That Iraq War Thread
Posted: 17 Apr 2008, 20:29
(New thread broken off from the US Election thread)
My personal view regarding the war with Iraq was this (and its condensed, but I hope it gets my view acrossed).
- there was a high probablility of Iraq developing or obtaining WMD in the near future.
- there was a high probability that Suddam would use those weapons against Isreal (as he had already fired SCUDs at Isreal years earlier).
- there was a high probability that if Suddam died, some mad man (or country) would take over and be even more likely to use those weapons, using the ensuring civil was as a cover.
- Any attack on Isreal would lead to a war, which would drag in many UN countries. I would expect this war to have been a World War.
- This war would be EXTREMELY costly, and have a high death toll. It would also lead to a disruption in the supply of oil across the whole gulf region, which would be damaging to the West and make the war longer and harder to fight. So yes, the supply of oil is involved in the equation, but its not #1.
Essentially, the war was about stabalising the Gulf region. Its not stable yet, but its more stable than it would have been.
These are interesting anecdotes, but at best circumstantial evidence that the UN would go to war with Iraq 'over oil'. To be honest, I'm still not sure what that means; "over oil". Were countries hoping to prevent a worldwide drop in the supply of oil? To make money from the oil? What would be the actual goal of the war 'over oil'?1: Roughly 2 years prior to the invasion, Iraq started to sell it's oil (via the Oil For Food Program) in Euros, rather than US$.
3: The UK joined in to secure a supply of oil because in 1998/99 North Sea oil and gas production peaked and has been in decline ever since. The UK is now a net importer of oil and gas.
4: Since US oil production peaked in the early 1970's, the US now imports ~60% of it's oil requirements. As the US uses ~25% of all global oil produced, it needed to secure oil supplies. Given that it's own oil production is in decline, along with that of Mexico (and various others, OPEC and non-OPEC alike) and that global demand for oil is increasing ~2% per year, Iraq was too tasty a target.
Yes, I agree these 3 countries didn't want to go to war in order to protect their oil interests, but that doesn't mean every other country went to war with Iraq for oil-related reasons.2: The permanent members of the UN Security Council that opposed the invasion were: China, France and Russia. Saddam had signed oil exploration and extraction contracts with 3 countries, who would start their exploration and extraction once the sanctions had been lifted. 3 guesses who those 3 countries were.
My personal view regarding the war with Iraq was this (and its condensed, but I hope it gets my view acrossed).
- there was a high probablility of Iraq developing or obtaining WMD in the near future.
- there was a high probability that Suddam would use those weapons against Isreal (as he had already fired SCUDs at Isreal years earlier).
- there was a high probability that if Suddam died, some mad man (or country) would take over and be even more likely to use those weapons, using the ensuring civil was as a cover.
- Any attack on Isreal would lead to a war, which would drag in many UN countries. I would expect this war to have been a World War.
- This war would be EXTREMELY costly, and have a high death toll. It would also lead to a disruption in the supply of oil across the whole gulf region, which would be damaging to the West and make the war longer and harder to fight. So yes, the supply of oil is involved in the equation, but its not #1.
Essentially, the war was about stabalising the Gulf region. Its not stable yet, but its more stable than it would have been.