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 Neowin.net. The article has been cleaned up for reprint on my blog.

Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Sep 23, 2004
Do people even read English? I'm curious...
BTW, where did I ever claim to oppose the war in Iraq?
on Sep 23, 2004
Also one thing we shouldn't forget that there were not even a single WEAPON of MASS DESTRUCTION in Iraq which was the "Real" reason behind all this blood bath of people. Till now US has not been able to establish even a single connection with Saddam and Al-kayda.

Also last 2 wars happen at the time of BUSH Family administration, who themselves have personal interest in Oil.
on Sep 23, 2004
Saddam had no humanitarian projects planned for his oil power, that's for sure. Oil is like money in the bank, and in the hands of a genocidal bastard, it is a weapon of mass destruction. Saddam's legacy is the insurgency, which desperately wants to assume the throne of Iraq. Their currency is the atrocity: beheadings, car bombs which kill Iraqis, and the desperate assertion of tyranny in the name of a religious jihad. The Coalition should not submit to a slow bleed in this desert, but should wage an offensive war to free Iraq of its mafia. The meek should inherit Baghdad. We owe this to our troops. The rife corruption in Iraq makes it imperative that the Syrian/Iranian supported insurgents be swept away, if for no other reason than to avenge the Coalition soldiers who gave their all and will never see home, again.
on Sep 23, 2004
He was right though - Kuwaiti oil drills were drilling on an angle so they could accesss Iraqi oil fields across the border.


Nice black helicopter theory. But I would suggest you get back to reality and instead of spouting the mindless platitudes of people like Michael Moore, think for yourself. IN a word or 2, prove it! Links? Facts? And opinions dont count.

But Dead Zombie, I did read it and thought it was excellant! Well thought out, very well reasoned, and excellant. And All too scarily true.

This is an excellant post and should be required reading for all the conspiracy theorist, right or left!


Well Done.
on Sep 23, 2004
To state that this war was a simple oil grab is oversimplifying the issue. I have a longer post on little whip's thread about this. Oil was a motivation, but not the ONLY motivation. And they say BUSH has a problem only seeing black and white...
on Sep 23, 2004
Nice black helicopter theory. But I would suggest you get back to reality and instead of spouting the mindless platitudes of people like Michael Moore, think for yourself. IN a word or 2, prove it! Links? Facts? And opinions dont count.


Try not to be too much of an asshole. I had read this in an article by Amin Saikal a few years back. I haven't been able to find it again, and have spent about half an hour of fruitless web searching trying to find it again or the source of the information. But it seems Saddam's allegation were never proven either way, so I guess it's all just a matter of trust. I retract my statement about the theft of oil supplies completely.
on Sep 23, 2004
I don't think that oil was the main reason for the invasion, but more of a secondary reason. Why else would we be paying Haliburton $4.00 a gallon for kuwaiti gas?

on Sep 23, 2004
Oil might not have been a main motivation FOR the war, but it certainly was a carrot held in front of the American people to get SUPPORT for the war. Remember them telling us that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for the war? This was a grand idea that a few lone voices at the time said wouldn't work -- and SURPRISE, it isn't working. But let's talk more about it.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: “This is not Afghanistan…When we approach the question of Iraq, we realize here is a country which has a resource. And it’s obvious, it’s oil. And it can bring in and does bring in a certain amount of revenue each year…$10, $15, even $18 billion…this is not a broke country.” [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “Iraq is a very different situation from Afghanistan…Iraq has oil. They have financial resources.” [Source: Fortune Magazine, Fall 2002]

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense…[Reconstruction] funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it. [Source: Senate Appropriations Hearing, 3/27/03]

So we see that even if oil wasn't a prime motivator for war, it was certainly a selling point for the war. The powers that be told us that we wouldn't be out very much money for the war and/or reconstruction because of Iraqi oil revenue. Now we begin to see the problem in trying to prove that this was an "oil war." The politicians are too smart to make anything that simple. They split hairs, and so we have to take those split hairs and try to put them back together.

Does George Bush even know what this war is about? He's given us several different reasons. We were going because there were hidden WMD's. We were going because Sadaam WANTED WMD's. We were going to liberate the Iraqi people. We were going because Iraq violated UN sanctions. We were going because Iraq supported terrorism. Iraq had ties with al-Qaeda. Iraq didn't have confirmed ties with al-Qaeda, but they were just as evil. Iraq was part of an axis of evil. Were any of these outright lies? I can't go with the more extreme liberals and say yes. A statement can be wrong without being a lie. The point here is that nobody should argue one simple reason for the war, because there is no one simple reason. Despite Bush wanting to be seen as the president who sees things in black and white, there is no black and white reason for this war. They're all valid in some ways, they're all wrong in some ways.

I think its pretty silly for the left to boil the cause of war down to oil-piracy. It's equally silly for the right to say that oil played no part in the decision for war. At the very least, I think I've proven that oil was used as a support getting topic in the lead up to war -- which means I'm splitting hairs of my own. This, of course, has backfired, because Iraqi oil infrastructure wasn't in good shape to start with -- and has only grown worse as insurgents attack it. We're shipping more oil into Iraq from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia than Iraq is producing -- which accomplishes in part what Saddam Hussein wanted in the first place -- Saudi and Kuwaiti oil to go to Iraq. Granted, I don't think that was an intended consequence, but it's a bit ironic in any case.


posted in part on The Brouhaha -- Link

on Sep 23, 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' .

I think the SLANT drilling issues have been raised and proven to be true. Dont forget before the Ottoman Empire was
broken up - Kuwait was a part of Iraq and that view is still held by many in that region.

Finally - no man or nation is an island. Its simply not possible to use oil to that way. The Middle East (for all the
attention it brings) is not the only source of oil. Russia (which is not a member of OPEC) has vast reserves in the
billions - and is a major oil exporter, so are countries in Africa (Nigeria, Guinea), South America (Venezuela, Mexico)
etc.

Besides what makes you think Middle Eastern countries could do anything BUT sell oil. Thats all they produce.

Need I also remind you that the U.S FULLY supported Iraq during its war with Iran - what does that say???

Last on certainly not least - the Iraq and Kuwait issue was not our concern. No one interferred when the U.S
proclaimed Manifest Destiny and took over Texas and California ... And dont raise that moral nonsense issue,
because America has a long history of brutalizing people based solely on the color of their skin...
on Sep 23, 2004
I have always said that we should buy our oil from Russia, call in our markers with Mexico and South America for oil, and cut OPEC out of the picture.

Ever since Standard Oil went over there in 1936 and taught the arabs how to drill they have been holding the west hostage with oil prices. But then again were stupid enough to drive gas guzzling SUV's when we live in downtown urban areas and have no practical use for them either!

I think the old saying "there's a sucker born every minute" applies here.
on Sep 23, 2004
But we do buy most of our oil outside of OPEC....
on Sep 23, 2004
uhm... i mean lets COMPLETELY cut them out.
on Sep 23, 2004
I don't think that oil was the main reason for the invasion, but more of a secondary reason. Why else would we be paying Haliburton $4.00 a gallon for kuwaiti gas?


Haliburton is not an oil company, they are a logistics company, there is a difference.
on Sep 23, 2004
have always said that we should buy our oil from Russia, call in our markers with Mexico and South America for oil, and cut OPEC out of the picture.

Ever since Standard Oil went over there in 1936 and taught the arabs how to drill they have been holding the west hostage with oil prices. But then again were stupid enough to drive gas guzzling SUV's when we live in downtown urban areas and have no practical use for them either!

I think the old saying "there's a sucker born every minute" applies here.


Yet all the people who want to cut out OPEC are against drilling in the ANWAR, especially when a drill is inserted in a barren place than drilled underneath the wildlife and enviroment to the oil. What is the ANWAR a plague? First I would have congress put laws down so that SUVs and gas guzzling vehicles are forbidden, only high gas mileage cars are allowed, wouldn't you do the samething?

- GX
"I have no answers to your questions, but I can question your demands." - Motto Inspired by Laibach's WAT
on Sep 23, 2004
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society."

Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960
3 Pages1 2 3