We installed a new regime that would be friendly to us and our allied oil interests. You bet.
Bryan-Our Chinese allies?
Yeah, that’s what happens when you lose a war….hello? You don’t get to control spoils or write history. You should pay closer attention to that last part.
Your argument is of the style of a conspiracy theory argument. You simply arrange the facts to fit your theory. Since we don’t control the oil in post-war Iraq therefore we lost the war, regardless of whether the expected goals prior to the war are substantially met. If the U.S. controls the oil, then we won the war for control of oil. If the U.S. doesn’t control the oil, then the U.S. lost the war. Is there any way to falsify the theory?
Oil for food was a corrupt UN program, not a corrupt U.S. program.
Who was the main enforcer of the blockade?
The U.S. We were blockading trade including trade for oil. We were keeping ourselves from trading the oil that we supposedly need to control. Your next move, of course, is to argue that our blockade that kept us from the oil we need and allowed other nations to benefit in turn forced us to go to war (and lose) in a bid to control the oil. Though in the interim the U.S. was getting the lion’s share of the non-corrupt trade in OFF Iraqi oil.
Good grief. Good luck with that handful of straws.
Yeah, that’s always the reply of people who have no response around here..
Yeah, that’s always the reply of a person who replied without thinking to keep reading the reply that follows. Pfeh.
Those were our naval vessels in the Persian gulf and at least half of the aircraft were ours. So we took part in the blockade of food for oil. And you agreed that a blockade was war. Therefore we took part in a war for oil.
No, the trade embargo (not a blockade as such) included oil. So the blockade was to prevent the trade of oil that we need so badly we’ll go to war for it. It was the UN that cut the deal to allow trade in oil, which went to illicitly benefit France, Russia and China—the nations opposed to the invasion. So it was a non-invasion by those nations for oil and illicit cash.
Okay, the UN declared war on Iraq for oil through the OFF program.
The Oil for Food program was a United States idea, that the UN agreed to. The UN usually agrees with just about everything the we want. Except for China and Russia, who usually vote against what our interests are.
1) You need a supporting citation for your claim that OFF was a U.S. idea adopted by the UN.
2) In your view, was the right move to simply ship food at the expense of those trying to limit Iraq’s power to Iraq, where Hussein could sell the food and profit to support his military (similar to the N. Korean pattern of the past few decades)?
President Bush invaded Iraq for separate reasons related to security.
If security means gaining and maintaining secure oil contracts through a new, pliable leader then yes I agree.
If security means keeping the Persian Gulf area and the Iraqi oil fields secure I agree.
It doesn’t mean that in either case. That’s what “separate reasons” means.
Probably not. Just like we probably can’t agree that most of the UN members went along for the ride during the Iraq debacle.
By that I mean the US and it’s allies sometimes use the UN for legitimacy in the eyes of the world.
Doubtless that’s true, and it’s a silly game to play with the Security Council made up of nations with veto power who oppose the U.S. routinely. One wonders why China ever agrees to anything.
Of course I was talking about the invasion of Iraq. What are you talking about here? Are you attempting to change my words around?
*You* are trying to change your words around. You’re trying to use the OFF program, offered by the UN with its ceasefire agreement but not accepted until 1996 as your proof that the U.S. engaged in war tactics for oil. As if that somehow supports your assertion that the 2003 invasion was for the purpose of securing oil access.
Is it that hard for you to argue against my argument?
It’s so hard to argue against your argument that I have to resort to reductio ad absurdum.
Since we started you have tried to convince me that I was arguing about something else.
Okay, so you’re apparently not arguing that the OFF was the war for oil you were talking about. So what do you have left to support your assertion that the invasion directed by Bush was a war for oil? It’s not the way we now control the oil. China does that, so we lost the war, in the view you’ve stated. What evidence have you got?
You keep doing this. It funny.
Right. It’s so funny that I’ll use it to distract from the mountain of evidence you’ll produce in favor of the Bush’s war for oil theory that does not rely on the assertion that the OFF program was a war for oil. Just watch me.
“We invaded Iraq for oil. Elementary. Everyone knows this.”
Yeah, that’s a simplified statement of fact. I have since elucidated further on that statement. But I stand by it.
The funniest part is that you have basically agreed on 75% of it.
Really. Which 75 percent? Be specific.
Right. You were talking about the OFF program the UN started in 1996. That was the “invasion” you referred to.
No, Bryan, just like you said the War never ended from the first Gulf War. The blockade, the inspectors, Oil for Food, the second Invasion..it’s all interconnected.
The Bush Cheney Invasion was just a part of the ongoing saga that started from the first Gulf War. It was always primarily about oil.
Therefore you need no supporting evidence? What’s the upside for the U.S., exactly, of invading Iraq when we’re getting the bulk of the oil distributed through the OFF program? You don’t get interconnectedness only when it’s convenient for you. The Gulf War was about oil security as well as protecting state sovereignty (Kuwait). We didn’t want loose cannon Hussein controlling the bulk of ME oil for reasons already discussed. But obviously oil was a minor concern if we cut off the oil almost completely for five years before allowing Hussein to trade oil for food (the right thing to do, apparently was to support Hussein’s people for him and underwriting his despotic behavior). The guy is perfectly willing to sell us oil if he can have a free hand in building up his military and threatening his neighbors, mind you. Why aren’t we cool with that? It’s really all about oil, isn’t it? And that’s why we also intervened in oil-rich Nigeria around that same time. Oh, wait ...
We don’t know what happened to the WMD, whether destroyed, hidden in Iraq, or shipped off to Syria (or another destination).
But I thought you knew everything…?
If that’s what you think then you don’t respond appropriately. Reductio ad absurdum. Now do your “you didn’t answer the question” dance again.
The question takes it for granted that we know Hussein got rid of the WMD either by destroying them or shipping them away.
But I thought we invaded Iraq because we thought he still had WMDs?
Is it you who knows everything or is it me? Make up your mind.
I love reading your little conjecture bits. So in your theory Saddam was like a High School student who was trying to hide the mail from his parents because he was afraid of a bad report card in the mail? But bragged about to his fellow students because he wanted to appear cool.
I love reading how you interpret news reports and professional analysis as my “little conjecture bits.” Do you have an affirmative argument for your position on the Bush invasion of Iraq that doesn’t rely on claiming OFF was a war for oil?
Save face? You’re joking right?
It’s probably too late.
You do realize that you are in the vast minority here?
Better that than a tiny minority.
I’m not concerned about people who will agree with you despite your failure to produce any plausible affirmative argument. I’m hoping that even people inclined to agree with you can see the lack of any plausible argument on your part.
Is any of this not true? You let me know.
The only thing potentially relevant is your claim that the U.S. came up with OFF. Is it my responsibility to disprove what you say or is it your responsibility to support your own arguments?
What does that even mean?
It’s reductio ad absurdum. Look it up.
Why would I trade my gas for groceries? Nobody is preventing me from buying groceries!
Well, according to the implications of your argument they *should* prevent you from buying groceries if the only thing you can offer of value is the gas in your car. Because it’s immoral. Right?
Bryan-So if the invading countries aren’t getting the oil
The US and her allies are getting oil from Iraq. Probably not at the terms that they had hoped for.
So then we half won the war? Or just 45%? Or what? If the aim was to get oil and we’re getting oil then we won, right? But you said we lost.
What does this mean?
Trade embargo. Remember?
China can outbid us there. As the article from the NYT that you cited stated. That’s certainly a consequence of our bungled adventure there.
No, it’s a result of China willing to engage in high-risk investment since a nationalized oil industry doesn’t answer to shareholders.
So you’re saying the Iraq invasion failed in part because the interim government “crumbled.”
Where did I say that?
“Going back to CC’s question I would have to say that we basically failed. The puppet government that we installed crumbled. And Iraq is now right back where it started.”
Are you trying to demand what I’m saying again?
I’m trying to understand what you’re saying. Unfortunately it doesn’t make much sense no matter how much explaining you attempt. It makes progressively less sense, if anything. You don’t remember saying that we failed in Iraq in answer to CC’s question (“Does that comment imply that you think our invasion of Iraq was a success?”)?
What is it you mean by that, other than the interim government was intentionally dissolved when the Iraqis established their own government just as the U.S. and its allies had planned?
Yes, see right here! You are trying to fabricate things I never said.
No, I’m asking what you mean if the obvious (absurd) meaning isn’t the one you intended. You’ll answer the question?
I said we installed a puppet regime that obviously was going to be friendly to our Allied oil interests. We were not counting on the massive civil war that followed our invasion.
Right, but on the other hand we were planning on a very limited lifespan for the coalition governing authority. The poor condition of Iraq’s oil industry was well known in advance of the war. The degree to which the CGA looked with favor on allied oil interests was effectively irrelevant. To benefit from the situation we’d need favor from the government established by the Iraqis. Again, your argument makes zero sense. The civil war certainly slowed development of Iraq’s oil resources, but it did little to slow the establishment of Iraq’s autonomous government.