Either Iraq was not about oil or the US government severely understimated the costs involved in securing a country to make oil available.
I don't understand invading another country for oil when it is by far more cheaper to bribe them into cooperating.

Between that and personal vendetta... It was obviously enough for GWB... That, and we were blinded by 9/11. (Not saying it was justified in any way, simply saying it fueled rash decision-making.)

Originally Posted by Chukpike

Would it really matter which country the US "invaded" first. The US would be "pushing it's interests" in what ever country it "invades". Saying that the US is only interested in oil is rather narrow.

Immediately after WWII the US tried to revert to staying out of international politics but that did not work. The loss to communism of eastern European countries including Poland was the result. When the US finally stood up to Russian expansion, breaking the Berlin blockade, the US entered World Politics. Was this done just to keep Europe free or was it also to keep US "economic interests"?

Oil is only one of many interests the US has in foreign countries. Other major interests include promoting democracy and world trade.

If policy was dictated by oil companies then the US wouldn't be having problems drilling for it off it's own coasts. Or boiling it out of rock in the western states.

As far as North Korea we did invade them first. It is called the Korean War which is currently under a Truce.

I agree that oil wasn't it only interest, thats why I never said it. But I dont believe for a single second that we invaded Iraq for altruistic reasons, at least not principally. Oil was was a huge factor, as was establishing an American military presence there, as was to insure the security of Israel, as was the promotion of democracy thru gunboat diplomacy. But the idea we came to Iraq to 'liberate' the Iraqi people as some suggest is laughable, I am sure people like Cheney were far more interested in liberating Iraq from its oil than it was liberating the Iraqis from Saddam. Money is the root of all evil.

Foreign Policy and Domestic policy are two different things. The Federal Government cannot allow companies to drill for oil if the states say "no". Its a matter of states rights. Of course states rights dont apply to countries under US military occupation.

And Eastern Europe was lost to the Soviets before WWII (treaty of Brest-Litovsk) not after it.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Either Iraq was not about oil or the US government severely understimated the costs involved in securing a country to make oil available.
I don't understand invading another country for oil when it is by far more cheaper to bribe them into cooperating.

Well said brother.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Remember Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world and most of it is untapped. For what other reason would someone want to invade?

Originally Posted by mmarsh

I agree that oil wasn't it only interest, thats why I never said it.

My mistake I could have sworn the first quote above was yours. It seems to suggest the only reason to invade was oil.

But did he ever say it?


Chukpike, you've really got to start reading more critically... Ever heard of the term "rhetorical question"?
[sarcasm]
Obviously there are circumstances in which the invasion of Iraq would be justified... Like, Bush senior not finishing the job... [/sarcasm]

Originally Posted by Chukpike

My mistake I could have sworn the first quote above was yours. It seems to suggest the only reason to invade was oil.

As Henderson said: It was a obvious rhethorical question, stop intrepreting everything quite so literally. I never actually said that it was the only reason now did I? What I was suggesting was that it was the PRINCIPAL reason, which I think most people but you seemed to understand.

As I said earlier there were worse hellholes than Iraq, if we really want to believe the Bush excuse for Invading Iraq of "Liberating the Iraqi People" than explain why we didnt start with Myanmar or the Sudan?

Another (not so) odd coincidence was that many of the decision makers of the Iraq War were oil men, and had deep relations with large oil companies.

13th Redneck

Ill agree part of what you said. It was about oil AND the government misunderestimated the cost of getting the oil out. Basically it was thought that Iraq would be a quick score. They thought that they could quickly get production back up the moment the country was stablized, resistence minimal and that losses would be negligable. Forgetting of course that the UN sanctions would have severely damaged the Iraqi oil industry or that the system would be damaged by both the invasion or internal sobotoge and of course resistence was worse then they ever thought possible having never read a history book about the dire fate of most western armies in muslim countries. Needless to say they were wrong on almost every count.

Regardless of the primary reason, oil DID play a large role in the decision making.

you also fought to save a poepole from a tyarnt

Originally Posted by EladBell

you also fought to save a poepole from a tyarnt

For the soldiers who went willingly to that war, I believe this is true.

One event, many different motivations.