3 of 10
3
Why we invaded Iraq
Posted: 05 July 2013 01:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Rocinante - 01 July 2013 06:06 PM

Insisting that a nation-state with defined borders on a map is a prerequisite before it can be properly defined as a war is refusing to accept the changing realities of the 21st Century. 

Exactly.  War is historically a violent tool in the political toolbox.  Sometimes nations are the ones playing politics.  Other times it’s churches or ethnic groups.  War is available to any political group as a means of accomplishing its aims.  And the ways of war are as infinite as the imagination.  The West tried to codify the rules of war.  That’s what the Geneva conventions were all about.  The asymmetrical mode of war preferred by terrorists rejects the Geneva conventions, largely because the small and radical sects judge that they have no chance of success by that set of rules.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 02:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
Bryan - 05 July 2013 01:48 AM

Oil’s a global market.  If Hussein sold it to China Iraqi production still brings the price of oil down internationally.  It doesn’t really matter who gets it except under conditional like an embargo.  We’re about to let Canada sell the oild from its oil sands to China instead of shipping it to U.S. refineries.  Or do you predict we’ll attack Canada to prevent that from happening?

Thanks for letting us Canadians sell this oil, but I guess you aren’t apparently aware that most of the oil here is shipped through pipelines that go directly to the States. In fact, the pipelines dip South into the States before they are allowed to go back North into Ontario. (That is, America is given precedence over our own country’s concerns for the oil.)

Bryan - 05 July 2013 01:48 AM

...  Terrorism offers poor nations a tactical advantage against advanced nations, so that’s why they use it. 

Yeah, like the technologically advanced capabilities of the box cutter!!? ...and the super-intelligent brains it must take to recognize that pilots don’t lock their doors? These must have taken years and years and millions of dollars to pull this one off!

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 04:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
VYAZMA - 02 July 2013 12:48 AM

Rocinante, I didn’t want to move this to a discussion about the definition of war or nations.

That’s fine, and I understand.  And thanks for answering my side questions.  But I don’t know what else to discuss regarding your original claim about the Iraq war being about oil.  It is a conspiracy theory plain and simple.  It is not grounded in facts.  Just saying, “Everyone knows this” doesn’t make it so. 

You have every right to your opinion that the war was wrong or a mistake.  But your original “elementary” claim of, “We invaded Iraq for oil” in your first post of this thread is a conspiracy theory that any skeptic should reject after careful evaluation.  But you apparently haven’t rejected it.  So all I can do is point out the flaws in your conspiracy theory (see Brian Dunning’s Skeptoid article I posted) and hope you honestly reevaluate your position.  But I’ve learned the hard way from attempting to have prolonged, logical and rational discussions with Troofers and other conspiracy theorists not to get into a long discussions with them about their favorite CT.  They rarely seem to abandon their conspiracy theory.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 08:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Scott Mayers - 05 July 2013 02:30 AM

Thanks for letting us Canadians sell this oil ...

Don’t let your facetiousness shield you from the point that Canada wants to send the oil to the U.S. via the Keystone Pipeline but will find another buyer if the U.S. turns its nose up at the opportunity to buy it (thus controlling its destination by that simple action).

, but I guess you aren’t apparently aware that most of the oil here is shipped through pipelines that go directly to the States.

Are you serious?  What would that have to do with my point, where I specifically mentioned the oil from tar sands (slated to move through the proposed Keystone pipeline)?

Bryan - 05 July 2013 01:48 AM

...  Terrorism offers poor nations a tactical advantage against advanced nations, so that’s why they use it. 

Yeah, like the technologically advanced capabilities of the box cutter!!? ...and the super-intelligent brains it must take to recognize that pilots don’t lock their doors? These must have taken years and years and millions of dollars to pull this one off!

Did you read what I wrote?

Terrorism offers an advantage to those who can’t afford to spend much on war.  Box cutters are cheap.  And they worked.

How can you fail to see the point?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 09:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

error-duplicate

[ Edited: 05 July 2013 11:12 AM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 09:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Bryan - 05 July 2013 01:37 AM

Doesn’t everyone know by now that the oil economy is an international market?

It doesn’t matter who controls the oil (not much, anyway) in terms of the oil coming to market.  But it does matter what the nations who profit do with the money.

What do you mean not much anyway?

We’re not controlling the oil in Iraq.  China’s positioning to do that.

Yeah, that’s exactly what I said.

An Iraq friendly to the West can control its own oil.  We’d be fine with that.

Right, very good. Very good.  So it does matter who controls the oil.  And oil isn’t simply an international commodity. 
Large nations have strategic long term interests in who controls the oil, or the countries with the oil more specifically.

At present our main problem with Iraq is the resurgence of radical Sunni (al Qaeda) sects.  China controlling the oil’s not that huge a problem.  It helps improve the market for selling Jeeps made in China, for example.  The biggest problem in Iraq is the security problem, just as it was before the war.

Wow what a cool fun fact!

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 09:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Rocinante - 05 July 2013 04:38 AM
VYAZMA - 02 July 2013 12:48 AM

Rocinante, I didn’t want to move this to a discussion about the definition of war or nations.

That’s fine, and I understand.  And thanks for answering my side questions.  But I don’t know what else to discuss regarding your original claim about the Iraq war being about oil.  It is a conspiracy theory plain and simple.  It is not grounded in facts.  Just saying, “Everyone knows this” doesn’t make it so. 

 

Yeah, that’s ok if you don’t know what else to discuss.
I have an idea for you…why don’t you briefly discuss the reasons we invaded Iraq.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 10:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

Bryan-Don’t let your facetiousness shield you from the point that Canada wants to send the oil to the U.S. via the Keystone Pipeline but will find another buyer if the U.S. turns its nose up at the opportunity to buy it (thus controlling its destination by that simple action).

Well Bryan that shouldn’t matter right?  If it’s an international market like you said….we can just buy it from who ever it is piped to. Yeah just buy it at the price quoted on the Ticker down at Wall St.
So what does the pipeline matter?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 10:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 05 July 2013 09:48 AM
Bryan - 05 July 2013 01:37 AM

Doesn’t everyone know by now that the oil economy is an international market?

What do you mean not much anyway?

Sometimes one country will embargo another.  Under normal conditions it doesn’t matter.  Come time of war it can matter a bunch (one of the reasons we ended up in conflict with Japan.  Japan expanded in the Eastern rim largely to secure access to oil resources).

We’re not controlling the oil in Iraq.  China’s positioning to do that.

Yeah, that’s exactly what I said.

Right, so if we attack nations in order to control oil then we should attack Canada.  No?

An Iraq friendly to the West can control its own oil.  We’d be fine with that.

Right, very good. Very good.  So it does matter who controls the oil.  And oil isn’t simply an international commodity. 
Large nations have strategic long term interests in who controls the oil, or the countries with the oil more specifically.

Sure it matters who controls the oil.  But hadn’t you asserted that we attacked Iraq so that the U.S. could control the oil?

Wow what a cool fun fact!

It’s a cool fun fact that undercuts your argument about Iraq.  We’re not controlling Iraq’s oil.  We get less of it now than we did before the war.  And that’s fine, because the reason for the war was security, not that we wanted to control Iraq’s oil.  Our current primary interest in Iraq is not what it does with its oil but what it does about the terrorists that live within its borders.  Security was always the primary concern, and oil access was a lesser concern in the realm of security.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 10:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 05 July 2013 10:26 AM

Bryan-Don’t let your facetiousness shield you from the point that Canada wants to send the oil to the U.S. via the Keystone Pipeline but will find another buyer if the U.S. turns its nose up at the opportunity to buy it (thus controlling its destination by that simple action).

Well Bryan that shouldn’t matter right?  If it’s an international market like you said….we can just buy it from who ever it is piped to. Yeah just buy it at the price quoted on the Ticker down at Wall St.
So what does the pipeline matter?

Just look at you avoid the issue of whether we should attack Canada to control its oil.

The importance of the pipeline is not to lower the market price of oil.  That’ll happen even if Canada sends it to China.  The pipeline is important to help maintain Canada as a strong trade partner (trade partners like partners they can count on), and to help produce U.S. jobs as refineries expand to process the oil coming from Canada.

I suppose we can’t risk the carbon impact of allowing the pipeline.  So we’ll let China release the carbon into the atmosphere instead.  Or maybe we’ll attack China to protect our shores from rising waters.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 10:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

Bryan-Just look at you avoid the issue of whether we should attack Canada to control its oil.

The importance of the pipeline is not to lower the market price of oil.  That’ll happen even if Canada sends it to China. 

Obviously we aren’t going to invade Canada.  The pipeline will be built.  For all the reasons we are discussing here.
The market price will not fall if it went to China.  China’s oil concern is State run. It isn’t exactly connected to the World Market like Exxon, BP, or Shell.
They can afford to buy oil at higher prices because they have no profit worries. And that is exactly what they have been doing. They are now the worlds largest oil
consumer and have been contracting with every oil producing nation on the planet almost, under a system they call tolerance.
Basically they pay top dollar!  Because their main concern above all else is feeding their growing economy and infrastructure.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 11:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
VYAZMA - 05 July 2013 09:52 AM

I have an idea for you…why don’t you briefly discuss the reasons we invaded Iraq.

*  Enforce UN Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687.

*  Oust Saddam Hussein and his regime.

*  Eliminate any WMDs Hussein may have had. 

*  Help create a free Iraq so not only can its people have a chance at better lives, but to lessen the possibility of Islamic terrorists from Middle-Eastern nations setting up shop there.


You may not like those reasons.  You may say none of them were worth going to war for.  You may even say none of them worked.  Fine.  You can discuss those all you want and your opinions would be viable and worthy of debate.  But at least they were the real reasons and not a whacky conspiracy theory like the “War for Oil” conspiracy theory you have floated.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 11:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2013-06-01

IMO, resources from different locations are not equivalent.  What is the time and expense of shipping the resource, and who can threaten the shipping routes?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 12:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
Bryan - 05 July 2013 01:48 AM

Terrorism is the new way of war.  At least until somebody figures out something better (using the term advisedly).  The key to successful war is always technological and tactical advantage.  Terrorism offers poor nations a tactical advantage against advanced nations, so that’s why they use it. But electromagnetic pulse weapons or cybersabotage may eventually serve as the tactical advantage that renders nuclear deterrence obsolete and returns us to the era of catastrophic world war.

Did you read what I wrote?
Terrorism offers an advantage to those who can’t afford to spend much on war.  Box cutters are cheap.  And they worked.
How can you fail to see the point?

You clearly placed the statement with reference to the terrorism’s tactical advantage within the context that suggests that they use a technology and tactical advantage. If you didn’t mean this, the sentence is inappropriately placed.

Bryan - 05 July 2013 01:48 AM
Scott Mayers - 05 July 2013 02:30 AM

Thanks for letting us Canadians sell this oil, but I guess you aren’t apparently aware that most of the oil here is shipped through pipelines that go directly to the States.

Are you serious?  What would that have to do with my point, where I specifically mentioned the oil from tar sands (slated to move through the proposed Keystone pipeline)?

I was referencing how you worded yourself. First, you gave the impression that America has some innate right over Canada’s concerns: “...We’re about to let Canada…” implies that you are our authority. I’m guessing you didn’t mean this and that your choice of , “let”, was not meant to convey this. 

Iraq was about a combination of things. (1) War itself is a business and the government wanted to (2) test their new technologies in action. (3) Oil is a concern. It was why Saddam lit his supply lines to their own detriment in the first Gulf War and why the States was so highly involved in extinguishing them: to save the oil! (4) Taking Iraq was also meant to create a more U.S. friendly and manipulable country for Israeli support.

Rocinante - 05 July 2013 04:38 AM
VYAZMA - 02 July 2013 12:48 AM

Rocinante, I didn’t want to move this to a discussion about the definition of war or nations.

That’s fine, and I understand.  And thanks for answering my side questions.  But I don’t know what else to discuss regarding your original claim about the Iraq war being about oil.  It is a conspiracy theory plain and simple.  It is not grounded in facts.  Just saying, “Everyone knows this” doesn’t make it so. 

You have every right to your opinion that the war was wrong or a mistake.  But your original “elementary” claim of, “We invaded Iraq for oil” in your first post of this thread is a conspiracy theory that any skeptic should reject after careful evaluation.  But you apparently haven’t rejected it.  So all I can do is point out the flaws in your conspiracy theory (see Brian Dunning’s Skeptoid article I posted) and hope you honestly reevaluate your position.  But I’ve learned the hard way from attempting to have prolonged, logical and rational discussions with Troofers and other conspiracy theorists not to get into a long discussions with them about their favorite CT.  They rarely seem to abandon their conspiracy theory.

This is ad hominem abuse meant to poison the well of anyone taking challenge to the subject. I wish you and others would stop accusing one another of being conspiracy theorists as the term, conspiracy, can describe logically any two or more people decided to act in some way together that opposes any other outsider group. I urge those who choose this to attempt to prove that no conspiracy theory is even possible before they assume that someone else is being irrational. The term is a relative term. In contexts to skepticism, we usually apply “conspiracy theorists” to refer to people who claim conspiracies with dubious possible claims, not real ones. If you believe a false claim of conspiracy has been made, you must show why merely labeling it with the associative conspiracy [dubious] theories should be made.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 12:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

Bryan,
Controlling the economic factors of oil does not mean that you must directly observe a gain from it. The function of controlling it can be as simply being able to prevent some supply being used so that some other one can. Such actions can empower how pricing on it will be. There are infinite possible ways to do this and thus more ways to be done indirectly.

I’m not sure what you assume is the functioning reasons to go to war with Iraq is, but if it wasn’t about oil inclusively with the other factors, than you have to explain why Iraq was uniquely chosen over other countries with worse social conditions.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 10
3