Reply #10: Not really - US forces didn't take over Iraq, and Kuwait kept its oil [View All]

[social_critic]

It wasn't about stealing oil at all. The US government's main interest seems to have been to keep Saddam bottled up - but they didn't even bother to have him replaced, which they could have done easily.

Let me propose something for you guys - some of you confuse Desert Storm, the First Gulf War, carried out when George HW Bush (Bush Daddy) was president, and the Iraq War in 2003, when George W Bush (Bush the Idiot Son) was president. Furthermore, you seem to have a fairly naive and knee jerk reaction, "it was for oil, it was for oil", when the truth is a heck of a lot more complex.

Let me give you a hint: When the US goes to war, it takes agreement from powerful elites, and this means the US goes to war for at least two main reasons - and neither is what the people usually hear. Sometimes it's for three-four reasons, because the war has to have the critical mass behind it so the government and media can lie as one to the people, and soldiers can be sold the idea that they have to go and "die for freedom" or some such garbage.

The truth is the US never goes to war for democracy or for freedom, stealing oil is never the primary reason (why would the US government want to steal oil when the idea is for the oil to be produced and SOLD to the US?, a US government trying to steal oil would find itself opposed by the oil lobby, they prefer to produce it and sell it, and they don't mind high oil prices).

If you want to we can have an intelligent debate about these wars, but let's keep it clean and let's make sure we research what we say rather than just repeating the "common wisdom".