From: (No Email available)

Date: 2004-11-11 04:10:53

Comment:

O.K playing devils advocate here
Iraq wouldn't have been attacked for Oil for several reasons
(i) Not financially secure.  In this I mean that there are too many risks involved in getting Oil from Iraq.  

First America needed to be sure it could win the war fullstop.  Obvious it seems but sever "war games " conducted some 4 months before the war did show several tactics the Iraqs could use to cause severe difficulties to US troops ( example using dozens of light boats to attack the more unmanouverable heavy ships).  This was of course unlikly and didn't occur but was still a concern.
Secondly assuming America could win the war it had to be sure it could win it quickly, for several reasons, first mounting cost that can lose you a war as quickly as casualties can.  Secondly world and domestic pressure would be against a prolonged conflict.

This has been seen.  

Thus the political sacfrafice needs to have a sufficient payoff returns on Oil would have to be huge indeed to do this.

In addition a prolonged conflict increases the chance of the Oil pipes getting damaged.  Now the infastructure for Oil production pipes rifineries trucks ships etc is very expensive as normally its a one off payment, the engineers don't take into account war.
Therefore if any pipes get damaged or destroyed it would take long term and expensive methods to repair them payed by America while still fighting.
 In short as is being seen at the moment Oil production won't be at full potential for months maybe years and the repairs are coming under American and to an extent British coffers. (remember the US can't force the Iraqs to pay even if they wanted to as they don't have the money).
 Not only this but after the war ends possibly years from now America has to be sure that it is still in control enough to dictate who gets the Oil.
 Not only that but will Bush be president when he starts getting the benifits of Oil?
 If it is purly for personal (rather than national reasons ) to get Oil this seems slightly unliky as there are quicker ways to get Oil such as drilling in National reserve parks in Alaska, a far quicker return than a war.
 
Now don't get me wrong its not that I support Bush or even think that he wouldn't go to war for Oil but I do think he (or at least his advisors) are intelligent (I hate using that word in the same sentence as Bush) enough to realise that Oil and long term war doesn't equal money.

Which brings me onto my heading.
(ii) Alternatives to war.  
If Bush just wanted Oil why go to war at all he could have buttered up Saddam given him reassurances that he would never be invaded and in return got some nice juicy trade agreements and for that matter why not have Saddam throw in a few scape goat "terrorists" and kabam one middle eastern country suddenly turns away from a course of terror America gets Oil Saddam gets to be president for lfe and the world thinks the US is marvoullous for being so peaceful.
Implausible? not really when you look at Libya they arn't quite so threatening anymore I wonder what deal has been struck there?
As for Saddam yeah he liked to portray himself as this big shot sstanding up to America but comeon he wasn't a religious nutter like Bin Laden he was a mercenary he would have gone along with a deal.

This is one alternative others include possibly throwing away the Alliance with the Saudi government and attacking them (way way more Oil)this one is a bit unlikly though.

(iii) Conclusion.
Now I think Bush is a bit of a warmongerer (a bit being overstatement of the year)but I don't think he attacked Iraq for Oil not because he wouldn't but because it wouldn't make any financial sense at least thats what I think I dunno if anyone has some outragous figures like the US is NOW at this moment shipping hundreds of looted oil to America then yeah I would agree but it just doesn't seem likly.

Why did he attack Iraq possibly the terrorists have given him the slip and he wanted to be seen to be doing something, possible vendetta for his dad (though I think the Bush family is too mercenary to allow this sort of thing to get in the way of money).

Maybe they did think there were waepons of mass dustruction there (ha ha).

I personally would go for the one that they just want to get a foothold in the middle east and as to attacking Iran or Syria well I think they probably will.
I am not sure that his war on terror is just about catching the terrorists who commited the attrocity of 9/11 but also about Westernising the Middle east so it can't happen again but if this is there policy then I don't think it is working but it is a reason why they would take over random countries in the region.

p.s this is a bit of a controversial post but please reply in a productive matter no need for random abuse.
I don't especially agree with Bush but I don't think the was for Oil.