Lion said:

luvdemshrooms said:

Details? You claim it was for the oil, yet there was none.

---

I don't think oil was the only reason the U.S. invaded Iraq, but I don't understand what you mean when you say "there was none".  There is tons of oil in Iraq, and the industry was nationalized under Saddam's regime.  Now, multinationals, including many U.S.-listed IOCs, operate in Iraq and make money on Iraqi oil.

---

Quote:

Those who claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get control of the country's giant oil reserves will be left scratching their heads by the results of last weekend's auction of Iraqi oil contracts: Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades. Two of the most lucrative of the multi-billion-dollar oil contracts went to two countries which bitterly opposed the U.S. invasion — Russia and China — while even Total Oil of France, which led the charge to deny international approval for the war at the U.N. Security Council in 2003, won a bigger stake than the Americans in the most recent auction. "[The distribution of oil contracts] certainly answers the theory that the war was for the benefit of big U.S. oil interests," says Alex Munton, Middle East oil analyst for the energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie, whose clients include major U.S. companies. "That has not been demonstrated by what has happened this week."

---

luvdemshrooms said:

Lion said:

luvdemshrooms said:

Details? You claim it was for the oil, yet there was none.

---

I don't think oil was the only reason the U.S. invaded Iraq, but I don't understand what you mean when you say "there was none".  There is tons of oil in Iraq, and the industry was nationalized under Saddam's regime.  Now, multinationals, including many U.S.-listed IOCs, operate in Iraq and make money on Iraqi oil.

---

We didn't take the oil. Had the militaries of the world gone in and took the oil, that would be one thing. Yet, that didn't happen.

---

All right.  I don't think anyone would argue that that was what happened.   Militaries don't really have the capacity for oil exploration and development.

zappaisgod said:

I don't think American companies signed on for Iraqi oil that much, if at all.

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html

Quote:

Those who claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get control of the country's giant oil reserves will be left scratching their heads by the results of last weekend's auction of Iraqi oil contracts: Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades. Two of the most lucrative of the multi-billion-dollar oil contracts went to two countries which bitterly opposed the U.S. invasion — Russia and China — while even Total Oil of France, which led the charge to deny international approval for the war at the U.N. Security Council in 2003, won a bigger stake than the Americans in the most recent auction. "[The distribution of oil contracts] certainly answers the theory that the war was for the benefit of big U.S. oil interests," says Alex Munton, Middle East oil analyst for the energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie, whose clients include major U.S. companies. "That has not been demonstrated by what has happened this week."

---

The problem with the people who say that nonsense is that they are ignorant tools who follow every idiot Pied Piper who toodles a fancy tune.  We all know what happened to the rats who followed the Pied Piper, right?

---

zappaisgod said:

The problem with the people who say that nonsense is that they are ignorant tools who follow every idiot Pied Piper who toodles a fancy tune.  We all know what happened to the rats who followed the Pied Piper, right?

---

zappaisgod said:

Just trying to knock down the ignoramouses who spout obviously false nonsense.  I'm a teacher and I don't like disinformation agents.

---

zappaisgod said:

Just trying to knock down the ignoramouses who spout obviously false nonsense.  I'm a teacher and I don't like disinformation agents.

---

The only people who use the word ignoramus, are people who
can convince themselves they are intellectually and socially
superior than the people they're talking about. 

zappaisgod said:

Just trying to knock down the ignoramouses who spout obviously false nonsense.  I'm a teacher and I don't like disinformation agents.

---

Lion said:

zappaisgod said:

Just trying to knock down the ignoramouses who spout obviously false nonsense.  I'm a teacher and I don't like disinformation agents.

---

"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that." - Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, 2007

"People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are." - Then-Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, 2007

It seems you're in a little bit of denial about this aspect of the war.  As I said before, many, many U.S.- and British-listed IOCs and consultancies are in Iraq right now, profiting on oil they would otherwise never have had access to.

---

zappaisgod said:

Lion said:

zappaisgod said:

Just trying to knock down the ignoramouses who spout obviously false nonsense.  I'm a teacher and I don't like disinformation agents.

---

"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that." - Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, 2007

"People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are." - Then-Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, 2007

It seems you're in a little bit of denial about this aspect of the war.  As I said before, many, many U.S.- and British-listed IOCs and consultancies are in Iraq right now, profiting on oil they would otherwise never have had access to.

---

We didn't get any oil and Chuck Hagel is the man currently overseeing the dismantling of the US military.  He opposed the Iraq War from the beginning.

I will repeat this.  We didn't get any oil

---

Lion said:

zappaisgod said:

Lion said:

zappaisgod said:

Just trying to knock down the ignoramouses who spout obviously false nonsense.  I'm a teacher and I don't like disinformation agents.

---

"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that." - Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, 2007

"People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are." - Then-Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, 2007

It seems you're in a little bit of denial about this aspect of the war.  As I said before, many, many U.S.- and British-listed IOCs and consultancies are in Iraq right now, profiting on oil they would otherwise never have had access to.

---

We didn't get any oil and Chuck Hagel is the man currently overseeing the dismantling of the US military.  He opposed the Iraq War from the beginning.

I will repeat this.  We didn't get any oil

---

And what about John Abizaid, who actually oversaw operations and was on the ground in Iraq in a non-partisan capacity?  Also, I love how the one quote you posted in favor of your viewpoint was from a representative of a big oil consultancy, while you only address one of my quotes, and that one being from a guy whose comments came at a time when he was part of the upper echelon of the party that led us to war.

Your repetition of "We didn't get any oil" is intentionally dense and reductive.  The Bush administration had strong ties with the oil industry and met regularly with IOC leaders.  They even set up a State Department bureau on Iraqi oil before invading.

Now, because we invaded, American IOCs and consultancies have access to Iraqi oil (and, in fact, the U.S. now imports oil from Iraq, so we did "get some oil", though that is beside the point).  We created an environment that was conducive for many of our companies to do successful business in Iraq, which big IOCs here and companies like Halliburton had been clamoring for for years.  That was one clear reason (but not the only reason) for our invasion, and anyone without blinders on can see it plainly.

---

Quote:

If you want to argue that we never would have intervened in Kuwait if the region didn't have resources you could do so. 

---

Lion said:

I simply can't understand how you're not grasping this.  No, "we" (the American people per se) didn't gain anything.  Yes, American, British, and other IOCs and consultancies gained A LOT - access to Iraqi oil, exploration, R&D, and production licenses, new high-quality crude for their downstream industries...profit, in other words.  The governments involved made the decision to invade in part because it would open up new markets for multinationals with whom they shared a close relationship.  IOCs like Chevron and ExxonMobil openly urged the U.S. government to find a way to open up Iraqi markets for years.  The Bush administration's strong, unhidden connections with IOCs and with consultancies like Halliburton played a substantial role in their decision to invade. It is undeniable.

---

Quote:

Quote:

If you want to argue that we never would have intervened in Kuwait if the region didn't have resources you could do so. 

---

Bingo.  Not only would I like to argue that, I would be thrilled to see a plausible argument against that.  We had zero interest whatsoever in Gulf peninsula when the British controlled much of it, and the Turks before that.  There is no denying that Saddam with Kuwaiti oil was a dangerous prospect for the U.S. and especially for Israel, but the crucial factor was really the thought of losing access, between a Ba'athist Iraq and Islamic Republic in Iran, to the entire region's reserves.  The Saudis were freaking out despite having backed Saddam previously.

---

zappaisgod said:

Lion said:

I simply can't understand how you're not grasping this.  No, "we" (the American people per se) didn't gain anything.  Yes, American, British, and other IOCs and consultancies gained A LOT - access to Iraqi oil, exploration, R&D, and production licenses, new high-quality crude for their downstream industries...profit, in other words.  The governments involved made the decision to invade in part because it would open up new markets for multinationals with whom they shared a close relationship.  IOCs like Chevron and ExxonMobil openly urged the U.S. government to find a way to open up Iraqi markets for years.  The Bush administration's strong, unhidden connections with IOCs and with consultancies like Halliburton played a substantial role in their decision to invade. It is undeniable.

---

Of course it is deniable since you have weren't privy to the discussions.  The opening of new markets is peanuts compared to the cost that 50 nations bore.

---

DOD spending was $800 billion, and overall U.S. spending exceeded $1 trillion.

Iraq has more than 1/10th of the world's proven reserves.  That amounts to way more than $1 trillion.  Iraq has annual revenues on crude sales of between $95-115 billion per year, depending what source you're reading, and corporate revenues on oil are high by any region's standards.  The Iraq war was financed on debt that its prosecutors themselves (meaning the individuals who comprise the administration) will never have to pay.  It's not like IOCs bore the costs, so it doesn't matter that the expenditure exceeds the rewards in the near term.  The U.S. government and the American people will pay down the line.  In other words, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

Edit: Bush's treasury secretary was privy to the discussions, and was fired for disagreements over energy policy.  He claimed the Bush administration was working closely with several IOCs, many of whom had contributed heavily to his campaign, to create an Iraqi energy policy prior to the invasion.  You'll accuse him of lying out of spite, but his statements are on record, and he was privy to discussions.

zappaisgod said:

It had nothing do with access.  We were always going to have access.  It is called buying it.  Did we have an interest in stabilizing a region that we otherwise would not have given a shit about?  Sure.  But no matter what they were eventually going to have to sell the oil.

---

Patlal said:

zappaisgod said:

Just trying to knock down the ignoramouses who spout obviously false nonsense.  I'm a teacher and I don't like disinformation agents.

---

You're quite possibly the biggest ignoramous on the entire website lol.

---