[Klaustrophobia]

a 40 MW reactor is NOT an energy-producing reactor.  that article you linked to even explicitly states that Hussein said it was the first step in making a bomb.

that said, i disagree with the "no need for peaceful nuclear power" sentiment.  it should be the other way around.  when nuclear power is available, there is no need for fossil.

[karajorma]

I never said it was energy producing. Nor did I say that Saddam didn't talk **** about it. Just pointing out that there were sufficient uses for Iraqi nuclear material that you were able to get America to condemn Israel over destroying it.

If that doesn't prove a peaceful application does exist the only other explanation is that American governments wanted Saddam to have the bomb in the 80s.

[Klaustrophobia]

maybe we did, i really don't know.  but my point was, that reactor did NOT exist for peaceful reasons, as i thought you were saying.

i'm not trying to take a side in this, i just feel the need to point things like that out.  on either side.

[MP-Ryan]

It's that way now, but oil demand is going up globally at an alarming rate, hence why we no longer have $10 a barrel oil. Also US oil production has been on the decline for decades. From the late 19th century all the way until the 1960's when production started declining the US essentially was the Saudi Arabia of oil and the center of world oil production.  Now much of its reserves are gone with many of the great reserves in texas and pennsylvania sucked dry.

Thanks to decades of sanctions and mismanagement, Iraq's oil fields are still mostly unexploited, with reserves far far exceeding anything Canada has to offer. 9/11 gave an opportunity to remove an unfriendly government and install a puppet government to put those oil fields essentially under our control. Sure we've got 50-100 years worth of tar sands, but lets also take into account that none of it becomes economically viable unless the prices are high, unlike the lakes of Iraqi oil which is very easy to get at. The price of oil for now is settling at between $70-$80 barrel. That price alone should indicate where we are on the supply and demand curve, especially compared with the $10 a barrel we used to pay just one decade ago. So, did the task force see this price rise coming? Probably, though since the details of that meeting are inexplicably highly classified we may never know for sure.

First off, apologies for the delay - I was camping all weekend.

Second, you're missing the big picture.

The United States, as of February 2010, spent $700+ billion dollars on the Iraq war.  One does not spend $700 billion dollars and then abandon ship if one's goals are economic.  especially considering the available oil supplies in other countries, even well into the next hundred years.

One does, however, commit that kind of money if one's goal is strategic.  As I said before, the endgame was/is/will be Iran.  Economics is a sideline.  Sure, friendly access to the oil supplies in Iraq would be great - but that is not going to happen so long as the current Iranian regime holds power.  Iran is the regional powerhouse.  If Iran can be brought politically into line and reduced to a stable nation, you end the major support behind ideo-religious terrorism, stabilize the region as a whole (encouraging economic development opportunities for Western nations), and open up natural resource markets across the entire Middle East to significant Western influence and development, simultaneously edging out China (who is Iran's largest customer).

Why do you think that the West consistently backed the dictatorship in Iran before the revolution, began backing Iraq following the Iranian revolution (despite actively sabotaging Iraqi intelligence), and has consistently done it's damndest to be a thorn in Iran's side?  Iran is the key to the entire Middle East - economically and strategically.  It's also the key to stopping the spread of Chinese influence throughout the region and reducing Chinese strategic reach - which, don't kid yourself, is #1 on the long-term list of priorities for US Presidents.  Anyone with half a brain can see the writing on the wall - the United States is slowly being replaced as the world's pre-eminent military and economic superpower.  Controlling the Middle East is the most effective means of slowing Chinese influence expansion.

Anyone who thinks the Iraq war is about oil is seriously shortsighted.  Oil was a convenient economic byproduct of the strategy in play.  Unfortunately, the strategy did not work.

There's this popular myth among those in opposition of the Iraq war that control of the oil supply leads to control of the world, in essence.  It's patently false.  Political and/or ideological control of nations leads to control of strategic assets, of which oil is but one.  Major world powers, China and the US among them, recognize this.  Predictions of resource wars are far overblown - if you control ideologies and political structures, war is entirely unnecessary.  And don't kid yourself - the only people who don't seem to realize this are the conspiracy theorists (who I've always considered a bunch of shortsighted loons anyway).

For the last time, the Iraq war was not about oil, no matter how hard you try not to look beyond the trees.

[Topgun]

It's that way now, but oil demand is going up globally at an alarming rate, hence why we no longer have $10 a barrel oil. Also US oil production has been on the decline for decades. From the late 19th century all the way until the 1960's when production started declining the US essentially was the Saudi Arabia of oil and the center of world oil production.  Now much of its reserves are gone with many of the great reserves in texas and pennsylvania sucked dry.

Thanks to decades of sanctions and mismanagement, Iraq's oil fields are still mostly unexploited, with reserves far far exceeding anything Canada has to offer. 9/11 gave an opportunity to remove an unfriendly government and install a puppet government to put those oil fields essentially under our control. Sure we've got 50-100 years worth of tar sands, but lets also take into account that none of it becomes economically viable unless the prices are high, unlike the lakes of Iraqi oil which is very easy to get at. The price of oil for now is settling at between $70-$80 barrel. That price alone should indicate where we are on the supply and demand curve, especially compared with the $10 a barrel we used to pay just one decade ago. So, did the task force see this price rise coming? Probably, though since the details of that meeting are inexplicably highly classified we may never know for sure.

First off, apologies for the delay - I was camping all weekend.

Second, you're missing the big picture.

The United States, as of February 2010, spent $700+ billion dollars on the Iraq war.  One does not spend $700 billion dollars and then abandon ship if one's goals are economic.  especially considering the available oil supplies in other countries, even well into the next hundred years.

One does, however, commit that kind of money if one's goal is strategic.  As I said before, the endgame was/is/will be Iran.  Economics is a sideline.  Sure, friendly access to the oil supplies in Iraq would be great - but that is not going to happen so long as the current Iranian regime holds power.  Iran is the regional powerhouse.  If Iran can be brought politically into line and reduced to a stable nation, you end the major support behind ideo-religious terrorism, stabilize the region as a whole (encouraging economic development opportunities for Western nations), and open up natural resource markets across the entire Middle East to significant Western influence and development, simultaneously edging out China (who is Iran's largest customer).

Why do you think that the West consistently backed the dictatorship in Iran before the revolution, began backing Iraq following the Iranian revolution (despite actively sabotaging Iraqi intelligence), and has consistently done it's damndest to be a thorn in Iran's side?  Iran is the key to the entire Middle East - economically and strategically.  It's also the key to stopping the spread of Chinese influence throughout the region and reducing Chinese strategic reach - which, don't kid yourself, is #1 on the long-term list of priorities for US Presidents.  Anyone with half a brain can see the writing on the wall - the United States is slowly being replaced as the world's pre-eminent military and economic superpower.  Controlling the Middle East is the most effective means of slowing Chinese influence expansion.

Anyone who thinks the Iraq war is about oil is seriously shortsighted.  Oil was a convenient economic byproduct of the strategy in play.  Unfortunately, the strategy did not work.

There's this popular myth among those in opposition of the Iraq war that control of the oil supply leads to control of the world, in essence.  It's patently false.  Political and/or ideological control of nations leads to control of strategic assets, of which oil is but one.  Major world powers, China and the US among them, recognize this.  Predictions of resource wars are far overblown - if you control ideologies and political structures, war is entirely unnecessary.  And don't kid yourself - the only people who don't seem to realize this are the conspiracy theorists (who I've always considered a bunch of shortsighted loons anyway).

For the last time, the Iraq war was not about oil, no matter how hard you try not to look beyond the trees.

that is, by far, the most interesting view on the Iraq war ive heard.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

He got his Custom Title for a reason, you know.

But yeah, it certainly does give me a bit to think about. I mean, I've been watching this war as it progressed for the past seven years and cannot help but ask myself why the US is spending so much money on this. The amount they've spent could have been put to better use propping up their own economy.

[Klaustrophobia]

i guarandamntee you if the war had never happened, the money would still not be going to anything worthwhile. 

[Kosh]

First off, apologies for the delay - I was camping all weekend.

Perfectly fine. Hope you enjoyed it.

The United States, as of February 2010, spent $700+ billion dollars on the Iraq war.  One does not spend $700 billion dollars and then abandon ship  if one's goals are economic.  especially considering the available oil supplies in other countries, even well into the next hundred years.

I addressed this in my previous post.

And by the way, the US is only leaving Iraq because we were kicked out. There was never an exit strategy and in fact they were building 14 huge permenant bases until recently. Have you seen the new US embassy in Baghdad? It's bigger than the Vatican.

One does, however, commit that kind of money if one's goal is strategic.  As I said before, the endgame was/is/will be Iran.  Economics is a sideline.  Sure, friendly access to the oil supplies in Iraq would be great - but that is not going to happen so long as the current Iranian regime holds power.  Iran is the regional powerhouse.  If Iran can be brought politically into line and reduced to a stable nation, you end the major support behind ideo-religious terrorism, stabilize the region as a whole (encouraging economic development opportunities for Western nations), and open up natural resource markets across the entire Middle East to significant Western influence and development, simultaneously edging out China (who is Iran's largest customer).

Why do you think that the West consistently backed the dictatorship in Iran before the revolution, began backing Iraq following the Iranian revolution (despite actively sabotaging Iraqi intelligence), and has consistently done it's damndest to be a thorn in Iran's side?  Iran is the key to the entire Middle East - economically and strategically.  It's also the key to stopping the spread of Chinese influence throughout the region and reducing Chinese strategic reach - which, don't kid yourself, is #1 on the long-term list of priorities for US Presidents.  Anyone with half a brain can see the writing on the wall - the United States is slowly being replaced as the world's pre-eminent military and economic superpower.  Controlling the Middle East is the most effective means of slowing Chinese influence expansion.

And why do we even care about that? Because the mid east is the major center for oil production. Case in point, Somalia holds a fairly important position since anything going through the suez passes very close to it, but it's been in total anarchy for 20 years. As a result it's become a haven for pirates constantly hitting commercial shipping causing huge losses. Do we go in there and impose some kind of government? No, all we do is send some ships. Now if somalia had oil, we wouldn't have left so easily.

[karajorma]

So it's about oil because oil is what gives those nations their main revenue. MP-Ryan's point is that it isn't about oil because the US politicians want the money the oil will make them. If Iraq had the same GDP from something the US had no interest in the war would still have happened.

This war was never about money and it was never about controlling oil supplies. That was just a nice bonus.

[Kosh]

Well if Iran was the most important factor in this then why not invade them from the outset instead of knocking off one of their biggest enemies?


EDIT: I'm also going to point out that the US did in fact have a chance to make amends with Iran but walked away from it. If we were really out there trying to curb chinese influence, how does this help?

Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces three years ago, an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table -- including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups.

But top Bush administration officials, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse, belittled the initiative. Instead, they formally complained to the Swiss ambassador who had sent the fax with a cover letter certifying it as a genuine proposal supported by key power centers in Iran, former administration officials said.

[Flipside]

I think they were still riding high on the 'defenders of the free world' buzz at that stage, they didn't realise the scope of the job they had taken on, or, if they did, they chose to ignore the fact that the time.

I think the decisions to invade Iraq were manifold, as MPRyan states, it was mostly about getting a foot in the door of the Middle East, but the timing also needs to be taken into account. Afghanistan was famous for a while because of an alleged 'oil pipeline' that was to be built through it, but people confuse advantages with reasons. When the planes hit the towers on 9/11, there was no doubt that someone's arse was going to get kicked for it. Conspiracy theories aside, I'm pretty sure that, given a choice, the Coalition wouldn't have picked Afghanistan, based on the model of decades of failed Russian occupation, anyone who had a moderate knowledge of the history of the area would have known this would be a long-run war, though, I'm not certain Bush fell into this category, but his generals certainly did for reasons stated earlier.

Iraq confused me for a while, it was suddenly like opening a second bank account when the first one was already overdrawn, but then, as MPRyan also stated, it's about ideaology, though, it should be clarified, not about religion, the people who are terrified that 'Islam is taking over the West' are just as deluded that those who think the West is trying to destroy Islam, neither are true, and an attempt to enforce either ideaology would result in the same effect, you think Iraq is bad, just try enforcing Saudi-type laws in the US or Europe, and you'll see that Iraq is perfectly normal for a country in its position.

[NGTM-1R]

Well if Iran was the most important factor in this then why not invade them from the outset instead of knocking off one of their biggest enemies?

Because Iran has their finger on the button that will make the Straits of Hormuz untransitable for at least a few months and thereby make the rest of the world Very Upset. This is A Bad Thing.

It is a universal Bad Thing, however. Whoever is considered responsible for pushing the button is an instant pariah everywhere.

For that matter, Iran is actually the most Western of the nations in the Middle East, with a successful home-grown educational and healthcare system and a functional system for direct transition to a democractic government; remove the Guardians of the Faith, add a second party and prevent the in-power people from jiggering with it and you have something pretty close to a Western democracy. Coming in and destroying these things via external force is counterproductive. You may note that while they undoubtedly provide fiancial and basing support to various people who like to stage bombings, the number of Iranian-born terrorists or homegrown Iranian terrorist groups that threaten Europe and North America is very low.

EDIT: I'm also going to point out that the US did in fact have a chance to make amends with Iran but walked away from it. If we were really out there trying to curb chinese influence, how does this help?

Because for Iran to even make such an offer is, frankly, either a fake or they were on the verge of collapse. For a generation they have touted the US as The Great Satan and blamed it for all their problems. If they abandon the party line now, it has either become hollow to their ears of their underlings and they fear the groundswell, or they will provoke the groundswell by so doing. Iran is, ultimately, in the same posistion governmentally as the late-stage Soviet Union, but economic collapse is not a viable endgame scenario. Now we really find out what happens with an semi-authoritarian government.

[MP-Ryan]

For that matter, Iran is actually the most Western of the nations in the Middle East, with a successful home-grown educational and healthcare system and a functional system for direct transition to a democractic government; remove the Guardians of the Faith, add a second party and prevent the in-power people from jiggering with it and you have something pretty close to a Western democracy. Coming in and destroying these things via external force is counterproductive. You may note that while they undoubtedly provide fiancial and basing support to various people who like to stage bombings, the number of Iranian-born terrorists or homegrown Iranian terrorist groups that threaten Europe and North America is very low.

Nail.  Head.

This is what I was trying to convey earlier (page 2?) and again on this page.  Invading Iran would have just pulled together an insurgency there.  But Iran is right on the tipping point of a democratic upheaval and change of governance.  The tiniest push will send it over, but that push can't come by force.  Iraq was the next best thing - if the Iranian populace were to see a functioning democratic state in Iraq, that would be the push required... actually, it would be more like a shove.  Regardless, that strategy didn't work because of all the reasons I've laid out previously, and the best course of action, as it was in 2003, is to leave Iraq the hell alone and provide financing, logistical support, and intelligence to the Iranian populace who can effect change from within.  They are a remarkable people, and fed up entirely with the religious nuts running the show.

MP-Ryan's point is that it isn't about oil because the US politicians want the money the oil will make them.

Hrmm.  I'm hoping that sentence is just suffering from a lack of expression and that's not what was taken from the post.

Money and oil are fantastic bonuses, but what the West as a whole really wants is a Middle East than isn't ready to implode on any given day and simultaneously open to exploitation and stabilization by China, which stands to gain a huge sphere of influence with the status quo, or, worse, if China can successfully negotiate a tenuous peace.  The Chinese are viewed as business partners without any real ideological conflict, which makes them particularly able to interact with the Middle East as a whole.  For the United States' strategic goals into the next century, that is a massive problem.

Stabilize Iran, and that problem gets delayed by decades.  And the icing on the cake is the as-yet untapped petroleum and mineral deposits throughout Iran, Iraq, and the former Soviet territories to the north and east.

EDIT: I'm also going to point out that the US did in fact have a chance to make amends with Iran but walked away from it. If we were really out there trying to curb chinese influence, how does this help?

Because making amends with Iran doesn't help even remotely - you're dealing with the same lunatic fringe running the show.  Iran made that offer because they saw the strategy in Iraq plain as day - and unlike the majority of the populace in NATO countries, they know full well the writing is on the wall.  Without it's police forces and military, Iran would have boiled over years ago - and the leadership was absolutely terrified of that happening in 2003.  Specifically, rather, they were terrified of the Coalition throwing some military support behind the moderates and getting strung up by their fundamentalist necks.  Didn't happen, of course, because the Coalition failed to support the democratic movement in Iran because they were too busy causing and then getting stuck in the middle of an Iraqi civil war, which was rather distracting.

The United States in particular is - and rightly so - dead set on a democratic coup or takeover in Iran.  It IS only a matter of time.  Negotiating with the loons undermines the moderates who are counting on at least morale support from the West - and it makes it rather difficult to explain if you suddenly start funneling large amounts of money, logistical help, and intelligence with the specific intent of destabilizing Iran's current government.  I'd bet a significant chunk of money that Ahmadinejad and his cronies weren't all that far off the mark in principle when they started accusing the West of meddling in the last election, just the extent.

At any rate, saying the conflict in the Middle East is about oil is something akin to saying that World War 2 was about Germany's need for more land (lebensraum).  There is so much more going on.  No conflict, military or otherwise, is ever about just one simple thing.  Humanity is remarkably good at working out their differences over tangible issues - it's the ideological ones that cause wars.

[karajorma]

MP-Ryan's point is that it isn't about oil because the US politicians want the money the oil will make them.

Hrmm.  I'm hoping that sentence is just suffering from a lack of expression and that's not what was taken from the post.

There's a tendency to claim that the war in Iraq was about oil with oil simply being viewed as money in liquid form. In other words people often like to claim that the war in Iraq was just so the US could make money off of it.

Which is obviously nonsense. Any profit the US made was a bonus. Oil is important but not in that way. No need for me to repeat why since you've pretty much explained it.

[Bobboau]

try enforcing Saudi-type laws in the US or Europe

its more likely than you think