Sep 25 2008
The Unseen Reason for the Iraq War
The topic of the Iraq war has been discussed and debated numerous times since the invasion. We have heard every reason or excuse for why the United States went to war with Iraq. I don’t know if anyone has heard this explanation before so I am going to lay it out on the table. My hypothesis is that the United States invaded Iraq for one reason. Saudi Arabia. I know your scratching your head right now, but hear me out.
First of all lets be blunt. The United States went to war for oil plain and simple. The United States wants to use Iraqi oil to have leverage power over Saudi Arabia and OPEC. Saudi Arabia is one of the largest oil producers in OPEC and is very influential within the cartel. For those who don’t know what OPEC is, it is the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. OPEC has significant global influence because they can control production of oil that powers the world’s economies. This is evident,when they announce that they are going to cut production, the price of oil goes up.
The United States is in Iraq because Iraq has billions of gallons of oil in their untapped oil fields. The countries in OPEC have been producing oil for a very long time and their oil wells are trending downward in production levels. Iraq on the other hand has been ravaged by war and mismanagement of its oil infrastructure. Iraq hasn’t had the capacity to produce large amounts of oil for over a decade. With American investment from the oil sector, Iraq will be a oil producing giant, on par with Saudi Arabia. Your still wondering how Iraq is going to help America leverage Saudi Arabia and OPEC right?
The thing is Iraq has not been part of the OPEC quota system since 1998. The Iraqi’s can decide how much oil they want to produce and at what price they want. So if OPEC wants to hold production steady or cut back, Iraq can flood the market with oil at a cheaper price. This essentially would break the grip that OPEC has on oil prices because they could no longer control supply. OPEC would also lose the extraordinary power they have wielded in the geopolitical arena for the last twenty years.Why do you think the United States is investing so much time, blood and treasure in Iraq right now? This war has looong term strategic objectives. Its goes oil and diminishing the power of OPEC first, democracy second and terrorism third.
The other reason why the United States invaded Iraq is because the U.S. eventually wants to break or cool political ties with Saudi Arabia. The political leadership in Saudi Arabia is leaning towards extremism more and more as the old guard dies off. There are terrorist sympathizers in the Saudi government that try to thwart any move by the U.S. to combat Islamic extremist in the Middle East. Having such a dubious ally is a handicap on American foreign policy in the Middle East. Iraq on the other hand has a more moderate political leadership that would be more inclined to cooperate with the United States on a variety of issues from oil to battling terrorism. This is why the United States is trying to forge long-lasting relationships with the Iraqi government and economic leaders. Iraq will continue to be the United States national security priority for the foreseeable future.
That is, unless we elect a president that focuses on alternative fuel, and sustainable energy/domestic development. Look , this is a complete debacle, and we’re not getting out clean. If we vote McChickenshit, we’re not getting out at all.
Come on man, you’re stretching it again. Really? The main agenda of the war in Iraq is oil? Man, you really, really have to stretch that one. Let’s go back to when the war started. We were engaged in a war on terror due to the attacks on 9/11, investigators were reporting that there were wmd’s, and Saddam was refusing to let UN inspectors complete more conclusive searches to find out if they indeed had possesion of wmd’s.
Why was it important that we went to war with Iraq when we’re engaged in a war on terror? Well, were there any terrorists hiding in Iraq? Was Iraq letting terrorists in and out as they saw fit? Yes, and yes. So, as we fought our war on terror should we ignore a nation that operates in this fashion reguarding terrorism?
Now, the main arguement, then and now, as to why we invaded Iraq is that they possesed weapons of mass destruction. What people know now is that they didn’t have any wmd’s. But, that ties into what I previously stated. Think about the times right before we entered Iraq. There were many reports out, at that time, that reported evidence that there may be wmd’s. There were also some weak reports out stating the opposite, but many more reporting that Iraq did have possesion of wmd’s. Was the president to ignore those reports? No. The UN sent many investigators to Iraq to try to locate the wmd’s, but Saddam would not comply with investigators. Saddam was playing games by allowing investigations one week, and when it seemed like they were getting close to something he again would refuse to comply with investigations. The way Saddam was acting increased suspicion, and added credibility to the reports that he did possess those weapons. So the president played offense, and pushed for the war. There were many supporters for the war at the time, Republican and Democrat, and Bush had a very high approval rating. When did his approval rating start to drop? When American soldiers started to die, no wmd’s were found and billions of dollars were being spent. By the time this happened we had destroyed the infrastructure of the Iraqi government, and opened a door for Islamic extremists to attack their enemy. Now Islamic extremists are terrorist, and will do ANYTHING to kill their enemy.
Bush then had to make a tough decision, stay to try to defeat the terrorism taking place, and help establish a democratic government, or leave and let Iraq fend for themselves. By now Saddam had been captured, tried and hung. If this was a war for oil, America could have easily taken any oil they wanted at this time as a repayment from Iraq for freeing them of Saddam and for America speding fortunes to do so. Additionally we could have put anybody in power that would sell oil to America for cheap. America did neither and Bush made the unpopular but moral choice. They helped find somebody that would do what is best for the Iraqi people, regardless of whether or not the leader would provide favors to America. We did, however, ensure that the leader would be an American ally.
Now in the present, Americans are coming up with crazy conspiracies as to why we entered, fought, and have ultimately stayed in Iraq as long as we have. The president has spent massive amounts of money fighting and trying to stabilize Iraq, and these theories have become more and more frequent as the price for oil skyrockets. What Americans want now is for Iraq to pay us back in oil which only increases the legitamacy of the conspiracy theories. I too, would not be opposed to this form of repayment for the billions and billions of dollars we have spent. But to say the whole war was for oil is ludacris. The war was for America’s security, and I’m glad that we have a president that plays offense rather than defense. What if they did have wmd’s and used them? Then we’d really be sorry, and Bush would have been more criticized than he is now. I don’t agree with all the money that has been spent in Iraq, but I do agree with the president wanting to keep America safe.
The idea that Iraq can lower the market price of oil is ludacris as well. Anybody that knows anything about economics and knows how cartels operate knows that Iraq cannot influence the price of oil. First, if the market value for a barrel of oil is lets say $100 why would Iraq sell it for $90 or even $99.99? They’d be losing money on an unrenewable resource. As an unrenewable resource, thier government needs to maximize the profits to be made by this resource before it runs out. Second, even if they did sell at less than the market price, it is unrealistic to believe that it would have any effect on OPEC. OPEC is a cartell. What happens when you operate agaisnt a cartel? The cartel will drive you out of business. Who has more oil today, OPEC or Iraq? Who will have more oil in the future, OPEC or Iraq? Who has control over the market price for oil? If Iraq did undercut the market rate, OPEC, operating as a cartel does, would retaliate by driving the price so low that if Iraq wanted to sell oil, it would have to sell it for a loss. Iraq would never be able to sell oil for a profit. This would essentially driving Iraq out of the oil business in the long run. This doesn’t help Iraq or America.
America is being brainwashed by the liberal media, and we are losing the ability to think for ourselves. We are all starting to think like the bunch of hippies that are ruining America and running the media. The media is a bunch of America haters that criticize every move we make. When is the last time the media has reported something good? I can’t remember, can you? The media praises Bill Clinton now, but when he was in office, what did they do? They criticized him for his sex scandal. They called for him to be impeached. Now he’s one of the greatest presidents in recent history? The world is starting to believe that America is losing its strength because the media reports how stupid and irresponsible the government is. And while our economy may be troubled right now, the truth is, we are still the stronget nation in the world and we should start acting like it. So as Americans, lets stop drinking our Haterade in the morning and start reporting what great things go on in the greatest nation in the world everyday.
Iraq cannot influence the price of oil at all. If the sell it cheaper than OPEC and we bought it, OPEC is going to drive prices into the ground to eliminate the competition. That’s how cartels operate. If the market rate is 100, Iraq sells for 90 to the US, then OPEC drops it’s price to 80. Would the US be smart to buy oil for 90 when the competition is selling it for 80? Would the rest of the world buy oil for 90 when the competition is selling it for 80? So if Iraq then tries to match the competitions rate of 80 then the cartel drops the price to 70. It’s how cartels have always operated when you try to bully them out of market share. Eventually Iraq would not be able to sustain producing oil. But if for some reason OPEC didn’t try to drive Iraq out of the oil business, then what? We are stuck with a dependancy on Iraqi oil, and Iraq is dependent on the US to purchase the oil, because no other reasonable country is going to pay 90 for oil when they can get it for 80. My next point as to why it would never work is many nations in the Middle East don’t like America right now. Do we really want to turn our back on that large population for an allegence and cheap oil(which really wouldn’t be the cheapest oil on the market)? Should we really give Iraq more assitance too? I thought we were trying to move away from that. We have already spent nearly a trillion dollars there. Is that not enough? We should give them more military capabilities after what we have already provided them. Then we can provide them with low interest loans when we can’t even loan American citizens money at a decent interest rate because the economy is in a crisis and facing the next great depression. Yeah, it would be nice to break up OPEC and stimulate competition to drive prices down, but expecting to use Iraq as leverage to do it can’t work. Cartels don’t care if they hurt themselves in order to achieve their goal of ousting their foe, that’s why it is so hard to break them up. I understand where you’re coming from, but I just 100% disagree with it. All Bush gets is criticism after criticism when his main goal is to keep America safe. Bash him all you want on the economy, because he has no idea on how to run it. The only thing he has done well is raise tax revenues while not raising taxes, but he doesn’t know how to say no when it comes to spending.
I never said that the media WANTS to or is TRYING to destroy or bring down America, but they slowly but surely are destroying the way we think. Instead of trying to unite, they try to divide everything. When you piss people off and spit insults you get more attention, but that doesn’t help anybody, but it does drive profits. Why is nobody reporting on what a great job Congress is doing by trying to complete a bailout bill. They are trying their hardest to get it right, to please their constituents, while providing something substantial that will work, and not provide any “golden umbrellas” to the management that led the country into the crisis. They are finally coming together to try to do something beneficial for the country. When something goes right I wish somebody would report that and not only report when something goes wrong.
Bro, you say that the mainstream media is too biased to provide a neutral viewpoint, I feel that some of your work can be very biased as well. If you believe that the mainstream media is too biased, then you be the neutral viewpoint. I haven’t heard one criticism of Barack Obama from somebody that wants to remain independant. Here is a great topic for you to write on that you can easily remain nuetral.
Since the meltdown of the economy over the past couple weeks or month, what campaign promises are each candidate going to have to give up? It is obvious, that with a bailout plan with an estimated price tag of nearly a trillion dollars they are going to have to give up something. What things should they keep, and what things should they say they can no longer afford in the short run? How would these changes affect their campaigns, and with alternate plans, does it leave one candidate or another at a disadvantage?