[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by cloclo93)
Can somebody please explain to me what people specifically mean when they say that the reason why Iraq was invaded in 2003 was oil? Did removing Saddam Hussein from power help the US/UK get more oil or something?

This good post by Cyanohydrin that explains the situation. I doubt it was solely based on oil but when a countries economy is pretty much made out of oil, it's a little unrealistic to suggest that oil wasn't a factor.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by Banishingboredom)
The Iraq war cost 3 trillion so even if they'd acquired all the Iraqi oil (which they didn't) they'd still be in the red. Stupid argument.

If you read this you'd see there are many long-term benefits as well which you haven't calculated.

But, even if we assume you're right, this doesn't disprove anything. You seem to not realize the difference between intention and outcome. At the beginning of the war, it was thought to be a two year involvement. The UK donated foreign aid to India to win over jets or some**** yet didn't win it. Does that disprove the UK's intention? No. The US isn't omnipotent, it can't guarantee a successful outcome and it isn't omniscient, it can't foresee failure.

[Jono404]

I've never got it either, the vast majority of US oil comes from Canada and Mexico, and they still have a fair amount produced domestically.

[Rhadamanthus]

Why wouldn't oil be a factor? Effective interventions are possible when there is a crossover between humanitarian and strategic objectives. It would be a disaster for many countries, including countries like Japan, for Saddam to control one of the world's largest proven oil reserves. During the Congo crisis only something like 700 lightly-armed peace-keepers were sent to safeguard civilian life. Why were the world's powers so unwilling to send soldiers to prevent the catastrophe? Because states are unlikely to act on humanitarian objectives unless there are strategic ones too.

[cl_steele]

(Original post by cloclo93)
Can somebody please explain to me what people specifically mean when they say that the reason why Iraq was invaded in 2003 was oil? Did removing Saddam Hussein from power help the US/UK get more oil or something?

It gave the USA and inparticular Haliburton control over very lucrative oil contracts in the country allowing a supply of cheap oil out of the country, this was in return for the 'Iraqi peoples' gratitude for being liberated. I havent heard anything about the UK getting any such contracts but i guess we have the knock on affect ... at least thats how i heard it anyway.

[cl_steele]

(Original post by Jono404)
I've never got it either, the vast majority of US oil comes from Canada and Mexico, and they still have a fair amount produced domestically.

dont forget Saudi and the other various Middle eastern nations

[GibsonTM]

We've also got a US economist who was chairman of the Federal Reserve of the United States stating that oil was one of the main motives (or incentives...) for the invasion of Iraq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/17/iraq.oil

[No Man]

If it was all about oil, they would have invaded Angola instead.

I think it had more to do with the urge to be the world's police.

[Patriot Rich]

If we wanted oil we could have happily kept propping up Saddam's regime, ensuring a stable and consistent supply of oil for the future.
The war set back Iraqi Oil production significantly and we left before there was any serious amount pumped anyway.

[silent ninja]

Because all the contracts went to wealthy western countries at generous rates? Once the oil was secured they talked about handing Iraq back, but those contracts, along with the billions upon billions in re-construction debt at ridiculous rates, means Iraq will forever be in chains and indebted to Western countries. It's what happens in Africa and it continues to happen around the world. It's colonialism of a different kind. You bundle countries with debt and control them that way.

[Stalin]

(Original post by patrickinator)
it was about regime change. Remember that at the time public opinion was for the iraq war, although we were fooled into thinking that they had WMD.

however there is no doubt that the world is a safer place without saddam hussein!

That depends on whether or not you view the threat of Islamic terrorism to be a lesser evil than Saddam.

[pr0view]

(Original post by cloclo93)
Can somebody please explain to me what people specifically mean when they say that the reason why Iraq was invaded in 2003 was oil? Did removing Saddam Hussein from power help the US/UK get more oil or something?

It was Saudis who wanted to access Iraq's oil reserves, they invested around 1.4 billion into George Bush's businesses and those of his family and friends. In return we can only assume they wanted a US led invasion.

[bkeevin]

(Original post by Banishingboredom)
The Iraq war cost 3 trillion so even if they'd acquired all the Iraqi oil (which they didn't) they'd still be in the red. Stupid argument.

Your argument is also a strange one. Did the Americans know that that war would cost them 3trillion? Remember most of that federal money went into private companies and the military industrial complex anyway not to the Iraqis. Just like we did not know we would still be in Afghanistan after 10years and hundreds of billions in the red when we took that decision in 2001. It is a valid but unprovable argument like many others.

[Bulbasaur]

Obviously it was at least partially about oil. I used to deny this but frankly when you look at the world for what it is - it's plainly obvious that world leaders didn't look at Iraq and think "Ooh, let's make the world a better place and remove this guy".

As nations we are all self interested. Why did NATO interfere in Libya and not Syria? (I do realise there are other parts to this debate but this obviously forms some part of it)

[Banishingboredom]

(Original post by bkeevin)
Your argument is also a strange one. Did the Americans know that that war would cost them 3trillion? Remember most of that federal money went into private companies and the military industrial complex anyway not to the Iraqis. Just like we did not know we would still be in Afghanistan after 10years and hundreds of billions in the red when we took that decision in 2001. It is a valid but unprovable argument like many others.

I get what you're saying, but based on past experiences in Iraq and even going back to Vietnam they would have known it was not going to be cheap. My argument was essentially that the war not a realpolitik resource gaining exercise because if it was the US would have acted in a much more efficient and cost effective manner and sought more gains from it.

[Bulbasaur]

(Original post by Banishingboredom)
I get what you're saying, but based on past experiences in Iraq and even going back to Vietnam they would have known it was not going to be cheap. My argument was essentially that the war not a realpolitik resource gaining exercise because if it was the US would have acted in a much more efficient and cost effective manner and sought more gains from it.

You have to remember though. This was the Bush administration.

[sclez1]

Yeah I don't get this either. Sorry I couldn't scroll through all the replies. Was it reasonable to expect the war to increase our supplies of oil? If so, how, and has it happened?

[Stalin]

(Original post by Bulbasaur)
Obviously it was at least partially about oil. I used to deny this but frankly when you look at the world for what it is - it's plainly obvious that world leaders didn't look at Iraq and think "Ooh, let's make the world a better place and remove this guy".

As nations we are all self interested. Why did NATO interfere in Libya and not Syria? (I do realise there are other parts to this debate but this obviously forms some part of it)

Libya was always going to be a relatively easy mission; Syria's a completely different kettle of fish.

For starters, Gaddafi had no biological or chemical weapons in 2011; Assad has entire stockpiles. Libya has a population of 6.4 million; Syria has a population of 20 million. Libya is relatively sectarian-free; Syria makes the Troubles in Northern Ireland look like children's laughter and rainbows. Libya's air defence systems were outdated; Syria has the S-300.

What is most startling, however, is Syria's ability to ignite the entire region if Assad is ever cornered. You could rest assured that his weapons of mass destruction would hit Tel Aviv, Riyadh, et cetera, causing a far greater problem. And even if Assad is removed from power, who will replace him? I don't think anyone with half a brain seriously expects a flourishing democracy to emerge. If you need a reminder: look at Iraq.

[Lord Hysteria]

(Original post by Bulbasaur)
Obviously it was at least partially about oil. I used to deny this but frankly when you look at the world for what it is - it's plainly obvious that world leaders didn't look at Iraq and think "Ooh, let's make the world a better place and remove this guy".

As nations we are all self interested. Why did NATO interfere in Libya and not Syria? (I do realise there are other parts to this debate but this obviously forms some part of it)

One has a UNSC resolution mandating the use of force, and the other doesn't ...

Libya and Syria, I think, represents a deep battle on the ideas of the fundamental sovereignty of a nation ...

[bkeevin]

(Original post by Banishingboredom)
I get what you're saying, but based on past experiences in Iraq and even going back to Vietnam they would have known it was not going to be cheap. My argument was essentially that the war not a realpolitik resource gaining exercise because if it was the US would have acted in a much more efficient and cost effective manner and sought more gains from it.

Well you forget that people and particularly a country with changing administrations hardly ever learn anything from history especially from a war that ended over 40 year before like Vietnam.

You need to remember that 9/11 traumatised the Americans so much the neocons became so gung ho about taking out Sadam and probably take the opportunity to exploit what was the second largest oil reserves in the world. It was estimated that Americans wouldn't spend a dime like during the first gulf war and Iraq would treble their oil production to even rival the Saudis within a few years. They never looked at the potential cost only the benefits were amplified.