[RenegadeRick]

Except we didn't go to Iraq for oil and the real reason is far more scary and globally unacceptable... which is why it wasn't mention except in 'scholarly' papers in the late 90s.

But you'll say, "It was about oil." And I'm not in the mood... so go search this forum for past discussions.

So I sat on my rich, lazy ass and actually searched the for past posts on the topic. I found many reasons including WMD, oil, revenge for 9-11, but nothing I considered scary or globally unacceptable.

Personally, I always thought that the ultimate reason we are in Iraq was .

Care to let me in on the secret LO? Please tell me why we are really in Iraq.

I'm not really looking to debate in this thread. Just want to hear about the reason why we are there. You other feel free to speak up about what you think the reasons are.

I know and for even suggesting this, but let us not debate the reasons in this thread.
Let us simply work together to understand the reasons think we are involved in Iraq.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

my shot at diving into conspiracy-land.

beyond the medium term finantial gains of owning iraq's oil.

controlling the supply, grants the US an upper hand in the long run when it comes to deals with china and its increasing oil demand.
it also takes some load from the saudi oil dependency, onto a friendlier supplier.. hopefully what the new iraqui government wiil be.

 

[LordOpie]

I'm not saying oil, revenge or whatever weren't reasons, but the real reason was to spread the American Empire. To have a military and political presence and influence in as many places as possible.

I didn't read this -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century -- but it looks like a decent overview.

This administration planned this before they took the White House.

Remember how Turkey refused to let US use their land or airspace?

If it wasn't Iraq, it would've been another country, but geographically, it's a good location. And the WMDs was a legitimate scare to manipulate.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

I'm not saying oil, revenge or whatever weren't reasons, but the real reason was to spread the American Empire. To have a military and political presence and influence in as many places as possible.

I didn't read this -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century -- but it looks like a decent overview.

This administration planned this before they took the White House.

Remember how Turkey refused to let US use their land or airspace?

If it wasn't Iraq, it would've been another country, but geographically, it's a good location. And the WMDs was a legitimate scare to manipulate.

did you watch a recent "history of oil" special on the history chanel (or A&E maybe). they pretty much summed it up, quoting rummy, wolfowitz, cheney.. then the opinion of former US ambassadors, saudi diplomats, an ex petroleum minister...
very interesting.

 

[LordOpie]

I didn't see that. The TV show summed up what?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

I didn't see that. The TV show summed up what?

the history of oil and world markets and the trends and causes.

the yom kippur war and its effect on the oil markets, the 80s crash, opec, oil in former soviet countries, russian oil and the US, venezuela, african oil, PNAC, the gulf wars, china and its soon to be depleted local sources, the latest invasion of iraq and a lot of things you wrote here.

pretty much summed up all the build up to todays actions, and gave significant time to PNAC and the current administration strategical motives.

it was like 2 hours long.

 

[$tinkle]

regional stability

(feel free to x-post in the 2 word thread)

 

[LordOpie]

regional stability

If you're saying that was our primary reason for going in, I agree.

 

[Ridemonkey]

I'm looking forward to when we run out of oil.

 

[jimmydean]

The fact is, war makes a lot of people rich. There is the whole oil thing, but the money being made off of no-bid contract, companies who make "war type stuff", contractors that are being paid to guard people of special interest, and companies involved in the "rebuilding of Iraq" all have made and stand to make a ton of cash for at least 2 more years.

The long term damage to the military is not worth it IMO. But I also don't own any shares in HAL.

 

[$tinkle]

There is the whole oil thing, but the money being made off of no-bid contract...

you know what makes a contract "no-bid", ja?

...companies who make "war type stuff", contractors that are being paid to guard people of special interest, and companies involved in the "rebuilding of Iraq" all have made and stand to make a ton of cash for at least 2 more years.

higher the risk, higher the reward; think about it next time you & your mates select which path to ride

But I also don't own any shares in HAL.

how 'bout IBM?



(tell me someone here gets the reference...)

 

[MMike]

(tell me someone here gets the reference...)

2001.....


What are you doing, Dave?

 

[LordOpie]

I'm looking forward to when we run out of oil.

me too.

 

[MMike]

me too.

Should everyone buy shares in Duracell and Energizer...and Die-Hard...and Nickel mines and Cadmium mines and

 

[LordOpie]

^ huh?

No, I'm just sayin', necessity is the mother of invention. Until there's motivation, nothing is really going to happen.

 

[JohnE]

Isnt petroleum used in bike tires??

 

[kinghami3]

I'm not saying oil, revenge or whatever weren't reasons, but the real reason was to spread the American Empire. To have a military and political presence and influence in as many places as possible.

I didn't read this -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century -- but it looks like a decent overview.

This administration planned this before they took the White House.

Um... this isn't new. I'm utterly un-shocked by this and kind of surprised that this hasn't been posted already. It's why we have Israel in the first place, and however much they brag about being a nuclear power, they are ultimately dependent on our backing for their survival. Iraq will be the same way. We've been an imperialistic nation for a while, and so has nearly every superpower before us.

 

[LordOpie]

I'm kind of surprised that this hasn't been posted already.

it has been posted before.

 

[kinghami3]

it has been posted before.

Yeah... somehow in my tiredness I thought this was the first post of the thread, and was wondering what the news flash was.

 

[Changleen]

...Israel.. and however much they brag about being a nuclear power,

 

[Changleen]

Of course the reasons were multifaceted, but I believe the two main reasons were Empire building (creating a "America-friendly" country in the heart of the ME) and 'oil security'.

 

[$tinkle]

like i wrote: "regional stability".

pentagon should've got their PR on sooner (sept 12th perhaps); it's a hard sell now. must invoke the caliphate at this point.

 

[cheeselad]

regional instability -

I was playing Rome: Total War the other day and found myself in the position of supplying money to an ally over in the Northeast area of the game map because that ally had borders against all my enemies. I figured that ally could help whittle down my enemies without the need of a direct attack from my forces. As long as they kept fighting I didn't have to. In the middle of it I was like holy crap I'm US and my ally is Israel.

What if the US wants the region to be unstable. What if the point was to keep the region from being united and in peace unable to focus on strengthening their economic power rooted in its oil supply, unable to focus their attention to their common enemy. To keep the Middle East stuck in civil wars between Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis. Imagine the wealth and power that region could attain if they stopped fighting each other. How intimidating would it be for US to deal with a united Middle East?

Maybe we're not there solely to spread freedom or profit from the chaos. Maybe the point is to prevent any other entity to become as powerful as we are. Or an enemy to become powerful enough to even believe they have a chance to measure to us. How many countries out there are dependent on the oil produced in the Middle East? What power the Middle East would have if for once they put down arms and worked together united... against us.

Take a look at the countries in OPEC half are our enemies and the other half allies. As long as there is some sort of conflict in interest, we can be sure that not a single group attains too much power.

 

[rockwool]

It's all about the $$$ of the present and the future. Doesn't matter how they are made; wars, businesses, oil and other natural resourses. All these are tools to get the $$$.

Maybe creating a poll is a good way if you want clean answers without being complicated by comments on other posts.

controlling the supply, grants the US an upper hand in the long run when it comes to deals with china and its increasing oil demand.

True. It doesn't matter if China doesn't have military presence/control of any other country as long as they are the biggest economy (not there yet), they earn the most $$$.

the real reason was to spread the American Empire. To have a military and political presence and influence in as many places as possible.

True, but still a tool to get richer.

did you watch a recent "history of oil" special on the history chanel (or A&E maybe). they pretty much summed it up, quoting rummy, wolfowitz, cheney.. then the opinion of former US ambassadors, saudi diplomats, an ex petroleum minister...
very interesting.

Thanks, will watch it this weekend.

regional stability

Iraq or the region as a whole is far from effing stable. That was just a scapegoat just as WMD's were.

I'm looking forward to when we run out of oil.

Hope it's just not too late to turn this world around when it finaly happens..

The fact is, war makes a lot of people rich. There is the whole oil thing, but the money being made off of no-bid contract, companies who make "war type stuff", contractors that are being paid to guard people of special interest, and companies involved in the "rebuilding of Iraq" all have made and stand to make a ton of cash for at least 2 more years.

(tell me someone here gets the reference...)

I don't, please explain.

Isnt petroleum used in bike tires??

Bike tires, pantyhose, a lot of textile...
Henry Ford built a car that had the body made out of hemp, a material I belive is the single most important replacement for fossile products and a whole lot more things in totaly different fields.

Of course the reasons were multifaceted, but I believe the two main reasons were Empire building (creating a "America-friendly" country in the heart of the ME) and 'oil security'.

Securing the natural recources (oil) is one of the biggest reasons for having an empire, which it self is a way to make more dosh.

regional instability -

I was playing Rome: Total War the other day and found myself in the position of supplying money to an ally over in the Northeast area of the game map because that ally had borders against all my enemies. I figured that ally could help whittle down my enemies without the need of a direct attack from my forces. As long as they kept fighting I didn't have to. In the middle of it I was like holy crap I'm US and my ally is Israel.

What if the US wants the region to be unstable. What if the point was to keep the region from being united and in peace unable to focus on strengthening their economic power rooted in its oil supply, unable to focus their attention to their common enemy. To keep the Middle East stuck in civil wars between Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis. Imagine the wealth and power that region could attain if they stopped fighting each other. How intimidating would it be for US to deal with a united Middle East?

Maybe we're not there solely to spread freedom or profit from the chaos. Maybe the point is to prevent any other entity to become as powerful as we are. Or an enemy to become powerful enough to even believe they have a chance to measure to us. How many countries out there are dependent on the oil produced in the Middle East? What power the Middle East would have if for once they put down arms and worked together united... against us.

Take a look at the countries in OPEC half are our enemies and the other half allies. As long as there is some sort of conflict in interest, we can be sure that not a single group attains too much power.

One can get a bliss from playing games on the computer? I have never felt an urge to pick up gaming but I will now! How much memory and other performance do I need on my computer to be able to play that game?
What a fresh breaze of a way to see the whole picture, wellcome to this forum!

 

[kinghami3]

Let's face it, though they "try" to keep it under wraps, they want everyone in the middle east to know what they can do. That little comment by the PM wasn't a mistake; it's important to them they everyone knows they have nukes.

 

[skinny mike]

RR, you should read hegemony or survival by noam chomsky.

 

[blue]

A) Protection of the value of the dollar
B) Spreading regional influence (eg Empire)
C) Securing oil reserves

A few minor reasons:
A) War profit (eg HAL)
B) Religion
C) Insanity of the neocon movement/GWB "revenge"

 

[LordOpie]

A) Protection of the value of the dollar

can't be. They're giddy that the value went down and other countries were annoyed at buying dollars to raise the value back up.

 

[Kihaji]

Depends on who "we" is.

Bush and his cabinet, well I don't think he actually thought about it.
Military leadership, more money.
Some soldiers, they were told to
Other soldiers, they genuinely want to make a difference
Corporations, money, and some want to make a difference

To put a blanket statement about "why we went to war" is foolish on many levels, different people had different motives, and at this point in time it is moot. The question you should be asking is "what can we do to fix the problem over there"

 

[LordOpie]

Depends on who "we" is.

why do you feel the need to make everything more difficult than it needs to be? The "we" is the decision makers. No one else is part of the "we" as they had no power in the decision. Stop being so contradictory just for fun cuz really, that's an easy and retarded position to take.

 

[rockwool]

The "we" is the decision makers. No one else is part of the "we" as they had no power in the decision.

True dat!

 

[rockwool]

Let's face it, though they "try" to keep it under wraps, they want everyone in the middle east to know what they can do. That little comment by the PM wasn't a mistake; it's important to them they everyone knows they have nukes.

Mmm, you're right, but I haven't read anything about the worlds reaction to that (maybe I missed it), is Israel going to get the same treatment from the world community as have been discussed about Iran?

 

[Kihaji]

why do you feel the need to make everything more difficult than it needs to be? The "we" is the decision makers. No one else is part of the "we" as they had no power in the decision. Stop being so contradictory just for fun cuz really, that's an easy and retarded position to take.

Then again, the "we" is complicated. Some of "we" wanted to go because that is what our leadership wanted. Some of "we" wanted to go because "them ragheads must pay for 9/11". And some of us "we" wanted to go because we wanted to genuinely free Iraq.

Now your "we" is even bigger than my first guess. Instead of limiting yourself to the government leadership and military, you now are trying to blanket the entire population of the coalition forces, several hundred million people that include yourself, under one banner.

It's not about making things more complex than they are, because they are already complex enough as it is. It's about recognizing that complexity.

That said, you haven't answered my final question, why does it matter now? Is it so you can get a warm feeling in your stomach knowing that you are better than the "warmonger profiteerers who forced us to war?" Or is it so you can ignore the actual important question at hand? How do we fix the situation there now?

There is a time and a place for this question, and believe you me, I will be the first one to be asking it at that point in time. But it is not now, not while people are still dying.

 

[Da Peach]

Should everyone buy shares in Duracell and Energizer...and Die-Hard...and Nickel mines and Cadmium mines and

Great...Sudbury better watch its ass...

 

[RenegadeRick]

There is a time and a place for this question, and believe you me, I will be the first one to be asking it at that point in time. But it is not now, not while people are still dying.

There is no wrong time to ask any question.

If you are unwilling to ask questions, how do you expect to ever find solutions?

 

[BurlyShirley]

There is no wrong time to ask any question.

This is actually completely untrue. I can come up with a thousand smartass answers, would you like to hear some?

 

[Kihaji]

There is no wrong time to ask any question.

If you are unwilling to ask questions, how do you expect to ever find solutions?

And again, at this point in time, what solution are you looking to find with this question? The more pertinent question is not why we are there, but how do we fix it. When things are for the most part stable, then is when we ask, why the hell did we do that again?

 

[$tinkle]

This is actually completely untrue. I can come up with a thousand smartass answers, would you like to hear some?

you think there's timing involved w/ "are you into anal"?

 

[N8 v2.0]

I'm looking forward to when we run out of oil.

then we'll be warring over other stuff just like we have been for the last couple hundred thousand years.

 

[narlus]

you think there's timing involved w/ "are you into anal"?