Article Tools

Even if America were to take Iraq’s oil for the next 200 years, it would not compensate for what it has spent on Iraq. -Magdi Khalil, an Egyptian-American Coptic commentator, on Al Jazeera TV.

 The anti-American propaganda machine including liberals have claimed that America invaded Iraq for oil. The common saying among leftists is “No blood for oil.” 

Just one problem. America is not after Iraq’s oil. If America was after more oil, why not invade Mexico, which is below the US? 

Magdi Khalil, an Egyptian-American Coptic commentator, said this on Al Jazeera TV when debunking anti-American propaganda:

That’s all nonsense. That deceiving propaganda is all around you – oil and all that… Do you know how much was spent on Iraq? Even if America were to take Iraq’s oil for the next 200 years, it would not compensate for what it has spent on Iraq.

Magdi Khalil is right. A lot of the big deficit comes from America spending in Iraq. The oil in Iraq is not worth the amount America is spending in this war.

This article isn’t defending the decision to invade Iraq or all of America’s actions in Iraq.

America rather than impose puppet dictatorships in Iraq, like Britain and France did in the Middle East during the age of European imperialism, is setting up a democracy in Iraq.

The new Iraqi government was elected by the Iraqi people. 

The argument that America is in Iraq to steal Iraqi oil has no evidence behind it, and in fact, contradicted.