By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 21 February 2014
Edit Thread
McGran said:
Kasz216 said:
McGran said:
Kasz216 said:
A) No that wasn't why the US attacked Iraq.  The USA didn't even end up getting a lot of the Iraqi oil.  It mostly went to the Chinese.

I'm no expert but this seems pretty convincing...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/

"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are.

For the first time in about 30 years, Western oil companies are exploring for and producing oil in Iraq from some of the world's largest oil fields and reaping enormous profit. And while the U.S. has also maintained fairly consistent level of Iraq oil imports since the invasion, the benefits are not finding their way through Iraq's economy or society.

So

1) Someone not in the know.

2) Someone not related to the incident

3) A democratic poltician.

 

Again.  Look at who is actually getting the oil.  The answer?  China.

I re-wrote my response to this several times, trying to find the right tenor, before I realised that you've already got all the "answers" you'll ever need so it's pointless.  Then I thought to myself, "What the hell, I've had a shit day at work and I'm feeling pretty passive aggressive so send it anyway."

So, pick the response you like best.  Or don't.  They should all come across as pretty critical of your derisory reply so if any of them seem positive please understand it is by accident rather than design.

1 - Is this half arsed response meant to be compelling in any way?  It makes young earth creationist arguments look reasonable.

2 - So presumably you mean we can't trust democratic politicians.  Do you trust the undemocratic ones?

3 - Is that it?

4 - Wow!

 

PS - you know this is rather cathartic - I don't know why I've resisted for so many years.


It's common sense.  Here's a little pratical expirment for you.

Compare the price of gas in the united states, vs the price of gas in the united states before the Iraq war.

Compare the price for a barrel of oil now, compaired to before the iraq war.

So... where is all that oil?

Your arguement is the US invaded Iraq for oil it didn't get.  So it could pay more for gas.

It's just a bad arguement.

I mean.... lets look shall we.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm

So... a little under 7,000 barrels of Oil from iraq....

 

The US spent trillions of dollars for like...   2% increase in oil per month?

 

Pretty damn expensive oil, not counting the fact that we still have to pay for it.

 

Oh wait.  Except we were actually getting MORE oil from Iraq when it was ruled by Sadam Hussein.  A hell of a lot more

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTIMIZ1&f=M

 

So I mean... seriously.  What... we went to war with iraq and wasted trillions and trillions of dolalrs in oil to get less then 25% the amount of oil we could of been getting?

That makes total sense.

 

Saddam Hussein would of LOVED to sell more oil to the USA.  Saddam was only anti-USA because USA was anti him.