Kasz216 said:
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. |
No, my argument is that the article I linked makes a better case that the Iraq war was about oil than you are making that it was not.
Fair play to you for trying to make a convincing argument here. Unfortunately you have created an argument to refute a point that you made rather than the point made in the article.
The article does not make the case that the objective was to increase US oil imports from Iraq, it makes the case that the war was about western oil companies gaining control of Iraq oil.
"Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with losers: the Iraqi people and all those who spilled and lost blood so that Big Oil could come out ahead."
