Yeah and my take on it is that regardless of what the main motivation was, oil definitely affected the decision making in a major way.

Other than that, I don't really like opining about the war in Iraq much because I wasn't there.

People go for different reasons. Many do go to make Iraq a better place. That might not be the reason why the authorities sent troops to Iraq, but it might be the personal mission of a lot of folks serving over there.

My major pet peeve would be the lying.
Fighitng over resources is just simply inevitable and that's usually the cause of a lot of fighting.

13th

You know if the Bush administration had come clean about this from the beginning I might have been more supportive. I might not have agreed, but at least I would have understood. But these people did everything to hide the truth and furthermore it was clear from Cheneys Energy Task Force that Washington was going to cut up the oil pie to its friends. Basically it was a new version of the "TEAPOT DOME" scandle back in the 1920s. I am nobody's fool and when my government tries to treat me like a stupid mope that doesn't know how the world works, its a surefire way to set me off. When Bush 41 invaded Kuwait, one of the reasons he cited was thathe couldn't allow Saddam to control 33% of the world oil supply. I absolutely agreed, that's why I supported the Gulf War.

Wars over resources are going to become more frequent as world resources slowly dry up. The next Oil war could be either in Niger or in South America. And worse, countries like China are going to get involved too. That's a given. I think you know firsthand how ambitious the Chinese can be. The idea of countries battle each other or worse Global Corporation, (imagine a Exxon vs GasProm oilfield war). We shouldnt think this situation couldn't happen, it already did when trade corporations in the 16th century would battle each other over lucrative trade routes. There were even some rumors in the French Press a few years ago about some nefarious things going on in Africa concerning French oil companies and Halliburton back when Cheney was CEO. Not necessarily open warfare, but very dirty tricks, like contaminating oil wells, sabotaging equipment, bribing local officials, etc. I could easily see a scenario like that get out of hand, and that is far more scary than some religious nut in a cave.

The only way out of this is finding alternative energy source. I am sorry to say but we Americans have gotten lazy, we used to be brilliant but we have lost the clever inventiveness we used to have. If Reagan hadnt killed the first generation of electric cars we might not be in the situation we are in now. I will make a case of beer bet that there will be another oil war, somewhere within the next 20 years barring some new technological breakthrough. And until we go get that breakthrough all we are doing is keep relying on old technology (like Fossil Fuel) to save us. No civilization has ever survived by clinging on to the past.

For those of you who think terrorism is scary. Wait until you see Corporate/Economic Terrorism.

Yeah the good old days of the various British East India Company and the Dutch East India Company etc.
But you see, companies are smarter now and realize that instead of having their own armies, it's cheaper for them to get the standing army to do the fighting for them. In a way, they do have a point. Resources under a company of your own country is far more likely to to end up in your own country's lap than in someone else's. In a way, it's symbiotic. The country needs it, the company knows how to get it, and the military can fight off the competitors.
Honesty would have been great, explaining as to why the country needs the resources. But would people have backed such a move?
As for those who say "no war for oil" etc., I understand their feelings but seriously it's just necessary at times. I bet if they learned about how a lot of their products got to them, they'd have to go out and camp in the woods with nothing but a shovel and a saw (both produced in its entirity in a country that is completely squeaky clean).
Corporate/Economic terrorism... is more like open warfare than terrorism. Unless that is, you're funding operations to sabotage someone else's pipeline etc. In addition to what you mentioned, there are of course, dictators for sale.
The Chinese... say no more. If only to keep the resources away from them, wars might actually be necessary.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

13th

You know if the Bush administration had come clean about this from the beginning I might have been more supportive. I might not have agreed, but at least I would have understood. But these people did everything to hide the truth and furthermore it was clear from Cheneys Energy Task Force that Washington was going to cut up the oil pie to its friends. Basically it was a new version of the "TEAPOT DOME" scandle back in the 1920s. I am nobody's fool and when my government tries to treat me like a stupid mope that doesn't know how the world works, its a surefire way to set me off. When Bush 41 invaded Kuwait, one of the reasons he cited was thathe couldn't allow Saddam to control 33% of the world oil supply. I absolutely agreed, that's why I supported the Gulf War.

Wars over resources are going to become more frequent as world resources slowly dry up. The next Oil war could be either in Niger or in South America. And worse, countries like China are going to get involved too. That's a given. I think you know firsthand how ambitious the Chinese can be. The idea of countries battle each other or worse Global Corporation, (imagine a Exxon vs GasProm oilfield war). We shouldnt think this situation couldn't happen, it already did when trade corporations in the 16th century would battle each other over lucrative trade routes. There were even some rumors in the French Press a few years ago about some nefarious things going on in Africa concerning French oil companies and Halliburton back when Cheney was CEO. Not necessarily open warfare, but very dirty tricks, like contaminating oil wells, sabotaging equipment, bribing local officials, etc. I could easily see a scenario like that get out of hand, and that is far more scary than some religious nut in a cave.

The only way out of this is finding alternative energy source. I am sorry to say but we Americans have gotten lazy, we used to be brilliant but we have lost the clever inventiveness we used to have. If Reagan hadnt killed the first generation of electric cars we might not be in the situation we are in now. I will make a case of beer bet that there will be another oil war, somewhere within the next 20 years barring some new technological breakthrough. And until we go get that breakthrough all we are doing is keep relying on old technology (like Fossil Fuel) to save us. No civilization has ever survived by clinging on to the past.

For those of you who think terrorism is scary. Wait until you see Corporate/Economic Terrorism.

Who is Bush 41? "When Bush 41 invaded Kuwait"

Please supply sources for the Bush invasion of Kuwait. As I recall an Allied coalition attacked the occupying Iraqi army after Saddam invaded Kuwait. The allied coalition liberated Kuwait from The Iraqis.

Wars have always been fought over resources, be it land, wealth or what have you. Picking only oil as a reason for wars is very short sighted.

Also need sources for your contention:

"If Reagan hadn't killed the first generation of electric cars we might not be in the situation we are in now."

There are many reasons electric cars have not developed faster. The technology wasn't there, cost, and most of all the population had no interest in buying them. Currently the same problems are prevalent.

Dismissing terriosts as "some religious nut in a cave." indicates a lack of any kind of understanding of the current issues involved.

This thread has wandered far enough off-topic now

Locked