1
   

Was the Iraq War a "war for oil"?

 
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 10:03 pm
@kennethamy,
I remember a rather heated discussion that I had with a group of friends on the 13th September 2001. The dust had barely settled and everyone was still in shock. (I still think that 9/11 was the worst day I have ever experienced.) Anyway, we were arguing about what the Yankees could, or should, do. I was on the 'progressive' side of the argument. I said, give them (i.e., the Middle East) all televisions and lots of US dollars. Give them business opportunities and MacDonald's franchises, and the like. Blast them with media exposure and a ton of information. Needless to say, I lost the argument. And I distinctly recall the guy at the end of the table saying 'My bet is, they invade Iraq.'

I still reckon if the amount of money that has gone into the War Effort had been spent on bribery, the whole situation would have been completely transformed. All you had to do was open a stall and hand out $50.00 bills to anyone who would co-operate. You could pacify the entire population for a fraction of a percent on what has been spent on munitions and manpower. You wouldn't have to lift a finger (or a rifle).

I remember in the early days after the invasion - nobody may recall this - there was a heist from one of the 'banks' in Bahgdad - somebody made off with $US23 million in cold hard cash. It was all wrapped in shrinkwrap and sitting on pallets. 23 million bucks. That has probably paid for quite a few of the IEDs and carbombs that are now levelling the machinery of government over there. And meanwhile a bunch of gangsters who are even meaner than Saddam have got enough money left over to buy their own province. And we'll never even hear about it.
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 06:02 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;111981 wrote:
I still reckon if the amount of money that has gone into the War Effort had been spent on bribery, the whole situation would have been completely transformed. All you had to do was open a stall and hand out $50.00 bills to anyone who would co-operate. You could pacify the entire population for a fraction of a percent on what has been spent on munitions and manpower. You wouldn't have to lift a finger (or a rifle).

Thing is, once you start paying people to be peaceful where does it stop?

Also, I think it is worth pointing out that the US has invested trillions in Isreal, and it remains war-torn. Throwing money at an unstable area doesn't make it more secure. For example: most economic aid to Russia last century got spent on a nuclear arsenal.

And in the meantime have-nots back in the US will raise the valid objection that contributors to that society are going without - whilst those who threaten it are being paid off.

So, whilst it might seem a nice idea in hindsight now that we know the cost of the war - it isn't a saleable idea, I'm afraid.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 06:27 am
@Dave Allen,
Stability, a stable country that is prepared to keep the oil flowing is the only priority, everything else is bull ship. How many here would be prepared to queue more than a week before they would agree invading Iraq was a brilliant idea? Semantic ideology is not worth a penny when your civilisation is falling apart in front of your eyes. It needs politicians to make difficult decisions, that appear irrational to the casual observer.

Cromwell by the way was boarding a ship to the American colonies when he was asked to stay by the parliamentarians.
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 06:47 am
@xris,
xris;112061 wrote:
How many here would be prepared to queue more than a week before they would agree invading Iraq was a brilliant idea?

I'd be more than willing to see oil rationed if it would avoid bloodshed.

Tightening my belt instead of killing people seems a fair deal to me.

Your mileage may vary.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 07:16 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;112063 wrote:
I'd be more than willing to see oil rationed if it would avoid bloodshed.

Tightening my belt instead of killing people seems a fair deal to me.

Your mileage may vary.
You would need to do more than tighten your belt. Its not a personal choice, its the whole economy of the west, lives would still be lost.

If you start counting bodies,how many more deaths would Saddam remaining in power have caused. Remember millions died with our help in the Iraq , Iran war. Is it our deaths that concern us or theirs? I never heard much dispute with killings in Iran when saddam ruled. Also remember our military intervention in Kuwait saved lives and his destruction of the oil wells was never forgotten by us. War aint pretty but this blinkered view of our actions, sometimes annoys me. It proved one thing, western might aint as mighty as we all thought.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 07:58 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;112063 wrote:
I'd be more than willing to see oil rationed if it would avoid bloodshed.

Tightening my belt instead of killing people seems a fair deal to me.

Your mileage may vary.


You don't really think that the rationing of oil, and its inconvenience to motorists, would be the only or worst consequence of the cut off of oil from the Middle East. Do you? Straw-man.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 08:10 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;111955 wrote:
We only seem eager to "export democracy" wherever resources and strategic positions happen to be. The US exports jobs, ideology, and air strikes. But maybe I'm being cynical. I admit that. Still, there's no shortage of opium in Afghanistan, and no shortage of opiates in the Red White and Blue. --(our
current export, or more current)
Just imagine those billions of tax-payer dollars spent on infrastructure, and all the jobs that would create. If benevolence motivates invasion, I can offer benevolence what seems like a better outlet....

Every one has democracy...Even Slaves have a measure of democracy...What we want to export, and I use the term We as false, is Western Democracy which has been, from a democratic point of view, a failure...Our democracy leaves us at peace forced, and not embraced, and it leaves the people little choice, and no justice... We can change so little of our government, and communicate with it not at all that most of us would happily banish it... We are so divided and hateful that we cannot but hide behind the impediment of government that serves no better purpose than to resist change...We do not have a government as any reasonable person would define as government... We are ruled...And there is not a single person in our government or ruling class who would not happily see the whole world saddled with our sort of government that has the illusion of democracy and leaves the people little control in their own affairs...I would rather be an Afghan with a gun any day than a party man imprisoned by my own misconceptions...The Afghan at least, has a chance...
0 Replies
 
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 08:22 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;112073 wrote:
You don't really think that the rationing of oil, and its inconvenience to motorists, would be the only or worst consequence of the cut off of oil from the Middle East. Do you? Straw-man.

Seems to me the bigger straw man is the idea that Saddam was threatening to cut oil off anyway. That the Saudis would somehow let him...

But taking that ludicrous scenario as given, I think quitting oil for a less finite resource would be to our eventual benefit anyhow - sooner weaned off the better.

I'm a pedestrian myself, so inconvenience to motorists doesn't bother me and I was thinking more of general energy outage when talking of tightening my belt.

xris wrote:
If you start counting bodies,how many more deaths would Saddam remaining in power have caused.

I suspect his excesses were behind him really. He was to toothless to have a go at a foreign power, and his purges of the Kurds had ceased.

I don't mourne his passing - but his police state - horrid as it was - was less destructive than the apparent lack of it.

Quote:
Remember millions died with our help in the Iraq , Iran war. Is it our deaths that concern us or theirs? I never heard much dispute with killings in Iran when saddam ruled. Also remember our military intervention in Kuwait saved lives and his destruction of the oil wells was never forgotten by us.

Yeah - but attacking Iraq to save Kuwait was legal.

Attacking Iraq to save oil ain't legal.

I suppose by your standards it was right of Argentina to invade the Falklands.... after all, there's convenient oil there, and it's far easier for Argentina to drill there than buy off elsewhere.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 08:39 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;112082 wrote:
Seems to me the bigger straw man is the idea that Saddam was threatening to cut oil off anyway. That the Saudis would somehow let him...

But that given, I think quitting oil for a less finite resource would be to our eventual benefit anyhow - sooner weaned off the better.

.


What has any of that to do with it? Fallacy of diversion.
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 08:43 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;112088 wrote:
What has any of that to do with it? Fallacy of diversion.

No it isn't - though I have further clarified for your benefit above.

If that's not enough for you I suggest you make yourself clearer.

Or get back to talking about something interesting rather than a tangent based on a hypothetical threat to cut off the Middle East's oil that never even existed.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 08:44 am
@Dave Allen,
Im not arguing from the position of right or wrong but from the economic expediency. He was unstable and we need stability. I don't like the situation we find our selves in but oil is very crucial to our survival.
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 08:52 am
@xris,
xris;112091 wrote:
Im not arguing from the position of right or wrong but from the economic expediency. He was unstable and we need stability. I don't like the situation we find our selves in but oil is very crucial to our survival.

Oil from Iraq is not "crucial to our survival".

In fact what is crucial to our survival is finding alternative sources of energy - rather than becoming increasingly dependant on one that will one day run out (and pollutes in the meantime).

Even if Saddam COULD HAVE effectively placed a stranglehold on oil producing Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, and even if that did damage our economy I still don't see why that's worth tearing up conventions that held much of the world in relative peace since the 1940s.

More fool us for relying on such a tiny part of the world for our energy.

Which we don't - because it's a fake construct of an argument anyway.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 09:03 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;112090 wrote:


Or get back to talking about something interesting rather than a tangent based on a hypothetical threat to cut off the Middle East's oil that never even existed.


Fallacy of begging the question.
0 Replies
 
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 09:06 am
@kennethamy,
I asked you to clarify. If that's all you've got to add then let's just drop it.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 09:14 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;112092 wrote:
Oil from Iraq is not "crucial to our survival".

In fact what is crucial to our survival is finding alternative sources of energy - rather than becoming increasingly dependant on one that will one day run out (and pollutes in the meantime).

Even if Saddam COULD HAVE effectively placed a stranglehold on oil producing Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, and even if that did damage our economy I still don't see why that's worth tearing up conventions that held much of the world in relative peace since the 1940s.

More fool us for relying on such a tiny part of the world for our energy.

Which we don't - because it's a fake construct of an argument anyway.
The war did not create the divisions that resulted in the civil war. It only introduced those divisions sooner rather than later. The Shia and Sunni only needed the freedom to expose their hatred. We where just too naive to understand that given the ability they would only be to pleased to kill each other. If the insurgency had not taken place, we would all be praising the invasion.

Oil has to be seen to be stable, oil prices are very volatile, when one of its major suppliers is seen to be corrupt the effect is for instability in prices and therefore world economics suffer.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 09:14 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;112100 wrote:
I asked you to clarify. If that's all you've got to add then let's just drop it.


It is just that I am diverted by your talent for producing fallacies whenever you post. I have noticed it is a special facility of the left. I suppose it is an inherited characteristic.
0 Replies
 
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 09:20 am
@xris,
xris;112103 wrote:
If the insurgency had not taken place, we would all be praising the invasion.

Firstly - but it did.

Secondly - even if it hadn't there was a lot of criticism regarding the way the cassus beli was constructed and the possible illegality of the war.

Illegality that seems to be apparent based on the current investigations and the testimony of Tony Blair.

Quote:
Oil has to be seen to be stable, oil prices are very volatile, when one of its major suppliers is seen to be corrupt the effect is for instability in prices and therefore world economics suffer.

Know what? YOU might have to make sacrifices to live on a RELATIVELY peaceful planet. Yeah - YOU.

Up for it or not?

Because if you're going to keep whining about having to spend maybe a bit more money on stuff and suggest I'm like that as well.

NO I am NOT like that. I don't actually mind making a bit of sacrifice for others.

Just the way I am - SORRY.

---------- Post added 12-17-2009 at 10:28 AM ----------

kennethamy;112104 wrote:
It is just that I am diverted by your talent for producing fallacies whenever you post. I have noticed it is a special facility of the left. I suppose it is an inherited characteristic.

You know nothing about me or my parents.

You're actually wrong about my political orientation - though I wouldn't support a US style conservative I suppose.

The fallacies you accuse me of were made in defence of a scenario that I find entirely fictional - so yes, they are fallacious, but they answer a fallacious worldview.

I did ask, twice, for you to clarify if my answer wasn't good enough for you - is that too much to ask?

I suspect you aren't really up for the cut and thrust of a proper debate. Hence your seeming inability to answer questions. You'd rather just label people as "left" or "liberal" instead of taking on their points - because that would be difficult for you. You then accuse them of strawman characterisation - apparently without irony. That's called hypocrisy.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 09:33 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;112106 wrote:


The fallacies you accuse me of were made in defence of a scenario that I find entirely fictional - so yes, they are fallacious, but they answer a fallacious worldview.



Yes. That is exactly what I mean.
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 09:35 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave why are you making this a personal issue?

The insurgents would or could be subverted if we where as ruthless as Saddam, or we had acted in the way we had treated other insurgents, in our past. I was trained as a counter insurgent and I can tell you modern warfare ethics have caused us to loose this war.

As individuals, we could be certain that we should make sacrifices. I try to do my bit but the world of politics has not the privilege or the ability of putting on the emergency breaks. Ide love for us all to be as aware but life aint like that.
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 09:44 am
@xris,
xris;112112 wrote:
Dave why are you making this a personal issue?

I'm not really.

You have tried the "we'll have to pay more money" argument a couple of times.

I don't care - and I thought I'd make that clear. I felt I had to be emphatic, because I did say so earlier and was ignored.

Quote:
The insurgents would or could be subverted if we where as ruthless as Saddam, or we had acted in the way we had treated other insurgents, in our past. I was trained as a counter insurgent and I can tell you modern warfare ethics have caused us to loose this war.

Those same ethics have probably prevented a number of wars since the 1940s. They justified our defence of the Falklands (a 'good' war) and our defence of Kuwait (another one).

It depends on what you want to cede in order to "win".

I don't want to cede the UN, or the Geneva Convention.

Therefore I think the war was a mistake, because it undermines those things, and it would be good if that was admitted.

It won't be - because those who orchestrated it are too proud to do so.
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/27/2022 at 09:01:21