Iraq: Is it about the oil?

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

Because there's a science to asking questions in politically charged issues.

Do you mean "it's *JUST* about oil"?
Do you mean "it's ALL ABOUT the oil"?
Do you mean "it's BECAUSE of oil"?
Do you mean "it's due to the oil wealth and instability of the region"?

This is like those polls that ask if you approve of the President or not. Watch his numbers shoot way up if he ever shows the nerve to confront the immigration issue, because right now, the question is "approval". It doesn't directly address the *WAR*.

...but some people are reading it like I'm saying "The Iraq War is about sand. No sand, no Iraq. No Iraq, no war."

I have said time and again Iraq is about oil because the free flow of oil in that region is in our national security interests. It just is. If there was no oil in the region Saddam the dictator would not be a threat to our national interests because oil and the money that comes from it, is the key to his power and the basis for his threat to us.


To say 'Iraq is primarily about oil' is to muddy the waters and complicate things unecessarily. Iraq is about oil, 100%. Everything over there stems from it.

 

[Larry Gude]

Explain...

Right.

...if you would, how this any different that what Ken said;

Andy's poll question; Iraq: Is it about the oil? Yes or no.

 

[SamSpade]

Actually it goes like this:

No oil; no money to fund terrorism and build nuclear weapons.
No funding terrorism and building nuclear weapons; no US invasion of Iraq.

You're missing a step in the equation. Like Sam said, it could have just as easily been diamonds or any other valuable natural resource. It's what they did with that resource that was the problem, not the resource itself.

With one tiny proviso - they're well aware of the West's dependence on oil, and they sit astride the second largest reserve in the Middle East and in the middle of the world's oil. We can live without gold or diamonds. But if either Iraq or Iran decides to shut down the Persian Gulf or seize Saudi's oil fields, THEN it becomes a problem.

Invading Iran would not be "about oil" and even more clearly about what they've done with it - well, at least, NOW, since it's not so clear a war with Iran would be successful at all. People would only CLAIM it was all about the oil if we actually SUCCEEDED in taking Iran. Right now it's about halting the exporting of terror and nuclear weapons.

 

[SamSpade]

To say 'Iraq is primarily about oil' is to muddy the waters and complicate things unecessarily. Iraq is about oil, 100%. Everything over there stems from it.

There was the word "war" in your poll? Or "invasion"?

 

[Larry Gude]

No I am not...

You're missing a step in the equation. Like Sam said, it could have just as easily been diamonds or any other valuable natural resource. It's what they did with that resource that was the problem, not the resource itself.

...there are wars being fought over diamonds and we're not invading because diamonds are crap to our national interests compared to the oil in the Middle East.

One of my arguments to Andy that lead to the poll was, when he said "Well, there's oil in Sudan' was that Sudan is a drop in the bucket, 500 million barrels proven reserve, compared to Iraq's 100 BILLION and Saudi's 250 billion plus the rest of the region.

It's about oil

 

[Ken King]

...if you would, how this any different that what Ken said;

Andy's poll question; Iraq: Is it about the oil? Yes or no.

It isn't about the oil, again, again, again. It is about what Saddam was doing. The fact that he was capable because of the oil money is not relevant.

The way the poll question reads, at least for me, is that if there wasn't oil for the US of A to be trying to acquire we wouldn't be there.

 

[Larry Gude]

Neither...

There was the word "war" in your poll? Or "invasion"?

...and it's not my poll; it's Andy's;

The poll question

Iraq: Is it about the oil?

 

[Larry Gude]

That's fine...

The fact that he was capable because of the oil money is not relevant.

The way the poll question reads, at least for me, is that if there wasn't oil for the US of A to be trying to acquire we wouldn't be there.

...and you are in the majority. I disagree.

There are tin pot dictators the world over, some who make Saddam look like a piker in terms of viciousness, but, they don't have his resource; oil, to threaten our national security.

I can't help it if you read the poll to say 'we're there to TAKE Iraq's oil.'

I can't help it if people don't bother to note that we get a minority of our oil from the Middle East and it's long been that way.

Iraq is about the free flow of oil at market prices. Instability there means instability in oil prices and supply everywhere.

Oh, and it's about W's daddy, too, as I've been told.

 

[SamSpade]

...there are wars being fought over diamonds

No sh!t Sherlock. Name ONE diamond or gold rich nation that is building weapons or in the smallest way represents a threat to world peace.

North Korea has NONE of those, and war may happen eventually. South Africa and Canada has all of them, but they're not a threat.

There are two critical ingredients - a valuable natural resource - and despotism.
And oil represents the fastest path to wealth for a despot.


"Next thing ya know ol' Jeb's a millionaire.."

 

[Larry Gude]

Damn Sam...

No sh!t Sherlock. Name ONE diamond or gold rich nation that is building weapons or in the smallest way represents a threat to world peace.

North Korea has NONE of those, and war may happen eventually. South Africa and Canada has all of them, but they're not a threat.

There are two critical ingredients - a valuable natural resource - and despotism.
And oil represents the fastest path to wealth for a despot.


"Next thing ya know ol' Jeb's a millionaire.."

...bad weekend? You're coming down on me hard.

North Korea has had technological ability absent a national resource. Iraq did not. All they had was oil.

There is no diamond threat, anywhere, to our national security as the impact on our economy is negligible.

Of your two ingredients, one is in abundance, despots, one is not; oil.

Take away the oil, Saddam is still a dictator, just one not bothering us as oil is the one and only key.

 

[vraiblonde]

The poll question

And again, I say no.

Let's go back to my previous question that you so neatly sidestepped:

What did Saddam Hussein do to acquire those UN sanctions against him? Did he just have oil and that's why Desert Storm happened?

 

[vraiblonde]

Take away the oil, Saddam is still a dictator, just one not bothering us as oil is the one and only key.

Other countries have oil and much more of it. We didn't invade them. Why not? If it's all about oil, why not go after the big players?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2.html

Iraq is WAY down on the list. NORWAY produces more oil than Iraq. Why not go after Mexico or Canada if we want to encourage the free flow of oil? Why Iraq?

 

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

And again, I say no.

Let's go back to my previous question that you so neatly sidestepped:

What did Saddam Hussein do to acquire those UN sanctions against him? Did he just have oil and that's why Desert Storm happened?

...he was bad.


Now, don't sidstep this; take oil out of the equation and what do you get? The US not invading Iraq.

Yes, he was a bad person and we're not fighting with numerous countries that have oil. There are plenty of bad people who are not a threat to our national security. Bad ones with lots of oil are a threat.

 

[Larry Gude]

Because...

Why not? If it's all about oil, why not go after the big players?

...we get along better with those people.

I understand what you're saying. Saddam = bad guy = US invasion. Thus, if Saddam got along with us this never would have happened and I agree with that, 100%.

Take away the oil and he could be good to us or bad to us and it would not matter.

The constant is oil.

 

[vraiblonde]

Now, don't sidstep this; take oil out of the equation and what do you get? The US not invading Iraq.

Actually, first you get Saddam not having the money and power to create a problem. THEN you get the US not invading Iraq.

Again, other countries produce and export much more oil than Iraq, yet we didn't feel the need to invade them. So that blows the "this is about oil" theory all to hell. It's about Saddam Hussein's aggression, which gave us concern because of our own interests, which brought about his downfall.

I think you should call my mother and convince her it's her fault I smoke. Use the same "logic" you're using in this Iraq debate.

 

[vraiblonde]

Actually, first you get Saddam not having the money and power to create a problem. THEN you get the US not invading Iraq.

However, then we get the undeniable fact that Hitler didn't have oil. Bosnia didn't have oil. Korea didn't have oil. Vietnam didn't have oil.

In fact, this is the one and only war that I recall where oil was even a factor. So obviously dictators don't need oil to create a problem, and they don't need oil to encourage the US to give 'em the smackdown.

 

[vraiblonde]

Larry's right!

 

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

Again, other countries produce and export much more oil than Iraq, yet we didn't feel the need to invade them. So that blows the "this is about oil" theory all to hell. It's about Saddam Hussein's aggression, which gave us concern because of our own interests, which brought about his downfall.

I think you should call my mother and convince her it's her fault I smoke. Use the same "logic" you're using in this Iraq debate.

...this is a logic argument, right?

If so, there are people with oil we get along with, right? So, oil is not a reason in and of itself to invade.

There are people without oil we don't get along with, right? Some, most we don't get along with aren't worth our trouble because they don't have a big enough impact on our national security, be it oil or pickles or Happy Meal toys.

So, the reason to invade boils down to a threat to our national security and in the case of Iraq, it's not him being bad. There are bad people we don't invade. It's not JUST oil because there are people with oil whom we don't invade.

Iraq is about oil.


Now, your mom doesn't have the power to make you smoke. Some mothers have children who don't smoke. You choose to smoke. Saddam chose to be bad. He could be bad all he wants, but, absent oil, he's no threat to our national security because, as you pointed out, his oil was his source of wealth and power to be a threat.

Iraq is about oil.

 

[SamSpade]

...bad weekend? You're coming down on me hard. .

Actually, I had a great weekend. Let's not change the subject.

First, try to remember that people sometimes anser polls and questions based on what they think you're trying to ask. That's completely fair.

I asked : Hillary - yes or no. As in would she make a good hood ornament? And yes, you can't blame people if they thought I was asking about the White House. Because it's common enough to hear the refrain "no blood for oil!" and "hell no! we won't go! we won't fight for Texaco!" .

Let's put it this way:

1. Did we go in there because we need oil and this was a simple way of securing cheap easy oil?
2. Did we go in there to make oil prices lower and make profit for our oil industry OR
3. At least, ensure the security of our oil industry?
4. You mean we DIDN'T go into Afghanistan to secure oil rights in Central Asia?
5. Did we go in there because we're so dependent on Middle Eastern oil we can't allow it to get away from us?
6. Our *national security* so depends on oil that we need to be in charge of policing the area. That's why we've totally taken control of the entire region?

WMD's - a ruse? The UN and UNSCOM and god knows how many resolutions? The whole Powell/UN thing and establishing the presence of WMD's, the whole terror thing - no connection whatsoever?


See, if what you're trying to say is, none of this had any bearing on our invasion - nothing to do with a dangerous despot who was bankrolling suicide bombers in Israel, threatening the Middle East, shooting at our planes and had the programs, money and presumably, the stockpiles to export terror - and had links to organizations threatening terror -

ALL of that was just a massive ploy stretched out on the world stage for over a year JUST so our oil companies would feel safer?

I'd feel better just saying everyone was self-deluded. I'd feel better saying, look, we bought into intel saying Saddam was more dangerous than he really was and overstated his OWN weapons programs to appear more threatening than he was. That he equpped his own troops with gas masks just to be threatening. That he violated restrictions on the range of his missiles, just to scare people, but that he was no threat.

I could believe a lot of stuff, but it really strains credulity to believe the whole thing was just a ruse for oil profits.

...
Take away the oil, Saddam is still a dictator, just one not bothering us as oil is the one and only key[/QUOTE=Larry Gude]

Keep an eye on Pakistan, should they ever turn out to be our ENEMY. They also have no oil but have dangerous weapons.

You're really stubbornly missing the point on purpose, Larry. Yeah, the Sudanese gots no oil - but they're not threatening anyone either, because they don't have any damned money. Sierra Leone fought for years - internally - over diamonds. They had money, but not the manpower to threaten anyone. Canada has wealth and Mexico has or HAD oil, but they're not run by crazy lunatics craving power. I don't know of any nation that has wealth from sources other than oil that are run by despots and threaten world peace.

Saddam was a brutal dictator like Chavez and Kim Jong Il. He had oil which gave him a lot of power very very quickly. Should Chavez follow in his foosteps, we'll be forced to deal with him.

Forty years ago, we had to deal with Castro, a man who ruled an island without oil, gold, diamonds or anything but tobacco and bananas, but was a despot with a dangerous sponsor.

If it is JUST about oil, why have we NOT invaded nations with oil previously?
What made Saddam appear so much on our radar? Why didn't we invade Libya, for example? They have oil. Crazy guy at the helm.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yes...

However, then we get the undeniable fact that Hitler didn't have oil. Bosnia didn't have oil. Korea didn't have oil. Vietnam didn't have oil.

In fact, this is the one and only war that I recall where oil was even a factor. So obviously dictators don't need oil to create a problem, and they don't need oil to encourage the US to give 'em the smackdown.

...and Hitler also had industry independent of oil, as does North Korea. Saddam did not.

Vietnam was a battle between us and the spread of communism, right?

Bosnia, well, I'd argue it was not in our national interest to go get involved with that.