Is there any evidence for the Iraq War being about oil?

[mrstickball]

Gamerace said:

mrstickball said:

megaman79 said:

mrstickball said:

O-D-C said:

mrstickball said:

O-D-C said:

the US gave the contract to rebuild the Iraqui oil feilds to Halliburton (Dick Cheney's) company.

And who were they supposed to give it to?

someone who wasn't the vice president of the country invading Iraq?

So, reccomend a company in your infinite wisdom.

Reccomend an American company that could conduct reconstruction of the oil fields that had the size and scope of ability to take care of such a project. Someone that has major offices based in both the US and Mid East, with close ties to projects in the area.

Go ahead, I'm waiting.

I know you're a mod but F*** YOU

GTFO if you're going to abruptly challenge people in this way.

>edit - i just realised how fun offtopic can be.

1-There were no WMD's associated with Iraq at all.

2- The rest of the world knew this, and they protested, by the millions, to tell their governments not to invade.

3- The invasion must have been for something. If i remember correctly they reintroduced ALL oil companies that used to be in Iraq years ago (shell, etc).

4- 1 1 = you figure it out

1. They were insinuated for nearly a decade. Regardless if Iraq had them or not, they acted very guilty, and UN resolutions were even passed about the condemnation of Iraq kicking out inspectors. Oh, and for the record, we did find WMDs. Not smoking guns, but we did find them:

http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090427_8248.php

Iraq declared WMDs in 2009.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

Over 500 shells were found.

2. Rest of the world didn't include about 30 other countries, did it?

3. Yes, the invasion was for something. A lot of things, actually. Maybe somewhere along the line it was thought of that oil production may help America out, but I really don't think there was a vast conspiracy to go to war over oil.

1. Your own link disputes you.

"The U.S.-led 2003 invasion of Iraq was justified partly on the threat posed by the regime's alleged WMD activities. No indications of existing unconventional weapons operations were found after the war (see GSN, March 20). "

What has been found is degraded, forgotten equipment from '91 days.  Dispite US claims Iraq was not developing them.

Still shows that there were WMDs there, albiet old ones.

2. Aside from Australia (Which I believe, believed the US) and Briton (which I'll never understand) the rest of those 30 countries where mainly poor(er) nations that the US financially assists and regularly pressures into helping (mainly UN votes) and they still only sent token forces for show.  

I never disputed that only 2 major western countries helped us. My argument was concerning the false argument that Megaman made that 'the rest of the world', which, last I knew, meant everyone other than America. I was just stating that we didn't do it alone.

3. I concur that oil for US use wasn't the sole motivator.  Having a strong presence in the region, kicking out Suddam for various reasons, having some control over mid-east oil supply (not to necessary to sell it to themselves but by having such a stake they cannot be 'held hostage' by arabs for oil either), and probably some other factors we'll never know all came into play.  Terrorists and WMDs were a ruse for whatever the true intents were.  Unfortunately it's the US taxpayers and soldiers (not to mention countless innocent Iraqis) who pay the price

There you go. Much more reasonable answers. I never disputed why we went to war. I think it (still) was due to WMD intelligence, although it evolved into a much different role as we went along - most namely to have a stake in the MidEast and Bush one-upping his father. I don't agree with why we went to war, BTW, so I am not trying to defend the war because I am for it....I just believe the war was a stupid, costly, ill-advised mistake just like Vietnam was.