[jollybean]

This is total nonsense.

Iraq was already destabilized with daily NATO air missions overhead for a decade, Libya and Syria were plunged into civil war long before any kind of intervention.

The Americans don't like it when you mess with their petrodollar, but they're not going to fight a war over it.

FYI not answering the complicated questions about 'why USA invaded Iraq', but rather pointing out the 'Petrodollar' conspiracy is a canard. If you're looking for an indirect strategic issue to talk about you can just say 'Energy Security' was a factor, which of course it is, but it's still only one factor.

[powerapple]

Americans are not going to fight a war over it, but they are led to fight a war over it and believing they are not fighting a war over money. I think that's how politics work. Money are used to manipulate Americans and do something so that money can find more money. I don't believe a single American want to destroy another country, but in the end, it is what it looks like. Unfortunately, the military industry is too powerful in this democratic country.

[jollybean]

Obviously the populist case for war is different than the strategic case, but that doesn't mean it's about 'money' directly. US engagement in M/E is about a number of things, Energy Security being one of them, which is a legitimate interest of the US.

And of course, the US did and does not control the Oil Fields in Iraq, they didn't cut a deal (like with Saudi) for access to the Oil, all of the energy benefits go to other nations. So in this case, there's scant evidence 'it was about Oil'.

And the Petrodollar is a small thing, it's a side show.

[post_from_work]

>>>Iraq was already destabilized with daily NATO air missions overhead for a decade

Air missions which didn't prevent Saddam from switching from dollars to euros.[1] Clearly a more permanent solution was needed. General Wesley Clark stated as early as September 2001, leveraging post-9/11 sentiment, the US had decided to invade Iraq.[2]

>>>Libya and Syria were plunged into civil war long before any kind of intervention

The Libyan protests evolved into armed conflict/open revolt roughly around February 21st, when Qaddafi's Air Force bombed Tripoli.[3] Operation Odyssey Dawn began on March 19th, less than 30 days later.[4] In Syria, we didn't take overt interest in regime change, we merely occupied the most oil-rich portions of the country, which the central government lost control of early anyway.[5] Assad can't threaten the Petrodollar if he doesn't have oil to sell, and regime change would mean threatening Russia's access to the warmwater port in Latakia, arguably the reason Russia intervened. That would be an escalation with the Ruskies that I don't think we are prepared to risk.

>>>The Americans don't like it when you mess with their petrodollar, but they're not going to fight a war over it

Sure we will. Even the French will go to war to prop up the sphere of influence of their currency.[6]

[1]https://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut...

[2]https://www.salon.com/2007/10/12/wesley_clark/

[3]https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011)

[4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Odyssey_Dawn

[5] https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/who-bene...

[6]https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/6528

[jollybean]

Saddam's selling in Euro's had nothing to do with anything, and yes, there were obviously people who wanted to complete the overthrow of Saddam, which points to the obvious issue that Iraq2 was a continuation of Iraq1.

Your comments about Libya are not relevant and add nothing to the argument. There was an uprising, eventually it became violent, Qaddaffi ordered an incursion into E. Libya in which he publicly declared the intention of massacre, which practically forced the hand of observing parties. We could be on one wide or the other, there were no good outcomes.

Your speculation about Assad is fabricated, and historical assertions equally so.

1) The US did not 'occupy' any part of Syria.

2) Your claims about Assad's inability to sell Oil in other denominations due to his lack of control of Oil Fields is clearly disproven by the fact that he controls those areas right now, at this time. By your logic, he should be warring against the Petro dollar?

The conflict in Syria has nothing to do with the Petrodollar.

"Even the French will go to war to prop up the sphere of influence of their currency.[6]"

Despite the obvious flaw in your premise in that the French do not have a currency , your claim is not remotely substantiated by the link you provided.

You do understand that providing links to irrelevant information doesn't help your case?

Stop with the fictional conspiracy fantasies and reading as evidence bits of information that have little or nothing to do with the situation.

[post_from_work]

>>>Saddam's selling in Euro's had nothing to do with anything

So rather than comprehend the second and third order effects of a major oil exporter not adhering to the US's strategic imperative in the oil markets, your debate position is to stick your fingers in your ears and say "Not listening"?

>>>Your comments about Libya are not relevant and add nothing to the argument.

Nice attempt to move the goalposts. You stated: "Libya and Syria were plunged into civil war long before any kind of intervention". We intervened less than 30 days after the commencement of hostilities. So your statement is false. If you are going to step into the conversation calling another's post "total nonsense" in your first sentence, you should probably have the details dialed in, lest ye embarrass yourself.

>>>1) The US did not 'occupy' any part of Syria.

How do you debate with someone who can't even agree on the meaning of words? What else do you call it when SOF and Marines maintain bases IN SYRIA in vicinity of high-value terrain for years? Our presence there is denying the sovereign government usage of those economic assets.

https://taskandpurpose.com/analysis/military-us-troops-syria...

>>>2) Your claims about Assad's inability to sell Oil in other denominations due to his lack of control of Oil Fields is clearly disproven by the fact that he controls those areas right now, at this time.

Why do you persist in making such blatantly-false statements? The "Syrian Democratic Forces", aka "Kurds with the backing of embedded US SOF", control the territory east of the Euphrates. https://kurdpress.com/en/news/1863/US-troops,-SDF-hold-joint... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/23/world/middleeast/syria-as... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Syrian_Civil_War_deta...

At any rate, that wasn't the original argument I was trying to make but I can see the source of confusion: @datenarsch mentioned 3 countries (Iraq, Syria, Libya). I commented on the Petrodollar with respect to two of them: (Iraq, Libya), without articulating that Syria's strategic considerations had centered around other problems (Qatari natgas pipelines, Shia crescent, etc...).

>>>Despite the obvious flaw in your premise in that the French do not have a currency , your claim is not remotely substantiated by the link you provided.

I'll admit I completely garbled my point on that one. Qadafi originally stockpiled gold for his African dinar project. The email leak shows that Libyan threats to influence over Francophone Africa were sufficient for French leadership to take military action. So it stands to reason that the world's pre-eminent military power (America), would factor economic incentives into its Use of Force calculus. But don't take my word for it; I'm sure Alan Greenspan is better informed than either of us on the subject: https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=7QUoBM3p87MC&lpg=PA119&o...