• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Was the Invasion of Iraq About Oil or "Fighting Terror"

Was the invasion about oil or "fighting terror?"

  • The invasion was about oil.

    Votes: 7 43.8%
  • The invasion was about "fighting terror."

    Votes: 9 56.3%

  • Total voters
    16

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I was interested in seeing on the forum how many people genuinely believe the war is for fighting terror or if the invasion was about oil.
 
T

The Real McCoy

There should be more options to this question. I'm not denying that oil is a factor, but it certainly wasn't the major reason we invaded Iraq as many far-left conspiracy theorists believe.
 

wrath

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
154
Reaction score
0
Location
Alexandria, VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I have to agree with the Real McCoy here.
There were many reasons for FINALLY shutting down Saddam. Asserting that it was only for oil simply satisfies an agenda.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yep, what the others said. Oil was one of many reasons that the United States invaded Iraq, but it was by no means the only reason. Fighting terror was always a bullshit excuse for invading a country with no terrorists, and was certainly not one of the reasons we went to war.
 

curt

Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
Location
Ont, Can
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I wish I could claim these words for my own but I cannot. This is the best reasoning for the war that I have come across and is the opinion I share.

As writen by somebody else:
So... was the Iraqi Campaign in the self-interest of the United States? Going in, I thought it was. There were a number of governments in the Middle East that supported terrorism and needed to be changed. These included Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. All of these governments will need to be changed before we can declare victory in the overall war. (The true lynchpins, in my opinion, are Iran and Saudi Arabia.) The United States needed a beachhead. Iraq looked like a good candidate. There was much higher public support for invading Iraq than any other nation on the list. There seemed to be a solid causus belli. As the starting point of an extended campaign, Iraq was justified.

(This, incidentally, is why I call it the Iraqi Campaign instead of the Iraq War. The invasion of Iraq cannot be understood outside of the broader strategic context of which it was a part. And that's why, even if true, the claim that Iraq posed no direct threat to the United States is irrelevant. The first nation that the United States invaded in World War II was Morocco. They never attacked us; they posed no direct threat to us. But invading them was strategically necessary as part of the larger war against Germany. Dropping that strategic context and critizing the "Morocco War" as an isolated incident would be absurd.)

Those are my essential reasons for supporting the Iraqi Campaign ex ante. I think they were defensible. However, we are now faced with additional facts that were not available in 2002 -- specifically the fact that the Bush administration seems either unwilling or unable to prosecute the larger war of which the Iraqi Campaign should have been the first step. Instead, they are trying to build a freer society in Iraq in the hopes that it will serve as a reference model for internal reform or revolt in the other nations in the area. I think this is a mistake. Iraq cannot be stabilized while Syria and Iran are using it as a platform to wage war against us. This is just another indication that what we should be fighting (but aren't) is a regional war. In effect, what the Bush administration has done is undermine post facto the core justification for the Iraqi Campaign ex ante. Iraq is a beachhead, but a beachhead is only of value if you use it to stage further attacks on the remainder of the opposition.

If I had known how this would play out in advance, would I have supported the Iraqi Campaign going in? I'm not sure. I'm not happy about the way it's playing out. But what would have been the alternative? Should we have invaded Iran directly? Perhaps, although I suspect that if we had done so many of the same people complaining about the Iraqi Campaign would be making the same complaints with "Iran" in the place of "Iraq". Should we have done nothing after Afghanistan? What course of action would have both pleased those critical of the Iraqi Campaign and advanced the strategic goals of the war against Islamofascism
?
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,342
Reaction score
2,432
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Why does it have to be one or the other? Cant it be both? Cant it be both and other things?
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ok, so let's assume for a moment that Iraq or the Middle East had no oil, would the US have gone into Iraq? Would the US have been interested in ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussien?
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
akyron said:
Why does it have to be one or the other? Cant it be both? Cant it be both and other things?
Why do explanations offerred have to be so complex? Why can't it be simple and straight to the point?
 

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Actually, I don't think it had a thing to do with either. I don't believe there is any rational reason for the war on Iraq other than "God told Bush to do it"
 

wrath

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
154
Reaction score
0
Location
Alexandria, VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
TimmyBoy said:
Ok, so let's assume for a moment that Iraq or the Middle East had no oil, would the US have gone into Iraq? Would the US have been interested in ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussien?
Because you would have to overlook everything that happened in the 12 years leading up to this. Assuming that you do, oil or "god told Bush to invade" makes perfect sense. However, those of us not living in a vacuum will look at it from a more realistic perspective.
 
T

The Real McCoy

If the middle east had no oil, the last 100 years of history in that region would be 100% different. It's impossible to assume how world events would have unfolded if this were the case.

Another factor in the invasion of Iraq that isn't often mentioned is it's geographic location. It is dead center in the middle east and the perfect staging ground for campaigns against countries like Syria and Iran should the need for such action arise.
 
Last edited:

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Real McCoy said:
If the middle east had no oil, the last 100 years of history in that region would be 100% different. It's impossible to assume how world events would have unfolded if this were the case.

Another factor in the invasion of Iraq that isn't often mentioned is it's geographic location. It is dead center in the middle east and the perfect staging ground for campaigns against countries like Syria and Iran should the need for such action arise.
I would have to agree with you their, strategic location and oil are main factors for the US presence in the Middle East.
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,342
Reaction score
2,432
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
TimmyBoy said:
Why do explanations offerred have to be so complex? Why can't it be simple and straight to the point?

Because Political Correctness has become the rule...
Personally I think being PC just adds frustration.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally Posted by TimmyBoy
Why do explanations offerred have to be so complex? Why can't it be simple and straight to the point?
Originally Posted by akyron:
Because Political Correctness has become the rule...
Personally I think being PC just adds frustration.
We attacked Iraq for the same reason a dog licks its balls!
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,342
Reaction score
2,432
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Billo_Really said:
We attacked Iraq for the same reason a dog licks its balls!

Dog balls are 60$ a barrel?
 

wrath

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
154
Reaction score
0
Location
Alexandria, VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Billo_Really said:
We attacked Iraq for the same reason a dog licks its balls!
Yeah, imagine a dog waiting 12 years to lick his balls only to find out he could have all along!
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Wrath:
Yeah, imagine a dog waiting 12 years to lick his balls only to find out he could have all along!
Imagine the dog new it all along but was more preoccupied sniffing the asses of other bitches!
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by akyron:
Dog balls are 60$ a barrel?
Good comeback! A lot better than Wrath's.
 

wrath

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
154
Reaction score
0
Location
Alexandria, VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Billo_Really said:
Imagine the dog new it all along but was more preoccupied sniffing the asses of other bitches!
Well with so many bitches around I suppose that's possible
 

wrath

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
154
Reaction score
0
Location
Alexandria, VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Billo_Really said:
Good comeback! A lot better than Wrath's.
At least get it right Billy boy. It's better for you as it more suites your agenda. I have no interest in catering to your rather mundane humor.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Wrath:
At least get it right Billy boy. It's better for you as it more suites your agenda. I have no interest in catering to your rather mundane humor.
Your comments are always welcome.
 

Saboteur

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2005
Messages
2,315
Reaction score
134
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
TimmyBoy said:
I was interested in seeing on the forum how many people genuinely believe the war is for fighting terror or if the invasion was about oil.

It's about inciting terror. And the oils nice.

President Bush and all his cronies want you sacred. And most of his supporters are. They're crazy with fear and call people who aren't unamerican.
 
T

The Real McCoy

Saboteur said:
It's about inciting terror. And the oils nice.
Yes, President Bush invaded Iraq to create more terror.

Give me a break, that **** belongs in the conspiracy forum.


Saboteur said:
President Bush and all his cronies want you sacred. And most of his supporters are. They're crazy with fear and call people who aren't unamerican.
Just about all of my extended family (maternal and paternal) are Republicans who support Bush and I can honestly say that none of them are "crazy with fear" or even very fearful at all.
 

Antonine

New member
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Although securing the oil was definitley a key point in going to war I reckon that Suddam needed to be got rid of because he had already used biological weapons on his own people and was the traditional textbook tyrant.
 

Saboteur

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2005
Messages
2,315
Reaction score
134
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The Real McCoy said:
Yes, President Bush invaded Iraq to create more terror.

Give me a break, that **** belongs in the conspiracy forum.




Just about all of my extended family (maternal and paternal) are Republicans who support Bush and I can honestly say that none of them are "crazy with fear" or even very fearful at all.
Well I think you've just been blinded by their rational. Sorry.
 
Top Bottom