Comments on: The Iraq war was all about oil

By: Stephen

Stephen — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:12:32 +0000

A banana-growing republic in the Middle East, one that financially supported the families of suicide-murderers

You know, lies do not get any more true through tedious repetition by you. And even Colin Powell admitted afterwards that attempts to link Iraq to the September 11th attacks were ‘wrong’.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:10:30 +0000

That’s probably not the best example for you to use really, after all, the US did indeed invade a number of places over the banana industry: United Fruit and all that, remember?

Yes, we all know the origins of the term ‘banana republic’. Doesn’t really alter the point that the US is interested in installing proxy regimes in a rather strategically important part of the world, does it.

By: Peter Risdon

Peter Risdon — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 07:40:45 +0000

A banana-growing republic in the Middle East, one that financially supported the families of suicide-murderers, had been a haven for the world’s most wanted terrorists for 30 years, had invaded its neighbours, built WMDs, used WMDs on its own people?

A banana exporter which had been at war with a alliance of nations for 12 years, one that was constantly exchanging fire with over-flying US and UK planes? One that for 12 years had refused to allow weapons inspectors to work properly?

Nah – it was all about the oil the Iraqis were willing to sell anyway (as the French were proving), the oil that the US and UK could just have bought if they wanted it, the oil that was ignored by the invading troops that headed for population centres instead.

By: Luis Enrique

Luis Enrique — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:41:06 +0000

a war may be “about oil” without being for the benefit of oil companies.

I don’t think the Iraq war would have been fought if Iraq was a banana exporter, but that doesn’t mean the war was about oil either; perhaps the presence of oil just mean Saddam more of a geopolitical problem, and the war was about geopolitics (I’m not arguing this, just demonstrating that Stephens argument above is not sufficient to conclude the war was about oil)

By: Stephen

Stephen — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:05:28 +0000

So you think the Iraq war would have been fought had Iraq’s most profitable industry been in bananas? Yes, you are truly idiotarian.

Tim adds: That’s probably not the best example for you to use really, after all, the US did indeed invade a number of places over the banana industry: United Fruit and all that, remember?

By: Matthew

Matthew — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:43:46 +0000

I’m not sure what it proves though. Presumably that is $2/barrel more than the oil companies were getting before the Iraq war, and given their costs must have fallen by $2/barrel over that period (otherwise they would not be doing it, assuming as it’s a free market their profits are continually competed away to the minimum) they must be quite happy.