YU:
• Economically depressed
• Resource poor
• Years of socialism and pseudo isolationism before the war
• No major technology or industry worthwhile
About the only thing the former YU has is rocks.
The American soldier does not have magical boots. American leather boots do not make oil bubble out of the ground.
Examples:
1. As soon as US troops landed in Afghanistan, there were rumors of an oil pipeline that was going to get built. To date - nothing. But those against the war are still pontificating five years later. Occasionally this argument still surfaces with an article about how construction will begin soon, then a year later the next article about how construction will begin soon. Eventually, if Afghanistan succeeds and economically begins to prosper, they may actually be right. "Eventually" (In 20 years) there might be a pipeline as the energy demands increase. But was the war because of this? For whom will this energy be? Who is managing it? Not the US.
The reasoning is, if the nation does not have any natural resources, then demonstrate that it is transported through there. Even a pile of rocks, like Afghanistan can then be shown to have some strategic value for the US and be used as an example of ulterior motives at work. Every country on this planet (To include Mongolia) can be shown to have some strategic value in this way. All wars can be argued to be purely for oil since in some capacity, may it be producing, refining, transport of oil or gas, is in some way significant.
2. Somalia. As soon as US troops landed in Somalia, some reported that "although not yet developed, experts believe that vast oil reserves are present in Somalia." Answer is? Never was true. Sure there is some natural gas, but not even that is significant.
3. Iraq. Of course we know what the anti war pundit today says the real reason for the war was in 2003.
4. Did you know that in American academia some self proclaimed intellectuals in the 60s argued that Vietnam was because of the tin reserves? No shit, as if there is a world shortage of tin.
5. Of course in 1991 during Desert Shield and Storm we were again told "It's all about the oil". How this is the case they never really explained as we were paying millions for the cleanup and putting out massive fires, but hell, it sounds good.
Another example of a different type:
During the invasion of Panama the argument was “The US wants to control the strategically significant Panama Canal”. On time, the Canal was handed over to Panama in accordance to the bilateral agreements and in fact is operated by a firm today that is based out of the Peoples Republic of China. In this case, like so many other concocted theories of how it's all about the oil, the floated argument was that our "oil" needs the Panama Canal because it's shipped all over.
Do people like you ever go back and admit that they were wrong? Of course not, they just move to the next war and scream the same thing “It’s all about the oil”.
--
Cliché is no argument. It’s a method of arguing that is emotionally based. It tries to change perception by appealing to some preconceived notion.
Example of a cliché argument. After the unification in 1989 CNN ran endless reports on the new unified Germany. Coincidentally they showed a picture of a tank crushing a car and reports on the rise of neo-nazis in Germany. Anyone with a clue knows if anything, the threat to Germany comes from the left with parties like the WASG/PDS (Former Communists of the DDR) which actually DO have political influence. But nonetheless the cliché argument was floated and many talked about the threat of neo-nazi’s in Germany etc.
(Back to your pipeline)
They are building a small pipeline that will regionally feed energy. The US does not own the pipeline. They are not building the pipeline. They are merely one of the investors. Read your BBC article again. In long tradition of “It’s all about the oil” you present this as some reason for a war which cost tens of billions. When the Balkans began falling apart, no one knew what the future would be, but apparently the US at the time already knew about the pipeline when they looked in their crystal ball. Do you know what asinine means? There are hundreds of pipelines. There are pipelines in Texas, Utah, Nevada, California, Alaska…… more or being built by the week. Your argument fails in so many aspect of the “common sense test” it’s hardly worth mentioning, if it were not for the fact that it keeps getting recycled in EVERY war by those who oppose US military action.
Look Look, they’re building a pipeline through Panama! The war in Panama was all about the oil!
http://www.intertanko.com/templates/Page.aspx?id=32911 20 years after the war I can concoct that the intervention was actually for oil. (Do you see what nonsense this is?)
A present day parallel:
In Iraq people say it’s “all about the oil”. The typical cliché argument.
• Iraq is an OPCEC country
• We get practically no oil from Iraq (Our imported oil is from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and Nigeria)
• US firms are not the ones that are developing Iraqi oil reserves. (It was and remains French and Russian firms)
• The revenue from Iraqi oil goes to the Iraqis who also manage their own production.
We have been spending nearly 100 BILLION since 2003, and some want to pretend this war is about the oil as if there is an economic incentive.
--
If you want to complain, do so with the Germans and British. They were the political instruments behind the Balkan intervention. If you’re going to construct an argument trying to pretend as if this war was all about an ulterior motive “oil” or “gas” at least do so with those who pushed for the intervention.
"Oil" - the argument that never gets old. At least when it conveniently fits into the picture, no matter how asinine it really is.