Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil Companies

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for megaspiderweb09
megaspiderweb09

3686

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#1 megaspiderweb09
Member since 2009 • 3686 Posts

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/index.html?sr=fbmain

This is an interesting topic for me personally because recently i have been investigating the origin and idea behind War itself. There is a long standing debate of War as a construct for Freedom vs War as a construct for Profit.

While it is undeniable the impact of Energy struggle (mostly Oil) in the world has a been thing that has brough pain, suffering, expliotation, civil unrest and conflict to regions who happen to have these abundant energy (Iraq, Libya, Nigeria etc).

The invent and conspiracy sorounding the death of the EV1 purely electric car and why the Big Oil companies found electric vehicles as a threat to their multi-billion dollar industry

Car

However what they failed to do was keep alot of the patent, however possible out. Well now the electric cars and start up firms like Tesla are fighting hard to get rid of this filthy Oil towers of babylon.

But not to stray to away from the original topic, how do you feel about War in itself after reading the CNN article?

Avatar image for DoomZaW
DoomZaW

6475

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#2 DoomZaW
Member since 2007 • 6475 Posts

You only need to look at how much U.S.A and NATO has spent in dollars in Iraq to realize that the whole "War for oil" thing is complete bullsh*t that some paranoid leftwinged nutcase invented.

Avatar image for megaspiderweb09
megaspiderweb09

3686

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#3 megaspiderweb09
Member since 2009 • 3686 Posts

You only need to look at how much U.S.A and NATO has spent in dollars in Iraq to realize that the whole "War for oil" thing is complete bullsh*t that some paranoid leftwinged nutcase invented.

DoomZaW

Here is the thing about that statement too, who is profiting from the sale of weapons?, Re-construction of destroyed locations? etc. While it may sound like im trying to initiate a bias, it is important to look at both sides of the coin and also i agree with your sentiment too cause i think the left wing ran with that propaganda 

Avatar image for Riverwolf007
Riverwolf007

26023

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 Riverwolf007
Member since 2005 • 26023 Posts

lol, opinion piece made by a dude that does not know that china and france got almost all the oilfields in iraq.

from the guys owns source.

"MONTREAL - The distinguishing feature of Iraq's auction of oil rights this weekend is the relative absence of American companies, in contrast to five weeks ago, when US firm ExxonMobil and Anglo-Dutch Shell signed an agreement to develop the West Qurna Phase 1 field."

cnn opinion guy needs to learn to read.

Avatar image for allicrombie
Allicrombie

26223

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 43

User Lists: 0

#5 Allicrombie
Member since 2005 • 26223 Posts
silly me, was expecting spam.
Avatar image for megaspiderweb09
megaspiderweb09

3686

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#6 megaspiderweb09
Member since 2009 • 3686 Posts

lol, opinion piece made by a dude that does not know that china and france got almost all the oilfields in iraq.

Riverwolf007

Are you refering to me or the CNN journalist?

Avatar image for Riverwolf007
Riverwolf007

26023

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 Riverwolf007
Member since 2005 • 26023 Posts

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

lol, opinion piece made by a dude that does not know that china and france got almost all the oilfields in iraq.

megaspiderweb09

Are you refering to me or the CNN journalist?

the cnn opinion guy.

Avatar image for Franklinstein
Franklinstein

7017

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#8 Franklinstein
Member since 2004 • 7017 Posts
Iraq was a bad idea? I thought saying that made you a terrorist?
Avatar image for Riverwolf007
Riverwolf007

26023

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 Riverwolf007
Member since 2005 • 26023 Posts

you know  what would be more accurate?

to say it was a war fought for fast food  since more money was made selling taco bell, kfc and macdonalds than was made by u.s. oil interests.

really once you start to look at the $$$ totals in construction, fast food, infrastructure building, water rights and the like oil is pretty much peanuts in comparason.

i mean sure the whole thing was a farce and immoral and all that but can we please just be accurate about the details?

the whole, "mer! blood for oil!" thing is such a simplistic angle.

Avatar image for megaspiderweb09
megaspiderweb09

3686

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#10 megaspiderweb09
Member since 2009 • 3686 Posts

you in what would be more accurate?

to say it was a war fought for fast food  since more money was made selling taco bell, kfc and macdonalds than was made by u.s. oil interests.

Riverwolf007

Perhaps there is truth in that, however i dont think the Food industry has the type of Cartel monopoly Oil Industry has so....

Avatar image for Riverwolf007
Riverwolf007

26023

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 Riverwolf007
Member since 2005 • 26023 Posts

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

you in what would be more accurate?

to say it was a war fought for fast food  since more money was made selling taco bell, kfc and macdonalds than was made by u.s. oil interests.

megaspiderweb09

Perhaps there is truth in that, however i dont think the Food industry has the type of Cartel monopoly Oil Industry has so....

i just think there needs to be more accuracy in where all the corruption lies.

simplfying it down to "blood for oil!" lets way too many people off the hook.

Avatar image for TheHighWind
TheHighWind

5724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 TheHighWind
Member since 2003 • 5724 Posts

In the 1980's a man made a carborator that got 300 miles to the gallon.

 

Guess what happened to that?

 

Oil companies bought it, hit it with a sledge hammer, and buried it in the desert.

Avatar image for megaspiderweb09
megaspiderweb09

3686

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#13 megaspiderweb09
Member since 2009 • 3686 Posts

[QUOTE="megaspiderweb09"]

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

you in what would be more accurate?

to say it was a war fought for fast food  since more money was made selling taco bell, kfc and macdonalds than was made by u.s. oil interests.

Riverwolf007

Perhaps there is truth in that, however i dont think the Food industry has the type of Cartel monopoly Oil Industry has so....

i just think there needs to be more accuracy in where all the corruption lies.

simplfying it down to "blood for oil!" lets way too many people off the hook.

I dont think its the Oil itself, its the Industry itself thats the issue. While it may not be very evident, the Oil industry generates mega millions for Rich individuals, its almost like a rich mans club. The spin on it is the Rich tend to meddle with politics which is inevitable cause some of the political officials get support from these groups. In other words you can say Corporations and Governments have been having sex for ages now

Avatar image for BossPerson
BossPerson

9177

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 BossPerson
Member since 2011 • 9177 Posts

You only need to look at how much U.S.A and NATO has spent in dollars in Iraq to realize that the whole "War for oil" thing is complete bullsh*t that some paranoid leftwinged nutcase invented.

DoomZaW
....nato was not involved in combat in iraq
Avatar image for BossPerson
BossPerson

9177

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 BossPerson
Member since 2011 • 9177 Posts

anyways, inb4 sun_tzu and beans come in here and say that this was just a misfire from Cheney trying to stabilize the region. 

Avatar image for megaspiderweb09
megaspiderweb09

3686

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#16 megaspiderweb09
Member since 2009 • 3686 Posts

anyways, inb4 sun_tzu and beans come in here and say that this was just a misfire from Cheney trying to stabilize the region. 

BossPerson

Did they ever mention about Stabilizing the region?. Cause i sure as hell know guns and bombs do not stabilize anything

Avatar image for GOGOGOGURT
GOGOGOGURT

4470

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 GOGOGOGURT
Member since 2010 • 4470 Posts

Actually the electric car died 115 years ago because it was useless then and still is now.

 

It's even worse we can't come up with anything better than electric propulsion after 115 YEARS.  Pathetic, and the public just eats it up.

 

But it's possible the war started because of oil companies, because it did increas their profits, but more likely it was us getting revenge for 9/11, and look at the mess we're in now.  Will we ever learn?

Avatar image for ferrari2001
ferrari2001

17772

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#18 ferrari2001
Member since 2008 • 17772 Posts
I read that opinion piece and thought it was total B.S. The money spent was far greater than any oil profits earned, no company would engage in something that loses them massive amounts of money. And the Electric cars failed because they were utter garbage. Weak horse power, limited speed and distance, plus massively long charging times. Simply not a viable means of transportation.
Avatar image for megaspiderweb09
megaspiderweb09

3686

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#19 megaspiderweb09
Member since 2009 • 3686 Posts

Actually the electric car died 115 years ago because it was useless then and still is now.

 

It's even worse we can't come up with anything better than electric propulsion after 115 YEARS.  Pathetic, and the public just eats it up.

 

But it's possible the war started because of oil companies, because it did increas their profits, but more likely it was us getting revenge for 9/11, and look at the mess we're in now.  Will we ever learn?

GOGOGOGURT

Where have you been living?...

Avatar image for megaspiderweb09
megaspiderweb09

3686

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#20 megaspiderweb09
Member since 2009 • 3686 Posts

I read that opinion piece and thought it was total B.S. The money spent was far greater than any oil profits earned, no company would engage in something that loses them massive amounts of money. And the Electric cars failed because they were utter garbage. Weak horse power, limited speed and distance, plus massively long charging times. Simply not a viable means of transportation. ferrari2001

Reference to the video above 

Avatar image for Oleg_Huzwog
Oleg_Huzwog

21885

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 Oleg_Huzwog
Member since 2007 • 21885 Posts

In the 1980's a man made a carborator that got 300 miles to the gallon.

 

Guess what happened to that?

 

Oil companies bought it, hit it with a sledge hammer, and buried it in the desert.

TheHighWind

You don't actually believe that, do you?

It wasn't the 80's, it was the 30's.  The claim was 200 mpg, not 300.  The inventor's name was a Canadian named Charles Nelson Pogue.  He filed a series of U.S. patents for his "Miracle Carburetor".  He never once produced a single verifiable test or demonstration of his device.

The story recurringly resurfaces as an urban legend with various twists (as you demonstrated).  Snopes has a good summary of the various versions of the story, along with a description of how Pogue's story inflated to its present state.  Link.

Avatar image for dude_brahmski
dude_brahmski

472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 dude_brahmski
Member since 2013 • 472 Posts
There has recently been quite a deal of research and development devoted towards electric cars. Additionally, these vehicles receive a quite a bit in the way of gov't subsidies in order to reduce the purchasing cost. Despite this, these vehicles aren't remotely profitable. Now, nearly two decades ago when GM was, well, not doing well financially (this was a few years before the SUV boom caused by cheap gas prices), the state of California required all vehicle manufacturers to create zero-carbon emissions vehicles. GM decided to go all out on an electric vehicle - anticipating improvements in battery technology that didn't materialize. Because the program ultimately turned into a cash sink with no foreseeable payoffs (the vehicles cost an estimated $80,000-100,000) the program was ended. Additionally, the outlandish claims on the potential efficiency of carburetors are rather laughable and seem to dismiss the fact that thermodynamics has its limits. It's not like carburetors are some sort of incomprehensible rocket science that can simply be hidden. And, if memory serves correctly, American oil companies got a combined 10% of the Iraqi oil reserves. It was a mismanaged abortion of a war (that, in retrospect, perhaps shouldn't have been done, despite the Saddam guy doing Saddam things) of the highest order, but oil really wasn't the motivation. Also, hi bossperson.
Avatar image for GOGOGOGURT
GOGOGOGURT

4470

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 GOGOGOGURT
Member since 2010 • 4470 Posts

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

Actually the electric car died 115 years ago because it was useless then and still is now.

 

It's even worse we can't come up with anything better than electric propulsion after 115 YEARS.  Pathetic, and the public just eats it up.

 

But it's possible the war started because of oil companies, because it did increas their profits, but more likely it was us getting revenge for 9/11, and look at the mess we're in now.  Will we ever learn?

megaspiderweb09

Where have you been living?...

 

Cool, a tesla model S which was created by Elon Musk who owns Tesla and Space X, and it won motor trends car of the year award.  It's range is 250 miles and takes between 3 and 10 hours to fully charge depending on what charging you use.  Costs a little over $100,000 and has a 17" touch screen instead of a center stack.

It's not the future, it's the past.

 

Where have you been living?

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts
Tomas Young last letter to Bush and Cheney. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022533481 For all the US citizens out there who jump on the war bandwagon before reading and informing themselves THINK, for God's sake THINK before calling on the war drums next time.
Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

you know  what would be more accurate?

to say it was a war fought for fast food  since more money was made selling taco bell, kfc and macdonalds than was made by u.s. oil interests.

really once you start to look at the $$$ totals in construction, fast food, infrastructure building, water rights and the like oil is pretty much peanuts in comparason.

i mean sure the whole thing was a farce and immoral and all that but can we please just be accurate about the details?

the whole, "mer! blood for oil!" thing is such a simplistic angle.

Riverwolf007
The "war for oil" angle also has other angles. We don't know what would have happened in Iraq if there was no war. For example Saddam was planning on converting all oil money from dollars to euros just before the war a thing that never happened after the war... For all we know the war was "preemptive" in more than one way including securing oil assets for oil companies in the future which would have been impossible with Saddam there. Remember crucial players like China, India and South America were starting to gain momentum and Saddam could have shifted his focus of cooperation with them and avoided the US. All those things could have made the war necessary for some oil interests.
Avatar image for Rhazakna
Rhazakna

11022

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 Rhazakna
Member since 2004 • 11022 Posts
Though corporate forces were of course a big part of the push to go to war (they always are these days), and the MIC is definitely profiting from it, there's more to it than just oil. The Neoconservative wing of the Republican party has wanted to invade the Middle-East to spread democracy since the end of the Cold War. You can read all sorts of stuff from prominent Neocon think-tanks and individuals arguing that since the USSR fell, the only real enemy the US has left is the uncooperative Mid East dictatorships (unlike Saudi Arabia), and radical Muslim forces. All the oil stuff helped get the big money involved, but the desire has been there for years and oil wasn't their only goal.
Avatar image for Rich3232
Rich3232

2628

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 Rich3232
Member since 2012 • 2628 Posts
I read that opinion piece and thought it was total B.S. The money spent was far greater than any oil profits earned, no company would engage in something that loses them massive amounts of money. And the Electric cars failed because they were utter garbage. Weak horse power, limited speed and distance, plus massively long charging times. Simply not a viable means of transportation. ferrari2001
They make profits by getting us(the taxpayers) to pay for it.
Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#28 deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
Member since 2004 • 57548 Posts
Iraq was a bad idea? I thought saying that made you a terrorist?Franklinstein
There's an article saying just that on CNN's front page.
Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

58911

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#29 mrbojangles25
Member since 2005 • 58911 Posts

Oh, sorry, is it 2003 again?

No kidding man, we've known this for a while.  Troops getting paid pennies guarding trucks and truck drivers getting paid six figures has been going on for a quite a while.

Avatar image for worlock77
worlock77

22552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 worlock77
Member since 2009 • 22552 Posts

I read that opinion piece and thought it was total B.S. The money spent was far greater than any oil profits earned, no company would engage in something that loses them massive amounts of money. ferrari2001

Then I guess it's a good thing for those companies that the cost of the war isn't on them, but rather on the taxpayer.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#31 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

Oh, sorry, is it 2003 again?

No kidding man, we've known this for a while.  Troops getting paid pennies guarding trucks and truck drivers getting paid six figures has been going on for a quite a while.

mrbojangles25

  Yeah it is mind boggling that this hasn't been brought up ever when talking about wasteful spending.. Companies like Haliburton basically made a killing ripping off the United States for sub-standard services to the point that some soldiers were put at risk..  This is why I can't take the Republican party seriously when it comes to spending.. Or anything involving rights.. They have shown time and time again that they don't care about such things as long as it follows their ideas.. 

Avatar image for lamprey263
lamprey263

44859

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#32 lamprey263
Member since 2006 • 44859 Posts
The idea that the war was for oil is bullcrap. You don't need an increased oil supply to profit from oil, in fact it's the opposite, a war in the Middle East will drive up the price of oil, oil futures are purchased to lower supply and drive up cost by demand, and tankers full of oil sit off shore until the price goes up. I don't doubt oil companies profited during the war, but it wasn't from having access to Iraq's oil supply. Though I will agree that some part of the war was motivated by the idea of corporate profiteering, but it wasn't energy related, if anything it was how the Bush administration awarded contracts for things like the rebuilding effort, private security, mercenaries, and outsourcing of jobs the military did just fine on their own to private groups. And what did those private groups do? They cut corners to make more money, they ripped us off big time, they'd overcharge and commit fraud. There's a few documentaries out there that talk about private contractors in Iraq, I'd suggest watching one.
Avatar image for Flubbbs
Flubbbs

4968

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33 Flubbbs
Member since 2010 • 4968 Posts

wasnt fought for oil.. was fought for israel and zionist interests

http://stopaipac.org/mw_excerpt.htm

Avatar image for -RocBoys9489-
-RocBoys9489-

6336

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 -RocBoys9489-
Member since 2008 • 6336 Posts

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"]I read that opinion piece and thought it was total B.S. The money spent was far greater than any oil profits earned, no company would engage in something that loses them massive amounts of money. worlock77

Then I guess it's a good thing for those companies that the cost of the war isn't on them, but rather on the taxpayer.

Avatar image for -RocBoys9489-
-RocBoys9489-

6336

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 -RocBoys9489-
Member since 2008 • 6336 Posts

wasnt fought for oil.. was fought for israel and zionist interests

http://stopaipac.org/mw_excerpt.htm

Flubbbs
Interesting read
Avatar image for megaspiderweb09
megaspiderweb09

3686

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#36 megaspiderweb09
Member since 2009 • 3686 Posts

wasnt fought for oil.. was fought for israel and zionist interests

http://stopaipac.org/mw_excerpt.htm

Flubbbs

Thats a new one...interesting

Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#37 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

wasnt fought for oil.. was fought for israel and zionist interests

http://stopaipac.org/mw_excerpt.htm

Flubbbs
wonder what kk thinks of this post
Avatar image for Rhazakna
Rhazakna

11022

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 Rhazakna
Member since 2004 • 11022 Posts

[QUOTE="Flubbbs"]

wasnt fought for oil.. was fought for israel and zionist interests

http://stopaipac.org/mw_excerpt.htm

megaspiderweb09

Thats a new one...interesting

Hardly a new one. AIPAC had a lot to do with the Iraq war, but considering what neocons have openly stated for years now, the war in Iraq probably would've happened anyway. Hell, Gore probably would've gone into Iraq if he took Clinton's position on it.
Avatar image for curono
curono

7722

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#39 curono
Member since 2005 • 7722 Posts

You only need to look at how much U.S.A and NATO has spent in dollars in Iraq to realize that the whole "War for oil" thing is complete bullsh*t that some paranoid leftwinged nutcase invented.

DoomZaW
Wars are made to make some kind of profit or benefit. You seek, kill, destroy, and pillage. That's how it has been since humans were in the caves and that is why wars are actually made nowadays. You don't go to war to Kuwait and take no oil. You don't start a coup d'etat in Panama and not gain the control of the canal. You don't invade a country unless there is something to gain. In this case, there must be something to be taken.
Avatar image for _R34LiTY_
_R34LiTY_

3331

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40 _R34LiTY_
Member since 2008 • 3331 Posts

I guess I can see where "Opinion Man" get's his idea from.

After all, there is or was speculation that the two leaders/presidents that were put in place in Afghanistan & Iraq were Harmid Karzai & Zalmay Kalizad whom both allegedly had a connection to Unocal, an oil company based out of Texas that is sometimes named as the people behind the "Trans Afghanistan Pipeline".  "TAPI", as it is sometimes called, is a pipeline that is supposed to run from the Caspian Sea through Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and into India.  Drilling contracts were supposedly awarded to Haliburton, a company headed by Dick Cheney at the time. 

Oh, and also to reverse Hussein's decision to trade his oil in Euros back to trading it in Dollars once their "guy" was in place.  Hussein supposedly switched his transactions from the OPEC regulated sales of Dollars to Euros in an attempt to hurt the US economy for the US army not having left his land after being promised they would and the continuous bombings. after Operation Desert Storm.  

Sounds like he spelled his own doom if this is true.

 

Speculation is fun!