|
This
war is about oil just like the Gulf War.
Just
because the Gulf War was primarily about oil doesn't
mean that every war is about oil. WW1, WW2, Vietnam,
& the Korean War certainly weren't about oil
were they?
No
they weren't, but Bush and Cheney are oilmen,
so this has to be about oil!
So
if Bush and Cheney were both veterinarians would
you think that we were invading Iraq to take all
their pets? Or are you saying that only oilmen
want to get rid of Hussein? If so, I can certainly
put you in touch with a lot of people who aren't
Exxon executives and yet are strongly in favor
of invading Iraq...
Oh
veterinarians, ha, ha, that's very funny. Don't
you find it odd that right after Sept. 11th we
were only talking about al-Queda and Bin Laden
and then suddenly out of the blue we were talking
about Iraq months later?
Bush
WAS talking about going after regimes that support
terrorism right from the beginning. Here is a
quote from the first big speech George W. Bush
gave after 9/11...
"...And
we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe
haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region
now has a decision to make: Either you are with
us or you are with the terrorists. From this day
forward, any nation that continues to harbor or
support terrorism will be regarded by the United
States as a hostile regime."
That
certainly would apply to Iraq and Bush said it
just nine days after 9/11. Therefore, Bush is
being totally consistent by threatening to invade
Iraq.
But
why Iraq? North Korea actually has nukes! Iran
is a bigger sponsor of terrorism and fifteen of
the nineteen 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.
Why are we going to Iraq if not for oil?
Iraq
is the biggest threat. Because of the Gulf War,
the sanctions, and the no fly zones, Hussein has
more of a grudge against us than any other nation.
When you combine that with Hussein's pursuit of
nukes, his biological and chemical weapons, and
the terrorists he supports who might be willing
to act as a delivery system, it becomes obvious
that Iraq is a unique danger to our country.
Furthermore,
how many nations do you think would be with us
if we announced that we were going to war with
Iran, North Korea, or Saudi Arabia right now?
Almost none, right? On the other hand, we're going
to get extensive support for attacking Iraq whether
the UN goes along with us or not. Moreover, once
we're in Iraq, we can roll tanks right up to the
border of Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia if they
can't be forced to stop supporting terrorism diplomatically.
Strategically, Iraq is the next logical target
in the War on Terrorism.
Strategically?
The Bush clan just wants to control Iraq's oil
fields!
What
does "control Iraq's oil fields" mean
exactly? What will probably happen is that US
companies will come in and help develop the oil
fields...
SEE?
SEE? Developing those oil fields is worth 40 billion
dollars! This is all about making George Bush's
oil buddies rich!
Let
me see if I follow your logic here. We're going
to spend at least 50-100 billion dollars invading
Iraq so that American oil companies will get the
lion's share of 40 billion dollars worth of oil
contracts? That in and of itself doesn't make
any sense and that's before we even take into
account the negative effect that the possibility
of war has had on the stock market and the likely
long-term drop in price that increasing Iraqi
oil production would cause. Lower oil prices means
lower profits for oil companies.
Ha,
you slipped up! You said invading Iraq would cause
a "long-term drop in price." Cheap oil
is good for the American economy!
Theoretically,
it might be "good for the American economy"
if we killed everyone in Saudi Arabia, Nigeria,
and Libya and just took all their oil as well
but I don't hear anyone suggesting that. Being
able to export goods to South Korea, Germany,
and Japan is certainly "good for the American
economy" as well but that doesn't mean we
got into WW2 or the Korean War for economic reasons...or
do you think WW2 and the Korean War were all about
the economy? Are you suggesting that we invaded
Japan during WW2 so we could get a source of cheap
electronics down the road or....
NO!
I'm not suggesting that! Let's just move on...to
Bush's attempt to take control of the world's
2nd largest oil reserves!
Now
we're back to that "control" thing...
Ok,
forget the word "control". Bush wants
a friendly regime in charge of the nation with
the world's 2nd largest oil reserves...
We'd
like friendly regimes everywhere, why is the fact
that Iraq has the world's 2nd largest supposed
to be important?
Because
Iraq will probably still be pumping oil when almost
every other nation has run out...
That
might be a decent argument if there were any sort
of extreme oil shortage, but most estimates I've
seen suggest that we have somewhere between 40
to 95 years worth of oil left. Furthermore, we'll
actually never run out of oil. That's because
as oil gets more expensive and scarce, alternative
energy sources will become more attractive. As
Sheik Yamani said, "The oil age will come
to an end, but not for lack of oil, just like
the Stone Age came to an end, but not for lack
of stone."
Also,
what makes you think we're even going to have
a friendly regime in Iraq long-term? Relationships
between nations change all the time. Think about
the relationship the US had with Iran in the seventies,
Iraq in the eighties, with the Russians in the
eighties, Saudi Arabia before 9/11, Afghanistan
before 9/11, etc, and compare those relationships
to how things are today. To claim that we're invading
Iraq so we may have access to their oil supply
40 years in the future seems ludicrous when you
look at it in that light.
You
know what I think? I think...
Actually,
it would be nice if you and the rest of the people
claiming that it's "all about the oil"
were "thinking" instead of spouting
off this ridiculous nonsense. But since you're
not thinking, let me do a little thinking for
you. I think admitting that Hussein is dangerous
and needs to be stopped must be a little too "real"
for you. Maybe you're just reflexively opposed
to America using it's military to protect itself,
maybe you think the US "deserves" whatever
happens to it, or who knows, maybe you just want
to stick your head in the sand like an ostrich
and hope the whole problem goes away somehow.
But you don't have the courage to be that honest.
So
instead, the rest of us have to listen to mealy
mouthed people bleating "it's all about the
oil." See, then instead of talking about
the real danger that's confronting us, you can
simply claim you're taking the "high ground"
because you don't like Bush's "motives."
Better yet, if you keep scribbling "it's
all about the oil" enough times, you can
get a certain percentage of ignorant people who
don't know any better to go along with you. That
wouldn't happen if you told the truth, if you
said something like, "I just want things
to go back to the way they were before 9/11 so
I don't have to think about this stuff anymore"
or even, "the war will hurt the Democrats
politically so I want it to end as quickly as
possible." In the end, people crying, "it's
all about the oil" would rather be in the
company of the intellectually dishonest and the
ignorant than face the situation we're in head
on. It's not all about the oil, it's all about
dealing with the real world. It's too bad that
not all of us have the will to do it.
|
