Total Posts:142|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 11:31:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
CNN is doing numerous pieces on this being the 10th year since the start of the Iraq War. This one in particular caught my attention:

http://www.cnn.com...

Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.

From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.

Oil was not the only goal of the Iraq War, but it was certainly the central one, as top U.S. military and political figures have attested to in the years following the invasion.

"Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that," said General John Abizaid in 2007, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq. Former Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Senator and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."

For the first time in about 30 years, Western oil companies are exploring for and producing oil in Iraq from some of the world's largest oil fields and reaping enormous profit. And while the U.S. has also maintained a fairly consistent level of Iraq oil imports since the invasion, the benefits are not finding their way through Iraq's economy or society.

These outcomes were by design, the result of a decade of U.S. government and oil company pressure. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then CEO of Chevron, said, "Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas-reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." Today it does.


Do you agree with this piece? Why or why not?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 11:55:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 11:31:19 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
CNN is doing numerous pieces on this being the 10th year since the start of the Iraq War. This one in particular caught my attention:

http://www.cnn.com...

Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.

From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.

Oil was not the only goal of the Iraq War, but it was certainly the central one, as top U.S. military and political figures have attested to in the years following the invasion.

"Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that," said General John Abizaid in 2007, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq. Former Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Senator and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."

For the first time in about 30 years, Western oil companies are exploring for and producing oil in Iraq from some of the world's largest oil fields and reaping enormous profit. And while the U.S. has also maintained a fairly consistent level of Iraq oil imports since the invasion, the benefits are not finding their way through Iraq's economy or society.

These outcomes were by design, the result of a decade of U.S. government and oil company pressure. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then CEO of Chevron, said, "Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas-reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." Today it does.


Do you agree with this piece? Why or why not?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Tsar of DDO
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 1:25:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have to agree unless someone gives me a good, solid reason for invading.

We don't really care about the people, if we did we wouldn't have pit Iraq and Iran against eachother in a bloody war, installed Hussein as puppet dictator and stood idly by as he gassed the Kurds with our gas and our helicopters. Freeing people, expanding democracy etc. are all cop-out excuses. There are a dozen other less free countries ruled by dictators which could have been liberated.

As for WMDs, all I ever heard was that they had a single unverified source and that was enough for an invasion and near decade long occupation? There clearly weren't any so either our intelligence network is terrible at it's job or there was another reason.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 1:32:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 11:31:19 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
CNN is doing numerous pieces on this being the 10th year since the start of the Iraq War. This one in particular caught my attention:

http://www.cnn.com...

Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.

From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.

Oil was not the only goal of the Iraq War, but it was certainly the central one, as top U.S. military and political figures have attested to in the years following the invasion.

"Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that," said General John Abizaid in 2007, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq. Former Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Senator and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."

For the first time in about 30 years, Western oil companies are exploring for and producing oil in Iraq from some of the world's largest oil fields and reaping enormous profit. And while the U.S. has also maintained a fairly consistent level of Iraq oil imports since the invasion, the benefits are not finding their way through Iraq's economy or society.

These outcomes were by design, the result of a decade of U.S. government and oil company pressure. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then CEO of Chevron, said, "Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas-reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." Today it does.


Do you agree with this piece? Why or why not?

No. It's claiming that the result of the war was the cause of the war. As YYW said "Post hoc ergo propter hoc". Saddam Husssein was the leader of the Ba'ath Party. According to Michel Aflaq, the founder of Ba'athism, the Ba'ath party is "Arab Socialism". The Ba'ath Party is a form of national-socialism, in that it promotes socialism for nationalistic purposes; in the case of the Ba'ath party, socialism was promoted for the benefit of Arabs. When the Ba'ath Party well from power, the socialist oil industry was privatized; as is expected when a socialist regime is toppled.

Back when Clinton was in office, Democrats were pushing to go to war with Iraq because of "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Hell, Clinton even ordered the 4 day bombing of Iraq (this is the same guy who had several chances to take out Osama, and declined due to the chance of civilian casualties).

Saddam was not cooperating with inspectors, so there was a real threat that he was developing WMD. Saddam used WMD on his own people, so if he was developing WMD he would not hesitate to use it on us. As part of the Peace Treaty from the Persian Gulf war, Saddam was required to submit to arms inspections; he broke the treaty and so we went back to war.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
1Percenter
Posts: 782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 1:40:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/2013 11:31:19 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
CNN is doing numerous pieces on this being the 10th year since the start of the Iraq War. This one in particular caught my attention:

http://www.cnn.com...

Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.

Fact check this. Regulatory burdens and other red tape make it extremely difficult for investors to get land to develop on. If this is true, it would bring in billions of dollars of desperately needed revenue to Iraq, so not sure what the point here really is.
From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.

Would the author prefer that Iraq close off its abundant resources, harming their own economy the most?
Oil was not the only goal of the Iraq War, but it was certainly the central one, as top U.S. military and political figures have attested to in the years following the invasion.

Seriously? Because authorizing an invasion of another country is much more fiscally sound and politically popular way to get oil than it is to increase the domestic drilling of our millions of untapped oil deposits.
"Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that," said General John Abizaid in 2007, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq. Former Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Senator and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."

For the first time in about 30 years, Western oil companies are exploring for and producing oil in Iraq from some of the world's largest oil fields and reaping enormous profit. And while the U.S. has also maintained a fairly consistent level of Iraq oil imports since the invasion, the benefits are not finding their way through Iraq's economy or society.

These outcomes were by design, the result of a decade of U.S. government and oil company pressure. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then CEO of Chevron, said, "Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas-reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." Today it does.


Do you agree with this piece? Why or why not?
There's a huge difference between securing a strategic resource and having the sole motivation be oil company revenue.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 1:54:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is why I no longer believe the lame stream media
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 1:59:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 1:54:37 PM, DanT wrote:
This is why I no longer believe the lame stream media

No longer? How old are you? I'm 22 and I can't remember a time I really believed the mainstream media hah
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 4:36:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 1:25:19 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I have to agree unless someone gives me a good, solid reason for invading.

We don't really care about the people, if we did we wouldn't have pit Iraq and Iran against eachother in a bloody war, installed Hussein as puppet dictator and stood idly by as he gassed the Kurds with our gas and our helicopters. Freeing people, expanding democracy etc. are all cop-out excuses. There are a dozen other less free countries ruled by dictators which could have been liberated.

As for WMDs, all I ever heard was that they had a single unverified source and that was enough for an invasion and near decade long occupation? There clearly weren't any so either our intelligence network is terrible at it's job or there was another reason.

Agree. Absent a plausible cause, oil IMHO becomes the only viable reason for a 9 year invasion/occupation of Iraq.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 4:38:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 4:36:17 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/19/2013 1:25:19 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I have to agree unless someone gives me a good, solid reason for invading.

We don't really care about the people, if we did we wouldn't have pit Iraq and Iran against eachother in a bloody war, installed Hussein as puppet dictator and stood idly by as he gassed the Kurds with our gas and our helicopters. Freeing people, expanding democracy etc. are all cop-out excuses. There are a dozen other less free countries ruled by dictators which could have been liberated.

As for WMDs, all I ever heard was that they had a single unverified source and that was enough for an invasion and near decade long occupation? There clearly weren't any so either our intelligence network is terrible at it's job or there was another reason.

Agree. Absent a plausible cause, oil IMHO becomes the only viable reason for a 9 year invasion/occupation of Iraq.

Arms contracts as well, but that's a given.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 4:42:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 1:32:27 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/19/2013 11:31:19 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
CNN is doing numerous pieces on this being the 10th year since the start of the Iraq War. This one in particular caught my attention:

http://www.cnn.com...

Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.

From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.

Oil was not the only goal of the Iraq War, but it was certainly the central one, as top U.S. military and political figures have attested to in the years following the invasion.

"Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that," said General John Abizaid in 2007, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq. Former Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Senator and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."

For the first time in about 30 years, Western oil companies are exploring for and producing oil in Iraq from some of the world's largest oil fields and reaping enormous profit. And while the U.S. has also maintained a fairly consistent level of Iraq oil imports since the invasion, the benefits are not finding their way through Iraq's economy or society.

These outcomes were by design, the result of a decade of U.S. government and oil company pressure. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then CEO of Chevron, said, "Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas-reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." Today it does.


Do you agree with this piece? Why or why not?

No. It's claiming that the result of the war was the cause of the war. As YYW said "Post hoc ergo propter hoc". Saddam Husssein was the leader of the Ba'ath Party. According to Michel Aflaq, the founder of Ba'athism, the Ba'ath party is "Arab Socialism". The Ba'ath Party is a form of national-socialism, in that it promotes socialism for nationalistic purposes; in the case of the Ba'ath party, socialism was promoted for the benefit of Arabs. When the Ba'ath Party well from power, the socialist oil industry was privatized; as is expected when a socialist regime is toppled.

1) To counter YYW, "the ends justify the means". My statement carries as much weight as his. Neither are necessarily true or false.

2) The flaw in your Arab socialism argument is that upon privatization, you would think the Iraqis would own Iraqi oil. The article demonstrates that this is not the case, that Iraqi oil belongs to Exxon, Chevron, etc. Iraqis aren't even working in the oil fields, the multi-nats import labor for this purpose.

The Iraqis are completely alienated from the fruits of their own land. This isn't exactly privatization either, at least not to Iraqis.

Back when Clinton was in office, Democrats were pushing to go to war with Iraq because of "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Hell, Clinton even ordered the 4 day bombing of Iraq (this is the same guy who had several chances to take out Osama, and declined due to the chance of civilian casualties).

Saddam was not cooperating with inspectors, so there was a real threat that he was developing WMD. Saddam used WMD on his own people, so if he was developing WMD he would not hesitate to use it on us. As part of the Peace Treaty from the Persian Gulf war, Saddam was required to submit to arms inspections; he broke the treaty and so we went back to war.

Everything you say here justifies the Iraq War from 2003-2004, during which we accomplished all of these aims, kicked Saddam out, got Iraq UN-compliant, and answered the WMD question.

Nothing you say here justfies the Iraq War from 2004-2011. Oil provides the additional justification.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 4:46:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 1:40:56 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 9/2013 11:31:19 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
CNN is doing numerous pieces on this being the 10th year since the start of the Iraq War. This one in particular caught my attention:

http://www.cnn.com...

Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.

Fact check this. Regulatory burdens and other red tape make it extremely difficult for investors to get land to develop on. If this is true, it would bring in billions of dollars of desperately needed revenue to Iraq, so not sure what the point here really is.
From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.

Would the author prefer that Iraq close off its abundant resources, harming their own economy the most?
Oil was not the only goal of the Iraq War, but it was certainly the central one, as top U.S. military and political figures have attested to in the years following the invasion.

Seriously? Because authorizing an invasion of another country is much more fiscally sound and politically popular way to get oil than it is to increase the domestic drilling of our millions of untapped oil deposits.

Denial of assets is another consideration. China would have killed for Iraqi oil. We knew this, so instead we killed for Iraqi oil.

"Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that," said General John Abizaid in 2007, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq. Former Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Senator and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."

For the first time in about 30 years, Western oil companies are exploring for and producing oil in Iraq from some of the world's largest oil fields and reaping enormous profit. And while the U.S. has also maintained a fairly consistent level of Iraq oil imports since the invasion, the benefits are not finding their way through Iraq's economy or society.

These outcomes were by design, the result of a decade of U.S. government and oil company pressure. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then CEO of Chevron, said, "Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas-reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." Today it does.

Do you agree with this piece? Why or why not?
There's a huge difference between securing a strategic resource and having the sole motivation be oil company revenue.

Please explain the difference.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 4:57:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 11:31:19 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
CNN is doing numerous pieces on this being the 10th year since the start of the Iraq War. This one in particular caught my attention:

http://www.cnn.com...

Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.

Yes, pretty clear evidence that one of the primary reasons for the invasion/occupation was the implementation of the ole shock doctrine, i.e. visit a bit of catastrophe on a country and then rebuild it along neoliberal lines so that its economy can be dominated and ongoingly fleeced by our economic elite.

From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.

Profiteering, implementing the shock doctrine, and establishing American hegemony in an oil-rich region, an axis of evil economic motives for perpetrating military mass destruction and murder.

Oil was not the only goal of the Iraq War, but it was certainly the central one, as top U.S. military and political figures have attested to in the years following the invasion.

Well duh!

"Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that," said General John Abizaid in 2007, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq. Former Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Senator and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."

Again, Well duh!

For the first time in about 30 years, Western oil companies are exploring for and producing oil in Iraq from some of the world's largest oil fields and reaping enormous profit. And while the U.S. has also maintained a fairly consistent level of Iraq oil imports since the invasion, the benefits are not finding their way through Iraq's economy or society.

These outcomes were by design, the result of a decade of U.S. government and oil company pressure. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then CEO of Chevron, said, "Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas-reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." Today it does.

Do you agree with this piece? Why or why not?

Yes, because regardless of whatever else I am I'm not a naive nincompoop.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 5:42:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The resolution passed by Congress that authorized the use of force cited multiple reasons:

1. Iraq's non compliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
2. Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
3. Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
4. Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
5. Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
6. Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
7. Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
8. Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
9. The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
10. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Why did virtually everyone think Saddam had WMDs? The intelligence agencies of Britain, France, Germany, Israel, and Russia all though he had WMDs. UN inspector Hans Blix thought he had WMDs, but thought that he should be allowed more time to try to find them before an invasion was launched.

The reason that everyone though Saddam had WMDs was that Saddam was perpetuating a hoax. He was afraid of Iran invading and wanted to scare them off, and at the same time believed that the US would never invade, no matter what. This came out after Saddam was captured, and an FBI agent befriended the dictator and talked with him at great length. The agent wrote a book with the details. http://www.cbsnews.com...

The US imports a lot of oil from Saudi Arabia, but not much then or now from other countries in the Middle East. Iraq was a major supplier to Europe. After the UN imposed an embargo on Iraqi oil, France secretly supplied arms to Saddam in return for secret oil shipments supplied via pipeline through Syria.

When a country nationalizes oil production, the pattern is that production drops by half to two-thirds and the production costs about double as the local bureaucracy is fed. Countries get more money by letting foreign oil companies do the production and taking a large share of the profits.

Continuing oil supplies to Europe was likely a consideration in overthrowing Saddam, but not at the top of the list. Proving that terrorists could not have a safe haven in defiance of the West was much more important.
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 5:45:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 4:42:48 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/19/2013 1:32:27 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/19/2013 11:31:19 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
CNN is doing numerous pieces on this being the 10th year since the start of the Iraq War. This one in particular caught my attention:

http://www.cnn.com...

Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.

From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.

Oil was not the only goal of the Iraq War, but it was certainly the central one, as top U.S. military and political figures have attested to in the years following the invasion.

"Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that," said General John Abizaid in 2007, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq. Former Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Senator and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."

For the first time in about 30 years, Western oil companies are exploring for and producing oil in Iraq from some of the world's largest oil fields and reaping enormous profit. And while the U.S. has also maintained a fairly consistent level of Iraq oil imports since the invasion, the benefits are not finding their way through Iraq's economy or society.

These outcomes were by design, the result of a decade of U.S. government and oil company pressure. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then CEO of Chevron, said, "Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas-reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." Today it does.


Do you agree with this piece? Why or why not?

No. It's claiming that the result of the war was the cause of the war. As YYW said "Post hoc ergo propter hoc". Saddam Husssein was the leader of the Ba'ath Party. According to Michel Aflaq, the founder of Ba'athism, the Ba'ath party is "Arab Socialism". The Ba'ath Party is a form of national-socialism, in that it promotes socialism for nationalistic purposes; in the case of the Ba'ath party, socialism was promoted for the benefit of Arabs. When the Ba'ath Party well from power, the socialist oil industry was privatized; as is expected when a socialist regime is toppled.

1) To counter YYW, "the ends justify the means". My statement carries as much weight as his. Neither are necessarily true or false.

The statement that "the ends justify the means" does nothing to undermine the fallacy that a consequence of some action was the reason for initiating the action itself. The logic of "after this, therefore because of this" is fallacious because it assumes that some subsequent event was caused by a preceding event. So, this is yet another one of those circumstances where you're in error. And once again, whether you accept this is the case or not has no bearing on whether or not it is -in fact- the case.

Error defended is still error.

2) The flaw in your Arab socialism argument is that upon privatization, you would think the Iraqis would own Iraqi oil. The article demonstrates that this is not the case, that Iraqi oil belongs to Exxon, Chevron, etc. Iraqis aren't even working in the oil fields, the multi-nats import labor for this purpose.

The Iraqis are completely alienated from the fruits of their own land. This isn't exactly privatization either, at least not to Iraqis.

Whatever.

Back when Clinton was in office, Democrats were pushing to go to war with Iraq because of "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Hell, Clinton even ordered the 4 day bombing of Iraq (this is the same guy who had several chances to take out Osama, and declined due to the chance of civilian casualties).

Saddam was not cooperating with inspectors, so there was a real threat that he was developing WMD. Saddam used WMD on his own people, so if he was developing WMD he would not hesitate to use it on us. As part of the Peace Treaty from the Persian Gulf war, Saddam was required to submit to arms inspections; he broke the treaty and so we went back to war.

Everything you say here justifies the Iraq War from 2003-2004, during which we accomplished all of these aims, kicked Saddam out, got Iraq UN-compliant, and answered the WMD question.

Nothing you say here justfies the Iraq War from 2004-2011. Oil provides the additional justification.

Lol... you people and your assumptions.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 5:47:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 5:42:52 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The resolution passed by Congress that authorized the use of force cited multiple reasons:

1. Iraq's non compliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
2. Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
3. Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
4. Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
5. Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
6. Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
7. Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
8. Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
9. The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
10. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Why did virtually everyone think Saddam had WMDs? The intelligence agencies of Britain, France, Germany, Israel, and Russia all though he had WMDs. UN inspector Hans Blix thought he had WMDs, but thought that he should be allowed more time to try to find them before an invasion was launched.

The reason that everyone though Saddam had WMDs was that Saddam was perpetuating a hoax. He was afraid of Iran invading and wanted to scare them off, and at the same time believed that the US would never invade, no matter what. This came out after Saddam was captured, and an FBI agent befriended the dictator and talked with him at great length. The agent wrote a book with the details. http://www.cbsnews.com...

The US imports a lot of oil from Saudi Arabia, but not much then or now from other countries in the Middle East. Iraq was a major supplier to Europe. After the UN imposed an embargo on Iraqi oil, France secretly supplied arms to Saddam in return for secret oil shipments supplied via pipeline through Syria.

When a country nationalizes oil production, the pattern is that production drops by half to two-thirds and the production costs about double as the local bureaucracy is fed. Countries get more money by letting foreign oil companies do the production and taking a large share of the profits.

Continuing oil supplies to Europe was likely a consideration in overthrowing Saddam, but not at the top of the list. Proving that terrorists could not have a safe haven in defiance of the West was much more important.

Indeed. It would be in the best interest of the posters on this topic to avail themselves to read the above post.
Tsar of DDO
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 5:56:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 5:47:26 PM, YYW wrote:
Indeed. It would be in the best interest of the posters on this topic to avail themselves to read the above post.

The above mentioned reasons boiled down to wmds and human rights violations, both of which were bs. Either the govt knew there weren't wmds and misled the public or our intelligence services failed on a scale of epic proportions.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 5:58:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 5:42:52 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The resolution passed by Congress that authorized the use of force cited multiple reasons:

1. Iraq's non compliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
2. Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
3. Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
4. Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
5. Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
6. Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
7. Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
8. Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
9. The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
10. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

No one is denying we were given a reason for the invasion, we are arguing that the reasons we were given were complete bs.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 6:30:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The war in Iraq only involved oil in the sense that the US could use the threat of using it to lower world market prices against Saudi Arabia. It was essentially an imperialist venture, but I would argue it was a necessary one. Of course, it could have been handled much better than it was and if it was may not have forced us to occupy it for years and aggravate the entire Middle East, but saying that it was a complete mistake is just committing the ole' Historian's fallacy.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 6:32:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 5:58:04 PM, lewis20 wrote:

No one is denying we were given a reason for the invasion, we are arguing that the reasons we were given were complete bs.

You expect politicians to be truthful?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 6:38:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 5:42:52 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The resolution passed by Congress that authorized the use of force cited multiple reasons:

1. Iraq's non compliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
2. Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
3. Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
4. Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
5. Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
6. Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
7. Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
8. Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
9. The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
10. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Why did virtually everyone think Saddam had WMDs? The intelligence agencies of Britain, France, Germany, Israel, and Russia all though he had WMDs. UN inspector Hans Blix thought he had WMDs, but thought that he should be allowed more time to try to find them before an invasion was launched.

The reason that everyone though Saddam had WMDs was that Saddam was perpetuating a hoax. He was afraid of Iran invading and wanted to scare them off, and at the same time believed that the US would never invade, no matter what. This came out after Saddam was captured, and an FBI agent befriended the dictator and talked with him at great length. The agent wrote a book with the details. http://www.cbsnews.com...

The US imports a lot of oil from Saudi Arabia, but not much then or now from other countries in the Middle East. Iraq was a major supplier to Europe. After the UN imposed an embargo on Iraqi oil, France secretly supplied arms to Saddam in return for secret oil shipments supplied via pipeline through Syria.

When a country nationalizes oil production, the pattern is that production drops by half to two-thirds and the production costs about double as the local bureaucracy is fed. Countries get more money by letting foreign oil companies do the production and taking a large share of the profits.

Continuing oil supplies to Europe was likely a consideration in overthrowing Saddam, but not at the top of the list. Proving that terrorists could not have a safe haven in defiance of the West was much more important.

this is why roylatham is awesome.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 6:56:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 6:30:17 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
The war in Iraq only involved oil in the sense that the US could use the threat of using it to lower world market prices against Saudi Arabia. It was essentially an imperialist venture, but I would argue it was a necessary one. Of course, it could have been handled much better than it was and if it was may not have forced us to occupy it for years and aggravate the entire Middle East, but saying that it was a complete mistake is just committing the ole' Historian's fallacy.

Why would we do anything against Saudi Arabia? That's our favorite repressive state in the region.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 7:04:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 6:56:37 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/19/2013 6:30:17 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
The war in Iraq only involved oil in the sense that the US could use the threat of using it to lower world market prices against Saudi Arabia. It was essentially an imperialist venture, but I would argue it was a necessary one. Of course, it could have been handled much better than it was and if it was may not have forced us to occupy it for years and aggravate the entire Middle East, but saying that it was a complete mistake is just committing the ole' Historian's fallacy.

Why would we do anything against Saudi Arabia? That's our favorite repressive state in the region.

They were funding and supporting Al-Qaeda, so we needed some leverage against them. Machiavelli would be proud.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 7:23:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 5:45:15 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/19/2013 4:42:48 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/19/2013 1:32:27 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/19/2013 11:31:19 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
CNN is doing numerous pieces on this being the 10th year since the start of the Iraq War. This one in particular caught my attention:

http://www.cnn.com...

Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.

From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.

Oil was not the only goal of the Iraq War, but it was certainly the central one, as top U.S. military and political figures have attested to in the years following the invasion.

"Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that," said General John Abizaid in 2007, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq. Former Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Senator and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."

For the first time in about 30 years, Western oil companies are exploring for and producing oil in Iraq from some of the world's largest oil fields and reaping enormous profit. And while the U.S. has also maintained a fairly consistent level of Iraq oil imports since the invasion, the benefits are not finding their way through Iraq's economy or society.

These outcomes were by design, the result of a decade of U.S. government and oil company pressure. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then CEO of Chevron, said, "Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas-reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." Today it does.


Do you agree with this piece? Why or why not?

No. It's claiming that the result of the war was the cause of the war. As YYW said "Post hoc ergo propter hoc". Saddam Husssein was the leader of the Ba'ath Party. According to Michel Aflaq, the founder of Ba'athism, the Ba'ath party is "Arab Socialism". The Ba'ath Party is a form of national-socialism, in that it promotes socialism for nationalistic purposes; in the case of the Ba'ath party, socialism was promoted for the benefit of Arabs. When the Ba'ath Party well from power, the socialist oil industry was privatized; as is expected when a socialist regime is toppled.

1) To counter YYW, "the ends justify the means". My statement carries as much weight as his. Neither are necessarily true or false.

The statement that "the ends justify the means" does nothing to undermine the fallacy that a consequence of some action was the reason for initiating the action itself. The logic of "after this, therefore because of this" is fallacious because it assumes that some subsequent event was caused by a preceding event. So, this is yet another one of those circumstances where you're in error. And once again, whether you accept this is the case or not has no bearing on whether or not it is -in fact- the case.

Error defended is still error.

It's not necessarily fallacious. What makes it fallacious if it cannot be substantiated. Similarly, "the ends justify the means" is not necessarily true either. Neither statement confers much meaning, and indeed I didn't think you had any real substance in your initial comment, which is why I didn't address it.

2) The flaw in your Arab socialism argument is that upon privatization, you would think the Iraqis would own Iraqi oil. The article demonstrates that this is not the case, that Iraqi oil belongs to Exxon, Chevron, etc. Iraqis aren't even working in the oil fields, the multi-nats import labor for this purpose.

The Iraqis are completely alienated from the fruits of their own land. This isn't exactly privatization either, at least not to Iraqis.

Whatever.

Thanks for conceding. :)

Back when Clinton was in office, Democrats were pushing to go to war with Iraq because of "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Hell, Clinton even ordered the 4 day bombing of Iraq (this is the same guy who had several chances to take out Osama, and declined due to the chance of civilian casualties).

Saddam was not cooperating with inspectors, so there was a real threat that he was developing WMD. Saddam used WMD on his own people, so if he was developing WMD he would not hesitate to use it on us. As part of the Peace Treaty from the Persian Gulf war, Saddam was required to submit to arms inspections; he broke the treaty and so we went back to war.

Everything you say here justifies the Iraq War from 2003-2004, during which we accomplished all of these aims, kicked Saddam out, got Iraq UN-compliant, and answered the WMD question.

Nothing you say here justfies the Iraq War from 2004-2011. Oil provides the additional justification.

Lol... you people and your assumptions.

So, we have here someone that has no point in his responses. :)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 7:27:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 5:42:52 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

The resolution passed by Congress that authorized the use of force cited multiple reasons:

1. Iraq's non compliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
2. Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
3. Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
4. Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
5. Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
6. Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
7. Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
8. Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
9. The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
10. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Why did virtually everyone think Saddam had WMDs? The intelligence agencies of Britain, France, Germany, Israel, and Russia all though he had WMDs. UN inspector Hans Blix thought he had WMDs, but thought that he should be allowed more time to try to find them before an invasion was launched.

The reason that everyone though Saddam had WMDs was that Saddam was perpetuating a hoax. He was afraid of Iran invading and wanted to scare them off, and at the same time believed that the US would never invade, no matter what. This came out after Saddam was captured, and an FBI agent befriended the dictator and talked with him at great length. The agent wrote a book with the details. http://www.cbsnews.com...

The US imports a lot of oil from Saudi Arabia, but not much then or now from other countries in the Middle East. Iraq was a major supplier to Europe. After the UN imposed an embargo on Iraqi oil, France secretly supplied arms to Saddam in return for secret oil shipments supplied via pipeline through Syria.

I will not comment about whether or not this French connection is true. I'll just simply comment that France is a nuclear nation. If any country did not have a need for Iraqi oil, it would have been France.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I remember looking this up in the CIA factbook around when the Iraq War started. They used to delineate power consumption by source, which is how I found this out. Shortly after the war began, they took down this information.

When a country nationalizes oil production, the pattern is that production drops by half to two-thirds and the production costs about double as the local bureaucracy is fed. Countries get more money by letting foreign oil companies do the production and taking a large share of the profits.

Continuing oil supplies to Europe was likely a consideration in overthrowing Saddam, but not at the top of the list. Proving that terrorists could not have a safe haven in defiance of the West was much more important.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 7:28:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 5:56:55 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/19/2013 5:47:26 PM, YYW wrote:
Indeed. It would be in the best interest of the posters on this topic to avail themselves to read the above post.

The above mentioned reasons boiled down to wmds and human rights violations, both of which were bs. Either the govt knew there weren't wmds and misled the public or our intelligence services failed on a scale of epic proportions.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 7:31:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 6:30:17 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
The war in Iraq only involved oil in the sense that the US could use the threat of using it to lower world market prices against Saudi Arabia. It was essentially an imperialist venture, but I would argue it was a necessary one. Of course, it could have been handled much better than it was and if it was may not have forced us to occupy it for years and aggravate the entire Middle East, but saying that it was a complete mistake is just committing the ole' Historian's fallacy.

This doesn't make sense on several levels.

1) We withdrew our troops out of Saudi Arabia at the start of the war. This would imply that the Sauds were using leverage against us, not the other way around.

2) Oil prices skyrocketed as the invasion dragged on. Big oil is indeed the big winner, and Aramco is by far the biggest of Big Oil.

3) No one is saying the war was a mistake. People are just perplexed that no one accepts oil as a valid reason for that conflict.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 7:33:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 7:04:11 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
They were funding and supporting Al-Qaeda, so we needed some leverage against them. Machiavelli would be proud.

That makes zero sense, The hijackers were Saudi, training in Pakistan and operationg out of Yemen so we invaded Iraq?
We had all the leverage on them already, in exchange for doing what we want and maintaining military bases there, the Saudi's receive massive amounts of arms from the US and the US overlooks Saudi Arabia's human rights violations and dictatorial monarchy.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 7:34:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 6:38:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/19/2013 5:42:52 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The resolution passed by Congress that authorized the use of force cited multiple reasons:

1. Iraq's non compliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
2. Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
3. Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
4. Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
5. Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
6. Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
7. Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
8. Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
9. The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
10. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Why did virtually everyone think Saddam had WMDs? The intelligence agencies of Britain, France, Germany, Israel, and Russia all though he had WMDs. UN inspector Hans Blix thought he had WMDs, but thought that he should be allowed more time to try to find them before an invasion was launched.

The reason that everyone though Saddam had WMDs was that Saddam was perpetuating a hoax. He was afraid of Iran invading and wanted to scare them off, and at the same time believed that the US would never invade, no matter what. This came out after Saddam was captured, and an FBI agent befriended the dictator and talked with him at great length. The agent wrote a book with the details. http://www.cbsnews.com...

The US imports a lot of oil from Saudi Arabia, but not much then or now from other countries in the Middle East. Iraq was a major supplier to Europe. After the UN imposed an embargo on Iraqi oil, France secretly supplied arms to Saddam in return for secret oil shipments supplied via pipeline through Syria.

When a country nationalizes oil production, the pattern is that production drops by half to two-thirds and the production costs about double as the local bureaucracy is fed. Countries get more money by letting foreign oil companies do the production and taking a large share of the profits.

Continuing oil supplies to Europe was likely a consideration in overthrowing Saddam, but not at the top of the list. Proving that terrorists could not have a safe haven in defiance of the West was much more important.

this is why roylatham is awesome.

<facepalm>

Most of what he said is public/common knowledge. Many of his points are so obscure that even if true, conveys little meaning without quantification.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 8:11:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 7:48:54 PM, YYW wrote:
LOL @ this entire thread.

Your point? Oh wait...not within your capabilities...I understand.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?