The US didn't get any of the Iraqi Oil. Ironically, it was Europe and China who benefitted in that regard.

Also notably, the US 5th fleet defends freedom of navigation in the Gulf, which is mostly about Oil, and China is the #1 recipient of Oil! Funny, that.

I'm sure those million dead people in iraq are glad the fifth fleet is protecting trade or that America didn't actually directly steal their oil. The same goes for the countless lives and futures ruined for the people still living with the consequences of the Gulf War.

This is absurd and sounds exactly like a chinese nationalist rhetoric about what Mao did in the great leap forward. Hey, millions died, but think of how stable/prosperous everything was after that! Plus, our side had good intentions*. Two sides of the same coin.

(By the way, the US profits immensly from a stable gulf trade. Oil doesn't have to be exported to the US for america to profit from trade in the area. It's a commodity, and stable trade means stable prices internationally, which is extremely important to american interests. China might profit, too, but it's even more essential to American hegemony, which I agree can have its upsides)

Yes, it's unfortute that Saddam invaded Kuwait.

Thankfully Iraq has some semblance of governance and has valuable Oil assets that it can export, courtesy of US taxpayers.

Iraq benefits far more from it's exports than the US gains from protecting them.

You should tell kuwait that they were invaded in 2003.

? Kuwaitis are absolutely the most grateful people of the American re-constitution of the war that started in 1993. They would have been the first to tell you that the 'war never ended' and that Saddam, then even nuttier than before, remained a threat, with ongoing military operations in the 'no fly zone' for years - were you willing to listen. The 'mistake' was less the invasion as much as it was the handling of the aftermath.

We are talking about two different wars. And no, being "a threat" isn't a reason to invade a country. Iraq in 2003 had no means, and no intentions to invade Kuwait.

The first gulf war was iraq's fault for sure, but that's obviously not the war I was talking about.

> protecting trade or that America didn't actually directly steal their oil

"Protecting the trade of Iraqi oil in dollars to prevent them from moving to euro and other currencies" - thats 'protecting' alright. And apparently its ok if the theft is not 'direct'. Just printing dollars like a banana republic by forcing Iraq to sell their oil for dollars is ok. Of course its ok - its much better than actually robbing it since it allows printing an unspecified amount of dollars in return.

> This is absurd and sounds exactly like a chinese nationalist rhetoric about what Mao did in the great leap forward

If there is nothing wrong with the American nationalism that you blatantly exhibit, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Chinese nationalism or the nationalism of every other country.

> By the way, the US profits immensly from a stable gulf trade...

...in dollars. Too bad that its not happening anymore, as countries move to trade in Yuan, Ruble and other currencies and the inflation skyrockets in the US as unused dollars flow back to the US. Which is precisely why the us attacked Iraq to prevent them from moving off of dollar...

> it's even more essential to American hegemony, which I agree can have its upsides

What an unrepentant display of jingoist imperialism. This is not even mere 'nationalism'. So, the US bashing the heads of small countries in and forcing them to trade their commodities for dollars so it can print unlimited dollars is 'having upsides'. Im sure 1 million dead iraqis will rest in peace, knowing that how they died to make that 'upside' happen.

...

Its amazing how the comments objecting to my original criticism just 'disappear' the 1 million people that have been murdered but talk about delirious things like 'upsides'. Amazing social study opportunity on the topic of how people avoid cognitive dissonance.

Because 1 million people were not 'murdered' it's a fabrication on your part.

Exxon got the most profitable oil deal in Iraq, with BP getting the second. And though China does get the most oil, it's also far closer to Iraq and presumably got even more oil from them before the war. I believe India also receives more oil from Iraq than the US, despite seemingly not having any oil companies there.

> The US didn't get any of the Iraqi Oil

This is the funniest escape from cognitive dissonance that is used in the US in this topic.

The US did rob Iraqi oil: Forcing Iraq to continue selling its oil for dollars is directly monetizing Iraqi oil. Its worse than robbing it, because in a robbery you get the actual quantity. By forcing it to be traded for dollars, the US was able to print an unspecified and unquantifiable amount of dollars, even over what the actual quantity of Iraqi oil that was sold for dollars would support - the uncontested dominance of dollar as foreign exchange currency forced everyone to stash more dollars than they needed 'just in case' they needed to buy oil and other commodities.

It was literally a money-printing operation. Over someone else's oil.

That's some QAnon Economics right there.

The suggestion that the US benefits more on a dollar basis than a nation selling a commodity in that currency is very false.

Iraq is the primary beneficiary of it's Oil exports irrespective of the currency it uses, and those exports are protected by the US.

If the US did not enable open commerce in the region, there would be no Iraq. Or Saudi Arabia for that matter.

If collectively those nations want to switch currencies, they can absolutely do it, but it means they are on their own in terms of security and they don't want that.

The US does gain a bit of an advantage from seigneurage, but it actually has benefits for everyone else as well. It's no some existential thing.