Blood for oil? You bet.

And we'd do it again.

Truthfully, the US led global forces did invade Iraq for the oil, but not in the way most conspiracy theorists' would claim. It is because of oil that Saddams direct link to terrorism can be shown, but again, not in the way conspiracy theorists' would claim. Let me explain.

In 1979, just after taking firm control of the Iraqi government, Saddam realized that he could extend his power by taking control of a single resource, oil. To begin this goal of extended global influence, Saddam set his sites on what he considered a weak oil country, Iran. Although he was mistaken about the strength of the Iranian people, who took Saddams 6 month invasion plan and turned it into an 8 year stalemate, Saddam maintained the idea that oil was the key for global influence.

Using the economic crisis that had resulted from an 8 year conflict as an excuse, Saddam accused Kuwait of actually stealing oil from the two countries shared oil fields, thus 'preventing Iraq's economic recovery' . Other accusations were also thrown by Saddam, such as Kuwait suppressing oil prices by overproduction, but the key point is that in all the reasons Saddam gave during the build up to the Kuwait invasion by Iraq, oil was on his mind.

Saddam invaded, took control, and did his best to fortify his position. Then, 5 months later, never satisfied, he started an incursion against Saudia Arabia! Even the Soviet Union understood the consequences of Saddams actions. The Soviets were boycotting the UN Security council at the time, yet they were so alarmed they put aside every other issue they had with the global community and came back to the table to help deal with Saddams grip on the combined oil fields of Iraq and Kuwait. It was not until Saddam entered direct negotiations with the USSR, offering them several major oil fields to stay out of the conflict that the Soviets withdrew. Oil, oil, oil.

Saddam understood that by controlling Kuwaiti oil fields, he would gain considerable influence over the global economy, acquiring power akin to that of a nuclear superpower. This is simple economics - the world runs on oil. Dropping the prices by flooding the market would bankrupt key countries, wrecking oil production and increasing the strength of a two oil country Saddam. Or cutting production would cause the prices to skyrocket globally, slowing production and again wrecking the global economy. This is his legacy of terror.

Yes, Saddam is guilty of atrocities. They are recorded, documented, on VHS and DVD at a store near you. But few people realize the global terror Saddam was trying to achieve. Almost everything you use during the day, regardless of where you live on the Earth, had oil involved in its manufacturing. Your chair, your computer, your home, your refrigeration systems, your phones - all require oil to be produced. If not for a stable oil market, none of us would be here blogging, or online at all for that matter.

Saddam wanted to destroy that. He wanted to wreck the economy of your country, my country of every country in the world that wouldnt cow to his demands.

After 12 years of containment, it can be asked, "Was Saddam a threat?". Wasn't he contained? Isn't North Korea more of a threat to global security? Perhaps, perhaps not. People view nuclear war as 'the end all', but it is not. A limited nuclear attack by North Korea would be horrible, but it would not come near the scale of of a global oil crisis. Billions would die, civilization would crumble without oil, as our current society is based. In the growing climate of international terrorism, Saddam has the greatest historical record of attempting terror on a global scale by attempting to gain control over a major portion of the worlds oil fields. With the current global population, oil is life, make no mistake of that.

This alone justifies the war, it may not excuse the lame reasons that were given. But it does make sense, and it makes sense in a very scary way, regardless of your political dogma.

Damn skippy the USA invaded Iraq for oil. 35 other countries understood this and acted accordingly, to finally, once and for all, get it out of Saddams hands. *

*Originally posted by me at Neowin.net. The article has been cleaned up for reprint on my blog.
16,428 views 34 replies
Reply #1 Top
Using the economic crisis that had resulted from an 8 year conflict as an excuse, Saddam accused Kuwait of actually stealing oil from the two countries shared oil fields, thus 'preventing Iraq's economic recovery' .


He was right though - Kuwaiti oil drills were drilling on an angle so they could accesss Iraqi oil fields across the border.

And Saddam could never have held the world to oil-based ransom, even had he been left untouched in 1991.. Firstly no civilisation would tolerate such a threat. Had the UN not acted the US would have, and if they didn't the EU would move in through Turkey.

Finally it would have been simple to simply starve Iraq. It is not self-sufficient in food terms, so if the major nations could control their exports, Iraq/the Middle Eastern superstate would quickly become a humanitarian disaster and be forced to either surrender or starve to death.

Invading several years ago, more than a decade after the defeat of Saddam, served no real purpose despite it being conducted for the best of intentions.
Reply #2 Top

Reply #2 By: little_whip - 9/22/2004 8:56:51 PM
Dude...if you want to read over a hundred other opinions about this, read my challenge..."war for oil? time to prove it."


Link

The amount of oil we get from Iraq is miniscule, and could easily be obtained elsewhere.

Youve offered no hard proof here, and neither has anyone on that thread.


He won't and "personally" I don't think there is any proof! It's ALL about opinions!
Reply #3 Top
Drmiller, could you explain to me what the quotation marks are for?
Reply #4 Top
Im just curious if you actually read what I wrote... I never claimed we were stealing oil.

BTW, the amount of oil we get from Iraq is not miniscule, it's actually a good percentage of the USA's imported oil.

For those that say I have no proof, I will re-reference this article from the UN documents I wrote this article from. If it's just opinion, then it's an opinion documented by the UN Security Council.
Reply #5 Top
While I understand your contention, I'm not sure Saddam had planned a "master terrorist stroke" such as you propose.

In any case, it's unfortunate that the world, and particularly North America, allowed it to come to that; in America particularly by continually allowing SUVs and "light trucks" to escape the EPA mileage mandates. With better fuel economy, the war wouldn't have been *needed* to secure American industrial needs.

JW
Reply #6 Top

Reply #4 By: sandy2 - 9/22/2004 9:10:48 PM
Drmiller, could you explain to me what the quotation marks are for?


It's called "emphasis" on a particular word or phrase. It's better than SHOUTING.
Reply #7 Top
The Iran-Iraq war wasn't for oil, but rather, in part, for the control of the Shatt al-Arab river to ship the oil. However, the Islamist revolution was the main factor that forced Saddam to invade Iran, fearing the Islamist Revolution would reach his Shia population. It is important to note that the conflict lasted for so long because of the western influence. The traditional powers did not want to see Iraq rise to a "superpower" status while they were even more concerned of Iranian Fundamentalism spreading throughout the Middle-East. The religiously "enlightened" Iranian extremists would practice suicidal human wave attacks while Iraq was fitted with a modern armament. The United States, in all this, openly supported Iraq (Ex : Link ) while secretly arming Iran (Iran-Contra Affair). After the war, Iraq was ruined and couldn't repay it's debts to Kuwait caused by the war. Furthermore, Iraq's main oil-shipping line was destroyed and badly needed a better access to the sea and Kowait, historically, was part of Iraq; it had only been cut off during the post-colonial British era. Therefore, Iraq saw no other alternative than to invade.

Saddam did want to unify and rise the region to a superpower status, obviously. But inflict massive terror upon the world?... heh He was a statesman trying to gain more power and influence on the world scene... The West simply had too many interests in the region to allow that...

Reply #8 Top

Reply #9 By: little_whip - 9/22/2004 10:04:44 PM
It's called "emphasis" on a particular word or phrase.


drmiller, look at the upper left corner of the message screen where you type your comments. You will see a B, an I, and a U. After you type the word you want to emphasize, highlight it and then click on:

B for BOLD,

I for ITALICS

U for UNDERLINE

Looks better than all those quotation marks.


That's all well and good for you that can move your hands from K/B to mouse and back with "no" trouble! I suffer from MS which makes it all the more difficult for me. Between you and me, I'll continue with quotation marks.
Reply #9 Top
drmiler,

try this instead, since your "quotation marks" are grating to those of us with a sense of proper punctuation:

either use asterisks to emphasize, *thus* (much less offensive since you're not misusing a punctuation mark), or to get bold type <b> before the word and </b> after. (Replace the 'b' with an 'i' for italics.)
Reply #10 Top








Reply #11 Top
Guess who is getting off in the board rooms every time these blogs are written,and a bonus with the comments. The oil company CEO's. Its a very good blog, and the comments are justified also. Anyone that has ever seen a fork lift run[and that is just one piece of equiptment in a couple hundred] has never seen one pull up to a gas station to fill up. Why ? because it runs on propane in a portable tank.The engines are made by Toyota,Mitsubitchii?,Nission?[not sure of the spelling] and at least a dozen American companys. .Point is these are the same companies that put the engines in the cars you drive.The only thing needed to change is the carbarator. Why not the tanks??They scare the hell out of you with the danger of an accident.Thats bullshit,there safer than a gas tank. If this change would happen on a national scale, in one year the money would dry up that feeds the terrist and our kids could come home ALIVE!! Lets argue that point OK?
Reply #12 Top
Glad to see I struck a nerve.
Reply #13 Top
I will tell you what is Blood for Oil. When 5000 Iraqi children die every MONTH under the oil sanction, and when oil for food is profiting a small number of European country -- that is Blood for Oil. When USA gave up all Iraqi debt and spent hundred of billion money on Iraqi, that is not Blood for Oil.

Reply #14 Top
Where is my cheaper gasoline and oil prices if it was truely a war for oil? Where is the projected future of the Oil prices? What solid EMPIRICAL evidence do you have to back the claim?

*NAIL*
*HAMMER*
*BANG!*

- GX
Reply #15 Top
GX,

People has no evidence of course.... they made things up as they wish. I will tell you what.... Oil for Food program is the real Blood for Oil Program. More Iraqi die under the oil sanction. For people who oppose the invasion... what you are saying is "yes to oil sanction". You people are sick. For those oppose the war, before you dare to use the word "blood".... prove to me that more Iraqi die now than during the oil sanction period. If not, how dare you use the word "Blood".

Link

Reply #16 Top
Do people even read English? I'm curious...
BTW, where did I ever claim to oppose the war in Iraq?
Reply #17 Top
Also one thing we shouldn't forget that there were not even a single WEAPON of MASS DESTRUCTION in Iraq which was the "Real" reason behind all this blood bath of people. Till now US has not been able to establish even a single connection with Saddam and Al-kayda.

Also last 2 wars happen at the time of BUSH Family administration, who themselves have personal interest in Oil.
Reply #18 Top
Saddam had no humanitarian projects planned for his oil power, that's for sure. Oil is like money in the bank, and in the hands of a genocidal bastard, it is a weapon of mass destruction. Saddam's legacy is the insurgency, which desperately wants to assume the throne of Iraq. Their currency is the atrocity: beheadings, car bombs which kill Iraqis, and the desperate assertion of tyranny in the name of a religious jihad. The Coalition should not submit to a slow bleed in this desert, but should wage an offensive war to free Iraq of its mafia. The meek should inherit Baghdad. We owe this to our troops. The rife corruption in Iraq makes it imperative that the Syrian/Iranian supported insurgents be swept away, if for no other reason than to avenge the Coalition soldiers who gave their all and will never see home, again.
Reply #19 Top
He was right though - Kuwaiti oil drills were drilling on an angle so they could accesss Iraqi oil fields across the border.


Nice black helicopter theory. But I would suggest you get back to reality and instead of spouting the mindless platitudes of people like Michael Moore, think for yourself. IN a word or 2, prove it! Links? Facts? And opinions dont count.

But Dead Zombie, I did read it and thought it was excellant! Well thought out, very well reasoned, and excellant. And All too scarily true.

This is an excellant post and should be required reading for all the conspiracy theorist, right or left!


Well Done.
Reply #20 Top
To state that this war was a simple oil grab is oversimplifying the issue. I have a longer post on little whip's thread about this. Oil was a motivation, but not the ONLY motivation. And they say BUSH has a problem only seeing black and white...
Reply #21 Top
Nice black helicopter theory. But I would suggest you get back to reality and instead of spouting the mindless platitudes of people like Michael Moore, think for yourself. IN a word or 2, prove it! Links? Facts? And opinions dont count.


Try not to be too much of an asshole. I had read this in an article by Amin Saikal a few years back. I haven't been able to find it again, and have spent about half an hour of fruitless web searching trying to find it again or the source of the information. But it seems Saddam's allegation were never proven either way, so I guess it's all just a matter of trust. I retract my statement about the theft of oil supplies completely.
Reply #22 Top
I don't think that oil was the main reason for the invasion, but more of a secondary reason. Why else would we be paying Haliburton $4.00 a gallon for kuwaiti gas?

Reply #23 Top
Oil might not have been a main motivation FOR the war, but it certainly was a carrot held in front of the American people to get SUPPORT for the war. Remember them telling us that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for the war? This was a grand idea that a few lone voices at the time said wouldn't work -- and SURPRISE, it isn't working. But let's talk more about it.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: “This is not Afghanistan…When we approach the question of Iraq, we realize here is a country which has a resource. And it’s obvious, it’s oil. And it can bring in and does bring in a certain amount of revenue each year…$10, $15, even $18 billion…this is not a broke country.” [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “Iraq is a very different situation from Afghanistan…Iraq has oil. They have financial resources.” [Source: Fortune Magazine, Fall 2002]

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense…[Reconstruction] funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it. [Source: Senate Appropriations Hearing, 3/27/03]

So we see that even if oil wasn't a prime motivator for war, it was certainly a selling point for the war. The powers that be told us that we wouldn't be out very much money for the war and/or reconstruction because of Iraqi oil revenue. Now we begin to see the problem in trying to prove that this was an "oil war." The politicians are too smart to make anything that simple. They split hairs, and so we have to take those split hairs and try to put them back together.

Does George Bush even know what this war is about? He's given us several different reasons. We were going because there were hidden WMD's. We were going because Sadaam WANTED WMD's. We were going to liberate the Iraqi people. We were going because Iraq violated UN sanctions. We were going because Iraq supported terrorism. Iraq had ties with al-Qaeda. Iraq didn't have confirmed ties with al-Qaeda, but they were just as evil. Iraq was part of an axis of evil. Were any of these outright lies? I can't go with the more extreme liberals and say yes. A statement can be wrong without being a lie. The point here is that nobody should argue one simple reason for the war, because there is no one simple reason. Despite Bush wanting to be seen as the president who sees things in black and white, there is no black and white reason for this war. They're all valid in some ways, they're all wrong in some ways.

I think its pretty silly for the left to boil the cause of war down to oil-piracy. It's equally silly for the right to say that oil played no part in the decision for war. At the very least, I think I've proven that oil was used as a support getting topic in the lead up to war -- which means I'm splitting hairs of my own. This, of course, has backfired, because Iraqi oil infrastructure wasn't in good shape to start with -- and has only grown worse as insurgents attack it. We're shipping more oil into Iraq from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia than Iraq is producing -- which accomplishes in part what Saddam Hussein wanted in the first place -- Saudi and Kuwaiti oil to go to Iraq. Granted, I don't think that was an intended consequence, but it's a bit ironic in any case.


posted in part on The Brouhaha -- Link

Reply #24 Top
>Using the economic crisis that had resulted from an 8 year conflict as an excuse, Saddam accused Kuwait of actually
>stealing oil from the two countries shared oil fields, thus 'preventing Iraq's economic recovery' .

I think the SLANT drilling issues have been raised and proven to be true. Dont forget before the Ottoman Empire was
broken up - Kuwait was a part of Iraq and that view is still held by many in that region.

Finally - no man or nation is an island. Its simply not possible to use oil to that way. The Middle East (for all the
attention it brings) is not the only source of oil. Russia (which is not a member of OPEC) has vast reserves in the
billions - and is a major oil exporter, so are countries in Africa (Nigeria, Guinea), South America (Venezuela, Mexico)
etc.

Besides what makes you think Middle Eastern countries could do anything BUT sell oil. Thats all they produce.

Need I also remind you that the U.S FULLY supported Iraq during its war with Iran - what does that say???

Last on certainly not least - the Iraq and Kuwait issue was not our concern. No one interferred when the U.S
proclaimed Manifest Destiny and took over Texas and California ... And dont raise that moral nonsense issue,
because America has a long history of brutalizing people based solely on the color of their skin...
Reply #25 Top
I have always said that we should buy our oil from Russia, call in our markers with Mexico and South America for oil, and cut OPEC out of the picture.

Ever since Standard Oil went over there in 1936 and taught the arabs how to drill they have been holding the west hostage with oil prices. But then again were stupid enough to drive gas guzzling SUV's when we live in downtown urban areas and have no practical use for them either!

I think the old saying "there's a sucker born every minute" applies here.