Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News USAs involvement in the Middle East

  1. Jul 31, 2009 #1
    Critics often claim that we're there only for the oil. That might be the main reason, but what's wrong with being interested in oil? Imagine all oil in the world magically disappearing tomorrow. Imagine the terrible consequences! We must of course secure it. Imagine the consequences if Saddam Hussein got to control Kuwait's and Saudi Arabia's oil. He would pose a major threat!

    Also the critics clai that the wars have been expensice for the American tax payers. Imagine how expensive it would have been if we were suddenly out of oil! The gulf war, for instance, costed us only 9 billion dollars, because we received 36 billion dollars from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other gulf states to pay for the war.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 31, 2009 #2
    It would be great if we could just access the oil we already have in our own country. What a concept. "But we don't want to harm the habitat". Yeah, it's ok for other countries with much poorer environmental controls to ruin their habitat to provide us oil. It's lunacy.
  4. Jul 31, 2009 #3


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You are correct - there is nothing inherrently wrong with the idea of being there partly or even completly for the oil.
    And it will - not tomorrow and not magically, but it will and relatively soon.
    And that is a significant part of why the entire western world went after him when that happened.

    It is also important to note, though, that there are two separate and only moderately related issues in the Middle East. The Israel issue is only peripherally related to the oil issue.
    Agreed, though the Iraq mess didn't end in 1992 and wasn't over in 2001, and wouldn't be over today with or without the 2002 invasion. If it is over next year (as planned), it will be because of the 2002 invasion.

    When the oil does run out in the middle east - perhaps in a hundred years - the oil rich countries of today stand a decent chance of becomming like the subsaharan african countries of today. An anarchic cesspool.
  5. Jul 31, 2009 #4
    Sadly most of the arguments are lunacy:

    We went into the middle east to take their oil! -> Nope, if this were true we would be getting their oil cheap right now. Only a small fraction of the oil we get is from the middle east. Part of the reason we invaded may have been the impending overthrow of the Saudies and the threat of fanatical cutting off the world oil supply, but that is a real threat.

    Oil companies have huge tracts of land in the US they could be drilling on but they don't, instead they want to get access to more delicate land to rape pillage and burn. -> Yeah, and captain planet will save us too. When oil companies want to get new land to drill on they first tie up the land with a contract then they explore. If they did it in the other order then any competitor could swoop in and take the prime land without doing the hard work involved with finding it. Also not all oil producing land has oil at the same cost. Shale oil for example is harvestable but not economically feasible at the current cost, a pressurized well of sweet Texas crude on the other hand is worth its weight in gold. Just because the land is under contract doesn't mean anything, neither does showing proof that it contains oil, the real proof is shown if the oil companies are sitting on profitable land and not using it. I have seen no evidence of this and to suggest such means that the oil companies are not in it for their own profit which is crazy.

    We destroyed the US economy with the Iraq war! -> I love this one. The current cost of the Iraq war is around 700 billion dollars. Total. That's it, less than the first stimulus package, less than the bailouts. Plus war spending itself is always a 'stimulus package' due to the jobs it creates. It would have been nice to have all these new spending bills estimated in numbers of Iraq wars. Sadly the talking heads shut up about this as soon as the new administration took power, kinda like the death count that used to be on the news every night.

    There are too many crazy arguments to list, but until people start thinking they will continue to have traction. Common sense seems to be completely lost.
  6. Jul 31, 2009 #5


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    What the money is spent on is just as important as how much is spent. I tend to think the money spent in Iraq will be less productive overall than the stimulus money.
  7. Jul 31, 2009 #6
    I hate those conspiracy nuts who claim that the bankers dictate our politicians. Private bankers have as much influence on politics as God has on evolution.
  8. Jul 31, 2009 #7
    A thread about Iraq war critics with almost no critic post in it. Similar to the Bush bashing threads ...

  9. Jul 31, 2009 #8
    My guess as to why we're involved in the Middle East and adjacent places is that it doesn't really have to do significantly with power, money, oil, etc. (ie. greed -- even though this certainly is a factor), but rather it's primarily the view that this area is a focal point in an evolving threat to our way of life.

    Destabalization and occupation with the aim of controlling somewhat the area's political leaders and technological development, while at the same time intruducing Western influences, incentives, etc., makes sense as a program of containment and gradual Westernization.

    Whether the perceived threat is a real one or not, I don't know. I can only say that I don't want to live like a fanatical Muslim any more than I want to live like a fanatical Christian.

    Have our actions helped to minimize this sort of behavior?
  10. Jul 31, 2009 #9
    Word! I fully supported President Bush and his war on terror. The American people are fools to disagree with him, and non-patriots can **** off!
  11. Jul 31, 2009 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Well that's clearly not true!
  12. Jul 31, 2009 #11


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Our actions have polarized ethnic factions and have empowered religious extremists and fanatics. According to interrogaters from the CIA and the US military, our military actions in the ME (including prisoner abuse) have been Al-Qaeda's most powerful recruiting tool. It will take a very long time to mitigate the damage, IMO.
  13. Jul 31, 2009 #12


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    So it's unpatriotic to question the motivation for putting our troops in harm's way when Iraq had noting to do with 9-11? That's some powerful Kool-Aid.
  14. Jul 31, 2009 #13
    Yes, I agree it is foolish to disagree with your president. Besides that, everyone who criticizes the Iraq war lacks common sense.

    I didn't find anything more than that from the first few posts.
  15. Jul 31, 2009 #14


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    [hair on fire]Plus, Obama is not even a US citizen!!!!!!!![/hair on fire] More flags over here for the photo-op!!
  16. Jul 31, 2009 #15
    Even though those conspiracy nuts are, in general, a despicable lot, I have to agree with cristo, ie., you seem to be somewhat out of touch wrt this issue.

    It doesn't necessarily involve 'conspiracies' per se (though this does happen). It also doesn't mean that politicians are 'bought-and-paid-for' per se (though there are some that are). It just means that, generally, being successful in politics involves being part of a network that involves financial 'influences and incentives' and being 'close' to people who can provide them.

    Do you think that the considerations of the common people are as important to your political representatives as those of the bankers and other (business owners, power brokers, etc.) people who support their campaigns with significant contributions (both on and under the table)?

    The buying of access to 'political' power (in one form or another) has been part of the status quo in every human group or 'civilized society' since the emergence of modern man. In fact, you could probably stretch this to apply to most hierarchical animal groups also.

    It's just business as usual for any group no matter what its ostensible political or economic philosophy. That's all.
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2009
  17. Jul 31, 2009 #16
    Yes, a very long time. One has to wonder if the damage is irreparable. Anyway, it's just a hypothesis that makes sense to me regarding the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., and continuing support of Israel.
  18. Jul 31, 2009 #17
    Questioning is fair, but claiming to know that 911 is an inside job, is ridiculous when we know that it was an bin Laden job.

    Also, the official reason to invade Iraq was WMD, not 911. We also know that Saddam has financed palestinian suicide bombers, and that he treated his own people like animals.

    Some people say Bush didn't know Iraq didn't have WMD, and that the real motive was oil interest. But if that is true, how come he has gotten away with this without anyone putting him on trial?

    Could it be that Bush actually BELIEVED the info he got from the intelligence?
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2009
  19. Jul 31, 2009 #18


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Even if we assume Bush invaded Iraq just for oil, what crime did he commit? Mix in the fact that executive privelege keeps anyone from knowing what was planned, and it's tough to say what they did and did not know, and what the true motives were
  20. Jul 31, 2009 #19


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Who said that the invasion of Iraq was in response to the 911 attacks? It was the invasion of Afghanistan that was a response to the 911 attacks.
  21. Jul 31, 2009 #20
    I believe Saddam had tried to make the world believe that he had WMD to appear stronger than he was.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook