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

ICA has never had a project outside of the USA.

USA Oilfield...Could you give more information on them? I cannot find any.

That has changed notably, as the US has dropped quite a bit:

http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/iraq/iraq_economy.html

Notice that #2 is not a NATO country. If we were there for oil, why would the numbers be dropping against our favor? You'd think that obtaining oil from Iraq would be a long term conspiracy, and not a flash-in-the-pan of actual data that suggests that other countries are becoming more invested in Iraq than we are.

I haven't been a mod in a year, what are you talking about?

My point is to suggest what other companies had the actual capacity to take on these projects that people are arguing as being the conspiracy behind the war. I believe the truth is that, unfortunately, Haliburton was one of the few companies that had the capacity to meet the requirements of awarding contracts in Iraq.

I used no name calling, no attacks on anyone. I was just merely asking for someone to give some suggestions, and some have. I don't see why you have to be so attacking towards me, if I'm trying to debate the argument logically.

True but would it be hard for them to take on a project like that?

USA Oilfield I don't know too much about either actually, just that they produce and construct equipment for oilfields but also only within the country.  I just think that with all the infrastructure companies out there they didn't necessarily have to go with Halliburton only, even though they may have the most experience in the area,  in fact that I imagine it would be better for the economy to strengthen the other companies to increase competition. 

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.

You attacked him aggressively. No need to be upset.

OT -Halliburton installed the shower/electrical equiptment in Army barracks in Iraq, that caused some soldiers to be electrocuted.

-Halliburton built some of the oil rig components on the Deepwater Horizon. We know about that.

-Halliburton bought a 300 million dollar oil clean up company DAYS before the oil spill.

-Halliburton are one of the chief contractors for building the great wall of America, on the Mexican border.

(i don't see why people defend corporate interests, especially ones that seemingly get in trouble like this.)

I agree that more companies should of been consulted concerning reconstruction. However, lets not forget that Haliburton was awarded about $7 billion in contracts of the ~$60 billion appropriated by Congress for reconstruction.

In regards to Haliburton, I think the reason they were awarded such a large contract were for 2 reasons:

1. They had major offices in the MidEast. Their 2nd largest base outside of the US is based in the UAE
2. They had military experience vis-a-vis KBR, which was a newer military contractor that had experience just a few years ago in Clinton's Kosovo war.

Now, the reality of the situation was that Haliburton performed pretty poorly, and had contracts yanked away from them. I would think that *if* there was a conspiracy to ensure Haliburton was going to profit a ton off of it, they would have taken more measures to ensure proper cover ups, or other means. However, the fact is, Haliburton's stock has been really, and I mean REALLY bad since 2008.

Here is the chart of Haliburton revenues by sector:

Here it is over the past decade. In 2006, Haliburton cut off KBR, their military contractor due to their failures in Iraq:

OP - don't believe anything you read here in offtopic.

Go and find out for yourself please.

Source

Up until the Iraq War we were receiving a steady upward trend in supply of oil from Iraq.  In 2002, we see a large drop off (during the WMD investigation period and leading up to the war)  At the end of 2003 - present we see a very steady oil supply coming to America from Iraq (with a overall slightly downward trend).  Over that entire 6 (plus) year peroid, has the rate gone up?  Not really, nor has the rate gotten anywhere NEAR the peak before the War began. 

Unless evidence comes out that Iraq was planning on cutting off the supply after the 2002 year (and there is not any I am aware of) I do not see how we went to war just for oil.  If we did, wouldnt our supply SINCE the war be greater if not equal to what it was before the war?