Kasz216 said:
Your arguement is that the US government spent TRILLIONS so oil companies could make hundreds of millions a year? What is this a 100 year plan. Again, i gotta ask... why? Some oil tax cuts would of worked a whole lot better at making them more money for cheaper. Outside that... it still doesn't play out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry_in_Iraq#Service_Contracts_Licensing_Results Look at all that.... the US went to war, So that Exon Mobile and Occidental could make a a little over a billion dollars a year... in revenue, not even profit? That's crazy. And that's not even counting the fact that the chinese have sicne bought in on western contracts, taking over parts of it that aren't even listed their for oil, because Iraqi contracts are some of the stingiest least profitable oil contracts out there. As can be seen by the fact that Exxon has been trying everything it can to sell it's stake an pull out. It tried to in 2012 with no buyers. and sold some to China... who again, is the real dominant force, as it holds many deals with the companies who "won" and hold stakes in those oil fields unshown. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/19c128a2-5818-11e3-a2ed-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2u4GDQwzL The claim that the US Went to iraq for oil is total fiction, and is proven by the facts in no matter what direction you wish to spin it. |
Ok, so that's twice you've tried to strawman me. I'll say one more time, 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.
Here's another link - it makes a stronger case than anything you've said so far too. It seems Republicans agree that the war was about oil.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/top-republican-leaders-say-iraq-war-was-really-for-oil.html
I'd like to believe you but the weight of evidence is not in your favour.
Let's just call this a day. Clearly you think you're making a compelling case, while I think otherwise. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.







