Operation Name That Tune

[FriendlyFire]

Of course the official reasons for going there were complete BS, but so is the conspiracy theory tripe that we went there to steal all the oil. I have not seen a single shred of independently verified evidence that suggests some great oil stealing conspiracy took place in Iraq. So until that evidence turns up, I put the "oil conspiracy" theory in the same category as "Loose Change" and that lizardmen ruling the world crap.

If we apparently stole all the oil from Iraq, where is it? In fact the top 5 export destinations for Iraqi oil are India, China, South Korea, Italy, and Spain. Oh yeah, the US really stole all that oil, let me tell ya.

Clearly, invading Iraq was because the US wanted to lose thousands of lives, flush trillions of dollars and waste all of its prestige that has been carefully built up. As a bonus destabilize the middle east and encourage terrorism. All according to plan. Frankly it seemed like such an insane military adventure to overthrow a government and try to install a Jeffersonian democracy. Followed by criminal incompetence, lies and falsehoods. Utterly delusional.
The US attempt to groom Iraqi leader in waiting Challabi was utterly disastrous. Any chance of controlling / influencing Iraq went out the window so fast as the US just kept shooting itself over and over.

Why dont you tell me US involvement in Vietnam had nothing to do with halting the expansion of communism in Asia because all it did was extend communism through Asia instead.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Why the war in iraq was fought for big oil

yes, the iraq war was a war for oil, and it was a war with winners: Big oil.

It has been 10 years since operation iraqi freedom's bombs first landed in baghdad. And while most of the u.s.-led coalition forces have long since gone, western oil companies are only getting started.

Before the 2003 invasion, iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.

From exxonmobil and chevron to bp and shell, the west's largest oil companies have set up shop in iraq. So have a slew of american oil service companies, including halliburton, the texas-based firm dick cheney ran before becoming george w. Bush's running mate in 2000.

The war is the one and only reason for this long sought and newly acquired access.


"of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said gen. John abizaid, former head of u.s. Central command and military operations in iraq, in 2007. Former federal reserve chairman alan greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "i am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the iraq war is largely about oil." then-sen. And now defense secretary chuck hagel said the same in 2007: "people say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."

planning for a military invasion was soon under way. Bush's first treasury secretary, paul o'neill, said in 2004, "already by february (2001), the talk was mostly about logistics. Not the why (to invade iraq), but the how and how quickly."

in its final report in may 2001 (pdf), the task force argued that middle eastern countries should be urged "to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment." this is precisely what has been achieved in iraq.

Here's how they did it.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/

lies all lies !
Who you going to believe ? The former commander for US forces in Iraq or that the US got no oil from Iraq.
What Oil ?

zeeeeeeek •
It took CNN 10 years to realize the Iraq War was a War for Oil ?

 

[Commodore]

Clearly, invading Iraq was because the US wanted to lose thousands of lives, flush trillions of dollars and waste all of its prestige that has been carefully built up. As a bonus destabilize the middle east and encourage terrorism. All according to plan. Frankly it seemed like such an insane military adventure to overthrow a government and try to install a Jeffersonian democracy. Followed by criminal incompetence, lies and falsehoods. Utterly delusional.
The US attempt to groom Iraqi leader in waiting Challabi was utterly disastrous. Any chance of controlling / influencing Iraq went out the window so fast as the US just kept shooting itself over and over.

Why dont you tell me US involvement in Vietnam had nothing to do with halting the expansion of communism in Asia because all it did was extend communism through Asia instead.

So this post was basically you ranting to deflect attention away from the fact that you have absolutely no evidence US involvement in Iraq had anything to do with plundering their oil; does that sound about right?

Instead of frothing at the mouth in your anti-US rage, you could try posting any evidence you have that supports your position or counters mine since that's usually how discussions like this work.

EDIT: You posted that article while I was typing. I'm reading it now.

 

[Commodore]

I will post the rest of my rebuttal to this article in a moment, but right now I would just like to point out this part:

Iraq's oil production has increased by more than 40% in the past five years to 3 million barrels of oil a day (still below the 1979 high of 3.5 million set by Iraq's state-owned companies), but a full 80% of this is being exported out of the country while Iraqis struggle to meet basic energy consumption needs. GDP per capita has increased significantly yet remains among the lowest in the world and well below some of Iraq's other oil-rich neighbors. Basic services such as water and electricity remain luxuries, while 25% of the population lives in poverty

That cannot me blamed on the US or any other foreign company operating in Iraq. I know for a fact from my time over there, the reason the people don't have basic services and utilities is because the Iraqi government either wasted or sometimes straight up stole the money given to them to invest in modernizing and repairing the nation's infrastructure. Kind of like what the Afghan government is doing with the aid money given to them. So if the Iraqi people are mad because they aren't seeing the benefits of foreign investment in their nation, they need to take that up with their own government rather than just blaming "evil foreigners" for all their troubles.

EDIT: Okay, so after reading the article I have to say it is complete tripe. The author does not cite a single official policy letter, memo, or any other official government document that specifically says the purpose of the war in Iraq was to secure foreign control of Iraq's oil fields. The only "evidence" she has are some out-of-context quotes and unverifiable opinions and claims from some former government employees. Note that I posted actual data, not some article that makes wild accusations based on speculation and unverified claims. Come back when you have some real empirical evidence that can actually be verified.

 

[Hygro]

"Operation Who's your Baghdaddy, Baghdadi"

 

[Linkman226]

Hey Commodore, I like the part where you conveniently ignore my exasperated explanation of why this whole discussion, but especially your analysis, is fairly irrelevant and off-the-point. Real cool magic trick, bro, do it again.

 

[Borachio]

"Operation Who's your Baghdaddy, Baghdadi"

Clever.

Operation I Can't Believe This IS Happening Again (and) Why Don't We Have a Clear Strategy (but) Hey, Who Cares?

 

[Kyriakos]

"Operation Who's your Baghdaddy, Baghdadi"

Reminds me of that 8mm movie with Cage..

 

[Commodore]

Hey Commodore, I like the part where you conveniently ignore my exasperated explanation of why this whole discussion, but especially your analysis, is fairly irrelevant and off-the-point. Real cool magic trick, bro, do it again.

You know, I honestly missed your post, but since you felt the need to act like a child about it in an attempt to goad me into a response I am going to continue to ignore it.

Try to be a little more adult about it next time.

 

[Tahuti]

Ah, the popular myth/logical fallacy that "Most of our oil doesn't come from Iraq, so the war had nothing to do with oil."

To say that "We went into Iraq to steal oil" is somewhat wrong but not misleading; on the other hand, brushing it off as a conspiracy theory is somewhat right but terribly misleading. The nature of a supply and demand market, especially one that is so sensitive to price shocks as oil, is that disruptions in the oil supply anywhere at all, whether of political, economic, or social cause, cause problems around the world. This is the nature of a global market. Did American troops literally siphon oil out of the ground and take it home by the barrel? No. Was the disruption of the oil markets a huge factor in the initiation of aggression? Most definitely.

Some American leaders like Dick Cheney personally profited from Iraq II, so while it is much more believable than the Jewish conspiracy theory, I still go with the stupidity thesis: Dubya appeared dumb enough to believe that Saddam could actually have supported Al-Qaida in spite of the massive ideological disagreements.

 

[Antilogic]

Of course the official reasons for going there were complete BS, but so is the conspiracy theory tripe that we went there to steal all the oil. I have not seen a single shred of independently verified evidence that suggests some great oil stealing conspiracy took place in Iraq. So until that evidence turns up, I put the "oil conspiracy" theory in the same category as "Loose Change" and that lizardmen ruling the world crap.

If we apparently stole all the oil from Iraq, where is it? In fact the top 5 export destinations for Iraqi oil are India, China, South Korea, Italy, and Spain. Oh yeah, the US really stole all that oil, let me tell ya.

This is a complete caricature of the war-for-oil position. It's not some neo-mercantilist conspiracy that colonizes Iraq long-term and restricts their oil exports to the US (presumably what you mean by "stealing conspiracy").

 

[Gucumatz]

Operation Moon Slayer

 

[gay_Aleks]

So, apparently, the consensus on why we're invading Iraq is "we have no damned bloody idea".

 

[Light Cleric]

Operation Wait You Guys Actually Believed Me In '08?

 

[bhsup]

Operation Wait You Guys Actually Believed Me In '08?

Now that's a theme I can get behind!

Operation Building My Legacy

 

[gay_Aleks]

Operation For A Fistful of Oil.

 

[Antilogic]

Has anybody suggested Operation Stupid Stuff yet?

That sounds like a good one.

 

[gay_Aleks]

That would be Operation Stupid Stuff 3.

 

[Commodore]

This is a complete caricature of the war-for-oil position. It's not some neo-mercantilist conspiracy that colonizes Iraq long-term and restricts their oil exports to the US (presumably what you mean by "stealing conspiracy").

Well that's all I've ever heard from the war-for-oil crowd. The idea that the US conducted that war solely for corporate profit has almost no basis in fact, yet people still persist with that belief simply because some American companies did end up profiting from the war. Correlation? Yes. Causation? Not so much.

I'm afraid the burden of proof just has not been met by the war-for-oil crowd. All it would take to convince me is just one shred of independently verified evidence. An official government document outlining the plan, a recorded conversation, verified minutes of a committee meeting, anything that shows the United States government planned and executed the invasion of Iraq in 2003 for the sole purpose of allowing Western corporations access to Iraqi oil fields. That evidence has yet to be produced in the 11 years since the invasion.

To give you an idea of where I'm coming from on this, I tend to look at everyone's arguments (in all controversial issues, not just this particular one) as if we were in court, with a plaintiff and a defendant. The defendant is the official explanation of events, and the plaintiff is the one challenging the official version of things. Now, as I am sure you are very aware, the burden of proof in the US legal system lies with the accuser/plaintiff. So if the plaintiff in a particular argument cannot provide sufficient evidence supporting their challenge of the status quo, then I just cannot bring myself to accept it. I mean what am I supposed to do, trade one unverified story for another? Now I will caveat this by saying I also do not accept the status quo at face value either, but since the status quo is the defendant in these matters, I do lower my standard for burden of proof for their claims.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Okay, so after reading the article I have to say it is complete tripe. The author does not cite a single official policy letter, memo, or any other official government document that specifically says the purpose of the war in Iraq was to secure foreign control of Iraq's oil fields. The only "evidence" she has are some out-of-context quotes and unverifiable opinions and claims from some former government employees. Note that I posted actual data, not some article that makes wild accusations based on speculation and unverified claims. Come back when you have some real empirical evidence that can actually be verified.

So there was no planning pre 9-11 to invade Iraq and divide up its Oil ?
And there is no pentagon documents which actual exist as evidence ?

Bush's Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said that Bush's first two National Security Council meetings included a discussion of invading Iraq. He was given briefing materials entitled "Plan for post-Saddam Iraq," which envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and divvying up Iraq's oil wealth. A Pentagon document dated March 5, 2001 was titled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," and included a map of potential areas for exploration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Oil_a_factor_in_the_Iraq_war

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."
As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap." He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.

Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration. "It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-sought-way-to-invade-iraq/