[lotuseclat79]

Eager to Tap Iraq's Vast Oil Reserves, Industry Execs Suggested Invasion.

Two years before the invasion of Iraq, oil executives and foreign policy advisers told the Bush administration that the United States would remain "a prisoner of its energy dilemma" as long as Saddam Hussein was in power.

-- Tom

[Wino]

There was never a doubt in my mind that oil was the basis of the invasion. It damn sure wasn't the welfare of the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, the Bush war scheme didn't work out as planned, unless they planned for a fiasco from the gitgo.

[nerd-girl]

I have to say, I naively believed in the beginning that they were going in to help the people of Iraq. Shortly after the war started I took a job within the oil industry and all became clear. It was quite a devastating realisation to realise how little our governments care about people and how much they care about power, money and oil.

[SlackAli]

How about the other "obvious" reason that the invasion was about the American administration's determination to reassert itself as the sole global superpower? Six years ago the invasion of Afghanistan still seemed an easy victory, and the Bush cabal thought Iraq would be a similar trouble free experience, as indeed it was initially.

That said, had Iraq's wealth been based upon growing and exporting turnips, it's unlikely Saddam would have been of quite so much interest

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Eager to Tap Iraq's Vast Oil Reserves, Industry Execs Suggested Invasion.

Two years before the invasion of Iraq, oil executives and foreign policy advisers told the Bush administration that the United States would remain "a prisoner of its energy dilemma" as long as Saddam Hussein was in power.

-- Tom

Balderdash.
We get most of our oil from Canada & Mexico.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by SlackAli

How about the other "obvious" reason that the invasion was about the American administration's determination to reassert itself as the sole global superpower? Six years ago the invasion of Afghanistan still seemed an easy victory, and the Bush cabal thought Iraq would be a similar trouble free experience, as indeed it was initially.

That said, had Iraq's wealth been based upon growing and exporting turnips, it's unlikely Saddam would have been of quite so much interest

A naive explanation coming from one with your elevated intellect.

If Saddam was growing and exporting turnips, there wouldn't be such a winfall orf revenue with which to purchase and develop WMDs.

[valis]

Seems to me I've been saying this since the invasion. I also seem to recall reading, actually around the turn of the century, some article somewhere that had the basic statement that America will always maintain a presence in the ME, regardless of whether or not we are needed.

Anyone seen any WMD's lately?

[SlackAli]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

A naive explanation coming from one with your elevated intellect.

Back handed compliments always appreciated

So it wasn't about oil, and neither was it about reasserting the pre-eminence of US global power (with a bit of atoning for daddy's mistake in not pushing on to Baghdad thrown in). So what was it about? The benevolent desire to spread wholesome western democratic values to a country ready to cast off a long history of tribal ethnic and religious hatred?

If Saddam was growing and exporting turnips, there wouldn't be such a winfall orf revenue with which to purchase and develop WMDs.

Silly me, I forgot about the stockpiles of WMDs discovered after the invasion. But you're just restating my point: without oil, Iraq would have been of as much interest as say Zimbabwe

[Littlefield]

Sadam tried to kill Daddy Bush and I have always thought that was a factor in JR's decision.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by valis

Seems to me I've been saying this since the invasion. I also seem to recall reading, actually around the turn of the century, some article somewhere that had the basic statement that America will always maintain a presence in the ME, regardless of whether or not we are needed.

Anyone seen any WMD's lately?

Latest news is that Saddam deliberately lied about his WMDs to scare Iran.
See the Iraq thread.

[valis]

don't need to see the iraq thread. I was convinced we were going after oil from jump, remember?

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by SlackAli

Back handed compliments always appreciated

It was sincere.

So it wasn't about oil, and neither was it about reasserting the pre-eminence of US global power (with a bit of atoning for daddy's mistake in not pushing on to Baghdad thrown in). So what was it about? The benevolent desire to spread wholesome western democratic values to a country ready to cast off a long history of tribal ethnic and religious hatred?

Silly me, I forgot about the stockpiles of WMDs discovered after the invasion.

Silly you.
There were several reasons. Not the least of which was extremely rotten intelligence, and a willingness on the part of the Administration to cherry-pick the intelligence it believed, and discard that which it did not.
Saddam DELIBERATELY bluffed the world into believing that he had WMD capability.
Which is exactly what I stated back in 2003 on this very forum.

But you're just restating my point: without oil, Iraq would have been of as much interest as say Zimbabwe

True, but you must understand why oil is important in the discussion. It's not so we can proifit from it, but rather to prevent these tin hat regimes (as Saddam's was) from becoming so wealthy that they could afford to develop WMDs.

As I stated earlier, the USA gets most of our petroleum products from Canada and Mexico, not the middle East.

So you Canadians and Mexicans had better watch out! <--- sarcasm

Sure, the crude is sweeter from the ME, but transporting it outweighs the additional refining cost. So I doubt we'll see a major change in policy WRT Middle Eastern oil.

What you also fail to realize is that Gulf war II was merely a continuation of the 1991 war in which Iraq broke every condition of the cease fire repeatedly. The US was fully justified in 1991, and UN resolution 1441 coinfirmed that the US was fully justified in the resumption of holstilities.

And yes .... Papa Bush blew it in 1991. We should have had boots on the ground in Baghdad then instead of waiting until W did it in 2003.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Littlefield

Sadam tried to kill Daddy Bush and I have always thought that was a factor in JR's decision.

I can't disagree with that.

[SlackAli]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

It was sincere.

I think you're confusing me with someone else but thanks anyway

There were several reasons. Not the least of which was extremely rotten intelligence, and a willingness on the part of the Administration to cherry-pick the intelligence it believed, and discard that which it did not.
Saddam DELIBERATELY bluffed the world into believing that he had WMD capability.
Which is exactly what I stated back in 2003 on this very forum.

It wasn't rotten intelligence but crooked intelligence: the non-existent centrifuges; the claims of uranium from Africa; Cheney's claims about reconstituted nuclear weapons etc... Plus of course Iraq was probably the most satellite-survellanced country going - no trace of radiation or anything else to indicate the presence of nuclear activity. If the US knows what goes on in Iran and North Korea, it surely knew the reality in Iraq. And again, are you saying it was a failure of not just US intelligence, but that of France, the UK, Israel, Russia? Can't buy that.

[TooBad]

Originally Posted by valis

Seems to me I've been saying this since the invasion. I also seem to recall reading, actually around the turn of the century, some article somewhere that had the basic statement that America will always maintain a presence in the ME, regardless of whether or not we are needed.

Anyone seen any WMD's lately?

Yes. the moved 500 metric tons of yellowcake weapons grade uranium to Canada!

What did you think that was playdo??