"well if you believe the Iraq war was for oil, you still have to reconcile with the fact that the haliburton stock price and all the intervention didn't come until well into the occupation."

Looking at the stock of a single oil company isn't very telling because there are many more factors that are going to affect a single company than the price of oil. Halliburton could have had debt issues and bankruptcy fears. It could have had a scandal. It could have had a spill. I don't know, and I'm not concerned enough to investigate it. But, the historical price of oil is available for free and that's what would be directly affected by the invasion and disruption of Iraqi oil production. The price per barrel was $41.39 in March 2003, the month the war started. By the end of 2005, the price had shot up to $75.96 per barrel, a 83.5% increase less than 2 years into the war. The price topped out at $156.48 per barrel in 2008, a 278% increase from when the war started 5 years before. The likes of these kind of gains hadn't been seen since the 1970s when OPEC cut the supply. This war potentially created hundreds of billions of dollars, if not trillions, in extra profit for the oil companies. In the same way that many factors affect a stock price, however, many factors affect the price of oil. Not all of the price increase was caused by the war, but you and I both know what happens to the price of a good when supply shrinks, or even is perceived as having the potential to shrink. I don't think that it is debatable the war contributed to the price increase, the only question would be how much, though that isn't the point.

"i'm not saying everything has been fine and dandy in the middle east since, but the major players who have been killing people have been ISIS, who people forget had been around since '98, and only grew to power once we LEFT Iraq."

And if we hadn't gone in in the first place, they wouldn't have had the opportunity to fill the vacuum. Alternatively, we could have assumed indefinite management of the country, but people want to have their cake and eat it too.

Oil Price source - http://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart

@Manwe

the rationale for not disposing a fascistic murderer shouldn't be "well some other bad people can come along."

do you think Iraq would have been entirely peaceful if we hadn't invaded in 2003? do you think between then and now, Saddam wouldn't have pressed his hand down upon other countries, or the kurds, in syria... what would it look like if the US, UK, Poland and Australia had simply gone the way of the UN and sat back and allowed him to murder more and more of his citizenry?

frankly we could still have had an islamic state spring up, we've seen other nations in the middle east overthrow governments recently, and there's no reason to believe Iraq would be immune to this, and there's even less reason to believe Iraq would have changed peacefully.

i'll stand alongside you in saying we should have deposed Saddam, and left as quickly as humanly possible. our extended occupation did nobody good, but the basic idea that a war against Saddam's regime was a terrible idea i simply will not subscribe to.

the modern equivalent of a letter of marque and reprisal would even be suitable, and i'm not entirely opposed to the idea of simply removing murderous dictators, and letting a country sort itself out.

whenever we stay, it's imperialism and country building, whenever we stay out, we're supporting murderous regimes. this conundrum is one the American people need to SORT OUT, and i'm sick of all this post war moralizing by people who sing a very different tune pre war.

you personally Manwe i'm sure are more consistent on these things, but the greater American people are fueling the problem with foreign policy, and the problem with foreign policy is that the American people by and large have very little idea what they're talking about

What matters is who had the contracts and profits from Iraqi oil before the invasion and after. But yes, oil companies got rich, and everyone else got screwed.

and Bush got reelected.

and all the US had to do was to kill a million people to do it.

@Ogion

let me concede all of that. let's say your oil conspiracies are all true:

in a perfect world with a liberal president, full liberal policies: what would you do with Saddam? what's the solution to a man like that??

Why haven't we gone into Iran then? The US has a much bigger grievance with them.

Because Iran is an absurdly well armed country that would make the resistance Hezbollah put up vs Israel in 2006 look like childs play. Iran is mountainous and would be very complicated to actually occupy the way we did Iraq or the way we fought insurgents in Waziristan. Naw Iran would have russian arms and so many volunteers vs us. Scary thoight

@JK

that's a damn good question to ask Obama, although they haven't been even close in what they aspire to in recent years compared to what Saddam actually did. what happened under the former administration opened Iran up to a nuclear option, and they also got 100 billion (the usual 150 billion dollar estimate is probably too high, but possible) dollars to then promise not to build one. of course we have no idea where that money is going, and so for all we know, we just funded terrorism.

but fortunately Iran probably won't build a nuke. there's no reason to, and if democrats get back in power then Iran can just get another economic boost.

just like several decades back when the CIA helped the Saddam regime gain power... the USA's foreign policy is a never-ending cycle of stupid decisions. the best we can try to do is rectify our mistakes, and not sponsor evil regimes.

My point is that regime change is not something we ought to be in the business of in general, despite the fact that we've been doing it pretty much continuously since the Spanish-American war. American imperialism can be done the hard way or the soft way, and the soft way is much better.

I am not all that heartbroken we helped destroy khadafi. I am also not - in principle - mourning saddam. But those were some very costly coups we staged. Pretty ineffective way to do war

the coup itself wasn't as difficult as the occupation... but replying to @Jeff Kuta, i don't consider it imperialism whenever we depose a fascist dictator whose family raped, tortured and murdered thousands, committed a genocide where the big end estimate put it in the 6 digits, and who openly flaunted his chemical weapons on his own citizens, AND who denied UN inspectors AND who constantly talked about trying to get nuclear arms.

THAT is not imperialism. going up against Hitler, who did comparatively LESS to us, was not imperialism.

I think he is talking about Central America, James. Ya know the Big Stick Policy and TR.

Unless you are talking about not ww2

@Vashta

well we haven't exactly been isolationist with regards to the middle east. or asia. or the balkans. or some areas of africa. or south and middle america.

It's so much better now in Iraq after the power vacuum left them with an incompetent government and ISIS terrorizing everyone with spillover into Syria. Half a million dead and 7+ million displaced out of country. You prefer this??

There is a reason the United Nations did *not* endorse use of force in Iraq. Cooler heads should have prevailed, but Dubya wanted to do what his Daddy couldn't do--actually, wisely, wouldn't do. Stupid chicken hawk neocons--Cheney, Ashcroft, Bolton. So much cowardice during Vietnam, so they had to cowboy up when in power.

Mission accomplished.

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Roast-the-chicken-hawks-2764089.php

@JK

i agree with you that Obama shouldn't have pulled out leaving no contingency force to help prevent the power vacuum. i'm on board with that, and already stated it.

look at this map. after the initial coup, we saw a MASSIVE decline in civilian deaths. we only saw the civilian death rate go up during the extended occupation. the power vacuum left by Obama caused the second spike

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

furthermore, the half a million dead civilians weren't American troops going around shooting people. that was primarily due to sectarian violence.


as for your claims about the UN, they did not endorse the use of force in Iraq because the UN is a spineless organization of bureaucrats, who have constantly refrained from any sort of aggression against barbaric and fascistic men from Africa to the Middle East.

because at the end of the day, we SHOULDN'T be emotionless and cool when facing genocidal dictators.

@JK

What should have happened with Saddam? Do we just a ot there and watch a muderous fascist crime family rape torture murder and use chemical weapons on its own people, while threatening/committing genocides every 10 years?

If you have a problem with how long we stayed in Iraq, tried to influence politics there too much, or how there potential scandals with oil: in with you on ALL of that.

But if you didn't want to see Saddam brought to justice, then that's where we'll split

@JY: Last time I'm going to address this subject, since you're dead set in your assessment.

"i agree with you that Obama shouldn't have pulled out leaving no contingency force to help prevent the power vacuum. i'm on board with that, and already stated it."

We should have never been there in the first place. The initial power vacuum, the death of Saddam Hussein and the gutting of the Baathist Party, was what led to disintegration of law and order (yes, a very harsh law and order, but order nonetheless).

"look at this map. after the initial coup, we saw a MASSIVE decline in civilian deaths. we only saw the civilian death rate go up during the extended occupation. the power vacuum left by Obama caused the second spike"

Again, the second spike should never have happened.

"furthermore, the half a million dead civilians weren't American troops going around shooting people. that was primarily due to sectarian violence."

Never said that. But the worst displacement due to war in human history is happening right now, and it was all precipitated by removing Hussein from power under false pretenses.

"as for your claims about the UN, they did not endorse the use of force in Iraq because the UN is a spineless organization of bureaucrats, who have constantly refrained from any sort of aggression against barbaric and fascistic men from Africa to the Middle East."

They may not be as willing to use military might so solve the world's problems as you are, but guess what? They're DIPLOMATS. Everyone on this web site should know that diplomacy is the most effective and least costly way in impacting world affairs in terms of blood and treasure. If you believe that all wars are ideological, you should agree with this assessment.

"because at the end of the day, we SHOULDN'T be emotionless and cool when facing genocidal dictators."

Then by your estimation, the United States should be waging war against scores of terrible regimes right now. If that's how you feel, ENLIST.

@JK

funnily enough, military intelligence is where i'm likely headed to after college. meanwhile my older brother is serving overseas as we speak. some of us actually have balls and don't sit aside and chat about how effective diplomacy is (like that whole appeasement thing with Hitler) and actually stand up for the rights of people who are being murdered across the world.

if you see a genocide and don't automatically want to seek out the person who did it and hold them responsible: then Jeff you are right. there's nothing more to say

You do realize that the US withdrew under the status of forces agreement negotiated and signed by Bush and was well underway by the time Obama even took office. Sure, Obama could have launched another war on the government of Iraq but that pullout was designed by the Bush administration in part because the Iraqi government wanted the US to leave.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

But sure blame Obama for Bush's failures.

Yeah, Obama has his own foreign policy failures to be blamed for, don't give him Bush's.

Hitler was invading and taking over sovereign nations. He needed to be stopped. He was stopped.

Gulf War 1 was prompted by an actual Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Hussein needed to be stopped then and pretty much the entire world signed on to support us. He was stopped and turned tail back to Baghdad.

Gulf War 2 was prompted by a bunch of bullshit: part disinformation, partly Dubya wanting to be real war hero like his father, and part neocon, chickenhawk, feed the military industrial complex and line your pockets with Blackwater contractors. Funny that JY actually cites the UN resolution as legitimizing action when he thinks they're all spineless.

Teenagers think they know everything. SMH.

Everyone thinks they know everything, teenagers are just more bold about how they present it.

(And know slightly less)