Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

afraid_of_zombies t1_jeaklri wrote

−3

krismasstercant t1_jebgyko wrote

What oil ? The amount of oil we import from Iraq had pretty much been the same before the war started. Why would we even need to go to war for oil when we're literally the largest producers of oil in the world. HOWEVER Haliburton did make a shit ton off of defense contracts through KBR in the Iraq war and Dick Cheney WAS still getting paid by Haliburton despite no longer being the CEO and was the Vice President of the US at the time. But that's not necessarily the reason why we went to war in the first place.

8

afraid_of_zombies t1_jebljpy wrote

Oil is sold globally. It doesn't matter if we didn't get it directly, just having it on the market lowers the price for all. Additionally we are the biggest producers partially because of all the tech that we have developed to produce that stuff. An Iraq occupied by the US is buying US technology (exactly the type Haliburton and buddies works on) to extract the oil.

Win win really. The American consumer gets lower prices, the American producer sells their expertise to the competitor.

It was always about the oil.

−1

bearfan15 t1_jec2r8z wrote

This argument doesn't make any sense. Iraqi oil was already on the market. In fact Iraqi oil production was decimated because of the war. They only reached pre war levels of production a few years ago. It literally had the opposite affect your claiming. Oil was more expensive for years after the war.

1