What if the US Went to War in Iraq for Oil, But not for the Reasons you Think?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on May, 11 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Give me some time to lay this out before the attacks begin!!

What if we went to war in Iraq for OIL? But not as most think. This was not a war to get access to oil, but more importantly to keep the American economy going. What if we went to war with Iraq, to remove Saddam Hussien(SP) so that he was not the first to change the currency, The USD (The US Dollar, for those in Govt. schools) from being removed to the Euro, as the leading currency for oil. Oil is and has been based on the USD. What would happen to US economy if that were changed to the Euro. The USD, would become worthless. The American economy would be shot to hell. The US Dollar would be worthless.

Now Iran, is talking about changing the currency of oil from the USD to the Euro. Is it wrong to fight for our economic survival??

If this were to happen, it would destroy the US economy, buy making the Dollar worthless. Is this not a good enough reason to go to war? By not doing so, it will cause our economy to collapse!

Many may ask? Why weren't we told? SIMPLE...who would expect our dumded down Govt school students to understand? I wouldn't! Maybe it is time,, that instead of a LAW degree, all Congressmen and Senators should have a business degree. We are now living in a GLOBAL economy. Maybe our Representatives, should be able to understand this in a business sense.

The US spends a ridiculous amount per student to educate our people, BUT Our students do not understand SH*T! We have students in CA suing, because they have to take an exit exam to graduate. this exit exam is at an 8th grade level!!

If these students can not pass this then they deserve to FLUNK! More importantly the teachers that teach these students need to be FIRED!

If seniors in high school, can not pass an 8th grade level test, it is not completely their fault. It is the Govt School systems fault. If a senior, can not pass these tests. then the teachers need to be fired. It's time we (Yes, we the people) tell the teachers UNIONS to go to HELL!!! If they can not teach our students the basics, then fire their ASSES and find someone who will.

Many people (Especially LIBERALS,, feel that America owes the rest of the world, because of it's success) Well I say B.S. If the rest of the world feels slighted, then they should do their best to imitate US! Millions of people come here legally and illegally to make a better life for themselves. Why should we dumb ourselves down? So that they can "FEEL" (A Liberal Term) better! If they want to "FEEL BETTER ABOUT THEMSELVES" then they should stand up in their homelands and make a change.

The Untied States of America, is not the number 1 country in the world, because we help people "Feel Good", we are the number 1 country, because we give everyone a chance as an equal! Whether you fail or succeed is up to you. This is a country based on PERSONAL RESPOSIBILITY, it is time we remeber that!

Everyone here has the same chance, it is what you chose to do with that chance that matters!

While I'm sure I stepped out of the context of the original point, What is wrong with going to war for that?

Please respond!




posted on May, 12 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Gaining access to Iraq's oil, and thus ensuring a more stable supply of oil would help America's economy. I dont understand how you can say "This was not a war to get access to oil, but more importantly to keep the American economy going". "Getting access to oil" would ensure the 2nd half of that sentance. Confusing.

Another thing, Capitalism and business have to have ethics. i.e Freedom of choice, surely; If I want to go to McDonalds for a meal, I should be allowed to right, maybe the next day I will go to Burger King.

Just imagine a person who always buys their groceries from their local Market, but one day decides to use another Market, the local Market hears this and decides to assault the person and make them continue to use their Market. A poor analogy I know, but what that is, and what you are advocating is essentially Racketeering.

And a country or business that supports that kind of policy is doomed to fail, purely because it is a destabilising factor. Capitalism requires free markets to grow, they become skewed by illegal activites such as what you described.

As for the rest of what you said, I really do feel it is rather unhinged and psychotic to be honest, Im sorry but thats what I think.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 09:29 AM
link   
I have always taught one very important lesson when it relates to business. Although I hate being this cynical my personal experience and that of my colleagues and associates has borne this out over many years. The Lesson?

Ethics are inversely proportional to the size of the business deal.

'nuf said?



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by squarepusher
Gaining access to Iraq's oil, and thus ensuring a more stable supply of oil would help America's economy. I dont understand how you can say "This was not a war to get access to oil, but more importantly to keep the American economy going".


I think you might be missing the point he is trying to make. Its not that the threat to the economy was from lack of access to oil - it is the potential threat of the importance the dollar currency holds in relation to international commerce and affairs. We had a great discussion going on it I linked below.

www.abovetopsecret.com...




Ethics are inversely proportional to the size of the business deal.


QFT!

[edit on 12-5-2006 by Violent]



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Ah so the OP was trying to say Iraq was invaded for the good of the Global economy? Yet later on saying the rest of the world wrongly feels that America owes them something, such as Oh I dont know, economic stablility.

And to forgoe ethics will ultimately not solve nor bring long term stablility to any economy, it creates more problems. Im as cynical as the next guy but im not going to agree with anyone who tries to rationalise illegal activities.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
To CSRules:

Your opening post is one of the messiest, in terms of logic, that I've seen on ATS in a long time. On the positive side, it stands as a good example illustrating your point about the dire needs to bolster education in the US schools. You writing classes must have been lacking, indeed.

You mix up liberal amounts (pun intended) of apples and oranges. You don't make a clear point advertised in the topic, and hurry up to start liberal bashing an bemoaning the sad state of the US education.

I'm just as upset as you are about the current state of affiars in that department and I invite you to open a thread on this topic.

As to the original thread, the reason Iraq was invaded had little to do with oil. I recommend www.stratfor.com and its free newsletter to see through both propaganda and oversimplified discourse. Iraq was invaded purely as a show of force to Islamic governments in the region and as an attempt to get their cooperation, which worked at least in part. Of course, the issue is quite complex and additional overtones included right wing ideologues who thought that removing Husseing would be very good for Israel. There was a confluence of interests, and oil was a minor part that also went into that.


[edit on 12-5-2006 by Aelita]



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   
CSRules. To being with, I won't fault you for faulty logic or writing. Economic factors and their influence on political affairs are often difficult to decipher and often confusing at best. It is often difficult to explain the machinations of government and when combines this to economic factors, the marriage between politics and global markets makes it extremely to understand, much less express. If anything, it is interesting that you have initiated a different line of thinking, as the possible motivation for the war in Iraq, than one usually would see.

As for the question you have posted, it is indeed difficult to understand. You seem to make quite a few contradictory statements but your confusion -- and my own -- is understandable. This is heady stuff.

I believe, first and foremost, that the war in Iraq AND any possible war with Iran has to do with oil -- but only as far as oil will affect the dominance of the American dollar and, therefore, global trade. I don't profess to be an economist or, for that matter, any sort of expert on trade. I do however recognize the strategic economic importance that the United States places on maintaining the dominance of the U.S. DOLLAR, versus the EURO, as the trade vehicle to purchase, in particular, oil (to begin with). I believe that THIS is the essence of the assertion that you are trying to express.

The financial concepts, in regarding to maintaining the dominance of the US Dollar vs. the Euro and the linkage you make that asserts that this effort to assure that the Dollar remains the vehicle of international trade is well covered in the following links;



evworld.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">The Euro Effect: The Real Reason for the War in Iraq

www.feasta.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Petrodollar or Petroeuro? A new source of global conflict

while these to articles (see links) certainly do not explain the "whole story", it would certainly give an indication of the importance and possible impact that any sort of transition from US Dollars to Euros that the US governments holds on this subject. In fact, as the articles (see links) imply, this USD transition to EURO is credited as the real reason for the US attack on Iraq. Now, it would appear that Iran has set up a new oil market that pins the price of oil on the EURO. In layman's' terms, what this means is that if the world settles on the EURO as the vehicle of exchange for oil, the US will not be able to run a deficit. The "buy now pay later" credo of American economics will not be able to be maintained any longer. The U.S. will be forced to pay -- up front -- for the oil it purchases and consumes.

While this might not be the direct cause of the Iraq war and any possible war with Iran, it is certainly an indication why President Bush made it an objective to find and exploit new sources of petroleum as well as to develop alternative energy sources.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Violent

Originally posted by squarepusher
Gaining access to Iraq's oil, and thus ensuring a more stable supply of oil would help America's economy. I dont understand how you can say "This was not a war to get access to oil, but more importantly to keep the American economy going".


I think you might be missing the point he is trying to make. Its not that the threat to the economy was from lack of access to oil - it is the potential threat of the importance the dollar currency holds in relation to international commerce and affairs. We had a great discussion going on it I linked below.

www.abovetopsecret.com...





Violent, thanks for the link. I was attempting to put out an Idea, which I thought I lnew something about. But unfortunately, I knew little about. In retrospect, I guess I was going for the bigger whole, than looking at the intracate(sp) parts of what I was saying. BTW: Thanks for not making me fel like a complete dumb@$$.

In retospect, what I was trying to say. Is yes, the US went to war in Iraq for oil!! But it was not for the reason presented. Atleast in America. And I was hoping that those here in America, would look into the real reason. Does this make a difference as to the war being wrong or right? I truley don't know. But what I do know, is now I have more information to make that decision on.

What I was trying to do, which from the responses in this post, I have obviously failed. Was to give as much information (I want to say all sides, but not sure it fits) to the situation.

If anyone has read any of my post, then you will know I am biased and opinionated in my thoughts. What I was truley looking for here was to present another theory and get others opinions on it. Obviously I do not know as much as I should have about my post. But Violents response and an other, did see what I was trying to say....

And I guess what I am trying to say is, here is a theory. What does the rest of this community think about it. I know less (than I thought I did). But this is good. Atleast for me. I'm saying here is an idea, that is not mainstream, or out in the mainstream. Give me your input and help me learn. It was very humbling to read most of the responses.

I would also like to give thanks to benevolent tyrant. Who posted the following....




CSRules. To being with, I won't fault you for faulty logic or writing. Economic factors and their influence on political affairs are often difficult to decipher and often confusing at best. It is often difficult to explain the machinations of government and when combines this to economic factors, the marriage between politics and global markets makes it extremely to understand, much less express. If anything, it is interesting that you have initiated a different line of thinking, as the possible motivation for the war in Iraq, than one usually would see.


I have tried to connect to your links, but have been unable. But wish to thank you for the effort, to help me learn more.

But I want to try to go back to my orginal point, (and hopefully give a better explenation of it......

Except for being attacked, directly. What other reason to go to war, is more important than to protect your economy or your way of life. Even if we went to war in Iraq, so that we could....

1) Take their oil
2) Make them favorable trading partners in oil

Without an alternate fuel source, isn't guarenteeing the flow of oil to the US, a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY?!?! Without the flow of oil, this country would come to a stop. If there were no oil, how could this country defend itself? Not to mention, keep its populace from rioting. Until America finds another source of fuel, isn't the flow of oil, the next important NATIONAL SECURITY issue, next to directly being attacked??

Please give me your thoughts. Hopefully I've made mine clearer!!



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   
If the U.S went to war with Iraq because of oil then it has been terribly unsuccessful. Iraq is frequently producing less oil than it did under the oil for food programme. Every now and again production rises then the Iraqi Resistance thinks that a good way to resist the occupation is to blow up several sections of Iraq's many miles of pipelines.

Add the cost of occupation, the human lives (only ours truly count that much in media and therefore politics of course) makes Iraqi oil is some of the most expensive in the world.

We should have just lifted the sanctions when it became clear to everyone (accept the public) that Iraq didn't have WMD's.
However Saddam was anti Israeli, pro westernisation of the Arab world (that if you do your history was what the Ba'th party was set up to do), and still believed that Kuwait belonged to his country (which it had for thousands of years till the British colonial occupation of the 1920's).
Iraq was also a politically acceptable country to bomb. Not completely of course but as far as a place where contracts could be handed out to the likes of Halliburton and other defence companies that support both Americas political parties; it was pretty high on the list.

Ultimately though I’m sure if Saddam had agreed to kiss Israel's ass, and not support Palestinian terrorist and also victims, then we would have put a lot of our worries about putting him behind us and not worry about putting him and his country in a powerful position again.
I think we left Saddam in power after 1991 hoping he would come round to that way of thinking. After all he kept his country together, was against Muslim fundamentalism (that’s why many people got killed, usually it wasn’t for western ideals like democracy but rather a more fundamentalist Islamic Iraq).
Despite building over 60 palaces, Saddam had before the first gulf war presided over massive state spending on most of his people, to the point (where before 1991) over 90% of Iraqis were literate, and many enjoyed a first world health and education system. In short Saddam was very much like someone we would of hand picked to rule Iraq. But he did have his anti Israeli flaws, and attitude problem towards Kuwait. Therefore the feeling was that as long as he was in power sanctions could not be lifted.
P.S Western foreign policy rarely has anything to do with human rights. For starters there are many weapons we would not be using, and many more we would not be supplying to the world if the reverse was true. In any case it is quite possible that our war and its consequences have killed, or at least will kill more people than Saddam did for political oppression during his 30 years of power. That's 350,000 according to the pentagon last time I checked (will no doubt be on the high end as well).

Occupation is a very bloody type of warfare (in case you haven't noticed). And (at least historically) progress in war has had more to do with ending life, than saving it (that's what military training and weapons are mostly for).
It's ironic because without this war on Iraq we would be in a better position to do something about Iran, and therefore help Israel out that way. The DU we have used against Iraqis has a half life of 4.2 billion years (that's because it's not that radioactive). The truth is that it does release Alpha and Beta particles, and though normally quite harmless, the truth is that when the rounds in a shell are vaporized these metals particles can release radiation into the body at point blank range against whatever tissue or cell.
American troops have no right to claim compensation for injuries received during combat. However the U.S military does look after their kids and families anyway (although I heard a vocal few have learnt differently). It's the Iraqis I’m more concerned about, those in the years to come as well as today.
As for the disputes over how bad DU is, I one for compare it to the tobacco companies trying to pass the compensation buck to next guy in charge by denying smoking was bad for you as recently as the 1990’s.
Americans are nice, but you’ve a got a system that will happily send you to die with a lie in your head. One that is too afraid to be frank and honest about what its foreign policy motives are, because it knows it’s not in the interests of what the majority of people would want.
You have a system that has yet to limit the impact of big business on election spending (and hence rotten peoples election chances). And so long as the majority of people get their news from sources with few owners, then it seems the majority of those people will be under a wicked spell.
Take at look at the problem that just News International Presents www.ketupa.net...
This is controlled by Rupert Murdoch. At the time of the Iraq war all 172 newspapers he controlled world wide (through his majority share in News International) all 172 supported the war in Iraq.
In Britain the Prime Minister won’t even make public what he has been discussing with him at Downing Street: prisonplanet.com...
Nor will the ruling Labour Party change its European policy without consulting him: www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2005/09/18/nblur18.xml

And remember America you (like us) are (to all practical purposes) a two party state. Democrats and Republicans have the same “core” “problems” (perhaps not such a problem if your one of their senior figures though).
Friends of Israel has shares in News International, and other such companies this is how real foreign policy is seeded. So too does China; wonder why all those good reasons for not trading with them have gone quite.



[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by CSRules
Now Iran, is talking about changing the currency of oil from the USD to the Euro. Is it wrong to fight for our economic survival??


I stopped reading here. How could it possibly be right to murder for economic supremacy? As for economic survival, that doesn't require war.. get off the oil dependancy and build a proper economy like most other western countries. If you are trying to justify murder and wars with economics, you're as bad as those in office.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Liberal that I am I always though we went to war for oil. But now I'm not so sure.

If the U.S went to war with Iraq because of oil then it has been terribly unsuccessful. Iraq is frequently producing less oil than it did under the oil for food programme.(Liberal1984)

Is it posible that our government composed of oil men, as it is, was actually hoping that we would view their efforts to secure oil for the US as a noble and logical act and feel vaguely supportive; when ,in fact, it was an attempt to disrupt the oil supply to enrich themselves? Less oil is being produced now and millions of gallons is missing. Also if Halliburton, KBR and others profit then so does each and every neo-con in sight. Who really did profit by putting those put options on the airlines and insurance companies prior to 9/11? Many off these people in government have been around for a long time. They have had more than enough time to devise a scenario where they would be enriched beyond their wildest dreams. Do you trust Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Negroponte, John Poindexter, Elliot Abrams and the like that brought you Iran-Contra. They were criminals then. Has the dog changed its spots?



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   
I have thought for some years now that the Oil buisness is not quite what most peoples think.

Many wars have been fought over oil..not for the reasons most people think. Most of them have been to keep the oil off the market and keep independents and competitors out.

The Falklands Islands War in the early 1980s was over oil. Oil had been discovered off shore of the Falklands. The Argentines saw this as a way of selling the oil on the world markets and paying off thier debts to the world banks.
The oil cartels do not allow independents to operate and depress the price of oil below their authorized price. No independents allowed. The British Navy did not go there to save the sheep.

In the case of Iraq...Saddam was selling oil to Germany and France through the oil for food program through the United Nations. This is not allowed. Saddam had circumvented the rigged markets. Not allowed in this buisness. Just like the drug buisness..the oil markets are a rigged market. No indepnendents allowed to undercut the offical price. In taking Iraq..we have hijacked control of the oil from under the Germans and French..no wonder they are pissed at us. They were buying oil and trading technology to Saddam..we hijacked all these arrangements from under them.

I agree with the poster that said that the Iraqi oil...whenever it gets flowing gets blown up ..and the flow is greatly reduced. If we really wanted that oil to flow ..nothing would stop us. It would be flowing wide open next week.

The problem the oil cartels...and I dont mean OPEC ...have always had is how to keep enough of the oil off the marketplace...and in the wells undetected or unavailable. This was on of the problems in the Vietnam war..how to keep the oil off the market and competitors out. There is oil and natural gas all up and down the coast of Vietnam down to Indonesia. The tool used here is a controlled war...and then when the war had accomplished what it was inteneded to do..sink the wells and then cap them off while bringing Vietnam into the 20th century.....turn the country over to a communist government. Communist governments are perfect for putting a nation in storage..and out of competitors hands. Under Communism progress is impossible..hence the storage doctrine goes into play. Communists also keep out unwanted competitors.

One could say the same for Islamic Fundamentalist governments..progress is stiffled..and the nation goes into storage...ala ..Afganistan..under the Taliban. Progress is not possible under governments like this. This can be taken advantage of by companys wishing to put a country and its industry into storage.Terrorism is a very useful tool for this just like communism was in the past.
What you do as a company or a government is get a war started ..set up the facilities then turn them over to the new Communist or terrorist fundamentalist government. Storage...perfect until you want to take it out of storage..just as was done in Nicaragua..when the Sandanistas were removed. Yes oil and natural gas have been discovered all up and down Central America..on and off shore.

When you understand the competition angle and the ability to put nations into storage ..this changes ones view of history tremendously.

Also the concept of going to war for economic reasons is one of the oldest tricks in the book. The history of the British Empire and the Pax Britannia is one of the oldes hoaxes in the history books. In the time of peace..1815 with the defeat of Napolean at Waterloo and 1914 at the begining of WW1 is the hundred years of peace. Pax Britannia. During this time England fought about 40 wars of different types to maintain the Empire. One of the chief issues during this time was the Ottoman Question.

Under this type of politics/economics ..Britian had Turkey as a ally then enemy etc etc as needed...very similar to what is happening to America today. All to preserve the Empire.
Some of you might want to look at another example of economic warfare which took place during this time ..the Opium Wars....very incidious and double dealing type of war..not covered in many history books for good reason...you are to remain ignorant of this history.

REmember this about the OPEC nations...Saddam overtook a OPEC nation in 1991 the first Gulf War. If OPEC was our enemy ..we would have told him to kill and overtake them all so we could have cheap oil. Instead we reinstalled OPEC back in power so they could screw us again and keep the price of oil up where they want it. Ever thought about this?? IF not you need to begin to think this way. OPEC is run by the major oil companys...OPEC is thier tool to keep the Light off of them. REmember ..all these oil nations are dependent on western technology/good will to keep thier oil pumping.

Only public education and news and information brainwashing can dumb a people down this much ...and who pays for public schooling...our politicians. Our Government. Think it through ...dont just emote every time you go to the pump.
$3.00 per gallon is not the end of it..it will go higher. It will fall back until the next time but never back to what it was ...but eventually ratchet up higher...till you get accustomed to this new price too. Think it through ..dont just emote. There is a relationship here which most of our institutions are wont to cloud up ..emotionally ..so that you are not able to think it through.

History ..past, present, and future is not what most are conditioned to think it is.
If you knew more you and your children would not be willing to die for someone elses investment when needed or desired.

Something for some of you to consider,
THanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   
There are also other beneficiaries from controlling Iraq as well.

Our One and only ally in the region has no resources of its own.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I agree..Israel stands to win from this situation...but it is not the main situation..only a sideshow.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   
In one sentence he says these countries should stand-up for the selves and make a change and in the next he wants to bomb the hell out of them. HUH?





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join