Timeline for If the Iraq War was because of their oil, has the US achieved their war aims [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
34 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 16, 2013 at 4:10 | comment | added | Rodrigo | After one year I think I fulfill my goal. The answer say and I believe it is true, it is too simplistic believe that this war started because the oil. Was good see all the opinion. | |
| Oct 15, 2013 at 7:15 | history | closed |
Lennart Regebro Eugene Seidel jwenting Sardathrion - against SE abuse Kobunite |
Not suitable for this site | |
| Oct 15, 2013 at 6:12 | comment | added | jwenting | even more damning, had the US contracted with Iraq to provide them black market oil, like France had for example, they'd have gotten all that oil at below market prices and at zero cost in equipment and human life, a far more profitable venture. | |
| Oct 15, 2013 at 5:58 | comment | added | LateralFractal |
The problem I have with the question isn't the assumption (true/false/tastes like chicken) but that regardless of the 'outcome' of the assumption, the two actual enquiries in the question are not cohesive or unique to the assumption; and hence you could ask exactly the same question without the assumption and friction it has caused. Mind you, the actual query sentences of this question solicit opinion-based answers anyway (at least within the size limits of the history.se Q&A format)
|
|
| Oct 15, 2013 at 5:53 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 15, 2013 at 7:15 | |||||
| Oct 15, 2013 at 5:41 | comment | added | Lennart Regebro | @T.E.D. And if it was about stealing oil: Why would they then give the control over the oil back to the Iraqi? :-) | |
| Oct 15, 2013 at 5:38 | comment | added | Lennart Regebro | This question appears to be off-topic because it is about counter-factual speculation. It's too old to migrate, but nowadays people tend to vote to close question that are about politics or based on false assumptions. | |
| May 31, 2012 at 18:15 | history | edited | Steven Drennon |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 9, 2012 at 14:35 | vote | accept | Rodrigo | ||
| Apr 9, 2012 at 13:59 | comment | added | T.E.D.♦ | @HermannIngjaldsson - ..which was taken out of context and then badly (and perhaps purposely) misinterprted. Think about this logically for just one second please. If all we wanted was oil, why not knock off Saudi Arabia or Venezuela instead? Either would have been far easier, and netted more oil. Unless...I don't know...there were other reasons. | |
| Apr 7, 2012 at 14:10 | history | unlocked | CommunityBot | ||
| Apr 7, 2012 at 14:10 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| Apr 6, 2012 at 14:08 | history | notice added | MichaelF | Comments only | |
| Apr 6, 2012 at 14:08 | history | locked | MichaelF | ||
| Apr 6, 2012 at 13:09 | comment | added | user202 | you can be as many as you like, that doesn't make you any more right. i can produce a reference to comment number 5, by BrotherJack. | |
| Apr 6, 2012 at 13:01 | comment | added | T.E.D.♦ | @MichaelF - Sorry. It appears that comment was meant for BrotherJack. Lack of threading in these comments leads to confusion. Of course if this situation arises, it probably indicates the question or answer being commented on was flamebait rather than a useful contribution to the site... | |
| Apr 6, 2012 at 12:55 | comment | added | T.E.D.♦ | @HermannIngjaldsson - I'm American, and I say you're wrong. I can produce oodles of backup, in the form of fellow Americans (oddly, I'm surrounded by them here) who remember quite vividly why they were in support of it. What can you produce? | |
| Apr 6, 2012 at 11:58 | comment | added | MichaelF | @T.E.D. I didn't mention incentive, are you posting something to me? | |
| Apr 6, 2012 at 0:33 | comment | added | user202 | Long story short, the assumption is true. | |
| Apr 5, 2012 at 21:10 | comment | added | T.E.D.♦ | This dicusssion is a perfect example of why I flagged this question. As phrased it is essentially political flame-bait, and it can't lead anywhere productive, as the entire premise is wrong. | |
| Apr 5, 2012 at 21:08 | comment | added | T.E.D.♦ | @MichaelF - No, it was not an "incentive". What they were trying to say is that what they wanted to do for other reasons (go to war) would be financially painless because of the oil revenues, so people arguing against doing it because of cost should shut up. One trillion dollars later, that argument was clearly bunk. | |
| Apr 5, 2012 at 17:19 | comment | added | BrotherJack | @MichaelF, sorry if it got a little off track. All I was trying to say was that it was mentioned as an incentive even by members of the Bush administration (Rumsfield specifically), even though to the best of my knowledge, it was never mentioned as a stated goal. So I can see why the asker might see it as a stated goal. | |
| Apr 5, 2012 at 17:11 | comment | added | MichaelF | @BrotherJack Regardless, it was not a stated goal for invasion, try to keep focus on my comments please. | |
| Apr 5, 2012 at 16:28 | comment | added | BrotherJack | @MichaelF, While that is certainly true, US officials did quite publicly state that Iraqi oil revenues would be more than adequate to cover the cost of American intervention as an incentive to go to war (which assumed that the US had a right to Iraqi oil to cover an invasion which the Iraqi people hadn't been consulted on). Americans also forced through major oil concessions (to benefit American companies) in Iraq's constitution. So while oil acquisition was never a stated goal, it was clearly stated that Iraqi oil should go to American interests. | |
| S Apr 5, 2012 at 13:26 | history | suggested | BrotherJack | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed many grammatical errors without altering the author's message
|
| Apr 5, 2012 at 11:41 | comment | added | MichaelF | Oil was never a stated goal at the beginning of this, originally it was Weapons of Mass Destruction then fighting the terrorists there rather than here. So while your assumption as a basis is interesting it was never a stated goal, other than from those who opposed the Bush Administration. | |
| Apr 5, 2012 at 6:31 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Apr 5, 2012 at 13:26 | |||||
| Apr 5, 2012 at 6:25 | answer | added | BrotherJack | timeline score: 10 | |
| Apr 4, 2012 at 23:38 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackHistory/status/187685530757107712 | ||
| Apr 4, 2012 at 21:48 | comment | added | T.E.D.♦ | Rodrigo - Actually, that's a pretty good answer to my question. However, I'm pretty sure its not true (as a voting American I think I can say that), so any logic based off that assumption is the rhetorical equivalent of dividing by zero in a math proof. | |
| Apr 4, 2012 at 21:25 | comment | added | Rodrigo | Because this is a common critic of this war. One big motive was because the weapons of mass destruction but none was found. | |
| Apr 4, 2012 at 21:18 | comment | added | T.E.D.♦ | Why should we assume any such thing? | |
| Apr 4, 2012 at 21:16 | answer | added | Anixx | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 4, 2012 at 20:51 | history | asked | Rodrigo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |