CreateDebate


Debate Info

24
28
True. False.
Debate Score:52
Arguments:28
Total Votes:63
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True. (8)
 
 False. (19)

Debate Creator

EnigmaticMan(1840) pic



The Iraq war was fought over oil.

True.

Side Score: 24
VS.

False.

Side Score: 28
6 points

Oil was a big part of it. Bush saw that oil was becoming more scarce and he decided to occupy an oil wealthy nation. Saddam threatened to cut off our oil supply so We removed him and put in a friendlier government that would continue to supply us with oil. The other reasons were because of terrorism and politics.

The Iraq war was not the first war to be fought over resources. WW2, the scramble for Africa and other minor conflicts .

Side: true.
3 points

Oil was a major factor, but that's not a bad thing. I'm all for finding alternate fuels, but at the moment, we are unfortunately dependent on foreign oil to literally fuel our cars, planes, and basically keep our nation alive.

Side: true.
3 points

That is absolutely true. The war on Iraq was launched to rob Iraq and steal its oil. Plain and simple.

Side: true.
mudkipz2(360) Disputed
0 points

read my other post and then dispute me. your argument looks idiotic compared to mine showing that the war was not over oil.

Side: False.
2 points

Amongst other things i think that the war in Iraq was also fought over oil.

The reason that Iraq had WMDs and were sponsoring terrorism has been disproven time and time again yet it has still been the basis for the attack by the US and it's allies and it's subsequent war on terror.

Seeing as how Iraq doesn't have any other resources valuable enough to go to war over it leaves to the conclusion that oil was the determining factor in attacking Iraq. Most likely the people planning this were planning to reap the rewards over the long run not just over a year or so.

My conclusion is that controlling Iraq's oil is just a reward in a larger scale of

operations that the US has in the middle eastern area.

I would like to invite the opponents of my statement to give me their opinion.

The fact that Iraq didn't comply with sanctions is a weak argument because i could name a lot of countries that don't comply with them. Example being Syria and it's like minded countries. There are other countries that sponsor terrorist actions against the US like Libya, Iran, North Korea. Libya for one has been proven to have commited terrorist actions, and still they have their "president" in power, proving only that if you keep your mouth shut and don't make trouble you'll stay in power. The US doesn't go to war if it doesn't have anything to gain, no country does and there are a lot more peaceful and cheaper ways of removing Saddam

Side: One of many reasons
jharold91(1) Disputed
1 point

Which sanctions on Syria are you talking about? Because the ones I've read Syria technically followed, only they found ways to "beat around the bush" and find other means of oil and trade. Also, please specify "cheaper ways of removing Saddam"

Side: False.
2 points

America gets hundreds of thousands barrels oil from Iraq. Some people even believe Americans were helping Iraqi people as if they were "saving" them from Saddam even though I have never personally met a single Iraqi who thinks it's better without him. Americans think they are some sort of hero thinking they did something good there all they did was fuck the country over. It's fucked up how someone can just make up some dumbass lie about a country so that they get raided, get their leader executed and then their oil gets taken.

Side: True.
gingersRugly(22) Clarified
1 point

Americans think they are some sort of hero thinking they did something good there all they did was fuck the country over.

That's the difficult part with Americans. You have to wade through 30 years of brainwashing to get the message across that nobody likes them and nobody wants them anywhere near their country.

Side: True.
1 point

Yes, if we wanted to fight terrorism we would have invaded Saudi Arabia (the main source of terrorist funding). The Gulf war of the 90s had been fought over oil, and this war is a consequence of the last. Therefore, this war was fought over oil.

Side: true.
1 point

yep!!! the Iraq war was fought over oil. the main reason actually was oil but there was also Israel and there might have been other reasons I don't know of. i can't find any more but these over the net too. =\=\=\=\

Side: true.

It certainly seems that way! What a waste of American lives!

Side: True.
3 points

i like how this conspiracy is still going on. it would surprise most of you to see that most oil fields still have sanctions on them meaning they don't produce or make oil. also that the oil that is functional is under Iraqi control and most of it goes to other countries like china. the same problem is happening with Iran.

also the fact that the amount of money and cost to maintain a garrison force and to regrow Iraq has more then outdone any amount of wealth Iraqi oil could bring. plus if it was for oil why would we attack in 2001 with a small force when a few years ago in the gulf war we had 700,000 troops in Saudi Arabia just waiting there when they would of been far more effective especially after the fact that the Iraqi army was destroyed.

so we attack later with a smaller force giving Iraq time to rebuild its military. we find that most of the oil fields are in poor condition most held together by duct tape, pay a price in money and life that no amount of Iraqi oil could repay, sanction most oil fields making them unusable. and then allow them to own their own oil fields who they would rather and do trade with other nations like china. and the fact that most iraqi oil fields are almsot depleted. and this was all done for oil?

o and an other thing. Kuwait a country that is more far fresh and has a large amount of oil and would be easier to harness then Iraqis oil fields. also they were left to burn for years after the gulf war wasting a huge amount of oil that could of been used. also i can name numerous other places that would of been easier and cheaper to attack and take over then the oil in Iraq.

but hey, if the liberals like to think we fought for oil in Iraq and choose to ignore the basic evidence against it. their choice.

Side: False.
2 points

Oil, Terrorism, and Politics.

The three reasons, in that order.

Side: One of many reasons
2 points

I'll go with Clinton and Gore .

They said it
Side: False.
2 points

Clinton said it too..................................................................................................................................I have to agree.

Gotta agree
Side: False.
2 points

Oil??? How ignorant can you be??? US gas prices have gone up over $1.84 since 2003, the year the US invaded Iraq. If we were fighting this war over oil wouldn't our gas prices be almost nothing? How can this idiotic argument still be on people's minds?

Plain and simple, the war in Iraq was initiated because Iraq refused to comply with United Nations sanctions set in place to end the Gulf War of 1990/1991 and the United Nations themselves refused to enforce those sanctions. Since the US was clearly hated by Iraq and its leadership, we were the clear target of any military or terroristic actions Iraq would take so we had to take matters into our own hands and invade the country to remove Saddam and his cronies from power. Do I agree with that? ABSOLUTELY. Do I think we were ill-prepared to invade Iraq? NO QUESTION IN MY MIND.

Stop with the war for oil nonsense. It just makes you sound stupid to anyone with even a little intelligence.

Side: False.
1 point

Milk is more expensive per gallon and we produce it here .

Side: False.
1 point

thats called inflation! but yeah funny counter argument to him. but hes right. the war was not over oil. read my other post.

Side: False.

Well, there has been worse reasons why people go to war.-----

Side: False.
1 point

As well as many other issues. Nobody ever said wars couldn't be fought over oil.........

Side: False.
1 point

Bullshit! It's more likely that W wanted to finish what many said his daddy should have.... that and because Sadam tried to kill his daddy too.

Side: False.
1 point

Bush beleved that there were "wepons of mass destruction" and other things that were later not true

Side: False.
1 point

Iraq was invading quate and thats what trigered america to invade

Side: False.

We do not need the middle east oil.

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Claudia Assis writes that the US will end 2013 as the world's largest producer of petroleum and natural gas, surpassing Russia and Saudi Arabia with the Energy Information Administration estimating that combined US petroleum and gas production this year will hit 50 quadrillion British thermal units, or 25 million barrels of oil equivalent a day, outproducing Russia by 5 quadrillion Btu. Most of the new oil was coming from the western states. Oil production in Texas has more than doubled since 2010. In North Dakota, it has tripled, and Oklahoma, New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado and Utah have also shown steep rises in oil production over the same three years, according to EIA data. Tapping shale rock for oil and gas has fueled the US boom, while Russia has struggled to keep up its output.

Side: False.
1 point

Did you go through and search for Iraq War? These debates are super old.

Side: False.
1 point

If it was, it was so the West could deplete the rest of the world's oil. Alaska has enough oil to supply the US for 10,000 years.

Side: False.
0 points

One would assume that reports of caravans stealing oil from the wells in the dead of night would have reached the news. Unfortunately for those who support the belief that oil was a cause of the Iraq War, that has never occurred. It is quite clear that the nations that invaded Iraq did so because of the belief in an imminent threat posed by the regime there. Multiple intelligence agencies believed this, in addition to the fact that Iraq did indeed possess weapons of mass destruction and used them in the past, verifying the threat.

Side: False.