Iraq: Is it about the oil?

[vraiblonde]

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

And if he weren't an insane dictator, we would not be there.

Let's pretend Iraq wasn't rich in oil. Let's say they were rich in diamonds or some other valuable natural resource. Saddam would still be crazy, would still have money, would still be a threat, and we would be there right now.

Now let's pretend that Iraq has oil, but Saddam isn't a lunatic. Would we be there right now? No. No, we wouldn't.

So more evidence that the war isn't about oil - it's about Saddam Hussein being a kook. Absent the oil, there's still a problem. Absent the aggression, there's no problem.

The "Modern-Day Saladin" - remember, Larry?

 

[awpitt]

And if he weren't an insane dictator, we would not be there.

Probably not but we would be selling him weapons just like we did with <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Iran</st1lace></st1:country-region> (pre-79).<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>

<o> </o>

Let's pretend <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Iraq</st1lace></st1:country-region> wasn't rich in oil. Let's say they were rich in diamonds or some other valuable natural resource. Saddam would still be crazy, would still have money, would still be a threat, and we would be there right now.

You’re right. You’re saying <st1:country-region w:st="on">Iraq</st1:country-region> has a “valuable natural resource” that’s important to the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">U.S.</st1lace></st1:country-region> and that we’d be there. That was my point. The “valuable natural resource” is oil and we are there. If <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Iraq</st1lace></st1:country-region> had nothing of value, we wouldn’t be there. Now, if <st1lace w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Iraq</st1:country-region></st1lace> had no oil but was friendly and offered real-estate that we could use for strategic purposes, we’d be there.

<o> </o>

<o> </o>

So more evidence that the war isn't about oil - it's about Saddam Hussein being a kook. Absent the oil, there's still a problem. Absent the aggression, there's no problem.

Nope. If this were true, during the last 50 years, the <st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> would’ve been militarily involved in a lot more countries ruled by kooky dictators with nothing of value for the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">U.S.</st1lace></st1:country-region>

 

[SamSpade]

Nope. If this were true, during the last 50 years, the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> would’ve been militarily involved in a lot more countries ruled by kooky dictators with nothing of value for the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">U.S.</st1lace></st1:country-region>

'Cause goodness knows, there's so much of value in Cuba.

 

[Larry Gude]

Diamonds...

Let's pretend Iraq wasn't rich in oil. Let's say they were rich in diamonds or some other valuable natural resource. Saddam would still be crazy, would still have money, would still be a threat, and we would be there right now.

...are nothing compared to oil. That's apples and oranges. Saddam would have had ak-47's and pick up trucks if he made his money off of diamonds, just like the rest of diamond nations.

If the diamond market ceased tomorrow it would be relevant to the US economy. Diamonds were a $13 billion business last year. That's about the same as a forty cents per barrel globally.

Point is oil alone provides the size of economy needed to produce major weapons and the ability to shake that market is huge dollars.

 

[awpitt]

'Cause goodness knows, there's so much of value in Cuba.

Yea, if Cuba had oil. We would've annexed it a long time ago.

 

[SamSpade]

Yea, if Cuba had oil. We would've annexed it a long time ago.

Kinda missed the whole Castro/Cuban Missile Crisis thing, dintcha?

 

[awpitt]

Kinda missed the whole Castro/Cuban Missile Crisis thing, dintcha?

Nope…. In that case, there was a direct nuclear threat and we intervened.

 

[Larry Gude]

Which...

was a direct nuclear threat and we intervened.

...Fidel borrowed, BTW, because he ain't got no oil!

 

[PsyOps]

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!

It's less to do with the price of oil than it is to do with what a larger treat al Qaeda would be with such unlimited funds. Having a group like al Qaeda control the oil would only force us to do what we should have been doing a long time ago; which is using our own oil resources.

 

[PsyOps]

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

Actually I think oil is the underlying factor. The only reason Saddam could become the threat he was, was because of his oil resources. But you are right, we did not go into Iraq because Saddam had oil; we went there because he was abusing his resources to become a global threat. If Saddam had just played nice and complied with the UN then he would still be running his country just like any other oil-rich nation.

 

[PsyOps]

...are nothing compared to oil. That's apples and oranges. Saddam would have had ak-47's and pick up trucks if he made his money off of diamonds, just like the rest of diamond nations.

If the diamond market ceased tomorrow it would be relevant to the US economy. Diamonds were a $13 billion business last year. That's about the same as a forty cents per barrel globally.

Point is oil alone provides the size of economy needed to produce major weapons and the ability to shake that market is huge dollars.

And besides, you can't deliver those diamonds without oil.

 

[SamSpade]

Nope…. In that case, there was a direct nuclear threat and we intervened.

You get the point - but missing the overall picture.
Castro was a lunatic dictator presiding over no significant amount of wealth or oil - but was a direct threat to us. We intervened.

Moamar Qadafy was a lunatic dictator presiding over a slightly significant amount of oil who presented a threat to us - and we intervened.

Manuel Noriega was a lunatic dictator who presided over nothing of ANY value except the Canal and was a direct threat to us - and we intervened.

Saddam was a lunatic dictator who presided over a significant amount of oil who presented a direct threat to us - and we intervened.

If the only reason we intervened in Iraq was because of oil - why Cuba? Why Afghanistan? Why Libya? Why Panama? Because they all represented a threat to us.

Somehow, **THIS** time it was just about oil, but those other times...? Isn't more sensible to say, it's about threats and not oil?

What we're saying - and I'm saying for the last time - is the only thing that made Saddam threatening is BECAUSE he had oil to make threats with - not controlling oil, not threatening the oil market - but was able to threaten the world from profits from oil, just as Qadafy was able to do twenty years earlier.

 

[awpitt]

If the only reason we intervened in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w:st="on">Iraq</st1:country-region> was because of oil - why <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Cuba</st1lace></st1:country-region>? Why <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Afghanistan</st1lace></st1:country-region>? Why <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Libya</st1lace></st1:country-region>? Why <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Panama</st1lace></st1:country-region>? Because they all represented a threat to us.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>

<o></o>

<o> </o>

<st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Cuba</st1lace></st1:country-region>? They pointed missiles at us.
<st1lace w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Afghanistan</st1:country-region></st1lace>? Base for the 9/11 attack.
<st1lace w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Libya</st1:country-region></st1lace>? Because of the nightclub bombings among other things.
<st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Panama</st1lace></st1:country-region>? The canal.

I’m very aware of the “big picture”. I never said,”the only reason we intervened in <st1lace w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Iraq</st1:country-region></st1lace> was because of oil”. We invest lot of time, effort, money, troops, aid, etc. into the <st1lace w:st="on">Middle East</st1lace> and I’ll bet it’s not because it’s a great vacation spot. It’s because they got the oil. If it weren’t for the oil, we wouldn’t give a rats _ss about the whole region.

 

[RadioPatrol]

"...my wife thinks I've turned into a Pinko Commie.

Ken King thinks I'm a flaming liberal.

Now, Andy Mar-kee thinks I'm Michael Moore.

I guess it's time for some introspection. Anyone got a mirror?



If the Middle East, Iraq, had the same amount of oil Sudan has, we'd be treating it the same as Sudan; "This is terrible! Someone DO something!".

If Sudan had the same amount of oil that the Middle East has, we'd be dealing with the threat to the 'free' flow of oil, aka "Regime change!"

We just would.

Disagree?"




Still vote no?

where is my .99 cent a gallon gas then ?

 

[Larry Gude]

Well...

where is my .99 cent a gallon gas then ?

...things are in a state of...flux...at this point.

 

[vraiblonde]

The only reason Saddam could become the threat he was, was because of his oil resources. But you are right, we did not go into Iraq because Saddam had oil; we went there because he was abusing his resources to become a global threat. If Saddam had just played nice and complied with the UN then he would still be running his country just like any other oil-rich nation.

Exactly. Which is why I say oil is an incidental factor, but not the reason.

 

[PsyOps]

...things are in a state of...flux...at this point.

Flux... isn't that that gunky stuff you put on copper pipe before soldering it?

 

[Larry Gude]

Yes...

Flux... isn't that that gunky stuff you put on copper pipe before soldering it?

...and it causes gas prices to rise.

 

[PsyOps]

...and it causes gas prices to rise.

Funny, I have always viewed oil/gas prices to be in a state of flux. In fact prices are significantly down from last month. I anticipate them to go up again right around the 4th of July, then down again, then back up again around Labor Day weekend. Sometimes this flux has absolutely nothing to do with the general economy or global events but rather oil companies capitalizing on what Americans are going to be doing (i.e. travelling for vacation).

 

[Severa]

Funny, I have always viewed oil/gas prices to be in a state of flux. In fact prices are significantly down from last month. I anticipate them to go up again right around the 4th of July, then down again, then back up again around Labor Day weekend. Sometimes this flux has absolutely nothing to do with the general economy or global events but rather oil companies capitalizing on what Americans are going to be doing (i.e. travelling for vacation).

*nods in agreement* The same flux in prices happens in my hometown of Louisville, KY during the week of the Kentucky Derby, where gas prices damn near go through the roof (this year they were up around $3.22/gal for regular unleaded )