|
|
|
|
|
|
by raducu
939 days ago
|
|
|
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). |
|
|
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.