AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → The War In Iraq

53 9146
Dragonz5
offline
Dragonz5
96 posts
Nomad

Where do you stand? Should America and her allies still be fighting over there? I would tend to think no, but i would like to know your opinions!

  • 53 Replies
Asherlee
offline
Asherlee
5,001 posts
Shepherd

I really thought we received a lot more oil from Canada...

wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,437 posts
Farmer

The problem with the Canadian oil fields is that they have to be refined to a high degree which is why Canadians don't have cheap gas prices...(this annoys me).

Drace
offline
Drace
3,880 posts
Nomad

Other than Blair who for some reason thought being Bush's poodle was fun,


Tony Blair has direct connection to the oil companies. He made over 30 million from personal oil revenues.

I think it'd be a good idea to check where the US actually gets its oil from. The amount imported by the US from the Middle East is only small portion of the total.


First of all, that's not a small portion.

And it still does not distort the fact that the Middle East has the largest oil reserves.

The US has, from the 50s, until now tried to access the vast oil reserves in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia (which they already have a connection with the Saudi dictators).

Note that the oil companies protested against the Iraq war. War is terrible for business, it is much more profitable to secure trade agreements. Anything that is happening now is a matter of circumstance and not proof of any oligarchic conspiracy to steal oil for rich white people.


Which oil companies? They have always supported the intervention of the US in the Middle East, starting with the overthrowing of the democratic leader of Iran in 1953 and replacing him with a brutal Shah loyal to US interests. In turn, the shah proposed US and British oil corporations to have the use of its oil, whereas the previous president was planning on nationalizing it to meet Iran's needs.

How does accessing oil reserves hurt profits for oil companies?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/blood-and-oil-how-the-west-will-profit-from-iraqs-most-precious-commodity-431119.html
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/185/40590.html
Drace
offline
Drace
3,880 posts
Nomad

Anything that is happening now is a matter of circumstance and not proof of any oligarchic conspiracy to steal oil for rich white people.


Imperialism has existed for centuries. You try and make it seem like a mysterious new element.
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

He made over 30 million from personal oil revenues.


Proof? I have never heard of anything regarding that. If it were true, the British press would have slaughtered him.

First of all, that's not a small portion.

And it still does not distort the fact that the Middle East has the largest oil reserves.


126 millions tonnes is the entirety of US imports from the Middle East, not just Iraq. As I stated, the Middle East comprises a small portion and Iraq a smaller portion yet. Just because the numbers seem big to you does not mean it is actually all that significant.

The US has, from the 50s, until now tried to access the vast oil reserves in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia (which they already have a connection with the Saudi dictators).


This also had little to do with oil, and more to do with containing Soviet power. This was during the Cold War time frame remember. Then again, why try and understand complex foreign relations in history when you can blame it on big oil?

Which oil companies?


Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP and Total, the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company as well as Chevron.

They have always supported the intervention of the US in the Middle East, starting with the overthrowing of the democratic leader of Iran in 1953 and replacing him with a brutal Shah loyal to US interests. In turn, the shah proposed US and British oil corporations to have the use of its oil, whereas the previous president was planning on nationalizing it to meet Iran's needs.


And this had nothing to do with the Soviet invasion of 1941? Silly me.

How does accessing oil reserves hurt profits for oil companies?


It doesn't. Wars do. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be anti Iraq war. But to exaggerate to the point of conspiracy theory about conglomerates of oil companies simply isn't the way to go.
Drace
offline
Drace
3,880 posts
Nomad

Proof? I have never heard of anything regarding that. If it were true, the British press would have slaughtered him.


He has been in the media...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1259030/Tony-Blairs-secret-dealings-South-Korean-oil-firm-UI-Energy-Corp.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/17/tony-blair-cash-south-korea-oil

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23817037-revealed-tony-blairs-secret-oil-links-to-middle-east.do

"Blair's links with, and receipt of an undisclosed sum from, UI Energy Corporation, a Korean company with oil interests in northern Iraq, have also been subject to media comment in the UK. "

126 millions tonnes is the entirety of US imports from the Middle East, not just Iraq. As I stated, the Middle East comprises a small portion and Iraq a smaller portion yet. Just because the numbers seem big to you does not mean it is actually all that significant.


But look at the graph again. The sources of oil for the majority of the world is still centered around the Middle East. And like I said, the Middle East still has the largest reserves of oil.

This also had little to do with oil, and more to do with containing Soviet power. This was during the Cold War time frame remember. Then again, why try and understand complex foreign relations in history when you can blame it on big oil?


Iran in 1953 had no connection to the Soviets, neither did the Shah of Iran or Saddam Hussein.
These figures only became a threat and were only targeted after they had plans to nationalize the oil company.

Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP and Total, the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company as well as Chevron.


I couldn't find a single source stating that these companies were against war.


But check these out
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/185/40471.html
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/185/40510.html
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/185/40590.html
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/185/40586.html

And this had nothing to do with the Soviet invasion of 1941? Silly me.


Soviets withdrew in 1946...
Iphone
offline
Iphone
455 posts
Nomad

Stupid.



That's all I have to say. (NOT)

I mean, we are basically fighting a guerilla war there. There is really no way we can actually win, even if we blew up the whole country, they could just come back to it. No way of actually totally eliminating the so called enemy. Take it from me, this is a total waste of money,resources, and most of all, the deaths there are so great.

Yeah so I think it's stupid.

PurpleSquishy
offline
PurpleSquishy
150 posts
Shepherd

Why are we bombing countries just to rebuild them better then before and get nothing in return.

Iphone
offline
Iphone
455 posts
Nomad

Why are we bombing countries just to rebuild them better then before and get nothing in return


That's a question needed to be asked to every single war-lover.
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

"Blair's links with, and receipt of an undisclosed sum from, UI Energy Corporation, a Korean company with oil interests in northern Iraq, have also been subject to media comment in the UK. "


And this happened after he left office in unexpected circumstances. To portray it as some lucrative deal he conspired to create before the invasion is ridiculous. Besides, former politicians, making money from companies. Not exactly unheard of. And also, the daily mail and the gaurdian. Pretty much the Fox news of the left wing in Britain.

But look at the graph again. The sources of oil for the majority of the world is still centered around the Middle East. And like I said, the Middle East still has the largest reserves of oil.


The Middle East does have large oil reserves. But that is not the point. The point is how much oil the US gets from there, the answer being a small porion.

Just look at EU energy imports:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45203000/gif/_45203447_gas_imports226x220.gif

If it was really about oil for Britain, we'd invade the Russians, Norwegians, Algerians and Otherians instead.

Soviets withdrew in 1946...


Iran in 1953 had no connection to the Soviets, neither did the Shah of Iran or Saddam Hussein.
These figures only became a threat and were only targeted after they had plans to nationalize the oil company.


Why bring Saddam into this? I was talking about Iran. And Iran was a nation bordering the Soviet Union, (Turkmenistan was Soviet controlled). At that time oil was far from the top of the US political agenda. It was more about containment. As such many monarchs and revolutionaries were displaced all over the globe if they didn't fit in with capitalist ideology. If you are curious about the actual motivations behind US foreign policy decisions (outside of South America, as those were about maintaining prices on fruit and produce) look into the domino theory and containment on wikipedia. Normally I wouldn't recommed it, but the articles on it are actually pretty good.

I couldn't find a single source stating that these companies were against war.


Why would companies already operating in Iraq want the majority of their infrastructure to be destroyed? It stands to reason.

But check these out


Oh please James A. Paul is full of unadultered BS. I could write an article that definitively generalises the motivations behind various wars occuring decades apart and make it look like a global conspiracy. He's just a pseudo intellectual waving his hands.
Drace
offline
Drace
3,880 posts
Nomad

The Middle East does have large oil reserves. But that is not the point. The point is how much oil the US gets from there, the answer being a small porion.


So the US could not at all be in Iraq to secure large oil reserves, to cut off oil going to other powers, as well as import it later?

At that time oil was far from the top of the US political agenda. It was more about containment. As such many monarchs and revolutionaries were displaced all over the globe if they didn't fit in with capitalist ideology.


I dunno, overthrowing leaders as soon as they start to nationalize oil companies and signing the deal with a dictator that allows US oil companies to have the share of the oil is pretty convincing evidence that it was about oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

And the British invaded Iran in a joint operation with the USSR in 1941...Hardly evidence that the USSR had an influence in Iran and needed to be contained.
And hell, if the US overthrew a democratic president and replaced him with a shah, why is it so unbelievable and even a conspiracy that the US might be waging war in the Middle East for oil?

If you are curious about the actual motivations behind US foreign policy decisions (outside of South America, as those were about maintaining prices on fruit and produce) look into the domino theory and containment on wikipedia. Normally I wouldn't recommed it, but the articles on it are actually pretty good.


The domino theory was a ridiculous concept that was used as propaganda to justify the United States brutal foreign policy.
The United States has invaded countries and turned them into dictatorships outside of the "containment" context as well. I don't see why you think imperialist motivations in the current war is so unbelievable to you.

Why would companies already operating in Iraq want the majority of their infrastructure to be destroyed? It stands to reason.


The oil companies of Iraq were nationalized in 1972.
And I don't see why oil companies would care if civilian infrastructure was destroyed.

But I was looking for a statement by the oil companies or something that said that they were against the war. So far you given no evidence that these companies have an anti-war stance.

Oh please James A. Paul is full of unadultered BS. I could write an article that definitively generalises the motivations behind various wars occuring decades apart and make it look like a global conspiracy. He's just a pseudo intellectual waving his hands.


That's ridiculous. The articles carry much well-sourced information. Your criticism is purely ad-hominem and doesn't even address a single argument.

And James A. Paul has a Ph.D, you don't. So I don't even see how you can criticize his credentials while your in your position.

But would you like to give Noam Chomsky a try instead?
iPad
offline
iPad
9 posts
Nomad

This is George Bush's fault Barack Obama is trying to fix it enough said

Drace
offline
Drace
3,880 posts
Nomad

Here's an article by Chomsky. He is arguably the current highest intellectual with a PhD in linguistics, over 100 published books and over 70 years of political activism. I hope you don't have anything against him as an individual? -_-

It's the Oil, stupid!

fierboy151
offline
fierboy151
27 posts
Peasant

All I have to say, and what I have seen about this post seems to mimic this, is when people get passionate about things they start to lose it.

Believe me, I am not a fan of this war. My father has taken two tours over there, and is about to head back. He has a three year old son at home that he has almost completely neglected because he is one of those people who become obsessed with the war.

However, what has happened to this forum has become a mess, with hot heads arguing without seeing each other's reasoning. I ask that, before you next post your comments, you stop and breath first before speaking hotly.

Asherlee
offline
Asherlee
5,001 posts
Shepherd

Remind me again, why we are discussing oil in Iran when the topic is the war in Iraq?

Isn't the very reason the United States, UK, Australia, and Poland (handful of them) entered Iraq was to Find them, there dubya-em-dees and stop Hussein from Saddamizing?

Showing 31-45 of 53