Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Workshop_Willy
I'm not saying the US invaded to hold down oil prices, I'm merely presenting that to echo the hypothesis posed on this board by others. Personally I think the US invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam and his threat to neighboring oil-producing countries. I don't think the US invaded merely to hold down oil prices, I think we invaded as a first step toward preempting any threat to the entire global economy.
Now, the above statement seems to be addled. Control will affect prices... that's what you said. And yet prices aren't the ultimate goal? I'm trying to see how this isn't splitting hairs. Maybe if you explained it more fully?
|
Simple. You're presenting (perhaps as devil's advocate) that 'oil prices' are the ultimate goal of invasion. I posit that oil CONTROL is the overriding factor, and that prices adjust accordingly.
Control over supply: Cause
Prices of oil: Effect
Claiming that keeping the price of oil down was the ultimate aim is, as I commented before, a 'wag the dog' hypothesis, which doesn't stand up to any serious scrutiny.
Additionally, I haven't seen anyone claim that Iraq was invaded to keep oil prices low. Perhaps I haven't been paying attention, or just skim over such simple mindedness as a result of years tuning my bullshit detector on the 'net.