[rockdoc123]

Oils value at the global strategic level is not how much you get for selling it, but how important it is to keep it flowing in the global economy. Saudi resource nationalism was tamed by enticements, Iraqs by invasion. Iran however seems to be rather stiff necked about the whole affair.

While nationalized after 1972 the Iraqis continued to sell oil on the open market and ship it. The Saudis supply restrictions were not about saving the oil for themselves but rather about getting a better price and Iran is open to foreign companies, it has been for sometime. The contracts are service agreements but that has not stopped companies like Total and Statoil from participating. The only restriction on Iran has been external through the Iran Libya Sanctions Act imposed by the US and further more recent sanctions imposed by various countries with regards to the uranium enrichment program. Iran would be shipping and selling all they can if they weren't subject to sanctions.

[ROCKMAN]

D - "The war was not fought 'for big oil' but to prevent resource nationalism being able to constrain supplies" That has my vote. I doubt any US gov't has seriously considered it had the ability to control the gov't of any ME country for decades. Good to remember that there is no "US Oil Company". The best our gov't could hope for is a US oil corp getting absolute control of Iraq AND giving preferential treatment to the US when it came time to ship the oil out. If anyone thinks such a plan had any chance of success I've got some old lottery tickets to sell you. If President Bush had a plan to "steal" Iraq oil he didn't do a very good job. First, Iraq hasn't given anyone their oil. Such an expectation would be absurd IMHO: when was the last time any foreign gov't took sovereign control of any ME country? I think the last effort was Russia in Afgh. How that work for them? LOL. The Chinese and a few others will make a few $'s by helping Iraq develop the reserves and maybe earn some preferential rights in the process. If the US goal was to put Iraq under the control of a new gov't willing to do it's best to bring it's oil to the market place it has worked ...to a degree ...for now.

Proof? Depends on if there could ever be "proof". If President Bush were to say we went to war in Iraq because of oil would that constitute proof? Even then one could only consider it proof if they assumed the POTUS was telling the truth. Call him a liar and...poof...no proof...in your opinion. I'm good with my even handed analysis of life and am satisfied with my option on such matters. Typically I don't really care if someone else considers my opinion valid or not. Just as I don't consider their opinion is valid. Unless, of course, if they share my opinion. Hey...I'm only saying what some don't have the guts to say out loud. LOL.

[Keith_McClary]

The war was not fought 'for big oil' but to prevent resource nationalism being able to constrain supplies. So long as the oil was guaranteed to reach the market the supplier was of little interest.

The plan was to plant a pro US government helping to encircle Iran and reinforce the US's dominance of the region. ...

Also, I think, to be in a better position to embargo oil shipments to any country they want to bully. They can already do this to some extent through control of refining, shipping, banking and insurance. Turning off the taps at the source closes a possible loophole.

Of course, they can always resort to piracy on the high seas.

[KaiserJeep]

the mere fact that there is oil in a ME country does not prove we fought a war there over oil.

The mere fact that GWB was a Texan does not prove we fought a war over oil.

The fact that there is now a minority holding in Iraqi oil by US civilian companies does not prove the war was over oil.

"Proof" is what I am looking for, nobody has provided the slightest shred of actual evidence, only unsupported allegations and smears.

As for the proof that Saddam was refining Uranium to weapons grade, try reading this book:

http://www.daveedgr.com/publications/bo ... -the-bomb/

[Plantagenet]

the mere fact that there is oil in a ME country does not prove we fought a war there over oil.

Oil wasn't the ONLY factor, but it definitely was a factor.

The middle east is strategically important because it has oil, and Iraq has more oil than any other ME country except KSA. I'm sure the Bush administration knew that and considered that when they invaded Iraq, just as the Obama administration knew and considered that Libya was a major supplier of oil to Europe when they joined France and Britain in bombing the bejesus out of Libya.

Unlike Iraq and Libya, Syria doesn't have much oil, hence the lack of direct intervention by the US and other western countries in the horrible war in Syria even as it drags on and on and the killing of civilians far exceeds that seen in Libya, where saving human life was ostensibly the excuse for our bombing.

[Keith_McClary]

As for the proof that Saddam was refining Uranium to weapons grade, try reading this book:

http://www.daveedgr.com/publications/bo ... -the-bomb/

Scott Ritter thinks it's BS

Albright helped sell Obeidi’s story about buried uranium centrifuge parts to the media, even though a true nuclear expert would have known that what Mahdi Obeidi claims to have hidden possessed absolutely no value in the field of nuclear enrichment, and any former U.N. weapons inspector worth his or her salt would have recognized the inconsistencies and improbabilities in the Obeidi story.

but I guess you can pick and choose what you want to believe in.

When high US officials are plotting to grab Iraqi oil it's not proof, but when some scientist buries blueprints, it is proof.

[Plantagenet]

When high US officials are plotting to grab Iraqi oil ...

Perhaps they are still plotting, but so far it hasn't happened.

The facts are clear on that one---as Rock pointed out above, its 10 years now since the US invasion of Iraq and neither US high officials or US oil companies "grabbed" Iraqi oil. Its probably time to let that particular charge slip into the dustbin of history.

[Shaved Monkey]

Iraq owned the oil and the profits and didnt allow the US to control its flow or profits.
And could put the brakes on or the price up at will.
Iraq also didnt like Israel and was accumulating plenty of money that could cause it pain in the future.
And Iraq stopped spending its money fighting Iran
Sadam thought he didnt need to listen to the US to be alive
All this was reason enough to invade.

Similar story to Gadafi and Syria and Iran

If you have oil arent scared of the US and dont like Israel its not a great formula not to get bombed into the stone age.

[ralfy]

Evidently, you are not familiar with the term "Evidence", because there is NONE in the article. The links all go to other CNN news articles, none go to actual evidence. Those other news articles are also unsupported by evidence.

Check the CNN article for links to multiple sources. Many of the links are not "other CNN news articles."

In case you did not know this, CNN often reports stories that they probably believe to be true, or wish were true, or know not to be true, simply because they relate to a liberal narrative. Nobody ever mistakes CNN for a legitimate news organization.

Go over the points raised by Abizaid, Greenspan, and others (including Derr), as well as the book referred to in the NS Archive article, and show that they made no such remarks.

The melodrama about CNN and some "liberal narrative" makes no sense at all.

Again, if anyone has ACTUAL EVIDENCE that the Iraq War relates to "Big Oil" at all, please link to it. Because I see the above report as more of the usual CNN BS.

See all of the references in the CNN article referred to in the first article (again, they are not "other CNN news articles"), the three-part NS Archive report in the second link (which contains multiple references to declassified documents), Prados' book Hoodwinked, multiple articles here:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/political-i ... -iraq.html

All of the links in this section:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale ... aq_War#Oil

You can use the first part of the section for counter-arguments, as well as articles like,

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold ... -oil-myth/

And look at other countries involved. For example,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 69610.html

and more.

Again, keep in mind that many of the references used involve statements made by politicians and military officers, intelligence reports, declassified government documents, etc.

[KaiserJeep]

The presence of oil in Iraq does not mean the Iraq war was about oil.

The opinions of individual politicians and military officers are just that - opinions, not evidence.

The opinions of an author of a book he wants to sell are not evidence.

Do you have policy statements from the POTUS? Do you have US Congressional resolutions? Do you have sworn testimony to that effect? Do you have ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER?

One may make any inferences, wild guesses, or statements one wishes, and even quote reasons why you believe as you do. But that is not proof of anything, unless you have physical evidence or sworn testimony.

Sometimes you can have contradictory evidence as well. For examples, look to the JFK assasination or the 9/11 attacks. In that case, you either believe the official version or the crackpot conspiracy theory. Which is what we are talking about now, because there is no evidence that the Iraq War was about oil, and plenty of testimony, official policy statements, etc. that say it was not.

[Keith_McClary]

The presence of oil in Iraq does not mean the Iraq war was about oil.

The opinions of individual politicians and military officers are just that - opinions, not evidence.

The opinions of an author of a book he wants to sell are not evidence.

Do you have policy statements from the POTUS? Do you have US Congressional resolutions? Do you have sworn testimony to that effect? Do you have ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER?

One may make any inferences, wild guesses, or statements one wishes, and even quote reasons why you believe as you do. But that is not proof of anything, unless you have physical evidence or sworn testimony.

Sometimes you can have contradictory evidence as well. For examples, look to the JFK assasination or the 9/11 attacks. In that case, you either believe the official version or the crackpot conspiracy theory. Which is what we are talking about now, because there is no evidence that the Iraq War was about oil, and plenty of testimony, official policy statements, etc. that say it was not.

So, in all these cases your definition of "evidence" and "proof" is whatever the gubmint says.

[KaiserJeep]

Does that mean what it seems to mean, that you subscribe to an available conspiracy theory whenever possible?

[Keith_McClary]

Does that mean what it seems to mean, that you subscribe to an available conspiracy theory whenever possible?

No, it means I don't believe everything gubmint tells us, as you do:

Do you have policy statements from the POTUS? Do you have US Congressional resolutions?

I've been around long enough to see too many lies exposed.

[ralfy]

The presence of oil in Iraq does not mean the Iraq war was about oil.

Not just oil, as seen in relations between the Reagan administration and Saddam's regime.

The opinions of individual politicians and military officers are just that - opinions, not evidence.

But it's not just opinions but intelligence reports, declassified documents, etc. More details in the CNN article and my previous messages.

The opinions of an author of a book he wants to sell are not evidence.

That should apply to any book for both sides. The bigger problem is that you fail to note that such opinions are backed by evidence.

Do you have policy statements from the POTUS? Do you have US Congressional resolutions? Do you have sworn testimony to that effect? Do you have ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER?

That makes absolutely no sense at all, as you are essentially accepting as evidence only a wrongdoer's admission.

One may make any inferences, wild guesses, or statements one wishes, and even quote reasons why you believe as you do. But that is not proof of anything, unless you have physical evidence or sworn testimony.

This is obviously true, but this argument is not taking place in a court of law. Also, you always start with "inferences, wild guesses, or statements one wishes" in order to move to "physical evidence or sworn testimony." The problem is that you are dismissing the former, hoping that the latter will miraculously take place.

Sometimes you can have contradictory evidence as well. For examples, look to the JFK assasination or the 9/11 attacks. In that case, you either believe the official version or the crackpot conspiracy theory. Which is what we are talking about now, because there is no evidence that the Iraq War was about oil, and plenty of testimony, official policy statements, etc. that say it was not.

The problem is that your "contrary evidence" is also prone to "wild guesses," opinions, etc.

[ralfy]

Does that mean what it seems to mean, that you subscribe to an available conspiracy theory whenever possible?

From what I remember, the country was attacked because of links between Saddam and al Qaeda and because it possessed WMDs. Both points have been put into question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hu ... llegations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_ ... estruction

Given that these are now admittedly intelligence failures, then the military would have been pulled out ASAP and government and military officials sanctioned. And yet that didn't happen. Meanwhile,

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 3986643975

Given these, the only logical reasons for the attack was either to control oil resources and/or to stop the country from moving away from the petrodollar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodoll ... cal_events

Finally, the reference to policy statements and resolutions does not make sense as the government will very likely not admit officially that it is doing something illegally.

[evilgenius]

"... in the likely occurrence that oil and natural gas were going to be found in abundance in the Caspian Sea region."

First, the huge oil reserves in the Caspian Sea region have been known for decades. As of 2012, the known oil reserves in this region, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), are estimated to be around 48 billion barrels, while there are approximately 292 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas. The NCOC further revealed that in 2012, oil production from Kashagan was estimated to be about 1.6 million barrels per day, while there are also plans to extract around 1.9 million by 2015 and 2.6 million by 2020.

Second: "...that the US was positioning itself to control land in Afghanistan in order to build pipelines across it". But the "US" doesn't build oil pipelines in other countries. In fact, the US doesn't build oil pipelines in the US. All those pipelines are built by corporations and national oil companies. Additionally it doesn't matter who physically builds the pipelines because the oil will be sold to the buyer the producer signs a contract with. Maybe some day a US company, like Halliburton, might build a pipeline across Afgh. but that will have no bearing on who gets the oil. It won't be important who brought "democracy" to Afgh. Just as we're seeing today with non-US companies currently dominating oil development in Iraq. Unless the US annexes the Caspian Sea region by force that oil will flow to whoever buys it.

You're nitpicking. Of course the US was not going to build those pipelines, corporations were. The policy, however, has got to come from somewhere. It can come from the organic nature of the marketplace, or from a marketplace brought about through state sponsorship. Your criticism is pedantic. Also the reserves are great, but not so great as to deflate the peak oil picture. They dreamed of whole Saudi Arabias, ready made swing producers, and got reality.