetary costs of the Iraq war are worth securing oil then I disagree. We've spent about $200 billion a year so far.[NY times]. We've been in Iraq for five years and three days so you can do the math...

We could have used that massive amount of money to invest in renewable energy sources (biodisesel, solar, wind, ethanol, etc...) and cleaning up other sources like coal power. If we had done that then we might not even be concerned about the oil in Iraq today.

I don't know if Bush is stealing the oil in Iraq. I would hope that they giving the Iraqi government full control over their own country's resources. We don't need to give people in the Middle east any more reasons to hate us.

I believe we are just doing whats best for us as a country, a secure, vast oil supply is needed in order to meet this country's huge demand.

There are plenty of alternatives, all we have to do is develop and implement them. We don't have to be addicted to oil...

Anti War protesters, and most Liberals, tend to whine about how human lives are being lost for a natural resource, but these same people complain about gas prices. What do they think they would be paying a gallon if we hadn't invaded Iraq? Hypocrites, they are numerous in politics.

So you are saying that:

1) We would be paying more per gallon if we hadn't invaded Iraq?
2) This would make the monetary cost and human lives lost worth it?

It's worth this much killing to keep gas prices low? Is that what you are saying?

And I agree Bush Bush, what is this big stigma about using Iraq's spoils for our own? To the victors go the spoils, this is a universal rule of war, and has been for thousands of years. I also believe we should start shopping Iraqi oil, especially to the EU where I hear their gas is quite expensive. We had record lows in demand for gas last month I believe, so obviously the American public is slowly starting to drive less. The surplus gas should be put to good use, as I fear this deficit could be the end of our economic dominance world wide. We obviously don't want that .

So we invade a country and then rape it for natural resources. Of course that will have absolutely no diplomatic consequences or blowback, right? It doesn't sound like you've thought this through. We already have enough enemies in the Middle East. If we really want to fight the war on terror then we shouldn't be giving people good reasons to hate and fight us. We can't use and abuse countries and then expect the people to love us.

[Gelgoog]

god i wish we were there to steal oil so that id get a break at the pump. its already 3.25 a gallon and will probably be 4.00 by summer. pfft i remember when it was .99 a gallon, now i pay $140 a month on gas.

sadly it felt more like this war was a way for bush jr to correct the mistake that his daddy made during the gulf by not going in and removing saddam from power. that and he wanted to be a war president ( which he probably thought would make him more memorable).

[ivan_the_terrible]

that and he wanted to be a war president ( which he probably thought would make him more memorable).

Mission acomplished... if he doesn't care whether the memories are good or bad that is.

[Axeman]

If they where in Iraq for oil America wouldn't have overthrown a stable dictatorship when it could just finance saadam a little bit and get the same result.

[Mythos]

Also if this is the case is the stability of a resource important to a countrys basic functioning not in american defensive interests?

You could have "stabilised" Saddam (as in buying him out) by spending 1/20th of what you are going to spend to stabilise oil supply. But someone thought the Iraqis were going to greet you with flowers. Talk about miscalculation.

[NaptownKnight]

fatsheep, that is an interesting point. If we were not so concerned oil, as it is a rapidly depleting resource, and helped research alternate sources of power we would be in a good situation.

But you have to realize that there can be no sudden change, there has to be a slow change from oil to a new power source. We would not make advances that quickly, and I truly believe it would have taken at least five years to get a reliable, efficient system installed across the U.S. You have to understand with the type of fuel you choose, you have to build and supply filling stations across the U.S., you have to ensure that millions of cars are not rendered useless by the changes (we aren't even at this point, so in actuality it would take longer than I stated before), and you have to ensure that you have a steady and massive supply.

If we didn't have the Iraqi oil we would have already faced to much pressure from our citizens, Bush would not have been re-elected (you have to consider this factor also, no leader is self less, Bush may well have realized his mistake far earlier than many of us would presume, but he could not make such a massive policy change without a strong chance of not getting re-elected). Do you really think American's would put up with $8.00 and up gas prices? We barely put up with $3.00-$4.00 gas prices.

Bush did the right thing, we have to ensure a supply of oil to our public, while slowly researching and integrating alternate fuel types into our economy. I have heard that Oil will be depleted somewhere around 2020, that gives us a good 12 years at least to research alternate fuel types, we needn't rush.

[NaptownKnight]

No, but it's not like the Worlds great powers haven't been known to secure resources for themselves before. See British Empire for examples.

This decision to invade Iraq is based on what George Bush could do and remain in office at the same time. It may not seem logical to us, but you have to know that the first thing in GWB's mind, as any politician, is whether he gets re elected or not.

And without the Iraqi invasion wouldn't OPEC have quite the monopoly, along with Hugo Chavez and Russia, on the World's oil? Yes, these people like our money, but they aren't exactly our friends either (especially not Hugo), and having the resource you depend on in the hands of your enemy is never a good thing. It's like if France controlled all of the British Empire's tea.

[mongrel]

No, but it's not like the Worlds great powers haven't been known to secure resources for themselves before. See British Empire for examples.

This decision to invade Iraq is based on what George Bush could do and remain in office at the same time. It may not seem logical to us, but you have to know that the first thing in GWB's mind, as any politician, is whether he gets re elected or not?

And without the Iraqi invasion wouldn't OPEC have quite the monopoly, along with Hugo Chavez and Russia, on the World's oil? Yes, these people like our money, but they aren't exactly our friends either (especially not Hugo), and having the resource you depend on in the hands of your enemy is never a good thing. It's like if France controlled all of the British Empire's tea.

Well we live in the 21st century now and our values ought to be different. Since the Berlin wall fell and Nixon visit to China, we live within a free global economy. If there is demand for goods and services we pay or trade for them.

The Empire disappeared 40-50 years ago so cannot see the relevance now. How can it be possibly be justifiable for a democracy to invade a country just to stay in office. I would expect this of a communist or fascist government but not America. What goes on in Bush's mind may be of relevance but he is outnumbered by Congressmen and Senators is he not?

The issue as I see it, and it is reflected by those he support Bush's policy is this, a total failure to consider the moral and long term economic implications of this illegal act.

[Dunecat]

Out of such chaos in Iraq, the terrorist movement could emerge emboldened -- with new recruits, new resources, and an even greater determination to dominate the region and harm America. An emboldened al Qaeda with access to Iraq's oil resources could pursue its ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction to attack America and other free nations.

It IS about oil.

And it's total *****************.

[NaptownKnight]

Well we live in the 21st century now and our values ought to be different. Since the Berlin wall fell and Nixon visit to China, we live within a free global economy. If there is demand for goods and services we pay or trade for them.

The Empire disappeared 40-50 years ago so cannot see the relevance now. How can it be possibly be justifiable for a democracy to invade a country just to stay in office. I would expect this of a communist or fascist government but not America. What goes on in Bush's mind may be of relevance but he is outnumbered by Congressmen and Senators is he not?

The issue as I see it, and it is reflected by those he support Bush's policy is this, a total failure to consider the moral and long term economic implications of this illegal act.

Please, don't act like your politicians don't think the same way. Every politician thinks this way. Re-election is on the forefront of their minds, it is a necessary evil of democracy.Out of the critics of America, and our policies, I notice that they want to act like they are any different, but switch their positions with ours and they would act the same way (and in the case of Britain, have been proven to act the same way). Is it right are is it wrong? Who knows, morals are relevant.

[Farnan]

Has anyone here invited a time machine?

Because till you do this argument is purely academic as you can't uninvade.

[humvee2800]

It is not about direct monetary gains, if oil prices go to high the american economy can not function, causing losses in the trillions.

renewable fuel is a good idea but even with s of cash thrown into it the time where society largely drives green cars and runs off green energy is still in the future.