3 ms·

I've added a second quote that more directly addresses the question. But even the first one clearly points to the role of oil in deciding the invasion: there's

I've added a second quote that more directly addresses the question. But even the first one clearly points to the role of oil in deciding the invasion: there's no need to price the thing out because Iraq has more than enough oil to pay for any and all reconstruction itself. Of course that's going to be a factor in any invasion decision. In any case, further quote from the second one: > To this end, as Whitehall documents obtained by the Independent show, the US and British sought to privatise Iraqi oil production with a view to allow foreign companies to takeover. Minutes of a meeting held on 12 May 2003 said: "The future shape of the Iraqi industry will affect oil markets, and the functioning of Opec, in both of which we have a vital interest." > A "desirable" outcome for Iraqi's crippled oil industry, officials concluded, is: "... an oil sector open and attractive to foreign investment, with appropriate arrangements for the exploitation of new fields." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/m...

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
Interesting. So just oil in a general sense but also Iraq as a destabilizing entity in the area where oil is a primary natural resource. We have to be careful not to be confused with the common conspiracy theory that the US wanted to steal Iraqi oil. I can buy that. This also needs some context though. Meeting minutes can be seen as brainstorming ideas. Having oil is huge though- having a good natural resource cash cow helps you pay/feed your military and fund an economy- something we see Afghanistan lacked. Good point though, noted. Thanks.
- nicoffeine 5y ago
  > We have to be careful not to be confused with the common conspiracy theory that the US wanted to steal Iraqi oil Under Saddam, Iraq's oil was nationalized, and most of the profits went to Iraq's government, with Chinese and Russian companies taking less than 10%. After the invasion, the US pushed for a law that would allow no-bid contracts to western oil companies[1]. It never passed because that would have been the end of Maliki's government. So, to be fair, we wanted to steal the profits from Iraqi oil production, and secure access to the 3rd largest reserves on earth. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_oil_law_(2007) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_oil_law_(2007)

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

Interesting. So just oil in a general sense but also Iraq as a destabilizing entity in the area where oil is a primary natural resource. We have to be careful not to be confused with the common conspiracy theory that the US wanted to steal Iraqi oil. I can buy that. This also needs some context though. Meeting minutes can be seen as brainstorming ideas. Having oil is huge though- having a good natural resource cash cow helps you pay/feed your military and fund an economy- something we see Afghanistan lacked. Good point though, noted. Thanks.

nicoffeine 5y ago
> We have to be careful not to be confused with the common conspiracy theory that the US wanted to steal Iraqi oil Under Saddam, Iraq's oil was nationalized, and most of the profits went to Iraq's government, with Chinese and Russian companies taking less than 10%. After the invasion, the US pushed for a law that would allow no-bid contracts to western oil companies[1]. It never passed because that would have been the end of Maliki's government. So, to be fair, we wanted to steal the profits from Iraqi oil production, and secure access to the 3rd largest reserves on earth. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_oil_law_(2007) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_oil_law_(2007)