Mantis Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) Also don't forget that it took years for oil production in Iraq to return to pre-2003 levels. Edited March 1, 2013 by Mantis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 That is the otheer thing against oil being the primary motive. In the years since the contry has calmed down and the oil production has started up again so much of it has gone to forign companies especially China being a massive player. The US and the UK suffered all the casulties, apparently they were doing it to secure oil, but loads of the contracts have gone to China, Russia and other countries. It just doesn't stack up as an argument. Playing devil's advocate - the corporations lobbying Congress were mulitnational, so China and Russia getting the share of the spoils is still in their interests, because they are still earning money thanks to the oil supply being steadied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Like I said, I am sure the oil supply would have been factored in, and I don't really see a problem with that, but it was just another positive on the case for action rather than the primary driving force. Nothing that happened since the invasion has pointed to oil being the main reason for it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 It's the Oil, stupid! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 I also have trouble believing the oil was the only reason for the Iraq war. I think it was one of 3 reasons. The removal of a dictator who was harming sections of the population and blunting a threat to the wider region being the other two. Securing oil stability would have been just a helpful bonus to the whole thing. If the second and third were real reasons, wouldn't it have been simpler and more acceptable to say that than to come up with convoluted and now disproved lies about first a connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda, and later WMD? The reason being that they didn't seem to have a plan for actually stabilising the country once Saddam was removed. If oil was the primary objective then you need a stable environment to begin processing it. Looking back however, the plan seemed to just be to remove the government of Iraq and leave the Iraqis to get on with things afterwards. Iraq is in chaos, but the oil is flowing. The stable environment needs to encompass the sites of production and the logistics of removing it, but the whole country clearly doesn't need to be stable for this to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 That is the otheer thing against oil being the primary motive. In the years since the contry has calmed down and the oil production has started up again so much of it has gone to forign companies especially China being a massive player. The US and the UK suffered all the casulties, apparently they were doing it to secure oil, but loads of the contracts have gone to China, Russia and other countries. It just doesn't stack up as an argument. That's the outcome, but wasn't the plan. During 2007, the US was drafting an Oil Law which it wanted the new regime to pass, guaranteeing US companies preferential access to oil at exploitative rates, no doubt with big kickbacks for the legislators required to pass this. It didn't work out in the way planned - I think, but can't find sources, because China used its position of economic leverage to prevent it. The failure of the US to get the law passed which it wanted passed obviously doesn't disprove the contention that the war was about securing oil supplies - in fact the attempt to get such a law passed is evidence in support of that contention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted March 1, 2013 Author Share Posted March 1, 2013 The reasons for the invasion were 1. Personal Bush family grudge against Hussein 2. Oil 3. No-bid contracts doled out to connected firms (security, construction, weapons manufacturers, and on and on) 4. Pressure from the Israel lobby 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted March 1, 2013 Author Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) China used its position of economic leverage to prevent it. China would love this kind of action time and again. The US does the dirty work, China swoops in to claim the spoils. Edited March 1, 2013 by maqroll 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted March 2, 2013 Author Share Posted March 2, 2013 Detroit Invaded by Michigan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Poor Detroit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usvilla Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 I did my US Immigration in Detroit - Very very scary place ! luckily it was in January so not many on the streets ! No intention of going again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted March 6, 2013 Author Share Posted March 6, 2013 Rand Paul Rebukes Obama 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 It's OK, the Dow Jones hit a record high yesterday. **** your rights, the money is coming back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted March 8, 2013 Author Share Posted March 8, 2013 Paul has all but announced a prez bid for 2016...The fractured GOP will spend 18 months battering each other and then lose to Hillary Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 He may have made a fair point but there is no escaping his resemblance to Tommy Carcetti... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 He might have made a good point, but in general he's no different from the rest of the social safety net-gutting Republicans. Anyway, is anyone aware that the NYC government recently passed a ban on large sodas, that has been invalidated by a NY state court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LockStockVilla Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 Paul has all but announced a prez bid for 2016...The fractured GOP will spend 18 months battering each other and then lose to Hillary Clinton. My hope is Christie can get a decent backing . He is the most appealing of the Republicans, but these days the GOP is so fractioned like you say and it's difficult to see them not essentially defeating their own candidate before the general elections begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 That's the outcome, but wasn't the plan. During 2007, the US was drafting an Oil Law which it wanted the new regime to pass, guaranteeing US companies preferential access to oil at exploitative rates, no doubt with big kickbacks for the legislators required to pass this.It didn't work out in the way planned - I think, but can't find sources, because China used its position of economic leverage to prevent it.The failure of the US to get the law passed which it wanted passed obviously doesn't disprove the contention that the war was about securing oil supplies - in fact the attempt to get such a law passed is evidence in support of that contention.SOMO (the state run organisation that sells Iraqi light crude) offers two prices, one to US refineries and another to the rest of the world. I will let you guess which of two has a very substantial discount. That situation may not have been signed into Iraqi law but it is the defacto reality on the ground - I've had dealings with SOMO very recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts