The Instigator
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points

The US invaded Iraq primarily for their oil

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/25/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,275 times Debate No: 19472
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (41)
Votes (7)

 

imabench

Con

For those of you reading this, you probably clicked the debate because you have heard someone on this very website or even in real life use this excuse for why the US had invaded Iraq, and thought that the person who created this debate believes in this idea. I however am con because time and time again while in debates, whenever the morality or the conduct of the US was called into question I would always find one or two trolls who simply state that "it is a known fact that the US invaded Iraq just for their oil." as a reason to dismiss the idea that the US tries to act with good intentions or are trying to help mankind, but offer no proof or evidence at all.

I issue this challenge to any one who is reading this who honestly believes that oil was the number one priority for the invasion of Iraq. Accept this challenge on behalf of all the other misinformed Bush-haters, and try to prove that the US is so oil crazy that it was the number one reason why the US invaded Iraq.

5 rounds, 8000 characters, Con may use the first round to state their arguments

Good luck
Danielle

Pro

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning what I hope will be an interesting and thought-provoking debate.

To begin, I'd like to shed some light on the official reasons that the United States government (namely the Bush Administration) gave for invading Iraq in 2003. Supposedly the threat posed to the U.S. and its allies by Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), and the possibility that he would pass along those arms to the terrorist organization al Qaeda were the primary reasons for our attack. However, those reasons have long since been discarded by the overwhelming lack of evidence that such a threat ever existed.

No remotely sufficient evidence of this supposed threat was able to be provided by the Bush Administration. As such, I expect that my opponent will have a hard time defending the notion that something as serious, expensive, life threatening and politically polarizing as war -- especially when the United Nations and many of our allies were completely opposed to it -- should have been sought as a response to a complete lack of evidence.

In order to save face and distract the public from this reality, the Bush Administration then changed its tune and claimed to be liberating Iraq from the tyranny of Hussein's bloodthirsty regime. We have no reason to accept this phoney defense. If the Bush Administration was so concerned with humanitarian ideals, then surely they would have shifted their attention to atrocities such as the war in Darfur or the innumerable other crimes against humanity that were occurring at the same time. They did not.

As for reasons to why we should assume that oil was a major factor in the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq...

1. President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 (6 months before 9/11 even happened) that "Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East," and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US, "military intervention is necessary..." [a]. The report Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century concludes, "The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a de-stabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programmers to manipulate oil markets. Therefore, the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/ diplomatic assessments" [b].

2. The neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC) wrote a document in September 2000 called Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century. It said, 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" [c].

3. Apparently this document was heeded, as CBS reported on 09/04/02 that, "Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq -- even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks..." [d]. This is particularly interesting considering it has been confirmed that the U.S. actually SUPPLIED Hussein with WMDs, only to use him (maybe) having WMDs as a reason to proceed with the war. I look forward to reading Con's arguments that the U.S. operates with "good intentions." The reality is that we support terrorist regimes. America profits from selling them weapons, and then profits again by charging interest on the loans which allowed the weapons to be purchased. Our own American weapons are sometimes sold to dangerous regimes - even to both sides in some conflicts! It's clear that our policy makers consider monetary rewards above the value of human life in MANY instances.

4. The U.S. speifically appealed to other countries interest in oil as a way to get them to support the war. If oil is seen as a huge perk for them, then surely we must realize that oil is a big advantage for us. It gives us a lot of bargaining, economic and other power. “It’s pretty straightforward,” said former CIA director R. James Woolsey. “France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we’ll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them" [b].

5. We know that Washington dismissed Iraq's peace feelers (which included an election and weapons pledge) in an attempt to avoid war. This indicates that the Bush Administration didn't really have serious intentions of avoiding war [e].

6. The oil service company Halliburton (based in Bush's home-state of Texas) formerly run by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney was not surprisingly awarded contracts by the US government to operate in post-war Iraq. This has proven to be extremely lucrative, with the contracts being reported to amount to more than ten billion dollars [f]! Cheney and others went on to receive huge financial rewards through substantial investments in the corporation he once headed.

7. Again, it's been well documented that controlling oil gives you an exorbitant amount of both political and economic power. Michel Collon confirms the importance of oil as a commodity in the world market in his book Monopoly. He writes, “If you want to rule the world, you need to control oil. All the oil, anywhere.” By taking control of Iraqi oil supply, the U.S. would allow U.S. oil corporations to fully develop the oil industry's potential, and allow Iraq to exceed Saudi Arabia in terms of oil output to become the largest single supply of oil on Earth [g].

CONCLUSION...

I could post source after source and fact after fact indicating that there was indeed a huge motive for the U.S. to invaid Iraq for its oil. Not only did policy makers reap huge monetary rewards from our military invasion through oil, but it also put the U.S. itself in a position of power through both economic and political bargaining leverage. It's come out that the Bush Administration had every intention of infilitrating Iraq long before the 9/11 terrorist attacks ever took place. Furthermore, Iraq itself had nothing to do with al Qaeda. Nonetheless, attempts were made by the Iraqis and other governments to prevent the U.S. declaring war on them. The U.S. ignored these attempts to maintain peace, and proceeded to head into Iraq despite little to no evidence indicating Iraq had done anything wrong. Where did this faulty intelligence come from and why? Regardless, the evidence should have been incredibly substantial to warrant a declaration of war. Obviously it wasn't. We don't invade a country every time we have mere suspicions.

- I've proven that there was indeed motive to invade Iraq for its oil.
- I've proven that it was the US's intention to do so even before 9/11.
- I've proven that the govt. had that in mind as soon as 9/11 occurred, even without a known relation to the incident.
- I've proven that U.S. politicians have personally capitalized from the invasion.
- I've proven that it benefits the U.S. politically and otherwise to exploit Iraqi oil.
- I've proven that the U.S. ignored attempts to maintain peace.

Back to Con for now...


[a] http://911review.org...
[b] http://www.plim.org...
[c] http://culturechange.org...
[d] http://www.cbsnews.com...
[e] http://www.guardian.co.uk...
[f] http://web.archive.org...
[g] http://www.thedebate.org...


Debate Round No. 1
imabench

Con

(Ill go into the 7 points then if the character count permits I will come back to the Iraq war in general later.)

1) The source you provided does not show any of this information at all, in fact the source you listed takes you to a website that you can tell is biased against Bush. See for yourself.
http://911review.org...

As for your second source, It claims to have taken that excerpt from an article on another website, but the link they provided also does not work. As for the other source I do not find it a credible source because it offers no actual working links to articles they claim to have found the information from. The same website also tries to use Bible verses to show how oil impacts the modern interactions between nations, and even goes on to claim that the US tricked Saddam to invade Kuwait......

Iraq was a destabilizing influence to flow of oil from the middle east because of their military aggression against oil rich neighbors and that Saddam has threatened to restrict the exportation of oil from his own nation if it could trigger an economic setback to the countries taking action against his regime.

http://news.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.guardian.co.uk...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

2) The source you again provided does not actually have a working link to show where these allegations are coming from, nor does it show the actual document these alleged claims have come from. However the US has sought to play a role in Middle East security because the Middle East has always been home to hostilities between important nations in the economic markets, and with countries becoming increasingly nuclear, maintaining lasting peace in the Middle East is becoming a larger priority because if the US fails to do this then a nuclear conflict may unfold causing untold damage.

http://www.americans-world.org...
http://www.jstor.org...

3) This source shows Donald Rumsfeld's immediate actions following 9/11 but it in no way implies that oil was involved in his decisions in any way. In the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks a number of enemies thought to be behind the attack were considered. Osama Bin Laden at the time was still low on the Radar and so other historical enemies of the US were considered. One of which was Iraq who the US fought against in the First Gulf War where Saddam retained power and his distaste for the US. If Rumsfeld (allegedly) thought that Saddam could have been responsible for the attacks BEFORE evidence came out much later showing Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks then Rumsfeld is only guilty of having a bad hunch over what was going on. This has nothing to do with Oil in Iraq, the actual reasons behind the invasion, etc.

4) This point also relies on the same biased and faulty website that does not actually show where this alleged exchange occurred, between whom, etc. If you could provide a different source that shows this actually occurring then I will address it but I will not waste my time with theories based on poor, biased sources.

5) If Bush had a very good reason for the invasion then no amount of peace offerings will forestall any invasion. Saddam had a history of broken promises with the US and the UN that involved Israel, his brutal oppression of the Kurds and Shi'ites in his own country, manufacturing weapons, using them on his own people, having ties to terrorist organizations, resisting inspectors, fighting Iran, threatening Saudi Arabia, occupying Kuwait, etc.

Point is Saddam had a very bad history of abiding to foreign influence only interested in peace, and no amount of fake promises for elections or compliance to laws he previously violated could have forestalled any US invasion as late as 2002.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.guardian.co.uk...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

6) This actual working site only shows that Halliburton profited from a government contract. The report does not show in any way that Dick Cheney personally recommended the company for the contract or that he even had a say in the committee or organization that seeked out an oil company for the contract. The report also does not show that Dick Cheney or anybody else actually received any profit from Halliburton's profits in Iraq. To claim that Cheney may have approved an invasion of Iraq JUST so that he could use his ties to an old oil company to get a government contract to operate in Iraq JUST for his own profit is as likely as likely as the 9/11 conspiracy theories...

7) The source you use to justify this argument is from an ONLINE DEBATE WEBSITE LIKE THIS ONE. Apart from that the US doesnt actually own Iraq's oil supply, the Iraqi government allows a multitude of oil companies access to Iraqi oil for their own use, the US government doesnt control anything in this equation....

I've proven that there was indeed motive to invade Iraq for its oil.
Your sources dont show any actual evidence of anything you claim to support this idea

I've proven that it was the US's intention to do so even before 9/11.
Based on an illegitimate source that also shows no actual evidence to an original source that such a concept exists

I've proven that the govt. had that in mind as soon as 9/11 occurred, even without a known relation to the incident.
You found one source that shows how one person thought that Iraq might have had a role in 9/11 based on a hunch, there is no evidence a well planned, grand government plot to invade Iraq following 9/11 existed.

I've proven that U.S. politicians have personally capitalized from the invasion.
Youve shown that one politician who had ties to an already successful oil company has been doing well in Iraq, you havent given any solid evidence showing that he has actually received any hard profit from the Iraq invasion

I've proven that it benefits the U.S. politically and otherwise to exploit Iraqi oil.
You have suggested that countries that export large amounts of oil play a large role in the international market, but the US does not actually have rights to Iraqi oil like you have claimed. Oil companies that the Iraqi government allows to operate have that right and even then they are not under any direct jurisdiction to give a large amount of profit to the US government. These oil companies are also not under any direct US control that the US can use to negotiate with other nations by forcing these oil companies to restrict oil exports to these nations.

I've proven that the U.S. ignored attempts to maintain peace.
Well Ive shown that the US had a numerous legitimate reasons to not tolerate Saddam Hussein's mischief in the Middle East any longer by invading the country to remove him from power and eliminate a very large threat to world peace.
Danielle

Pro

Thanks, Con.

1. My first point was that Bush decided to go to war with Iraq before he ever took office. Con does not deny this, and instead attacks my source. Therefore all I have to do is provide other sources indicating that this is probably true. Other sources confirming this can be found here [8, 9]. The fact is that the President nor his cabinet ever denied this, indicating it's completely true that this was said.

I welcome Con to provide evidence that this was NOT said.

Con has not argued against the Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century report, calling for military and other action taken against Iraq in order to get control of their oil. Con's silence shows he acknowledges that politicians and other advisers have called for using military action against Iraq for its oil, so we must consider the implications of that. Cheney and others had been saying to do this for years. It would be foolish to consider this irrelevant.

2. Con again attacks the source and not the argument. I said that there was a specific document written by a conservative think-tank advocating war in Iraq for oil. Con says the link doesn't "show the allegations," but unfortunately for Con I have a PDF link to the actual document proving exactly what I said. Con cannot deny this, and here is the link [10].

3. Since there was a huge motive for the U.S. to invade Iraq for its oil, we must rationally conclude that Rumsfeld's actions to look to Iraq automatically (ignoring all other Middle Eastern and neighboring countries - including Pakistan where al Qaeda actually hid) indicates that the government specifically sought to incriminate Iraq without knowing any other details. Con has not disproven this in any way whatsoever. The terrorists were from Afghanistan - not Iraq - yet America declared war on Iraq, even after we knew Osama bin Ladin's group was from Afghanistan. Nevertheless, Rumsfeld's actions indicate he was acting based on the reports that the government should specifically seek to find ways to incriminate Iraq.

4. My 4th point was that the U.S. would use oil for political leverage in garnering support from other countries. Con refuses to address this claiming to not like my source. However the source only reported where the quote came from. The point about oil potentially being used for a political leverage is a fact; control of oil means economic and political power. What I sourced was a CIA director blatantly stating that this was the U.S. intention all along. The direct source for the quote can be found here [11].

5. Con agrees that Bush ignored all of Iraq's attempts at maintaining peace. He claims that this is because Iraq had a history of breaking promises in the past. However, he ignores that other countries were involved in these peace talks (Egypt, etc.), and that the severity of the situation made it so Iraq had every reason to fear that the U.S. would actually act with military force if they did not keep their promises. Instead, the U.S. did not even give them the opporrtunity to make good on their word before launching an attack. This is completely non-sensical. It would make no sense to invade automatically rather than make demands first and then act upon a lack of cooperation.

Further, Hussein allegedly would have gone into exile for a reported 1B dollars. The war in Iraq wound up costing $709B [12]. This means it was far more expensive (and dangerous!) to invade Iraq, yet Bush went through with it anyway. He basically invaded despite attempts to maintain peace, a way to get rid of Hussein without war and without regard for the lives of American soldiers. Again, with absolutely no concrete evidence against Saddam, we must consider why Bush would do this. We cannot make these decisions based on HUNCHES but actual proof, which Con (and the government) have completely failed to provide.

In the next round I could give more proof that the U.S. ignored all peace attempts and more analysis if need-be.

6. Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton, profited more from the invasion of Iraq than any other corporation. Though Cheney claimed to have cut all financial ties with the company, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) asserted that Cheney's stock options increased 3,281% after the decision to go to war! Though he later pledged to donate that money to charity, it was only after he was caught. It still doesn't change the fact that he blatantly lied about not profiting from the war. Moreover, Cheney continued to received a deferred salary from the company.

The Congressional Research Service has concluded that holding stock options while in elective office does constitute a financial interest whether or not the holder of the options donates the proceeds to charities. Deferred compensation is also a financial interest [13]. Therefore, Con is completely incorrect in saying Cheney did not have financial ties to Halliburton. As Lautenberg pointed out, "It is unseemly for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his Administration funnels billions of dollars to it." While these ties may not be illegal, there is a blatant conflict of interest. Con would be completely intellectually dishonest to ignore that. Much of the Bush inner circle, including the President himself, was made up of former oilmen. The oil and gas industry has pumped about $50M to political candidates since the 2000 election [14]. Clearly the ties between oil and politics are abundant.

7. My point was that having control of oil gives you a lot of political and economic control. Once again, instead of arguing against this point (which Con simply cannot refute, as it is a known fact), Con attacks my source instead. The problem is that again my souce merely showed where I got the quote. The quote is from a book. Con cannot deny that the quote backing up the link between oil and money/power exists in the book I references. Therefore, he MUST argue against the point itself.

Con's only argument here is, "Apart from that the US doesnt actually own Iraq's oil supply, the Iraqi government allows a multitude of oil companies access to Iraqi oil for their own use, the US government doesnt control anything in this equation...." This is false. In reality, both Deputy Defense Secretary at the time of the war Paul Wolfowitz and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said, "The United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm... the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people." The complete opposite happened. Instead, Britain co-sponsored a resolution in the Security Council which gave the US and UK control over Iraq's oil revenues. Therefore, Pro is 100% incorrect in saying the U.S. doesn't have a say in Iraqi oil control. Far from all oil revenues being used for the Iraqi people, Resolution 1483 continued to make deductions from Iraq's oil earnings... [15].

There were strict conditions about who Iraq could contract for oil production, which drastically decreased after this ordeal costing Iraq a lot of money. Also, Iraq's ability to manage its own natural resources could be threatened by the provision that any disputes with a foreign company must ultimately be settled by international rather than Iraqi arbitration [15]. This is clearly antagonistic against Iraq.

8. New Point: American troops were detailed to secure oil facilities as they fought their way to Baghdad in 2003. While we ignored all the looting after the fall of Saddam's statue in Baghdad, the Oil Ministry was under American guard [15]. Clearly the U.S. protected their oil investments in particular. This all proves a major concern for oil profit above other humanitarian ideals.

All of my points still stand.

Con did not even ATTEMPT to provide any other reason for war, or justify going without LEGITIMATE evidence.

SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
imabench

Con

Seeing how Con has again yet to provide even a single working source to reinforce her arguments I will now take this round to show evidence of what really happened....

1) Bush never intended to invade Iraq before he became president, He agreed with his predecessors that Iraq was a hostile nation ruled by a tyrant but he never formally stated during his election campaign or any time before then that he wanted to invade Iraq. If the pro can provide WORKING SOURCES that suggests otherwise then I can try to argue that even if such a theory were probable, oil was not the primary reason for such motives. I cant exactly offer evidence saying something was NOT said, that would be like in the episode of south park where someone tries to argue that aliens were at the first Thanksgiving by saying that "well no one ever said that aliens werent there"

(see video at top)
http://www.skoften.net...

When the US did invade Iraq Congress gave several reasons justifying the invasion. Many of these reasons evolved before Bush became president which justify that if Bush hypothetically did want to invade Iraq before he became president, then it would be for reasons that justified an invasion before he became president.

The Resolution passed by Congress authorizing the war offers these reasons for the invasion,
- Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement
- Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons
- Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
- Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
- Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush
- Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, are known to be in Iraq.
- Iraq's "continuing to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations,"
- Iraq paid bounty to suicide bombers.
- The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
- The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight terrorism.
- The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia who feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
- Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Many of these causes for the invasion originated from events that occurred before Bush became president. If Bush wanted to consider an invasion of Iraq before he was actually president, there were plenty of reasons to justify this. However bush never stated in any televised debate that he wanted to invade Iraq before he took office and the pro cannot offer any evidence to counter this.

2) Pro's link again didnt work, so I will provide it here. (I find it a little sad that I have to provide sources for the pro to use against me)
http://www.newamericancentury.org...
(scroll down to page 14, left side)

The Pro failed to show that the text she took out of context was proceeded by this statement. "Though the
immediate mission of those forces is to enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, they represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its major allies to a region of vital importance. The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein"

Basically, the report shows that security in the Middle East is of vital importance to the world, and that the US wishes to be a large factor in bringing peace to the region. The statement the Pro is using to claim the US is in Iraq for their oil is misguided because the US is acting on intentions for bringing stability to the region. To do that though requires a long term commitment of military troops to the region to enforce peace, and the Iraq war is currently a conflict within a conflict that even when it ends will still require US troops to be in the Middle East for the sake of preserving peace.

3) Ive already negated your evidence suggesting that oil was not a factor in the invasion of Iraq. You have completely ignored the possibility that Rumsfeld originally had a hunch that Iraq was behind 9/11 before the truth was found that Al-Qaeda was behind it. America declared war on Iraq in 2003, Afghanistan in 2001, and there were many different reasons why we invaded Iraq. Al Qaeda was formed and based out of Afghanistan but they operate in many countries prior to 9/11 in countries such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia, etc.

http://www.nytimes.com...

There are no credible sources proving that the US wanted to frame Iraq for 9/11 like the Pro claims...

4) The link still doesnt work, and If you look at the quote you can see that the (alleged) exchange only promises coordination with France and Russia if they were to offer assistance in Iraq. However France and Russia have not intervened in Iraq, so it can be concluded that 1) this exchange was not carried out, and 2) it shows that oil was not the primary reason for the invasion of Iraq

5) "Instead, the U.S. did not even give them the opporrtunity to make good on their word before launching an attack. This is completely non-sensical"

Your claiming that the US should have trusted Saddam and let him try to prove himself even though Saddam had a history of breaking promises, violating contracts, disregarding UN resolutions, etc. because he might have been honest........ If a dictator has a history of breaking promises, and he makes more promises to stay in power, then his word should not be trusted, its very sensible. As for your claim that Saddam would have gone into exile for a sum of money, that doesnt mean Iraq wouldnt be under a dictatorial regime, Saddam would be gone but someone could seize power and rule the country with a fiercer hand. That is how Saddam came into power in Iraq in the first place, the dictator was eliminated and instead of a democratic government being created another despot just seized power. If Saddam was paid off, someone else would ruthlessly rule Iraq, and then the US would have the same problems just with a different face.

http://www.int-review.org...

6) I concede that Cheney profited from his former employer and that oil and gas companies contribute funds to candidates is also true, but this in no way can justify that Dick Cheney wanted to invade Iraq JUST for his former employer to move in JUST to make some quick profit.

7) " My point was that having control of oil gives you a lot of political and economic control"
My point was that the US government does not actually control the mining or sale of oil, as for resolution 1483, It authorized the lifting of trade sanctions against Iraq, allowed the US and UK to maintain peace while the country transitioned to a new government, and recognized the new government as the official ruling government of Iraq. The Pro is completely wrong, therefore this argument goes to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.cfr.org...

8) American troops defended the oil refineries because it would be on that oil that Iraq rebuilt their economy... If they were not defended then Iraq would be far poorer, this does not show we invaded Iraq only their oil it only shows we wanted to protect the industry that would help rebuild Iraq's economy.

Justification for the war is shown at the top...
Thanks for reading :D
Danielle

Pro

1. President Bush nor his cabinet denied the quote I sourced, indicating it's probably true that it was said. Con merely states it wasn't and says he cannot provide evidence that it wasn't. While that's true, he can provide evidence that all of my sources saying it WAS said are lying. He has not and simply complains about them. Meanwhile, I have accumulated more sources incriminating President Bush.

Former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill wrote a tell-all book verifying that Bush had intentions to invade Iraq before 9/11. Con will say we cannot prove that it was about oil. O'Neill obtained one Pentagon document dated 3/5/01 entitled Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts, which includes a map of potential areas for exploration, which contractors would have interests in investing, etc. [16].

This book includes other sources and citations (such as the document). Firsthand eyewitness testimony is indeed admissible as evidence in a court of law. As such, if we have numerous sources saying that they saw or heard something, then we have every reason to believe it's true. Others have also spoken candidly about Bush admitting to wanting to go to war in Iraq way before 9/11, such as the ghostwriter of his memoir [17].

While there were other motives for invading Iraq besides oil, it was a certainly a factor though not the only one. O'Neill revealed that Bush made plans for post-invasion Iraq including divvying up Iraq's oil wealth. Since very close friends of Bush directly profited from this, we have every reason to consider it a contention in favor of the resolution.

2. Dropping In This Round For Space

3. Dropping In This Round For Space

4. Con says "1) this exchange was not carried out, and 2) it shows that oil was not the primary reason for the invasion of Iraq." Whether or not the essential bribe for oil was carried out does not negate my actual point, which was that oil can be and was intended to be used as a political and economic bargaining tool. Con has not disproven this. I also fail to see how this proves that oil was not the primary reason for invasion; Con didn't detail the connection.

5. Con says it would be non-sensical to give Hussein the opportunity to make good on his word. He has ignored every single other surrounding point, so I'll waste my character space repeating them.

A) Con ignores that other countries were involved in the peace talks (Egypt, etc.) meaning Iraq had a much greater incentive to cooperate. If the entire world was against him, Iraq would surely suffer the consequences of isolation, etc.

B) Much of the UN and many of America's own allies were against the war. If they had given Hussein the opportunity to cooperate and he messed it up, we would have had more support. Bush ignored this obvious incentive.

C) Hussein allegedly would have gone into exile thereby losing all power and control for a reported 1B dollars. The war in Iraq wound up costing $709B. This was a cheaper and less bloody alternative, yet we chose war.

D) Iraq had 2 choices: cooperate or not. If they did, war could have been avoided. If they did not, war was inevitable. By making war inevitable regardless, you lose the possible benefit of cooperation. Even if it was likely Hussein wouldn't cooperate anyway, there is not one benefit whatsoever (and I more than welcome Con to try and provide one) to automatically assuming it. We declared war in 2003 when 9/11 happened in 2001, so we were not acting on immedite urgency. This is important for Con to refute.

6. We must conclude that Cheney and friends' immense profit from the war was a good reason to go to war. Halliburton profited from oil specifically. Furthermore, Cheney not only directly benefited through his own name but also in the form of campaign donations and other political and business connections he received as a kickback for hooking his friends up in this way. O'Neill's book documents the strong influence Cheney had over Bush, and how Cheney specifically wanted to keep Bush sheltered against his (Cheny's) opposition in order to have more influence over the president [16]. Thus we see Cheney's oil incentives are very important.

7. Con writes, "My point was that the US government does not actually control the mining or sale of oil..." In the last round I detailed exactly what control the U.S. had/has, and what they stand to gain from it. Con has not and cannot deny that.

8. Con says we want to help rebuild Iraq's economy, but far from "all oil revenues" being used for the Iraqi people as the politicians promised, Resolution 1483 continued to make deductions from Iraq's oil earnings to pay compensation for the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Moreover Iraq's oil production decreased and got worse after we got involved.


Con's Cited Reasons For Invading Iraq

- Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement

Twelve years after the fact makes this b.s... more on this later.

- Iraq's alleged WMDs

They didn't exist.

- Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."

I've negated this in R1; see Darfur example.

- Iraq's "capability and willingness to use WMDs against other nations and its own people".

We supplied Iraq with weapons, so this is not a valid reason. Further, the WMDs didn't exist.

- Iraq's hostility towards the U.S. as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush

There are innumerable assassination attempts on Presidents. We do not (cannot) respond in that matter to all of them, holding entire countries and not particular individuals responsible. Further, this attempt was in response to Bush Senior's direct actions against Iraq, and is nowhere near compelling enough to seek war over a decade after the fact.

- Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, are known to be in Iraq.

They were also known to be in other places which we did not declare war on (Pakistan, etc.). This is also negated considering we targeted Iraq specifically before knowing ANY details about what happened on 9/11 (see previous Rumsfeld point).

- Iraq's "continuing to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations."

See above.

- Iraq paid bounty to suicide bombers.

Hussein decided in 2002 to pay the families, though I've given evidence that Bush set his sights on Iraq since 2001 and earlier making this an irrelevant contention.

- The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.

See previous point on countries "harboring terrorists."

- The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight terrorism.

We can debate the validity of the Constituion itself. Moreover, the actions the President is allowed to take to fight terrorism are certainly debated within the framework of the Constitution. Saying "the Constitution allows it" is basically an appeal to authority anyway.

- The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia who feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.

Irrelevant. A lot of governments want a lot of things.

- Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

Again, see my Darfur example. We can say we want to help people, but conveniently we choose to help the people who can also help us (and by us, I mean politicians and their corporate friends who profit from war at the expense of everyone else).

All of these have been negated.

Not one of them stands out ABOVE oil as a main contributing factor. Nonetheless, I don't deny that there were other contributing factors. I just acknowledge that oil was certainly a big one, though overall profit (in terms of military defense contracts, etc.) is the #1 reason. Con denies this in the opening round, foolishly believing America acted solely with good intentions.

SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...;
Debate Round No. 3
imabench

Con

1) The Quote in question came from this report,
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...
(I dont know where it is but its buried in there somewhere)

The report was authored by the "Report of an Independent Task Force Sponsored by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University and the Council on Foreign Relations, it was not a quote by Bush like the Pro says.

Also the policy focuses almost entirely on the energy crisis the US faces now and in the near future so if Bush's cabinet agreed to it they were agreeing that America's long term energy problem must be dealt with, it is not any kind of sponsorship of a secret oil-driven invasion of Iraq like the Pro claims.

As for the oil map:
http://www.wnd.com...

Oil fields in Iraq were closed off to contractors as part of the sanctions by the UN. Now that Iraq though was under a new democratic government the UN sanctions were lifted and now contractors were open to drill for Iraqi Oil. This isnt a conspiracy this is a matter of the UN allowing oil contractors to move into a country to drill for oil because before they banned such contractors because the taxes that Iraq would have placed on these drillers would have funded Saddam's rule. Saddam was overthrown though, so the oil fields could be exploited to the benefit of the Iraqi people and not Saddam's regime, contractors were invited in, end of story.

There were reasons prior to invading Iraq before 9/11, have you forgotten the first Gulf War? If bush thought the job wasnt finished then thats his own opinion but like I said it was never in any of Bush's campaigns that he openly advocated for an invasion of Iraq. The minute he took office the number one foreign issue he concerned himself with was the Eastern European Missile Shield.

http://usforeignpolicy.about.com...

You know the saying about how "everything changed after 9/11", well after 9/11 Bush's foreign policy changed from a missile shield against Russian aggression to the global fight against terrorism. An invasion of Iraq was not his top priority like the Pro claims.

As for the last argument, do you have any actual proof to suggest this happened or is this buried in some other document somewhere on the internet?

2) ?

3) ?

4) This alleged oil exchange quote was suggested by one of Bush's lowly advisers to another one of Bush's lowly advisers, It is never stated that Bush was told about this possible (not proven) tactic nor can it be proven that Bush actually planned on using this (again alleged) tactic.

5) A) Oh Yes Egypt, 2003 controlled by the psychotic Dictator Hosni Mubarak... I wonder why one dictator who was close friends to another even more psychotic dictator in Iraq would want to make sure Saddam stays in power....

B) "If they had given Hussein the opportunity to cooperate and he messed it up, we would have had more support"
Time was not something the US had. Following 9/11 everyone was losing their minds about where the next attack might come from. Of the three countries that came up (Iraq, Iran, North Korea) Iraq was seen as the largest threat and no American politician wanted to side with the dictator who was rumored to have weapons of mass destruction in his arsenal by arguing that "if we just give them a little more time things will work out". America was scared following 9/11 about who might attack us next, Iraq was seen as a very legitimate threat, we made a gut call to try to remove Saddam from power before we could be attacked, and thats how it happened...

C) I already argued this, If we paid off Saddam another dictator would just come to power. Are you reading my arguments or did you just pretend they didnt exist.

D) In the two years following 9/11, America went into some deep thinking about just how vulnerable they were and who their largest threats to security were. After 9/11 we learned wars would not always be fought between countries, but that they could be fought against groups of armed men (terrorists) whose goal in life was to kill as many of us as possible. From 2001 to 2003 many pieces of evidence came out that hinted Iraq may be our next attackers.

1) Link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, http://en.wikipedia.org...
2) July 5th 2002, Iraq rejects yet another UN resolution
3) Aug of 2002, a report comes out about a Chinese sale of long range rocket fuel to Iraq
4) Aug 19 2002, UN implores Iraq to allow weapons inspectors back into the country
5) Sep 22, 2002 A British intelligence report suggests that Iraq has restarted its nuclear and chemical weapons programs
6) Nov 8, 2002 UN resolution 1441 creates the 17th UN request for Iraq to disarm
7) Dec 9, 2002 UNMOVIC chairman Hans Blix claims the reports from those inspectors ""is not enough to create confidence that Iraq has abandoned its WMD efforts."
8) Jan 2003, A statement released to various newspapers and signed by the leaders of Britain, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Denmark and the Czech Republic say that Saddam is a "clear threat to world security," and urges Europe to unite with the United States to ensure that the Iraqi government is disarmed.
9) Jan 2003, UN reports harassment of weapons inspectors and inability to interview Iraqi scientists
10) Feb 13, 2003, UN finds Iraqi missiles that violated the latest UN resolution in Iraq

Between 9/11/03 and the invasion of Iraq on 3/14/03 Iraq posed a very dangerous and increasing threat to US security

6) Are you actually suggesting that Cheney used Bush as a puppet to invade Iraq for his own wealth?

7) Oil is drilled in Iraq ,the companies that drill he oil send it to refineries to refine it into gas. the gas is then bought by energy companies around the globe for sale to consumers. The only way a government profits from this is by taxing the oil drillers and refiners. The drilling and refining companies in Iraq are taxed by the Iraqi government, they own the wealth of their own oil. Its as simple as that.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://in.reuters.com...

8) As for my sources that Con is attacking,

1 - That source was one of many showing the hostility of Iraq to the UN and the US

2 - WMD's relate to chemical and biological weapons, not just nuclear. Plenty of chemical weapons were found
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com...
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com...

3 - The humanitarian example was another reason justifying the invasion of Iraq. Hitler was the dictator in Germany but should we not have declared war on him because there was also a dictator in Spain too?

4 - only during the war against Iran, since then they made plenty of their own

5 - It was another reason showing why we thought Iraq was a threat when combined with unwillingness to comply with the UN, numerous invasions of their neighbors, oppression of their own people, etc.

6 - So you agree that Saddam funded suicide bombers

7 - See previous point about that and ignoring UN violations, use of chemical weapons, tyranny by Saddam

8 - Presidential oath by the Constitution requires the president to preserve, protect, and defend the US. I believe that anti-US terrorists count as a threat to the US...

9 - So now you suggest we simply disregard the fears of other nations simply because "they want a lot of things?"

10 - The US does like to help people, but last I checked we have to prioritize on where we do intervene. Shall we choose Darfur, a region of famine, or Iraq, a region of famine, chemical attacks by their own government, harboring of terrorists, ignorance towards the UN, violation of many UN resolutions, denying weapons inspectors to do their job, many wars against their neighbors, continuing to build chemical weapons, possible possession of nuclear devices, etc?

I think ive made my point
Danielle

Pro

1. Con failed to prove that Bush's cabinet did not have intentions of using military action in Iraq. In fact, the source he proved completely supports the quote I posted about the cabinet having every intention to consider using military action in Iraq! To quote directly from his own source, "The Baker report, which was submitted to Cheney in early April 2001, recommended considering a military option in dealing with Iraq, which the report charged was using oil exports as a weapon, by turning its spigot on and off to manipulate oil markets."

http://www.wnd.com...

Con suggests,"So if Bush's cabinet agreed to it they were agreeing that America's long term energy problem must be dealt with, it is not any kind of sponsorship of a secret oil-driven invasion of Iraq like the Pro claims." Con is clearly missing the link between oil and the energy crisis; oil was obviously therefore intended to be the solution to the energy crisis, since oil = energy.

Right here Con concedes that the U.S. had a practical incentive for invading Iraq for its oil - the energy crisis, and the possibility that Iraq was using oil as a "weapon." Therefore, even if you believe it was necessary to invade Iraq for these reasons, it still concludes that oil was a primary factor.

Con's own source actually confirms my point. It notes, "Fitton says the White House still refuses to produce the list of corporate and other private task force members who met with administration officials, including Cheney, former head of Halliburton Co., a Dallas-based energy-services firm that recently landed a half-billion-dollar federal contract in Iraq." In other words, the WH continues to be shady and secretive regarding the blatant link between beneficiaries of the war in Iraq, and those who made the decision to go to war in Iraq.

Additonally, Con's very own source validates many of my other arguments. For instance, "Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a long-time Bush friend from Texas, headed a Denver-based oil company before joining the administration." In other words, Bush's cabinet had direct connections to oil companies. The source verifies that it would be near impossible to talk about Iraq without considering the oil implications. Therefore, we have every reason to note the complete impartiality of the decision makers.

Actually, this source of Con's (wnd.com) validates many if not most of my other points, but let's deal with them as they come. For now I'll respond to Con's point that we decided to allow drilling for oil now that the proceeds wouldn't fund Hussein's regime. While that may have been a benefit, it ignores the reality that many people stood to gain from this investment. Further, foreign investors benefitted more from this investment than Iraqis.

Next, Con brings up the Gulf War. Obviously this would be a dumb reason to invade Iraq, but even if it played a role in Bush's decision, it still doesn't negate oil as a primary (not necessarily ONLY - but primary) factor.

2 & 3. I have just a few minutes left to post this round, and don't have the time or space to respond so I am dropping these contentions.

4. My 4th point was that the U.S. would use oil for political leverage in garnering support from other countries. Oil potentially being used for a political leverage is a fact; control of oil means economic and political power. Con doesn't deny this, and simply says it isn't credible because it came from a lowly adviser. This is the opposite of an appeal to authority; it suggests that something is not valid because it came from someone with just a little authority. However this former CIA director criticized the Bush administration for lumping together many different materials with different capabilities under the broad category of WMDs. It would seem that a president would have access to the very best scientists who would be able to distinguish between what weapons did what. Bush's disregard for the details means he pushed forward with the WMD excuse with other intentions or rationale in mind. Do I think other factors played a part? Absolutely. However oil was certainly an incentive. Con can't deny the benefits of oil, so this point must stand. A country is certainly stronger, richer and more powerful when they have access to it.

5. A) The point is that

B) Con says time was an issue, saying after 9/11 everyone was terrified about the next attack so we couldn't afford to wait any longer for a potential diplomatic solution. We went to Iraq in 2003, with a 2 year lapse after that terrorist attack. Further, there were no connections between al Qaeda and Iraq making this a useless contention. Beyond that, I've already proven that there was a reason to look to using military action in Iraq before 9/11, so this isn't entirely accurate.

C) Con can't prove another dictator would have come to power. The U.S. would have removed Saddam's power and attempted to implement "democracy," just like we did after Saddam's death. Also, we don't invade every country run by dictators. The fact that we would have singled Iraq out just strengthens the argument that Iraq had something in particular that we wanted access to (oil).

D) Links between AQ and Iraq have been accused of being the results of lies and forgery [18]. Take note that all of the alleged threats Con posted have proven to be false and inaccurate. I'd also like to see the source where he copied and pasted those stats from.

6. Yes, I am suggesting Cheney manipulated Bush to invade Iraq for his own wealth? In fact, I have given a lot of evidence in support of this which Con has chosen to completely ignore in the last round (because he cannot refute the evidence of the incentive).

7. Con explains how Iraq profits from taxes. He completely failed to repsond to my points that Britain co-sponsored a resolution in the Security Council which gave the US and UK control over Iraq's oil revenues. Until Con addresses this point, we see that Iraq's profit is limited and inhibited by the U.S. government, while U.S. companies continue to profit from it. The point here was never that Iraq doesn't benefit from oil production. Obviously it does. It's that the U.S. had oil incentives to achieve, which we see carried out by subsequent policy.

Furthermore, Con has failed to address that Iraq's ability to manage its own resources has been taken away, so that issues must be settled by international rather than Iraqi arbitration. This confirms that our interest in oil is not about making sure Iraq profits from their resources (as politicians have falsely alluded to), but that control over their oil supply and production gives us political and economic leverage. Again, Con has not and cannot deny this fact (so he chooses to ignore it instead).

8. Con actually dropped point 8 (which was an add-on to 7) and posted reasons to believe that Iraq was a threat to national security. First and foremost, even if Iraq was (or was considered to be) a threat to national security, does NOT eliminate the idea that oil was still a primary factor of our invasion. Therefore, all of these points could be true and it would still not negate the resolution.

However Con's basic points were that Iraq is deemed hostile (so are a bunch of other nations... North Korea, anyone?). Our Intelligence was not solid. Con says, "So you agree Saddam was funding suicide bombers." As I pointed out in the last round, I've given evidence that Bush set his sights on Iraq since 2001 and earlier making this an irrelevant contention. Con ignored this because he can't combat it, choosing instead to appeal to the conservatives who comment on this debate rather than realize his point has been negated. Con also continues to appeal to the Constitution, ignoring the fact that I pointed it out as an appeal to authority.

No more character space -- See comments section for Sources link; it won't post here.
Debate Round No. 4
imabench

Con

Pro completely screwed up my sources....

The source i gave regarding the "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts" report was about the oil maps, but because you had failed to provide a source for it (again), I had to go look for it. This website (known for being completely right-winged and heavily anti-Bush) accuses the administration of several things regarding the reasons for the War in Iraq. Even though you completely disregarded my arguments about why the UN banned contractors from drilling for oil, you completely focus on the two unsupported claims the source made near the end of the article.

This did not come from the Baker Report though like the Pro believes (for some reason) this came from the article about the oil maps in question.

The baker report is shown here
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...

The source the Pro is losing her mind about relates to the oil maps, shown here
http://www.wnd.com...

"Right here Con concedes that the U.S. had a practical incentive for invading Iraq for its oil - the energy crisis, and the possibility that Iraq was using oil as a "weapon." Therefore, even if you believe it was necessary to invade Iraq for these reasons, it still concludes that oil was a primary factor. "

Let me summarize the Pro's debacle right here,
1) The Baker Report doesn't state that the Bush administration should use "oil exports as a weapon, by turning its spigot on and off to manipulate oil markets" to invade Iraq
2) That, and all these other non-factually supported claims, comes from a severely anti-bush website
3) The energy crisis in The Baker Report only mentions Iraq in some of its points but its main focus is how to eliminate America's energy crisis in general with the War in Iraq as a sidenote.
4) To claim that I "Concede" that the US had a practical incentive to invade Iraq for its oil after mistaking one legit source that proves just the opposite is true, for a biased source that makes wildly unfounded claims, must be dismissed as irrelevant.

How do I know that this source the Con is now basing more than half of her argument on is a completely biased website against Bush?

" Did you know that the Bush oil crony who headed regime change in Afghanistan is the same Bush crony who is heading regime change in Iraq? Find out all about him, his connections and his behind-the-scenes maneuvering in Paul Sperry's explosive new book, "CRUDE POLITICS: How Bush's Oil Cronies Hijacked the War on Terrorism." "

^ right at the bottom of the website followed by several other links that completely slander Bush

This website i provided was only to show how the US revealed oil maps of Iraq to contractors and to explain that beforehand, the UN banned foreign oil companies from drilling for oil in Iraq. In response the Pro took wild accusations from the site, confused it with the contents of the Baker Report, and now is trying to get you to believe that is what was said in the Baker report and not a website that screws up the truth more than Fox News....

"Con's point that we decided to allow drilling for oil now that the proceeds wouldn't fund Hussein's regime. While that may have been a benefit, it ignores the reality that many people stood to gain from this investment. Further, foreign investors benefitted more from this investment than Iraqis. "

The Iraqi government taxes these companies a whopping 35% to operate in Iraq. That 35% powers almost the entire Iraqi economy and much of the funds that the Iraqi government has to spend on programs for the people. Do the contractors benefit from operating there in the first place? Yes. Do the Iraqi people benefit from the government taxing these companies at almost 40% to then use those funds to help restructure the entire economy? Yes (But Pro says no)

"Con brings up the Gulf War. Obviously this would be a dumb reason to invade Iraq, but even if it played a role in Bush's decision, it still doesn't negate oil as a primary (not necessarily ONLY - but primary) factor. "

I am not saying we should have invaded Iraq in 2003 because we didn't finish him off in the First Gulf War, what I am stating is that people had many reasons to remove him from power well before 9/11/01

2), 3) You dropped the topics of arguments 2 and 3, and this is my last round so dont try to use these as evidence in the final round as a cheap shot because I wont be able to respond to them after you dropped them, twice.

4) The fact that this recommendation came from a lowly adviser is a very important detail that the Pro simply ignores. If we look at the White House as a company where Bush is the CEO, the person who believed that access to oil should be used to convince other countries to help invade Iraq would have been an idea of the guy who works in the mail room...

"this former CIA director criticized the Bush administration for lumping together many different materials with different capabilities under the broad category of WMDs."

Weapons of Mass destruction come in a lot of forms though, Mustard gas, radiation bombs, any kind of biological bomb meant to spread disease, any kind of launchable missile, or any device that could blow up a building. WMD's apply to a lot of different weapons so it would be a poor assumption to consider WMD's as only nuclear bombs....

5) I have already shown that in the 2 year time lapse between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq that Saddam only continued to become a bigger threat to American security. Maybe the Pro overlooked my list of events of what happened in Iraq between those dates....

"Further, there were no connections between al Qaeda and Iraq"

These suggest otherwise...
http://news.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.foxnews.com...
http://articles.cnn.com...
http://terrorism.about.com...

C) I can claim that another dictator would have come to power because that is exactly how Saddam came to power in the first place....
http://www.int-review.org...

As for singling out Iraq, are you blind or are you just ignoring every time i show how Iraq has been resistant to UN weapons inspectors, invaded many countries, bombed their own people, paid money to families of suicide bombers, etc?

D) Id like to see some actual working sources from you

6) Unless Dick Cheney was a master of hypnosis he, along with every other adviser in the White House, were not in control of Bush, he is not a robot with someone holding the controls and you havent given any "proof" since you havent provided a single working source that wasnt one I ended up giving to you...

7) Ive already shown how the idea that the US and the UK control Iraqi oil is a lie,
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.cfr.org...

The US invaded Iraq for many reasons
1) They were a threat and they continued to show signs of increasing hostility in the years right after 9/11
2) We already for years had legit reasons to remove him from power
3) It could not be disproven that he did not possess weapons of mass destruction
4) Saddam was a very evil dictator who was well known for dropping chemical bombs against his own people and during times of war
5) Saddam funded terrorists and enemies of the US

Time out, why would we invade Iraq for oil if today we only get 5% of all of our total oil imports from Iraq?
http://www.eia.gov...
Why would we make such a fuss over Iraq oil if we get so much of it from everywhere else?

crap 226 characters left...

It is for these reasons why I think that the US did not invade Iraq for their oil.

I would like to thank the voters for reading through this debate, and I would like to thank the Con for a very, very interesting debate

:)
Danielle

Pro

I literally have 4 minutes to post, so unfortunately I cannot provide a detailed rebuttal to my opponent's last round (I explained in the comments section that I had both class and work two days in a row). My apologies.

As a final conclusion, I'd like to point out that Con cannot rely on the "Her sources suck" element as a rebuttal to my points. Even if the sources were biased sites (such as sites that recognize Bush for the incompetent ignoramus he is, and point it out blatantly), that in itself is not a rebuttal to my contentions. If the points are true, then it doesn't matter where I sourced the information from. Con has not proven that any of my points weren't true, therefore they all have merit.

Throughout this debate, it became blatantly obvious that oil was definitely a factor in choosing to invade Iraq. The links between the administration and their gains from the decision proves ulterior motives. Now, did GWB believe he was truly doing a good thing by invading Iraq? Maybe. Maybe even probably. However even if there were multiple incentives (and I have said innumerable times there were), we still cannot avoid the fact that oil was a BIG, i.e., primary factor. Even if it wasn't a factor for GWB directly (even though I've demonstrated the links between him, his oil buddies and their profit, ultimately benefitting him and his campaign), it was certainly a factor for Cheney which I've proven had a lot of sway behind the scenes.

I've clearly demonstrated the reasons as to why oil was a very important (primary) reason for invading Iraq, even though the U.S. did have other gains both economically and politically.
Debate Round No. 5
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 months ago
9spaceking
lolz, I half-expected this to be a troll debate XD
Posted by makhdoom5 1 year ago
makhdoom5
any doubt.
sick ideology. survival of fittest.
Posted by responsibilty 2 years ago
responsibilty
Afghanistan is a very complicated place with many issues. The Afghan`s talk about how no "invaders" can hold on to power in Afghanistan. The truth is not even the Afghans can hold on to power in Afghanistan. In the 1970`s there was an Afghan government, elected by Afghans, run by Afghans to serve Afghans. The government was very corrupt and violent and the country was very unstable mainly due to the many different tribes in Afghanistan and their interpretations of the Koran. Some areas followed a more relaxed, tolerant and peaceful view of how the Koran should be implemented into their lives. While other fractions wanted their very strong and strict ideology to be followed by all. A bloody conflict therefore started, resulting in thousands of Afghans killing Afghans and causing a civil war. Afghanistan was then invaded by Russia, with many Muslims from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia joining the Afghans to form the mujahedeen. The mujahedeen was successful and the Russians and many of the Muslim fighters from other areas returned to their homes. The mujahedeen now made up mainly of Afghans took over running of the country. The Afghans now in power began to mistreat the Afghan people and violence and rape were used to control the population. There were many instances of drug use, rape and violence that caused a second civil war, but one instance of two young children being raped is thought to of lead to Mullah Omar forming the Taliban and taking control of a province. As the Afghans were being so badly treated by the Afghan leaders of the mujahedeen, they assisted and were pleased to see the mainly Afghan lead Taliban attack the Afghan mujahedeen, killing and over throwing them. Many Afghans did not realise the full views of the Afghan Taliban and did not share their views on Islam. However it was too late. The new Afghan leaders brought in very strict rules, banning women from education, forcing them to wear burkas and forcing all men to have full beards and to follow a s
Posted by OberHerr 2 years ago
OberHerr
@ Danielle "I really don't get why people are making Pro's case for him in the comments section. It's rude, and frankly if I were him I'd be insulted at the insinuation that I needed help making my case.

Anyway, this debate will clearly be voted on by those who already have a biased opinion on the matter (such as the first guy who posted). That's cool. I hope ya'll actually read the debate though.

But yeah, I have an argument to the Clinton thing. I'll make it here when the debate is over. Right now I am debating imabench, not DanT or OberHerr or anyone else."

Ummm....I COMMENTED which in case you didn't know is what the COMMENTS are for. Also, I have read the debate, and I found that imabench did better at arguing. I agreed with him, but I also think he did better. It's not rude to state your opinion. Also, I can't help thinking that if I had said something you agreed with, you wouldn't have said that I'm being rude.
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
=== Continued ===

Since Pro didn't point out that the reason we didn't get the oil is because we effectively lost, Con's point that we must not have gone for the oil because we don't seem to have wound up with it is unrefuted.

Con kept saying regional stability was important, and Saddam was a danger. I kept looking to Pro to claim that turf by pointing out that those things are true only because of the oil they have there.

Pro said that Bush ignored peace opportunities; he wanted to attack. I looked for Con to point out that Bush could behave that way for other motives than oil.

I looked for Con to point out that Bush may have wanted to invade Iraq before he took office, but that was likely not for the oil. He wanted to be remembered as a popular war-time president.

Oh, yes, another reason that I believe we attacked Iraq: We'd recently fought a war with them, so they were already the enemy in the public mind. They were already vilified. Americans were gung-ho for war if Iraq was the enemy.

I was looking for Pro to point out that Cheney never even asked Saddam not to use WMD on his own people. He was there in Iraq at or soon after the time, shaking hands with Saddam on the front page, but Saddam's behavior towards his people didn't even warrant a comment at that time. So it certainly didn't warrant an invasion later. That was a mere excuse, not an actual reason for the invasion.

---

In the end, I just didn't feel that either side clearly won over the other. So I called it a tie.
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
I'm on Con's side. I believe the invasion was approved for a multitude of incompatible reasons.
- We were going to conquer Iraq, turn them to Christ, and use them to convert the Middle East.
- We were going to conquer Iraq so easily with our high-tech military, we'd demonstrate the ability to conquer any Middle Eastern country, and so we would become the most influential power in the region.
- Bush resented Saddam's lack of respect towards his daddy, and thought he could do a better job of disciplining him than his daddy had done.

There were other reasons, but they don't come to mind at the moment. Oh, yes, the oil.

I was looking for Pro to point out that the reason we didn't wind up with the oil is that the war went badly. Had we conquered them and held them as easily as we expected, had we ended up able to wield the oil weapon against countries that complained, had we ended up taking Iran into the bargain, and making Saudi Arabia suddenly very compliant, then we'd have been able to do anything we wanted with the oil. The fact that we didn't actually get the oil just means that we didn't really win the war.

I was looking for Pro to point out that our plan for conquest was originally named Operation Iraqi Liberation (O.I.L.) until somebody realized that gave too much away.

I was looking for Pro to point out that, once the decision to invade was made, every possible supporting justification was listed, but being on the list was no indication that something was an actual motive for the invasion. None of those listed items had been grounds for invasion before 9/11. They still weren't the real reasons for the invasion after 9/11, and some of them were obviously fictitious.

I was looking for Con to point out that Cheney admitted that he didn't know or care whether Iraq was behind 9/11; he just wanted to hurt some country bad enough to dissuade others from attacking the U.S.

=== continued===
Posted by Homo_Sacer 2 years ago
Homo_Sacer
This is a very interesting debate. I'll try to read it when I have time.
Posted by Danielle 2 years ago
Danielle
Btw you saying we gave contracts to France and Russia actually strengthens one of my arguments. I'm glad the only people reading and commenting on this are conservatives who came into this with an opinion already lol.
Posted by Danielle 2 years ago
Danielle
I hope Con uses that argument in the debate considering it's completely factually inaccurate (and I could rip it to pieces anyway).
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
you know pro that the math doesn't add up on your side. 0.1% of the worlds oil comes from Iraq, so if we wanted a war over oil we would invade Saudi Arabia or Canada, further more Iraq wouldn't give America the oil contracts anytime soon after that invasion because we destroyed their government. So logic and numbers are against you, the contracts went to France and Russia.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by OberHerr 2 years ago
OberHerr
imabenchDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con refuted Pro's arguments well, and he did well at defending his own. Close debate, but Con wins.
Vote Placed by WhiteWolf 2 years ago
WhiteWolf
imabenchDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: I still think all of this is cloudy water, and I really haven't formed an opinion, but let me go over all my votes. Spelling and grammar imabench by a little bit. I think Danielle did a good job at refuting all of cons points. Sources go to pro because con was using the 9/11 review board (Under heavy scrutiny right now for many things) and CBS news... Come on. Thats why I support Pro. Peace!
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 2 years ago
1Historygenius
imabenchDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I would have to overall give my vote to Con.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
imabenchDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: both sides did well, but imabench came out on top very slightly
Vote Placed by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
imabenchDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter to logicrules, who never reads a debate before voting on it.
Vote Placed by logicrules 2 years ago
logicrules
imabenchDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro claims his argument is an assumption. Pro ask con to prove a negative, bad form and fallacious. Con questions Pro's sources but I think that's a wash. my vote is weighted due to pro's admission that her position is assumption, and that absence of evidence is not proof of anything. The whole thing does stink to high heaven when applying the smell test though, not proof.
Vote Placed by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
imabenchDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.