What leads people to think that the war in Iraq is about oil?

Is such a point of view indicative of a very narrow and overly simplified mindset? What facts support this view? Feel free to elaborate.What leads people to think that the war in Iraq is about oil?
while it is extremely narrow and over-simplified...there is a huge amount of war profiteering going on in Iraq as a result of the US invasion. when you take a look at who is profiting, its obviously a piece of the puzzle...or at the very least, highly suspicious.








--edit--


tbird, the 9/11 terrorists did not come from Iraq. Its people like you who make us ';forget'; 9/11 because we know it had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. Get a clue.What leads people to think that the war in Iraq is about oil?
First I'm going to tell you to study your history of the region begining with the Eisenhower Administration's overthrow of the Iranian government.


And Second, I'm going to tell you to forget most of what you've heard and read in the news media -- rarely ever do any of them tell you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Having said that, shall we begin?


Just from the 1980's forward:


Reagan backed Saddam Hussein because he was at war with Iran. We sold the Iraq's all kinds of weapons and technology (WMD). When the oil tankers passing through the region became targets, Reagan reflagged them and provided naval escort. This was to ensure and insure the world's economy based on oil.


Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait for their oil and their sea port. The U.N. turned a blind eye and did nothing. Bush (senior) gathered a coalition of military forces and pushed Saddam back across the border (Desert Shield/Storm). The U.N. was then asked to broker a cease fire agreement -- this should have been a wise move politically so that no one could accuse the U.S. of being motivated to ';steal'; the Iraqi oil. Having stopped at the border instead of chasing them back to Bagdad also was to define the U.S. as a liberator and not a conqueror.


Throughout the Clinton years, nothing was really done to uphold the cease fire agreement. Saddam thumbed his nose at the U.N. and the west and the U.N. accepted Saddam's bribe money in the ';Food For Oil Program.'; In all, 17 sanctions of the C.F. agreement were violated and after months of failed diplomacy, the U.S. again amassed a coalition of forces to do the U.N.'s dirty work -- Operaton Iraq Freedom.


No sooner had the majority of hostilities ended and a new government about to be elected by the people and brought into power, a wave of violence swept the nation. Car bombings, shootings, death squads, etc., all backed by Iran and Syria in an attempt first to scare the people into not voting and later to simply destabilize the newly formed government and demoralize the American people. Motive?


According to World Economy Today magazine, Iran's oil industry is all state run. While the people are paying all of 38 cents a gallon at the pumps, the profits are not being used in R %26amp; D, but are instead being funnelled into social programs. Iran's policy towards foreign investment and drilling is less than friendly to the degree that only the Italians are willing to work with them and this is at a loss. Meanwhile, Iran, sitting atop of the world's third largest known oil deposit was unable to export even a single drop of oil last year. Their wells are now all over 50 years old and are declining in production at a rate of 13% per year. Last year, Iran had to actually import oil to meet its own supply and demand issues.


Should the U.S. lose faith and heart and decide to pull out of Iraq before their government has a chance to solidify and strengthen itself to a point of self survival in the face of foreign and domestic enemies, it will most surely fall. Iran stands to gain a great deal should we leave. This also explains Iran's motive for building a nuclear power program whose biproduct by the way, is weapons grade plutonium. Remember, Iran supports and exports terrorism. So, is it genuinely for electricity? Or are there alterior motives?


Does this make sense? Is this not a strong case to believe it IS about oil? And yes, the concern/fear about WMD was legitimate. Carter gutted the CIA, leaving us blind and dependent upon foreign intel.. And Reagan sold Saddam the technology, which he later used on his own people, having declared them enemies of the state.
The fact that the war is about OIL leads me to think the war in Iraq is about OIL.
If this war was about oil, we failed. Especially concerning the Fact that Iraq's oil production has dropped, and the war has increased world oil prices due to instability in Iraq. The insurgency frequently targets Iraqi oil pipelines, forcing oil supplies to be disrupted constantly.


Perhaps a conspiracy could be derived in that it has allowed domestic American companies to increase in profits from our oil wells. Anyways, the reasoning behind Iraq is not their, this was a stupid conflict, that's my justification for this engagement.
Yes. Americans are ignorant, and American politicians are greedy. Instead of our elected representatives enlightening us, they capitalize off our ignorance, and say things like ';this was a war concocted in Texas for political gain';- Ted Kennedy.
I GUESS THESE GUYS THOUGHT THE OIL WAS FOR THEM BUT THEY FOUND OUT BUSH WAS TRYING TO BUILD A VIABLE ECONOMY FOR AMERICAN GOODS.





One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.';


President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.





';If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.';


President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.





';Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.';


Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.





';He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.';


Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998





';[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.';


Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.





';Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.';


Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.





';Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.';


Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.





';There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.';


Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.





';We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.';


Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.





';We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.';


Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.





';Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.';


Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.





';We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.';


Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.





';The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons...';


Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.





';I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force 鈥?if necessary 鈥?to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.';


Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.





';There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.';


Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,





';He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.';


Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.





';In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.';


Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002





';We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. ';[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...


Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
The liberals are against the War, and anytime they are against something, liberals use the media to spread their lies.
well one reason might be is that Iraq has oil...
Its always about money and control.
They're parroting something they heard someone say on television or they read on a protester's sign.
Because this is something that can be explained in one and two syllable words.





In order to understand our strategy for winning the war on terror you will have to read several pages - who is going to do that?
the media and the rising oil prices
The US is obviously stealing Iraqi oil. That is why it is so cheap now.
Other dictatorial regimes have been left alone by this administration. There are countries where people are captured and sold into slavery, where genocide is being carried out, and where women and children are raped and tortured everyday. Iraq is not the only place with an absence of democracy and an abundance of human suffering. There are places in this world that harbor threats much greater than Saddam Hussein (N. Korea for example), yet this administration has not invaded them. The only difference between Iraq and all of the other places listed above, is that Iraq is one of the largest oil-producing nations in the world. In fact, the only reason we are spreading our influence in the Middle East, and not in Africa, is because the Africans don't have the resources that we desire.
Oil is a major factor, though not in the way most understand it, as an easily dismissible contention allowed by the Administration and its media puppets. Saudi Arabia has openly stated that it doesn't want (and hasn't for some time) Iraqi oil on the market. Consider the following in that context.





Saudi Arabia (along with China) carries most of our foreign debt. At any time they could call that debt and, literally, destroy our economy. The damage caused by such an action would be immeasurable and would take years (if it would be possible at all) to recover from.





Estimates immediately after the Iraqi invasion were that oil production would meet or exceed pre-invasion levels within ';2 - 3 months'; and would be the main funding source for the occupation and rebuilding efforts in Iraq.





As of this time, 5 years later, Iraqi oil production is only a fraction of pre-invasion levels, even though no significant actions have been taken by the ';evil doers'; that would limit that level of production and equipment and personnel necessary to meet prior levels are (and have been) in place and/or readily available.





Connect the dots.





.
If it's not about oil then it's about nothing more than control. Who in this world gave the President the right to go and change a government and invade a country just because they don't think about the world as he does? Who put him in the place to work as a freedom guardian, defending all those who don't even know where the USA is in a map? all those who didn't even ask for help? because they think different? I say we should let them live the way they want to, if they want to kill each other that's their problem, not ours. Let's remember it all started about mass destruction weapons, and they never found them... what are they doing there? Liberty? they don't want it, they don't care... why do we get there, cause they don't live and think like us and we think we are right and they are wrong? If they thought so, they woould do something themselves. Take Japan, Germany, China... they all have worked and reconstructed themselves and have risen after total destruction (except china, which was miserable) War produces money.
It is so amazing how fast people forget about 911. Jest I remind you 3000 Americans died on an invasion on American soil. Who did this, terrorist from the countries of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now I hope that helps people to please not to forget 911.