Posted by russ (129.24.214.35) on November 11, 2002 at 14:42:21:
In Reply to: No blood for oil posted by Kevin on November 08, 2002 at 18:42:24:
to claim that the u.s. is moving into iraq in order to liberate the people there is quite optemistic and, in my opinion, more than a little nieve. look at the history between the u.s. and iraq. prior to 1990 the u.s. had a quite friendly relationship with iraq, yet sudan was as violent and curel then as he ever was. the event that turned the u.s. against sudan was when in 1990 he rose his oil prices to meet the current market price. the u.s., not being able to purchase oil from iraq at the price it wanted, decided to shine the light on sudan, turning him into an internationally hated leader. the u.s. goverment, convieniently headed by an oil man, now had the public support needed to launch a war against iraq. several years later the son of that oil man, who happens to be an oil man himself, wins the presedency with the illegal help of a major u.s. utility company. coincidence? i think not. oil man jr. procedes to use the fear raging through the u.s. population from 9-11 to support his war against iraq. are we really suposed to believe that bush is going in to iraq to be the savior of the people. look at how many civilians the u.s. has killed in iraq. look at the sanctions. look at the diminished uranium left over from the gulf war which kids pick up and tote around. this is also the cause of what is called "the gulf war syndrome." if all of your information comes from the network news then i can understand how you think that way you do. do yourself a favor... read something that was not distorted by corporate media and government. it is true that sudan is probably not the best thing for iraq, but more violence and a government imposed by the u.s. probably arent either. for further examples of how the u.s. destroyes nations look at the invasion of panama in 1989 or the philipines, or argentina, or countless others. remember... 20/20 and 60 minuets are not the whole story. dive deep into the hidden information out there. the truth does exist. also remember... don't believe all you read... read a lot and then decided for yourself. i do not believe that the u.s. will benifit iraq if we launch a war. to believe so is to have horribly miss read the situation.
: Many of the anti-SUV and anti-war Left are fond of the phrase "no blood for oil". Here's historian Victor Davis Hanson's take on that intellectually lazy slogan:
: "No blood for oil" implies that the United States is attacking Iraq to ensure a low price for petroleum — a plot purportedly to allow SUV-driving soccer moms to buzz around at the world's expense. But such a platitude is full of logistical inconsistencies rarely discussed. The argument instead can be made that a fascistic Iraq currently pumps far less than its natural capacity or its national interests would otherwise demand — perhaps as much as a million-barrel shortfall. And such an artificially created dearth helps the price-gouging Russians and the Gulf States by reducing world supplies at the expense of billions well outside the borders of the United States.
: A consensual government in Iraq would not distort the market, but would restore its output to be in line with what the people of Iraq would desire. If anything, other oil producers prefer the present contrived and induced shortages. And liberation would allow oil revenue to be shared by the people, not diverted to the palaces, anthrax labs, or Swiss bank accounts of a tribal elite. So a more apt protest slogan should be "No fascism for rigged oil prices" or "Oil for the people who really own it."