3 ms·

The mistake most make when criticizing US is when they put all the US into one bag. Like any country there are many competing forces in the US. Especially a cou

by shn 13y ago

The mistake most make when criticizing US is when they put all the US into one bag. Like any country there are many competing forces in the US. Especially a country like US, big and dominant, those forces are trying pull and bend the public opinion for their own agenda. That said arguing that it was for the oil (in the literal sense) without substantiating it only good for self-debunking. I think it would be known by now if Iraq's oil was really stolen (literally shipped overseas). I do not believe in that. Hegemony is all about controlling others so was the reason of this war. What has US gained can not be described in one sentence, especially if that sentence is just a rant. As much as it gained something she lost a lot as well, especially average American and multiples of it by the poor Iraqi people. Corporations, special interest groups and countries in that region which has deep and dirty ties with the congress (interestingly Iran as well) gained a lot.

mseebach 13y ago
There's a simpler reason, essentially the "follow the money" argument: It would have been A LOT cheaper (literally $trillions) and A LOT easier to quietly carry on supporting Saddam's regime in exchange for cheap oil. Hell, he could probably even have been convinced to hand over some inconvenient Shia "terrorists" and be applauded as a responsible ally in the war against terror.
- mercurial 13y ago
  On the other hand, the then-US government and its advisors clearly didn't read as much as General Mattis (or read the wrong books), and did not expect to find themselves embroiled in a bloody civil war. The fact that, as usual, there is not one bad single reason to go to war, but multiple ones, does not mean that acquiring strategic oil supplies was not a significant factor. And of course, spreading freedom and Coca-Cola through shock and awe.

by shn 13y ago

mseebach 13y ago

There's a simpler reason, essentially the "follow the money" argument: It would have been A LOT cheaper (literally $trillions) and A LOT easier to quietly carry on supporting Saddam's regime in exchange for cheap oil. Hell, he could probably even have been convinced to hand over some inconvenient Shia "terrorists" and be applauded as a responsible ally in the war against terror.

mercurial 13y ago
On the other hand, the then-US government and its advisors clearly didn't read as much as General Mattis (or read the wrong books), and did not expect to find themselves embroiled in a bloody civil war. The fact that, as usual, there is not one bad single reason to go to war, but multiple ones, does not mean that acquiring strategic oil supplies was not a significant factor. And of course, spreading freedom and Coca-Cola through shock and awe.