I don't think the government ever actually said that. It was just wishful thinking by some media people.


There were a lot of stated reasons to take out Iraq. I believe finally getting rid of the thorn in our side was the biggest reason.

The US armed forces don't take thorns out of sides. What they do they do for reasons. The invasion was about oil. The neo cons thought they could sink OPEC by ramping up production. Of course production slowed after the invasion (foresight was never their strongest suit--remember when we'd be welcomed with flowers and hugs lol?).


From the wiki I posted already:


1. 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain was forced to clarify his comments suggesting the Iraq war involved U.S. reliance on foreign oil. "My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East," McCain said. To clarify his comments, McCain explained that "the word 'again' was misconstrued, I want us to remove our dependency on foreign oil for national security reasons, and that's all I mean."


2. Bush's Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said that Bush's first two National Security Council meetings included a discussion of invading Iraq. He was given briefing materials entitled "Plan for post-Saddam Iraq," which envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and divvying up Iraq's oil wealth. A Pentagon document dated March 5, 2001 was titled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," and included a map of potential areas for exploration.


^^that's before 911 btw


3. In July 2003, the Polish foreign minister, Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, said, "We have never hidden our desire for Polish oil companies to finally have access to sources of commodities." This remark came after a group of Polish firms had just signed a deal with Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton. Cimoszewicz stated that access to Iraq's oilfields "is our ultimate objective".


Remember that no-bid contract awarded to Halliburton?


4. One report by BBC journalist Gregory Palast citing unnamed "insiders" alleged that the U.S. "called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields"[112] and planned for a coup d'état in Iraq long before September 11.[112] It was also alleged by the BBC's Greg Palast that the "new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the OPEC cartel through massive increases in production above OPEC quotas",[112] but in reality Iraq oil production decreased following the Iraq War.


The idea^^


5. Chuck Hagel, the current United States Secretary of Defense, while speaking at the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law in 2008 defended Greenspan's comments with, "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."[114] General John Abizaid, CENTCOM commander from 2003 until 2007, said of the Iraq war during a round table discussion at Stanford University in 2008, "Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that."


But, please, feel free to believe the propaganda. This is America after all.


6. Many critics have focused upon administration officials' past relationship with energy sector corporations. Both the President and Vice President were formerly CEOs of oil and oil-related companies such as Arbusto, Harken Energy, Spectrum 7, and Halliburton. Before the 2003 invasion of Iraq and even before the War on Terror, the administration had prompted anxiety over whether the private sector ties of cabinet members (including National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, former director of Chevron, and Commerce Secretary Donald Evans, former head of Tom Brown Inc.) would affect their judgment on energy policy.


What do they about oil anyways?


7. Iraq holds the world's fifth-largest proven oil reserves at 141 billion barrels (2.24×1010 m3),[121] with increasing exploration expected to enlarge them beyond 200 billion barrels (3.2×1010 m3).[122] For comparison, Venezuela—the largest proven source of oil in the world—has 298 billion barrels (4.74×1010 m3) of proven oil reserves.[121]


Organizations such as the Global Policy Forum (GPF) have asserted that Iraq's oil is "the central feature of the political landscape" there, and that as a result of the 2003 invasion of Iraq|2003 invasion,"'friendly' companies expect to gain most of the lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in profits in the coming decades." According to GPF, U.S. influence over the 2005 Constitution of Iraq has made sure it "contains language that guarantees a major role for foreign companies."


So, yea.

---

Yes I do.  The invasion of Iraq had very little to do with oil other than stabilizing the region.  If it was about the oil, then why did we not seize and/or take over oil operations?

 

The interest in this particular country has nothing to do with oil.  Aside from being ruled by a brutal dictator, it is also in a very strategic location.  How close is the country to Israel not to mention bordering Turkey?  These are two very important allies in the region.  The intelligence and history showed that the brutal dictator running the country had and used chemicals and/or weapons of mass destruction.

 

Next take a look at the proximity to Iran.  Should nuclear weapons (that are currently being developed in Iran) fall into the brutal dictators hands, what would happen to the region?  What would that do not only to our economy, but the world economy?  Another ally in the region is Saudi Arabia.

 

Now take a look at a map and look at what is happening today.  Why does Putin want to conquer Ukraine?  What exactly is going on in Syria, Egypt and Libya?

 

Rest assured, our involvement in the area is not about oil.

 

You seriously believe what you posted here?

 

Of course there are other factors, our alliance with Israel being first and foremost. But to say our interest in stability of the region has nothing to do with oil is incredibly naive.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

You seriously believe what you posted here?

 

Of course there are other factors, our alliance with Israel being first and foremost. But to say our interest in stability of the region has nothing to do with oil is incredibly naive.

One of the stated purposes of the first Gulf War was to maintain the free flow of oil at fair market prices.  I think the point related to the second Gulf War and specifically invading Iraq is that oil wasn't the main factor in what initiated war.  There were legitimate justifications that were behind this.  Oil was among those justifications.  It wasn't the sole reason as some here would like to imply. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

One of the stated purposes of the first Gulf War was to maintain the free flow of oil at fair market prices. I think the point related to the second Gulf War and specifically invading Iraq is that oil wasn't the main factor in what initiated war. There were legitimate justifications that were behind this. Oil was among those justifications. It wasn't the sole reason as some here would like to imply.

Wrong. They were talking about Iraq before 911 ever happened. Besides, 911 had nothing to do with Iraq.


There was no good reason to go and invade Iraq. Unless you are a defense contractor or an oil baron.

---

Wrong. They were talking about Iraq before 911 ever happened. Besides, 911 had nothing to do with Iraq.


There was no good reason to go and invade Iraq. Unless you are a defense contractor or an oil baron.

 

Nobody is talking about 911 except for you.

 

They were talking about Iraq because they were in violation of at least one UN resolution, blocking inspectors from having access to their storage and manufacturing facilities for weapons of mass destruction.  That resolution being violated was justification for military intervention. 

 

We really reaped huge rewards for oil barons, didn't we?

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

You seriously believe what you posted here?

 

Of course there are other factors, our alliance with Israel being first and foremost. But to say our interest in stability of the region has nothing to do with oil is incredibly naive.

 

I initially said that it has very little to do with oil.  Much of the "anti-war" crowd calls this a "war for oil".  That is simply not true.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Wrong. They were talking about Iraq before 911 ever happened. Besides, 911 had nothing to do with Iraq.


There was no good reason to go and invade Iraq. Unless you are a defense contractor or an oil baron.

 

Iraq had been a problem for up to/more than 10 years prior.  Nobody said anything about Iraq having anything to do with what happened on 9/11,  Please, in your great wisdom tell us how defense contractors and oil barons benefited from this.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

The US armed forces don't take thorns out of sides. What they do they do for reasons. The invasion was about oil. The neo cons thought they could sink OPEC by ramping up production. Of course production slowed after the invasion (foresight was never their strongest suit--remember when we'd be welcomed with flowers and hugs lol?).


From the wiki I posted already:


1. 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain was forced to clarify his comments suggesting the Iraq war involved U.S. reliance on foreign oil. "My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East," McCain said. To clarify his comments, McCain explained that "the word 'again' was misconstrued, I want us to remove our dependency on foreign oil for national security reasons, and that's all I mean."


2. Bush's Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said that Bush's first two National Security Council meetings included a discussion of invading Iraq. He was given briefing materials entitled "Plan for post-Saddam Iraq," which envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and divvying up Iraq's oil wealth. A Pentagon document dated March 5, 2001 was titled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," and included a map of potential areas for exploration.


^^that's before 911 btw


3. In July 2003, the Polish foreign minister, Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, said, "We have never hidden our desire for Polish oil companies to finally have access to sources of commodities." This remark came after a group of Polish firms had just signed a deal with Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton. Cimoszewicz stated that access to Iraq's oilfields "is our ultimate objective".


Remember that no-bid contract awarded to Halliburton?


4. One report by BBC journalist Gregory Palast citing unnamed "insiders" alleged that the U.S. "called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields"[112] and planned for a coup d'état in Iraq long before September 11.[112] It was also alleged by the BBC's Greg Palast that the "new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the OPEC cartel through massive increases in production above OPEC quotas",[112] but in reality Iraq oil production decreased following the Iraq War.


The idea^^


5. Chuck Hagel, the current United States Secretary of Defense, while speaking at the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law in 2008 defended Greenspan's comments with, "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."[114] General John Abizaid, CENTCOM commander from 2003 until 2007, said of the Iraq war during a round table discussion at Stanford University in 2008, "Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that."


But, please, feel free to believe the propaganda. This is America after all.


6. Many critics have focused upon administration officials' past relationship with energy sector corporations. Both the President and Vice President were formerly CEOs of oil and oil-related companies such as Arbusto, Harken Energy, Spectrum 7, and Halliburton. Before the 2003 invasion of Iraq and even before the War on Terror, the administration had prompted anxiety over whether the private sector ties of cabinet members (including National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, former director of Chevron, and Commerce Secretary Donald Evans, former head of Tom Brown Inc.) would affect their judgment on energy policy.


What do they about oil anyways?


7. Iraq holds the world's fifth-largest proven oil reserves at 141 billion barrels (2.24×1010 m3),[121] with increasing exploration expected to enlarge them beyond 200 billion barrels (3.2×1010 m3).[122] For comparison, Venezuela—the largest proven source of oil in the world—has 298 billion barrels (4.74×1010 m3) of proven oil reserves.[121]


Organizations such as the Global Policy Forum (GPF) have asserted that Iraq's oil is "the central feature of the political landscape" there, and that as a result of the 2003 invasion of Iraq|2003 invasion,"'friendly' companies expect to gain most of the lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in profits in the coming decades." According to GPF, U.S. influence over the 2005 Constitution of Iraq has made sure it "contains language that guarantees a major role for foreign companies."


So, yea.

 

That was a lot of work putting together that list. 
I have no doubt the US government explores every possibility in foreign policy planning scenarios. We probably had numerous discussions about the best way to do a first strike attack against the Soviet Union too. That doesn't mean we were anywhere close to considering it a real option.

 

However, I was referring to pre-war public statements by the US government. If you have a link to a pre-war press release quoting a government official that states the US will offset the war cost by selling Iraqi oil, then I'd like to see it. I was only describing what I remember, and could very well be wrong.

 

 
When I spoke of a thorn in our side, I meant that the only alternative the US government would consider was to indefinitely keep troops in Kuwait (not invading Iraq would have still been about oil), continue to patrol the no-fly zone, and hope that Clinton's CIA director was wrong about WMDs. That's a pretty big thorn.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

If we wanted oil we'd have invaded Venezuela.

 

Or set up puppet regimes in Central and South America.  We've never done that though, huh?

---

Iraq had been a problem for up to/more than 10 years prior.  Nobody said anything about Iraq having anything to do with what happened on 9/11,  Please, in your great wisdom tell us how defense contractors and oil barons benefited from this.

 

The first Iraq War was all about oil.  And correct me if I'm wrong...  But wasn't it sold to us by Bush/Cheney that invading Iraq would pay for itself in oil?  I think I remember that from like Meet the Press back with Tim Russert (RIP)...  But I could be wrong.

---

Or set up puppet regimes in Central and South America. We've never done that though, huh?

Sure we have.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Or set up puppet regimes in Central and South America.  We've never done that though, huh?

 

We've been doing that long before that area was a source of oil.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

The first Iraq War was all about oil.  And correct me if I'm wrong...  But wasn't it sold to us by Bush/Cheney that invading Iraq would pay for itself in oil?  I think I remember that from like Meet the Press back with Tim Russert (RIP)...  But I could be wrong.

 

Like I said, I don't remember anyone from the Bush team claiming we'd pay for the invasion with Iraqi oil. They did, however, peg the cost of the invasion at $60B. They were only a factor of about 20 too low. I guess a factor of 20 too low is not unusual for the initial price estimate of any government project.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Like I said, I don't remember anyone from the Bush team claiming we'd pay for the invasion with Iraqi oil. They did, however, peg the cost of the invasion at $60B. They were only a factor of about 20 too low. I guess a factor of 20 too low is not unusual for the initial price estimate of any government project.

Lol, I guess that was pretty funny... I'll have to look up the whole Iraq war will pay for itself lie... the more I think about it, the more I think I did hear someone in the Bush regime sell it. Rumsfeld maybe?

---

Lol, I guess that was pretty funny... I'll have to look up the whole Iraq war will pay for itself lie... the more I think about it, the more I think I did hear someone in the Bush regime sell it. Rumsfeld maybe?

 

Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz said oil revenues would help pay for Iraq's reconstruction, a major cost of the war.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

We've been doing that long before that area was a source of oil.

Maybe we should stop doing dumb things that never work out

---

Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz said oil revenues would help pay for Iraq's reconstruction, a major cost of the war.

 

As someone who was at the time and even now is totally in favor of the USA taking the oil from that region, I believe the context was that the once Iraq was Democratized they would be a wealthy nation capable of paying to rebuild themselves instead of a Marshall Plan-like gimmick where the US subsidizes or directly pays for the work.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

As someone who was at the time and even now is totally in favor of the USA taking the oil from that region, I believe the context was that the once Iraq was Democratized they would be a wealthy nation capable of paying to rebuild themselves instead of a Marshall Plan-like gimmick where the US subsidizes or directly pays for the work.

You are in favor of outright theft of a mother countries national resource? O___o

---

You are in favor of outright theft of a mother countries national resource? O___o

 

You free a country from a dictator you should get some compensation.

 

Or...to the victor go the spoils.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Maybe we should stop doing dumb things that never work out

 

The list is long.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"