Iraq: Is it about the oil?

[SamSpade]

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, I'm trying to be polite as always - but you really aren't listening. You don't have to agree, but it might be nice if you believed we're telling you what we think.

The short answer: dammit, YES! His threat wasn't based on his influence on oil - only on profit procured by oil.

How much oil is in Afghanistan?

 

[Larry Gude]

I do believe...

Larry, I'm trying to be polite as always - but you really aren't listening. You don't have to agree, but it might be nice if you believed we're telling you what we think.

The short answer: dammit, YES! His threat wasn't based on his influence on oil - only on profit procured by oil.

How much oil is in Afghanistan?

...you're telling me what you think. Afghanistan is a great example of my point; our involvement there is a fraction of that in Iraq because there is no oil.

 

[PsyOps]

...you're telling me what you think. Afghanistan is a great example of my point; our involvement there is a fraction of that in Iraq because there is no oil.

I disagree, the Afghan portion of this war is "a fraction of that in Iraq" because it had more peaceful results. No I'm not saying it's completely peaceful in Afghanistan; but I am saying it is proportionately (as a fraction of that of Iraq) more peaceful than Iraq. From that aspect oil doesn't have a darn thing to do with it.

 

[SamSpade]

...you're telling me what you think. Afghanistan is a great example of my point; our involvement there is a fraction of that in Iraq because there is no oil.

No, it's PEOPLE! The common denominator is PEOPLE!

You're making the same argument I hear on left wing forums everywhere - we should have put more troops on the ground in Afghanistan because if 20,000 troops are good, 40,000 troops are *TWICE* as good. And 80,000 troops FOUR times as good.

Double the sugar in your coffee and it will taste twice as good. Got 1000 cops looking for JonBenet? 2000 will be better.

The reason we didn't do that in Afghanistan is for exactly the same reason people got into a kerfuffle over Hazel O'Leary's travel expenses under Clinton - it was massively wasteful and far much more than was needed. It's one thing to react with overwhelming force, but it's another to support an enormous number of troops who cannot be used effectively. There's just no damned point.

And Afghanistan DOES make our point. The first place we kicked butt was the one place in Central Asia that actually has no oil. Why were we there? Was it because we were after a wealthy despot who had made overtures to kill us? Excuse me, I meant, Saddam Hussein (and not Osama bin Laden)?

 

[Larry Gude]

Right...

I disagree, the Afghan portion of this war is "a fraction of that in Iraq" because it had more peaceful results. No I'm not saying it's completely peaceful in Iraq; but I am saying it is proportionately (as a fraction of that of Iraq) more peaceful than Iraq. From that aspect oil doesn't have a darn thing to do with it.

...because if they had oil in Afghanistan there's be more at stake, more to fight over. Oil doesn't have a darn thing to do with it.

Right.

There may not be a better analogy than Aftghanistan v. Iraq in terms of oil's role. We are in Afghanistan which doesn't have oil which makes a case that we could have been in Iraq without oil, so I see your all's side more clearly in that context.

 

[Larry Gude]

See my post...

And Afghanistan DOES make our point. The first place we kicked butt was the one place in Central Asia that actually has no oil. Why were we there? Was it because we were after a wealthy despot who had made overtures to kill us? Excuse me, I meant, Saddam Hussein (and not Osama bin Laden)?

....#105.


Not sure why you're saying this;

You're making the same argument I hear on left wing forums everywhere - we should have put more troops on the ground in Afghanistan because if 20,000 troops are good, 40,000 troops are *TWICE* as good. And 80,000 troops FOUR times as good.

I don't think I've said a word about troop levels in Afghanistan; just that we've put Pakistan's national interests ahead of ours in going after OBL.

 

[SamSpade]

....#105.


Not sure why you're saying this;



I don't think I've said a word about troop levels in Afghanistan; just that we've put Pakistan's national interests ahead of ours in going after OBL.

Assuming the term "our involvement there is a fraction of Iraq" refers to troops, equipment and dollars and not, say, personal relationships?

Ever wonder why cops show up with the sirens running? As in, so much for the element of surprise? I don't think they know where he is in Pakistan. I don't know that they're sure he IS in Pakistan. But I also believe that invading Pakistan would accomplish little other than p!ss off a Muslim country with NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Without better intel, I don't see it as a good risk.

 

[Larry Gude]

Neither...

Assuming the term "our involvement there is a fraction of Iraq" refers to troops, equipment and dollars and not, say, personal relationships?

Ever wonder why cops show up with the sirens running? As in, so much for the element of surprise? I don't think they know where he is in Pakistan. I don't know that they're sure he IS in Pakistan. But I also believe that invading Pakistan would accomplish little other than p!ss off a Muslim country with NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Without better intel, I don't see it as a good risk.

...apparently, does the president.

I soured on his judgement with the port fiasco, the way he has handled our borders at home, getting nothing done on SS, expanding medicaid and the Schiavo mess. Turning the US into the land of security lines and fear hasn't gone over with me to well either, especially when all the FBI needed in the first place was permission from Justice to use military and CIA intel to get into the 9/11 terrorists business.

And the two great things of 9/11, OBL and the anthrax attacks are, as you say, lacking intel.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

Vrai, has Larry been taking his medication lately. He sounds like Ted Kennedy.

 

[Larry Gude]

Is that...

Vrai, has Larry been taking his medication lately. He sounds like Ted Kennedy.

...your idea of gloating?

 

[PsyOps]

...because if they had oil in Afghanistan there's be more at stake, more to fight over. Oil doesn't have a darn thing to do with it.

Right.

There may not be a better analogy than Aftghanistan v. Iraq in terms of oil's role. We are in Afghanistan which doesn't have oil which makes a case that we could have been in Iraq without oil, so I see your all's side more clearly in that context.

I never said oil doesn't have anything to do with it. I'm quite certain oil has everything to do with the current situation. And as important as oil is to the rest of the world I think it's worth fighting for to keep it out of the hands of al Qaeda, Iran and Syria. I can't imagine how much more dangerous the world would be with all that oil in control of those that want to do so much harm to us.

I just don't want this whole conversation to get lumped into why we went into Iraq in the first place, which was NOT about oil. But if it was, it would still be justified.

 

[vraiblonde]

I still maintain that oil may have been a factor, but it's not the *reason*.

 

[PsyOps]

I still maintain that oil may have been a factor, but it's not the *reason*.

It's a BIG factor, but a darn good reason to protect it.

 

[vraiblonde]

It's a BIG factor, but a darn good reason to protect it.

I do not think oil was a "big" factor in invading Iraq. I think it was an incidental.

The other military actions we've been involved in did not have anything to do with oil whatsoever.

Other countries with dictators are major oil exporters, and we aren't invading them.

What makes Saddam the exception to both of these?

1+1=2

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

It's a BIG factor, but a darn good reason to protect it.

What Larry the Flaming Liberal is saying is that we shouldn't protect oil interests and should let gas prices skyrocket when al-Qaida owns a good fraction of the world's oil.

Then we'd have to go green!

 

[spicy]

I have said: 'Blow out the lamp! Day is here!' And you keep saying: 'Give me a lamp so I can find the day.'

 

[T.Rally]

In 2000 the top oil producers were Saudi Arabia, the United States, Russia, Iran and Venezuela. Iraq was number 10. Notice, this was prior to the war in Iraq and Sept. 11, 2001.

At the end of 2006, the top oil producers were Saudi Arabia, Russia, the United States and Iran. Iraq was number 15.

The top five countries that the U.S. Imports oil from are Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Nigeria. Iraq, by the way is number 6. But hey, George Bush and the Republicans are all about oil.

See www.eia.doe.gov, for more information.

 

[awpitt]

I still maintain that oil may have been a factor, but it's not the *reason*.

If Iraq wasn't rich in oil, we would not be there. It's that simple.

 

[T.Rally]

If Iraq wasn't rich in oil, we would not be there. It's that simple.

The invasion into Iraq was undeniably related to oil.

Oil IS Iraq's Economy.

The long term threat of Saddam having the ability to disrupt world energy markets by acquiring nuclear weapons was the most likely scenario that animated the Bush administration to action, not to steal their sole resource. The thought of having the world economy subject to Saddam's irrational whims was probably more than they could bear. Thus, in a sense, the invasion was about control of oil, but not its control by the U.S. Instead, it was about preventing Saddam from eventually acquiring control over the oil of his neighbor’s oil production through some combination of nuclear blackmail or military conquest.

 

[Ken King]

If Iraq wasn't rich in oil, we would not be there. It's that simple.

No, if Iraq hadn't been using its funds from being rich in oil in a manner of aggression and tyranny we would not be there. The simple fact that they are oil rich has no nexus as to why it is that we took the action against them. Otherwise, if oil was an issue, wouldn’t we have just held on to Kuwait when we helped remove the Iraqis back in the early 1990s?

Read Public Law No: 105-338 and Public Law No: 107-243, nowhere does it say in either of these documents that oil is a reason for any of the sought changes to the old Iraqi regime?