Do you believe the U.S. is in Iraq for oil? What evidence do you have?

Question

Many individuals on the far left firmly believe the US has entered Iraq for its oil. There is absolutely no evidence to support the fact that we have "stolen" any oil from the soverign and democratically elected government of Iraq. Please consider that Iraqi oil flowed on the world markets before Operation Iraqi Freedom and therefore, the net oil production would not have been effected by a regime change. I CHALLENGE ALL OF YOU TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CONSPIRACY THEORY!

Answer 1

That is only part of it.



The republicans have been planning to occupy Iraq since Wolfowitz wrote the pre-emptive documentation in 1989 for Cheney's office. Wolfowitz worked in Cheney's office at the time and Cheney was Bush Sr's secretary of Defense.



So my point is that they have been planning this for a long time. I saw an interview once with Bill Clinton where he was saying he really felt that the republicans were 100 fold angered at him winning the oval office. He went on to say that he felt they really believed it was theirs that they had earned it and out of nowhere comes this southern that stole it from them.



He messed up their plan.



I am saying that after Desert Storm, I think they intended to stay in the White House and then get Iraq.



Now back to your question as to why... I have pondered over this repeatedly. The problem is when my fair and just mind tries to comprehend evil and incomprehensible actions. I can't.



Btw, in late 2003, there was an American oil tanker caught in the Mediterranean Sea with a full load of oil sneaking off.

Answer 2

Wow! Countessa pretty much locked it up for best answer.

It might be true that the net production might have been about the same, but the net production available to the US would definitely have been much different.



You see, France and Germany had a deal worked out in contracts for future oil production under the old regime, and they knew the contracts would be null and void when Iraq falls to America. That's why they opposed the war, and that's why we had to go in there and tear forty thousand innocent civilian bodies into what would look like a mountain of burnt decaying flesh if it were all piled up in one place for you to look at. The bloody, mangled arm of a little boy over here, the gooey eyeball of a little girl rolling across the floor over there, some woman's neck blown apart to where you could see the spinal cord sticking out from the vertebrae among shreds of delicate skin. Don't think about it.



It was the only way to void those contracts, so you could say it was justifiable in the end.

Answer 3

Conlyn Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes) says that when all the impossibilities have been eliminated, what remains, however unlikely, MUST be true. I saw a reference above to Greg Palast who at length has answered the question beyond any of our humble attempts here. Also the answer here with that reference appears to be the most comprehensive.

It is possible that the "operation" in the short term was intended to keep oil OFF the market to drive up prices of OTHER oil. If intended, Dumbya succeeded for the first time in his life? Check the pump price and oil company profits? Dumbya is on record (TWICE ) that Saddam had no involvement to "9-11" and at least once that there are no Iraq WMD's, although rhetorically he continues these myths by conflation in audiences of the stupid. The "operation" was first named O.I.L. You can look that up. Does that say anything? Down with Dictator Dumbya!!!

Answer 4

You know Exxon and Shell now manage the fields there, along with Halliburton providing the service in the field. Also it should be noted that prior to the war Iraq was receiving a 25% share on royalties and threatened to raise that to 50 % therefore cutting the retail giants profits on the oil they bought from them, this has been a threat that Chavez has made also, im not sure if he has carried thru with it.typically oil companies want the oil for cheap because they believe that if they drill for it and find it, they should not have to pay the land owners much royalty, making their cut huge and these third world countries are finally demanding a fair share, well that doesn't sit well with the oil boys.

Answer 5

I used to think that but when the gas prices went so high I thought about it and I think it was all about money, somebody figured out that if you cause turmoil in the mid east that it raise the oil prices and hence profits. Bush had a meeting with the big oil company's and set oil policy and I wonder if this was the policy. There must be some reason that Bush was in a rush to war even go so far as to juice the intelligence reports. He just didn't want to go to war for the fun of it. So it must be money.

Answer 6

No. The US is in Iraq because Bush, Cheney and Karl Rove decided even before the 2000 election that being a "war president" was the easiest way to grab more power for the presidency....you get all kinds of leeway to ignore laws, hide money in special appropriations requests, spy on people, imprison people, and etc., all of which Bush has used even to the point of Republicans crying foul.



Cheney was especially interested in war because he knew it would create a "money chute" from government straight into Halliburton.



Nothing to do with oil, really. Certainly nothing to do with "Iraqi Freedom." That's just a bad joke.

Answer 7

By elimination of "other" reasons given by Bush administration for invading Iraq. They seem to me they weren't true.

It wasn't that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction, they weren't threatening America, They were not supporting El Kayda , They had nothing to do with 9/11 attacks, and what else left? What do you think why we invaded Iraq for?

Some people trying to show their patriotism by covering errors made, rather than correcting them.

May be we invade Iraq for " Regime Change", let's not turn that into "Regime EX-change". We must keep our traditional moral standards and our definition of Democracy intact, so American people don't feel like they have been lied to.



Learner

Answer 8

Well, indirectly. The only reason that we are in Iraq is because of the dependency that we have on oil exports from the middle east. Since we are so dependent on this oil, we have made many ill conceived diplomatic decisions because we fear that the absence of this oil will result in the crumbling of the U.S. economy.



If it weren't for the wealth created by the oil exports from Saudi Arabia, Wahabism (sic) might not have been proliferated throughout the Muslim world using the Saudi oil revenues. An Osama Bin Laden might not have been created.



So, yes, oil is at the root of the evil going on in the middle east. And, we are right in the middle of it because of our dependence on oil.



We are seeking to bring democracy to the middle east because we don't want to be dependent on the current despots who rule now.

Answer 9

I think that the war in iraq is not over iol it's because they bombed us. In doing that they ****** up,and in that they should be bombed dack 1,000,000 time more. If that asshole would not have bombed us we would still nogotiate the oil exchange. Now! yes I know that bush is a racist and he is incapable whiping his own ***, but that has nothing to do with goes on in iraq. just because he is the president, that dosen't mean that he is incharge of any thing that involves some type of intelligence. he dosen't even wipe his own ***. that's what we elected for president. Oh yaeh the reason we're taking there oil is because they bombed us so they now use force in everything that we do in iraq

Answer 10

first off the war started in afghanistan then all the focus changed onto Iraq for no true reason. they say to spread democracy but there are coomunistic countries in our own hemipshere that need help. On top of that gas prices have risen because of the war. Doesn't that look similar to what happened in the evil reign of Bush's father. Anyway we don't benefit from the war oil companies do, thus benefiting the Bush family.



There are more reasons but i will not continue for someone who can't solve this simple puzzle, and is completely oblivious to there own standpoint!

Answer 11

No, we did not enter Iraq for the sole purpose of the oil, it was just a fringe benefit after we went in to protect Israeli interests and further the US control of the Mideast. A direct pipeline was built to Israel very soon after the US invasion of Iraq. Fact. Another pipeline was built running through Afghanistan after we invaded. Fact. Want evidence? It is readily available for you to research. Keep an eye on Lebanon, Iran and Syria. Our greed has become similar to that of the Israeli government.

Answer 12

Do you have a better explanation?



Not to mention that Bush and Rumsfled are record saying that the Iraqi invasion and occupation will pay for itself using oil profits. So, if they publicly admitted that oil was a least going to pay for the effort, doesn't it seem like that could have been at least part of the reason?

Answer 13

Dufar.



Why are we letting that **** go on? Do you think it might be different if there was a big pool of oil under that region of Africa?



Oil isn't the only reason for Iraq, but it's a big reason.

Answer 14

Yes Haliburton

Answer 15

of course you actually think that bush wanted to invade iraq because of they suspeted they had weapons of mass destruction. come on the u.s is running out of oil so if they can't make a deal then the y invade and take.

Answer 16

Here we have another person sucked in by the Main Stream Press!

Answer 17

when the looting began in Baghdad after hussein fell, the only building protected by US troops was the oil ministry building.



http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/16/1050172643895.html

Answer 18

NO we "usa" hav plenty of oil comming form many places, if we start suking oil from there it would only make 10% of imported oil if that.

Answer 19

That's just one in a long list of reasons. Some just fixate on that reason only and ignore the rest.

Answer 20

Do you have any proof that the "far left" actually exists or is it just a figment of your imagination?

I CHALLENGE YOU TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THE FAR LEFT IS REAL!

What evidence do you have?

Answer 21

I agree with you. We should look for the truth, not what someone want to you to believe. If Bush did "anything" , let's see the evidence.

Answer 22

No! If we wanted the oil WE WOULD BE TAKING IT BY NOW!

Answer 23

No we have plenty of oil



We are there for REVENGE.



Go big Red Go

Answer 24

I believe it all the way up

Answer 25

Do you? We give below what we should

Answer 26

no, i agree with you

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

Answer 27

Secret U.S. Plans For Iraq's Oil

by Greg Palast



The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.

Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protestors claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered.



In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists."



"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.



Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.



An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant Falah Aljibury says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat.



Mr. Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration.



Secret sell-off plan



The industry-favored plan was pushed aside by yet another secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan, crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas.



The sell-off was given the green light in a secret meeting in London headed by Ahmed Chalabi shortly after the US entered Baghdad, according to Robert Ebel. Mr. Ebel, a former Energy and CIA oil analyst, now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, flew to the London meeting, he told Newsnight, at the request of the State Department.



Mr Aljibury, once Ronald Reagan's "back-channel" to Saddam, claims that plans to sell off Iraq's oil, pushed by the US-installed Governing Council in 2003, helped instigate the insurgency and attacks on US and British occupying forces.



"Insurgents used this, saying, 'Look, you're losing your country, your losing your resources to a bunch of wealthy billionaires who want to take you over and make your life miserable," said Mr Aljibury from his home near San Francisco.



"We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, built on the premise that privatization is coming."



Privatization blocked by industry



Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme.



Mr Carroll told us he made it clear to Paul Bremer, the US occupation chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that: "There was to be no privatization of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved."



The chosen successor to Mr Carroll, a Conoco Oil executive, ordered up a new plan for a state oil company preferred by the industry.



Ari Cohen, of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation, told Newsnight that an opportunity had been missed to privatize Iraq's oil fields. He advocated the plan as a means to help the US defeat Opec, and said America should have gone ahead with what he called a "no-brainer" decision.



Mr Carroll hit back, telling Newsnight, "I would agree with that statement. To privatize would be a no-brainer. It would only be thought about by someone with no brain."



New plans, obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act, called for creation of a state-owned oil company favored by the US oil industry. It was completed in January 2004, Harper's discovered, under the guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas. Former US Secretary of State Baker is now an attorney. His law firm, Baker Botts, is representing ExxonMobil and the Saudi Arabian government.



View segments of Iraq oil plans at: www.GregPalast.com/opeconthemarch.html



Questioned by Newsnight, Ms Jaffe said the oil industry prefers state control of Iraq's oil over a sell-off because it fears a repeat of Russia's energy privatization. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, US oil companies were barred from bidding for the reserves.



Jaffe said "There is no question that an American oil company ... would not be enthusiastic about a plan that would privatize all the assets with Iraq companies and they (US companies) might be left out of the transaction."



In addition, Ms. Jaffe says US oil companies are not warm to any plan that would undermine Opec, "They [oil companies] have to worry about the price of oil."



"I'm not sure that if I'm the chair of an American company, and you put me on a lie detector test, I would say high oil prices are bad for me or my company."



The former Shell oil boss agrees. In Houston, he told Newsnight, "Many neo-conservatives are people who have certain ideological beliefs about markets, about democracy, about this that and the other. International oil companies without exception are very pragmatic commercial organizations. They don't have a theology."



Greg Palast's film - the result of a joint investigation by BBC Newsnight and Harper's Magazine - will broadcast on Thursday, 17 March, 2005. You can watch the program online - available Thursday, March 17 after 7pm EST for 24hrs - from the Newsnight website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm. You can also read the story in greater detail in the latest issue of Harper's magazine - now available at your local newsstand.

Answer 28

HALIBURTON

Answer 29

iunno ..