Posted on 04/15/2005 6:11:19 AM PDT by Taliesan
DEFENSE Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently declared that the war in Iraq “has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing.”
However, since all other reasons for the Iraq invasion turned out to be baseless, some experts are concluding the opposite.
Oil and natural gas are playing a growing role in molding U.S. foreign policy and troop deployments, says Dr. Michael T. Klare, a professor at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass.
In the current Nation magazine, Klare argues that the administration’s intense desire to protect and control oil reserves is driving U.S. foreign policy.
For one thing, he notes, the government is shifting troops from traditional Cold War locations, such as Germany and South Korea, to new facilities in Eastern Europe, the Caspian Sea Basin, Southeast Asia and Africa.
The former Cold War focus on the Soviet Union and its allies, which lasted from the end of World War II to the collapse of communism around 1990, is being replaced by concerns with terrorism, control of oil reserves and the rise of China’s economy, he says.
America’s addiction to gas-guzzling vehicles doesn’t help. Klare, who wrote a 2004 book titled Blood and Oil, thinks the hope of lessening U.S. reliance on foreign oil may be wishful thinking.
The combined oil production of America, Canada, Mexico, Australia and Europe will decline from 29 percent of world output today to 19 percent by 2025, he relates. During that coming period, oil production from the Persian Gulf, Africa and Latin America will rise from 46 percent to 61 percent.
Addiction to oil might fuel a U.S. invasion of Iran, author Seymour Hersh wrote in a recent New Yorker article. Hersh — who spoke in Charleston last month at the Gazette-WVU Festival of Ideas — said he hopes he is wrong, but fears he is right.
Like Iraq, Iran is close behind Saudi Arabia in oil reserves. Bush administration officials have expressed concerns about rising Iranian oil exports to our economic competitors, including China, India and Japan.
And Iran could be in a position to threaten other oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and the United Arab Emirates. Together, these nations control more than half the world’s oil
“As was the case with Iraq,” Klare writes, “the White House is determined to eliminate this threat once and for all. And so, while oil may not be the administration’s sole reason for going to war with Iran, it is an essential factor in the overall strategic calculation that makes war likely.”
Hersh and Klare maintain that the White House’s aggressive foreign policy will not reduce world tensions and terrorism but, instead, provoke more violence. Unless wisdom and restraint prevail, the morass in Iraq may soon deepen.
I stopped reading right there. If these editors are stupid enough to put this in print, I don't need them dumbing me down.
Where's the "Barf Alert"?
{Where's the "Barf Alert"?}
Precisely, what a hack job.
Once again from Bush's speech to the UN, Sept 12, 2002, a full six months BEFORE military action;
"Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq."
And, from same speech;
" The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond."
So not only was democracy a main reason for OIF but GWB the Great was genius enough to see the tidal wave of freedom that we now see sweeping across the ME and beyond!!
I would like to applaud the editorial board for its recent "Oil War?" piece. We all say stupid things from time to time, but it's quite another level for a group to collectively, consciously print such idiotic drivel. And I only made it to the article's second line! This gem:
"However, since all other reasons for the Iraq invasion turned out to be baseless..."
I figured if you people are that mind-numbingly clueless, then I certainly don't need your propaganda dumbing me down. Might I suggest you pick up another newspaper occasionally, so you can follow news and current events? But please be careful! You just might learn something.
Regards,
Coop, Springfield VA
If their premise were true, then why is gas for my car costing me $2.50 at least?
Once again from Bush's speech to the UN, Sept 12, 2002, a full six months BEFORE military action;Worth repeating. Again and again. Over and over. No matter how consistently it's ignored by the commie traitor main stream media."Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq."
And, from same speech;
" The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond."
It was never about cheaper oil, just the control of the oil. Big difference.
*snort*
Yeah, right.
Control over the oil would also equal lower prices per barrel as we would then control said oil.
Hence, lower gas prices.
Their premise does not follow.
This editorial is entirely correct. That's why we invaded Afghanistan first - so that we could control its vast oil reserves.
This editorial is entirely correct. That's why we invaded Afghanistan first - so that we could control its vast oil reserves.
There is the required liberal reference to an imaginary source. The author seems to be totally devoid of rational or logical thought. I guess that's what made him become a liberal in the first place.
Well, at least it's not a quagmire.
Just because he said it doesn't make it true. Even more so with the Rumsfeld quote.
"some experts"
always gives away a leftist rant coming.
"They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine,"
If Bush wants them to join a "democratic" Palestine he's
just pushing them into perpetual terrorism.
Prey for the peace of Jerusalem
Uh, gee, maybe because the Cold War is over?
What a maroon. Especially sinc these leftists never wanted us to fight the Cold War in the first place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.