Iraq: Is it about the oil?

[vraiblonde]

Some mothers have children who don't smoke.

My mother doesn't have a single child who doesn't smoke. ALL of her biological children smoke. She is the only common denominator. So it must be her, right?

My Mom makes me smoke.

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm not changing the subject...

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

...I'm just noting the emphasis you were using because it is unusual for you. That's all.

 

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

My mother doesn't have a single child who doesn't smoke. ALL of her biological children smoke. She is the only common denominator. So it must be her, right?

My Mom makes me smoke.

...your mom makes you smoke.

So, who is the US, you or your mom? Who is Iraq? Are the cigarettes oil?

 

[Larry Gude]

That's fine...

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..

...but I have tried to clarify what I mean when I say 'Iraq is about oil'.

This is a forum, not just a poll with no other input besides the question itself.

 

[Larry Gude]

I have said...

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?

...time and again that our national security interest is the free flow of oil at market prices. That's straight from Limbaugh and he's been saying it since 1991 and I've yet to see where it needs any more clarification than that, so, I use his description verbatim.

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm saying...

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 -

...that oil is his/was his source of power to be a threat. Without oil he could do none of those things as Iraq is an oil economy and that's about it in terms of our national security.

 

[Larry Gude]

Where does...

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?

...that come from? The only time I've ever suggested we're doing this for anyone's personal gain has been tongue in cheek.

 

[vraiblonde]

That's straight from Limbaugh and he's been saying it since 1991

Good for him Special K.

The IWR specifically mentions aggression and WMD, not oil. So I would say that Saddam lobbing a nuke our way was much more disturbing and a bigger priority than him cutting off our oil.

Your argument is falling apart fast.

 

[SamSpade]

...that oil is his/was his source of power to be a threat. Without oil he could do none of those things as Iraq is an oil economy and that's about it in terms of our national security.

Then I think Ken's and vrai's and my point (which for some reason seem to be in agreement) is made. Saddam was a threat to our security. Oil gave him that power. Without oil he could not have been a threat. We did not go into Iraq to stabilize oil markets nor were we provoked to attack to get MORE oil from the Middle East.

We may yet attack Iran for reasons having only marginal connection with oil.

I'm sure you've seen this before but - does any nation we go to war with that has oil necessarily make the conflict ITSELF about oil? Why can't we just say, it's about people - you know, we go to war with Russia or China 'cause, they have a lot of PEOPLE. We don't go to war with Switzerland or Liechtenstein because they don't have a lot of PEOPLE.

Of course, we're kind of FRIENDS with India, and they have a lot of PEOPLE, but Indonesia is another matter.

But the common denominator is lots of people. Of course, a lot of people often means, strong industry, potentially large army etc. But there's no connection. It's the NUMBER of PEOPLE, and not what they do with them.

 

[Larry Gude]

My argument is not falling...

Good for him Special K.

The IWR specifically mentions aggression and WMD, not oil. So I would say that Saddam lobbing a nuke our way was much more disturbing and a bigger priority than him cutting off our oil.

Your argument is falling apart fast.

...apart. Oil is the horse that pulled Saddams cart. it is the irreplacable variable in our situation with Iraq.

There would be no IWR had Saddam no oil, thus no money for WMD's or supporting terrorism or invading Kuwait. That's as simple as it gets. He did not, as Hilter did, have any other viable means of wealth to be able to afford to be a threat to us.

 

[Larry Gude]

I thought...

Then I think Ken's and vrai's and my point (which for some reason seem to be in agreement) is made. Saddam was a threat to our security. Oil gave him that power. Without oil he could not have been a threat.

...I was saying that exact same thing?

 

[SamSpade]

...apart. Oil is the horse that pulled Saddams cart. it is the irreplacable variable in our situation with Iraq.

No it ISN'T. It was PEOPLE! Kuwait has oil too, but no PEOPLE.

 

[SamSpade]

...I was saying that exact same thing?

Not quite.
We invaded ...........when he became a THREAT.

Are we learning yet? (to paraphrase from Terminator 2).

 

[Ken King]

...I was saying that exact same thing?

If you are saying the same thing maybe you should try talking out the other side of your neck because it doesn't sound the same.

Saddam could have achieved wealth via another means then his national resources (like when he tried to take Kuwait's wealth). The fact that his wealth was from oil is not the issue, the aggression and warlike mannerisms were the reasons we went in.

 

[PsyOps]

...I was saying that exact same thing?

Then what we are left with (at least for you) is, it is getting too ugly and therefore no longer worth the effort, regardless of whose hands the oil ends up in?

 

[Larry Gude]

So...

Then what we are left with (at least for you) is, it is getting too ugly and therefore no longer worth the effort, regardless of whose hands the oil ends up in?

...when I argue we should secure the borders and deal with Iran and Syria and Saudi and go get OBL, that's saying it's not worth the effort?

 

[Larry Gude]

Try...

If you are saying the same thing maybe you should try talking out the other side of your neck because it doesn't sound the same.

Saddam could have achieved wealth via another means then his national resources (like when he tried to take Kuwait's wealth). The fact that his wealth was from oil is not the issue, the aggression and warlike mannerisms were the reasons we went in.

...reading what I say for a change and stop looking at my neck.

That should help.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yes...

the aggression and warlike mannerisms were the reasons we went in.

...because the aggression and warlike mannerisms (mannerisms?) were direct threats to our national security due to the threats being directed at the free flow of oil at market prices.

If he was being aggressive and using warlike mannerisms in the middle of Africa, we would not have invaded. If he was doing it in the middle of the Balkans, we would not have invaded (I don't call what we're doing over there comparable to what we're doing in Iraq). If he was doing it on the moon we probably would not have invaded.

Now, if the worlds oil supply was threatened in the middle of Africa or the Balkans or on the moon that would change every thing.

The idea of oil being so important seems to be something y'all are uncomfortable with.

Here. Try this; If we used 100% ethanol and did not import a drop of oil, do you think we would have still invaded Iraq?

 

[Larry Gude]

No...

Not quite.
We invaded ...........when he became a THREAT.

Are we learning yet? (to paraphrase from Terminator 2).

...we invaded long after he became a threat.

 

[PsyOps]

...when I argue we should secure the borders and deal with Iran and Syria and Saudi and go get OBL, that's saying it's not worth the effort?

You're going to make me go back and find where you have written that you feel we need to pull out, that this is no longer worth it. I think we already agreed about securing the borders and dealing with Iran and Syria. I happen to think you are putting too narrow of a vision on the overall problem. But getting out of the hotzone will only allow things to get hotter. Even though things look ugly now with us there can't you imagine what things would be like if we left Baghdad?