General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow could we "take" Iraq's oil without committing genocide?
Bush seemed to be aiming for this when he pumped oil without metering it for a while, and pushed a hydrocarbon law on Iraqis that would have given 88% of their oil income to oil companies via production sharing agreements.
While the prime minister and his cabinet supported the law, the parliament wouldn't vote for it because their people might notice that they gave away their biggest national asset.
Even a dictator like Saddam could only go so far in pissing off his people before he would be overthrown.
Therefore, if Trump wants to "take" their oil, he would have to kill a large percentage of the people who oppose the taking, democratically or otherwise.
Also, looting violates the Geneva Convention.
Wounded Bear
(58,648 posts)It's not like we can load up all the wells and haul them off on palettes.
The real definition of "take the oil" is occupy the country and pump the oil. There is no other way to "take" it.
world wide wally
(21,742 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)We'd have to guard the oil with American soldiers. How many lives is a barrel of oil worth?
exboyfil
(17,862 posts)What we have been doing with a large part of our DoD budget for generations.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)Bush is Obama spent less dollars and American lives, but the cost to people in the region is pretty similar if you look at Syria, Libya, and even Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Democrats need to be honest about who has lobbied for those interventions, what they expected to gain, and how they are going to counter that influence.
vlyons
(10,252 posts)while being sitting ducks for guerilla attacks
yurbud
(39,405 posts)instead of stealing oil, we should tell our oil companies to make deals without using our military to get the terms they want.