This thread will be used to debate the signs that the Bush administration is taking steps to use Iraq's oil as leverage against the world (as well as the feasibility of this idea).

This i want to hear, please explain

I don’t think on such an open end this is a feasible debate. Such thoughts that would come to be in this would need their own thread for more concentration or it might become volatile and out of control. Such topics could be, what does Iraq have to do with terrorists? why did the u.s go against the u.n? what countries did not support the war and why? what does having Iraq’s oil mean to the u.s? did we find the smoking gun or justify the war? what is the history of the u.s and Iraq? what is the history of the u.s and the middle east? what is pnac and our president and his staff about? how dependent is the worlds nations on oil? how important is oil to economics?

the list could go on and on, such is that a person might not have the tools to be in such an open debate.

Then on the other side you just have the plan old human variable to look at and what does that person favor regardless. I don’t think this debate is possible overall. Not at such a large scope.

Edited for spelling.

I see. Well to constrict further I would rather this debate focus simply on specific actions by coalition governments, rather than history and not include the "process of elimination" argument (it wasn't WMD so what else could it be ). I think that will keep this thread unique and feasible. Let's try to keep it specific...

"To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."
-- Sun Tzu: The Art of War

There have been some reports which suggest the strategic importance of the Persian Gulf is "likely to increase exponentially in the next 20 years." According to the article, the United States National Energy Policy for 2001 considered the region "vital to U.S. interests," presumably because the Gulf may provide between 54 percent and 67 percent of the world's oil by 2020.

Oil is an important resource for nations throughout the globe. As important as it is for the United States, it is that much more so for European and Asian countries. Included in these regions are our strongest competitors militarily and economically. With the world expected to rely heavily on the Persian Gulf in the coming years, those who have the oil will have the power as well.

Out of those countries throughout the Persian Gulf, one out of every three barrels in world production lies under two countries: Saudi Arabia and Iraq. We are already friendly with Saudi Arabia, even going so far as to shield them from any criticism resulting from the September 11 attacks. And while we haven't been friendly with Iraq for over a decade, we now control the country.

The entire issue is probably best summed up at the beginning of the article by Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and author of Resource Wars:
"Controlling Iraq is about oil as power, rather than oil as fuel... Control over the Persian Gulf translates into control over Europe, Japan, and China. It's having our hand on the spigot."

Certainly the Gulf region is of high importance but let's make a distinction between Iraq and the entire Gulf. How far will controlling Iraq get you?


Bush's oil move backfires

Not looking like it's so far just now.


Oil to Come Under Iraqi Control as US Fails to Form Advisory Board
Nor does it seems as though the administration really wants its that much.

I think it is just a bad coincidence that all of the countries we have invaded (iraq, afghanistan) have oil. This is not coming from a Bush supporter, but my independent side

So, then what do you think about the feasibility of the idea? Is it possible for the US to have "it's hand on the spigot" by controlling Iraq?

I'm getting the idea that much of the "hand on the spigot" argument rests on the assumption that the Bush administration is maneuvering for Iraqi oil that won't be a major factor for years.
Why?
No one in the present administration is going to gain from it, is it a purely nationalistic drive?

Just trying to get an understanding on this one...

Ridiculous! The United States will suffer with an incredible loss of life in Iraq if this is true. Our presence is to place a warning in the surrounding region that Iraq can be liberated. If we can get past the 'Hussein Hunt' we might see that.

Of all the arguments against Bush and the war in Iraq, this is the one that confused me the most. For anyone that thinks the US has ever had an interest in direct control over Iraqi oil--WHY DIDN'T WE KEEP IT WHEN WE HAD IT BEFORE????? What exactly had been keeping us from getting it since then? Wouldn't this just reinforce all the negative perceptions of the US so prevalent throughout the Middle East, thereby increasing the militant Islamic movement? Do those favoring this line of thinking really think increasing terrorism was the goal? How exactly would Bush/the US benefit from this? Clearly, it's not financially lucrative (or do you discount the costs being discussed for the occupation)? I see no evidence, or ever line of reasoning, that would lead to this conclusion, and lots of evidence and logic pointing to exactly the opposite--returning control of the oil to the Iraqi people is the only real way to benefit from it.

Now, that being said, the US has always maintained that access to Middle Eastern oil is within our strategic interests. So, if it starts to look like an unfriendly government would gain control in Iraq, I don't think we'll allow it (also this would undermine our other reasons for being there).

One more logical problem, seeing as the oil industry in Iraq is likely to remain controlled by the state, how exactly is the US going to get it's hands anywhere near the spigot, anyway?

i dont see Iraq being controled by the US for long, and as for SA becoming second, and being in control of Opec, this isnt going to happend, because if it did, SA could say (they have the largest oil deposits) we will now trade in euros, and since all Opec countrys sell oil to Europe more than america, america will lose out, because the iraqi government will not sit back and watch other countrys get the upper hand on oil with them.

Note: the dollar declined 17% against the euro in 2002

http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3193

A switch by OPEC from the dollar to the euro, would immediately strike a blow against the U.S., lowering the dollar on world currency markets and placing inflationary pressure on the economy.

Well then, do we need to look any further for a reason behind the war in Iraq?

Which Middle-eastern nation is going to jump in the ring for round three against the USA?

Clarification request.
Are you suggesting the war against Iraq was to place pressure on OPEC not to go Euro? Which rules out the "hand on the spigot theory" supposedly supported by PNAC and the "neo-cons".

turnea

Actually I have no idea, but considering the fact that Saddam Hussein was beginning to trade in Euro's, then it does make more sense than the idea that the US could, or would attempt to control the flow of oil in the region...

Perhaps a motivation. But little evidence either of the act or the plausibility of being able to control the flow of oil in the region through Iraq. That is the problem I have with the theory, it's built almost purely on motivation...