Posted on 03/11/2003 12:25:04 PM PST by eagles
“There is a simple way to take the true measure of a country----think about how many people want to get in…..and how many people want to get out.” Prime Minister Tony Blair
The “No blood for oil” cabal continues to sound off. For the benefit of those who don’t yet view the USA as a greasy, petrol-craving villain, and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as the newly compliant, “Give peace a chance” regime, a few questions please:
If you folks are right, and this war with Iraq is truly all about oil, why didn’t the first Bush imperialist order the seizure of Kuwaiti and Iraqi oil fields during Desert Storm, when some of the world’s most profitable oil fields were ripe for the plucking? What self-respecting, oil parched superpower bent on world domination would pass up an opportunity like that one?
Think about it. How easy it would have been to conquer tiny, helpless Kuwait----and Iraq, too, for that matter, when 15 of its 19 provinces were in open rebellion against Saddam. At that point, Iraqi civilians would have welcomed our assistance; and, since they were lightly armed at best, we could have occupied their oil wells long before they were done tearing apart the Saddam Hussein portraits plastered along every square inch of Iraq.
From there, it would have been an easy task to goose-step over to Saudi Arabia, kick the royal family and a mullah or two out of their comfortable palaces, and take over the largest oil reserves in the world. If this is all about oil, you have to wonder why the first Bush imperialist turned out to be such a disappointing wimp.
And why bother with the troublesome Saddam Hussein? If this is all about oil, and the United States is the imperialist bully some make us out to be, why isn’t King Bush II calling for a regime change in Venezuela, where the oil is days rather than a month’s travel from the U.S., and the people have been trying to oust their leader for many months? Why not manufacture a case against Hugo Chavez, and proclaim ourselves the long awaited liberators of the Venezuelan people? After all, what kind of a match would puny Venezuela be for a big, insensitive superpower such as ourselves? Without any fear of chemical or biological attacks, or retaliatory terror strikes here at home, our armed forces could be in control of one of the world’s richest sources of oil in a matter of hours. Whatever is our "Oilman in chief "waiting for?
But the part of the “No blood for oil” argument that really strains credulity is this: If this is all about oil and profits, why is Bush wasting time on Iraq, where the expense of a U.S. war will far outweigh any benefit from its 2.5 million barrels of oil a day? As Newsweek reported last week, even a two-term Bush presidency would be long over before we made up in oil revenues what we will pay out in war costs. Remember, presidents, even good ones, are politicians. What politician would put his political future in jeopardy for the benefit of some unknown administration many years down the line?
Bottom line: It’s easy to make sweeping accusations, much harder to back them up. And the accusation that an American president would deliberately place tens of thousands of American and Iraqi lives in harm’s way, in order to satisfy some secret ambitions to dominate the world and/or control its oil supply is a very serious one. Unless the American people are presented with more than conjecture and innuendo, most can be forgiven for putting our faith in President Bush over Saddam Hussein.
No, it’s not about oil. It’s about not allowing dictators who tyrannize their own populations to possess the most dangerous weapons on earth. It’s about the strong probability that an American-hating tyrant like Saddam will have no qualms peddling his wares to terrorists, who’d love dabbling with a little anthrax and sarin gas, especially if it meant more dead Americans. It’s about the undeniable reality that the only time Saddam even pretends to comply with disarmament resolutions is when an imposing military force is poised on his borders, ready to strike. (And just how long will we be able to foot the bill to keep them there?)
And finally, it’s about paying back a debt to the Iraqi people, who trusted us the last time we urged them to rise up against their ruler; then did nothing when they answered the call, and their blood ran in the streets. The United States owes the long-suffering Iraqis this chance at liberty, and we owe our children and grandchildren a world free of terror alerts, and duct tape and plastic sheeting shortages. For those reasons, the War on Terror appropriately includes a regime change in Iraq. Let's roll.
It isn't about oil, now is it?
That theory only works if you are a nut. It is about freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator and protecting the world from such regimes that support terrorism. Saddam's blatent support of Palestinian bombers comes to mind, for one. If we really wanted their oil, we would drop the sanctions and just buy it. It would be much cheaper than fighting this war...
Freeper Resource: What Team Saddam Doesn’t Want You To Know!
Now who's gullible...oil for war, my butt. This IS about Saddam's support of terrorism.
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.