And we'd do it again.
Published on September 22, 2004 By d3adz0mbie In International
Truthfully, the US led global forces did invade Iraq for the oil, but not in the way most conspiracy theorists' would claim. It is because of oil that Saddams direct link to terrorism can be shown, but again, not in the way conspiracy theorists' would claim. Let me explain.

In 1979, just after taking firm control of the Iraqi government, Saddam realized that he could extend his power by taking control of a single resource, oil. To begin this goal of extended global influence, Saddam set his sites on what he considered a weak oil country, Iran. Although he was mistaken about the strength of the Iranian people, who took Saddams 6 month invasion plan and turned it into an 8 year stalemate, Saddam maintained the idea that oil was the key for global influence.

Using the economic crisis that had resulted from an 8 year conflict as an excuse, Saddam accused Kuwait of actually stealing oil from the two countries shared oil fields, thus 'preventing Iraq's economic recovery' . Other accusations were also thrown by Saddam, such as Kuwait suppressing oil prices by overproduction, but the key point is that in all the reasons Saddam gave during the build up to the Kuwait invasion by Iraq, oil was on his mind.

Saddam invaded, took control, and did his best to fortify his position. Then, 5 months later, never satisfied, he started an incursion against Saudia Arabia! Even the Soviet Union understood the consequences of Saddams actions. The Soviets were boycotting the UN Security council at the time, yet they were so alarmed they put aside every other issue they had with the global community and came back to the table to help deal with Saddams grip on the combined oil fields of Iraq and Kuwait. It was not until Saddam entered direct negotiations with the USSR, offering them several major oil fields to stay out of the conflict that the Soviets withdrew. Oil, oil, oil.

Saddam understood that by controlling Kuwaiti oil fields, he would gain considerable influence over the global economy, acquiring power akin to that of a nuclear superpower. This is simple economics - the world runs on oil. Dropping the prices by flooding the market would bankrupt key countries, wrecking oil production and increasing the strength of a two oil country Saddam. Or cutting production would cause the prices to skyrocket globally, slowing production and again wrecking the global economy. This is his legacy of terror.

Yes, Saddam is guilty of atrocities. They are recorded, documented, on VHS and DVD at a store near you. But few people realize the global terror Saddam was trying to achieve. Almost everything you use during the day, regardless of where you live on the Earth, had oil involved in its manufacturing. Your chair, your computer, your home, your refrigeration systems, your phones - all require oil to be produced. If not for a stable oil market, none of us would be here blogging, or online at all for that matter.

Saddam wanted to destroy that. He wanted to wreck the economy of your country, my country of every country in the world that wouldnt cow to his demands.

After 12 years of containment, it can be asked, "Was Saddam a threat?". Wasn't he contained? Isn't North Korea more of a threat to global security? Perhaps, perhaps not. People view nuclear war as 'the end all', but it is not. A limited nuclear attack by North Korea would be horrible, but it would not come near the scale of of a global oil crisis. Billions would die, civilization would crumble without oil, as our current society is based. In the growing climate of international terrorism, Saddam has the greatest historical record of attempting terror on a global scale by attempting to gain control over a major portion of the worlds oil fields. With the current global population, oil is life, make no mistake of that.

This alone justifies the war, it may not excuse the lame reasons that were given. But it does make sense, and it makes sense in a very scary way, regardless of your political dogma.

Damn skippy the USA invaded Iraq for oil. 35 other countries understood this and acted accordingly, to finally, once and for all, get it out of Saddams hands. *

*Originally posted by me at The article has been cleaned up for reprint on my blog.

Comments (Page 1)
on Sep 22, 2004
Using the economic crisis that had resulted from an 8 year conflict as an excuse, Saddam accused Kuwait of actually stealing oil from the two countries shared oil fields, thus 'preventing Iraq's economic recovery' .

He was right though - Kuwaiti oil drills were drilling on an angle so they could accesss Iraqi oil fields across the border.

And Saddam could never have held the world to oil-based ransom, even had he been left untouched in 1991.. Firstly no civilisation would tolerate such a threat. Had the UN not acted the US would have, and if they didn't the EU would move in through Turkey.

Finally it would have been simple to simply starve Iraq. It is not self-sufficient in food terms, so if the major nations could control their exports, Iraq/the Middle Eastern superstate would quickly become a humanitarian disaster and be forced to either surrender or starve to death.

Invading several years ago, more than a decade after the defeat of Saddam, served no real purpose despite it being conducted for the best of intentions.
on Sep 22, 2004

Reply #2 By: little_whip - 9/22/2004 8:56:51 PM
Dude...if you want to read over a hundred other opinions about this, read my challenge..."war for oil? time to prove it."


The amount of oil we get from Iraq is miniscule, and could easily be obtained elsewhere.

Youve offered no hard proof here, and neither has anyone on that thread.

He won't and "personally" I don't think there is any proof! It's ALL about opinions!
on Sep 22, 2004
Drmiller, could you explain to me what the quotation marks are for?
on Sep 22, 2004
Im just curious if you actually read what I wrote... I never claimed we were stealing oil.

BTW, the amount of oil we get from Iraq is not miniscule, it's actually a good percentage of the USA's imported oil.

For those that say I have no proof, I will re-reference this article from the UN documents I wrote this article from. If it's just opinion, then it's an opinion documented by the UN Security Council.
on Sep 22, 2004
While I understand your contention, I'm not sure Saddam had planned a "master terrorist stroke" such as you propose.

In any case, it's unfortunate that the world, and particularly North America, allowed it to come to that; in America particularly by continually allowing SUVs and "light trucks" to escape the EPA mileage mandates. With better fuel economy, the war wouldn't have been *needed* to secure American industrial needs.

on Sep 22, 2004

Reply #4 By: sandy2 - 9/22/2004 9:10:48 PM
Drmiller, could you explain to me what the quotation marks are for?

It's called "emphasis" on a particular word or phrase. It's better than SHOUTING.
on Sep 22, 2004
The Iran-Iraq war wasn't for oil, but rather, in part, for the control of the Shatt al-Arab river to ship the oil. However, the Islamist revolution was the main factor that forced Saddam to invade Iran, fearing the Islamist Revolution would reach his Shia population. It is important to note that the conflict lasted for so long because of the western influence. The traditional powers did not want to see Iraq rise to a "superpower" status while they were even more concerned of Iranian Fundamentalism spreading throughout the Middle-East. The religiously "enlightened" Iranian extremists would practice suicidal human wave attacks while Iraq was fitted with a modern armament. The United States, in all this, openly supported Iraq (Ex : Link ) while secretly arming Iran (Iran-Contra Affair). After the war, Iraq was ruined and couldn't repay it's debts to Kuwait caused by the war. Furthermore, Iraq's main oil-shipping line was destroyed and badly needed a better access to the sea and Kowait, historically, was part of Iraq; it had only been cut off during the post-colonial British era. Therefore, Iraq saw no other alternative than to invade.

Saddam did want to unify and rise the region to a superpower status, obviously. But inflict massive terror upon the world?... heh He was a statesman trying to gain more power and influence on the world scene... The West simply had too many interests in the region to allow that...

on Sep 22, 2004

Reply #9 By: little_whip - 9/22/2004 10:04:44 PM
It's called "emphasis" on a particular word or phrase.

drmiller, look at the upper left corner of the message screen where you type your comments. You will see a B, an I, and a U. After you type the word you want to emphasize, highlight it and then click on:

B for BOLD,



Looks better than all those quotation marks.

That's all well and good for you that can move your hands from K/B to mouse and back with "no" trouble! I suffer from MS which makes it all the more difficult for me. Between you and me, I'll continue with quotation marks.
on Sep 22, 2004

try this instead, since your "quotation marks" are grating to those of us with a sense of proper punctuation:

either use asterisks to emphasize, *thus* (much less offensive since you're not misusing a punctuation mark), or to get bold type <b> before the word and </b> after. (Replace the 'b' with an 'i' for italics.)
on Sep 22, 2004

on Sep 22, 2004
Guess who is getting off in the board rooms every time these blogs are written,and a bonus with the comments. The oil company CEO's. Its a very good blog, and the comments are justified also. Anyone that has ever seen a fork lift run[and that is just one piece of equiptment in a couple hundred] has never seen one pull up to a gas station to fill up. Why ? because it runs on propane in a portable tank.The engines are made by Toyota,Mitsubitchii?,Nission?[not sure of the spelling] and at least a dozen American companys. .Point is these are the same companies that put the engines in the cars you drive.The only thing needed to change is the carbarator. Why not the tanks??They scare the hell out of you with the danger of an accident.Thats bullshit,there safer than a gas tank. If this change would happen on a national scale, in one year the money would dry up that feeds the terrist and our kids could come home ALIVE!! Lets argue that point OK?
on Sep 23, 2004
Glad to see I struck a nerve.
on Sep 23, 2004
I will tell you what is Blood for Oil. When 5000 Iraqi children die every MONTH under the oil sanction, and when oil for food is profiting a small number of European country -- that is Blood for Oil. When USA gave up all Iraqi debt and spent hundred of billion money on Iraqi, that is not Blood for Oil.

on Sep 23, 2004
Where is my cheaper gasoline and oil prices if it was truely a war for oil? Where is the projected future of the Oil prices? What solid EMPIRICAL evidence do you have to back the claim?


- GX
on Sep 23, 2004

People has no evidence of course.... they made things up as they wish. I will tell you what.... Oil for Food program is the real Blood for Oil Program. More Iraqi die under the oil sanction. For people who oppose the invasion... what you are saying is "yes to oil sanction". You people are sick. For those oppose the war, before you dare to use the word "blood".... prove to me that more Iraqi die now than during the oil sanction period. If not, how dare you use the word "Blood".