The 2nd Gulf War, Why?

So... what say you ? and why ?

Yes, the oil was one of the reasons. I have always said that the United States did the right things for the wrong reasons. Saddam really did need to be removed from power, and the United States did the right thing in ousting him. However, why not the other countries with oppressive leadership? 

A range of reasons. Oil is a nice economic one and was surely a factor.

Bush was deeply against Saddam right from the beginning, inheriting the lingering legacy of an "unfinished war". With Bush's childlike understanding of conflict resolution, that could only mean he had to be a man and finish the job.

Also important is that Bush needed victory, his Presidency depended on it. When the invasion of Afghanistan failed to bring him Osama bin Laden, the man who the American media had set in the minds of all Americans as the most terrifying figure in the world was still on the loose. Consequently Bush needed to vanquish another "bad guy" to make up for that deficit. Also, Bush had declared war on a concept called terror. This was incredibly stupid move as "terror" is an abstract idea and not a solid, physical target that you can simply bring down with a nice military. the Second Gulf War in  Iraq was shifting the war back into tangible military action against an actual nation with an actual army to result in an actual victory. Not finding an enemy to defeat would have been political suicide for Bush, and that wasn't an option.

Oil is 100% NOT it!  Why could you even believe you?  Gas prices are still enormous.  If we were there for oil, we would have it.  Please do not make assumptions that have no bases.

I don't care if you don't believe it was for democracy, but it was not for oil.  There is no reason to believe that.

Other - geo-politics

 

I agree completely with the suggestions that it was a strategic geo-political move (which includes the oil aspect), and relevant to not just today, but perhaps the next 100 years.. The matter is not so much the price of oil as to secure the supply with some certainty. Better the price of $100, then none at all. Price will come down anyway, as long as supply not threatned. Rising China is very relevant and has been spreading its tenticles around the region, already in Sudan and Iran.

Our own Tony would probably not have got involved so readily unless the future of the Anglo-Saxon economy was at stake.

Oil is 100% NOT it!  Why could you even believe you?  Gas prices are still enormous.  If we were there for oil, we would have it.  Please do not make assumptions that have no bases.

 

Then why were Wolfowitz and company drooling over Iraqi oil supplies when they were in front of the Senate?  The reason oil prices are so high is A, Iraqi pipelines are constantly being severed and Iraq production is a fraction of what it should be.  B instability in Iraq and in the region has caused supply worries which have inflated prices.  C, with rising demand by developing nations like China and India Oil prices will continue going up.

 

This may be a broad generalization but I'd wager that if not for oil you probably never would have heard the name Saddam Hussein.

Originally posted by Laelius Oil is 100% NOT it!  Why could you even believe you?  Gas prices are still enormous.  If we were there for oil, we would have it.  Please do not make assumptions that have no bases. Then why were Wolfowitz and company drooling over Iraqi oil supplies when they were in front of the Senate?  The reason oil prices are so high is A, Iraqi pipelines are constantly being severed and Iraq production is a fraction of what it should be.  B instability in Iraq and in the region has caused supply worries which have inflated prices.  C, with rising demand by developing nations like China and India Oil prices will continue going up.

D) there is a speculative bubble of oil prices caused partly by theories as peak oil and by circustantial events as Russian, Venezuelan and Gulf of Mexico's oil related problems/conflicts/disasters.

E) close to nothing has been done since the 70s to correct excessive dependency on oil (for instance promoting alcoholic fuels or solar energy)

Originally posted by Thegeneral Oil is 100% NOT it!  Why could you even believe you?  Gas prices are still enormous.  If we were there for oil, we would have it.  Please do not make assumptions that have no bases. I don't care if you don't believe it was for democracy, but it was not for oil.  There is no reason to believe that.

No-one is saying it was for cheap oil. The administration and the oil companies are perfectly happy to see oil cost a lot. That's why the companies' profits have been so huge the last couple of years.

It also wasn't, of course, to 'steal' the oil.

The motive was to establish control over the oil supply, and, furthermore, to ensure oil goes on being priced in dollars (and the oil countries keep their currency reserves in dollars). As long as Iraq and the rest continue to sell its oil to the US for dollars, the US government is happy.

Saddam, you may or may not remember, had switched to selling for euros.

 

 

Oil was a large part of why the U.S. and Britain invaded Iraq. The U.S. position in Saudia Arabia was becoming politicaly untenable,  especially after 9/11. The U.S. needed a new center of power in the Persian Gulf and Iraq offered a large oil reserve, large land base, and an unpopular and militarily weak regime who many Iraqis would be glad to be without.

Profit was also a motive I believe. The "Defence" Industry in America is HUGE, and has a great deal of power in forming U.S. policy. The same corperations who contributed so much to getting G. Bush into power are making alot of money as weapons, equipment, and ammunition are produced to replace those used in the war in Iraq.