A common theory on the motivation for the Iraq war but I've noticed most who back it don't have a clear picture on the logistics of such a war.

Questions For Debate:

Did the US government invade Iraq to control the oil?

If so, how will the gain more control over the oil than they had will previous dealings under Saddam?

Is the US government setting up a puppet government in Iraq?

If so, again, how will this be managed and maintained?

Proponents of the "Oil for War" theory, what evidence do you have that the US
is attempting such a thing?

Did the US…According to which invasion you speak of? The Gulf War was entered into by the US because Sadam had invaded Kuwait. This invasion, I believe was for the purpose for Sadam to dominate control of the entire mid-east oil supply. Under this theory we did join in to expel him from Kuwait so Sadam couldn’t control the bid oil price worldwide as a manner of Iraqi foreign policy.

During the current engagement of hostilities my theory is that nothing had changed since the first Gulf War; Sadam still had the will to control his neighbors and given the chance by the UN for sanctions to be lifted he would have pursued weapons necessary without embargo or legal constraints to do just that. Was the objective on the US’s part wider? Only history will tell.

If so, how…A possibility of a “protectorate through resources investment” could be established like Great Britain has in Kuwait where British Petroleum has large investments that GB will always come to the aid of.

Is the US Government…I don’t think so because a parliament is being freely elected without US control with the International Oversight welcome. This Parliament will establish a constitution and then a Prime Minister be voted for nationwide.

Did the US government invade Iraq to control the oil?

It's hard to rule that out as an ulterior motive but the expressed reason was WMD programs and a lack of conformity to International Law. I don't see any way we would be there had there been vast oil reserves. Oil could not have been the whole problem though and I think that would be a gross oversimplification of a much larger and more complex political situation.

If so, how will the gain more control over the oil than they had will previous dealings under Saddam?

The key word here would have to be stability. Have we forgotten that Saddam went into Kawait over the oil fields swearing that he would control them or burn them and made good on his threat. I also found this and was wondering if it might help to spark this debate a little.



Is the US government setting up a puppet government in Iraq?

No, we are trying with every resource available to set up some kind of a representative demoncracy. Stability is the key to the whole political solution and it is far from certain whether or not it will become a reality. One thing is for sure, a puppet government would be the worst thing we could end up with. We have tried to do that in other countries and it never works, remember the Shaw of Iran? That ended very badly for American interests in the Middle East.

Proponents of the "Oil for War" theory, what evidence do you have that the US
is attempting such a thing?

I cannot say that there are direct motives that involve securing our oil interests in the Middle East but it is hard to rule out. All war is over money, Plato said, and the biggest money maker in the modern world of the 20th century was oil.



We should not underestimate the allure, power and wealth that is generated by oil in the modern world. That makes an intoxicating inducement for ulterior motives to fabricate reasons for war. There may not be a smoking gun here but there is a money trail, if you follow it far enough, you will find oil interests at the end of it.

The US government chose to invade Iraq for one reason, though it isn't one of the three they gave. Let us first review the alternative explanations the administration gave for the war.

{A} Saddam posed an imminent threat to the US.

{B} Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

{C} It was time to free the Iraqi people
(...like the wonderful, happy, great international do-gooders we are.)

We know the first two reasons were either grave miscalculations, or, more likely, complete lies. We also know that there is no way on earth we spent this much money just to free the Iraqi people. We did go to war for the oil, mostly because it's the only feasible explanation. We have put in place an interim PM, in Allawi, who is starkly pro-America, and actually worked with the CIA in the mid 1990's. There was actually speculation in The Washington Times that the Bush Administration drafted the Iraqi leader's speech before Congress in September. We will gain greater access to the oil by offering the new Iraqi government little choice but to embrace America's presence in their land. When you impose a government on a nation, it kind of sends a message as to who's in charge. As far as setting up a puppet government, do you think we spent this many lives, this much money, and this much breath to allow the new government to choose what they want? What if they choose someone that doesn't like us? Are we going to re-invade, and re-impose a government until the election works out right? I know the Commander-in-Chief is a master of rigging elections to fit his liking, but working for a pro-America democracy in a region of the world that strongly dislikes both America and democracy seems like a tall order. If this is not about controlling oil, and extending the reach of our resource-hungry empire, then what is it about? Sand?

The problem I have with your assumption fairplay-PA, and others who demagogue about 'war for oil' is this: where is the proof that we are reaping the benefits of the Iraqi oil. Right now, as we speak. It's easy to speculate that since a)we have not found any WMD's and b)Iraq has oil..........that we must have invaded for oil and oil alone. Even though common sense tells us that simply buying the oil from Saddam would gave been far cheaper monetarily, diplomatically and physically.
I have seen documents from anti-war folks such as Greg Palast that certainly advance the theory that we had a plan or at least coveted the oil reserves. But where is that oil now? Is it being funneled to the US? Are gas prices dropping dramatically? Are the pockets of oil execs being lined with this enormous influx of cheap oil? Where is the proof???

Your post implies many things that remain unproven to the extent that they cannot (as yet) be fact, by definition. Aside from your spurious claims of rigged elections, puppet governments and lies, your 'feasible explanation' falls well short of provable truth.

Questions For Debate:

Did the US government invade Iraq to control the oil?

If so, how will the gain more control over the oil than they had will previous dealings under Saddam?

Is the US government setting up a puppet government in Iraq?

If so, again, how will this be managed and maintained?

Proponents of the "Oil for War" theory, what evidence do you have that the US
is attempting such a thing?



Broadly, any interest the US (or Western countries) take in the Middle East is about oil on one level or another. There isn't much else there that would justify the amount of time and energy Western governments put into the place.

'Control' the oil? No - how could such a thing be achieved? The US & UK imposed a pro-Western shah on Iran in the 1950s - and look how well that turned out! The only other alternative to setting up a dictator is setting up a proper democracy and hoping that the Iraqi people vote for a pro-US government. They may well decide not to and vote for a government that joins OPEC at the first available oportunity.

I doubt anyone is trying to set up 'puppet' governments. It's been tried before and it doesn't work.

However, in an ideal world, the Middle East would be composed of peaceful democracies that sold oil at market value and built up economies that weren't entirely reliant on one product. Whether they liked America or not would broadly be irrelevant - it is still in countries interest to trade with each other - and it is generally in everyone's interest to trade with America (excepting the occasional bout of protectionism). The price of oil goes down and there is less chance of economic collapse in the Middle East if it does.

So how do you achieve that? Resolving the Israel / Palestine in a peaceful manner is one of the first steps. Saddam was a big supporter of Palestinian terrorists organisations. He also had a history of being aggressive towards his neighbours. And if you can make Iraq into a working liberal democracy with a working market economy and show how it benefits Iraqis, then that is a powerful argument to the rest of the Middle East to adopt reforms.

I think broadly - yes, it is about oil - but nothing so crude or thuggish as to set up a puppet government. This is enlightened self -interest on the US's part - it is in their interest to remove Saddam - but it is in everyone else's interest too.

It's just a shame that the rebuilding / occupation was very badly planned.

Here is where I have insert the contention what you say is incorrect if you look at facts. There is ample oil in Iraq to support the entire population of Iraq along with other rich natural resources it has. Sadam invaded Kuwait a very oil rich nation to do what? I beg all reading to stop and open an encyclopedia to Kuwait and read about how filthy rich they are. Look at a map of the area and consider how oil is transported to the outside world. Imagine had Sadam not been challenged when he attacked and held Kuwait what he would have been able to accomplish with both nations resources and the strategic real estate. What was the reason for ceasefire? Disarm right? Why did option exist to disarm? If you remove his claws the entire world thought he had he wouldn’t scare the crap out of his neighbors and he could just continue being a harmless oil rich dictator. Now be honest with yourselves in answering the following question, Did Sadam show with sincerity he willingly wanted to disarm to remove the fear to his neighbors even up to the moment the hostilities were restarted? You have to answer no if you are honest. He played the UN inspection team like a drum dictating when you can go to a facility after X number of hours and so on. He kicked the inspector out, a base conditions of ceasefire, he wanted to reserve the right to be the neighborhood bully and for the world to prove a negative verses inviting a positive and open hand.

Applied logic dictates Sadam was challenged in the Gulf War because of oil and his desire to steal it from Kuwait. He was a bully that would probably do the same to Iran and Saudi Arabia with his newly acquired wealth, he would control ALL of the mid east oil left unchecked. So if Sadam controlled all the oil could the oil be purchased at less expense, I think not. He may just buy a nuke and blow Israel off the map and stop production for a couple months. Would we make him glow in the dark?

The current hostilities are for those very same reasons because nothing had changed. WMD’s the reason because they were the reason for ceasefire at the end of the Gulf War and Sadam had not been helpful. With Sadam out we must install a new clawless government to maintain gulf oil status quo. So the war was for oil stability and mid east stability because Sadam just refused having his claws cut publicly. I think if you look in the public record 48 hours before the restarting of hostilities Bush offered Sadam one last chance to have his claws removed in public to prevent the war.

I have always said there were four reasons the U.S. wanted to invade Iraq. Five if you count an easy win as one of them.

The U.S. needed Iraqi land for military bases. This is true particularly since Osama bin Laden’s main raison e’dêtre in blasting the House of Saud was for allowing U.S. troops to be stationed on Holy Land.

Early last year, Reuters reported that the U.S. had planned to build 14 all-weather bases for its military in Iraq.

As far as I am concerned, the plan was always to invade Iraq…and never leave.

Israel was fearful of Iraq. Ever since Hussein let it be known he wanted to be a major Mideast player, Israel wished for Iraq to be declawed.

And Israel’s supporters in the U.S. got America to do its heavy lifting. But this war is going to cost the U.S., Israel and Britain big time once the Shi’ites eventually gain control of Iraq. Because they will join with their Shi’ite brothers to the east in Iran. We might end up with a dual Arab power, folks.

Oil You cannot discount this. Iraq sits on the world’s second largest reserves of oil. And Iraq’s oil is the easiest and the cheapest to refine. With that resource, the U.S. could tell OPEC and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez where to stick it.

Hero worship The Bushies hoped the world would look admiringly on them as heroes for deposing Saddam. Since no one in his right mind could appreciably defend the dictator, they figured the world would be aglow in grateful appreciation, while forgetting that close to 35,000 Iraqis would die in this little adventure.

I predicted that no WMD’s would ever be found. I predicted that no ties between Baghdad and al Qaeda would ever be made because of the philosophical differences between Saddam Hussein’s phony brand of Sunni belief and the strict, no-nonsense dictates of Osama’s Wahabi sect.

I was against the war from the outset because the reasons for justifying it were patently false.

Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Nothing was farther than the truth. Israel destroyed the only atomic reactor that Iraq ever tried to build. The facility, being built with aid from France, was going to generate electricity with non-weapons grade uranium.

Other than that, the only weapons Iraq had were chemical bombs, given to them by France, Germany and the United States. In fact, it was the U.S. that helped Iraq target its artillery to use those bombs against the Iranians.

Despite half of year of searching by 400 highly trained technicians using the most sophisticated gear known to man, no WMD’s were ever found. Not even trace elements of biological contaminants. If there were any biologicals, trace elements should have been found. But none were.

Iraq posed an imminent threat against the U.S. With what, a giant slingshot? Iraq had no weapons that could reach downtown St. Louis. It didn’t even have an army capable of invading Tahiti. It had invaded no one in 12 years.

Its available airspace had shrunk by two thirds. Its troops were dispirited and fearful and rode in outdated armor that was 12 years old.

Iraq posed a threat to no one.

I disagree completely with this assertion. Its essentially the policy of the DoD to maintain strike power in the region. We do that by keeping carriers, an MEF (Marine Expeditionary Force) and a SEAL Platoon on station; CENTCOM East in Qatar; Fifth Fleet HQ in Bahrain; pre-positioned ships in the region with a Brigade plus worth of vehicles and equipment on board; A Brigade plus of the same at Camp Doha, Kuwait and strike aircraft at strategic locations (Diego Garcia, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman).
The policy is not, nor ever has been to keep large concentrations of conventional forces on the ground in Saudi Arabia or Iraq for that matter.

The article on '14 bases' that has been going around for a year and a half now, is utter bunk. Nowhere aside from that one article is there any proof or statements to that fact. Aside from the fact that it doesn't pass the smell test to man '14 bases' in Iraq. We're not vacating those bases anytime soon, and we can't man an additional commitment of the same size and scope in Iraq.

I wouldn't be so rash to discount the pre-war Iraqi Army. They were not the same 4th largest army in the world as they were in 1990, but they had enough forces to certainly invade Tahiti. My current boss was a participant in the 'Thunder Run' in Baghdad and the taking of objectives Moe, Larry and Curley during the invasion, and I know for a fact he would disagree with you.



North Korea has invaded no one in over 50 years......do you contend they they also pose no threat whatsoever?

If we were moving troops out of SA to Iraq, as an overture to OBL, then how does that jive with us attacking Afghanistan?

I realize this was as far as you're concerned, but can you provide any other factual evidence for the above?

You're predictions aside.......you really list hero worship as a reason to invade? Please walk me through the thought process on that one........

The United States did maintain bases in Saudi Arabia against the wishes of not just Osama bin Laden, but many of that country’s elite Muslim Imams.

This is one reason so many prominent Islamic clerics in Saudi Arabia have called for a continuing Jihad in Iraq against U.S. troops.

I am well aware that the U.S. keeps aircraft carriers in the Middle East. However, ever since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the Pentagon felt a keen need to maintain a sizeable ground force on the Arabian peninsula.

The United States desperately needs the House of Saud. It needs the semblance of a regime in Riyahd that is friendly so it can maintain its close financial ties to one of the world’s richest counties, per capita.

The Reuters article on the 14 bases the Pentagon wanted to build was not so much debunked as it was underreported.

Much like the fact that although some journalists were threatened with jail for refusing to reveal their sources for their stories on the war, very little was made of Bob Novak not suffering at all for printing the name of an on-the-job CIA covert operative.

Just because the media chooses to ignore a story does not mean it is not true. It is simply underreported.

The United States is still very much interested in permanent bases in Iraq. Follow-up story on bases

Iraq’s army in 2003 was a shell of itself. It does not matter how many men it supposedly had under arms. It also does not matter how many rifles, trucks, bombs or tank shells it could have made use of.

An army is little but a collection of men and their commanders. And Iraq’s commanders were not only sub-par, they were fearful.

Those old enough to remember recalled their comrades buried alive screaming as bulldozers operated by the U.S. Army simply rolled over their dug-in positions during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Conscripts no doubt looked back in fear at the utter devastation to Baghdad’s city center in that conflict. Very few of them wanted a war with the United States.

Which accounts for the ease in which U.S. troops raced north through the country to take Baghdad. Most Iraqi troops simply melted away from their hastily formed battle lines.

A few did fight, and courageously, but no modern army can carry the day on the field without adequate air cover. The Iraqis had none.

Could Iraq have invaded another country? No. The nation was effectively partitioned. Iraqi aircraft were prohibited from flying in two thirds of the country. What areas remained in control by Saddam were under constant aerial and satellite surveillance.

Iraq couldn’t invade anyone because any build-up of men and trucks and tanks would have been noticed.

Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia are completely different animals. Afghanistan does not contain Mecca, the center of Muslim worship. Few Islamic clerics see property in Afghanistan as holy land.

That is why there was no outcry over the fall of the Taliban. Not all Muslims are terrorists. And not all hate the United States.

So when the U.S. roared into Kabul, there were few honest-hearted Muslims who took issue with it. Like most in the world, they accepted the notion of the U.S. taking a just revenge for the 9-11 attacks.

Factual proof of Osama bin Laden threatening the House of Saud for allowing the U.S. to station troops in Saudi Arabia has been printed and broadcast since 1992. I really do not believe that I need to offer any. Osama has always taken the rulers in Riyahd to task for that.

I am aware that North Korea has not invaded anyone for 50 years. But there is a huge difference between North Korea and Iraq. North Korea has 50,000 soldiers specifically trained to fight behind enemy lines, according to World Factbook assessment. It is believed to have nuclear weapons. It has developed a missile that can strike Japan. It has an airforce. It has ships and it has submarines.

Iraq had no nukes. It had no appreciable navy or airforce. I saw the planes buried in the sand, too. But it would have taken a miracle to get them into flying condition.

Iraq also had only a few missiles, because most had been dismantled as ordered by the U.N. And unlike North Korea, Iraq’s equipment was mostly 12 years old and it could not count on any other Arab country coming to its said.

North Korea can still count on The People’s Republic of China.

Hero worship? That is kinda easy.

How many times have you read that George W. Bush is such a great man because he has won two wars?

Did the US government invade Iraq to control the oil?

Oil is certainly a big possibility for America to invade Iraq, but it is not the only possible reason as well. There is of course that we wanted to help the Iraqi people out, but also war is economically beneficial to already "rich" class of people, lets say that 2% that control most of U.S' money. Just making weapons alone for the cause of war is a great profit to Bush's class and other influencial people who have control over big enterprises to help out the war effort. Money is always the reason for war in some form, weather it is oil or other goods to supply for the conflict. Since America is great on patriotism, it is not that hard to sway the American people into the position for the support of the war for a "greater cause", even if most people's wallets go empty.

While I will readily admit that my comment on the rigged elections was little more than a defiant charge in the face of the horrendous loss that the was the 2004 election, there are two things I said that do carry some merit. First of all, I believe that, while there is little evidence of it yet, I have put forth sound reasoning on the likelihood of Iraq's new government being a puppet of sorts.

Perhaps the only reason there is little evidence is that the new government hasn't been formed yet. Allawi worked with the CIA, as I mentioned, and The Washington Post and BBC reported that as early as in 2002, American Oil Companies had "begun maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil." (links at end) Perhaps this wasn't as much about having the oil for ourselves as it was about having stakes for our companies. I hear this administration has some oil ties, but perhaps that isn't solid enough for you either, so here are a few examples. Condi Rice, our Senate's newest subject of debate, was a former member of the board of directors of Chevron, and Chevron even named a tanker after her (which I find kinda scary). Dick Cheney headed Halliburton for several years, but I suppose I needn't go on. The American oil companies stood to gain from this in any scenario. Can you say "vested interest"?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...4¬Found=true

I'll take a stab at this, but I have to say up front that my comments will be largely editorial because if there was any proof then you can be certain that the "liberal" media would be blasting the air waves. I also think this discussion is framed in the "my mind is already closed but I'll ask the question anyway" fashion Turnea out of a response to a comment by Artemise which probably should have been addressed in the original thread.

Did the US government invade Iraq to control the oil?
Was that their primary motivation? I don't think so. But, I don't think the reason we invaded Iraq has anything to do with the many stated reasons by the government (i.e. Iraq had WMD, Iraq sponsored terrorists, Saddam was a bad man, we wanted to free the Iraqi people). What it does have a whole lot to do with is exerting control over the region, and oil is a nice side benefit.

My opinion is that the planners in the Bush administration cooked up all of the stories and spin about going to war with the explicit purpose of installing a US friendly Arab government in the region. For a multitude of reasons Saddam made an easy target because of past history and how spun up people were and still are about terrorism.

My reasoning for that is as follows:
1) This administration believes that Democracy defeats terrorism.
2) This administration wants to move toward US dominance of the region because of their belief in number 1, because they believe we are a moral authority to the world, and to control a valuable resource (oil) which is vital to the world.
3) Invading Iraq removes an important enemy of Israel in the region.

If so, how will the gain more control over the oil than they had will previous dealings under Saddam?
Um, what control? We had Saddam under embargo for over a decade and weren't buying oil from Iraq. Saddam still sold oil to other countries which didn't participate and exchanged it for food through the oil for food program. So I don't know how you can make a case that we had any control over the oil that Saddam was producing.

In fact I don't know how you can make a case that we have any kind of control over any Middle Eastern oil period. Part of the reason the area presents such a difficult political situation is because we depend on a resource that we do not produce in great quantities and exert little to no control over. If OPEC decided tomorrow that they wanted to raise the price of oil to $100 a barrel or cut production they could do it and there wouldn't be much we could do about it. It'd destroy the world economy, but they have that power.

So, by invading Iraq (regardless of the government they end up with) we have not only gained control of some of the oil, but we are also the ones responsible for rebuilding their infrastructure thus providing all kinds of work, opportunity and profits for US companies. At first it was just Halliburton but now I have more than a few friends that are heading over to Iraq for a few months to work on various projects such as telecommunications, finance, IT, etc which are completely unrelated to oil. In my opinion, the oil is actually a minor accomplishment compared to the dominance of American corporations in the region. The international community is raising a little bit of a stink about that as well.

You are not going to see gas prices falling soon, because right now the price has little to do with supply and much more to do with perceived threat to the supply. You might have noticed oil prices skyrocketed when things like Fallujah were on the news every day even though we probably aren't getting a drop of oil out of Iraq yet. Now that has all but disappeared from the media (even if it isn't over) prices have come down significantly in the last month or so - again with little to no change in supply.

Is the US government setting up a puppet government in Iraq?
No, it will not be a puppet government. However, it will be a very US friendly government. Anyone who can't see that is either blind or is just ignoring the truth. The people leading the country at the moment were installed by the United States and they know full well that without their support they will not remain in power. If we pulled out today they'd get assassinated and the insurgents would take control.

I don't think they'll take orders from the US and after elections are held the country will (hopefully) start developing on its own, but I can guarantee you the US will remain a strong ally of that government, a stick when necessary and that government will rely heavily on our counsel.

Proponents of the "Oil for War" theory, what evidence do you have that the US
is attempting such a thing?

As I said in my opening statement, if there was hard proof in the form of some memo or other documentation that is all you'd be hearing about in the media. So the short answer is no. However, if you open your eyes and look around and see that every single reason the administration gave is bogus, look at who is benefiting from it all, and look at how things are shaping up it is possible to draw the conclusion that oil did in fact figure into the equation, but not as the primary factor. My answer to the second question covers that in more detail.

Iraq's oil has been fought over since the discovery of oil in Iran in 1908. (thats not a typo nor a mistake) From ground conditions it was assumed that Iraq probably had oil as well.



This was seven years before oil was officially discovered in Iraq in 1927. They were ready to fight for it even before they even had solid confirmation there was any substantial quanity.



The US , French and British (and Danish) have fought tooth and nail over Iraqs oil, had great portions of it locked up between themselves, relatively free of charge in the beginning, but they screwed it up by infighting and political power plays, and lost it all through the eventual nationalization of Iraqi oil somewhere around 1946, which was not a dictatorial coup, but a legitimate buy out. This today is just a resurgence of that old fight, with a much higher value and not long after.

Before this debate goes on it might be of interest to read the history of the discovery and coveting of Iraqi oil, and how the value and ownership of Iraq's oil was wasted at the time by power plays and by the discovery of oil in Kuwait and Saudi ... then we can have a discussion on the matter with less abject speculation. This information is really necessary to understand what is going on now. It's too information rich to snip out:
Its a concise, perhaps lengthy- 2 pages- but not a waste of time by any means.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2...25byzantine.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2...26byzantine.htm

Id love to resume once we are all on the same page in history, with the future...China, Peak oil and cost evaluation, strategic vision and the US as Superpower, but I think that practically says it all with some simple deductions.

1. If my mind was closed then I wouldn't ask the question, certainly I have my own ideas on the situation but a good argument complete with some evidence could change them as I'm not particularly attached.

I'm hardly some rabid Bush supporter, don't blame me, I voted for Kerry

2. I think addressing these questions in the original thread would have thrown it off topic. I also believe they are substantive enough to deserve a thread of their own


Well there were the illegal sales to the US, but that wasn't what I was talking about.

I should have been more specific, I meant our control (due to our commercial dominance) pre-embargo. After all it would have been relatively easy to get the sanctions dropped as France and Russia already wanted this.

Good Point, however we must remember that Iraq is still a member of OPEC.

So under your reasoning that means we would exert no control over Iraqi oil regardless of the invasion.



The people in power now are temporary by definition (Interim government). US support will not (indeed cannot) keep them in office under Iraqi democracy. Note that the most popular ticket in the country is not Allawi's but one that has the quiet backing of Ayatollah Sistani.


Possible, but not necessarily logical. The process of elimination approach seems misguided to me. We would have to count our every other likely reason before it could work. I don't think that has been accomplished seeing as the "Oil War" theory itself is not particularly likely.


Possibly, but that really lends little credence to the idea that that is what we are fighting over now. Britain fought with China over opium. Is that why we are in Afghanistan?

I will, of course, read the articles but it will take a lot more than historical precedent to back the case against the administration on this one.

Like a plausible theory, things don't quite work the way they used to, democracies are more difficult to puppet particularly when the populace doesn't like the puppeteer very much.

Did the US government invade Iraq to control the oil?

If so, how will the gain more control over the oil than they had will previous dealings under Saddam?

Is the US government setting up a puppet government in Iraq?

If so, again, how will this be managed and maintained?

Proponents of the "Oil for War" theory, what evidence do you have that the US
is attempting such a thing?

Here is the proof: http://theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=287

More proof: http://theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=356

If you still are an unbeliever: http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060503A.shtml

Wolfowitz said this statement himself :



I mean, how much evidence do we need? This administration could care less about the freedom of the Iraqi people. if they did, how about telling them how many casualties they have suffered since and during the War. I'm sorry, our caring government doesn't report such non-sense.

Why defend the indefensible (the Bush administration motives)???

Touche. I'll clarify what I meant. I don't think we went over there with the intention of shipping a whole lot of oil back home. You are right, the purchases will still go through OPEC, but depending on who comes to power after the election we might have a more friendly face in the room. I think you'd have to agree with me about the advantages of that situation.

But, we are certainly in a position of dominance and influence in Iraq at the moment from an infrastructure perspective and it is American corporations of all kinds (not just Halliburton anymore) that are rebuilding the country. That means that we'll have the knowledge and we'll already be entrenched when the newly elected government brings the country under control. Somehow I doubt they are just going to boot us out the door and wish us well. I think that is what the administration was counting on as one part of their dominance motivation and it is certainly what these companies were banking on by taking a risk to be over there - they certainly weren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. So it allows the United States to have financial dominance in the country as well as giving a nice financial kickback to some of the loyal supporters back home.

You've lost me with your three rungs of "proof". Yes, if bananas were the main source of income for Iraq, we likely wouldn't be there. Oil is important. Turnea's questions pertaining to this were: Did the US government invade Iraq to control the oil?, and If so, how would they gain more control over the oil than they had with previous dealings under Saddam?

Saddam would have sold us the oil. In point of fact, we were buying as much from him by the year 2000 as we had prior to the first Gulf War (approximately 5 percent of our overall supply..the majority of which comes from Canada and South America). The problems associated with this were: 1)He was selling the oil cheaply through the black market channels and not using the money to feed his people, and 2)We believed he was buying weapons with the underground oil money. Actually, he DID advance his anti-aircraft capabilities substantially in spite of the sanctions. Patrolling those no-fly ones was becoming an increasingly dangerous proposition.

If you're lost on the statements about why we attacked Iraq by our lovely Deputy Defense Secretary, then I won't be able to find you. How more direct can he be about the administration motives??

Let's look at his statements again more closely:

Why did the US invade Iraq as opposed to North Korea ?



Could you PLEASE explain to me what else could he be possibly talk about??

Turnea's question isn't "Is oil a factor in our invasion?" Obviously, we wouldn't concern ourselves if they only sold carpets and bananas. We wouldn't have even intervened when they invaded Kuwait if they had only carpets, too. For that matter, Iraq would have never invaded Kuwait if not over an oil dispute. We have economic interests in that region, along with much of the world. Was our invasion to control the oil? No.

I'm curious how you rationalize Wolfowitz's being so forethcoming if it was simply our intent to steal Iraq's oil supply. Why not just buy it (and save a bunch of money)? This is costing us 4+ billion a month.

Again, his statement speaks for itself. I don't have to rationalize anything. The words didn't come out of my mouth. He was very direct in terms of the answering the question. Nothing complex about why he said we invaded Iraq.
Have you heard the President disagree with his statement ?

This President didn't sell this war on the basis that we have economic interest in the Middle East. It was all about WMD (remember?? )

Isn't it possibly another component of the Iraq's operation which was miscalculated?...I mean, the argument that the Bush's administration didn't have a clear plan or didn't expect to have so many problems in Iraq have been mentioned often enough in many debates. That the current situation is costing 4+ billion a month was something your government was surely not expecting....they expected a quick victory and who knows what the next steps would have been?....It is an area where you can only speculate.


That oil was a very important reason to begin this war is something I personally (it is just a feeling and nothing I can prove or disprove) don't doubt. Had this administration waited for the inspections to end, it would have been much better (in terms of money and lives) to buy the oil from Iraq while finding other (more supported) methods to get rid of Hussein.

Statements taken out of context never "speak for themselves". Think you caught him in a drunk moment? Economics (or "regional stability") are usually some component for going into wars. When the Soviets refused to abide by their promise to withdraw their troops from Iran, President Harry S Truman didn't object and use the UN to oust them only because he felt sorry for the Iranians. Remember the Carter Doctrine: "An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region, will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States. It will be repelled by use of any means necessary, including military force." Yep, that Carter was a warmonger. By the way, we had a thread on this quote here. It was debunked, and the Guardian corrected its own mistake.

Perhaps, but that is so far about the extent of the Oil War theory...

a pretty weak "perhaps."

We already have Kuwait and Saudi Arabia "in the room" and yet when it comes to oil sales they're all business. I don't see why Iraq would be different.

In certain ways I suppose. But there is an enormous amount of development to be done in Iraq and the Iraqi government can turn to whoever they want in order to do it.

French and Russian firms are certainly in the running, and all oil sales will again be handled directly by the Iraqi government, OPEC member.

Now do you see the reason for the skepticism in the thread-starter? It's easy to say "Oil War" but a full grasp of what that would mean is often lacking.

Ok, Since my quote was used, I want to further state my case. Hopefully someone has read the history links.

Control of Iraqs oil does not simply come from all out stealing it. It comes from strategic involvement in the region , which noone here disputes. It comes from economic control as well. If we use any and all equations, all roads lead to oil.
First of all, the freedom and democracy for Iraq argument alone is particularily devoid of substance considering the expense in lives and money. To idealists this may seem a value in and of itself, but why not any other oppressed people? Because, as every poster has stated here-the oil is there. Freedom and democracy for orange and carpet sellers, Sudan, Ruanda, Chechnya, Zimbawe, Burma= ZERO. But a military invasion of freedom and democracy for Iraq was of interest because of? OIL, or as was put 'vested interests' , same- same GI.

We must jump to the future, because this (invasion) strategy is not short term.
Saddam was seen as a threat, but so was Kaddafi in Libya (at the time), Iran, North Korea, and the majority of hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, our friends. Israel is in ashambles on the Freedom equasion.
Saddam was the weakest link, Iraq was costing the US since Kuwaiit and the people of Iraq were suffering under sanctions. All of this is part of a reasonably good cause to take Saddam out. However North Korea has been threatening the US with nuclear proliferation, while Saddam was contained for the moment. Now where do we turn our priorities? To Saddam Hussein and Iraq which is more important in the moment than nuclear proliferation for the admin. Why? We need access to the resource, ultimately and in the long term to fight any further wars.

China is coming to fossil fuel use, putting a huge strain on supply. China has 3 times the population of the US at 1 billion 300,000 people , and they are going to need a whole lot of oil, which makes them a big player on the field.
Mrs P asks, " why not just buy the oil?" Because oil is going to become a much more expensive commodity in the years to come and the US cannot afford to simply 'buy it' and still remain a Superpower.
When oil prices rise due to demand, as they are sure to in the near years, while we are the largest user in the world today, how could we possibly have our destiny either in the hands of OPEC, to turn on and off supply or control pricing, victimized by China's burgeoning need and the money to buy? Our economy is based on growth, it is based on cheap oil. Imagine what really expensive oil means to the US? You can have an economy that survives on alternative energy, but you cannot compete with a growing economy slurping off all the oil and controlling prices like China with huge manpower to boot. Its a catastrophe for the US, and a submissive position, basically we lose.

There are few big oil companies in the world today, American and European, some Russian and the rest Arab, the same ones that always were. The same Euro and American ones that blew off Iraqs oil by a huge mistake for just long enough to lose it completely. They want it back, with relatively good reason, and they believe we deserve to have it. These are not people who think in terms of 'goodness' and 'humanity' and 'ethics' when it comes to unrenewable resources that make billions of dollars, but much more so- could make or break the US as a superpower. Only we silly little people dont get the huge need to control the oil resource. OIL IS POWER. They sell 'us' on stupid ideologies of 'goodness and freedom'. There is not a single person in the admin who doesnt think they are good, and doing America a great service by taking over Iraqs oil for the US, and perhaps they are right.

All Mid-Eastern oil except for Kuwaiiti, where we are deeply invloved, is nationalized. We are currently good friends with the Saudis but they still control the largest fields, but they are using water pressure to extract from some lower fields, their amounts are limited, they know it and they control the spigots. It doesnt matter what % our imports are today, the Petrol companies themselves have talked about reduction in usage and investment in alternative energies because our supply is not unlimited.
Iraq on the other hand is a gem of easily extracted, untouched fields, the second largest in the Mid-east.

Iraq as a country has no money. How can they extract and sell their oil? Well, WE CAN. Exxon, Mobil, Texaco as well as a few others surely can, and provide security as well, as long as nobody gets any ideas about getting all too fundamantalist Islam or out of line with the american dream. So, we drill, explore and set up. Who kicks you out then? But who allows you to vote anyone that might be anti US? In Iraq? We have public relations companies and clout that will never allow a truly free election, ever. What we have is, democracy-to a point. That is understood already. Turnea, Im sorry, arent you in Houston?

Now, all things considered, it is known in Alaska that Senator Ted Stevens and Jay Hammond (the gov that set up the Alaska Permanent Fund) are working on a similar plan for Iraqis to recieve a permanent fund dividend from their oil. This means oil companies pay taxes for the resource and the citizens get a kickback every year on the interest accumulated by the fund. ( I have no time or space to go into logistics) It does mean that Iraqis do not have national control over their oil, they just become payees, much like alaska citizenry.
http://anchoragepress.com/archives-2005/flashlightvol14ed2.shtml

So, why does the US have a task force to create a permanent fund dividend for Iraqis, if we dont control the oil and they are welcome to sell it on open market? And who is 'they' And HOW can 'they' sell it if they cant explore, extract, and move it to market without, ta ta da dum- Big oil companies.
Hmmn.

Turnea, please try, as I have done to the best of my ability to make a good case, you always object as nothing is good enough for you, then prove your theory,(whatever it might be) since you cant seem ta make sense of that which is face front. Give it a go then.

Give me some proof of something that makes better sense.

Done in me best Irish Brogue:
I dont unnerstand WHY some of you keep ignorin' and dancin round the Giant Greasy Elephant in the room; whats the point of fooling yourselves to such extent? Cant you come to grips with your government lying to you? Do you have tay convince yerselves youre some grandiose freedomizers to s'plain the bombed an bloody to your stained collective concience? A contrived war is always, contrived, and I know in my heart that most of you in yer hearts know it tis, but are tay weak to say the fact and own up tay it, thats always the way, keep lookin' fer ways OUT tay soothe yourself an yer immortal soul.

Sudan is merely selling oranges and carpets? I suggest you have a better look at that country and her resources. The Canadians spent millions in upgrades to better export oranges? I doubt that! Sudan is an oil rich nation.


So we are supposed to employ a single method to deal with all "threats" ? What is your point here? Is foreign relations a complicated, convoluted dance? Or is it just a mass produced solvent?


I am always intrigued by this reasoning..Saddam was weak..Saddam was contained..Saddam was small potatoes compared to NK or Libya or any other. But this isn't true and you acknowledge this later in your post when you inform us..."Iraq on the other hand is a gem of easily extracted, untouched fields, the second largest in the Mid-east." How can a nation with such a mass containment of the most influential, sought after and desired international export be weak? How is their political influence contained? How ever was the Iraqi invasion easy pickings? I disagree I feel Saddam had a lot of influence..had a lot of bargaining power and I just don't believe any of it was ever contained. Iraq was without question the most risky of any of the other threats to confront. I think all that has followed since the US invasion proves this.



I dunno this all seems like just economic theory not proven truth. It is just the result you feel will occur..and I happen to feel it is a little bit of a dated theory ..with all the OPEC scaremongering. I don't see how the US gaining control of Iraqi oil will change anything in regards to oil prices. Can you better explain how this relates to the economic side ? I have not heard many economists who would side with you and your belief that cheap oil is ever going to be a possibility again.
Besides oil prices rising will effect China far worse ....a country heavily dependent on production of very cheap exports. How can she continue growth as she also has massive deflation practices in place to contend with ...how can she be expected to pay such prices for her oil? Is she going to get a special rebate? Also why must you view the Chinese and American economies as only competitors? Again a bit of a dated view in my opinion..why in your future will we not be trade partners? Or have shared prosperity? Why is your world of the future one of only war, competition and antagonism?



When has Iraq not been selling oil? And when in the last 13 yrs were we not attempting to dictate the circumstances of Iraq's oil sales? I don't think Iraq has ever encountered trouble finding investors willing to help her in extracting her oil..with exception of the UN's demand that she have no control of her nation's resources.



This statement is amusing..only because you chose to inform others here that they should have a better look over the history of this region to better understand what is ultimately our nation's motives. Here you try to portray the Iraqi future as having only one possible outcome from America's involvement..that Iraq will never have control over their nation's resources because America's motives can not define such an outcome. Well if we look to history like you asked us to do..and we don't even have to go that far back..because in 1980 the KSA gained full control over it's oil industry..100% So could we perhaps also assume that Iraqis will eventually gain total national control over their oil ? I just don't understand why this is such a implausible outcome.

Oranges and carpet sellers was in response to another posters comment that if Iraq had been only that, we would not have invaded.



You nearly prove my point for me here, remembering that Iraq was under sanctions and Oil for Food by UN mandate, getting poorer by the minute with no imports allowed for parts for maintainence or renewal of their infrastucture of any kind. If Iraqs sanctions were to be lifted Saddam would inevitably get stronger, so the invasion came at the most opportune time.



Of course its theory! Im only trying to present a lot of surrounding facts that back that theory. Id like to see anyone present another theory that makes any bit of sense, because the administration has not done and neither has anyone on this board even tried, except oil is certainly NOT the reason no matter what!
How this can be defies logic.
Id like to see someone spend a bit of time to make sense of any of the other outlandish theories out there, such as the giant leap of faith that american imposed democracy in Iraq will lead to peace in the middle east! Maybe in another lifetime. There is no precedent, but further is a pipedream of idealism from an imposing culture that does not fully understand the concepts of the invaded culture, but truthfully, noone really cared. It was a might makes right invasion with a purpose. Now, if you can explain that purpose better than myself, have a go at it. I am listening. Thats a start to finish, not 'lets get rid of Sadam and wing it from there'.
How do you see Iraqis controlling their own oil? How will american oil companies be paid off for their huge investment in the rebuilding and then what? Iraqis pay them off and they leave? Ha!


No, we will and take first precidence. Not only that. With control of Iraqs oil, in the short term (two years alone), the US can set prices very low, thereby forcing independent (mostly foreign) oil companies out of business.



You prove my point again. After Gulf War I, was the US going to allow Saddam to sell to everyone but us in the future, allowing everyone but the US access to Iraqi oil fields in the reconstruction after sanctions? (which would eventually have to be lifted) That kind of power is not given up after so much military investment.
This is the biggest business in the world, the most needed resource in the world. This is power at the highest levels, this is bigger than having the best bombs. You cant even have the bombs without the oil.
Uh, the UN's demands? that was our intent to control and eventually break Saddam, and Europeans went along quite well with the program. Why do you think the French and Russians (who had big oil contracts with Iraq) opposed the second war? Saddam had also declared that he would accept only the Euro for oil, this was entirely unaceptable to the US.



It is a plausible outcome, just not while the US has anything to say about it, and as long as we can win this war and possibly other uprisings. Thats a good reason for the Iraqi Dividend and how the Saudis kept their people appeased for so long, pay them off and they wont complain. The KSA monarchy and the US had many agreements, including that the US would defend them from agressors and that SA would sell only in dollars. They were not invaded, we made some beneficial mutual contracts long ago, but our relations are weakening in the aftermath of 911 and dissent rises in SA.

Im not sure what you are arguing Bucket? That the invasion had nothing to do with oil? That we will allow Iraqis to do whatever they please now that they are 'free'? You cant be serious? What good would the war have done or do for us if we give them real total control now? Please explain this. To what benefit this newfound Iraqi freedom for the US? Unless you think we go around invading countries and freeing people out of the goodness of our hearts, post cold war?
My contention is that Iraq is an adopted baby sister now, and we will get our payoff come hell or high water.
In the vision of this admin, the toppling of Irans fundamentalist clerics come next or great pressure to tow the line.

With the US in Aghanistan (a nicely profitable gas pipeline on the table) and the US in Iraq, pressure on Iran, we are taking on a huge presence in the mid-east. Its going to be very lucrative for american oil companies and rebuilders, if we can keep up the pressure and keep down the terrorists. The latter being the biggest challenge of course.

No one is presenting a counter argument because the counter argument (aka, the real reason we went into Iraq) was WMD, and they haven't been found. That has been argued to death...years of unmonitored weapons programs, exports of oil via a pipeline to Syria and clandestine ones through Iran, several new palaces, better strategic missile capability, increasing attacks against our planes with advanced weapons capability, and a starving population, defectors professing Saddam’s interest in improving his weapons capability, to include some of his head scientists, yadda yadda. Perhaps we were played, or perhaps those WMD are in Syria now, who knows? Either way, it isn’t germane to the topic.

Remember how things stood in Februrary of 2001. History is lived forward but viewed backward, hence hindsight 20/20:

Back then, there was a different conspiracy theory...that the US must want Saddam in control because that would be the only explanation for absence of real action against his continued defiance.

Bush, Blair discuss missile defense, Iraq and NATO

The way things stood in early 2001, it did not appear that "Texas Oil interests" wanted to rally the troops and America to go into Iraq. If anything, there seemed to be a different, almost reconciliatory posture with the offer of “smart sanctions” rather than retaining the status quo. Additionally, Bush alluded to withdrawing a number of troops, and limiting military deployments in early 2001. Not the stance of a leader who wished to promote public support for an invasion of Iraq. What changed? Well…Either Bush decided we must control the oil in Iraq at all costs, immediately! Or, Bush decided that we needed a new approach to confronting threats in the Middle East after 911. The second scenario sounds the most reasonable to me.

Just to juxapose....We haven't even lifted sanctions on Cuba to this day, in spite of the fact that Spain is drilling for oil over there and even Halliburton wants the embargo lifted. We placed sanctions on Lybia (which has vast oil reserves) for terrorist connections and didn't lift them for over a decade...until Quaddafi made extremely favorable concessions. We placed sanctions on Sudan (in spite of whiny American oil companies) for their human rights violations. My suggestion for anyone who truly believes we went in to Iraq to control oil and companies will make a mint, is to invest in leap options. Don't hold you breath or use your retirement money, though.

I disagree as we can see with Sudan... the fact she has oil and many nations... especially those who sit on the thrones of the UNSC... have a vested interest in Sudan's exportation of oil have instead prevented a war for "liberation".
Iraq was left to rot for over 12 yrs because of this too..it is most often the reason we choose not to invade.

I must have missed all the facts you presented..where were the facts supporting your theory that OPEC has power over the western world? Or your facts supporting your claims that if the US succeeds her war for oil Americans will somehow see the barrels drop below $30 again? And I certainly did not see any facts presented for that theory of yours on China..that somehow China..a massively dependent industrial nation is immune to oil price fluctuations.


Are you claiming this war is being funded by American oil companies or tax dollars?
Ha yes..as I already gave you an example.. this is exactly what happened in the KSA..and I already asked you once to explain why you feel it is an impossible reoccurrence?



Could you present some facts on this ? Why such an absolute no? What makes China immune to oil prices?
Also when did America become the one and only force guiding oil prices? I think cheap oil is a thing of the past...whether America holds Iraq or not..the US does not set oil prices..OPEC does not..mostly now it is demand. That means me you and all our friends in China and India. I think if America was to use the oil sales to her advantage the wise thing to do would be to help diminish her trade deficit..which would be best achieved by not greatly devaluing oil.



And again you claim two distinctly separate realities of Saddam Hussein. At the beginning of your post he was poor and weak and then here you claim he held the ultimate power..which is it?



How does the US make it not plausible? I have offered actual facts to counter your claims..the US was involved with the KSA's oil industry right from the beginning and the KSA currently owns 100% of her nation's oil production. Why do you claim that America itself is the factor that will negate such an outcome..when in reality she has done the opposite? America always supported oil nationalization in the ME even when it was in opposition to her greatest allies demands (Iran) . Please present the facts you claim to have for this theory too.


As it has already been pointed out..I am not in opposition to you..just not in agreement. Just because you feel the entire motivation for war was oil does not mean that I feel oil plays no role at all...just not the sinister one you believe it does. I am arguing that trade between nations is not inherently evil...and that oil rich nation's are most often not invaded because of their oil ..Sudan, KSA, Iran, KSA as it brings far too much instability to the international markets.
Saddam knew this..it was his means of survival..as it has been for Iran and the genocidal gov. of Sudan.



The gas pipeline was in negotiation long before the invasion of Afghanistan..war is bad for business ya know. And will this pipeline somehow not be lucrative for the Afghan people? Will it not be beneficial for them to have other employment options available than just poppy farmer or jihadist? How horrible! if America is to succeed she will bring stability, peace and a functioning economy to the nation of Afghanistan.

Here's the first problem with this theory, Iraq is still an OPEC member and ther has not been so much as a disscusion of withdrawal.

...but America hasn't "taken over" Iraq's oil.


...and Iraqi oil is still nationalized with no sign if a cahnge in that situation. The US didn't even press for privatization of the oil during the occupation.

... and yet, except through the pipelines blown apart by insurgents they are doing so right now. Apparently, they found a way.

Nope, Bama


"Better Sense?"

From where I stand the oil war theory makes no sense, so it'll be hard to do worse than that!

In Bush's 2000 debate with Al Gore in St. Louis, Bush expressed the need to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Determining whether the motive to remove Saddam was brought on by vengeance for the attempted assassination attempt on his father, greed for oil, or national security reasons would be speculative.

The U.S. is not setting up a puppet government but we will have suzerainty over Iraq. Rollback of U.S. troops will happen but the 200,000 trained Iraqis that are intended to secure the nation will not have the capabilities to protect the nation from outside interest, specifically Iran. This will leave the door open for US military installations under the guise of protecting a new democracy and a new ally.

Potential evidence of the "Oil for War" theory can be found in the Bush Energy Plan which outlines a diversified portfolio of oil imports. Prior to the overthrow of Saddam, oil from Iraq was off limits to the United States. Now, with sanctions lifted and debt forgiven, Iraq's oil resource will help achieve Bush's goal of diversity. With that said, proving motive for war is still only speculation.

Well not fully, some reason can be safely "eliminated" upon further inspection. One must remember that Bush was hardly unique in his position on "regime change" in Iraq.

In fact that phrase was first used in that context by Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State.

It was under his administration that the removal of Saddam became official US policy. Clinton justified this on national security grounds just as Bush did.

So I think the "revenge for his father" is a lot more shake than the other two option to mentioned. Which is something, considering the third option suffers from severe logical difficulties.

For the sake of clarity:

Which, to anyone watching the situation in Iraq is plainly false. Iraq has been handling its international affairs with a ministry that has been open for over a year.

The newly elected govenment will choose it's own minister of foreign affairs which will have full control over such issues.

How exactly will the US control Iraq's international affairs? Even now they have no ability to make agreements or even issue statements on Iraq's behalf.


Iran clearly has no military designs on Iraq. They will have a much freindlier government than Hussein's in power and they have enough problems without starting Iran-Iraq War II (and giving the US a pretext to bomb them).

They have tried to influence the situation through agents, but that is not something US troops can protect them from. It will be a job left up to the new Information Ministry.

1. There have been no signs of the US planning for permanent bases in Iraq. We already have them in Kuwait and Qatar.

2. Even if such bases were built, we have bases in Germany and Japan too. There is no way such bases can force Iraq to give better deals on oil to the US. Will they send troops to destroy the new government?

1. Although sanctions prohibeted US firms from barganing directly with Iraq for oil, there were significant illegal sales.

2. We could easily have solved that situation by dropping sanctions without war, which France, Russia, and China had been pushing for anyway.

3. Where in the "Bush Energy Plan" can "potential evidence" be found? Please offer some specific evidence.

The "Oil War" idea doesn't even sound good on paper...

Ok Turnea, I'm going to state this once again - the reason we went to war in Iraq might not have been solely for oil, but it certainly played a very large part in that decision. This time I'll cite evidence some evidence for you to chew on.

First of all, the following information comes for The Center for Responsive Politics which tracks the spending of political action committees. I could have gone into the executives for these companies too, but looking through the FEC for them would take more time than I can offer right now. I can however guarantee you that their contributions match the data here:

Shell - SHELL OIL COMPANY EMPLOYEES' POLITICAL AWARENESS COMMITTEE $85,000 84% to Republicans - source
BP - BP CORPORATION NORTH AMERICA INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $220,499 62% to Republicans - source
Exxon/Mobil - EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (EXXONMOBIL PAC) $728,545 95% to Republicans - source
Chevron Texaco - CHEVRONTEXACO EMPLOYEES POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $351,300 88% to Republicans- source
Conoco Phillips - CONOCOPHILLIPS SPIRIT PAC - $242,000 88% to Republicans - source
Halliburton - HALLIBURTON COMPANY PAC - $207,000 91% to Republicans - source

Those contribution amounts are from the 2003-2004 election cycle and I bet you'll find similar and perhaps higher numbers if you look at other election cycles. OpenSecrets allows you to do that from the links I supplied, check it yourself.

So what we have here is a few million in political contributions to the Republican party, many of those contributions going to Bush himself.

Now, check this out. The following is the stock price for these companies in March 2003 compared to March 2005 from Yahoo! Finance.

Shell - March 2003: $35/shr
Shell - March 2005: $56.94/shr

BP - March 2003: $38/shr
BP - March 2005: $64.25/shr

Exxon/Mobil - March 2003: ~$35/shr
Exxon/Mobil - March 2005: $62.32/shr

Chevron Texaco - March 2003: ~$32/shr
Chevron Texaco - March 2005: $61.10/shr

Conoco Phillips - March 2003: ~55/shr
Conoco Phillips - March 2005: $109.04/shr

Halliburton - March 2003: $20/shr
Halliburton - March 2005: $43.25/shr

Every single one of these stock prices has increased dramatically in the last two years, some of them have doubled. Do you even realize how big of a financial impact that has on the people running the company and the shareholders? I didn't even consider the "no-bid" contracts that Halliburton received which resulted in millions of tax dollars going straight to that company's bottom line.

Now given these two things presented, the political payoffs and the huge returns on investment I think a rational person might realize that those political contributions bought something. Furthermore, there is no way you can deny that these corporations have not benefited greatly from the war. Don't believe me? Go back 5 years using Yahoo and see if you can find anything remotely resembling this pattern of growth. In every case the stock prices fluctuated between a small range and some of them even started dipping before the war.

If you don't believe that the administration didn't at the very least have these companies in mind before, during and after the war then I'm afraid I'l