War For Oil. Yes or No?

[Phantom]

Typical Liberal sentiment: "Bush invaded Iraq for oil."

 

Typical Conservative sentiment: "Bush invaded Iraq to displace a sadistic dictator."

 

Do you feel this war is only about oil and power or about freedom and the spread of democracy? Have your views changed from when the war first started in 2003? Do you believe the war has already been won as some have claimed? How do you feel about the possibilty of an Iranian invasion?

 

My Opinion: Obviously Saddam has lost his power but other insurgents still exist. Some anti-Bush supporters seem to forget the possibility that if the US troops pull out while the Iraqi government is unstable, a new dictator could easily arise (as was the case when the Ayatollah was overthrown).

[builder]

It's not a simple matter of overthrowing a dictator or two, and the oil becoming the spoils of war. It's about trade in oil being switched over to euros instead of US dollars.

 

Saddam decided to switch to the euro for oil trade in 2000.

 

In 2003 the global community witnessed a combination of petrodollar warfare and oil depletion warfare. The majority of the world’s governments – especially the E.U., Russia and China – were not amused – and neither are the U.S. soldiers who are currently stationed inside a hostile Iraq. In 2002 I wrote an award-winning online essay that asserted Saddam Hussein sealed his fate when he announced in September 2000 that Iraq was no longer going to accept dollars for oil being sold under the UN’s Oil-for-Food program, and decided to switch to the euro as Iraq’s oil export currency.[4]

 

Indeed, my original pre-war hypothesis was validated in a Financial Times article dated June 5, 2003, which confirmed Iraqi oil sales returning to the international markets were once again denominated in U.S. dollars – not euros.

 

The tender, for which bids are due by June 10, switches the transaction back to dollars -- the international currency of oil sales - despite the greenback's recent fall in value. Saddam Hussein in 2000 insisted Iraq's oil be sold for euros, a political move, but one that improved Iraq's recent earnings thanks to the rise in the value of the euro against the dollar [5]

 

Iran is heading in the same direction, and the money involved is staggering.

 

Concerning Iran, recent articles have revealed active Pentagon planning for operations against its suspected nuclear facilities. While the publicly stated reasons for any such overt action will be premised as a consequence of Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are again unspoken macroeconomic drivers underlying the second stage of petrodollar warfare – Iran's upcoming oil bourse. (The word bourse refers to a stock exchange for securities trading, and is derived from the French stock exchange in Paris, the Federation Internationale des Bourses de Valeurs.)

 

In essence, Iran is about to commit a far greater “offense” than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro for Iraq’s oil exports in the fall of 2000. Beginning in March 2006, the Tehran government has plans to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades – using a euro-based international oil-trading mechanism.[7]

 

The proposed Iranian oil bourse signifies that without some sort of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project of U.S. global domination, Tehran’s objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on dollar supremacy in the crucial international oil market.

 

So, despite an apparently healthy economy and visibly booming stock market in the US, it wouldn't take much to turn the tables, and send the economy crashing to the extent of devaluing the US dollar to all-time lows.

 

An economy as large as the US of A relies on massive debt levels, but as long as the payments can be met regularly, the economy appears to be healthy.

 

But, just like if you miss a few car or house payments, your lender forecloses on you.

 

Plans to bomb Iran are afoot as we speak, and apparently it does not matter what kind of event happens, Iran is in for a tough time, if it goes ahead with the plan to switch to the euro for all trade in oil.

The most recent, and by far the most troubling, was an article in The American Conservative by intelligence analyst Philip Giraldi. His article, “In Case of Emergency, Nuke Iran,” suggested the resurrection of active U.S. military planning against Iran – but with the shocking disclosure that in the event of another 9/11-type terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Vice President Dick Cheney’s office wants the Pentagon to be prepared to launch a potential tactical nuclear attack on Iran – even if the Iranian government was not involved with any such terrorist attack against the U.S.:

 

 

The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing – that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack – but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.[11]

 

 

 

Why would the Vice President instruct the U.S. military to prepare plans for what could likely be an unprovoked nuclear attack against Iran? Setting aside the grave moral implications for a moment, it is remarkable to note that during the same week this “nuke Iran” article appeared, the Washington Post reported that the most recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of Iran’s nuclear program revealed that, “Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years.”[12]

 

 

So, Phantom, it's more to with trade in oil, and what currency is used, rather than the oil itself, and the economy of the nation's wealthy, rather than any perceived threats to the safety of Americans within the US of A.

 

Source.

[Phantom]

Those were very interesting articles. Then do you feel that the "weapons of mass destruction" hysteria was a red herring?

 

It has also been said war is a very profitable business (about $80 billion anually). One would think it would only generate debt.

[builder]

Those were very interesting articles. Then do you feel that the "weapons of mass destruction" hysteria was a red herring?

 

It has also been said war is a very profitable business (about $80 billion anually). One would think it would only generate debt.

 

It's profitable for a select few only. I haven't heard mention of the 2.3 trillion dollars that has dissappeard from the Pentagon's budget, but remember, the US taxpayer funds the government, and the military.

 

The reconstruction companies and munitions factories, and clothing factories, and all the other infrastructure that is required to sustain hundreds of thousands of occupying troops. Suppliers such as these profit from war.

 

WMD was a red herring. If they (nukes, chemical weapons,etc.) are such a heavy threat to world peace, North Korea would have been invaded a long way back, don't you think?

[hugo]

The reason for the Iraq war from the PNAC website's statement of principles.

 

June 3, 1997

 

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

 

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

 

 

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

 

 

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

 

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

 

 

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

 

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

 

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global

responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

 

 

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

 

 

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

 

 

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

 

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

 

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

 

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

 

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

 

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

 

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

 

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz