[oblio]

They're probably referencing Iraq and I'm not sure it was raw resource extraction as it was so much removal of a competitor (whatever the name of the Iraqi state oil company was) and more than that, enabling sales of equipment, consulting, etc. It wasn't as simple as some 1800s colonialism, it was advanced wealth extraction worthy of the 21st century.

[Vt71fcAqt7]

Ok. So the US spent $3 trillion[0] on a war in Iraq to get some consulting contracts from a country with a GDP of $36 billion[1]? And didn't invade Saudi Arabia, which actually has oil? How much wealth do you estimate the US extacted from the war?

[0]https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/true-cost-iraq-war-...

[1]https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?end=2001...

[hirsin]

While I don't lend credence to it being that simple, it's worth noting that the people making that profit aren't the ones paying for it, and the ones paying for it aren't using their own money.

[hedora]

The Europeans were starting to loosen Iraqi oil sanctions and develop the fields before the second war.

The US often does stuff that costs taxpayers trillions so that the people bribing congress can make billions.

PFAS, Canadian lumber sanctions and oxycontin are three recent examples.

[Vt71fcAqt7]

>The Europeans were starting to loosen Iraqi oil sanctions

Any links I can read about this? I'm open to the idea that suppressing Iraq's oil industry was the main objective of the war. I don't like claims about "the US's quest to take other nations oil" being that it never happened either in Iraq or even Iran. At least when I ask for a source I can never get one. To me the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were mainly about projecting power, not oil. Certainly not Afghanistan because there is little to no oil there in the first place. Even regarding Iraq it is OPEC that sets the price and I doubt they would let Iraq greatly reduce the market price. It would have to be as you say: people with connections using the US's power to suppress competition. Many people online, however, seem to have the idea that US foriegn policy dictates collecting oil and that the US is stealing trillions of dollars of oil from various third world countries. I think the US gains a lot more from war to project power. Iraq for the most part today is a US ally. And if we are looking for people who would gain from the war it would more likely be Lockheed than Exxon. Lastly, there is no reason to say that US oil companies staged the war exclusively. It is possible that eg. SA were also involved or the main initiators.

[JAlexoid]

I'm sorry, but Saudis were the biggest losers in removing Saddam.

Removal of Saddam removed one of the biggest adversaries of Iran. Now Iranian Revolutionary Guard can freely move from Tehran to Beirut and support the rebels in Yemen.

[oblio]

The US spent a ton of money from the US public so that a few US individuals can stuff their pockets. Corruption.

[JAlexoid]

You literally contradicted your own original statement.

[oblio]

Those individuals used the US gov to do it, see Cheney. Read up about Leopold and Congo.

[raducu]

Wasn't Iraq about to switch away from trading the oil in USD ?

But let me flip your argument -- why did the US invade Iraq?

The US has/had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia was in the US's pocket at that time (it might have reversed since then).

[Vt71fcAqt7]

>Wasn't Iraq about to switch away from trading the oil in USD ?

I don't know. Do you have a source for that claim? Preferably from before the war started. (Later is fine too.)

>But let me flip your argument -- why did the US invade Iraq?

This doesn't flip the argument. That would only be the case if not being able to explain the war meant that it therefore was started for oil. These are not two sides of a coin. Simmilarly I wouldn't say that if we can't explain Iraq then it must have been to find aliens.

>The US has/had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia was in the US's pocket at that time

And what percent of the oil profits did the US get? If the claim is that the US will invade for oil then being in the US's pocket, whatever that means, is irrelevant. But I think you answered your own question here. The US likes having countries "in it's pocket." It wants to station troops in other countries. These are legitimate -- here I don't reffer to moral legitimacy -- national objectives. Skimming contracts or suppressing oil fields is not a legitimate national objective. If there are groups in the US (eg. Exxon) that are so powerfull they can make the US go to war without a single national objective achieved then they could simply take the $3 trillion directly. I think your point about the petrodollar is interesting, although I'd like to see some more evidence.