That would be because it would be off topic. I started a thread where I laid out my theory a while back. It won best Foreign Policy thread last year.

This thread is for the Oil War theory, which far from being logical is shot full of holes.



False, US companies do not control Iraq's oil.

1. The amount of oil they are producing now isn't much due to insurgent attacks.

2. Even that trickle is firmly under the control of the nationalized Iraqi oil company, itself a member of OPEC.

Iraq could choose to trade in Euro's at any time, I not even sure it would matter. A weak dollar has actually been very good for US exports.


Actually is the point of this debate, I should know I started it.


I am willing to consider that hypothetical possible. Heck, he may drink the blood of Iraqi first born for all I know.

What is lacking is a plausible theory as to how an why the war is for oil and some evidence to back it.


More specious reasoning. The US cannot keep Iraq weak and on benefits. They can use their oil profits to solicit aid from anyone they choose.

Meanwhile any US puppet is going to be politically unviable. Unless of course Ayatollah Sistani is secretly in league with the US

As powerful as the US military is, it cannot be used to control Iraq's elected government.


I didn't ask what it was called. I asked how.



Research! Please, I beg of you!
Halliburton is not drilling oil in Iraq. They were hired to repair oil wells, period.

UN monitors agreed that the election largely went well. They were free and representative of the voters.

If you have any evidence of US companies funding Iraqi politicians we would all love to see it.

The biggest shame here is that people lap up these conspiracy theories. Full of some of the clearest factual errors I have come upon on this site and may then base political decisions on them.

Now that is some trippy stuff

I dont believe this is the case. I think there is a lack of comprehensive thinking, and a large dose of denial, for what reasons I am continually wondering about.
I also see that some are not reading enough, because IF you read, if you look into the oil strategy around Iraq in the least, rather than just dream your own personal dreams without research, there is no conspiracy theory but plenty of right wing think tank reports which lay out the pending energy crisis and suggestions of how to take hold of more oil dealing with the Mid East. None of these reports talk about freedom and democracy, they talk about overthrowing dictators in order to secure more oil for the US. Its just too frustrating to do research for people that no matter what is posted dont do the reading, or cannot conceptualize future developments when the research is done for them.
It is also difficult that many of these reports are in PFD format which does not allow cutting and pasting, so you actually have to read rather than be force fed.

For example: The James Baker Institute. We can agree that this is a think tank that is closely adhered to by the Bush admin, and is developing policy in our government:

The Baker Institute opens its task force report in 2001, called : Strategic Energy Policy: Challenges for the 21st Century with
"As the 21st century opens the energy sector is in critical condition." A crisis could errupt at any time....would inevitably effect every country in todays globalized world....Oil is still available on international markets but prices have doubled.....with spare capacity scarce and Middle eastern tensions high, chances are greater than in two decades of an oil supply disruption that would even more severely test the US security and prosperity.
http://bakerinstitute.org/Pubs/study_15.pdf April 2001


"As early as April 1997, a report from the James A. Baker Institute of Public Policy at Rice University addressed the problem of "energy security" for the United States, and noted that the US was increasingly threatened by oil shortages in the face of the inability of oil supplies to keep up with world demand. In particular the report addressed "The Threat of Iraq and Iran" to the free flow of oil out of the Middle East. It concluded that Saddam Hussein was still a threat to Middle Eastern security and still had the military capability to exercise force beyond Iraq's borders.
The Bush Administration returned to this theme as soon as it took office in 2001, by following the lead of a second report from the same Institute. <2> This Task Force Report was co-sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, another group historically concerned about US access to overseas oil resources. The Report represented a consensus of thinking among energy experts of both political parties, and was signed by Democrats as well as Republicans. <3>

The report, Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century, concluded: "The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a de-stabilizing influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/ diplomatic assessments."

"When Cheney issued his own national energy plan, it too declared that "The [Persian] Gulf will be a primary focus of U.S. international energy policy." It agreed with the Baker report that the U.S. is increasingly dependent on imported oil and that it may be necessary to overcome foreign resistance in order to gain access to new supplies. "

"Iraq's proven oil reserves are 113 billion barrels, the second largest in the world after Saudi Arabia, and eleven percent of the world's total. The total reserves could be 200 million barrels or more, all of it relatively easy and cheap to extract. Thus increasing Iraqi oil production will diminish the market pressure on oil-importing countries like the US. It will also weaken the power of OPEC to influence oil markets by decisions to restrict output. Indeed, were Iraqi oil production to expand to near its capacity, the quotas established by OPEC would cease to be honored in today's market. "
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html

More on th pending oil problem:

Running on Empty/ Baker Inst

There is much more involved, having to do with dollar hegemony:
"As noted in a recent article by W. Clark, "The Real But Unspoken Reasons for the Iraq War", the OPEC underpinning for the US dollar has shown signs of erosion in recent years. Iraq was one of the first OPEC countries, in 2000, to convert its reserves from dollars to euros. At the time a commentator for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty predicted that Saddam's political act "will cost Iraq millions in lost revenue." In fact Iraq has profited handsomely from the 17 percent gain in the value of the euro against the dollar in that time. <9>

Other countries have gradually been climbing on to the euro bandwagon. An article in the Iran Financial News, 8/25/02, revealed that more than half of Iran's Forex Reserve Fund assets had been converted from dollars to euros. In 2002 China began diversifying its currency reserves away from dollars into euros. According to Business Week (2/17/03) Russia's Central Bank in the past year has doubled its euro holdings to 20 percent of its $48 billion foreign exchange reserves. And for a very good reason, according to its First Deputy Chairman Oleg Vyugin: "Returns on dollar instruments are very low now. Other currency instruments pay more."

The US is fighting for its life as a superpower. That means it has to outdo China and the EU, not just now but 20, 50, 100 years from now. That means controlling Oil resources just as a start and keeping the dollar as trade currency worldwide. If not we sit idely by while others take over.
Its not pretty, but its reality.

You have to think big, not just Iraqs vote and some obscure theory of a free Iraq as 'good' to the tune of billions and untold lives lost. "Good' is not good enough. Only a dimwitted idealist would sacrifice so much for so little, so ridiculous a cause with an unsure outcome. Much more is at stake.

You know when governments want to present a bill for a cause they often do oposition pieces in order to know the arguments the oponent will come up with.
I would recommend that those in opposition to the oil theory do some opposition research instead of just arguing against with no backup. Especially since NONE OF YOU can come up with a logical reason for the invasion of Iraq, other than the after spin of the non existant WMD.
A little research goes a long way. You cant take people from baby step one to 30 in these debates, the information is just too extensive.

I think it's pertinent to look at the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the now overwhelming threat against Iran as a pretty big indicator of trend, if one can step back from the present for a moment and see , well a map to start. History is a good teacher and nationalistic propaganda a bad one. More so, reading about the subject always helps.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0303a.asp
http://www.energybulletin.net/4170.html

Who hired Halliburton then? I doubt it was the free and elected Government, was it? Not that having the massed military might of the US would sway their decision in any way if it was them that "hired" Halliburton.

As for the elections, it was a great achievement to get elections in place. However "free and representative"? Well, free they were, as much as could be expected; however, representative they weren't since one whole and large group of native peoples boycotted them. Naturally, it can only represent those who are able or chose to vote, not those who chose to abstain.

It was made very clear that the reason the french and Russians in particular were so unwilling to go to war with Iraq was because they had good oil contracts with Iraq. The reason was likewise very clear that the reason the US (and UK) jumped in was because we were about to lose out. That in itself would suggest that, for two countries with some of the biggest powers in the Oil refining world, the rights to decide our contracts and rates might be a 'convienient bonus' to war, at least.

The French and Russians were doing deals covertly, and 'forgetting' any moral implications. Naturally, that wasn't clear to the general public before we actually went to war, just after the event had started.

I have read about the impending crisis of the Euro throughout this forum. The US will fall if oil is traded in Euros! That makes me beg the question, "who is William Clark?" Why hasn't his theory seemed to catch on in the investment world? Seems to me with such a drastic crisis of the dollar some major investment newsource would have picked up the story. I can't find anything, anywhere except sites which also claim widespread corruption of the CIA. Why is that?

I remember when the cold war ended. The dollar was supposed to go down because there was less of a worldwide interest in its subsidization. No more communist threat, no need to subsidize the dollar throughout world governments to ensure our strong military support. That theory (which still makes sense to me) was espoused by many legitimate investment experts. It didn't exactly happen, rather the dollar grew stronger with the peace dividend, but at least I heard about it. I have looked, and can't find this theory anywhere except on conspiracy sites. If it's true, I'd expect the crafty politicians and corporate executives would, instead of invading middle eastern countries to stop them from using the Euro, invest in millions of Euro dollars themselves and make a mint.

Well, its only a minor addition, but the exchange rate of pounds sterling to dollars is getting better and better from the UK side (1 pound used to buy 1.60 dollars, and now its 1.80 odd). The dollar is getting weaker and although I'm not aware of the cause, but i'd be suprised if an industry the size of Oil wasn't having an effect... it certainly must be on investments.

How do you know they're not? Plenty of other people seem to be doing so.

But perhaps the reason why you've not read so much about this is because most Americans just don't believe its true.

That doesn't make it false though. Plenty of other people seem to like the idea of trading in Euro's and have been more than happy with the returns (as Artemise's post implies)

Artemise you can be sure I read every link you pstd on this thread and have been researching this issue for some time now.

I'm not the one basing conclusions on far-fetched dreams (or nightmares) here.

I don't believe you are intentionally misleading, but I must say the the author of your link can cherrypick his quotes with the best of them.

A quick read through of his references will make that clear.


By the way I can select text in a PDF I would suggest updating your copy of Reader if possible.

From the Reccomendations of the 2001 Baker Insitute text:

This is the jist of much of what it said that could apply to Iraq (correct me if I'm wrong).

An interesting tidbit, the report actually suggested a favorable look at joining the Kyoto Treaty and other Global Warming Intiatives.

Who did you say this was from again?

Anywhoo, from the 1997 text

This speaks against wishes for regime change for fear of what could come after it.

Hardly a call for invasion.

What's all this. Calls to drop sanctions and cooperate with China and Iran?

Did the author miss that bit? (I don't know how it's in a bulleted list that takes up much of the report).

Which (more chuckles) was apparently printed on recycled paper. How nice.

I'm not sure how credible the stuff about the Euro is (considering the rest of the article was so much hooey) but would point out that nothing is stopping the new Iraqi government from trading in Euros.

In fact, what are they trading in?

Finally, I've said it before and will say it again. No one is going into offering other theories because that is not the point of this thread. I've laid out my theory of this site more that once.

"Reasons For Iraq War" is the name of my old thread on the topic. It should be in last year's "Year in Review" forum.

This thread is on the Oil War theory which still isn't looking too healthy.

That the the oil market uses US dollars instead of €uros is probably to the benefit of European countries at the moment. A low growth could be worsened if the dollar was more expensive than it is...

There are always currency traders. What I am speaking of is the predicted full-scale apocalyptic collapse that many are reasoning is grounds for war here. Why aren't investment journals covering this? I don't know a lot about finance, but I do know that if we have such a vast trade deficit, that means a lot of countries have lent us money (and are continuing to do so). If the dollar collapses, their economies collapse too. If and when the Euro replaces the dollar as the world reserve currency, it will happen slowly due to this fact. It is far from a foregone conclusion pending on whether or not countries in the Middle East decide to trade in Euros.

MOIF, I applaud your passion, but your logic is completely flawed.

I'll work backwards on this post, as the end is the most disturbing. Something I know you understand is that the Iraqi people weren't seeing any profit from the oil under Saddam's reign. The country was nearly thirld-world even though they had the world's most precious commodity. The US intervention, regardless of political affilitation, would automatically dictate that if contracts are to be given (etc) that American companies are used and our currency is as well. Frankly, even though the Euro is making it's mark in international business, the most widely used currency is the dollar. There are no economists who would agreewith your fervor for the impending doom of the dollar and the US economy. Lest you not forget that we still comprise nearly 1/3 of the world's GDP.

The point Mrs P was making in reference to foreign governments made perfect sense. Your convoluted reply in reference to the value of the dollar and trading in dollars was quite the contrary. Many international companies trade in dollars. What she was saying is that these companies have the choice to change and trade in Euros. It's not that complicated. They also didn't contribute to the GW campaign or the Big Bad GOP. It just makes sense on many levels, and regardless of what some radical Europeans would like to think, the world market still relies on the dollar.

The Chinese gov't didn't necessarily make more profit than Halliburton, but as I mentioned before, Halliburton is an American company and should've rightfully received the contract. Please don't make this into a Bush bashing post, as Halliburton has been receiving these types of contracts since the Clinton years. They are one of a few companies with the capacity to handle such undertakings.

However, Mrs. P's point was that there are many hands in the pot...

I'm not sure if this really contributes to the debate, but given that Exxon, Shell, BP et al are all moving onto natural gas (which when liquified can be transported in a similar fashion to oil) as it is far more plentiful, energy efficient and cleaner than oil, it seems unlikely that the expense of the Iraq war would cover the benefits of oil.

I mean, sure if oil is important, but the major companies are moving onto gas, which is more plentiful and can be found in friendlier places.

Who said anything about a full-scale apocalyptic collapse?

Of course the transistion would be slow and gradual. I'm not saying the USA is about to implode (though who knows? stranger things have happened when an economy goes belly up)

I'm taking about the gradual end of American super power status. As in, over the course of the next several decades.
Its a fundamental political truth that no power ever concedes its power willingly so there is no way the USA is going to give up its dominant position in favour of the EU or the Chinese.

And this is hardly financial news. You'll not be reading dire predictions of doom in the WSJ any time soon, first of all, such a change is not yet a threat, at this point its hardly more than a hypothetical possibility. But it is a possibility. Fuelling a super power is expensive ...and it can't be done with natural gas either. A modern super power relies on heavy industry and heavy industry relies on oil. Just as the USA is the worlds largest economy, so is oil the worlds fore most resource. The one requires the other, despite what turnea may think.

Second, the WSJ is not going to make long term predictions of this nature and open itself to ridicule as belonging to a 'conspiracy theory'. Such an accusation carries with it the automatic assumption that any one who dares to think outside the box is a crackpot. (Its especially interesting to note how so many western politicians have realised this and now use the term 'Conspiracy theory' to deride any and all opposing arguments)


Well, at least I get applauded for something!


Hey, I didn't just make this up myself. My understanding comes from having listened to economists on TV documentaries talking about the health of the Euro, and commentators on the TV and online explaining why the US went to war. Like this one.

Now that may be all wrong... but simply being told its wrong by right wing Americans doesn't prove it is, and so far I haven't seen any one put forward a better explanation as to why the US/ UK went to war.



editted to add a missing word

I don't believe I ever said anything differently. Mainly because I wouldn't know, ask an economist.

That said, the Iraq war will have no affect on US dominance. The US is not, indeed can't, control the export of Iraqi oil. I is pumped up through Turkey or down through the Gulf into the same Oil Companies that always carried it.

It's production is still managed by OPEC.

that little tidbit is what keeps getting forgotten.


Politicians did not invent the term "conspiracy theory." This theory on control of Iraq's oil requires the belief that US politicians conspire in secret to control Iraq's oil.

Hence, true or not, it is a conspiracy theory.


Am I being call right-wing? My very first debate (as a kid) was a fervent defense of communism and its possible application in the US. I have back off that position somewhat but if I'm right-wing then the Republicans are in deep trouble.

Meanwhile the logical flaws in the Oil War theory remain.

US did fight the NAZI Germany but do you really believe they did it because the good in their hearts? Believing this would be completely naive. US did help the UK against Germany because as a superpower, it felt its status threatened by the growing military and economical might of Germany. A Germany who had unified the entire European mainland could easily muster resources to compete with the US and become a superpower. If the US government at that time cared even a little about the freedom of those countries you spoke of, it could have declared war in 1939 when Germany invaded Poland.

Where was the US's aid of suppressed countries, might I ask, when every powerful nation on the world had colonies worldwide or when the slaughter at Algeria occurred? No nation has ever helped and sadly will probably never will (I really hope I am proven wrong in this) help another nation in freeing itself. Wars are fought either because of resources, territory or economic and/or militaristic advantage.

I am not an expert on economics and my knowledge of world trade does not go beyond bartering. But, I believe when a country has soldiers on another country, it can easily control the oil exports of that country if needed be.

I am repeating myself, oil, natural gas, coal and any other fossil fuel you can think of will one day finish. It is also the belief of many scientists that this event is not in the very far future but in the very near future. When oil wells start to go dry, the price of oil will rocket. Having soldiers in a oil producing country at that time will surely be very advantegous.

It isn't forgotten turnea. Its part of the reason why. OPEC is dominated by Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia is aligned with the USA. Its all a question of who'se best interests are being served.

As for the same companies being involved in pumping out the oil, how true is that? France and Russia had deals with Saddam Hussein by all accounts... and now, by all accounts they don't... so are you trying to tell me that France and Russia don't have their own oil companies?


I never said they did.


There is no 'conspiracy theory' because its all out in the open for all to plainly see.

Your insistence that it isn't so makes no difference at all. Especially since you don't have a more credible explanation as to why the USA went to war in Iraq.


You keep saying this, but where is your alternative reason for the war?

You can't just ignore the fact that Iraq has the second largest proven oil fields in the world as if its just a coincidence and then expect every one else to agree with you because you say its about 'Iraqi freedom'.

The US is not run by one person. As I understand it the president at the time did want to intervene but Congress was intent to stay out of European wars.

This is a little beside the point. I don't claim the US invaded Iraq to liberate the Iraqis. I don't think such a thing is impossible. Kosovo may be analogous.


I am no expert either but I know enough to see that this is untrue. Us soldier has access to production and distribution centers. they can restrict or augment the amount of oil sent to ports, barring insurgent attacks. They cannot control where the oil is sent. It will still flow to Turkey or Umm Qasar(sp?) same as always.



So now you're saying the US has control over OPEC?

For one who watches the news, that is very funny.

Most of the conspiracy theory sites say that the invention of Iraq was a plot to end OPEC control.

The US has been arguing with OPEC for years. Sure the US can make deals with Opec members, just like any other country. Saudi Arabia as well as other OPEC nations are interested their profits same as always.

Besides Iraq was a member of OPEC under Saddam as well, nothing has changed.

I believe they had development deals, to build and repair oil wells, only the government-owned Iraqi oil company controls prices.

I'll check into current European involvement, but it hardly matters.




Yes, the administration announced it was invading Iraq to control it's oil and thereby maintain dominance of the world.


I never said the war was for Iraqi freedom. I did say a number of times that my theory on the reasons for war would be off topic in this thread. I also mentioned that I have laid it out more than once on this board I gave directions to it is a previous post in this thread.


Of course I could say it's a coincidence. afghanistan is the largest Opium producer in the world. Did we invade in order to flush South Asia with heroin? (making them easier to control bwa ha ha! )

Well, I'm happy to be amusing... but what I actually wrote was that Saudi Arabia was aligned with the USA... I never said the USA had control over OPEC.


I don't frequent such sites, so I really wouldn't know.


EXACTLY! nothing has changed. The status quo has been reestablished.

Remember all that, 'if only we'd pre-empted Hitler' stuff over in the other thread? Well, Saddam Hussein was pre-empted alright. He was removed so he wasn't going to cause upset to GWH Bush's 'new' world order.


Of course they don't. All previous arrangements were made invalid the moment the first Abrams tank crossed into Iraq.


...er no. The USA pre-emptively invaded the nation with the second largest oil reserves on the planet on fabricated reasons.

The USA, may be generous and open hearted and kind and loving, but no one invades another country out of the kindest of their hearts, no matter how Disney like the occupants of that country may regard themselves.

That the US moved to secure the oil in Iraq is beyond doubt, there is really no other reason for them to be there. All that is uncertain is by which motivation and whether or not denying other global powers access to the oil was more important than maintaining the US dollar as the worlds reserve currency.

Simply chanting it isn't so, in defiance of all who say it is doesn't disprove that. You don't have access to the inner workings of the US government or the secret processes of GW Bush's heart. Your loyalty, in the absence of any credible counter argument is based on faith, not reason.


What ever your own personal opinion is in other threads is besides the point. If your trying to disprove arguments here, then just repeating that Iraq is still in OPEC and/ or that the people of Iraq own their oil then you need to prove this.

As it is now, I see no proof that Iraq has control of its own oil. How can it when that oil is being drilled by US companies and guarded by US soldiers? The Iraqi government doesn't even exist at this point so how can a nonexistent entity exert any control over anything?

And that Iraq is a member of OPEC means nothing either. Of course it is. The USA needs Iraq in OPEC in order to maintain the status quo and keep the other OPEC nations, especially Saudi Arabia, sweet.


Global super powers do not feed on opium...

Then what was the point of the remark? Yes, Saudi Arabia and the US have good relations. SA has "good relations" with a number of countries. None of this mean the US has an advantage when buying OPEC oil.



'The status quo has been re-established"

You are aware this is an oxymoron are you not?

The status quo by definition does not have to be re-established it already is.

If the War changed nothing in regard to oil, then how could it be fought for oil?

moif this is making no sense.

You have one from the plainly false argument that US oil companies control Iraq's oil. To the patently bizarre argument that US has gained control of the oil by making sure nothing has changed.

Saddam could do nothing to greatly change the flow of oil short or another attack on his neighbors.

I meant it didn't matter in the context of this debate. Development companies do not control where the oil goes or how much is produced.



Again, I never said they did.


Just proposing this false dichotomy again does not make it so. There were other reasons. Like the reason the the world put sanctions on Iraq. The reason Clinton bombed them in 1998 ending UN inspections.

Either way it is off topic. If you want to debate it start the topic.


Now I'm "loyal" to Bush. For heavens sake I voted for Kerry!

I've already said I am willing to consider the hypothetical possibility that the war was for oil. I simple find the the evidence is not enough to take this from a slim hypothetical to a grim reality.


moif I have already informed you that Oil is Iraq is not drilled by US companies. Please provide evidence of stop making this false assertion.

US soldiers may guard the pipelines but that give them no control over what flows through them.

Not anymore anyway...

It doesn't change the point. Simply knowing Oil is important does not lead to the conclusion that the US invaded for oil.

That is poor reasoning at its worst. As is the process of elimination argument that there are no ther possible reasons.

..and there is nothing sweet about Saudi Arabia's control of OPEC. Ask any american, we have been subject to years of debate over how to stop our reliance on OPEC oil.

Bush proposed drilling in Alaksa, as if that would work.

There are plenty of reasons, oil not chief among them. I have listed them ad nauseum on the various Iraqi threads, and they haven't changed. There is a very simple question that those who espouse this theory can't (or won't) answer. If we were really after the oil, why didn't we keep it when we had it after the first Gulf War? The oil fields were firmly in our control then, and we just gave them back. What's changed? Ahhh, this terrorism thing....forgot about that. That couldn't possibly have any relation, now, could it? (please, don't go the 'but Iraq's not related to terrorism' route. It is impossible to examine the root causes of terrorism, and what is necessary to resolve them, and not see how Iraq is related). Further, I also have yet to see any step by step explanation of how Exxon, Shell, Mobil, etc. benefit at all from this. It would seem such an explanation would be rather critical to defending this argument...why then the reluctance to offer the process through which this massive profit grab operates? Or is it just that conspiracy theories tend to fall apart when examined in such detail?

As I said in response to CJ's earlier post...I'm not arguing access to oil wasn't a consideration. Access to oil is a consideration in EVERYTHING we do in the Middle East. Otherwise, we'd hardly ever hear about, as it would be inconsequential. However, to go from that to War for Oil is a big leap...and I haven't seen any good evidence to support it.

The coalition in the first gulf war relied on its middle eastern allies for legitimacy and these were not prepared to see Iraq annexed by the USA.

Also, the UN mandate did not allow for the 'taking' of Iraq's oil.

But lets be clear about all this. I'm not saying America has taken Iraq's oil. What I'm saying is that America has gained control of it. Sure, its still officially in the hands of the Iraqi government and sure Iraq is still a member of OPEC, but its being pumped out by US companies. Turena denies this, but I've seen reports on Danish TV from Iraq, which clearly showed American engineers (from Texas) working on the drilling of oil. I don't recall the name of their company otherwise I would have posted it already, but it was certainly not an Iraqi company.

Those Texans were being guarded by US soldiers and their auxiliary services were being provided by Haliburton.


The root cause of Islamic terrorism, is fundamentalism... and that is endemic across the entire midde east. There is no cause to single out Iraq except that it was weak, oil rich and every body hates Saddam Hussein.


They benefit by making a profit. What else do you think?


Why? Wars have been fought for far more inconsequential reasons in the past. What makes you think its so unthinkable that America would go to war to secure the second largest oil reserves in the world. Are you aware just how valuable that oil is and what it could mean to the USA if it fell into the hands of the Euro economy?

For an example of what I mean, try looking at what has happened to Norway after they discovered oil in the North Sea.

They must have been their for repairs or at most development 9hough there is little of that going on right now so I doubt it).

moif, if you can come up with one US company that is drilling oil in Iraq I would be shocked I will put my foot in my mouth (so to speak) publicly on the issue of control and agree that the Oil War theory has some logical backing.

On another level.

If you can show that there is extensive American control of the oil I will concede my argument immediately.

I have seen zero evidence of this in months of research.

Edited to fix spelling and add a link to the Iraqi Oil Ministry.
MNISTRY HEADQUARTER
It's pretty rough around the edges but it lists Iraq's nationalized oil companies.

Iraq's Postwar Oil Opportunities - 2003 Yes its old, but why would the situation have changed?

The French and Russians were trying to get a bigger slice of the oil cake, negotiating deals while Iraq was under sanctions. Iraq wanted to do this because it gave them more money, and made them less under the power of the US to decide prices and quantities, and less necessary for them to accept "US Aid".

Naturally, if one person increases a slice someone else must lose out. This was likely to be the US, and no greedy company exec, or Oil baron wants to see their positive detrimented if they can do something about it.

If invasion wasn't for freedom, wasn't for WMDs, wasn't for unproven terrorism links, then what was it likely to be for?


quoted from here
So, the US has made the rules, and knows that they won't outbid... i guess military might on their doorstep might sway their decision?


Nice. A few short snips near the beginning of the article. And its funny how their predictions seem eerily accurate now, huh?
quoted from here

and its not like Donald to hide the truth, is it.

Turnea.

I followed your link (jazzy site) and took the first name from the list of companies: OIL PROJECTS COMPANY (SCOP) did a Google search and the second hit told me this:


link

So it looks like the French and the Russians may still have a foot in the door... but as for the rest, you tell me...

Look, this is very simple and Mrs P put it clearly once. If Iraq had been only orange and carpet sellers, do you think we would have gone to war? No. to be fair, she also said 'Was our invasion to control the oil? No. ' I completely disagree, because there is no reason NOT to control the oil..the spoils of war etc, history, need and greed and maintaining superpower status.

So what is the rest of the logical conclusion?

(Mrs P Ill get back to you on the dollar thing, Ive been reading it all over the place for years in snipets, and noone is talking about collapse and all that, what is being done is maintenence of status, forward thinking. Its not conspiracy and none of these event are singular, not related to each other. )
From the gist that I can understand, the worldwide currency reserve is in Us dollars. Trade is in US dollars. Iraq began trading in Euros and Iran has also begun trading oil in Euros. With our current deficit, printing paper to trade can set worldwide inflation. The fall of the dollar is causing unrest. If nations decide to trade oil in Euros, our economy is going to tank. Something like that, but its not really my forte, just keep reading related info with the oil situation.



Turnea, how do you perceive this as not invasionary and not 100% about oil? Did you see something about WMD or Freedom for Iraqis there? Or was this is a direct call for regime change with special considerations, because noone wants a bunch of religious zealots to get in power AFTER a military coup. It is a call to use military means and beyond that, consider the rest, in order to secure more oil for the US. This is clear in that they recommend different means for handling Iran, later, after the fact, non military. What is happening now in this world? Funny, that things are going exactly as planned.
How do you view 'assessing what the US can and should do in the face of generational and regime change in the Gulf and in Iraq'. Please spare me the complete and total ignorance of not being able to read between the lines of a public document which cannot possibly call for war in 2001 without saying that the president would be for war with Iraq without due cause (and before 911 consequently).

I never said the US was looking for military-invasionary regime change in Iran, but foot in the door its not looking goodfor Iran as we plow our way through.

What exactly do you think we are doing there?! Spell it out and stop evading. ( I cannot find your link about your personal theories, please provide again)
Why is getting more oil for the US and Western companies as a reason for the war so abhorrent to you, or so outrageous? Or is it easier to believe that we just go to war to free some abstract citizenry because we have a few hundred billion to spare?

I think this is bordering on the ridiculous. There is no reason to be in Iraq if they did not have oil, its very plain and doesnt require genious.

Actually i've always been fond of the notion that we went to war with Iraq to access the archeology from ancient sumeria, and sought to uncover either the meaning of life, or more information about the birthplace of man.

But i guess, oil might be a better reason.

especially when soldiers have gone to great lengths to destroy said 6000 year old archeological finds (and famous gates), and fill sand bags with their ground remains.

Wrong, if they had been orange and carpet sellers then economic sanctions would have worked and there would be no need for war.




Again, I read the whole thing and there is no call to use military means to change the regime. It was not a call for regime change but rather a fear of what could come if it happened. They recommend dropping sanctions which would have been easy enough with one UNSC resolution.


i.e. These young muslims are getting to riled up about Islam. Drop sanctions lower anti-americanism so that Saddam can keep them under control. We get our oil while losing nothing.



From my side it seems like you are doing the evading. Saying those documents called for regime change is completely ignoring the context.

It said what to do "in the face of generational and regime change."

That does not sound like they plain to cause it at all.
It seems they wanted a contingency plan case one of these Shia uprisings against Saddam fueled by radicals actually works.

...and for the last time I never, ever said or implied we went to war to free the Iraqis. So please, kill the straw man and accept that your theory isn't the only possible option.

Both Hobbes and I have posted different theories in a number of threads on this forum (where they shall stay, for they do no belong here).

in order to do that I need to know what these companies are actually doing there. I know for a fact Halliburton is in for repairs, the last few are listed as customers. Are any of these involved in anyway that would control the prices of oil or where it is sent.

You said US companies were "pumping the oil" out of Iraq. As I understand it, the Iraqi oil ministry does the actual pumping, distribution, and most important sale.

It is those who sell the crude that control it.

Under sanctions the Oil-for-Food Program controlled prices not the US. Iraqi oil was not under control of the US at all.

except where it counts. There has been no rapid rise in Iraqi oil production and if there were it wouldn't be a challenge to OPEC because Iraq is a member of OPEC.

Really? And the US pushed for a nonmilitary solution or a UNSC resolution to end sanctions as a more peaceable alternative, since nothing was trully at stake except a few carpets and a US sponsored dictator? The PNAC think tank recommended regime change and US military dominance as far as China. James Baker signed, as well as Cheney, Bill Kristol, Jeb Bush, Rumnsfeld.

Turnea, I think you are in some real denial. Im not sure what your world vision is, and the US part in it. I would be willing to say that I am a skeptic having lived through Vietnam and about 20 years as an adult of government lies and propaganda.
Ill admit Im not always 100% right about all my perceptions, but you have taken here, history of Iraq, previous wars over Mid-eastern oil, the loss of coveted and great oil reserves by western nations by their own fault, unumerable evidence of an impending oil crisis in which the US has great stake to maintain its power position and US world security and economy, increasing terrorist threat, Euro-dollar wars, China causing increased demand on a decreased supply, a weak reasoning to go to war with an oil rich nation with the worlds second largest supply, which was impoverished after having a dictator friendly to the US against IRAN, then suddenly not so much, weakened by sanctions and two wars by the same dynastic, oil and arms enriched family for a century, that has invaded Iraq to the tune of at least 150 billion tax payer dollars, whom is now proclaiming democracy for Iraqis and a hands off governent and oil policy?......and you have not given a millimeter to the subtle possibility that some of this war was about oil.

I have to give it to you, that kind of stubborness is rare.

erm... they could still have been accused of having WMDs. In the first instance tt doesn't matter what they were selling... they didn't have WMDs and thus the reason given for invasion was bogus. After writing off the other tentatively offered reasons, we finally arrive at what of value the country owns. And it just happens to own a considerable potential oil supply. How convienient.



except the oil quota that France and Russia were agreeing under the table, away from the US? If they had a quota, and France and Russia's slices were increasing then... hmm someone must miss out.


I posted a link already, where mention of Russian and US rigs was given. So that it be Iraqi rigs only doing the pumping cannot be right. What fact do you know that Halliburton is ONLY in it for the repairs. Are you saying they would not take it further if they got the chance? With the infrastructure already in place, i'd suggest they'd be higher in the queue than those companies not there (and not backed by the US)


So the US companies, as quoted earlier, clearly realising that they couldn't out-bribe or out bid the non-US companies were happy about that? No, and conveniently, soon after contracts had been agreed with France and Russia, Iraq is invaded thus nulling said contracts because sanctions were now ended, additionally giving those in power the ability to sign blank cheques. Huh. Now that wouldn't be a good reason to invade either, would it.


Of course. Write off the other predictions on the basis that one hasn't been fulfilled yet (because there hasn't been the time yet).

I don't know the whole of how OPEC works (so feel free to take advantage of my ignorance). Assuming OPEC is based on member agreement to give them strength in the market, if one of them decides to increase their quota because they don't need that backing, then what can OPEC do about it? That they can increase their quota from 2% to 6% (and if they were being hypothetically supported, possibly like a puppet, by the US) then they WOULD threaten OPEC, which is based on control. We know what the US thinks about other people being in control.

Remarkable fortune then that they find themselves in the position they do, to allocate contracts to themselves and their allies. All because of some other reason for invading Iraq.

Pumping the oil doesn't mean at all that the pumpers have control of it. In fact, drilling for oil and pumping it are not even related. Neither has anything to do with ownership of the oil, or control of it. Iraq's oil fields were severely damaged. it is natural that attempts were made to boost production. Unless evidence can be provided that US companies control the oil after it is pumped, the only conclusion that could be drawn from this is that it is in fact for the benefit of the Iraqis, as they are the ones who control the flow and the sale.



<sigh> Again, until some evidence can be shown that US companies gained any control of the oil, this argument, while strong rhetoric, is completely unfounded.



Just to clarify my position on this. I fully believe that some of this was about oil....as I have stated, we wouldn't give a rat's arse about the Middle East if it weren't for the oil. But I do draw the line well before saying that this war was about oil. One of the primary distinctions being that it has been long standing US policy that we don't want control of the oil, but that we consider access to it strategically imperative. The breakdown of the War for Oil argument, to me, is that it doesn't make this distinction, and that no evidence can be shown that we ever gain control of the flow and sale of the oil. Basically, there isn't anything that shows how Iraqi oil is putting dollars into US oil companies pockets. There are companies participating in the rebuilding of the oil infrastructure, just as their are companies participating in the rebuilding of the rest of Iraq's infrastructure. There isn't anything evil in this...in fact, it is vital for a strong Iraq. You can debate the pros and cons of whether more of this work should be outsourced to other companies...but I think that debate is separate from this one. Consider the following. Do the companies that are rebuilding, say, the water treatment facilities then own the water? No...they are merely rebuilding/augmenting the facilities. That is all the oil companies are doing here as well.

Well then please present that document so that we can debate it, because the ones you posted so far include no calls to military action.

No objective reading of those documents will give that impression.


Artemise, it is time you stop trying to categorize me and start looking at your evidence more closely.

I assure you I have, and it doesn't nearly live up to your assertions

Let's make our first top there. I assume you are referring to your historical references, which I read in detail.

They do set a historical precedent for US involvment in Oil Wars. But they betray you on the major issue. The UK and other powers historically controlled Middle Eastern oil through owning controlling shared in the oil companies. It seem Iraq has learned from this because it is now impossible do to fully nationalized oil companies.

Therefore you link do not apply to this situation. One of the biggest things I need to believe this theory is a mechanism to control the oil.



The US is proclaiming a hands-off government and oil policy?

The things you list don't point to an Oil War unless you already believe in one of course. You're preaching to the choir and I'm out in the pews.

So for clarities shape:
I'm not naive, not stubborn, and not in denial. Please accept that your theory is not the only one. Only then can we have a reasonable discussion.


I don't believe the government knew they didn't have WMD's. Saddam refused to offer proof of these as he was obliged to to under UNSC relation 687.

Please elaborate, how were France and Russia increasing their "oil quota" what does this even mean if the oil could only be sold under Oil-for-Food?

I saw no mention in you link of russian and US rigs. I did see where they had bought the crude but not were they produced or sold it?

Who's selling the crude?
That's what I need to know.

Well, they're either drilling for oil or they're helping drill for oil. What else could they be doing there?


I don't know, but how is that relevant? Who buys the oil makes no difference to whether or not the oil is sold in dollars.


I would say that it is who ever has their finger on the trigger that controls the oil. It doesn't matter under what name the oil is being drilled, or even if at this point very much oil is even being drilled.

What matters is whether or not Iraq is free to sell its oil in Euro's, Dollars or any other currency. I do not believe that is the case, and here is why.

The Iraqi government does not hold the power in its own nation. It is currently held by the USA. Since military power is the ultimate form of political power and the only way power can be maintained against other political powers then the current Iraqi government only operates under the authority of the US military, which in turn operates under the authority of the Pentagon, which in turn operates under the authority of the White House.... and the White House is currently occupied by two 'former' oil men.

Coincidence? perhaps... maybe GW Bush and Dick Cheney have no further interests in the oil business?

And then there is the cause for war. I don't know whether or not GW Bush lied about the issue of WMD's, but I strongly suspect he did because I know Tony Blair most certainly did lie when he said he knew that Saddam Hussein had WMD's. Blair went before the House of Commons and said he had intelligence that indicated Saddam Hussein could deploy chemical weapons against the west in 45 minutes. This was a lie. All he had was an estimate based on conjecture.

AND, a few years previously, Tony Blair had openly advocated the removal of Saddam Hussein by military means in order to 'safe guard the region' (I paraphrase slightly since I don't recall his exact words) What ever Blairs intentions may have been, it is clear now that he lied and was caught doing so.

What is also telling is that Blair's predessesor, John Major, under whose premiership British troops helped to liberate Kuwait (that bastion of freedom and democracy) was rewarded for his loyalty to the US cause with a lucrative position* as the European Chairman of the Carlyle Group. I'm assuming you know who the Carlyle Group is?

Coincidence? perhaps... Maybe no such reward awaits Tony Blair, who knows?

Another aspect of the invasion of Iraq is the total lack of any other reason that fits the criteria of realpolitik. Now of course, this assumes you accept the notion that states engage in realpolitik, but if you do, then you have to accept that nations do not go into war to liberate the people of other nations unless they have a clear and firmly understood agreement before hand (For example, Britain declared war on Germany only because Germany had invaded Poland whom the