Why are we in Iraq? (Taliban, soldiers, environmentalists, how much)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One theory has even suggested that it wasn't about bringing cheap oil as much as it was about keeping oil prices inflated for obvious reasons.
Quote:
If you don't mind please tell me what the obvious reasons could be for keeping oil prices inflated. I don't think I have heard that theory. Interesting.
In control? Or do you mean somewhat in control?
I will have to dig for the piece but I will do my best to recite from memory.
The theory stated was that the destabilization of Iraq was to keep oil prices inflated because it is believe that the United States was in a safe enough economic position to weather the fallout whereas nations such as India and China in particular, would suffer economically greater than us. It was seen as a means to slow the skyrocketing economies of these nations as well as being in control of a strategic region of the globe, thus denying it and its resources from others. The added benefit was those record profits seen by the EXXON and other oil industry giants as well as those companies such as Brown and Root, Haliburnton, etc... that would benefit from rebuilding efforts.
If my memory serves me it was a rather lengthy piece and portions of it seemed rather hoakie but others were more plausible. One of those, take it with a grain of salt bits.
The number of people we've killed in the Middle East>9/11
Our troops have been meddling in the Middle East for years. How long do you think it would've been before there was resentment? It's not because we're "rich and free".
Anyway, to answer the question, it's for oil, but they won't say that if they really want to go to war. They'll make up whatever they can to make Americans think it will benefit us in some way.
And no, it is NOT our oil. It is not on our land and we have no rights to it. Don't blame the people in the Middle East. After all, we're the ones that try to use resources you can't get locally. It's the cost of being dependent when it comes to fuel/energy.
*sigh* let me re-phrase....I said we tried to diplomatically trade /import oil with Iraq/other mid-East countries for a long time. When they began putting more limitations on it and taxing the hell out of us, they began to squeeze, and kept squeezing. At the same time, we started to see other things happening in their country that piqued our interest; such as Saddam's quest for WMD's, not to mention his bloodthirsty treatment of people in his own country. Should we have brushed that off and meekly said, "well, it's his oil after all---we'll pay whatever he wants and not say boo while he tries to conquer the rest of the Middle East and build nuclear power"???
You are exactly right. The people against this war are the same ones whining about fuel prices. If we let one country or dictator take control of the middle east one country at a time, they will hold the world hostage. The US is not the only concern here either, but the global economy as a whole. China and India get most of their oil from this region, whereas we only get a percentage.
If that's what it takes to preserve our country. However, I think it has less to do with driving cars than driving the war machine when the day comes for the real battles.
Exactly. And it's not just about driving our SUV's either...it's about fueling our homes, industry, etc. Which part of that reality do some here simply not grasp??
I saw a great special on NG the other night; it seems that some in the Middle East have found a WONDERFUL use for their oil money; creating man-made islands in Dubai that cost TRILLIONS of dollars to build, and charging the world's traveling elite millions of dollars per visit.
AWESOME!! You wanna be there with your hand out, saying "Please sir, can I have some more?" while the sheikhs play in the ocean? OOPS--now I sound like a big mean imperialist again....my humble apologies.
You are exactly right. The people against this war are the same ones whining about fuel prices. If we let one country or dictator take control of the middle east one country at a time, they will hold the world hostage. The US is not the only concern here either, but the global economy as a whole. China and India get most of their oil from this region, whereas we only get a percentage.
Whose fault is it for relying on an energy resource that can't be produced locally?
And no Middle Eastern dictator could hold the world hostage. We are far more advanced than most of those nations. Don't even get me started on WOMD...We're the ones who have them.
Exactly. And it's not just about driving our SUV's either...it's about fueling our homes, industry, etc. Which part of that reality do some here simply not grasp??
I saw a great special on NG the other night; it seems that some in the Middle East have found a WONDERFUL use for their oil money; creating man-made islands in Dubai that cost TRILLIONS of dollars to build, and charging the world's traveling elite millions of dollars per visit.
AWESOME!! You wanna be there with your hand out, saying "Please sir, can I have some more?" while the sheikhs play in the ocean? OOPS--now I sound like a big mean imperialist again....my humble apologies.
Once again, we are not entitled to something that is not on our soil.
It is not the Middle East's fault that we rely on a resource that can't be produced locally for fuel.
No, it is our fault for being stupid and just taking what they have told us at face value. They won't tell us it's just for oil because, if they do, people will freak out and demand an end to the war. Who wants to think their loved one died for a bucket of oil? Hence, the ruse, Hence, the continuing lies.
Of course no one wants their loved ones to die for a bucket of oil. Does anyone want their loved ones to die for "protecting American interests"? Probably not, but it's slightly grayer in that case. How about for "American security"? It sounds less bad then, as in serving your country.
I agree - we are letting the lies continue, and I don't see it ending.
Second--please answer my question; why is it wrong for a country to want to establish fair trade/export measures around the single most valuable energy resource?
Why is it wrong? Beyond the reasons of soverignty of nations and us not owning their resources, one word blowback. Get comfortable with terrorism because we haven't seen anything yet... we're breeding an environment for Imams to preach hatred for Americans to children who have lost family members due to our occupation, there will be no problem recruiting young men and women to become suicide bombers used here and abroad against those involved in the invasion.
Congress isn't a monolith. It's made up of individuals. You probably have three that directly represent you there. If you didn't approve of the war, then you elected the wrong three people when it mattered-- before trouble developed.
But you don't know how someone is going to vote on a decision to go to war.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can guess
