Forums → WEPR → The War In Iraq

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

Iran has the 2nd largest reserve of oil and I was pointing out previous US attempts at gaining control over them.
My argument is that the US's interest in the Middle East overall is this domination of the oil regions.

Anyone else see an invasion of Iran soon?

That's our next war.

Or how it is readily accepted that Pearl Harbour was not a surprise attack.

What?!

I have honestly never heard that one before, honestly. It was a blatant surprise attack, and the whole point was to destroy as many ships and people as possible.

Anyways, my opinion is the of I don't care. They're doing it all wrong from a strategic point of view anyways, and it's getting nowhere. Therefore, my military interests in the war left me after 2005 when we decided to not kill as many of those SOBs as we can without killing everyone else too.

Motivations are irrelevant to me. I find petty wars like that one that have little affect on my own little western world to be nothing more than learning tools. The war isn't even remotely big anymore.

Although I say it's a combination of everything. There's a load of reasons why we're over there.

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?

It could be. But generally critical arguments don't include ''one possible motivation exists, therefore it's true''. I prefer to look and see what best corresponds to reality. Considering the developed world's investment in green technology and dwindling reliance on oil from the Middle East due to Russia and Khazakstan, then no, I don't think it's fair to say we went into Iran (or Iraq for that matter) due to oil.

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

Oooh! Wikipedia says it, so it must be true. Note that they have no sources for the first theory (control of oil) and three for the second (countering Soviet influence). Also note that this may be a cause for British intervention, not American. It was a battle of regional control, not a big oil conspiracy.

I don't see why you think imperialist motivations in the current war is so unbelievable to you.

Imperialism and big oil conspiracies are not one and the same. Were strategic power and influence involved? Most likely. Was it down to big oil? I don't think the facts correlate.

The oil companies of Iraq were nationalized in 1972.

Oil conglomerates have been getting Iraqi oil for years. Just behind closed doors. Plus it doesn't fit the commonly held misconception that ''we went in there for the oil'', when in fact, we already had it.

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.

It's been well documented that they preferred a 'better alternative' championing sanctions over outright war. Why? Because it's actually much easier to get contracts that way.

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

I think it does. The core aspect of his argument is the chronological one. He is taking different wars and conflicts completely out of context, and using them as justification for essentially saying ''look at how many wars have been fought over Iraq. What does Iraq have a lot of? Oil. Therefore every conflict in Iraq has been about oil''. It just doesn't ring true.

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.

I wasn't arguing about his credentials, I was arguing about his argument. You can have any degree you like. It doesn't mean you deserve my respect when your argument is unsound.

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? -_-

I know who he is. And again credentials mean nothing. I like to think of Chomsky as a Stephen Hawking figure. Common conceptions of him are that he is the man of his field. People have been soundly criticising his arguments for years. Sadly those aren't the guys who make it onto youtube. Still, I do like his early stuff, but he has become eye wateringly polemical in his old age.

''Negotiations are under way for Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP â" the original partners decades ago in the Iraq Petroleum Company, now joined by Chevron and other smaller oil companies â" to renew the oil concession they lost to nationalisation during the years when the oil producers took over their own resources.''

As I have already shown, these companies were operating under the carpet in Iraq for years. Here lies a fundamental flaw in his argument.

Oooh! Wikipedia says it, so it must be true. Note that they have no sources for the first theory (control of oil) and three for the second (countering Soviet influence). Also note that this may be a cause for British intervention, not American. It was a battle of regional control, not a big oil conspiracy.

Wikipedia is a pretty reliable source.
All I wanted to get you to see from that article is that the US overthrew a democratic president after he nationalized the oil.

It is sourced.

In 1951 with near unanimous support of Iran's parliament, Mosaddegh nationalized the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC)."The 1933 agreement under which it was operating was widely regarded as exploitative and an infringement on Iran's sovereignty.[4][5]

Iran's oil was the British government's single largest overseas investment.[6]

Imperialism and big oil conspiracies are not one and the same. Were strategic power and influence involved? Most likely. Was it down to big oil? I don't think the facts correlate.

How does not taking control of the largest oil reserves in the world and gaining a strategic influence in the Middle East not correspond to imperialism and maintaining hegemony???
Your not making arguments anymore, you just say that you don't think its the oil because its not logical.

Oil conglomerates have been getting Iraqi oil for years. Just behind closed doors. Plus it doesn't fit the commonly held misconception that ''we went in there for the oil'', when in fact, we already had it.

Funny how that article destroys your previous claim that oil companies didn't want war. This says they were the cause of it...

Anti-war groups should join the August demonstrations because Chevron is directly responsible for the war in Iraq. From the era of the Saddam Hussein dictatorship, Chevron has worked diligently to gain access to Iraqi oil. (The relationship started even earlier, following World War I, as Gulf Oil, which became Chevron, maneuvered to control Iraqâs oil in the Mandate period.) Since then it has created marketing agreements to sell Iraqi oil, working around the US imposed sanctions with the UN Oil for Food program, deemed genocidal by two directors of the program who resigned is disgust. At the same time, Chevron illegally bribed Iraqi officials to sell oil outside of the program, making the government an estimated $11 billion, strengthening the dictatorship.

It's been well documented that they preferred a 'better alternative' championing sanctions over outright war. Why? Because it's actually much easier to get contracts that way.

"It might surprise you to learn that even though Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas -- reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to -- I fully agree with the sanctions we have imposed on Iraq."
"Now let's look at a couple of places where sanctions completely prohibit us and other U.S. companies from doing business. Iraq and Iran."
"But only if this country can stop imposing sanctions on other countries."
"Sanctions won't get us there."
"I think the evidence clearly shows that unilateral trade sanctions just don't work. They never seem to bring about the changes their sponsors hope for. They never seem to punish the people they're meant to punish."

Cool story bro. The article doesn't even mention the alternative of war.
Not to mention the first sanctions in Iraq killed over a million people...

I think it does. The core aspect of his argument is the chronological one. He is taking different wars and conflicts completely out of context, and using them as justification for essentially saying ''look at how many wars have been fought over Iraq. What does Iraq have a lot of? Oil. Therefore every conflict in Iraq has been about oil''. It just doesn't ring true.

And previous wars in Iraq would hint us about why were there wouldn't it? Its very logical to make a connection between a countries large oil reserves and the US's role and activism in trying to have an influence over that area. What else is the US in Middle East for? Candy?

As I have already shown, these companies were operating under the carpet in Iraq for years. Here lies a fundamental flaw in his argument.

Then why are there concessions even being made?
But that was like 1/20th of his argument...