Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

EX500rider

(10,874 posts)
Sun Nov 3, 2013, 02:49 PM Nov 2013

No more wars for oil? Hmmmm..

I think everyone here has heard that refrain many times and I thought we'd look a little deeper and have a CIVIL discussion about it.

Anywho, here's a list of conflicts the US military has been involved in one way or another since 1900.

Which ones do you feel were all about oil and why?

Philippine–American War
The Boxer Uprising
Nicaraguan Campaign
Pancho Villa Expedition
Haitian Campaign
Dominican Campaign
First World War
Russian Civil War
Second World War
Cold War
Korean Conflict
Merklín Incident
French Indochina War
Bay of Pigs Invasion
Vietnam Conflict
Laotian Civil War
Cambodian Civil War
Congo Crisis
Invasion of the Dominican Republic
Soviet-Afghan War
Invasion of Grenada
Colombian Conflict
Gulf of Sidra incident
Lebanese Civil War
Bombing of Libya
Iran-Iraq War
Tanker War
Second Gulf of Sidra Incident
Invasion of Panama
1st Gulf War-Operation Desert Storm
Iraqi no-fly zones
Somali Civil War
Bosnian War
Kosovo War
War on Terror
War in Afghanistan
Iraq War
War in North-West Pakistan
Yemeni al-Qaeda crackdown
Second Liberian Civil War
Lord's Resistance Army insurgency
Libyan civil war

42 total.

At 1st I thought well, the Tanker War for sure was about oil but on 2nd thought I am pretty sure if Iran had been trying to sink only foreign flagged cargo vessels instead of oil tankers we still would have gotten involved, we just would have called it the "Cargo War" instead.

Also I don't think just because a country HAS oil means any war will be about the oil.
In most cases like Libya and Iraq, who ever ends up in power or was in power is still going to want to pump as much oil onto the world market as possible for the $$$$.

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

dixiegrrrrl

(60,010 posts)
1. "is still going to want to pump as much oil onto the world market "
Sun Nov 3, 2013, 03:28 PM
Nov 2013

Under contract to the Oil Giants, who will benefit the most.
And keeping the dollar as the only acceptable form of oil curency.

When you include ACCESS to oil and other forms of energy, via ports and pipeline routes, maps explain a lot.
Also bear in mind that the control of some countires has to do with blocking Russia and/or China from accessing routes in thos countries.
The Grand Chessboard has been a well know term for ages, for ths reason.

EX500rider

(10,874 posts)
2. "Under contract to the Oil Giants, who will benefit the most."
Sun Nov 3, 2013, 04:25 PM
Nov 2013

Actually I think the consumers benefit the most, since most of us would be dead in a few months if the oil stopped flowing and food and electricity became scarce or not available due to collapsed transportation means, etc.

And fighting to keep the dollar supreme is not related to oil really but to the dollar.

I could also find theoretical maps for possible future locations for oil pipelines in many countries but that doesn't mean every conflict in the area is related to that map.

 

libdem4life

(13,877 posts)
3. I think it's more about Empire. Here's another resource...120 since the Civil War. Oil is an
Sun Nov 3, 2013, 04:31 PM
Nov 2013

economic currency...like gold used to be and water may be in the future. But ultimately it's about political control.

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»No more wars for oil? H...