As in the past, wars have been fought over resources. Oil, being the dominant resource needed to expand a nations economy will sooner or later run out. Although some efforts have been made to transition the U.S off oil, this transition is minimal and doesnt consider the fact that other nations such as India and China are in the beginning stages of modernizing their infrastructure and economy, which will lead to a much much higher demand and need in the next couple of years as they continue to grow exponentially.

Also, id like to point out that the " war on terrorism " has allowed the U.S to set up many more military bases around and in oil enriched countries. Its the ultimate preemptive attack since it is closing off the one resource needed to fuel every aspect of a nations economy.


What do you guys think ?

6/8/2008 6:49:18 PM

REPUBLICAN WAR HAWKS KILL BABIES AND EAT OIL FOR BREAKFAST DAMN AMERICA DAMN HUMANS LETS KILL EVERYBODY

6/8/2008 6:52:10 PM

I think you've been playing too many videogames.



We've got a shit ton of coal and oil shale in our backyard, and the technology to build as many nuclear power plants as we want. It would make a lot more sense for the US to use the energy resources we have right here on our soil, rather than pillaging other nations.

[Edited on June 8, 2008 at 6:54 PM. Reason : 2]

6/8/2008 6:53:32 PM

I think you need to polish up on your history and your arithmetic...

Quote :

"which will lead to a much much higher demand and need in the next couple of years"

6/8/2008 6:53:45 PM

if you think the Iraq war was not about oil, you're as naive as i was 5 years ago

6/8/2008 7:10:00 PM

if you think the Iraq war was about oil, you're as naive as i was 5 years ago

6/8/2008 7:10:40 PM

did you really believe that 5 years ago or are you just saying that?

6/8/2008 7:12:04 PM

Quote :

"if you think the Iraq war was not about oil, you're as naive as i was 5 years ago"

count me as naive. i think the initial intent was to overthrow a tyrant dictator and uphold democracy. i think logistically we made some errors, but the next president will have the vision to move in the right direction.

6/8/2008 7:12:46 PM

The war was a result of the neocon postulation that having a democratic ally in the region would benefit us. Energy security was one of the perceived benefits, but not the only one.

[Edited on June 8, 2008 at 7:19 PM. Reason : 2]

6/8/2008 7:17:47 PM

I thought the initial intent was because they definitely probably had some WMDs? And then it was to fight the al Qaida cells there? And then it was because if we left, they'd end up worse off than before?

6/8/2008 7:19:27 PM

No, the word you are looking for is "justification"

6/8/2008 7:20:07 PM

yeh, the original plan in case some of you forget was to:

plan a huge conspiracy and attack some parts of the country and claim terrorists did it
then relate that mess to the middle east, invade their countries and bring oil back

6/8/2008 7:29:38 PM

^you lack a fundamental understanding of the needs of other nations. Oil is a necessity which continues to increase in price. Theres no stopping in this rise of cost since other countries are demanding it more and more. Its the fundamental dilemma of high demand and short supply. And forgot about the U.S drilling for oil since it would cost much more to do this than it would to just simply buy it from the middle east, venezuela, and mexico where the cost to extract and refine are much less costly.

Prices will become too much of a burden on several nation's economies and this will ultimately lead to a knee jerk reaction of one country that will explode into a world war.

[Edited on June 8, 2008 at 7:55 PM. Reason : x]

6/8/2008 7:47:15 PM

We should have done a preemptive attack on the wildlife in Alaska and taken their oil instead. Elk don't hate freedom and as such would have been much more receptive to American democracy.

6/8/2008 7:54:54 PM

first cheap mass produced electric car = we gonna be ok

6/8/2008 7:55:51 PM

Now, I do not completely digress with the author of this thread. Nor do I endorse the idea that the US has staged the war on terror to monopolize oil.

However, if there is a global shortage of oil and people begin to starve and whole nations are brought to their knees, I think we are well placed (having bases in strategic regions) if push comes to shove.

We would be fools not to look at the cataclysmic worse case scenario.

First thing Russia would do is invade anwr and drill our oil.... something we should be tapping now.

6/8/2008 8:16:18 PM

Quote :

"i think the initial intent was to overthrow a tyrant dictator and uphold democracy."

yo to add to this...why cant we do this to countries like cuba and north korea etc? i always wondered as a kid why we couldnt just like take over countries and make them like us

6/8/2008 8:19:42 PM

Israel has a lot more to do with the Iraq war than oil.

6/8/2008 8:20:43 PM

^^ sadly enough, I think the majority of americans have the same thought process as this guy.

[Edited on June 8, 2008 at 8:21 PM. Reason : x]

6/8/2008 8:21:31 PM

^^ no it doesn't

6/9/2008 12:30:33 AM

Quote :

"We should have done a preemptive attack on the wildlife in Alaska and taken their oil instead. Elk don't hate freedom and as such would have been much more receptive to American democracy."

We'll be welcomed as liberators!

6/9/2008 1:54:13 AM

overthrowing tyrants is never a real reason. countries don't get involved unless it's something it for them . hell aids, malaria, starvation , etc have killed more people in africa than sadam in iraq . why haven't we spent billions helping the Africans out?both those wars could be looked as war's on shitty quality of life. so what's the difference?...africa doesn't have oil

6/9/2008 2:36:42 AM

africa is not a country

6/9/2008 2:38:57 AM

Quote :

"hell aids, malaria, starvation , etc have killed more people in africa than sadam in iraq"

imo the leaders of a lot of the countries are to blame for those things...many of them are tyrants...why cant the US just take them over so the people have a better way of life?

6/9/2008 2:41:51 AM

Quote :

"overthrowing tyrants is never a real reason. countries don't get involved unless it's something it for them "

ah, good point. wait.. was hitler a tyrant?

Quote :

"hell aids, malaria, starvation , etc have killed more people in africa than sadam in iraq . why haven't we spent billions helping the Africans out?"

WE HAVE BEEN, FOR DECADES

Quote :

"both those wars could be looked as war's on shitty quality of life. so what's the difference?...africa doesn't have oil "

yes ... OR ... one could be looked at as a preemptive war, and the other could be looked at as ongoing hopeless charities in a deprived region


unlike aids, we were actually able to kill iraq's virus

6/9/2008 3:07:39 AM

i thought this argument was settled

the most convincing reason why we went to war is to keep the petro-dollar cycle intact
that was the most immediate and most impactful danger we faced from iraq

anyone thinking it was to overthrow saddam or for democracy is a flippin moron
we supported saddam for a long time while he was a dictator, we only turned against him because saudi arabia felt threatened by him and we had to protect them


so the only rational reasons for going to war is petro/dollar or plain oil

6/9/2008 3:13:46 AM

lafta, based on your posts, you don't have any business calling anyone else here a moron.

6/9/2008 3:17:00 AM

Quote :

"anyone thinking it was to overthrow saddam or for democracy is a flippin moron we supported saddam for a long time while he was a dictator, we only turned against him because saudi arabia felt threatened by him and we had to protect them "

the fact that we supported him in the cold war is a futile point, and yea, we turned against him because he fucking invaded kuwait, not because SA felt "threatened".

6/9/2008 3:38:09 AM

Quote :

"hell aids, malaria, starvation , etc have killed more people in africa than sadam in iraq . why haven't we spent billions helping the Africans out?both those wars could be looked as war's on shitty quality of life. so what's the difference?...africa doesn't have oil"

Both parties agree that aids, malaria, and starvation are bad. As such they aren't talking points and nobody goes out of their way to make a big deal out of them.

6/9/2008 3:41:34 AM

^^^^ 1)where did i say Africa was a country? 2)hitler was baking jews like toll house cookies and most countries including the us joined the war not bc he was a tyrant but bc they were attacked. 3) we've spent over 500bill on the war in Iraq. While we may have sent more than that help Africa we've gone over that fact that it's a continent with a fuckton more inhabitants than iraq.4) so you're saying diseases like aids only affects Africans? pumping that 500bill into research would life easier for a lot of Amerians too.5) Africa is was just an example. there's fucked up shit in A LOT of places in the world but you can you best believe those who have resources be it oil, diamonds whatever will continue to get priority.

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 3:49 AM. Reason : .]

6/9/2008 3:46:02 AM

Quote :

"the fact that we supported him in the cold war is a futile point, and yea, we turned against him because he fucking invaded kuwait, not because SA felt "threatened"."

you dumbass, go read about the invasion, we couldnt give a rats ass about kuwait, we only stepped in cause saudi arabia asked us to get involved, he was still our ally at that point so we had to choose the lesser of the two evils
support our oil or saddam

6/9/2008 4:08:55 AM

Quote :

"Israel has a lot more to do with the Iraq war than oil."

6/9/2008 6:12:07 AM

Quote :

"Saudi Arabia has more to do with the Iraq war than Israel"

6/9/2008 12:26:16 PM

^^ i couldn't disagree more.

the fact that the country exists probably has more to do with oil than does the Book of Revelations (ok maybe i'm getting carried away here, but you know where i stand)

6/9/2008 1:57:33 PM

Quote :

"^^ no it doesn't"

Yes, it does.

AIPAC lobbying for war in Iraq was concerted, aggressive, and effective.

6/9/2008 1:59:53 PM

Quote :

""Saudi Arabia has more to do with the Iraq war than Israel""

dude we are talking about the current iraq war, not the previous one. you seem to be stuck in 1991. i know all about the previous one vis-a-vis saudi arabia. this one has nothing to do with saudi arabia.

6/9/2008 5:20:33 PM

Anyone who does not think Iraq's vast oil reserve's had nothing to do with the war is an idiot. Hell all of the clever justifications war hawks love to use for why we went to Iraq would make more sense. As it would show how Iraq out of all the other authoritarian anti-US belligerent regimes in the world why we choose it as the country to have a full scale military operation in.

6/9/2008 10:51:26 PM

The poor oil companies are stuck in a loop, too.

They know full well that we face a refinery gap right now, far moreso than any true "shortage" of oil supply. Problem is, despite the profit carrot sitting in their faces, they know that within a decade (maybe two) an oil refinery will be obsolete or on its way out. Nobody wants to be stuck with the high cost of a new oil-to-gasoline refinery while all the new autos are running on berry juice. Hence, no help on the way.

6/10/2008 1:52:39 AM

^ sounds like a negative feedback loop if you ask me.

oil companies don't want to open new refineries b.c of high cost and technology that is making oil obsolete in the long wrong. thus demand outstrips supply forcing high prices. high prices create motive to investigate alternative energy that makes oil obsolete.

6/10/2008 2:17:28 AM

RIP oil companies

6/10/2008 2:26:35 AM

We went to war in Iraq for one reason.....we thought they had WMD's. Post 9/11, the US, which had been very passive offensively decided to wake up and go after its enemies (war on terror...yadda yadda yadda). We thought they had WMD's because atleast 3 individual sources told us this was the case. Saddam with WMD's would be the ultimate terrorist, given his past.....

Did it ever occur to us that a free Iraq would be beneficial to the US....Im sure it did Did it occur to us that Iraq is full of oil which we will need......Im sure it did. Were these the major driving forces for the war.....NO!

Gas was still in the $1.** range when we went into Iraq. There was no need at that time to wage war for the sole purpose of oil. Never did you hear any speach or retoric about oil during congressional speaches or presidental speaches prior to the Iraq war.

6/10/2008 8:43:54 AM

Quote :

"We went to war in Iraq for one reason.....we thought they had WMD's. "

That's the reason that was told to the world.

And BTW, a supposedly WMD-enabled Iraq was a threat to the US Isreal. That's the reason.

6/10/2008 10:35:38 AM

^ No if Iraq had weapons, we know his hatred for America was more than enough to cause him to attack us. He coulda manufactured and sold a WMD to Bin-laden for all we know. After 9-11 we couldn't take that risk.

6/10/2008 11:52:14 AM

If the U.S. in the future ever decides to have wars over oil, I feel sorry for Canada and Mexico.

6/10/2008 11:57:49 AM

^^

Quote :

"He coulda manufactured and sold a WMD to Bin-laden for all we know."

So "coulda" a dozen or so other countries. Seriously that was the dumbest comment I've read in the soap box in recent memory.

I tend to think that our government is completely inept, but they didn't invade iraq on the basis of "coulda" and "for all we know"

6/10/2008 12:49:41 PM

Quote :

"Post 9/11, the US, which had been very passive offensively decided to wake up and go after its enemies (war on terror...yadda yadda yadda)."

Except Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Furthermore Saddam and Osama Bin Laden probably hated each other because they idealized two completely different philosophies. Imagine Vladamir Putin working with Billy Graham.

6/10/2008 12:51:57 PM

Quote :

"We went to war in Iraq for one reason.....we thought they had WMD's. Post 9/11, the US, which had been very passive offensively decided to wake up and go after its enemies (war on terror...yadda yadda yadda). We thought they had WMD's because atleast 3 individual sources told us this was the case. Saddam with WMD's would be the ultimate terrorist, given his past..... "

lol, this guy cant possibly be serious

6/10/2008 2:49:30 PM

^please enlighten us then....what reason, from 2001 to 2003 were we in Iraq for? We were there because our sources, Russia, and the British told us they had WMD's. Thats it! This IS the reason why we went to Iraq.

oil, peace, brutal dictator harming humanity.....none of these was enough for us to go into Iraq.

The sole reason to justify the war was Iraq had WMD's and the US had just been attacked. Either one by themselves does not justify war. Put them together and you have justification.

Take 911 away and you have the same passive American government that you had for the previous 20+ years. Take away the WMD's, theres a much smaller threat and...well you get the picture.

then again, im arguing with people who were in middle school when this happened, how do i expect them to remember....

[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 3:35 PM. Reason : .]

6/10/2008 3:34:11 PM

Quote :

"Russia, and the British told us they had WMD's. Thats it! This IS the reason why we went to Iraq."

lol

6/10/2008 3:35:06 PM

Quote :

"Except Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Furthermore Saddam and Osama Bin Laden probably hated each other because they idealized two completely different philosophies. Imagine Vladamir Putin working with Billy Graham."

You are missing the point. You cannot argue a decision made in 2001 or 2002 based on what we know in 2008. You are playing monday morning QB here. Was it a bad decision looking back...sure it was. At that moment in time, it may have been the right call.

Furthermore, the US shifted our policy away from previous thinking. Your logic, that we should simply wait for someone to attack us and then go attack them, was no longer valid. Thats the point you dont seem to realize. We shifted into an offensive mode rather than playing defense.

6/10/2008 3:51:32 PM