Blood for Oil

Brian, this was a provocative episode, and I enjoyed it, but I'm afraid your argument has some holes in it. (I do agree, however, agree with your basic point that the Iraq war was not primarily a war for oil).

First, oil is a fungible resource, and there is a world market for oil. Therefore the price of crude oil rises and falls globally because the Japanese, Europeans, Chinese, and everyone else are also consumers of oil. Which countries the US buys from is not really important. If the price of oil goes up in the US it goes up for everyone.

Second, the conspiracy theorists I've encountered don't claim that we invaded Iraq to get cheaper gas, but exactly the opposite. I don't agree, but they claim it was not to help the US in general, but the oil companies, Halliburton and other war profiteers. It just so happens that oil companies enjoyed windfall profits because the price of oil has skyrocketed. The Iraq war has indeed been a windfall for certain industries. For the country as a whole, it has been bad.

I believe the true reason for the war was a naive messianic impulse, not cynical calculation, but it is a fact that it has been very profitable for certain capitalists as well. One can find evidence for each view, so I suppose the true answer depends on one's view of human nature. Is Bush an Evil Capitalist Genius (or puppet of same) who pretends to be a naive fundamentalist believer in American Exceptionalism, or is he actually what he appears to be? I say the latter.
Personally, the Iraq war has changed my opinion of foreign policy. I now think, based on the latest evidence provided by this war, that a non-interventionist foreign policy (closer to that of Switzerland) would serve our

Tim Gowan, Yokohama, Japan
March 12, 2007 6:47pm

I couldn't agree more. The founding fathers had it right when they framed the US as an isolationist country.

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
March 12, 2007 6:53pm

Do I detect a fellow libertarian?

I am a recent convert myself. I've always been skeptical and part of skepticism is being willing to revise your world-view if compelling new evidence is presented. I find lots of compelling evidence for libertarian-leaning policies (although I also believe it is possible to take it too far) in the last six or seven years of history. An interventionist foreign policy seems to create more problems than it solves, at least in the Middle East. Our national "brand image" has been tarnished and nothing good has come of it.

Switzerland on the other hand has been enjoying peace and prosperity for a long time. Their soldiers have neither had to kill nor be killed, and no foreign countries seem to harbor any deep resentment of Switzerland. The fact that the US is so big, unfortunately makes it very tempting to adopt an interventionist foreign policy.

Unfortunately non-skeptics seem to be immune to new evidence, so I am somewhat pessimistic about whether enough of our fellow Americans will learn the right lesson from all this. (I am an expatriate, but not an ex-patriot).

Tim Gowan, Yokohama, Japan
March 12, 2007 10:14pm

Read this and tell me that oil companies aren't bothered by shedding blood for oil: http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Africa/Nigeria.asp

Chris Moyer, Decatur, GA
March 13, 2007 11:20pm

What I had heard was not that the foreign policy was dictated by obtaining oil, bt was nevertheless dictated by oil.

The agreement that any oil transaction, regardless of where it is purchased, regardless of where it is consumed, should be paid in dollars is the issue. Not the supply of oil, but the supply of currency for oil transactions.

The wonderfully entertaining video by Robert Newman (which is delightful to watch in any case) makes the case in the most entertaining way. US foreign policy is what it is because to allow countries to switch their oil transactions into another currency would make dollars worth very much less on the international markets.

If the dollar lost so much value, then the enormous foreign debt would be too heavy for the US to support: The US economy would collapse, in a more dramatic fashion than in the 30s.

This is the springboard for the interventionist policies: Not the supply of oil, but the payment for oil, regardless of it's origin.

I have listened to all Skeptoid podcasts - and always have thought them excellent. In this last one, there was a little less humour, and a little more astringence in your voice: This gave me the feeling (no more than that) that the skepticism was coloured by a little emotion this time: This means a loss of objectivity. Is that true? I don't know - but that was just a vague feeling I got......

In any case. Great podcasts - thanks for the info and entertainment!

Fred Trellis, Düsseldorf
March 15, 2007 1:06am

I agree in point, but could not do your supply math.

Method 1 (yeilds >100%)
Domestic = 37%
None-OPEC Countries = 56%
OPEC Contries = 32%
Total = 125% (should = 100%)

Option 2 (yeilds <100%)
Domestic = 37%
Thus Imports = (100-37)= 63%
so Import non-OPEC=56% of 63% = 35%
and Import OPEC = 32% of 63% = 20%
37%+35%+20%=92%

Andy Campbell, Costa Mesa, CA
March 15, 2007 11:24am

Fred from Dusseldorf wrote:

"If the dollar lost so much value, then the enormous foreign debt would be too heavy for the US to support: The US economy would collapse, in a more dramatic fashion than in the 30s.

This is the springboard for the interventionist policies: Not the supply of oil, but the payment for oil, regardless of it's origin."

This is something I have heard from (IMO) paranoid CT-leaning types, but I don't think this is true either. This is not what gives the dollar its value. And US debt is paid in US dollars, so if the value of the dollar falls, so does the value of US debt. If the US dollar fell, it would actually have many good effects for the US, especially for lower income Americans. Manufacturing jobs could return. The US consumers would buy more domestic goods and producers would be able to export more US made goods abroad. Other central banks would scramble to prop up the dollar by buying more US bonds and other assets.

Tim Gowan, Yokohama, Japan
March 15, 2007 9:52pm

CT?
We're not all Americans, y'know. What is CT, and in which direction do they lean?

Fred Trellis, Düsseldorf
March 19, 2007 3:49am

No , the U. s. doesn't want to import the oil so suburbia can feed its suvs no,no. But the politcial and economic elites in this country want to control access to it

dana Franchitto, s wellfleet, Mass.
March 20, 2007 7:45pm

Blood for blood, an eye for an eye; the oil is the excuse.

The Religious war in Iraq is between religious faithers with religious agendas of selfish meme propagation, yet using the 'modified' genocidal method of civil war to save losing disciples.

Speaking as a chemical engineer...we don't 'need' oil. There are better alternatives.

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 21, 2007 6:13am

loved it what i have been saying for years.
it is a commodity a commodity is bought in a world market you look at a board and say that is the lowest price so i will buy it then you ask them where is your nearest distributer to my refinery oh Canada? ok
it is a commodity like oranges (except it sadly doesn't grow on trees)
i think some of the higher prices comes from the fact that the oil companies finally caught up to inflation.
now European countries get most their oil from the middle east so there is a reason we need to protect the oil pipelines for our allies.
just a thought

Bob john, minneapolis, MN
March 22, 2007 6:27pm

loved this episode - so far this is my favorite. we do get more oil from canada than saudi arabia. all you have to do is check the government's own oil import / export figures.
critical thinking is certainly dead in america.

the next podcast should be about the overinflated price of diamonds. another hotly debated topic. most guys don't seem to be bothered paying $10k or more for a small rock, but get emotional over having to fill up there suv with $2.50 gallon gas which inflation wise is lower than in the 70's.
my 2cents

chaka hannah, houston, TX
March 23, 2007 8:45am

1. "No Blood for Oil" is a weaker statement than "No War for Oil Profit." Wars have a tendency to drive up energy prices, and this effect could be exploited on purpose. During Desert Storm the prices at the pump jumped within hours of the first action.

3. The only real test is to compare import figures before and after a conflict, remembering even a small percentage increase could represent millions or billions of dollars in profit.

Lowell, Knoxville, Tennessee
April 08, 2007 12:19am

Something you may have missed:

"KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- Afghanistan's Taliban rulers -- already isolated by their policies of barring women from all occupations except prostitution, in order to protect morality, and forcing Hindus to wear yellow cloths, in order to foster religious tolerance -- announced plans to begin sacrifice infants to Baal. They are to be thrown, live, into a bonfire, by their parents, supervised by the Taliban's Committee for the Protection of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. The hard-line Taliban regime that controls 95 percent of this famine-ridden, war-torn country plans to enforce the edict soon, Mohammed Wali, religious police minister, told The Associated Press on Tuesday.The law will also make it mandatory for parents to bury “excess” girl children, Wali said. The edict drew criticism from other Islamic states as well from the West and international human rights groups. But Wali said the latest Taliban edict is in line with Islam. “This is the only way to end the drought,'' the minister said. “We challenge anyone to bring a single Qur’anic sura against throwing live babies into a burning inferno. Why is the West so concerned about a barbequing a few babies when thousands of Afghanis are dying because of the drought while the West does nothing to help?”

Griff...Oil? Oil? Who gives a shit about oil when these maniacs do this?!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
April 10, 2007 5:19pm

You may very well have a point, but, I'm sorry you completely lost me with this comment "The biggest supplier is Saudi Arabia, a relatively Westernized country".

If you're being that loose with 'relative' then I have to take your research claim with a small grain of salt.

Gig Giggity, Petula, USA
May 24, 2007 10:56am

I'd just like to say this is the most ignorant thing I have read all day, at least until I get to the next article on this rag of a website... get a grip you sociopath!

lollercaust, the woods of a thousand young
May 24, 2007 10:58am

I don't think you have thought about this at all. So we don't get our oil from them. That's exactly why we are there. Don't you get that? We are there for the oil. We have written a law we are pushing thru the Iraqi parliament that grants 70% of oil profits to multinational oil corps. There are reports of 100,000 barrels of oil missing a week from Iraqi oil fields that we control and protect. C'mon, man, use your head on this. They don't give us oil, as you clearly showed, and we want it. Therefore, we invade and murder to get it. That is blood for oil.

Jonathan Goodall, New York, New York
May 24, 2007 11:05am

"The biggest supplier is Saudi Arabia, a relatively Westernized country".

If you assume that other Westernized countries don't allow 50%of the population to drive, or vote, or go anywhere without a male relative, then yeah, they're relatively Westernized.

Your argument might be more persuasive if you leave stuff like this out.

leigh, CA
May 24, 2007 11:17am

We don't support dictators, arm militaries, and attack countries in the middle east in order to get two buck a gallon unleaded at Exxon stations in Des Moines. We do it because it gives us a lot of control over countries that rely on that supply of oil. Militarily, it's a huge asset. And all the major powers try to grab as much of that control for themselves as they can, for the same reason. Resources have always been one of the keys to military strength. Today it's oil. Five hundred years ago it may have been defensible harbors or acres of timber suitable for ship building.

In any case, the price you pay at the pump is pretty incidental. Oil companies, like any company, will use whatever excuses are handy to justify a price hike. They'll charge as much as the market will bear. Whether you're buying from the King of Saudi Arabia, Texaco, or Hugo Chavez, the rules are pretty much the same and, thus, so are the prices. And the US government doesn't give a shit about gas prices unless it begins to affect election results. Even then, though, a price drop of twenty five cents per gallon would probably pacify the electorate, so, you know, no big deal.

Clay201, Montgomery, AL
May 24, 2007 11:34am

The point is it's about geopolitical competition; having *strategic* (not necessarily direct) control over middle eastern fields gives the US an advantage over the PRC and a recovering Russia.

It's a mistake to think prices are what it's about: they are actually largely incidental. Your problem is you accept certain categories - principally "The Economy" - as givens without really considering what they mean. In real life, historical situations the seperation between 'economic' and 'political' factors is largely meaningless, or rather a formality.

By ignoring the (geo)political and the way major firms and corporations are bound up with the state (and vice-versa), not pursuing any 'conspiracies' but merely being driven by the imperatives of competition, you can't really understand what's at work.

Avon, UK
May 24, 2007 3:26pm

I found this episode to be very enlightening.

Since many of the prominent figures of the Bush administration have come from the oil industry, it is a breeding ground for correlating these things. I admit I have been one of them. Part of me still correlates and draws conclusions. I haven't found any evidence either -- just good-sounding conclusions...which as we know don't really mean jack.

Thanks.

Derek del Barrio, Austin, TX
June 05, 2007 10:03pm

USA might not be getting much oil from Arab countries right now, but the situation may very well be very different 20 years from now.

More than half of the proven oil reserves come from Arab countries, and the production costs are among the lowest. (Shallow wells, not very complex geology. Compare drilling shallow wells in desert soil with, say, oil platforms in the North Sea)

Most of the large oil fields in the rest of the world have already peaked. With increasing demand and other factors into account, and barring the full development of alternate energy sources, Middle East will play a paramount role in the world oil market, and thusly world economy, in the foreseeable future.

Blood for oil?
You betcha!

Wilson, Bogotá
June 08, 2007 8:03am

I just listened to your blood for oil podcast and think your reasoning - that you can't call it "blood for oil" because our oil doesn't even come from there - is way oversimplified. Oil is power so controlling it makes geopolitical sense. Plus, just because we aren't relying on Iraqi oil now doesn't mean we don't want to secure it "for our next meal."

Your podcast is one of my favorites. It's well written, lean and mean.

Sincerely,

Curt Nelson
Minnesota

Curt Nelson, St. Paul, MN
June 20, 2007 3:36pm

Blood for oil.
"But what's it based on? I don't know."
Oil company profits are derived from gross sells. We sell arms to the world.
We sell oil to the world. I am confused by the naming of your blog. I see no skepticism in your writings. I only see you parroting the party/company line's.

Geronimo John, Santa Fe
June 25, 2007 12:07am

I would make two comments -

1 ) The oil mix now is very different from how it is projected in future - the fact is that in the future, as smaller reserves dwindle, we will all be looking to the comparitively vase oil reserves in the middle east - its about projections, not the current status quo

2 ) Since the release of your podcast, a senior figure in Australia has actually admitted that securing oil reserves was a consideration in offering thier support

Would be interested in your response

Andrew Cameron, Houston, Texas
July 24, 2007 8:13pm

I love Skeptoid.
I also think that your assessment of Saudi Arabia being "a relatively Westernized country" is about as far off the mark as you could possibly get. Saudi Arabia is is a monarchy, it is one of the most authoritarian countries in the world, and one with the worst human rights records.
It seems odd that we would be such good 'friends' with them. I wonder why that is?
And I doubt that you could claim that Iraq is 'friendly' to us, despite our not allowing them to dislike us.
So, if not for the control of oil, which the Bush administration itself has said is a large factor in the war with Iraq, then what is it about? Is it to stop the terrorists? Because if so, I can think of a lot better way stop terrorism than to kill their friends and families.

Wolf, Bloomington
August 16, 2007 5:10pm

I've been listening to the podcasts, for the past few weeks, and just hit on the 'Blood for Oil' episode. I'd like to preface this with the simple statement that the facts you raise very definitely support the conclusions you arrive at.

On to my issue. As i understand it the OPEC organization exists solely for the purpose of creating an agreed upon price to sell oil at, this is a form of reverse collective bargaining.

A side effect of this price setting is that the rest of the world uses these prices to base their prices around (due to economic reasons that need not be fully explored here, and are relatively obvious). This price fixing capacity of OPEC and the controlling interest the Middle Eastern nation in question have in OPEC are what create the global economic need for a continuing military presence in the Persian Gulf region (I should mention that I am a veteran of the first Gulf War for full disclosure here).

There is also a long historical precedent for the need for any developed nation with global military aspirations to have political and military sway over an oil rich region of the world. However, it is entirely valid that the issue has been co-opted for political effect by the left, just as the fear of oil scarcity has been by the right.

Tablespoon of heavy water anyone? I think the real question is why are the left and right not united by the desire to find the alternative to oil?

Alex Bridygham, Sunnyvale, California
November 11, 2007 9:23pm

Bush has become a progressive-right-winger because history thrust greatness upon him. He asked the big questions that had to be asked, after 9/11. What more can they do to us? ...Well, Mr. President they will, if not stopped, eventually get hold of a nuke and destroy Washington or some other city. What strategy must we adopt to defeat them? Mr. President we must set down policies to turn every country in the world into a modern (bourgeois) democracy. If all countries look, and smell like Sweden and France, we will have won. The world needs sewerage systems for the smell, and industrialization for the sewerage systems; it needs education for the industrialization, and it needs basic bourgeois political freedoms to permit the education… We must stop doing what we have been doing for the whole post WW2 period. We must reverse all our old policies. These mosquitoes are attacking us because we caused a swamp in the Middle East which breeds them! We must drain that swamp, and then there will be no more mosquitoes. Mr. President there is no other way of winning this war…. (At least that is what I would tell him if I was in the war cabinet)

If you want to think more about the Iraq war try

http://www.lastsuperpower.net/
and have a look at the Draining the swamp thread in the forum, or

Patrick Muldowney, Adelaide Australia
November 20, 2007 2:49am

Apart from whether or not all of what either side says is true, I see no problem with "blood for oil". These same people chanting that would be screaming for US military seizure of Saudi oilfields if all of a sudden the US had to rely strictly on domestic oil capacity. Oil is, at this time and for the foreseeable future, the very lifeblood of the nation and the base for our modern, technological and quite comfortable lives here in the USA. That we should send soldiers (like me, retired now) to go look after our vital overseas interests is not unusual. Whether that interest be oil or fisheries (navy concern) or whatever, if the US depends on it to feed, clothe and keep our population healthy (as we do with oil), we will spend blood to protect it as the consequences of not doing so are far worse and mean much more blood. The United States cannot support our current population without oil, and lots of it. Without our overseas supplies of oil there will be mass starvation, a breakdown of civil order and probably a quite bloody civil war of a sort. And/or the US simply sending the Marines and Navy to go depose Chavez and take their oil by overwhelming public mandate. Once Americans begin to get hungry, and thirsty and cold and in other ways highly uncomfortable, they will demand that government remedy this situation at any cost. So, a little blood now saves a lot of blood later.

Don Herman, Washington Court House, Ohio
December 04, 2007 8:00am

First, good research.

Second, the Iraq war is about putting 14 permanent U.S. military bases within striking distance of the oil reserves *the rest of the world* is going to have to fight for in 10 years. The U.S. owns the Americas, and will have secure access to that oil forever. The oil we're shedding blood for now is not oil we particularly want for ourselves, but oil we desperately want to keep away from China, India, Russia, and maybe even the EU over the next 50 years. Not only will expensive oil cripple their economies, but it will also, more importantly, cripple their militaries.

Still Anon, Atlanta, GA
December 05, 2007 8:21am

You underestimate people, you DID change my mind about the blood for oil issue, I hadn't thought about such a thing as markets. The power of mass media I guess.

Onaka, Finland
December 07, 2007 2:48am

It seems like you're asking two different questions. One question is "did the U.S. invade Iraq for its own domestic comsumption of oil?" and the other is "what factors lead to the price of
oil?"

These two questions are oftern confused. At the start of the war, some supporters said that the war would bring down gas prices in the United States. As we've seen, gas prices have not decreased. They've increased. And you're correct to point out that regardless of the war, it's actually the markets (in other words, speculation on Wall Street, etc.) that drives up the price. Another factor in the increase in U.S gas prices is the control of the supply, which is kept low to justify (by way of "supply and demand") higher prices.

As to the "No Blood for Oil" slogan, it's true that many people who have spouted it might not know where most oil used in the US comes from. But the slogan isn't meant to say that the war was launched to siphon oil from Iraq to Nebraska. The slogan puts forth the idea that the war was begun, in part, to control the supply of oil to Europe and Asia (as well as to build a permament military presence in the region).

John, Redding, North Carolina
January 03, 2008 10:00am

The argument about "friendly nations" seems like a red herring to me. Plenty of blood has been spilled for oil in the "friendly" nation of Nigeria. Just because Nigeria is our political ally doesn't mean that their government treats its own people very kindly. Google "Ken Saro Wiwa". There's often lots of blood spilled by governments who want to gain the favor of the U.S.

daveB, Oakland CA
January 14, 2008 9:50pm

"The biggest [OPEC] supplier [of oil to the US is] Saudi Arabia, a relatively Westernized country that's our biggest ally in the region."

I agree with everything you have said and your analysis seems to be factual. That being said though, I don't think you can call the backward, 7th century caliphate of Saudi Arabia a "relatively Westernized country". These are people that still execute for accusations of witchcraft and the crime of reading a Quran in the toilet among other things (http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/columnists/story.html?id=29f7fb5d-23c0-4d13-ac82-98d7b0dac8bb).

Allan K, Toronto Canada
January 21, 2008 4:10pm

Just a question, if the countries that rely on “our enemies” for oil can’t get it any longer from them, won’t they attempt to purchase it from Canada, Mexico, Nigeria, and Venezuela? The markets are intertwined and what we should examine is not the origin of the oil but the total world supply and the total world demand.

Sanford Sorkin, New Jersey
January 25, 2008 5:09am

I used to be a person who thought that the war was not about oil. I believe now that I was wrong.

It is about oil. Not the control of the oil for flowing into our gas tanks, but control over who is controlling the money received for the oil. If we wanted oil from Saddam all we had to do was say "$50/barrel okay with you?" The problem was where the money went after we gave it to him.

WMD were found. Not in large quantities, but lovely precursors. Brian Suits (of KVI in Seattle) sat on many thousands of tons of ready to process uranium. All that was needed was some tubes carefully machined for centrifuges. Oh wait, those were rocket launching tubes. I forgot.

Maybe we should have lifted the sanctions and let Saddam have his way. It's not our job to free other populations. I have to side with the president on this one. I didn't want him to have large quantities of Billions. We should have stepped on him heavily in 91 at the end of the first war, but we didn't.

Oil is power. Ask Chavez. Ask the Saddis, Ask the Albertans (although they may get a little huffy over how much of their money gets siphoned off to the rest of the country).

I am happy Saddam isn't raking it in right now.

brad.tittle, bremerton
January 28, 2008 5:59pm

Dear sports:

Great site and I've grabbed quite a few of your swingin' posts to use as links.

A few things about the old oil.

No one goes to war for oil for the simple reason that oil is a commodity, you just buy it. The same reason people don't go to war for sugar, coal, iron ore or pork bellies.

The owners of oil revenue are mostly ordinary shareholders such as retirement funds and other dull things. Copious Dissent has some info on this.

Also, if it was only about oil, anyone could have got it cheap to zero from Saddam for various concessions, ie: Don't take my kingdom from me or kill me.

Also, if folks just want oil, like in WWII, they'd just run a blockade of ships in the gulf with a protected run to the fields. Bypass the worthless in oil towns.

Why spend billions on fixing a dumpy infrastructure, be voted out of office and wait fifteen years or more for an uncertain return on investment?

In other words, the only place governments go to war for oil is when Japan wanted to expand aggressively and would have traded until they were er, limited in trade due to said belligerence.

The other place is in the deluded, hyperbole ridden mind of the immature Kos kid. Sadly, the mental illness of Leftism cannot be cured with wheatgrass!

Colonel Robert Neville dot blogspot dot com.

Colonel Neville, Melbourne Australia
February 02, 2008 1:12am

I can appreciate the amount of effort you put into researching this topic, and I do not doubt any of the facts that you have presented. However... didn't the OPEC countries join together in an effort to "unionize" petrolium production? The issue isn't that we get our oil from Iraq, but that Iraq (among others) has enhanced consideration in the determination of oil prices.

Travis McGowan, Portland, OR
February 03, 2008 9:23am

An interesting fact to consider is that Iraq had switched the currency used to buy it's oil from US $ to Euros shortly before the invasion. After ousting Saddam's government, that went quickly back to US $. For your own research check out what Iran's plan for a Euro oil standard are.

The value of having the US dollar as the defacto currency for oil purchase is pretty significant.

I never really bought the "blood for oil" thing until I thought about the power granted by controlling the fiat currency for something everyone needs.

Michael, California
February 07, 2008 3:58pm

Uh, this article is interesting, but there's a lot larger picture here- and that is the fact that the U.S.dollar, since being taken off the gold standard has been in effect backed by oil. Iraq made the decision to start selling in Euros. America attacked, under the basic premise that this would enable us to control Iraq's oil, thus protecting the valuation of the U.S. dollar. This is pretty much accepted knowledge now. We know it wasn't over WMDs, now don't we? Iran opened their own Euro Oil bourse in late 2006, opening up talks from our government to push to invade Iran. Thank god that the people weren't fooled so easily once again.

http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html

http://risingsons.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!1FF898EC70F0ED78!1000.entry

And HOW has the invasion worked out for Big Oil? record profits for Exxon Mobil 3 years in a row...

Chris, Lubbock Texas
February 14, 2008 9:49am

Hey, how about you check your facts first?

If you happen to visit the Department of Energy's website, they published the following list on Jan 29, 2008, regarding the largest sources of oil imports for the US in November, 2007. These results are echoed across several years.

1. Canada
2. Saudi Arabia
3. Mexico
4. Venezuela
5. Nigeria
6. Iraq
7. Angola
8. Colombia
9. Algeria
10. Ecuador

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

As you can see, Saudi Arabia is not #1, Venezuela is not #2, #3 is not Nigeria, #4 is not Algeria, and the rest DOES NOT come from Iraq. There are 116 total contributing countries that we depend upon for oil. I cite the Department of Energy, again, at the link below.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm

I'm glad you do research.

Adam, Findlay, Ohio, US
February 14, 2008 9:36pm

Two points.

1) @Adam, above: Please read the post again, this time a little slower and not skipping words.

The article did NOT say Saudi Arabia was #1 of our imported oil it said, I quote

"You probably assume that it comes from the OPEC countries, who provide the remaining 32% of our petroleum. ... The biggest supplier [of the OPEC countries] is Saudi Arabia... Number 2 is Venezuela..."

The post ALREADY said that most of our oil comes from Canada.

2) The article contradicts itself and fails to prove its point. 1) You set out to show that the war cannot be to blame for high oil prices. 2) You show that war causes market jitteryness and thus cause oil prices to "climb the tree like mad to escape the tsunami."

You even say this connection between war and oil prices is "simple, it's obvious."

You fail to connect points (1) and (2). You seek to simultaneously prove that the the war is not the cause of high markets (by you first sentence) and that the war IS to blame for high prices, using people's fears as a proxy.

Therefore you have not succeeded in disproving any part of the claim that the war was caused by a desire to raise the price of oil.

I can't say if it was, I'm just saying that your logic fails completely to show this.

Sam, Somerville
February 18, 2008 1:56pm

The claim is that the war was caused by a desire to expand the US military presence in a top oil-producing region, not that the war was caused by a desire to increase prices. And although the Saudi Arabian elite may be pro US, the public certainly isn't.

Nessie, Sapporo, Japan
March 19, 2008 1:22am

As others have said, I believe that the war is for oil, but indirectly. The U.S.'s status as a superpower rests in part on our dominance of oil-rich regions. As long as Europe, China, India and Japan must rely on the U.S. to keep the oil flowing, the U.S. will have disproportionate influence in the world. (And interventions also allow U.S. oil companies to get sweetheart deals and larger profits.)

It's an old story. In 1953, Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf (father of the Gulf War general) helped engineer a coupe which overthrew a democratically elected Iranian government which had tried to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. They reinstalled the Shah. This strategy eventually backfired, but I think most members of the Bush Administration skipped that part of history class.

I believe (although I haven't researched this) that since our economic dominance is declining, the Neocons and their friends feel a particularly acute need to extend U.S. influence through its military.

Not nearly worth it as far as I'm concerned.

P.S. Brian, I disagree with you on this one issue, but overall, I love your podcasts. Keep it up!

Tom Garvey, Lexington, MA
March 20, 2008 8:11pm

Any conflict where a commodity is traded on a global market will affect prices. When Saddam was still in power he flooded the market with cheap oil and we had low oil prices. This didn't please those who weren't making much money from a deflated market. However a war would increase profit without the need of increasing supply or demand. Just because someone says the war is for oil it doesn't mean that it's for more oil. But in the end American and British companies got exclusive contracts for oil wells in Iraq that Saddam had previously given to Russia.

There mere fact that plans were drawn up to invade Iraq for the purpose of oil deflates Brian's point.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/21/ING0H5LTDA1.DTL

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/17-iraq-invasion-promotes-opec-agenda/

You really need to take the time to do some research on the subject Brian.

Doug, Wichita
April 12, 2008 11:06pm

For Bush and BIG OIL it's not about controling oil!!!
It's about cranking up profits and keeping IN-stability a market worry!!
For Americans it's about resonable prices, it's about national security and it's about breaking free from BIG OIL's grip over us all, including our Federal Government!!

Mike P, Nashua, NH
April 15, 2008 6:02pm

Could you please disclose your sources? I'm trying to prove a point to a teacher of mine, but obviously linking to a podcast isn't a very reliable source.

If possible, sources for the entire world would be great.

Ran, Sweden
May 08, 2008 11:19am

"I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil."
--Alan Greenspan, in his memoir The Age of Turbulence, 2007.

Robert, New Haven
May 17, 2008 7:19am

You are right to state that the Iraq war was not to get cheap oil, but unfortunately some of your other statements are incorrect:

1.) While it is true that not that much of US oil imports comes from the Middle East NOW, your statement ignores what should be clear: Except for Canada (maybe), the top 6 sources for imported oil have production that is either flat or declining. Adding to this that US domestic production is also falling AND rising US demand for oil, the result is not pretty.

2.) Now, given the situation above, how do you ensure future supply when oil discovery peaked 40 years ago worldwide? Iraq has major oil reserves that were under-developed as a result of decades of war and economic sanctions. The US couldn't get at it because of an unfriendly government, so what better way to garunttee future supply than to get rid of that government and replace it with a pro-american democracy? After all, fighting for democracy is line most americans will buy hook line and sinker. It didn't work out as planned really because of the incompetance of the administration and the occupation authority.

And as for Saudia Arabia being "westernized", I think that statement all by itself sums up how weak your argument really is about this. Saudia Arabia is a medieval kingdom, a relic from the dark ages that has used our petro dollars to spread religious intolerance. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. Some friend......

Jason, China
May 25, 2008 9:52am

Hmm, I have to agree with some of the criticism here. The point that the Iraq War couldn't have been caused by oil because oil prices didn't go down is, well, silly. If you look at the rationales for war beforehand, all included the idea that Iraq's oil would allow for a cheap, quick reconstruction. This doesn't mean that we went to war for oil, but it does mean that US policymakers anticipated something much much different from what now is going on. You can't look at the result and say "see, obviously oil could not have been the reason, because look at what happened!" unless you consider Cheney to be all-knowing. Scary.

Also, you correctly point out that most oil does not come from OPEC. That said, a lot DOES come from OPEC, certainly enough to make a big difference in the world oil market (that is, of course, the point of a cartel). Though you are right to say that the US buys much of its oil from Canada, it is absurd to place Canada in the same category as Iraq (I'm not saying you were... hold on a sec). The US cannot invade Canada, and even if it did, it would not gain much from it unless it nationalized the oil reserves there.

Then, in contrast, you have Iraq and the middle east in general: countries which are part of a cartel that artificially (and demonstrably) lowers supply to raise oil prices. Moreover, the US could not purchase oil from Iraq (for a variety of reasons) but could invade (due to political issues) and thus hopefully set up a regime that would change policies in the country which had previously nationalized oil wells (that belonged to US companies). Who do you think the administration planned to have tap those wells for the Iraqis (and take a nice cut o

eric thorn, Seoul, ROK
June 21, 2008 12:37pm

I am not sure if someone has already made this point, but oil is a fungible comodity.

Therefore it does not matter who one's suppliers are if a country engages in any foreign activity military or otherwise which increases global oil output; this will reduce the price.

For example, if the US can pressure the Saudi's into increasing production the global price will fall (or at least stop climbing so fast) which will be reflected in cheaper oil from Canada, Mexico, Brazil, etc.

Damien, Oxford, England
June 30, 2008 2:36pm

You wrote :

"Almost none of US petroleum comes from hostile Middle East nations - less than 1%"

And that's probably right. Still, the question should be "where is the oil the US wants to get from the middle east?"

Oh, and US Representative Dennis J. Kucinich has blown the whistle, so...

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/34371

Pedro Homero, Madrid, Spain
July 08, 2008 2:41am

Brian,

I normally disagree with some of your statements on Car MPG and Global Warming, however..

A few weeks ago on the DoE website I found the spreadsheet of who, what, when, and where we get our oil from and after adding everything up I was in shock about how little oil we get from hostile middle east. Though according to my math we get even less oil from there then you stated(I'll chalk that up to my bad math) I agreed with you on pretty much much every statement you made, those I didn't could be more opinion then fact. Thanks for trying to get people to research this on there own and I appreciate what you do.

Parrish, North Carolina
July 29, 2008 6:05am

I also looked up on the DoE website for the breakdown of our oil sources and was surprised to see how duped I was as well thinking that the Middle East holds our oil hostage. After that I looked at the media reports with a critical eye and see how they don't exactly lie, but strongly suggest our dependence on Middle Eastern countries for oil. What do your comments mean in light of the current market conditions and rapidly falling price of oil?

Lisa Foster, Pensacola, Florida
October 12, 2008 7:23pm

You're right about the US not buying much oil from the Middle East.

But you'd be wrong if you thought that the US went into Iraq for anything else than oil.

The US went in because:

1. They wanted to "secure" the Middle East and have control of the REST OF THE WORLD'S OIL RESERVES.

2. They wanted a strong, long-term foothold in the Middle East where they could counterbalance the growing influence of Iran.

Ironically, the US's failure in Iraq has had the opposite effect on both counts.

But the invasion of Iraq was ALL about oil, even if the US doesn't need it.

Steven Connell, Sydney, Australia
November 30, 2008 11:07pm

It is just as likely that Bush wanted to trump his daddy in the middle east. I mean his dad stopped at the border of Iraq. So Bush went all the way in.

I can go find evidence that will support that theory too. I can get analysts to say this is the correct version of history. I can even have have pundits debate this until the day the world ends.

It still does not make it correct.

While it may look like on the surface that it was all about oil, that is where it ends, does it? There is no direct evidence that can support that theory.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley Ca
December 01, 2008 5:50am

I never thought the blood for oil argument had solid evidence. I have done some research, though, and found that a lot of people before the war thought that the price of oil was about to drop, which affected speculating. Whether the Bush administration carried the same assumption is unclear, but at the very least seems plausible.

Whatever the details are, it seems pretty clear that the main point of the war was to increase America's influence, but in reality it had the opposite effect.

Will Tomlinson, Houston, Texas
January 31, 2009 9:39am

Doesn't the opposite explanation make more sense? I mean, it's kind of a conspiracy theory, but it has the merit of being absolutely logical.

We didn't go to war to control oil. We went to war to RAISE the price of oil.

The last time oil prices spiked was during the first Gulf War. Bush's father was President at the time. Bush Jr. starts the second Gulf War, this time prolonging it. Oil prices spike even higher this time.

Bush & Company come from Texas, a major oil-producing region (and Bush Jr.'s first company was an oil company). Do you think they (and their friends) don't have oil interests anymore? Oh, and Vice President Cheney was head of Haliburton, a major defense-related contractor (and I'm sure, in some way or another, he still makes money when they do).

Saudi Arabia is, as pointed out, friendly to the U.S., and the largest oil producer in the world. They benefit mightily when the price of oil goes up. Why wouldn't they encourage a war against a major oil producer?

War uses up a lot of oil. War against a major oil producing country (Iraq) raises the price even more.

I'm not saying this was the only reason Bush & Co decided to go to war - I'm just pointing out that it made the decision a whole lot more profitable for them. Doesn't it make you a little suspicious?

Billy Kang, Long Beach, California
February 27, 2009 12:27pm

As others have no doubt pointed out, the primary rational is likely generalized regional stability. Iraq's leader was a potential threat to regional stability, so he was disposed of. The middle east has roughly 55% of the world's total known oil reserves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves, sourced from http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html). Iraq is number 3 for reserves in the middle east. Regardless of current production levels, stabilizing the supply and future supply of oil is obviously a crucial concern for the government of a country which relies heavily on the substance.

Oil pricing is not directly linked to which country we're invading, but more the emotions and fears driving our economic markets. War costs oil, disrupts economies, disturbs the natural order. Markets react to such uncertainties.

On another note, I find the author's flippant disregard for quoting references apalling. Although this article actually did have a link to a "Road and Track" article; a source? If you actually want to contribute to intelligent and critical discussion of topics, you need to buck up and state where your facts come from. It's not that hard and it provides a place for your readers to start their own research and critical thinking from. The excuse of "I don't have the time" falls flat on it's face. If you're actually serious about your goal of promoting critical thinking, make the time, or shut up. Otherwise this is just another opinion blog.

Patrick-Beebe, Bellingham, WA
April 02, 2009 11:15am

Well done, Brian; I actually agree with all of this. Just proves that while I am diametrically opposed to your point of view on a couple other topics, I am glad you tackled this one like you did.

I always wondered why most people hadn't figured out the simple logistic that if the USA or any other allied consortium wanted oil control in the Middle east, all you had to do was invade and take over the place, plain and simple. Conquer Saudia Arabia and end the farce of buying from them something which the West discovered and developed in the first place.

America may be losing the struggle in Iraq because of skepticism on the home front, which is the only reason America ever lost any conflict.

But you're right; we Canucks, Yanks and Brits etc are over there (Afghanistan included) to try and create stability. I don't think we will. I think our men and women are dying for mad mullahs and poppies... America does indeed get its oil predominantly from friendly powers. My country, Canada, has arguably the largest proven reserves of crude oil on the planet, and we're next door. "Blood for oil" has always had the ring of uninformed anti-war protests in it. Your promotion of skepticism on this is a healthy skepticism. Thanks.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, Ontario, Canada
May 03, 2009 6:27pm

i have to agree that brian needs to make more reference points along the way, to distinguish his musings from the typical opinion blog. i'd imagine that most people come to this site looking for a very rational evidence-based perspective.

i have a lot of respect for what brian does, and i think he makes a good argument for many of his cases, but he borders on mere speculation (presented as fact) sometimes, and even occasionally reduces himself to the same argumentative disposition of the conspiracy theorists he frequently ridicules.

be careful about drawing more conclusions than facts, brian. your podcasts amuse me. but don't amuse me too much.

bob carl, brooklyn, ny
May 10, 2009 11:47pm

More than one comment bemoans the lack of references. This misses the whole point of Skeptiod. Do your own research, come to your own conclusion.
I have found that if you talk to twenty people, you will get twenty different reasons the US went to war.
That Saddam had refused to comply with UN inspections was enough for me.

Diane McNamara, Staten Island, NY
May 25, 2009 10:58am

Diane,
I agree. Your reason (above) was also enough for me.

One of our most famous citizens, Wayne Gretzky (hockey player), said that he believed that Canadians unfairly labeled Americans as war-mongering. He thought that Americans were pro-peace and pro-democracy. Wayne is now an American and yet, as a Canadian, I agree with him.

Brian is right – the “oil war” question just doesn’t emerge as a political question. I have written an entire long essay on this topic of Mid-East Oil. Go to the Forum if you want more by me on this [joeishere] and ask me there.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
June 09, 2009 11:59am

I have looked up the statistics on US oil imports from the US Engergy Information Administration. In 2001, with our highest percentages coming from Iraq, we only received 7% from them. However I cant substantiate his claim that the US produces 51% of our total oil resources. Checking the same site, i found that the us produces anywhere from 150,000-165,000 barrels of oil a year. Thats nowhere near the 4,000,000+ we receive in imports each year. Where does this statistic come from. Mine is the US Energy Information Administration. Also, Iraq is one country out of OPEC, which produces about 20-25% of our oil supply. This cartel effect could potentially explain motivation for why the US would have interests in oil-based Iraq.

Eric, Oklahoma City
July 26, 2009 10:04pm

“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” Alan Greenspan
As much as I respect your podcast and its generally reasonable conclusions, I would have to believe that after manning the controls of world finance for the last quarter century, Alan Greenspan would be a better judge about the veracity of "Blood for Oil".
Your simplistic reasoning that because Iraq doesn't supply much oil to the US, proves that the above statement is false, sounds like an conclusion that I would expect from a creationist debating evolution.
It just goes to show that cognitive dissonance affects even the skeptic.

Bill Butler, Cincinnati, Ohio
August 08, 2009 8:45am

Quick comment: Perhaps blood for oil means blood for the future possibility of oil, or blood for oil investment? I kind of took the "blood for oil" comment as a way to secure projected future consumption...

Just got hooked and love it so far. This one episode just didn't sit well with me. This possibility was not discussed.

Cheers!

DT, new york
August 26, 2009 10:38am

Alan Greenspan has never been wrong before. Oh wait

Max, Boston, MA
September 22, 2009 7:04pm

Alan G's reasoning: After the first Gulf War, intelligence agencies discovered Saddam was much closer to getting WMD's than we thought.

The reason for the war was to prevent Iraq from obtaining WMD's that would give it power over other oil producing countries,like Saudi Arabia, giving Iraq control of up to 13% of the world's oil--which some economists argue could put a serious hurt on the US economy (remember the gas rationing in the 70s).

It was sold as if we were fearing that Iraq would attack us. But there were no WMDs. Ooops.

Parker, San Francisco
September 29, 2009 6:45pm

Actually, Parker, there were WMDs in Iraq. Poison gas and nerve gas and nuclear developments. They were probably hidden or removed. Guess where they all came from in the first place? From the West, of course.And they trickled out to...North Korea, China, Pakistan... Our mad secret governing patriarchs (whoever they are, be it Rckefellers, Carnegies, Biderbergers et al) are pulling the wool over a lot of eyes. Real WMDs would be an excellent excuse to invade a dictatorship. So would oil wealth, for the elite. Supposing it is a devious diversion ("Let's knock down the dictator before he knocks us down"). Turkmenistan is loaded with petro-wealth. How to get it to the West? Build a giant pipeline across (let me see...) Afghanistan? Where are the troops from the West right now? Supposedly re-structuring the countryside over there. Hmmm... Protecting poppy fields (the Elite make gigantic killings off the drug trades here) and creating democracy in the Mid East..?!! Then, when the wars there are Purposely Allowed To Fail, they (ruling Elite) offer a solution: a world governing force (UN) will solve it all, handing ultimate control to them.

A conspiracy, maybe?

I'm beginning to see which way my vote on this will be cast...Blood for Oil? It's been done before. I'm scared to dig further into these things, but dig I will.

These are second thoughts, I admit. Both scenarios are possible, but dark secretive history is more likely than accidental history. Humans are greedy.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, Ontario
October 19, 2009 8:41am

Saudi Arabia is relatively westernized? Women can't even legally drive there. They have public executions. Does the phrase "15 of 19" mean anything to you?

Jordan, Overland Park Ks
December 03, 2009 7:58am

Jordan, Brian did say relatively westernized. The comparison would be with other middle eastern countries. While I don't agree with our policy stance with Saudi Arabia they are better behaved than many of their neighbors.

There are two points that Brian missed in this episode. First oil markets are like other commodity markets so OPEC does have alot to say about setting oil prices since they do control a huge percentage of petrol reserves. Second, I think you have exaggerated the blood for oil comment. Alot of the criticism is that we have went to war to profit Exxon etc who did actually get the US to write favorable contracts for Iraqui oil that couldn't be broken (by the language) for 80 years. Can't remember if that got pushed through.

Robert Mcbride, Columbia, MD
December 03, 2009 10:31am

I agree with your points. I guess you could say their government is better behaved in relation to our interests. But it terms of being westernized as a society, I would say Iraq (under Saddam), Iran, and many others are more westernized. Even in comparison to the middle east, Saudi Arabia is horrible in terms of civil liberties and human rights. Its actually the only country in the entire world where women cannot legally drive. Just imagine what else they can’t do. I’d be interested to see a poll on how many Saudis support Bin Laden. I think the world would be shocked at the result.

I’ve agreed with almost everything Brian has said, but that one took me by surprise.

Jordan, Overland Park Ks
December 03, 2009 1:52pm

Even if it's just 1% of their oil, that's still 1%! Oil prices are very inelastic in economics terms. This means that a small change in products, produces big changes in the cost of oil. Even so, at the least, oil from Iraq can feed the war machines requirements. So why not? 1% is 1%, it's better than 0% production boost is it not? Furthermore, it may serve as a deterrent, if you go against the US consider yourself open to war with us.

No one would ever dare impose trade embargoes against the USA. It would cost them too much money. The US knows this. Imagine what would have happened to a country like Japan, if they had gone in and taken over Iraq and secured oil supplies. How would the US react? Sanctions, embargoes, etc. Furthermore, there are plenty of 'terrorist' nations in Africa. Nigerian scams that constantly take money away from American's, but does the USA go in and takeover the country? No, they get oil from Nigeria, this keeps them happy.

Chadzuka, Aussie
January 10, 2010 12:43am

When I see the US being compared to Switzerland, I'm not sure if I want to laugh or cry... both! South America would surely appreciate to be left alone for once, at least that's what they say. But any vision of US isolationism, at the height of its military power, is an illusion, and one that's not likely to be shared by your decision makers. ;) George W. Bush was a disappointment, but imagine what a "good" demagogue could do.

The "Blood for Oil" hypothesis as I understand it has never been about benefiting the US people, but certain big oil companies, as other commenters have already pointed out. Recently there has been much malicious joy about how Russian and Chinese companies are getting the lion's share of Iraq's oil concessions, but Exxon-Mobile/Shell didn't do that badly, either.

"Blood for Oil" is a pretty catchphrase, much more to the point than "Agression Against a Subjective Noun". But to take it literally is stupid. Geo-politic strategies are usually formulated by think tanks, I'm told. Not any one lobby group or ideologue determines the future course of a country or a conglomerate like the EU. While oil, or any other resource, plays a significant role, there are other benefits to be had from exerting control over parts of the world. I'm sure there are good reasons for building and maintaining military bases where they are. So reducing the US's presence in North Africa to oil is simplistic, but basically correct.

A.L., Augusrg, Germany
January 16, 2010 8:07am

BTW I don't quite agree with Brian on this topic (just to clear up any confusion from my last post). It's better to debate on the correct grounds instead of something that wasn't said. Contrary to what was claimed in this episode middle eastern oil does affect our prices even if we get relatively no oil from there. The big driver is world demand for oil since other countries are consuming the stuff also. My contention is that the us went into Iraq and support hideous regimes to keep world supply up. Also into Iraq to allow Exxon etc to plunder that countries reserves (refering directly to the law that was pushed through giving Exxon a no bid contract that future govt can't discontinue)

Robert Mcbride, Columbia, MD
January 21, 2010 10:32am

I'd be interested to hear why Hugo Chavez is "headed for a rubber room", Brian. He's improved the country tremendously since taking office and is a far better leader than the previous leaders.

Jordan, England
February 23, 2010 6:31pm

I just saw a documentary on the Enron catastrophe and it got me thinking about really serious fraud so... here's a few links:

http://www.alternet.org/world/90509/

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE17Ak01.html

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Oil_watch/Oil_Security_War.html

Granted I did find some links that argued the point with dishonest propaganda, but these actually seem consistent.

Honestly, the analysis in this skeptoid is woefully incomplete. As I explained in an earlier comment, I was convinced long before of oil's role by the expectations before the war about increased production. They were inaccurate, but they did exist. Do your own research--please. Anyone know where to find data about oil futures before the war?

William Tomlinson, Houston, Texas
April 02, 2010 9:24am

"The biggest supplier is Saudi Arabia, a relatively Westernized country"

Not sure I'd go so far as to describe Saudi Arabia as a westernized country, it is one of the most backward places in the area when it comes to religious matters.

So unless Mr. Dunning meant to say that they are westernized in the way they produce or sell their oil product, I'd call that a mislabeling of an uncivilized country, it's fortunate enough to be on friendly terms with the oil consumption part of the world (i.e. USA for the most part), because the leadership there like maintaining their hold of the countries natural resources and know full well if they started to behave like a steriotypical dictator like our past friend Saddam Hussein, they'd be promptly removed from power and rightly so.

So until Saudi Arabia moves from absolute monarchy to a democracy, non-election to election, concentration of wealth to spread of wealth, I'll call them backwards, once those issues are handled in a civilized manner, i'll relabel them as westernized.

thanks in advance.

Egill

Egill Vignir Stefansson, Reykjavik / Iceland
June 20, 2010 10:17am

Talk about not applying skepticism towards the official Establishment line! Even Alan Greenspan admits the war in Iraq was for oil! I recently did a very in depth debunking of the Conspiracy "Science" website. You can read the part about Iraq here: http://www.outlawjournalism.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=117824#117824

blissentia, Oregon
July 08, 2010 1:18pm

It's true that the US doesn't attack Middle Eastern countries for their oil. We do it in behalf of our 51st state, Israel, who requests us to do it. Iran is next.

Bobbie Evans, moline illinois
July 16, 2010 11:44am

This is one of the best episode to show how Brian cherry-picks the arguments that would lead him to the desired outcome, purposely misinterprets the opposition’s claims, completely dismisses any evidences that conflict with his planned outcome, uses character assassination to discredit the opposition, and shows how little he knows about some subjects yet has the courage to tell everyone what they should believe; oh… the numerous times he uses his own logical fallacies (pity there’s no way I can fit the full analysis nor explain it all -please ask-).

-Dismissing crucial evidences: All antecedents of interventions in the region exclusively due to oil (Middle Eastern and Russian passing through). Previous oil related US interventions in Iraq: in the 60s, putting the Shah in power; and in the 90s with the first Gulf war. No mention of the lies to gain support for the two invasions of Iraq; first, the 500 babies in incubators; and second, the nonexistent WMDs.

-Cherry-picking the weakest claim, ignoring everything else, misinterpreting claims and creating a straw man; very few ever claimed that Iraq was invaded to make oil cheaper, and none that I know claimed it was because the US really needs Iraq’s oil.

-Character assassination; a must for every skeptic researcher: since “conspiracy theorists” denounce and protest government actions (really every citizen’s duty in a democracy), then they are “Anti-American”; how about that? :-D

All I could fit... but I'll continue...

Adam Freeman, Springfield
August 21, 2010 4:22pm

By definition Adam, anybody who has a theory that oil companies conspired to manipulate the evidence for invading Iraq is a conspiracy theorist.

And if the war was not intended to lower the cost of oil, or because America needs the oil, then there is little evidence to claim it is about the oil. I don't agree with everything Brian said this episode, but you seem to be complaining that Brian is dismissing weak claims... Because they are weak arguments. D'oh.

Could you explain yourpoint a little clearer for me please?

Tom H, Kent, UK
August 22, 2010 12:57pm

Tom, I never talked about any manipulated evidences nor any other conspiracy theory. The fact that the US has been involved in armed conflicts, international pressures, and went as far as using covert operations to control one of the most precious resources for most part of the 20th century is no secret, definitely not a conspiracy theory, and it's a well known and accepted fact by many respectable political analysts and journalists inside, and above all, outside the US.

Brian really messed up on this episode, and trying to link me with any conspiracy theory is not going to save him the day. He definitely didn’t dismiss the weaker claims, I never said such a thing; at the contrary, as a good skeptic he only exposed the weakest claims to easily debunk, and completely avoided getting anywhere any other. For example: what about controlling oil producing countries (and therefore oil as a resource) being probably far a higher priority for the US than lowering its price or getting an extra supply? What about the idea of both Bush administrations giving a dam about oil prices, but securing extra benefits to the American oil industry that pay their astronomically expensive campaigns (industry which, by the way, made the Bush family rich in the first place).

Take your pick, but please don’t tell me the war was not really about oil because you found out it’s not about the prices or the supply. It wasn't about WMDs -that for sure- and much less because of any Kurds; what’s left then?

Adam Freeman, Springfield
August 22, 2010 4:09pm

Speaking of cherry picking, did you read this part?

"I'm not a politician and I don't claim to know what the war is really about, but when I look at the oil question skeptically, it just doesn't emerge as a logical cause. I'm not claiming to have the answers and I'm not even claiming to be right, but I am claiming to have thought about it more, and personally done more independent research into the sources of our petroleum, than most people who simply parrot the blood for oil slogan because it's a great sound bite and because it's an easy and trendy way to be anti-Bush."

He wants people to think.

The scholarly work I've read seems to indicate that the Bush administration drank their own Kool-aid as it were. They really thought they were doing those Kurds a favor, that the world would look at the 'amazing success' that Iraq would quickly become, and love the US all the more for it. Their 'faith' is one of the main reasons I extremely disliked the Bush administration.

I do echo the criticism that just because WE don't get oil from hostile countries doesn't mean trying to 'stabilize' the middle east wouldn't be a way to drop oil prices (as other consumers wouldn't be competing as much for the oil from the places we get ours). I go one further. Just because it is an illogical reason doesn't mean that it couldn't be the reason. People do act irrationally after all.

Brian was addressing the POPULAR claim and assumptions, which happens to be an easy target.

Brandon, Falconer
August 22, 2010 7:23pm

My point Adam was that you claimed that using the term "conspiracy theory" was a character assassination, when the term is apt to describe the popular view.

And your post did accuse Brian cherry picking weaker targets to dismiss out of hand, before youyourself appeared to dismiss them a few lines later.

Tom H, Kent, UK
August 22, 2010 10:15pm

Before anyone jumps on my throat, I just realised I made a mistake: the Shah was not helped into power by the US in Iraq during the 60s, it was in Iran during the 50s; though as an historical antecedent is still valid, since it was also related to controlling Iran’s oil (issue that the US is also currently looking to resolve again).
---
Come on Brandon, that final disclaimer was simply what you call an “Appeal to Lack of Authority”; you either know what you’re talking about or you don’t. And I have no doubt that Brian has looked into it more than most people (since most people’s reading is limited to their Cornflakes box), but by no means that justifies, and much less validates, the analysis.
---
The character assassination or “ad hominem attack” was not calling them “conspiracy theorists” Tom, but saying that conspiracy theorists are “anti-US”. It’s obvious that Brain was attempting an appeal to patriotism to gain support for his argument; simply telling you that if you believe the conspiracy theorists, then you are anti-American. This fallacy is very common and widely used by skeptics, who often know so little about what’s going to the point of ignoring that most of these people, whether it is for good or bad, are driven by an extreme nationalist and patriotic sentiment. And apart from “poisoning the well”, the statement is also a “non-sequitur”, since patriotism is independent of any administration, and therefore of government.

Am I using your logical fallacies right? :)

Adam Freeman, Springfield
August 23, 2010 5:24am

Hey Adam, not saying you are wrong but I dont seem to have read the same spin into Brians podcast as you have. Addressing the nonsequiter argument, I'm not convinced it accused protesters of being unpatriotic, just partisan politics, being Anti Bush, not Anti American.
It is hardly a non~sequiter when the statement is that certain groups are claiming that the war was fought over oil (and such images are abundant), and the argument is a lack of facts to back this up.

Taking a world wide view (of protestersat G8 for example); The protestors were indeed anti-US because in the rest of the world the US was seen as the driving force of the invasion.

Any appeal to partiotism you believe was imparted was not the crux of the argument. The facts and figures you disagree with were the crux of the argument. Brian does however make reference to the Ant-Bush lobby. As you pointed out yourself this is a partisan statement not an anti-patriotic statement.

Again, I'm not arguing if you are rightor wrong, just trying to clarify some of your issues.

Tom H, Kent, UK
August 26, 2010 4:14am

Yes, I can agree with you in from that point of view, but I think we are interpreting the argument in different ways. This is the statements I was referring to:

"Whose word do we accept unconditionally: the government's, or that of the anti-US conspiracy theorists?"

I don't think Brian was referring to protesters (those who protest against the war), he specifically named the conspiracy theorists (those who come up with the claims against the government) as anti-US. And there’s also the appeal to patriotism: you either believe Brian and your government, and therefore you are patriot; or you believe the conspiracy theorists, and therefore you are an anti-US like them. Which I believe is a non-sequitur, because patriotism is independent of government (you can love your country and hate the government, and vice-versa); it’s unrelated.

I also think we are interpreting the "war for oil" argument in different ways. I don't disagree with Brian’s figures, but with the claims he chose to analyze. He assumed, and base his whole argument, on the idea that protesters claim that the US’ intention was to lower the prices and/or gain an extra supply of oil, while I’m proposing more likely alternative motives unrelated to prices or supply; like gaining control and influence over oil producing countries, the west having control of oil as a resource, or granting the exploitation of Iraq’s oil by western companies.

Adam Freeman, Springfield
August 26, 2010 4:14pm

Fair comment Adam,our opinions simply differ, thanks for expanding and explaining.

Tom H, Kent, UK
September 07, 2010 9:36pm