Maybe we deserve what we get

[K Frame]

"The primary purpose of this war is oil."

what was that line about interpreting self-delusion as 'truth.'

Mirror time.

[Manedwolf]

The primary purpose of this war is oil.  Iraq's huge oil reserves are largely untapped, unlike those in Saudi Arabia.   So it's extraordinarily cheap to produce compared to other oil producing countries.  That translates into huge profits for somebody, and we just want to make sure that somebody is us.

Um...not really. The equipment in place in Iraq is antiquated at best, they've badly capped many wellheads, others are clogged with broken pipe or otherwise damaged and unusable without massive work. Others were blown to bits and roaring oil fires as the troops moved in in 2003, trying to hinder our air forces and just deny them in general. They're still mostly wrecked.

Building new infrastructure would be massively expensive...and what oil company is going to want to do that when people keep blowing it up? That was an issue back then, too.

The most likely sort of "oil deal" the US would get into in Iraq is a cooperative deal with the Kurds, who LIKE us, and are glad to do business with us.

The rest of Iraq, in terms of oil prospects, well, it's like shopping for a used car. Would you pick one that runs and is in good shape, or one that's burnt out with pieces all over the ground and has been mostly that way for over a decade? Sure, you CAN fix it with lots of work and money, but who wants to invest that much?

So it wasn't an "war for oil". It's not like the oil comes magically from the ground. You need working pumps, working refineries, and a working transport network to make it worth your while.

[Paddy]

How silly of me, Mike.  I'm so ashamed of myself and see the error of my ways.  This war is really about "Truth, Justice and the American Way". 
 

[Perd Hapley]

How silly of me, Mike.  I'm so ashamed of myself and see the error of my ways.  This war is really about "Truth, Justice and the American Way". 

Sadly, that's the closest you've been to the truth in this thread.  But is there some truth about this war, or is it all just different perspectives? 

[Laurent du Var]

No.
Truth can be objective.

Can not.
If it could it would be called reality.
Grampa wrote :
Truth is a fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience./
Truth and reality are at best related but never the same.
Truth belongs to believe while reality belongs to science.
Like it is a fact that a marathon is 42 km long.
It is true that I could win a competition if I wasn't build like a nightstand, rather larger than tall, if I stopped drinking,smoking, eating. Why not ?   
But in reality those marathons are won year after year by skinny
little fellas.
Except for the ladies where it is a British Lady Radcliff who is rather
tall and blond.

As for Desertstorm 1, anybody cares to explain ?

[K Frame]

How silly of me, Mike.  I'm so ashamed of myself and see the error of my ways.  This war is really about "Truth, Justice and the American Way". 
 

And people says that conservatives have a black & white view on the world.

The "No war for oil" whine has been a standard of the disaffected left for decades now. It had as much validity in 1973 when the United States was actively supporting Israel against Arab agression as it did during Gulf War I or in 1977 when some were pushing for military action against Iran.

If this war were truly about oil, the United States would have done a far better job of both securing and reactivating the Iraqi oil fields than it has done, and the United States would be flush with crude oil taken direction from Iraq and sent directly to the United States, bypassing the international commodities market. 

Yet, God forbid that these people actually think about the mantra that they're chanting. God knows thinking might actually take them in a direction different from their own personal Great Satan, oil.

In their minds, all of the world's ills and evils can be tied to oil, and it becomes a very simple, far too simplistic, linear progression for them.

I have no doubt that had the United States decided to strike North Korea instead of Iraq, we'd be hearing about how the war is nothing but a war for oil because it's only one part of a diabolical master plan dreamed up by Carl Rove and Dick Cheney and the rest of it just isn't yet apparent, but there's no doubt that it's about oil.

Yeah.

As I've said before. I used to work with developmentally disabled individuals. I never pitied them.

These "this war is about oil" parrots? God gave them a mind that works, and they refuse to actually use it. That's worthy of both derision and pity.

[K Frame]

"As for Desertstorm 1, anybody cares to explain ?"

Explain what?

Why Saddam Hussein wasn't toppled back in 1991?

Easy. It wasn't a stated goal of the coalition that was developed. The goal was to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. The Saudis and the rest of the Middle East nations that were part of the ramp up to Gulf War I were adamantly opposed to Hussein being toppled and made their support of the war conditional on that.

[Paddy]

If this war were truly about oil, the United States would have done a far better job of both securing and reactivating the Iraqi oil fields than it has done, and the United States would be flush with crude oil taken direction from Iraq and sent directly to the United States, bypassing the international commodities market.

Which didn't happen because it wasn't possible.  In 5 years the U.S. military hasn't even been able to pacify Iraq, let alone secure any oil fields.  No, the extraction of oil there is a long term objective, requiring our continuing military presence.  Why do you think we're building huge permanent bases there? http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm  including a huge embassy costing half a billion $$

[K Frame]

Jesus, think about it for a second.

Actually THINK about it. Try it, it's not hard.

The Iraq oil fields could have been relatively easily seized and secured by simply leaving the rest of Iraq to its own devices. Why? Because all of Iraq is not one huge oil field. The oil fields are relatively small and discrete as compared to the entirety of Iraq.

Were this TRULY a war about oil as you claim, pacification of the whole of Iraq, which is what is being attempted, even in the areas unrelated to oil production/distribution, wouldn't be an objective, would it?

Instead of trying to hold and pacify the entire country, were this war truly about oil, the United States and its coalition allies would have concentrated on two small sections of Iraq, and area to the north and east of Baghdad, and south eastern section of the country near Kuwait.

If this war were truly about oil, there wouldn't be any troops at all in the western half of the country, because there's no oil there.

[Manedwolf]

Jesus, think about it for a second.

Actually THINK about it. Try it, it's not hard.

The Iraq oil fields could have been relatively easily seized and secured by simply leaving the rest of Iraq to its own devices. Why? Because all of Iraq is not one huge oil field. The oil fields are relatively small and discrete as compared to the entirety of Iraq.

Were this TRULY a war about oil as you claim, pacification of the whole of Iraq, which is what is being attempted, even in the areas unrelated to oil production/distribution, wouldn't be an objective, would it?

Instead of trying to hold and pacify the entire country, were this war truly about oil, the United States and its coalition allies would have concentrated on two small sections of Iraq, and area to the north and east of Baghdad, and south eastern section of the country near Kuwait.

If this war were truly about oil, there wouldn't be any troops at all in the western half of the country, because there's no oil there.

Exactly. The active wellheads are already well-established. They're usually a pumping station (now in pieces), maybe a few sheds or other buildings, and some pipes sticking out of the ground, a "field" of such things being very small in comparison to Iraq's open land. If it WAS just about oil, those would all be surrounded by fortifications and manned by contractors, and the only security would be for the supply lines delivering the crude to refineries. The rest of Iraq, including Baghdad, would be left to collapse without any order.

That's the exact opposite of what happened. Our forces are in cities trying to kill insurgents and maintain order, while the oil fields are broken.

I thought that was pretty obvious, myself.

[Matthew Carberry]

You guys will all be proven wrong when USOILCO, our government owned oil company, finally moves in and, as was said, starts shipping crude directly to our government-owned refineries...

What's that you say?

The US has no government-owned oil and refining companies?

That the oil companies who will eventually work on Iraq's fields are mostly large polyglot multinationals, beholden to no particular country (particularly the US, anyway)? 

That oil is a fungible commodity and, no matter if a hostile Iraq chose to not sell directly to US-identified (but not owned) oil and gas companies, the fact that the oil was entering the world commodities market at all would ensure said companies would be able to buy their share of the total supply at the going price?

Golly, that kinda makes it impossible for the war to be "about oil" from an economic perspective. 

[K Frame]

"I thought that was pretty obvious, myself."

For anyone who actually knows something about Iraq's topography and the distribution of its resources, it is pretty obvious.

There are large numbers of American and coalition troops in areas of Iraq where the only oil is in the pan of the Humvee.

Yet I've spoken with a frightenly large number of "This war is about oil" crowd who have no clue about Iraq other than the sound bites that they spout. More than one has had the distinct impression that Iraq pretty much sits on a continuous lake of oil; that you can drill a hole anywhere in the ground and get a geyser. When trying to explain how Iraq's oil reserves are distributed you tend to get a blank stare quickly followed by fingers in the ears and NO WAR FOR OIL shouted full volume.

[Matthew Carberry]

For an example of real, recent, economic exploitation of the type the US is being wrongly accused of, look at Nigeria.

Security by the owning companies for the oil wells and dimond mines, and bribes to pay off the local warlords.  No effort at all put into the rest of the country.

If Iraq was at all just "about oil" that is what it would look like.

[K Frame]

But it's all George Bush's fault, Carebear.

Nigeria is just a war about blood oil and blood diamonds.

[roo_ster]

Well, it may be a fact that the oil fields are located in relatively small enclaves in the SE and NE of Iraq, but it is not a McFact, and therefore easy to dismiss out of hand.

[K Frame]

McFact...

Don't even get them started on McDonald's!

We'll never hear the end of it!

[Perd Hapley]

Why do you think we're building huge permanent bases there? http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm  including a huge embassy costing half a billion $$

I think you already hit on that one.

Iraq's central middleeastern location is an ideal place from which to project power.

[Manedwolf]

Well, it may be a fact that the oil fields are located in relatively small enclaves in the SE and NE of Iraq, but it is not a McFact, and therefore easy to dismiss out of hand.

Is that what comes in "USA Today", or is that News McNuggets? 

[Matthew Carberry]

Well, since for the moment the government of Iraq is asking us to stay and our plans for regional stability coincide, I suppose building a base rather than a tent camp makes sense.  If they ask us to leave, we'll leave it behind.  

Existence of a base(s) /= intent to permanently occupy against the wishes of the host country.

As for a big expensive embassy.  It costs a lot of money to build a secure embassy and other embassies that we built in the region have been attacked with great loss of life.  Since the host country wants us to have an embassy there, it makes sense to build it secure as there are likely to be more threats long term in that region than there are in, say, Iceland.  Again, if the host country wants us to remove ourselves, then they will find something else to do with it.

Existence of an expensive embassy /= intent to permanently occupy against the wishes of the host country.

I love how all these actions are definitively signs of imperialism yet our history of behavior concerning such things contradicts that interpretation.  Name a big base or anything else we've established but refused to give back at the request of the host government?  Heck, we turned over the Canal, a prime strategic asset, at the end of the lease.  If the Germans get truly upset and stop fearing the Russkies they can ask us to leave and we'll go, as could Japan, and they are actual conquered nations.

[Perd Hapley]

Well, since for the moment the government of Iraq is asking us to stay and our plans for regional stability coincide, I suppose building a base rather than a tent camp makes sense.  If they ask us to leave, we'll leave it behind.

Good point. Infrastructure is infrastructure, and we are trying to help Iraq with theirs.  But the embassy?  Everyone knows that nations only build embassies in those nations they wish to occupy for economic gain.   

[K Frame]

The embassy is so expensive because the basement is a huge oil storage tank...

[Matthew Carberry]

To be fair, I should acknowledge that Gitmo is a base we are keeping against the wishes of the current host government.  But it was not established against the wishes of the government in power at the time nor do we use it to control the current government's policies.  Its continued existence is a matter of treaty law, which, while disputed by the government in power now, is not considered definitively overturned.

[Paddy]

Well, I guess y'all put that to bed.  The 'war' is not about oil.  It's really about...........uh............er....... ?.....wha?...........oh, yeah, I remember.  It's about bringing the evildoers to justice.  That's it.  And that's more than worth continuing to throw lives and money into it (not to mention the abridgement of the Constitution, another bargain)  After all, lives and money and the surrender of liberty are nothing compared to a president's prestige, right?

[grampster]

If Iraq was mostly about oil, we'd have knocked of Venezuela instead.  Think about that for a moment.

Oops, I just got a phone call from the White House and a man with a Texas accent whispered over and over..."The Falcons of justice have swooped down out of the blue black darkness of evil to bring the perpetrators evil deeds to justice."

[K Frame]

If Iraq was mostly about oil, we'd have knocked of Venezuela instead.  Think about that for a moment.

Oops, I just got a phone call from the White House and a man with a Texas accent whispered over and over..."The Falcons of justice have swooped down out of the blue black darkness of evil to bring the perpetrators evil deeds to justice."

Goddamn it, I left my invasion kit in my other Aston-Martin!